Poli-Sci Digest Volume 5
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 8 Jan 85 Volume 5 Number 1
[No, you haven't missed anything, last ish was v4#111]
Contents: Designer Genes
Poverty stats etc
Socialism
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed 26 Dec 84 10:44:31-PST
From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: re: designer genes
I heard recently that there is a growing gene-pool crisis on this
planet. Even without recombinant DNA, we humans have been doing
selective breeding for so long that we have lost the rich diversity
our planet's gene pool once had. This is a concern because, for
example, if some disease or climactic change were to obliterate our
(single) strain of some staple, we could experience famine on a global
scale, with potentially no solution (except to train people to grow
and eat different foods, which is no simple task). Aside from any
moral issues of gene manipulation, we are endangering ourselves by
putting all our eggs in too few baskets. How much more will this be
true when we can cut through the slow and somewhat haphazard breeding
process with genetic engineering?! Maybe one of the restrictions on
genetic engineering should be some minimal diversity of genes within a
species.
As for Terry's question about defining "human" (as a creature with a
higher legal/moral standing), I'll make a suggestion that is somewhat
influenced by the fact that I just saw "Dune" (a very disappointing
movie, incidentally). A human is anything that can sublimate urges
and desires by intellectual process and will. I suggest this
definition because such creatures are capable of socialization, and
since they will make concessions to society, society owes them greater
rights. Also, such creatures appear to have more free will, a term
which suggests a "higher order" of being to me. I realize this
definition has a problem (which I'm willing to bet will be common to
all definitions of humanness), namely, how do we test for it? (I
don't think Dune's box is yet available.) I also realize that this
definition leaves out young children and some mentally disabled
persons, but then, our existing society treats these people as
somewhat less than human anyway.
annette
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 84 18:55:50 cst
From: Mike Meyer < mtxinu!ea!mwm@Berkeley>
/***** ea:fa.poli-sci / ucbvax!poli-sci / 6:57 pm Dec 21, 1984 */
> 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
Sure - having been down this route before. First, though, note that being
"human" isn't the right measure. The question should be or not a
race/creature is sentient. Something is sentient if it meets either of:
1) It convinces me it is sentient.
2) Someone else convinces me it is sentient.
In addition, if a being is a member of a race that meets 1 or 2, the being
is assumed to be sentient until it proves otherwise.
So, right now, all homo sapiens are assumed sentient; though some have
shown otherwise :-). No other species is sentient, though cetaceans, and
the higher primates are considered by some to be sentient.
Note that an ability to communicate is inherent in the definition. After
all, a rock could be the brightest, most sensitive creature in the
universe, but it matters not a whit if it can't tell anybody about it.
Minimally, a race can show that it is sentient - and deserving of being
treated as such - by objecting vigorously enough when it isn't so treated.
This is how the American Indian and Negroid races are doing it.
Along these lines, for the 20-50 year future, how about a test? Not blood,
or chromosome, or any such, but a sentience test. If you can pass it, you
are sentient/human, and if not, you aren't. Beings belonging to a race some
of which are sentient are considered sentient as minors until such a time
as they pass the test. Failure to pass the test keeps such creatures in the
minor status.
I predict, though, that such creatures will be denied the rights of human
beings, and such rights reserved to "True Humans" - even in the face of the
obvious superiority of some of the "False Humans" - for a long time. Just
look at the resistance to granting those rights to "natural" humans.
< mike
------------------------------
Date: Fri 4 Jan 85 03:30:38-PST
From: Mike Vincenc < Vincenc@USC-ECLB.ARPA>
Sundry thoughts about the last issue.
> From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
> 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?
> In the not-too-distant future (20-50 years) ... 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?
Doesn't this question sound a bit familiar? Think back to your
lessons on the Constitution, to the Three-Fifths Compromise, which
dealt with the method by which the number of Citizens would be deter-
mined for the purposes of allocating Congressmen to the States. Re-
call that, for this purpose, "slaves" counted as three-fifths of a
Citizen, and other people counted as one Citizen each (I should say,
"As I recall", since my copy of the Constitution is at the office).
After the Civil War, the States amended the Constitution, so that
everybody counted as one Citizen each.
As I remember my Civics lessons from high school, the Founding Fathers
developed the Three-Fifths Compromise simply because nobody really
knew what was going to happen with the "slave question". Some dele-
gates felt that the slaves should be counted as one whole Citizen
each; some felt that, since slaves were supposed to be "property",
they shouldn't be counted at all (they must've felt that it would be
like counting cows or chickens for the purposes of representation);
some felt that they should be counted for everything but representa-
tion; and, everybody else just wanted to stop arguing about it; thus,
the Compromise.
Apparently, we have a precedent (of sorts) upon which to base our de-
cision. I get from this precedent that, originally, the Founding
Fathers arbitrarily decided the issue; later, the Nation changed its
collective Mind. To apply the precedent to the current question, we
can decide anything that we want, realizing in the process that, what-
ever we decide, the decision is arbitrary.
Or, we can simply not bother with the question, until our Creations
force us to do something about it.
How about an even better question: What if these Creatures decide
that _we_ are lower forms of Life than they? What happens then?
> From: FIRTH@TL-20B.ARPA
> 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
> [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]
I must agree with JoSH on this question: The Supreme Court has shown
that its interpretation of the Law will not necessarily correlate with
the literal meaning of the text of the Law. Cases before the Court
regarding Social Security exemplify this behavior, and, indeed, in
these cases, the Court admitted that they did so for "the spirit of
the Law."
In this case, clearly, the question is not "How do we reconcile these
exhibits"; it is, instead, "When somebody reconciles these exhibits
for us, will we accept their decision; and, if we do not, what will we
do about it?" (No flames about the inability of the Governed to
affect its Government, please.)
> From: Larry Kolodney < lkk@mit-eddie>
> Subject: poverty stats.
> > From: glosser@ut-ngp.UUCP (glosser)
> > Subject: Re: A statistic on poverty
[ Lots of text and statistics, all leading up to ... ]
> > 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!
JoSH appended his reply:
"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."
Fine: The Finger has been pointed, and all persons who have used this
"pseudologic" in the past now bear the Mark of Shame. Nevertheless,
the statistics remain, the correlation is real; more important,
though, is that a politically significant segment of the Nation's pop-
ulation (which, by the way, may not necessarily be a _numerically_
significant portion) believes that this correlation is a "leading in-
dicator" of the effects of prejudice in the form of "inequal opportu-
nity". Further, those people apparently don't like the current values
of that indicator, and apparently want to do something about them;
thus, our current bevy of entitlement programs, all funded by every-
body else's money (i.e., our taxes).
You and I, and your secretary Frances, all know that entitlement pro-
grams "don't work"; and, while we don't much pay attention to those
statistics (they're just numbers, anyway), we still feel bad about
them.
But, the Finger of Shame has been pointed: We can no longer talk
about those numbers; they're meaningless, and who does anything about
meaningless things?
/mv
"Life is _still_ nothing but a very large optimization problem."
[The numbers are largely meaningless, because they have been abstracted
in order to prove a pre-believed point (example: statistics show that
female faculty members make less than male faculty members; scream
sexual discrimination! but take a closer look: within any given
field, women not only approach but exceed parity with their male
counterparts. The explanation is of course that more women go into
sociology and more men into engineering, more women into English and
more men into math, etc--*a matter of personal choice*.)
However, let us assume for the moment that the numbers are valid in
their implication that there are racial or sexual groups which are
statistically below others in economic performance in valid breakdowns
that do not reflect matters of choice. Let us be careful in what we
are talking about: a measured correlation between two observable
attributes, ethnicity (or race or sex) and income. Let us also be
careful about what we are not talking about: *non-observables*
such as racial prejudice or bias in personal likes or dislikes,
and racial prejudice or bias in hiring. No one has shown that
there is any connection between these. Civil rights activists
always *assume* that a measured correlation implies "discrimination",
and that discrimination implied prejudice. Both steps are taken
for granted, and are part of the conventional wisdom; *neither
is necessarily true*. I challenge you (or anyone else who wants to)
to show that they are. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 21 Dec 84 10:24:45 PST (Fri)
Subject: Re: poverty stats.
From: Martin D. Katz < katz@uci-icse>
From JoSH's Rebuttal:
This is a stupid, egregious, self-indulgent fallacy, ...
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.
I think that it would be interesting if you (JoSH) described exactly what
you mean here. First, ethnic and racial prejudice do exist (live in the
wrong neighborhoods and experience it), the question is how much of the
economic problem is explained by prejudice. I think that that the causes of
the economic disparaties cited include active prejudice in hiring, economic
inertia, number of children, cultural differences, and geographic
differences (e.g., it is harder to find a good paying job close to home if
you live in a slum). The figures are also skewed because they reflect
family income rather than per adult income.
The best direct statistical evidence of economic effects of active prejudice
in hiring are "equivalent wage" comparisons (even if you suspect the
figures, the qualitative disparity is almost unquestionable), and the
statistical distribution of two parent families in which the mother is able
to find work, but the father is not. For the equivalent wage comparisons I
suggest the NOW reports, the University of California Systemwide Report on
the Status of Women in the University, and the report a few months back in
IEEE Spectrum comparing salaries in Electrical Engineering between men and
women with virtually the same educational and employment experience.
From JoSH's Rebuttal:
This particular idiocy has been responsible for so much misdirected
crusading ...
I would appreciate your being more specific on this. Are you talking about
lobbying, ineffective government intervention, M.L. King jr.'s activities,
the ACLU, private outreach programs, or what? I think that reasoned
discussion of what types of efforts are reasonable to "correct the injustice
of birth" would be interesting (and maybe useful).
[A statistical variation in racial representation among employees
is presumptive evidence of guilt of discrimination, a felony under federal
law. By the 95% confidence test used, this makes 5% of employers
felons by definition, even though they be absolutely colorblind.
Much similar foolishness is part of the federal "civil rights" code (and
more is part of the court decisions which interpret it).
In particular, most of the government action is based on the incorrect
assumptions that a correlation between income levels and race (or sex)
implies discrimination implies prejudice on the part of the employer.
The social policies based on such a broad, sweeping assumption cannot
fail to have broad, sweeping ill effects when the assumption turns out
to be wrong.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Saturday, 5 January 1985 23:39:22 EST
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: Re: family income and sex
To conclude that since households headed by women, especially black women,
have a high poverty rate, that racism and sexism is rampant is nonsense.
There are simpler explanations for at least most of the difference. All
those unwed teenage mothers count as families headed by women. Since the
illegitimacy rate has reached something like 67% in places like Washington
DC, this is pretty significant. Think of all those families headed by
divorced women whose ex-husbands have been holding out on alimony and child
support. They often wind up in poverty too.
------------------------------
Date: 31 Dec 84 09:42:11 PST (Mon)
Subject: Liberalism and Socialism (Re: Cuba, references, biases, etc.)
From: Martin D. Katz < katz@uci-icse>
From Jim Giles (Dec. 20) in Arms-D V2 #82, Dec. 28, 1984
...
(I always wondered how an educated person could develope a liberal bias
in the first place. Personal and, especially, economic freedoms tend
to disappear in direct proportion to the degree to which a country
socializes. What is there about liberalism that people find attractive
enough to uncritically embrace it?)
The following is personal opinion (I assume that references are not needed):
I think you may be confused by stereotypes. Those who take the Soviet side
of an arms discussion are not necessarilly liberals, or socialists. In this
list, people often will take the Soviet position in order to better
understand the Soviet point of view -- even if they do not believe that the
Soviet actions are necessarily correct.
Even if people didn't take hypothetical positions, to assume that a person
who justifies a Soviet action or who takes Reagan to task for his "Evil
empire" phrase is a supporter of Soviet idiology is unfair. There are many
reasons, other than personal bias, for supporting a particular ethical
position on a particular question. Certain actions on the part of the U.S.
government can be questioned on the basis of assumptions which are widely
(although not universally) shared. Such unstated assumptions include:
a) Direct (or at least nuclear) confrontation with the Soviet Union is not
in the best interests of the U.S.
b) Military strategy should avoid the loss of more friendly lives than enemy
lives.
c) Soviet take-over of friendly countries is greatly undesireable. On the
other hand, take-over of countries which are friendly, but not directly
aligned, might not be worth direct retaliation against the Soviets.
The threshold is nebulous.
The list goes on and on.
I also wish to draw attention to your connection of "Liberal" with
"Socialize." Strictly speaking, a socialist economic system is one in
which the government owns all means of production and service, and in which
all citizens are employed by the government. Socialism is NOT a "Liberal"
goal. Rather, it is an "Egalitarian" goal.
Strictly speaking, liberal means "Not restricted" (Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary), and its political meaning derives from this goal of liberty.
Egalitarianism is best described by the motto "All men are created equal,"
and therefore supports equal opportunity (some people would say equal
achievement) for everybody. A third social force involved is the concept
that "Each man is responsible for the life of his neighbor," meaning that
one should not let ones neighbor starve. When emergency maintenance becomes
the role of the government, this becomes "Social welfare," but this should
not be confused with "Socialism."
Many who support one of these positions also support the others to some
extent. Liberals include radical liberals (who support socialism as a
mechanism to achieve social welfare, and egalitarianism). But, liberals also
include libertarians (who support liberty and to some extent egalitarianism,
but do not strongly support social welfare).
It is my opinion that these economic positions can be distinguished from
Soviet idiology. Soviet idiology may be historically based on the liberal,
egalitarian, and social welfare goals of Marx and Lenin, but is strongly
affected by many other factors (conservatism, personal needs and goals of
leaders, preservation of position, physical security, distribution of
idiology, etc.). Thus, ones support or attack of a position or action in
international politics should not be confused with ones positions on
national politics. Of course, people (and party platforms) may tend to
form clusters of opinion (e.g., those who believe that physical take-over of
the U.S. is an active objective of the Soviet Union may tend to oppose
social welfare programs) -- in fact, I would think that current stereotyping
tends to encourage this clustering of opinion).
In summary, it is my opinion that we should try to avoid confusion of
positions on the national level when discussing international issues. It
might be helpful to try to identify the implicit assumptions when writing
(and reading) about ideological and international issues.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 8 Jan 85 Volume 5 Number 2
Contents: Supreme Court & Interpreting the Tax Laws
Discrimination etc
Designer Genes
Robber Barons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 1985 10:28 EST
From: Dean Sutherland < Sutherland@TL-20A.ARPA>
Subject: Firth, exhibits A & B
One thing which can be done about this is:
WRITE YOUR CONGRESSCRITTER!!!!!
I know that the Supreme Court is not controlled by Congress (halleluia!), but
the IRS could be restrained by Congress if they were motivated to do so. Since
there is likely to be a new tax bill on the floor soon, NOW is the time to let
your Senators and Representatives know how you feel!
They may not listen to you, but they certainly can't represent you if they
don't know what you want.
Dean F. Sutherland
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley
Date: 9 Jan 85 16:18:46 CST (Wed)
Subject: Supreme Court vs. Constitution
> ... The Supreme Court has shown
> that its interpretation of the Law will not necessarily correlate with
> the literal meaning of the text of the Law. ...
If you want a really obnoxious example, consider that the Court has
upheld the legitimacy of conscription, which is a direct violation of
the Constitution's absolute prohibition of "involuntary servitude".
They couldn't even appeal to the spirit of the law on that one; they
had to argue (essentially) that the military constituted an exception.
(More specifically, they took the clause of the Consitution that permits
Congress to maintain a national army, interpreted it to have an implicit
"by any means necessary" clause, and resolved the resulting internal
contradiction in favor of conscription. Glad I'm a Canadian...)
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 85 12:28:06 pst
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) < mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
Subject: black, female poverty...
A recent submission gave the demographic breakdown of poverty in the
United States, concluding:
> 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!
It seems to me that the author of this piece has confused cause and effect.
However, there are questions worth asking. Some months ago, Mike Zaleski
offered a partial explanation for the feminization of poverty: he suggested
that large families (frequent conception) were largely responsible.
If the families in question (those headed by single black mothers) are in
fact relatively large, then the burdens of child-rearing are a much simpler
and more believable explanation than rampant racism and sexism. So the
I think, anyway, that the real figure of interest is the size of
single-parent female-headed families vs household income. Anybody know?
Rick.
------------------------------
From: Laurinda Rohn < rohn@rand-unix>
Date: 08 Jan 85 15:33:04 PST (Tue)
Subject: Discrimination Statistics
From Lauri Rohn, rohn@rand-unix.ARPA
> JoSH's rebuttal to Martin Katz:
> [A statistical variation in racial representation among employees
> is presumptive evidence of guilt of discrimination, a felony under federal
> law. By the 95% confidence test used, this makes 5% of employers
> felons by definition, even though they be absolutely colorblind.
> Much similar foolishness is part of the federal "civil rights" code (and
> more is part of the court decisions which interpret it).
> .
> .
> .
> --JoSH]
Are you sure about the way they use the 95% test? The intelligent way
to use this test would be to determine with 95% certainty that an
employer is NOT discriminating. This would be done by comparing the
employer's proportion of, say, Latino employees versus the proportion
of Latinos in the general population. This use of the test would then
let off approximately 5% of the employers who ARE in fact discriminating,
rather than condemning an innocent 5%.
Lauri
[I'm not sure of the details of the statistical methods used, but I am
sure that the test is taken as presumptive evidence of guilt, not of
innocence. --Even though this would seem to contradict "innocent until
proven guilty"... statistics are considered "proof". --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Tue 8 Jan 85 11:14:06-PST
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Designer genes/discrimination
Statistics, etc.
The first statistics course I ever took was kicked off by the prof
in essentially the following way:
Most statistics you see are bullshit. The main objective of this
course is to teach you to spot the bullshit, and to see how statisitcs
can be useful if interpreted correctly.
The main problem, of course, is the falacy of equating
correlation with causality. Did you know that 99% of all murderers
drank milk when they were young?
The discrimination discussion misses an important point that I
think needs saying: Discrimination is OK!!! (when done by
individuals). If someone wants to hire only scantily clad
white jewish lesbians for there business, that's there business.
Same applies if they only want to hire WASP males. The
way to eliminate/reduce discrimination based on some characteristic
is to convince people (if you can ) that discriminating on that
basis is not in their interest. If that turns out to be
true, the free market will eventually demonstrate it to them
anyway.
This position evolves from my strong belief that that government
should simply protect the society (whatever it is, however "good" or
"evil" it is), and should not engage in social engineering.
Designer genes:
Two means of classifyinga being a "sentient" (which is essentially
what I meant when I said "human") were suggested in the responses
to my question:
1) Some kind of "sentience" test for a species ( I assume "species"
was meant when "race" was used)
2) Once a species passes the test, all members are assumed sentient
until proven otherwise.
It seems to me that once a decent (or, at least, servicable)
test is developed, it should be applied to indiviuals. I
think a very good case can be made that the brightest chimps are more
(sentient/intelligent/"human") than the dumbest humans. If sentience
is the test (as I believe it should be) there are some chimps which
should have more "rights" than some humans.
I think the best solution of all is to get away from the binary
view of rights (either you got 'em, or you don't), and develop a
spectrum of rights based on various factors. Level of sentience is a
good one. Level of contribution to the society may be another.
I should mention that I don't believe in "rights" in the conventional
sense. When I use the word "rights", I refer to the agreements
society makes about how people should interact that are commonly reffered
to as rights, *without* the cosmic validity that is usually implied.
TCS
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 85 10:16:19 est
From: ihnp4!leopard!ron@Berkeley (Ron Bach-25751)
Subject: Discussion on genes
As another possibility people might want to read some of
John Varly's work. He has created a universe where it is possible
to change parts at will, clone a body and then be transferred in to
it (resulting in essentially eternal life), and some other nice
benefits.
There is no raceism, or sexism as sex and race can be changed
at will. Almost every desease has been eliminated as a result of the
genetic engineering.
Just some ideas that I thought might be use full, and an attempt
to point out some positive things about genetic engineering.
...{allegra|belcore|ihnp4|vax135}!leopard!ron Ron Bach
Rumors Mongered here. Bell Communications Research
These are my opinions not the management's. 331 Newman Springs Road
They have to get their own. Red Bank, NJ 07701
------------------------------
Date: 9 Jan 85 10:58:42 PST (Wednesday)
From: Hoffman.es@XEROX.ARPA
Subject: Defining human
A favorite passage of mine is copied below. It's been lightly edited.
--Rodney Hoffman
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
From Richard Rorty's book, "Philosophy and The Mirror of Nature":
Personhood is a matter of decision rather than knowledge, an acceptance
of another being into fellowship rather than a recognition of a common
essence.
Knowledge of what pain is like or what red is like is attributed to
beings on the basis of their potential membership in the community.
Thus babies and the more attractive sorts of animal are credited with
"having feelings" rather than (like machines or spiders) "merely
responding to stimuli." To say that babies know what heat is like, but
not what the motion of molecules is like is just to say that we can
fairly readily imagine them opening their mouths and remarking on the
former, but not the latter. To say that a gadget that says "red"
appropriately *doesn't* know what red is like is to say that we cannot
readily imagine continuing a conversation with the gadget.
Attribution of pre-linguistic awareness is merely a courtesy extended to
potential or imagined fellow-speakers of our language. Moral
prohibitions against hurting babies and the better looking sorts of
animals are not based on their possessions of feeling. It is, if
anything, the other way around. Rationality about denying civil rights
to morons or fetuses or robots or aliens or blacks or gays or trees is a
myth. The emotions we have toward borderline cases depend on the
liveliness of our imagination, and conversely.
------------------------------
Date: 9 Jan 1985 1145-PST
From: Richard M. King < DKING@KESTREL.ARPA>
Subject: oil's "robber barons"?
I understand that the main charge leveled against, Standard Oil is
that they pressured railroads with statements like "if you carry anyone
else's oil you won't get any of mine".
Can someone tell me about some other charges, if any?
Can anyone recommend reading that will support or refute this or
any other charge?
Thanks in advance...
Dick
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 8 Jan 85 Volume 5 Number 3
Contents: Non-Union Actors for Inauguration
Nuclear Winter on PBS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 8 Jan 1985 19:32-PST
Sender: GEOFF@SRI-CSL
Subject: Help Wanted: Attractive, clean-cut, all-American types -- for free.
n074 1658 07 Jan 85
AM-INAUGURAL
Plan to Use Non-Union, Unpaid Actors Protested
By SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN
c.1985 .Y. Times News Service
NEW YORK - The committee planning President Reagan's inaugural is
seeking non-union actors to perform without pay at the ceremony and
various festivities.
The performers should be ''attractive, clean-cut, all-American
types,'' according to an advertisement placed last week in Backstage,
an entertainment trade newspaper. They are to be paid only their
expenses for eight days of work.
This plan, a departure from the practice of decades, has raised
protests from labor unions in the performing arts and from the
AFL-CIO, both saying it violated minimum wage statutes. The union
leaders also charge that the casting call for ''all-American types''
amounts to racial and ethnic bias.
''There's a minimum wage of $3.35 an hour,'' said Murray Seeger, the
director of information for the AFL-CIO. ''You get it for frying
hamburgers at McDonald's and you ought to get at least that much for
dancing for the president.''
John Buckley, the deputy press secretary of the Presidential
Inauguration Committee, said that the committee's $12 million budget
was ''too tight'' to allow it to pay the 200 actors. He said that
they would receive great professional exposure from singing and
dancing at the parade, ball and parties. Some 2,000 members of the
inaugural committee are working as volunteers for the ceremony and
related festivities Jan. 21, Buckley said.
The inaugural committee is, however, paying the minimum union scale
to such performers as Frank Sinatra, James Stewart, Elizabeth Taylor
and Diana Ross, as their contracts with entertainment unions require,
Buckley said.
The inaugural committee is also paying minimum scale or above to 25
orchestras that will play at parties and to the singer Jerry Lee
Lewis, the soul band Kool and the Gang and the country singer Johnny
Lee, who will all perform at ''young people's concerts.''
Buckley added that the phrase ''attractive, clean-cut, all-American
types'' was not meant to rule out members of racial or ethnic
minority groups. ''I think it speaks for itself,'' he said of the
wording. ''I think what it means is someone who's cheerful and
outgoing.''
The Presidential Inaugural Committee is a private body that raised
its $12 million by selling tickets to the inaugural parade and balls,
commemorative coins and advertising time on the ABC-TV broadcast of
the inaugural gala on Jan. 19, Buckley said. Michael K. Deaver, the
White House chief of staff, is serving as general chairman of the
committee as one of his last tasks before returning to private life,
and Buckley said relations between the inaugural committee and the
White House were close.
It is not uncommon for major performers to appear without pay in
inaugural events, but union officials said they could not recall a
previous instance when an inauguration committee did not pay
subordinate performers or a time when it required that performers not
belong to a union.
''I've been around since Roosevelt,'' said Sanford Wolff, the
president of AFTRA, the American Federation of Television and Radio
Artists, ''and I can never remember anything like this.''
''Never, never,'' added Willard Swire, the executive consultant to
Actors Equity Association, the union of theater actors.
Buckley acknowledged, ''I don't know of any such incident'' in
previous inaugurals. He said the inuaguration committee placed the
advertisement for non-union actors after finding it too difficult
over Christmas vacation to recruit high school students to perform.
Alan Eisenberg, executive secretary of Actors Equity, is to ask the
union's governing body Tuesday to adopt a resolution denouncing the
inaugural committee's plans.
Wolff of AFTRA said that he was seeking legal advice on filing a
complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, contending that
the non-payment of actors violated federal minimum wage laws. The
third major performers' union to protest the plan is the Screen
Actors Guild, of which Ronald Reagan once was president.
-
The dispute arose late last week when the advertisement appeared in
Backstage, announcing a casting call on Jan. 4 at the Radio City
Music Hall. About 100 actors had auditions, Buckley said.
The advertisement, sometimes using capital letters, said that the
inaugural committee was ''seeking NON-UNION musical theater
performers.''The advertisement also included the
''all-American'' description. It said actors would travel to
Washington on Jan. 13, rehearse Jan. 14 to 18, perform Jan. 18
through 21, and return home on Jan. 22.
The inauguration committee will pay for transportation, meals and
housing in a hotel or government building, the advertisement said. It
added: ''As every possible expense will be paid for during your stay
in Washington, D.C., A FEE WILL NOT BE PAID FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.''
Annie Korzan, a New York actor who has appeared in the films
''Tootsie'' and ''Rent Control,'' objected to the advertisement.
''For a president who used to be an actor to ask actors to work for
nothing is unbelieveable,'' she said.
But Buckley maintained that performers would be accepting the unpaid
work willingly. ''We're essentially asking them to be volunteers,''
he said. ''No one forced them to audition.''
As for the former president of SAG, Ronald Reagan, an assistant
White House press secretary, Mark Weinberg, said: ''If you ask me if
he knew in advance the wording of the ad, I'd have to say 'no.'''
nyt-01-07-85 1955est
***************
------------------------------
Date: 10 Jan 1985 14:49:36 PST
Subject: Film on effects of nuclear war: "Threads"
From: David Booth < DBOOTH@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
THREADS
Turner Broadcasting System and Lionheart Television proudly present the
American debut of THREADS, a deeply moving, honest and realistic
account of a worldwide nuclear war and its devastating aftermath.
Employing a balanced and scientifically factual approach to its
subject, THREADS focuses on the human tragedies of a nuclear attack on
Great Britain as a result of a full-scale nuclear war between the
United States and the Soviet Union.
A co-production of Western World Television, The British Broadcasting
Corporation and The Nine Network of Australia, THREADS was filmed
entirely on location in Sheffield in northern England. The motion
picture, distributed by Lionheart Television for BBC Enterprises
Limited, aired on the BBC in late September 1984.
From the LA Times, Calendar, Tuesday Jan. 1, 1985:
"The story of 'Threads' is a personal one, centering on the
devastation of two Sheffield families -- the working-class Kemps
and the middle-class Becketts. They are watched from a month
before Sheffield is devastated and followed for 13 years. Unlike
ABC's overly sentimental portrayal ['The Day After'], however,
"Threads" is much more docudrama than movie. It is laced with
facts about the impact of nuclear war, including some that were not
known when ABC was preparing its movie."
WHAT: "Threads"
WHERE: Simultaneously, nationwide, on any cable system carrying the WTBS
Atlanta SuperStation, including Group W (channel 23) in Los Angeles.
WHEN: Sunday, January 13, 5:00-7:00pm PST, and
Wednesday, January 23, 8:05pm-10:05 PST, and
Sunday, January 27, 11:30am-1:35pm PST*
*"On The 8th Day" immediately follows the January 27 showing.
------------------------------
Date: 10 Jan 1985 14:52:05 PST
Subject: Nuclear Winter film; Soviet-American panel discussion
From: David Booth < DBOOTH@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
ON THE 8TH DAY
The far-ranging effects of nuclear war, with its resulting "nuclear
winter," are examined by leading experts and scientists in ON THE 8TH
DAY, a BBC documentary special making its U.S. cable television
premiere on SuperStation WTBS in January.
ON THE 8TH DAY focuses on the global, ecological and atmospheric
consequences of a nuclear holocaust, linking important experiments on
these areas to form a computer model of the world after nuclear war.
The conclusions of scientists interviewed in the program on these new
developments bring into question the basis for much of today's military
and civil defense plans.
The program offers an extensive look at a "nuclear winter," a condition
in which clouds of smoke, dust and fallout from nuclear explosions
would infiltrate the atmosphere and block sunlight from reaching the
earth. The northern hemisphere would be plunged into darkness, making
it almost too dark to see, even at midday. Temperatures would fall
drastically and remain below freezing for months, covering the ground
in snow and ice. Even the southern hemisphere would not escape, as
monsoon-like winds would blow the thick clouds across the equator,
bringing winter to the entire world.
For all practical purposes, agriculture would cease to exist. Any
survivors would have to face hunger and starvation. Many species of
plants and animals, especially in the fragile tropics, would be lost
forever.
ON THE 8TH DAY uses research gaathered from the space-probe Mariner 9,
which recorded a sudden drop in the Martian surface temperature
coinciding with dust storms; climatic studies of dust clouds from
volcanic eruptions of Mount St. Helens and El Chicon; reports from a
recent investigation that sun-blocking dust clouds, caused by the
impact of a meteorite colliding with Earth, brought about the
extinction of the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago; and other
experiments conducted specifically for the program.
Scientists interviewed in ON THE 8TH DAY include Carl Sagan, Professor
of Astronomy and Space Sciences, Cornell University; Brian Toon,
atmospheric scientist, NASA Ames Research Center; Richard Turco, R&D
Associates, Marina del Rey, CA; Tom Ackerman, climatologist, NASA Ames
Research Center; and Vladimir Aleksandrov, Director of Climate
Modeling, U.S.S.R. Computing Center for the Academy of Sciences.
Other top experts on the program are Stanley Thompson, atmospheric
scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research; Mark Harwell,
ecosystems research center, Cornell University; Michael Kelly, slimatic
research unit, University of East Anglia (United Kingdom); David
Pimentel, agricultural scientist, Cornell University; and Georgiy
Skyabin, general scientific secretary, U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences.
ON THE 8TH DAY, narrated by John Hedges and writen/produced by Michael
Andrews, is a production of The British Broadcasting Corporation, and
is distributed by Lionheart Television.
WHAT: "ON THE 8TH DAY"
WHERE: Simultaneously, nationwide, on any cable system carrying the WTBS
Atlanta SuperStation, including Group W (channel 23) in Los Angeles.
WHEN: Monday, January 14, 5:00-6:00pm PST, and
Thursday, January 24, 8:00-9:00pm PST, and
Sunday, January 27, 1:35-2:40pm PST*
Soviet-American Panel Discussion Follows
A live panel discussion from the United Nations featuring proponents
and oponents of nuclear weapons will immediately follow ON THE 8TH
DAY. The panel, hosted by Sandi Freeman, will include Carl Sagan,
co-author of a book defining the nuclear winter theory; Admiral Noel
Gayler; and two Russian scientists.
*"Threads" immediately precedes the January 27 showing.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 17 Jan 85 Volume 5 Number 4
Contents: Parable of the Bad Shepard
Abortion
Standard Oil
Actor's Union (all above one @ msg)
Designer Genes (many msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon 14 Jan 85 21:43:04-EST
From: FIRTH@TL-20B.ARPA
Subject: the Tale of the Bad Shepherd
The Tale of the Bad Shepherd
----------------------------
Once upon a time, there was a rich shepherd, who had many sheep.
He pastured them by the river, and waxed fat on their produce.
But the wolves came and preyed upon the sheep.
Now the shepherd was cowardly, lazy, and bad. He could have
protected his sheep, by his own efforts or by those of his
hirelings, but he would not. He thought
"It is too dangerous for me to protect the sheep,
and too expensive to hire brave servants. Besides,
the wolves take only one or two sheep a day, and I
can stand the loss."
So he did nothing. Until, one day, a servant came to him,
and told him that he had seen a wolf, down in the valley,
badly wounded.
The shepherd went out to see this thing for himself, and, passing
a flock of his sheep, perceived an alarming thing. Some of the
sheep, despairing of other defence, had grown fangs, and claws,
and were sharpening them on the stones, and adopting a fierce
countenance. And even falling on the wolves, and driving them off.
At this, the bad shepherd was greatly agitated, and thought
"If the sheep defend themselves today against the wolves,
shall they not tomorrow defy even me and my herdsmen?
And then I shall not be able to treat them how I please,
or drive them where I will, or fleece them for my profit,
and grow fat on their backs"
So he called all his servants, and bade them scour the country, and,
were they to find any sheep with the means of defending itself, they
were to slay it at once. For he said
"The sheep are our prey, the wolves and I, and it is
against the established order of things, that they
should seek to defend themselves"
Robert Firth
------------------------------
Date: 16 Jan 1985 1142-PST
From: Richard M. King < DKING@KESTREL.ARPA>
Subject: why abortion isn't murder
I have two hypotheses as to why abortion should be and is considered
distinct from infanticide by most people, even though a feotus is arguably
human. I claim that even most of the crazies make the distinction; they
will support abortion to save the life of the mother even though the law
does not permit a person to kill another persion when in a situation such
that the second person endangers the first through no fault. Murder in an
airtight room, so the murderer can survive, is still murder.
The hypotheses may be related. I publish this to elicit comment:
1> "surprise" hypothesis: abortion is not murder because a fetus's hold on
life is tenuous, ie. a miscarrage is not a surprise.
support for hypothesis: infanticide is more frequently tolerated in
societies where a young infant's hold on life is tenuous than in one where
infant mortality rates are low. Euthenasia does not bear the same revulsion
as murder. Life tends to be cheaper (more frequent capital punishment) in
places with low life expectancies. Few people claim an IUD or "morning
after" contraceptive is murder, and I note that failed implantation (the
result these "contraceptive" systems are designed to insure, that the
fertilized egg never sticks to the uteral lining) is more common than
successful implantation. No culture that I know of holds a funeral for a
miscarrige.
problem: standards for euthenasia tend to require that death be a near
certainty.
2> "Schrodinger's kid" hypothesis: you are not carrying a specific fetus,
which cannot be replaced. You are carrying a superposition of all possible
fetuses, and that can be replaced.
this solves the euthenasia problem with the last hypothesis, but I can't
think of any strong support.
Pardon the rough syntax; I dash these things off rather than polish them
because I'm pretty busy these days...
I eagerly await comments...
Dick
PS: a way to prevent abortion clinic bombings would be to occupy the clinics
at night. This would be especially important Monday (anniversary of Roe v
Wade). You have to publicize this occupation.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 1985 19:44 EST
From: Jim Aspnes < ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: oil's "robber barons"?
Another charge against Standard Oil in particular is that it actively
conspired with public officials to extract oil from public lands without
commensurate compensation to the government (a practice which, though
actively encouraged by the present Administration, was considered
scandalous at the time). Look for books on the Teapot Dome scandal.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 85 12:41:04 pst
Cheeses: Roquefort, Gorgonzola, Camembert
From: fagin%ucbdali@Berkeley (Barry Steven Fagin)
The article on the request for non-union actors prompts my
first posting to poli-sci. FLAME ON!
Shame, shame, shame on the Actors Union and its spokespersons!
Human beings have the natural right to conduct their economic
affairs with one another under ANY terms they agree on.
Exploitation? Certainly not. I suggest we ask the actors who
auditioned how they felt about being exploited. They chose
their vocation, and are doubtless pleased, if not elated, about
the opportunity to perform in public. These actors also chose,
for whatever reason, not to join a union. What right does
anyone have to tell them otherwise? I am apalled at the blatant
and unconcealed greed of the Actors Union as it attempts to
use political power to advance the self-interest of its
rank and file.
Does the Actors Union have a right to protest? Of course.
They can protest all they want. They're at liberty to persuade
anyone they can to boycott the festivities, watch only plays
performed with union actors, and so forth. But I hope to God
noone takes any claim of legal action (if such is forthcoming)
seriously. It's bad enough that we have a minimum wage --
we shouldn't, but that's another story. To tolerate this kind
of blatant intervention in the personal affairs of our citizenry
is unconscionable. Barf.
--Barry Fagin
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 1985 19:38 EST
From: Jim Aspnes < ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Binary Rights
Ah, but we already assign a spectrum of developing rights based on presumed
degrees of sentience: in New Jersey, when I grew up, one could drive a moped
at 15, be tried in adult courts at 16, drive an automobile at 17, vote at
18, and drink at 19. From then on, assuming one didn't try to run for
national office or collect Social Security, one's rights wouldn't change by
much.
Although the use of age as a measure of sentience (usually phrased as
"responsibility") is somewhat justifiable by reasons of historical
expediency, I was well able to ignore this justification when still
under the influence of age-based restrictions. I find it interesting
that you should consider the possibility of granting partial human
status to unusually-intelligent chimpanzees when we continue to deny
many of the privileges of society to persons that are demonstrably
members of our own species, demonstrably sentient, and, in many cases
demonstrably contributing as much to our society as persons twice
their age.
------------------------------
Date: Mon 14 Jan 85 09:37:36-PST
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Binary Rights
I've always believed that competency was a better measure for
driving rights, etc. My general psoition is that rights
should be granted based on a set of characteristics of the individual
(human or otherwise), and not on some characteristic that statistically
is convenient (eg age).
TCS
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 1985 14:56 EST
From: Jim Aspnes < ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Binary Rights
Agreed. Forgive my unwarranted flamage.
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Forgiven! I prefer flamage to apathy!
TCS
[Yep, that's two msgs --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Mon 14 Jan 85 14:13:27-PST
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Rights/designer genes
Comments on a couple of responses:
1) Doubt was expressed about whether or not we will build "inferior"
beings for menial tasks, the assumption being that robots will be
available to do the tasks. I'm not at all convinced that
articfical intelligence/coordination will advance faster than our
ability to build organisms. In any case, there will be some service
type jobs that require at least the appearance of being human--
many people would object to a robot clearing their table,
for example. This raises another question--
what is the link between sentience and language?
2) It would not be hard to create superior beings--greater strength,
quicker reactions, better eyesight, better memory recall are all
obvious options. There will also be a host of cosmetic options,
which would be debateably superior. Another question--should parents
be "allowed" to determine some of the physical characteristics of
their kids? Many will certainly do so regardless, once it
becomes an option technically.
3) A suggestion was made that any non- "damaged" human could outperform
any genius chimp. I think this will only be the case if you stretch
the definition of "damaged" to include individuals on the lower ends
of the genetic distributions (or as I prefer to call it, the shallow
end of the gene pool). The natural distribution of intelligence in humans
produces some really marginal units, and as Murphy's law states, for
every 10, there are 10 "1's".
4) An objection was raised about my suggestion that
we should have a spectrum of rights, rather than binary rights. The
objection was based on the assumption that such a spectrum would
create "classes" of people and be destablizing. I think the current
world proves this to be incorrect--we do have a spectrum of rights now.
Not everyone is allowed to fly, or to drive a car. Not everyone is
allowed to practice law, or medicine. Not everyone is "allowed"
to own a yacht. I am simply proposing that we expand the
number of areas where competence must be proven, and to do on an
an individual basis rather than statistically (eg, by age).
TCS
------------------------------
Date: 15 Jan 1985 11:16-PST
Subject: Re: Rights/designer genes
From: Craig E. Ward < WARD@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
[This is awful! I should be doing real work.]
On inferior beings as servants and garbage collectors:
I doubt that any incentive exists to build inferior beings. In
the case of "clearing the table", i.e. household servants, we must take into
account a society's evaluation of the role. The role of "gentleman's
gentleman" need neither lack in prestige nor financial gain. Indeed, our
society's views on these jobs changes from time to time.
While American society may not look kindly on professional help, it is
my understanding that Japanese businesses use official "greeters" as an extra
lure to attract customers. Japanese society puts more emphasis on being
polite.
Inferior beings are not likely to be useful in places like restaurants
either. Denny's and McDonalds class help is very cheap. Why bother to
replace it? As for "higher" class establishments, well even I appreciate
a waiter who knows the difference between Stag's Leap Winery and Stag's Leap
Vineyards.
How soon do you think it will be before we have a Mars Rover? The AI
technology required for this kind of mission is very likely more complicated
than picking up garbage on a well-established route. Research into rover
vehicles has been going on for over 10 years and I believe that by the end of
the century we will have one. It begins to look like a question about which
technology will develop first and be easiest to apply.
More on the other subjects later.
Craig
------------------------------
Date: Tue 15 Jan 85 15:45:18-PST
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Rights/designer genes
One possible motivation for building organisms over robots may be
maintainence--I know of no complex, *mobile* machine that
does not require frequent, and frequently expensive, repairs. I suspect
it will be a very long time before machines are developed with the
self-repairing capabilities that organisms possess.
In general I agree that it is a question of which technology
develops more quickly, and my guess is that it will be a close race. A
garbage collection robot would be a good deal more complex than a
Mars rover because of the pattern recognition requirements, and the
need for quick decisions in interactions with other independently
controlled machines. If there were Martians to deal with, of course,
that would be different.
TCS
------------------------------
Date: 15 Jan 1985 17:59-PST
Subject: Building a better mouse trap (Re: Rights/designer genes)
From: Craig E. Ward < WARD@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
Regarding the creation of a better human:
What you really said was that it would not be hard to decide on what
would make a better being "...greater strength, quicker reactions, better
eyesight, better memory recall...". Knowing the goal is not the same as
knowing how to achieve it. I am not sure that I would agree on your "obvious
options".
We live in a push-button world and greater strength and reflexes are
becoming less and less valuable (who, or what, flies the shuttle?). Today the
average person does not develop to the fullest all possible mental and physical
attributes. How many people out there would be, if given a nurturing
environment, Olympic class athletes or genus class thinkers? With so much
unused potential I do not see how you could even begin to make improvements.
One more problem that I have heard discussed is that the human
brain can not get much bigger, if at all, due to the limited size of the
birth canal. A baby's brain is almost as big as it will get when born and
it is as big as it can be and still get out undamaged. Perhaps first you
had better engineer women with wider hips.
Craig
------------------------------
Date: 16 Jan 1985 10:57-PST
Subject: Rights and Privileges (Re: Rights/designer genes)
From: Craig E. Ward < WARD@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
On a spectrum of rights:
I think you are mixing apples and oranges here. Things like driving
an automobile or flying an airplane are privileges not rights. The State of
California is very fond of pointing out that driving is a privilege, not a
right, and that they can take it away from you if you do not respect others
exercising the privilege. (Sometimes a very hollow threat).
In general, rights fall into the class of all things dealing with
"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (whether you want to say they
come from the creator or social contract). Society can not put artificial
barriers on the exercise of these rights and remain stable for long.
To say that not everyone is "allowed" to own a yacht is completely
bogus. Simple possession of the necessary funds is neither a right nor a
privilege. The rights involved deal with the attempt to acquire the funds
limited only by the person's own capabilities. Everyone has the right to
try; however, success in never guaranteed.
Similarly, trying to use the practice of particular profession
is equally bogus, unless you are going to create a "right to lie". Not
everyone is allowed to practice medicine because not everyone has made
a successful attempt at learning how to practice medicine.
Craig
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 29 Jan 85 Volume 5 Number 5
Contents: Abortion/Binary Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 17 Jan 1985 1126-PST
From: Richard M. King < DKING@KESTREL.ARPA>
Subject: Clarification of my 2nd hypothesis on why abortion isn't murder
My abortion submission was rougher than I thought. I did a very poor job of
explaining the Schrodinger's Kid hypothesis. Here's another try at it...
Schrodinger was a physicist who asked us to consider an opaque box
containing a cat, a poison capsule, and a device connected to a
quantum-mechanical event that would break open the capsule and kill the cat
with probability 1/2. He argued that, pending observation, the box
contained neither a live cat nor a dead one but a "superposition of states".
Two such boxes would have the same contents in some real sense, even though
in "fact" one could hold a live cat and one a dead one. (Some people have
taken this a bit further and noted that the room containing the experimenter
and the box contains a superposition of states even AFTER the box is opened:
< live cat, happy experimenter> and < dead cat, horrified experimenter> . This
is another story.)
I am using this famous thought experiment as a source of an anology. Of
course it is true that a womb contains a specific fetus in some abstract
sense. However, in a real sense it contains a superposition of all possible
issue of the parents involved. When one thinks about a fetus, one may try
to develop a mental picture of what the kid will look like, act like, BE
when it is born, but the mental picture is a superposition of states. "I
wonder if it will have my nose or your nose? Will it be a boy or a girl?"
Suppose a couple conceives Monday. They will form a mind picture. I claim
that the mind picture will be virtually identical to one formed if they
instead decide to conceive Tuesday, and substantially the same as the mind
picture they had on Sunday when they were thinking about having a baby.
This is true even though the probability that the non-existant Monday fetus
is identical to the real Tuesday fetus is less than 2^-48.
When an amniotic tap is performed to determine the presence or absence of
(say) Tay-Sach's Disease, they ALWAYS WITHOLD THE SEX OF THE FETUS IF THE
DISEASE IS PRESENT AND AN ABORTION IS INDICATED. This hypothesis claims
that the reason for this witholding is to avoid collapsing the superposition
of states in the parents' minds; we don't want to think of such a fetus as
an individual.
In support of this hypothesis, I offer the following: you are certainly less
horrified by some large number of deaths in Ethiopia than by a like number
of deaths in your town. When a relief organization wants to tug your
heartstrings, what's the first thing they do? They show a picture, a video
clip if they can. They give a biography if they want you to "adopt" a
single kid. Surely you've seen the ads "Adopt xxx; feed her for $0.43 per
day. She is a student ..., her mother ..., etc." Your picture of an adult
Ethiopian is LESS complete than that of your 2 day conceptus - you don't
even have IDEAS about whose nose he might have! I claim your willingness
to inconvenience yourself to save someone's life is a monotonically increasing
function of how much you know or think you know about them (with the exception
of dislikes).
If you got this far, thanks for your patience!
Dick
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 1985 17:59 EST
From: Jim Aspnes < ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Robots vs. The Genetic Monster
I'm not sure the taste-based argument of relative utility in certain
situations (clearing tables, etc.) is necessarily valid, given the
adaptibility of the average person over a few generations (in any case,
I would much rather see a robot clearing a table than a large, pseudopodal
creature sucking up the leftovers).
A better argument for genetic engineering appeared in a collection of
somewhat ecotopian novellas I read many years back. In one, a city-born
travelling salesman attempts to demonstrate a gas-powered motorcycle
to a group of farmers possessing fairly advanced genetic engineering
skills. After demonstrating that his motorcycle is capable of achieving
speeds of ~90 kph, compared to the local average for "horses" of about
60, one of the farmers walks up to the salesman and says
"Great animal, son. How many to a litter?"
There are very definite advantages (and a few drawbacks) to self-reproducing
menials.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Thu 17 Jan 85 14:53:14-PST
From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: re: spectrum of rights
Just a couple random comments:
1) Regarding the question of "why abortion isn't murder", I suggest
that, regardless of what interesting rationalizations we come up with,
the truth is that many of us think of a fetus as somewhat less than
human. This all ties in very nicely with the discussion on a spectrum
of rights for various creatures, which has already made clear that
younger humans have fewer rights than older ones. And a fetus is, at
best, a very young human. But I observe in myself that I react to
discussions about a fetus as if it lay somewhere between an infant and
a pet (where pet-type animals have more rights than, say, insects, but
fewer rights than humans). I use the term "rights" here to mean
anything granted automatically to the creature in question.
2) Jim Aspnes < ASP%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Ah, but we already assign a spectrum of developing rights based on
presumed degrees of sentience: in New Jersey, when I grew up, one
could ... vote at 18, and drink at 19.
I think it's a sad commentary that in many states, one is presumed to
require a greater degree of responsibility/sentience to drink than to
vote. Perhaps it is an indication of how certain our state
legislatures are that we cannot have much effect by voting (whereas we
could actually hurt someone by drinking irresponsibly).
annette
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 18 Jan 1985 11:15-EST
From: sjc@Mitre-Bedford
Subject: Clinic Vigils
Dick,
FYI with regard to this:
*PS: a way to prevent abortion clinic bombings would be to occupy the clinics
*at night. This would be especially important Monday (anniversary of Roe v
*Wade). You have to publicize this occupation.
Just this morning (18 January 1985) I heard on NPR that NOW is
sponsoring a series of clinic vigils this weekend through Monday. The
people participating are all volunteers. Judy Goldsmith said that NOW
is holding these vigils in the hope that having people inside the clinic will
prevent bombings. There are about 5 locations that will not be
occupied due to unusually high risk. They are also considering extending
the program after Monday.
Sue
(sjc@mitre-bedford)
------------------------------
Date: Mon 21 Jan 85 15:28:14-PST
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Rights and Privileges (Re: Rights/designer genes)
Your distinction between rights and priveleges is bogus, in the
context of this discussion! They are all social arrangements made by
agreement, although not necessarily by specific agreement of each
individual.
