Poli-Sci Digest Volume 6, Part 5
Poli-Sci Digest Thursday, 2 Oct 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 94
Today's Topics:
The Second Amendment (2 msgs) &
British Health Services (2 msgs) &
Anti-Authoritarianism (2 msgs) &
Moderators' involvement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 86 16:53:37 pdt
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Subject: The Second Amendment
Thank you for your lucid survey of contemporary scholarship with
regard to the Second Amendment. I have one question: Is it accurate
for me to believe that ownership of arms at the time of ratification
was self-limiting, in the sense that reliable rifles were sufficiently
expensive that only a small fraction of the populace could afford
them? I refer, of course, to the white property-owning males who were
the only ones allowed to vote under the original Constitution. If
this is true, than clearly the circumstances under which the Second
Amendment were adopted were quite different than now, when weapons of
frightnening destructive capability are available to persons with
relatively modest means.
------------------------------
Return-path: < Sybalsky.pa@Xerox.COM>
Date: 23 Sep 86 12:21 PDT
From: Sybalsky.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: "Well-regulated Militias"
|Steve Walton: but such a militia would not be "well regulated" unless
|licenses or bonds for weapons ownership were required...
One would do well to go back and find out what "well regulated" means
in this context. There is evidence (ref below) that "well regulated"
merely means well-functioning, and explicitly also means NOT UNDER
GOVERNMENT CONTROL.
One should also consider that a variety of "right[s] of the people"
are mentioned in other amendments, and THEY are always interpreted as
meaning rights of individuals.
For references to these issues, check Stephen Halbrook's book "That
Every Man Be Armed", put out by the Univ of NM press. It's a thorough
exploration of the genesis of the second amendment and the meanings of
the words used in it.
--John
------------------------------
Return-path: < seismo!mcvax!uu.warwick.ac.uk!kay@topaz.rutgers.edu>
From: Kay Dekker < seismo!mcvax!uu.warwick.ac.uk!kay@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #78
Reply-to: Kay Dekker < seismo!mcvax!uu.warwick.ac.uk!kay>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 86 15:54:07 GMT
mcgeer%sirius.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU writes:
> (1) Health care costs in England are lower because the standard of
> care in England is far lower. Transplants, for example, are not done
> in England. Has it ever occured to any of our Kennedyite
> correspondents that the only major new therapies we've seen in the
> last 15 years have been pioneered in the US? Guess why. Governments
> won't pay for experimental therapies.
Two points:
Transplants *are* done in England (and, FYI, throughout the rest of
the UK as well); yesterday (Sept 22nd) a 2 1/2 month old boy became
the youngest-ever combined heart-lung recipient.
I wonder why it might occur to them. (BTW, what *are* Kennedyites?)
What do you call a major new therapy? would you not include in-vitro
fertilisation, pioneered by Patrick Steptoe, here in the UK? and I
imagine that it's rather easier for a researcher to develop therapies
here than in the USA - aren't patients somewhat litigious over there?
This, at least, is what our media report.
> (2) Waste and fraud? Well, Canada's medicare system is by all
> accounts far more effective than Britain's NHS. But in Saskatchewan,
> some years back, the government announced that it was considering the
> establishment of a board to review elective surgery. Hysterectomies
> immediately fell by 2/3.
And? Presumably you're telling us this because you want to propose
the theory that 2/3 of hysterectomies are either wasteful or
fraudulent? Mesured by what criteria? In whose opinion? I'm sorry
if I'm coming over more aggressive than I intend, but this newsgroup
seems riddled with anecdotes masquerading as evidence, circular proofs
and post hoc (never mind ad hominem!) arguments. My logic and
rhetoric teacher would be shocked...
Kay.
------------------------------
Return-path: < mcvax!cstvax.ed.ac.uk!db@seismo.CSS.GOV>
From: Dave Berry < mcvax!cstvax.ed.ac.uk!db@seismo.CSS.GOV>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 86 15:11:24 gmt
Subject: British NHS
The latest issue of "New Statesman" (19/9/86) includes an article on
health services in Britain. It quotes "The Economist" (April 1984) as
saying the cost of health provision per head in the USA is four times
that here, and that USA people are no healthier. The claim about
relative health may or may not be attributed to the "Economist"
article, it isn't clear.
The recent posting to mod.politics claiming that transplants aren't
done in Britain is inaccurate. We even do heart transplants (though
many people think that a better standard of health care would be
obtained if the money was spent elsewhere).
Likewise, the claim that Britain doesn't finance medical research is
also false.
These new poets||Dave Berry..mcvax!ukc!cstvax!db||Why did we fight WW2
they scan ||CS postgrad, Univ. of Edinburgh||if not to
they rhyme || (poem by Michelene Wandor) ||free verse
------------------------------
Return-path: < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu 25 Sep 86 19:27:33-EDT
From: Richard A. Cowan < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Anti-Authoritarianism Defended, Part I
To: king@KESTREL.ARPA
> [cowan@xx] Take toothpaste. (I admit, a rather unusual
> example.) A dependency on toothpaste in a pump is being created
> (by subsidy at first) so that consumers will ultimately pay for
> the added cost of the pump, and in order to better regulate (and
> speed up) their toothpaste use. When toothpaste in a tube is
> removed from the market because most consumers have been
> indoctrinated (progress!) to buy it in a pump, what happens to
> my "free choice" to buy toothpaste in a tube? The free market,
> using the technical apparatus of the media, has infringed on
> my freedom.
> Gimmie a break! You raise a picture of a secret cabal of two dozen
> men deciding to squeeze out [:-)] the tube. If n-1 companies do get
> rid of the tube, and consumers still want it, don't you think Company
> N will clean up?
> -dick
You are right. I didn't fully explain the point. The point is that
the free market makes choices for us. But I admit, that's not so
"bad" -- the consequences are slow and subtle, and would we be better
off otherwise? What's wrong with spending our resources on marketing,
packaging, and advertising? I was talking to an Indian friend, and
back in India a fairly well-off family only generates one bag of
garbage per week. We, on the other hand, are practically a "throwaway
society." But perhaps this is the price (and certainly not a high
price) of affluence?
What I should have said: The real waste is not the packaging of
toothpaste. It is the waste of the work that goes into it. I say why
not go to a 30-hour week. Ten hours more free time to be creative
beats the advantages of the wasteful products that work would create
any day. Perhaps this is going out to the wrong audience, because we
are members of a privileged elite that is allowed to be creative. But
consider the vast majority of the population that is not.
------------------------------
Return-path: < king@kestrel.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 86 16:53:14 pdt
From: king@kestrel.ARPA (Dick King)
To: COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Anti-Authoritarianism Defended, Part I
Date: Thu 25 Sep 86 19:27:33-EDT
From: Richard A. Cowan < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> [cowan@xx] Take toothpaste. [We're getting pumps rather than
> tubes because the toothpaste company wants more bucks, and son
> I won't have a choice.]
> Gimmie a break! You raise a picture of a secret cabal of two
> dozen men deciding to squeeze out [:-)] the tube. If n-1
> companies do get rid of the tube, and consumers still want it,
> don't you think Company N will clean up?
> -dick
[ Dick included the entire text of Richard's reply here. Since it
runs in the digest just above, I removed the inclusion - CWM]
Most people in noncreative jobs take overtime when they can get it.
My statement is empirical; it is an observation at Con Ed, New York's
power company (where the typical job is a lineman's, meter reader's,
or equipment maintainer's), at Pacific Telephone where similar jobs
exist, and at RCA Globcom where the days tasks typically consist of
sitting in front of a CRT, reading the address fields of outgoing
telegrams, and fixing the misspellings so the computer can route them.
In each of these three companies there is no mandatory overtime.
There is a quota - if you have more seniority you can get more (it's a
complex formula so even the newest hire gets some, typically about
half what the most senior people get.)
I concede that the overtime is paid at time-and-a-half at each of
these three companies, but I see no evidence that either party to the
agreement want a shorter workweek, despite the noncreative nature of
(most of) the jobs involved. Who would impose a 30 hour week? By
what justification?
I may be elitist to say this, but I conjecture that there won't be too
much effective creativity by people in noncreative jobs. After all,
if a person wanted to spend his time being creative, and had "what it
takes", he would probably not be in a noncreative job!
-------
-dick
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun 21 Sep 86 21:05:56-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Flames on Moderators
To: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #80
Drivel.
Noise, especially when (1) you miss the point in the paragraph you
quoted and (2) you presented a fallacious argument. The point of that
paragraph is that when a contributor feels that he/she is not
participating in a *discussion* (i.e. one in which there is genuine
give and take based on the soundness of the arguments presented) but
rather in an exchange where the other party yields no quarter at all,
it is a matter of time before the contributor feels that the offending
party is just trying to dominate the exchange and that he/she is
wasting his/her time in the exchange. And now to your fallacious
argument...
.......... If any writer requested that any contribution be run
without JOSH's afterword, JOSH invariably respected the
request;...... and then further said that if any writer wished
all of his contributions run without afterword, he would do so.
You have picked a default mode of operation in which the moderator
will append his replies to the messages unless otherwise requested. I
can see an equally applicable mode of operation where the contributor
has to explicitly request the moderator to append his replies to the
messages.
.....if memory serves, JOSH publically announced this policy....
Those public policy announcements were, in most if not all instances,
responses to complaints of the practice.
This strikes me as an eminently fair and reasonable position.
I don't think you mean to use "eminently" here. (Certainly
"imminently" would be incorrect too.) If it is that eminently fair
and reasonable, if would be universally accepted and there will be no
complaints whatsoever about the practice. Take a look at ARMS-D. The
moderator there does not append his replies to the messages but rather
sends them as separate messages. I have yet to see a message
requesting that he appends his replies to the messages. On the other
hand I have seen several messages complaining about JOSH's practice.
As libertarians would say, if it is that fair and reasonable, there
will be a multitude of requests for the practice and the mailing list
(e.g. ARMS-D) will very quickly settle on that mode of operation.
I sincerely doubt that anyone can make a valid claim that JOSH
took unfair advantage of his moderator's position.
This statement is a consequence of your missing the point (as
explained in the first paragraph of this message).
Despite my disagreement with JOSH's debating tactics, I have sent
several public messages expressing my sincere appreciation of his
effort in moderating POLI-SCI (my sincere appreciation to you too,
Charles aka CWM). The frequent occurrence of long messages just makes
life even harder for the moderator. I sincerely hope that the rarity
of messages of appreciation does not lead them (i.e. JOSH and CWM) to
think that their toil is not appreciated. I would think most if not
all of us do appreciate their work. It is perhaps this feeling of
appreciation that enables us to tolerate the practice of having the
moderator's replies appended to the messages. Of course if the
moderator takes the effort of not appending his replies, he/she would
be appreciated even more.
Willie
P.S. Charles, I have no strong feelings against the practice, so
append your replies if they are short. (Is this the first message
requesting that you append your replies?) Again, thank you for your
effort in moderating this list.
[ My policy is I append short (well, reasonably short) comments to
messages, but if it gets long-winded, I make it a separate article. I
used to think that the moderator's "last word" made things unfair -
now I see it as a shorthand for me mailing a message to myself. To
someone emotionally charged up on an issue, I can see how the practice
would seem unfair. I don't think I have the debating smarts to negate
the validity of someones's article with a few short comments. They
are just my opinions, and don't represent anything more than that. I
would prefer to continue in the present form. - CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Thursday, 9 Oct 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 95
Today's Topics:
South Africa (2 msgs) &
Drug Testing (2 msgs) &
TV or not TV &
Libertarian Viewpoints (3 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < RS%WATCSG.NETNORTH@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1986 13:23 LCL
From: Riel Smit < RS%WATCSG.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: South Africa
Just some notes (nitpicks?) on SA history. walton@ametek.UUCP wrote:
"When the British took control of the Cape during the
Napoleonic Wars, the entire Boer population packed up and moved
1,000 miles inland rather than live under British rule."
Disregarding the fact that the above is a somewhat oversimplification
of the reasons for the Great Trek, the entire Boer population
definitely did not pack up and move out. Not even if you take "Boer"
to mean what it really means, namely farmer and not Afrikaner as
people are wont to do. It was mostly farmers in the border (frontier)
districts of the Cape Colony that moved away - just as they had moved
away from the Dutch government in the Cape in previous years (they
were a self-willed lot). In fact, some Afrikaners in the Cape were
very much opposed to the trek by their fellow Afrikaners
For an interesting book on the history of the Afrikaners (up to the
early sixties), try "The Afrikaners" by John Fisher.
As for Kissinger's proposals - to me it makes a lot of sense.
Riel Smit +1 519 888 4004
rs@watcsg.BITNET gdvsmit%watrose@waterloo.CSNET watmath!watcsg!rs
------------------------------
Return-path: < wild@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 86 23:38:04 PDT
From: wild@Sun.COM (Will Doherty)
To: ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu, wild@Sun.COM
Subject: Popularity of Mandela and ANC
From: Steve Walton
(Footnote: A while
back in the Wall Street Journal, an editorial writer said that
the South African government should release Nelson Mandela and
legalize the ANC [though not terrorism, of course] and allow
them to place their ideas before the people of South Africa.
He had no doubt that the majority of blacks would see that
their desire is to replace one totalitarian government with
another.)
I believe this editorial writer displays a serious lack of historical
understanding concerning the ANC and the symbolic value of both Nelson
and Winni Mandela among the majority South African black population,
as well as among SA whites who have a shred of non-racist conscience.
As references, I can cite only the following off the top of my head:
Mandela, Nelson. The Struggle is My Life. London: International Aid
and Defence Fund for South Africa. 1978.
Mandela, Winnie. Part of My Soul Went with Him. New York: WW Norton
and Co. 1984.
Film: Winnie and Nelson Mandela. Directed by Peter Davis. 1986.
Film: You Have Struck a Rock. Produced by Deborah May. 1981.
Story of the 1956 women's campaign against the pass system.
I'm willing to read information to the contrary if someone will
provide references.
Will Doherty
UUCP: ...sun!oscar!wild
ARPA: "oscar!wild"@sun.com
------------------------------
Return-path: < abc@BRL.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 86 22:16:08 EDT
From: Brint Cooper < abc@BRL.ARPA>
SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA writes:
>
> I'm with Keith on this one. I see no reason why it would be harder
> to persuade companies not to do drug testing by organizing employees
> privately to refuse than by getting the government to pass a law
> against it.
Current events show that "organized" employees are no match for
well-heeled employers in contract negotiations. The TWA flight
attendants took their pay cut. The dockworkers in this area face a
$5.00/hour pay cut. In the face, of all that, I don't see how
employees could exercise any strength in the face of company
unwillingness to negotiate.
>
>
> 2. The government could enumerate unreliable tests, which it would
> ban (so people couldn't not be hired on such weak evidence). Then
> someone could come up with another unreliable test, which employers
> would use.
>
Why can not the government certify the procedures and/or the labs that
conduct them? Medical labs, weights and measures, meat processing,
all are examples of areas well-regulated by one level of government or
another. Is it too much to expect similar certification of the
reliabiliity of drug tests?
>
> 3. The government could enumerate jobs it considers critical enough
> to public safety to allow the employers to do drug testing. But the
> government knows much less about whose safety is involved than the
> people working in the industry, so why should it make the decision?
>
Right! That's why we have OSHA. Industry might "know" what's safe
but they worry only about what will cost them money, not what's best
for the employee!
--
Brint Cooper
ARPA: abc@brl.arpa
UUCP: ...{seismo,unc,decvax,cbosgd}!brl-smoke!abc
------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Mon 6 Oct 86 14:18:55-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: drug testing
On second thought, I retract my objection to the government telling
employers not to do drug testing. What I believe is that anyone
(person or company) has the right to test people to see whether they
are currently intoxicated before allowing them to operate dangerous
machinery which they own. E.g., if I think my employee may be drunk,
I shouldn't have to produce a whole lot of proof before I am allowed
to give him or her a BAC test before allowing him or her to drive the
company car. There is no inherent reason that I can see that the
government couldn't allow that and not allow testing everyone to see
whether they have used marijuana at any time in the past six months.
I just don't expect a lot of common sense from the government on this
issue in the near future, and I doubt there will be rampant drug
testing unless they impose it.
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
------------------------------
Return-path: < prm@asc.PURDUE.EDU>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 86 10:41:55 est
From: Phil R. Moyer < prm@asc.PURDUE.EDU>
Subject: Some TV shows worth watching. . . .
SMITH%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU writes:
> I purged TV almost completely out of my life 10 years ago and am over
> 99% TV clean. My suggestion to everyone: Read Instead.
Perhaps not read *instead*. I feel it ought to be read *also*; with a
caveat. Carefully monitor what you are watching. PBS stations do
carry some interesting and intellectually challenging programs. For
example, Wall Street Week is extremely informative and often
provocative. Another good example is Bill Buckley's Firing Line.
This is very often controversial and always greatly entertaining. For
pure entertainment and beauty, try watching National Geographic's
Explorer.
I disagree that all programming is bad. I'd say more than 1% of the
programs available are worth watching. Mind you, this is not an
attack against reading. I'm all for reading. For the time spent, you
get more information reading than watching TV (If you're a brisk
reader and can absorb information well). Of course, it would delight
me if everyone gave up the CBS evening news and started reading
National Review. It'd be even better if everyone agreed with it. :-)
- Phil
prm@j.cc.purdue.edu
NOTE: These opinions are mine; they are not neccessarily those of my
employer.
------------------------------
Return-path: < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu 25 Sep 86 20:39:21-EDT
From: Richard A. Cowan < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Anti-authoritarianism defended, Part II.
To: fagan%fi@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
Barry,
1) You are right when you say that
> left-wing and right-wing views aren't even remotely consistent
I was wrong to say that the libertarianism is flawed for because it
encompasses views that are both left-wing and right-wing; it simply
puts the individual above the state.
2) Then you respond to this:
> > The government is
> > controlled by the political process, a process greatly influenced
> > by economic interests....
> There is doubtless a great deal of truth in this. It makes a
> compelling argument for a constitutional amendment forbidding
> government from intervening in the economic affairs of its
> citizens. The only way that large economic institutions can
> create a "public policy" is through the power of government,
> which can pass laws and enforce them coercively. Take this away,
> and corporations are left only with the power to trade.
We partially agree. But I believe you use an unrealistically narrow
definition of "public policy." There have to be some laws; there have
to be roads for businesses to use. There have to be workweek limits,
if you want to avoid slave conditions for labor. There has to be
transit, given the way in which factories are concentrated into
densely populated cities. Even if there is no governmental body
organized by the State, someone has to set some guidelines somehow, or
you have chaos. Individuals will be affected by these guidelines.
Your plan to leave corporations only with the power to trade must
accept the reality that some decisions have to be made.
Libertarianism may put the individual above the State, but it still
does not put the individual above the Corporate State.
3) Now, I totally agree with your observation:
> Government is *always* run by people with power. All governments
> benefit those who are politically concentrated and harm those who
> are not. There is simply no way to have nice, well-intentioned,
> altruistic people run the government so that it serves everyone
> and we all live happily every after. Such beliefs are sheer
> fantasy. Richard asks "Who runs the government?" with the
> implication that other answers are possible besides "the
> powerful". He asks "Who does it serve?" with the implication that
> other answers are possible besides "the powerful". I believe
> he is wrong on both counts.
However, you have the implications wrong. Of course, "the powerful"
will inevitably control the government. But I don't see any reason
why power -- this means wealth, too -- cannot be distributed among
greater numbers of hands. This, of course requires that power be
taken away from those who currently have it. As far as I can tell,
Libertarianism does not suggest any mechanism for doing this, though I
may must be naive. Libertarians who support massive military
expenditures (you may not be in this category) are merely supporting a
disguised form of corporate socialism.
Trends would suggest that, if anything, power is becoming more
concentrated. An article in last Sunday's New York Times magazine on
the distribution of wealth is excellent. Communications technologies,
which we might believe have the potential to alleviate many problems
of centralization such as overcrowding an poverty in cities, will
inevitably be shaped by the political conditions of the society in
which they are introduced. They will allow those in power to exert
greater control over ever greater numbers of people.
To sum up, there are technological and economic limits on the
distribution of power that must be overcome before individuals have
freedom which will not be reduced by limiting government power. The
only way to put the individual above the Corporate State is to reduce
the causes of centralized power. New forms of organizing societies,
neither completely socialist nor capitalist, which do not create the
"forms of life" which traditional systems do, are necessary. This
requires small-scale technology, to create sustainable communities. I
only glanced at it, but I believe the book "Towards an Ecological
Society" by Theodore Bookchin contains some of these ideas.
Bookchin is not a Libertarian. He is an anarchist. (But I prefer the
term anti-authoritarian.)
-rich
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu 25 Sep 86 22:08:27-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #92
To: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Barry S. Fagin)
Subject: Fritz's Folly
The short-term effects were beneficial for selected groups
of American society; the long-term effects include gradual
impoverishment of most of the nation.
An interesting point. I would be interested in getting hold of the
references that support this. If anyone out there has references on
this, please send them to me directly and I'll summarize and post the
replies on Poli-Sci.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 86 10:40:01 PDT
From: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Barry S. Fagin)
Subject: Moral vs. practical arguments for liberty
Dani Zweig asks what libertarians' reaction would be if we knew that a
world based on the non-coercion principle would be fraught with
poverty, misery, and danger. I can only speak for myself, but if this
were the case I would beat a hasty retreat.
--Barry
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Friday, 10 Oct 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 96
Today's Topics:
South Africa &
Strategic Deception &
The Second Amendment (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < hijab@cad.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 86 20:04:45 PDT
From: hijab@cad.berkeley.edu (Raif Hijab)
Subject: Re: South Africa
ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu writes:
>
> Kissinger's answer to South Africa's problem is something
> patterned on the American system.............................
> ............ Kissinger suggests a Western-sponsored conference among
> moderates of all races and tribes in South Africa, with the express
> goal of fashioning a federal government for South Africa. This must
> be coupled with clear statements from the entire West that once such
> a compromise is formed, we will brook no delays in implementing it,
> and that strong pressure will be brought to bear to force the current
> government to acquiesce in the change.
> Comments?
>
The problem with this approach is that it does not takes into
consideration the right of the black South Africans to self-
determination in their homeland, or majority rule. It presumes
to impose a *Western* solution on South Africa. Why? ... Because
Kissinger would like to stack the decks in favor of the White
Afrikaaners, with whom he empathizes so much. The worst part of
it is that the solution would start from a position of overwhelming
superiority by the Whites, without any obvious way to redress
the balance. The only way for justice to prevail is for the
Afrikaaners to *lose power*, and for the black majority to take
over, just as happened in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. Kissinger has
already messed up South East Asia and the Middle East. We do not
need more of his perverted genious.
------------------------------
Return-path: < MDCG.WAYNE%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: 9 Oct 1986 08:21 EDT (Thu)
From: Wayne McGuire < Wayne%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
To: arms-d@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Strategic Deception
Four quick observations and two questions:
(1) We have just learned that the Reagan Administration has
engaged in a policy of so-called disinformation or "strategic
deception" regarding Libya and calculated to rattle Khadafy. While
American intelligence data revealed that Khadafy's terrorist planning
activities were in a "quiescent" phase, the Administration falsely
claimed precisely the opposite, that Libya was hatching new terrorist
schemes.
(2) Seymour Hersh in _The Target Is Destroyed_ has demonstrated
quite convincingly, with the cooperation of disgruntled members of the
American intelligence community who were appalled by the abuse of
intelligence data, that the Administration knew clearly that the
Soviet Union mistakenly thought that KAL 007 was a spy plane. Again,
the Administration in the interests of pursuing an ideological
offensive, turned the truth upside down to score a few propaganda
points in charging that the Soviets deliberately and knowingly
attacked a civilian airliner.
(3) A few years ago hysterical stories, supposedly based on
classified, inside information, appeared in the American media about
the sinister presence in the U.S. of a Libyan "hit team." Later more
level-headed information indicated that the story was a fantasy and
probably cooked up by Israeli intelligence as a means to stir up fear
and hatred of Khadafy, and to aggravate tensions between the U.S. and
the Arab world.
(4) James Bamford, author of _The Puzzle Palace_, a popular study
of the National Security Agency, recently commented in _The Boston
Globe_ that the Administration seriously compromised intelligence
methods by providing details about how communications were intercepted
pertaining to the terrorist bombing of a discotheque in Germany, the
proximate cause of our bombing of Tripoli, but failed to release the
content of those communications so that objective analysts could
determine whether they did indeed implicate without a doubt the Libyan
government in this terrorist incident.
Question 1: doesn't one begin to see a fairly consistent pattern
of deception here, and doesn't it raise some serious questions about
what is its purpose, who benefits, and what is a judicious use of
intelligence information in policy-making?
Question 2: I am quite willing to believe that Khadafy is the
arch- terrorist fiend and monster that the media have painted, but
whenever I have asked some of the people who seem most upset by this
problem to produce hard evidence that the Libyan government has
engaged in terrorism against American citizens, at a level that would
justify the bombing of Tripoli, I have encountered a good deal of
emotional language but no clear facts. I am eager to be enlightened
by anyone on the list who does possess any facts: specifically, what
American citizens during the last decade have been the targets of
terrorist attacks by the Libyan government or its surrogates? Names
and particulars, please.
------------------------------
Return-path: < seismo!cbosgd!cbrma!karl@caip.rutgers.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 86 18:36:59 EDT
From: seismo!cbosgd!cbrma!karl@caip.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: The Second Amendment
> I have one question: Is it accurate
> for me to believe that ownership of arms at the time of ratification
> was self-limiting, in the sense that reliable rifles were
> sufficiently expensive that only a small fraction of the populace
> could afford them?
No. The Minutemen didn't exist in someone's imagination. If you'll
pick up any garden-variety encyclopedia (I've got an Encyclopedia
Americana handy), you'll read that the Minutemen were that body of men
who were supposed to be able to be called to assemblage under arms at
a minute's notice. The arms under which they were required to
assemble were their own, not the property of any governmental body.
Any number of other sources will point out equally well that
individual arms ownership was positively commonplace. This weird idea
that private arms ownership is something new is not historically
correct.
> I refer, of course, to the white property-owning males who were
> the only ones allowed to vote under the original Constitution. If
> this is true,
It's not.
> then clearly the circumstances under which the Second
> Amendment were adopted were quite different than now, when weapons of
> frightnening destructive capability are available to persons with
> relatively modest means.
You have underestimated the "destructive capability" of a bomb made
with black powder, a substance readily available to anyone requiring
it at the time of the Constitution's ratification. Cheap, too, by the
economic standards of either period. Not to mention the destructive
capability of a bottle of gasoline, a Molotov cocktail, or modern
nitrate-based fertilizers when mixed with modern diesel fuels. All
easy, all cheap, all readily available to any Joe Random that wants
it.
The circumstances in this regard are not markedly different.
--
Karl Kleinpaste
------------------------------
Return-path: < seismo!cbosgd!cbrma!karl@caip.rutgers.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 86 14:06:12 EDT
From: seismo!cbosgd!cbrma!karl@caip.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: The 2nd Amendment
> The
> amendment's reading seems clear to me--it gives the States the right
> to have well-regulated Militias. The ability of any individual to
> own whatever weapons he or she chooses is clearly outside the scope
> of the amendment. I suppose one could argue that the States are free
> to define their militia as comprising the entire populace...
Before you go making claims concerning the legal definition of
"militia" and to what circumstances it applies, you would do well to
read up a bit on the available historical sources for it.
In fact, the "entire populace" is exactly what the militia is. In
_Presser_v_Illinois [116 US 252 (1886)], one of those Supreme Court
decisions that gun control advocates like to hold up as "anti-gun"
(and therefore supporting their conclusions), there are these
extremely interesting paragraphs concerning the nature of the
"militia," and whether the people have the right to arms. For context
in this case, a man named Presser was appealing a conviction for
illegally parading in a private militia. The court upheld the
conviction, with which I agree. (In fact, this decision is in no way
anti-gun. I think it's quite pro-gun, just anti-private-militia.)
"We think it clear that the sections under
consideration [which ban private militias], which only
forbid bodies of men to associate together as military
organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and
towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of
the people to keep and bear arms. [...]
"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of
bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or
reserve militia of the United States as well as of the
States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general
government, as well as of its general powers, the States
cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question
out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing
arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful
resource for maintaining the public security, and disable
the people from performing their duty to the general
government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that
the sections under consideration do not have this effect."
The court held quite unequivocally that private armies or militias are
a Bad Thing, holding that the ability to raise armies lies with
Congress alone. (Cf. US Constitution Article I, Section 8, defining
Congress' ability to raise armies; Article I, Section 10, preventing
States from keeping troops in times of peace. Side issue: How do we
allow State-run National Guards during peacetime? Personally, I think
it's illegal.)
But note at the beginning of the second paragraph that the Court held
that the militia is indeed defined as the entire general populace
"capable of bearing arms." That's just about everybody, except those
physically incapable, the extremely aged, and idiots (legal idiots,
that is; I am not slandering anyone).
One should note well the strength with which the Court upheld the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms: "...the States cannot, even laying the
constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people
from keeping and bearing arms..." Just amazing: Even without the
force of the Constitution, the States shouldn't be allowed to restrict
the people's right to arms.
@begin [sarcasm]
Would somebody please tell me how the Supreme Court's decisions have
always been anti-gun?
@end [sarcasm]
> [ Hm... well, during the days of the writing of the Constitution (and
> many years after) possession of guns by private citizens was not
> regulated in any way. What this say of the meaning of the Second
> Amendment? Have things changed from then to now that change this
> 'non-decision' by the writers? - CWM]
Here's another interesting piece of writing from 1880, by a recognized
constitutional authority. Please note carefully the last clause of
the last sentence.
"The Right is General.--It might be supposed from the
phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and
bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would
be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The
militia...consists of those persons who, under the law, are
liable to the performance of military duty, and are
officered and enrolled for service when called upon...The
meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people,
from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to
keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or
regulation of law for the purpose."
Thomas M. Cooley, _The_General_Principles_of_Constitutional_
Law_in_the_United_States_of_America_ (Boston: Little, Brown,
and Company, 1880), p. 271.
--
Karl Kleinpaste
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 14 Oct 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 97
Today's Topics:
Extremism &
Hiring Practices &
Wage Laws &
Advertising and the Courts &
The Second Amendment &
The Constitution and Taxes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < hofmann@nrl-css.arpa>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 86 13:00:52 edt
From: Jim Hofmann < hofmann@nrl-css.arpa>
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #94
Libertarians? Objectiveists? You all sound like idealogues to me...
you will only be satisified when there is no one else around who
disagrees with you (mainly because you are uncomfortable with
discrepancies in your philosphies).
In a certain South American country wreaked by years of political/
social/ and literal warfare on the people, the mobs no longer chant
"rightist" or "leftists" slogans; their cries are roughly translated
as : "No More Fanatics!"
Does ideological orthodoxy lead to fanatisism. Probably. Are
"Libertarians" and "Objectiveists" and any other mess of people who
have to feel united under a label Ideologues? Well, maybe not. You
have to decide on a group by group assessment. As for me, I can't
think of any examples of groups who are not in the end analysis,
ideologues.
I think the people of this world are fed up with people who profess
these quasi-religous ideologies and try to force them to submit to the
laws and gov'ts they set up to support their "religion". As to
whether they are going to do anything about it, remains to be seen.
jim
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 86 19:24:06 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Wealth and discriminatory hiring
To: TESTA-J%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA
From: ~joe testa~ < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Aaah, but you're assuming that the person being targeted is the
*only* person capable of doing the job. Why would someone have to
pay the TOTAL amount of your salary as a bribe to someone else to
not hire you?
Well, if it is less, you can simply offer to work for that amount
less than the other applicant.
Is the bribe to be paid every year to every potential employer? How
do you think anyone would get so many fantastically wealthy enemies
with nothing better to do with their money than to make life difficult
for you? And what makes you think any of this is illegal NOW? So why
doesn't it happen NOW?
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 86 16:46:04 PDT
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #95
Richard A. Cowan < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> There have to be some laws; there have
> to be roads for businesses to use.
You have to have shoes to walk on, too. It doesn't follow that the
government must therefore make shoes.
> There have to be workweek limits, if you want to avoid slave
> conditions for labor.
"There must be limits on prices, if you want to avoid excessive
corporate gouging of consumers"; both statements appear flawed to me.
There is no *evidence* that there would be slave conditions for labour
if there were no restrictions on workweek. Indeed, for salaried
positions there is *no* fixed workweek. Overtime labour without
guaranteed monetary compensation comes with the turf in many salaried
positions (eg, most engineering positions). And I have yet to hear of
a single instance of an enslaved engineer. A little evidence for this
statement, Mr. Cowan?
> There has to be
> transit, given the way in which factories are concentrated into
> densely populated cities.
In the first place, did the factories precede the transit lines, or
the transit lines precede the factories? In the second place, the
very best system of rapid transit in the world is decentralized, and
privately owned and operated. It sits in your garage and mine, and
it's a damned sight better way to get from A to B than any transit
system I've ever ridden on; including London's Tube, the IRT, the T,
the TTC, Montreal Metro, Vancouver's ALRT, and BART. Your automobile
may not be a politically correct way to get around, but it's the thing
people prefer when given any sort of choice.
Finally, suppose I concede a "need" for mass transit, even in the face
of the clear superiority of the private automobile. See the comment
on shoes above. Even the best of the State-run transit systems
compares very unfavorably to every private transit system I've ever
ridden on. When did you last see a Greyhound bus or *any* airplane
with *any* graffiti? When did you last hear of a shootout on a
Greyhound bus? When did you last hear of anyone refusing to ride
Greyhound because they thought that there lives were in danger? It's
only on state transit lines where there's any sort of a problem with
litter, graffiti and crime. Does anyone doubt that if the IRT were in
private hands tomorrow, that riding the NY subways would be a safe,
clean, pleasant experience? Frankly, I would think that the statists
would hide their heads in shame at the experience of state-owned and
state-operated mass transit.
> Even if there is no governmental body
> organized by the State, someone has to set some guidelines somehow,
> or you have chaos.
Evidence?
-- Rick
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 86 19:03:54 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Advertising
To: TESTA-J%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA
From: ~joe testa~ < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
[The court's] opinions would be influenced much more by popularity
if their existence depended on popularity.
... I'm more worried about the times where a popular lynch-mob
movement ... might override due process rights for the accused ...
"aw, we KNOW he's guilty, why bother with the technicalities of a
trial??"
That's why we have a Constitution.
Individuals have to respect each other's rights. It's true that if
few individuals respect other individual's rights, that lynch mobs and
boycotts of courts would be likely. But if people do not respect each
other's rights, a libertarian system would not come into existence
anyway.
> The answer is no, not really. To the extent that advertising
> increases purchases (or donations) it causes the unit cost to go
> DOWN.
