Poli-Sci: Volume 7, Part 3
Poli-Sci Digest Saturday, 23 May 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 66
Today's Topics:
College (5 msgs) &
History
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue, 5 May 87 00:17:28 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: College
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> Why does it have to be a college in the US? From all your flaming
> about how bad education is in the US, one would expect you to be
> more imaginative and think of colleges (very good ones too---more
> education for the buck) in India, Singapore, Hong Kong, England,
> Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, to name a few places.
I didn't say I thought education was any better anywhere else. Or
that there is anything wrong with technical education. Even Japan and
the USSR seem to be good at that.
I would expect YOU to be more imaginative. Why does it have to be a
college at all? Why not books and private studying? The only reason
for an actual diploma is to impress one's employer. The only reason
to impress one's employer is to make more money. I plan to be self
employed in a few years. Any additional income I would make because
of having a degree in the meanwhile would be less than the cost
(including loss of wages and loss of interest income) of getting that
degree, especially since a foreign degree would be less likely to
impress one's employer. College is important but it isn't the most
important thing in life.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 5 May 87 09:47:32-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: College
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
College is important but it isn't the most important thing in
life.
Nobody said it is the most important thing in life.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 5 May 87 10:15:51-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: College
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Why not books and private studying?
If it's that easy, everybody will be doing it and colleges will cease
to exist. I guess lots of people would become doctors if all they
have to do is to just read books and do some private study. We would
have a world of self-taught engineers, doctors, lawyers, physicists,
mathematicians, biologists, anthropologists, chemists,
astro-physicists, economists, linguists, geologists, etc.
The only reason for an actual diploma is to impress one's employer.
The only reason to impress one's employer is to make more money.
I wouldn't say that that's the only reason. Please explain why you
think it's the only reason. Remember you have already expressed a
distaste for statistics and hence I would expect you not to use
statistics in stating your reason.
There are people (especially those in the not so well paid fields) who
go to college simply because of their love for knowledge. Others go
to college because of their love for teaching i.e. they want to become
teachers, who aren't that well paid anyway.
...a foreign degree would be less likely to impress one's employer.
Ah, the good old incomplete information (aka ignorance) problem. Hey
wouldn't you expect that in a free market, an employer would have
known about good foreign colleges? They would be impressed wouldn't
they?
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 5 May 87 10:30:40-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: College
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
I would expect YOU to be more imaginative.
(-: That's what happen when YOUR lack of imagination is allowed to
become contagnious.:-)
Why does it have to be a college at all?
Many people find college a very enriching experience. Some people
actually learn to become more imaginative in college by learning about
other places through interactions with a varied student body.
Hey, if we have complete information everybody would know everything.
Then there is no need to go to college to learn anything.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
To: Willie Lim < WLIM@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: College
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
From: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Since you've kept me on the CC: list, I'll but in here....
>> The only reason for an actual diploma is to impress one's
>> employer. The only reason to impress one's employer is to make
>> more money.
>>
>> I wouldn't say that that's the only reason. Please explain why you
>> think it's the only reason. Remember you have already expressed a
>> distaste for statistics and hence I would expect you not to use
>> statistics in stating your reason.
I'll state my reasons:
Note that a diploma is a piece of paper that says you've met
requirements set by the issuing school. Those requirements are usually
of the form of "take X classes from set Y while with a minimum average
grade of M, and no grade lower than N" repeated for various X, Y, M
and N. Ergo, the only thing a diploma really tells you about its
possessor is that they can pass classes by some means. You can
probably safely conclude that they can also take tests, as that's
usually required to pass classes. An ability to actually _do_ things
isn't implied by the diploma, as much as people would like that to be
the case.
Of course, if you take and pass the courses required for a degree,
you'll probably pick up some real abilities along the way. But you'll
have those abilities even if you never actually get the diploma.
In other words, it's possibly (and relatively easy, if you want to) to
have the knowledge assumed to go with the diploma without having the
diploma, and it's also possible to have diploma without the knowledge.
Though Keith did overstate the case: I think a diploma is more useful
for impressing potential employers than current employers.
In light of the context for this discussion, it's somewhat ironic that
the only reason I've got a diploma is because I was being
discriminated against. I'd been working in the real world for a couple
of years, and was looking to change jobs. Several potential employers
had secretaries bounce applications for jobs I was easily qualifed
for, because I didn't have that piece of paper. Never mind that I was
more qualified than the people who vacated the position, who hadn't
had a degree either. So I placed out of some intro programming class,
thus getting the last 3 hours I needed to graduate.
< mike
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 6 May 87 01:05:06 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Socialism
To: "KIRK@UWM-CS.MILW.WISC.EDU"@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
> From: "Kirk Augustin" < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
> Since there are few genetic differences between all human ethnic
> groups, we can assume that Russians are very much like us. Only
> very few people are warped enough to be insensitive to the pain of
> others. Therefore if there is something wrong the soviet union we
> must conclude that it is because of a small powerful minority.
Right.
> Could you imagine the US actually invading the USSR
No.
> or them us.
Yes.
> The lies and misinformation in this country are just as bad or worse
> than in the USSR.
You really think so? At least we have a diversity of opinions here.
Everyone is allowed to talk. Not so there. If there is any bias in
our newspapers and colleges it is a pro-Soviet bias.
> Let us use the 'sneak' attack on Pearl Harbor as an example.
Do you have a shred of evidence for your allegations? I would love
to see it. Seriously! Anything which makes Roosevelt look bad I
love to see. But I don't believe a word of it.
> The fact that you don't question why we even had such a base like
> Pearl ...
The issue never came up. What are you saying? That it was placed
there precisely because we knew the Japanese were coming?
> and the idea that you somehow think it was good to test the bomb
> on people
I didn't say that. I don't.
> makes me wonder if your conditioning is already too strong.
I see. If I disagree with you I am conditioned. If I agree, I am
open minded. Well, the feeling is mutual.
> Using your own ideas, the bomb should not have been dropped because
> if nothing else a dud would have given them the bomb.
That certainly was a consideration. But the only alternative to using
it was a land invasion that would certainly have killed many millions.
If it was a dud - both the conventional and the nuclear parts - it
would have been smashed on the ground. The Japanese probably wouldn't
even bother looking at the remains if they didn't suspect there was
such a thing as an atomic bomb.
> It should have been ground tested with Japanese observers that were
> under our supervision.
It isn't that easy to gather a bunch of high ranking members of an
enemy government we are at war with. We didn't have diplomatic
relation, nor was there a UN. What should we have told them? That
there was something we wanted them to see, and we won't say what until
they see it? Or should we have simply told them that we had such a
bomb? If the latter, don't you think they would have gone to a much
greater effort to shoot down - or capture - any lone B29 bombers?
Don't you think they might have attacked the island we were setting up
the demonstration on? And how could we know they weren't on the verge
of developing a similar bomb? This wasn't a chess game. They
tortured and murdered POWs and innocent civilians. Whatever ended the
war fastest was right.
> But I also read a book by the man responsible for Dresden.
> It was called 'The Scientific Method' and I know that he was worse
> than Stalin. ...
Aren't you getting carried away? Stalin killed tens of millions of
innocent people. He was the greatest mass murderer in all history,
with the possible exception of Mao in China. The two of them made
Hitler look like a boy scout.
> Hitler fooled around with some socialists to get started, but by
> 1932 he had killed them all and was pure capitalist by his standards
> as well as everyone elses.
His movement was always called National Socialism. It differed from
other forms of socialism only in that the others claimed to welcome
people of all races. He was certainly no more a capitalist than
Stalin.
> Capitalism is 'get what you can any way you can' by its own
> definition.
No it isn't. Find me this definition in any dictionary. Capitalism
is that system in which individuals have inalienable rights, i.e.
rights that no government can take away, which include the rights to
life, liberty, and property (see Locke) all of which Hitler violated
on an enormous scale.
> Socialism and communism simply are human addmissions that we should
> also be guided by ethics as well as profits.
A system of laws representing ethics are compatible with, indeed
necessary for, capitalism. The prime ethical principle is an
individual's right to be left alone. Everything unethical boils down
to a violation of this fundamental right. Socialism, by denying me
the right to wealth I created or voluntarily traded, violates this
principle. We can see the results of this in the USSR, in Ethiopia,
in China, In Cuba, in Cambodia, and many other socialist countries
whose citizens are in abject poverty. There aren't any socialist
countries with a decent standard of living, with a reasonable amount
of medical care, with as little class-consciousness as there is in the
US, with as little racism as there is in the US, with a sufficient
quantity of nourishing food, or any of the other things socialists in
this country are always going on about.
> However I will admit that any idea of how to legislate ethics
> without turning into a monstrous beaurocracy is beyond me.
The problem is not too much red tape, it is organized theft and
thought control, and, in better times, brutal torture and death for
any dissenters (in worse times, brutal torture and death even for
those who do NOT dissent, as in Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia,
Mao's China, and Stalin's USSR, all of which are/were socialist).
> But all more primitive cultures are and have always been essentially
> communist ...
I doubt it. And if true, it shows which way progress points.
> When you help the neighboring pioneer raise a barn or hunt buffalo
> with your Indian tribe, that is pure communism.
The hell it is. The essential difference is that it is voluntary. I
can stop any time I like. If I have surplus time or food I may give
them to my neighbor, but it isn't communism unless I always work as
hard for him as I do for myself, and unless I always feed the
hungriest person before I feed myself. Does anyone live like that?
Never mind small tribes, which are more like large families than
nations. Marx always advocated world-wide communism. Do YOU eat less
than the most miserable Ethiopian? Do you know anyone who does?
> Private ownership of private goods has no conflict with communism.
> Communism simply is where the means of survival should be available
> to all. This means a place to work and live.
Ok, so I can keep my toothbrush - at least as long as the government
lets me. But if I build a house, produce a useful medicine, construct
a thriving business, grow food, or create anything that can be
regarded as a "means of production", the government will take it away.
If I am lucky I may even escape punishment for "profiteering" (which
still carries the death penalty in the USSR).
Places to work and live, etc, cannot be made available to all unless
they are taken from whoever produces them. They don't grow on trees.
But what does the government do when nobody produces them anymore? No
amount of need, no amount of pity, no amount of noble causistry, will
feed even a single hungry child if nobody has grown any food.
> In capitalism you can lock a worker out until he is willing to
> become a slave.
Funny, I have't seen a lot of slaves around lately. Perhaps this is
because the worker can go find another job. The employer/employee
relationship is symmetrical in a capitalist system. An employer can
deny a job do an employee, and an employee can deny his services to an
employer. The employer can find other employees, and the employee can
find another employer.