It is sensible to draw a disticntion between individual
action/abilities and the constraints of the
world around you--my "yacht" comment was just a jab at people who
try to impose equality of outcome rather than equality of
opportunity, and was not central to the discussion.
TCS
------------------------------
Date: Wed 23 Jan 85 10:35:05-PST
From: DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA
Subject: Abortion and Binary Rights
Re Dick King's "Why Abortion isn't murder.":
1) The "Surprise Hypothesis" - we now have
the solution to refugee problems, the African drought, in fact all problems
with the third world. Since these people's "hold on life is tenuous", the
most efficient solution is now moral, eliminate the problem by eliminating
the source of the problem.
2) "Schrodinger's Kid" - It is evident
that there are many groups whose members are not specific and can be easily
replaced. I am sure that whoever works out the technical details of the
final solution to the third world problem will be happy to turn his talents
to the problem of the Blacks, Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, etc.
Re Binary Rights:
I would contend that one of the lessons learned during our past
umpteen thousand years of cultural history is that rights can only be
successfully defended when they are binary. As soon as you start dividing
people into those with full rights and those with partial rights you have
started down the slippery slope. Jefferson knew what he was saying when he
insisted on "certain inalienable rights". The minimum set to whom these
rights pertain can only be a species. Every attempt to subdivide the species
has ended in disaster because the criteria are always arbitrary. We personally
may value cognitive ability but it is easy to imagine, for example, a society
which values willingness to conform. In that society then, the arguments
advanced here to recognize fewer rights for those with lesser cognitive
ability could be applied to those with lesser willingness to conform. You
might even be able to imagine a situation where an emminent Physicist might
be reasonably declared not human and thus devoid of any rights because he
refuses to conform - demonstrating his lack of humanness. Once you accept
the principle that it is possible to deny full human status to any member
of our species for any reason whatsoever, you have accepted the position of
the racist and are simply arguing the details of application. I believe that
one of the lessons of history is that every society that has attempted to
deny human status to a portion of its population has paid a heavy penalty.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Mon 11 Feb 85 Volume 5 Number 6
Contents: Rights, binary, genetic, etc
UFO coverup?
Minor Party Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 85 10:38:05 EST
From: John Lowry < jlowry@BBNZ.ARPA>
Subject: Rights
The problem of rights is not metaphysical and while closely tied
to individual and societal concepts of morality, is not equivalent
to moral behavior. Rights serve primarily as a definition of 'right
relationship', and it is the desired and current relationship we
must look to. Do we, as any particular group, have a relationship
to a fetus? Do I have a relationship with my wife's fetus, or
perhaps a Central American fetus? If so, what does this
relationship consist of and perhaps more interesting, what should it
consist of ?
The same problem applies to bio and genetic engineering. If
some 'product' is to have or be considered to have rights, what
relationship to we want?
Ancillary to this question is the problem of responsibility.
Just what responsibility do I bear for anyone's particular fetus?
What about the one I participated in making? The more we look at
responsibility in conjunction with authority, (authority being the
most commonly discussed aspect of rights, ie. One reserves the
authority or the 'right' to appeal to authority in order to balance
the relationship), the less willingness we find to assert 'rights'
in a particular area. There are very few anti-abortionists who are
willing to accept responsibility. Instead they insist that the
person desiring an abortion bear the responsibility of their (the
anti-abortionists) claim to rights. In short, the anti-abortionists
are claiming rights over the pregnant woman without bearing any
responsiblilty. The question of how much responsibility they would
have to bear before they could claim a right is a moot point. They
cannot 'volunteer' to accept responsibility as that is an invasion
of privacy. Only if the responsibility were thrust upon them could
they claim any right.
As to the rights of the fetus, there are none. If a claim is
made that the fetus is a potential human being, then I argue that
since there is no such thing as "potential rights", then there are
no rights. The argument that the fetus is a human being is an
article of faith and as such would violate Freedom of Religeon if we
were to agree to assign rights on this basis.
I'll quit maundering now, and I must say that I feel much
better.... :-)
John Lowry
jlowry@bbnz.arpa
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jan 85 13:58:35 EST
From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA
Subject: Abortion and Murder
The answer to "is abortion muder?" hinges on your assumptions, so arguments
pro and con are likely to reduce to arguments about the merits of these
assumptions (such as "a fetus is human" or "a fetus has rights").
Instead, let's talk about a different question: why do people consider
murder to be wrong? To discuss that, I'll take a "value free" approach.
(This does not mean I think "values" or "moral" judgements are
improper; rather, I'd like the following arguments to be acceptable
regardless of your beliefs.)
Laws are a special case of what I'll call a "public ethical system".
"Private ethical systems" are constraints a person places on his own
behavior; these I will not discuss further. A "public ethical system"
is a set of rules someone announces, each rule being a constraint on
behavior, the rules being intended to modify another person's behavior.
If person P has a public ethical system E, and person P' violates some
rule in E, person P reacts by punishing P', either by expressing disapproval
or by some other action. A feature of many ethical systems is the rule
causing disagreement with that ethical system to be wrong (in that system).
This rule, along with the fact the most people dislike the disapproval
of others, tends to make ethical systems spread.
Our finite cognitive abilities limit the size of an ethical system. Therefore,
to be applicable in many situations some of the rules in the system
must be general. These general rules are applied in a *continuous* way;
that is, situations that are very close together in "situation space"
are treated similarly.
Many ethical systems have prohibitions against murder because people fear
their own murder and wish to constrain the behavior of those around them to
prevent its occurence. Continuity considerations then make murder "in
the abstract" wrong.
That's an explanation of why murder is considered wrong. How does this apply
to abortion? I suspect the "distance" most people place between themselves
and fetuses is sufficiently large that they don't consider the abortion of
a fetus to be wrong (the killing of a fetus against a mother's will
probably makes the "destruction of another person's valuable property
is wrong" rule fire). It also suggests a strategy anti-abortion forces
might use: try to reduce this perceived "distance" by getting people to
identify with fetuses. Advertisements with adult actors playing fetuses
would be effective, if nightmare producing. Pro-choice forces could try
to increase the distance by, for example, saying that a fetus at N weeks
has a brain smaller than an X's, where X is some small animal that people
will not identify with, and by trying to get people to identify more
closely with the pregnant woman.
------------------------------
Date: Tue 29 Jan 85 11:04:55-PST
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
RE:Willingness to conform vs sentience criteria
I don't dispute that some societies may choose "rights" criteria
that I think are dumb (eg conformity, beyond some minimum level). I
contend that those societies will die off, and that the societies
with more "reasonable" criteria (eg intelligence) will survive
and
grow.
To restate an old point, I am simply outlining characteristics
of a society that I would like to live in (and intend to build, in
space), and not attempting to come up with some "ideal" way to .
live. I don't believe in "right" or "wrong" ways to live.
Viability of the system is the first test, and the happiness level of
the citizens should be the second.
TCS
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 31 Jan 1985 16:44-EST
From: sde@Mitre-Bedford
Subject: Defn of human, etc.
|......................................................... Once you accept
|the principle that it is possible to deny full human status to any member
|of our species for any reason whatsoever, you have accepted the position of
|the
racist
and are simply arguing the details of application.
|
Find a different term than "racist"; race has nothing to do with as assertion
that conformity, intelligence, etc. may define "humanness" in the hypothetical
example, unless, of course, you are actually asserting that such traits form
a polymodal distribution based on race, in which case I would like to hear you
so aver explicitly.
|I believe that
|one of the lessons of history is that every society that has attempted to
|deny human status to a portion of its population has paid a heavy penalty.
Unfortunately, this is incorrect. One can come up which enough examples to
refute such a statement that I will leave that task as an exercise for the
reader, unless specifically asked, since it is not my intent to rake up the
horrors.
David sde@mitre-bedford
------------------------------
Date: Tue 29 Jan 85 15:59:24-PST
From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: UFO coverup
I was watching CNN (cable network news) last Saturday night and caught
a report on a governmental coverup of UFO information. One of the
officials was quoted as saying, "The government stopped investigating
UFOs in 1969." Sure sounds like (implicit) admission of a coverup to
me! Just wanted to throw in more fuel for those people who don't
trust government to develop space.
annette
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 85 15:16:36 EST
From: Will Martin < wmartin@BRL-TGR.ARPA>
Subject: Minor Parties -- '84 election results
I've been holding a clipping of this data for some time, not having
a chance to post it to USENET's net.politics. Since I finally got
it transcribed, I thought it might be of interest to Poli-Sci.
Anyway, here's the info, extracted from a St. Louis Post-Dispatch
article of unknown (December) date:
MINOR PARTIES BIG LOSERS IN ELECTION
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Walter F. Mondale was not the only loser in
President Ronald Reagan's landslide last month. Third-party candidates
fared worse than in any recent US election.
... the vote for third-party and independent candidates was down sharply
from the last four White House races.
According to the certified tallies ... a dozen minor party or independent
candidates got only about 600,000 votes this year, led by the Libertarian
Party's David Bergland, who was on the ballot in 39 states and got 227,949
votes.
Independent Lyndon LaRouche, the maverick conservative who also ran in the
Democratic primaries, was next with 78,773 votes, followed by feminist
Sonia Johnson, who got 72,153 votes under the Citizens Party banner.
These figures include write-in votes reported by some, but not all, states.
The turnout exceeded 92.6 million votes -- 6 million more than in 1980.
Bob Richards, the Populist Party candidate and former Olympic pole
vaulter, got 62,371 votes; Dennis Serrette of the Independent Alliance,
47,209; Communist Party chief Gus Hall, 35,561; Mel Mason of the Social
Workers Party, 24,687 [sic -- I thought it was the SOCIALIST Workers
Party(?)]; Larry Holmes of Workers World, 15,220; Delmar Dennis of the
American Party, 13,150; and Ed Winn of the Workers League, 10,801.
[I would think there would be some apostrophes on some of those party
names, but this is how they were printed...]
Earl F. Dodge of the Prohibition Party got 4,242 votes, and Gavrielle Holmes,
a second Workers World candidate in some states, 2,718.
John B. Anderson, the former Illinois Republican congressman who got
5.7 million votes as an independent in 1980, endorsed Mondale, but his name
was still on the ballot in Kentucky under the banner of the National Unity
Party of Kentucky. He got 1,479 votes.
In Nevada, voters had a chance to cast a ballot for "none of the above",
and 3,950 did.
***End of article***
I'm not sure what all this means, except maybe bad news for the diversity of
opinion that formerly strengthened American politics. I think all candidates
should be on the ballots in all states, and their votes publicized, not
buried where it is usually impossible to discover. How many people DID vote
for "Bill the Cat", anyway?
Will Martin
USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Sat 2 Mar 85 Volume 5 Number 7
Contents: Abortion etc
Minor Parties
Federal Budget
shhhh!
Space
Race
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 85 17:34:42 pst
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
Subject: Poli-Sci Submission Predicts Reality (ex post facto)
From: DIETZ@RUTGERS.ARPA
Subject: Abortion and Murder
...also suggests a strategy anti-abortion forces
might use: try to reduce this perceived "distance" by getting people to
identify with fetuses. Advertisements with adult actors playing fetuses
would be effective, if nightmare producing...
You apparently haven't heard about "The Silent Scream". This is a
26-minute (to fit into commercial TV time slots) film in which a doctor
describes a sonogram of a fetus (I don't know what week) being aborted,
interpreting the sonogram as showing the fetus shrinking from the suction
tube and "opening its mouth in what I have come to call a silent scream."
Apparently the doctor's interpretation adds a lot to the drama of the
situation, but the point is, you're exactly right.
Steve Upstill
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Rights
Date: 10 Feb 85 19:12:05 PST (Sun)
From: "Tim Shimeall" < tim@uci-icsd>
I take issue with your argument. I feel that your central thesis:
"Rights serve primarily as a definition of 'right
relationship', and it is the desired and current relationship we
must look to."
is incorrect. Rights don't have anything to do with relationships. In
fact, rights could be viewed as the capabilities one retains IRRESPECTIVE
of any relationship. If a relationship is needed, then the whole concept
of rights, most especially civil rights, falls apart. Do I have any
relationship to any arbitrary member of the human race? No, and I definitely
don't have a relationship sufficiently strong to warrent my support of
that member's free speech, or (at least minimal) education,
etc. What I do have under our system of government is the
obligation to grant, and even pay for, that individual's capabilities
in those areas, totally without regard to whether or not I have
any relationship whatsoever to that individual. I choose to respect
that obligation for many reasons, primary among which is the knowlege that
I gain in so doing; the major reason our country has achieved so much is
the provision for individual rights without reguard to individual
characteristics or relationships. Once I respect these obligations I do
indeed have a relationship, in the most abstract sense, but the rights
came first and ONLY THEN came the relationship.
Now, given that I disagree with the starting point of your argument, it
is not at all suprising that I disagree with its conclusion. Given that
rights are capabilities granted through the process of governmental
obligation to individuals without reguard to individual characteristics
or relationships, it is clear that a human fetus does indeed have rights,
if only the right to not be killed because it is inconvinient. I would
proceed further with extoling of fetal rights, but I've a feeling it would
gain little at this point. I welcome replies. I found your statement
to be the clearest on the subject I've seen in memory and I hope that we
can do more than "agree to disagree".
Tim
[Moderator: Please place your comments only at the end of this message]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 85 12:56 MST
From: Paul Benjamin < Benjamin%PCO@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Minor Parties -- '84 election results
> I'm not sure what all this means, except maybe bad news for the
> diversity of opinion that formerly strengthened American politics.
If you look at the candidates (and the movements) of the last few
presidential elections, it should be fairly obvious. The 1984 election
had neither a strong candidate nor a strong movement in the 3rd party
department. Each of the last few elections had just that (or nearly
that). In each of the elections starting with 1968 there was a single
candidate that outpolled this year's 3rd party field. In 1968, George
Wallace received 9,906,473 votes. Carrying the banner that Wallace had
fashioned, John Schmitz received 1,101,052 (movement but no candidate)
in 1972. In '76, Gene McCarthy got 739,256 as an independent (candidate
but no movement), and, as the article mentioned, John Anderson turned
out 5,719,437 in 1980. I don't have numbers on the Libertarian
candidate in 1980, but McBride got 171,818 in 1976 so it would appear
that the Libertarians, at least, are on the upswing. All that the
article really shows is that no single third party candidate was
successful in capturing enough publicity to attract many voters. If you
look at history, those that do generally do not come from existing third
parties such as the Libertarians or the Socialist Workers but rather are
candidates that either run as independents or form a party to support
their candidacy.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 85 09:43:31 PST
From: Richard Foy < foy@AEROSPACE>
Subject: Budget
The Presidents budget message got my attention more than usual this year.
I didn't realize how rapidly the interest on the debt is growing until I saw
some of the detailed analyses. Even with the most optimistic projections
of the President and assuming that the Congress goes along with the many cuts
proposed including farm price supports, the interest will be as large as the currents total deficit by the end of his term. No one seems to be paying more than lip service to this serious problem. It seems to me that if the interest
during the second term of one of the most conservative presidents we have had
in a number of years, it can only grow more rapidly after he is out of office.
The most critical critics of the Presidents budget only recommend this which
slightly reduce this deficit, things which of course would also be hard to
get passed by the Congress. It seems to me that we are very rapidly heading
for economic disaster. Does anyone have any thoughts on what will happened when
the interest payments rise from their current level of about ten percent of the
federal budget to 20, 30 50 percent or more which according to simple
extrapolations will r in the next 5 or 10 years? Does anyone have any
analysis which shows why the simple extrapolations are wrong and the interest
payments won't grow so rapidly.
------------------------------
Date: 20 Feb 1985 00:59:45 PST
Subject: Classification Glossary for next article
From: David Booth < DBOOTH@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
[The New Republic, February 18, 1985, p21]
A GLOSSARY OF TERMS
The argot of classification requires a glossary for the
uninitiated. The following is an explanation of only the most
frequently used terms.
(C) Confidential: information the unauthorized disclosure of which
reasonably could be expected to cause damage to national security.
(S) Secret: disclosure would cause "serious" damage.
(TS) Top Secret: disclosure would cause "exceptionally grave" damage.
(SCI) Sensitive Compartmented Information of "code word" intelligence
designated by words such as "Umbra" and "Ruff" intended to limit access
to special intelligence more sensitive than Top Secret.
(WNINTEL) Warning Notice: Sensitive Intelligence Sources and Methods
Involved.
(NC or NOCONTRACT) Information not releasable to government contractors
or consultants.
(OR or ORCON) The originator of the classified report alone controls
its dissemination or information extracted from it.
(NFD, NF, or NOFORN) "No Foreign Dissemination" or "Not Releasable to
Foreign Nationals." Exceptions for release to specific countries are
noted on the document, the most frequent exceptions being Great
Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel.
(RD) Restricted Data: a Department of Energy designation regarding the
(1.) design, manufacture, or utilization of atomic weapons, (2.)
production of special nuclear material, or (3.) use of special nuclear
material in the production of energy.
(FRD) Formerly Restricted Data: information which the D.O.E. and
Department of Defense jointly determine relates primarily to the
military use of atomic weapons and can be adequately safeguarded as
defense information.
(NODIS) No Distribution to other than the addressee without the
approval of the executive secretary of the State Department.
(EXDIS) Exclusive Distribution in State Department to persons with an
essential "need to know".
(LIMDIS) Limited Distribution to offices and agencies with a "need to
know".
(FOR YOUR EYES ONLY) Only the person intended to receive the report may
read it -- a charming James Bondish stamp but not a national security
designation.
(OUO, LUO, and BUO) Official Use Only, Limited Official use and
Background Use Only -- not national security designations.
------------------------------
Date: 20 Feb 1985 01:01:01 PST
Subject: Article: The Death of the State Secret
From: David Booth < DBOOTH@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
[The New Republic, February 18, 1985, p20-23]
For your (and everyone else's) eyes only.
THE DEATH OF THE STATE SECRET
By Dale Van Atta
No more hypocritical hokum has made the headlines recently than Defense
Secretary Caspar Weinberger's charge that a Washington Post scoop last
December on the military's space shuttle launch of a spy satellite gave
"aid and comfort to the enemy". There was nothing in the Post article
the KGB could not have discovered form public sources and its own
intelligence-gathering satellites. On the other hand, Weinberger
himself on any number of occasions has been known to override the
"national security" arguments of intelligence analysts, and to publicly
release "Top Secret" information on Soviet military capabilities.
The state secret is dying, and although Weinberger would like to
believer that irresponsible journalists have hastened the process, the
truth is that federal officials -- and President Reagan himself -- must
share a large part of the blame. More than any other president in
recent history, Reagan has presided over a hemorrhage of "national
security" disclosures, in television speeches, official publications,
and leaks. For all of his professed concerns about guarding state
secrets and his efforts to muzzle overly talkative government
employees, the president has displayed overhead U.S. spy photos of
other countries and approved the publication of at least 25 drawings
and doctored satellite photographs.
To be sure, there are other reasons for the waning of the state secret
than the calculated indiscretions of policymakers. First, classified
information is poorly protected. Although millions of dollars have
been spent in background investigations on persons who seek clearances,
and millions more to physically secure intelligence documents, the
government is powerless to prevent an individual from selling secrets,
nor can it make up for human absent-mindedness or tension under
duress. Second, a growing number of people share the secrets, which of
course diminishes the value and protection of them. The General
Accounting Office, in a series of little-noticed reports since 1979 on
the management fo classified information, has estimated that as of
January 1, 1983, at least four million federal and civilian contractor
employees held clearances to see classified information. This doesn't
count CIA and National Security Agency employees, nor does it include
those -- like me, an investigative reporter -- who have "unauthorized
access" to classified documents. Third, and most significant, the
rubber stamp has been widely misused for millions of bits of
information that have no business being classified, which erodes
respect for real secrets. In a 1981 study, the GAO reported that a
randomly selected sample of 496 documents included 444 -- or about 90
percent -- that were marked improperly in one or more ways.
Amid the tens of thousands of secret items to which I have had access,
very few of those classified "Confidential" or "Secret" appeared to
contain national security information. Most of the thousands of "Top
Secret" pages I perused did contain at least one hot item. In this
category are specially classified documents delineated by code words
after the TS -- "Top Secret" -- marking. There are hundreds of code
words, and though their very existence is classified, the cover on a
number of them has been blown. At one U.S. spy trial, both "Umbra" and
"Ruff", referring to communications and satellite intelligence, were
acknowledged. TK, or "Talent Keyhole", denotes information from the
KH, or "Keyhole", series of satellites; "Chess" marks U-2 and SR-71
overhead photographs; and "Epsilon" is attached to information gleaned
by bugging the foreign embassies fo allies like Great Britain, France,
Canada, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia.
However, bonafide super secrets are rare. Of 18 million
"classification decisions" in 1983, it is estimated that only 3 percent
were classified "Top Secret". The other 97 percent were classified
"Confidential" and "Secret", and probably do not deserve the national
security classifications they bear, nor the attendant threat that
unauthorized disclosure "could result in criminal sanctions". But such
an overload of classified nonsense is inevitable in a system that
empowers two-and-a-half million federal employees to classify
documents.
I have identified six ways that the rubber stamp is abused. They bring
to mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in the
Pentagon Papers decision: "When everything is classified, then nothing
is classified, and the system becomes one to be disregarded by the
cynical or the careless, and to be manipulated by those intent on
self-protection or self-promotion."
(1.) Embarrassing Omissions. Despite executive orders that have
banned classifying information "to prevent embarrassment to a person,
organization or agency", this abuse continues. For instance, in August
1982, the CIA completed a report, "Outlook for the Siberia-to-Western
Europe Natural Gas Pipeline" (S/NF/NC), which was rather ticklish for
President Reagan. It said, in effect, that Reagan's sanctions against
the pipeline's construction represented a policy of impotence. "We
believe", the CIA concluded, "using some combination of Soviet and West
European equipment, deliveries through the new export pipeline could
probably begin . . . about one year later than if the sanctions had not
been imposed." The report was kept tightly guarded for fear that
Congress or our European allies, who had been hurt by the sanctions,
might use it to force Reagan to back down.
Many Pentagon reports address the abysmal readiness of the U.S.
military, but few are available for public consumption. Examples
include Pentagon reports that nine out of 16 active Army divisions in
1981 were rated marginally combat-ready or not combat-ready at all (C
-- "Confidential"); that 90 percent of the men and women who maintain
and operate the Army's nuclear weapons in Europe flunked basic skills
tests (S -- "Secret"); or that "overall readiness of the Pacific Fleet
is assessed as marginally combat-ready and declining" (S). My favorite
is a Pentagon war game report (TS), in which every possible favorable
advantage for NATO was programmed into a computer. Yet by the fifth
day of the imaginary war, "the Warsaw Pact had penetrated past the NATO
forward general defense positions. On Day 19, the Warsaw Pact broke
through NATO's rear defensive line and started moving rapidly
westward. Finally, the war game was terminated on Day 24 when NATO was
unable to maintain a cohesive defense."
(2.) Illusions of Importance. Ego is often a reason for abusing the
rubber stamp. What U.S. official involved in foreign policy or
military matters does not think what he is doing is somehow vital to
national security and should be classified? William Safire once
jokingly confessed that, when he served as a speechwriter for President
Richard Nixon, he typed "TS/Sensitive/NC/NF" across the top of his
draft of a 1969 speech on Vietnam. He explained that this was "to keep
every staff aid and his brother from fiddling with my prose". but the
plot backfired. Three days after Safire sent the speech to Nixon,
Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman called and said the speech needed work,
"but we can't let you have it. You're not cleared for Top
Secret/Sensitive/Nocontract/Noforn."
Secrecy lures the mighty and the humble to imbue their thoughts and
actions with an extra aura of classified importance. Former Secretary
of State Henry Kissinger, the man who ordered wiretaps on his closest
aides to track down "leaks", frequently used the "Roger Channel", a
heavily encrypted communications system which neither the CIA nor the
State Department hierarchy could read. He often sprinkled the holy
water of secrecy on the most meaningless and inconsequential
information. Ten "Memorandums of Conversation of the Secretary of
State" from 1976 remain classified. Kissinger restricted access to the
"Memcons" to only two of his subordinates. Here is a sampling:
To Morocco's Special Emissary of the King, Mohamed Karim
Lamrani, On January 29: ". . . many of our Congressmen . . .
remind me of the sophomores I had in my classes when I was a
professor. . . . I had a Senator today who asked me why we
could not tell the Soviets that we would defend Europe and
Japan and forget the rest of the world. . . . The man who said
that was an idiot." (S/NODIS)
To U.S. Ambassador to Ghana Shirley Temple Black, March 3:
"Twelve days in Africa will drive me to drink. I have yet to
meet a Foreign Minister with whom I have more than 45 minutes
of real conversation. . . . [After Mrs. Black mentioned
several Ford administration luminaries] I told the President
this morning that never has history been made by so many
mediocrities. Well, if that is our style that is what we must
do. . . . I am a Gemini . . . that means I am two-faces."
(C/NODIS)
(3.) After the Talking's Over. When diplomatic negotiations are
conducted publicly, they often disintegrate into propaganda and
posturing. But once the agreement has been completed, why keep them
secret? The letters and exchanges between the United States and the
Soviet Union in 1962 following the Cuban missile crisis have been
locked up so tight at the State Department that until recently,
requests for full disclosure by Congress and even several presidential
administrations were never honored. The only sensitive fact -- and a
historical one at that -- which emerges from reading the documents is
that President John F. Kennedy did not obtain an airtight agreement
from the Soviets about nuclear weapons deployment in Cuba. It is
inexcusable to continue to hide as "Top Secret" these documents on a
22-year-old agreement to which the United States and its people may be
bound.
The same is true for the SALT I and SALT II negotiations, and others of
their kind. Some of the same TS information I have been leaded was
freely given to "the enemy" across the table during arms control
negotiations. The U.S. negotiators argue that providing the CIA's best
estimate of Russian weapons systems is essential to reaching an
agreement on the nature and number of Soviet arms which need limiting.
(As a final irony, senior Soviet negotiators have considered the CIA
intelligence so accurate that they would sometimes ask their juniors to
leave the room -- the underlings were not cleared to know the detains
of their own forces.)
(4.) Sibling Rivalry. The different American intelligence services
compete for espionage coups, budget, and attention from the president
with such fervor that some documents are generously decorated with
special classifications designed to keep competing agencies from seeing
them.
The director of the CIA is supposed to convince the different agencies
to pull together. But unless he comes up from the CIA ranks, he is
unlikely even to know what's going on in his own agency. The CIA's
clandestine services division so severly restricts its operational
information from CIA intelligence analysts that it is not unusual to
have a CIA-instigated event in a foreign country be reported by CIA
analysts as if it was a spontaneously indigenous occurrence.
While the Air Force fights a turf battle with the CIA over control of
spy satellites, the Army is at odds with the agency over who has the
exclusive right to run commando-style covert action. Only the Navy has
a close relationship with the CIA, occasionally doing the CIA's dirty
work. The reward has been access to special intelligence and
programs. For instance, when the 1960s secret war against Cuban
Premier Fidel Castro ran down, the CIA gave the Navy cost-free both its
newly developed speedboats and the "Day of the Dolphin" program that
trained dolphins to place explosives under enemy ships. This is still
classified.
(5.) Fiscal Foolishness. Far too much fraud, waste, and abuse in
military and intelligence programs is swept under the national security
carpet. "It's classified" is the favorite "no comment" of the Pentagon
when asked about failed American weapons, other waste, or even general
budgetary information. Nearly every expenditure of intelligence
agencies, from buildings to bug sprays, is classified. In fact, the
very existence of some intelligence units or agencies (like the Air
Force's spy-satellite-operating National Reconnaissance Office) is
classified.
From the few examples reported by whistle-blowers willing to risk jail
(because the information is classified), it can be inferred that there
is tremendous waste. For instance, there was the intelligence
community's attempt in the early 1970s to find out the caliber of the
cannon on the Soviets' latest tank, the T-72. Knowledgeable
intelligence sources report that the CIA, DIA, and NSA shelled out $18
million in salaries, satellite, and spy money -- before the British
provided the DIA with the answer, after expending a mere $400. (This
was the cost of a replacement lock they installed as they were secretly
exiting an East German tank storage depot after they had gauged the gun
caliber, and also lifted the T-72's operating manual.) One French
military attache' in Moscow accomplished nearly as much at no cost. He
simply told a Soviet military officer how much he admired the new T-72
tank. The chest-swelling Russian gave the French attache' a VIP tour
of a tank base, showed him the gun, the ammunition, and even the inside
of the cockpit, and then took the Frenchman to dinner.
(6.) Out-of-Sight Slights. Diplomatic sensitivity accounts for the
classification of many reports which are not more secret than a report
filed the same day from the same foreign capital by a correspondent for
The New York Times. The members of the "U.S. Embassy Intelligence
Group" meeting on November 3, 1983, in Buenos Aires offered no
surprises about the post-election future of Argentina in their
discussion (S). But the Argentines might have been touchy about the
American analysts' predictions being made public. For the same reason,
according to a sampling of classified reports, there was no sense in
publicly stating that Peking was turning to the West "for technological
assistance to modernize its armed forces" (S), that Australia, "in
support of U.S. policies . . . contributes naval deployments and
aviation patrols in the Indian Ocean" (C), or that "French
nuclear-strike aircraft . . . might be committed to NATO" (S).
One of the most revealing examples appears in the transcript of a
meeting Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had with Argentine Foreign
Minister Raul Quijano on February 12, 1976, at Argentina's embassy in
Washington. In it Kissinger referred to the famous interview he had
with the Italian Journalist Oriana Fallaci ("Kissinger", The New
Republic, December 16, 1972), in which he likened himself to "the
cowboy entering a village or city alone on a horse." Headline writers
began referring to Kissinger as the "lone cowboy", and cartoonists
played with the image of the portly statesman as the Lone Ranger of the
Nixon administration. At the time, Kissinger told reporters he had
agreed to the rare on-the-record session because of Fallaci's
impressive interviews with Indira Gandhi, King Hussein, and Vietnamese
General Vo Nguyen Giap. But this was not the story he told Quijano,
according to the transcript (C/NODIS): "The only reason I agreed to
the interview was that I saw a picture of her in a book and she looked
attractive, so I wanted to meet her." He was disappointed for two
reasons. One was that Fallaci had not described him as "a combination
of Charles de Gaulle and Disreali". The second was that he found her
"a dumpy little girl, totally unattractive."
Still, all of this said, there seems to be little question that one of
the most flagrant abusers of the rubber stamp is the man who is
ostensibly most concerned about that abuse: President Reagan. At the
same time that Reagan is issuing stern proclamations about
unauthorized disclosures, he is himself authorizing what ex-Senator
Walter D. Huddleston of Kentucky correctly labeled "selective
disclosure of national security information to promote one side of the
debate." Examples include the release of raw intelligence in the early
1981 "white paper" on El Salvador, allegedly demonstrating that the
Cubans were supplying arms to Salvadoran guerrillas; a December 1981
television speech in which he revealed that the proclamations for
martial law in Poland were printed in the Soviet Union the previous
September; the State Department reports in 1982 and 1983 declassifying
sensitive intelligence on "yellow rain" attacks in Southeast Asia; and
the March 1983 television address in which Reagan displayed four aerial
photographs taken over Cuba, Nicaragua, and Grenada to prove that the
Communist threat was growing in Central America and the Caribbean.
The worst examples of Reagan's selective disclosure are a series of
slick booklets called "Soviet Military Power", published by the
Pentagon, in part to influence military appropriations requests in
Congress. A month before the 1983 issue came out, the Joint Chiefs
finished a classified "military posture" statement, containing national
security information about the Soviets. By definition, its premature
disclosure would cause "serious" damage to national security. Yet most
of the "secrets" were disclosed less than a month later in the slick
March 1983 SMP.
For example, the JCS report classified the numbers of each specific
intercontinental ballistic nuclear missile the Soviets had deployed.
But a month later, the SMP public document included not only the same
numbers but two convenient maps showing the residence by city name of
most of these missiles. The JCS report labeled "Secret" an increasing
emphasis in the Soviet bloc on the ground attack role of new aircraft
"such as the SU-25". A month later, SMP publicly referred to "the
formidable SU-25/Frogfoot ground attack aircraft" on five separate
pages, providing details on the plane's speed, radius, wingspan, and
armament -- and including a two-page color drawing of the plane in
action over Afghanistan.
These revelations come at a time when Secretary of State George Shultz
is publicly stating that people who reveal "highly classified,
sensitive information should be tossed in jail" because the leaks
"sometimes make it difficult for the government to execute its policies
successfully." Reagan is now attempting to impose a new regime of
secrecy on unauthorized declassifications. He has issued a new, more
restrictive executive order, promoted new laws to punish the publishers
of secrets, applauded underlings in the executive branch who find
crafty ways to slip and slide around the Freedom of Information Act,
and wired up dozens to lie detectors. Finally, as a condition of
government employment, he has forced tens of thousands of the secrets'
caretakers to sign away their free speech rights for life in
"nondisclosure statements".
The contrast between these new regulations and Reagan's own offhand
leaks has angered dozens of government employees enough that they now
dial a reporter and let the "secrets" flow. Some have been calling me,
disclosing to a journalist they don't even know what they once wouldn't
whisper to their spouse in the privacy of their own bedroom at night.
-------------------------
Dale Van Atta is an associate of Jack Anderson's specializing in
national security issues. He has been cleared for leaks.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 85 11:11:27 PST
From: Richard Foy < foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Hazard Criteria
The current issue of Discover, a lay science magazine, has an article titled
"Coke: the Random Killer". The article paints a grim picture of cocaine use.
If I didn't already belief that cocaine use was not a cost effective form of
entertainment I think it would convince me. I think however it leaves something
to be desired from the standpoint of scientific objectivity. It mostly consists
of anecdotal statements such as, "..the movie star died of an overdose...",
80 percent of the cocaine users who called a drug abuse hot line said that
they were having problems, etc.
I am convinced that with a little bit of library research one could
write equally scientifically accurate articles titled; "Acid Rain: the
Silent Killer", or "Industrial Waste: the Underground Killer", or
"Smog: the Choking Killer".
I don't believe that I have ever seen articles with such titles. I
have thought a lot about the reasons for the difference in treatment
of the two types of subjects. It is easy to come up with superficial
explanations but they all seem to fall apart on close examination.
The onely one that I have come up with that I can't find logic holes in is
one that I find emotionally unacceptable. That one is that our society is
more of a masochistic society than it is a hedonistic society.
Can someone please help me to find some better reasons for the difference?
richard foy
------------------------------
Date: Thu 28 Feb 85 09:13:55-PST
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: [Bruce Bon < BON@JPL-VLSI.ARPA> : TSS attempt from JPL-VLSI]
Attached is the first issue of a new journal from the Space Pioneer
Society:
THE SPACE SETTLER
Newsletter of the Space Pioneer Society
Volume I, Number 1
First Quarter 1985
Who We Are
The Space Pioneer Society is an organization, currently
consisting primarily of successful young professionals, whose
goal is the realization of the dream of living in an
independent, free society beyond the turmoil of earth. The
two things that all SPS members have in common are a
desire for humans to have the option of living in space and a
belief in individual freedom.
Like many great organizations (and even more
insignificant ones), the Space Pioneer Society began with a
few friends getting together to discuss matters of common
interest. That first meeting, held on October 14, 1983,
produced the following "Statement of Purpose":
I. SPS is formed for the purpose of developing the
material, economic, and social tools necessary to
construct, operate, and populate a space habitat. To
this end, SPS will form an open corporate structure
in which voting authority will be based upon
contribution.
II. The society will locate the habitat outside the
Earth's atmosphere in order to use the resources of
that environment.
III. The economic system will be generally free and
unrestricted.
IV. The social system will grant to all citizens the rights
to life, individual liberty, and private property.
V. In this system, the activities of the citizens will not
be regulated except when absolutely necessary for
the preservation of the society or the safety of the
citizens.
Since then SPS has held monthly meetings to decide how
to achieve the purpose and to begin the process of achieving
the goals of the Society. We have established a set of
Structural Agreements which serve as the constitution of SPS
and a set of Operating Agreements which are the current
operating rules of the Society.
A number of projects have been undertaken to study
SPS organizational structure, social systems for SPS habitats,
the scenario/timeline for achieving SPS goals, etc. Near-term
management milestones have been set for the expansion of
the assets and membership of the Society. Terry Savage, our
largest shareholder, has defined a five-phase scenario whose
outcome would be an independent space habitat in the
asteroids or elsewhere beyond earth orbit (see following
article). Bob Hillhouse, our president for 1985, is studying
the options for the legal status of SPS and will report on his
findings in a later issue.
Finally, we have begun to publish The Space Settler.
The purpose of TSS is to provide an effective means of
giving current and prospective members information about
who we are and what we do. TSS will be particularly
important as we expand beyond southern California, in order
to keep more remote members informed.
If you are not yet a member of SPS, take a look at what
we want to do and decide whether you would like to be a
part of it. If so, then attend a meeting or fill out and return
the membership form toward the end of this issue.
Whether or not you are a member, let us know how you like
TSS and how we might improve it. Correspondence may be
sent to TSS Editor at the SPS address, also listed toward
the end of this issue.
The SPS Master Plan
The Five Phase Scenario
by Terry Savage
In a previous analysis (Claustrophobia, Oct. 84, Nov. 84),
I have shown that the cost of building a habitat for 5000
people is on the order of $100B-150B (in 1985 dollars),
assuming a cost of $500/lb to low earth orbit, and an
additional $200/lb from LEO to the asteroids (the proposed
habitat site). What SPS intends to provide is a plausible
scenario from the present time (early 1985) to the
construction and occupation of the habitat (roughly 2025).
To the best of my knowledge, no other organization has
directly addressed this issue.
For ease of analysis, the scenario has been divided into
five phases (disregarding the organizational "Phase zero",
which is now completed). Each phase represents an
increasing level of complexity, cost, difficulty, and
independence. The intention is to "make each phase pay", or
in other words, each phase is designed to provide desirable
ends in itself, in addition to contributing to the long range
goal of an independent culture in space.
It should be emphasized that this scenario is pessimistic
in a number of ways:
1) It assumes a very modest improvement in the current
cost of putting things in orbit by the year 2010, an
improvement by a factor of only 3-5.
2) It assumes minimal economic return from each phase.
3) It assumes slow growth of the organization, with a
minimal "bandwagon" effect after initial success.
This pessimism is intentional -- the objective is to
develop a plan that is VERY likely to succeed. If conditions
prove to be more favorable than the assumptions, the plan
can be accelerated. This is much more desirable than
counting on a miracle, and being forced to scale back when
it doesn't happen. Following is a brief description of each of
the five phases:
Phase I -- The Urban Phase
During this phase, members of SPS will acquire property
and live within a specific city, probably Redondo Beach,
California. The organization itself, using proceeds from the
purchase of SPS units by members, will also become a
property owner. One scenario puts much of this property in
a condominium complex, so that we can gain experience with
administering an actual community. Given the many
opportunities for employment in the aerospace industry, and
rising property values in the area, this phase can be
accomplished with a minimum disruption in the lives of the
participating members. This is the current phase, and it is
expected that we will have 1000 people within the urban
community within 7 years.
Phase II -- The Ex-Urban Phase
This phase will take place in a city that is close to a
major city (e.g. Los Angeles or San Francisco), but not within
its boundaries. The current likely candidate is Big Bear.
During this phase the SPS community will be somewhat
more isolated than Phase I, but will remain close enough to
an urban center to make commuting to "mainstream" jobs
possible. Due to the relative isolation and small size of the
surrounding community, the SPS members will be more
closely knit, and will take an active role in the operation of
the local government. It is anticipated that the ex-urban
community will have 1000 members by the year 1995.
Phase III -- The Isolated-Earth Phase
During this phase of our development, SPS will build a
city in a currently uninhabited (or abandoned) location. It
will be at least 200 miles from a major (> 1 million people)
population center. The current candidate is somewhere
within the desert regions of the US, but other options are
being considered. During this phase, we will need to develop
a fully functional society, without the benefits (and costs!) of
an existing social/governmental structure. We will need to
establish a viable economic system. This is essentially the
"dry run" for building a community in space, with the
safeguard that we're not facing vacuum if we make a
mistake.
Phase IV -- The Near-Earth/Space Phase
Costs will get large when we begin the move into space.
Phases I-III will probably cost less than $500M combined,
while even the early stages of Phase IV, putting only 100 or
so people in space, will cost on the order of $10B. The
objective will be to establish a habitat in space for the first
time, entirely under the control of the organization. The
target for completion of the initial habitat is 2010. One of the
possible revenues for the facility will be satellite servicing.
Others include materials processing and tourism.
Phase V -- The "Free Space" Phase
This is the final goal of SPS, a fully functioning, fully
independent society in space. The current favored location is
the asteroids, due to the presence of valuable resources and
the absence of intrusions by existing governments. Although
it is expected that there will be extensive commerce with the
Earth and various near-Earth facilities, the settlement will be
entirely self-governing.
Since we're not going to fund this settlement with
government subsidies, the obvious question is: Where is the
money going to come from?? There are no existing
corporations with this kind of capital available. Historically,
this magnitude of venture has only been an option for
governments and religions, or, frequently, a religious
government.
Our approach will be somewhat different. Essentially,
the objective is to form a corporate-type society around the
philosophy of individual freedom. The influence that each
person has will be directly proportional to his/her
contribution to the society. This is a very long term project,
and will require the magnitude and duration of commitment
that usually accompanies dedication to some religious or
philosophical cause. In our case, the "cause" will be the
construction of a free society in space.
This new, free culture will be the focal point for the
resources to build the settlement. It can be done on a private
basis if roughly 250,000 people (a community on the order
of Santa Barbara, California), with average net worth of
$500,000, commit their fortunes to the venture. The
mechanism will be for people to hold an increasing fraction
of their net worth as an ownership share in the society. The
society will invest these funds in ways that are both
economically desirable in the near term, and lead toward the
final goal in the long term. The more an individual invests in
the society, the more that individual will profit from the
investments (initially in real estate), and the more influence
he/she will have in the direction of the society.
Since the activities of SPS have been largely
organizational in nature up to this point, very little money
has been invested. With the election of the current Board of
Directors and Officers, however, this will rapidly change
during 1985. It is almost certain that SPS members will buy
their first residence in Redondo Beach in 1985. The
organization itself will probably have sufficient resources to
begin buying residential real estate in 1986. The current
situation presents an unusual opportunity -- the "grunt
work" of developing the organization has been largely
completed, but it is still small enough that an energetic
and/or wealthy individual can gain significant influence in a
short period of time. This state of affairs will gradually
erode from this point onward, and by late 1986 it will be
fairly difficult to significantly change the organization in a
short period of time.
The year 1985 will see the dream of a free society begin
to become a reality. If you want to be a part of it, checking
out the possibilities is costless -- there is no initial
investment required, and after 6 months the investment
required to stay informed is trivial, on the order of $10/year
to receive "The Space Settler" and retain your voting rights.
Of course, your influence at that level of investment will also
be trivial, but the option to expand it will always be
available. So what are you waiting for? Join the organization
with the objective of putting YOU into a free society in space!
Organization Profile: L-5/OASIS
In each issue of TSS we will describe an organization
which may be of interest to our members and give an
address to write for further information. The L-5 Society is
one of the oldest space advocacy groups and has spawned
from its ranks many related organizations, including SPS! As
such it is fitting that L-5 should be one of the focuses of our
first issue.
The L-5 Society was formed shortly after the historic
conference organized by Dr. Gerard O'Neill in Princeton in
1975. Its purpose is to promote space development leading
to colonies of 10,000 or more people in space. The L-5
Society gets its name from La Grange point 5 of the
earth-moon system, a location favored for space settlements
because of its stability. Since its founding the L-5 Society
has become the most vocal and arguably the most effective
of the space advocacy organizations. It was instrumental in
preventing U.S. approval of the U.N. Moon Treaty, an
agreement which would have put a damper on space
development. The dream of living in space which was a
wild-eyed fantasy in 1975 has become respectable -- L-5
counts among its governing boards U.S. Senators and
Representatives, industry leaders and prominent futurists,
as well as science fiction writers and enthusiasts who simply
want to go.
The Organization for the Advancement of Space
Industrialization and Settlement (OASIS) was formed in
1978 as the southern California chapter of the L-5 Society.
It is one of the most active chapters, with its own newsletter
and monthly public meetings and parties. L-5 members who
live in southern California automatically become members of
OASIS.
Membership in the L-5 Society is $25 per year or $15
per year for full-time students. The mailing address is 1060
E. Elm, Tucson, AZ 85719. If you live in southern California,
you will get on the OASIS mailing list more quickly by
joining L-5 through OASIS. The OASIS address is P.O. Box
1231, Redondo Beach, CA 90278.
Events of Interest to SPS Members
SPS Board of Directors meetings are usually held at 7:30 p.m.
and SPS general meetings at 8:30 p.m. at the home of Terry Savage.
Meeting dates for the next 2 months are March 8 and April 12 at
Terry's. Call 213 374-4248 for information on all upcoming SPS events.
------------------------------
Date: Fri 1 Mar 85 15:22:52-PDT
From: DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA
Subject: Defn of racist
Since there is no scientific definition of a human race, why cannot
I define the race of people different from me, the race of people with blue
eyes, the race of people who conform, etc.? We already talk about the race
of people who live in certain countries (the Slavic race), the race of
people who practice a certain religion (the Jewish race), the race of people
who have a certain skin color (the Black race), and so forth. In every case
the definition of who is or who is not in a certain race is arbitrary (e.g.
a Chicano is black, brown, or white depending upon what horse you are beating.)
Or am I missing the point David is trying to make?
Mike
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 21 Mar 85 Volume 5 Number 8
Contents:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed 20 Mar 85 11:16:51-PST
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Poli-sci
Oh where, oh where has my Poli-sci gone?
Oh where, oh where can it be?
With its flames so long,
and its tempers so short,
Oh where, oh where can it be??????
****************************************
Seriously, has poli-sci vanished? I haven't seen it for quite a while!
TCS
[I don't understand it... Poli-sci seems to have gone from the most
flamiferous digest to the most sedate. --JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 28 Mar 85 Volume 5 Number 9
Contents: Lots of suggested new subjects
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 20 March 1985 23:52:32 EST
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: metadiscussion and real discussion
Long-time readers of Poli-Sci will recall that the digest has gone through
light periods before, but has always been revived when someone posts a long
flaming message, usually having a lot more to do with politics than
political science. On the other hand, those of you who have been
involved with university political science departments know that such a
distinction has long since disappeared, if there ever was one.
For example, voting techniques clearly can be classified as political
science. Specific policy decisions are clearly politics. But then there is
this nebulous region in between about the role of government, the sayings of
John Locke, libertarianism, etc., that might best be called philosophy, or
perhaps political philosophy.
Here is a subject that I think falls into that nebulous area, but is
concrete enough so as not to bore people to tears: Is it possible to
organize society so that as completely as possible, the consequences of a
persons actions are felt only by him, and not by others? For example, on
principle I don't like seat belt laws. But as our society is currently
organized, people who don't wear seatbelts are costing me real money, and I
like that even less than violating my principle. So I support seatbelt
laws. Now if a person could ride around without a seatbelt and die in
peace, without costing me anything, then let him. Now it is possible to
take this argument to an extreme. Any person who isn't working as hard as
possible, staying in perfect health, etc., is costing me money indirectly
because he increases the demand for doctors and thus their cost, or earns
less and thus pays less taxes, so I pay more, etc., etc. Where does one
draw the line? How do our humanitarian instincts enter into this? If I see
a car accident, I'm not going to let a person bleed to death just because
they didn't wear a seatbelt (I am CPR trained and so should you be). If he
dies, I'm not going to let his family starve. In other contexts, usually
welfare and Social Security, this has been called the "free rider" problem
of people not paying for some benefits, but receiving them anyway.
Political scientists and economists have grappled with this issue in
numerous books, but to my knowledge, have never come up with a satisfactory
solution except for simple cases. This seems to me perhaps to be a moral or
lifestyle or personal values problem, which cannot, I claim, be solved
through political action. No amount of government action will make people
eat right or exercise. The Russians have tried and failed. Similarly for
everything from premarital sex to driving carefully. The only possible
solution seems to be persuasion, particularly if you can tie the goal in
with sexual attractiveness. That always works.
------------------------------
Subject: Getting the ball rolling... (New Russian Leader)
Date: 20 Mar 85 21:38:32 PST (Wed)
From: "Tim Shimeall" < tim@uci-icsd>
Gorbachov seems to have experience mainly with the internal affairs of the
Soviet Union, principly their agricultural system. This is in marked
contrast to such past leaders as Andropov. True, the Soviet economy
is in dire straits, so this is probably the best choice at the current
time, but I would have expected a Gromiko to be selected, simply due
to his international role as the Soviet Union's foreign minister.
Now, I freely admit that I am FAR from an expert on the Soviet
Government and its internal affairs, so I would greatly welcome
an information (or opinion) on this subject.
Tim
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 85 08:35:57 PST
From: Richard Foy < foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
How about the budget as a topic. A Kiplinger News letter gave the budget in
terms of what I would pay with a typical middle class income. It follows.
Budget Spending (billions) What I Pay
Defense $285.7 $2715
Veterans 26.8 254
International 18.3 174
Science, space 9.3 88
Energy 4.7 44
Enviornment, resources 11.9 113
Agriculture 12.6 120
Commerce, housing 2.2 21
Transportation 25.9 246
Community development 7.3 70
Education, training,
social services 29.3 278
Social security 202.2 1922
Medicare 67.2 638
Health 34.9 332
Income security 115.8 1100
Justice 6.6 63
General gov't 5.2 50
Revenue sharing, etc. 2.8 27
Interest (net) 142.6 1355
Misc. receipts - 37.5 - 356
Totals $973.7 $9253
Notes: Social security and Medicare are in trust funds financed by payroll
taxes. The amount collected exceeds the amount paid out.