Oh, come on now! This makes sense for toothpaste and cars, but
for health care (or courts) ?? I can see it now -- Mr. X sitting
home one night {_ watching TV, says to his wife "gee, i was
thinking, after seeing that ad from Mount Foo Hospital -- what do
you think if i go have a heart transplant next week? They're
having a special discount."
Sorry, I didn't say that right. What I mean is that if they can get
an additional $2 in donations from each $1 spent on advertising, then
advertising makes good financial sense, given that they want to
maximize donations for hospitals and courts. In any case, courts
would cost less under a libertarian system, and both courts and
hospitals would be almost entirely self supporting.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < harvard!wanginst!infinet!rhorn@seismo.CSS.GOV>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 86 23:54:23 edt
From: harvard!wanginst!infinet!rhorn@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rob Horn)
Subject: The Second Amendment
Serveral historical points:
1. The central and western Massachusetts militia was composed of 1
out of every 3 males above the age of 12. All were armed.
2. The percent of the populace that was armed exceeded this because
commentators on armed groups during 1775 note their numbers and that
some (therefor not all) were militiamen.
3. Personal weapons were equal to or superior to British military
small arms. The disparity between personal weapons and the military
was in the absence of cannons, and the shortage of personal
ammunition. At that time combat involved using about 2 rounds per
minute - a weeks supply for peacetime use. The only major battle
fought by a fully militia force was the battle at Breed's hill, one of
the bloodiest of the Revolution. The militia was quite successful
until they ran out of ammunition and had to retreat.
There is also another interpretation to the ``well regulated'' milita.
Washington and the other Southern generals were very upset by what
they found in Massachusetts. Officers were elected by the men, and
officer/soldier distinctions were few. They were horrified that a
captain (also a barber) would stoop to shaving a private. Some of
their concerns were more than class prejudices. Massachusetts militia
was sometimes disorderly and mismanaged, sometimes lead by incompetent
or cowardly officers, often would not follow plans they did not like,
and sometimes suffered severely from fraud and corrupt officers. The
generals insisted on having the power to set rules and appoint
officers.
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 86 19:31:23 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Are taxes unconstitutional?
To: Hank.Walker@UNH.CS.CMU.EDU
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
I do not understand all this talk about income taxes and whether
they are constitutional. ... income taxes are allowed by the
Constitution, and there is no need to puzzle over the meaning of
the 5th and 13th amendments.
Yes, there is an amendment specifically allowing a federal income
tax. In that sense taxes are legal and not unconstitutional.
What if a new amendment were added that said that it's ok to kill
Christians? Would that be unconstitutional? No. Would that be
legal? Yes. Would it be RIGHT? No. Would it be meaningful to
discuss whether or not it violated the intent of the previous version
of the constitution? I think so.
That is what I am doing. I'm sorry I didn't express myself well. I
didn't mean to imply that part of the constitution could be
unconstitutional. If it was added to the constitution of the time by
a mechanism allowed by the constitution of the time, then it is
constitutional. Nevertheless, it may be said to contradict the intent
of the previous constitution. And I think that it does. And my
discussion of the 5th and 13th amendments was an attempt to explain
why.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Sunday, 19 Oct 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 98
Today's Topics:
South Africa &
The Reasons for Laws &
The 2nd Amendment &
Drug tests &
Libertarian Viewpoints &
Drug Paraphernalia
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < SMITH%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Date: 13 October 86 10:13-PST
From: SMITH%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Mandela
In poli-sci V6 #95 Will Doherty suggests that we get our views on
Mandela from amoung other works:
> "Mandela, Nelson. The Struggle is My Life." London: International
> Aid and Defence Fund for South Africa. 1978.
I bought my copy of this book from the same place that I bought
Alex La Guma's "Apartheid": from the Communist Party in San Francisco
I don't know of any group more interested in Mandela in the area than
the CPUSA, their bookstores are overflowing with information and I
suggest to everyone fortunate enough to live near an active CP (like
we are in SF--Check your phone book!) to stop by and browse. I am
fascinated so see the CPUSA so-o-o involved in distributing these
international materials. They even still have information about how
great things are in Ethiopia now after the revolution. It is a real
learning experience to see all the things they are active in. You can
see the issues before they hit our News which always seems to be so
surprised by the spontaneity of the people's outpourings of concern
over people and places they never saw and don't have to live with
(especially the outpourings of our widely traveled, experienced, and
financially astute college students--we all consult them when we are
planning our personal portfolios).
It was also very fascinating to see that many of the pictures that
are used in Anti-S.Africa posters at campus demonstrations are right
out of Doherty's suggested reading. Doesn't anyone else besides the
CP care enough about Mandela to take his picture for their
demonstration posters? I have seen others, but they just don't seem to
make the posters very well. I think it would be great to get some new
posters, perhaps a picture of a burning necklace and the words:
"ANC--Greater Individual Freedom".
John Smith
[I had to edit this message (with permission) to remove the
address/phone of the CP of SF due to arpanet advertising guildlines.
For more information on the CP of SF, please contact John directly.
-CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < dmw@gauss.ECE.CMU.EDU>
Date: Tuesday, 14 October 1986 09:29:09 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@gauss.ece.cmu.edu
Subject: why we have laws
When I hear statements like "We don't need a law on X, we'll do just
fine without it," my immediate reaction is "Why was that law passed in
the first place?" Presumably people don't go around passing laws
because they're bored. They had a reason, and were able to convince
the majority of the legislators that it was a good reason. The child
labor laws and laws limiting the length of the work week were passed
at a time when robber barons perpetrated all sorts of nasty evils on
people. Laws regulating the purity of food were passed in response to
Sinclair Lewis's "The Jungle." I was told that Teddy Roosevelt was
reading the book while eating a sausage for breakfast. (Roosevelt was
an avid reader, reading perhaps a book a day). When he got to the
part about how they make sausages, he got so disgusted that he threw
his sausage out the window, and had the filth laws passed.
Now circumstances may have changed since a law was passed, so that it
is no longer needed. We've all heard those jokes about the amazingly
strange laws on the books of some cities and states. There are three
ways of dealing with such laws: A) ignore them, B) have them
automatically expire, or C) have them repealed. Alternative A seems
bad, since this breeds disrespect for the law, and allows arbitrary
enforcement. B is the "sunset" provision, where the onus is on those
in favor of keeping a law, while C puts the effort on those in favor
of repealing a law. I'm personally in favor of B, with laws expiring
automatically after 10-20 years. Those laws that enjoy widespread
support will be extended with trivial effort. Controversial laws will
have the debate they deserve, and obsolete laws will disappear without
comment.
------------------------------
Return-path: < oswald!jim@ll-xn.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 86 10:40:03 EDT
From: oswald!jim@ll-xn.ARPA
Subject: Re: The 2nd Amendment
Many people claim that the second amendment provides the general
populace a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This is
demonstrably false.
For many years, localities such as New York City have had laws which
abridge this putative right. Many people have been convicted of
violating these laws. During all this time, the Supreme Court has
never overturned such a conviction due to conflict with the second
amentment. If the Court really believed that such a right existed,
the NRA would have found a suitable test case decades ago. The
Court's silence speaks volumes.
What the anti-gun-control people really mean is that *they* (not the
Court) interpret the amendment to provide such a right. Anyone can
interpret the constitution, but only the Court's interpretation really
counts. By letting gun control laws stand, the Court has decided that
a general right to keep and bear arms does not exist.
-- Jim Olsen
...!{decvax,lll-crg,mit-eddie,seismo}!ll-xn!oswald!jim --- Jim Olsen
...!{decvax,lll-crg,mit-eddie,seismo}!ll-xn!oswald!jim
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 86 20:07:46 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Drug tests
[ On urine tests, its easy to fake it. ... you'll have to watch
your subject urinate, and take the container from him/her; unless
you want to strip-search the subject... - CWM]
I do oppose drug tests. I think they are a stupid idea. Certainly
if people are to be allowed to smoke tobacco at work, they should be
allowed to shoot heroin and snort cocaine. Those may interfere with
their productivity - in which case their employer should tell them to
straighten out or leave the company - but they are not as likely to
interfere with other employee's productivity as is smoking.
In any case, I do not think it is really any business of an employer
to enquire into what a person does on their own time. If it decreases
their productivity, the employer should be concerned about that and
only about that. There may be people who can do better work drunk
than I can sober. They should not be fired.
I have in fact complained to the management of the company I work
for about their requirement for all new employees to take a urine
test.
HOWEVER, I firmly believe that a person's association with their
employer should be purely voluntary, which means that either party can
terminate the association at any time for any reason. Employers have
the right to require urine tests of employees as a condition of
employment. Similarly employees have the right to require urine tests
of their supervisors as a condition of employment. Either party has
the right to refuse such a test, in which case the other party can end
the association or not as he or she sees fit.
An employer can examine tea leaves to decide who to hire or fire.
An employee can cast horoscopes to decide which company to work for
and what salary to ask for. I agree that these aren't rational. But
there is no limit on individual rights that says that they only apply
if they are used rationally. If there were such a restriction, the
rights would be worthless since they would be at the whim of whatever
bureaucrats set themselves up as supreme arbiters of reasonableness.
But no two people ever quite agree on what is reasonable. If Pat
Robertson were to be elected, all sorts of things would be considered
reasonable and unreasonable by the administration that would come as
quite a shock to non-fundamentalists who are not part of the
government. Should the rights of the latter be vetoed by the former?
Is there such a thing as inappropriate use of the first amendment, for
instance? Voltaire is supposed to have said "I disagree with what you
say but will fight to the death for your right to say it". Today, it
seems, people would add "... so lng as it isn't TOO disagreeable, and
so long as Meese doesn't find it obscene".
So what rights do businessmen have? Less than the rest of us? The
supreme court seems to think so. Several times in recent years they
have concluded that "commercial speech" is less protected that other
forms. This term "commercial speech" does not appear anywhere in the
constitution. Does anyone know where it came from? Marx, perhaps?
They have ruled that cigarettes cannot be advertised on radio or TV,
and seem close to ruling that they cannot be advertised in the print
media either. Nobody hates cigarettes more than I do, and I make it a
point never to buy magazines in which cigarettes are advertised, and
to encourage others to do the same, but I would be willing to fight to
protect the tobacco companies' freedom of speech. I couldn't disagree
with their message more if they were advertising communism, but they
have the right to say what they choose no matter how repugnant to how
many or to whom.
The right of free association is just as valuable as the right of
free speech. Nobody can be compelled to associate or to not associate
with anyone against their will. Just as nobody can be compelled to
speak or to keep silent against their will. Anti-discrimination laws
have casually discarded this fundamental right, and for no benefit.
You think there is a benefit? Well, if women work just as hard as
men, and are willing to work for a lower salary than men, then a
company which discriminates against women is at a strong competitive
disadvantage. We don't NEED anti-discrimination laws, even if we
could somehow have them without violating more fundamental rights.
Their only function seems to be to stir up old antagonisms, to make
employers look like bad guys, to encourage members of officially
recognized minority groups to become more strident instead of more
competent in order to advance, and to encourage million dollar
lawsuits instead of years of hard work to become wealthy, and in
general to soften us up for further socialist steps.
The most dangerous enemies of this country aren't in Moscow, but in
Washington. You don't need to consult secret papers or look for
microfilm in pumpkins to find out who they are. Just look at their
voting records.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 86 16:54:33 PDT
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #95
To: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU
> Dani Zweig asks what libertarians' reaction would be if we knew that
> a world based on the non-coercion principle would be fraught with
> poverty, misery, and danger. I can only speak for myself, but if
> this were the case I would beat a hasty retreat.
>
> --Barry
Of course, coercive states around the world are places where poverty,
misery, and danger are unknown. Me, I can hardly wait to leave the
relative freedom, poverty, misery, and danger of the USA for the
servitude, wealth, comfort and safety of Ethiopia, Vietnam, Cambodia,
Red China, Cuba, Russia, Afghanistan, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Rumania,
or any of the world's other shining examples of the munificence of
Marxism.
Somehow, Barry, I don't think you'll have to beat a hasty retreat.
-- Rick
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 86 19:40:37 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: AIDS and needles
[ Say what? AIDS is not gotten on needles by a group of people
using a needle. It takes exactly one AIDS sufferer to infect a
needle. If its clean before infection, its just as contaminated.
- CWM]
If needles are "controlled" as illegal drug paraphernalia, then
needles will be shared by many drug users. If any one of them had
AIDS, it is likely that many of the users who share a needle with them
will get AIDS. And if any of those users ever share a needle with yet
other users, the new users are also likely to get AIDS. As a result,
AIDS will tend to become very prevalent among users of illegal drugs,
and discarded needles will tend to be very likely to carry the AIDS
virus and to infect children who play with the discarded needles.
Since this is exactly what is happening, I don't see what you are
arguing about. Do you disbelieve any of these facts?
If needles are NOT "controlled", but are freely available at a
market price, drug users will not tend to share needles, AIDS will be
no more prevalent among drug users than among the general population,
and the great majority of discarded needles will not carry the AIDS
virus. Also, needles would be more likely to be used and disposed of
in more reasonable ways, and discarded needles would be no more a
threat to public health than are discarded razor blades.
Perhaps if shaving were illegal and razor blades outlawed, people
would share razor blades and discard them in dark alleys. Perhaps
people who shave would be at high risk for AIDS, as would children who
happen upon their discarded blades.
...Keith
[ Another left-field analogy. Isn't this a rather small band-aid for
a somewhat larger (and different) wound?
If there is a market for it, black-market needles should be just as
available as black-market drugs. The very same forces you claim are
making drugs so available (massive market) should be making illegal
needles readily available. I wonder why not? In any event, I am
suspicious of any 'facts' containing the phrases 'it is likely' and
'would tend to'. -CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Saturday, 25 Oct 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 99
Today's Topics:
South Africa (2 msgs) &
Vandalism and Statism &
Deception &
Coercion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 86 18:09:04 PDT
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #96
To: hijab@cad.Berkeley.EDU
< hijab@cad.Berkeley.EDU>
> The problem with this approach is that it does not takes into
> consideration the right of the black South Africans to self-
> determination in their homeland, or majority rule. It presumes
> to impose a *Western* solution on South Africa. Why? ... Because
> Kissinger would like to stack the decks in favor of the White
> Afrikaaners, with whom he empathizes so much.
My suspicion is that Kissinger is more interested in finding a
solution that prevents the Afrikaaners from nuking their neighbours or
butchering the black population of SA. Even the most cursory reading
of the history of South Africa should convince you that the
Afrikaaners are more than capable of doing either, *no matter what we
or anybody else says or does*. The Afrikaaners are a tough,
independent people; they stood the British Empire off at the height of
the Empire's power. For three hundred years they've poured their
sweat and blood into the Veldt, and have shown absolutely no
compunction about spilling the blood of others to hang onto it. If
you think they're going to cavil now, think again.
> The worst part of
> it is that the solution would start from a position of overwhelming
> superiority by the Whites, without any obvious way to redress
> the balance. The only way for justice to prevail is for the
> Afrikaaners to *lose power*, and for the black majority to take
> over, just as happened in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.
The Afrikaaners aren't going to "lose power" just like that. They
*may* lose a civil war -- but I wouldn't bet on the blacks -- numbers
and moral superiority don't win wars; disciplined armies and weapons
do. The Afrikaaners are 20% of the population of SA; the whites were
only 5% of the population of Rhodesia, weren't nearly as tough or
well-armed as the SAs, and both ZANU and ZAPU were better-armed and
financed than the ANC. At that, it took seven years of bloody
guerilla war for the blacks to win in Rhodesia. How long would it
take the SA blacks? Twenty years to forever, depending. And in the
meantime we'd see the worst bloodbath outside of China in this
century, rivalling even the Holocaust. And almost all of the blood
that gets spilled will be black, and a fair amount of it might well be
Angolan, Mozambiquean, and Zimbabwean.
There is *no way* to *force* the Afrikaaners to hand over power. The
best we can do is to persuade the Afrikaaners to share power with the
black majority. That means that the Afrikaaners need some guarantee
that they'll be able to keep their homes, land and way of life. If
that offends your sense of justice and equity, tough. If they don't
get those guarantees, they will fight. If they fight, many, many,
many blacks will die and the blacks might well lose anyway.
That's Kissinger's point: South Africa is the Afrikaaner's homeland,
as much as it is the homeland of the Zulu and the Xhosa, as much as
the USA is the homeland of the non-aboriginal American. The
Afrikaaner has nowhere else to go, and, like anyone with nowhere else
to go, will fight to the death for his home and way of life. Given
this, will you still talk airily about the black majority "taking
over"? Will you go to SA and die with the blacks in pursuit of this
pipe dream?
> Kissinger has
> already messed up South East Asia and the Middle East. We do not
> need more of his perverted genious.
Revisionist history. There would be no peace between Egypt and Israel
today if not for Kissinger's work in 1973. And the comment about SE
Asia is lunacy. Nixon and Kissinger ended a war that Johnson and
McNamara started.
-- Rick
------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 86 08:40:03 PDT
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Subject: Kissinger and South Africa
Raif Hijab (hijab@cad.berkeley.edu) writes:
> The problem with [Kissinger's suggestion of a federal system for
> South Africa] is that it does not takes into
> consideration the right of the black South Africans to self-
> determination in their homeland, or majority rule. It presumes
> to impose a *Western* solution on South Africa. Why? ... Because
> Kissinger would like to stack the decks in favor of the White
> Afrikaaners, with whom he empathizes so much. The worst part of
> it is that the solution would start from a position of overwhelming
> superiority by the Whites, without any obvious way to redress
> the balance. The only way for justice to prevail is for the
> Afrikaaners to *lose power*, and for the black majority to take
> over, just as happened in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.
I perhaps did not emphasize sufficiently strongly in my original
message that Kissinger's editorial said that any replacement for
apartheid should be based firmly on the principal of "one man, one
vote." But a major subpoint of the Kissinger argument is that there
is no "black majority" in South Africa, of which fact the tribe vs.
tribe violence of recent months should be ample evidence. Hence his
suggestion of a federal system. If this is advocacy of a "Western
solution" to the problems of South Africa, so be it. Personally, I
can't see that the nations of black Africa grant much more freedom to
their citizens than the Afrikaners give to black South Africans, and
that includes Zimbabwe. Would Idi Amin be an improvement over P.W.
Botha?
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed 15 Oct 86 11:05:00-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #97
To: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
When did you last see a Greyhound bus or *any* airplane with *any*
graffiti?
Being neutral on the issue of whether statism is good or bad, I think
that the example you used is rather weak. The opportunity to
vandalize a bus or a plane is very restricted as 1) the driver/flight
crew is always around when there are passengers on board and 2) it is
easy to identify the culprit as the ride is long enough for the
passengers to know (or at least notice) each other--e,g. be able to
identify who is sitting where, etc. .
The presence of crew members is very important. Notice the common
occurrence of graffiti in rest-rooms (both in public and private
office buildings)?
When did you last hear of a shootout on a Greyhound bus? When did
you last hear of anyone refusing to ride Greyhound because they
thought that there lives were in danger?
What about the hijacking of planes? Are planes owned by states the
only ones that get hijacked?
It's only on state transit lines where there's any sort of a
problem with litter, graffiti and crime. Does anyone doubt that if
the IRT were in private hands tomorrow, that riding the NY subways
would be a safe, clean, pleasant experience?
Not clear, all your points seem to say is that we (Americans) or at
least those of us (again, Americans) living in New York have a habit
of vandalizing things (especially those owned by the state). Is the
problem universal? E.g. do you (Canadians) have such problems? What
about the English, the French, the Japanese, the Germans, the
Russians, the Chinese, the Singaporeans....?
Frankly, I would think that the statists would hide their heads in
shame at the experience of state-owned and state-operated mass
transit.
Need more *CONCRETE* evidence before anybody can agree with you on
this. It would seem that with the abundance of statist systems
currently existing in the world, it would not be difficult to gather
the evidence to support your point. Statists may actually see the
scarcity of such evidence (at least at this point in time) as
something to cheer about.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < Hoffman.es@Xerox.COM>
Date: 15 Oct 86 10:57:51 PDT (Wednesday)
From: Hoffman.es@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: Deception
To: Wayne McGuire < Wayne%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
A quote from memory:
"All governments are liars, and nothing they say is to be believed."
-- I. F. Stone
-- Rodney Hoffman
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 86 20:44:32 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Coercion?
To: campbell%maynard.UUCP@HARVISR.HARVARD.EDU
Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: campbell%maynard.UUCP@harvisr.HARVARD.EDU
> If you still insist that money is coercive power, please give an
> example of its coercive use.
Simple. I am a wealthy and unscrupulous person. I want you to do
some action X which you don't want to do. I say "Keith, do it or
I will make your life very unpleasant." I then start using my
money to:
None of this is really coercive, and all of it is extremely
expensive. Most of it is legal today.
Am I the only one to receive such treatment? It seems to me that if
just one percent of the population were to be treated in this way, the
wealthy people would very quickly go bankrupt.
And do none of the wealthy people oppose these plans? They could
equally well do the opposite. And they would have just as much
motivation to do so as to do what you suggest.
Suppose government prevents this, with various laws against almost
any use of wealth which could conceivably annoy anyone. Wouldn't such
a government be a far greater tyrant? They could treat 100% of the
population this way, not just 1%. And they could keep it up
indefinitely. They would never go bankrupt since they just take all
the money they need from the people. And they wouldn't have to use
such wealth intensive methods of harrasment. This isn't just a guess.
Thousands of years of history prove my point.
1) Buy all the land abutting your house and installing garbage
dumps (remember, no zoning laws in Libertaria).
Government can simply confiscate your house and turn IT into a
garbage dump. This is called "condemnation" and "eminent domain".
2) Buy your company and get you fired.
Government can dissolve your company, or bankrupt it by supporting
million dollar lawsuits by people claiming your company discriminated
against them.
Via taxes and inflation and overregulation of companies you invested
in they can take away the money you saved in case you were ever fired.
They can enslave you via a draft, or imprison you for an ill-defined
"crime" ("restraint of trade" or "insider trading" for instance) or
for a victimless "crime" (using drugs, gambling, etc).
3) Buy your bank and make them foreclose on your mortgage
(easy enough to do, just wait until you're ONE DAY late and
it's legal).
Government can close down the bank, like Roosevelt did. Or can
condemn your house because they want to put a road through it. They
can make it impossible for people to get mortgages for a reasonable
price due to uncertainty about the future value of the dollar and the
future regulatory climate. They can borrow so much money that credit
for mortgages is unavailable or overpriced. They can do this even if
you are NOT a day late, and no matter how airtight the language of the
mortgage contract.
4) Buy all the local stores and instruct the help to refuse to
serve you (remember, no anti-discrimination laws in
Libertaria).
Government can close the local stores on any pretext. They can make
it illegal to own gold, and require that their dollars are "legal
tender for all debts..." meaning that stores and customers cannot
voluntarily agree on an alternative currency, but are required to
trade using a currency which is backed only by the "faith" of the
federal government, and which has lost more than half its value in the
past decade, and more than 90% of its value since the 1950s. They can
impose a tax of any size on any transaction for any reason. (The
sales tax here in Virginia was just raised from 4% to 5% for no very
good reason). They can make it illegal for the stores to sell many
products (various drugs, etc) and can cow them into not stocking
others (the three stores within a fifteen minute walk of my apartment
all recently stopped selling Playboy and other adult magazines).
5) Pay your eighteen year old daughter big bucks and free
cocaine to become a prostitute (no drug or prostitution
laws in Libertaria).
Government can offer your daughter money to join the military. Or
they can simply draft her and pay her whatever they choose. They can
commit her to a mental institution where she is likely to be raped and
FORCE her to take drugs such as haldol and thorazine, which are also
addictive and mind-altering and deadly.
6) Do the same thing to your friends and relatives...
So can government. Not just to a few people (as wealthy people
could afford to), but to millions. Not just for a few years until
they go broke or die of old age, but for centuries.
PLEASE NOTE I have only named things which the US government has
done, and which are still legal for it to do. I have refrained from
describing the tyranny of the Nazis and the Communists. YOU, however
have NOT described the actual actions of any billionaires, but have
only hypothesized certain relatively MINOR (compared to what a
nominally FREE government does every day) incoveniences that a
phenomenally rich person could conceivably impose on you if he chose
to devote all of his wealth to harrassing you and if nobody in the
world chose to oppose him by serving you rather than taking his
bribes. Also note that in the ABSOLUTE WORST CASE where you were
being harassed by a large cabal of long lived multi-billionaires who
could think of literally nothing better to do with their fortunes than
to make life unpleasant for you, and in which nobody on earth, not
even your own daughter, was willing to lift a finger to oppose their
plans, even where their plans obviously (as in the case of your
daughter) result in the degredation and possible death of the
cooperating person, you could still escape all further persecution
simply by changing your name and moving elsewhere. Yes, it would be
an inconvenience. But think of the "inconvenience" suffered by the
Jews under the Nazis. They couldn't just shrug it off or move
elsewhere. Look at the Berlin wall. Would anything like that, where
people trying to escape their present circumstances and move to a new
region would be shot and killed, be possible to your imagined
capitalist ogre? Would he be able to draft anyone? To herd people
into gas ovens? To steal anything?
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Sunday, 26 Oct 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 100
Today's Topics:
Vandalism and Statism &
Transportation - Public vs. Private (3 msgs) &
Charity &
Defence
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 86 14:43:24 PDT
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
To: WLIM@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #97
> Being neutral on the issue of whether statism is good or bad,
...give me a break....
> The opportunity to
> vandalize a bus or a plane is very restricted
That doesn't seem to apply to city busses, which are regularly
vandalized.
> The presence of crew members is very important. Notice the common
> occurrence of graffiti in rest-rooms (both in public and private
> office buildings)?
I haven't seen all that much in private office buildings. There, the
walls are cleaned with some regularity.
> What about the hijacking of planes? Are planes owned by states the
> only ones that get hijacked?
I was talking about random crime, not acts of war carried out by
governments. Anyway, there has been very little hijacking in the US
-- and hijack prevention is the preserve of airports, which are mostly
state-run.
> Not clear, all your points seem to say is that we (Americans) or at
> least those of us (again, Americans) living in New York have a habit
> of vandalizing things (especially those owned by the state).
No, I said rather more than that. I said that crime and graffiti are
only a problem in publically-controlled places. They are *NOT*
problems on privately-controlled conveyances and parks, because there,
someone gives enough of a damn to stop crime and vandalism before it
starts.
> Need more *CONCRETE* evidence before anybody can agree with you on
> this. It would seem that with the abundance of statist systems
> currently existing in the world, it would not be difficult to gather
> the evidence to support your point. Statists may actually see the
> scarcity of such evidence (at least at this point in time) as
> something to cheer about.
Well, statists are pretty dim-witted to start with, so I wouldn't be
surprised to see one cheering his own execution. But if you really
need more evidence than I have provided, go across Technology Square
at oh, say, midnight or so, climb on the T, and ride around for
awhile. To the Common, say. Or hop on the IRT and ride north through
Manhattan's West Side. Loiter around the stations just above 115th,
say. If you come back alive, you'll have the evidence you need.
-- Rick
------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 86 09:00:09 PDT
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
To: cit-vax!mcgeer@sirius.berkeley.edu
Subject: What does driving cost?
In Poli-Sci V6 #97, you write:
In the first place, did the factories precede the transit lines, or
the transit lines precede the factories? In the second place, the
very best system of rapid transit in the world is decentralized,
and privately owned and operated. It sits in your garage and mine,
and it's a damned sight better way to get from A to B than any
transit system I've ever ridden on...
I think this point deserves some expounding on; this mild diatribe was
inspired at least in part by a recent Auto Club study calling for the
construction of 400 miles of new freeway (at a cost of $20 billion) in
Southern California by the year 2000. Why is it that, even though an
automobile driven by a single person is clearly less efficient (uses
more resources) than mass transit, it is often both cheaper and more
pleasant, especially when a fair valuation of one's own time is used?
There is only one answer: Massive Government Subsidies. During
the Carter administration, Congress debated the trucking deregulation
bill (which included an increase in interstate truck taxes). At the
time, All Things Considered did a series of interviews with various
local transportation officials. The mayor of Indianapolis stated that
direct taxes on vehicles paid only about 1/3 of the cost of building
and maintaining roads in his city, with the remainder coming from
general funds. The secretary of transporation of Georgia cited a
study done by his state which showed that trucks caused 95% of the
wear on roads, yet even with the higher truck taxes the trucks would
only be paying about half of the maintenance costs.
But such things aren't even the largest subsidy. The largest one
of all is that the Government owns the land on which the roads are
built and will not sell it, even for a good price. If the roads were
privately owned, the users of the roads would have to pay the owners
at least as much as the owners could receive by leasing the land on
which the road sits to someone else for another purpose. For the
interstates in the Western deserts, this would be very little. For
the freeways in downtown LA, this would be a huge amount, much more
than drivers currently pay the Government for use of the roads.
Evidence: parking in downtown Los Angeles during an 8-hour work day
now costs about $200 per month in a garage which holds perhaps 200
cars in a space the size of a large midtown intersection. That is a
lot of money.
Yet we hear from the Libertarians and from the Auto Club that mass
transit cannot be built unless it is self supporting. To which I
reply: bring on your libertarian free transportation market! Let ALL
forms of transit have a price which accurately reflects the cost of
providing it. You may be surprised at the results, though.
-Steve Walton
------------------------------
Return-path: < mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 86 10:14:50 PDT
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
To: ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu
Subject: Re: What does driving cost?
Foo. Charging owners of private automobiles the full cost of
building and maintaining the roadways is hardly a free market economy.
The roadways are a classic example of "neighbourhood effect"; every
one of us derives benefit from the roads, whether we drive an
automobile or not. Virtually every good that you purchase travels
some part of its journey from field or factory to store via truck;
ambulances, police cars and emergency vehicles of all sorts use and
require an extensive road network. Given that, the road network will
exist anyway. The marginal cost per automobile is pretty small. In
sum, the roads perform a variety of useful services besides getting
people from A to B. All mass transit does is get people from A to B
slowly, and in discomfort. The only beneficiaries are the small
minority of individuals for whom the mass transit system's service
nearly approximates an automobiles.
-- Rick
------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 86 10:52:06 PDT
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
To: cit-vax!sirius.Berkeley.Edu!mcgeer
Subject: What does driving cost?
It is not at all clear that the roads would exist in the absence of
government action, or that they represent a "neighborhood effect."
If, for example, trucks were charged the full amount for their use of
the roads, it might turn out that railroads were more economical. As
it stands now, truck transport receives an indirect government subsidy
of uncertain size.
The price of a product at the market should include the entire
cost of its production, including raw materials and transportation.
Otherwise, the price does not accurately reflect various products'
costs. This distorts the market, since in an ideal market prices are
a primary source of information about competing product. Use by
emergency vehicles (which is a very small fraction of total use) could
be included in the cost of police, ambulance, and fire fighting
services.
The marginal cost per automobile [for roads] is pretty small.
No, it isn't, at least not anymore. The Auto Club of Southern
California just called for the construction of 400 miles of new
freeway here by 2000, at a cost of some $20 billion. This is over
$1000 per automobile. Do you think this would happen if the city
announced its intention to bill each car owner $100 per car per year
for the next 15 years to finance these roads' construction? I don't.
In contrast, a study done by another private group and reported in the
LA Times Op-Ed page a few months ago found that a commuter rail system
of similar length could be build for $350 million. I firmly believe
that such a rail system should be privately owned and operated, by the
way. The RTD, which operates the buses here, does not seem to know
about modern management techniques such as firing people who don't do
their job.
In sum, the roads
perform a variety of useful services besides getting people from A
to B. All mass transit does is get people from A to B slowly, and
in discomfort. The only beneficiaries are the small minority of
individuals for whom the mass transit system's service nearly
approximates an automobiles.
In LA, at least, every person who rides a bus (or rides a bike as I
do) is about one fewer car contributing to the noise, congestion, and
pollution in the area. Surely those who drive benefit from this.
Granted that it is difficult to quantify their benefit, but it is
real. Before I started riding my bike to work, I took the bus. It
was not terrible; in fact, it was rather nice to have an hour or so
each day to read in peace and quiet. I mean, I love my two-year-old
son dearly, but he can interfere with my love of books. I'm really
only bicycling now in order to force myself to exercise.
A large part of the mass-transit-vs.-automobile problem is that
most people do not accurately calculate the cost of driving. If you
include gasoline, insurance, maintenance, depreciation, and a moderate
interest rate on the purchase price, even a modern subcompact costs 30
to 40 cents per mile to drive, assuming 10,000 miles per year. I can
do the ten miles to work on the bus for 95 cents--a bargain at twice
the price, as they say.
On another subject, I was intrigued by your comment about the
"neighborhood effect," which is what I believe economists typically
call "public goods." Keith Lynch and others, including me, had a bit
of an argument over whether public goods exist, whether national
defense is a public good, and whether public goods should be funded by
mandatory contributions to the government (read taxes). Where do you
stand on this?
Steve
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 86 18:53:27 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Eternal charity?
[ There is light at the end of the tunnel in such charities. For
instance, the March of Dimes raised money for polio research, and
wound up eradicating it. MS victims live tremendously longer due
to research-raising efforts. But there is no end to crime - no
possible rationalization that crime will eventually be no more.
- CWM]
How do you explain most people's willingness to donate to charities
which provide food for the poor? Or which provide relief for
earthquake victims?
If people are not willing to donate to unending causes, why are they
willing to pay unending taxes which go to these same unending causes?
...Keith
[ I consider giving food to the poor substantially different from
avenging a punk's murdering a grandmother. I'd just as soon put my
money into land mines and shotguns. I'm rather suprised you would
designate taxes as being like a contribution! Taxes are coerced out
of people, it is not at all like giving food to the poor. The IRS
will not take away your house if you don't give food to the poor.
-CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 86 18:59:23 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Voluntary military?
[ Sorry, but telling an under-30, "You're not doing anything
important, go join the army" won't work.
I don't intend to "tell" anyone to do anything. I was simply
replying to your assertion that everyone is too busy to help defend
the country unless coerced.
No wrong time to rearm, huh? ... Build a lot of the wrong
thing (or the right thing that gets old) and that's all it is -
the wrong thing. You can paint 'Peace saving weapon' on it all
you want, but if it doesn't work against what the other fellow
has, then its no good. ...
Of course. Nobody has advocated building useless or obsolete
weapons. (Not to be confused with weapons that BECOME obsolete -
hopefully that is what will happen with EVERY weapon - it will rust or
be rendered useless before (instead of) being used.)
...Keith
[ So who's going to defend your country? Everyone's making money
(including those deadbeat kids who haven't turned 30 yet), and you
won't force anyone to serve. I suppose you could hire mercenaries
from Isreal...
How do you square your 'of course' with:
"Wrong. Since the most important purpose of defense is deterrence,
a weapon that never needs to be used is the most successful weapon of
all. There is no wrong time to re-arm."