This is not the case in a socialist country. In a socialist country,
there is only one employer - the state. The employee is not free to
quit. He is not free to bargain for better conditions. He is a
slave. Why else would barbed wire and machine guns be needed to keep
him in the socialist "worker's paradise"?
> ... but some of the things you said show that you have been
> listening to good talkers instead of reading good books. They
> can't get away with distorsions like that in print.
If you can rebut a single thing I said, please do so.
> Think for a second and compare yourself with the patriotic soviet
> workers who are furious with the political dissedents for selling
> out the USSR.
No comparison. I have never suggested that "dissidents" be silenced
or punished for their ideas. I would in fact strongly support
punishing anyone who DID try to forcibly silence you or anyone else.
In a free country a person has a perfect right to propound stupid
opinions if he wants to.
And if a Soviet citizen was as critical of the Soviet Union as I am of
the United States, he wouldn't last very long. If you have been
reading Poli-Sci for any time at all, you know I am no fan of the
present (or previous) administration.
I strongly suggest you read Ayn Rand's _Capitalism: The Unknown
Ideal_. I know you aren't going to. It is obvious you are too closed
minded. I would do as well to suggest to a junkie that he just stop
shooting up. But I am suggesting it anyway.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Saturday, 23 May 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 67
Today's Topics:
Periodicals Left and Right &
Laws and Land &
History (2 msgs) &
College (4 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < uucp@seismo.css.gov>
From: allegra!dsf@seismo.css.gov (David Fox)
Subject: Periodicals Left and Right
Date: 13 May 87 13:56:50 GMT
I am interested in periodicals of the right which correspond to those
of the left such as "The Nation" and "In These Times" (I think its
called.) Preferably, these would have more intellectual content than
"The New York Post". Is "The New Republic" such a magazine?
Please respond by mail, and also send requests for results by mail.
Thanks.
David Fox
allegra!dsf
------------------------------
Return-path: < mcvax!cs.vu.nl!biep@seismo.css.gov>
From: "J. A. \"Biep\" Durieux" < mcvax!cs.vu.nl!biep@seismo.css.gov>
Subject: Re: Reply to REM - Part II of II
Date: 14 May 87 09:14:59 GMT
Reply-to: "J. A. \"Biep\" Durieux"
Reply-to: < mcvax!cs.vu.nl!biep@seismo.css.gov>
In article < 8705120243.AA23897@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>,
KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
> No. The land the commune is on is presumably owned or leased by the
> commune leadership. The land of a country is not owned by its
> government.
Oh, yes, it is. I know of no country where the individual has the last
word in deciding what's going to happen with his land. Perhaps you
*wished* you owned "your" land, but that's another matter...
> > The totally free place you want is the world, not the USA. Each
> > nation (commune) is free to make its own rules, ...
>
> What if the rules say we enslave blacks? Are the blacks nonetheless
> "free", since the nation "freely" collectively willed that they be
> slaves?
Read Plato's "Crito" about when one has to obey the laws of an
institution and when not; and when one can leave it (e.g. the country)
and when not.
Btw, what if the rules say we may "own" dogs? little children? idiots?
women? blacks? If what you make is your property, aren't children
property?
> True. You then agree that a person has the right to leave a country
> regardless of the will of the majority? What other inalienable
> rights does every individual have?
Do you think any person, with whatever debts, has the right to leave
the country? If I commit a murder, do I have the right to leave the
country before trial? If a have been born in the country, when did I
declare I would obey to the rules? Should I have left the day after
birth? What if the country decides that getting born is only allowed
if you pay many $$? Then every born child has a large debt, so cannot
leave the country. The world is not that simple.
> Neither one is literally computable until a program can be written
> which correctly simulates the workings of millions of free minds.
> Last I heard, nobody knew how to simulate even one.
As an aside, this is a non sequitur. No physicist knows how to
simulate the behaviour of "even" one elementary particle.
Neveretheless, most physicists are rather good in deciding what will
happen if I send a rocket to the moon.
> I do not value skill. Or hard work. Or good luck. I value actual
> goods and services such as food and shelter.
I think here is a basis for many of the problems. One can only accept
libertarianism if *and*:
1 - one accepts that from the power most people have over their body
follows the right over that body.
(Quite hard to swallow for most people - what about those
who are lame? Sorry, guys, but you don't have the right to
eat; perhaps there is someone who wants to feed you...)
2 - one is mainly interested in material things.
(Just a matter of taste.)
3 - one believes that everybody can be held equally responsible
for his/her deeds.
4 - one is willing to state that no one can be held responsible for
the fare of others.
The latter who seem a wish to deny responsibility to me. Just by
stating one isn't responsible it doesn't become true.
> I couldn't disagree more. In the one case, if you choose not to pay
> the fire department, if your house catches fire they will not put it
> out, and you will lose your house.
That depends. If you are living in a thickly settled district, you may
be forcing your neighbours to pay your bill, as the fire may easily
jump from one house to another. Remember the old discussions about
Pareto-optimality?
In a case like this, the neighbourhood might decide to buy all the
land, form a state/county/province/whatever, and declare that anyone
can buy the use of the land, on the condition that if ever he builds a
house on it, he will pay the fire department an appropriate amount. In
fact, this sort of things have happened often, and that's why there do
exist many countries. (Historically, often the land just was property
of one person, so buying wasn't necessary). Now people are complaining
they cannot do what they want with "their" land...
=-=-=
BTW, Yes, I think if somewhere someone starves, and I could have
prevented it (reasonably), I am guilty of his death. In fact, I think
I am guilty of a lot of things. Not a nice idea, but I won't try to
deny it.
I think rights are things one might *earn*. Either because he has a
certain responsability (in the sense: he can justly be held
responsable), or because he works hard.
About the former: If someone has enough responsability, it may be a
crime to abide to the law, if he sees the law is wrong at that point.
So he has the right (and even the duty) to break the law.
--
Biep. (biep@cs.vu.nl via mcvax)
You can distribute this iff your recipients can.
Which they can iff *their* recipients can.
Which...
------------------------------
Return-path: < ray@cs.rochester.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 May 87 16:37:47 edt
From: Ray Frank < ray@cs.rochester.edu>
Subject: Re: Soviet history
kirk@UWM-CS.MILW.WISC.EDU ("Kirk Augustin") writes:
> The lies and misinformation in this country are just as bad or worse
> than in the USSR. Let us use the 'sneak' attack on Pearl Harbor as
> an example. Since we had secretly broken the Japanese code we knew
> the attack was coming. But all we did was get the only valuable
> ships, the carriers, out. They were forced to circle and refuel
> for a week at sea so that they were sure to be out of the way. Not
> only didn't we want them damaged, but we had to make sure that there
> were not enough US planes to defeat the moderately small enemy force
> that we knew were coming. This has been documented in numerous books
OK I give up, what books? It is widely known that the U.S. suspected
that an attack was imminent because of intercepted messages and such
but it was never clear where the attack would take place. You seem to
have information that not too many people have. You also suggest that
the carriers were moved out to sea but the rest of the ships, planes,
men, civilians were left as sitting ducks to be purposely killed.
Duh, if this were the case why did we leave EXTREMELY valuable
crusiers, destroyers, and battleships there to be sunk? Why not just
leave a few junk boats around to be sunk? You say you read a book by
the code breaker himself. What is his name and what is the name of
his book? Are you sure the books you've been reading aren't Russian
history books? They are after all second to none when it comes to
lies and misinformation, eh commrade.
ray
------------------------------
Return-path: < mcvax!cs.vu.nl!biep@seismo.css.gov>
From: "J. A. \"Biep\" Durieux" < mcvax!cs.vu.nl!biep@seismo.css.gov>
Subject: Re: Soviet history
Date: 14 May 87 09:38:40 GMT
KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
> > a military target instead of a totally civilian population center,
>
> Hiroshima was a major naval base and manufacturing center. Nagasaki
> was a major manufacturing center and rail depot. It would be nice if
> war could be fought without endangering civilians, but civilians
> often live near military targets, especially those who are engaged
> in war industries, as most of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims
> were.
In fact, the Americans have been thinking about bombing Mt Fuji
instead. Japan experts, however, thought that would raise such an
anger against them, that no possibility of surrender would be possible
(don't forget the Japanese had instructions to kill themselves if ever
they would lose the war).
--
Biep. (biep@cs.vu.nl via mcvax)
You can distribute this iff your recipients can.
Which they can iff *their* recipients can.
Which...
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 5 May 87 12:55:22-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: College
To: mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
Cc: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
< mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
Since you've kept me on the CC: list, I'll but[t] in here....
Keith CCed you when he started this. I was just keeping up with the
etiquette.
> > The only reason for an actual diploma is to impress one's
> > employer. The only reason to impress one's employer is to
> > make more money.
> >
> > I wouldn't say that that's the only reason. Please explain why
> > you think it's the only reason. Remember you have already
> > expressed a distaste for statistics and hence I would expect
> > you not to use statistics in stating your reason.
I'll state my reasons:...
Great, those are your reasons. But is that the only reason for going
to college, as Keith claimed. Or is it that you want me to conclude
that your reason is the only reason why people go to college?
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 5 May 87 13:17:16-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: College
To: mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
Cc: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
< mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
In light of the context for this discussion, it's somewhat ironic
that the only reason I've got a diploma is because I was being
discriminated against.
That's another reason for going to college.
Several potential employers had secretaries bounce applications
for jobs I was easily qualifed for, because I didn't have that
piece of paper. Never mind that I was more qualified than the
people who vacated the position, who hadn't had a degree either.
According to Keith's model of the free market, those potential
employers who discriminated against you would lose and you would have
brought lots of benefits to the employer who hires you (without your
diploma).
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
To: Willie Lim < WLIM@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Cc: kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: College
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
From: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
> > Great, those are your reasons. But is that the only reason for
> > going to college, as Keith claimed. Or is it that you want me to
> > conclude that your reason is the only reason why people go to
> > college?
No, you read more into that than I wrote. Those are my reasons for
having a diploma. They also cover all the uses for one that I know of,
outside of wall decoration. There are probably as many reasons for
wanting a diploma as people who want one.
On the other hand, there are lots of good reasons for going to
college. Getting a diploma doesn't rank very high on that list,
though.
< mike
------------------------------
Return-path: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
To: Willie Lim < WLIM@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: College
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
From: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
> > In light of the context for this discussion, it's somewhat
> > ironic that the only reason I've got a diploma is because I
> > was being discriminated against.
> >
> > That's another reason for going to college.
That's an example of "using a diploma to impress a potential
employer." You'll have to check with Keith, but I suspect that that's
exactly the kind of thing he had in mind.