Income security includes about the same amount for government pensions
as it does for welfare type items.
One can see that there is no way out of the budget crunch. There are only
four items big enough to make a dent on the deficit and they are all sacred.
It seems to me that by the end of the current four year period we will be
well on our way to economic disaster.
What do the poli-sci's think is the answer?
richard
[this looks like an appropriate spot to insert the following graph:
2
|
|
|
1 |
|
/
/
----
0 --------------------------------
1800 1900 2000
^
You are here
The line of course represents the national debt in TRILLIONS. A trillion
is an amount that represents $4000 for each man, woman, and suckling babe
in the country. The graph, due to the "ascii blackboard", does not show
the really sharp turn taken in the past ten years correctly. The current
debt limit is $1.8T, shortly to be reached. This is more than half the GNP!
I don't think that there is any way out short of massive debt monetization.
And we all know what that means. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Thu 21 Mar 85 09:11:18-PST
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Put up your dukes!!
OK toads, I'm tired of not having anything to argue about! I will defend
any or all of the following outrageous positions against all comers:
1) Abortion should be legal at birth + or - nine months
2) The best defense policy would be to airlift to every soviet
citizen a Sears catalog and a gift certificate for $100, annually.
3) Limited slavery/indentured servitude should be legal.
4) All anti-discrimination laws relating to private businesses should
be repealed.
5) All government social welfare programs should be phased out in order
to reduce the incidence of poverty.
6) We should actively pursue genetic engineering in order develop superior
and/or specialized organisms.
7) There are sound biological reasons for many of the differences in social
position between men and women.
8) There is nothing wrong with incest, as long as you keep it in the
family.
9) Religious training should be banned for being detrimental to logical
thinking.
10) All age-based restricitions/rights should be eliminated in favor of
ability tests.
11) There is no free lunch.
I actually believe some, but not all, of these assertions, but I will
defend each of them (at least to a point). I would also like to hear
what's on other people's minds, but I *hate* falling asleep at the
terminal.
Hope I've tweaked at least a few!
TCS
------------------------------
Date: Sun 24 Mar 85 22:29:41-PST
From: Steve Dennett < DENNETT@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: Political "Logic"
Sometimes, when I read about the reactions of politicians (and their
bureacratic cronies) to information that doesn't support their biases, I
don't know whether to laugh or scream.
The recent example that has prompted this message relates to a law is
particularly aggravating to those of us living in the wide-open western
states. I refer to the federal 55 mph speed limit, now 10 years old. It
was the subject of a recent study by the National Research Council, which
found that:
- the speed limit is violated by 74% of the drivers on roads affected by it.
- the speed limit is primarily supported by those not affected by it (e.g.
Easterners and urbanites who rarely drive).
- the speed limit costs 50,000 man-years per year in wasted time (i.e.
about 700 lives/year).
- the speed limit theoretically saves 500 lives per year; but the drop in
deaths since the law was enacted can easily be attributed to the decline in
highway fatalities that has been recorded almost every year since 1928
(due mainly to safer cars, better road, etc.).
- the amount of gasoline saved is less than 1% of the U.S.'s total fuel
consumption.
Given this information, what did the NRC recommend? Why, keeping the law,
of course.
As a staff member of the House Committee that originally introduced the
bill put it, "There is nothing in the NRC report that indicates to the
committee that the 55 mph speed limit should be changed."
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Sat 30 Mar 85 Volume 5 Number 10
Contents: Sex
Gold
(got your interest now?)
Tarrifs
"For your own good"
other replies to TCF's "10-point plan"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 85 13:47:38 PST
From: Richard Foy < foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Savage dukes
Savages list of positions tempts me to respond to all of them. However I will
control myself and address the question of biological reasons for difference
in social position between men and women..
It is obivous to anyone who can step back from their personal investment to
see that the biological differences bewteen males and females supports a
difference in social position. However it is much more difficult to step back
from our cultural conditioning and take an honest look at what difference in
roles is actually supported by the biology. For example many think that our
recent system of the male being the breadwinner is biologically supported.
The anthropological data and archeological data supports an oppostite
conclusion.
I have read several books that make a biological argument for the double
secual standard. The best ethnographic studies that I have seen again
would support an opposite conclusion.
I think that it is only the last ten thousand years of evolutionary
history that would support our recent definition of roles.
PS. I don't know why Savage is so opposed to other forms of thinking than
the logical.
richard
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1985 17:21 EST
From: Dean Sutherland < Sutherland@TL-20A.ARPA>
Subject: Bank runs etc.
Those of you who have followed the Ohio Svaings and Loan closings may be
interested in the following.
For an excellent history of banking in the United States (with examples from
other countries) read "The Case For Gold" by Rep. Ron Paul and Lewis Lehrman.
The book is the minority report of the US Gold commission of a few years ago.
The authors purpose in writing the book was to convince the congress that the
US should be on a hard money standard.
Although their arguments on that front are not entirely convincing (ie. they
did not win me over to their position without reservation), their history of
banking and monetary policy will take what you thought you knew and set it on
its ear. Since what they had to say disagreed completely with what I learned
in school, I did a fair amount of extra reading on the subject and discovered
that their facts (and probably their interpretation) are entirely correct.
All in all a good read.
Dean F. Sutherland
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1985 16:51 EST
From: Dean Sutherland < Sutherland@TL-20A.ARPA>
Subject: Tariffs
Assertion: The US should unilaterally remove all tariffs, import restrictions,
import quotas etc. (By unilaterally, I mean regardless of whether any other
nation reciprocates)
Armed with a handy reference book which was recently lent to me, I will
undertake to defend this postion against all contenders.
Dean F. Sutherland
Sutherland@tartan.arpa
PS. I will send a pointer to the book via direct mail to anyone who requests
it
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 85 13:14:21 PST
From: Richard Foy < foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Government roles
I don't know the answer to Hank Walker's question on where do you draw the
line on government control. However I feel very strongly that passing such
laws as those mandating seat belts is the correct way of preventing him from
paying for the consequences of my not wearing them. The best way is to eliminate
laws which in effect requiare you to pay for my lack of responsibility, ie to
remove all government support for medical care. I truly believe that I am
bet prepared to take care of myself as are most people. The problem to me
is not defining the correct role of the government. Rather it is how do we
go from where we are to a system that makes more sense.
In other words simply abolishing various social legislation does not seem to
me to be too wise. I think rather we should start by abolishing legislation
which benefits the wealthy before we abolish legislation which protects the
poor. For example how about eliminating all professional licensing laws as
a step in that direction.
Ps I am not a libertarian. I tried it and didn't like it.
richard
[Indeed... perhaps you should (have?) read "The case against a Libertarian
Political Party" by Erwin Strauss, (editor of The Libertarian Connection")
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 85 15:24:09 PST
From: Richard Foy < foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Logic
I find Steve Dennett's logic not much better that the political logic he
complains about. He implies that the 50,000 man years wasted time 700 lives/
year is a greater loss than 500 deaths. That is, it is as bad to be driving
along on the freeway as it is to be dead. I doubt that many people would agree.
Most prisoners facing capital punishment seem to think that it is better to
be confined to a cell than to be executed. They would probably be evan more pleased to be driving. I know people that don't feel that
the time they spend on the highway is not wasted no matter what the speed.
With cellular phones the time spent in a car can become as productive as the
time spent in an office (at least if one believes the ads). In this view there
can be no comparison of the "wasted" time to the deaths.
I suggest that there is very little difference between politicians and
bureacratic cronies and reactions to information that doesn't support biases
than the rest of us. The only difference between people in congress and the
rest of us is that their biases are examined every two years or so by an
independant review board and if their biases are too far from acceptability
by the board they are fired by being voted out of office. I attended a town
hall meeting of my Congressman a few nights ago and I am forced to admit if
I am honest that he was probably the least biased person in the whole meeting,
including me.
richard
------------------------------
Date: Thu 28 Mar 85 16:55:51-PST
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: Age-based restrictions vs. ability tests
I'd like to see you defend 10. Ability tests sound fairer than
age-based restrictions, but I'd like to know how you deal with
the fact that younger people often tend to be less responsible
than older people. For example, a driving age is unnecessary
to determine ability to drive; we have driving tests for that.
A drinking age is also unnecessary to determine ability to drink.
But younger people are more likely to endanger other people's
lives by drinking and driving than older people are, so having
a high enough driving age, a high enough drinking age, or both,
can cut down on the number of people who are killed by other
people's recklessness and stupidity. I had rather a responsible
17-year-old could drink and drive, but not both at once, and a
50-year-old who insists on doing both at once be restricted. But
a drinking age of 21, unfair though it is, makes it less likely
that I or someone I love will be killed or maimed by a drunk driver,
so I support that unless someone has a better alternative which
will still reduce fatalities from drinking and driving.
It is even harder for me to think how one can measure whether
someone is responsible enough to raise a family, so I don't
know what you would replace the marriage age with.
Lynn
[Well, Terry promised to defend his position, but let me get a
snipe in first: Suppose you take your "but younger people are
more likely ..." (which is statistically true) and replaced
it with "but black people are more likely" (which is also statistically
true). How do you like the laws your own logic leads to now? --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Thu 28 Mar 85 17:52:20-PST
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: abortion and infanticide
I see two differences between killing before birth and killing
after birth.
1. Most of the characteristics that I see as valuable in other people,
which make their lives worth protecting to me, are characteristics
which are acquired by associating with other people. There is a
sharp distinction between a fetus and a baby which is no longer
in the womb; a fetus has had no opportunity to associate with
other people. A baby is not much different than a slightly
older baby, so I can't see any reason to draw a line at a
particular point.
2. Guaranteeing a fetus's right to life imposes a great burden on
the woman who has to carry it for nine months. None of us can
take that burden away from her, even if we were willing to
assume it ourselves. Babies, however, can be raised by someone
else, and there are many people eager to raise them. I am
willing to pay for the support of those babies who are unadoptable,
and I think there are enough people willing to pay, and enough
people willing to take care of them for money, that we could
care for them even if the government didn't force everyone to
pay. I can understand why it might be more painful for a
woman to bear a child and give it up for adoption than to
abort it before she had a chance to get attached to it, but
I can't see that the same applies if she has a choice between
killing a child and giving the same child up for adoption.
So there is no compelling reason to allow her to kill the
child, as there is to allow her to kill the fetus.
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 29 March 1985 00:57:22 EST
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: balancing the budget
What's the big deal? If you freeze dollar spending at current levels, you
balance the budget in 3.5 years. If you allow the budget to grow at
inflation minus 1%, you balance in 6 years, and if you fix the budget in
real terms, you balance in 8 years. This assumes a 4-5% inflation rate, 3%
real growth, and no tax cuts. The more drastic measure is like cutting $43B
a year from the existing budget for 3.5 years. That requires wholesale
hacking. The intermediate choice requires cutting about $9B a year for 6
years. That requires eliminating the non-essentials like revenue sharing,
mass transit aid, etc. That basically amounts to the Reagan budget minus
the real defense growth. The final choice is relatively easy. Some
programs like Social Security are growing faster than inflation due to the
increasing number of recepients. That can be counterbalanced by some minor
elimination of flab.
[Unfortunately, the political realities are such that not only will the
budget not be frozen, but actively added to. According to J Peter Grace
in "Burning Money" (which I highly reccomend), off-budget items account
for more than half what the govt actually spends, more than doubling the
$854 billion official figure. One quote:
"The median family income has increased from $3187 in 1948 to $24100
in 1983. Meanwhile, its tax burden has increased from $9 to $2218
(including Social Security, from $39 to $3833). In other words, while
its income has increased 7.6 times, its income taxes have gone up 246.4
times. And to balance the Federal Budget, we'd almost have to double
this tax burden."
--JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 2 Apr 85 Volume 5 Number 11
Contents: Age limits
Speed limits
Congressmen's bias
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Abolishing age limits
C: blows green road runners.
Date: 30 Mar 85 22:22:32 PST (Sat)
From: Mike (Praiser of Bob) Meyer < mwm%ucbtopaz.CC@Berkeley>
> I'd like to see you defend 10. Ability tests sound fairer than
> age-based restrictions, but I'd like to know how you deal with
> the fact that younger people often tend to be less responsible
> than older people. For example, a driving age is unnecessary
> to determine ability to drive; we have driving tests for that.
Ah, but you're assuming that the ability tested before you are issued a
license to drive is your ability to drive. If you tested the ability to
drive responsibly, everybody would be better off. Those who can drive
responsibly when young would be allowed to, and those who couldn't
drive responsible when older wouldn't be allowed to.
There's a nice, simple test for the ability to drive responsibly. I'll
leave that as an exercise for the reader :-).
> But younger people are more likely to endanger other people's
> lives by drinking and driving than older people are, so having
> a high enough driving age, a high enough drinking age, or both,
> can cut down on the number of people who are killed by other
> people's recklessness and stupidity.
It can be argued that driving while drunk is a good example that you
can't drive responsibly - so your license should be permanently
suspended. The simple test above solves this problem, without recourse
to such a radical course in the case of DWI.
As a side point, I'd rather worry about cutting down on people's
recklessness and stupidity than people being killed by other people's
recklessness and stupidity.
< mike
------------------------------
Date: 31 Mar 85 14:13:48 EST
From: Tim < WEINRICH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Age-based restrictions
Ohhhhh. JoSH, I am going to punch you straight in the nose.
For months, I have waited for some otherwise intelligent and reasonable
person to DARE to post a note on this list supporting the increased drinking
age. Now someone does and you steal my lines (nearly verbatim) in a footnote.
I am particularly sensitive on this issue since, working in a college
community, many of my friends happen to be under 21. One of them is 19, is
more mature and responsible than any 35-year-old I can think of, and I cant
go out for a drink with her because she's not 21. Others work for a peer
counselling center, listening to people cry on the telephone for 4 hours
with no pay and no thanks, and cant go out for a drink afterwards. Pretty
easy to dump on the young people now that you're over the hill, isnt it
Lynn?
Everyone knows that a big reason for the alcohol-related traffic fatalities
is the unwillingness of the judges to take away people's licenses once they've
been caught drinking and driving. (Not that they're unwilling to take away
the license of a 20-year-old. Oh no. Its only the 40-year-old in his
Cadillac who can do \real/ damage who gets to keep his license.) But since
a higher drinking age is easy to enforce, and since everybody knows those
kids dont wield the political clout to fight back, hey, why not?
Let's hope, Lynn, the statistics never start saying that women drivers
drink and drive too much.
Daz all for now. Replies to the list, please. Anyone who replies to me,
particularly with a pro-drinking-age note, definitely gets a copy of the
Interlisp manual or the New Jersey Driving Regulations (whichever is bigger)
in the mail.
Twinerik
[Sorry about that, old chap-- --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 85 09:00:38 PST
From: Richard Foy < foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Drinking and Driving
I don't ordinarily propose technical solutions for social problems. However,
the drinking and driving problem is one that can not be solved by sociological
approaches. Passing laws against behavior that is very widespread does not
change the behvavior it only changes peoples attitudes about the law. Witness
prohibition.
An instantaneous cababilities test such as a time limited code keyto start a
car would be much less intrusive than police road blocks etc, and far more
effective as well.
richard
[Actually, all the driving problems (including one never talked about,
namely the enormous amount of labor spent driving instead of other
productive pursuits (which 55 worsens)) have a technological fix.
It is an alternate transportation system(s). It would have to be as
flexible as the current one (unlike public trans), as safe, and as
cheap. I have a few ideas if anyone's interested. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 1 Apr 1985 09:09-PST
Sender: WARD@USC-ISIF.ARPA
From: Craig E. Ward < WARD@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
[Well, Terry promised to defend his position, but let me get a
snipe in first: Suppose you take your "but younger people are
more likely ..." (which is statistically true) and replaced
it with "but black people are more likely" (which is also statistically
true). How do you like the laws your own logic leads to now? --JoSH]
------------------------------
[This is a silly comment. Age is quantifiable, blackness is not. (Unless
you wish to get even sillier and measure the albedo of a person's skin).]
[That wasn't me, that was the message. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Return-Path: < WILKINS@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Date: Mon 1 Apr 85 09:33:14-PST
From: Wilkins < WILKINS@SRI-AI.ARPA>
Subject: speed limit
In reply to Foy:
Whether it's better to be dead than to spend your whole life driving is really
a red herring. The point is, that very little is saved by the lower speed
limit vs what is lost. In fact, extrapalation shows the lives are actually
saved by safer cars and roads and seatbelts, not by lower speeds.
And the majority of deaths involve drunk drivers, so work on that it you
really want to save lives. If you really think that a few possibly saved
lives is worth all of our extra time, then just lower the speed limit to
1 mph, no one will die, and who cares if it takes a year to drive across
the country, at least we'll be having more fun than if we are dead!!!!
So much fun I would hardly be able to stand it.
P.S. You seem to imply that driving at 55 while talking on the telephone
(or even more usefully, typing into your terminal thru its modem) is
preferable to driving at 70 while concentrating on your driving. I find that
hard to believe. I also don't intned to waste my time driving slower than I
want to (whenever I can get away with it).
David
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley
Date: 1 Apr 85 16:45:34 CST (Mon)
Subject: biases and leadership
> ... I attended a town
> hall meeting of my Congressman a few nights ago and I am forced to admit if
> I am honest that he was probably the least biased person in the whole meeting,
> including me.
Of course he was; he's had practice. Congressmen are not supposed to have
biases, or opinions, or ideas, or thoughts -- their job clearly is to lean
whichever way the wind blows, not to do something silly like standing up
for their principles (or their constituents' rights, or the Constitution,
or anything else that might displease some voter somewhere).
I once heard that the single thing that pleased Americans most about the
Grenada invasion was that Reagan had ordered it without taking a poll to
find out what his opinion should be. He was criticized for that, too.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 4 Apr 85 Volume 5 Number 12
Contents: Honest Oppression is Good for the Soul
Capable Congressmen
Black Is White?
Terry's Ten-Point Plan
Cars and Related Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: decvax!watmath!looking!brad@Berkeley
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 85 21:57:29 est
Subject: Could the strain of government be "good" for us?
As a solid free-enterprise, libertarian sort, I've always been opposed
to government intervention in the economy.
But I just had a horrible thought. It's well known that the most advanced
societies seem to emerge in areas of harsh climate (ie. cold) as opposed
to areas of warm climate. Is it possible that this huge government leech
that drains away at us is actually strengthening us by challenging us
and keeping us on our toes? While the good entrepreneur works as hard
as he can, many in society work only so hard as they have to. Could there
be something to this?
I don't like this idea but it is worthy of investigation.
[It is an interesting idea but I doubt it for several reasons:
- The more government a country has, all other things being equal,
the worse off it is in actual experience (eg. Communist ones).
- Temperate climes are actually better to live in than tropical
or polar ones. Try doing any hard work when it's 90 degrees out.
- The worst effects of government economic intervention are
concentrated on those who are least able to bear them. For the
poor, they make it easier to remain poor, and harder to become
self-sufficient.
Still, an interesting idea. Made me think. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 85 08:37:14 PST
From: Richard Foy < foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: bias and leadership
I was wondering what sort of comments my message about my Congressman's
town meeting would bring forth. I was not surprised. However this response
that Congressmen are trained not to have opinions etc does not fit the
facts of the meeting. The Congressman in question represents a district
which probably has more people working on the MX than any other district
in the country. However he clearly stated that he was going to vote against
the MX funding and clearly stated that he recognized that many of his
constiutents would be opposed.
We tend to use Conmgresspeople afor the whipping boys in our society.
When we do it distorts the reality. The problems with our system do
not result from the quality of our Congresspeople near as much as from
the quality of the thinking that goes into the electorate when they
enter the voting booth.
[Many, perhaps even most, of out congressmen are individually intelligent,
honest people. The problem is not the material, it's the design.
The political system is a lousy way of making collective decisions.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 2 Apr 1985 09:12-EST
From: Dick.King@Kestrel.ARPA
Subject: affirmative action
Why has there never been a court test of affirmative action based on
the fact that this country (to my knowledge) has no definition of
"black"? I'm about three shades darker than our Symbolics salesman;
he's black, I'm white.
Dick
------------------------------
Date: Wed 3 Apr 85 14:59:54-PST
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Murphy wins again
It figures. When I've got time on my hands, the list is dead. When it
is revived, I'm busy as hell!
Josh (and others): feel free to defend my positions without waiting
for me! If there is debate, the purpose has been served. I'll be sure to
cover the orphan positions, however!
TCS
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 85 08:30:28 PST
From: Richard Foy < foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Transportation
I would be very interested in hearing some of JoSH's ideas on technological
fixes to the transportation problem.
[I received several private letters to the same effect.
"Now here's my plan:"
If we assume that the average car last 100,000 miles, and that
its average speed is 40 mph, and the average hour is worth $5,
the time spent driving it is worth $12,500, and you should be willing
to spend any amount less than that to regain the time.
(Aside: if the government *mandated* car improvements at this
cost for all cars, it would constitute a net gain for those
whose time was worth more than $5/h, and a net loss for those
whose time was worth less--in effect, a massive "value redistribution"
program from poor to rich (as indeed so many such programs are).
In the market, the rich would buy it while it was still new and
expensive (and worth it to them) and everybody else would wait till
later on down the learning curve.)
Public transportation has several disadvantages compared to private
cars which makes it unsuitable for consideration. First, use of
public transportation involves a considerable extra time penalty,
which offsets the fact of not having to drive; second, the atmosphere
on most trains and buses is not very conducive to productive work
(reading a newspaper is about as good as you can expect to do);
third, a public transportation system must necessarily rely on
a secondary system for station-to endpoint connections.
Here are the features of private cars that we should strive to retain:
(a) point-to-point. If you're taking luggage, or even just a briefcase,
coat, and umbrella, the fewer times you have to "change" the better.
and there's no waiting or missed connections. If indeed we want to work
(or even just play chess) on the way, interruptions would be annoying.
(b) Where you want, when you want. Public trans offers service to
a limited number of places at a limited number of times. With my
schedule, forget it.
(c) tailorability. The range of money you can spend on a private
car is wide, depending on how much you're willing to pay. You can
get a station wagon for a large family, a pickup for a farm, a
secondhand econobox if you're a student, a new caddy if you're
an executive type, a european coupe if you're a yuppie.
(d) economy. You may not believe this; look it up: cars are the least
expensive form of transportation per passenger mile outside of buses.
More on buses later.
There are at least three features of cars you'd like not to keep, if
possible:
(1) driving--time lost, as noted above.
(2) accidents--particularly the drunk driving dilemma wherein
in order to stay safe, you have to give up something else
you would rather have been able to do
(3) parking. A large complex such as this Rutgers campus suffers
from having to stick huge parking lots between the buildings;
even so, it can be a hike from the spot you eventually find.
Not to mention the time lost finding it.
The obvious "technological fix" solution to these problems is
robot-driven cars. However, the state of the art isn't up to
producing a robot driver I would trust to drive me--and I'm more
trusting of robots than most.
My best idea on the subject is to make the job easier on the
robot. Rail suggests itself. A car running on rails isn't
very hard to steer--the problem changes from a completely open
AI project to count-the-exits-and-engage-the-turn-mechanism.
The mechanism can be any of several simple mechanical schemes.
The level of instrumentation on a "base" car would have to be
only a distance sensor for the car in front (and unexpected
obstructions) and a bar code reader for "signs".
An alternative suggestion is buried cables. I resist it because
cables are considerably less failsafe/robust than rails. Further,
light rail track and so forth can ultimately be built in modular
units in factories and laid at a cost considerably lower than
roads. My scheme calls for a completely passive road system;
I think that would be the safest and most "robust", especially
considering the level of maintenance some roads tend to get!
Rail would be be considerably more durable than asphalt, also.
In considering a complete system, the advantages are clear-cut.
Everyone can own their own cars, and all the advantages of private
vehicles remain. Virtually everywhere we drive is paved; it
would be as cheap for it to have been "railed" instead. And
remember, pavement needs to be redone every ten years or less...
Let's consider the disadvantages:
(1) time: You are essentially sitting in a private office in
which you are completely free to work or amuse yourself.
You just punch in the destination and look up when you arrive.
(2) safety: Let's divide this point up:
-- No drunk, sleepy, or woolgathering drivers
-- the cars on the road would all move at an exact,
prescribed speed (and who would care?) and in general
use more sensible driving algorithms than most people do.
-- Weather is less of a problem. Visibility isn't critical,
and you don't slide off wet or icy roads. the "driver"
is programmed to overcompensate for increased stopping times.
-- If you wish, the seats can face backwards, a safer configuration.
(3) parking: Here's the really cute one: Your car drops you off
at work *and goes back home*; at a fixed time (or when you call up
with your remote control beeper) it comes and picks you up.
Alternatively (I live too far for the first to be economical),
it bops over to a nearby parking emporium (a mile or two away, say).
Would you trust a bunch of robot cars tooling around by themselves?
Cars like we have now, no way. But when the cars are *physically
constrained* to stay on the rails and that's easy to see, I'd be
a lot readier to accept it. We could require them to be serviced/
inspected more often--but they could do that automatically.
Well, that's a start-- comments welcome. I haven't touched on
"getting there from here" and I never got back to buses. More
in a future issue. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 2 Apr 1985 08:59-EST
From: Dick.King@Kestrel.ARPA
Subject: lost hours equated with lost lives
I have a little problem with arguments of the form "X costs N hours per
day, equivalent to N' lives". The problem is that people's utility
functions don't work like that.
Suppose I offer each of you a drug, one dose of which will eliminate
your need for sleep for the rest of your life, and which allows you to
be as alert at 3AM as at 3PM. There is no side effect but one: one
quarter of the people who take the drug die promptly. If you live for
fifteen minutes you're home free!
In terms of expected number of hours lost, the drug is a big win.
Okay, how many of you are queueing up for this drug?
This is not to be confused with arguments of the form "each life saved
costs so many dollars" because typically the dollar cost is taxpayer
money. This has two consequences: the beneficiary does not necessarily
have a claim on your resources, and if you believe that the government
should be in the safety business you must want them to do what is most
cost effective.
Meanwhile I am sitting in my office pining for the first reports of a
defense against a traffic lawsuit based on the fact that the injured
plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt. Especially in states that have a
seatbelt law such an act ought to be contributory negligence.
[Josh: is it true that New Jersey purposely passed a seat belt law that
just barely had a small enough fine that New Jersey wouldn't be counted
among the states having a seat belt law for the purpose of determining
whether the country needed airbags?]
[I don't know why they did it the way they did, but (a) the fine is $20
and (b) you can't be stopped for seatbelt violation (ie, you can only
be ticketed if you're stopped for something else).
Re your wager above: since I sleep about 6 hrs a night, your pill
doesn't look like such a hot deal. If you said 1% mortality I'd
take it like a shot. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 2 Apr 85 13:57:49 EST
From: Mike < ZALESKI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Teenagers, booze, and the cursed 55 MPH limit
Let me start by quoting a few amusing quotes:
"He uses statistics the way a drunkard uses a lampost - for
support rather than illumination."
"Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive
but what they conceal is vital."
Sorry I don't have the soucres offhand, but will mail them to
anyone who asks.
Let's look at teenagers and drunk driving. While it may be true
that teenagers may have more drunk driving accidents than the public
at large, it is also true that more than 95 percent of all teenagers
have NO alcohol related accidents. The news media loves headlines
like "TEEN DRUNK DRIVING DEATHS DOWN 42% IN NJ", not "TEEN DRUNK
DRIVING DEATHS FALL FROM 24 to 13 LAST YEAR". Given this, I am
uninclined toward supporting either a drinking age of any sort or
even the current drunk driving crackdown. However, my feelings on
this issue are completely emotional and unrelated to any of these
"facts" or "statistics". That is, even if teen drunk driving resulted
in 240 or 2400 deaths per year in New Jersey, I would still think the
whole idea of a drinking age/drunk driving crackdown was more fluff
than substance. I simply don't preceive the risk of my suffering
because of an alcohol and/or teenager related accident to be as
great as the risk of my suffering being delayed at a roadblock or
the general sense of concern I get every time the government gives
itself more power by taking it away from the people. I also believe
that every other submission on this subject (55 limit too) are
looking for intellectual/statistical evidence to support their
emotional desire to drink with their friends or generally do as
they wish without being hassled.
Two side points:
* Teen suicide is supposedly at very high levels - whatever that
means - today. I wonder if some of the teen drinking/accident
scenes, particularly single car accidents, are really suicides
or suicide attempts. Typically men chose this kind of flashy
way to die.
* Another oft-quoted statistic is that after 7 or 8 PM, one in ten
drivers is drunk. Well, if this is true, the only conclusion I
can draw is that drunk driving must not be very dangerous, otherwise
we would surely have slaughter on the highways. Yet, driving
around at all times of day or night I rarely see accidents, but
frequently see police pulling people over for speeding on open
highways.
This second side point brings me to the 55 MPH limit. A recent
submission to Poli-Sci was complaining about a recent report
prepared for the government which concluded that 55 MPH was good
despite the fact that there was no real evidence to support it.
First, it should be realized that this is a motherhood issue -
whenever you mention savings of lives, most people become completely
incapable of thinking. Second, it should be kept in mind that
the report did justify its conclusion. The 55 limit does save
lives (even with a person-years tradeoff for wasted time in the car),
does save gas, does save on wear and tear on the car, and so on.
The issue here is whether it saves enough. And this is where I
again see people trying to use facts and figures to support their
emotional desire to go fast. The fact is that myself, and I suspect
all my fellow speeders out there, precieve ourselves to be good
drivers, unlikely to have an accident, and are unwilling to be
inconvenienced by having to travel more slowly. In short, I don't
care, and I suspect most other hard core anti-55 people don't care,
whether or not raising the limit would result in thousands or tens
of thousands more dead per year. I certainly don't care about
wasting a few more cents per tank on gas, and extra wear and
tear on the car bothers me not. In short, arguing with this report
is rather silly, as the average speeder doesn't care about any of
the things it addresses.
Of course, Poli-Sci wouldn't be much fun if people didn't offer
reasons for their emotionally based political views.
-- Mike^Z Zaleski@Rutgers [allegra!, ihnp4!] pegasus!mzal
PS: If any of you anti-55 people are interested, I'll send you
a copy of a letter which I sent to a number of car magazines,
as well as USENETS's net.auto complaining about the 55 limit,
the way the automotive press has covered it, and suggesting a
serious and legal counterattack against it. Car&Driver published
a small excerpt of this letter a few months ago. -- MZ
------------------------------
Date: Tue 2 Apr 85 14:46:08-PST
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: drinking age
Actually, it is not as easy for me to argue for an increased drinking
age as you might think. I was under 21 only a few years ago, and I
drank in moderation and never drank and drove at anywhere close to the
same time. And I resented the blanket restriction on the behavior of
young people, including many responsible ones, which a drinking age of
21 imposes. What changed my mind was not my 21st birthday, but the
experience of having someone I loved a great deal killed by a drunk
driver. Rotten and unfair though it is to be forbidden to drink just
because you are under 21, it is more rotten to lose someone you love
to a drunk driver, and I think it is enough more rotten that I had
rather see a nationwide drinking age of 21 than the current situation.
In the first place, having different drinking ages in different states
encourages people to drink in a different state and drive back (of
course, that problem could also be solved by a national drinking age
of 18), and in the second place statistics show fewer fatalities in
car accidents when the drinking age is 21 than when it is 18.
On the comparison between restricting blacks and restricting young
people, I see two differences. One is that young people usually grow
up, and so get to experience both treatments at different times. So
the unfairness seems less than the unfairness of imposing restrictions
on someone for his/her lifetime. The second is that I think the
differences between the behavior of blacks and whites are much more
variable depending on how we treat these groups than the difference
between young and old, which I see as being partly imposed on us by
our biology.
My reason for arguing for an increased drinking age, though, was not
so much to persuade people that it is good as to see if it would
provoke people to come up with a better solution. I think that a
technical solution to this problem would be the ideal fix, and a test
for driving responsibly would be better than an age limit. But I
don't know how either of these would work. I would be happy to hear
of such fixes from people who know of them, and I had rather support
them than an increased drinking age. But I still feel that a drinking
age of 21, obnoxious though it is, is less obnoxious than having more
people killed due to drunk driving.
In response to the comment that it is better to prevent recklessness
and stupidity than to prevent people being killed due to other
people's recklessness and stupidity, I talked only about the people
who were killed due to other people's recklessness mainly to avoid the
response that I should look at deaths of drunk drivers as evolution in
action. But I do think that protecting people from other people
should be a higher priority in making laws than protecting people from
themselves.
Lynn
------------------------------
Date: Tue 2 Apr 85 23:07:43-PST
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: drinking age
The simplest test I can think of myself is asking the person whether
he or she would drink and drive, but I seriously doubt you could get
an honest answer. Making sure people knew intellectually about the
dangers of drinking and driving might be useful, but they could still
behave irresponsibly. The best I can think of would be either to
have people show that they have been responsible about alcohol
before they are allowed to drive or make them show that they have
driven responsibly before they are allowed to drink.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 16 Apr 85 Volume 5 Number 13
Contents: Elections
Tariffs
Cars
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 85 17:44:39 EST
From: Will Martin < wmartin@BRL-TGR.ARPA>
Subject: The Indiana Election Debacle
Sending this from another machine since my host is down right now;
real return address is "wmartin@almsa-1".
Anybody have any REAL information about what is going on with the
endless recounts in the Indiana congressional election that has resulted
in the non-representation of that district and all the foofaraw about
the contest?
I am bewildered as to how even marginally competent people can come
up with varying counts each time they recount the votes. Also, I have
never seen, in print or TV news stories about this issue, any details
on the methods used in this district for voting (and counting those votes).
Here in St. Louis (MO) city, we have moved from voting machines to punch-card
ballots during the past decade or so. Therefore, I find it hard to
visualize what makes so many of the ballots the Indiana people are counting
to be subject to "challenge" or some sort of verification or authentication
process. Are these actual "mark an X in the box" paper ballots? If so,
do large numbers of voters scrawl on them with crayons or otherwise
make them invalid? Here, the only thing I can imagine doing to "invalidate"
my ballot is to vote for more than one candidate for the same office
(or more than the number allowed if a slate is being elected). Even that
would probably invalidate my ballot only as regards the voting for that
particular office, not the whole election (I suppose this -- is this the
"standard" situation, or does one screw-up void the whole ballot?).
So what conditions exist in this disputed Indiana election that make
the recounts vary, and on what grounds are ballots being challenged?
I must say that this sort of situation supports my long-standing and
oft-expressed view that simple majorities are NOT sufficient to
elect a person or enact legislation -- I always thought that
much higher percentages should be required -- like 75 to 90% support.
But I don't expect this to ever happen...
Will Martin
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1985 11:28 EST
From: Dean Sutherland < Sutherland@TL-20A.ARPA>
Subject: Tariffs
This is impossible!! The ENTIRE readership of Poli-Sci must agree with me!
With such widespread agreement we can obviously expect the end of all tariffs
and import controls within the year. :-)
Dean F. Sutherland
sutherland@tartan
[I echo your sentiments--perhaps the Poli-sci readership should be made
the governing body of the nation. They couldn't do much worse a job
than the Congress... --JoSH]
[ps--re trade deficits: I never understood how it was considered a bad
thing for the country to be in a position where (say) the Japanese
send us loads of cars, appliances, clothes, etc, and we send them
pieces of green paper. Especially since, if you're so fond of green
paper (and who isn't?), we still seem to have more of it here than
when we started. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Thu 4 Apr 85 10:55:02-PST
From: Andy Freeman < ANDY@SU-SCORE.ARPA>
Subject: 55 cellular phones
From: Richard Foy < foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
With cellular phones the time spent in a car can become as productive
as the time spent in an office (at least if one believes the ads). In
this view there can be no comparison of the "wasted" time to the
deaths.
Cellular phones by definition have a very limited range; I think the
maximum is 10 miles although it may be less. (The reason is that this
allows more efficient use of the radio spectrum while cutting the cost
of the mobile units.) It's not feasible to install the necessary
concentration of radio-telephone links outside urban centers.
The speed limit is not nearly as great a factor in determining traffic
speed in urban areas as it is in rural and suburban ones. Even if you
believe the ads, cellular phones only work for people who aren't
really affected by speed limits. The 700 lives worth of wasted time
are spent by people who won't have that option. They are spent by
people who don't really have other things to do during that time.
(How much time can a cellular phone save a long distance trucker?)
I don't want someone driving and talking on the phone; it's bad enough
that they read the paper, eat, and shave or put on makeup. What's
next, showers?
I find it hard to believe that beepers are really justified (apart
from ego reasons) in most cases. Cellular phones are overkill. I can
hardly wait for mobile video conferencing. After someone installs a
file cabinet, workstation and modem in a car, the only unique purpose
that the private office serves is adjacency to other offices. At that
point, why not have meetings and do business on the road?
sigh,
-andy
------------------------------
Date: Thu 4 Apr 85 21:33:51-PST
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: josh's technical solution
There is one other disadvantage to robots replacing people driving
cars: some people enjoy driving cars fast. For these people, maybe
it would help to keep around a few highways which they could visit
like ski resorts. I'm sure someone could make a profit doing this,
if an alternative transportation system like Josh's had replaced
cars. Since driving cars would then be a sport engaged in by people
who didn't mind the risk, there would be no need to worry about things
like roadblocks for those of us who do mind the risk. I don't know
enough about robots to know how good they are at driving cars, but
I like the idea if we could manage somehow to implement it.
Lynn
[Let me add a note here--I got a personal reply or two indicating
someone thought I was advocating a rail system with centralized
switching (or at least active elements in the rail system) like
railroads have. I wasn't, although perhaps that was a reasonable
interpretation of what I said. One can build switches in which
the roadway is completely passive--indeed I have a sketchy design
for a car-portion of the switchery that automatically shunts the
car off the road if its power fails. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Thu 4 Apr 85 22:29:34-PST
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: statistics and drunk driving
I don't really care about the statistics, except insofar as they
can be used to evaluate various ways of trying to discourage
drunk driving. What I care about is that one of those people
who died was Brian, and that I can never again hear his laugh
or debate politics and religion with him or hold him in my arms.
I know that drunk driving has hurt me more than any of the
proposed solutions ever will, and I don't want to be hurt that
way again. If I ever see a man I love die again, I want it to
be after a full life, not run over at the age of 24 because some
moron had to have his fun drinking and playing tag with his girl
friend, and never thought of the consequences.
Lynn
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 85 11:13 MST
From: "James J. Lippard" < Lippard@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA>
Subject: drinking age
Date: Tue 2 Apr 85 14:46:08-PST
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
...
statistics show fewer fatalities in
car accidents when the drinking age is 21 than when it is 18.
...
That depends on whose statistics you look at. A study "The Effect of
Minimum Drinking Age Legislation on Youthful Auto Fatalities, 1970-1977"
by Philip J. Cook of Duke University found that fatalities for those
between 18 and 20 were higher in areas with drinking ages of 21 than
areas with a drinking age of 18. "Death and the Legal Drinking Age: A
Tri-State Study" by Michael Birkley found that Wisonsin (drinking age
18) had considerably lower alcohol-related fatalities per capita than
neighboring states Illinois and Michigan (drinking age 21). (Source:
Reason Magazine, May 1984, "Prohibition for the Younger Set?" by Rex R.
Reed. The article also mentions other studies which have opposite
findings.)
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 18 Apr 85 Volume 5 Number 14
Contents: Car Wars
Star Wars
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 85 22:06:11 pst
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
Subject: RailCars
I'd like to put in my approval of JoSH's idea for rail cars by pointing
out a significant advantage of the proposal: incrementality. The idea is that
wholesale, consensual, cooperative change is unlikely in the absence of the
following conditions:
-- users of the old method can continue to use it
-- the extent of the change is proportional to the number of people
endorsing it.
-- using the new method is reasonable even in the absence of a complete
changeover, the new method wins.
-- users of the new method can continue to use the old method.
The reason these conditions are necessary is that, if the success of a
move depends on everybody cooperatively making the same move, then nobody
will go first. The only amendment to JoSH's plan is to introduce convertible
cars: once the rail line runs out, they can run on regular streets.
The plan has an obvious, profitable first step: commute corridors. I
live a few miles from a major corridor to San Francisco which is reliably
choked with commute traffic. Imagine the salutory effect on these drivers
of watching RailCars zooming by overhead (I already know the salutory effect
of them watching cars zoom by in the carpool lane: they stop at bus stops
to pick up extra passengers). To spend even the zoom time reading,
playing cards provides extra motivation. Once you have
enough converted cars, then building lines to serve them becomes sensible
and attractive. Eventually, cities will convert to installing RailCar
lines rather than paving street, assuming the former is cheaper, providing
still more motivation to convert.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that it is a major point in its favor that
JoSH's plan doesn't depend for its viability on people converting from one
transport system to another, wholesale. The conversion could be quite
elegant and speedy, under the right conditions.
Steve U.
[Thanks for the vote of confidence--My friends and I who dreamed it
up (one of whom is an engineer with the NJ Dept of Trans, of all things)
just like to kick ideas like this around as mental recreation. I really
do think this one could work under the right circumstances...--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 85 11:30 pst
From: "diverse-diaz desiree%c.mfenet"@LLL-MFE.ARPA
Subject: Strategic Defense Initiative
Thoughts, anyone ? This is being discussed now ( to a limited extent )
in SF-LOVERS. I haven't formed a definite opinion yet.
Desiree'
[Let me interject a butinsky remark first: please don't send any
political-type arguments of the form "SDI is good (bad); it will
(not) work; it is (un)stabilizing; etc" since that is going on
at great length on the ARMS-D list where you are welcome to read it.
It would be of great interest to speculate on, for example, the
possible effects of such things on the nation-state organization
of the world political system (it was not always thus and won't
always be thus). Could a pre-eminence of defense over offense
cause a re-emergence of the feudal system? --JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 25 Apr 85 Volume 5 Number 15
Contents: Drinking age
Defenses
Railcars
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed 17 Apr 85 18:09:33-PST
From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: drinking age
[Suppose you take your "but younger people are
more likely ..." (which is statistically true) and replaced
it with "but black people are more likely" (which is also statistically
true). How do you like the laws your own logic leads to now? --JoSH]
After JoSH made this remark (regarding drinking age restrictions), several
comments appeared as to why blacks were a separate case from youth. I
disagree. I think the only difference, as someone has already stated, is
political clout. So here are my rebuts:
Craig E. Ward < WARD@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
[This is a silly comment. Age is quantifiable, blackness is not. (Unless
you wish to get even sillier and measure the albedo of a person's skin).]
Even assuming blackness is not quantifiable (and I can think of a few
ways to quantify it), how does that relate to the point under
discussion? Height is quantifiable; would you support discrimination
against short people? Or skinny people? Or ones who had less than
500 hairs in each eyebrow? And before you take exception to my use of
the word "discrimination", that is exactly what we're talking about.
Making a decision about an entire class of people you haven't
met/examined individually is discrimination, even when there's
statistical evidence for your decision.
Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
On the comparison between restricting blacks and restricting young
people, I see two differences. One is that young people usually grow
up, and so get to experience both treatments at different times. So
the unfairness seems less than the unfairness of imposing restrictions
on someone for his/her lifetime.
I don't see how discrimination with an expiration date is
significantly better than indefinite discrimination. Suppose the
government decided tomorrow to take away women's rights, "but don't
worry, you can have them again in 20 years". And as for "getting to
experience both treatments", I don't need to have a 16-ton weight
dropped on me to know I wouldn't like it, and I doubt I'd benefit by
the experience.
The second is that I think the
differences between the behavior of blacks and whites are much more
variable depending on how we treat these groups than the difference
between young and old, which I see as being partly imposed on us by
our biology.
Actually, my experience and stories related to me by others tells me
that most people, adults as well as youth, behave more responsibly
when others treat them as responsible people. I've read some books on
child development which indicate that long before the age of majority,
children have all the mental and social capabilities of an adult.
What they lack is experience, so that they make mistakes more often.
But any adolescent is capable of understanding the *issues* involved
in responsible driving and drinking. I'll agree, many of them don't
act responsibly, but some do, and you still haven't convinced me that
the drinking age is anything less than discrimination.
Perhaps a minimum drinking age lessens the number of deaths caused by
drunk driving. But likely so would any restrictions made on drinking,
against blacks, whites, or left-handed golfers; fewer drinkers means
(almost certainly) fewer drunk drivers. Heck, prohibition (or
abolition of autos) would be the most effective change. But these
aren't practical or desirable. I'd much rather see us try to cut down
on drunk driving by some means which treats all individuals equally
than to do it by restricting a larger and larger segment of the
population until the ones who are left are satisfied with the
statistics.
annette
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 85 08:34:02 PST
From: Richard Foy < foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Star Wars
I recently reaad an interesting article about a change in military capability
which occurred about 1000AD. It was the advent of fortified sturctures on top
of man made mounds. This shifted the advantage to defense. Politically it
changed the world from one of large empires like the Ceasers, the Persians,
Charlemagne etc to one of the local small size kingdoms and baronies etc.
That is the strong central ruler no longer could control outlying sub units
of the empire.
I don't know what if anything this history has sto do with something like
star wars but I find it interesting to contemplate.
[This is exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of. I doubt if the
ballistic missle defenses currently planned for the SDI would be
that kind of thing, but who knows what may appear? --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 18 April 1985 19:21:07 EST
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: defense and the Middle Ages
Middle ages defenses had the property that they worked over a short range.
You couldn't stray too far from the castle or walled city and still be able
to run back. This led to isolated clumps of people. Perfect defense on a
continental scale is very different. The US found itself essentially
invulnerable to serious attack until maybe WWII, 1960 at the latest. This
encouraged isolationism. If we had a force shield covering the US, we might
again become isolationist. There's plenty we'd like to ignore. But this
won't happen because we live with a global economy. We can't exist
independently without significant modification to our lifestyle.
If every country was invulnerable to attack, then the world balance would be
radically changed. The second world would become part of the third world.
Economic competition would cause inefficient economic systems to eventually
disappear. Real economic warfare can't happen. Embargos don't work. As
mentioned above, attempts to reduce imports hurt the instigator in the long
run. In economic warfare, the defense has the advantage. An example is the
selective quota or tariff. Who is in a more vulnerable position right now,
Japan or the US?
------------------------------
Date: Wed 17 Apr 85 22:49:23-EST
From: Bard Bloom < BARD@MIT-XX.ARPA>
> . . . Could a pre-eminence of defense over offense
> cause a re-emergence of the feudal system?
That's a rather odd question. I'm no expert on the feudal system, but I
don't think that it was predominantly defensive; for example, feudal Europe
managed to mount an impressive number of Crusades, to say nothing of a large
collection of internal wars. If you were a peasant, you might be happy that
your liege would defend you against raiders. But higher-level lords used
their feudal ties to get large armies for the trashing of their enemies.
The anthropological essence of a feudal system is the collection of personal
ties binding liege lord to vassal, with a large collection of mutual
obligations. (I don't know the computer science essense.) The system was
intensely personal: your obligations were to people -- admittedly, people
holding specific roles.
I rather doubt that anything as minor as Star Wars could turn our intensely
impersonal political structure to a personal one. Our system of social
classes is based more or less on wealth and education, which wouldn't change
easily into one based on personal ties to single people.
But the general question, what might Star Wars do to society, is well worth
discussing. The threat of nuclear war has done a number of interesting
things to Americans. I think that there was an experiment recently by some
sixth-grade teachers, telling their classes that the USSR had declared war
and that there was conventional fighting in Europe -- I don't remember the
details, but they were 'way short of the Soviets dropping bombs. The
students were stunned and shocked, as if the world was about to end; some of
them considered suicide very seriously (unless it is my memory that has
died), and so forth. I'm curious about the effects of suddenly removing
this tension from the American people -- or, if Star Wars dies, of holding
out the hope of removing it and then leaving it there.
Ideas, anyone?
Bard ``The MathAnthrope''
[Oh, I disagree. The Middle Ages were extremely shaped by the defensive
art. Not only the castle (see Foy's letter above), but the knights
themselves were the product of a defensive technology. The suit of
armor was (a) effective and (b) expensive, which together helped form
the professional warrior class. (Gigantic battles of thousands of
knights could end with ten or twenty being killed--there was a reason that
war was more readily considered glorious...) The advent of the cannon
and longbow (the effective musket came later) caused the change in
political forms. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 85 08:28:20 PST
From: Richard Foy < foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Car Wars
I like the rail car idea. However I also like riding the cable cars in San
Francisco. I have enjoyed riding the subways in Paris, Mexico City, Tokyo,
Lodon etc. So I would like to see the system allow for a combination of
indivual cars and group cars. I also think that one should factor in the
possible effects of e mail etc on the dynamics and design of any
transportation system.
[Vehicles-for-hire of all sizes could roam the streets in all sorts
of guises, ie, scheduled, on call, or "cruising for fares". Drivers
would not be necessary. The major impediment to this would the same
as the major impediment to public transportation now: regulation
by local government. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Tue 23 Apr 85 10:35:14-EST
From: DINGMAN@RADC-TOPS20.ARPA
Subject: Re: "Railcars"
I certainly support the concept of railcars, and have seen some good
comments in this digest so far. Allow me to interject some thoughts.
About five or six years ago I looked at this idea in some detail (I'm
not sure what prompted it, probably a cover on Popular Science or something)
and thought it was an excellent solution for driving moderate to long
distances. I had also thought of using convertible cars for optimum
efficiency and flexibility. This solves one problem I had seen. If
railcars must remain on the rails, people don't get to keep them by their
side. Ever notice how much time we spend trying to find a parking place
as close as possible to our destination (e.g., office, store)? It's
not primarily because people are lazy, it's because we always want our
car close by, like cowboys and their horses. I believe there is a
real psychological desire to always have ones personal vehicle within
'reach', mostly because of the independence it offers. Convertible cars
handle that quite well.