... from your article of 30 August? - CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Wednesday, 29 Oct 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 101
Today's Topics:
Goverment Advertising &
Creation Science &
The Second Amendment &
Vandalism and Statism &
Socialized medicine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < gawilson%watrose.waterloo.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 86 02:47:54 edt
From: Graham Wilson < gawilson%watrose.waterloo.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Up here in Canada we are constantly being bombarded by
government-sponsored commercials telling us to quit smoking. What
irks me is that (some of) the funds for this advertising comes from
taxation on cigarettes.
Put into general terms:
Company X produces product Y. The government taxes company X and
product Y at very high rates (relative to other products). The
government then turns around and uses these funds to discourage
people from purchasing product Y!
Is that fair or ethical?
Comments anyone?
P.S. This is to the person who appears to dislike Ayn Rand
(he uses such terms as "randroids" etc). Have you,
by chance, read any of her material? Just curious.
--
Graham Wilson
University of Waterloo gawilson%watrose@waterloo.csnet
4th year Comp Sci gawilson%watrose%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay
"Anyone who says you should live for the state, is, or wants to be,
the state."
- A.R.
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 86 19:30:56 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: "Creation science"
To: TESTA-J%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA
Cc: Physics@SRI-UNIX.ARPA
From: ~joe testa~ < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
> From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
>
> ... I agree that "creation science" is completely bogus, but I
> feel that nobody should be compelled to pay for the teaching of
> something they find repugnant.
How much sense does is make to legislate bogusness? ...
None at all. That was exactly my point. If people are going to be
forced to pay for education they should have control over what is
taught. If we, the scientists, find that what the public wants taught
is bogus, we should perhaps try to find another way to finance the
schools. We have no right to impose our opinions on others, even
though we are right and they are wrong.
If I find someone writing an incorrect computer program on his own
computer on his own time, I have no right to force him to correct the
program.
Followups to Poli-Sci.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < mwm%opal.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Subject: Tests of constitutionality
Date: 22 Oct 86 00:37:00 PDT (Wed)
From: Mike Meyer < mwm%opal.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
> > Many people claim that the second amendment provides the general
> > populace a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This is
> > demonstrably false.
It would be interesting to see that demonstration. Not nice, and not
something I look forward to, but interesting as an exercise in
twisting the meaning of other peoples words. (Just so you know where I
stand :-).
> > For many years, localities such as New York City have had laws
> > which abridge this putative right. Many people have been convicted
> > of violating these laws. During all this time, the Supreme Court
> > has never overturned such a conviction due to conflict with the
> > second amentment. If the Court really believed that such a right
> > existed,the NRA would have found a suitable test case decades ago.
> > The Court's silence speaks volumes.
Yup, it says "this hasn't been tested." Until the Court rules on such
a case and says that the law is or isn't unconstitutional, then that
is the most you can conclude. Do you have case references to show that
this form of Gun Control has been ruled constitutional?
> > What the anti-gun-control people really mean is that *they* (not
> > the Court) interpret the amendment to provide such a right. Anyone
> > can interpret the constitution, but only the Court's interpretation
> > really counts.
Not quite - you need to say "THIS Supreme Court's interpretation." The
Supreme Court has been known to decide that a previous Supreme Court
decision was wrong.
Aren't malleable rights fun?
< mike
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri 17 Oct 86 16:45:01-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #97
To: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
...give me a break....
What are you trying to say here?
I haven't seen all that much in private office buildings. There,
the walls are cleaned with some regularity.
So, the problem does exist in private office buildings, it is just
that they do a better job cleaning the walls. You seem to have a
point here i.e. the state does not seem to take care of its property
very well. Is it the case then that the state (again, anywhere on
this earth) can *NEVER* do a good job in taking care of its property?
That doesn't seem to apply to city busses, which are regularly
vandalized.
Is it your point that the problem is universal i.e. it is a problem
with most if not all city busses *ANYWHERE* on this earth? To support
this you have to provide evidence indicating that the problem exists
not only in New York or some US cities which happen to have high crime
rates but also in cities with low crime rates *ANYWHERE* on this
earth.
I said that crime and graffiti are only a problem in
publically-controlled places. They are *NOT* problems on
privately-controlled conveyances and parks, because there, someone
gives enough of a damn to stop crime and vandalism before it starts.
Again you only give New York and US cities as examples what about
Tokyo, Moscow, Beijing, Sydney, Toronto, etc.? You also seem to be
saying that the problem will not exist if someone give a damn
irrespective of whether the property is publicly or privately owned.
Maybe the problem is just that we (Americans, can't say anything about
the others since you didn't give any evidence about this being their
problem) don't give a damn when it comes to publicly owned properties.
Well, statists are pretty dim-witted to start with, so I wouldn't
be surprised to see one cheering his own execution.
I'll leave it to the statists to answer this insult to their
intelligence.
But if you really need more evidence than I have provided, go across
Technology Square at oh, say, midnight or so, climb on the T, and
ride around for awhile. To the Common, say. Or hop on the IRT and
ride north through Manhattan's West Side. Loiter around the
stations just above 115th, say. If you come back alive, you'll have
the evidence you need.
Since you insist on degenerating into this form of debating then
consider this... Statists might see your attending a state school as
something to cheer about given that (1) you are not a statist, (2) you
are not a sucker (i.e. you wouldn't go to a state school if the state
is screwing things up so badly), (3) there are lots of good private
graduate schools out there (MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Yale, CMU,....)
for you to choose from, and (4) that Berkeley does indeed provide a
good education. That should be good enough evidence to you (but not
to me) that the state does not screw things up. (-: Talking about
cheering your own execution. :-)
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 86 19:24:52 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Socialized medicine
To: ll-xn!scubed!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!seamus@CAIP.RUTGERS.EDU
From: ll-xn!scubed!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!seamus@caip
... If people were more inclined to see doctors then many problems
could be corrected at an early stage before complications set in.
Many expensive cures for serious problems could be avoided. We
might in fact see costs decline.
So why don't people do this now? Surely individuals paying for
their own medical care would be at least as motivated to keep costs
down as any government program would.
What Keith has not even considered is the overall economic benefit
from a more healthy population. ... This economic benefit would be
a benefit to everyone, even those who do not personally use public
health doctors.
How would it be a benefit to anyone but the patient? And why should
it be billed to anyone but the patient or someone who has voluntarily
entered into a medical insurance program?
Why do you assume that early medical care is more likely for people
with diseases in an early stage? I do think that the total number of
patient hours under a socialized system is likely to be much higher,
but this is not spread across the population. Hypochondriacs and
people with nothing better to do would hang out at the free clinics as
much as they were allowed to, while many people who need medical care
would avoid it to avoid the inevitable long lines, massive paperwork,
and unsanitary conditions. Read Ayn Rand's _We the Living_ for a good
description of socialized medicine and its consequences.
Quite aside from the efficiency and convenience issues, I object to
such a scheme on a moral basis. Why should people who take good care
of themselves be compelled to subsidize care for those who choose to
smoke and drink and take drugs and get social diseases? By seperating
an act from its consequences, people are encouraged to live for today
and not worry about who pays the bill. It only adds insult to injury
when government then concludes that since the general public will foot
the bill, that various unhealthy behaviors (drugs, gay sex, no
seatbelt, no motorcycle helmet) should be made illegal. It's silly,
anyway. Everyone knows that they won't make smoking illegal, and
that's where most of the involuntary medical subsidy goes - from
nonsmokers to smokers.
Socialized medicine gives government an interest in people's health.
This may not sound like a bad thing, but it is. What will they do
next, make unhealthy foods illegal? Where does their legitimate
interest end?
Also note that government has an interest in early death for people
on social security. Socialized medicine programs abroad invariably
have certain restrictions on services to old people. The older you
are the more restrictions. And why isn't there a government program
for life prolongation? There is no such thing as death by old age.
"Old age" is just a disease like any other, and should be just as
curable or preventable as smallpox, given research. Of course I don't
really advocate a government program to do this, but its absence is
quite curious considering the number of victims of old age, and
considering the enormous amounts of taxpayer money spent on less
important medical projects.
Government's main interest is to grow, and to exert more and more
control over more and more, especially over individual's lives.
Everyone is to be pigeonholed. Each person must go to government run
(or government approved) schools for N years, receive a 9 digit number
which will follow him for life and be used for everything, work for
some number of years and pay lots of taxes, retire at a specific age,
and die as soon after as possible. Anyone who violates this pattern
in any way is regarded as a problem and a troublemaker.
What's wrong with letting each individual allocate his own money as
he chooses? If he needs a major operation at the age of 80, one which
socialized medicine would have refused at his age, he can pay for it
himself if he regards it as worthwhile. If he had not been required
to pay social security taxes, but had instead put the same amount of
money in a bank at 6 percent interest, he would have retired a multi-
millionaire, so he can certainly afford it.
Do you also advocate a government run centralized taxpayer supported
church? If not, why not?
...But...this would imply that socialized medicine is a "PUBLIC
(or collective) GOOD" ...
Socialized medicine is a public evil.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Monday, 3 Nov 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 102
Today's Topics:
Discriminatory Hiring &
South Africa &
Drug Testing &
Drug Paraphenalia &
Advertising and Free Choice
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Sat 25 Oct 86 17:52:40-EDT
From: ~joe testa~ < testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: Discriminatory hiring
To: kfl@mx.lcs.mit.edu%mc.lcs.mit.edu
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> You think there is a benefit? Well, if women work just as hard as
> men, and are willing to work for a lower salary than men, then a
> company which discriminates against women is at a strong competitive
> disadvantage. We don't NEED anti-discrimination laws, even if we
> could somehow have them without violating more fundamental rights.
Not true, depending on what you're defining "discriminates" as. In
fact, the OPPOSITE is true in reality, if "discrimination" == "lower
pay for the same work".
How 'bout putting it another way: "if women work just as hard as men,
and must settle for jobs at a lower salary than men, then a company
which will not hire women is at a strong competitive disadvantage."
I think this more accurately reflects what really happens.
~joe testa~
------------------------------
Return-path: < wild@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 86 11:54:51 PDT
From: wild@Sun.COM (Will Doherty)
Subject: Re: Mandela
I don't know whether to assume the response to my reading
recommendations was red-baiting satire or the earnest pleas of a
neo-communist revolutionary. I would like to point out that the books
I recommended were not written or published by communist party
members, to my knowledge. No matter how much some may want us to
think so, the belief that the South African white afrikaan minority
oppresses the black and Indian majority in that country is not
foremost a communist belief. In addition, many non-communists support
the position of the ANC that violent response to the violence of the
current regime is justified. I myself am not sure what I think of the
violent portions of ANC, but would condemn their violence less
stringently than the violence promulgated by the Botha regime, which
results in far greater suffering and loss of human life, and exhibits
not a shred of regard for basic human rights.
Thanx,
Will Doherty
UUCP: ...sun!oscar!wild
ARPA: "oscar!wild"@sun.com
From: SMITH%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Mandela
In poli-sci V6 #95 Will Doherty suggests that we get our
views on Mandela from amoung other works:
> Mandela, Nelson. "The Struggle is My Life." London:
> International Aid and Defence Fund for South Africa. 1978.
I bought my copy of this book from the same place that I
bought Alex La Guma's "Apartheid": from the Communist Party in
San Francisco I don't know of any group more interested in
Mandela in the area than the CPUSA, their bookstores are
overflowing with information and I suggest to everyone
fortunate enough to live near an active CP (like we are in
SF--Check your phone book!) to stop by and browse. I am
fascinated so see the CPUSA so-o-o involved in distributing
these international materials. They even still have
information about how great things are in Ethiopia now after
the revolution. [...]
------------------------------
Return-path: < dmw@gauss.ECE.CMU.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, 22 October 1986 09:39:06 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@gauss.ece.cmu.edu
Subject: pre-employment drug tests
If I buy a car, is it okay for me to have a mechanic inspect it first?
If I buy a house, can a contractor look it over? When I make an
investment, it seems only reasonable to me that I should be able to
inspect the goods sufficiently to satisfy myself that I'm getting what
I'm paying for. In some cases we rely on trust and past experience.
I don't taste a Coke before buying it. On the other hand, I don't
know this job applicant from Adam. I am about to make a major
investment in the applicant, so I think I have the right to find out
whether they have AIDS, terminal cancer, are alcoholic, use drugs, or
any other habits that will increase the risk of my investment. These
conditions may not affect the performance of the person on the job,
but they may mean that I can't amortize my investment.
------------------------------
Return-path: < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Sat 25 Oct 86 17:54:49-EDT
From: ~joe testa~ < testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: Drug paraphenalia
. . .
[Keith Lynch argues that legalizing drugs and paraphenalia would
result in less sharing of needles and transmission of AIDS]
. . .
Our moderator responds:
> [ Another left-field analogy. Isn't this a rather small band-aid for
> a somewhat larger (and different) wound?
> If there is a market for it, black-market needles should be just
> as available as black-market drugs. The very same forces you claim
> are making drugs so available (massive market) should be making
> illegal needles readily available. I wonder why not? In any event,
> I am suspicious of any 'facts' containing the phrases 'it is likely'
> and 'would tend to'. -CWM]
I have to side with Keith on this point. If a drug addict has only N
dollars in his/her pocket, he/she is more likely to spend it all on
drugs rather than saving some of it for a nice shiny new needle,
because the drugs give a rush but the needle doesn't. The effects of
using a dirty needle are a lot less immediate than missing one's next
fix. Sure, rationally they would consider the consequences and
recognize that such a precaution is desirable. But i don't think it's
too rational to be taking drugs in the first place, so why should we
expect them to think rationally about needles?
Oops, i see i used "likely" which means you'll probably ignore
this.:-) Would statistical evidence convince you? (not that i
actually have it...)
~joe testa~
[ Well, that's the market at work, isn't it? The value of the product
outweighs the the danger so much that safety devices are judged by the
buyer to be unneccesary - kind of like airbags, eh? :-) If hard drug
users irrational, then it doesn't matter what price, they won't buy
needles, unless needles are free. Shall we subsidize irrational
people in destroying themselves? I guess its cheaper than curing
them! -CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 21 Oct 86 20:38:04-EDT
From: Richard A. Cowan < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: The Political Economy of Toothpaste
To: fagin%ji.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
Before responding to Barry Fagin's blistering attack on my criticism
of economic "limits on free choice," I want to recommend three books.
The first two are from around 1960, and should be in used bookstores.
1) Vance Packard's "The Waste Makers" (on deliberate production of
waste, planned obsolescence, the American throw-away society.
2) Vance Packard's "The Hidden Persuaders" (This one, I haven't read,
but I think it's on advertising.)
3) "American Pictures," by Jacob Holdt (A lengthy book which vividly
depicts the experience of America's Underclass. Mostly shocking
pictures, but a good deal of political analysis too. Holdt, from
Denmark, toured America as a vagabond in the early 70's, and paid
for film by selling blood plasma over a 5-year period. He has
given his 4-hour slideshow at college campuses all over the US.)
Fagin objected, with good justification, to my use of the word
"imposing." I said that economic institutions acting in their own
interests "impose" limits on free choice with regard to phone service
or the packaging of toothpaste. "Imposing" implies intent; I should
have instead said that people's actions are constrained by the
institutions with which (and within which) they interact.
More seriously, I did not explain why this is "bad." I mean, it's
obvious that you are affected by the society which you belong to, but
so what? If you grow up in a 1930's farming society, you will be
strongly pushed toward becoming a farmer. If you grow up in a paper
mill town in 1910 Maine, you will be urged to work at the mill. If
you grow up in America today, you will likely be pushed into providing
lots of unnecessary goods and services for the consumerist society, or
weapons to protect the consumerist society, or research to justify the
weapons industry. But what's wrong with that?
Institutions exist, and constrain our lives, but that's not the
problem. The problem is that they are so big and so widespread that
their members are distanced from the consequences of their actions, by
1) compartmentalization (which divides up responsibility), 2) more
levels of management, 3) an institutional ideology that justifies
anything the institution does, and 4) by technology (which is often
used to more rigidly standardize procedures -- exercising greater
control over the workplace -- and to assign blame, e.g. "The Computer
did it").
The examples I gave were weak, because they talked about how
institutions could restrict our ability to do things which would never
have been possible in the first place, without those institutions. As
Fagin notes,
> When an institution starts to sell a product and then removes it
> from the market, are they *imposing* a limit on our free choice?
> ... By the way, it's interesting to note that you wouldn't have
> known that your freedom was "infringed" at all were it not
> for the free market; that is, it is the mechanisms of the
> marketplace that make toothpaste in a tube possible.
However, my examples still illustrate the effect of market forces
serving the needs of institutions. To show why this is "bad," I must
give some examples of how institutions can affect BASIC human needs.
How about:
-The freedom to breath: Before federal emissions standards, automobile
companies like General Motors (with oil companies) were perfectly
content to produce inefficient cars that guzzled leaded gas and
polluted the air. Lots of health hazards from this have been greatly
reduced by regulation.
-The freedom to drink clean water: There are unsolved serious problems
with public water supplies all over the country -- hence the growth in
popularity of bottled water. The amount of inorganic garbage our
society generates, and ultimately dumps in landfills, contributes
directly to this problem.
-The freedom to enjoy nature: The amazon jungles are being decimated,
in part by McDonald's, which needs more space to raise beef. American
forests are being decimated by acid rain.
-Survival: My right to live is being threatened by a nuclear balance
of terror, perpetuated and intensified by the economic interests of
military contractors who exaggerate the vulnerability of the US
deterrent.
I could go on, but I think that these examples aptly illustrate that
we can't trust "free enterprise" to take care of all our concerns.
Some might respond that the problems CREATE new markets. In other
words, polluted water will create a market for clean water. But the
implications of this view are frightening. When Barry says
> freedom to choose does not mean the ability to choose. It means
> the freedom to choose from what others freely wish to part with.
he suggests that everything we are choosing from is privatized, that
someone owns it, and that we can be "free" to choose it without having
the "ability" -- i.e. financial resources -- to do so!
Would Barry Fagin therefore agree that
-Clean water be restricted only to those who can afford to buy bottled
water?
-Clean air be restricted to those who can build air conditioned,
filtered environments to protect them 365 days a year?
-Nature be restricted to private parks for a select elite that pays
high membership fees to protect the parks from commercial development?
-Survival be restricted to the few that can afford to be sent into
space and live on a space station, or on Mars?
Barry, I have a question for you. How, under YOUR ideas for how
"human beings and their economic institutions" should ideally
interact, "deciding on their own what they wish to sell and under
what terms," can we be assured that the environment won't be
corrupted, or that the planet won't be destroyed. Will there have
to be a disaster and lots of lawsuits first? Or do you deny the
existance of the problems I mention?
If the poorest 5% of the population dies from not being able to afford
clean air and clean water, would you say, that's O.K. "There is a far
greater danger posed by social reformers who [would restrict people's
freedom]" Would you say, "If that 5% only were motivated, they would
have worked hard, earned more money, and they would have been able to
afford bottled water too?"
Obviously, there are structural constraints -- a limited supply of
clean water -- that mean that if everyone in the 5% could rise up from
the bottom, another group of people will be in the bottom five
percent, and would bear the burden.
I would even contend that structural constraints apply not only to
basic natural resources, such as water, but also to man-made
resources, such as jobs. Executives who make decisions that affect
the water supply are isolated from the very people that their policies
will affect.
The destruction/privatization of nature and the technical organization
and coordination of society cause other needs that are not biological
to also become basic, because people starving in Harlem can't just go
to the country and hunt and fish like outdoorsmen to survive. (Well,
a few could, given lots of training, but the problems of inner-city
poverty would still exist. Structural constraints prevent everyone
from doing this.) I mention a few man-made needs:
-The right to education. (threatened by cutting funds for public
schools, which sends people to private schools, further decreasing
public school support)
-The right of women to walk city streets without fearing sexual
assault. (threatened by advertising which establishes rules for
social relations which, among other things, cause men to view women,
and women to view themselves, as sexual objects.)
-The right to a job that can pay for affordable housing,
transportation, and food.
Again, the size of the institutions involved means that corporate
heads who influence government policy are isolated from the people
whom their actions affect. (Executives oppose full-employment
legislation and tolerate high structural unemployment because it
creates a favorable market for hiring people.) It even affects the
general public: in Boston, or in Palo Alto, I am certainly isolated
from the people on the bottom of the economic ladder. Viewing the
slideshow "American Pictures" was a shock. I now believe that
capitalism in the U.S. and starvation are completely compatible,
because we have adopted ideological barriers and psychological
defenses that allow us to ignore the starvation.
As my recent postings have indicated, I too oppose traditional liberal
policies of more government alone to solve the problems I mention.
WHAT IS NEEDED is greater distribution of wealth, and a drastic
reduction in the power of institutions. The question of how these
changes can be effected is a separate issue which we can discuss
later.
OK, Barry, now it's your turn to respond. But I hope you'll do more
than just make quick assumptions about implications of my views and
describe how bad they are. I want to hear how your libertarian
philosophy can solve the problems I mentioned above. Or does it just
"solve" them by "objectively" failing to acknowledge their existance
-- by using the techniques, that institutions have developed to evade
responsibility, to defend your ideology?
-rich
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Friday, 7 Nov 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 103
Today's Topics:
Live Debate &
Institutions &
Advertising &
Employees &
The Highest Law &
Scientists and SDI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 86 19:03:20 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: LIVE DEBATE
A LIVE DEBATE
CAPITALISM VS. SOCIALISM
WASHINGTON DC
NOVEMBER 11, 1986
A Live Debate between
John Judis (Journalist & Editor)
Christopher Hitchens (Journalist & Author)
for Socialism
and
Dr. John Ridpath (Professor of Economics & Intellectual History)
Dr. Harry Binswanger (Philospher & Publisher)
for Capitalism
When:........Tuesday, November 11 at 8:00 pm.
Where:.......Lisner Auditorium,
The George Washington University,
21st and H streets NW, Washington DC
Admission:...Free for students and faculty (any school)
Non-student admission -- $4.50 at the door
For more information, call (202) 620-2724
------------------------------
Return-path: < fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 86 12:19:02 PDT
From: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Barry S. Fagin)
Subject: Reply to Rich Cowan
I usually like to limit the number of postings on a particular
issue to three, (posting, rebuttal, and reply), so that the net
doesn't get bogged down in long debates that people quickly
lose interest in. However, since Rich took the time to carefully
respond to my posting, I guess I'll do the same.
Rich writes that large institutions are the principal source
of injustice in America, and believes that libertarian ideas
fail to address this.
> > Me
> Rich Cowan (COWAN@xx.lcs.mit.edu)
Me
> ... I want to recommend three books:
> 2) Vance Packard's "The Hidden Persuaders" (This one, I haven't
> read, but I think it's on advertising.)
It is, and I have read it. It deals with "subliminal seduction";
advertising techniques that attempt to manipulate the subconscious.
If the topic arises, we can discuss this too.
> ... people's actions are constrained by the
> institutions with which (and within which) they interact.
Absolutely, although I'd phrase it as "people's actions are
constrained by and themselves constrain the actions of other
people".
> if you grow up in America today, you will likely be pushed into
> providing lots of unnecessary goods and services for the
> consumerist society, or weapons to protect the consumerist society,
> or research to justify the weapons industry. But what's wrong with
> that?
C'mon, Rich. Just what are 'unnecessary goods'? Unnecessary as in
'unnecessary for survival'? As in 'shouldn't be produced?' In whose
opinion? Yours? Mine? The State Office of Industrial Production?
Your view of soceity seems reasonably consistent, but I don't think
you've thought about it enough. Why is it so difficult for you to
conceive of people having notions of value different from yours?
Isn't it true that if every (or even most) consumers in America
believed as you do, then all these 'unnecessary' goods would just dry
up an blow away? Their very persistence suggests that your notion of
'necessary' is hardly universal.
You seem to be saying that here in America we're being manipulated by
these large "institutions" into unproductive economic activity. You
would probably cite as evidence our consumption of toothpaste in a
pump, cheese flavored dog food, VCR's, and microwave ovens. Such
gross manipulation is, of course, possible, but I don't think it is
correct. What is instead happening is exactly what you'd expect when
free human beings are allowed to interact economically: you get a wide
range of goods and services. Furthermore, *every* person will find at
least some of them useless and unnecessary. That's part of what
living in a free society is all about.
I understand your point of view quite well; I'm very familiar with
Galbraith's views on the "consumerist society". I don't think you
understand mine, describing what the results of a large, diverse group
of persons interacting economically might be. I'd ask that you think
carefully about the problem of determining what goods are 'necessary'.
There's only one mechanism for doing this compatible with a very
basic, natural definition of human liberty, and that's the free
market.
--Barry
------------------------------
Return-path: < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Fri 24 Oct 86 12:08:29-EDT
From: ~joe testa~ < testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: Advertising and free speech
To: kfl@mx.lcs.mit.edu%mc.lcs.mit.edu
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
...[discussion about free speech]...
> So what rights do businessmen have? Less than the rest of us? The
> supreme court seems to think so. Several times in recent years they
> have concluded that "commercial speech" is less protected that other
> forms. This term "commercial speech" does not appear anywhere in the
> constitution. Does anyone know where it came from? Marx, perhaps?
> They have ruled that cigarettes cannot be advertised on radio or
> TV, and seem close to ruling that they cannot be advertised in the
> print media either. Nobody hates cigarettes more than I do, and I
> make it a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I wouldn't be so sure about that . . .
> point never to buy magazines in which cigarettes are advertised, and
> to encourage others to do the same, but I would be willing to fight
> to protect the tobacco companies' freedom of speech. I couldn't
> disagree with their message more if they were advertising communism,
> but they have the right to say what they choose no matter how
> repugnant to how many or to whom.
I am not familiar with the DETAILS of the ban on cigarette advertising
on TV, so i have a question: is the ban on the companies who wish to
present this speech, or on companies who wish to SELL advertising
time/space? I imagine Keith will object to either, but i believe
objecting to restrictions on what one may sell is different than
objecting to restrictions on what one may say. I am not saying
whether or not it is better or worse. For example, if the ban on
magazine advertising were imposed, would it be illegal to publish a
magazine such as "Tobacco World"? (a name i just made up, which may
or may not correspond to an actual magazine)
~joe testa~
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 86 00:54:25 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Employees
To: Hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA
From: Hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA
> You seem to feel that employers employ people
> as a favor to them, and suffer no consequences when employees
> chose to leave. You seem to think that employers can impose the
> most draconian rules on their employees and the employees will
> consent, and that any who leave will be unable to find work
> elsewhere and will be quickly replaced with other, more
> subservient, employees. Obviously, you don't understand
> corporate culture, or even the rudiments of economics.
This type of view is all well and good when you are a computer
professional much in demand but what about the average blue-collar
worker?
A good blue collar worker is even more in demand. Excellence is
within every individual's grasp. All that is needed is willingness to
study and work hard. Even people who are blind or deaf or confined to
a wheelchair have made profound contributions to the world, and have
become very wealthy.
I have little sympathy for someone who chooses to attach a grommet
to a frob over and over again millions of times for years and makes
excellent wages doing so, but who chooses not to learn anything new.
Thirty years later, machines (or Japanese) can do the same thing
better and faster and less expensively, and he is out of a job.
Should the rest of us have to pay? And does it matter whether we pay
via a tax for welfare or via higher prices for imported goods thanks
to protectionist tariffs?
Leaving a steady job for alot of them means relocation and
upheaval of a life which they can barely afford right now. Don't
Libertarians know about the common man or are they so busy
catering to yuppies?
I think you have the wrong idea about my background. I am not a
college graduate. I have had no formal training in computers. I am
self educated. With the help of some friends I was able to get a four
dollar an hour job within a week after leaving prison, when I was
paroled after two years of a six year sentence for a series of
burglaries I didn't commit. A year later I started work at my present
company as a metal worker, and worked my way up to my present position
as computer professional. I do not think I am privileged. Quite the
opposite. If someone in my circumstances can succeed, virtually
anyone can.
I can't speak for other objectivists or libertarians, but you are
right, I DON'T know about the common man. I have never met one. Is
there such a creature?
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < don@brillig.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 86 11:55:39 EDT
From: Don Hopkins < don@brillig.umd.edu>
Subject: Meese Says Court Ruling Not 'Supreme Law'
(Reprinted without permission from the Washington Post, Thursday,
October 23, 1986, page A4.)
Meese Says Court Ruling Not 'Supreme Law'
Officials Have a 'Right to Respond,' Attorney General Contends.
Attorney General Edwin Meese III, in a speech released here
yesterday, said that rulings of the Supreme Court are not "the supreme
law of the land" and that other branches of government at the state
and national level have a "right to respond" to high court decisions
with which they disagree.
Meese said it was necessary to make this point because of
suggestions that officials must accept Supreme Court rulings
uncritically. In a speech delivered Tuesday at Tulane University in
New Orleans, he said that approach confuses the Constitution, with the
court's interpretations of the Constitution.
"If a constitutional decision is not the same as the Constitution
itself, if it is not binding in the same way that the Constitution is,
we as citizens may respond to a decision we disagree with," Meese
said.
"As Lincoln, in effect, pointed out, we can make our responses
through the presidents, the senators and the representatives we elect
at the national level. We can also make them through those we elect
at the state and local level," he said.
Meese cited criticism of the nominations of Daniel A. Manion to
become a federal appeals judge. Manion, narrowly confirmed, came
under fire for introducing a bill as an Indiana state senator that
seemed to conflict with a Supreme Court ruling banning the posting of
the Ten Commandments in public schools.
Meese said, "Obviously, it [a Supreme Court ruling] does have
binding quality: It binds the parties in a case and also the executive
branch for whatever enforcement is necessary. But such a decision
does not establish a 'supreme law of the land' that is binding on all
persons and parts of government, henceforth and evermore."
Otherwise, he said, the court would not be able to overrule itsself
in a constitutional case.
------------------------------
Return-path: < pyramid!kontron!cramer@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 86 14:46:38 pdt
From: kontron!cramer@topaz.rutgers.edu (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: How Many Scientists' Signatures Do You Need?
I've noticed that many of the opponents of SDI keep talking about how
many "top" scientists have signed petitions denying that SDI is
feasible. The "Nuclear Winter" hypothesis also had a similar addendum
-- 100 "top" scientists signed it. (I say "hypothesis" because from
what I've read, the assumptions involved are idealized, and
consistently idealized in a manner that finds for "nuclear winter").
I'm reminded of what happened in the mid-1930s when 100 "top German
physicists" (or so they styled themselves) issued a denunciation of
"Jewish physics", aimed specifically at Einstein and relativity. As
Einstein said, "It would only have taken one, if I was wrong."
Perhaps this is just characteristic of a collectivized approach to
things common in some circles, but this entire "group denunciation"
and "group validation" of public policy issues smacks of politics --
not science.
Clayton E. Cramer
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Monday, 10 Nov 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 104
Today's Topics:
Institutions &
Productivity and Government &
Libertarian Think Tank &
The Teflon President
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 86 12:19:02 PDT
From: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Barry S. Fagin)
Subject: Reply to Rich Cowan
Rich Cowan writes:
> ... serving the needs of institutions. To show why this is "bad,"
> I must give some examples of how institutions can affect BASIC
> human needs. How about:
> -The freedom to breath [sic] : Before federal emissions standards,
> automobile companies like General Motors (with oil companies) were
> perfectly content to produce inefficient cars that guzzled leaded
> gas and polluted the air. Lots of health hazards from this have
> been greatly reduced by regulation.
Why concentrate on institutions? People smoke cigarettes and
burn garbage, activities just as contemptible as industrial
pollution if they damage another person. In any case, the
problem of air pollution arises because property rights
aren't protected *enough*, not because they're overenforced.
The only right way to regulate pollution is to hold individuals
(and, yes, institutions) responsible for the damages they cause
other persons. The problem with standards is that they could
be too severe (see any problems with forbidding *all* pollution?)
or too lax (see any problems with allowing too much?). The only
way to get the balance right is throught the protection of
property rights, concentrating on the individuals involved,
and *not* through arbitrary political feat.
As for General Motors being perfectly content to produce
inefficient cars, that's only part of the story. General Motors
was perfectly happy to make gas guzzlers because *THE PRICE
OF GASOLINE WAS CONTROLLED*. Why should consumers worry
about fuel economy when gas sells for a quarter a gallon?
Never mind that prices should reflect the abundance or scarcity
of a commodity, we've got to protect those big bad institutions
from raping our poor stupid consumer, right? I have no
doubt that the few intelligent policymakers opposed to
gasoline price controls in the sixties and seventies were
shouted down by well-meaning people with your beliefs, Rich,
who simply didn't understand how free markets work, or how
important they are.
Contrast this with the Japanese. While we were living in
our fantasy world of cheap, controlled gasoline, they were
paying a buck a gallon. While it's true that gasoline is
in general more expensive in Japan because they import all
their oil, the fact remains that they knew just how much
gasoline was worth, and the consumer (who's not as dopey
as you think) wanted the most fuel-efficient car he could
get. Moral: if you're really interested in getting the
right things produced, Rich, you ought to let the market
work.
> -The freedom to drink clean water: There are unsolved serious
> problems with public water supplies all over the country -- hence
> the growth in popularity of bottled water. The amount of inorganic
> garbage our society generates, and ultimately dumps in landfills,
> contributes directly to this problem.
Quite true. *Public* drinking water has problems precisely because it
is *public*; it belongs to everybody, so it belongs to nobody. Water
supplies that are privately own can be protected from pollution
through the tort system. The same with landfills; land that noone has
an incentive to preserve won't be preserved. Isn't it interesting,
Rich, that the institutional problems you point out all have to do
with the absence of private property rights: public drinking water,
public air, public landfills?
> -The freedom to enjoy nature: The amazon jungles are being
> decimated, in part by McDonald's, which needs more space to raise
> beef.
Wrongo, Rich. The amazon jungles are being decimated by South
American *governments* (a class of institution you curiously avoid),
because they need the money and the jungles are not privately owned.
Private ownership of natural resources is the *only* to protect and
preserve your "freedom to enjoy nature". Could the U.S.
Government or lumber industry deforest the millions of acres
owned by the Nature Conservancy? Not on your life.
> -Survival: My right to live is being threatened by a nuclear
> balance of terror, perpetuated and intensified by the economic
> interests of military contractors who exaggerate the vulnerability
> of the US deterrent.
I agree.
> I could go on, but I think that these examples aptly illustrate that
> we can't trust "free enterprise" to take care of all our concerns.
Au contrare, they show that you don't understand what "free
enterprise" is. Most of the concerns you point out can be addressed
quite effectively through the marketplace and property rights.
--Barry
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 86 19:38:47 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
To: ametek!walton@CSVAX.CALTECH.EDU
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
3) Many individuals and corporations choose to invest in
government bonds rather than in stocks and corporate bonds,
thanks to the guaranteed high rate of return and tax
exemption. Government borrowing is driving out private
borrowing, to the great detriment of capital accumulation.