< mike
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Saturday, 23 May 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 68
Today's Topics:
Pollution &
History (2 msgs) &
College (4 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Mon 11 May 87 23:31:47-EDT
From: ~joe testa~ < testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Pollution
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU
"Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> writes:
> > From: ~joe testa~ < testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
>
> > Of course, you might suggest having private companies monitor
> > compliance of others with environmental laws. The problem with
> > this is that they will not have the authority to demand access
> > to whatever evidence they require to assess the actions of a
> > potential offender.
> They don't need to. All they need to do is be able to monitor the
> environment. For instance you could hire them to check out your
> backyard...
Yes, but determining that my backyard has been polluted is not the
same thing at determining that you have polluted it. In Libertaria,
if i understand what you've been saying, the government could not
assist me in alleviating the damage done by the pollution; it would be
up to the polluter to compensate me . . . but no one knows who has
caused the pollution! So the polluter goes on his/her merry way.
~joe testa~
------------------------------
Return-path: < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
Date: Fri, 15 May 87 00:58:03 CDT
From: "Kirk Augustin" < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
To: MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
Subject: Re: History lessons...
I only recently started scanning the newsnet and the political science
area in particular, but I am just about ready to give up hope. I have
responded to only 3 separate people so far and am surprised at the way
discussions are carried on. Although your message was the least
offensive, it was the last one I read so I am tired of dealing with
the reflexive reaction I am getting. Instead of catching and
discussing overall principles, all I get are hassles over each little
detail. The details are not that important but they are correctly
stated. An example is whether or not a priest is a tank, or a m3 is a
halftrack. The priest is a tank according to the British who were
save by a gift of 300 of them in north Africa. It was built on the m3
chassis with an open pulpit for a 150MM howitzer that was grafted on
the right front. It still had a closed driver area and turret on top
with a little 37MM. And when it comes to the 'm3' you forgot that
there was an m3 submachinegun, m3 armored car, etc. But the m3 I was
referring to was the m3 tank which was the predecessor to the m4 also
known as the Sherman tank. The real point is that the possibility of
the USSR being a threat is obvious. They have absolutely no way of
convincing us otherwise. But what kind of threat? What I was trying
to do was illustrate that they have had a rough time, and that
everyone has acted in a hostile manner to them. A temporary WWII
truce means nothing. The fact is that we landed troops in Siberia for
an invasion with France, England, Finland, ect. that never got off the
ground. The USSR certainly can't be trusted but no immediate threat
has been proven yet. However if you look a our history you see that a
great deal of money is made by a small circle of powerful men whenever
we have a war. We consequently have had wars on almost a 20 year
cycle. This is a real and proven threat. Even though we have a
democracy, given enough moving speeches and bold headlines it is easy
to manipulate the population. I thought for a while that even the KAL
007 might turn into WWIII. I do not want to get into another round of
detail, but I wish to point out that this threat is far more
dangerous. First of all it has proven itself dangerous in the past.
(read accounts of northerners running guns to the south in the civil
war) Is virtually invisible because it is not identifiable as one
group and people do not believe it exists. And the same people who
profit from war are the same people who control our information
systems. All these people have to do to make us keep giving them our
money is to maintain an atmosphere of fear, just as the soviet
beauracracy legitimizes itself as the protector to the Russian people.
To ignore either is foolhearty or selfserving depending on which side
you are on, but as educated people it is our responsibility to point
out that there are more than 2 sides.
------------------------------
Return-path: < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
Date: Fri, 15 May 87 03:52:39 CDT
From: "Kirk Augustin" < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
To: MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
Subject: Re: Soviet history
Cc: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
We like to think that we are so different from the Soviets,(it can't
happen here) but I see it differently. The Soviets have good reasons
to want security and stability at all costs, after all many people
starved in the war and other earlier times were almost as bad. But
are we all that independent? Look at the people sending their money
to the PTL. The Russians have transfered their religious faith to the
state but that doesn't make them any more subserviant than us. In
fact the state in this country has more expertise in manipulating the
media so that it probably has more control than the soviet state.
Look at the current 'drug war' hype that is being leveled on us. The
soviet leadership is not capable of anything that slick with the vodka
situation. Basically we all have what is known as the 'great ape'
syndrome where we want protection and order from our leaders,
otherwise the president would not have so much sway and fads like
yuppieism wouldn't happen.
With Pearl Harbor you still miss the point. 6 carriers sound like
alot until you realize that they were much smaller than the carriers
we built. The Zero, like most Japanese planes, were constructed
mostly of wood, were underpowered, and unarmored. They did much
better than we thought they would considering what they had to work
with, but from letters and documents of the time we know that they
were never considered a real threat. Battle ships like the Arizona
were the last of the great white fleet and only had value as targets.
The real point was that we had no historic, cultural, or geographical
ties to the islands we occupied in the Pacific. Japan knew we were
there for exactly the same reason they wanted the islands so both
sides knew the conflict was inevitable. My question was why even be
there at all?
Still no answer to the A-bomb question. Everybody keeps saying
that it saved millions of lives by avoiding a landing. This doesn't
make sense. Japan was near depletion of all resources. The firestorm
techniques we perfected on Dresden were disasterous to the Japanese
cities. Offensive action was impossible and attempts at negotiated
surrender were offered by them many times. It would not have been at
all difficult to set up a bomb demo. Infact they would have welcomed
it as a way to save face. But since no attempt was made to even try,
the intention was obvious and the question becomes unimportant. There
was no urgency since there was no fleet left to attack us. Why did we
have to move so quickly? Since it was known most of the victims would
die of radiation poisoning, lukemia, etc., the a-bomb was banned by
laws against chemical and biological warfare, and there was no excuse
for using it.
The Lusitania was mentioned because the Germans had taken out
several large ads warning that the ship would be sunk. This is just
another example of how the media and public figures manuvered us into
another war. Of course the war was popular, the media, etc. made it
so.
Yes Dresden was bombed with conventional napalm, but the inventor
and author was also involved with the a-bomb and wanted to use flares
and whistles on it to blind thousands more. He was upset because they
wouldn't let him.
All these detail are totally unimportant. We have a right to be
critical of the soviet union, but by not even considering the possible
corruption within this country, we are giving ourselves up to another
enemy without even firing a shot.
------------------------------
Return-path: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
To: Willie Lim < WLIM@xx.lcs.mit.edu>
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: College
From: Mike (My watch has windows)
Meyer < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
> > Several potential employers had secretaries bounce applications
> > for jobs I was easily qualifed for, because I didn't have that
> > piece of paper. Never mind that I was more qualified than the
> > people who vacated the position, who hadn't had a degree
> > either.
> >
> > According to Keith's model of the free market, those potential
> > employers who discriminated against you would lose and you would
> > have brought lots of benefits to the employer who hires you(without
> > your diploma).
Which is exactly what happened. Nobody who hired me has had any
complaints, and those who didn't obviously didn't get whatever benefit
those who did did.
As it turned out, I never went to work for any of the companies that
required a degree. As things stand now, I probably wouldn't on the
grounds that they have idiotic practices, like discrimination.
< mike
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 5 May 87 14:09:29-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: College
To: mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
Cc: kfl@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
< mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
On the other hand, there are lots of good reasons for going to
college. Getting a diploma doesn't rank very high on that list,
though.
True. I know some people (college graduates) who would love to attend
college for the rest of their lives!
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 5 May 87 14:13:26-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: College
To: mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
Cc: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
< mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
That's an example of "using a diploma to impress a potential
employer." You'll have to check with Keith, but I suspect that
that's exactly the kind of thing he had in mind.
I was refering to discrimination in general. That is, you might need
a diploma just to get some doors opened.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 5 May 87 14:33:02-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Equal education?
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm.violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
...the black leaders, etc, who keep insisting that success is
impossible without major new government programs. I do believe
that these leaders are doing immense harm, especially to students
with little self confidence.
There is an interesting article in the front page of today's Wall
Street Journal on Morehouse College that is related to this. The
black educators in that black college stresses self-confidence,
hardwork, individual effort, etc. (the stuff you considered good) and
they have a tough academic program too---students who are not up to
par have to repeat until they get it right, they provide remedial
classes to bring students up to the expected standard (i.e. the
standard for passing was not lowered), etc. They have impressive
alumni (e.g. one of them got his Ph.D. from Berkeley at the age of 23,
another started college at the age of 15, etc.) many of whom are black
leaders now.
Willie
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Sunday, 24 May 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 69
Today's Topics:
Publishing &
Socialism &
Pollution &
College (5 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < @relay.cs.net:dave%lsuc@math.waterloo.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 May 87 01:45:40 EDT
From: dave%lsuc%math%math.waterloo.edu@relay.cs.net
Subject: Re: Ideas, Justice
KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU.UUCP (Keith) writes:
> What are you saying? That it is also necessary that a person NOT be
> exposed to false ideas? How would you propose this be done? I
> understand it is illegal to publicly claim in Canada that the
> Holocaust is false. Do you consider this a reasonable law?
I personally consider that the statement above is an
oversimplification and that the law is reasonable.
Section 177 of the Criminal Code makes it illegal to wilfully
publish false news that is likely to cause injury or mischief
to a public interest. Ernst Zundel was convicted under this
section. It is not simply a matter of "publicly claiming
that the Holocaust is false". Zundel published numerous books
and pamphlets which described the Holocaust as a fabrication
by Jews to get money out of the Germans. His actions constitute
a libel against the entire Jewish people, and can reasonably
be considered likely to cause injury or mischief to a public
interest.
It should be noted that Zundel was convicted by unanimous
decision of twelve jurors, who had to have concluded beyond
a reasonable doubt that what Zundel published was false,
that he knew it to be false, that he did it wilfully and
that his actions were likely to cause injury or mischief to a public
interest.
It may also be noted that Zundel's conviction was quashed
on appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal, which ordered a
new trial on technical legal grounds, relating to the jury
selection process and the judge's charge to the jury.
The Attorney-General of Ontario is seeking leave to appeal
that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, failing which
he will order a new trial.
I posted a lengthy article analyzing the appropriateness
of using the criminal courts to deal with hate literature
a couple of years ago. If there is interest I will repost it.
David Sherman
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Toronto
--
{ seismo!mnetor cbosgd!utgpu watmath decvax!utcsri
ihnp4!utzoo } !lsuc!dave
------------------------------
Return-path: < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
Date: Thu, 14 May 87 23:40:21 CDT
From: "Kirk Augustin" < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
To: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Socialism
I have read Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", but that is irrelavent. Our
little discussion doesn't seem to be getting very far though. There
doesn't seem to be even been any agreement on groundwork so complex
issues are out of the question. I could look up quotes and titles to
prove everything I said but then we would just shift the argument to
interpretation of the authors or their credibility. Besides I am
starting to get alittle overemotional so I think it is time to shift
to basics. To explain my point of view requires starting with the
impressions of a child. We talk about alot of ideals in this country
like freedom and justice, but our realities are in stark contrast and
showed me that very little of what people believe is really true.