Another problem, however, I don't see an easy solution to, but then
I'm not an engineer. JoSH mentioned a plan to allow cars to be shunted off
the railway if power fails. Along the same lines is if an occupant wants
to get off the track quickly. If you've ever travelled with children you
know that they are much more susceptible to carsickness than adults. Of
course there are many possible emergencies which may require stopping.
How do you provide infinite stopping points along a route? Must a shoulder
be built alongside every railway? This would be as expensive to maintain
as a road, though not as expensive as a heavily travelled highway.
Another arena of thought is power sources. I would not want to use
my gas on a railway, and shouldn't have to. Induction motors, mag relays,
electric motors, or even turbines are good sources of power (how about
nuclear?).
If a system allows me to drive from my house to some point five or so
miles away, hop on a track and have the luxury of hands-off driving,
combined with moderately good speeds for the next 30+ miles, I'm sold.
Plus I save my gas! Since we already have toll roads in this country,
I don't believe people would mind all that much a usage fee, if it is
more economical than current gas prices.
Finally, several years ago I heard some polititian suggested building
monorails on the grass median strips found between opposing lanes of
most interstates. This would be much cheaper than landscaping for new
track. Perhaps this would be the ideal place for the railcars,
making the integration of them and conventional travel easier.
Hope to see more on this topic.
-- "JD" (Dingman@RADC-20.ARPA)
[I have to disagree on two points. I opine that people DO park close
because they're lazy, and not because the car is a security blanket.
In fact, in my experience, people most proud of their shiny new cars
tend to park far away (in less-used areas) to reduce the likelihood
of doornicks.
Second, I dislike a powered rail system as being dangerous and
failure-prone. For use in cities it might be more efficient, but
I think that for long distances the transmission inefficiencies
mount up. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: RailCars
Date: 24 Apr 85 10:39:02 PST (Wed)
From: Martin D. Katz < katz@uci-icse>
A decade ago, Jet Propulsion Lab. was studying a people-mover type concept.
The cars were publicly owned, but each trip was individually routed. They
cited privacy as a major advantage.
The cars were to be about the size of a van and ride about 5 feet apart on
top of a rail. There were to be flat-bed cars for which could carry freight
or a private auto (for people commuting beyond the end of the line). A
prototype track and a few cars were built. I think that the project was
cancelled because of the backlash due to the difficulties with BART.
Does anybody have any further information?
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 30 Apr 85 Volume 5 Number 16
Contents: Drinking age
Railcars
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 25 April 1985 13:52:05 EST
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: drinking age
Of course setting a drinking age is "discrimination," just like any other
restriction based on some attribute not shared by everyone. I'm repeating
myself, but I again point out that we have all sorts of ages of
responsibility. You can't drive until 16, you can't consent to sex until
13-16, you can't get married without parental permission until 16-17, you
can't become a Congressman until 25, or President until 35. You can't rent
a car until 18 with a credit card, and 25 without one. Etc. Etc. Not all
of these restricts are set in laws, but I believe all of them have been
upheld as constitutional. Note that the public office ages are explicit in
the Constitution.
------------------------------
Date: Thu 25 Apr 85 17:22:34-PST
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: Drinking age
I think my point about people being able to experience both treatments
was misunderstood. It has nothing to do with knowing how it would
feel. If my household had only enough hot water for one shower a day,
it would be fairer for each person to go without a shower one day and
get one the next than for half the people to go without any showers at
all. In the same way, it is fairer for every person to not be allowed
to drink for some period of time and be allowed to drink for some
period of time than for some people to never be allowed to drink and
some to be allowed to drink all the time. This would be truer if it
were certain days of the week on which no one could drink, rather than
certain ages, because not everyone lives to every age. But I still
think it is fairer to restrict everyone at some age than some people
at every age.
What sort of restrictions on everyone would you suggest as an
alternative to age restrictions?
Lynn Gazis
------------------------------
Date: Thu 25 Apr 85 17:30:43-PST
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: more drinking age
I just thought of an alternative to a uniform national drinking age;
people could have to prove in-state residence to buy alcohol. Then
there would be no incentive to drive across the state border to drink,
since it is just as easy to fake your age on an ID as to fake your
residence.
Lynn Gazis
------------------------------
Date: 26 Apr 85 16:46 EST
From: Turner.wbst@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Drinking age discrimination
Re:
[Suppose you take your "but younger people are
more likely ..." (which is statistically true) and replaced
it with "but black people are more likely" (which is also
statistically
true). How do you like the laws your own logic leads to now?
--JoSH]
The debate over whether or not setting a drinking age constitutes
discrimination seems peripheral; the usual meaning of discrimination
describes the situation accurately. If one supports this country's
legislative process, then what seems more important is whether or not
drinking age discrimination is acceptable (considering: most law
entails some form of discrimination). It seems as though most people
believe discrimination by blackness is unacceptable (unconstitutional,
immoral, unfair, etc.); the consensus on drinking age discrimination
would be interesting and useful.
------------------------------
Date: 25 Apr 85 01:24 EST (Thu)
From: _Bob < Carter@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: "Railcars"
Hi JD,
From: DINGMAN at RADC-TOPS20.ARPA
Finally, several years ago I heard some polititian suggested
building monorails on the grass median strips found between
opposing lanes of most interstates. This would be much cheaper
than landscaping for new track. Perhaps this would be the ideal
place for the railcars, making the integration of them and
conventional travel easier.
Sigh. This is just the kind of jackass idea a politician would
suggest.
Roads differ fundamentally from from railways. Something that runs
on rails @i(cannot) have active steering. Getting a
Greyhound-bus-sized object with wheels at each end to change
directions on tracks requires @i(large) radius curves and long spiral
easements in and out of them. So, a railroad is almost always coming
out of the last corner or going into the next one. And, if you want
to make respectable speed, you have to superelevate (bank) the
curves.
Steel wheels on steel rail have a very low coefficient of rolling
friction. Unfortunately, they have a pretty low coefficient of
sliding friction too. It is nontrivial to lay out the roadbed
necessary to get a railcar up a hill you wouldn't notice on a
fat-tired one-speed bike. Again, you need a long gentle curve, with
easements in and out.
Uneven track surface makes a railcar fall off. In steam (i.e.
regular railroad) practice the surface of superelevated rail has to
be positioned to a tolerance of half a centimeter or so, and even
tangent track should be correct to about twice that. Track is a
flexible composite structure. To keep it even enough to be safe
requires constant twiddling.
In short, no interstate (and hence, no interstate median divider) is
designed to rail standards of vertical and horizontal curvature. And
no railway could survive on an interstate level of maintenance. You
can build a highway when and wherever necessary to make your idiot
brother-in-law rich, and you don't have to repave it until you need
the construction union vote. You have to @i(plan) a railway and then
take you have to take @i(good) care of it.
_B
[This is one of those ideas that seem to hang around out there waiting
for some to bring them up again--and someone always does. The last time I
heard it, some New Jersey politician had been to Disney World and decided
that the state should make the "Jersey style" highway median barriers
into monorails, because they LOOK LIKE the concrete rails the Disney
monorails run on. Well, I've been to DW too, and went with malice
aforethought to analyse the monorails and other technological wonders.
The monorail is fantastically photogenic--and completely worthless
as a serious transportation system. Nowhere near the economy, in
capital or labor, or the capacity, of the diesel parking lot trains--
or of an ordinary bus. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 26 Apr 85 01:32:49 EST
From: Mike < ZALESKI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Pie in the sky rail cars
1. Will cost a fortune in money and energy to build.
2. If they use electricity will be even more inefficient that
the internal combustion engine (fuel to electricity will yield
some waste, transmission losses will add to this).
3. Be potentially dangerous, depending on how the power is provided
from the ground (third rails everywhere might be a bit chancy).
4. Will probably be more unreliable in bad weather.
5. If they are computer guided, we will all be in trouble when
the computer crashes or the first bug in the software is "found".
6. Will enable the government (or other fringe lunatic group) to
cut off the juice and keep people from moving around.
7. Could potentially be used to monitor people's movements.
Hmmm...this doesn't sound like a very good idea.....
If the government wanted to move people efficiently, they would
raise the speed limit to 100 MPH and ticket anyone driving
more than 10 MPH below the limit.
To see why this is true, consider how much traffic can pass a point
on the road in a given hour. Assume a constant flow of cars, each
15 feet long, seperated by one car length for each 10 MPH.
At 10 MPH a stream of cars 10 miles long (1760 cars) can pass said point.
At 55 MPH a stream of cars 55 miles long (2978 cars) can pass said point.
At 100 MPH a stream of cars 100 miles long (3200 cars) can pass said point.
This is what real engineering is all about. -- Mike^Z
[Of all the people who have completely misinterpreted something I said
on the net, you are within physical reach--Look Out!
Points 2,3,5,6, and 7 turn on a system that is centrally controlled
or powered--which I specifically disavowed in previous postings.
On point 1, I have indicated that I thought a system might be installed
over the period of a replacement generation of present roads and
cars, with interim (double) systems perhaps costing more, but with
lower costs in a "pure" railcar system. On point 4, sure, cars are
more dangerous in bad weather, automatic or not, rail or not.
More serious criticisms of the railcar idea can be drawn from Bob Carter's
informed demolition of the "interstate monorail" idea. The geographical
inflexibilities of conventional rail make it difficult to parallel
existing roadways therewith. Changes in the design of the rail and
vehicle ameliorate the problems, I think enough to work.
Mike's second point, about speed, forgets that following distances
should be measured in time, not distance. Following someone two seconds
behind --at any speed-- is as close as you can do safely. Thus at any
speed, a lane's carrying capacity is 30 cars per minute.
( enter :^) mode )
Mike's failure is one of nerve. Consider the following facts (guesses,
misrecollections): There are 50 million cars in the US, which make an
average two ten-mile trips per day. This means that once each 0.864
milliseconds, someone starts a trip somewhere. We will assume (with
absolutely no justification) that the fact that the trips are not
actually evenly distributed in time cancels the fact that they are
not all goint to the same place or crossing paths. Then, if everyone
is required to drive at 11,574 miles per second or faster, the carrying
capacity of the roads is effectively unlimited, *since there is only
one car on the entire road system at any one time*. This feature of
an increased speed limit has obvious safety advantages as well.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 7 May 85 Volume 5 Number 17
Contents: Nuclear Power
Pop Quiz
Drinking Age
Cars
Reagan Appointees
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 29 Apr 1985 21:15 PST
From: Lars Poulsen < LARS@ACC>
Subject: Nuclear Power
About a year ago, there was some discussion in this forum about
the moral implications on the use of nuclear energy - and its
alternatives. I was pretty upset about some of the things that
were said, and I saved the issue (Poli-Sci vol 4 #26) and I've
been re-reading it from time to time.
The discussion brought out some important statements from
both pro-nukes and anti-nukes, but also left out some arguments
that I think are relevant. Maybe someone will pick up where we
left a year ago.
The "anti" perspective was presented by Liz < Sommers@Rutgers> :
> There seems to be no environmentally sound method of storing
> and/or transporting nuclear wastes. ...Meltdowns are not the
> question at all - clean water and earth on a regular basis is.
The "pro" perspective was most forcefully presented by JoSH in
one of his (in)famous tack-ons:
> [... you have been organizing support for a movement whose
> effect is to pollute the air and water and kill 10,000 people
> a year (... the OTA number ... is 50,000).
Like Liz, I used to be an anti-nuclear activist; now I am not
so activist any more; but I don't feel good about fission either,
for the following reasons:
1. No acceptable method has yet been demonstrated for disposing
of high-level waste, such as spent fuel. There has been some
talk of glassification, but I am not aware that this process
has been demonstrated on an industrially useful scale (i.e.
on more than a few kilograms of material).
Most of the world's spent reactor fuel lies around in water
filled ponds next to reactors, some amount has been reprocessed
to extract remaining fissile material (leaving an equal amount
of high-level real waste), and a fairly small part has been
dumped in old mines.
I guess, if we could glassify the high-level waste, transport
it safely to a mine and seal it in a dry rock structure and then
close the shaft, I'd find that a very acceptable disposal.
2. Operation of increasing numbers of reactors in a large number
of politically volatile countries slowly but fairly surely leads
to a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and sooner or later a
terrorist group is going to lay their hands on 50 kilograms of
plutonium.
I was shocked to hear that even Sweden had not been able to
resist the temptation to play with nuclear explosives.
A number of other issues are somewhat relevant but it is almost
impossible to cut through the fog surrounding them:
3. The real price of nuclear energy is nearly impossible to assess;
I believe it is somewhat higher than coal-generated electricity.
Plant construction costs of necessity must be higher because of
safety concerns, but this element has been escalated out of
proportion by pressure from activists that have delayed construction
causing capital expenses to skyrocket.
It is probably impossible to assess a market price for reactor
fuel, because fuel processing has been integrated with weapons
material processing. I suspect that there has been a minor subsidy
from the military to industry.
Cleanup costs are unknown. As far as I know, no reactor of any
size has been decommisioned and totally disposed of. Humboldt
Bay, I hear, has been in "temporary shutdown" for ten years.
What do we do ? Dismantle the whole building and bury all
parts in a deep hole in the ground ?
4. I used to expect that we'd run out of oil in 10 years and then
switch to fission, and run out of Uranium in another 50 years.
Frankly, I didn't think it was worth the mess to postpone the
end of civilization for just 50 years. But the price of oil went
up, and we actually learned to treat fuels and energy with some
respect. So maybe ... still I believe conservation should be a
major effort in energy policy.
5. Both pro's and anti's cite the dangers of transportation: of
coal or of nuclear waste. We have let our backbone rail system
fall apart. We should try to find a way to get this re-built
- and the Defense Budget is probably the only way to get the
money collected. The railway companies do not seem to be at all
interested in doing this.
/ Lars Poulsen
Advanced Computer Communications
< Lars @ ACC.ARPA>
[Hmm... I was under the impression that nuclear power was not an "in" cause
any more, largely because the activists kept running into hard facts whenever
they got far enough into the decision-making process to do anything.
Everybody forgot it and suddenly became worried about nuclear war.
After all was said and done, nuclear power is still the fastest-growing
(and the safest) segment of the US power industry.
I do not want to belittle legitimate safety concerns, but I suggest that
those who voice them must compare the dangers of nuclear power to those
they replace. High-level wastes are miniscule in volume compared with
the chemical wastes of coal burning. They are slated for storage in
places like old atom bomb test sites, which are already radioactive,
whereas the chemical wastes are spewed across the countryside.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 3 May 1985 13:20-PDT
From: king@Kestrel.ARPA
Subject: Infant mortality
Quick quiz:
How does the infant mortality for 1984 (RR's 4th year) compare with
that of 1980 (JC's 4th yr)? No fair looking in the Alminac -- you
should use the impressions you get from the press!
A> substantially greater (say 10% more, or worse)
B> about the same (say between 10% less and 10% more)
C> substantially less (say 10% less, or better)
D> I don't know
E> these statistics are not kept
Send responses to me - I'll tabulate three days after this comes out.
------------------------------
Date: Tue 30 Apr 85 18:15:15-PDT
From: Steve Dennett < DENNETT@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: Drinking Age
The discussion of drinking age brings up a fundamental problem with many
laws and corporate policies. Their flaw is that they attempt to control a
BEHAVIORAL variable through restrictions based upon CHARACTERISTICS that
are statistically coincident with the behavior.
For example, drinking-age limits try to control alcohol abuse by reducing
its availability to persons in the age group that statistically has the
most alcohol-related problems. By the same logic, young men pay higher
than average auto insurance rates because **as a group** they have more
accidents.
The error here is that although statistics can describe the behavior of
groups quite well, they are a poor tool for predicting the actions of
individual group members. The reason for this is found in the well known
bell-shaped curve of behavior-- most of the members of any group will
display an average amount of a given behavior, and a few members will
display either very little or a great deal of that behavior. The problem
is that, without other evidence, there is no way to tell where on the curve
an individual is actually located.
Returning to the drinking example, a few teenagers will be continually be
irresponsible about alcohol, most will be occasionally irresponsible, and
a few will be completely responsible.
The unfairness of this kind of law is that it presumes an entire group is
guilty of some anti-social behavior, without trial or chance of appeal e.g.
no matter how responsible a teenager is about alcohol, there is no way they
can obtain the right to legally buy it.
There are two ways around this inequity. The first, which has already been
discussed, is testing for the desired behavior (responsible handling of
alcohol). As already discussed, it's difficult to figure out how such a
trait could be tested for.
The second way, which I favor, is to bring such laws into line with the
American concept of "innocent until proven guilty", with the caveat that
once proven guilty the penalties would be harsher for a member of a
statistically high-risk group. This would work as follows:
There would be **no** minimum age for purchasing alcohol. But, if someone
under 18 was involved in an alcohol related crime (such as Driving While
Intoxicated), the regular penalties would be doubled (and no "prosecution
as a minor", either.) Maybe they should even have a tattoo placed on their
forehead that indicated that they cannot buy liquor (removed after a
suitable period of good behavior). Thus, restrictions would be placed only
on those individuals who need them, and the rest would be free to go about
their lives.
This is all just off the top of my head; I'd like to hear other people's
ideas on implementing "innocent until proven guilty" in areas that now
assume the opposite. Such a change would be much fairer to those people
now discriminated against and would reduce the load on the legal (and
other) systems.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 May 1985 17:04 EDT
From: Dean Sutherland < Sutherland@TL-20A.ARPA>
Subject: a wild-eyed idea...
I believe that a drinking age of 21 is a basic infringement of the civil rights
of those under that age. A 19 year old male is considered eligible for
military service. If he can be sent off to "die for his country" it seems
illogical to prohibit him from drinking. In addition, there are other ways of
cutting back on drunk driving.
One method which could be fairly easily implemented is equipping cars with
fairly simple sobriety tests. Something device which require you to push a
random sequence of buttons in a fairly short time might well suffice. If you
fail the test, the car won't start for 10-15 minutes. I would not advocate
requiring such devices, simply having them available in most models of cars.
If insurance companies gave a discount on auto insurance for having such a
device, it might make a (possibly small) dent in drunk driving statistics. If
a device of that sort actually decreased the likelyhood of accidents due to
drunk driving, the insurance companies would be thrilled to encourage their
customers to purchase them. (note that in some states an ins. company must
request government permission for any rate change EVEN A DECREASE!). A device
of this sort could be made cheaply enough that the insurance discount would
cover its cost in a year or two.
I realize that a device of the sort I just described might pose other safety
problems (ie. when you must start the car quickly to escape from the
rapist/riot/mugger etc). That is why I suggest that it be optional. The
consumer can do quite a good job of deciding which risks/benefits to accept
when he is offered a choice.
I do not intend to suggest that this idea is the best way of combatting drunk
driving, but rather as an example to illustrate the idea that there are other
ways of attacking the problem which do not require infringing anyones rights.
From my point of view, the ideal solution (set of solutions?) would be one
which is completely voluntary, does not coerce anyone, but has sufficient
incentives to be effective.
Dean F. Sutherland
(sutherland@tartan)
------------------------------
Date: Fri 3 May 85 13:24:09-PDT
From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: responsibility tests
Yes, Hank, we have many, many "ages of responsibility", and some of
them are in the constitution, but that doesn't make them morally
"right", merely "legal". Remember, the same Constitution that
required the President to be 35 didn't give women or blacks the vote,
allowed slavery, etc.
Unfortunately, I don't have a good general alternative to age-based
restrictions, at least, not a good, *practical* one. And whatever I
don't like about age restrictions, they certainly are simple tests to
administer, cheap, fast, easily understood, and objective. (And yes,
I do admit that deciding responsibility based on age is better than
not having any test at all.)
But, having flamed, I feel obligated to come up with some alternate
suggestion. Well, we could send all prospective "adults" (using that
word to mean someone who is mature and responsible) to a retreat for a
few days. There, they would each be given responsibilities, and they
could be tested with situations where their desires conflicted with
their responsibilities. For example, there could be constant parties
at the retreat, a Club Med style environment, where responsibilities
would take away from play time. There could even be shills who would
encourage participants to shirk responsibility (such people certainly
show up in real life). Then, anyone who keeps up with his or her
responsibilities would become an adult, and allowed to drink, drive,
vote, get married, etc. Actually, given that sort of test, an
alternative way to qualify for adulthood might be to graduate college,
or to support onesself completely for a year. These are just off the
top of my head; my point is that I believe any test for responsibility
would have to make people demonstrate responsibility, not just answer
questions.
As for the specific case of drunk driving, something I'd certainly
support is a crackdown on offenders, including taking away their
licenses. If we can't test for responsibility in advance, we can at
least recognize a lack of responsibility when we see it and make the
appropriate adjustments. But I'd sure support a practical
responsibility test. Anyone else have any ideas?
annette
------------------------------
Date: Saturday, 4 May 1985 14:35:05 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: More Rails Across the Galaxy
At an Industrial Affiliates dinner last week, Raj Reddy gave a talk
"Superchips and AI." This was a repeat of his ISSCC85 keynote. He thinks
that within 10 years, a "super cruise control" option will be available on
cars that will drive the car itself on existing roads. The driver will be
able to to engage the control and go to sleep, read, watch TV, etc.
Lest you think this is completely off-the wall, compare the requirements for
a super cruise control to the Strategic Computing Initiative's Autonomous
Land Vehicle. The ALV goal is a vehicle that can travel over on- and
off-road terrain at up to 60mph, using vision and maps for navigation. The
analyses that I have seen indicate that while this is tough to do by the
1992 goal, it is certainly not impossible. The computing power will
definitely be there, although cost may be a problem.
This sort of solution was one of the things I found interesting about the
movie "Runaway," an otherwise ordinary thriller starring Tom Selleck,
Cynthia Rhodes, and Gene Simmons. The writers postulated that rather than
equipping each car with autopilot hardware, you'd bring along a robot driver
whenever you didn't want to drive. I found this view of the world 20 years
from now much more believable than any other movie I've seen.
I think robot cars on ordinary roads are much more likely (and much cheaper
in the short run) than cars on rails.
[I'm sure that this will happen/become possible at some point. Indeed I
suspect that the state of the art could now give you a robot driver for
the freeway in good weather. But I still think that there's still time
time for a whole (fairly long) generation of transportation between now
and then, and railcars are possible with off-the-shelf technology.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 5 May 85 12:57:51 EDT
From: Mike < ZALESKI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Rail cars and high speeds again
Josh,
Obviously I missed the boat on the original rail car proposal.
However, note that in item 4, i said rails would be more unreliable,
not more dangerous in bad weather. I.e. rails would be flooded over,
snowed under, get clogged with leaves, etc.
Although I have heard the two seconds following rule, it is completely
at odds with what they teach you in driver education, one car length
for each 10 MPH (90 feet for a 15 foot car doing 60 MPH or 88 feet per
second). However, your statement: "Thus at any speed, a lane's
carrying capacity is 30 cars per minute." is still wrong.
Let's use your 2 seconds following rule (which works out to about
one car length per 5 MPH).
At 10 MPH, a 10 mile stream of cars (1173.3) ...
At 60 MPH, a 60 mile stream of cars (1624.6) ...
At 100 MPH, a 100 mile stream of cars (1676.1) ...
... will pass a fixed point in one hour.
Note that your 30 cars per minute figure, if it was intended to
indicate 30 cars per minute passing a fixed point, corresponds to
1800 cars per hour. I suppose your figure is correct if cars have
no length.
Your discussion about the 11,000 MPH speed limit was quite
amusing. I would certainly cast my vote in favor of such a speed
limit. However, current technology has a long way to go, inasmuch
as there are no roads or brakes or cars designed to go that fast.
In reality, 200 MPH is probably the upper bound for most interstate
highways in the US.
-- "The Model Citizen" Mike^Z
Zaleski@Rutgers [allegra!, ihnp4!] pegasus!mzal
[I suspect that if you want to do 200mph (and I do...) that airplanes
would be cheaper than the cars+roads that would be workable at that speed...
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 6 May 1985 10:56-PDT
From: king@Kestrel.ARPA
Subject: that obscure woman who heads the copyright office
For those who are riding the Voyager spacecraft out of the solar system
and haven't heard, the head of the trademark and copyright agency, a
woman copyright attourney, is accused of having coauthored a book
alleged to have some extremely racist passages.
I wonder several things:
1> who spent the time required to ferret out this fact? To find this
out concerning someone so obscure, they either must have been
incredibly lucky, or they must have done as thorough a job on everyone.
Did someone actually read every book coauthored, or allegedly
coauthored, by every Reagan appointee? If Reagan wants to silence his
critics, he should appoint prolific authors to minor bureaucratic posts!
2> is this the worst (highest < badness> *< official's importance>
product) Reagan appointee?
3> what violation of civil rights did the IRS get away with because a
journalist was reading all publications described in 1> rather than
reading some Freedom of Information Act reports from the IRS?
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 9 May 85 Volume 5 Number 18
Contents: Vietnam
Introduction
Age of Responsibility
Embargo
Nuclear Power
Cars
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 7 May 1985 12:10:26 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: Vietnam
I was barely old enough to get a draft card. Even so, I don't remember much
about the details of the war in the early 70s (other things are more
important in high school) and nothing about the war in the 60s. I have
recently read the book "On Strategy - A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam
War" by Harry G. Summers, Colonel of Infantry. This book has received the
highest praise from all parts of the political spectrum. Caspar
Weinberger's recent statements about the uses of military power are taken
directly from Summers work, as are the Army's 1981 field regulations.
Summers fought in Korea and Vietnam, and was in Hanoi at the time Saigon
fell to the North Vietnamese.
Summer's book was published in 1982, so he has covered most of the other
important books on Vietnam. Summers analyzes the history of our involvement
in Vietnam using primarily the age-old maxims of Clauswitz, as well as the
work of modern scholars. The bottom line is that the US violated all the
rules of war in Vietnam. They also misdiagnosed the situation, thinking
that they were fighting a revolutionary war (popular uprising) as opposed to
a guerrilla war (externally supported aggression). I didn't understand that
either. But after the 1968 Tet offensive, 80% of the Viet Cong were North
Vietnamese soldiers.
Summers analysis contains some (to me) surprises. For example, he does not
believe that press bias has much to do with the war outcome. There were a
few well-known examples of distorted stories. The most famous is the
picture of the Saigon police chief shooting a Viet Cong in the head. What
was not said is that this VC had just killed several of the chief's
relatives. Summers thinks that the true influence of the press is that for
the first time, they directly showed the American people the horrors of war.
He cites related historical examples. For example, in a Crimean campaign
earlier in this century, British generals lived in the lap of luxury, while
soldiers were starving. This was normal military behavior, but press reports
caused public outrage in Britain.
Summers talks a great deal about the coupling of political and military
objectives, and how we failed miserably to do this in Vietnam. In this
sense, the book has very little to say about tactics in Vietnam. There
isn't much to say. The US Army won almost every battle it fought, and dealt
terrible blows to the North Vietnamese (100,000 or more lost each time) in
the Ia Drang in 1965, Tet in 1968, and the Eastertide Offensive in 1972.
And yet the US lost the war.
Summers discusses how our confusion stems from our WWII and Korean War
experiences, our desire to avoid a confrontation with China and the Soviet
Union, and Johnson's desire to protect Great Society programs. From WWII we
got the idea that total victory is the only kind of victory. We regarded
Korea as a failure. In fact our goal in Korea was containment (which
MacArthur disagreed with, and was canned), and we achieved that goal. But
due to fears about a land battle with China, we didn't invade North Vietnam.
Johnson kept the US in a peacetime mode during the War. He feared that
bringing the war higher up in people's consciences would lead to budget cuts
in Great Society programs. An obvious example of the peacetime mode is the
fact that Creighton Abrams, and after him, William Westmoreland, the theater
commanders, reported to the admiral in charge of the Pacific Command.
Compare that to roles of Eisenhower and MacArthur in WWII.
I hope this gives some flavor of the book. If you are at all interested in
Vietnam, I urge you to read this book.
------------------------------
Date: 8-May-85
From: Wolf-Dieter Batz < L12%DHDURZ2.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA>
[This self-introduction was edited out of a list addition request:
it was apparently intended for general distribution. --JoSH]
Hello,
The special interest of our research group here in HEIDELBERG
(situated in the southwestern part of Germany) are the dynamics of
political processes initiated to regain democratic structures. As a
usable data base for research in this topic we consider processes in
Third World countries, especially Central and Southern America. Most
forward driven research in our group is actually concerned with the
case of BRAZIL.
If anyone is interested in exchange of information concerning this
topic we would like to hear about it. We think that this is also
interesting for economists, sociologists, and other scientists who
are concerned in any way.
So long folks & kind regards *** Wodi < l12@dhdurz2.bitnet>
------------------------------
Date: 7 May 1985 09:07-PDT
From: king@Kestrel.ARPA
Subject: responsibility tests
From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: responsibility tests
But, having flamed, I feel obligated to come up with some alternate
suggestion. Well, we could send all prospective "adults" (using that
word to mean someone who is mature and responsible) to a retreat ...
where responsibilities would take away from play time...
Then, anyone who keeps up with his or her
responsibilities would become an adult, and allowed to drink, drive,
vote, get married, etc.... Actually, given that sort of test, an
alternative way to qualify for adulthood might be to graduate college,
or to support onesself completely for a year. These are just off the
top of my head; my point is that I believe any test for responsibility
would have to make people demonstrate responsibility, not just answer
questions.
The test seems thoroughly artificial (and expensive).
I believe there is only one criterion for adulthood; the condition of
being self-supporting.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 May 85 11:16:25 PDT
From: David Alpern < ALPERN%SJRLVM4.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Drinking Age
Why punish people in a statistically prone group more than others?
If the punishment for driving while intoxicated meant something (and in
California at least they're trying to convince the public it does hurt)
the need for age group restrictions would be lessened. In fact, taken
to the extreme - alcohol available to all, but death to ANYONE caught
driving drunk (or walking on a road, or for that matter, how about just
being in public while drunk) - the problem would disappear damn fast.
Anyone care to speculate on why the judicial and legislative branches
have been willing to accept certain crimes as "expected" of normal
people, and thus not elligible for real punishment? Taking away
somebody's driving privileges is a lesser restriction than is jailing
them, but seems harder to get a court to impose.
- Dave
p.s. The opinions expressed herein may or may not even be my own, let
alone anyone elses.
------------------------------
Date: 7 May 85 21:04:17 EDT
From: Mike < ZALESKI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Drinking age
It seems to me that imposing some age based restriction is at least
as fair as any other stereotyped or prejudiced way of looking at a
group of people. How many Poli-Sci readers who favor some sort of
drinking age also complain about paying high insurance rates because
they are under 25?
Personally, I oppose any drinking restriction and am no fan of
the new wave of drunk driver crackdowns. Not because drunk driving
is good, but because government expanding its power also expands
its ability to abuse power. My preception is that the likelyhood
of being involved in a serious accident with a drunk driver (teenage
or whatever) is so small that it is hardly worth worrying about,
and indeed never was worth worrying about. Government roadblocks,
radar traps, and other such nonsense do give me some concern.
-- "The Model Citizen" Mike^Z
Zaleski@Rutgers [ allegra!, ihnp4! ] pegasus!mzal
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 May 1985 10:54 EDT
From: Dean Sutherland < Sutherland@TL-20A.ARPA>
Subject: Dennett on drinking age
I like that. A "scarlet letter" approach. :-) More seriously, I believe that
stricter enforcement and harsher penalties would have some effect on drunk
driving statistics. Unfortunately, it is possible to go TOO for in that
direction.
A few years ago one of the South American countries (Brazil?) tried making the
second offense of drunk driving a capital crime. I haven't heard whether the
actual drunk driving rate decreased, but I did hear that political opponents of
the regime in power started getting picked up for drunk driving.
Since I can't quote a hard reference for this it may be merely apocryphal, but
it is illustrative of a possible problem with tough enforcement and penalties.
Dean F. Sutherland
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 May 85 10:52:15 pdt
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
Subject: Nicaragua Embargo
Would anyone care to defend the economic embargo of Nicaragua from
a political-scientific point of view? I'm not talking about its
salutory effects on Reagan's manhood, now. I'm not talking about
its effectiveness as punishment for Nicaragua not toeing the American
line. I want to know: What is this action intended to accomplish?
How will we know when it has succeeded? What can the Nicaraguan govt
to do get us to lift it? In other words, why are we doing this thing?
Obviously, you can see that I am opposed to it, but I am also honestly
curious: what is the rational purpose behind it, and what plan does it
enhance?
Steve Upstill
[Not to support or attack this particular case, but why isn't punishment
a valid political/scientific reason? --JoSH]
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley
Date: 8 May 85 15:02:03 CDT (Wed)
Subject: Nuclear Power vs. Nuclear Weapons
> 2. Operation of increasing numbers of reactors in a large number
> of politically volatile countries slowly but fairly surely leads
> to a proliferation of nuclear weapons...
So far nobody has used power reactors to make weapons; research reactors
are much easier to divert to plutonium production. So this is a non-issue,
since research reactors are damn near everywhere already.
> ...and sooner or later a
> terrorist group is going to lay their hands on 50 kilograms of
> plutonium.
Let us not forget that terrorists have easier ways of killing lots of
people, if they want to. Things like hydroelectric dams are seldom
guarded against serious attacks. There are several dams in North
America which have estimated death tolls of 100,000+ in the event of a
major dam burst.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
[If dams aren't "sexy" enough for a terrorist group (or banana republic),
the botulinus bacterium occurs naturally almost everywhere. Its cultivation
and the separation of the toxin (about ten times more lethal, per volume,
than nerve gas) is a project not much greater than a serious high-school
science fair project. May you live in interesting times... --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 8 May 85 15:02:14 CDT (Wed)
Subject: autodrivers
> Lest you think this is completely off-the wall, compare the requirements for
> a super cruise control to the Strategic Computing Initiative's Autonomous
> Land Vehicle. The ALV goal is a vehicle that can travel over on- and
> off-road terrain at up to 60mph, using vision and maps for navigation...
Let us not forget that (a) the ALV is nowhere near functioning hardware,
and (b) we've heard big predictions before, from the same general sources.
"AI is really going to work *this* *time*." "Automated command/control
is really going to work *this* *time*." Color me skeptical.
For that matter, there is a large difference between the reliability and
maintenance demands of current high-end military systems and the sort of
characteristics we need for putting them in passenger cars. Systems in
passenger cars are exposed to severe environments, are frequently abused,
generally get hit-or-miss maintenance from half-competent people, and must
be cheap cheap cheap reliable reliable reliable. Reverting to manual
control in the event of computer failure is reasonable in most military
systems, since it is expected that the human beings involved will be
paying attention anyway (partly because they've learned not to trust the
automatic systems too much...), but is unacceptable in a car doing 90
(or even 55) on a busy Interstate with the passenger asleep. The ALV
technology is going to have to be a tremendous leap forward from today's
best military hardware to be even marginally viable for cars.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley
Date: 8 May 85 15:02:37 CDT (Wed)
Subject: traffic rates
> Although I have heard the two seconds following rule, it is completely
> at odds with what they teach you in driver education, one car length
> for each 10 MPH ...
Actually, what they taught me in driver education was "two seconds
following", on the grounds that the car/10mph rule doesn't address
the issue (reaction time) directly, and estimating distance is not
something most people do well.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
[Indeed. One is reminded of the driver testing officers in the Dave Barry
sketch who spend their time trying to guess how many car lengths away
various objects are... --JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 14 May 85 Volume 5 Number 19
Contents: Embargo
Divestment
Ages/driving
Infant Mortality
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 May 85 20:43:34 pdt
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
Subject: Re: embargo and punishment
[what's wrong with punishment?] -- JoSH paraphrased
Well, I tend to think of punishment as a means, rather than an end. It's
awfully satisfying, especially if you are powerful enough to resist
retaliation, but in the conduct of mature nations, I expect it, at least
nominally, to be directed toward some other goal, the specificker the
better. Behaviorally, punishment is most effective when it is a specific
(preferably predictable) response to a specific action, the better to
establish a cause-and-effect relationship and thereby get the punishee
to in future avoid the punishment by eschewing the cause. Is there
something we expect the Sandinistas to DO, or are we just getting even for
something?
Steve U.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 May 85 09:42:00 PDT
From: Richard Foy < foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Embargo
I too would like to know the purpose of the embargo. It seems to me that it
is most likely to be counterproductive. That is drive the Sandinistas closer
to the Soviet Union instead of to get them to capitulate to us.
I guess I also don't understand the purpose of punishment at least as it might
be applied the Sandinistas and the embargo.
------------------------------
Date: 9 May 1985 09:28-PDT
From: king@Kestrel.ARPA
Subject: whose money is it, anyway?
It must be common knowledge by now that many organizations,
governmental or otherwise, are voting or deciding to disinvest PENSION
FUNDS from companies doing business in South Africa.
My question is, why is this legal? That money doesn't belong to the
people making the decision to disinvest, but to the retirees (and
soon-to-be-retirees (and not-so-soon-to-be-retirees)).
Have there been any court tests of similar things? Did the late '60s -
early '70s produce similar disinvestments?
On the other hand, have any efforts been made to seek the consent of
the owners of the money? Does anyone know of a case where the retirees
have been polled and have responded that they would like disinvestment,
even though their pension would be reduced (by the brokerage fees
for the turnover, plus the presumably lower rate of return from the
securities that the trustees rejected, as suboptimal, when they chose
to invest in the now-blacklisted companies int he first place)?
This is not to be construed as an opinion on whether disinvestment is a
good or morally necessary position. I personally have not invested in
companies too closely associated with SA for a long time (although I
don't find, for example, IBM unacceptable); I don't like their
policies, but I strongly don't like people using other people's money
to further their goals, even where they coincide with mine.
-dick
[Personally, I never understood the rationale for divestment. I was under
the impression that American companies doing business in SA treated
blacks *better* than did the native companies; and surely any scheme
which increased unemployment would hurt the blacks much worse than
the Afrikaans. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 9 May 1985 00:05:05 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: lenient law enforcement
I think the reason crimes like drunk driving weren't enforced too strictly
in the past was that people had the reaction "Jeez, *I* could have been
caught doing that" and go easy on the guilty. Now the true costs are being
made clearer, so people are becoming less tolerant of this behavior. I
believe that the odds of dying due to a drunk driver are something like
1% in your lifetime. Car crashes are the leading cause of death for young
white males.
As the above makes clear, laws do not operate in a vacuum, but as part of
our social structure. They become ignored, irrelevant, or weakened, when
enough people feel that violating them isn't a really bad thing, or that the
penalties are out of proportion to the consequences. Other examples include
possession of small quantities of dope, various sexual practices, and
jaywalking.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Age restrictions/limits
Date: 09 May 85 18:22:30 EDT (Thu)
From: James M Galvin < galvin@UDel-Dewey.ARPA>
I do not feel that age restrictions should be necessary. I agree that
the penalties should be stiff enough to change the mind of anyone in
their "right-mind" (this is probably a separate topic). But there are
two problems I see, one of which has just been mentioned.
How do you deal with diplomatic immunity; one hand washes the other and
all that? Me, I have no problem with that. I can and have been a heavy.
But that is not a realistic solution. Most people aren't.
The second is how do you become a "good" person again? It bothers me
a great deal when I can make a mistake, pay the penalty and be penalized
for it forever. I have had this problem with the insurance on my car.
Sure, when I first started driving I made a lot of mistakes. I even had
one accident. But I have had a clean record since then (5+ years). But I had
to stop owning a car because I couldn't afford the insurance. Last year
I moved, to another state, and left my driving record behind. I was able
to purchase a NEW car, and pay LESS for insurance than a used car in my
previous state. This year I just turned 25 and my insurance rates dropped
again. And that bothers me more than the high insurance rates because
if I had been married I would have received this new LOW rate at that time.
How is it being supported/supporting another person makes me more responsible
than supporting myself, regardless of my driving record yet?
I am not suggesting "wiping the slate clean", but I think a person also
deserves a second chance. Whatever suggestions are made about "demonstrating
a level of maturity" need to include an opportunity to repent. Everybody
makes mistakes, unintentionally or otherwise.
James M. Galvin
University of Delaware
Department of Computer and Information Sciences
Newark, DE 19716
ARPA: galvin@udel-dewey
CSNET: galvin%udel-dewey@csnet-relay
UUCP: ...!harvard!galvin@udel-dewey
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 May 85 02:22:06 cdt
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V5 #18: likely problem w/ tougher DWI laws
From: ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx.sphinx!rkhs@Berkeley
Please excuse any inconveniences or crudities in this reply--I'm completely
new at this.
I'd like to tell what my mother found on jury duty recently in Milwaukee, Wis.
The two cases she was on were both drunk-driving, no accidents or injuries
or anything, both cases of obvious drunkenness well beyond the law.
You see, Milwaukee (or Wisconsin--not sure which) recently toughened up its
laws in the current wave of such. So my mother found herself on the losing
side in a combined 21-3 vote for *innocence* -- because after all nobody
got hurt, and it's an awful lot to take away someone's license just for
having a good time....
In other words, tougher laws could well go even less enforced. This *increases*the problem of contempt for the laws, the problems of police frustration and
resulting negligence, and above all the actual rate of drunk driving. I don't
see how we can worsen the situation easier than by passing laws nobody really
believes in.
(And the frustrating thing is--I *do*. But that's a minority view!)
------------------------------
Date: 13 May 1985 11:18-PDT
From: king@Kestrel.ARPA
Subject: infant mortality poll
I will give individual answers, since there were so few and not many
gave merely a direct answer. The names have been removed to protect
anyone who feels (s)he needs it.
The correct answer, given in the Wall Street Journal but verified by
fifteen minutes of alminac research, is C> . The raw figures are 1980:
12.6, 1984:10.6 (deaths before 1 year old per thousand live births).
********************************************************
I guess 10% more your answer A.
********************************************************
An article a month or two ago in the New York Times (this is going strictly
by memory) discussed infant mortality trends. Infant mortality has
traditionally declined at an annual rate of something like 2% per year.
However in recent years, the rate of descrease has fallen dramatically.
Researchers are worried that some sort of plateau is being reached that will
leave the US with mortality rates substantially higher than other developed
countries. They believe that medical science is reaching its limits in
reducing mortality, and that only changes in behavior, specifically reduced
teenage pregnancy, can keep mortality declining. Other facts such as
changes in child nutrition programs, weren't significantly affecting the
figures yet, but might in the future.
Based on this, I would say that the answer is close to C. I would believe
slightly less than a 10% decline in infant mortality from 1980 to 1984.
[the New York Times expects the infant mortality to decline at a
constant rate forever? By the year 1995 more babies would have
survived to age 1 than were born (Siamese twins, perhaps?)!]
************************************************************
As you probably know, I'm a Reagan fan, and so I'll bet the answer
is (c). On the other hand, if all I went by is what I saw in the press,
I'd say it was (a).
************************************************************
Well, I must admit I haven't heard specific press quotes about
infant mortality, but I'm going to submit a guess answer anyway.
I'll take "A> substantially greater". I guess this because Reagan's
policies have generally meant more hardship for the poor, and I expect
that's where we'd see the most infant mortality. I hope you publish
your source(s) for the answer. I'd expect that much infant mortality
is not well documented, particularly in poor families. Another question
perhaps you can answer: how young must a child be to be an "infant"---
1 month, 1 year,...?
***********************************************************
My impression would deffinitly be A.
***********************************************************
b. based on nothing.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Fri 17 May 85 Volume 5 Number 20
Contents: MOVE
Vietnam
Divestment
Comparable Worth
Driving
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 May 85 08:25:18 PDT
From: Richard Foy < foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Philadelphia
The MOVE should bring out some interesting comments. I feel sorry for Mayor
Goode being black and having to make the decisions which he was presented with.
[I have several observations: In the clip from WCAU's camera-on-a-pole
it is obvious that the flames sprang up the instant after the blast,
a fact that Phil. officials were denying for at least a day afterward.
Secondly, it seems culpably negligent not to have turned the water cannons
back on for an hour after it started. Third, and this is a scoop for
Poli-Sci: A friend who lives in the area knows someone in the insurance
business there, who said that the city government was inquiring among
the companies as to which houses in the neighborhood had fire coverage,
*a week before the attack*.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 14 May 1985 12:44-EDT
From: rrd@Mitre-Bedford
Subject: Vietnam
Re Hank Walker's message in Digest 18 on Harry Summer's l982 book on Vietnam.
It is too bad that Hank's knowledge of the SEAsia was doesn't go
back beyond the early 70's because that was the time the US had made
the decision to wind down and get out. The build-up started in
the spring and summer of 1965, although we started to beef up the
advisory effort in early l962. The Karnow book of a couple years ago,
the one which was used as the basis for the TV series on Vietnam,
except for a couple of spots where the author gets a bit emotional,
is a pretty comphrehensive treatment of the SEAsia bit, going back
to the beginnings of it all in WWII - the last war in which it was
our clear objective to WIN. (Anyone out there fail to understand
what "unconditional surrender" was supposed to have met?)
A few comments and nit noi's on Hank's remarks.
Summers has gained the reputation in the Army for being a forward thinker.
The US did not "violate all the rules of war" - as a matter of fact we
hamstrung ourselves trying to abide by the rules of war, a la the
Geneva conventions. What we did violate was most of the nine principles
of war spelled out by Karl von Clausewitz, especially the biggie
"OBJECTIVE" - spelled out in terms that everyone could understand.
For those of us who went to Vietnam, there was always a clear distinction
between VC and NVA, the latter being the nom de guerre for regular
forces from the North. (Of course, there were several breeds of VC, too.
There was the infrastructure, the rear services, and the combat forces.
Among the latter were local, provincial, and main force units.)
I, personally, agree with Summers that the press didn't lose the war -
but, I believe they did create the environment in which it was lost.
They created an environment in which it was difficult for the
political leadership to remain resolute.
It has been a couple of years since I read "On Strategy", but I
recall I had a basic hangup with it then and Hank's remarks brought
it back. The book deals mostly with the Army perspective of the
SEAsian conflict. All five of the uniformed services fought there,
from just about the first day to the last.
When I went to Vietnam the first time, as a young major, I thought
our goals were noble and just. I still think they were, but they
lacked substance in which to sink one's teeth. What was wrong with
the goals, as stated way back then, was they lacked the essential
ingredient - to WIN a victory, both political and military, that
was tangible.
A point of clarification - the COMUSMACV's, in order, were Harkins,
Westmoreland, Abrams, and Weyand. If memory serves me correctly,
they all served concurrently as COMUSARV - the commander of the Army
component in country.
I see nothing in the command relationship of COMUSMACV reporting
to CINCPAC that indicates that to be a "peacetime" relationship
as Hank suggests. In my view, there were three (or four if you
count Cambodia) wars going on out there - one in the North, one
in Laos, and one in South Vietnam. COMUSMAVC's principal job
was running the US side of the one in the South and insuring
that US forces didn't get crossways with the GVN forces running their
war on the same ground. CINCPAC's job was running the SEAsia sub-theater,
with the rest of his theater, and integrating SEasia operations into the whole.
In summary, I think Summer's book is a good analysis, but I think that
the Hank's out there would be ahead if they undertook a study of
a comprehensive history before delving into analyses, however good.
Seems like the ol' cart and horse routine.
Bob Darron at MITRE-BEDFORD
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 May 85 10:53:49 pdt
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
Subject: Re: divestment legal?
In response to the message questioning the legality of demands for
divestment: I speak as the husband of a consulting actuary. My wife
deals with public retirement boards as the main part of her work. The
issue of divestment from South Africa has been raised repeatedly over
the past few years. There is certainly a legal issue, particularly wrt
the public funds (in California, at least) in general and the UC Board
of Regents in particular: the law states explicitly that they are to
buy/sell only to maximize the profit of the pension fund. Furthermore,
the board members are, believe it or not, PERSONALLY LIABLE for any
losses incurred as a result of variance from this policy, in California.
There is a recent case supporting this. I'm not even sure good faith
has anything to do with it.
However, I would question the assumption that the stocks at issue here
(let's call them the PI, for politically incorrect, stocks, as opposed
to the PC stocks, with an appreciation for irony) are inherently more
profitable than more PC stocks. For example, there is a trust fund,
the Ready Assets trust, which explicitly deals only in PC issues, and
has a performance which is just as good as less restrained funds.
Secondly, it is not clear that PI stocks will continue to be a good
investment. If you think about it, you realize how incredibly clever
the issue of divestment is, in terms of a small number of people (call
them crazies if you like) having a great effect. They may force the
University of California to divest, maybe several hundred million
dollars worth. Suppose, as a result of these pressures, PI stocks
lose in demand. Then any retirement board which wishes to maximize
its return MUST divest, BY LAW. If you think a little further, you
realize that you don't even have to reduce the demand directly; all
you have to do is create the PERCEPTION that the demand is being
reduced, and the demand WILL be reduced. It's just the phenomenon
of investor panic. In this case, which seems more plausible by the
day, it's the retirement boards which don't divest which will be
liable.
At any rate, as a retirement board member, you don't even need
faith in the onset of this perception of desertion; all you need is
a reasonable belief that it will occur. And as I say, I think it's
getting more reasonable all the time. The issue is gathering this
moral cloud which is tainting all businesses with holdings in South
Africa (whether or not they attend to the Sullivan Principles or not,
unfortunately). What will happen next is anybody's guess.
Steve Upstill
[Oh, yeah, one other thing. A South African black living on Osage
(in Phillie) was quoted (on CBS) as saying "it's just like
South Africa". I'm expectantly waiting for the storm of protest
urging divestment in all companies that do business in Philidelphia...