Capital is necessary for productivity.
Agreed. Beyond "adopt a libertarian system," however, I have
heard no good suggestions from you on how to reduce the national
debt. ...
How many suggestions do you need? You might as well complain that
nobody has given you good suggestions concerning a dirty floor other
than "wash it". What do you want?
To take another example, Thurow shows that during the 6
years from 1979 to 1985, blue-collar worker productivity
... had an average productivity INCREASE of 3 percent per
year.
Not because they were working harder or longer hours, but
because of increased capitalization.
Keith, the attitude implicit in this statement is, "Owners of
companies take all of the risks by capitalizing business,
therefore they should receive all of the benefits if their
business succeeds."
I have no such attitude.
Doesn't a worker also take a risk when he takes a job with a
company which is not guaranteed success? And shouldn't he receive
some of the share of the rewards if it IS successful?
Yes to both. I don't see why you think I think otherwise. The more
successful a business the more it will be able to pay employees. The
wages should be determined by bargaining between the employees and the
employer.
Overall business productivity fell largely because of the
addition of white collar middle managers, who are totally
non-productive.
They are? Then why do businesses hire them?
Good question. Probably because they aren't unionized :-).
Seriously, what does it mean to say that a whole category of
employees is totally non-productive? If they are, then why DO
employers hire them? Wouldn't your statement imply that any business
which decided to do without middle managers would suddenly become much
more profitable?
Even if he were to prove that government interference was a
net benefit, which he certainly has not, it would still be BAD
simply because it is immoral to steal.
Oh, dear. As I have said before, taxation to support the
government of a country in which you freely choose to live cannot
possibly be equated with theft, ...
Why not? What alternative does someone have who objects to
taxation? If someone were to burglarize your apartment every few
weeks, should he be held blameless because you did not move to a
different apartment? Even if all apartments are raided by one burglar
or another?
Was what the Nazis did to the Jews ok? The Jews were free to leave
Germany for several years after Hitler took power.
Oh? Then please pray explain why we are about to be passed in
productivity by Japan, ...
I don't think we are.
There are three main reasons why Japan is doing so well:
1) Most Japanese employees are willing to work 12 hour days with few
breaks.
2) Japanese tend to save a much greater portion of their income than
Americans. Most of this goes to capitalize industry.
3) They pay nothing for defense. While Americans pay for the defense
of Japan and several other countries as well as America.
... the federal budget would not be balanced even if EVERYTHING
the government does except defense and paying back the current
indebtedness was eliminated.
This is not true if you include social security, which you didn't.
Neither is it true if you include state, county, and city budgets,
even if you DO exclude social security. It isn't useful to think of
taxes seperately even if that's how they appear.
... "Withdraw all American forces from overseas" is in the
official Libertarian party platform, and is foolhardy in the
extreme.
Why? Our attempts to save the world has only gotten us hatred
abroad. We should take George Washington's advice and avoid all
foriegn entanglements. The communists win propoganda points whenever
we mine a harbor or construct another military base abroad. Our
military should have only a defensive role, and should have that role
only on US soil. We can lead better by example than by bombing
Tripoli.
Do you have a plan for payback of the current Government debt
in the event that we do adopt a Libertarian system?
Not really. The government has made promises it can't keep, and it
won't be able to keep them no matter who is in charge. I suppose the
thing to do is to say that since the government bonds all promise
paper money the government can simply print the appropriate amount of
paper money, backed by nothing, when the bonds mature. It may not be
worth very much, but then the government never promised that it would
be.
Come to think of it, that's exactly how it's done now.
The important thing is that no NEW government borrowing would be
done.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 86 17:50:47 PST
From: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Barry S. Fagin)
Subject: libertarian think tank profiled in Newsweek
More news about libertarians in the real world:
I just found out that the Cato Institute received some publicity
in the September 1st issue of Newsweek. The article was called
"A Baby Boomers' Think Tank" with the subtitle "Catering to
an Elusive Political Constituency". Excerpts from the article
include:
"When it opened its doors in 1977, the Cato Institute was hardly a
force to be reckoned ... [but now] ... Cato [has] found itself
in the intellectual mainstream ... It has since become a player in
public-policy debates on everything from defense to economic
theory and is attracting a constituency that both major parties
lust after: baby boomers, who are generally conservative on
economics but liberal on social policy. This elusive quarry finds
itself uncomfortable with the big-spending history of the
Democrats and equally ill at ease with elements of the Reagan
coalition, particularly the fundamentalist right."
"... Cato recommends scrapping the social-security system in favor of
a private retirement program and would return the economy to the gold
standard ... It contends that the United States can no longer afford
to underwrite Europe's defense through NATO and is foursquare against
import quoatas, farm credits, and federal deposit insurance for
savings institutions...These positions flow out of Cato's libertarian
background, as do its views on social matters. The institute supports
gay rights, takes a liberal view on pornography and would legalize
marijuana--positions commonly held by the Democratic left. At the
same time, Cato is staunchly anticommunist and advocates a free market
without government regulation and without Big Labor. [Cato Institute
president Ed] Crane believes the institute's philosophy, rooted as it
is in individual freedom, is 'more consistent than the traditional
left-right spectrum'."
The article goes on to describe Crane's history of involvement
with the Libertarian Party, and discusses briefly what
Cato thinks is wrong with major party politics. It concludes with
the following:
"While Cato's influence is growing, it is, compared with older,
more prestigious idea factories like the Brookings Institution,
something of a mom-and-pop store.
But in less than a decade it has helped change the terms of debate
by challenging Washington's conventional wisdom with a
provaocative appeal for the future.
*** And the likelihood is that institute's political clout, like that
of the baby boomers, has yet to be fully felt.*** " (emphasis
mine)
The Newsweek article is more evidence for what I've been saying
all along: libertarian ideas are not mere exercises in
political theory. The libertarian movement is real, and has
the potential for making MAJOR social changes in America.
The combination of social tolerance and a belief in the
free market is the ideology of the 90's; I believe the major
parties ignore it at their own peril. Will the Democrats
embrace the marketplace as the best answer to the problem
of poverty? Will mainstream Republicans distance themselves
from the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, opting
instead for candidates who are more liberal on social issues?
I believe the answers to these questions will determine the majority
party of the next decade.
--Barry
------------------------------
Return-path: < pixar!upstill@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
From: pixar!upstill@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Steve Upstill)
Subject: Reagan, again
Comes the news that, well, yes, in fact the Russians WERE telling
the truth when they said that Ronnie had no objections to the idea of
100% nuclear disarmament in 10 years, in spite of what the White House
has maintained for the last few days. Yet another example of
conscious prevarication/disinformation by our government, intended to
make the Russians look bad. You remember the Russians: those
notorious prevaricators who, as we all learned in Civics, are to be
despised because they are so willing to let the truth fall to their
own interests.
Really, I can't get angry with the Reagan Administration anymore.
I've just exhausted my outrage at the years of distortion, lies and
self-delusion that have gone into policy after policy, so that I can't
even get excited about this last month's litany. Does anybody care?
Certainly, the people don't seem to care, or even notice, this latest
round of sleaziness in the defense of liberty.
Does anybody understand this? Does anybody have any idea why
Reagan never seems to get hurt, regardless of how low his
Administration stoops, or of how ignorant (to use the charitable
characterization) he himself seems? If your inclination is to respond
to this with "they aren't responding because he IS doing a good job",
then I request your participation in this thought experiment: what
would Reagan have to do to get a substantial body of the American
people disillusioned with him? Child molestation? Drug dealing? Not
serious responses. Besides, these would just be trumped-up charges by
a claque of liberals. War crimes? Take a serious look at what the
"freedom fighters" in Nicaragua are up to and you'll forget about that
one. Flagrant incompetence? How can somebody be incompetent who
leaves everything but the personality up to his aides? Undeniable
senility? Well, he's never been a flash in the pan. Besides, he's
such a nice man; we can probably muddle along for another two years.
Etc. Etc.
The point of the exercise is to support the following assertion:
the American people have decided to "like" Ronald Reagan, no matter
what he does. They have equated their sense of national identity with
him, and they are not going to turn on him any more than they will
attack their own mothers. If you disagree with this, I repeat the
challenge: tell me ANYTHING remotely within the realm of possibility
that Reagan could do to cause the public to lose faith in him.
I would also like to hear discussion of the ramifications of this
for the Republican party, the US, and the political system in general.
How do people get into this god-like position? Why isn't this a
serious weakness in the system? Does this mean that George Bush is
doomed (if so, maybe it isn't a serious weakness, after all)? Has
this ever happened before? Will it happen again, and with whom?
Steve Upstill
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Thursday, 13 Nov 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 105
Today's Topics:
Transportation Costs &
Privatization &
Objectivity (2 msgs) &
Dueling &
Medical Treatments
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < dmw@gauss.ECE.CMU.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, 29 October 1986 08:31:57 EST
From: Hank.Walker@gauss.ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Cost of cars
I drive an old car, so have no depreciation expense. Still the car is
rather expensive per mile. The bus would probably be cheaper. But I
don't take the bus. Why? Time. Time is money. I want to go where I
want when I want, and get there as fast as possible. Nothing beats a
car for this in the local city. Sure a rail system in LA will cost 60
times less than the same length of freeway. It's about 60 times less
useful. Will it stop in front of my house? No. You have to drive to
the nearest station, which could be 10 miles from your house. Every
time they propose rapid transit in LA, people notice that only 2% of
the population will be within a mile of any station, and so veto the
idea.
------------------------------
Return-path: < fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 86 12:19:02 PDT
From: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Barry S. Fagin)
Subject: Reply to Rich Cowan
Rich Cowan writes:
> when Barry says:
> > freedom to choose does not mean the ability to choose. It means
> > the freedom to choose from what others freely wish to part with.
> he suggests that everything we are choosing from is privatized, that
> someone owns it, and that we can be "free" to choose it without
> having the "ability" -- i.e. financial resources -- to do so!
Basically correct. Ability, however, isn't necessarily financial
resources, only the consent of the other party or parties. I require
no money to get people to give charitably to me, to marry me, or to
publish my letter to the editor in a newspaper. I require only the
appropriate consent. The fact that money is often required simply
shows what motivates human beings.
> Would Barry Fagin therefore agree that
> -Clean water be restricted only to those who can afford to buy
> bottled water?
No, although I do think that the right way to get clean water is to
use the market and property rights. Allow cities to own their own
water supplies, allow people to own them and have governments pay them
fair market value, and so on. And, of course, I'd be delighted to
hear your suggestions for providing "clean water for all".
> -Clean air be restricted to those who can build air conditioned,
> filtered environments to protect them 365 days a year?
No, see above and previous postings.
> -Nature be restricted to private parks for a select elite that pays
> high membership fees to protect the parks from commercial
> development?
This is almost what we have now, actually. Our national parks are
paid for by the many, enjoyed by the few. People who enjoy nature
should be the ones to bear the costs of owning and maintaining the
land in a pristine state. The right way to enjoy nature is to do it
through a framework of liberty: privately owned parks financed by
user's fees and contributions. And this isn't so bad, Rich. You
might even like it; the hiking and camping permits issued by the
Nature Conservancy are cheaper than those at Yellowstone.
In fact, private ownership as the best way to environmental protection
is the wave of the future; the previously mentioned Nature
Conservancy, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Audobon Society, and
the Center for Political Economy and Natural Resources are all
embracing private ownership as the best way to preserve and protect
nature.
> -Survival be restricted to the few that can afford to be sent into
> space and live on a space station, or on Mars?
Nope. Personally, I think government should provide law enforcement,
national defense, and bare necessities, but even these functions can
be contracted out to the private sector. In any case, so much of what
government does is harmful that once an appreciable portion of it is
stopped, the resulting prosperous society will render survival and
poverty moot for an incredibly vast majority of Americans.
> Barry, I have a question for you. How, under YOUR ideas for how
> "human beings and their economic institutions" should ideally
> interact, "deciding on their own what they wish to sell and under
> what terms," can we be assured that the environment won't be
> corrupted, or that the planet won't be destroyed ... Or do you deny
> the existance [sic] of the problems I mention?
I hope I have answered this adequately in my previous comments.
--Barry
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 86 01:22:43 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Reply to WLIM
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
... What may be sense to you may actually be nonsense to others.
How can you say this while advocating objectivity? If there is an
objective reality then something is either sense or nonsense (or some
mixture). Which it is cannot depend on who you are.
The incentive [to send shorter messages] would be more realistic
if there is a charge for using the service.
And the incentive to send longer messages would be more realistic
if I was paid for my messages. So? As long as I am willing to send
messages and others are willing to distribute them and still others
are willing to read them, what's the problem?
1) Duels. You assumed that it is not a problem. You said
nothing about why it can't be a problem in *ANY* libertarian
society.
I don't understand the question. How can I explain why it's not a
problem when you have never said why you think it is a problem?
2) Nations in transitions (Haiti, the Philippines, South Africa,
Grenada). You gave reasons for why they can't become libertarian.
No, I said it is realistically unlikely that they soon would, just
as it is unlikely for communist countries to soon become even as free
as the US.
You did not mention what the prerequisites are for a libertarian
society.
I wish I knew.
3) Society of nations. You wimped out.
No, I explained why there was no comparison. Countries are not
anything like individuals. Individuals cannot enslave parts of
themselves, have revolutions, invasions, merge, split, or become
colonies of other individuals. Countries cannot think, cannot
have desires, goals, aspirations, friends, or lovers.
4) Presidential Plan. Again you wimped out. You did not say how
the government is made accountable in a libertarian society, i.e.
how and why it works.
Yes I did, though perhaps not in reply to your message, since I
had said it several times before. Government is made accountable
essentially in the way it is now. The difference being that a
libertarian government would not have the power to tax, to make or
enforce laws against victimless crimes, to wage war except when
invaded, to draft anyone, or to spend money on anything but defense
of individual liberties, i.e. police, courts, and military.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed 29 Oct 86 23:25:10-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Reply to WLIM
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
Regarding duels...
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
I don't understand the question. How can I explain why it's not a
problem when you have never said why you think it is a problem?
Duels unlike other things involve the deliberate taking of at least
one life. That one life may be that of the President, the smartest
general in the Pentagon, a key member of a super top secret weapons
development team, etc. You don't think that this is going to be a
problem as you argue that there should be no regulation whatsoever on
duels. For example if the KGB/GRU cooks up a very ingenious plan to
kill an important person in the US via a duel and that person is
willing to take part in the duel, that's is ok. You don't see any
need for regulating duels even in the interest of national security.
Or do you?
Regarding the society of nations....
No, I explained why there was no comparison. Countries are not
anything like individuals.....
But countries can trade with each other without a super-government
being involved. Countries also have to deal with problems like acid
rain/pollution from neighboring countries. The point is that some
(but not all) countries seem to get along fine without a
super-government. I would think that you should be able to generate
strong arguments for less government using countries as examples.
Regarding the prerequisites for a libertarian society...
I wish I knew.
(-: I do see an opportunity for you or other libertarians to write a
book on this so that other libertarians can preach it using a
government subsidized network. :-)
The difference being that a libertarian government would not have
the power to tax, to make or enforce laws against victimless
crimes, to wage war except when invaded, to draft anyone, or to
spend money on anything but defense of individual liberties, i.e.
police, courts, and military.
Is it possible for a libertarian government to be incompetent or
corrupt or engage in illegal activities? If so how can it be held
accountable? Through the courts? The ballot boxes?
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 86 18:49:58 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Dueling
[ I presume the nearby buildings and people in those buildings
will have given their consent too, eh? Wouldn't this sort of
thing favor the side with the biggest battalions? The smaller
streetgangs would be forced to accept duels (and be anhilliated)
or lose the dispute that brought about the duel. The larger the
streetgang, the more difficult it is to live near them. Is this
something we want?
All I am saying is that if two individuals are stupid enough to duel
to the death, that is their own business. Similarly with groups of
people. I am not saying that it is ok to hurt other people, to damage
other people's property, to "draft" anyone, or to fight with children.
I really can't get too excited about this issue. If someone is
willing to do something that will result in an even chance of death, I
can't get too dismayed if they are sent to jail for it. But I do
believe they should not be sent to jail for it. It is a strange sort
of logic that says people must be locked in a dangerous place and must
be killed if they try to leave, for the crime of living dangerously!
...Keith
[ OK, so you don't want to worry about the details and side-effects; I
guess I do. I don't quite understand how people willing to do
violence are not dangerous. Living dangerously usually means its
dangerous for other people too. Bank robbers live dangerously, and so
do streetgangs. They are by nature violent, and I haven't heard of a
streetgang that was able to channel violence ONLY against a selected
other (consenting) streetgang. Usually its old people in their
apartments, and people dumb enough to walk the city streets. -CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 86 01:07:28 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Medical treatments
[ What indeed do they have to lose but the their money and the
money of their families, and the financial ruination from buying
drugs or treatments that don't work? Is it right to allow them to
be victimized by profit-hungry drug vultures? Such people are
going to grab at anything that comes their way. Do we just say
too bad about them?
You see people as inevitable victims except when someone protects
them by making many of their potential actions illegal. I see people
as free individuals who know better than the self proclaimed experts
what is best for themselves. Or who should at least be presumed to
know better, for the alternative is tyranny.
Are you comfortable with the idea of big brother looking over your
shoulder with the legal authority to countermand any of your personal
decisions about how to run your own life whenever he believes he knows
better than you what is best for you?
I won't even argue about your implicit contention that the medical
industry knows what is medically best for everyone.
Also, since normal people don't have the resources to test
drugs (except on themselves), drugs will be tested in just this
way.
Only abnormal people ever read anything about the effectiveness and
dangers of potential treatments for their disease?
... We've already been the rounds on fraud. The question comes
down to who you talk to about whether the mark was properly
'informed' or not. - CWM]
Indeed it does. Your answer seems to be he was never informed
unless he chose to agree with the authorities. Even in the case where
his agreement means certain death, as in the case of AIDS or fatal
cancer.
I am encouraged by the liberalization of access to AZT by AIDS
victims, now that AZT has been proven to be useful in controlling that
disease. But of course whether to try AZT should have been the
patient's choice all along. How many have died who might have lived
had AZT been legal sooner?
...Keith
[ I beleive that much the delay on AZT was simply that it sat on
someone's shelf for 3 years before it was tested. I seem to have read
that somewhere...
In any event, I stick to my point that people who have some
terminal illness are ripe targets. I did not generalize this to
'everyone', thank you very much. -CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Wednesday, 19 Nov 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 106
Today's Topics:
Rights &
Liberty &
Subsidies &
Employment
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 86 12:19:02 PDT
From: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Barry S. Fagin)
Subject: Reply to Rich Cowan
Rich Cowan writes:
> I mention a few man-made needs:
> -The right to education. (threatened by cutting funds for public
> schools, which sends people to private schools, further decreasing
> public school support)
(Is this a "right" or a "need"? There's a difference. For the sake
of argument, I'll assume you mean it's a "right".)
This so-called right is incompatible with another, more fundamental
right: the right to be free from having forced used against you
(having harmed noone, of course). But, alas, I have to live in the
real world, where people tolerate such contradictory notions, so I'll
leave that line of argument alone for now. Cutting funds for public
schools does indeed send people to private schools. Why is this bad?
Doesn't this depend on how affordable private schools are? If 90% of
the population could afford to send their children to private schools
in a free society, would coercively financed public education still be
a "man-made need". How about 95%? 99%?
If we absolutely must have "public" education (a dubious conjecture
at best), the best way to do it is through a voucher system and
for-profit schools (though if public schools can compete effectively
for parent's vouchers that's OK). The point is that there are
lots of alternatives to the current insanity of massively centralized
education financed through taxation. The current system is *not*
essential to the well-being of America.
> -The right of women to walk city streets without fearing sexual
> assault. (threatened by advertising which establishes rules for
> social relations which, among other things, cause men to view women,
> and women to view themselves, as sexual objects.)
I'm always reluctant to concede a right to freedom from fear. After
all, some people are afraid of blacks; can laws be passed forbidding
blacks to walk the streets at night? Or consider another more
realistic example: here in Berkeley, we have a well-known resident
with an extremely rare skin disease that has horribly disfigured his
face. He is extremely frightening to look at; children often burst
out into tears, people cross the street to avoid him, and so forth.
And yet, to pass laws to address their concerns would violate some
very basic rights of this man. So I guess I'm not sure about the
freedom from fear of sexual assault. What are reasonable fears, and
what are irrational ones?
In any case, advertising doesn't establish rules for social relations,
though it may try. Nor can it "cause" men to view women and women to
view themselves as sexual objects. People are creatures of free will,
who can be influenced but who make the final decision themselves.
And, of course, if you're really as ticked off as you claim then
boycott the product! Get enough people on your side, and we'll start
seeing the kind of ads you want to see.
> -The right to a job that can pay for affordable housing,
> transportation, and food.
There is simply no such right, or at least none that has a
basis in the real, actual nature of human beings. Refering
to it as a 'right' is standard fare for liberals during an
election year, but it's just sheer nonsense. What it really
is is an "entitlement", and what is actually being said is
"every able-bodied person in our society that is entitled
to exchange his or her labor for as much money as is necessary
for housing, transportation, and food". This reasoning is
simply incompatible with the basic American notion of liberty.
Who decides what affordable is? Who decides how much labor
is worth? Who decides what should be produced? Rich, if your
really so concerned about institutions, consider those necessary
to set up and guarantee the "right to a job that can pay for
affordable housing etc. etc.".
The really ironic thing is that it is the free market that
makes the best decisions regarding what should be produced
and how much it is worth. Of course no one person agrees
100% with the result, but at least such things are decided
among consenting adults, and not through the exercise of
political power. It ain't perfect, its just the best system
we have, and the only one compatible with human liberty.
> whom their actions affect. (Executives oppose full-employment
> legislation and tolerate high structural unemployment because it
> creates a favorable market for hiring people.) ...
Do you actually believe that "full employment" in any meaningful
sense can be guaranteed by legislation? In that case, why stop
there? Why not legislate cheap food and housing, safe energy,
and healthy families?
> OK, Barry, now it's your turn to respond. But I hope you'll do
> more than just make quick assumptions about implications of my
> views and describe how bad they are.
I hope I did.
> I want to hear how your libertarian philosophy can
> solve the problems I mentioned above.
I hope I showed this very thing.
To sum up, Rich's main point seems to be that large institutions
insulated from the consequences of their actions have come to dominate
our lives, and that this is the central issue which we must address
in order to make a better world. Rich believes that libertarian
ideas cannot address this effectively. My reply is twofold:
1) The problems that Rich pointed out are in fact effectively
addressed through the libertarian concepts of private property
rights. In particular, many modern environmental groups are
applying this strategy with great success.
2) Rich is in the curious position of preaching against the dangers of
large institutions, and yet cannot have the entitlements he holds so
dear (public education, "rights" to jobs, etc.) without some sort of
institution with the power to impose its will on those who disagree
with it. The kind of society he envisions cannot be brought about
without a large, entrenched political body in charge of distributing
wealth. Such institutions are far more destructive than the most
malevolent corporation.
--Barry
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 86 02:00:11 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Is government the villain?
To: COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: Richard A. Cowan < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
... Libertarians are fixated on the danger of "big government"
affecting our freedom, and that this focus on government serves to
mystify what's really going on?
I am disturbed by all infringement of liberty. Government is the
main offender, but by no means the only one. Some people who call
themselves libertarians really advocate anarchy. They don't seem to
realize that if government is abolished, either another government
would immediately form, or other, smaller, opponents of liberty would
have their way.
The reason I object to the emphasis on government is that public
policy is really not determined by "the government."
Government, at least in relatively free countries, does tend to
reflect the will of the people. The current wars on drugs and
pornography would not occur if the majority did not support them.
My point is that it doesn't matter if 99% of the population does
oppose drugs or pornography. The 1% who wish to use these have
rights too. The fact that the government which violates those
rights represents the will of the majority is not relevant. The
tyranny of the majority may be preferable to the tyranny of the
minority, but no tyranny at all is better.
Chomsky is saying that it's the other way around. The government
is controlled by the political process, a process greatly
influenced by economic interests.
Yes, there is a lot of truth in this. This may surprise those of
you who think I favor big business. I don't. I favor a free market.
This may include big businesses. But many big businesses today are
able to become big and remain big only because government unfairly
takes sides. The import tariffs, which increase the price of consumer
products, are a good example of this, as are the various farm subsidy
programs, which may have been intended as a temporary subsidy to small
farmers but which now go mostly to pay millionaires not to farm for
decades.
I oppose the tariffs and the farm subsidies whether they go to big
or little business. Unlike the liberals, I see nothing inherently
good in small things or anything inherently bad in big things. Unlike
the conservatives, I see nothing inherently good in big things or
anything inherently bad in small things.
Any government program which people think is worthwhile should be
financed entirely by voluntary contributions. Can you honestly see
the farm lobby convince people that they, as individuals, should pay
money to have less food grown and food prices higher? Can you see the
automobile lobbyists going door to door asking people who recently
bought a foreign car to donate several thousand dollars to compensate
for the foreign car's lower price?
Senator Mark Hatfield (R-Oregon) had a similar perspective, urging
"the reintroduction of human ideals into what is now policy formed
mainly by economic considerations." (personal correspondence,
1969)
What does this mean? What are "human ideals" as opposed to
"economic considerations"? There are many human things that are
beyond economics, of course, such as friendship and love. I hope he
is not advocating government involvement in any such individual
concerns.
Accepting this view, the question one should ask is not whether
government is inherently good or bad,
Agreed.
but rather, "Who runs the government?"
I don't think it matters very much so long as they obey the laws.
and "Who does it serve?"
Right. It should serve everyone, but only to the extent of
preventing individual rights from being violated. It should not and
cannot be involved with protecting people from their own economic
misjudgements, or with redistributing wealth, or trying to compensate
for the inequalities of past generations.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed 29 Oct 86 22:34:08-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Reply to WLIM
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
....If there is an objective reality then something is either sense
or nonsense (or some mixture)....
You brought the point up yourself. That is, it is only the case when
the topic being discussed has an objective reality does what you say
make sense. I was merely raising questions about the objective
reality of the things you said.
And the incentive to send longer messages would be more realistic
if I was paid for my messages. So? As long as I am willing to
send messages and others are willing to distribute them and still
others are willing to read them, what's the problem?
Despite all your objections to government subsidies, you are actually
dependent on one. The problem is the careless misuse of facilities
funded by the government. This attitude occurs among some people on
welfare, some doctors (when charging their medical bills to the
government), some engineers and managers in the defense industries
(when charging the government for their services), some personnel in
the military, some civil servants, some senators, some congressmen,
some presidents (e.g. frequent and expensive vacation trips), etc. It
is rather ironic that in criticizing the waste and inefficiency in
government, you are actually contributing to the waste and
inefficiency (though in a rather small way but it adds up when you
consider how many people are out there involved in such abuses). (-:
Perhaps the government is to be blamed for letting these culprits get
away with it. :-)
There are at least two, not necessarily compatible, conclusions from
the above:
1) People (libertarians, liberals, conservatives, moderates, ...) will
always exploit and become dependent on government handouts and
subsidies, therefore there should be no government handouts and
subsidies. (Your arguments give the impression that libertarians are
not in that group but your actions contradict that.)
2) Some subsidies are good. E.g. the government bearing some of the
cost of electronic discussion over the net is good as it helps in the
evolution of the system of government to a better one, which in your
case is a libertarian one.
Which is your conclusion---1 or 2?
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 86 02:22:42 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: ECSR article
To: mcvax!cstvax.ed.ac.uk!db@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
From: Dave Berry < mcvax!cstvax.ed.ac.uk!db@seismo.CSS.GOV>
this is an article from the latest issue of the Edinburgh
Computing & Soical Responsibility newsletter.
...
What are the options for future employment? The key seems to lie
in the redistribution of the gains we make because of the higher
efficiency. This redistribution can be done in 4 ways:
- Letting market forces do it.
- Using public investment.
- Reducing the size of the active population.
- Shorter working times.
The first option does not work (as described above).
I have read this three times, and I still don't see how this
conclusion can be drawn from what was said in the article. Also,
whose higher efficiency are we talking about and who is to do the
redistributing? Are the two the same? If not, by what right does
the redistributor redistribute the gains of someone else's higher
efficiency?
The second option seems to involve redistribution through
taxation, and using the tax to create jobs.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul.
However, even the most extensive of the Labour Parties
shopping lists does not reach over 3/4 of a million jobs, while
we're looking for something like 3-4 million. Reducing the size of
the active population seems to involve morally unacceptable
actions like sending foreign labour home, or not letting women
enter the labour market.
Agreed. Government should not even have the power to exclude women
from the workplace.
The last option seems to be the most promising. But it does
introduce the conflict between the employed and the unemployed.
Some short term solutions for this problem could be
- a personal benefit for every person, working or
non-working.
Who pays for this? And what right does government have to limit the
workweek? Should people be thrown in jail for working too hard?
- an employment allowance for companies, based on the number
of employees (and not on their labour costs).
Who pays for this?
In the longer term, the solution seems to be to try and organize
our economy on a different ground than the profit-optimization
which is the main basis for our current economic system.
Another conclusion out of the void. What is the alternative to
profit optimization? And who is to do the organization? Who owns
the economy?
And who says that unemployment is a problem? Poverty is a problem.
It often correlates with unemployment, but socialist countries manage
to combine zero unemployment with almost universal poverty. It should
be evident even to socialists and the feeble-minded that if people who
worked are taxed to pay people who don't work, that the net amount of
wealth has not increased. Poverty is conserved. In fact, since those
who work will be less inclined to as hard, since they will receive
fewer rewards for their diligence, and since those who are unemployed
will be less inclined to seek work, since they are being paid anyway,
the level of poverty will obviously increase.
Unemployment can be an opportunity. I am looking forward to being
unemployed someday, so I can devote my time to activities that pay
poorly if at all. With increasing productivity and automation we may
be in transition from a society of workers to a society of investors.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Sunday, 7 Dec 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 107
Today's Topics:
Free market &
South Africa &
Hiring and Firing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 86 22:43:35 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Free market?
To: COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: Richard A. Cowan < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
... It is true that eliminating property taxes, ... increase
"freedom." (Especially for the person who person who owns
land... )
If property taxes were lower, more people could afford to own land.
But it is not only government that limits our free choice.
True. But government is the prime offender.
We live in a political world dominated by economic arrangements
among powerful institutions. Eliminating many government powers
might give us certain new freedoms, but would have no effect, or
the wrong effect, on the limits on free choice imposed upon us by
institutions.
I am not sure what you are objecting to. }i}iIt is true that you do
not have the choice of buying green trousers at a store that only
sells blue trousers. Any hypothetical right to buy green trousers
would infringe on the right of the owner of the store to sell only
blue trousers.
Liberals often seem to be objecting to natural laws rather than to
political choices. They find it unfair that certain behaviors have
certain costs associated with them (for instance that certain
lifestyles lead to deadly disease, or that refusing to work leads to
hunger, or that taking a year off work to have a baby makes one less
valuable to one's employer, etc). It is not clear to me whether they
feel that these costs are in fact imposed by people, or whether they
feel that even though these costs are imposed by nature, that people
should pay for them. In either case, the question is who pays, and by
what justification?
The deregulation of the phone company may give the consumer "free
choice" between phone companies, but the imperative of competition
means that consumers have no choice but to shoulder the cost of
intensive advertising wars in the short run ...
Advertising can be quite productive. If advertising sells enough
extra products, the unit cost will go down due to economy of scale
w3more than it will go up due to the cost of the advertising.
Look at the cost of long distance phone service. It is lower now
than before the deregulation, even though much less was spent on
advertising then.
... This advertising boom, in conjunction with financial
speculation, produces "economic growth," not by creating anything
productive, but by enlarging the percentage of our economy devoted
to waste.
Please tell me how one distinguishes productive work from wasteful
work. I don't think{_ the distinction is as simple as you seem to
}ithink.
One might argue that only production of actual goods is productive.
That processing information is pure waste and overhead. Probably few
people would make this claim today, though it was fairly popular not
that long ago. Note that if this claim is true, then our nation must
be in sorry shape, since the majority of workers now produce
information rather than goods and non-information services.
One often hears that lawyers, bankers, advertisers, and investors
are parasites since they don't actually produce anything. Actually,
law, banking, advertising, and investing are all very important
information industries. Information can be more valuable than goods.
Surely you can't argue with any of this, since your example was long
distance phone companies. All these companies do is move information
from place to place. But you seem to think that their doing so is
productive, while advertising, which also consists entirely of moving
information from place to place, is non-productive.
So who decides what is productive and what isn't? In a free market
system, we all do, by the choices we make every day. If some use of
money is believed to be non-productive by everyone, then nobody will
use money in that way.
... unlike small-scale capitalism in which the fittest survive
because of the superior quality of goods and services produced by
one's own hard work and initiative, large scale capitalism largely
thrives on the indoctrination of consumers to make the "right
choice,"
I think you underestimate consumers. Anyway, what is your
alternative? If you start by assuming that the consumer is a sucker,
that he can't be trusted to know his own best interest, government
control of the economy becomes the obvious alternative. There is, of
course, the question of where the bureaucrats come from. They can't
be drawn from the general population, since the general population is
(you claim) idiots. Some sort of elite is needed. A closely knit
cadre of benevolent (?) overseers. Is this what you advocate? It has
been tried, you know. It doesn't work.
the access to markets (examples: GE's distribution network, IBM's
monopoly in data processing),
Access is not conserved. New channels of access are created when
supply seeks demand. Look at the illegal drug trade for an example of
seemingly unstoppable access. Can you name any product that failed
due to lack of access to markets?
and the coercion of workers to work harder while being paid less.
Coercion? Nobody is compelled to continue working for the same
employer. You might as well complain of the coercion of employers BY
the workers to accept less work for more pay. THIS actually occurs,
thanks to the pro-union laws and rules against firing people.
Workers have little "choice" to improve their position if the
company that pays them the most money is least likely to survive.
I am eager to hear of the economy in which this would NOT be the
case!
Employers have little "choice" to improve their position if the
workers that are paid the least money are most likely to resign.
When competition ultimately runs its course, the consumer's choice
may be limited by monopoly.
Examples please? (Don't bother to list government mandated
monopolies.)
If a monopoly does form, either it sells products for a fair price,
or else other companies will start competing with it.
Companies frequently bring in innovations designed to induce
"economic growth" by making the consumer dependent on various
modern conveniences.
With the exception of actually addictive substances such as tobacco,
I completely disagree. Nobody is compelled to buy any new product
just because it is new. If most people do buy things which they
didn't buy 50 years ago, it is because they find the new things to
make life more pleasant, not because they were duped by clever and
evil tycoons.
... A dependency on toothpaste in a pump is being created (by
subsidy; at first) so that consumers will ultimately pay for the
added cost of the pump, and in order to better regulate (and speed
up) their toothpaste use.