First there those war movies to instill patriotism. When you realise
that all those 'gooks' and 'krauts' are the same as your friends and
neighbors since we all originated from different countries, you start
to wonder what kind of people were responsible for the filming.
Especially when you see open racism accepted by local officials. I
remember a film they showed at school that was supposed to motivate us
to be good law abiding boys and girls. It was similar to the 'Scarred
Straight' idea with scenes of how bad prison was. But what it did was
to show that our legal system was no better than the criminals. A
criminal acts out of personal weakness but a legal system has no
excuse for cruelty. If life is so important and the only mitigation
for murder is 'heat of passion', then capital punishment is the worst
crime possible because it is done totally 'in cold blood'. If you
ever watch the newsclips for the cases like Rosenbergs, Bruno Haupman,
or the infamous McCarty hearings, you would see that even to a child
it would be obvious that our ideals are a lie.
So what is the truth? Read about other cultures and times. If you
read enough anthropology you find more lies. We are supposed to be
living in the zenith of luxury and health. But that is not true. It
turns out that primitive human tribes lived longer than we do if you
discount infant mortality. And the average work day was only 2 hrs
instead of 8. If you think for a moment, none of the longevity
examples come from high-tech cultures. It is always yogurt eaters from
the caucases, eskimos, Indians, etc. There are some really good books
on the Kalahari bushmen if you want to read more about it. And how
about violence. It turns out that even with all the bad examples, the
picture of homosapiens is serenity and peace when you consider the
timespan and cultural diversity.
Now for our sense of freedom and justice. Before we arrived the
Indians had their own possesions but nobody could own the land, trees,
or game. They all needed to share the use of the natural resources to
survive. An individual that wanted to hunt buffalo without the rest
of the tribe was socially ostracised because he scattered the herd and
made life rough for everyone else. Sharing what you did not make
yourself is a basic part of normal human sociology. But the culture
we call civilization came and was different. One man could claim
anything in the name of King George and back it up by hired force.
Then others could accumulate wealth from the labor of others by
passing on this claim. That is in effect what a landlord is today.
He does not create, hires others to enforce, and feels no social
responsibility. I always hear that the profits are rewards for taking
risks, but without social responsibility these risks merit rewards as
much as the risks taken by a thief.
How do I know this system is really so corrupt? Because I am very
good at using it myself. I have had many tenents buy buildings for me
and have made large profits off the 'slave' labor employed by the US.
Since the 20's we have used foreign countries for our slave camps, but
that just makes the illusion of freedom and prosperity easier to
maintain. Foreign workers don't get health benefits or safty checks.
Then if they complain too much we yell communism and have them jailed.
The US isn't rich because it is prosperous, it is because it is
ruthless and drains most of the wealth of the world. I know because I
am part of the system. You can be a tenant or a landlord, and I chose
not to be a tenant. But I am not going to be like the other
hypocrates and try to bend labels to hide the injustice.
There used to be a kinder way of life that was plowed under by the
greed and corruption that we live with now. If you do not wish to
call them communism and capitalism that is fine, but no matter what
you call it, you do not have the right to use a label to ignore racism
and violence. Stalin and even Hitler can be atleast somewhat
understood because they were emotionally unstable and had the idea
that they were doing some good, but you must not fail to see how the
little man who scorched Dresden just to see if he could do it is far
worse.
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 10 May 87 16:56:49 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Pollution
To: testa-j%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA
Cc: lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU
> From: ~joe testa~ < testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
> Of course, you might suggest having private companies monitor
> compliance of others with environmental laws. The problem with
> this is that they will not have the authority to demand access
> to whatever evidence they require to assess the actions of a
> potential offender.
They don't need to. All they need to do is be able to monitor the
environment. For instance you could hire them to check out your
backyard, or better yet require that the back yard be certified clean
before you purchase the house, just as most people insist on a title
search being done on the house before they buy it (and if they don't,
the bank that is financing it surely will).
It bothers me that the EPA is allowed to snoop through private records
without a search warrant. What became of the 4th amendment?
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 6 May 87 01:12:22 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Discrimination
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> No, the government acts may simply be due to individuals within the
> government not been able to discard years of prejudices that cause
> them to exercise their individual "right" to discriminate.
They don't have any right to discriminate when representing the
government.
> It is even worse when the citizens tacitly closed their eyes to such
> government acts because they share the same personal feelings as
> those individuals in the government.
True. This is exactly what can lead to a Holocaust. The Jews were
strongly hated by most Germans, most Poles, and many other Europeans.
This is a prerequisite for mandated mass murder. The Jews are in no
danger today, at least in this country. I wish I could say the same
about drug users, gays, and other disapproved groups.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 6 May 87 01:51:35 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Discrimination
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> The black educators in that black college stresses self-confidence,
> hardwork, individual effort, etc. (the stuff you considered good)
> and they have a tough academic program too ...
sounds good. except that it is a "black college"? this means they
discriminate against potential students based on the color of their
skin? i thought you didn't approve of discrimination.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed 6 May 87 14:41:49-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Discrimination
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
They don't have any right to discriminate when representing the
government.
So you expect individuals who have been exercising that "right" all
their life to suddenly change their "habit" once they join the
government.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 6 May 87 01:45:59 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: College
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> Great, those are your reasons. But is that the only reason for
> going to college, as Keith claimed. ...
I didn't list reasons to go to college, I listed reasons for getting
a diploma. Not at all the same.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 6 May 87 01:40:52 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: College
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> > Why not books and private studying?
> If it's that easy, everybody will be doing it and colleges will
> cease to exist.
I didn't say it was easier, or that it would replace colleges, merely
that it is an alternative.
> We would have a world of self-taught engineers, doctors, lawyers,
> physicists, mathematicians, biologists, anthropologists, chemists,
> astro-physicists, economists, linguists, geologists, etc.
We already do, to a greater extent than you might suspect.
> > The only reason for an actual diploma is to impress one's employer.
> > The only reason to impress one's employer is to make more money.
> I wouldn't say that that's the only reason. Please explain why you
> think it's the only reason.
A diploma doesn't teach you anything or do anything. I suppose you
could use the back as scratch paper. Its only purpose is something to
impress people with. You might impress your friends and family with
it, but they hopefully already have an accurate opinion of you, one
which a diploma won't change. It is irrational to impress others
unless one gains something by doing so. Few sights are as piteous
as a rich person wasting his money on making his neighbors envious.
So, its real purpose is to make a good impression on ones employer
or potential employer. This impression is not always accurate, but
is somewhat more reliable than taking the employee's word for what
he can do.
I should add - it is also useful for impressing clients and potential
clients. Other than that, I will stand by my statement.
> There are people (especially those in the not so well paid fields)
> who go to college simply because of their love for knowledge.
> Others go to college because of their love for teaching ...
My statement was about a diploma, not about a college education. I am
well aware that one has much to offer. I am also aware that one is
not a worthless cretin just because one doesn't have one.
> > ...a foreign degree would be less likely to impress one's employer.
> Ah, the good old incomplete information (aka ignorance) problem.
> Hey wouldn't you expect that in a free market, an employer would
> have known about good foreign colleges? They would be impressed
> wouldn't they?
An employer who knows which college's diplomas say good things about
the student and which ones are worthless is at a competitive
advantage. It does not follow that every employer has this knowledge,
or that the market is not a free market if they don't. A perfect flow
of perfect information is not a requirement of a free market system
any more than superconductors are required for an electric power
system, as I have explained before.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
30-May-87 00:11:59-EDT,15916;000000000000
Return-Path: < MCGREW@red.rutgers.edu>
Received: from RUTGERS.EDU by RED.RUTGERS.EDU with TCP; 30 May 87 00:11:48 EDT
Received: by RUTGERS.EDU (5.54/1.14)
id AA15213; Sat, 30 May 87 00:10:08 EDT
Message-Id: < 8705300410.AA15213@RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: 29 May 87 2234-EDT
From: Charles McGrew (The Moderator) < Poli-Sci-Request@red.rutgers.edu>
Reply-To: Poli-Sci@red.rutgers.edu
Subject: Poli-Sci Digest V7 #70
To: Poli-Sci@red.rutgers.edu
Poli-Sci Digest Friday, 29 May 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 70
Today's Topics:
Drunk Driving &
"Discriminatory" Taxes (2 msgs) &
College (7 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Fri 15 May 87 15:53:02-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: Drunk Driving, a Victimless Crime?
I am surprised that Keith should suggest that drinking and driving may
be a victimless crime, while smoking near someone is not. As the
victim of a drunk driver, I could go on at length on how gorgeous and
gentle and loving and giving my love was, who was killed at the age of
twenty-four by a drunk driver, and how much pain I have gone through
in the two and a half years since he died, and am still going through.
Those of you who have not lost someone in this way may think such
things are rare, freak events, as some smokers imagine that smoking
does not really put them (let alone the people they casually expose to
their smoke) at risk for lung cancer and heart attacks. I know
otherwise, both from the statistics I have seen and from my own
experience. Besides my sweetheart, two other people I have known
personally have been killed by drunk drivers: one a young man I had
known since nursery school, dead at the age of twenty, the other a
middle-aged woman I knew through her hard work for Quaker
organizations. In addition, my brother was put in the hospital for
several weeks with various broken bones after being hit by a drunk
driver. This is not mentioning friends of friends or accidents where
I am not sure whether alcohol was involved. If the victims of drunk
drivers are so rare, it is strange I should know so many by the age of
26.
But I will leave off my recital of the harm I have seen done by
drinking and driving and try to reason against what I think might be
the argument for considering it a victimless crime. It is not
reasonable to compare drunk driving, which kills people, with crimes
like pornography which are said to do nebulous damage to people's
morals and perhaps (but it is not proven) increase the chance that
somebody might commit a crime sometime in the future. So I assume
Keith is considering it a victimless crime in the same sense that
possession of an unauthorized gun can be considered a victimless
crime. Some gun-owners kill people, but not all do, and so instead of
punishing all gun-owners, responsible and irresponsible alike, we
should punish harshly the ones who kill people, and leave alone the
ones who don't.
Whether or not one accepts this principle as an argument against gun
control, it does not apply to drunk driving (though it might to
increases in drinking ages). There is such a thing as responsible gun
ownership (not shooting except in self defense, not playing with guns
or leaving loaded guns around where children can find them, etc.).