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Tue 14 May 85 23:16:39-EDT
From: Bard Bloom < BARD@MIT-XX.ARPA>
Subject: Disinvestment
I've heard recently that South Africa is protecting itself against
disinvestment by nationalizing everything left by companies that
leave South Africa. If this is true, it sounds like a strong argument
against disinvestment (which is what S.Africa intended). They won't
necessarily lose the business; I daresay that third-country businesses
would be quite glad to buy the ex-U.S. plants and such, contributing
even more money to the South African state. Also, I rather doubt that
the workers in those plants would be covered by the Sullivan thing any more,
so they'd be worse off.
Any good counter-arguments?
-- Bard --
------------------------------
Date: 15 May 85 19:21 EDT
From: RMXJARTJ%CORNELLA.BITNET@Berkeley
Subject: In reply to King @ Kestrel.arpa letter of 09 May 1985
I would like to respond to Dick King's letter on "whose money is it, anyway?"
A good example regarding pension funds would be that of the NYCERS - New York
City [Employee Retirement System - I think]. The Board of Trustees of
NYCERS are charged with handling the money in a fiscally responsible fashion
- which means that a profit should be made.
NYCERS introduced an identical proxy issue at the annual meetings of both
Ford and General Motors in the past 2 weeks.
The assumption that Dick made was that other stocks are suboptimal investments
because they don't have an extension in South Africa. (that wasn't exactly it,
but the inference was there.)
My initial guess is that there are no court-related precedents dealing with
this issue. If there are, I'd be interested in knowing about them.
I would take issue with the statement that the brokerage fees for the turnover
of stocks plus the presumably lower rate of return would lessen one's pension.
First of all, in pension funds, brokerage fees are built into the system. If a
pension fund is going to dis-invest from companies doing business
in South Africa, it is going to do it slowly (or in whatever fashion it usually
does when it sells a stock.)
When it buys other securities, the main difference (I've found) is that they
have a higher risk - which means that you have to watch them closer - unlike
stocks like GM, IBM, etc. These type of securities also tend to be on the
Over-The-Counter exchange.
So, actually, the rate of return is high - but the investment is risky - which
means closer monitoring is called for.
It should be carefully noted that I take no stand on the issue - not from
being uninformed, but because of my affiliation with the Civil Liberties
Union, I am only allowed to be an observer....and there is a lot to
observe here at Cornell!
I would be happy to clarify some of my statements above if they need it
(I'm too tired to tell.)
Regards,
-- Gligor Tashkovich
Student/Government Major
RMXJARTJ%CORNELLA.BITNET@BERKELEY.ARPA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 May 1985 16:36 EDT
From: Dean Sutherland < Sutherland@TL-20A.ARPA>
Subject: comparable worth
A flame on the subject of comparable worth:
(This note was inspired by a conversation I had with two female employees in
the employee lounge here at Tartan.)
The discussion so far (paraphrased, of course):
Me: Comparable worth is a disaster.
They: Comparable worth is an interesting new idea in the fight to gain
equality for women and other minorities.
Me: My biggest problem with comparable worth is that it would have the
government set wages; I believe that is VERY dangerous. There is also
the question of who decides which jobs are comparable.
They: Try being a single mother trying to raise children. Also observe that
one of the traditional ways of bringing about change is to push for
more than you really wanted in hopes of getting part of it.
(There was much more than this. In general, however, I felt that their
arguments were better than mine. As a result, I went and did some research.)
The usual argument for comparable worth seems to go like this:
Women are as intelligent and as competent as men. By law, they cannot
be refused employment on account of their sex, nor be paid less than men for
the same work. Why, then, do they earn, on average, only 59% as much as men
do? Because they are sytematically segregated in jobs which are traditionally
performed mainly by females -- like nurses, secretaries, and librarians -- and
which, therefore, are traditionally underpaid. Half of all working women are
relegated to jobs which are at least 70% female, and about one fifth are in
jobs that are 90% female.
The proposed solution is to force business to pay equal wages for jobs of
"comparable worth". Thus an employer could no longer get away with paying his
female receptionists less than his male janitors unless he could demonstrate
that anwering phones demands less skill, effort and responsibility than mopping
floors.
On another side of the issue are the following arguments:
The argument given above seems to assume that employers can arbitrarily decide
to pay women less than they are worth, ie. that wages are set at the whim of
employers. It seems to me that one can't pay people less than supply and
demand mandates; if you tried your employees would quickly leave for higher
paying jobs. In addition, why would employers magnanimously pay men MORE than
they have to; after all, if wages are arbitrarily set they could just pay the
men less also. The market provides a natural floor on wages -- the "market
value" of a job.
Some proponents of comparable worth seem to believe that a job has an
@i(inherent) worth, irrespective of the market. In other words, they seem to
believe that values are intrinsic, that things have a price even if no one is
willing to pay it, that there can be values without valuers. The "true" worth
of a job, which may go unpercieved by those who pay for it, must therfore be
ascertained by government revelation -- which the non-perceivers must be
@i(forced) to accept.
The method which is most commonly suggested for determining which jobs are
comparable to each other is point system. Under such a system points are
awarded for different job criteria such as the skill, effort, and
responsibility required by the job, as well as the working conditions under
which the job is performed. Jobs with the same number of points are considered
to be of equal worth.
Do jobs really have an @u(intrinsic) value irrespective of the market? A value
which can be determined by using job evaluation systems? Certainly an employer
values the labor of his employees more than he values the wage he pays. The
employee, on the other hand, values the wage more than he values his time and
effort. If this were not the case, trade between them would not have taken
place. When trade does take place, both people feel that they are better off;
each has traded something of less value for something of greater value.
Once again, do jobs really have an intrinsic value, or can the value of a job
only be determined subjectively depending on the circumstances? Consider the
situation of a man stranded on a deserted island. The day before he was
stranded, his circumstances and ideas may have led him to value the services of
a tailor very highly. However, once he is stranded, he no longer cares so much
if his clothes fit well. He may now be willing to trade the services of fifty
tailors for the services of one boat builder. As a consumer, the man stranded
on the deserted island has determined the value he places on the services of a
boat builder, as well as his value of any person the boat builder might employ.
However, not only do wage differentials between jobs reflect the values
consumers place on the contributions workers make to the final product but they
also depend upon the scarcity of qualified workers relative to the demand for
their contributions. Employees who have skills, experience, abilities, and
contributions needed by an entrepeneur, and who are also scarce relative to
demand will be paid higher wages.
In a recent court decision, the American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME) won a major lawsuit against the state of
Washington. Using a point system similar to the one described above, AFSCME
introduced evidence that positions such as that of clerk-typist should be paid
the same hourly wage rate as that of warehouse workers. Judge Jack Tanner
ruled that wages in "female occupations" be increased, not that wages in "male
occupations" be lowered. [1]
With such a comparable worth policy, what would happen if supply and demand
conditions were to drive up the wages in one particular occupation? If, say,
there is a sudden shortage (relative to demand) of warehouse workers in
Washington, causing wages to rise at a greater-than-normal rate, should
clerk-typists automatically recieve the increased wage simply because their
occupation is determined to be of comparable worth?
A common arguments against permitting the forces of supply and demand to set
wages. Some contend that prevailing wages are aproduct of employers past
discriminatory practices. A successful businessman (in a free market) can only
be concerned with the present and the future. The value of something yesterday
is meaningless today. Businessmen value the factors of production, including
labor, avialable in the present in accordance with these factors' anticipated
services in the future production of consumer goods.
I believe that a free market will tend to discourage discrimination. Even a
free market, however, will have its share of irrational and/or ignorant people
who refuse to believe that women can do anything but cook dinner and change
diapers. This sort of mental lethargy is a barrier faced by anything new --
from the wheel to airplane travel. If the market is genuinely free, the
irrational will not prevail. They are repudiated daily by intelligent profit
seekers ready to make lucrative use of female workers, female suppliers, and
female customers. No laws were needed, for example, to counter the fearful
hostility engendered by the introduction of trains or electricity or
automobiles. Women, too, require only the political freedom to demonstrate
their market value -- not the political power to compel acknowledgement of
that value.
Proponents of comparable worth do not seem to want this freedom. They don't
want to have to persuade businesses to hire women or to raise their salaries.
Consider their normal answer to the following question: If women's jobs are
underpaid, why don't women leave for the higher-paying, "comparable" jobs?
An Equal Oportunity Employment Commision report explains that "while the
opportunity to move out of segregated job categories may be welcome to many
women, many others, who have invested considerable time in training for their
jobs, demand wage adjustment in 'women's jobs' rather than opportunities to
work in other jobs" [2]. In other words, many people feel that employers
should be forced to demand whatever skills, experience, or abilities these
women may already have. This would be the same as forcing consumers to
purchase products they do not want simply because these products are already on
the market. If that were the case, entrepeneurs would have little incentive to
create new, more innovative products; consumers would have to buy what the
producers are already selling.
This is precisely the effect a comparable worth policy would have upon women.
They would no longer have the incentive to better themselves, to learn new
skills that are actually in greater demand. With this lack of incentive, wage
rates would be likely to decrease rather than rise. For example, the judge in
the AFSCME v. State of Washington case ruled that wages in "female occupations"
be increased. This decision is likely to increase the incentives of women to
keep entering these "female occupations" and therefore create an oversupply in
these jobs.
In effect, comparable worth policies encourage women to stay where they are,
instead of pursuing better jobs and showing that they can indeed perform them.
They are told not to bother learning the skills which are in greater demand,
but to remain behind their typewriters and switchboards and to strive for
bigger "true-worth" paychecks by suing their bosses. This kind of advice only
reinforces the idea that women are unambitious and less capable than men. The
very women who are trying to shed this image are actually demonstrating that
they agree with it by arguing that women will "never get anywhere" without the
help of government.
In summary, wage rates are ultimately determined by the subjective values of
consumers. These values cannot be objectified by using job-evaluation point
systems. Only individual consumers can compare the worth of a job with the
worth of any other job. They do this whenever they coose to buy one product
over another. Through their actions in the market, consumers signal employers
as to which employees they value highest. These employees will rightfully
command higher wages.
A comparable-worth policy would mean a great reduction in consumer
sovereignity. Any information the market would provide through changes in
prices and wages would be greatly distorted. The economic consequences,
therefore, would be severe shortages in some occupations and an excess supply
in others. Overall economic activity would decline not only because of these
market distortions, but also because many women who could have made innovative
and creative contributions to the economy would be deprived of the incentive to
do so.
If many women are trying to gain the opportunity for individual choice, a
comparable worth policy, or any other government legislation is not the answer.
Women's opportunities and choice depend on the amount of freedom they have.
Only an unhampered market will provide them with the individual choices they
desire and the freedom to make them.
References:
[1] AFSCME vs State of Washington.
[2] Committee on Occupational Classification and Analysis, "Women, Work, and
Wages: Equal Pay for Jobs of Equal Value" (Washington DC: National Academy
Press, 1981) p. 2.
Note: most of this post was paraphrased [cribbed?] (plagiarized???)
{STOLEN????} from two main sources:
1) POLICY ANALYSIS #38 may 31, 1984. "Value and Opportunity: The Issue
of Comparable Pay for Comparable Worth" by Deborah Walker, Cato
Institue, 224 Second t. SE, Washington D.C., 20003 and
2) "The Intellectual Activist" 131 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10003
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 May 85 08:23:40 PDT
From: Richard Foy < foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Driving Deaths
I wonder if anyone has made a study of how many driving deaths are totally
or partially caused by other bad driving practices beside driving while under
the influebnce. Canditates causes (at least on Los Angeles freeways) are;
following too closely; changing lanes without adaquete clearance; speeding
defined as exceeding the normal traffic speed rather than the speed limit, etc.
I suspect from the close calls I see that these are also a major cause of
traffic deaths. What causes the multiple car rear enders that we have?
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 29 May 85 Volume 5 Number 21
Contents: Divestment
Infant Mortality
[More msgs in the queue]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 17 May 85 03:18 EDT (Fri)
From: _Bob < Carter@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: divestment legal?
Hi Steve,
I think you conflate two ideas and read the market wrong.
From: upstill%ucbdegas at Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
There is certainly a legal
issue, particularly wrt the public funds (in California, at
least) in general and the UC Board of Regents in particular: the
law states explicitly that they are to buy/sell only to maximize
the profit of the pension fund. Furthermore the board members
are, believe it or not, PERSONALLY LIABLE for any losses incurred
as a result of variance from this policy, in California. There
is a recent case supporting this. I'm not even sure good faith
has anything to do with it.
You're right. The standard is reasonable prudence, not good faith. I
don't know this statute, but it sounds like it justs restates the
general law of fiduciary duty, for which personally liability is the
classical compliance device. The interesting thing in this area is
watching the courts and legislatures trying to resolve the built-in
conflict between the interest of the life-tenants (who want income)
and the remaindermen (who want security and growth).
Assume
1. Payout from firms doing business in the Republic of South
Africa will stay the same in the short term.
2. Some holders of debt and equity in these firms will divest
under political pressure, tending to lower demand and the
market price for these securities in the short term.
3. It is reasonable to expect that in the long term, the
R.S.A. government will fall and the successor regime will
expropriate R.S.A. holdings of these firms.
Under these circumstances it would be in the interest of present
employees to have the fund divest, so that it could eat its loss and
recover from it before it has to start paying them benefits. Former
employees could argue that their interest would be best served not
just by holding on to a position in R.S.A. firms, but in putting more
of the fund's capital into them; as the P/E falls these become more
attractive income investments.
There are, in general, two ways in which legal institutions can
solve problems of this sort. The hard one is to attempt to weigh the
gains of one class against the losses of its opponents, taking care
to put real bounds around the concepts of "gain" and "loss."
Disregarding the warm toasty feeling present employees would get from
moralizing vis-a-vis R.S.A., is the long-term risk to the fund
substantial enough to justify the short-term risk (if there is one)
to the retirees' benefits?
But, resolution of this kind of conflict more often involves much
posturing about the sacred nature of the trust obligation, followed
by a finding that because Heaven says so, the class of beneficiaries
with the least political power, or the class which finds itself on
the wrong side of trendy upperclass prejudice (perhaps the same
thing), should lose.
I don't follow the adventures of Rose Bird much any more, but
about forty percent of sitting federal judges were appointed by Jimmy
Carter. I have little doubt that a court can be found to justify
divestiture.
Saying this does not so much answer your question as contradict
an assumption you make in asking it. Asking American legal
institutions to serve as independent sources for normative statements
is a bit like asking the National Council of Churches about the
Kingdom of God; it has been so long since either of them believed in
what they are supposed to be selling that they won't even understand
your question.
_B
------------------------------
Date: Wed 22 May 85 11:11:30-PDT
From: DANTE@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA
Subject: Divestment
At the next GM shareholders meeting there are stockholder proposals
dealing with GM actions in South Africa. Could one of the fans of divestment
please explain to me why, assuming the object is to do away with apartheid,
it is more effective for the big institutional holders (e.g. UC) to sell
their shares (and thus their votes) to supporters of apartheid rather than
use their votes to support anti-apartheid proposals.
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 May 85 09:59:25 edt
From: ihnp4!sabre!decvax!genrad!panda!wjm@Berkeley (William J. Masek)
This is a response to the infant mortality rate stuff.
Ronald Reagan is trying to dismantle the support system for the poor. He is
generally succeeding. The NY Times artical said the rate of decrease was
changing and among some groups it was actually increasing. I didn't get to
see the actual article but I believe it said infant mortality rate was
increasing in some low income groups. It is generally accepted in medical
circles that the health of the mother has a strong effect on the health of
the baby. How can anyone be surprised at the results?
bill
[What results? that I.M. went from 12.6 (/1000) in '80 to
10.6 in '84? I don't see how this is unsurprising to someone
with the above expressed sentiments. That the rate of decrease is
slowing? That some selected subgroups buck a demographic trend?
I agree, it is unsurprising that a rate at the 1% level slows
as it approaches 0 asymtotically, and that fluctuations exist.
However, I don't see what these have to do with any other point.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 29 May 85 Volume 5 Number 22
Contents: All about Comparable Worth
[More msgs in the queue]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Friday, 17 May 1985 02:28:06 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: Re: comparable worth
There are really several issues involved here. The first is whether past
discrimination is still influencing the job market, and what, if anything,
should be done about it. The second issue is what current
non-discrimination factors are influencing pay differentials, and what, if
anything, should be done about it. Note that I have not included current
discriminatory practices because existing laws deal with them. The third
issue is the intrinsic desirability of paying people based on their
comparable worth.
I think that past discrimination is only visible today as pipeline effects.
Large corporations don't discriminate much at lower levels. Internal wage
trends are monitored to catch this. At Southern California Edison (SCE)
secretaries were receiving lower-than-expected raises. Their bosses had to
be educated as to what a reasonable salary was. At higher managerial levels
I do think that there is still some discrimination. Many of Pittsburgh's
corporations are in "manly" fields like metalworking, with mostly
old-fashioned men the top. This, combined with the pipeline effect, means
that there is only one woman VP in town.
A few months ago, we discussed how personal choices play an important role
in an individual's salary. The most obvious effects are years worked, years
worked continuously, and years at current firm. Women fall significantly
below men in all these categories due to childbearing. Those who argue that
childbearing is a personal choice all had moms who took the time. Day care
seems the obvious solution, since it enables mothers to minimize the
interruption in their career. On the other hand, I don't think I would have
liked it if my mom had worked.
Large organizations already practice a form of comparable worth. Jobs are
assessed by their value to the company and the type of person needed to fill
that job. The job market determines what wage is needed to attract and
retain the desired employees. This sometimes leads to anomolies such as the
corporation's Washington lobbyist being paid more than the president (SCE
again). The key difference between wage and salary policies and the usual
meaning of comparable worth is that in the latter, salary is directly
related to the job value, rather than being used as a guideline modulated by
the job market. If you believe in the law of supply and demand, then this
is sheer nonsense. A president is more important than a lobbyist, so
comparable worth would require that either the president be overpaid, or a
crummy lobbyist be hired.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 May 85 10:40:34 PDT
From: Richard Foy < foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Comparable worth
The discussions opposing comparable worth discuss the corrective actions of
a free market economy. They may be valid for a free market economy. What is
actually happening related to female employment seems to indicate that they
are. Apparently females are achieving their greatest success in relationship
to males in starting their own businesses in the service sector.
However most of the discussion about comparable worth relates to employment
in large corporations and/or the government sector. Neither of these sectors
in any way aproaches a free market economy. In fact the whole concept of
corparations as licensed by the state and regulated by the SEC is a major
deviation from the concept of a free market. As a stockholder in a corporation;
ie a partial owner, try to exercise the rights one ordinarily expects as an
owrner of something or thing about what responsibilites you have for damage
done by a corporation in which you have stock. Ones actual rights and
responsibilities are a long way from those which would be imposed and granted
by a free market.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 May 85 10:56:41 pdt
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) < mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
Subject: Comparable worth.
Socialists, or statists if you prefer, remind me of the weeds the
sprout up in my backyard -- just when I think I've finally gotten rid of
them, they sprout up somewhere else and I have to trundle out the weed-eater
again.
Socialism is a bankrupt political and moral philosophy, with neither
theoretical basis nor empirical success. Socialism has survived for a
century on unsubstantiated claims that the state, and only the state, can
provide wealth and equity. Socialism is a system that has been experimented
with extensively over the globe in the past century, and continues in wide
practice today. Any goods or service provided by the state has been abused
and in continuous shortage. Despite this, the beast lives on, a tribute to
its three sources of nourishment: the muddle-headed nonsense that passes for
scholarship in American colleges today, the garbage delivered daily from
the state and federal benches of the United States, and, last but not least,
the unfailing ability of the voters to fall for a con man who promises them
something for nothing.
Thanks, I needed that.
Just when we thought that socialism had been put to rest for good in
the '70s, along came the "energy crisis" and proposals for forced restraint.
Fortunately, the usual market mechanisms produced a glut of energy before
federal regulation could ensure a perpetual shortage. But the socialists
are never beaten for good, you know. They'll never admit that their system
is a failure, a prescription for poverty for most and privilege for a
quiche-eating few, despite a preponderance of evidence, and that socialism
is a system specifically designed for the creation of scarcity. No.
Instead they'll abandon a lost issue (energy), and busily think up a new
justification for the enslavement of the people to the state.
Enter comparable worth, the Trojan Horse of the '80s. I'm
disappointed: this time it's not even clear that there's a problem to be
solved. Oh, it's certainly true that women's average wages are lower than
men's. But when factors such as age and experience are taken into account
(younger and less experienced workers tend to earn less than their older and
more experienced brethren), the wage disparity disappears: indeed, a case
can be made that *men* suffer from wage discrimination.
Oh, well. Comparable Worth is too good an employment opportunity
for lawyers and bureaucrats to die quickly. Other states than Washington
will be forced by the brain-damged nitwit federal courts to adopt a
Washington-like program. My prediction is that some secretaries' wages will
rise in the public sector. The state governments will then lay off
clerical staff. In the meantime, publicity about above-market clerical
wages will create a glut of such employees on the marketplace, which in turn
will depress wages for such staff in the private sector. After a while,
some court with something more between the ears than moldy tea will toss the
whole nitwit idea out, leaving us with yet another valuable, expensive, and
probably disregarded lesson in the evils and folly of socialist ideas.
What can we do to stamp the beast out for good? I don't know the
whole answer, but I do know the first step.
First, let's kill all the lawyers.
Stamp Out Socialism. Let's tell them Enough is Enough.
Rick.
[I know a better first step: Eliminate public schools. --Jo--JoSH]
------------------------------
Subject: Comparable Worth
C: blows green road runners.
Date: 17 May 85 23:04:04 PDT (Fri)
From: Mike (Praiser of Bob) Meyer < mwm%ucbtopaz.CC@Berkeley>
It seems that comparable worth amounts to little more than a
job-specific minimum wage. As such, analysis of the minimum wage laws
should apply to it (and vice-versa), and the results of comparable worth
laws should be as good/bad (choose one) as the results of the minimum
wage laws.
< mike
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 29 May 85 Volume 5 Number 23
Contents: Space Colony
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue 28 May 85 12:15:24-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: [Bruce Bon < BON@JPL-ROBOTICS.ARPA> : TSS Vol I #2]
THE SPACE SETTLER
Newsletter of the Space Pioneer Society
Volume I, Number 2
Second Quarter 1985
SPS Progress
The Space Pioneer Society is an organization of people
who believe that it is possible to live in space within the next
50 years and who sincerely want to have the opportunity to
do so. Unlike the L-5 Society, the National Space Institute,
and others, SPS has neither public education nor the
influencing of political decisions as primary goals. We
intend to achieve space settlement through our own efforts
and through recruiting a large community of like-minded
individuals who will invest their time and talents into
making a future for themselves in space. Freedom is our
most cherished value, one which we will preserve in space.
SPS has now been in existence for a year and a half.
We have developed an organizational structure which
compensates both monetary and other contributions with
"shares" which determine the voting power of each
member. Monthly board meetings are held to conduct
business and determine policy, and general meetings consist
of discussions of issues relating to space settlement. The
Space Settler (TSS) provides an effective means of
giving current and prospective members information about
who we are and what we do.
The February board and general meetings were held at
Big Bear, but unfortunately the weather (snow) prevented
most of us from attending. The March meetings were in
Redondo Beach and were well attended. The primary
topics addressed at the board meeting were problems with
the SPS Master Plan, TSS distribution and advertising, and
ways of increasing membership. Margaret Jordan was
appointed to head a committee to investigate problems with
and improvements to the Master Plan (see below). It was
decided to accept TSS advertising at rates to be
determined. During the general meeting, we discussed how
to guarantee the sovereignty of an SPS space settlement.
If you are not yet a member of SPS, take a look at what
we want to do and decide whether you would like to be a
part of it. If so, then attend a meeting or fill out and return
the membership form on the back page of this issue.
Whether or not you are a member, let us know how you like
TSS and how we might improve it. Correspondence may
be sent to TSS Editor at the SPS address, also listed on the
last page.
The SPS Master Plan
The SPS Master Plan, as detailed by Terry Savage in
the previous issue of TSS, consists of five phases, utilizing
existing technology with modest improvements, leading to
an independent society in a habitat beyond Earth orbit. In
Phase I, the urban phase, SPS members will acquire
property and live in a specific city, probably Redondo
Beach, California. This phase will establish a community of
perhaps 1000 people within 7 years. During Phase II, the
ex-urban phase, SPS will establish a community within a
city that is close enough to an urban center for commuting,
yet far enough away to be somewhat more isolated than in
Phase I. Phase III, the isolated-Earth phase, will entail
building a new city at least 200 miles from the nearest urban
center, probably in the desert. The purpose is to develop a
fully functional society whose central focus is the expansion
into space, and whose economic, social and governmental
institutions will serve as models for those to be established
in space. In Phase IV, the near-Earth/space phase, we will
build and occupy a space habitat in Earth orbit. This phase,
targetted for habitat completion in 2010, will cost at least an
order of magnitude more than the earlier phases combined
(estimated at $10 billion for the first hundred people living
in space). Finally, in Phase V, the "free space" phase, we
will establish a fully functioning, fully independent society
in space, probably in the asteroid belt. Although extensive
commerce with Earth is expected, the settlement will be
entirely self-governing.
The SPS Master Plan will require exceptional
dedication by many people in order to achieve a worthwhile
and ambitious goal. A number of difficulties with the plan
have been pointed out. Because the Master Plan provides
the focus for our activities, we are attempting to address all
difficulties and arrive at a consensus within the next two
months. A committee has been appointed to study revisions
and alternative scenarios, the rest of this issue of TSS will
be devoted to discussing problems and possible solutions,
and the June general meeting of SPS will take up the Master
Plan. Please plan to attend the June general meeting (see
Calendar) if you would like to contribute to this discussion.
If all goes well, we will approve a revised (or replacement)
Master Plan at the June board meeting.
Letter to the Editor
Dear Sir:
In "The Space Settler", Volume I, Number 1, the SPS
Master Plan was laid out in a scenario consisting of five
phases. As an individual wishing to see the establishment of
space settlements, I am disturbed by the philosophy of the
plan, for there is a basic misdirection in the first three
phases. If this misdirection is not corrected, I believe it will
not only lead SPS astray, but will do actual harm to its
purpose.
The first three phases tell of SPS growing as a
community, starting in a major city, then moving outside
the urban area, and progressing to a rural setting where the
community can create its own social/governmental
structure. The purpose of this migration is to gradually
build a cohesive community which will have settled most of
its social problems before the leap into space. In addition,
since the community will be composed of intended space
settlers, they can develop a group philosophy which will be
space-oriented. As a blueprint for a social goal, these first
three phases cohere very well, with each phase leading
smoothly into the next.
However, then comes Phase IV and the community
suddenly leaps off into space! The first three phases may
prepare philosophically for the move, but physical
considerations are ignored. Until Phase IV the members of
the community have continuously lived in absolutely
ordinary conditions -- condominiums, apartments, and
houses in standard towns and cities. The physical conditions
and constraints with which the first space habitat will
confront the settlers will come as a shock and immediately
render plans conceived on the ground obsolete and
meaningless. The citizens will have to insure their own air
supply and the integrity of the walls, deal with industrial
heat, prevent loss of water, grow their own food, manage
their waste products, and face a host of other practical
problems. Perhaps the greatest danger will be from the
citizenry itself -- a child or a foolish, tired or malicious
adult may open an airlock and cause a disaster. The lives of
the inhabitants will depend on the actions of everyone else,
directly and constantly. Thinking about these problems is
not the same as experiencing them, and the experience will
mold the social structure in any way it "wants". Thus the
first three phases lead SPS astray by not basing the build-up
of the community in a setting that will experiment with the
real-live factors.
Worse yet, the first three phases of the plan will lead to
actual harm to SPS's goal in three ways:
a) Appearance. The proposed migration is one of
increasing social isolation without the excuse of a physical
reason. Rather than being seen as a clear-headed plan to
build a space colony, the moves into the mountains and out
to the desert will appear to be the founding of a space-nut
commune. Last summer I visited the Arcosanti project in
Arizona and saw first-hand how to build a failed dream.
The plan was to construct a city based on radically new
ideas in architecture, resulting in a completely integrated
community. After 20 years of struggle the place most
closely resembles an African mud hut village. The guide on
the tour I took sheepishly admitted that at the present rate
the project might be finished in 600 years. By choosing to
build their dream city way out in the boondocks, they cut
themselves off from any media attention, any business
interest, and any possible inhabitants except hard-core
believers in the dream.
b) Price. A lot of time and money will be expended in
creating the desert city proposed in Phase III, and even
moving to an established town as put forth in Phase II. If
this money is not spent on recreating a space settlement
situation, then it is only going towards isolation, seen as a
virtue in building community cohesion. But who will live
in the isolated village? Certainly not professional people
who need to be near their jobs (earning their average net
worth of $500,000 necessary to the plan). Even Big Bear is
too far and exhausting for continual commuting into Los
Angeles. A desert community will tend to exclude the very
people needed to make the plan fly.
c) Purpose. By Phase III the plan hopes "to develop a
fully functional society, with the benefits (and costs!) of an
existing social/governmental structure." Whom are we
kidding? A commune out in the desert will be very
dependent on the outside world for its livelihood -- for
business, for food and materials, and especially for water.
If we try to construct a town out in the desert, we'll be
fighting land and water bureaucracies for years, and never
be free from them.
So I believe the plan as written is wrong. I have an
alternative plan which, though harder to implement, is
more directly to the point. I would replace Phases I, II and
III with two Action Levels (using the word "level" to
emphasize that the action continues and does not end like a
"phase" does). Thus:
At Level I, SPS creates a "community of interest",
building a society within an urban environment tied by
common belief. Those who choose to do so can live
together, but at this level the social/practical experiment is
not the goal. SPS members may choose to remain at Level
I. These people would provide support (especially money)
and, still being in the mainstream society, would be the
people who would seek new members.
Level II is a big step. An isolated settlement would be
constructed that would simulate the situation in space, thus
providing an experiment that combines the practical with
the philosophical. The closest simulation I can think of
would be an underwater village. By living in an enclosed
city in the ocean, the citizens would experience problems
quite similar to those of a space colony. While being as
isolated as they want, the inhabitants would be close to
emergency help from the mainland. Rather than appearing
antisocial, the media would picture the citizens as pioneers,
granting us coverage and attracting capital. Our social
experimentation could be aided by universities who would
be attracted to our unique experiment. By being part of a
special commnity, members would be less likely to drop
out. Construction costs would be high, but the technology
exists. Furthermore, there would be far fewer conflicts
with existing governmental structure (correctly placed, the
colony would have to deal with selected departments at the
federal level, but not with state and local agencies).
When Level III (the old Phase IV) finally rolls around,
the practiced settlers of the ocean colony would shift into
their space far more easily. Remember also that Level II
would not end and the underwater village would be a
permanent testing station for potential space colonists.
I agree with the idea that building a space colony will
require the consideration of what type of society it will take
to make it and to live in it. However, more than just the
instillation of beliefs is needed and I feel that my changes to
the plan address the other issues. I hope the members of
SPS will consider these changes carefully.
Sincerely,
David L. Pleger
More on SPS Master Plan Problems
by Bruce Bon
As illustrated by Mr. Pleger's letter, we must forecast
the consequences of each part of the Master Plan in order to
make decisions which will result in our achieving our goals.
To do this with complete accuracy is, of course, impossible,
and the Master Plan will certainly evolve as SPS grows and
begins to achieve the preliminary goals.
Mr. Pleger points out some of the potential problems
with the currently envisioned Master Plan: it does little to
prepare the first space settlers for the radically different
conditions which will exist in a space habitat; the desert
community will appear to many to be a "space-nut
commune"; distance from professional opportunities will
exclude many of the very people we need in Phases II and
III; and the desert community, rather than being
self-sufficient, will be regulated by and dependent on the
outside world.
The desert community will require a very large initial
investment to get it beyond the mud-hut phase currently
being experienced by Arcosanti. Furthermore, it is likely
to be in a resource-poor area, since areas rich in resources
have long since become urban centers. What will be the
economic basis which will support the community and
attract people and businesses to it?
A fundamental conflict which any plan must address is
that we need as many professional, high-income members
as possible, thus suggesting nationwide or worldwide
distribution of membership, yet the sense of community and
strong commitment are more easily achieved in a smaller,
isolated locality. Possible compromises to resolve this issue
are a distributed community through telecommunications,
or a community adjacent to a very large urban center (e.g.
Los Angeles) to make commuting feasible.
Mr. Pleger's suggestion for developing an underwater
community has a lot of appeal -- it combines the challenges
of a frontier with relative isolation and a resource base that
could provide energy and materials for a totally
self-sufficient community. The location(s) selected will
determine the degree of isolation, but also affect many
other important parameters. I would like to suggest
locating the first ex-urban community in relatively shallow
water just off the coast near Ventura, California. While this
will subject us to local, state and federal regulation, it has a
number of significant advantages. The first habitat could be
very small, allowing modular growth and manageable
incremental investment. Ventura and Oxnard will provide
professional opportunities and a support infrastructure
(grocery stores, entertainment, services, etc.) while the
community is still too small to provide these. Proximity to
the northeast edge of the Los Angeles metropolitan area
will make it possible for residents to commute to
professional jobs and for members from the Los Angeles
area to commute on weekends to the community.
Proximity to beaches and Pacific Spaceport (a project of
Space Resorts Enterprises which should open in 1989) will
provide visibility to the media and to tourists. The
economic base for the community might include tourist
trade, support of underwater research, farming of fish and
kelp, and perhaps even exploitation of underwater mineral
resources. Commuting to shore would mean a short boat
ride or, eventually, a walk or bike ride through a tunnel to
shore. Environmental threats (storms, earthquakes) would
provide a continual challenge and would foster a desirable
sense of community and cooperation. If we succeed in
making an economically viable, ecologically responsible
undersea community, it will not only further the goals of
SPS but provide a model to the world.
Finally, I would like to urge anyone who is interested
in the issues surrounding the SPS Master Plan to attend the
SPS general meeting on June 7 at 8:30 or to write us about
your ideas. The June meeting will focus on resolving any
difficulties with the Plan and include discussion of details
of the evolving Plan.
Upcoming SPS Meetings
SPS Board of Directors meetings are usually held at 7:30 p.m.
and SPS general meetings at 8:30 p.m. at the home of Terry Savage.
Meeting dates for the next 2 months are June 7 and July 12 at
Terry's. Call 213 824-3739 for information on all upcoming SPS events.
[A few comments if I may be permitted:
I myself am personally very gung-ho on space colonization, to the
extent of being willing to spend several thousand dollars to further
its cause over the next decade or two (this doesn't come to more
than most serious hobbies). However, I'll be damned if I'll give it
to a political entity (read: any organization in which voting occurs).
I would suggest that a very loose collection of enthusiasts, a sort
of market in which engineering groups, publications, shows and
conventions burbled around "spontaneously", would have a much
better chance of actually (a) lasting long enough to do some good,
(b) coming up with viable designs, and (c) in the event of success,
being the basis of a free society, than a rigid organization following
"n-year plans".
Whenever I hear anyone say, "a desirable sense of community and
cooperation", I hide the valuables and haul out the ol' punkin shooter.
The political implications of an O'Neill-type colony disturb me
greatly. A single habitat on which all life instantly depends,
would be even a greater invitation to tyranny than the mere control
of the food supply and jobs in a communist state. (Alexis Gilliland
to the contrary notwithstanding.) I envision a "free" colony as
being a "bunch of grapes", each grape a family-sized privately
owned habitat. The habitats must be at least nominally "independently
survivable", giving the people at least the threat of "voting with
their feet".
I believe that this approach would also drastically lower the
probability of catastrophic accident. It would also have the
advantage that family-sized units would be a lot easier to experiment
with, and that they need not all be of the same design (another
engineering inefficiency and safety factor). And the incremental
buildability of the colony(ies) in contrast to the O'Neill scheme
is obvious.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 30 May 85 Volume 5 Number 24
Contents: Book review
Scourge of the Spaceways
For Their Own Good
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: JoSH@rutgers
Subject: book review
I've read a bunch of books recently which I haven't seen discussed
(but should be), so I'm introducing a book review "department"
to Poli-sci. For a while. And at random intervals.
The first book of interest is "Losing Ground: American Social Policy
1950-1980" by Charles Murray. In 1950, the poverty level in the US
stood at roughly 30%. With the increasing level of affluence, the
poverty level dropped so that in 1965, it was 13%. By 1980, it had
plummeted to--still 13%! What had happened, why had the poverty level
suddenly levelled off?
Murray examines the question in great detail. First he devotes several
careful and well documented chapters to showing that this is really
what happened, "really and truly" and not merely the flash of some
doctored statistics.
Well, what had happened? The answer is simple and painful: the War
on Poverty. Murray is critically interested in the poverty programs
and their effect; although it isn't mentioned in the book, he was the
architect of some of those very programs. He knew that the conclusions
would arouse a storm of controversy; so his arguments are low-key,
very carefully drawn, and well backed by evidence.
"Losing Ground" is a must for anyone interested in poverty
and social policy.
--JoSH
------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 29 May 1985 11:19:28 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: Re: space pioneers
Ten people on a nearly self-sufficient space station and zillions of robots
is almost guaranteed to cost a lot less and make a lot more money, and
therefore is much more likely to get built, than a commune in the sky. In a
few decades, there won't be that many people involved in direct
manufacturing. People in space will always be expensive than people on the
ground. Therefore the ratio of manufacturing robots to people in space will
be even higher than on the ground. People will work in other industries,
like services. But most services tend to require (some inherently) contact
with other people, and those other people will be on the ground.
I still haven't heard sound arguments about why 1000s of people in space
will be economically viable anytime in the next few decades. I don't like
this situation, but I don't see how it can change. It seems like the cost
of space robots will decline faster than the cost of space people, making
this situation worse, not better.
[I may be missing something here, but I think there is a logical fallacy
in there somewhere. The fact that there exists an A more likely than B
does not mean either that B is less likely than without A, or that B is
any other sense less desirable. In fact I would claim that the possibility
of space factories of any kind would *enhance* the likelihood of a
viable colony.
The thing to remember is that the purpose of a colony
is different than that of a factory. In the same analysis, compare a
conventional factory to a suburban neighborhood. The neighborhood
doesn't make any money at all-- indeed, it absorbs money as people
commute out of it to work in factories, offices, etc. In simplest
terms, the factory is a capital good, the neighborhood a consumption
good.
The driving force behind space industry is people who want to make
money (and are willing to invest to do so); the driving force behind
a space colony is people who want to live in space (and are willing
to pay to do so). Like most non-political endeavors, the two are
not only not exclusive, but are mutually beneficial.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 May 85 12:21:34 edt
From: research!grigg!ark
Two recent trends alarm me.
The first is the idea that people should be held responsible for
things they might have done, or almost did, but didn't do.
The second is that people do not have the right to run their own lives.
Either of these ideas alone would be bad enough. The two of them
together scare the living daylights out of me.
Let me start with the first idea. The process seems to go something
like this: the legislature notices that people are doing X, which
is deemed undesirable, but difficult to control. They also notice
that people who do X usually do Y first. Y is something that is not
bad by itself, but it is easy to notice and control. Therefore, in
an attempt to get people to stop doing X, they restrict Y.
For example:
1. It is hard to stop people from injecting themselves
with heroin, so the government restricts the purchase
of hypodermic needles. I remember that when I was a
child, my father had a hypodermic syringe around the
house. He used it to inject water into the pin-block
of the piano, to prevent the wood from shrinking and
loosening the tuning pins.
2. In some states, it is illegal to sell devices intended
to allow you to get into a car without using a key or
damaging the door. I suppose the people who made those
laws have never locked their keys inside their cars
by mistake.
3. Here in New Jersey, the penalty for drunk driving (for
a first offense) is a 6-month license suspension and
about $5,000 in fines, surcharges, etc. Because of
the generally terrible mass transportation in this
state, losing your license may well mean losing your job.
The best recent example of the second idea is the seat belt legislation
sweeping the country. People are required to wear seat belts because
they might get hurt if they don't.
Well, THAT particular justification can be used for detailed government
control of every aspect of our lives. Students who watch television
get lower grades than ones who don't, so let's prohibit television.
Tobacco and alcohol are bad for you; ban them! While we're at it,
let's go over all the foods you can buy and prohibit those that are
less beneficial than the rest! What? Not everyone agrees as to which
foods are good and which ones are bad? No problem -- let's do it by vote.
This is a democracy, right?
Next time you see the government trying to do something TO people
because they claim it's good FOR them, ask yourself if the government
really has the right to do what they are proposing.
ps--
I have heard it said that a substantial number (40% sticks in my mind,
but since I don't remember where I heard it...) of fatal auto accidents
are really suicides. This number sounds high, but it's what I recall.
Any comments?
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 5 Jun 85 Volume 5 Number 25
Contents: BR
Votes in Space
Prior Restraint
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Book Review: The Pentagon and the Art of War, by Edward Luttwak
Before reading this book, I would have agreed with you (anyone) that
$50 screws and $600 toilet seats constituted a major problem, and that
the Pentagon should institute major cost accounting overhauls. After
reading this book, you will agree with me that such extravagances are
the most minor of symptoms of the *real* problem, beside which they
pale to insignificance--and that "major cost accounting" etc is the
*last* thing which should be done.
Why did it take US forces of 1500 troops (not counting supporting
personnel) three days to take Grenada from 22 Cuban regulars and
a bunch of conscripted construction workers? Why did we "lose"
the war in Vietnam?
To anyone interested in political science as abstract systems
analysis, this book is a great exposition of how a system can
be structurally incompetent, *even though every single individual
in it is competent, well motivated, intelligent, ** and knows what
the problem is!!*** For those interested in the military
fortunes of the United States, it may help you to understand
why we seem to be getting less and less military oomph for
more and more money.
Luttwak is no peacenik or soldier-baiter. He's author, among
other things, of "The Grand Strategy of the Soviet Union."
I personally don't think much of his proposed solution to the
problems he points out, but I don't know a better. I believe
that "The Pentagon and the Art of War" is worth your time (and
money).
--JoSH
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley
Date: 30 May 85 15:59:08 CDT (Thu)
Subject: desirability of voting
JoSH comments:
> ... However, I'll be damned if I'll give it
> to a political entity (read: any organization in which voting occurs).
> I would suggest that a very loose collection of enthusiasts, a sort
> of market in which engineering groups, publications, shows and
> conventions burbled around "spontaneously", would have a much
> better chance of actually (a) lasting long enough to do some good,
> (b) coming up with viable designs, and (c) in the event of success,
> being the basis of a free society, than a rigid organization following
> "n-year plans".
While I share some of his misgivings (and agree with his later comments
about the desirability of clusters of smaller habitats rather than one
large one), I do feel impelled to point out one issue of organizational
dynamics. A group with no formal organization, making decisions by
consensus, is much more easily dominated by a few aggressive people --
when decisions are by consensus, dissent is seen as counterproductive
obstructionism. The purpose behind, say, "Roberts' Rules of Order", and
the whole formal machinery of voting that goes with it, is to give everybody
a voice and prevent a few vocal people from controlling the whole outfit.
Mind you, I'm not saying that this is necessarily bad. I tend to agree
with the view that parliamentary bodies' accomplishments are directly
proportional to the degree to which they *are* dominated by small groups
of strong individuals. (Of course, the accomplishments aren't necessarily
the ones most of the members want...) But this augurs ill for a free
society as an end product. If the loose collection of enthusiasts can
accomplish the desired result while remaining a loose collection of
enthusiasts, then it's OK. If the task at hand is demanding enough to
require extensive joint efforts and close coordination -- I suspect that
early space colonization may be -- then ballot boxes may be a better idea.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
[I would *still* disagree, but, possibly to your surprise, by going
to the opposite extreme. I claim (and I'd really like to start a
discussion over this) that if such a tight coordination is needed,
a monocratic structure of some form is necessary. A "democratic"
structure is the last thing you want. My concept of the market
here is essentially a group of competing (voluntarily formed)
monocratic structures in competition with each other. This foils
the primary disadvantage of monocratic rule, namely that you often
get the wrong man (woman) on top: those units fail and the others
continue. In a democratic structure, the strong personalities who
would be the entrepreneurs in the market would spend their energies
fighting each other rather than competing, a difference I would
analogize with the difference between a barroom brawl and a footrace.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Thu 30 May 85 14:44:40-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: restriction on harmless things (and more drunk driving)
I agree with you that the idea that people can't make decisions about
their own lives is dangerous. When it comes to things which are not
bad in themselves, but are correlated with things that are and are
easier to control than those things, I am less sure. I would like to
decide each case individually, depending on how high the correlation
is, how bad the thing to be controlled is (especially to people other
than the person you are restricting; that person can make his or her
own decisions, but not if doing so imposes disastrous consequences on
someone else without his or her consent), and how restrictive the law
being suggested is, rather than deciding a priori that no such laws
are ever justified. I might be willing to be prevented from doing a
few harmless things if that restriction would make it much less likely
that I would be seriously injured by someone else, but not if the
restriction were broader and the risk more remote.
Your first two examples I would agree are bad laws. I do not agree
about your third example. I can use a hypodermic needle and choose
not to use heroin, so using a hypodermic needle isn't bad in itself.
I can not drive drunk without risking the lives and health of other
people. I will allow that something is not bad in itself if a person
can, by exercising good judgement, avoid the bad consequences. I will
not agree that drinking and driving, which unavoidably involves risks
both to yourself and to others who did not consent to that risk, is
not bad in itself just because some people are lucky enough to not
reap those consequences. And I see no reason to allow other people to
risk my life and not punish them. If it is not the government's
business to protect people from being injured and killed by other
people, then I don't know what is the government's business. (Your
argument might, however, reasonably be applied to those efforts at
reducing drinking and driving by things like raising the drinking age,
rather than by punishing directly those who drink and drive.)
Lynn Gazis
------------------------------
4-Jun-85 15:31:43-EDT,1089;000000000001
Return-Path: < Mills.Multics@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA>
Received: from CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA by RUTGERS.ARPA with TCP; 4 Jun 85 15:31:33 EDT
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 85 15:26 EDT
From: Mills@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Re: seat belt laws flooding the nation.
To: POLI-SCI@RUTGERS.ARPA
Message-ID: < 850604192601.585737@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA>
I to don't think seat belts should be manditory because they enhance the
user's safety. However, I do support the laws on the following grounds: A
person wearing a belt/harness is better able to control a car than
someone who is not. In evasive emergency manouvers, the radical turns
etc. can make it almost impossible to stay in front of the controls in
a usefull manner if not strapped in. If a person is less able to
control their car, they are more likely to hit someone/thing. If they
are more likely to hit me because of their choice not to wear a belt,
they are infringing on my rights. A less justifiable argument is that their
recklessness increases my mandatory car-insurance premiums.
John Mills
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 19 Jun 85 Volume 5 Number 26
Contents: Query
Space Colonies
Seatbelt Laws
Reactions?
[1 msg in the queue]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: The Moderator
Any thoughts on the hostage situation? In particular, shouldn't
the US develop a general set of responses and policies, and
follow them? Should we always negotiate? Should we ever "pay up"?
Shouldn't we just always send in a swat team, as quickly as possible,
no matter what, so that no kidnapping could ever succeed? Doesn't
an inconsistent policy encourage kidnapping? Or are the kidnappers
so irrational that that wouldnt make any difference, and more lives
can be saved by playing each case by ear? Would retaliation make
it harder to get future hostages back alive? Or would it be worth
doing if only so those particular radicals wouldn't be there to do
it next time?
--JoSH
------------------------------
Date: Thu 6 Jun 85 15:47:05-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Perhaps I've been saturated living in California (and LA, even
worse), but whenever I hear someone suggest that a "network" is going
to accomplish some major project, I want to pinch them in the hope
that they will wake up!
A space colony is going to cost on the order of $100B for the first
large one. Due to economies of scale in life support (particularly
the production of artificial gravity through rotation), it will be
possible to build a large one that is viable much sooner than a small
one. I would like to hear an example of some project of comparable cost
(or for that matter 1/100 of that cost) that was ever accomplished by
a "network" without some form of organized decision making and a clear
analog to voting (or, alternatively, dictatorial power).
I think the idea of detachable modules is great, but it will be
quite a while before they are viable for any length of time (50-100years).
Incidentally, one of the major topics at a recent discussion group
was how to have a free society given all the "centralizing" pressures
of a large habitat. Any input on this question would be welcome--we
don't have a clear solution yet, and we definitely need one. An example
of a simple problem: Gun control--should people be allowed to possess
instruments capable of destroying the entire society? If not, how can
that be reconciled (or enforced) within a free society?
TCS
[How about the settling of the American West? I currently labor under the
impression that it was done piecemeal, by lots of individual small efforts.
The sort of "network" I'm thinking about is market-like; the models
I had in mind are the industries that have grown up around various
hobbies -- bicycling, model aircraft, boating, etc; I think I know the
sort of "network" you're thinking of, though, and I agree that a
sort of organizationless organization run entirely on "good will"
can't do anything.
I can't imagine how a large colony could be quicker to build than a
small one--personally I would class artificial gravity as a luxury.
I have sketchy designs for "instant" inflatable habitats, one family's
worth, which you merely boost into orbit, uncork, and inflate. What
could be quicker?
To my mind, the major problem between here and there is propulsion,
ie, getting there and being able to do things once you're there.
The only obvious answer is the NERVA ("Rocket Ship Galileo") -style
nuclear rocket. (That is, with current technology-- any number of
interesting possibilities suggest themselves for the future.)
Does your group have any ideas?
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 85 10:57:57 pdt
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
Subject: Seatbelt laws
Personally, I'm opposed to seatbelt laws for one simple reason: people that
stupid deserve to die before they can pollute the gene pool.