It is logically impossible for anyone to prove the absence of a
conspiracy. Read Robert Anton Wilson's Illuminatus Trilogy for
further illumination.
What force do you see preventing any company from selling toothpaste
in tubes if consumers continue to be willing to pay for it?
As Herbert Marcuse said, "... Free election of masters does not
abolish the masters or the slaves.
This is just what I have been saying all along.
Free choice among a wide variety of goods and services does not
signify freedom if these goods and services sustain social
controls over a life of toil and fear -- that is, if they sustain
alienation."
I guess it's a matter of perspective. If you view all available
products as tools of manipulation devised by an evil conspiracy of
oligarchs, I am sorry, I can't help you. All I can say is that I
don't see it that way, nor do I see how such a conspiracy is possible
unless hundreds of millions of people are in on it worldwide. Nor do
I see why these conspirators would not quickly go broke if even one
percent as many people chose to compete with them and produce what
people really want. Given that what people buy is NOT what people
really want, but that they are all brainwashed -- the heck with it, it
doesn't make any sense either way. Hundreds of millions of people are
the innocent brainwashed victims of the same hundreds of millions of
people, who are guilty of conspiring to sustain alienation among
themselves? Sorry, but I find Marcuse's point incomprehensible.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu 30 Oct 86 00:29:25-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #99
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Personally, I can't see that the nations of black Africa grant much
more freedom to their citizens than the Afrikaners give to black
South Africans, and that includes Zimbabwe. Would Idi Amin be an
improvement over P.W. Botha?
You forgot about Bostwana which is a democracy but currently being
bullied by the white tribe (i.e. the Afrikaners see the Wall Street
Journal and the Economist over the last few months) in South Africa.
You should also note the curious fact that hundred of thousands of
whites who fled Zimbabwe to SA are now returning to Zimbabwe (again
see the Wall Street Journal and the Economist over the last few
months). These whites originally left for fear of the blacks doing
onto them what they have done onto the blacks (i.e. subjugation) and
also for the belief that the blacks are going to screw the country up.
Now they obviously think that Mugabe is an improvement over P.W.
Botha. SA is worried about the economic success of Zimbabwe as it is
the first front line country that over time will be strong enough to
threathen SA. Furthermore the British have investments in Zimbabwe
and are helping in training the Zimbabwean military, building the
railroad to Beira, a port in Mozambique so that Zimbabwean goods can
get out without going through SA (see the latest issue of the
Economist). There is also talk of having white settlers along the
Beira railroad to protect it from the SA backed guerrillas.
Furthermore, the former Zimbabwean minister of agriculture (a white)
has been abroad canvassing for financial support for the
revitalization of the Beira line. As an aside, in a recent issue of
Forbes, Zimbabwe now has the most sophisicated (i.e. highly
computerized) and the world's largest tobacco auction floor in Harare.
It is built by a Zimbabwean white. There was also a report on human
rights in Zimbabwe which said that the whites have experienced very
little atrocities committed against them. So don't you think that the
Zimbabwean whites are doing pretty well under black majority rule?
As another point, many African nations have served us well by showing
the world what a big lose communism is. It was reported in the Time
magazine that it was Machel (a Marxist) the late leader of Mozambique
that persuaded Mugabe not to repeat his mistakes. Until his death,
Machel was starting to move to our camp (the British and the West
Germans are starting to return to Mozambique). I don't think the
black INDIVIDUALS in SA would repeat the mistakes of the other African
nations (which are now admitting the mistakes of Marxism and starting
to experiment with elements of the free market) when there is majority
rule. I do find it troubling that some people still think that black
Africans don't know what it is good for them i.e. economic freedom
which include the freedom to own property and businesses. SA has a
long way to go with regard to this even if you were to ignore the
right to one man one vote. Furthermore a black African leader (I
think it was Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia where the ANC is headquartered)
said that SA is the jewel of Africa. I don't think he would want to
see it destroyed by a careless implementation of majority rule.
SA, the so-called friend of capitalism, will not let any of the front
line nations become economically successful even via capitalism for SA
wants these nations to be subservient to SA. It is a matter of time
before SA's interests conflict with our national interest (i.e. more
pro-West, economically viable and stable states in southern Africa).
One would be curious to see then if the white tribe in SA would find
the communists in all-white Russia and Eastern Europe more preferable
to the racially mixed but democratic and capitalistic USA.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 86 17:19:00 PST
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Firing
Yes, I do oppose those laws. It has been so long now since I
sent the mail that I have forgotten the context; I believe that it had
something to do with drug testing.
Anyway, while I agree with you in general, I think your
argument needs a little work. Most employers can dismiss employees
during or following a short "probationary" period and show little or
no cause; hence an employer can try out a new employee with less risk
than you imply (of course, the expense of hiring new employees is
still substantial, what with SS benefits, Federal and state
checkoffs...but I digress).
The major point is still this. Employers have a hard time
establishing to a court that employees aren't doing an adequate job.
So long as employers can't can people for arbitrary reasons, you're
going to have things like widespread drug testing. Why? Courts may
not accept "he was doing a lousy job" as adequate for dismissal, but
"he snorted enough cocaine to choke a medium-sized horse" ought to do
the trick.
Liberals take note: *this* is the effect of labour protection
and civil rights legislation. I wonder how our friends in the ADA,
the ACLU and the AFL-CIO feel now? Of course, if they regretted, this
would imply that liberals can learn -- in which case, of course,
they'd be conservatives.
This message brought to you courtesy of Redbusters.
-- Rick.
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Sunday, 7 Dec 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 108
Today's Topics:
Public Transport &
Hiring and Firing &
Drug Tests &
Racism vs. Individualism &
What does driving cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < mcvax!cstvax.ed.ac.uk!db@seismo.CSS.GOV>
From: Dave Berry < mcvax!cstvax.ed.ac.uk!db@seismo.CSS.GOV>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 86 17:23:36 gmt
Subject: Re: public transport
According to a Libertarian friend who spent a year in Moscow as part
of her degree in Russian, Moscow's public transport is cheap, reliable
and free from graffitti and violence.
She is not a supporter of the Soviet Union's policies, nor is she a
socialist.
Dave Berry.
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 86 19:37:50 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Firing
To: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
[Due an error on my part, the reply to this message appeared in the
last issue of Poli-Sci. My apologies to both gentlemen - CWM]
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
Wrongo, Keith. Under current law in most states employers
are subject to a civil suit if they dismiss an employee without
cause, and may be forced to rehire the employee and pay damages if
cause cannot be shown.
I oppose those laws, of course. Don't you? If not, please tell us
how you would feel about a law which subjected shoppers to civil suits
for ceasing to shop at a given store without cause, or which subjected
employees to civil suits for resigning from their jobs without cause?
If there were such laws, don't you think that shoppers would be very
reluctant to try shopping at a new store, knowing that they wouldn't
be allowed to stop shopping there without being subject to a lawsuit?
Wouldn't employees be reluctant to start working for a given company
if they knew that they would not be allowed to quit? And don't you
think that proponents of these laws would point out how these very
reluctances as evidence that the laws are needed?
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < wild@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 86 11:29:25 PST
From: wild@Sun.COM (Will Doherty)
Cc: Hank.Walker@gauss.ece.cmu.edu
From: Hank.Walker@gauss.ece.cmu.edu
Subject: pre-employment drug tests
If I buy a car, is it okay for me to have a mechanic inspect
it first? If I buy a house, can a contractor look it over?
When I make an investment, it seems only reasonable to me that
I should be able to inspect the goods sufficiently to satisfy
myself that I'm getting what I'm paying for. In some cases we
rely on trust and past experience. I don't taste a Coke
before buying it. On the other hand, I don't know this job
applicant from Adam. I am about to make a major investment in
the applicant, so I think I have the right to find out whether
they have AIDS, terminal cancer, are alcoholic, use drugs, or
any other habits that will increase the risk of my investment.
These conditions may not affect the performance of the person
on the job, but they may mean that I can't amortize my
investment.
Yeah, and don't forget to pry open their lips and examine their teeth
(unless they're a real gift!), and why not ask them to bend over for a
little rectal exam. Ooo, kinky, I'm starting to like this. Can you
tell me where I can buy my pleasure slave?
Will Doherty
UUCP: ...sun!oscar!wild
ARPA: "oscar!wild"@sun.com
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 86 19:29:22 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Racism vs. Individualism
[ Well, them laws was created to try and correct a perceived
imbalance in the employment of minorities. By your rule - if the
electorate allows it to stand, they want it - the American people
wants these laws.
It doesn't matter what they want. The whole point of liberty is
that the individual is not bound by the wishes of the majority, except
when he harms others.
It is farfetched to say that failing to hire a person is harming
him. One might equally argue that failing to work for a given
employer harms that employer, or that failing to shop at a certain
store harms the owner of that store, or that my failing to send
messages to this list harms the other readers of this list.
Or is your argument simply that the majority is always right? By
that standard, those discrimination laws ARE just (at least in the
North) but then so was slavery (at least in the South) when most
people approved of it. And so was Naziism (Hitler WAS elected). And
Communism. And the Constitution is pointless, since it explicitly
restricts the power of the majority.
...
Further, the idea that races (or if you prefer, individuals of a
given race) are discriminated against is a fact.
There is a big difference. In "affirmative action", discrimination
against individuals is mandated, in order to oppose discrimination
against a race. When a less qualified person is hired in preference
to a more qualified person, because of his race, that is
discrimination. Government now REQUIRES this, in cases where there is
statistical evidence of past discrimination. Not past discrimination
against the individuals involved, but against other individuals who
happen to have been of the same race.
One cannot have both the INDIVIDUAL and the RACE as the purpose of
government. SOMETHING has to be on top. If it is the race, it is not
the individual, and individuals can be discriminated against because
of their race (or if you prefer, because of the actions of other
individuals of the same race). This is current Federal policy, and
this is evil.
The Democrats, like the Nazis, consider RACE the purpose of
government. Or more generally, the special interest group. The
Republicans consider GOD the purpose of government. They believe (or
claim to believe) they are implementing God's will. Neither party
puts the INDIVIDUAL on top, or considers him relevent to government.
If I deny every individual of a given skin color a job because
that skin color, I discriminate.
True. What's your point? It is government mandated discrimination
that is evil. If an individual discriminates, he is simply exercising
his right of free association. If he refuses to hire blacks as
employees, or if he refuses to serve black customers, it is he who
suffers, due to loss of the talents of the black potential employees,
the loss of the business of the black potential customers, and quite
probably due to a ruinous boycott.
The blacks can always work and shop elsewhere. The only exception
is if virtually everyone refuses to hire them or serve them. This can
only happen if virtually everyone is prejudiced against them. And if
they are, there simply won't BE any anti-discrimination laws, and if
they were, they would be as ignored as the 55 mph speed limit.
There is a lot of discrimination, often actively encouraged by the
government, against less politically powerful groups. Drug users are
an example of this, as are gays.
I don't see how you are going to stop your libertarian
government from becoming very like the current one. The powers
you grant are very similar to the original ones granted the US
Federal government ...
The main thing is for the people to be educated. I could name extra
amendments that should have been in the Bill of Rights, and I could
say that some parts of the Constitution should NOT be changable by
congress or by anyone at any future time, but the people of one time
cannot impose their will (however benevolent) on the people of a later
time. ANY constitution and ANY amendment can be rescinded or ignored.
What is needed is for individuals to understand the reasons behind
individual liberties, and why it is an astoundingly bad idea to
restrict these liberties, even for such causes as:
o A chicken in every pot, a car in every garage
o Prevent monopolies
o Prevent discrimination
o War on poverty
o War on drugs
o War on pornography
o Prevent war
o Energy - moral equivalent of war
o Whip Inflation Now
o Prevent teenage pregnancy
and other government programs and policies to which we are told
individual rights must be subordinated.
I thought defence was to be privatized - if its going to be
voluntarily funded, why give it to the government? - and there
wouldn't be any new laws, I thought.
The various sorts of libertarians and objectivists differ on those
points.
...Keith
[ Hitler was not elected, he was appointed by Hindenburg as
Chancellor, and as near as I can remember, the Nazis NEVER had a
parlimentary majority up until Hitler made all other parties illegal.
Interestingly enough, the discrimination against blacks (that
various 'afirmative action' sought to defeat) was for the most part
carried out by individuals - not the federal government. In your
view this was not evil then?
Rather handy the way you waved away the defence issue. I'll have
to remember that one! :-) - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < oswald!jim@ll-xn.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 86 22:46:16 EST
From: oswald!jim@ll-xn.ARPA
Subject: Re: What does driving cost?
In a recent article, ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu writes:
>
> Why is it that, even though an automobile driven by a single person
> is clearly less efficient (uses more resources) than mass transit,
> it is often both cheaper and more pleasant...? There is only one
> answer: Massive Government Subsidies...
It is quite true that automobile and *especially* truck traffic is
subsidized in this country. The obvious solution is to raise road
taxes to reflect true costs. After the massive rise in oil prices in
the '70's, people still preferred driving their cars. A road tax
increase wouldn't stop people from driving either. However, if trucks
were forced to pay for the road damage they cause, they might well
lose a lot of traffic to trains, ships, air, etc.
> The largest [subsidy] of all is that the Government owns the land on
> which the roads are built and will not sell it, even for a good
> price. If the roads were privately owned, the users of the roads
> would have to pay the owners at least as much as the owners could
> receive by leasing the land...
This is not a subsidy. The land owners are paid, in cash, when the
land is condemned. They are paid the fair market value, which
includes the 'present value' of all the future lease payments you
refer to.
> Yet we hear from the Libertarians and from the Auto Club that
> mass transit cannot be built unless it is self supporting. To which
> I reply: bring on your libertarian free transportation market! Let
> ALL forms of transit have a price which accurately reflects the cost
> of providing it. You may be surprised at the results, though.
I second the call for a free transportation market. I think mass
transit would come in a distant second to the private automobile.
--
Jim Olsen ...!{decvax,lll-crg,mit-eddie,seismo}!ll-xn!oswald!jim
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Thursday, 11 Dec 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 109
Today's Topics:
Libertarian National Defense &
South Africa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 86 19:58:11 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Defense
To: WRITIMM%YALEVMX.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
From: WRITIMM%YALEVMX.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Defense
> Do you really think that Qadaffi and
> Khomenei are more trustworthy than ANY INDIVIDUAL in the US?
I can think of several people whom I trust less than Khomenei or
Gadhafi. What makes Americans so damn trustworthy, anyway?
What I mean was, do you believe that for every individual American,
Qadaffi is more trustworthy than that individual? Since you seem to
think that Qadaffi should be allowed to have nuclear weapons but that
no individual American should, I guess you do.
My point is that it is easy to find flaws in libertarian thought.
These always take the form "If you give a person freedom X, he might
abuse that freedom". This is true. But it is debating in a vacuum.
We are comparing a libertarian system to the present system, not to
some hypothetical ideal world in which everyone is peaceful and sits
around in white robes doing whatever people do to pass the time in
utopia.
In particular, according to currently accepted international norms,
it is ok for any national government to have nuclear weapons, even if
that government is a single individual. It is not, however, ok for
individuals who are not kings or emperors to have nuclear weapons.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like nuclear weapons. I wish they
didn't exist. But they do. As long as anyone has them, I think
everyone should be allowed to have them. I would support an
international agreement that nobody is to have them, if it applied to
everyone everywhere, if it had no conditions attached, and if we had
some way to verify compliance. But as long as one person or
government anywhere has one, I think you or I should be allowed to
have one too.
> Any country whose inhabitants won't defend it except when
> coerced is not worthy of being defended.
Strange. If you don't need to defend your country (you are not at
war), a strong case can be made for not having a draft. You seem
to be advocating a mandatory draft, ...
If you had read my messages you would know that I totally oppose a
draft even during wartime.
... How is a nuclear war, fought with 19,000 strategic and
possibly 31,000 tactical nuclear weapons "painless". It might be
short, but its effects would certainly last a long time.
Another straw man. I do not advocate nuclear war. Or any war,
unless we are actually invaded.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 4 Nov 86 09:08:43-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #99
To: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
The Afrikaaners are a tough, independent people; they stood the
British Empire off at the height of the Empire's power....(more
salutation to the Afrikaaner).....
These Afrikaaners are the same people that the British at the peak of
colonial rule called stupid, drunks, lazy etc. These same labels are
also given (by the Afrikaaners) to the blacks, to the Irish by the
"Brahmins" when they first came to Boston and to the Koreans by the
Japanese. The Afrikaaners and Irish sure proved the bigots wrong.
The Koreans are now challenging the dominance of the Japanese
electronics and automobile industry. Do you expect the blacks to be
the exception to this trend? Why?
The Afrikaaners aren't going to "lose power" just like that.
The blacks are not going to give up their fight for their basic
rights. Having lived in a anti-communist country with almost no
tolerance for dissent, I find the courage of anybody willing to stand
up and fight for their rights (knowing very well that they have a very
good chance of being severely punished) extremely admirable. In fact
it is more admirable than the stubbornness of some irrational and
selfish tribe which has no respect for the basic rights of fellow
countrymen who just happen not to be in the same tribe.
They *may* lose a civil war -- but I wouldn't bet on the blacks --
numbers and moral superiority don't win wars; disciplined armies and
weapons do.
This contradicts your earlier admiration of the Afrikaaners in their
defeat of the British Army. It also contradicts:
1) the success of the Afghans in their defeat of the British
2) the ability of the Afghans to force Russia into the current
stalemate
3) the success of our (US) revolution
4) the success of the French revolution
5) the success of the Bolshevik revolution
6) the success of the Haitian revolution against the French when
the Haitians became the first black country to defeat a colonial
power.
Military might alone is not enough, you need the will, determination
and support of the people. And yes, moral superiority does help when
it comes to the supreme sacrifice---it makes it easier if you know you
are dying for a morally superior cause. If you don't have a moral
basis for your struggle, it is a matter of time before the frequent
killing of school children gets to you.
The Afrikaaners are 20% of the population of SA; the whites were
only 5% of the population of Rhodesia, weren't nearly as tough or
well-armed as the SAs, and both ZANU and ZAPU were better-armed and
financed than the ANC.
The ANC suffers from a lack of will when it comes to taking up arms.
Some young radical blacks think that the ANC is being soft on the SA
regime. In a few more years when the younger and more militant ANC
members come into power, you will see something more like ZANU and
ZAPU. The ANC will then be receiving more aid from those commies. As
Ronald Reagan would say, you ain't see nothing yet! From what I have
read, right now the ANC receives more (humanitarian) aid from Europe
(Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries) than the (military) aid
from the commies.
Even if the SADF managed to wipe out the ANC today, unrest in SA will
not disappear. Other groups will emerge as there is enough resentment
of the current regime to support them.
At that, it took seven years of bloody guerrilla war for the blacks
to win in Rhodesia. How long would it take the SA blacks? Twenty
years to forever, depending.
Remember that Rhodesia had the support of SA. SA does not have the
support of any of its neighbors. If the Afrikaaners manage to survive
forever, other supremacist/hate/racist groups throughout the world
(e.g. Northern Ireland, Russia, Punjab, Japan, Indonesia, Iran, ....)
would adopt their techniques and we'll end up with a world where hate
groups are perpetually fighting each other (i.e. a stalemate). That
would be bad news for humanity and democracy.
The chance that the war will last forever ranges from very unlikely to
impossible. Here are the supporting arguments:
1) History: There is no war that has gone back all the way to the
ancient history. Furthermore there is no civilization that have
been supreme throughout history. Supposedly "barbaric" and
"inferior" cultures had managed to become dominant over time e.g.
a) the "barbarians" of Northern Europe during the height of the
ancient ROMAN and GREEK civilizations, b) the Monguls in Asia,
c) the more modern groups mentioned above.
2) Economic cost: A prolonged war makes apartheid the great
equalizer. While the Afrikaaners are expending a lot of
energy protecting their economically inefficient system, other
African nations further north (i.e. outside the war zone) will
be building up their economy. Even if there is no war, apartheid
is a very costly political system. It was estimated that SA's
economy would grow by an additional 2% if SA does not have to
incur the cost of propping up the apartheid system. Furthermore,
the Afrikaaners will opt for a growing population to offset their
numerical inferiority. They need a growing economy to sustain
their standard of living. That means trade with the rest of
Africa and the world. Already most of SA trade is with the other
countries of southern Africa. Trade with the rest of the world
means more transportation cost. More trade means a more
palatable political system in SA.
3) Technology: Even though SA has the technological edge now, that
is not going to last forever. The other African nations will
eventually become technologically superior. Already the
rate of technology transfer is speeding up as a result of the
armed conflict in southern Africa. E.g. The modern weapons
Savimbi is getting from the US. Remember SA would have to nuke
a large part of Africa (with a substantial ecological cost to SA)
in order to keep the blacks in line while all that is needed to
take care of SA (with a lower ecological cost to the African
nations as a whole) is to just nuke it. The other African
nations will eventually acquire nuclear, robotics and advanced
military technology. There is only one SA but many black African
nations. Each of these nations are experimenting with their
own form of political and economic system. Eventually one of
them will succeed and that is enough to take on SA. Hence the
odds are against the Afrikaaners.
Ironically the best chance for the survival of the Afrikaaners is the
dismantling of apartheid. Our best chance of a non-communist and
democratic SA is through negotiations. But the Afrikaaners have to be
forced to negotiate. Now they only want to negotiate with weak black
leaders so that they can dominate the negotiations. It might very
well turn out that we can pre-empt the commies by letting the war go
on for a little bit (like in Zimbabwe) and then get the parties (after
being sufficiently bruised) to negotiate.
And in the meantime we'd see the worst bloodbath outside of China
in this century, rivalling even the Holocaust. And almost all of
the blood that gets spilled will be black, and a fair amount of it
might well be Angolan, Mozambiquean, and Zimbabwean.
The cost in terms of human lives will have to be decided by the
blacks. If they think it is worth it, there is nothing anybody else
can do about it. So don't bother sheding any crocodile tears.
There is *no way* to *force* the Afrikaaners to hand over power.
The best we can do is to persuade the Afrikaaners to share power
with the black majority.
Agreed but I don't think that means that we have to kow-tow to the
Afrikaaners. Though it looks almost impossible now, a day might come
when the US (or some other non-Communist nation) begins providing
military aid to the foes of apartheid.
That means that the Afrikaaners need some guarantee that they'll be
able to keep their homes, land and way of life.
The modern way of life of the Afrikaaners have come about through very
statist means. About 40%-60% (I think the exact figure is in the high
end of this range) of the Afrikaaners (i.e. the labor force) are
employed by the SA government. The SA government has been responsible
for transforming the Afrikaaners from a poor rural people to a middle
class urban people. As far as they are concerned, keeping their way
of life means keeping their form of government.
If that offends your sense of justice and equity, tough.
Would you say the same thing of stubborn commies (or statists or
Nazis)? Or a stubborn terrorist group? Or of any group that has done
a great injustice to humanity? What does it take to offend your sense
of justice and equity?
If they don't get those guarantees, they will fight.
That attitude will change as the Afrikaaners become more and more
prosperous. They will acquire more marketable skills (i.e. become not
just bureaucrats, policemen and soldiers) that will allow them to make
a better living elsewhere. Then they will really have a choice. If
the choice is between a better living elsewhere like the US,
Australia, Canada, etc and the chaos is SA, the choice is obvious.
(Remember that a lot people with stronger and more justifiable roots
to their land have left their country of origin and emigrated to the
US.) Now many of them are so mediocre (skillwise) and dependent on
the government that they wouldn't make it anywhere else.
If they fight, many, many, many blacks will die and the blacks might
well lose anyway.
You seem to have a hidden desire for the blacks to lose. (I remember
reading something (I think it's from you) about SA going into robotics
to ensure their survival through eternity.) That ain't good news to
non-Afrikaaners (of any race). Suppose all the blacks in SA were to
disappear right now. You'll end up with something like Northern
Ireland---the non-Afrikaaner whites being the second class citizens
since the Afrikaaners will be the ones with the political, military
and economic power (they already do). They will have a preference for
their own kind when it comes to election, employment and economic
activities within SA. They will also be the legitimate majority of
the all-white SA. They have tolerated the non-Afrikaaner whites for
they pose the least threat.
.....The Afrikaaner has nowhere else to go, and, like anyone with
nowhere else to go, will fight to the death for his home and way of
life.
Neither do the blacks and so will the blacks.
Given this, will you still talk airily about the black majority
"taking over"?
Is it your point that there should not be a democracy in SA? Is
minority rule more preferable to a democracy in SA?
Will you go to SA and die with the blacks in pursuit of this pipe
dream?
A rather ridiculous suggestion for silencing those people who don't
agree with your views. Marcos, Stalin, Mao, Hilter, Amin, and Botha
must be proud of you. However they don't pretend they were/are living
in a democracy and thus don't have to tolerate opposing views. I
presume that someone with the same mentality as yours could pose the
question about you dying for the Catholics in Northern Ireland in
their fight for human rights.
The blacks don't need your condescension. They are not even asking
that you die for them, all they are asking is the right to determine
their own destiny. More and more blacks are prepared to make the
supreme sacrifice so that their descendants will have that right.
They have enough gallant fighters there that they don't need outsiders
to fight for them.
I am rather surprised that the blacks in SA are not already
communists. They have lived in a quasi-socialist system for a long
time with the SA government being the landlord and dictating to them
regarding a) where they can and cannot live, b) where and what they
can and cannot work, c) where their children is to get their
education, d) what news to listen to, e) what business they can and
cannot own, f) who has the right to vote, etc.
(Well that's all the flame I have for no. Have to go to sleep so that
I can get to cast my vote in about 7 hours. So enjoy our American
system of democracy meanwhile.)
Willie
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Friday, 12 Dec 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 110
Today's Topics:
South Africa (4 msgs) &
Elections &
Libertarian Places &
Drugs &
The Work Week
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 86 08:59:19 PST
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
To: cit-vax!XX.LCS.MIT.EDU!WLIM
Subject: [Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU> : Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6
Subject: #99]
Willie Lim writes at length in response to my comment about black
African countries not being democracies for the most part. His
message gives me hope. I had been aware of some of Zimbabwe's
success, thanks to an NPR report on agriculture there, and I tend to
avoid the Wall Street Journal. (As an aside, anyone want to help me
write a generic Wall Street Journal Editorial?) It is clear that
Willie at least does not believe that black rule, in and of itself, is
an automatic guarantee of peace, freedom, and prosperity for South
Africans of all races, which was my misinterpretation of an earlier
posting.
However, Zimbabwe and South Africa are somewhat different. As
others have pointed out, the Afrikaners (whom Willie appropriately
calls the "white tribe") is both larger and more deeply rooted in
South Africa than were the whites in Rhodesia. Also, Robert Mugabe's
tribe is a clear majority of the population in Zimbabwe. In South
Africa, the largest tribe is the Zulu, with some 6 million members of
a population in excess of 20 million. Thus my endorsement of
Kissinger's recommendation for a federal-style government for South
Africa rather than a parliamentary style one such as Zimbabwe adopted.
Michael Kinsey, author of "TRB from Washington" in the New
Republic and "Viewpoint" weekly on the Wall Street Journal's OpEd page
(did you see last week's? The one where he dismembered this year's
Nobel Economics Prize recipient and the WSJ's editorial support for
it?), has pointed out that by Jeanne Kirkpatrick's own criteria, South
Africa is a "totalitarian" and not an "authoritarian" regime, since
the government claims the power to decide where people can work and
live and whom they can marry. I think it is axiomatic that a
totalitarian state cannot have a free market, and thus Willie is also
correct that applying the term "capitalist" to SA is a misnomer.
So, I don't think Willie and I disagree at all, except perhaps
as to the means to arrive at the desired end, which is a fair "one
person, one vote" government for the long-suffering peoples of South
Africa. I hope he is correct that the movement away from centrally
planned economies in Africa is far-reaching and permanent. If true,
it is the most hopeful thing to happen on that continent since
decolonization.
Steve Walton
------------------------------
Date: Tue 4 Nov 86 13:46:48-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: [Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU> : Re: Poli-Sci Digest
Subject: V6 #99]
To: ametek!walton@CSVAX.CALTECH.EDU
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
So, I don't think Willie and I disagree at all, except perhaps as
to the means to arrive at the desired end, which is a fair "one
person, one vote" government for the long-suffering peoples of
South Africa.
Yes Steve, we both (and so do most freedom leaving people) want to see
a stable, prosperous, democratic and non-communist SA, perhaps one
with a well-written Bill of Rights.
I hope he is correct that the movement away from centrally
planned economies in Africa is far-reaching and permanent.
That is my hope too. Already our (the West's) favorite, the
not-so-left Chissano (but sigh, still a Marxist), has been elected by
Mozambique's ruling elite to be the head of state. The future of
Mozambique is very dependent on whether SA wants to continue
distablizing it and on whether Chissano can attract investments from
the West. In general, it is up to the Africans to make their
economies work. We already got enough propaganda points from them on
the failure of Marxism.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 86 09:08:30 PST
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
Subject: Lim's latest flame
Cc: WLIM@xx.lcs.mit.edu
This piece is beneath contempt or reply.
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 4 Nov 86 13:32:16-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lim's latest flame
To: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
This piece is beneath contempt or reply.
Those of you who think that have not read Rick's short personal reply
to me.
For heaven sake, please don't shut up. That defeats the purpose of
free speech. Tell me where I am wrong factually and I'll send in "a
thousand" retractions and apologies. The last thing I want to see is
our system of zero censorship being replaced by one of irrational
self-censorship.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < tim@ICSD.UCI.EDU>
To: cap@ics.UCI.EDU
Subject: LA Times editorial
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 86 09:44:48 -0800
From: Tim Shimeall < tim@ICSD.UCI.EDU>
On Sunday, November 9, 1986 an editorial appeared in the Opinion
section of the LA Times. It was entitled "The Campaign That Couldn't
Win: When Rose Bird Ran Her Own Defeat" and was written by Bill
Zimmerman, a partner in the political consulting firm of Zimmerman,
Galanty, Fiman and Dixon. This article is very well-written, and full
of information on the history of Former California Chief Justice Rose
Bird's losing bid for reconfirmation, but that isn't why I'm brining
it to your attention. In the midst of discussing Rose Bird's
election, Mr. Zimmerman makes the following, more general points:
"Attacking negative TV spots has become popular sport this season. But
Bird forgot a few essential points. First, negative campaigns have
been part of the American electoral landscape since the founding of
the republic. Early American candidates regularly attacked each other
for corruption, dishonesty, illegitimate children -- even treason.
Second, a political campaign, like a trial in a court of law, has but
one objective -- to win. [...]
Third, and most important, attacking negative campaign tactics is
dealing with effect, not cause. Negative tactics are used -- I use
them -- because they work. Negative TV spots work for one reason
only: The portion of the electorate that is moved by them is woefully
uninformed about political affairs. If they were properly informed,
they would hardly be affected by mere video headlines, or manipulated
by such thin presentations of complex public policy issues.
[long hot discussion on the limitations of schools and news media for
political education, ending with:]
Thanks to our schools and press, we are now a nation where two-thirds
of the eligable voters regularly stay home; according to a recent
study, perhaps one-quarter of our adult citizens are too illiterate to
read the news even if they were motivated to do so. Television, which
reaches more people than any other medium, demeans news (and perhaps
knowlege itself) with cursory glances at major world events and
insistent coverage of the day's high temperature at various recording
points around the city. Is it any wonder negative political
commercials work in such an environment?"
Points to ponder:
- In such a political climate, how are we ever going to effect
change on such major complex issues as SDI, arms control/LOWC, etc.?
- If the schools and the media fail as political education sources
for the electorate, what should be done?
Tim
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 86 20:11:31 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Libertarian places
To: CCCRAIG%UMCVMB.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
From: CCCRAIG%UMCVMB.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU (Craig Pepmiller)
I've been following the discussion for awhile and have been
wondering why concrete examples haven't been mentioned. Are there
any practicing libertarian cities, counties, states or
countries?... If there are no full examples could anyone list
partial examples (those cities, states and nations that have come
the closest) and give some measure of how close they have come?
Well, marijuana is legal in Alaska, gambling and prostitution are
legal in Nevada, and gambling is legal in New Jersey. I don't think
these places are plagued with any horrible problems as a result of
these freedoms.
No place I am aware of grants full economic freedoms.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < weemba@brahms.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 86 16:12:10 PST
From: weemba@brahms.berkeley.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
> If there is a market for it, black-market needles should be just
> as available as black-market drugs. The very same forces you claim
> are making drugs so available (massive market) should be making
> illegal needles readily available. I wonder why not? [CWN]
Why do you think they call it dope?
Junkies have very damaged minds. They are possessed by their
addiction, and ignore their potential health. After all, they are
destroying them- selves physically as it is. Many, indeed, are
suicidal. They'll take their fix any way they can get it, no matter
what the cost. And the pushers know it.
Nor do junkies get their information--assuming they are capable of
comprehending it--from the same places that us educated net readers
do. They rely on street talk. Most junkies can delude themselves
that one quick rinse with water cleans off the germs.
Finally, from a purely economic point of view, the illegal drug
business is well established, the illegal needle business is not.
Drugs are ludicrously profitable, needles are not. Drugs are the
ultimate sellers' mar- ket.
You may hate the phrase "it is obvious", but I consider the above to
be well known.
ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 86 20:48:14 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Work week
To: COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: Richard A. Cowan < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
... I say why not go to a 30-hour week.
I say who is stopping you? Nothing prevents you from making
arrangements with your employer to work 30 hours a week, or 30
minutes, or 80 hours, or whatever you would like.
Or are you saying the rest of us should be forced to work no more
than 30 hours per week? What is to prevent us? Should people be
imprisoned or put to death for working too much? Should employers be
forced to pay people the same wages for 3/4 as much work, even if it
drives them bankrupt? Or should employees be forced to accept 3/4 the
wages, even if it drives them to poverty?
Ten hours more free time to be creative beats the advantages of
the wasteful products that work would create any day.
Who decides which products are wasteful? On what grounds?
Perhaps this is going out to the wrong audience, because we are
members of a privileged elite that is allowed to be creative.
Others are forbidden from being creative? By whom?
Am I to take it that members of this elite are to be allowed to work
40 or more hours a week? It is only the peons that are to be denied
their freedom?
What will guarantee that these commoners spend their ten extra hours
being creative, rather than drinking beer and watching TV? Is there
to be a Thought Police checking up on them? Will the Thought Police
also be restricted to 30 hours weeks, or are they part of the C.E.?
Never trust a man who proclaims himself a member of an elite.