There is no such thing as responsible drunk driving. At low levels of
blood alcohol (and those levels are legal), a skilled driver may be
able to drive safely when going cautiously over a familiar route. But
at a high blood alcohol level, you will lose your coordination. You
cannot prevent this loss of coordination, and there is no way to drive
safely in such a state, not even for a short distance. Even the loss
of judgment which alcohol brings, while somewhat more under voluntary
control (some people are quite glad to stop showing judgment as soon
as they have the excuse that they are drunk), can't be prevented when
you are drunk enough. The difference between drunk drivers who kill
people and those who don't is not the difference between responsible
people and irresponsible ones. It is dumb luck, the same dumb luck
which allows some smokers to live to an old age with no cancer or
heart trouble while most cut years off their lives, and the same dumb
luck which allows a person to survive Russian roulette and survive.
Drunk drivers are playing Russian roulette with other people's lives.
They have no right to do this.
You may think that holding drunk drivers responsible for the damage
they cause and punishing them for it is enough. Well, that is a
start. Drunk drivers have been able to literally get away with murder
in the past. We have seen more than enough of the attitude that
anything people do while drunk is OK, is just an accident. And I hope
that the man who killed my love, and others like him, are punished, so
that they know what they did was wrong.
But what good is it to only punish the ones who have hurt someone (the
ones who hit a loaded chamber in their Russian roulette game)? To
prevent those people from killing again? If anyone is likely to
realize the damage drinking and driving does, if anyone is likely to
avoid doing it again, it is the man who killed Brian, and who has to
carry around that memory with him the rest of his life. There are
people, like the man who killed Carrie Lightner, who are not stopped
even by knowing they have killed someone, but I do think in general
that it is not the ones who have killed who most need warning to
change, but the ones who have not yet killed.
Do you think that such punishments will deter the ones who haven't
killed, because they know that they will really be punished if they do
kill someone? What penalty can we put on a drunk driver who kills
which is worse than the death penalty? But drunk drivers already risk
dying every time they drink and drive, and that risk does not stop
them. They also risk being blinded, made quadraplegic, and many other
disabilities, which might daunt even people who do not care about
death. But these risks don't deter them, because they can deny them,
rationalize them away, and pretend that it won't happen to them. They
can say, "It's just a short distance" or "I can hold my liquor" or "I
don't believe drunk driving is as dangerous as people say" or any
number of other things to persuade themselves that they won't kill
someone, and so will not have to worry about that punishment.
If drunk drivers know that they are likely to be stopped and put in
jail, maybe that more common and likely punishment will stop them
before they have to risk the more severe ones. A visit to the local
drunk tank might make some people reconsider. If playing Russian
roulette with other people's lives is a crime, rather than being a
victimless crime until you actually kill someone at it, then other
women will not have to live through the nightmare I have lived
through, at losing a man so gentle and giving, with such warm eyes,
who understood my dreams and was patient with my troubles.
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic.arpa
------------------------------
Return-path: < Hoffman.es@Xerox.COM>
Date: 8 May 87 10:20:44 PDT (Friday)
From: Hoffman.es@Xerox.COM
Subject: self-imposed "discriminatory" taxes
To: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Cc: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
From Willie Lim:
(As an aside, a black community in the LA area recently voted
for a tax hike for themselves to pay for more police protection.)
Not so. A black LA city councilman proposed this, to much
controversy. It was finally approved for the upcoming ballot in June.
It has since lost most of its supporters. The last straw came when
some other city officials found other ways to pay for additional
police city-wide. In the wake of that, the original proposer withdrew
his own support for the proposition. It now seems certain to fail in
June.
-- Rodney Hoffman
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri 8 May 87 14:22:37-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: self-imposed "discriminatory" taxes
To: Hoffman.es@XEROX.COM
Cc: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
From: Hoffman.es@Xerox.COM
From Willie Lim:
(As an aside, a black community in the LA area recently voted
for a tax hike for themselves to pay for more police
protection.)
Not so.
I should have said "proposed a tax hike." I know it was being
discussed for the June ballot but I didn't realized that I typed
"voted for" instead of "proposed." Thanks for pointing out the error.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed 6 May 87 15:03:29-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: College
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
> We would have a world of self-taught engineers, doctors,
> lawyers, physicists, mathematicians, biologists,
> anthropologists, chemists, astro-physicists, economists,
> linguists, geologists, etc.
We already do, to a greater extent than you might suspect.
An extent great enough for us to claim that we have a world of
self-taught professionals?
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed 6 May 87 15:19:48-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: College
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
A diploma doesn't teach you anything or do anything.
My statement was about a diploma, not about a college education.
Don't skirt the issue, I thought we were discussing about the
importance of college education.
A perfect flow of perfect information is not a requirement of a
free market system
That's because you can never have such a free market system. In your
free market, the agents are free to do anything (except for fraud,
etc). In the theoretical (i.e. not yours) free market the agents are
assumed to be rational, free to do anything and have complete
information.
...any more than superconductors are required for an electric
power system...
And we pay for it by losing 50% of the generated power in transmitting
it (i.e. the power).
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed 6 May 87 15:33:25-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: College
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
I didn't list reasons to go to college, I listed reasons for
getting a diploma. Not at all the same.
Sure, but we were discussing about the importance of a college
education. I would expect you to make the distinction very clear
especially when it was brought up in a discussion about college
education (your messages have subject headings "College" and not
"Diploma"). Let me remind you of the context it was brought up:
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
....Why does it have to be a college at all? Why not books and
private studying? The only reason for an actual diploma is to
impress one's employer. The only reason to impress one's employer
is to make more money....
(-: Now just to be real sure and giving you the benefit of doubt, you
were not talking about the high-school diploma, were you? Neither was
it the paper you get after successfully completing the Masters or
Ph.D. program? :-)
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 6 May 87 23:28:50 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: College
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> Don't skirt the issue, I thought we were discussing about the
> importance of college education.
I think it is a good thing to have for many reasons. But some of us
can't afford one, at least not without considerable hardship. And
there ARE plenty of alternatives, as I mentioned in previous messages.
> > A perfect flow of perfect information is not a requirement of a
> > free market system
> In the theoretical (i.e. not yours) free market the agents are
> assumed to be rational, free to do anything and have complete
> information.
I don't know who ever said that complete information was a
requirement. For the Nth time, it isn't, any more than free electric
power or free food.
> > ...any more than superconductors are required for an electric
> > power system...
> And we pay for it by losing 50% of the generated power in
> transmitting it (i.e. the power).
True (though using superconductors wouldn't help all that much). And
I might well believe that the market would work twice as well if
everyone knew everything. But it is completely false to say that
complete information is a REQUIREMENT, and that a market is not quite
free without it. It would make as much sense to say we don't REALLY
have an electric power distribution system, because it doesn't use
super- conductors. Or to reason from there that since we can never
have an ideal power distribution system, that we have to control the
power by shorting out some of the wires (no more than 28% during the
Reagan administration, not counting state controls or the voltaic
security system).
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 6 May 87 23:31:20 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: College
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> (-: Now just to be real sure and giving you the benefit of doubt,
> you were not talking about the high-school diploma, were you?
> Neither was it the paper you get after successfully completing
> the Masters or Ph.D. program? :-)
Correct. Though what I said applies to those too.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 6 May 87 23:07:01 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Discrimination
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> > They don't have any right to discriminate when representing the
> > government.
> So you expect individuals who have been exercising that "right" all
> their life to suddenly change their "habit" once they join the
> government.
If they don't, the government had damn well better fire them.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed 6 May 87 23:38:40-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Discrimination
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
> So you expect individuals who have been exercising that "right"
> all their life to suddenly change their "habit" once they join
> the government.
If they don't, the government had damn well better fire them.
Ah, the government to the rescue. Presumably the government should be
able to do that competently.
Willie
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Friday, 29 May 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 71
Today's Topics:
History (2 msgs) &
Colleges and Discriminiation (4 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
To: kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.edu, KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu
Subject: History Lessons
Date: Sun, 24 May 87 01:20:07 PDT
From: Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer
From: < mwm%violet.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU>
> > From: "Kirk Augustin" < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
> > Still no answer to the A-bomb question. Everybody keeps saying
> > that it saved millions of lives by avoiding a landing. This
> > doesn't make sense.
Everybody saying that something is true doesn't make it true. However,
in this case, "everybody" is right. Let's look at some numbers:
Total immediate deaths from the two bombs is estimated at less than
150,000 (much closer to 100,000, actually). I don't have an estimate
for the number of people who died of radiation poisoning, but make it
the same, so you have a total of 300,000 people dead/wounded from
those two bombs. That's probably high, but add 1/3rd to that to get to
a round 400,000 deaths from the two bombs.
On the other hand, the US was planning Operation Olympus. This was an
invasion of the southernmost of the Japanese islands, aimed at
capturing half of it. This was basically enough to build & run an air
base for use in the actual conqust of the Japanese islands. Estimated
US causalties was 500,000. The best estimate I can find for Japenese
casualties is 2,000,000 to 3,000,000.
In other words, if Operation Olympus was avoided, millions of lives
were saved.
> > Japan was near depletion of all resources. The firestorm
> > techniques we perfected on Dresden were disasterous to the Japanese
> > cities.
True. But considering that the Japanese had sworn to die to the last
man, woman and child before surrendering, it didn't make a surrender
look very likely. Japanese soldiers were told that they would be
tortured and starved by the US so they would fight to the death
instead of surrender, and prisoners to the end of the war still had
those beliefs. Doesn't make a negotiated surrender look possible.
> > Offensive action was impossible and attempts at negotiated
> > surrender were offered by them many times.
Uh, can you give references for that? I haven't seen anything
_anywhere_ indicating Japanese overures to the US. The only thing I
know of is them asking the USSR to approach the US about a surrender.
Since the USSR wanted to prolong the war long enough to take territory
from the Japanese (which they did), this didn't work out so well.
> > It would not have been at all difficult to set up a bomb demo.
> > In fact they would have welcomed it as a way to save face.
Again, references showing that the US was talking to the Japanese at
all. If they weren't, setting up _any_ kind of agreement would have
been been difficult, if not impossible.
> > Why did we have to move so quickly?
You don't think ending a war as soon as possible is a good thing? I
do.
> > Since it was known most of the victims would die of radiation
> > poisoning, lukemia, etc.,
Sorry, but that _wasn't_ know at the time. The people at the highest
levels of project Manhattan were on the site of the Trinity test
within 12 hours of the test. The scientists on the project also
inserted the arming device into the bombs by hand. They called this
"tickling the dragons tail." I call it crazy. Doesn't sound to me like
they anyone was worried about radiation poisoning.
> > From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
> > > Using your own ideas, the bomb should not have been dropped
> > > because if nothing else a dud would have given them the bomb.