Steve "Populist Eugenics" Upstill
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 85 00:09:32 cdt
From: Scott Renner < renner@UIUC.ARPA>
Subject: seat belt laws
> ... However, I do support the laws on the following grounds: A
> person wearing a belt/harness is better able to control a car than
> someone who is not. ... If they are more likely to hit me because of
> their choice not to wear a belt, they are infringing on my rights.
> -- John Mills (Mills@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS)
This is true, but: if smoking is illegal, your chance of contracting cancer
decreases. If extramarital sex is illegal, your chance of contracting
VD decreases (because there will be fewer carriers). Just exactly where
are you proposing to draw the line?
Scott Renner
renner@uiuc.ARPA
[Indeed. A seatbelt only does any good *after* you've hit something;
there may be a possibility, in some rare cases, that the car is still
moving and still controllable and would not have been controllable
without the belt, but sure not often. An actual, common, cause of
accidents is distraction. Would you prohibit car radios? Front seat
passengers? Ban good-looking women from the sidewalks?
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 85 12:03:44 PDT
From: Richard Foy < foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Public reaction
How do you think Congress and the public would react if President Ronald
Reagan gave a speech substantially as follows and then proceeded to implement
through executive order the actions discussed?
"I have had an independant panel of experts review our defense needs. They
have advised me that we have at least ten times the nuclear capability which
we need to deter the Soviets. Even if the Soviets made a first strike we
would still be able to destroy all of their cities and kill almost all of
their people. The defense departments response to this study convinces me
of its accuracy.
Therefore I am immediately stopping all production of nulear weapons. During
the remaining three years of my term in office I will have fifty percent of
our nuclear weapons destroyed. We will continue with our research and
intelligence efforts in to insure that the Soviets do not surprise us with
any new military capability.
I hope that the Soviets will respond with a reduction of their nuclear arms.
I will make this reduction wether they do or not, because we have more
important things to do than build nuclear weapons which serve no military
purpose."
[I'm surprised at the oversimplification of the strategic interaction
implicit in this scenario, coming as it appears to do from a defense
contractor site. The major fact ignored is that the US and the
Soviets BOTH ALREADY understand the undesireability of a general
nuclear exchange. They have for a decade or more been both, in tacit
collusion, modifying their strategic doctrines to reduce the
number of conditions under which it could become necessary.
This is primarily done by introducing other options for situations,
like a NATO/Warsaw war in Europe, where our treaty obligations
require us to react in strong terms, but where something short
of MAD might do. These options take the form of replacing weapons
aimed at, and capable of destroying, cities, with ones of better
accuracy and lower yield, targeted at military installations.
The nuclear arsenals of BOTH the US and Russia have been DECREASING
in total megatonnage for many years. The process could be compared
to exchanging a sledge hammer for a ball peen hammer, a claw hammer,
and a tack hammer. There are many things to decry in our defense
establishment and doctrines, but the proliferation of special-purpose
weapons to prevent the necessity of a global exchange, is not among
them.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Fri 21 Jun 85 Volume 5 Number 27
Contents: Space
Taxes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu 20 Jun 85 13:22:17-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V5 #26
In response to a couple of Josh's comments:
1) The problem with the American west analogy is that the amount
of capital required, in constant dollars, was several orders of
magnitude less (probably less than $10-20K in 1984 dollars). Also, you
didn't need to bring your air and temperature control (frequently) with
you. It was quite possible to survive for several days, perhaps weeks
or indefinitely, from "living off the land" . This is not even vaguely
an option in space.
2) The evidence is still limited, but what little there is
iondicates that artificial gravity is a luxury only if you want to go to
space for less than 6 months to a year. The old bod starts to
degenerate after that length of time, even with significant exercise.
One scenario we have considered several times is a central habitat that
provides the rotation and "overhead" of living in space, with modules
that are docked to it for extended periods of time, which do indeed
have limited (say, 3-6 months max) independent survival, although
not comfortably. Once there were several colonies,
which I suspect is 60-70 years away, people will have a fair degree
of freedom to move around.
Another question: Let's assume people enter into a rental/lease
agreement to dock their detachable modules. If there are no other
colonies yet (effectively, no option to leave), is there any
functional difference between the restrictions of the lessor and those
of a government that you voluntarily enter?
TCS
[The question of capital cost does not impact the question of the
size of groups which can colonize unless there are some economies
of scale in areas that are not amenable to market specialization.
For example, suppose a ground-to-orbit vehicle is too expensive
for a small group. One way around this is to have a large group
own the vehicle and administer its use in a political way. A
prefectly viable alternative is to have the vehicle owned by
an entrepeneur who hauls you up for a fee. If I wanted to move
to California, I would wait a long time if I must organize my
neighbors into a Moving Society and all chip in and buy a moving
van. Instead I just hire one for the occasion.
It would be bad all around if gravity were necessary to long-term
human health. Artificial gravity is quite expensive for several
reasons: First, it necessitates rigid mass-balanced structures.
A twenty-pound kevlar-fabric balloon just wouldn't do. High mass
requirements boost the cost by orders of magnitude. Secondly,
it limits geometry and makes getting in and out a pain. Third,
it severely limits the ad hoc evolutionary addition of structures to
each other--your community can't grow.
If I understand it right, the observed effects of extended 0-G
are variations in chemical balances (eg, calcium). I hope that
such effects turn out to be (a) benign and/or (b) correctable
by dietary supplements, which will probably be necessary anyway.
Have you looked into the properties of various kinds of algae
and food/air cycles?
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 85 21:13:30 cdt
From: Laurence Leff < leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
A Simplified Tax Package
There is much talk in the land of simplifying the tax system.
Proposed here is a three part tax system:
1. Excess Consumption Tax (taking the place of the income tax)
2. Organizational Inefficiency Tax (taking the place of the
corporate profits tax)
3. Failure to Hire an American Tax (taking the place of both
input duties and making immigration and the hiring of non-Americans
more rational).
The goals are great simplicity, encouragement of investment
and productivity, and an attack on conspicuous consumption.
EXCESS CONSUMPTION TAX:
Each person shall pay a tax on the following quantity:
Q=total income for the year - any amount invested in a new designated
investment vehicle + any amount received from selling or
cashing in a designated investment vehicle.
This rate shall be based as follows:
0% on any amount less than the 33 percentile of income in the U. S.
30% on any amount between the 33 percentile and 66 percentile
70% on any amount after the 66 percentile.
Let us say 1/3 of the incomes of U. S. citizens are below the value A and
2/3 below the value B
Thus the tax would be computed as follows:
if Q < A then tax=0
if A< = Q and Q < B then tax = .3 * Q-A
if Q > = B then tax = .3 * (A-B) + .7*(Q-B)
Income is any amount received for use by the person from wages, interest,
capital gains, tip, payments for consulting, etc. It would include
any kind of government benefit but not interest from state and local
bonds which are constitutionally tax exempt.
A designated investment vehicle is any equity or debt offering (stock or
bond) where the proceeds will go towards actions whose basic purpose is to
reduce imports or increase exports or federal government bonds. Examples of
investment activities would be investing in new plant, R & D for making such
things as cars, consumer electronics, steel, semiconductors or investments
into things that we are exporting such as chemicals, farms, etc.
Investments in such things as real estate which are essentially consumed
locally would not count. Also money going to such things as overhead,
selling expenses (in the U. S.) would not qualify for treatment as a
designated investment. Only money to actually make or design such goods
would count. At the time the investment was offered, the IRS would
determine whether it was a designated investment or not.
Note that one only gets the deduction if one buys a new bond. That is when
the people who buy from the corporation or the U. S. government when it
makes the initial offering will get to take the deduction from income.
Those who buy it second hand do not get a deduction.
To compare how much people would pay under our current system with the
new one, lets look at single people making various incomes. Under our
current income structure A (the 33 percentile number) is approximately
$13,000/year and B is approximately $33,000/year.
yearly income old tax new tax
7,000 614 0
13,000 1606 0
20,000 3212 2300
30,000 6122 5100
40,000 9759 11500
50,000 13879 18000
There are many advantages of this system over the current one:
1) It directly and simply encourages investment.
2) It does not discourage people from earning more money. They can
avoid any taxes they want to by making investments in America or by
lending the government money. There is no incentive to participate
in wasteful tax shelters.
3) Under most investment encouraging schemes, a lot of the money is
wasted as people will take IRA money and use it to buy old bonds or
stocks (making the original holders richer but not increasing the
total amount of investment). Since this program only gives a deduction
for bonds or stocks just issued, all money that now would go into IRA
schemes etc. are directly invested.
4) This system eliminates the rules regarding pension investment,
IRA, 401C, deferred compensation and income averageing. If people want
to defer taxes, they simply put money into a designated investment and
then take it out when they want to spend it (and pay taxes on it).
5) This system is very politically acceptable. The average taxpayer
will pay much less taxes. 1/3 of all income earners by definition will
pay zero taxes. Even the rich who would be taxed more could avoid
any taxes by investing the money. Thus only those rich who like to
buy Mercedes Benzes, fancy vacations, etc. would complain.
6) Since a large number of people will avoid taxes by investing in
government bonds, the government would end up paying very low interest
rates. Since 1/3 of our federal expenditures is interest on the national
debt, this would reduce government expenditures. Also large amounts of
the treasury bonds are held by foreigners. Since Americans would have
an incentive to buy treasury bills, this would lower the amount of
interest payments going abroad.
ORGANIZATIONAL INEFFICIENCY TAX:
Each corporation or other business organization shall pay a tax of 30% on
all expenditures that are not a factor of production for a good or service
that it is selling. Each non-profit organization shall pay a tax of 30% on
all expenditures that are not for the charitable purpose(s) of that
organization.
Any interest paid shall be divided on the basis of how the loan was used.
Expenses to market goods in foreign countries are deductable.
Thus we are taxing overhead, company cars, personnel departments, business
lunches, the fancy offices that management has, money to pay lawyers to
perform mergers, advertising. Profits are not taxed! Note that
expenses that an American company may have in marketing and selling
products in foreign countries are deductable so that American products
are not a competitive disadvantage.
This system has many advantages
1) We eliminate the disincentive to invest created by the current laws
on depreciation. Let us say a corporation buys a new plant worth a
million dollars. Its sales are 100,000 dollars/year. Thus in the first
year it has a negative cash flow of 900,000 year. However if the plant
is judged to have a lifetime of twenty years, they must still pay tax.
This forces the corporation to take out a bigger loan than it has to
and discourages them from making the investment in the first place.
Our current tax laws create an incentive to lease rather than
purchase. This is due to the rules regarding depreciation as well
as R&D credits.
2) If companies can make more profit for a given investment (by not
having to pay taxes) more investments become cost effective.
3) Corporations will pay more tax than they currently are now. This shift
of the burden to corporations from people will make this tax politically
popular. Furthermore by publicizing that waste in corporate beaurocracy and
outright conspicuous consumption which is currently deductable from
corporate expenses, people would love the idea of taxing that.
4) Discouraging things such as mergers, corporate jets, etc. the economy
will be more efficient and it will force corporate management to concentrate
attention and money on real problems.
5) This system provides a way to discourage wasteful expenditures on
the part of charities, e. g. charities who spend 9 dollars out of
every 10 in raising more money.
FAILURE TO HIRE AN AMERICAN TAX
All imports shall pay a tax equal to one half the median hourly wage for
each hour of foreign labor that goes into their production. Any company
hiring an undocumented worker (a non citizen or permanent resident who under
the current laws would be considered an illegal alien) shall pay this tax
for each hour the non-citizen works. Non-citizen labor or imported
materials or equipment used for the production of exported goods are not
subject to this tax.
Advantages:
1) This provides a uniform system for dealing with foreign imports.
We now have a patchwork quilt of various categories. Most of the
foreign duty can be avoided by bring in parts and doing the final assembly
in the U. S. Here we have a gradual system; as more and more of the
work is done in the U. S., less and less of the duty gets applied.
We also provide an incentive to foreign companies to purchase
American goods. If a Japanese memory maker uses an American
wafer stepper as opposed to a Japanese one, they will get a discount
proportional to the number of labor hours needed by Japan to make a
wafer stepper.
2) Our tarriffs are now a mess due to political pressures created
by some labor unions and various countries. This system provides
a fair and uniform protection for all American workers.
3) Hiring illegal aliens does no less harm than sending work
abroad to foreign factories. This system treats them uniformly.
Also by turning over the policing job over to the IRS which can
easily check employee wage reports (W-2 forms), we will have
much better control over the illegal alien problem than we have currently.
ADMINISTRATION:
The above rules will be put in a one or two page law. Now of course,
there will be various ambiguities (what is income? what exactly
is the labor composing a foreign product? etc.) The I. R. S.
will be empowered to pass regulations to clarify the above law
and to make interpretations in individual cases.
They may also pass regulations requiring people to file certain
information returns (such as the current W-2 or 1099).
The IRS shall receive 0.5% of all revenues collected. (The IRS
budget is currently 1/2 per cent of the federal budget).
In the event there is a disagreement between the IRS and a taxpayer as to
the amount due, the amount in dispute shall go to a TAX JURY. A tax jury is
twelve people randomly selected from the total citizenship of the U. S.
Each member of the tax jury shall be given a copy of the one page law and
shall swear to an oath to interpret that law and the facts to the best of
their ability.
The tax jury shall choose one of their members by majority motion
to chair the hearing. However, at any time they can
overrule a decision of the chair or have him replaced.
Both sides would present their case. The tax jury (at the request
of either side or on their own initiative) may suppoena people,
records or expert witnesses. The tax jury can ignore any or all of
the IRS regulations if they appear to be too complicated or simply
inappropriate interpretations of the tax law.
After the hearing is completed, they shall attempt to reach a unanimous
decision as to how much tax (if any) the taxpayer actually has to pay.
At any time, 2/3 of the tax jury can call the question at which time
all members can vote for any amount to be paid from zero up to the
amount in dispute and the average of all members votes shall count.
The tax jury may by unanimous vote assess additional penalties against the
taxpayer for refusing to comply with reasonable requests for information,
for making a frivolous appeal to the tax jury system or for fraud. They may
also (by unanimous vote) assess penalties against members of the IRS staff
involved with the case (not to exceed one years salary) and may also suspend
or fire any IRS staff. These penalties would be for cases where the IRS
was clearly being unreasonable.
[I don't see that this system has any significant advantages over the
present one, except those that any new tax law would have, namely
getting rid of a bunch of historical junk in the present law.
It does suffer heavily from a problem that is also endemic in
current law, namely the attempt to combine social engineering
with revenue raising. Another problem it shares with current
law is the vast invasion of privacy engendered by the IRS.
I personally would support collecting federal revenue, if collected
it must be, by an out and out sales tax. This would at least
avoid the two problems above. --JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 27 Jun 85 Volume 5 Number 28
Contents: BR
GC
War
Seatbelts
Space
Taxes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Book review, "Breaking with Moscow", by Arcady Shevchenko
[nb: I may not have the author's name quite right; if so, apologies]
It may be a bit brazen to review a book of which one has read only
16 pages, but here goes. Shevchenko was a high-ranking Soviet official
who defected to the West fairly recently. This is his story.
Quite frankly, I had gotten it expecting to puzzle, mull, and
bull my way through dense and opaque material in order to gain
some insight into the mentality of high-ranking Soviet officials.
I was surprised. It is smooth and clear reading, not exactly
gripping but perfectly engaging for a non-fiction work. 16 pages
into it I figured I had already gotten my money's worth (hardcover
at that) and the rest was pure profit. Shevchenko alternates
between narrative (how the contact, espionage, and ultimate break
was done) and reminiscence (why he did it) in an unobvious way.
It seems important to him to make the reader understand his
motives, and does this well enough that one feels one knows him.
The single great luxury America affords him (he was rich in Russia)
appears to be the opportunity to be honest, to say what one
truly thinks and feels.
I hereby cut this review short so I can go home and finish reading
"Breaking with Moscow."
--JoSH
------------------------------
Date: 20 Jun 85 12:34 EDT (Thu)
From: _Bob < Carter@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Gun Control?
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS at USC-ECL.ARPA>
An example
of a simple problem: Gun control--should people be allowed to possess
instruments capable of destroying the entire society? If not, how can
that be reconciled (or enforced) within a free society?
Hmmn. Maybe it is time for some more gun control flamerei. It's
been quite a long time since POLI-SCI last turned its attention to
that subject, and things have gotten pretty slow lately.
A beginning topic: Congress last year passed legislation instructing
BATF to redefine the "curios and relics" exception to the foreign
trade sections of the Gun Control Act of l968 to allow importation
(from Free World countries) of most not-full-auto-capable World War
II military small arms. Seventy-five-dollar Mannlicher-Carcano's are
back. That should raise some pro-gun-controller's temperatures.
Another, for the anti-control faction: C. Ray Arnett (former deputy
undersecretary of Interior) handily defeated Neal Knox (for director
of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action) for a five-year term as
executive director of the National Rifle Association. For the
non-cognoscenti: Arnett favors Stalinist control over the
organization and compromise in Congress (he supports the "Cop-Killer
Bullet" bill, for instance). Knox is for democratic governance of
the NRA and against supping with the devil however long the spoon.
Takers?
_B
[Please no takers! I'm going on vacation in July and if the gun
issue gets loose again I'll find 17 meg of flames awaiting me
upon my return. Seriously, I will be away most of the month
but I'll try to get out a couple of issues in there somewhere.
If you want quick responses to your responses, cc: the interested
party in your message.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 85 8:11:31 PDT
From: Pandya.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Re: Public reaction [JoSH's footnote]
Granted, I am not particularly well-informed about such matters, but
your statement about the superpowers gradually moving from
people-destroying weapons to weapon-destroying weapons is something I
haven't heard before (or at least never inferred from what I heard.) It
is a heartening sign. Do you have any detailed information (or
references thereto) about this process and related issues of how
military strategists view the current standoff, and what approach they
are taking to problems of security, defence, &c. in light of it?
Thanks.
--ravi
[Luttwak, one of whose books I reviewed here earlier, seems well-informed
and readable. Get anyone you like however, any competent defense
commentator will have the same underlying structure of facts
regardless of the interpretation. I only caution you to read
books, not magazines; and if you must buy periodicals, avoid the
ones with pictures on the covers (Slime, Newspeak, etc).
--JoSH]
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!mtfmt!ccw@Berkeley
Date: 20 Jun 85 12:58:11 CDT (Thu)
Seatbelt laws.
Seatbelts are a definite aid to AVOIDING accidents and
controlling an automobile. A driver locked into the seat can
regain control of a sliding or spinning car, whereas a drive who has
been slid over on a bench seat into the passenger side is no longer a driver.
This is an extreme example, but look up any good book on driving,
high performance or not.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 85 19:30:37 edt
From: Paul V. Torek < dual!lll-crg!flink@maryland.ARPA>
Re: Seatbelts
It is not true that seatbelts help the driver drive only during/
after an accident. Seatbelts help the driver cope with any
sudden change of velocity (e.g., turning, braking). Whether the
helpful effects of seatbelts on driving ability are a sufficient
reason for seatbelt laws depends on their magnitude. My own
opinion is that seatbelt laws are justifiable on the ground of
protecting drivers from their own stupidity (libertarians, dry
up).
"A life is a terrible thing to waste."
With apologies to the United Negro College Fund,
--Paul V. Torek, aspiring iconoclast
[I may dry up, but I won't blow away. Why then do typical state laws
*prohibit* four-point harnesses, the kind used in auto racing?
And why hasn't someone tried to outlaw car radios, which I claim
are a much greater cause of accidents than unbelted drivers?
And why don't some of the government studies try to *measure*
the risks of each kind in quantitative terms, rather than just
show that one exists to prove a political point? You have a
risk of being hit by a meteor, why not require armor plate on
top of all cars? How many people drown each year from cars
going off bridges? Why not require emergency scuba gear for the
driver and front-seat passenger? It could *demonstrably* save
100 or so lives per year!
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 85 15:57:22 CDT
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI < wmartin@Almsa-2>
Subject: Space Living
Re "the old bod starts to degenerate after [6 months in space]":
My body is degenerating right here and now. I'd prefer it to degenerate
in zero-G, where I could ignore a lot of the nonsense I now have to
put up with due to gravity. The old Heinlein story about "Waldo" (the
origin of the term "waldo" for mechanical manipulators operating by
mimicking body movements, by the way) depicts a person with a degenerative
muscular condition who can live and work productively in zero-G but
would be bedridden if subject to Earth-normal gravity. Ever since I
read that [decades ago] I wanted to live in that environment. Since I have
contempt for the body, and consider it nothing but a life-support system
for the mind, which is the *real* person, I have no particular interest
in maintaining enough musculature to return to planetary surface -- I'm
willing to make any such move into space permanent.
Will Martin
PS -- By the way, I am not suffering any such disease, nor am I weak;
I'm large and rather strong -- I just don't regard physical strength and
condition as very important. After all, my mind can design a machine
that can outdo any single task my body can perform. I accept that the human
body is a wonderfully *versatile* machine; I doubt that I could build or
design a more flexible device that could do the many things biological
organisms do. Many robots would be needed to replace one human, in terms
of capabilities, after all. Now, if I can do genetic engineering, there
are some *interesting* possibilities..... WM
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley
Date: 21 Jun 85 23:06:49 CDT (Fri)
Subject: costs of space colonization
> 1) The problem with the American west analogy is that the amount
> of capital required, in constant dollars, was several orders of
> magnitude less (probably less than $10-20K in 1984 dollars)...
Don't underestimate the magnitude of investment the early settlers made.
Freeman Dyson has documented the magnitude of some of these investments.
The Plymouth Rock colony needed the entire life savings of all its members,
plus enough borrowed money that it was deep in debt for twenty years after.
The Mormons merely spent their life savings to move to Utah. Note that
these were both religious colonies, where saving money to facilitate the
proposed emigration was a matter of strong personal belief.
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: 24 Jun 1985 5:21-PDT
From: knapp%usc-cseb%usc-cse.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: Gravity and space colonies
Is this list poli-sci or sci-fi? In any case the following points
come to mind.
1. Gravity and health: I would hate to be the guinea pig who
finds out what long-term zero-g life does to the human physique.
I think the most recent issue of IEEE Spectrum is the one with
an article that discusses electrical effects on bone structure;
evidently bone is piezoelectric, and bone stresses lead to bone
growth. I would not be at all surprised to find that lack of
stress could not be made up for by any dietary supplement.
2. In any case I think that the numbers and some clever engineering
could substantially reduce the cost of `gravity'. Suppose we consider
a minimal centrifuge to live in: two balloons and a length of wire
rope, rotating in a dumbell configuration. The cost of the rope and
the facts of rotation and two-balloons-instead-of-one are what
separates such a system from a `gravityless' system. As far as the
issue of rigidity goes, consider a sausage casing thirty feet in
diameter, supporting an air pressure of 5 psi and a `weight' of
1200 pounds per linear foot. Thus if the sausage casing was 60 feet
long, the total people+capital plant weight would be 72000 Lb, which
I do not think unreasonably optimistic. To compare, the Uniform Building
Code specifies a rating of 40 lb/ft^2 for residential floors.
Now the circumferential tensile stress on the skin of the casing
due to air pressure is around (360 in)(5 lb/in^2) or 1800 Lb/in.
The loading due to weight would be 120 lb/in. Depending on the
nature of the connection between the rope and the balloon, a
certain amount of out-of-circularity could be expected, but how
much? I don't see stiffness as a problem. As to the question of
getting into and out of the thing, the question would be one
of matching spins at the center, and having a symmetric dumbwaiter
arrangement. But the cost of adding or subtracting spin would almost
certainly be small by comparison to the cost of moving around in the
first place.
I think that the real barriers to space colonization will be in the
realms of radiation and economics. How does one make money up there?
And not get fried in the process? Going up for a week is one thing, but
for a lifetime is another. A nice place to visit, but take along your
leadenwear... and some of the locals look d__d strange.
David
[I'd love to be said guinea pig--in fact, I hereby volunteer.
Electrical biases can be created or counteracted artificially,
too; who knows what's necessary? Let's get up there and find out!
Two bags on a string are indeed cheaper than an O'Neill spacecan,
but you still need rigid internal partitions--it's hard to stand
on a balloon even if it will support you. You'd have to wear
snowshoes. EVA remains a pain. And you can't build incrementally.
I think I remember that there is no economy of scale in building
inflated spheres big-- the broader the curvature at the wall,
the heavier the material has to be to withstand the same pressure.
That was years ago, though: I'll redo the math and let you know.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Sat Jun 22 16:55:32 1985
From: mcb@lll-tis-b (Michael C. Berch)
Subject: Yet another tax plan: the HEAD TAX
OK, here's MY tax plan. Let's call it the HEAD TAX, since it is
basically a per capita tax with a couple of modifications to make
it actually feasible (rather than an abstract ideal). Criticism
and flamage are expected and encouraged.
Proposition-- Government services come in two flavors:
those that cost the government an identical amount regardless of the
income or wealth of the recipient of the service, and those that vary
proportionally in cost depending on the income or wealth of the
recipient. A good example of the former is government support of
health care R&D; a good example of the latter is government
efforts to protect the investments of its citizens in foreign
countries. A line-item examination of government expenditures
shows that the vast majority of federal spending falls in the
first category. (Remember, the principle of taxation is that each
taxpayer is, in theory, paying for the benefits conferred upon himself;
thus items like social programs fall into the first (per capita)
category. If taxpayer X pays $1 to support the education of disadvantaged
citizen Y, the benefit CONFERRED UPON X is identical regardless of the
wealth or income of X. We're talking economics here, NOT 20th century
liberal social engineering.)
OK. Each of the government's expenditures are then classified as to whether
they are per capita or proportional. It isn't tremendously important to the
tax process how this decision is made--presumably it would be made according
to the normal rules of political decisionmaking. Next, the government
decides how much revenue it needs for the per capita class of expenditures.
This decision is made in the normal budgetary manner. The procedure is
repeated for the proportional class of expenditures.
All right, it's tax time. Take the lump sum for per capita class
expenditures and divide it by the number of taxpayers. (I.e., those
persons with an income over a threshold level.) This gives you
the PER CAPITA QUOTIENT amount that each taxpayer owes. Problems? Well, first
of all, a non-trivial number of taxpayers are going to have incomes less
than or near to the per capita quotient itself! Never fear; my intent is
not confiscatory taxation of the poor. So what we need is a social welfare
cash payment system that would (in determining welfare payments) take into
account the huge tax bills of lower income classes, and fund them. (What
do you think the Zero Bracket Amount is, anyway? Why not combine the
welfare/income redistribution parts of the tax code into the welfare
programs where they belong?). The money necessary to fund this would be
added into the per capita portion of the budget, just like every other
social program. We are simply de-coupling the welfare part of the tax
program and accounting for it elsewhere.
The proportional class of expenditures would be funded by a simple flat
tax on income, with the percentage determined by revenue requirements.
This part is relatively simple, and we don't need any exemptions,
deductions, and adjustments. Just tote up your income, apply the
percentage, and that's the proportional part of your tax bill.
The per capita quotient amount would be published and each taxpayer
would receive a bill for it, with a space for calculation of the
proportional amount. The existing withholding and estimated tax plans
could be used or modified as desired. Additionally, the tax bills of
welfare recipients could be set off against the (increased) welfare
payments in order to simplify accounting and cash-flow problems.
In a future article, I'll post some case studies based on U.S. federal
expenditures and income for the present tax year. This will show
what variously situated citizens and families would pay under the
HEAD TAX plan.
Michael C. Berch
mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA
{akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb
------------------------------
Date: Fri 21 Jun 85 17:28:08-PDT
From: LUBAR%hplabs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: tax proposal
I second JoSH's criticisms of Mr. Leff's tax proposal. I think the goal
of mixing in social engineering with tax law will inevitably lead to
complicated tax laws as more and more social goals are championed and
existing ones do not seem to result from tax incentives. I don't think
the government ought to be in the business of social engineering in the
first place, and the IRS surely shouldn't. In fact, I'm frightened of
the power your proposal places in the hands of the IRS. That organization
was formed as an emergency act and is effectively above the law --- much
of what we normally consider "due process", including basic tenets such
as "innocent until proven guilty", do not constrain the IRS. As much as
I think the government should be lessened, I feel even more strongly
about the IRS. I'd like to see it abolished, or reduced to a couple of
low-paid clerks who shuffle papers and punch adding machines. I would
especially like to see lawyers excluded from the whole business; if the
tax law can't be completely defined in a way that a 12-year-old can
understand (and I mean completely, with nothing open to interpretation),
I think we're just going to end up where we are now in a few years. The
thought of the IRS legislating... well, I don't want to spoil my dinner.
You also commented a couple of times that your proposals would be
popular because they reduce personal tax for most people. I doubt
this, based on the reaction I see to the flat tax rate. First of all,
the people who stand to lose by your proposal are the rich, and they
are the most powerful, influential, and aware of the implications of
any proposed change to tax law. I suspect that laws aimed at business
would be strongly lobbied against, and lobbies have a whole lot more
power than a random group of individuals. But even among the poor and
middle class who presumably gain, I'd expect to see dissent. Many
people do not evaluate a situation in total. They would see, for
example, that you have eliminated their precious deduction for mortgage
interest. Lots of homeowners out there. I'll make an analogy: most
people complain about the government always being in their pockets, yet
those same people go to public school, get government loans, ride
public transit, expect social security, etc. Most lower- and middle-class
people complain about tax loopholes, but I doubt they would react
favorably to you taking away *their* loopholes. I think any change in
the tax law (short of eliminating taxes completely) will require a
carefully thought out campaign to educate people, to make them see the
advantages of the change.
Personally, I would welcome a flat tax, such as the 3-tiered system you
suggested (without all the social engineering). And I would prefer to
see it stay flat, with no loopholes, including home mortgages. I think
the market (or other means) could address the issues these tax laws
intend to address, *in the long run*. But I wonder how such a flat tax
could be implemented without severe disruption in the short term. For
example, what happens to the many people who would suddenly not be able
to afford their mortgage payments without the tax deduction? What would
be the result of the sudden shifting of numerous portfolios as investors
move out of old tax shelters? Does anyone out there have any ideas?
annette
------------------------------
Date: Mon 24 Jun 85 16:23:52-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Let's hear it for sales tax as the only tax! Benefits derived from
the "social overhead" are more directly proportional to consumtion
than they are to anything else.
TCS
[Hip hip Hooray! Hip hip Hooray! Hip hip Hooray! --j]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1985 17:29 PDT
From: DAVIES@SU-SIERRA.ARPA
Subject: Leff's Simplified Tax Package
In response to the tax package proposed by Leff%SMU@CSNET-RELAY:
I agree with Josh: tax simplification is good for its own sake, but no
"simplification" scheme will be "society-neutral". Each will have
economic impacts, not all of which can be predicted beforehand. In
spite of the questionable morality of one group of people taking the
earnings of another group of people for their own purposes, taxes are
apparently, as many have suggested, inevitable. If the government
didn't exist, another mafia would come along to fill the vacuum.
Given that taxes are inevitable, it seems likely to me that either a
sales tax or a flat tax would have the least impact on the way society
would operate in the absence of taxes.
Let's take a look at some of the technical and political problems in
your proposal. Your consumption tax (I find your use of the modifier
"excess" only inflammatory) is founded on the belief that investment
is good and consumption is bad. The free market doesn't hold either
belief: it lets individuals choose what amounts of investment or
consumption are appropriate to their circumstances. Animal species,
human individuals, and human societies have found that savings (nuts
for the winter or IRA accounts) are critical to long-term satisfaction
if not survival. This amounts to a fundamental law of economics,
which unfortunately may occasionally be suspended at governmental
whim. The government may make savings look unnecessary, through the
pyramid scam called Social Security, or it may make them look stupid,
through another scam called inflation. Your proposal to "encourage"
investment is unnecessary; people can think for themselves, if the
government would get out of the way.
One technical flaw: would you make an investment if you couldn't later
sell it? Your scheme to favor first purchasers over later purchasers
of an investment means that such investments will be highly illiquid.
The only way to "take money out" of a stock investment is to sell it
to someone else. If no one else can buy it on terms as good as you
got, they won't offer as high a price.
Let's consider also your organizational inefficiency tax. Since no
one is on the side of organizational inefficiency, this might very
well be politically popular, but I don't see that additional
disincentives for inefficiency are necessary. Should a corporation be
taxed on the "unnecessary" time it spends filling out tax forms?
Should a corporation be taxed on the time it spends trying to find out
what products its American customers want before it begins to
manufacture them? Companies already pay a substantial amount for what
you call overhead. Why aggravate the problem by increasing their
overhead expenses?
Expense accounts are bloated now partly because of existing corporate
taxes. Expenses are paid with a 50-cent dollar -- the government
picks up half the tab. The deal is even better than this, because the
recipient isn't taxed on the benefits. If a company wants to give an
employee a 50-dollar dinner, perhaps to make business travel more
palatable, it costs 50 dollars out of an expense account, but it might
cost over 100 dollars to give an employee that much benefit as salary.
A federal sales tax, instead of income taxes, would be a simple
solution to this problem: the same tax would be paid either way. Or,
with a 10% flat tax, the difference would be much less than now. In
either case, incentives could be distributed almost rationally instead
of under (or in this case, on top of) the table.
Shifting more of the burden of taxation to corporations will make U.S.
companies less competitive in world markets, not more so. We should
eliminate the corporate tax, for this reason alone.
I'd like to respond to one quote in particular:
4) Discouraging things such as mergers, corporate jets, etc. the economy
will be more efficient and it will force corporate management to
concentrate attention and money on real problems.
What makes you think that corporate mergers or jets are wasteful? Was
it wasteful for GM to acquire a major software company, EDS, to help
it into the information age? Is it wasteful for oil companies to
undergo restructuring after a decade of unforeseeable changes? Is it
wasteful to be able to make multi-million-dollar decisions earlier by
having a corporate jet on hand? If it is in some circumstances, then
the market will decide and will come up with a solution (e.g., I've
recently seen ads for an air-taxi service which will make unscheduled,
spur-of-the-moment flights). Let the directors and the stockholders
decide what is and what isn't wasteful, hopefully without the
distortions of taxation.
Finally, I would like to comment on your labor import tax. Where is
it written than Americans want to do more work rather than less?
Hasn't the success of the industrial revolution been measured in the
REDUCTION of the work week rather than the EXTENSION? Shouldn't it be
called slavery when we force Americans to work when foreigners are
more happy to do it for the same amount of money.
Another quote from your message:
1) This provides a uniform system for dealing with foreign imports.
We now have a patchwork quilt of various categories. Most of the
foreign duty can be avoided by bring in parts and doing the final assembly
in the U. S.
This doesn't make sense in my book. Do you mean we should convince
the Japanese to do the interesting work of design in Japan, and hire
Americans to do the boring job of assembly? Should we turn the U.S.
into the world's source of assembly line labor?
Why do you -- and many other people -- believe that hiring aliens is
harmful to U.S. interests? U.S. "Labor" interests would have you
believe that this is the case, since this lowers wages for competing
U.S. workers. But where does the money come from to pay higher wages
to U.S. workers, when we restrain the import of labor. It doesn't
come from foreign workers, since they can buy goods made abroad with
cheaper labor. Why, of course it comes from U.S. workers! Most
likely it comes from a different set of workers than the ones who are
pleading for the regulations, but it still comes out of the collective
U.S. pocket. There is no net gain, only a redistribution to those who
squawk the loudest.
If unemployment is a problem in this country now, it is not because
the aliens are after our jobs. In some cases, it is because many
Americans have come to expect a wage larger than their knowledge and
abilities will support -- in the INTERNATIONAL marketplace. In other
cases, it is because the government prevents people -- through the
minimum wage law -- from working for an economic wage. In other cases
(e.g., the steel industry), it is because neither the workers nor the
steel companies foresaw the need to prepare for another line of work.
Labor protectionism won't solve the problem -- it will only extend it.
The market for goods and services can no longer be confined to the
United States. Whether we like it or not, we are all competing in an
international economic environment. The sooner we recognize that
fact, the better for all of us. The longer we take to understand it,
the better for our competitors who understand it already.
The goals for your tax plan are to encourage investment, discourage
inefficiency, and encourage a higher standard of life for U.S.
workers. The free market -- without interference from taxes intended
to mold society -- can achieve these goals much more efficiently.
Let it!
-- Byron
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 9 July 85 Volume 5 Number 29
Contents: Space
Welfare
Taxes
Seatbelts
[I'm still on vacation... --JoSH]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 27 Jun 85 01:57 EDT (Thu)
From: _Bob < Carter@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Space Living
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI < wmartin at Almsa-2>
... I have
contempt for the body, and consider it nothing but a life-support system
for the mind, which is the *real* person
PS -- By the way, I am not suffering any such disease, nor am I weak;
I'm large and rather strong -- I just don't regard physical strength and
condition as very important.
Will, you d*mned well would regard them as important if you weren't
in such good health. Nothing will convince you about the fallacy of
mind-body dualism faster than trying to think clearly after a longish
illness.
Er, you have Descartes before the hearse.
_B
[Even a moderate case of hay fever will apprise you of this basic fact.
... which is another good reason to live in space, maybe? --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 85 15:32:39 CDT
From: William Martin < control@ALMSA-1>
Subject: Basic SDI / Star Wars Defense Question
This question is so simple and obvious that I can't believe I haven't already
run across it clearly stated and answered, but I sure don't recall doing so:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| If the SDI is hugely expensive and yet ineffectual and worthless, why |
| are the Soviets against our attempting to create and deploy it? |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One would expect that they would simply say nothing on the topic,
meanwhile snickering quietly at our folly behind closed doors.
Or are they reasoning that their public opposition to it will *encourage*
us to go ahead with it -- if they remained quiet on the issue, we would
drop it, so they talk it up to keep the pot boiling?
Or are they insecure enough about the issue that, if we went ahead with
a really-worthless Star Wars defense, investing billions with no return,
they would feel compelled to invest in their own version of a worthless
space defense system? So they are trying to save themselves from this fate?
Or do they believe it is a great and workable idea, and really fear it
as a true defense against their strategic weaponry?
[Note: I have no real idea if SDI is good or bad, feasible or impossible.
However, the above questions could be answered regardless of the true
quality and value of an SDI system.]
Will Martin
[This question is being discussed in some detail on ARMS-D --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 27 June 1985 02:09:17 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: Cash to the Poor
A study done at CMU has shown that giving cash payments to the poor is the
least desirable form of welfare. Least desirable to the government that is.
It is the most desirable form welfare recepients, and reduces the incentive
to get off welfare. Vouchers, such as food stamps, seem to be the best
compromise between low administration costs and minimizing the desirability
of the benefit, for a given level of benefits. This is in fact the position
of the Reagan administration, which is sponsering experiments in expanding
vouchers to include rents. Experiments to lower administration costs, such
as a food stamp credit card, are also underway.
Let's not forget that one of the underlying features of most income tax
plans since the days of the Communist Manifesto is progressivity, which is
related to the ability to pay. If you believe in the ability to pay idea,
then the tax rate should be some fraction of income minus necessities (food,
clothing, shelter, transportation, etc.). Since calculating necessities for
each person is a pain, the tax system uses a curve (tax brackets) with some
deductions. A flat tax with zero bracket doesn't necessarily provide the
desired curve.
[One of the commest arguing points in conventional social-programs debate
is the question of whether the poor are lazy bums who would rather get
welfare than work, or unfortunates who try as hard as they can but are
forced into poverty by inclement circumstances. The universally
ignored fact is that the question is *irrelevant* to the debate.
The germane questions are these: Does the program offer a haven for
the lazy, *whether or not* they coincide with the current poor?
And does the program make people lazy (eg, by propaganda to reduce
the social stigma attached to handouts) who otherwise would not be?
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 7 Jul 1985 09:35-PDT
From: king@Kestrel.ARPA
Subject: Hmmm.
Gee, I sent in a statement on the order of "...nobody should receive the
franchise until they are self-supporting..." and I didn't see a single
counterflame.
There must be a problem with my outbound mail service...
-dick
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1985 18:27 EDT
From: Dean Sutherland < Sutherland@TL-20A.ARPA>
Subject: quote from Lincoln
I thought you might be interested in this quote from Abe Lincoln:
"You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help small
men by tearing down big men. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot
keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the
brotherhood of man by inciting class hatreds. You cannot establish security on
borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's
initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them
what they could and should do for themselves."
Dean F. Sutherland
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 85 14:35:38 CDT
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI < wmartin@Almsa-2>
Subject: Sales tax
I *hate* sales taxes. I don't know why anybody would NOT *hate* sales
taxes. Maybe that means they really ARE the best taxes, as long as
they are totally visible, not concealed back up the chain of
supply, like most VAT proposals would do...
Right now, I have to pay $2.13 to buy a $1.99 hamburger special due to
state and local [St. Louis, MO] taxes. If there were no income,
property, excise, or other taxes, just a *whole bunch* of national,
state, and local sales taxes, what would a $1.99 hamburger cost, anyway?
(Assume the current level of government income and expenditure --
nothing changed except the tax-collection mechanism, and the savings
achieved by reducing the IRS and state revenue dept's to a smaller
organization that only has to monitor retail sales are to be
disregarded for now.)
$3.00?
$5.00?
$10e99?
(At what point does the revolution come, by the way? :-)
Will
"I'm mad as hell and I just keep taking it anyway!"
PS -- For now, buy as much as you can mail-order across state lines to
avoid sales taxes. I know some states (NY & NJ, especially) are trying
out mechanisms to catch and tax these transactions. So if you want
something, buy it now and save your money later. I'd buy my groceries
by mail-order if the shipping didn't eat up the savings.... :-) WM
[The best estimates I've found indicate that the total government
takeoff at all levels in the US comes to about 45% of the GNP.
If this can be taken as a guide, your $1.99 hamburger would incur
a tax of $1.63, for a total of $3.62. Its obviousness is one
of the main reasons I prefer a sales tax-- I hold the present
"painless" system to be basically dishonest, quite apart from its
being theft. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jun 85 15:49:43 EDT
From: Tim < WEINRICH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Taxes
One of the many problems with governments is that they have a tendency
to create an upwards-redistribution of wealth. They tend to take more from
the poor people than they are giving back, and they tend to do the opposite
for richer people. Programs like welfare and social security are designed
to fight this tendency; yet you dont have to study these programs very
carefully to discover that they are often unsuccessful. More than half (I
dont remember the exact statistics) of the money our government presently
pours into such programs winds up in the hands of middle-or-upper class folks
who collect salaries for distributing the money.
Given that ideas like this dont often work very well, and given the
libertarian orientation of the digest I'm sending to, I'm not about to
suggest that the tax system should be progressive (like it is now, more
or less) in a further attempt to fight the upwards redistribution of
wealth. But do we really need to make matters worse by installing a
regressive tax system?
A rich person who is smart enough to worry about the future will not
spend every penny he makes. He'll invest. A poor person who is smart
enough to worry about the future will invest some money too, if and only
if he is making more than enough money to survive on. But a poor person
is forced to spend a larger fraction of his income than a richer person
merely because a larger fraction is necessary for survival.
In this sense, the sales tax seems to me to be a regressive tax. (In
fact, by this same argument it is of questionable value to make an
exemption for investments - but thats another matter.) You can try to
offset this by having a higher sales tax on luxuries, but we try to do
that already, and I'm not sure I find the results very satisfying.
On the other hand, I certainly understand the desire to allow the
government less information about our private lives. But it would be
nice to implement this thru some other means than a sales tax. Cant we
think of a better alternative?
(An aside to the libertarians: Isnt the libertarian cause unpopular
enough already? Do the libertarians, who are already frequently accused
of favoring the rich man, really need to advocate a sales tax to make
themselves even more unpopular? I know that libertarians dont like
politics, but politics is not the same thing as tact...)
Twinerik
[This is either crazy, or money-worship. Unless you are Scrooge McDuck,
money isn't desireable for its own sake alone, to lounge in a pile of;
it is only of use to spend. The idea that someone saving his money
is avoiding a sales tax assumes that the saver somehow gets value for
his money without spending it. But that's loopy--whether you put
your money in a bank, or stuff it in a mattress, it is of no use to you--
in real terms, as if you didn't get it at all-- *until you spend it
on a good or service*. At which point you pay the tax. So I claim
that a sales tax is perfectly flat. If you are of a mind to help the
poor, merely exempt food, clothing, and shelter from the tax. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 85 12:59:20 CDT
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI < wmartin@Almsa-2>
Subject: Seatbelts & passengers
The seatbelt discussions I have seen in various places have just about
all been from the drivers' viewpoint. However, I believe the "mandatory
seatbelt laws" in those states which have them also mandate that front-seat
*passengers* also wear the belts. How can this be justified? Most of the
arguments in favor I have seen have concentrated on keeping control of
the car, etc. That couldn't apply to a passenger.
A losse passenger could fly into the driver in a collision, and that could
have ill effects, but then why would these laws include only *front-seat*
passengers and specifically exclude *rear-seat* passengers? They are
even more likely to endanger the driver, coming at the back of his/her
head in a collision.
Also, exactly how can this be enforced? Does the driver get a ticket
if the passenger is unbelted? Suppose the passenger refuses to
cooperate, and is physically powerful enough that the driver cannot
force the passenger to comply, nor force him/her out of the car?
Would that be an acceptable excuse? Could the *passenger* then be given
the ticket? Suppose the passenger has no driver's license -- how can
tickets against someone with nothing to lose be enforced, if there
is no way to assess points against a license or suspend it? (Maybe
the same way as a jaywalking ticket is enforced? Sounds like a good
reason to always carry false ID, so you can really be immune to such
sanctions!)
As a non-driver who has ridden in certain cars where the seatbelts
simply do not fit me, I have a modicum of interest in this issue...
Will Martin
[In NJ, the passenger gets a ticket. In theory, there is no reason
why they couldn't formally charge you with a crime, and take you
to jail in irons, forcing you to post bail--Ie, I don't believe
that you have any legal protection against such a proceeding.
However, I haven't heard of it ever happening. Bob Carter should
be considered the expert on NJ legal matters, however-- Any comments,
Bob? --JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 10 July 85 Volume 5 Number 30
Contents: BR
Seatbelts
Taxes/Welfare
Mind/Body Dichotomy?
[I'm still on vacation folks... no more digests for a week and a half]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: JoSH at Rutgers
Subjest: Book Review
This doesn't really have anything much to do with Poli-Sci,
but since it is by all odds the most fun-to-read book I've
struck this year, I thought I'd mention it.
"Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" by (who else) Richard P. Feynman.
Feynman is an oddball physicist of Nobel stature. He's also,
as these stories show, an exceedingly interesting individual.
Few books, when read alone in a quiet house, can make you
laugh aloud at length. This one did, to me anyway, several times.
The apparently guileless fashion in which he explains them, contrasts
with the consumate sneakiness of some of his practical jokes.
For anyone interested in biography, science, safecracking,
picking up women in bars, or the politics of the California
Board of Education, this is a book you must read.
--JoSH
------------------------------
Date: 9 Jul 1985 13:58:16-EDT
From: Nicholas.Spies@CMU-CS-H
Subject: Seat Belt Laws
Seat belt laws are peculiar in that they, in violating personal liberty,
benefit everyone in the degree that insurance claims (ergo rates) go down.
But do they? To what degree does anyone outside the insurance industry know
what this benefit actually is, that is, to what degree insurance companies
are pocketing the "excess profits" that acrue from lower claims (and the
profits must be huge). Shouldn't the public be replaid the excess premiums
collected?
There is also the question of the lag time between when a seat belt law takes
effect (presumably lowering insurance company liability from one day to the
next, by a certain degree) and the time that statistics become available for
rate adjustments (if they are made at all).
Shouldn't the same information that actuaries have available to calculate rates
be available to the public? It seems to me that an "index of profitibility" for
policies (such as disclosures on "Truth in Lending" loan forms) would help
promote competition and help to inform the public about insurance options.
As it is now, seat belt laws are sold to the public on a purely emotional
basis, while in the background huge profits are being made. If I am forced
to modify my behavior by law, I want to make sure that a commensurate benefit
comes my way.
Nicholas Spies < ns@cmu-cs-h>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 85 8:10:26 EDT
From: John Lowry < jlowry@BBNZ.ARPA>
Subject: Sales Taxes
I just got back from a month in Japan, and through the
language barrier, I think I learned this:
There is no sales tax in Japan except on certain foreign
imported goods (liquor, etc). The tax on imports is comparable
to what we pay for domestic sales tax. However, there is close
to a flat 40% tax on all income, from corporate to wage earner.
I thought this 40% was outrageous until I started adding
all the nickels and dimes we get hit with every where we turn.
One private businessman I talked to said that he paid 40% on
the profit from his business and then another 40% on his personal
income. Whew !
Just thought I'd throw this out for info ...
John Lowry
By the way, there is no tipping ANYWHERE in Japan. The average
cab ride costs about 470 Yen (250 Yen to the dollar). I tried
giving a 500 Yen piece to a cabbie and he chased me down the
street to give me the 30 Yen change. (30 Yen is about 12 cents).
------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 9 July 1985 14:40:04 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: Re: Social Security
The statement that more than half of the money for Social Security goes to
administration is false. The Social Security Administration has about
85,000 employees. At a $100,000 per person per year overhead rate, that's
$8.5B annually. Social Security distributes something over $250B annually.
Administration is therefore less than 3.4% of the total. This isn't
surprising when you think about it. Except for status changes (death,
spousal death, job change, salary change), everything is done by computer.
If you measure Social Security's success by achievement of goals, then it
clearly has succeeded. The primary goal was/is to provide income security
in old age. Real Social Security benefits have risen 30% or more in the
past 15 years. The poverty rate among the elderly used to substantially
exceed the rate for the general population. The elderly rate is now lower
than the general rate. This was very expensive, but low taxes wasn't one of
the system's goals.