Especially if he includes you in the elite and excludes most everyone
else.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 16 Dec 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 111
Today's Topics:
Scientists and SDI &
The Miracle of Teflon &
What to Teach &
Drug Testing &
Idealogues &
The Roads must Roll (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 86 08:31:12 PST
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Subject: Scientists and SDI
In Poli-Sci V6 #103, Clayton Cramer writes,
I've noticed that many of the opponents of SDI keep talking about
how many "top" scientists have signed petitions denying that SDI is
feasible. The "Nuclear Winter" hypothesis also had a similar
addendum -- 100 "top" scientists signed it. (I say "hypothesis"
because from what I've read, the assumptions involved are
idealized, and consistently idealized in a manner that finds for
"nuclear winter").
The initial results were preliminary and idealized, of course. That's
the way of science. More research shows that nuclear winter depends
to a large extent on time of year and exact geographical distribution
of attacks. Your knife cuts both ways--those employed by DoD
consistently use assumptions which minimize the dangers of nuclear
winter. Please read the last couple of years' worth of Science
magazine articles on the issue.
I'm reminded of what happened in the mid-1930s when 100 "top German
physicists" (or so they styled themselves) issued a denunciation of
"Jewish physics", aimed specifically at Einstein and relativity.
As Einstein said, "It would only have taken one, if I was wrong."
There is a big difference between this and SDI. First, it was clear
that these self-styled physicists were wrong, since anyone could
perform the experiments which proved Einstein correct. Second, it was
clear that this action was taken because of anti-Jewish prejudice, not
out of concern that taxpayers' money was being squandered. And
finally, the petition was signed at the "request" (read demand) of the
government at the time, and was not in opposition to government
policy, as the SDI petitions have been. Scientists are just as
fearful of being carted away by a totalitarian government as anyone
else, perhaps more so, since they tend to be the kind of free thinkers
such governments find troublesome.
Perhaps this is just characteristic of a collectivized approach to
things common in some circles, but this entire "group denunciation"
and "group validation" of public policy issues smacks of politics--
not science.
But that's exactly the point--the decisions now being made about SDI
are being made purely because of political reasons, not because of the
results of scientific research. No one in the Administration wants to
come out and say, "We don't know how to make nuclear weapons 'impotent
and obsolete' and we don't think it's possible," because that would
embarrass the President and cost them cushy jobs in SDIO.
Nevertheless, much comes out. Richard Perle was quoted in the Time
magazine special issue on SDI as saying, "Get rid of deterrence? Who
said anything about getting rid of deterrence?" (Your President, Dr.
Perle.) NO REPUTABLE SCIENTIST believes that a leakproof population
defense against 10,000 Soviet warheads is possible. Even a 99%
effective defense would allow 100 warheads through, ample to make the
United States extinct as a functioning political entity.
Moreover, the entire arms race is largely political. As a
writer in the Opinion section of the Nov. 9 LA Times pointed out, the
English and French have enough nuclear warheads to destroy us too, and
we don't lose much sleep over them. The Administration and the
President, as is the wont of the technologically illiterate, are
looking for a technological quick fix to get them out of a difficult
political problem which they lack the will and the ideas to solve.
Steve Walton
------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Tue 11 Nov 86 17:39:23-PST
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: Teflon Presidency
Can I think of anything remotely within the realm of possibility that
would cause the public to lose faith in Reagan? Well, I can think of
two things: economic disaster or Reagan becoming alcoholic. Both of
those things have caused other political leaders to fall. Of course,
the economic trouble would have to be fairly prolonged and affect a
lot of people for it to hurt Reagan's popularity. People accept a
constant unemployment rate higher than used to be acceptable, but
skyrocketing inflation might hurt him. I don't think I need to make a
list of the respectable politicians who have done things under the
influence of alcohol which have ruined their careers, and
conservatives like Reagan certainly aren't immune to this failing.
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
------------------------------
Return-path: < research!alice!ark@seismo.CSS.GOV>
From: research!alice!ark@seismo.CSS.GOV
Date: 12 Nov 86 03:40:51 GMT
Subject: Re: "Creation science"
KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP writes:
>
> None at all. That was exactly my point. If people are going to
> be forced to pay for education they should have control over what is
> taught. If we, the scientists, find that what the public wants
> taught is bogus, we should perhaps try to find another way to
> finance the schools. We have no right to impose our opinions on
> others, even though we are right and they are wrong.
Are you really suggesting that school curricula should be decided
purely by majority rule with out reference to truth?
I'll put it another way. Suppose majority of taxpayers in an area
have become convinced that 2+2=5. Should they actually be able to
force schools to stop teaching that 2+2=4?
------------------------------
Return-path: < hao!gaia!jon@seismo.CSS.GOV>
From: hao!gaia!jon@seismo.CSS.GOV
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 86 23:37:42 mst
Subject: Re: pre-employment drug tests
Hank.Walker@GAUSS.ECE.CMU.EDU writes:
> If I buy a car, is it okay for me to have a mechanic inspect it
> first? If I buy a house, can a contractor look it over?
This, in my mind, implies that you are treating people the same way
you treat cars and houses -- as property. A car has no privacy to be
invaded. When you buy a house, you have done just that: *bought* it.
You own it. I suppose that if you regard an employee as another
object to be owned, then your point of view makes a little bit of
sense. I don't know about you, but I am not owned by anybody but me,
and the details of what I do with my body are my own business.
> These
> conditions may not affect the performance of the person on the job,
> but they may mean that I can't amortize my investment.
While you're at it, you had better check up on the state of their
marriage; you never know what might happen during a divorce. I guess
you really should make sure they don't do anything crazy like mountain
climbing or bicycle-riding -- people die that way all the time, and
you may not be able to "amortize" your investment. Check their
driving record -- speeding kills too. Make sure they don't have any
enemies. This sort of list can go on forever, and I really don't see
where you draw the line between this sort of snooping and drug
testing.
The local Anheuser-Busch (sp?) brewery is instituting drug tests.
Given the business that they are in, can you really imagine that drugs
concern them?
--
Jonathan Corbet
{hao | nbires}!gaia!jon
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 86 23:43:15 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Idealogues?
To: hofmann@NRL-CSS.ARPA
From: Jim Hofmann < hofmann@nrl-css.arpa>
Libertarians? Objectiveists? You all sound like idealogues to
me...
An idealogue is simply someone who has ideas and considers them
important. I know that ideas are unpopular among Democrats and
Republicans, but I will accept the label "idealogue" and wear it with
pride.
you will only be sa}itisified when there is no one else around who
disagrees with you
I will be satisfied when people think for themselves instead of
spouting the same old slogans.
(mainly because you are uncomfortable with discrepancies in your
philosphies).
There can be no discrepancies in Democrat or Republican
philosophies, as they don't have any philosophies. Since you don't
like "idealogues", it is clear that you agree that reacting in a knee
jerk fashion, according to whim or the latest opinion polls, is your
highest ideal xDof a leader.
In a certain South American country wreaked by years of political/
social/ and literal warfare on the people, the mobs no longer
chant "rightist" or "leftists" slogans; their cries are roughly
translated as : "No More Fanatics!"
I fully sympathize. Who is a fanatic? Do you think they mean
people devoted to warfare and terrorism? Do you think that
libertarians and objectivists promote warfare and terrorism? Do you
think that by "fanatic" they actually mean "person who disagrees with
Jim Hoffman about anything"?
I think the people of this world are fed up with people who
profess these quasi-religous ideologies and try to force them to
submit to the laws and gov'ts they set up to support their
"religion". ...
Couldn't have said it better myself!
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 86 23:40:19 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
To: COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: Richard A. Cowan < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
... There have to be some laws;
Agreed.
there have to be roads for businesses to use.
Right. Which business should pay the cost of their use of. And
which can and should be privately built, maintained, and owned.
There have to be workweek limits, if you want to avoid slave
conditions for labor.
Evidence, please?
There has to be transit, ...
Which should be privately built, maintained, and owned.
Libertarianism may put the individual above the State, but it
still does not put the individual above the Corporate State.
This doesn't make any sense. The individual is above everything,
unless he personally chooses to place something above himself (such as
a religion). Libertarians and objectivists all believe this.
... I don't see any reason why power -- this means wealth, too --
cannot be distributed among greater numbers of hands.
Wealth and power are totally different.
Power should be distributed evenly among the population. Wealth
should belong to whoever creates it, unless he decides to trade it or
to give it away.
Trends would suggest that, if anything, power is becoming more
concentrated. An article in last Sunday's New York Times magazine
on the distribution of wealth is excellent.
Wealth and power are not the same. Mentioning them interchangably
won't make them the same.
I don't think it matters how concentrated wealth is. Wealth belongs
to those who create it. If it is routinely stolen from them, they
will stop creating it. The bottom ten percent income group today is
wealthier than the middle class was 100 years ago.
Even if wealth did not "trickle down", which it does, there would
still be no justification to steal from the individuals who created
the wealth. You are free to give your wealth to the poor, and to talk
others into doing the same. You are not free to take wealth from
others against their will, even if you have talked 99% of the
population into agreeing with you that doing so would be a good idea.
Communications technologies ... will allow those in power to exert
greater control over ever greater numbers of people.
Which is one of the reasons why communitions media must be privately
owned, rather than controlled by the government as in communist
countries.
... New forms of organizing societies, neither completely
socialist nor capitalist, which do not create the "forms of life"
which traditional systems do, are necessary.
I have seen no evidence for this.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < dual!paul@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 86 08:59:19 pst
From: dual!paul@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Paul Wilcox-Baker)
Subject: Road-users paying for it
> Foo. Charging owners of private automobiles the full cost of
> building and maintaining the roadways is hardly a free market
> economy. The roadways are a classic example of "neighbourhood
> effect"; every one of us derives benefit from the roads, whether we
> drive an automobile or not.
What kind of benefits did you have in mind? Smog or being maimed and
injured or killed.
> Virtually every good that you purchase travels some part of its
> journey from field or factory to store via truck
This is currently true, but is no reason why the users of roads should
not pay for them. The current road subsidy is largely responsible for
the heavy use of trucks. Without the road subsidies, and particularly
the almost free-to-user "Interstates" much more traffic would move by
rail.
> ambulances, police
> cars and emergency vehicles of all sorts use and require an
> extensive road network.
Ambulances, police cars and emergency vehicles only really require a
network of local roads. Given that well over 50% of accidents and
emergencies are caused by or related to automobile traffic anyway, it
would seem reasonable that road-users pay for this too. Perhaps they
can subsidize non-road users for a change.
> Given that, the road network will exist anyway. The marginal cost
> per automobile is pretty small.
I am not convinced that the marginal cost per automobile is small.
The road network only exists in the form it does today because it is
heavily subsidised.
> In sum, the roads perform a variety of useful services besides
> getting people from A to B.
This is absolute drivel. The ONLY service roads provide is to get
objects from A to B. In all other respects they are very
unsatisfactory. They are dangerous, killing ten of thousands a year.
They are the chief cause of pollution in most cities. How close to a
Freeway would you like to live?
> All mass transit does is get people from A to B slowly, and in
> discomfort. The only beneficiaries are the small minority of
> individuals for whom the mass transit system's service nearly
> approximates an automobiles.
Once again little of this is true. Mass Transit benefits everyone,
even drivers. Every person who travels by public transit leaves extra
room on road for those who are not travelling by public transit. Also
in the Bay Area and other real city areas, the "minority" that uses
public transit is far from small. Certainly the Los Angeles solution
of building ever wider Freeways at taxpayer's expense is no solution.
The result is always the same: the congestion that was to be reduced
by the new Freeway is moved to another section of road. In the end
you get a sprawling city of clogged roads.
Paul Wilcox-Baker.
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 16 Dec 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 112
Today's Topics:
English as Official Language &
Equal Pay &
Scientists and SDI &
The Miracle of Teflon &
The Second Amendment (2 msgs) &
Drug Tests &
Drugs &
Satnet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP>
From: merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 86 11:54:46 EST
From: "David S. Hayes" < hqda-ai!merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP>
Subject: English as Official Language in CA
I recall an article in Time magazine a few weeks ago.
It referred to a referendum on the California state
ballot for the election just completed. The referendum
would have designated English as the official language
of the State of California, or something like that.
1. Can anyone tell me exactly what the referendum proposed?
2. What are the practical effects of the measure?
3. Did it pass?
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 86 16:14:37 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Salaries
To: testa-j%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA
From: ~joe testa~ < testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
... if women work just as hard as men, and are willing to work
for a lower salary than men, then a company which
discriminates against women is at a strong competitive
disadvantage ...
... How 'bout putting it another way: "if women work just as hard
as men, and must settle for jobs at a lower salary than men, then
a company }i which will not hire women is at a strong competitive
disadvantage."
I think this more accurately reflects what really happens.
You distinguish between "willing to work for" and "must settle for".
I don't see the distinction.
Can I say that I am NOT willing to work for less that one million
dollars a year but I must settle for a salary which is much less?
Does that distiction make any sense, given that I obviously AM willing
to work for the lower salary since I am in fact doing so?
But this is beside the point. The point is that salaries are
decided by the mutual consent of employee and employer, and there is
no justification for any third party to limit the free choices made by
free individuals. If it were forbidden to hire women for less than
men make, many women would become unemployed.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri 14 Nov 86 00:23:37-EST
From: Richard A. Cowan < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: How Many Scientists' Signatures Do You Need
To: kontron!cramer@TOPAZ.RUTGERS.EDU
Clayton Cramer compares scientists supporting nuclear winter to
scientists in Germany opposing "Jewish physics." Then he lumps the
whole shebang under the evil title "politics" and likens it to the
anti-SDI pledge.
The analogy is flawed. German physicists who signed the pledge
weren't refusing money by doing so; I assume they were supporting
Government policy. The nuclear winter people weren't really refusing
money either. What makes the anti-SDI pledge remarkable is that the
scientists have refused a large amount of money offered to them.
Is the SDI pledge a political act? Of course it is. It's a judgement
that requires blending science and politics. I'd trust scientists
with scientific-political judgements more than politicians!
Rich
------------------------------
Return-path: < ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@LLL-MFE.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 86 12:06 EST
From: ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@LLL-MFE.ARPA
Subject: Reagan, again
Steve Upstill challenges us to tell him anything
"remotely within the realm of possibility that Reagan could
do to cause the public to lose faith in him". How about if
he announced that he wanted to raise taxes and eliminate
social security? As for the situation in Nicaragua, most people
probably feel that Reagan either doesn't really know what is
going on or else he has somehow been convinced by his advisors
to take a somewhat irrational course. But you have to give
him credit for sticking to his guns. He said that he would
oppose communism in Central America when he first ran for office.
Stan Attenberger
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 86 18:31:26 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: What does the Constitution mean?
To: oswald!jim@LL-XN.ARPA
----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1986 10:40:03 EDT
From: oswald!jim@ll-xn.ARPA
Subject: Re: The 2nd Amendment
Many people claim that the second amendment provides the general
populace a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This is
demonstrably false.
For many years, localities such as New York City have had laws
which abridge this putative right. Many people have been
convicted of violating these laws. During all this time, the
Supreme Court has never overturned such a conviction due to
conflict with the second amentment. If the Court really believed
that such a right existed, the NRA would have found a suitable
test case decades ago. The Court's silence speaks volumes.
What the anti-gun-control people really mean is that *they* (not
the Court) interpret the amendment to provide such a right.
Anyone can interpret the constitution, but only the Court's
interpretation really counts. By letting gun control laws stand,
the Court has decided that a general right to keep and bear arms
does not exist.
-- Jim Olsen
----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2036 10:40:03 EDT
From: oswald!foolwell@ll-xn.ARPA
Subject: Re: The 1st Amendment
Many people claim that the first amendment provides the general
populace a constitutional right to say and write what they wish.
This is demonstrably false.
For many years, localities such as New Christ City have had laws
which abridge this putative right. Many people have been
convicted of violating these laws. During all this time, the
Supreme Court has never overturned such a conviction due to
conflict with the first amentment. If the Court really believed
that such a right existed, the ACLU would have found a suitable
test case decades ago. The Court's silence speaks volumes.
What the anti-book-control people really mean is that *they* (not
the Court) interpret the amendment to provide such a right.
Anyone can interpret the constitution, but only the Court's
interpretation really counts. By letting book control laws stand,
the Court has decided that a general right to write whatever one
wants does not exist.
-- Jarry Foolwell
----------------------------------------
'nuff said.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < oswald!jim@ll-xn.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 86 02:00:02 EST
From: oswald!jim@ll-xn.ARPA
Subject: Re: Tests of constitutionality
In a recent article, mwm%opal.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU writes:
> > Many people claim that the second amendment provides the general
> > populace a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This is
> > demonstrably false.
>
> It would be interesting to see that demonstration.
O.K. The Supreme Court doesn't have a monopoly on legal
interpretation of the U.S. constitution. Every court, both federal
and state, is bound to enforce, and therefore to interpret, the
constitution. The Supreme Court's interpretetions bind all lower
courts, but where the Supreme Court is silent, lower court rulings are
binding. Without exception, every gun control case that has come
before the courts has denied the existence of a general right to keep
and bear arms. Such a general right therefore does not exist. Q.E.D.
> Aren't malleable rights fun?
Of course. Constitutional rights are LEGAL rights, not NATURAL
rights, and are therefore quite mutable. Before Roe v. Wade, there
was no constitutional right to an abortion. Now, there is such a
right. In future the Court may recind the constitutional right to an
abortion.
I merely assert that a general right to keep and bear arms does not
exist. The question 'will such a right exist in the future?' is a
speculative one. I see no groundswell of legal opinion in favor of
such a general right, so I think its estabishment unlikely in the near
future.
--
Jim Olsen ...!{decvax,lll-crg,mit-eddie,seismo}!ll-xn!oswald!jim
---
Jim Olsen ...!{decvax,lll-crg,mit-eddie,seismo}!ll-xn!oswald!jim
------------------------------
Return-path: < hao!gaia!zhahai@seismo.CSS.GOV>
Subject: Re: pre-employment drug tests
Hank.Walker@GAUSS.ECE.CMU.EDU writes: (In support of drug testings,
AIDS testing, etc. for prospective employees):
>
> If I buy a car, is it okay for me to have a mechanic inspect it
> first? If I buy a house, can a contractor look it over? < ...>
If you buy a person, isn't it OK to check them out? Why stop at drug
tests, do a personality test, political check, racial background
check, etc. to protect your investment and make sure you can amortize
it. I really do appreciate you being so clear about your attitudes,
since all of your analogies are with objects without civil rights;
apparently the only difference between hiring a human and buying a
coke is that you have a better idea how the coke is going to turn out.
I think your frankness is wonderful; you have expressed the true core
of your differences from those who promote human and civil rights
better than any opponent would have dared, in fear of slandering you.
Zhahai Stewart
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 86 15:15:51 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Dirty needles
[ Another left-field analogy. Isn't this a rather small band-aid
for a somewhat larger (and different) wound?
Not when you look at it as part of a program to legalize all
victimless "crimes".
If there is a market for it, black-market needles should be
just as available as black-market drugs. The very same forces you
claim are making drugs so available (massive market) should be
making illegal needles readily available. ...
Right. But of unknown quality and at a high price. This is what
happens when something is made illegal. It is just like the misguided
alcohol prohibition of the 1920s.
In any event, I am suspicious of any 'facts' containing the
phrases 'it is likely' and 'would tend to'. -CWM]
Even when the events in question can be read about in any daily
paper?
Please explain why you think a person should not be allowed to put
whatever he chooses into his own body. Why should government have a
claim on your body?
...Keith
[ I find you position a trifle inconsistant. If a person can put
anything they want into their bodies, shouldn't that person be
responsible for the consequenses? Doesn't that include diseases? Or
does your libertarian government decide that it does things 'for the
people's own good' too? In any event, the libertarian government of
NYC has decided to go along with you, and is providing free needles.
-CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 86 16:17:43 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Satnet
To: swa@COMET.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: swa@COMET.LCS.MIT.EDU (Steven Augart)
... BBN is ... seriously considering routing ARPAnet traffic over
Satnet (the wideband satellite-based network, which has a
lightspeed roundtrip delay of 2 seconds.)
Why is this a move of desperation? Sounds like they should have
done it years ago. Any 2 second delay would be lost in the noise.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Thursday, 18 Dec 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 113
Today's Topics:
Governmentlessness &
Transportation (2 msgs) &
Unproductiveness &
Ideological purity (3 msgs) &
Taxation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri 14 Nov 86 01:09:05-EST
From: Richard A. Cowan < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: No LiServant Class and Limits to Suffering
To: fagin%ji.berkeley@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
Barry,
A quick comment on your second response to me. You concentrate on
the things that would be better without government intervention, but
completely ignores the things that would be worse.
Yes, some of the difficulties I point out would be eliminated under
more complete private ownership. But what about new problems? What
would be the lifestyle of the people who owned least? Would they
become a "servant class," like many Mexican-Americans in California?
How would you be sure that they would not starve? Where is there a
check on the "free market" that limits the amount of human suffering?
The answer is that there isn't.
Rich
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 86 16:33:18 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Transportation
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU,
To: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
Cc: ametek!walton@CSVAX.CALTECH.EDU
I think there is little point in arguing against statism by
asserting that everything the government does gets screwed up. The
majority of it does, but there are occasional successes, which are not
surprising considering that trillions of dollars are spent.
For instance the Washington DC subway system is clean and runs
smoothly and is well lit and free of crime. This is unsurprising when
you learn that it cost several BILLION dollars. Of course it hasn't a
hope of breaking even. Fares would have to be set to about $100 with
no reduction of ridership for it to pay for itself. It would have
cost much less for the government to have purchased a new car for
everyone within two miles of a subway station.
Unlike many libertarians I am no great fan of the automobile. I
think cars are too expensive, ugly, and much too dangerous. I think
that if drivers had to pay the full cost of the roads they use that
there would be more of a market for mass transit. I like mass
transit. If only it weren't run by the government and didn't have to
compete with subsidized cars and didn't get stuck in traffic jams
caused by cars, it would be much more convenient.
Ironically, it is mostly drivers that DO pay for the roads, so they
aren't really getting a free ride (no pun intended). However, they
are paying much of the cost of driving in the form of taxes, taxes
that wouldn't be any lower if they stopped driving. So they have no
incentive to drive less. Also, while it is cars that cause traffic
jams, an individual who switches to riding the bus will still get
caught in traffic jams, since not everyone else switches at the same
time. (In some areas, highway lanes are set aside for buses, which I
think is a good idea.)
One reason why so much commuting is done is because of zoning laws,
which force people to live far from where they work.
Cars cost more than they should because of pro-union laws,
protectionist import tariffs, overregulation of factories, and
taxation of factories and dealerships. Roads cost (the user) less
than they should - usage is free. I don't know how it would all
balance out if there were no taxes or subsidies.
The transportation question is a complicated one, and there is
little hope of being able to figure out what is most efficient until
government stops shifting money around and lets the free market sort
things out.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat 15 Nov 86 22:17:08-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Transportation
To: KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU,
Cc: ametek!walton@CSVAX.CALTECH.EDU
From: KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU
I think there is little point in arguing against statism by
asserting that everything the government does gets screwed up.
Agreed. The assertion implies that when there exists a government,
there exist screw-ups. It seems to be a cope-out by implying that the
situation is hopeless. I don't think it is.
The majority of it does, but there are occasional successes, which
are not surprising considering that trillions of dollars are spent.
It is even more surprising that there are successes without such a
high price tag. Take for example Singapore. A few years ago (I don't
have the latest information) its airline ranked among the top 3 in the
world---it was up there with Japan Airlines and Pan Am. SIA
(Singapore International Airline) is also very profitable. So is its
postal service. It has a good educational system and its state
universities are among the best in the region (it also has a small
number of private universities). They seem to have a good
accountability system e.g. they do act on "customer" complaints in
their postal and rent collection services. They do punish incompetent
and corrupt government employees. They have effective measures to
prevent police officers and other government officials from taking
petty bribes (this is still a problem in some countries in that
region). Their government has developed and implemented very
successful economic plans (this is also true of countries like South
Korea, Taiwan and Malaysia). The government has played a very
important and active role in making the economy grow at rapid rates.
In about 20 or so years, Singapore was transformed from a society that
was economically dependent on the presence of a huge British base to a
rapidly industrializing, middle-class society. Their new economic
plan calls for moving into high tech (AI, biotech, agri-business,
wafer processing, etc) and there are also plans to encourage more
entrepreneurial participation in the economy.
I can also mention the highly successful school system of Iceland
(they have one of the highest if not the highest literacy rate in the
world) or at a local level, the public school systems of Massachusetts
towns like Lexington, Lincoln, or Weston. One can also include the
successful school system of Marxist leaning countries like Tanzania
which has the highest literacy rate in Africa. Or for that matter,
notice how statist countries like China have been able to solve the
problem of starvation a lot better than some less statist countries.
There seem to be two solutions for tackling the problem of government
incompetence---privatization and better accountability. Privatization
is feasible only to an extent, there are still things that only the
government can do (e.g. maintaining the court system, national
defense). Hence the second solution is always needed.
I do think that government can be made to do a better job (in those
things that only the government can do) if we adopt a good
accountability system at all levels of government. I don't see why
market-based incentives should not be used inside the government to
make it more efficient. Consider a government agency that is supposed
to show a profit e.g. the postal service. If it is losing money, fire
the person at the top and all his/her closest aides. If the agency
makes a profit, give them a reward. Also allow the top guy to take
those actions (together with the responsibilities) that any CEO can
take e.g. accept whichever bids he/she thinks is the best, hire and
fire workers when he/she needs to, cut services when necessary, etc.
However not all government agencies have a such clear-cut performance
measure. Other measures (I don't know what yet) will have to be
developed.
(-: However there is a danger of an efficient government, in the wrong
hands it can do bad things very efficiently. So maybe we should keep
the government in the current incompetent state. That will also keep
those who are into government bashing busy. :-)
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri 14 Nov 86 01:07:22-EST
From: Richard A. Cowan < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Unnecessary Goods and Laundry
To: fagin%ji.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
How do you define "unnecessary?" Barry Fagin asks.
Let me give an example of "unproductive economic activity" told by
Seymour Melman at MIT last week. He said, "I do your wash, you do my
wash, we pay each other a dollar, and the GNP goes up two dollars."
Regarding Barry's question--
C'mon, Rich. Just what are 'unnecessary goods'? Unnecessary as
in 'unnecessary for survival'? As in 'shouldn't be produced?' In
whose opinion? Yours? Mine? The State Office of Industrial
Production?
He assumes I advocate a tribunal to decide which brands of paper
towels are necessary and which are not. This is not correct. I am
saying that the economic system makes decisions for us, which actively
promote certain types of activity which would not take place if the
ground rules were different. Under alternative ground rules, the
whole society would be better off: the benefits of prosperity would be
shared by more people. Yes, I am making a judgement that greater
distribution of wealth would be desirable. Would you disagree?
The "free market" is really a myth; today, even in the purest
capitalist system you must have lots of rules and regulations that
define how the market works. That's why the US is now giving China
intensive training in how to organize Western style trading. Whether
these rules promote economic growth tantamount to Melman's laundry
example or not depends on how they are designed. This is a conscious
decision; there is no one way to do it that is "freer" than another.
Rich
P.S. I have never read Galbraith. Don't attribute my views to his
influence.
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 86 17:15:25 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Ideological purity
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Despite all your objections to government subsidies, you are
actually dependent on one.
I would say I USE one (several actually); I am not DEPENDENT on one.
I also use the public roads, ride the subsidized bus, work on
government contracts at work, and put out the trash for the town to
haul away, etc. I am sorry if this makes me ideologically impure by
your standards. I would be glad to give it all up in a minute if I
could thereby exempt myself from all taxes.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat 15 Nov 86 19:55:25-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ideological purity
To: KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
I am sorry if this makes me ideologically impure by your standards.
I would be glad to give it all up in a minute if I could thereby
exempt myself from all taxes.
Keith, I didn't mean to pick on you. I was just trying to illustrate
the tendency of people to exploit (and perhaps knowingly or
unknowingly become dependent on) handouts be it from the government or
from private sources. The problem with handouts from the government
is that the accountability system is so weak and/or the time lag is so
long that such abuses never get effectively curbed.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < ucsbcsl!uncle@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 86 20:18:01 pst
From: < ucsbcsl!uncle@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: self-deception, asymmetry, socio-political dishonesty
a certain, obsessive contributor to this bingeboard
maintains ad infinitem that governments have an
infinite potential for evil, whereas billionaires,
businesses, etc. have an infinitesimal potential for evil;
the aforementioned contributor "substantiates" his conjecture
with a "validation" based upon picking up, moving, and changing
your name to escape the "circumscribed", "limited" potential
for evil of privately enterprizing no-good-niks! Well, mr.
prolific renunciant of reality, did you know, for example, that
dr. pepper purchased in anaheim has the same contents as dr. pepper
purchased in alabama? (Dr. pepper contains "poly-ethylene-glycol");
The CIA/KGB have offices everywhere, too. And, for that matter,
so do e-f-hutton etc. WHY DON'T YOU QUIT YOUR ARBITRARY AND
PATENTLY UNFOUNDED EXCULPATION OF ONE SOURCE OF EXCESSIVE
POWER, mr prolific libation-terrier!!!! *ALL* EXCESSIVE
CONCENTRATIONS OF POWER ARE BAD, ALL, NOT JUST SOME, NOT
JUST THE ONES YOU CONSIDER TO BE YOUR PALS!!!!
ZZ (another vi typo)
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.......
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 86 16:40:06 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Taxes
... I'm rather suprised you would designate taxes as being like a
contribution! Taxes are coerced out of people, it is not at all
like giving food to the poor. The IRS will not take away your
house if you don't give food to the poor. -CWM]
Taxes are not voluntary contributions. However, since tax rates are
set by the people we elect, the amount of tax money that goes to a
given cause is usually roughly equal to the amount that would go to
that cause if the contributions were truly voluntary.
For instance if half the people think that the space program should
get $100 per person per year, and the other half think it should get
$200 per person per year, the government (if truly representative)
would spend about $150 per person per year on the space program.
This is unfair to those who don't choose to spend that much. If the
space program were to be financed entirely by voluntary donations, it
would receive the same amount.
...Keith
[ I find no real proof of this. I don't buy that people would take
their tax monies, turn right around and spend it on exactly what their
taxes would have gone for. (Not to say that I favor the current
system of taxation.) -CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Friday, 19 Dec 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 114
Today's Topics:
Libertarian Budgets &
Scientists and SDI &
Employment (2 msgs) &
The Miracle of Teflon &
Duelling &
Military Spending
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 86 17:07:14 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
To: walton@CSVAX.CALTECH.EDU
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton>
I want a hypothetical budget from the Libertarian Party or someone
qualified to speak about where they stand, containing itemized
expenditures and sources of income to pay for those expenditures.
I can't speak for the Libertarian party, but my idea is to abolish
all taxes and all government programs except defense, the courts, and
the police. These would be funded by voluntary donations, by fines,
by the estates of people dying without relatives or a will, and by a
voluntary "tax" on all contracts (which would not be mandatory, but
without which a contract would not be enforcable in court).
Please note that any subset of the population which preferred things
the way they were would be free to set up a sub-government and
continue running whatever government programs they like, at their
exclusive expense, and for their exclusive benefit.
There are three main reasons why Japan is doing so well: ...
I have no arguments with any of these points. However, do you
consider these facts sufficient to balance the harm which you say
accrues to a society from Government intervention in the market?
If government takes 1/2 of all income in Japan and 1/3 of all income
in the US (lets say), then if Japanese work more than 1 and 1/3 times
as many hours as Americans (more than 12 hours per day rather than 9
hours per day), then they will exceed our productivity, all else being
equal, and given that the extra free time that Americans have is
assumed to have no value.
In other words, higher taxes are equivalent to either working the
same number of hours for less net pay or to working more hours for the
same net pay.
I would not want to work as hard as most Japanese do for the after-
tax wages most Japanese receive. Would you?
... Do you think that if a foreign power is murdering Americans
who travel abroad that the only appropriate American response is
for Americans to stop traveling?
It is unsatisfying to just sit here and do nothing when Americans
are being held hostage, but sometimes that is the best thing to do.
Starting a war that will kill millions in an attempt to save (or
avenge) several hostages seems counterproductive, even if the majority
of those millions of casualties would not be Americans.
Reagan's policy of paying ransom is sure to encourage more hostage
taking, whether or not he succeeds in convincing most Americans that
he is not REALLY paying a ransom.
What would you suggest is an appropriate response?
Do you think that the USSR would have refrained from invading
Western Europe in the absence of NATO?
In the 1950s, perhaps not. But I think western Europe has long
since fully recovered from the war and is now quite capable of
defending itself without our help.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < weemba@brahms.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 86 22:05:26 PST
From: weemba@brahms.berkeley.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Subject: Re: How Many Scientists' Signatures Do You Need?
In article < 12254914433.42.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> you write:
> I've noticed that many of the opponents of SDI keep talking about how
> many "top" scientists have signed petitions denying that SDI is
> feasible.
Even its supporters admit it can't do what its boosters keep pushing
on the American people and Congress.
The technical arguments against SDI are so manifold, and the extreme
damage being done to academic freedom in the name of SDI, and the
utter hornswoggling propaganda campaign done in its favor, make the
above a rather minimal response.
> The "Nuclear Winter" hypothesis also had a similar
> addendum -- 100 "top" scientists signed it.
It is embarrassing when preliminary results are trumpeted as such.
But the real issue is we don't really have the computing power to
identify what will happen. We're supposed to depend on lucky guesses?
That's the administration's line. Just who's being more political
here?
> I'm reminded of what happened in the mid-1930s when 100 "top German
> physicists" (or so they styled themselves) issued a denunciation of
> "Jewish physics", aimed specifically at Einstein and relativity.
Such a comparison is superficial, if not down right insulting. *This*
denunciation followed the party line and was extremely self serving.
A more accurate comparison, thus, would be between SDI supporters and
the Nazis. I say "more accurate", since I think just about any
comparison to Hitler borders on hysterical exaggeration.
> Perhaps this is just characteristic of a collectivized approach to
> things common in some circles, but this entire "group denunciation"
> and "group validation" of public policy issues smacks of politics --
> not science.
It *is* politics. When gigabucks and our future are at stake, what do
you expect? (And whose fault is it for making it a political issue in
the first place? Not the scientists.)
[Note-This discussion really belongs in the ARMS-D mailing list (or
mod.politics.arms-d for USENETters.) I will ignore any replies not
sent there. In particular, read my article "Response to 'Hawaii'"
(about a week old) for an expansion of the above comments about SDI.]
ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 86 18:47:39 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Firing
To: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
The major point is still this. Employers have a hard time
establishing to a court that employees aren't doing an adequate
job.
They shouldn't have to, any more than employees should have to
establish anything in court in order to resign.
So long as employers can't can people for arbitrary reasons,
you're going to have things like widespread drug testing.
Probably true. Which makes it ironic that most opponents of drug
testing apparently oppose individual rights for employers.
Why? Courts may not accept "he was doing a lousy job" as adequate
for dismissal, but "he snorted enough cocaine to choke a
medium-sized horse" ought to do the trick.