> >
> > That certainly was a consideration. But the only alternative to
> > using it was a land invasion that would certainly have killed many
> > millions.f it was a dud - both the conventional and the nuclear
> > parts - it would have been smashed on the ground. The Japanese
> > probably wouldn't even bother looking at the remains if they didn't
> > suspect there was such a thing as an atomic bomb.
Sorry, Keith, but the Japanese did know there was such a thing as an
atomic bomb. So did the Germans. The German A-bomb project got
side-tracked into trying to build a reactor light enough to airlift
while running. The Japanese didn't have the materials to work on one.
They did, however, have scientists at Hiroshima within hours of the
bomb being dropped, who correctly identified what had happened.
> > Or should we have simply told them that we had such a bomb? If the
> > latter, don't you think they would have gone to a much greater
> > effort to shoot down - or capture - any lone B29 bombers?
The bomb delivery squad was a B29 + two spotter planes. These flew
enough test runs over the possible targets that the citizens had
nicknamed them (something like "Mama and the two daughters"). As a
result of so many similar runs with no bombs being dropped, the air
raid shelters were virtually empty at Hiroshima.
Since people (including me) are asking for references, I'm including
mine. As I said before, it's been 10 years since I was interested in
this, so these date from that period (or before).
B. H. Liddell Hart; History of the Second World War. This was
considered the definitive single-volume history of WWII at the time.
The Thousand Mile War. My copy seems to have vanished during my last
move, so I don't have an author.
Anders, Gunther; Burning Conscience.
Batchhelder, Robert C.; The Irreversible Decision.
Blow, Michael; The History of the Atomic Bomb.
Groves, Leslie R.; Now It Can Be Told.
Lamont, Lansing; Day of Trinity.
< mike
------------------------------
Date: 23 May 87 05:23:22 EDT
From: Charles < MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Re: History lessons...
To: kirk@UWM-CS.MILW.WISC.EDU
Hi,
Oops, sorry about the M3's. If you'd said "Lee/Grants", I'd not
have misunderstood. In any event, Priests are not tanks, no matter
what the Brits might call them. They're mobile artillery. If you
think I'm hassling you over piddling details, it has been my
experience that many people build arguments on faulty facts (as you've
noticed I think you have :-), and I don't feel like arguing people
over the conclusions until we agree on the basis.
The basic problem I see here is that you are willing to make
excuses for the Soviets, but not for the U.S. The fact is that the
Soviets have gobbled up territory whenever they can. If you wish to
claim its 'defensive' imperialism, fine. So do they. Now, on with
the show:
Yes, we landed troops in Northern Russia and Siberia. It was a
mistake. The Bolsheviks were claiming world revolution as their goal,
and the Western Europeans (and the Japanese) saw that as a threat.
Only the Japanese (and maybe the Finns) had any intentions of keeping
any of the territory so gained. At the time, it was not at all clear
that the Bolshovicks were the 'legitimate' government. Hindsight is a
wonderful thing, I think the truth is we picked the wrong side. If
the Whites had won, who is to say what later history might have been?
In fact, the intervention was extremely controversial within the US,
where most people wanted to avoid entanglements after the end of WWI.
The USSR not an immediate threat? Well, they're building all them
missles for some reason. Ah, that's right, its our fault. The
arguments about 'too many missles' apply to the Russians as well as
ourselves, but I don't see them slowing down much either. The
Russians are certainly an immediate threat to our friends the Chinese,
and our friends the Western Europeans. They seem to be an immediate
threat to significant portions of the population of Afganistan. They
seem to be an endemic threat to Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, East
Germany, and Czechoslavakia, where they pervade the politcal, military
and economic systems. Saying that this isn't a direct threat to the
US is perhaps over-simplifying the politics of the world .
US in wars every 20 years? Well, lets see: Revolutionary war,
1775-1783 (1765-1783 according to some historians), War of 1812-14
(lets leave out the baraby pirates frakas', they're trivial) - 30
years between them; 1845-1848 Mexico - 30 years; 1861-1865 Civil War -
12 years; 1899-1902 Spanish War and Philippine Insurection - 44 years
(I don't think we can count the Indian wars, which lasted from 1607 to
1892, and were endemic); 1917-1918 WWI - 15 years; 1941-1945 WWII - 27
years; 1950-53 Korea - 5 years; 1965-1975 Vietnam (years vary
according to interpretation of history) - 12 years. The point of all
this is I don't see any pattern to this. I think saying its 'almost a
20 year cycle' is forcing things to match your pre-drawn conclusions.
KAL 007 triggering WWIII? Get serious. There have been a lot worse
things than that in recent history (Cuban Missle Crisis, various wars
in the Middle East, Berlin Crisis, Korean War) that have brought us
much closer to war with the Russians. I think that if world war does
come, it will be as a result in superpower involvment in a 'secondary'
event, e.g. starting with Russian pilots flying MiGs against U.S.
pilots in Korea, a Russian ship in Hai Phong getting sunk during the
Vietnam war, something like that - that escalates out of hand (the
Cuban Missle Crisis is the prototype of this). Both the U.S. and the
Russians have both moved very carefully when it comes to something
that may lead to direct confrontation.
It is fascinating to see your model of the U.S. It seems in direct
conflict with the models espoused by the forces you see working
together. Most politicians (and armaments makers) fear the power of
the press (witness the advisary relationship of the White House press
corps with the Presidency in the last 30 years or so and on into the
past). It was press coverage of Vietnam that was instrumental in
lending the anti-war movement support from middle-class america. My
dad is a newspaperman, and to say that he sides with armaments makers
is a trifle lucridous (and not a bit insulting). People don't go into
the news game to sell guns to an unsuspecting public (those sort of
people go into advertising or politics!) My answer to your view is
that the press acts in its own self-interest. The only commodity it
has to sell is news, and whatever they find out is fair game. If you
see a vast 'invisible' conspiracy, I wonder if its there at all.
Concerning gun-running to the Confederates in the Civil War, this
was done by Southern sympathizers in the North (of which there were a
number). The industrial capacity of the north dwarfed that of the
south, and that's where the guns the south needed were. Again, I
disagree with your interpretation of what the event really meant.
To ignore either is foolhearty or selfserving depending on
which side you are on, but as educated people it is our
responsibility to point out that there are more than 2 sides.
... well, that's certainly a reasonable point of view, but it don't
necessarily make your interpretation right ! :-) (Or mine, for that
matter, that's why we're arguing.)
Charles
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 6 May 87 23:40:37 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Black colleges
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU,
> What are you trying to say here? Do you have proof that they
> discriminate based on the color of the skin? Or was it that people
> not of a certain color rarely apply to that school?
I was asking if they discriminate, since you referred to it as a black
college.
Suppose they don't. Suppose that for whatever reasons, the vast
majority of students just happened to be black. Isn't this college
then violating some Affirmative Action statute? I thought you
approved of Affirmative Action.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 6 May 87 23:47:01 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Discrimination
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> > > So you expect individuals who have been exercising that "right"
> > > all their life to suddenly change their "habit" once they join the
> > > government.
> > If they don't, the government had damn well better fire them.
> Ah, the government to the rescue. Presumably the government should
> be able to do that competently.
Of course the government has to be able to manage government employees
during working hours. What are you trying to say?
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed 6 May 87 23:47:31-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Fraud
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
But if I came right out and said "I don't do business with you
brown eyed people" that is not bad faith.
I would consider that to be bad faith for you are not basing your
decision on the value of the goods in consideration but to something
totally unrelated to it.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 6 May 87 23:58:40 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Bad faith
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> > But if I came right out and said "I don't do business with you
> > brown eyed people" that is not bad faith.
> I would consider that to be bad faith for you are not basing your
> decision on the value of the goods in consideration but to something
> totally unrelated to it.
I think we are just arguing definitions. By "bad faith" I (and the
dictionary) mean fraud, i.e. deception. To discriminate is irrational
but is not fraudulent (unless you lie about it). People have the
right to be irrational. They don't have the right to defraud anyone.
I take it that you consider it "bad faith" to not hire a qualified
person who is not a college graduate?
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Friday, 29 May 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 72
Today's Topics:
History (2 msgs) &
College (6 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 May 87 11:14:43 PDT
From: Steve Walton < ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
To: cit-vax!kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.edu
Cc: cit-vax!kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu
Subject: History and the truth
You write in a recent Poli-Sci digest:
> I only recently started scanning the newsnet and the political
> science area in particular, but I am just about ready to give up
> hope. Instead of catching and
> discussing overall principles, all I get are hassles over each little
> detail.
OK, I'll bite, how about this: The United States is morally superior
to the Soviet Union. We are a democratic country founded on respect
for individual liberty. We largely abide by these ideals. By
contrast, the Soviet Union is a totalitarian dictatorship whose level
of brutality has declined a bit with time, but which still puts the
Party's interest above the interests of any individual. Our conflicts
with them are rooted in this fundamental clash of world views, not
from "misunderstandings" or from manipulation by various cliques.
NATO is a free alliance of democratic countries with shared ideals.
Ths Warsaw Pact is a giant slave camp held together with the force of
Soviet arms. The Soviet Union itself is the last of the 19th century
colonial empires. And they have the gall to call *us* imperialists!
Originally, this was a much longer message answering many specific
points from your last few postings. In retrospect, I've deleted most
of them in favor of the following three:
> All these detail are totally unimportant.
You contradict yourself here. First you use all these details to try
and convince us that the United States is at least as evil as the
Soviet Union. Then, when you are told at some length that your claims
are wrong, you say these "details" are unimportant but the central
point is correct anyway.
> But what [a movie you saw in grade school] did was
> to show that our legal system was no better than the criminals.
While Amnesty International and similar organizations have some
complaints against the US, last time I checked they weren't accusing
us of torturing innocent people to death. Such things happen *every
day* in the countries to which you claim we are morally equivalent.
Read "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" or the recent book by a
Cuban expatriate about his seventeen years in Castro's prisons.
> So what is the truth? Read about other cultures and times. If you
> read enough anthropology you find more lies. We are supposed to be
> living in the zenith of luxury and health. But that is not true. It
> turns out that primitive human tribes lived longer than we do if you
> discount infant mortality. And the average work day was only 2 hrs
> instead of 8.
I suppose you are referring here to various studies of hunter-gatherer
tribes which purport to show that they had better diets, lived longer,
and didn't work as hard as their contemporary neighbors who took up
agriculture. However, even those who espouse this view are forced to
admit that hunter-gatherers disappeared because they were killed by
the more numerous group who took up agriculture. An essay on the
subject in the May *Discover* magazine (by someone who accepts your
point of view) says that hunter-gatherers' population is limited to
one person per forty square miles or so. My arithmetic shows that to
be about 1 million people on the entire planet. Instead, we have 5
billion. Are you willing to volunteer to be one of the 4,999 out of
every 5,000 people to commit suicide so we can go back to being
hunter-gatherers? The *Discover* essayist also notes in passing that
such tribes use infanticide as a method of birth control. Does this
make them more moral than us?