------------------------------
Date: 9 Jul 85 17:00:40 EDT
From: Tim < WEINRICH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Social Security
If I said that Social Security was that inefficient, I admit I was wrong.
The statistics I've heard apply to the total amount of money being spent on
social programs. Apparently, if all of this money were just handed to poor
people, it would be enough to keep every family in the U.S. making more than
$10 or $11,000 per year. This sounds somewhat hard to believe, so before
everyone starts screaming at me, let me see if I cant find my source...
Twinerik
[Let's clear this up. SS (like the IRS) is very effeciently run, for
a gov't program. It is WELFARE programs which typically have a high
overhead. The Grace Commission claimed that 70% (yes sevenTY percent,
almost three quarters) of WELFARE program costs were overhead.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 85 14:53:20 PDT
From: Pandya.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Re: Sales tax [Twinerik+JoSH]
JoSH answered Tim Weinrich's question about what a $1.99 hamburger would
cost if all taxes were on retail sales by saying it would cost $3.62
($1.99 price + $1.63 tax). He based this on an estimate that total
government takeoff is 45%, so sales tax would be 45/55 = ~82%. But
would that still be a $1.99 hamburger if taxes at every point in the
production chain were sales taxes? Would it be a $1.00 hamburger? A
$5.00 hamburger? My guess is that it would depend upon how the change
in the tax structure would affect each of the points in the chain; i.e.,
whether the "drag factor" caused by taxes would be increased or
decreased because of the different method of collection. Overall price
levels would remain about the same, although relative prices levels
would shift around.
That last sentence doesn't seem to mean a lot to me. Is there any
content at all in the phrase "overall price levels"? I guess one way of
thinking about it is, "If one is going to siphon off 45% of all economic
activity, is this a 'good' ('reasonable', 'fair', 'optimal') way of
doing it?" In the sense of not playing favourites and skewing the way
people would allocate their resources, it seems to be in the same class
of "goodness" as a flat tax. It is equivalent to saying to people, "You
have 45% less (of something) than you thought you had. Go ahead and
spend it however you like." I think it would be a lot more painful and
visible than an income tax -- can you imagine paying 80% sales tax on a
HOUSE?! I certainly don't class this as a disadvantage, although it
makes a switch somewhat unlikely. This is all very, very arcane...
--ravi
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 85 17:58:51 edt
From: Paul V. Torek < decvax!seismo!maryland.ARPA!flink@Berkeley>
Subject: Taxes
JoSH's contention that money is of no value to anyone until they
spend it is wrong (but it figures that he would say so, given his
ideology). The fact is that some people desire money as a form of
POWER. I'm talking about power for power's sake. My own opinion
is that power for power's sake is a false value (i.e. one not worth
holding), but the fact is that some people value it.
Now that I've scratched my itch to offend :-> , I should admit that
JoSH's suggestion that a sales tax would be better than what we have
now is probably right (in spite of the above point). I think that
to avoid the regressive nature of such a tax, certain items (such
as food, which is not taxed in my state) could be untaxed, or, better,
there could be some compensating welfare-type programs (food stamps,
etc., or (better) a uniform income supplement given to everyone (a lot
easier to administer than the present welfare system)).
But since a national sales tax is politically unlikely, here's a tax
reform that would be much closer to the status quo yet be (I think)
a large improvement over the current system. Simply move from an
income tax to a spending tax. Instead of calculating your "taxable
income" somewhere near the middle of your 1040 form, you would
calculate your "taxable spending" which would be wages, tips, etc.
PLUS the amount you withdrew from banks, money market funds, stocks,
etc., MINUS the amount you put *into* banks, money market ... (etc).
Interest and capital gains would not be taxed until you spent them.
All the usual deductions could be allowed (medical, etc.) or repealed
within the same framework.
The advantages I can think of offhand are that there is no double
standard for "long-term capital gains" vs "short-term interest",
that mythical capital gains (really just prices rising with inflation)
are not taxed, that "income averaging" in tax calculations would
be unnecessary, and that investment would probably be encouraged
(or should I say not discouraged?).
------------------------------
Date: Tue 9 Jul 1985 08:05:09 EST
From: Zigurd R. Mednieks < mirror!prism!zrm@mit-eddie.ARPA>
Subject: VAT distortions
The exemption of food from VAT is common in Europe. In Austria this
resulted in the fact that I could dine on the world's best veal for no
more than a sub and fries here. Clothing was not exempt and so everyone
shops for clothing in Italy. I'm certain VAT is one reason why European
cars are so competitive in the world market -- if they weren't a great
value for the money, then the VAT would push their price beyond the
point where most people would buy them. VAT is also responsible for the
thriving low-end of the European auto market where cars like the
Citroen 2CV and Fiat Uno exist to keep cars affordable to young people
despite the VAT.
Is this just misleading anecdotal evidence, or would shifting the tax
load to a consumption tax change our consumption habits for the better?
Would cars be better? Would clothes be worse off because we'd buy for
durability and not style? What's it all mean, Mr. Natural Economic
Forces?
------------------------------
Date: Wed 10 Jul 85 09:47:50-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
No one should be given the franchise until they are self-supporting!!
(........must be an echo in here....)
tcs
PS Alternatively, with a progressive tax system, people should be given
voting power proportional to the taxes they pay. An incentive to
reduce cheating!
TCS
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 85 10:34:59 CDT
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI < wmartin@Almsa-2>
Subject: Living in Space
This isn't really apropriate for Poli-Sci, but I thought it might be
worthwhile to clear up what seems to be a misunderstanding about
what I meant in an earlier posting.
I had added a "PS" to my first posting about living in space despite
the effects on the body, which mentioned Heinlein's "Waldo" and
related topics, to the effect that I was posting this from a standpoint
of someone who was not suffering a degenerative disease (except age :-)
or who was weak. I had added ths, after some thought, because I felt
(and still feel) that an expression of contempt for the body coming
from someone who is suffering physical illness or degeneration is less
effective and less forceful than the same expression coming from a
person who happens to have gotten the genetic blueprint to be a large
and relatively strong person. Though I suppose I enjoy what would be
termed "good health" by most of the world's population, I still suffer
the aches and pains, cuts and bruises, etc., that most other people
endure, so I don't consider myself to be "in such good health", as
Bob put it in his follow-up. (I'd reserve that for people who work out,
follow the best possible dietary regimen, and simply exude healthfulness.
Don't you just *hate* those types? :-) Anyway,...
I am somewhat confused by the postings mentioning how the mind can be
affected and impaired by the body's defects. Of course this can happen,
but that is not a justification for putting up with the ill effects --
it is a reason to do all we can to *separate* the mind and body, and
isolate the (good) mind from the (bad) body. [I have a feeling this is
all recapitulating some of the early Christian schismatic positions
regarding soul and flesh, since it brings to mind some stuff I recall
reading about Byzantine religious debate, but let's not get into THAT
here!] I had mentioned, in a mailed reply to Bob's mailed response, that
I would like to be a creature of pure energy, thereby completely "mind"
and isolated from the physical imperfections and annoyances. (I don't think
he agreed that that was a desirable state, but that is my own desire
nonetheless.) This is not currently achieveable (unless all it takes is
dying, and the evidence for that viewpoint is controversial).
Anyhow, we can begin to approach the subjugation of the physical to the
mental by freeing ourselves from such obvious and intrusive physical
effets as gravity. (Every damn day of my life, gravity has caused me
some annoyance -- from simple things like dropping the soap to major
disasters like falling down stairs and breaking bones -- and I'm
pretty tired of it, and getting tireder as I age.) Yes, maybe the lack
of gravity will have ill effects; I still say it would be worth it to
be free of gravitation's snares. (Let's not get into physics -- I am
speaking of the real-life effect, not the actual physical fact that
those in orbit are not really "free" of gravity, but merely falling
in such a manner that it appears to them that there is no gravity.)
Actually, I expect that the effcts I've seen discussed, like the
leaching of calcium from bones, are a reasonable bodily reaction to the
lack of strain and gravitational stress, and that they will reach some
plateau after years of life in space.
In any case, I'd happily trade my present existence for that of a
disembodied brain that runs a spaceship. (There's been quite a bit of SF
using this premise; one sub-genre I never could appreciate treats such a
situation as equivalent to a prison sentence! Sounds more like a
vacation to me...) With good communications, I could even continue to
pontificate on the networks! (Might be a few months lightspeed lagtime
between responses, though! :-)
Hopefully this will end this discussion; I guess it all winds down to a
matter of personal opinion... (Doesn't everything?)
Regards,
Will Martin
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 30 July 85 Volume 5 Number 31
[Greetings, I am back from vacation...]
Contents: What is money?
Taxes
Crime and Technology
New mailing list
Computers- Mfg's responsibilities
Welfare
Multicolored flame
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 10 Jul 1985 5:46-PDT
From: knapp%usc-cseb%usc-cse.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
Subject: what is money?
[This is either crazy, or money-worship. Unless you are Scrooge McDuck,
money isn't desireable for its own sake alone, to lounge in a pile of;
it is only of use to spend. The idea that someone saving his money
is avoiding a sales tax assumes that the saver somehow gets value for
his money without spending it. But that's loopy--whether you put
your money in a bank, or stuff it in a mattress, it is of no use to you--
in real terms, as if you didn't get it at all-- *until you spend it
on a good or service*. At which point you pay the tax. So I claim
that a sales tax is perfectly flat. If you are of a mind to help the
poor, merely exempt food, clothing, and shelter from the tax. --JoSH]
What? My name is by no means McDuck, but I certainly would like to spend
less of my life working for the Govt. than I do. See, if I had a great pile
of money to lounge upon, I would invest it. At that point, my income
would not cost me any time to earn; hence any tax I paid the Govt would
cost me no time. On the other hand a poor man paying the same tax
on his living expenses (I live cheap) would have to work for the money
he paid the Govt; i.e. the Govt is claiming (what, about 10%?) of
his *life*, where I am paying nil because of my capital. Moreover,
any money I work for is diluted by return on investment. Isn't that
regressive?
David
[No, because *exactly* the same argument may be made with respect to
our current "progressive" income tax -- the working stiff is still
paying out of his labor and you are paying from income that costs
you no time to earn. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 85 11:16:01 edt
From: < ihnp4!watmath!looking!brad@Berkeley>
Subject: The proper forms of tax are property tax and inflation
The (free-enterprise) view of the proper form of government states
that governments should only provide police, courts and military.
I pretty much concur.
It seems to me you should pay for what you get with taxation. If the
government does only the above, the service it provides is protection, and
the amount of service you receive will be proportional to your property.
In many way it's like a security service. Any security service charges
more to protect more valuable property.
Of course, there is the problem of having to reveal how much you own.
I suggest you be allowed to claim any amount. If you claim low, however,
just like insurance, your propertly will no longer be protected, and when
you attempt to claim redress in the courts you must permit an assesment
of your property. If you are low, you lose, perhaps proportionally to
how low you were.
Mind you, I am not sure how this works.
For liquid assets, there's an easier way to tax that is 100% accurate
and doesn't require any revalation of your assets. This is (gasp) inflation.
Inflation costs something in paperwork, of course, but this is going to
be fixed by an EFT based economy. On the side, inflation as a tax
(as long as it is kept within bounds) stimulats the economy by punishing
people who take money out of circulation. You must invest to keep your
money away from the tax man. And the tax man doesn't mind if you keep it
away, because later there will be more and they will get their part.
A sales tax discourages commerce, so I don't like it. It's just like an
import duty.
There is one interesting selling tactic for the above, which is not to
say I think it is a justification. It does tax the rich more than the poor,
so the socialists will be more willing to accept it.
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1985 11:24 EDT
From: Dean Sutherland < Sutherland@TL-20A.ARPA>
Subject: Lowry on taxes in Japan...
Remember, however, that the long term capital gains tax in Japan is ZERO%!!!!!
They (quite sensibly) don't tax capital gains AT ALL!
Dean F. Sutherland < sutherland@tartan>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 85 00:57:33 cdt
From: Laurence Leff < leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Crime and Technology
The two major problems in our criminal justice system are the patrol
function and what do with criminals once arrested or convicted. A major
source of crime is the fact that any given time most of the streets are not
in sight of a police officer. Thus in most cases a crime is not followed by
an arrest. A cost-effective solution is putting a movable camera on every
corner and pipe the input into the police station. Once a criminal is
arrested or convicted, the question is what to do with him/her. Currently,
it costs $6,000 to $20,000/year to keep a prisoner in jail and construction
costs for new jail cells now reach $100,000 per prisoner. Using "electronic
"handcuffs", we can reduce these costs markedly. There have been no
technological innovations in either patrol of streets (with the exception of
the walky-talky and patrol car) nor in jails for centuries. If we are to
solve the crime problem as opposed to reducing it by a few per cent, we need
to use some modern technology.
If we could put somehow put a cop on every corner, street crime would go way
down if not disappear. This has been tried on an experimental basis in one
neighborhood. In addition, during the transit strike in New York City where
police officers were put on many corners to direct traffic, crime dropped
substantially. Unfortunately, the cost of such a solution is over 24,000
dollars per corner per year even assuming that police officers make minimum
wage and never take time off to go to meals, etc. However, a camera can be
put up and connected via a cable television system in reverse for about
$6,000 per corner (on a one time cost). This camera would have remote
controlled rotation and could see a block each way up and down the two
streets meeting at the corner. One person at the police station can observe
30 TV screens simultaneously looking for crime. If the input from the
cameras is preprocessed to eliminate those streets where there is no motion
(i. e. where there are no people or cars moving) then a person can observe
even more TV screens. I have calculated the cost of putting a camera on
every corner would be comparable to one years expenditures for police
protection in a city. The cost to monitor the camera would be about
$500/year per corner. Considering that there are at least 50 families on a
given block of a street, we are talking a per family cost of $10.00 year for
almost total protection against any street crime.
The camera systems can be used to track a fleeing criminal (in a car
or by foot) through the streets until a patrol car can catch up with them.
They also can be used to observe whether there are people parked at
fire hydrants/etc. to make traffic law enforcement easier and to look
for fires or other emergency situations.
One technique that can be used to incarcerate criminals are so called
"electronic handcuffs." These have already been used to put non-violent
criminals under house-arrest in New Mexico. In these cases, a criminal
had a device with a transmitter strapped to his leg. A receiver was
put in his apartment which was connected to the phone system. If the
criminal left the area, the sheriffs office would be notified and
the person picked up and put in a real jail.
For those criminals who are violent, a slightly different technique can be
used. A transmitter can be placed in the center of a 200 foot radius
circle. A receiver would be put around the criminals neck. If the receiver
got further than 100 feet from the transmitter, it would start buzzing to
alert the criminal that he was getting too far. By 200 feet, the device
would activate an explosive charge killing the criminal. Food, clothing,
etc. could be dropped in by helicopter on a regular basis. Sufficient land
to handle a large population can be easily found in the badlands of South
Dakota or the Arizona desert. (Note under Texas law an escaping convict can
be shot even if there are other ways to stop him. The system being proposed
is an automatic way of doing the same thing.)
Technology has eliminated such dangers as tuberculosis and polio to the
point where they are no longer even talked about by the general populus. In
the 1920's, parents were worried about their kids contracting tuberculosis
and in the 1950's polio was the big fear. In the 1980's, parents worry
about their children getting mugged, raped or murdered on the streets.
Technology can eliminate this fear as well!
Quarantine for Criminals
Our current legal system is designed to punish those individuals who
can be proved guilty of a specific crime. Unfortunately, there are many
cases where someone is judged likely to have committed a crime and
will also probably commit additional crimes if not somehow controlled.
For example, a women may identify a person as a rapist but did not
have the necessary medical tests done afterwards or a person
may have been apprehended in the vicinity of a robbery more than once
but for some reason the victim can't or won't identify the person.
Clearly the probable perpetrator can't be punished since it is not possible
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they have committed any crime.
However, it is extremely dangerous to allow them to roam the streets where
they will probably continue to terrorize, rape, injure or murder.
What I propose is a form of quarantine. The probable perpetrator should be
required to remain in a defined place (of their own choosing). This can be
their place of employment (with the aid of a mobile home), their home,
or special areas set up for such purposes by public and private agencies.
This can be enforced by mounting a transmitter on their persons with
a receiver in the center of their chosen location. This form of
"electronic handcuffs" has already been used to punish people by
putting them under house arrest in New Mexico.
Of course, many would view this as "unconstitutional" and a violation
of a possibly innocent person's rights. I thus appeal to the
precedent of the old quarantine and isolation laws used when communicable
diseases and epidemics were a problem. When a contagious disease
was found on a ship, the ship would be required to remain in dock for
fourty days and all people would be confined to the ship. Note that the
people involved are being confined against their will, there was no
hearing and even those who did not have the disease (but may be
carriers) were "punished." Isolation refers to laws where a person
suffering from a communicable disease and those who had close personal
contact would be required to remain in their homes until the disease
(or incubation period) had passed. Note that some people would be
confined to their homes even if there was no evidence that they actually had
the disease in question.
In some cases, other methods could be used to prevent reoccurences. A
transmitter could be set attached to the criminal with his location being
tracked at all times. If a crime was to occur in the vicinity of where the
criminal was, further restrictive actions or criminal prosecution could
occur. For many criminals, simply knowing that the police always knew
exactly where they were would serve as a sufficient deterrent. If nothing
else, at least the person would not be able to commit hundreds of
additional crimes before something was done as is currently the case.
Some specific crimes could be treated with various physiologic methods.
Possible heroin addicts could be required to have naloxone implanted in their
bodies (which would neutralize the effects of any heroin they might take) or
have daily urine tests. Drunk drivers might have a biosensor for alcohol
implanted that would prevent them from consuming alcohol. Depo-provera
(a chemical that eliminates sex drive) could be used for possible rapists.
In these cases, the potential criminal would have an opportunity to choose
the previous methods. These techniques would be opportunities for a person
who knows he has trouble controlling himself a chance to get help in doing so
so as to avoid later criminal prosecution because of these problems.
In order to prevent the government from using these laws as tools to repress
political dissidents, etc., a jury similar to a grand jury should be
required to determine
a) that there was probable reason to believe that the person involved has
committed a crime in the past (with the same standard of proof necessary
to indict a person for the crime)
b) the danger to society of having the person commit further crimes
outweighs the loss of the persons' freedoms
c) the action suggested is the minimum necessary to reduce the probability
of further crimes to a reasonable level.
We have an epidemic of crime which is causing as much fear as communicable
diseases did in the 1800s. Methods analagous to quarantine and isolation
are clearly appropriate for dealing with it.
------------------------------
Date: 17 Jul 85 03:36:49 EDT
From: *Hobbit* < AWalker@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: New Mailing List
After some footwork, the Security mailing list has been created. Its incoming
address is Security@Rutgers, and is moderated by me. The incoming stuff is
not digestified, but it is filtered to keep things of questionable legality/
content from escaping out to the network. This list supports the standard
Arpanet -request address convention as well.
Knowledge of locks and things generally runs fairly high among hackers, as I'm
sure most of us know. Part of the security business is that there must be
some people knowledgeable enough to defeat and subsequently repair security
devices in the event of problems. Unfortunately there are also those who
posess this knowledge and use it to commit crimes. And there is a third
category, the hackers. These are the people who often tread a thin edge
between crime and knowledge. Because of this, the discussion of security
is often a ticklish issue.
Unfortunately the word ''hacker'' has been misused by the media and now is
shrouded in a criminal context in minds everywhere. There are quite often
hackers who started out as ''crackers'' in high school, perhaps, or fell in
with a bunch of destructive types but eventually learned that Hacking is a
lot more fun than Cracking, involves the same sort of cleverness, and is
legal to boot. It is this kind of hacking that this list deals with, in the
field of security in general, be it electronic, physical, or computer-related.
Therefore, this list is designed to provide a forum for discussion of any and
all security topics. Since the original idea was to name this list
Locksmiths@Rutgers, discussions about physical security and hardware are
welcomed, but to broaden out into computer security and electronic access
control and such is also valid. In other words, any subject matter relating
to the *improvement* and *implementation* of security systems is okay, while
how to *defeat* them is not.
A good example is the already well-established list called Telecom, which is
devoted to the discussion of telephone networks, hardware, and company
happenings. It is not a phreak bboard where everyone calls in and leaves MCI
access numbers and such. There are many other things that one can discuss
about the telephone network that has no relation to toll fraud at all, like
ESS internals, what LATAs are, and new products on the market. The same idea
applies to the security business. Articles containing information like ''How
to trivially open Kwikset locksets'' could be used for criminal purposes and
would not be forwarded to the list, but info about how to take them apart and
fix them is legitimately useful and would not really be questioned. It is
hoped that the list will collect some legal wizards who can help the rest
of us determine just where those fine lines lie, so that we can host some
deeply technical discussions without violating the law or common sense.
At any rate, it's off and rolling. Please forward questions and such
about the list itself [additions, bugs, etc] to SECURITY-REQUEST@RUTGERS.
_H*
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 85 15:14:47 pdt
From: sonia@aids-unix (Sonia Schwartzberg)
Subject: Computers and Better Business
I don't know if this is the proper place to put this sort of query, but
I believe there are social indications here as well, so...
What sort of recourse does a private citizen have when a computer
company takes a computer in for "cosmetic" repairs (changing a
face-plate) and then -- as a by-product of trying to fix something else
that they inadvertantly broke -- erases the citizen's data?
I have gone to the Better Business Bureau and their response was that
since the data was lost, there was nothing that could be "fixed" or
refunded. I wrote the company a letter, asking for compensation for the
time lost restoring the data, and they ignored me. Since all I had was
the salesman's word that no harm would come to the data, it appears to
be my word against his. If I tell too many friends that this company
acted irresponsibly, I may have a case brought against me for slander,
even if I tell the truth, since I have no written evidence of what
happened.
What does this imply about the consumer society? Must I get in writing,
prior to any kind of service, a guarentee that the company will act
responsibly or provide compensation? Is data simply not considered of
value, so that when it is accidentily lost it's just too bad? Should I
have recorded the conversations I had with the salesman?
What can I do, or -- if nothing -- what should I have done? Anyone?
S.Schwartzberg arpa: sonia@aids-unix
------------------------------
Date: Saturday, 27 July 1985 00:30:53 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: where welfare goes
A while back, someone claimed that $10,000 to $15,000 was spent for each
person on welfare, with much of this money going to bureaucracy. The
following shows that spending per FAMILY might be this much, but there's no
way that spending per person could be this much.
The 7/26 New York Times had an article on making two-parent welfare
mandatory. The article also stated that the next year spending estimates
for welfare are $8.7B federal and $7.6B state for 10.7M people in 3.7M
families. That comes to $1523/person, $4405/family. The federal money is
basically Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Medicaid, Food Stamps,
and housing subsidies are not included.
Over the past 6 years, I have averaged about $1200/year in medical costs
($5000 of that in one operation last year). Given that my insurance premium
is $300, and I spend another $100 on dentists and doctors, I'll assume that
the real long-term average is $400/year. People don't eat much more than
$1000/year of food. Housing subsidies almost surely do not exceed
$5000/family. Given that, I don't see how the total welfare spending can
exceed $13,500/family.
Note also that I am not considering the considerable funds spent on welfare
programs for people just above the poverty line.
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jul 1985 05:05:59 PDT
Subject: Flame
From: Roger Lewis < RLEWIS@USC-ISIB.ARPA>
I was rather surprised to see no reply to your hostage questions.
We should not give in to terrorists, and we should not allow hostage
situations to drag out into lengthy media spectacles. If the "authorities"
in an area refused to acknowledge the rights of hostages and handled hostage
situations as if the hostages weren't even present, we would doubtless see
few hostage situations in that area. This strategy is better suited to non-
terrorist acts, such as bank robbers taking hostages to thwart the attempts
of the authorities to capture them.
Obviously, this will never become policy due to the threat of lawsuits by
surviving hostages and non-surviving hostages' families (and bad press).
What if the hostage(s) had filled out a form before the incident absolving
the government of any blame if they should be harmed in an armed rescue
attempt? How many people would be willing to fill one out (keeping in mind
that the more people that do, the less likely any government would have to
take them up on it)?
{That should get some flaming}
On another more sane note-
It looks like the divestment movement was too late for South Africa. Someone
asked a while ago why it would not be better to stay invested in Politically
Incorrect stocks and use proxy power to effect change. Here at U.S.C. we had
Fluor (of the Fluor Corporation) on the Board of Trustees. The Fluor Corp.
has extensive mining interests in South Africa and many students, staff and
faculty mistrust the University to do the right thing given its incredibly
right-wing leanings. If a union or other pension fund trusted their
leadership to do the right (or left-wing) thing with the proxies it is not
too bad of an idea. Our University suggested that idea and the liberals
instantly knee-jerked against the idea in our infinite mistrust of the
University.
Years ago I read of a study that showed an exceptionally high number of auto
collisions (I don't call them accidents...it makes them sound so harmless)
involved drivers that smoke cigarettes. The article speculated that these
drivers probably got distracted while searching for or lighting their
cigarettes. If there is any causality, I would be more likely to think that
anyone who would take up an unhealthy habit like smoking might just be
reckless in other pursuits (like driving) also.-Roger
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Sat 10 Aug 85 Volume 5 Number 32
Contents: Sanctions
Nicaragua
Crime and Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 85 20:56:37 PDT
From: Michael Pazzani < pazzani@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Sanctions
I am interested in finding out more about sanctions or other means
countries use to try influence the behavior of other countries. I am
more concerned with actual examples than theory, but I'd like
references on either.
Thanks in advance,
Mike Pazzani
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 85 09:01:41 PDT
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
Subject: Nicaragua
Somebody remind me why we are so excited about the government of Nicaragua.
I just spent two weeks there, doing low-grade technical consulting
for the their Ministry of Education. I can testify, without expecting
anyone to believe me, that the government there is a far cry from the
totalitarianism our government portrays. Moreover, there is universal
fear and distrust of the United States and an immeasurable sense of
relief and pride in the revolution having gotten rid of Somoza
directly and the US indirectly, which indicates to me that any
solution imposed by the US will be resented and resisted. Third, I
noted that the national hero, iconified ubitiquitously, is not Marx,
Lenin, either Ortega, Borge, or any other Sandinista, but Sandino
himself, whose primary (I was told virtually only) doctrine was
"Nicaragua for Nicaraguans." I don't see Soviet influence extending
much beyond accepting aid from them.
Most importantly, though, I wish someone would explain to me why,
if Nicaragua is a totalitarianism, waging economic and military war
against primarily civilian targets, with no realistic chance of
victory, is not the greatest favor we could possibly do their
government? In the absence of real achievements, a great way to unite
a people behind an unpopular government is to impose an external
threat, especially from an adversary historically feared. Thank you,
United States.
< flame on, momentarily> In Nicaragua, reports of contra attacks on
schools, hospitals and farms are routine. The Ministry of
Construction has lost 35 men killed in the last nine months alone. In
Nicaragua, you hear stories of atrocities told by the family and
friends of the victims: yes, well, my husband was flayed alive with a
machete, my daughter was raped and my son was kidnapped. See that guy
over there? He was a teacher; his arm was cut off by contra. etc etc.
To this extent the contra are indistinguishable from the terrorists
our government so rousingly and righteously deplores elsewhere. To
the extent that our government's support represents a projection of
power into a situation for which we have no understanding (this lack
of understanding, at least, is indisputable), it is indistinguishable
from Soviet hegemony (and don't tell me we are doing it for their own
good; blowing people up and destroying their support facilities does
them remarkably little good).
Somebody please explain to me why I should not be embittered and cynical
about this whole experience.
Steve Upstill
------------------------------
Date: Wed 31 Jul 85 11:18:32-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Camera's on every block
My first response to the "camera on every block" method of
crime prevention was Gasp! I thought we got rid of 1984 last year!
Then, a thought occurred to me. We have a great many dumb, over
restrictive laws in our society. I suspect these are tolerated, in
large part, because everybody knows you don't get snagged most of
the time. How long do you think the 55mph speed limit would last if
everyone who ever went 56+mph got a ticket, every time? About one
legislative session, I imagine! In addition to reducing the incidence
of real (ie violent) crime, significant enforcement might encourage
rationalization of the entire legal system.
TCS
------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 31 July 1985 16:32:06 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: Re: criminal quarantine
Robert Heinlein wrote about this long ago in his story "Coventry" where a
section of desert was surrounded by a force shield. Criminals were allowed
to take whatever supplies they wanted (and could pay for) inside, but after
that, they were on their own. The interior had a frontier society.
------------------------------
Date: 1 Aug 1985 11:22-PDT
From: Craig E. Ward < cew@isi-hobgoblin.arpa>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 85 00:57:33 cdt
From: Laurence Leff < leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Ok satire. Not quite up to the standards of Swift's "A Modest Proposal" but
better than most of the stuff that comes across the Poli-Sci list.
Keep on writing.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 85 14:04 MST
From: RWhitney@HIS-PHOENIX-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Crime and Technology
Being a reserve police officer for the City of Phoenix I found Laurence Leffs'
( < leff%smu.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa> ) mail on this subject interesting.
From Leff
"A cost-effective solution is putting a movable camera on every
corner and pipe the input into the police station..."
"One person at the police station can observe 30 TV screens
simultaneously looking for crime."
"...a camera can be put up and connected via a cable television
system in reverse for about $6,000 per corner (on a one time cost)."
Reminds me of a movie I once saw which was, I believe, called "The
Anderson Tapes". In any event, Added onto your $6,000 one time cost
would be the cost for maintenance of all those cameras and the miles of
cables required to link them to a rather massive complex housing the
thousands of video montitors and video-watchers along with repair crews.
Of course there's no reason it has to be a centralized system, but a non-
centralized system will probably add to over-head as well. Also it's
probably a little over-optimistic to believe you could effectively watch
a residential area of 50 homes with one camera. If I were guessing I'd
say probably half that might be closer to the mark. Futhermore a large
number of the cameras would be watching comercial areas or parks where
there are no households at all.
More importantly though is that although a system like this one might
actually work in your neighborhood, where I patrol (South Phoenix) these
cameras would immediately become the target of theft and/or vandalism.
One a.h. with a spray can could quickly and easily blind large areas of
your system. Now you'd have to pay someone to go out and clean up all
those cameras, provided of course that they're still there.
From: [same]
"...[Camera systems will provide] almost total protection against
any street crime."
No way. Banks have employed camera systems for years. Has this stopped
bank robberies? Of course not. Many criminals don't care if they're
seen, as long as they can get away by the time the cops show up.
Sometimes they don't even care if the cops do show up, anyone's fair
game when they get upset.
Although an amusing idea, from a pracitcal standpoint the
camera-on-a-corner is probably not a cost effective law enforcement tool.
From: [same]
"There have been no technological innovations in either patrol
of streets (with the exception of the walky-talky and patrol car)
nor in jails for centuries."
I must completely disagree. In Phoenix every patrol car has an MDT
(Mobile Digital Terminal) which allows them access to not only computers
in Arizona, but computers in every state in the nation. In seconds I can
get vehicle registration, wanted person or stolen item information from
anywhere in the U.S. (provided the particular computers I need to access
are up) as well as communicate with other units. Most major departments
have access to air, K-9, SWAT team and many other specialized units to
aid them. Your statement is at best uninformed.
As far as "electronic handcuffs" go, just remember the old saying...
build a better trap, breed a smarter mouse.
(Looking forward to your response. Go ahead, make my day...)
REW
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 15 Aug 85 Volume 5 Number 33
[I will be at IJCAI so sit on those submissions for a week--
any poli-sciers who will be there or thereabouts (it's at UCLA)
I would be pleased to get together--send me mail before Friday
evening (ie tomorrow). --JoSH]
Contents: A-bombs
Nicaragua
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 85 09:02:06 PDT
From: Richard Foy < foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Hiroshima
Amongst all of the TV and radio programs on TV there was a lot of discussion
related to the need for using the A-bombs. One historian talked about his
research among the notes and memoranda from the period immediately before
Trinity and Hiroshima. He stated that both Eisenhower and Adnmiral Lehey
had recommended against the use of the A-bombs, that they felt that it was
both too beastly and not necessary. Does anyone have and factual information
related to the validity of these statements and/or opinions about theire
possible accuracy.
richard foy (foy@aerospace)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 85 11:34:51 edt
From: Liudvikas Bukys < bukys@rochester.arpa>
To: POLI-SCI@RUTGERS.ARPA
Subject: re: Nicaragua
I have a theory which, I believe, explains the behaviour of our
government toward various other governments. It is simply this:
We are hostile toward governments which we perceive to be expansionist.
(Cuba, Nicaragua, USSR)
We are generally accommodating with those that don't seem expansionist,
whatever their policies on various other fronts.
(China, El Salvador, India, South Africa)
This was the only thing I could think of that would explain all the
sweet nothings muttered during Reagan's last visit to China, arguably
one of the most tyrannical regimes around.
So, Sandinista-lovers, take note. Tell your pals down south that if
they want to be left alone, they should lay off on the "revolution
without borders" stuff for a few years. Of course, it's probably going
to sound rather unconvincing after all this time, but it couldn't
hurt. Maybe if it was accompanied by the abolition of mandatory
attendance at "rallies", political use of rationing, and neighborhood
surveillance by cadre-types, somebody would believe it.
Liudvikas Bukys
bukys@rochester.arpa
rochester!bukys (uucp) via allegra, decvax, seismo
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 85 08:32:12 PDT
From: Richard Foy < foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Nicaragua
Steve Upstill questions why we are so concerned about Nicaragua. He was
there and presents information which brings our policies under question.
The main reason that we are concerned is that we have a semantic problem
concerning words like totalitarian, communist, marxist, ditatorship etc.
We tend to lump them all into one connatative basket.
These words really relate to two domains; economic systems is one domain,
political system is the other domain. Both domains have a range of potential
values.
In the economic domain there is a range from totally free enterprise with
no government involvement at all to total government ownership and operation.
In the policial domain there is a range from total democracy where everyone
votes on everything to total dictatorship where one person has absolute
control.
All existant countries are somewhere in between the extremes in both domains.
When we mix up these two domains we tend to support any country which is
ecomomically far removed from communism evan though politically it may be
very totolitain. We tend to work against countries that ecomomically towards
communism evan if they are better than average in political freedoms.
As a comnsequence we drive many nations toward alignment with the USSR
which of course is the champion of communism as we are the champion of
capitalism. In the process we also drive them towards towards greater
totolitarianism.
There are many examples of how we have erred in this direction.
Don't give up hope Steve. The people running the countries of the world are
mere mortal men. Thus they provide challanges for the new generation to
build a better world.
richard foy
------------------------------
From: rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo)
Subject: Definitive expose' of Sandinistas?
Date: 12 Aug 85 18:46:44 GMT
[I've imported this piece from Usenet in an attempt to answer
Steve Upstill's original question. --JoSH]
**************************
PSEUDO-SANDINISM UNMASKED?
**************************
John Silber, controversial president of Boston University & a member
of the President's National Bipartisan Commission on Central America
(the Kissinger Commission), wrote the following review of Shirley
Christian's NICARAGUA: REVOLUTION IN THE FAMILY, a brand-new study of
revolutionary Nicaragua, and possibly the definitive expose' of Sandi-
nista tyranny and deceit that's been lacking for so long.
Is Silber's review accurate? Is Christian's critique valid? Get a
copy of the book and read it! I am. I'll post synopses when I finish
reading it.
Better well-read than Red,
Ron Rizzo
[ Reprinted in its entirety from Boston Sunday Globe, 8/11/85, pp. A10-11
without permission. ]
DEMYTHOLOGIZING THE SANDINISTAS
===============================
NICARAGUA
Revolution in the Family
By Shirley Christian. Random House.
337 pp. $19.95.
By John R. Silber
It would have been useful if, through some time warp, the
members of the Kissinger Commission had had Shirley Christian's "Nica-
ragua: Revolution in the Family" as we sat in Managua listening to
Nicaragua's foreign minister, Father Miguel D'Escoto, blame the United
States for the sins of the Sandinistas. He was lying, and we told him so.
But Christian's book would have made the refutation definitive and public:
She cuts through mendacity and obfuscation with a powerful combination of
thorough research, eyewitness experience and reportorial savvy.
Christian shows that the history of our involvement in Nicaragua
is not a subject for endless breast-beating but for honest appraisal.
She reminds us that William Walker, the freebooter who took over the
country just before the Civil War, was opposed by major US business
interests and by our government, which refused to receive his ambassador.
She thoroughly demythologizes Augusto Cesar Sandino, whom the Sandinistas
use to give Marxism-Leninism a Nicaraguan accent, pointing out his stubborn
and vociferous anticommunism. Sandino despised communism for its inter-
nationalism, a prescient attitude, considering Nicaragua's present status
as a pawn of the Soviet Union and Cuba.
She also shows that the early presence of the United States was
not mere imperialism, but an attempt to stabilize the country in response
to a genuine threat of foreign influence. Sandino himself, refusing to
lay down his arms because his liberal party was not guaranteed a suffi-
cient share of power, twice offered to come to terms if the US Marines
would remain in Nicaragua and run it until elections were conducted.
By contrast, Christian writes, "The leaders of the Sandinista
Front intended to establish a Leninist system from the moment they
marched into Managua." She clearly shows that long before the revo-
lution, the Sandinistas were Marxist-Leninist in thought and action.
She details the deceits and opportunism by which they alternately
flaunted and obscured their intentions. Anyone who thinks a Marxist-
Leninist regime can be trusted or who finds it hard to conceive of
ostensibly "progressive" rulers committed to deceit, rigid ideology
and the ruthless exploitation of others, should read this book.
Christian limns superbly the attitudes and personalities of
the players, and the locales and ambiance in which they appear. She
has been told or has witnessed some very interesting stories. Reading
her book, one hears clearly the voices of genuine democracy: an earnest,
wounded Arturo Cruz, analyzing his mistaken support of the Sandinistas;
the dignity, courage and sorrow of Violeta Chamorro; the spunk and
intelligence of the market women who continue to defy Sandinista
harassment and brutality; or Adolfo Calero telling Somoza, whom he
opposed, that he had better change fast, because "You're going to
lose your best friends, the gringos. They are going to try and get
your ass."
A "liberation" church service
Christian strikingly juxtaposes the hollow rhetoric of Marxist
adventurers such as the Sandinista secret police chief, Tomas Borge,
with the genuine concern of religious leaders and human-rights activists
forced out of the country. Her protrait of a "liberation" church
service at which, for an audience of foreign visitors, various members
of "the people" perform like trained seals, is devastating. So is her
account of a Sandinista "intellectual seminar" in which participants
explain to each other what Sandino "would have said" if he had only
understood Marxism.
Christian's book is less instructive about the future. There
has been and will be a continuing effort by the Soviet Union and Cuba
to influence the course of events in our hemisphere. This played an
important role in the Nicaraguan revolution and in US perception of
it. Internal politics (the "family" referred to in Christian's sub-
title) played a major role in bringing about the revolution. But the
revolution's consequences will be determined not by the family, but
by the Soviet Union and Cuba, by conditions in Nicaragua and by the
United States.
Christian correctly says that the revolution against Somoza
was not a phenomenon of class struggle. She goes into some detail
on the frustrations of the Sandinistas as they tried to stir up
peasants and agitate the working class. "One of the first priorities
of the Sandinistas," Eden Pastora recently told one of my associates
with tongue in cheek, "is to turn peasants and farmers into proleta-
rians. They will do this," he added more seriously, "by starving
them." The 1979 uprising succeeded because the press, the middle
class and organized labor in Nicaragua deserted Somoza. They were
subsequently used as dupes and front men by the Sandinistas, whose
years of Leninist study finally paid off.
Carter administration faulted
On the issue of US intervention, Christian rightly faults
the Carter administration for trying to have it both ways. When
President Carter appeared before the Kssinger Commission, we asked
him why he had denied support to the democratic forces after the
revolution. His answer was that this would have been intervention.
He was justly proud, however, of his withdrawal of support for Somoza
- an intervention as consequential as that he rejected.
Christian concludes that "The Sandinista Front would have
become a footnote to history had a moderate regime been able to
assume power in Nicaragua before the end of 1978. But the Carter
Administration could not make the decision to do what was necessary
to bring this about." Our failure proved tragic for the Nicaraguan
people: With Somoza stripped of US support, and the democratic
forces weaponless, the triumph of the Marxist-Leninists was inevi-
table.
Although she does mention the Sandinistas' New York public
relations firm, Christian plays down a subject on which she has been
eloquent elsewhere: the role played by the media in romanticizing
the Sandinistas. In a 1982 article on the Washington Jounalism
Review, she demonstrated the extent to whic the press had been
responsible for sweetening the image of the Sandinistas. Neither
the Carter Administration nor the Reagan Administration was under any
such illusions, but some members of Congress were. And congressional
vacillation was a reflection of congressional and public misperception
of the Sandinistas.
The words Christian applied in 1982 to the US media apply
equally well to the public and the Congress: "Intrigued by the
decline and fall of Anastasio Somoza, they could not see the coming
of Tomas Borge."
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Fri 29 Aug 85 Volume 5 Number 34
Contents: Test Freeze
Sex Politics
Nicaragua etc
TV cameras
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 85 08:48:08 PDT
From: Richard Foy < foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Nuclear Test Freeze
Gorbachev claims that he has started a 5 months freeze on nuclear tests, and
that he would extend it if the US did the same.
President Reagan says that is just propaganda. They have just completed their
recent test series and we have not.
A newspaper report stated that we have conducted approximately 8 test per year
for the past two years; that the soviets have conducted about 5 per year.
The President claims that their propaganda is designed to seperate us from
our allies.
I am sure that I don't know the reasons that Gorbachev has announced the test
freeze. It does seem that there is not much factual data to support the claim
that it is strictly a propaganda move. Thus it seems to me that if it is a
propaganda move our best bet would be to meet their challange and also declare
a moratorium on tests and perhaps to challange them to something more by
taking a stronger step in the same direction.
I believe that the way we are responding with words only is quit likely to
allow them to succeed in alienating some of our allies.
richard foy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 85 21:02:23 PDT
From: sun!oscar!wild@Berkeley (Will Doherty)
Subject: Politics of Gender and Sexuality course
I am proposing to teach a course entitled "Politics of Gender
and Sexuality" this fall at Stanford University, in Palo Alto, CA.
I am looking for suggestions of possible readings, films, and
speakers. If you have any ideas, please send them asap because
the term will start soon. Here is the preliminary course
description:
"Politics of Gender and Sexuality" outlines the history of cultural
definitions of gender and sexuality and provides the student with
a background for study of contemporary attitudes toward various
sexual practices and gender orientations.
Concentrating especially on gender and sexual identifications
stigmatized by societies of various eras, the course encourages
the student to develop a comprehensive analysis of formation
and evolution of morality regarding gender and sexual orientation.
Using a topical approach, we study individuals and groups of people
who demonstrate a variety of gender and sexual identifications in
order to understand the minority point of view on cultural definitions
that apply to them. We trace gender and sexual minority organization
within societal institutions, so that we can evaluate movements for
social change based on sexual variation, and reaction of the
mainstream culture.
Sexual and gender minorities highlighted for study will include:
bisexuals, lesbians, gays, transexuals, transvestites, fetishists,
prostitutes, and people engaged in interracial, intergenerational, and
S/M relationships.
The course requires a significant amount of reading and
writing, and presents a broad sample of speakers and films,
necessitating ample participation in class discussion.
Students expecting credit for the course must choose and
execute a project of considerable magnitude.
Send ideas to: Will Doherty
3651 Orinda St
Palo Alto, CA 94306
415-949-3328 or
415-960-7442
{decvax|ucbvax|???}sun!oscar!wild
[Sounds like a real fun course-- I don't suppose one can
register only for the lab...? --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 85 08:14:15 PDT
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
Subject: Nicaragua, ctd.
Here is a partial reply to the book review JoSH posted. I may be
confused, though, JoSH. Perhaps you posted the original review as
commentary, rather than as a pointer to an important book. I will
respond soon to the substance of that review, but for now I would just
point out that the Kissinger Commission and the previous,
well-opinionated reviewer, spent a matter of hours (6?) in Nicaragua
on their "fact-finding" tour.
"A Contra's-eye View of Nicaragua", by Dan Bellm
San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday, August 18, 1985.
reprinted without permission
-----
Nicaragua's Sandinista government, now six years old, is deeply mired in a
war waged on its borders by counterrevolutionaries, or Contras. The Contras'
dependence on U.S. dollars and CIA coordination, and the danger that the war
may escalate, make it urgent that we learn what has been happening in Nicaragua
and why. We could use a well-researched study of Nicaragua's past history and
its six-year revolution, a book motivated by a desire for truth rather than
political loyalty, either to the Sandinistas or to their armed opponents.
"Nicaragua: Revolutioon in the Family", by Shirley Christian, a foreign
affairs reporter for The New York Times, is not that book. Although the
jacket notes promise "an insider's experience" and "an objective reporter's
analysis," Christian's bias emerges soon. The central characters in her
Nicaragua are landowners and urban business leaders, a privileged minority
who hoped the overthrow of the dictator Somoza in 1979 would involve little
more than a change of leaders. Since several of these people -- Adolfo Calero,
Alfonso Robelo and Arturo Cruz -- now lead the Contras, Christian's book reads
like a publicity drive on their behalf.
This campaign involves considerable rewriting of history. Since the
Contras include many of Somoza's former National Guardsmen -- a bothersome
"image question", Christian admits -- she is careful to downplay the brutality
of the Guard and of the Somoza family itself. This is her summary of the
record: "The government bureaucracy and National Guard interfered little in
the lives of most Nicaraguans. As authoritarian regimes go, this one ceded to
its political enemies and critics a relatively large amount of space to act in
public life." Elsewhere: "What mattered most to Anastasio Somoza Garcia was
amassing and enjoying wealth, and Nicaraguans generally allowed him to do
that." Was there a choice?
What's wrong with this picture of Nicaragua is that most of the people are
missing: the rural landless poor who had everything to gain from a sweeping
change and almost nothing to lose. Decades of Somoza rule left Nicaraguan
peasants hungry, underemployed, illiterate and prone to early death from
disease, yet their voices -- what they hope for or fear, what they now think
of the country's changes -- are entirely absent here. (Christian encourages the
view that Nicaragua was ruled merely by an annoying autocrat, that nothing was
wrong fundamentally with its distribution of political power, land and food.
"Nicaragua" develops the thesis that during the late 1970s, when a broad
opposition movement favored Somoza's overthrow, a vacillating Carter
administration failed to produce a moderate replacement and allowed a small,
nearly irrelevant clique of Leninists -- the Sandinista Front -- to seize
control. Since 1979, the argument runs, the Sandinistas have built the
totalitarian state they envisioned from the start, without regard for political
or economic pluralism, religious freedom or other human rights.
Christian gathers useful information on the Sandinistas' mistakes, and
there have been plenty -- notably their censorship of the opposition newspaper
La Prensa and their relations with the Miskito Indians -- but one needn't be a
Sandinista to notice an imbalance. Christian failed to interview any
Sandinista supporters in order to gather their views of the 1978-79
insurrection or of developments since then. She nearly ignores the social
reforms that have led most Nicaraaguans to favor the revolution: the 1980
Literacy Crusade that taught over a million people to read, the proliferation
of health centers and schools in even the remotest rural areas, the elimination
of polio.
Christian's book is weakest on current developments. Her sympathy for the
Contras forces her to whitewash their awful record of destroying what are
primarily civilian targets, well-documented by Americas Watch and other
international human rights observers. Most critically, Christian sidesteps the
question of whether the U.S. has an obligation, or even a right, to intervene
in another country's political disputes -- especially after Nicaragua's
November, 1984 election, which she is unable to discredit. Nor does she
consider seriously the Contadora process, a major diplomatic effort by Mexico,
Colombia, Venezuela and Panama to end the war.
"Nicaragua, Revolution in the Family" may be a useful reference on the
motivations of the Contra leadership, but its distortions make it otherwise
unreliable.
[Don't be confused, Steve; you had explicitly asked for comments
on your pro-Sandinista position. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 85 16:46:48 PDT
From: mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley (Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s))
Subject: who we dislike....
> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 85 11:34:51 edt
> From: Liudvikas Bukys < bukys@rochester.arpa>
> Subject: re: Nicaragua
>
> I have a theory which, I believe, explains the behaviour of our
> government toward various other governments. It is simply this:
>
> We are hostile toward governments which we perceive to be expansionist.
> (Cuba, Nicaragua, USSR)
>
> We are generally accommodating with those that don't seem expansionist,
> whatever their policies on various other fronts.
> (China, El Salvador, India, South Africa)
>
> This was the only thing I could think of that would explain all the
> sweet nothings muttered during Reagan's last visit to China, arguably
> one of the most tyrannical regimes around.
>
> So, Sandinista-lovers, take note. Tell your pals down south that if
> they want to be left alone, they should lay off on the "revolution
> without borders" stuff for a few years. Of course, it's probably going
> to sound rather unconvincing after all this time, but it couldn't
> hurt. Maybe if it was accompanied by the abolition of mandatory
> attendance at "rallies", political use of rationing, and neighborhood
> surveillance by cadre-types, somebody would believe it.
>
> Liudvikas Bukys
> bukys@rochester.arpa
> rochester!bukys (uucp) via allegra, decvax, seismo
Bingo. This is actually our stated policy, and has been for 20
years, or thereabouts: it's called the Fulbright Doctrine, after the former
senior Senator from Arkansas, William Fulbright. Fulbright was a liberal
foe of both Johnson and Nixon, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee during their administrations and was an early advocate of
withdrawal from Vietnam. His position was that the American people have no
quarrel with any nation, whatever its ideology, so long as it doesn't try
to export that ideology. If you want to go further back, John Adams said
that Americans were friends of liberty everywhere, but the keeper only of
their own.