Sad but true. Of course employers ought not fire someone simply
because they use drugs, unless the drug use causes them to do poor
work. And if they are doing poor work, it is hardly relevant whether
it is due to drug use or not.
(Which is not to say that employers should be forbidden by law from
requiring drug tests - in case anyone misinterpets my saying
"employers ought not" as meaning "there ought to be a law".)
Liberals take note: *this* is the effect of labour
protection and civil rights legislation. I wonder how our friends
in the ADA, the ACLU and the AFL-CIO feel now? Of course, if they
regretted, this would imply that liberals can learn -- in which
case, of course, they'd be conservatives.
More likely they would be libertarians or objectivists.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 86 16:44:33 PST
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
To: KFL@mx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Firing
[From KFL@mx.lcs.mit.edu Sun Nov 16 15:49:48 1986]
Sad but true. Of course employers ought not fire someone
simply because they use drugs, unless the drug use causes them
to do poor work. And if they are doing poor work, it is
hardly relevant whether it is due to drug use or not.
(Which is not to say that employers should be forbidden by
law from requiring drug tests - in case anyone misinterpets my
saying "employers ought not" as meaning "there ought to be a
law".)
I forgot to mention employer costs for sickness and disability.
Suppose an employee does an adequate job, but uses cocaine, alcohol,
or tobacco to an extent that causes him to miss work time due to
drug-related illness, or to use his employer-provided health benefits
to an extent that the premiums increase? I merely point this out to
observe that employers in the 1980's have legitimate concerns about
their employees' fitness, which of course means that employers have an
interest in ensuring that their employees do not abuse substances such
as cocaine, alcohol, or tobacco. Of course, one can argue that
substantial sick leave is one component of job performance, and that
the solution to the health plan problem is to refuse to cover
employees that fail to abide by a health code rather than refuse to
hire such employees. Of course, the unions and the liberals will
scream blue murder ... and the courts would probably hold such
exclusions unlawful...but these are details that need not concern us
here.
Well, we are so close to full agreement that this is my last message
on the subject, unless you think that there is some point in
continuing...
All the best, Rick.
------------------------------
Return-path: < nike!rutgers!uwvax!astroatc!krs@cad.Berkeley.EDU>
From: nike!rutgers!uwvax!astroatc!krs@cad.Berkeley.EDU (Keith R.
From: Scidmore)
Subject: Re: Reagan, again
>
> The point of the exercise is to support the following assertion:
> the American people have decided to "like" Ronald Reagan, no matter
> what he does. They have equated their sense of national identity
> with him, and they are not going to turn on him any more than they
> will attack their own mothers. If you disagree with this, I repeat
> the challenge: tell me ANYTHING remotely within the realm of
> possibility that Reagan could do to cause the public to lose faith
> in him.
I think the reason you have such a hard time understanding this
is that your frame of reference, if you will, is different from many
other peoples. I, for one, start with the assumption that Regan, or
any president for that matter, is a reasonable person. I also assume
that his actions are at least motivated by the desire to do the right
thing. I then seek to determine and understand that motivation.
Many liberal individuals I know begin with the opposite
assumptions and, of course, see every act Reagan does as proof of his
evil nature. Their goal in viewing the man is to find more evil acts,
and reaffirm that their position is correct. Any person who assumes a
position like this becomes stagnated in thier views and soon loses
their objectivity. Their frame of reference becomes, this guy is as
asshole and I am going to prove it. Not, what is really hapening, and
what are its ramifications long term and short.
> Steve Upstill
>
> -------
------------------------------
Return-path: < mcgeer@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 86 13:44:34 PST
From: mcgeer@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Rick McGeer)
Subject: Re: duelling
[CWM on duelling]:
[ OK, so you don't want to worry about the details and
side-effects; I guess I do. I don't quite understand how
people willing to do violence are not dangerous. Living
dangerously usually means its dangerous for other people too.
Bank robbers live dangerously, and so do streetgangs. They
are by nature violent, and I haven't heard of a streetgang
that was able to channel violence ONLY against a selected
other (consenting) streetgang. Usually its old people in
their apartments, and people dumb enough to walk the city
streets. -CWM]
Well, consider. Race car drivers like to live dangerously:
driving any automobile at over 200 MPH is highly dangerous, and is
especially so when many automobiles are driven at these speeds in
proximity. It is also illegal and highly dangerous on the street.
Of course, race car drivers don't race on the street; they
race on the track, and the only danger is to those who race with them
and (I suppose) there is some minimal danger to spectators. In
general, side-effects are small. In fact, one can argue that society
as a whole is safer given Indy-class speedways, if you assume that
some percentage of racers would race on the street if there were no
track.
If you argue that racers aren't violent, consider boxers and
football players, both of whom are extremely violent within an arena
and in general no more or less violent than the rest of us when they
are outside the arena.
If you are concerned that the duel itself poses hazards to
passers-by, it should be a small thing to designate areas for duelling
and ensure that the world is protected from the doings therein. Bear
in mind that many currently-legal activities pose hazards to
passers-by -- automobile-racing and skeet-shooting, to name two. Yet
few would argue that either activity should be banned because those
who walk on to a skeet range or racetrack are in danger.
One more thing before I leave this issue. Two implicit
assumptions in this discussion have been that duels are necessarily to
the death and that those who participate in them are necessarily
ruffians. Neither assumption finds foundation in fact. In fact, in
the age of duelling, most duels did not go the death, only until the
parties were agreed that the duel had terminated. Often this was the
result of an injury that made it impossible for one party to continue,
occasionally not even that. Sigmund Freud, if I'm not mistaken, was
once challenged to a duel. He accepted; as the challenged party, he
could choose place, format, weapons. He chose tennis racquets on the
public courts.
As for ruffians -- well, Alexander Hamilton was a hero of the
Revolution. He was our first Secretary of the Treasury, and
Hamilton's Main Draft formed the core of Washington's Farewell
Address. A great man. Unimpeachably honest, high-minded, idealistic.
He might have been elected President when Jefferson left White House.
But he was killed in a duel by Aaron Burr early in 1802, I believe.
-- Rick.
[ Thoughtfully said! If duelling can be confined to arenas, obviously
the danger to bystander/spectator is minimized. Indeed, if the
dueling can be confined to individuals, its ok by me. However,
somewhere along the line we decided that groups of people could duel
one another. When the steelers win a game, they don't go out and
collect protection money from the seahawks territory. Are we headed
toward assisting groups in dominating their weaker neighbors? I don't
know. (Back in Aaron Burr's day, when groups decided to 'duel', it
was generally thought to be an unpleasant thing.) - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 86 16:47:22 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Military
[ So who's going to defend your country? Everyone's making money
(including those deadbeat kids who haven't turned 30 yet), and you
won't force anyone to serve. ...
Of course I oppose forcing anyone to serve. You criticized me for
saying that voluntary duels should be allowed, now you seem to think
that INVOLUNTARY duels are ok, just so long as they are run by a
government.
We seem to be getting enough recruits with an all-volunteer
military. It seems to me that any war that is unpopular enough that
sufficient troops can only be obtained via a draft is a war that we
should not be fighting.
How do you square your 'of course' with:
"Wrong. Since the most important purpose of defense is
deterrence, a weapon that never needs to be used is the most
successful weapon of all. There is no wrong time to re-arm."
... from your article of 30 August? - CWM]
I don't see any contradiction. Please clarify.
...Keith
[ (my apologies for the length of this):
Just seemed contradictory to me... To recap the original
discussion, you claimed that a contribution-based army would
experience an increase in funding that would exactly coincide with
necessity. My counter was that rearming at the right time is not
easy, and public perception of the danger would NOT coincide with
necessity of lead-time of development, or indeed research for
development. First you say that there is no wrong time to re-arm,
then that you don't advocate making weapons that are obsolete.
Anyway, rearm at the wrong time, and you waste your money on a
non-threat, in essense making obsolete weapons that deter no one. An
example of this is the Maginot line, 'state-of-the-art' fortifications
in 1936 (at vast expense), but in fact obsolete then and 4 years
later. If the French had waited and spent the money on tanks (as many
advocated), they would have had a better chance against the Germans.
(The pitfalls of waiting too long to rearm are obvious.) This is the
fallacy of the 'we can rearm at the proper time' argument - you can't
easily pick the proper time. But we are really running far afeild,
eh?
Take a look at the volunteers we get for our wonderful volunteer
army - the manuals are written for 3d graders and they are buying
trucks with automatic transmissions because the recruits can't deal
with a 4-speed. Please do not confuse my trying to poke holes in your
ideas as espousing the opposite view. -CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Friday, 19 Dec 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 115
Today's Topics:
California Election Results &
Corruption &
Transportation &
Cigarette tax &
Fear and rights &
Free Marketism
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 86 11:03:10 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI < wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA>
Subject: California Election Results
Does anyone have any explanation why the national TV coverage of some
of the California referenda was extensive before the election, but
seemed to drop off to zero afterwards, without even publicizing the
results as much as they publicized the existence of the questions in
the first place? I had been wondering the fate of the "English as the
officla language" and "AIDS quarantine" measures, both of which were
discussed extensively on various media prior to the election. I never
heard the results in the days after the elction, and finally got a
Wall Street Journal issue from the library that contained a summary.
(The English-as-official language passed overwhelmingly; the AIDS one
failed, but they didn't say by how much.)
Maybe those of you with local CA coverage can post some comments on
just how the "English-as-official-language" principle will be
implemented and the actual effects it will have (or has had). The
pre-election coverage speculated on that, but now that it is for real,
there should be more hard data.
Will Martin
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 86 01:56:31 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Corruption?
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Is it possible for a libertarian government to be incompetent or
corrupt or engage in illegal activities?
I would imagine so. Less so than the present system, since it
would not be in the power of a legislator to enact special interest
legislation. For instance there couldn't be any water projects to
vote for, since all water projects would be privately owned and
developed. There wouldn't be any tax breaks to give to a favored
industry since there would be no taxes. There couldn't be any
exception to the narcotics laws for a particular drug, since all
drugs would already be legal.
If so how can it be held accountable? Through the courts?
The ballot boxes?
Yes to both.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 86 09:44:36 PST
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
To: cit-vax!KFL@mx.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: cit-vax!WLIM@xx.lcs.mit.edu,
Cc: cit-vax!mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Transportation
I agree with everything you said, Keith, particularly your last point
that the entire question is too complex to argue about efficiently,
since everyone can point to some information which supports their
point of view.
There are separate bus/carpool lanes on some of the LA
freeways, and they help a bit, but they aren't nearly widespread
enough. In an infamous experiment, such a lane was installed on one
of the busiest freeways in 1976, but public outcry was so great and
the resulting tie-ups so huge that they had to remove it. Now they're
finally building a subway, which will probably turn out much the same
as Washington D.C's--quiet, safe, clean, well-lit, and horrendously
expensive. I don't want to subsidize a subway either!
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 86 02:12:27 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Cigarette tax
To: gawilson%watrose.waterloo.edu@RELAY.CS.NET
From: Graham Wilson < gawilson%watrose.waterloo.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Up here in Canada we are constantly being bombarded by
government-sponsored commercials telling us to quit smoking. What
irks me is that (some of) the funds for this advertising comes
from taxation on cigarettes.
Put into general terms:
Company X produces product Y. The government taxes company X and
product Y at very high rates (relative to other products). The
government then turns around and uses these funds to discourage
people from purchasing product Y!
Is that fair or ethical?
I oppose all taxes, as I have said before. However, judged in the
context of our current system, the cigarette tax is one of the fairer
taxes. The costs of smoking are subsidized by non-smokers in several
ways:
1) Non-smokers often have to breathe smoke. This is unpleasant,
smells bad, irritates the eyes, and has medical consequences that
smokers are not billed for.
2) In airplanes, restraunts, etc, with seperate smoking and
non-smoking sections, smokers are not billed any more than
non-smokers. Since the seperate sections cost the airlines,
restraunts, etc, something, non-smokers have to pay more than they
would if there were no smoking anywhere.
3) Government subsidies for tobacco farmers.
4) Careless smokers cause fires which kill non-smokers and destroy the
property of non-smokers. Taxes for fire departments are not made
higher for smokers.
5) Federal laws now mandate that upholstery be made fireproof, since
so many careless smokers managed to start major fires. The fire-
proofing makes upholstery more expensive, less comfortable, and
more likely to cause cancer.
6) Much medical care is paid for by the taxpayers. Smokers need much
more medical care, but pay no higher taxes for it.
7) Most private medical insurance is paid for through one's employer.
Federal and state laws discourage or prohibit seperate insurance
rates for smokers and non-smokers in such a group policy. Thus the
non-smokers subsidize the smokers again.
8) Smokers are more likely to get contagious diseases. They then
often spread these diseases to non-smokers.
This is true in the US. I believe it is probably pretty much the
same in Canada.
I think that adults have a right to smoke, but do not have a right
to force others to breathe their smoke, or to bear the costs and other
consequences of their habit. I have the same opinion of all other
drugs.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Thu 20 Nov 86 17:31:58-EST
From: ~joe testa~ < testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: Fear and rights
To: fagin@ji.berkeley.edu%berkeley.edu
fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Barry S. Fagin) writes:
> Rich Cowan writes:
> > -The right of women to walk city streets without fearing sexual
> > assault. ...
>
> I'm always reluctant to concede a right to freedom from fear. After
> all, some people are afraid of blacks; can laws be passed forbidding
> blacks to walk the streets at night? Or consider another more
> realistic example: here in Berkeley, we have a well-known resident
> with an extremely rare skin disease that has horribly disfigured his
> face. He is extremely frightening to look at; children often burst
> out into tears, people cross the street to avoid him, and so forth.
> And yet, to pass laws to address their concerns would violate some
> very basic rights of this man. So I guess I'm not sure about the
> freedom from fear of sexual assault. What are reasonable fears, and
> what are irrational ones?
I would say that "reasonable" fears are those based on fact; in a
situation with a statistically signifigant probability of physical
harm happening to me, it is reasonable for me to be fearful of the
potential cause of that harm. "Irrational" fears, then, are those not
based on fact. Since many women (and men, too!) are assaulted on city
streets at night, it is reasonable for them to be afraid of that
situation. I can think of no empirical reason to be afraid of blacks
any more than i should be afraid to whites or orientals or martians.
If the disfigured person you mentioned has a signifigant chance of
infecting others, then a fear of that person would be rational.
I submit that there are several ways to deal with these fears.
Irrational fears should be dealt with through education (though, in
Libertaria, no government will have any money to do this...), since
this fear is basically due to ignorance.
In the case of rational fears, legislation would be appropriate if no
other method of eliminating the fear is possible, in order to protect
the rights of others to not be harmed. A while back, there were a few
comments in this digest about whether or not it was possible for basic
rights to be in conflict, or whether they were mutually exclusive,
without any conclusion (as usual :-) ). Isn't this such a case where
rights can be in conflict?
As i reread all of this, i might agree that saying "freedom from fear"
is not the best way to put it. How about "freedom from the CAUSES of
fear"? (implying actual causality, rather than irrational
conclusions).
BTW, a John Cale song called "Fear" repeats the line: "fear is a man's
best friend". Hmmmm, wonder if that has any signifigance here??
~joe testa~
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 86 19:30:38 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
To: COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: Richard A. Cowan < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
... However, my examples still illustrate the effect of market
forces serving the needs of institutions. To show why this is
"bad," I must give some examples of how institutions can affect
BASIC human needs.
How about:
-The freedom to breath: Before federal emissions standards,
automobile companies like General Motors (with oil companies) were
perfectly content to produce inefficient cars that guzzled leaded
gas and polluted the air. Lots of health hazards from this have
been greatly reduced by regulation.
Why do you contrast these regulations with the free market?
Government has only one role in a free society - protecting individual
rights. Anti-pollution laws are a legitimate exercise of this
authority.
-The freedom to drink clean water: There are unsolved serious
problems with public water supplies all over the country -- hence
the growth in popularity of bottled water. The amount of
inorganic garbage our society generates, and ultimately dumps in
landfills, contributes directly to this problem.
It is not "society" which pollutes the water, but individuals and
various organizations composed of individuals. They should not be
allowed to pollute any water they don't own, since doing so would
infringe the property rights of the owner of the water. And if they
do own it, they are free to pollute it, but if they do so they are not
then allowed to sell it as drinking water, for that would be fraud.
-Survival: My right to live is being threatened by a nuclear
balance of terror,
This is the doing of states, not of individuals or voluntary
organizations of individuals.
perpetuated and intensified by the economic interests of military
contractors who exaggerate the vulnerability of the US deterrent.
The military }icontractors don't run the arms race, the Soviet and
US governments do.
I could go on, but I think that these examples aptly illustrate
that we can't trust "free enterprise" to take care of all our
concerns.
You have made a telling case against total anarchy, and against
statism. You have made no case against a free society.
.. Obviously, there are structural constraints -- a limited supply
of clean water -- that mean that if everyone in the 5% could rise
up from the bottom, another group of people will be in the bottom
five percent, and would bear the burden.
I think there is enough water for everyone. If there wasn'}i~rt,
adopting a totalitarian system could hardly change the fact, except
for the worse.
Unless everyone is given equal resources (at whose expense?) there
will always be a bottom 5%. Nothing will change that. But those
in the bottom 5% can be wealthier and happier than the TOP 5% are
today.
... Executives who make decisions that affect the water supply
are isolated from the very people that their policies will affect.
Not in a free market system, they aren't.
... I mention a few man-made needs:
-The right to education. (threatened by cutting funds for public
schools, which sends people to private schools, further decreasing
public school support)
There is no right to an education, if by that you mean the right to
force someone to give you an education.
-The right to a job that can pay for affordable housing,
transportation, and food.
There is no right to a job, if by that you mean the right to force
someone to give you a job. There is only the right to freely interact
with others, trading or giving value for value.
Again, the size of the institutions involved means that corporate
heads who influence government policy are isolated from the people
whom their actions affect.
Which is one of the reasons for a strict seperation between
economics and state.
(Executives oppose full-employment legislation and tolerate high
structural unemployment because it creates a favorable market for
}i hiring people.)
Any rational person who has given thought to the issues opposes
"full-employment legislation", since it violates individual rights.
I am not sure what it means to "tolerate" high unemployment.
It even affects the general public: in Boston, or in Palo Alto, I
am certainly isolated from the people on the bottom of the
economic ladder. ...
Who is isolating you? You are free to associate with these people.
... I now believe that capitalism in the U.S. and starvation are
completely compatible, because we have adopted ideological
barriers and psychological defenses that allow us to ignore the
starvation.
Starvation is a hundred times more rampant in nations that adopt
your left wing ideology. How do you explain that?
You are free to feed the hungry, and to talk others into doing so.
You are NOT free to take money from others against their will with
which to feed the hungry, even if you have convinced 99% of the
population that doing so would be a good idea.
The best way to help the poor is to not be poor.
WHAT IS NEEDED is greater distribution of wealth,
The distribution of wealth is up to the creators of that wealth.
You are free to distribute your own wealth, but by what right do you
claim the right to steal wealth that other people have created or
traded, wealth that would never have existed but for their efforts,
wealth which they would probably not have bothered to create if they
knew it was to be stolen from them?
and a drastic reduction in the power of institutions.
The only institution with any political power is the government.
The question of how these changes can be effected is a separate
issue which we can discuss later.
What's to discuss? There is only one way to do what you suggest,
namely to steal the property of individuals and to imprison, torture,
or kill any property owner who objects.
Tell me, in a free society, what prevents any subset of the
population who advocate views similar to yours from voluntarily
banding together, at their own expense, and for their own benefit?
All I can think of that prevents this is that this system can only
work by stealing from people who do NOT consent to it, and never
will.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Friday, 19 Dec 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 116
Today's Topics:
Corruption &
Natural Resources (2 msgs) &
The Miracle of Teflon &
Scientists and SDI &
Goverment and Wealth &
Duelism
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat 22 Nov 86 20:45:17-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Corruption?
To: KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU
The courts and the ballot boxes are not effective enough for making
government (in general) accountable. Take for example Marcos who
"lost" an election and still has a lot of money which is badly needed
in the Philippines. A whole country suffers while the court
proceedings drag on.
The assumption in using the ballot boxes is that the government
official involved wants to be re-elected. If he/she knows that the
punishment for some corrupt action which results in making him/her
rich is just not to get re-elected, that is a small price to pay for
the ill-gotten wealth. The case for the courts are stronger but
someone still has to incur the cost (in dollars and in time) of
bringing the crook to court before any settlement can be reached.
Actually there might be another way to make government better without
enforcing a strict accountability system---competition among
governments for your skill (there was a write up along this line in
the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago). If the government of a
country wants your skill badly enough, they would do things to induce
you to migrate to that country. But this can get complicated. For
example low tax rates can be thought of as a way for inducing
migration to a state (New Hampshire) from another state
(Massachusetts). This inducement is effective only if all other
things are considered equal e.g. both states have equally good
universities, hospitals, industries, entertainment facilities,
airports, etc. Many people in the high-tech industries in
Massachusetts at one time or another have consider taking up residence
in NH but somehow the tax incentives don't seem to be big enough to
cause many of us to leave Massachusetts for NH. But the idea of a
"free-market of governments" is fascinating.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 86 09:53:46 EST
From: Charley Wingate < mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu>
Subject: Natural Resources Are Always Like Property
Barry Fagin writes:
> > Would Barry Fagin therefore agree that
> > -Clean water be restricted only to those who can afford to buy
> > bottled water?
> No, although I do think that the right way to get clean water is to
> use the market and property rights. Allow cities to own their own
> water supplies, allow people to own them and have governments pay
> them fair market value, and so on. And, of course, I'd be delighted
> to hear your suggestions for providing "clean water for all".
There are too many senses in which many water supplies can't be owned.
For instance, around here we have a combination of wells and
reserviors. As it stands, these are very sensitive to anyone who uses
"his" section of the river as a dumping ground for chenicals or
sewage. As a result, the legal system gets involved to give us
anti-pollution and, more importantly, laws requiring easements along
property to prevent the sort of damage that a purely privatized system
would have to be content with mopping up after perhaps irreperable
damage had been done.
Water rights are really the only way to talk about ownership of water.
As such they imply that the river or aquafer isn't ownable.
> > -Nature be restricted to private parks for a select elite that pays
> > high membership fees to protect the parks from commercial
> > development?
> This is almost what we have now, actually. Our national parks are
> paid for by the many, enjoyed by the few. People who enjoy nature
> should be the ones to bear the costs of owning and maintaining the
> land in a pristine state. The right way to enjoy nature is to do it
> through a framework of liberty: privately owned parks financed by
> user's fees and contributions. And this isn't so bad, Rich. You
> might even like it; the hiking and camping permits issued by the
> Nature Conservancy are cheaper than those at Yellowstone.
Ah, but now Barry is discounting a really important benefit which
nearly everyone accrues from the national parks: the notion that
*they*, through the proxy of the government, are protecting this
stuff. There's a tremendous amount of national pride bound up in the
government's possession of the park system. This is a benefit that
everyone in the country gets. The same is true of the Smithsonian and
the monuments in downtown DC, which, even if people don't ever get to
visit them, afford great satisfaction from knowing that they are being
kept as a national treasure. And the selling off of those national
assets cannot look anything but commercial.
> In fact, private ownership as the best way to environmental
> protection is the wave of the future; the previously mentioned Nature
> Conservancy, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Audobon Society, and
> the Center for Political Economy and Natural Resources are all
> embracing private ownership as the best way to preserve and protect
> nature.
Well, it seems to me that this isn't an either/or situation. I might
add that some of this private ownership advocacy comes from a fear
that the government cannot be trusted to hold onto the national
system. How a private system is immune to this is not explained.
Neither public nor private ownership is a panacea; there are times
when one is more appropriate than the other.
C. Wingate
------------------------------
Return-path: < lll-crg!amdcad!csanders@rutgers.rutgers.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 86 18:03:56 pst
From: lll-crg!amdcad!csanders@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Craig S. Anderson)
Subject: Re: Reply to Rich Cowan
fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU writes:
>
> As for General Motors being perfectly content to produce
> inefficient cars, that's only part of the story. General Motors
> was perfectly happy to make gas guzzlers because *THE PRICE
> OF GASOLINE WAS CONTROLLED*. Why should consumers worry
> about fuel economy when gas sells for a quarter a gallon?
> Never mind that prices should reflect the abundance or scarcity
> of a commodity, we've got to protect those big bad institutions
> from raping our poor stupid consumer, right? I have no
> doubt that the few intelligent policymakers opposed to
> gasoline price controls in the sixties and seventies were
> shouted down by well-meaning people with your beliefs, Rich,
> who simply didn't understand how free markets work, or how
> important they are.
When was the price of gasoline controlled? Sure, the price of
American oil was controlled until the late 70's/early 80's, but that
didn't stop OPEC from quadrupling the price in 1973 or doubling it
again in 1979.
> Contrast this with the Japanese. While we were living in
> our fantasy world of cheap, controlled gasoline, they were
> paying a buck a gallon. While it's true that gasoline is
> in general more expensive in Japan because they import all
> their oil, the fact remains that they knew just how much
> gasoline was worth, and the consumer (who's not as dopey
> as you think) wanted the most fuel-efficient car he could
> get. Moral: if you're really interested in getting the
> right things produced, Rich, you ought to let the market
> work.
I don't know about Japan, but gasoline is so expensive in Europe
because the government imposes high taxes on it. I agree that
the market can solve many problems; OPEC certainly learned that
after its high prices made it economical for non-OPEC nations
to drill for oil.
> > -The freedom to drink clean water: There are unsolved serious
> > problems with public water supplies all over the country -- hence
> > the growth in popularity of bottled water. The amount of inorganic
> > garbage our society generates, and ultimately dumps in landfills,
> > contributes directly to this problem.
> Quite true. *Public* drinking water has problems precisely because
> it is *public*; it belongs to everybody, so it belongs to nobody.
> Water supplies that are privately own can be protected from pollution
> through the tort system. The same with landfills; land that noone
> has an incentive to preserve won't be preserved. Isn't it
> interesting, Rich, that the institutional problems you point out all
> have to do with the absence of private property rights: public
> drinking water, public air, public landfills?
A great many of the toxic waste dumps that are leaking into the
groundwater system are on private property. Companies such as
Aerojet General and Fairchild just bury drums full of waste
on their own property to avoid the expense of sending it to an
approved landfill. Are they exercising their private property rights?
>
> --Barry
--
Craig Anderson
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
(408) 749-3007
UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!csanders
#include < disclaimer.h>
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 86 19:28:18 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Teflon
To: pixar!upstill@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: pixar!upstill@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Steve Upstill)
... what would Reagan have to do to get a substantial body of the
American people disillusioned with him? ... tell me ANYTHING
remotely within the realm of possibility that Reagan could do to
cause the public to lose faith in him.
How about high inflation, high unemployment, and high interest
rates, like in the Carter years? I know this is mostly not under the
president's control, but I am not sure that the general public reasons
this way. The economy is in much better shape now, and that's all
most people care about.
Another reason is attitude. Reagan is identified with "morning
again in America" which people like to hear. Carter was "malaise",
which nobody wanted to hear.
...Keith
------------------------------
From: flink@mimsy.UUCP (Paul V Torek)
Subject: Re: How Many Scientists' Signatures Do You Need?
kontron!cramer@topaz.rutgers.edu writes:
> (...from what I've read, the assumptions involved are idealized, and
> consistently idealized in a manner that finds for "nuclear winter").
Then you haven't read the *Science* article on the subject. Many
assumptions were made in a manner that would tend to *underestimate*
the "nuclear winter" effect. (I think the article I have in mind
came out in the summer of 1984.)
> [...] this entire "group denunciation"
> and "group validation" of public policy issues smacks of politics --
> not science.
So what did you expect in political debate?! Or do you think that
scientists have no right to participate in politics??!
--love and kisses,
Paul Torek flink@mimsy (soon to be torek@umich)
------------------------------
Return-path: < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Sun 23 Nov 86 21:51:52-EST
From: ~joe testa~ < testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: Wealth
To: kfl@mx.lcs.mit.edu%mc.lcs.mit.edu
"Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU> writes:
> [The government] should serve everyone, but only to the extent of
> preventing individual rights from being violated. It should not and
> cannot be involved with protecting people from their own economic
> misjudgements, or with redistributing wealth, or trying to compensate
> for the inequalities of past generations.
> ...
> It should
> be evident even to socialists and the feeble-minded that if people
> who
Then you admit that not all socialists are feeble-minded? :-)
> worked are taxed to pay people who don't work, that the net amount of
> wealth has not increased. Poverty is conserved.
I agree that simply taking from the rich and giving to the poor does
not increase wealth; however it does change the amount of poverty
(please note that i am not advocating such a simple approach). If
wealth were completely redistributed equally, then either everyone or
noone would be in poverty, by definition! Thus it cannot be a
conserved quantity! (Keith, you should have applied a little of your
basic physics reasoning here :-) .) That is, unless you consider a
rich person to be in a state of "negative poverty", but i have never
heard of this usage before.
It has also been argued by you and/or other libertarians that
government should not be involved in public education. But does not
using tax money to educate those who could not otherwise afford an
education *increase* wealth by making more people capable of producing
useful things/services/etc?
~joe testa~
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 86 19:44:23 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Duels
... I don't quite understand how people willing to do
violence are not dangerous. Living dangerously usually means its
dangerous for other people too. Bank robbers live dangerously,
and so do streetgangs. ... -CWM
If they use or threaten violence against people who do not consent,
then they have committed a crime and can be locked up.
...Keith
[ Hey! We agree for once! :-) Now if we could just agree that
institiutionalizing gang wars was a good thing... -CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Saturday, 20 Dec 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 117
Today's Topics:
What's a Liberal &
Deficit Spending &
Wages and Labor &
Education &
Pollution &
Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!jaguar!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 86 09:31:57 PST
From: Steve Walton < ametek!jaguar!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Subject: Trainable liberals
In an otherwise intelligent and polemic-free posting in Poli-Sci V6
#107, Rick McGeer writes:
Liberals take note: *this* is the effect of labour protection
and civil rights legislation. I wonder how our friends in the ADA,
the ACLU and the AFL-CIO feel now? Of course, if they regretted,
this would imply that liberals can learn -- in which case, of
course, they'd be conservatives.
The definition of "conservative" is someone who, generally
irrationally, prefers that things not change, with the implication
that they cannot learn from a changing world. If you want a great
example of conservatives failing to learn from their mistakes, try
reading the Wall Street Journal's editorial pages. They had the gall
last week to publish a little parable placing the Contra war on the
same plane as the American Revolution. They also still believe that
the Federal budget can be balanced by non-defense spending cuts alone,
thus showing their inability to perform simple arithmetic. Speaking
for myself, I think I've learned that the Great Society didn't work,
but the general lesson is that you can't solve a problem by throwing
money at it--a lesson which the current Administration seems to have
forgotten in the context of the DoD.
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 86 23:20:17 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: "What's New"
To: pur-ee!j.cc.purdue.edu!h.cc.purdue.edu!pur-phy!piner@UCBVAX
Cc: Physics@SRI-UNIX.ARPA
From:pur-ee!j.cc.purdue.edu!h.cc.purdue.edu!pur-phy!piner@UCB-Vax.arpa
(Richard Piner)
2. THE DEFICIT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE THE 100TH CONGRESS
will face, in the opinion of three-fourths of the congressional
staffers responding to a survey by a Washington public relations
firm. About half of all aides feel that Congress will have to
raise taxes or create new taxes to meet the Gramm-Rudman mandate
(WN 7 Nov 86). ...
Robert L. Park (202) 232-0189 The American Physical Society
One wonders whether they honestly think that government spending
would not increase if taxes were increased. Or perhaps they think
that Americans will somehow manage to (and choose to) go on producing
more and more no matter how high taxes are raised. Does the APS
consist solely of flaming liberals?
Followups to Poli-Sci.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Fri 28 Nov 86 17:09:36-EST
From: ~joe testa~ < testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: Wages and discrimination
To: kfl@mx.lcs.mit.edu
"Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU> writes:
> From: ~joe testa~ < testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
>
> ... if women work just as hard as men, and are willing to
> work for a lower salary than men, then a company which
> discriminates against women is at a strong competitive
> disadvantage ...
>
> ... How 'bout putting it another way: "if women work just as
> hard as men, and must settle for jobs at a lower salary than
> men, then a company which will not hire women is at a strong
> competitive disadvantage."
>
> You distinguish between "willing to work for" and "must settle
> for". I don't see the distinction.
A subtle difference in sense, but which reveals the essence of what i
was saying (or intended to say). "Must settle for" means that, even
though someone has equal skills to others, and is to perform the same
work as others, they do not have a fair bargaining position to
negotiate the same salary as those others, simply because of the
historical salary structure which discriminates against women. If the
potential employer offers a job to a woman at a salary less than would
be offered to a male, and the woman insists on a more fair salary, the
employer can refuse since
- there are plenty more qualified candidates in most
occupations (that's why there is unemployment, after all)
- she may come back anyway, since no other employer is going
to give her a larger salary since they are ALSO doing the
same thing to people coming to them for jobs
But my main point was to change "discriminates against" to "will not
hire" since discrimination includes unequal pay for equal work;
clearly a company that can get women to work for it at low wages will
be at a competitive advantage.
> But this is beside the point. The point is that salaries are
> decided by the mutual consent of employee and employer, and there
> is no justification for any third party to limit the free choices
> made by free individuals. If it were forbidden to hire women for
> less than men make, many women would become unemployed.
> ...Keith
Or what would happen if it were forbidden to hire men for more than
women make? Why should there be a distinction between men's and
women's salaries? Would many women become unemployed, or would there
be a reduction in the number of "overpaid" men and a decrease in the
number of "underpaid" women? The argument you use is the same as
Reagan tried with the "sub-minimum" wage. Why do we need to
discriminate against the already-discriminated-against and justify it
by claiming we are "helping" them -- "without this discrimination, you
would be much worse off without a job!"
Or to think of it in a completely selfish way: i could not care at all
if it was fair. I may only want to make all my money to spend as i
please, and be otherwise left alone (which is what Libertaria would
"guarantee" me). However, reality will set in -- some of those people
who are not paid a fair wage adequate to live on, or are unemployed
due to discrimination or do not have the capability to change
"professions", will turn to crime and violently ruin my comfortable
little world, no matter what the meager laws of Libertaria say.
Perhaps my tax money and loss of a slight amount of "freedom" to
negotiate in the unregulated free-chaos market can be considered as an
insurance policy protecting me from others. I submit that the
afore-mentioned Libertaria "guarantee" would not be worth very much in
reality, although it sounds nice at first.
~joe testa~
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon 8 Dec 86 10:31:49-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V6 #108
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
The main thing is for the people to be educated.