Sure I work eight hours a day instead of two. I can also enjoy the
world's greatest music at the touch of a switch, a privilege that only
the very wealthiest enjoyed before fifty or so years ago. I have hot
water for my (daily) baths, a nice collection of good books, and a
good chance of living to be 80. No historian would want to live in
any past era in preference to the present one, and that opinion is
based simply on a desire for personal survival.
Isn't reducing infant mortality a good thing? Both of my children
survived and are thriving; my wife didn't have to subject herself to
eight or ten pregnancies in the hope that one or two of our children
would survive to adulthood.
One last point (don't take it too personally): proofread your
submissions. It has been pointed out before on Usenet that while
misspellings, poor grammar, and incorrect punctuation do not prove you
are incorrect, they do indicate to others that perhaps your views are
not well informed.
Stephen Walton ARPA: ametek!walton@csvax.Caltech.EDU
BITNET: WALTON@CALTECH. UUCP: ...!ucbvax!sun!megatest!ametek!walton
------------------------------
Date: 23 May 87 06:48:28 EDT
From: Charles < MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Soviet history
To: kirk@UWM-CS.MILW.WISC.EDU
Interesting...
after all many people starved in the war and other earlier
times were almost as bad.
... those 'earlier times' include the pogroms of Stalin, yes? So,
they also are paranoid for things they did to themselves.
Look at the people sending their money to the PTL...
I'm not quite sure what the PTL club has to do with this. Well,
maybe I do: you see it as a symptom, I see as an irrellivance. If the
ruling powers in the U.S. have so much control over the media, how is
it we find out all these awful things about ourselves? How is they
permit history books that show the US in a bad light? How is it we
find out about the Iran/Contra fiasco? Watergate? CIA excesses? FBI
excesses? Vietnam war excesses? Jim Bakker's (amazing) excesses?
After all, if he's part of this ruling system, he ought to be
protected by it.
Drugs vs. vodka - the Soviets have tried in the past to break the
hold alcoholism has on their society (they still are), with about as
much success as the DEA has had breaking the drug problem in the U.S.
So?
Yuppism is fad imposed upon us by the ruling powers? I don't
exactly know what to say to this - its too amazing a statement. I'd
love to agree with you, but I think yuppism merely is a passing
by-product of the affluence of the young middle class (so was the
counter-culture of the 1960's). I know some pretty politically weird
yuppies...
Pearl Harbor attack force: Japanese CV's Hiryu class (2 in force):
capacity 73 planes, Akagi class (2): 91 planes, Shokaku class (2): 84
planes. US CV's of the day: Saratoga class (2): 90 planes, Enterprise
class (2): 80 planes, Hornet: 85 planes, so they are not at all 'much
smaller than the carriers we built'. The Zero was the fastest and
most maneuverable plane in the pacific, flown by highly trained
pilots. Of US fighter planes of the day, the Wildcat was roughly
equivalent, the Buffalo decidedly inferior and the P-40 somewhat
inferior. At no point did the Japanese actually consider invading
Hawaii. The attack on Pearl was to cripple the fleet. You ask: why
be at Pearl at all? We were at Pearl because it was a US territory,
with a superb harbor. What is so unreasonable about it? Its several
*thousand* miles away from Japan, how is it a threat to them? Sorry,
none of your argument will wash.
Still no answer to the A-bomb question. Everybody keeps
saying that it saved millions of lives by avoiding a landing.
This doesn't make sense. Japan was near depletion of all
resources. ... and attempts at negotiated surrender were
offered by them many times.
... more accurately, no answer you *like* to the A-bomb question.
Japan was still an enemy. They had refused to surrender. We could
have blockaded Japan, I suppose, but it would have taken *years* to
force any solution that way, and it is likely that Japan could have
have hung on (at subsistance level) indefinately. WWII was not fought
to create a stalemate. Among other things, we had the experience with
Germany after WWI to look at. Without a dramatic dismantling of
Japan's govermental system, we would have had ANOTHER fight with the
Japanese after WWII to look forward to. It was the governmental
system in power in japan that had started the war. We had to make
sure it didn't start another (all of Japan's negotiation attempts
included the survival of the governing system). I think we did pretty
well in that regard. My arguments still stand.
The firestorm techniques we perfected on Dresden were
disasterous to the Japanese cities.
...absolutely, that was the intent. The Japanese, had they had the
power, would have practiced the same thing to us. Do you doubt that?
If so, have a look at what they did in China and Korea.
Japan was near depletion of all resources.
... not actually so. Compared to the might of the US, they had an
insignificant amount of resources and industry all along. However,
they had plenty of planes to send against the US fleet at Okinawa, and
many more saved up to use against the Olympic invasion fleet. They
also had a sizable army. That they did not have the impliments to
attack the US directly is entirely due to the conduct of the war. We
were at *war* with them, in a way we haven't been at war with anyone
since.
Infact they would have welcomed it as a way to save face.
... not so. There was a sizable group in the government that saw
victory or death as the only alternatives and actively opposed any
negotiation with the U.S. Assasination was a political weapon in
Japan in those days, and peace-minded cabinet members were in real
danger of being killed by their war-minded bretheren.
Yes Dresden was bombed with conventional napalm, but the
inventor and author was also involved with the a-bomb and
wanted to use flares and whistles on it to blind thousands
more. He was upset because they wouldn't let him.
... it wouldn't matter in any case! Using a flare on something as
bright as an *a-bomb* is as valueless as putting a candle on the sun.
Putting a whistle on something as loud as an *a-bomb* is as valueless
as adding a firecracker to a ton of TNT. Its an irrelivance. It
doesn't make him more inhuman, it just makes him silly.
The Lusitania was mentioned because the Germans had taken out
several large ads warning that the ship would be sunk.
... and this makes it ok? If I warn you I'm going to shoot you, I am
no longer guilty of murder?
This is just another example of how the media and public
figures manuvered us into another war. Of course the war was
popular, the media, etc. made it so.
... sigh. Closed-loop logic like this is impossible to argue with.
That does *not* make it right.
All these detail are totally unimportant.
... most emphatically not so. If you argue a point with statements I
find falacious, I'm not going to buy your argument.
We have a right to be critical of the soviet union, but by not
even considering the possible corruption within this country,
we are giving ourselves up to another enemy without even
firing a shot.
... it seems instead that you want us to NOT be critical of the soviet
union, and instead be critical only of ourselves. That the US is not
self-critical seems inconsistant with what I read in the histories,
with what I read in the papers, and what I see on TV.
Charles
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed 6 May 87 23:57:39-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: College
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
I don't know who ever said that complete information was a
requirement.
Well, the easiest way to find that out is to take a look at last
year's Economist, they have a series of articles on the free market.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu 7 May 87 00:01:35-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Black colleges
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
I was asking if they discriminate, since you referred to it as a
black college.
That was the term used in the Wall Street Journal.
Suppose they don't. Suppose that for whatever reasons, the vast
majority of students just happened to be black. Isn't this
college then violating some Affirmative Action statute? I thought
you approved of Affirmative Action.
Only if it is used to correct for past injustices e.g. it can be
applied to immigrants or descendents of persons who have been
compensated for those injustices.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 7 May 87 00:17:26 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Black colleges
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> > I thought you approved of Affirmative Action.
> Only if it is used to correct for past injustices e.g. it can be
> applied to immigrants or descendents of persons who have been
> compensated for those injustices.
If a business or a college can have a surplus of blacks but not a
surplus of whites, then whites will be discriminated against. Black
employees could choose a predominantly black business or an integrated
business. Whites could only choose the latter. Black students could
choose a predominantly black college or an integrated college. Whites
could only choose the latter. But I guess that is ok, since in a few
years whites will then be a group suffering from past injustices, and
thus equally eligible for protection. :-)
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu 7 May 87 00:09:13-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Discrimination
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Of course the government has to be able to manage government
employees during working hours. What are you trying to say?
People can use the same argument for taking care of the flaws in
government. E.g. bad management, fire the managers, bad presidents,
impeach them, bad policy, don't re-elect them, etc. You already said
many of these things don't work, that's why government cannot be
allowed to do certain things.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 7 May 87 00:23:21 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Discrimination
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU,
> > Of course the government has to be able to manage government
> > employees during working hours. What are you trying to say?
> People can use the same argument for taking care of the flaws in
> government. E.g. bad management, fire the managers, bad presidents,
> impeach them, bad policy, don't re-elect them, etc. You already
> said many of these things don't work, that's why government cannot
> be allowed to do certain things.
Not at all. I said government shouldn't be allowed to do certain
things whether they work or not.
If we CAN'T fire a bad manager and CAN'T not re-elect bad
representatives, etc, what is the alternative? Just do away with
government altogether? Just suffer along with whatever it does
without objecting?
What do YOU say should be done with a government employee who, in his
official capacity, discriminates?
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu 7 May 87 00:16:39-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Bad faith
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
People have the right to be irrational.
Very often people can't choose not to be irrational e.g. when things
get very emotional. So it ain't a right, it's a given.
Willie
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Wednesday, 3 Jun 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 73
Today's Topics:
Pearl Harbor and the NSA &
Inflation &
College (11 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 26 May 87 20:51:50-EDT
From: Richard A. Cowan < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Pearl Harbor and the National Security Agency
To: kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.edu
Kirk Augustin makes two claims in his last couple of responses to
Keith Lynch. The first of these -- that the US decoded the message
warning of Pearl Harbor hours in advance of the attack, and may have
actually let the disaster happen in order to win unanimity for a US
entry into the war, is discussed in gory technical detail in a book I
recommend to everyone:
The Puzzle Palace, by James Bamford (1982?)
This book is basically the *Only* major source on the National
Security Agency. The NSA started in 1952, I think. The history in
the book starts with the roots of the NSA: elite code-breaking teams
that started around World War I.
According to the cover of the paperback edition, NSA agents went into
public libraries and removed sources that were referenced by the book
soon after it was released. I don't know about that claim, but I can
certainly believe that the combined effects of U.S. "security"
agencies and institutional self-censorship distort the information
available to the public on matters related to U.S. defense policy.
One cannot get his or her education about these matters by merely
taking a random sample of that which is published and expect to
preserve one's "objectivity"; the selection of what is studied and
what is not is too strongly influenced by the power of the military
establishment.
I believe the December issue of Atlantic Monthly had an article on the
NSA and the DOD's "Black Programs" that will make Keith Lynch's
expostulations about the incredible "freedoms" in US society sound
ridiculous.