As far as Nicaragua goes, there is probably a geopolitical
component, as well; I imagine that the prospect of a Soviet base in Central
America during wartime drives our planners nuts, and brings smiles in the
Soviet equivalent of the Pentagon.
Rick.
------------------------------
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley
Date: 21 Aug 85 16:12:35 CDT (Wed)
Subject: democracy vs. freedom
> In the policial domain there is a range from total democracy where everyone
> votes on everything to total dictatorship where one person has absolute
> control.
>
> ... We tend to work against countries that ecomomically towards
> communism evan if they are better than average in political freedoms.
As a sidelight on this, it is worth noting that "freedom" and "democracy"
are neither synonymous nor inseparable, although there is some correlation.
(I'm not even convinced that "political freedom" and "democracy" are quite
the same thing, although the match is much closer there.) If one's concern
is with "human rights", neither the nature of a nation's politics *nor* the
nature of its economic system is a foolproof indication of whether it is
decent towards its people.
"If you are caught in the gears, the color of the machine is irrelevant."
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: 29 Aug 1985 22:28-EDT
Subject: Picky point about television cameras not stopping bank robberies
From: RSHU@BBNG.ARPA
While I generally agree with the arguments that a camera on every
block would be both ineffective and not a good idea if effective,
I have to take issue with the comment that bank cameras have not stopped
bank robberies. It seems that successful bank robberies have declined
drastically. Nowadays, most bank robbers are caught. This is not due
only to the cameras but several other anti-robbery techniques as
well. Alarms, bait money and low amounts of cash in teller drawers
are just some of them. Most "smart" criminals realize that the odds of
success are too low. Most bank robbers tend to be poor, uneducated
criminals and/or drug addicts. This info is based on a newspaper
article I read a while back (sorry, can't remember which paper. Probably
the NY Times or W.S. Journal). Of course, you can't believe everything
you read but this seems credible to me.
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 05 Sep 85 Volume 5 Number 35
Contents: Nicaragua
Nuclear test "freeze" (ban)
Sex Remark
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 85 12:40:50 PDT
From: mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley (Rick McGeer)
Subject: Nicaragua, etc.
[upstill]:
Here is a partial reply to the book review JoSH posted. I may be
confused, though, JoSH. Perhaps you posted the original review as
commentary, rather than as a pointer to an important book. I will
respond soon to the substance of that review, but for now I would just
point out that the Kissinger Commission and the previous,
well-opinionated reviewer, spent a matter of hours (6?) in Nicaragua
on their "fact-finding" tour.
I think that the author of "Nicaragua: Revolution in the Family" spent some
years in Nicaragua.
Anyway, I'm not going to enter the lists on this one. However, Steve, some
points for you to ponder:
(1) If the Sandinistas are as democratic and open as you claim, why have both
Pedro Chamorro and Eden Pastora left Nicaragua, the latter leading a full-scale
(and not America-backed) revolution? Both were well-known opponents of Somoza,
and neither are particular friends of the United States.
(2) The Reagan administration takes a bath in the press, with the public, and
in Congress every time it goes after Contra aid. After Ortega's trip to Moscow
things got a little easier, but the Contra offensive has still cost the
President political chips that could have been employed for Tax Reform, cuts
in Social Security, or other cuts in non-defense spending. This administration
has shown a genius for walking away from foreign-policy initiatives when the
domestic price mounted. The Reagan administration must believe that Nicaragua
is a threat, and must have very solid ground for that belief; our
administrations have shown that their capacity for wishful thinking will ignore
flimsy evidence.
(3) Whenever I hear people like you come back from Nicaragua and report that
yes, well, the Federal Gov't's got the Sandinistas all wrong, that they're
basically OK and we should stop trying to overthrow them...well, I keep hearing
Jane Fonda praising the NLF, Henry Marshall and Owen Chamberlain reporting on
the dearth of concentration camps in the Soviet Union, and old newsreel clips
of American visitors to Hitler's Germany reporting that Hitler was the saviour
of the German people. I can also hear one other current Berkeley grad student
opine that Castro is not an oppressive dictator....all of these people were
and are honest, loyal Americans. The others were conned, because it's easy to
con people. Can you honestly say that you haven't been conned, as well? Do
you *know* that you haven't?
-- Rick.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 85 10:47:38 PDT
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 85 11:34:51 edt
From: Liudvikas Bukys < bukys@rochester.arpa>
Subject: re: Nicaragua
... Sandinista-lovers, take note. Tell your pals down south that if
they want to be left alone, they should lay off on the "revolution
without borders" stuff for a few years.
Rhetoric aside, it would be nice to hear evidence that the Sandinistas
threaten any of their neighbors. And no fair acting as though their
military buildup is without defensive justification. After all, the
country has been invaded by the United States three times in this century.
On the contrary, it is clear that the Reagan administration would welcome
any agressive acts against Honduras or Costa Rica as a pretext to invade
Nicaragua and overthrow its government.
Maybe if it was accompanied by the abolition of mandatory
attendance at "rallies", political use of rationing, and neighborhood
surveillance by cadre-types, somebody would believe it.
Is it rude of me to ask for substantiation of these claims?
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 85 16:46:48 PDT
From: mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley (Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s))
Subject: who we dislike....
> From: Liudvikas Bukys < bukys@rochester.arpa>
>
> I have a theory which, I believe, explains the behaviour of our
> government toward various other governments. It is simply this:
> We are hostile toward governments which we perceive to be expansionist.
> (Cuba, Nicaragua, USSR)
Bingo. This is actually our stated policy, and has been for
20 years, or thereabouts: it's called the Fulbright Doctrine...
... John Adams said that Americans were friends of liberty everywhere,
but the keeper only of their own.
Would that this were the case, but it's not. Just to name a few examples:
Grenada 1983; Guatemala, 1953; Dominican Republic, 1964; Chile, 1973.
Let me take this opportunity to offer a review:
Book Review
"Reagan and the World"
Jeff McMahan
Monthly Review Press, 1985
"Reagan and the World" is a wide-ranging critique of foreign policy under
Ronald Reagan. While commonplace criticism has it that the Reagan
Administration has no coherent foreign policy, McMahan's book asserts that
American foreign policy is quite clear and consistent, and that only the
variance between rhetoric and reality makes it seem less so. He sets out
to determine just what that policy is, given Administration behavior.
Simply put, the conclusion is that American foreign policy, under Reagan
as well as to a lesser extent his predecessors, exists to project and
maintain American power and influence abroad. While this may correlate
in many cases with support for freedom and democracy, in those cases where
the two goals are in conflict, the former win out every time over the latter.
In tone, the book is rather more understated than that, and the quality of
argumentation is good: juicy quotes abound, documentation is profuse and
occasionally relevant, and the reasoning is generally close and sound.
The book begins with an examination of arms control policy under Reagan,
making it clear that Administration proposals are generally designed to
assure rejection by the Soviets, thus making it possible to maintain an
appearance of reasonability while continuing an unconstrained armament
program. One thing the book makes clear, without overtly stating it, is
the genius this Administration shows in public relations: making it appear
to be serving what the public perceives of as American ideals while
essentially doing what it wants.
What is it that they want? First, maintaining a "global presence": extending
the influence of the United States as far and as deeply as possible. This
involves not only overt military action, but demonstrations of "credibility",
willingness to assert the authority that this influence brings. Thus, El
Salvador is not seen as a particularly important country militarily or
economically, but is important as a demonstration of American resolve. That
is, if America is willing to support a military regime which has slaughtered
50,000 of its own people for no discernible reason, then how much more willing
will it be to defend the Persian Gulf?
The second goal of the Administration is seen as assuring the well-being of
American economic enterprises abroad, to the exclusion of the people in the
effected lands. Therefore, authoritarian regimes capable of suppressing
dissent are to be preferred (as long as appearances can be maintained) to
those in which popular input might reduce the lucrativeness of such
enterprises. Thus we have the example of Guatemala, in which the CIA
overthrew, in 1953, a popularly elected government which had the audacity
to nationalize some fruit company holdings, offering as compensation the
value as declared for tax purposes.
(In both of these goals, one can clearly see the basis for our policy toward
Nicaragua. Obviously, the Nicaraguan government is not about to allow free
reign to foreign companies, and the national iconification of Sandino is a
clear indication that the Sandinistas are not about to be dominated by any
other nation.)
The book devotes chapters to El Salvador, Nicaragua and Grenada, and one to
third-world interventionism in general, in each case arguing persuasively of
the moral vacuity of our nation's behavior. The larger point supported,
again without it ever being stated, is that the struggle between the United
States and the Soviet Union really is simple power politics, and that
superior morality, as claimed by the United States, is a spurious component
of the argument. Morality has little to do with it. While I would be the
first to prefer a world like the United States to a world like the Soviet
Union, I feel we should put our cards on the table and admit that we are
talking power struggles, not morality.
While I have some quibbles about the quality of the logic in this book
occasionally, and the sometimes heavy-handed sarcasm, in general this
is an informative, convincing and depressing exegesis of American antics
abroad. I particularly recommend it for those who can't figure out why
we excoriate the Nicaraguan government if they are not monsters.
CAVEAT: Although it shouldn't be necessary, I would like to point out that
nothing in the above review expresses any sympathy with the Soviet Union
or its clients, and I would appreciate it if respondents to this message
would refrain from claiming it does.
Steve Upstill
[If I remember correctly, the force ratio of Nicaragua (number of men
under arms per 1000 population) is three or four times that of any
other country in the region, including El Salvador (which is also
fighting an insurrection). It is 5 or more times that of Finland,
which has been invaded three times this century by the Soviet Union.
If there is interest, I can produce the actual figures. --JoSH]
------------------------------
From: jeff@isi-vaxa (Jeffery A. Cavallaro)
Date: 30 Aug 1985 1657-PDT (Friday)
Subject: OLD GUARD vs NEW GUARD
The message "Nuclear Test Freeze" submitted by Richard Foy (foy@AEROSPACE)
is a symptom of what I believe to be an extremely ironic turnabout in today's
superpower arena.
For years, American leadership has been complaining that the Soviet
"OLD GUARD" has been unwilling to honestly and openly negotiate
on ALL facets of world relations. Now, Mr. Gorbachev sits on the red
throne. The recent purges and aggressive planning that have occurred in
Soviet government, social, and economic sectors have earned the Gorbachev
administration the label "NEW GUARD" in the Soviet domestic sense.
Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan is the American president. Mr. Reagan has been
a political figure (latent or otherwise) from the post-war period up to
present day. He can definitely be considered part of the American
"OLD GUARD". In fact, statements from Reagan regarding such things as
the test freeze indicate a very OLD GUARD-ish attitude. The tables
have turned.
This turnabout is even more confusing in that a large portion of the
Reagan leadership (for example, Lugar, Rep-Ind) are relatively young.
In fact, the Republican leadership surrounding Reagan may be the
only check that has prevented us from totally falling into a cold war
mentality such as was exhibited in the 50's.
If one examines the American condition since the post-Carter days, one
would have to conclude that America has gained tremendous strength on
several fronts: economic, military, patriotism, and more. Some of the
credit for these gains has to be given to the attitudes and policies of
the early Reagan administration. During the American "gain period", the
Soviet Union has undergone extensive change. Thus the attitudes towards
the Soviet Union then, may not be valid now. The important question for
American leadership today is:
"Does the NEW GUARD attitude of the Soviet leadership extend from the
Soviet domestic sector to the foreign relations sector?"
If so, President Reagan will have to shed his "OLD GUARD" ideals and
meet the Soviets atleast half-way.
Jeff
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 85 11:37:55 cdt
From: riddle@im4u.UTEXAS.EDU (Prentiss Riddle)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Test Freeze
Keep your eyes open for any recent or upcoming articles by Daniel Ellsberg
on this subject. I heard him speak on August 5th outside the Pantex nuclear
weapons plant near Amarillo. He is extremely depressed these days because
he sees the Soviets' offer as an historic opportunity which the Reagan
administration and the press managed to scuttle with unprecedented speed. I
can't repeat his arguments here, but I imagine they are or soon will be out
in print somewhere. (The only thing I've seen so far is a short summary of
his talk in the latest issue of the "Texas Observer".)
--- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 85 09:56:08 EDT
From: Gail Zacharias < GZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
Subject: Poli-Sci Digest V5 #34
To: Josh@RUTGERS.ARPA
[Sounds like a real fun course-- I don't suppose one can
register only for the lab...? --JoSH]
I think that remark was uncalled for and in very bad taste. But I suppose
you wouldn't mind if people considered your work to be a joke too.
[This was actually posted to me privately, presumably in an attempt
to offer discreet and constructive criticism, which I appreciate.
However, I assume that this can be taken to stand for feelings
on the part of others who did not bother to write (I'm somewhat
surprised I didn't receive other messages), so I'll answer it here.
I *wouldn't* mind if people joked about my work: I often
do so myself. I feel that people in the social sciences
tend to have a deplorable lack of humor about themselves and
their studies.
It is symptomatic of this lack of humor that my remarks
were construed in a disparaging sense. Suppose that Will
had advertised a course in the mathematical dynamics of
water skiing or (this is an actual case where I took the
course and made the same remark) physics of holography--
and I said "Sounds like a fun course-- don't suppose I can
take only the lab?"? Where's the righteous indignation now?
This is not intended to disparage either Will or his course:
I note that he did not object to the remark himself, and
for all I know he's having a good laugh over it right now.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 12 Sep 85 Volume 5 Number 36
Contents: Nicaragua
Comments
2 WSJ Articles
Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 85 10:18:39 PDT
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
[If I remember correctly, the force ratio of Nicaragua (number of men
under arms per 1000 population) is three or four times that of any
other country in the region, including El Salvador (which is also
fighting an insurrection). It is 5 or more times that of Finland,
which has been invaded three times this century by the Soviet Union.
If there is interest, I can produce the actual figures. --JoSH]
I imagine that is true. However, it is not arms per unit population which
defends the country, it is arms, period; Nicaragua has roughly 40% fewer
people than El Salvador alone, and faces the hostility of four client states
of the US, plus thousands of US troops indefinitely "under maneuvers" in
Honduras, plus the Contra. Personally, I regret the decisions they have made
to militarize, but they certainly have reasonable justification for them, and I
feel strongly that we have no right whatsoever to judge them.
I would expect you to be the first to notice that Finland has gone belly
up before the Soviets. Nicaragua declines to do the same before the US. Not
surprising given the implacable enmity with which our government regards
theirs.
Steve Upstill
[I went back and looked at the figures, and oddly enough I had badly
understated my case. Here are the force ratios for some countries
in the area:
Colombia *****
Costa Rica ***
El Salvador ***********
Guatemala *****
Honduras ********
Nicaragua ********************************************************
and "F.Y.I."
U.S. ******************
U.S.S.R. *********************************
Finland ***************
Cuba ***********************************************
Yugoslavia **********************
(I mention Yugoslavia because it HAS stood up to the U.S.S.R.
and is politically quite independent of it.)
Numbers are from the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, reproduced
in a current Reason article which is a preview of a paper forthcoming
in Polity. Each star represents a force ratio increment of 0.5.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 5 Sep 85 12:51-EDT
From: Samuel McCracken < oth104%BOSTONU.bitnet@WISCVM.ARPA>
Subject: Kissinger Commission in Nicaragua
I served on the staff of a member of the Kissinger Commission during its
work. While it is true that the Commission spent only a day in
Managua, they had immense amounts of staff documents, briefings, and
testimony. The latter included, for example, interviews with
free trade union leaders who were temporarily outside Nicaragua.
The work of the Commission was as much historical as journalistic.
Walter Duranty, Moscow correspondent of the NYT during the 30s, lived
in the USSR for many years and managed to miss every important story--
as history judges them--during his stay there.
------------------------------
Date: 6 Sep 85 09:38:22 EDT (Friday)
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V5 #35
From: Power.wbst@Xerox.ARPA
JoSH
You said:
(If I remember correctly, the force ratio of Nicaragua (number of men
under arms per 1000 population) is three or four times that of any
other country in the region, including El Salvador (which is also
fighting an insurrection).)
I can't let this go by. The majority of arms bearers in Nicaragua are
civilians armed by the government. These are not, by any stretch of
imagination, offensive combat troops. What they are is a bunch of
really pissed off farmers, factory workers, etc. who would like nothing
better than the North Americans to come bumbling into their country the
way we did in Grenada so they can pay us back for their dead brothers
and sisters. (How many oppressive regimes arm their citizens? Russia?
El Salvador? Chile? Red China?)
I am so god-damned tired of idiot right wingers (Reagan and his ilk)
who allow the Soviets to lead them around by the nose, trashing
everything the U.S. stands for. The Soviets are making fools of us
every day, because they know that all they have to do is pull the macho
chain, and Reagan will start up from his senile decay and start
screeching "Evil Empire, Evil Empire". The man is a jerk, and a fool,
and a well intentioned fool is a very dangerous handicap to have around
for eight years.
Why are the Russians able to manipulate us so easily? Because Reagan
and the right wingers never stand for anything. They are paranoids
backed into a corner, afraid that the whole world is against them. And
because they refuse to take the responsibility of being an American by
behaving according to the Ideals upon which this country was founded,
they are making that paranoid delusion into reality. The U.S. is not a
country, it is a pact, and the Falwell's, Reagan's and Helm's of the
government have failed totally in maintaining that pact. They believe
that it's O.K. to behave decently and honestly when we are assured of
victory, but resort to murder for hire when things get tough. And
afterwards, they argue about who is worse, the Russians or Us. It makes
my skin crawl when I see U.S. government officials defend our actions by
pointing out worse Soviet actions. It's as if a mugger defended his
crimes by pointing to Hitler.
Sometimes we may lose. Sometimes we may be in a position where we
can't win, no matter how skillfully we manuver (perhaps this indicates
that we shouldn't be in that position in the first place). But in the
long run, if we govern our policies rationally and in the best tradition
of America, we will win out. If the right wingers don't believe this,
then they should move to Russia or El Salvador, where ideals mean
nothing.
Reagan may have lost us Nicaragua. Short term victory by hiring thugs
to do our dirty work will not work. Anyone that has looked at the
history of our endless interventions in South America should realize
that. We have merely immunized the peoples against military answers by
our increasing doses of gun-fire.
What can we do? Does the country that backs the contras, the butchers
in El Salvador, the American Fruit Company, ad infinitum have any
credibility left? Regrettably, no. It will take years (at least a
decade) of very hard work, with little payback on the domestic political
scene, to show that the U.S. can stand for something.
Who is courageous enough to lead our country on this path? Ronald
Reagan?
[The force ratio figures I am using include only full-time military
personnel. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Fri 6 Sep 85 16:36:16-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: Nicaragua
Several points:
I am well aware that Reagan considers aid to the contras in Nicaragua
a high priority, which he is willing to expend a lot of political
capital in pursuing. I don't see how that answers Steve's question.
Saying that Reagan must really believe Nicaragua to be a threat is not
going to persuade me or Steve or anyone else who disagrees with him
that he therefore must be right. For one thing, I know that I have
radically different values about foreign policy than he does. In
particular, I believe that God has absolutely forbidden us to make war
with outward weapons (see the Quaker peace testimony for a fuller
explanation of this position). I am, of course, aware that this is a
very debatable position. What is not debatable is that it is
radically different from Reagan's position, and that our different
values would lead to different foreign policy positions even if we
agreed about what the Sandinistas are like.
And even those non-pacifists who oppose Reagan's policies in Central
America are often less interventionist in general in their political
philosophy than Reagan, and so may feel that what he considers an
adequate pretext for intervention is not what they would consider and
adequate pretext. Also, many of us are not convinced that our
administration's reasons for opposing the Sandinistas are as
high-minded as they claim. Perhaps Nicaragua's crime is not being a
threat to its neighbors or suppressing dissent, but defying US power
and being a threat to US business interests. The strength of Reagan's
opposition to the Sandinistas does not prove the purity of his
motives. Nor will it persuade those who think that he is acting out
of kneejerk anti-Communism that he has in fact thought the situation
through.
I do not believe Bukys's contention that we oppose those regimes we
see as expansionist and support those that we see as no threat to
their neighbors. Some cases have already been pointed out where we
have opposed governments that were not very expansionist. I would
also point out that South Africa, one of the non-expansionist
countries mentioned, continues its colonial rule over Namibia despite
international opposition and gives aid to guerrillas in Angola. Its
rhetoric is less expansionist than Nicaragua's. But are its actions?
Why is the (possibly very little) assistance that Nicaragua gives to
the El Salvadoran rebels worse than the assistance that South Africa
gives to the Angolan rebels? Is it because Nicaragua can be more
successful with the support of the Soviet bloc than South Africa can
with the support of nobody, because we like the Angolan rebels better
than the Salvadoran rebels, or is the aid to the Salvadoran rebels is
just a pretext?
I also doubt that the guerrillas in El Salvador are getting the
assistance we claim they are from Nicaragua. I say that they are
getting some assistance because I have read that the Nicaraguan
government has said openly that it gives moral support, office space,
and told the rebels in El Salvador about some of the black market
connections the Sandinistas had used in buying weapons, and that Cuba
said it had sent the rebels a bunch of weapons in 1980 (I don't have
the reference for all this handy, but can give it if anyone wants). I
doubt they get as much as our government says because the massive
amounts of weapons listed in the White Paper do not seem to me to
match with the fact that they only claimed to have intercepted one
truck and to have found one Cessna pilot who admitted to making a
couple of flights with weapons, and because I have read articles
quoting US officials in Central America as saying that Nicaragua is
only channeling a small amount of weapons to the rebels.
I think I know what Bukys is referring to when he talks about the
cadres patrolling neighborhoods. I have a (fairly pro-Sandinista)
friend who spent several weeks in Nicaragua, living with a family
there. She told about a neighborhood group which met and in which the
people took turns patrolling the area at night. I think she attended
at least one of their meetings. I don't recall details of the makeup
of this group or what they were watching for. It didn't strike me at
the time I heard of it as especially sinister; I had thought of it as
something like Neighborhood Watch meetings here, only more active. I
will see if I can get more information about this. I have not heard
of compulsory attendance at rallies or political use of rationing, and
I would like to see these claims substantiated.
I have talked to and read accounts by a number of people who have
visited Nicaragua. Their accounts all clash with the Reagan
administration's picture of a totalitarian Marxist-Leninist regime.
They may be all duped. I doubt it, because their accounts, taken as a
group, also don't give a simple picture of a marvelous revolutionary
government (although some do give just that picture). They express
reservations about the military build-up, the government's treatment
of the Miskito Indians, and the press censorship. They describe
criticism of the government's economic policies and people, and not
just rich people, who say they were better off before the revolution.
Some of them are critical of others for being too naive in their more
glowing reports.
But all of the reports I have read and heard, from the more positive
to the more negative, describe a considerably more pluralistic society
than the Reagan administration seems to want us to believe exists
there. There are opposition political parties, and they did win a
significant portion of the vote in the elections. People do openly
criticize the government, approach the government with complaints, and
critical articles are published in La Prensa. There is a private
sector in the economy; socialism does not seem to have progressed as
much as in many countries. They also report that the Sandinistas have
made great strides in increasing literacy and reducing infant
mortality. Do international human rights organizations report the
same degree of killings and torture in Nicaragua as in El Salvador?
I am not convinced that the Sandinistas are as wonderful as many
visitors report. I am mindful of the possibility that some of them
may be being taken in. But, setting aside for the sake of argument my
pacifist convictions and assuming for the sake of argument that it may
sometimes be acceptable to attempt the military overthrow of a
government, I would say that the burden of proof lies on those who
would advocate military overthrow. Every government I can think of is
sometimes oppressive to its citizens, and many are frequently very
oppressive to their citizens. What makes the Nicaraguan government so
exceptionally bad and threatening that we send aid to soldiers who
rape, torture and kill civilians while trying to overthrow and elected
government?
I don't see the evidence for Reagan's claims, and I am not willing to
take them just on his say-so. Frankly, I think our government is
lying to us again. I don't believe that Nicaragua is an aggressively
expansionist, totalitarian, Marxist-Leninist government which is
intransigent in negotiations. And when our government makes such
extreme accusations with so little evidence to back them up, I doubt
the credibility of our government. I had not set out to be
pro-Sandinista. But I find no middle ground, and I find myself moving
more and more toward the pro-Sandinista camp, because I see among the
supporters of the Sandinistas and attempt to be scrupulous about the
truth and not simply the dupes of the Sandinistas (though they may not
always succeed) and I do not see that same regard for truth on the
part of our government.
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 85 11:14:31 PDT
From: sun!oscar!wild@Berkeley (Will Doherty)
[Sounds like a real fun course-- I don't suppose one can
register only for the lab...? --JoSH]
From: Gail Zacharias < GZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>
I think that remark was uncalled for and in very bad taste. But I
suppose you wouldn't mind if people considered your work to be a
joke too.
This is not intended to disparage either Will or his course:
I note that he did not object to the remark himself, and
for all I know he's having a good laugh over it right now.
--JoSH]
I figured that JoSH meant it as a harmless joke, but also feel that many people
might take it otherwise. Basically, I've learned to take all of his postings
with a large grain of salt, probably a healthy sign.
Will Doherty
...sun!oscar!wild
PS: I'd welcome *any and all* jokes, and even constructive suggestions,
about the course.
------------------------------
Date: 6 Sep 1985 12:54:53 PDT
Subject: Misuse of editorial privilege
From: David Booth < DBOOTH@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
I have long been mildly offended at JoSH's practice of using the
editorial privilege to append his own comments and rebuttals to
people's submissions to POLI-SCI, conveniently making him
"lord of the last word" in any discussion. His distasteful joke about
taking only the lab for a gender role course was given much unnecessary
weight by this practise.
Nonetheless, JoSH has done an admirable job of moderating
POLI-SCI, and has added much liveliness to the discussions. With this
in mind, I would like to publicly request that JoSH include his own
comments and submissions to POLI-SCI in the same format as everyone
else's, and reserve the editorial privilege only for inserting
clarifications or corrections in grammar or spelling.
[Thank you for the compliment, but I shall not accede to your request.
The reason is largely convenience--it is considerably less time-
consuming to stick in comments like this than to fabricate a full-
fledged mail header for them. If it helps to know, my model is
a letters-to-the-editor column in a magazine where the editor often
inserts replies directly after the letters they refer to. I never
insert comments into the middle of a letter, only at the end.
Hmmm... Since I've never listed them explicitly, let me make
public the guidelines I follow editorially: Without asking you,
I WILL correct spelling and/or reformat your letter to fit in
80 columns. I WILL NOT correct grammar, alter the text, or delete
or insert anything in your letter. If you specifically request,
I will not append a comment to your letter. I may ellipsize
quoted text if it has already appeared in a Poli-Sci issue.
If you send a letter that violates Arpanet guidelines in being
a political or commercial advertisement, or a chain letter, I will
contact you personally with specifics before proceeding. Otherwise,
absolutely everything goes into the digest. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Monday, 9 Sep 1985 10:13-EDT
From: sde@mitre-bedford.ARPA
Subject: 1)Yellow rain, an update 2)Educationalal alternatives
Wall Street Journal, Fri 85 Sep 06, p. 18, has 2 articles:
1) That the originator of the theory that "yellow rain" was caused by
bee feces has been unable to find any evidence supporting his theory,
but that Sci. Amer. deliberately omitted stating that fact;
2) A totally separate article supporting the idea that teaching and
graduation be unbundled.
David sde@mitre-bedford
------------------------------
Date: Wed 11 Sep 85 17:02:04-PDT
From: D-ROGERS@EDWARDS-2060.ARPA
Subject: RIGHTS & DUTIES
I just found this interest group and have only read the digest thru
5/6/85. Please forgive if my viewpoints have already been covered
between then and now.
> 31DEC84 0:42 PST
> From: Martin D. Katz < katz@uci-icse>
> ...A third social force involved is the concept that "each
> man is responsible ofr the life of his neighbor," meaning
> that one *should* not let ones neighbor starve.
*emphasis* mine
CONTRADICTION: The option of "should" or "should not" is not available
to one who is responsible. If one bearing a responsibility fails to
perform, he becomes *irresponible*. Furthermore, being responible for
something presumes a certain measure of control over the situation. Since
i have no control over my neighbor's stupidity, for example, i cannot be
responible for his circumstances which result.
Nevertheless, i can be generous and relieve my neighbor's distress, provided
that it does not imperil that for which i AM responsible. e.g. family, other
contractual obligations. On the other hand, there is no generosity involved
if i am forced to contribute to the sustenance of my neighbor at gunpoint
[a' la taxation], rather i, too, become a victim. Indeed they who would
then attempt to distribute largess so acquired, put themselves in a position
of passing stolen property, hardly that of the benefactor they are claimed
to be.
* -- *
RE: BINARY RIGHTS
Most of the comments i have read so far are still missing the point. The
founding fathers understood that *rights* ARE absolute. It may be that they
are often VIOLATED, sometimes WITH the consent of society [zoning laws,
imminent domain] or else WITHOUT it [burglary], but the only real question
is *how much* violation will a particular society tolerate before restraining
the violator(s). This is the logic behind the assertion of Thomas Jefferson
that "that government is best which governs^ least."
^ = impinges upon rights
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 25 Sep 85 Volume 5 Number 37
Contents Neighborhood control
Nicaragua
Prisoner's Dilemma
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 85 11:28:39 edt
From: Liudvikas Bukys < bukys@rochester.arpa>
Subject: neighborhood watch, etc
I intend to find references for my assertions about political use of
rationing, the form of neighborhood political control, etc. It will
take some time, though, especially since I have lots of stuff to look
through, and debating on POLI-SCI has to be one of my lesser priorities.
Meanwhile, I am happy to see the debate producing opposing references.
I shall return. -- Liud -- < bukys@rochester.arpa>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 85 11:08:05 PDT
From: Richard Foy < foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
To: poli-sci@rutgers
Subject: Comments
I found the latest message very intereting. In fact I have saved a copy (which
I usually don't do) for source material for letters to Congress etc. I hope
that Lynn, Power and Steve don't mind me quoting them.
The bar charts of force ratios presents one picture. I wonder if Josh would
be willing to portray total forces in the same manner. I think as Steve
mentioned that total forces is much more meaningful.
It seems to me that the most important thing for people like Lynn, Power,
Steve and myself to do is to really try to understand what is motivating the
people who support the hawkish approach. I have a friend who is relatively
conservative. I have a lot of discussions with him. My main purpose is to
try to understand. I find that we can generally have a usefull discussion.
However when we get to a certain point related to the possiblity of nuclear
war he will quit the conversation. I wonder if the possiblity of nuclear war
is too threatening for some people to evan discuss it as contrasted with
denying the possibility that our current approach may be increasing the danger
rather than reducing the dasnger.
Josh my reaction to your editorials. Most newspapers evan the most liberal or
the most concervative that I read; evan the TV editorials tend to give
opposing views more exposure. How about adding to your comments a few selected
words from the files of opposing views?
[Rather, I generally add my comments TO the "files" of opposing views
--with some vague intent of preserving balance... --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 85 09:27:08 PDT
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
Subject: Nicaraguan armed forces
Josh: you backed up your figures showing an "alarming" per-capita rate of
men under arms by Nicaragua, but you failed to respond to my points in
response to your original statement. Just as a reminder, they were:
1) The relevant statistic is not the soldiers/citizen ratio, but the absolute
number of soldiers, since it is the latter that fight, not the former.
2) Since Nicaragua has a relatively small population, the absolute numbers
are less threatening than your statistics.
3) Since Nicaragua faces the unalloyed hostility of four states surrounding
it, plus the United States' forces indefinitely "on maneuvers" in Honduras,
plus the Contra, it might be interesting to compare the total of those to the
force level of Nicaragua.
I would also like to add to these a further question: just why are these
forces considered threatening? I have no doubt that the Reagan Administration
would jump for joy if Nicaragua invaded any of its neighbors, since that
would provide a politically saleable pretext for overthrowing its government.
Therefore, Nicaragua's forces cannot be considered a threat to its neighbors.
Are they a threat to the Nicaraguan citizenry? If so, then I have to ask why
the Sandinistas have so extensively armed the population. To make an
interesting fight?
Anxiously Awaiting Your Reply,
Steve Upstill
[OK. I posted the "alarming" figures in response to your question,
"Why should we be upset about Nicaragua?" Nicaragua is one of the
most militarized nations in the world (in the top 5). I find this
unsettling in itself. The forces in Nicaragua at the same time
(a) much larger --in absolute terms-- than necessary to protect
itself from its geographic neighbors, and (b) useless against a
determined invasion by the US, should such occur. So: What are
Nicaragua's forces for? --JoSH
ps-- Disapproval of Nicaragua on my part is not to be taken as
approval of any other government or policy...]
------------------------------
Date: 17 Sep 85 16:32:10 EDT
From: Tim < WEINRICH@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Misuse of editorial privilege
[Thank you for the compliment, but I shall not accede to your
request...]
Personally, I have nothing against your addendums. I find them bearable
at worst, useful and enlightening at best. But I'd like to point out that
they are probably self-defeating.
This digest has gotten itself a reputation for having a libertarian bias.
Many people have mentioned this on the digest itself and to me in person.
You argue that it is unbiased because anyone can send in anything they want
to, but this misses the point. The editor of this digest is a libertarian,
and the editor always has the last word in any argument, should he decide to
use it. Anyone who knows the art of rhetoric as well as you clearly knows
the power of having the last word. But whether or not you agree with this,
the fact remains: people perceive this digest to be biased. Some people
dont read it for this reason. And even the people who do read it never find
out whether libertarians can win a fair argument.
This is a shame, because I believe (and I hope you believe) that
libertarian philosophy does not need an unfair advantage in order to win
arguments. A powerful combination of facts and principles are hard to
ignore, whether or not you have the last word.
Personally, it makes no difference to me how or when you reply to
people's messages. But I think these points are worth considering.
(And, needless to say, I think that anyone who found your joke offensive
must take themselves far too seriously.)
Twinerik
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 85 16:33:38 PDT
From: mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley (Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s))
Subject: Prisoner's Dilemma...
Here's a problem which we all have heard before, but I'd like to go
over it again, principally to get the opinions of the Libertarians and
non-Libertarians on this net...
Detroit has motorcycle-like cars which could be sold, right now:
basically, they are motorcycles with light metallic shells for protection
against the elements. They should be relatively cheap, and are ideal
commuter vehicles. Easy to park, take up less room on the road and freeway,
very efficient.
But. They are dangerous, for the same reason that a motorcycle is
dangerous: have an accident with a car at freeway speeds and you're
hamburger in a metal wrapper. Have an accident with another one of these
get-arounds and you're probably better off than you would have been in a
two-auto collision: seatbelt and air bag or not.
Clearly we are all better off if we drove these cars for commuting.
BUT if only a small minority drive them, they are very dead. Aren't we then
better off if we're coerced into driving get-arounds for commuting, since
this way we're assured that everyone else will have them as well?
Waiting to be contradicted,
Rick.
[Aha! Something interesting and theoretical for a change. The Prisoner's
Dilemma has a strong similarity to the Tragedy of the Commons. Essentially
we have a situation where every person's behavior maximizing his
individual benefit combines to everyone's detriment. Such situations
are all too common. The solution, in my mind, is to adopt a system
of interactions arranged so that each person's actions in his own interest
redound to the greater overall good as well.
A coercive system will only have these properties if the coercer is
fairly beneficent and more or less omniscient. In practice neither
is generally true: coercers work in their own interest, and on the
basis of no more information than anyone else.
Let us suppose the Congress were to adopt Rick's scheme and make it
the law of the land. What would happen to all the existing cars?
Would they be thrown away? That's not the best way to start saving
money, which was the whole idea! If not, the kiddiecars will be sharing
the same roads with people on vacations, not to mention carpools, busses,
and trucks. Separate lanes for kiddiecars? Most accidents happen at
intersections, folks. A separate road system, that doesn't intersect
(on stilts, maybe)? Lots of savings there...
Commuters aren't the only people on the road, and most people don't only
commute. I think that the market would have given us kiddiecars if
that's what people wanted--but they didn't. And safety was probably
the least of their concerns. I suspect that comfort and general
utility were uppermost. The Honda Civic type car goes a good way toward
the commuter-style vehicle, especially compared with the chrome-encrusted
land yacht of yesteryear. And who has done the most to *hurt* the
imported econoboxes? Why good old Uncle Sam, with his import quotas
(yes, I know all the actual details).
Oh, well, this "editorial comment" has gotten 'way out of hand.
Sayonara! --JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Sat 05 Oct 85 Volume 5 Number 38
Contents: Comments
Military Responsible for Technology?
Nicaragua
A New Privileged Class?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 Sep 85 19:09 EDT (Thu)
From: _Bob < Carter@RUTGERS>
Subject: Misuse of editorial privilege
From: Tim < WEINRICH at RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
To: Poli-Sci at MIT-MC
Personally, I have nothing against your addendums. I find them
bearable at worst, useful and enlightening at best. But I'd like to
point out that they are probably self-defeating.
This digest has gotten itself a reputation for having a
libertarian bias.
Hi Tim,
I think you're wrong: I like what JoSH does, although I
certainly don't agree with what he says nearly as much as you do.
It depends on what you think digesting should be, I guess. If it
is no more than a mechanical way of reducing net overhead, then he
should just bunch messages up and send them out. The result would be
a completely random digest in which people would talk off into a
vacuum and address each other, if at all, in successive issues. The
SPACE digest does this, and I think it is pretty thin stuff.
JoSH talks back to people, he encourages people to have long
sidebar wars so he can edit these exchanges and put them in the
digest, he nudges people to contribute. In effect, he edits a
political journal. You can't have a political journal without a
strong organizing ideology. The form just won't work that
way. Like you, I read a number of such journals, edited from a
variety of points of view, and have come around to thinking that it
really does not matter what the editor's particular hobby horse is,
so long as he has one and is smart and funny about it.
Sure JoSH and POLI-SCI are biased. Also, idiosyncratic,
infuriating, and often wrong. But almost always pungent and fun to
read. I think we ought to push JoSH to keep it that way.
_B
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 27 September 1985 11:54:50 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: editorial comments and subject matter
Apparently if you hang around long enough, old arguments get recycled, even
on digests. This editorial privelege discussion occurred a few years back,
with the conclusion that only 1 or 2 people didn't like the comments, and
they would post a little blurb at the end of their message "Do not append to
this message." That seemed sufficient.
Out of curiosity Josh, how many people on Poli-Sci are founding readers?
For those who aren't, Poli-Sci was founded to spin off a discussion on
electoral methods that arose on Human-Nets after the 1980 election. I have
noticed that as time goes by, less and less of the discussion seems to be
about political philosophy (libertarian, liberal, conservative, or
otherwise), political science, or public policy questions with facts, and
more about plain old politics with no facts. While it is clearly impossible
to discuss philosophy in a vacuum (what good would it be), much of the
political discussion is unenlightening, particularly foreign policy
discussions (guess which one). But then I guess I should be glad we haven't
had an abortion discussion lately.
P.S. The reason that a lot of liberals disappeared from this list is that
someone formed a Progress (progressive) digest and they moved out (don't
know if it still exists).
[As far as I know, PROG-D does still exist. There are 139 addresses
on the Poli-sci list, of which about 10 are bboards. I have made
over 400 changes in the list since taking it over--so there's no
way to know how many founding members we have left. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 85 18:52:47 PDT
From: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Re: "SDI/AI/Free and open Debate" in AIList Digest V3 #128
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 85 19:44:48 PDT
From: Richard K. Jennings < jennings@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: SDI/AI/Free and open Debate
... For those interested in the history of technology, most of the
things we take for granted (microelectronics, automobiles, planes,
interstate highway system) were gestated and field tested by the
US Military. ...
If you are willing to stay off the interstate higways, the
inland waterways, airplanes and other fruits of technology ripened
by close association (computers, and computer networks as has been
pointed out) -- worry about the military and AI and SDI. But upon
close inspection, I think it is better that the military have the
technology and work the bugs out on trivial things like autonomous
tanks BEFORE it is an integral part of an artificial life support
system.
Agreed, the military was responsible for most of the advances you cite.
This doesn't do anything towards convincing me that that's the only
possible way for that outcome to have come about, or even that better
things wouldn't have happened in the absence of all the money going for
these obstensively military purposes.
As a matter of fact, given my belief that ends NEVER justify means, I
don't even agree that having those things is good. (Considering that
people who didn't consent were forced to help pay for them)
P.S. Why do you think field debugging of autonomous tanks will be less
costly/dangerous than of artificial life support systems? In neither
case will all the bugs be found in simulations and I'd expect
programmers to do better debugging in the midsts of doctors practicing
than in the middle of a tank battle.
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 85 10:33:22 PDT
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley.EDU (Steve Upstill)
[ So, what are...[Nicaragua's large]...forces for, anyway?
...JoSH ]
An excellent question, one which has much troubled me. You, JoSH,
seem to feel that since there is no plausible explanation for their
numbers, they must be for attacking their neighbors. Logically, this is
an unsound implication. You also feel that they would be useless in
defending against a determined attack by the United States; why then are
you so enthusiastic about their utility in attacking nations which the
US would surely leap to defend?
Sadly, I have to come to the conclusion that the militaristic nature
of the Nicaraguan state is the result of a paranoid mentality on the
part of the leadership. But as has been pointed out to me before, just
because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. And
the US is surely out to get Nicaragua. In their more lucid moments,
conservatives will tell you that yes, the embargo will first and primarily
hurt the population of Nicaragua rather than the government (this is also
true of the contra war), but that that's okay because we make a distinction
between friends and enemies; this is the way we treat an enemy.
The simple fact is that the most powerful nation in the world is fuming
with hostility at a tiny, bankrupt but proud (read, uncooperative) neighbor.
Not being saints, the leadership has responded to this threat the way all
nations have responded to similar situations: with desperate militarism
and nationalism.
Steve
------------------------------
Date: 1 Oct 1985 11:06-EST
Subject: Re: Nicaraguan armed forces
From Josh:
The forces in Nicaragua at the same time
(a) much larger --in absolute terms-- than necessary to protect
itself from its geographic neighbors, and (b) useless against a
determined invasion by the US, should such occur.
-----
Maybe they need them to fight againt the thousands of contras on their
borders?
------------------------------
Date: 3 Oct 85 11:23 PDT
From: sybalsky.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: A New Privileged Class?
How many times have you seen articles like the following one? (taken
from today's Oakland, CA Tribune)
Marijuana Task Force Sparks
Fear, Anger in Canyon Raid
Canyon, CA -- Marijuana raiders in camouflaged SWAT suits, armed with
automatic rifles, shotguns, and chain saws and assisted by two police
helicopters swooped through this secluded hillside hamlet yesterday in
a Rambo-style operation that scared, then enraged its citizenry.
"I believe in enforcing the law, but this was all wrong," said George
Menge, longtime Canyon civic doer and former military investigator.
"My daughter was scared to death," Menge said. Alana Menge, 22, was
heading down their one-way private driveway with her infant when
approoaching officers brandishing guns shouted at her "to get out of the
way."
The raiders, a 35- to 50-man force from the Contra Costa County Drug
Task Force, swept through the town of 250 and combed the rugged, woodsy
hillsides for nearly eight hours.
Their yield was about 100 marijuana plants with an estimated street
value of about $50,000. There were no arrests.
"They crawled on their bellies around peoples' gardens, trampled
through yards, peeked in windows, scared the old folks, women and kids,
and generally acted obnoxious," said one eye-witness who asked not to be
identified.
Janet Westlin, a 10-year resident of the sylvan-canyon community in
the hills nestled between Oakland and Moraga, said she wasn't as scared
as she was furious.
She was sitting outside Canyon's new post office. "I had two little
kids who were trying to play, and I was concerned about them. This is
a big drag."
The post office was the rendezvous point for the task force team of
vice officers from the Contra Costa Sheriff's Department, the federal
Drug Enforcement Agency, state narcotic agents, representatives from
police departments throughout Contra Costa and two officers from the
Oakland Police Department.
At about 9:30 they drove up in individual cars, according to
Postmistress Mandy Bratt, then changed into camouflage suits and flak
jackerts, strapped on guns, and took off in vans and four-wheel cdrive
vehicles.
"They looked scary to me. I feel fear when I see guns like that.
They came across as seeming kind of intense," Bratt said.
Two helicopters hovered overhead, then acted as guides to what the
raiders later found were five marijuana patches, with plants 5 to 6 feet
high nearly ready for harvest.
The task force, headed by Sg. Ray Rodriques of the Contra Costa
Sheriff's Department, earlier had obtained three "outdoor" search
warrants.
But a Canyon resident, whose photos of the operation were confiscated
by one officer, said the squad gave the impression they had a blanket
warrant "to search the whole damn town."
Officers at the scene refused to talk to reporters. Rodriques did not
return calls by The Tribune, and sheriff's office spokespersons said
there would be no comment last night. "You'll have to call tomorrow,"
they said.
Many residents said they were upset with what they called the invasion
force.
"They've obviously had Rambo visions in their head," one said. "They
were abusive, rude, and used four-letter words. It was almost high
comedy, pulling out big guns to sqaush a little flea."
Menge, a civilian investigator for the Navy before retiring 12 years
ago, said there are ways to enforce the law. "But you don't start a
war, or look like you're going to start one. I believe in the law, but
this was overkill.". . . .
- - - -
I see a very disturbing trend developing in this country, of which the
above article is typical. In short, there is a new privileged class
developing in this country.
It's a class that is allowed to use force with impunity, to invade
peoples' property without cause, and to harrass any citizen who dares
take steps against them. They are, in short, the police. Read that
article again. Can you imagine the outcry if a private group tried the
following tricks?:-
--Tramping up your driveway, ordering you out of the way at gunpoint?
--Searching your property--again at gunpoint--without a warrant, and
without identifying themselves?
--Siezing your camera, because you were taking photos of them as they
did their dirty work?
More to the point, can you imagine what would have happened to any
homeowner stupid enough to order them off his property--and to try to
defend himself if they refused?
Let me head off some responses at once: This is not a generalized
polemic against police officers--many of them (most!) do a difficult job
as best they can, and do it well. Rather, I'm objecting to a collection
of attitudes I see developing in the country, which I think are
dangerous:
--If it's a police officer's word against mine, he wins
--It's OK for police to run around brandishing weapons (a felony in
California for you and me, by the way).
--We should leave crime control to the police--after all, they're the
ones who know best.
--I don't need to be armed, the police will defend me.
--If an unarmed civilian, face-down on the street is shot in the head
by a policeman, it was an accident (This has been the finding in at
least 3 cases in the last 3 years in California that I know of).
--If you're carrying a gun, the police may stop you at gunpoint and
inspect the gun to make sure you're carrying it legally. Without cause.
This is the law in California.
--Police are never punished for overstepping their bounds: Want to bet
on how many homeowners in Canyon collect damages over this incident?
In short, police can do no wrong, and we should place ourselves at their
mercy. Power corrupts, and the lack of discipline among drug agents in
California shows that power IS corrupting them. People in Mendocino
county have had to go to Federal court to get orders barring DEA agents
and State police from barging in on them unannounced--armed to the
teeth. Surely they already knew that's a no-no in this society?
How did this attitude arise? I think it stems from a long period of
increasing reliance on the professional police ath the citizen's shield
against crime. Over about the past 70 years, Americans have been
content to rely more and more on the police to protect them. This in
turn has led to an increasing assumption by police of a monopoly on the
power to perform this function: Bureaucracies defend themselves by
gaining political monopolies on the power to perform some service. This
is happening with the police as well. Among the outgrowths of this are
laws making the possession of arms illegal to the normal citizen, making
it illegal for you to use force in defending yourself in your home (this
IS the law in a couple of states--you have to retreat), and an
increasing belief by officers that they may do whatever they feel is
needed to "protect society from those bastards".
The result? Skyrocketing crime, and a parallel rocketing of civilian
complaints against individual officers for overstepping their nominal
bounds. But God help the citizen who tries to do something for himself
about either!
Can this attitude go on? No. Even today, police are finding that they
can't do the job alone. They are HAVING to enlist community support, in
the form of Neighborhood Watch programs and the like--in the end, a
citizen's first line of defense against crime must be the citizen
himself. Progressive communities like Oakland and Berkeley--and
less-progressive ones like New York--find that the police resist
mightily any attempt to make them accountable for their actions: Again
and again, police unions fight civilian-review boards, and keep up
running dogfights with them once they're created. Communities explode
(as in Miami) when a policeman happens to "goof" at the wrong time and
shoot some obviously harmless person.
What's the solution? I don't know. I am, however, sure that part of it
lies in peoples' taking back responsibility for their own safety from
the authorities. Police can't be everywhere--can't prevent your getting
mugged--can't help you if your husband starts to beat you up. A return
to more self-reliance would, I think, both lower the crime rate (it has
everywhere it's been tried), and lead to a better balance between
citizen and officer (no evidence here, just gut feel--partnership is a
better basis for a relationship than dependency).
Comments?
--John
[I would, if anything, try to make the warning sharper. The reason
is that many people might try to pass it off with an "it can't happen
here" attitude. But it not only can, it will: In most of the world,
in most of history, it has been a tale of the cossacks and the serfs.
Even in ancient Athens, two-thirds of the people were slaves. Under
the Roman legions, under the feudal lords, the people took what the
rulers gave them, and liked it. Or else. Freedom, liberty, the
right to live your life unmolested by the duly constituted authorities,
is an historical aberration. Remember, folks, the Roman Empire came
*after* the Republic. Sic transit gloria mundi. --JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 10 Oct 85 Volume 5 Number 39
Contents: Personal Responsibility
Police
Nicaragua
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 85 09:45:36 pdt
From: king@kestrel (Dick King)
Subject: Is personal responsibility dead?
Last week a Maryland court ruled that a manufacturer of a "Saturday
Night