Ah, but how? Who is to bear the cost of educating the people on
libertarianism? What is the minimum level of education needed before
the people can be properly educated on libertarianism? What if the
current school system is so bad that the people has to be re-educated
first before they can understand the fundamentals of libertarianism
(-: LIBERTARIANISM 101 :-)? How can you ensure that the school system
will provide a good enough education for individuals to be good
citizens of a libertarian nation? Where do you draw the line between
education and indoctrination?
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < uucp@seismo.CSS.GOV>
Subject: Reply to Barry Fagin on pollution
From: flink@mimsy.UUCP (Paul V Torek)
fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU writes:
> [...] In any case, the
> problem of air pollution arises because property rights
> aren't protected *enough*, not because they're overenforced.
> The only right way to regulate pollution is to hold individuals
> (and, yes, institutions) responsible for the damages they cause
> other persons.
What do you mean here? Is it OK for me to go ahead and pollute, as
long as I am held responsible for damages I cause? There may be
problems with this approach, at least they seem to be problems if you
take a libertarian view: what if the damaged persons aren't satisfied
with being imposed upon and then "compensated"? Who gets to decide
how much compensation is enough: the person whose well-being is at
stake, or the courts? It seems that a consistent libertarian must
say: the person whose well-being is at stake.
But if so, the following *reductio ad absurdum* of libertarian views
threatens. I intend to piss in the nearest men's room toilet within
the next few hours. When I flush, my wastes will be sent toward a
waste water treatment facility, where they will be treated *but not
rendered completely harmless* (no pollution control method is 100.0%
effective). They will then be dumped into a river, which people
downstream of me use. These people will be subjected to some small
(but non-zero) risk of harm or death by the presence of the remnants
of my piss in their water.
Now, the amount of compensation that some of those people would demand
is very small, and I could afford it. But at least a few of them will
want a great deal of compensation, and when we add their demands up
(especially if I live near the source of a long river like the
Mississippi) it will be a ridiculously high number. Since I would not
want to pay that much every time I piss, we seem to be led to the
conclusion that it is not morally OK for me to piss.
In case you think that there would be some way to negotiate a contract
among people who live along the river which would allow you to piss
for a low price, consider air pollution. Again, no pollution control
method is 100% effective; and industrial society depends on allowing
at least a little air pollution. But air pollution typically affects
a nation-sized area (world-sized in the case of CO2); negotiations
among those millions of inhabitants would be completely out of the
question.
In case you're thinking, "Well, I'll just break the rules and take
the consequences," I must ask how seriously you take the ethical
view which underlies your political philosophy. If property rights
should be protected in the ways you advocate, is that not because
those property rights exist (as ethical rights)?
So may I piss, or not? Answer quickly--I can't hold it in much
longer!
P.S. I have directed followups to talk.politics.theory, which I
regularly read (unlike this newsgroup). Also, please use my last
name somewhere in your article (e.g., put "Attn Paul Torek" in the
Keywords). Otherwise I might not see your reply (it's a long story
why not, but it has to do with newsfeed problems at my future site).
Paul Torek flink@mimsy (soon to be torek@umich)
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 86 19:57:00 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Drugs for the dying
[ I beleive that much the delay on AZT was simply that it sat on
someone's shelf for 3 years before it was tested.
I can believe that. AZT was invented many years ago, and for a
completely different purpose. Nobody can test every possible drug
against every possible disease all at once.
This was not what I objected to. What I objected to was the fact
that after there was considerable evidence that AZT was able to help
people with AIDS, they were still forbidden to buy it, and its
manufacturer was forbidden to sell it. By what right?
In any event, I stick to my point that people who have some
terminal illness are ripe targets.
I agree. This is why there are laws against fraud. I do not think
anyone should be allowed to make false claims for their drug. But if
I had a fatal disease, and if a drug salesman came to me and was able
to refer me to convincing scientific studies on the effectiveness and
}isafety of the drug, I would very likely wish to buy it. My standard
of safety would be very low if my only alternative were certain death.
The point is that the standard of safety should be up to the patient,
not up to any bureaucrat.
If I were dying of some disease I would go to a good medical library
and research the disease and the tested treatments for it, and I would
probably wish to buy whatever treatment seemed most likely to cure me
or to prolong my life. And I would go to a doctor who specialized in
my disease, and discuss his knowledge about what research has been
done, and ask his advice on what would be best for me. I would give a
lot of credence to what he suggests, but I would not be bound by it.
In the end, the decision is mine and nobody else can make it for me.
Why do you believe my freedom to behave in this way should be taken
from me? And by what right? Is my body merely on loan to me, owned
by some government agency? Is that your thesis?
...Keith
[ Calm down, you'll spurt! If you were dying of the disease and had
plenty of money, you could do what you describe. Some people have to
keep working to try and leave money to their loved ones when they are
gone. Do the poor or uneducated just die and we say too bad? And
would you PLEASE stop trying to create arguements for me try and get
me to defend? If you want to make up both sides, fine, but leave me
out of it. - CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Saturday, 20 Dec 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 118
Today's Topics:
Corruption (2 msgs) &
South Africa &
The Facts of Nature &
Socialists and Libertarians
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 86 23:12:54 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Corruption?
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
The courts and the ballot boxes are not effective enough for
making government (in general) accountable.
True. Especially since it is the government that runs the courts
and the ballot boxes. A system of checks and balances is essential.
The assumption in using the ballot boxes is that the government
official involved wants to be re-elected. If he/she knows that
the punishment for some corrupt action which results in making
him/her rich is just not to get re-elected, that is a small price
to pay for the ill-gotten wealth.
Another good reason why there should be strict seperation between
government and economics. As long as government is regarded as a
ruler with absolute power, capable of passing or altering any law and
dispensing arbitrary favors, people will try to bribe legislators. As
long as legislators are human, some will accept those bribes.
Here is an example of a recent arbitrary favor. This is quoted from
the recently passed tax reform legislation: "Any domed stadium (i)
which was the subject of a city ordinance passed on Sept. 20, 1985,
(ii) for which a loan of approximately $4,000,000 for land acquisition
was approved on Oct. 28, 1985, by the State Controlling Board, (iii) a
stadium operating corporation with respect to which was incorporated
on March 20, 1985. ..." This is in reference to special tax
preferences. This is not an isolated example. There are several
pages of fine print containing exceptions and exemptions in the new
federal tax code, all couched in this kind of doublethink language,
which fools nobody except perhaps its authors.
It is easy to forget that this country got along just fine without
any federal income tax for over 130 years.
Actually there might be another way to make government better
without enforcing a strict accountability system---competition
among governments for your skill (there was a write up along this
line in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago). If the
government of a country wants your skill badly enough, they would
do things to induce you to migrate to that country. ...
But what if there ARE no truly free governments? You say
competition will generate one somewhere if that's what enough people
want? Not so. If a soap company wants to make more money, they have
to get people to buy their soap. Since they aren't allowed to coerce
anyone, they have to convince people that their soap is better or
cheaper or otherwise desirable. This is how the free market works.
But it doesn't apply to governments. If a government wants to get
more money or increase its power, it doesn't have to convince anyone
of anything. All it has to do is raise taxes, pass laws, and obtain
foreign aid from the US and/or the USSR. This is worth far more to
them than the skills of any individual.
There is also the fact that many countries won't let their people
go. Socialist countries are notorious for this. The Berlin wall was
built because East Germany was losing too many skilled workers. They
could have offered incentives to keep them there, or even to attract
people from other countries. But barbed wire and spotlights and guns
are cheaper.
As long as governments consider freedom a gift they can choose to
bestow on people, rather than as a fundamental right of all people in
all countries, this will always be the case.
Reagan seems to agree with the idea of freedom as a reward, since he
makes trades for hostages and dissidents in Lebanon and the Soviet
Union. This is a very evil distortion of the free market. He seems
to think it is fair for a person to offer to not blow one's brains out
in return for the contents of one's wallet. An armed robbery is
indeed a free trade if you concede that one's freedom is a gift
granted by those with the physical power to deny one's freedom.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri 12 Dec 86 23:15:41-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Corruption?
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
As long as government is regarded as a ruler with absolute power,
capable of passing or altering any law and dispensing arbitrary
favors, people will try to bribe legislators.
Favoritism is going to be a problem as long as government has power,
however small. E.g. A person with the right "connections" can see to
it that his/her son/daughter does not get assigned to dangerous
missions at the front line in times of war. The person does a favor
back to the right people in government --- (-: like pleading the Fifth
:-). You still need some kind of mechanism to keep people in
government honest. It helps to have a society ingrained with a strong
set of ethical values.
It is easy to forget that this country got along just fine without
any federal income tax for over 130 years.
True, but we are now a global power bent on stopping those commies.
(-: Perhaps we one day will begin to build bases on the moon and other
planets to protect them from those commies. :-) We now have fanatical
"redbusters" with a deep hatred for anything left of them. To them it
is all right for other countries to be dependent on our government for
their national defense but it is a sin for our citizens to be
dependent on our government for their welfare. Both kinds of
addiction to government subsidies are expensive. You can't have
either one without an income tax.
But what if there ARE no truly free governments? You say
competition will generate one somewhere if that's what enough people
want? Not so.
There is definitely some competition among the states in this country
and among countries (e.g. Australia, Canada, USA) with liberal
immigration policies. However the numbers are not large enough to
have a significant effect (except for small countries like Singapore).
There is also the fact that many countries won't let their people
go. Socialist countries are notorious for this. The Berlin wall
was built because East Germany was losing too many skilled workers.
They could have offered incentives to keep them there, or even to
attract people from other countries. But barbed wire and spotlights
and guns are cheaper.
True but also note that they are a bunch of losers. If their citizens
don't feel strongly enough to do something about their miseries,
that's their problem. We can't help them if they don't want to help
themselves. Also these commies are beginning to see their problems
and are attempting to fix them without giving up too much, if any at
all, in terms of political freedom and individual rights. For the
redbusters, that would be real bad news, the last thing they want is
to have an economically powerful (and hence technologically advanced)
but hostile communist Eastern Bloc. But there is a chance of our
affecting the liberation of their economic systems in such a way as to
make it impossible for them to have prosperity without providing
sufficient individual freedom. Perhaps then we can reduce their
hostile feelings to us. This would mean a propaganda warfare which
would be a lot cheaper than a defense system based just on paranoia.
We don't even have to resort to disinformation as there are enough
facts about their failures to hang them.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < SMITH%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>
Date: 8 December 86 11:54-PST
From: SMITH%SLACVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Reply to Lim's article poli-sci V6 #107
In poli-sci V6 #107, Willie Lim talks about:
> One would be curious to see then if the white tribe in SA would find
> the communists in all-white Russia and Eastern Europe more preferable
> to the racially mixed but democratic and capitalistic USA.
What? There are many racial groups in the USSR and Eastern Europe.
The USSR is divided racially into 16 "Republics" (i.e., homelands).
You have to decide by age 16 which will be your permanent homeland and
you also are given an internal passport for travel inside the USSR
(i.e., they enforce a pass-law that is far worse than our vagrancy
pass-laws). As to the Eastern Europeans--you mean to tell me that
there is no ethnic or tribal distinctions between them? Are the
Roumanians people with the same ethnic or cultural traditions as East
Germans? You have got to be kidding?
There are lots of different racial groups in the USSR: some
Laplanders, Eskimos, Mongolians, Arabs, Bulgars, Caucasians, etc., and
they can all expect some kind of homeland. Of course, the initiates
(i.e., Party members), wear their lapel buttons to avoid waiting in
the queues that the "profane" have to wait in. So it is also nonsense
to talk about "the communists" as though they made up the whole
population of the Soviet Block. Party membership is kept to about 3%
of the population. Communism is more af a "Bruderbund" of elite
initiates, rather than a political, economic, philosophical, or
ideological system. I note from the context of Lim's sentence that
there is no attraction to the Soviet style but it is said in a
confusing way. So I would like to add that the reason that the
communists stress collectivism is simply because it is a great way to
control the population of profane noninitiates. As far as the devotion
of the communists to ideology just think of Marx's personal
committment to intellectual honesty and debate when he wrote in the
Communist Manifesto "charges against communism on the basis of
religious, philosphical, and generally, ideological grounds, are not
worthy of serious consideration".
What actually bothers me about Lim's sentense quoted above is that
if a moderate SA black comes to the USA and speaks for free
enterprise, against sanctions, and against divestment,then there are
huge and mindless demonstrations by our ever
open-minded-and-listen-to-both-sides college students (this just
happened here is SF with Chief Buthelezi). Also, when that person
goes back to SA the ANC tries to KILL them (like Bishop Mokoena).
Bishop Mokoena of the Black Reformed Christian Church (^5 Million
people strong ) came to the USA gave lectures, appeared on an
interview on Trinity Broadcasting Network speaking a
pro-free-enterprise line and against sanctions or divestment. He went
back to SA and started the United Christian Concilation Party (the
UCCP). One Sunday he was sick and another minister replaced him at his
usual Sunday Service. The ANC broke into the Church and shot and
killed Mokoena's substitute thinking they had killed Mokoena and the
UCCP! That is the way MODERATE BLACK OPINION is treated by the ANC!
How do you think that looks to the Africaaners or anyone else in SA?
Bartholemew Hlapane (former executive member of ANC and the SACP)
testified to members of the US Senate in 1982 connecting the ANC with
the Communist Party. When he returned to Soweto, the ANC murdered him.
This information is available to anyone and IS NOT MADE PUBLIC by our
"news" media. The South African's know these things as well, they
have a great deal of reason to doubt our motives or the motives of our
press for censoring out this type of information. I agree with them.
What the hell is wrong with our press?
John R. Smith
------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Fri 12 Dec 86 17:01:02-PST
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: liberal hatred of facts of nature
It is a fact of nature that food and housing do not come without
someone working for them. It need not be a fact of nature that
people, on getting out of school or losing a job, wanting desperately
to work, print and mail out hundreds of resumes, then rewrite them
and try again after they have seen those hundreds of resumes fail
to turn up so much as one interview, mail out hundreds more, and
gradually grow to hate themselves because nothing they do seems
to turn up a job. That is the way things are now, and that needs
to change, whether through government programs to assist people
to find jobs, through better career counselors who can tell people
what really gets them jobs, by a growing economy, by some combination
of these, or by some other method. There are a lot of unemployed
people who are willing and able to work and are guilty of nothing
worse than poor job-hunting skills or bad luck.
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 86 23:30:42 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
To: testa-j%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA
From: ~joe testa~ < testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
> It should
> be evident even to socialists and the feeble-minded that if
> people who
Then you admit that not all socialists are feeble-minded? :-)
Of course. Some are just plain scoundrels.
It has also been argued by you and/or other libertarians that
government should not be involved in public education. But does
not using tax money to educate those who could not otherwise
afford an education *increase* wealth by making more people
capable of producing useful things/services/etc?
I suppose it could, just as it is possible for a thief to invest his
stolen money and produce more money with it. So? Surely you aren't
asserting that a positive use for someone else's money constitutes a
claim on that money? Anyhow, a public education isn't worth very
much, regardless of what it costs.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Saturday, 20 Dec 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 119
Today's Topics:
Libertarian Economist wins Nobel &
Equal opportunity &
Tanks and the military
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 86 09:26:11 PST
From: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@berkeley.edu (Barry S. Fagin)
Subject: libertarian economist wins Nobel!
(Due to a net address change, I have missed the past several
issues of poli-sci. My apologies if this repeats previously posted
material).
Nobel Prize in Economics Goes to Cato Institute Scholar!
A few weeks ago, Dr. James M. Buchanan received the nobel prize
in economics, for his development of "public choice theory".
Public choice theory applies free market analysis to the
behavior of governments, in an attempt to explain how
governments distribute wealth. In essence, a democratic
government with the power to redistribute wealth will make
it profitable for its citizens to engage in wasteful "rent seeking".
As James Dorn explains in the Cato Journal:
"By straying from the principles of property and justice as
understood by the Founders, the modern liberal state has seen the
erosion of private property rights, the demise of the rule of law,
and the rise of 'rent seeking'... By deferring to the
legislative will in the area of economic rights, the judiciary has
paved the way for special interest groups to work to capture the
political branches with adverse effects for individual freedom.
Lobbying for political favors and special interest legislation--
rent seeking-- has become the dominant game in the nation's
capital.
Rent seeking is the natural outcome of the interventionist,
neo-mercantilist state. It is only when the state goes beyond
protecting property to redistributing it at will that it becomes
profitable to divert resources to actively seek political favors.
[The following is the essence of public choice theory:]
Self-interested politicians in a democratic setting and operating
within a common property regime will be led to those activities
that increase the chance of being elected...legislators will
respond forcefully to the wishes of those special interest groups
that command strong political support. And those will be the
groups that expect large benefits for themselves and are able to
disperse and hide the real costs of their programs.
Property rights theory is useful in deriving the implications of
alternative rights structures on incentives and behavior, and
public choice theory helps explain why government decision makers
have especially strong incentives to deviate from wealth
maximization in allocating resources; that is, why it pays
politicians and bureaucrats to divert resources from those uses
that would maximize the value of output to consumers, voters,
and taxpayers. The fact that the present transfer society is
inefficient in this sense should not surprise us; nor should it
surprise us that giving public officials better information about
how to increase efficiency in government will not necessarily
change their behavior..."
Public choice theory is a very exciting development in economic
theory, squarely attacking the notion that government can ever be
a vehicle for "the public interest". Keep your eyes open for its
appearance in public debate over the next few years. And remember,
you heard it here first (maybe).
James Buchanan is the director of the Center for the Study of
Public Choice, George Mason University. He is also an Adjunct
Scholar of the Cato Institute, the D.C. libertarian think tank
I've mentioned previously. For an introduction to public choice
theory, try
"Toward a Theory of the Rent Seeking Society", College Station:
Texas A & M university Press, 1980
Now that Buchanan is a bit more famous, he might write something
more accessible. If I find out about it, I'll send it
to polisci.
--Barry
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 86 19:46:33 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: "Equal opportunity"
From: ~joe testa~ < testa-j@OSU-20>
... If the potential employer offers a job to a woman at a salary
less than would be offered to a male, and the woman insists on a
more fair salary, the employer can refuse since
- there are plenty more qualified candidates in most occupations..
Given several people equally able to do the job, the employer would
choose the one, male or female, willing to work for the lowest salary.
- she may come back anyway, since no other employer is going to
give her a larger salary since they are ALSO doing the same
thing to people coming to them for jobs
This is circular reasoning.
... clearly a company that can get women to work for it at low
wages will be at a competitive advantage.
Women or men. Whichever individuals are willing to work for less.
Or are willing and able to accomplish more for the same wages.
> If it were forbidden to hire women for less than men make, many
> women would become unemployed.
Or what would happen if it were forbidden to hire men for more
than women make?
Does this apply to the exact same job? If so, women ARE being paid
the same as men. The women's lib contention is that the DIFFERENT
jobs that most women hold are worth as much as the average (or above
average) job that is held mostly by men.
Does this apply only to new hires? If so, men would be reluctant to
change jobs, even when it is to the net economic benefit of themselves
and their potential future employer. Many would be paid "under the
table". If not, then many men would be unable to meet their financial
obligations. Mortgages and rental agreements would be broken,
hundreds of thousands of men would be homeless while bank-owned houses
and apartments stand empty. In either case, the economy would
virtually collapse. No doubt the government would use this as
justification for further tampering with the economy.
Who is to decide on "equal worth"? Obviously not the free choices
of millions of uncoerced individuals, since that is what's being done
now, and the women's libbers aren't satisfied. I guess it is to be
some government bureaucracy. The Department of Individual Worth, it
could be called. They would have little trouble deciding that the job
of secretary is more valuable than the job of football player. So it
would become unlawful to hire a female secretary for less than any
football player makes. This would be sure to bring back the era of
the male secretary. Women would be out in the street - nobody could
afford to hire one. Nobody would be allowed to, even if she begged
for a chance to work for a lower wage than a football player.
Do you really think the solution to the world's problems is to
replace individual choice and judgement as to how to run our own lives
with the judgement of some random bureaucrat?
I have nothing against any group of individuals VOLUNTARILY deciding
to live by the rules you wish to impose on all of us.
Why should there be a distinction between men's and women's
salaries?
Who says there should? You ask the question as if this were an
edict handed down from on high, and we should consider abolishing it.
It isn't. There was a government policy to that effect in the 1930s,
but it has long since been eliminated.
You might as well ask why should there be a distinction between
any two individual's salaries.
If women feel that they haven't had a fair shake, women business
owners are free to ONLY hire women, if they wish. This would probably
violate an antidiscrimination law, but those seem to only be enforced
in the opposite direction, i.e. if a man chose to hire only men.
... The argument you use is the same as Reagan tried with the
"sub- minimum" wage. Why do we need to discriminate against the
already-discriminated-against and justify it by claiming we are
"helping" them -- "without this discrimination, you would be much
worse off without a job!"
Isn't it true? Hasn't government removed the bottom rungs from the
economic ladder? By your reasoning, all we would need to do to
guarantee prosperity is mandate a minimum wage of $100,000 a year.
Many people are unemployed because they simply aren't (yet) worth
the current minimum wage to anyone. The government mandates that if
they can't get the minimum wage, they can't get ANYTHING. How anyone
is supposed to live on nothing at all is never explained.
Many people illegally share small apartments because it isn't legal
to share small apartments, and they can't afford to rent a whole
apartment. Why should they be forced to lie and sneak and hide, just
to live?
Some people sleep on heating grates or park benches because they
can't afford even the shared cost of an apartment. Why is barracks
style housing illegal? Apparently it's ok in the military, and it's
ok if it is a charitible shelter for the homeless, paid for by tax
money, but not if it is privately owned and run for profit. Why?
Some people eat cat food and dog food or eat out of dumpsters
because they can't afford the cost of government approved food. Why
not allow grocery stores to sell non-approved food for those who can't
afford anything better? Wouldn't it be better than stuff found in
dumpsters? Wouldn't it be better than food formulated for the best
health of dogs, rather than people?
In order to climb a ladder, there has to be a bottom rung. The
bottom rung isn't very attractive, but at least it's better than the
ground. Especially if there is another rung just above it, and
another rung just above that.
How do people get started in adult life? The lucky ones are
assisted by their parents or friends. The problem of poverty is
largely the problem of those who don't get such a boost. Getting out
of poverty usually requires a willingness to illegally work for
sub-minimum wage on an underground economy job, to avoid the minimum
wage law and such regressive taxes such as Social Security, Workmen's
Compensation, and Unemployment Insurance, and a willingness to live
illegally in a shared apartment. If you don't believe me, ask any
immigrant. Ask anyone who was formerly poor. And they wonder why
poor people have so little respect for the law!
More and more rungs are being knocked out. The new tax laws are
radically increasing the cost of renting an apartment or house. I
think this is intended as an encouragement for home ownership, not
that I see why the government should care whether people rent or own.
What about people who can't afford to own a house? This policy is
like encouraging people to eat yellow vegetables by poisoning all the
green ones. Expect higher homelessness in 87.
How DO they justify Social Security tax rates being higher for
people making $1000 a year than for people making $100,000 a year?
How then do they justify the opposite slope for income taxes? IS
there any justification for any slope? Or for any tax rate? Or
for any tax? If so, I haven't heard it yet.
... some of those people who are not paid a fair wage adequate to
live on, or are unemployed due to discrimination or do not have
the capability to change "professions", will turn to crime and
violently ruin my comfortable little world, no matter what the
meager law of Libertaria say. Perhaps my tax money and loss of a
slight amount of "freedom" to negotiate in the unregulated
free-chaos market can be considered as an insurance policy
protecting me from others.
So, one's property and life are actually a gift from anyone who has
the physical power to take them away and chooses not to? Welfare is
actually protection racket money? Was your terminal provided by the
labor of those with the knowledge and skill to create such a thing
from mere stones and vegetation? Or was it provided by those with
only the knowlege of how to swing a club, who choose not to use their
club to smash your terminal?
If compulsion, not productivity, is the standard of income, then the
pickpocket will be replaced with the robber, and the robber with the
murderer.
If need, not productivity, is the standard of income, then the man
with no skills will be replaced with the man with no skills and no
arms and legs. And he in turn will be replaced with the man who also
has no eyes and who has open sores full of maggots.
You choose which kind of world you want to live in. I've made my
choice.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < pyramid!kontron!cramer@rutgers.rutgers.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 86 13:44:04 pst
From: kontron!cramer@rutgers.rutgers.edu (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Arms-Discussion Digest V7 #70
> Arms-Discussion Digest Monday, November 24, 1986 11:37PM
> Volume 7, Issue 70
>
> Exposing a running diesel engine to an ambient air
> concentration of about 3% acetylene causes engine preignition so
> severe that the engine has to be shut off in one or two seconds
> to avoid self-destruction. Concentrations only slightly higher have
> the same effect on standard gasoline-powered internal combustion
> engines. These tests were conducted with normal engine air
> filtration systems in place.
>
> Despite the positive results of the tests and the laboratory's
> favorable endorsement of Hoenig's concepts, the Army Material
> Command declined to follow up on the tests. After all, an engine
> mobility kill would stop a tank, armored personnel carrier, or
> truck, disable all sensors, and remove the power needed to
> operate the weapons systems, but it would not make a satisfying
> bang. And, the idea came from an outsider.
>
Perhaps the real reasons that the Army wasn't interested in the
concept:
1. Acetylene detectors are not horribly complicated to build; neither
is a method to switch over the tank engine's air intake to compressed
air in a second or less.
2. An immobilized tank is less dangerous than a mobile one -- but it
still qualifies as a artillery piece with machine guns. Something
that goes BANG! kills or disables the crew that could continue to fire
the main gun and the machine guns.
Clayton E. Cramer
PS - After sending mail about defending tanks from acetylene
preignition problems, I went for a walk and thought of a solution that
could be installed on existing tanks for a few hundred dollars that
renders the acetylene trick useless.
1. GM has built knock sensors for automobile engines for many years.
I'm not sure if they are now standard equipment or not, but I know
they were standard equipment for a while on turbocharged GM cars.
These respond quickly enough to knock to alter the engine timing as
compensation for low octane gasoline. Adapting these to tank engine
use should be trivial.
2. The quantities of compressed air required to solve acetylene clouds
is trivial, since acetylene is somewhat lighter than air, and will
drift up and away from the tank within a few seconds. Also, a tank
that is moving (and let's hope the tanks don't stand still for long on
a battlefield) will move out of the acetylene cloud unless the cloud
is truly enormous.
I'm always bothered by the assumption that if the military chooses not
to adopt a particular strategy (as the original poster of the
acetylene discussion seems to suggest), that it MUST be a symptom of
some psychological deficiency.
Clayton E. Cramer
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Saturday, 20 Dec 1986 Volume 6 : Issue 120
Today's Topics:
Libertarian Places &
South Africa (4 msgs) &
The Free Market &
Personal Choice &
Meritocracy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 86 09:57:04 PST
From: fagin%ji.Berkeley.EDU@berkeley.edu (Barry S. Fagin)
Subject: libertarian places, another example
Alas, no city in America has a strong track record of both
social tolerance and economic freedom. You might be surprised
to learn, however, that Houston has no zoning laws. While
Houston can hardly be described as a "libertarian city",
none of the evils that are supposed to happen in the absence
of zoning have come to pass. If there's interest, I'll
post a longer description of Houston.
--Barry
------------------------------
Return-path: < hofmann@nrl-css.arpa>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 86 15:58:02 est
From: Jim Hofmann < hofmann@nrl-css.arpa>
Subject: Nukes and Afrikaaners
In response to Keith's message that he should be able to acquire
a nuclear bomb if he wants - I guess the Libertarians can run on
the slogan, "The Libertarians in '88 - A Nuclear Bomb in Every
Basement"... what think you?
As for the Afrikaaners being "drunks", they are the only Army in
the world that equips their food supply trucks with a beer cooler.
Hmmm...
Jim
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 86 02:38:52 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: South Africa
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU, ametek!walton@CSVAX.CALTECH.EDU
The real tragedy of South Africa is that neither side supports
liberty. The government supports unequal individual rights for
members of different races. And the ANC supports NO individual
rights for ANYONE. Both are evil.
There is justifiable anger at the policies of the government of
South Africa. I wonder, though, why there is little outcry at the
far worse policies in the Soviet Union and its slave states. In
South Africa, people are at least free to complain. Not so in the
USSR. In South Africa, people can leave. Not so in the USSR.
Blacks in South Africa are granted fewer rights than whites in
South Africa. This is wrong. But blacks in South Africa have MORE
rights than people of ANY race have behind the iron curtain.
Why is there no call for sanctions and embargos against the
Soviets?
Is it because the Americans who export to the USSR (farmers) have
more political pull than the Americans who export to South Africa?
Is it because the USSR has nuclear weapons? Would we accord greater
respect to the South African government if THEY had nuclear weapons?
Is that the kind of behavior we want to reward?
Is it because it is not RIGHTS that we value but EQUALITY? Do most
Americans believe that it is better to be equal in slavery and poverty
under a totalitarian system than to be unequal but wealthier in a
semi- free society?
Is it because we see on TV what happens in South Africa, but see
nothing of the USSR except what the Soviet government wants us to see?
I don't know quite what people expect will be gained by sanctions in
any case.
The best way I can see to fight apartheid is for American companies
in South Africa to demand freedom from racist regulations, so that
they can hire people of all races based solely on merit. If even a
few large companies did this, it would strike a blow against
apartheid, and set an example for the locally owned companies which
are harmed by the racist regulations.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!jaguar!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 86 15:02:07 PST
From: Steve Walton < ametek!jaguar!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Subject: Lost CC: on South Africa
Keith, I agree with some of what you say. Willie has pointed out
before that at least the Soviets CLAIM to have the same ideals of
freedom that we do, having signed the Helsinki accords and having
guarantees in their Constitution similar to the Bill of Rights. The
Afrikaners make no such pretense; apartheid is a totalitarian system
enshrined in law, duly enacted by the South African government.
There is plenty of hypocrisy on the other side of the (simplistic)
left-right divide on what the US policy towards the SU, SA, Chile,
etc. should be, as well. Try reading the Wall St. Journal's
editorial pages sometimes; I don't think the people who write them
even read their own paper, much less anyone else's.
I honestly don't know what to do about the Soviet Union. Do note,
though, that last time I checked the Soviet people were not in armed
revolt against their government, and I think it behooves us to assume
that they don't dislike their government sufficiently to replace it
unless such revolt occurs. Their possession of nuclear weapons is a
large factor, of course, since in any action viz a viz the SU we must
always ask ourselves, "Will they nuke us if we do this?" I think
there is only one rational basis at present: namely, that like it or
not, the Soviets are a world power, their government is relatively
stable, and we have to share the planet with them and therefore must
deal with them on subjects of mutual concern. I think there are
plenty of areas where agreements with them are in the US's best
interests, and such should be pursued, even if they SEEM to help
support a totalitarian state. What do you think? Should we deal
with the Soviets as if they were just another country? Should we
build a (figurative or actual) wall around them so that nothing gets
in or out?
Unfortunately, foreign affairs is a murky business, and one cannot
always apply one's principles unstintingly in all aspects of it.
Steve
------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!jaguar!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 86 15:05:28 PST
From: Steve Walton < ametek!jaguar!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Subject: South Africa
From: Steve Walton < ametek!jaguar!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Willie has pointed out before that at least the Soviets CLAIM to
have the same ideals of freedom that we do, having signed the
Helsinki accords and having guarantees in their Constitution similar
to the Bill of Rights.
Steve, I am not the Willie that said this. Perhaps there is another
Willie.
Willie WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
------------------------------
Return-path: cuae2!ihnp4!dual!paul@topaz.rutgers.edu
From: paul@dual.UUCP (Baker)
Subject: Re: Reply to Rich Cowan
> The really ironic thing is that it is the free market that
> makes the best decisions regarding what should be produced
> and how much it is worth. Of course no one person agrees
> 100% with the result, but at least such things are decided
> among consenting adults, and not through the exercise of
> political power. It ain't perfect, its just the best system
> we have, and the only one compatible with human liberty.
This is typical Libertarian bullshit. The free enterprise system
created slavery in this and many other countries. I don't consider
this compatible with human liberty. Also slavery was not stopped
by a bunch of Libertarians either.
Paul Wilcox-Baker
------------------------------
Return-path: < @MC.LCS.MIT.EDU:KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 86 20:05:13 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Choice
To: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: mcgeer%sirius.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rick McGeer)
I guess the point is that we have a choice in this society, and to
an extent we've made it: we can have a society that is free, or we
have one where people cannot really screw themselves up -- that
is, people become unnaccountable for their mistakes. For the last
25 years, anyway, Western society generally has moved in the
latter direction. I don't really like it, but that seems to be
the way it is.
But nobody but me has the right to make that choice for me.
I agree that that is what the idea was. But it hasn't worked. It
is easier to screw oneself up than it was. And it is easier for
others to screw you up.
If group policies refused to cover smokers or cokeheads, one or
more of them would wind up in hospital uninsured, and his family
would go broke.
Yep.
The story would be covered on the TV news, there would be an
outcry ...
Probably true. What is needed is a better educated public. If when
they outcried they were politely told that nobody is stopping them
from donating THEIR money to the cokehead medical fund, I think they
would shut up in a hurry.
It is unfortunate that TV is nonlinear. If an expensive house and
everything in it crashes into rubble, people would be sympathetic to
the owners of the house. But they don't seem to realize that the
current tax rate is equivalent to a hundred such houses being wiped
out every minute of every day, year round, and the rate of destruction
is accelerating.
And the Democrats want to INCREASE this chaos? While the
Republicans natter about God in the classroom and moderate Iranians?
*SIGH*.
Employers ... are not required to discriminate on the basis of
nationality;
I was refering to the laws about illegal immigrants. Thanks to the
recent immigration reform law, an employer can be sent to jail for
hiring illegal immigrants even if he didn't know they were illegal
immigrants.
A lot of employers are obviously going to just refrain from hiring
anyone who looks Hispanic. How can he be sure his papers aren't fake?
Why take the risk? There is no risk in NOT hiring him. It's not like
he was BLACK or something.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed 17 Dec 86 00:52:22-EST
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Meritocracy
To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
There is a series of articles on Singapore in the November 22 issue of
the Economist. The aricles claim that it is a meritocracy.
Redbusters would love how they (Singaporeans) tame the unions. They
also have actual experience in busting reds back in the sixties.
However some conservatives would be aghasted at their social
experiments (like subtle integration by not having racial ghettos or
the state's control on the number of children a couple could have.)
They have a self-sufficient social security system and many profitable
state enterprises. (They are privatizing some of them now.) Their
per capita GDP ranked fourth in the Asia-Australia region (i.e. after
Japan, Australia and New Zealand) but higher than (or as high as???)
Israel or Ireland.
I think there is an opportunity here for a libertarian experiment.
They are on the verge of becoming a developed society and are in
search of a more mature political system.
Willie
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************