-rich
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 20 May 87 00:12:40 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Inflation
To: decvax!decwrl!sun!livesey@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
Gold is and silver are mined at a slow pace relative to the amount
already in circulation. I do not know whether the increase due to
continued mining keeps up with the increased population (or, more to
the point, with the increased actual wealth of the the world).
Even if mining exceeds this increase, it certainly does not do so at a
rate comparable to the rate at which new paper money can be printed.
Dollars are worth less than half what they were worth ten years ago.
This would not be possible for gold unless half the gold ever mined
was mined in this decade.
If gold supplies do increase, causing a reduction in cost, less gold
will be mined. It is a self regulating system. But there is nothing
that prevents any amount of paper money from being printed. And it
is. A runaway feedback loop.
There would seem to be little chance of gold supplies suddenly
doubling. Neither practical transmutation nor seawater mining nor
space mining appears to be anywhere close to fruition. But a doubling
of the supply of paper money is inevitable. At 5% inflation it takes
only 14 years. In some countries it takes only a few weeks.
I am not proposing that the government establish a gold based
currency. It would be better that what they are doing now, but I am
not proposing it. I am proposing that they legalize alternative
currencies. Banks and consortiums could issue currrencies based on
gold, silver, real estate, marijuana, or whatever there is a market
for.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 7 May 87 00:27:29 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Rationality
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> > People have the right to be irrational.
> Very often people can't choose not to be irrational e.g. when things
> get very emotional. So it ain't a right, it's a given.
People can ALWAYS choose. And whether it is a given has nothing to do
with whether it is a right.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu 7 May 87 00:34:39-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Rationality
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
People can ALWAYS choose. And whether it is a given has nothing
to do with whether it is a right.
Can you choose not be scared when you see a truck coming at you?
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu 7 May 87 00:24:11-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Black colleges
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
If a business or a college can have a surplus of blacks but not a
surplus of whites, then whites will be discriminated against.
How can it be when whites don't apply to the college?
But I guess that is ok, since in a few years whites will then be a
group suffering from past injustices, and thus equally eligible
for protection. :-)
Some whites are already taking protectionist measures even when they
are not suffering from past injustices.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu 7 May 87 00:31:05-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Discrimination
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
What do YOU say should be done with a government employee who, in
his official capacity, discriminates?
If individuals accept discrimination as evil just as they accept
slavery or fraud as evil, chances are there won't be enough "bad"
people around (in and out of government) to hide/protect the employee
i.e. he/she will be exposed and punished.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 7 May 87 00:39:18 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Discrimination
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> > If a business or a college can have a surplus of blacks but not a
> > surplus of whites, then whites will be discriminated against.
> How can it be when whites don't apply to the college?
A white who wants to go to a predominantly white college isn't allowed
to do so - no such institution is allowed to exist. A black who wants
to go to a predominantly black college is free to do so. Whenever
members of one group are given choices members of another group
aren't, that is discrimination. In this case, government mandated
discrimination, which we both (I think) agree is unacceptable whether
or not private discrimination is.
I think it outrageous that several college students were suspended for
organizing a "white history day" shortly after a "black history day".
And would anyone stand for a United White College Fund? The only way
not to discriminate is to be color blind.
> Some whites are already taking protectionist measures even when they
> are not suffering from past injustices.
Good for them! Remember "equal protection under the law"? And what
does it matter what THEY suffered, you said it's enough that their
ANCESTORS suffered. How do you know theirs didn't? They might have
been slaves in ancient Rome.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 7 May 87 00:43:40 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Discrimination
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> > What do YOU say should be done with a government employee who, in
> > his official capacity, discriminates?
> If individuals accept discrimination as evil just as they accept
> slavery or fraud as evil, ...
Which individuals? Different individuals accept different things as
being evil (as you may have noticed :-).
Are you saying nothing can be done about a government employee who
discriminates unless everyone agrees that discrimination is evil?
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu 7 May 87 00:49:01-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Discrimination
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
A white who wants to go to a predominantly white college isn't
allowed to do so - no such institution is allowed to exist.
Isn't Harvard a "predominantly white college"?
Whenever members of one group are given choices members of another
group aren't, that is discrimination.
Yeah, I guess by your definition we have been discriminating against
prisoners.
And would anyone stand for a United White College Fund?
You can always start one. There is already an NAAWP.
The only way not to discriminate is to be color blind.
Sure especially when you are the one who didn't get discriminated
against.
And what does it matter what THEY suffered, you said it's enough
that their ANCESTORS suffered. How do you know theirs didn't?
They might have been slaves in ancient Rome.
Nobody is stopping them from filling a lawsuit.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu 7 May 87 00:55:19-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Discrimination
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Which individuals?
Those individuals that are assumed to be rational enough for your
libertarian/objectivist model.
Are you saying nothing can be done about a government employee who
discriminates unless everyone agrees that discrimination is evil?
No, something can be done if there isn't a sufficient number of them
to hide/shelter the culprit. If discrimination is a right, chances
are there will be enough people who share the sentiments of the
culprit to protect the culprit.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 7 May 87 01:05:13 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Discrimination
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> Isn't Harvard a "predominantly white college"?
I don't know. If it is, then Affirmative Action is not in force.
We were discussing your proposed ideal world in which it would be.
> > Whenever members of one group are given choices members of another
> > group aren't, that is discrimination.
> Yeah, I guess by your definition we have been discriminating against
> prisoners.
Yes, and justifiably so, given that they were convicted of a crime
which involved violating someone's rights.
We were discussing discrimination against a person because of the
color of his skin.
> > And would anyone stand for a United White College Fund?
> You can always start one. There is already an NAAWP.
There shouldn't be. Nor should their be a UNCF or a NAACP. (Not to
say I think they should be made illegal.) Anything *I* start will be
color blind.
> > They might have been slaves in ancient Rome.
> Nobody is stopping them from filling a lawsuit.
Against whom? Is a person guilty of the crimes of his ancestors?
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 7 May 87 01:09:36 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Discrimination
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> > Which individuals?
> Those individuals that are assumed to be rational enough for your
> libertarian/objectivist model.
Every single one of them? (Have you lost the context again?)
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Friday, 5 Jun 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 74
Today's Topics:
Are we better off &
Socialism &
Free will and Discrimination (8 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 26 May 87 21:15:10-EDT
From: Richard A. Cowan < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Are we better off today?
To: kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.edu
The other point raised by Kirk, but still not well documented, is the
notion that modern society is really backward in some respects,
compared to older civilizations. This is something that should be
pretty easy for people to question, provided they read history in more
detail than that provided by broad, superficial survey texts which
gloss over controversial points.
But there is something, geared for technical people, which I can
highly recommend. It is an article which appearred in DATAMATION
magazine (of all places), on November 15, 1984, p.140. The title is
"Is Progress What it Seems to Be?" and is written by David Noble
(formerly an MIT professor, now at Drexel University.)
Now, even all those corporate research labs out there get this
magazine, so, to whet your appetite even further, I will
reproduce the first two paragraphs here (the entire article is
actually excerpted from Noble's book, "Forces of Production."):
"Practitioners of science and technology, in following their own
Muses, have always claimed to be servants of society as a whole.
Dogged pursuers of Nature's truth, they customarily renounced
all politics to demonstrate their disregard for power and influence,
aspiring only to advance their disciplines selflessly.
"To defend their position and justify their costs, they insisted that
inevitably their combined understanding and knowhow would enlarge
society's supply of goods and services, lessen the burden of human
toil, reduce pain, increase comfort, and expand the horizons of human
freedom. Thus, as an essential part of their work -- their public
relations, so to speak -- they successfully cultivated and fostered
the mythology of technological progress, the idea that all scientific
and technological advance was good for society, and that it should
thus be encouraged without constraint as rapidly as possible.
Whatever the consequences in the short run, they preached, ultimately
everyone will be a beneficiary of progress."
...
...
(continued in DATAMATION for 6 pages)
-rich
------------------------------
From: tedrick@ernie.berkeley.edu (Tom Tedrick)
Subject: Re: Socialism
> > Therefore if there is something wrong the soviet union we
> > must conclude that it is because of a small powerful minority.
Good point. Namely the communist party power elite.
However the system itself is flawed, as well.
> > The lies and misinformation in this country are just as bad or worse
> > than in the USSR.
Systematic control of information is fundamental
to communist political systems, in order to control the behavior
of the masses through manipulating their belief systems.
Only the state has a right to disseminate information.
> > makes me wonder if your conditioning is already too strong.
> I see. If I disagree with you I am conditioned. If I agree, I am
> open minded. Well, the feeling is mutual.
One of the standard leftist techniques is to accuse their opponents
of being conditioned. They seem to believe that we really don't
understand their point of view, and that if they could only free
us from our conditioning we would see the light and realize that
they are correct. It never seems to occur to them that some of us
have studied the left backwards and forwards for many years, probably
longer than they have been alive, and that they are the ones who are
conditioned.
> > Socialism and communism simply are human addmissions that we should
> > also be guided by ethics as well as profits.
Communism claims to be a system guided by ethics, but in fact that is
just propaganda aimed at manipulating the behavior of the masses. If
the masses believe that the government is motivated by ethical
considerations, they are more likely to remain passively obediant.
Claims to moral superiority are also designed to appeal to naive
idealists, who often are used as revolutionary cannon fodder.
> > However I will admit that any idea of how to legislate ethics
> > without turning into a monstrous beaurocracy is beyond me.
Now you are beginning to see the light. It can't be done.
Representative democracy is simply the least harmful political system
that man has discovered, and that is why it is preferable to
communism, which is one of the worst political systems ever to darken
the face of the earth, from the point of view of overall human
welfare.
> > But all more primitive cultures are and have always been essentially
> > communist ...
> > When you help the neighboring pioneer raise a barn or hunt buffalo
> > with your Indian tribe, that is pure communism.
Without agreeing that *ALL* primitive cultures are communist (whatever
that means), what can be accomplished in a small cultural group where
everyone knows everyone else, cannot necessarily be achieved on a
large scale. Communism seeks to exploit the natural tendency of human
beings to seek a cooperative society in order to trick them into
serving as slaves of a small minority power elite, namely the
communist power holders. Communism is lies, lies, lies, and more lies.
Unfortunately, the communists have discovered that a large proportion
of the people will succumb to a systematic campaign of lies,
propaganda, and information control. When combined with a system of
brutal repression without constraints, you have an unbeatable system
of political control.
> Never mind small tribes, which are more like large families than
> nations.
Right. What works on a small scale may not work on a large scale.
> > In capitalism you can lock a worker out until he is willing to
> > become a slave.
Under communism all the workers are slaves to the power elite.
> This is not the case in a socialist country. In a socialist country,
> there is only one employer - the state. The employee is not free to
> quit. He is not free to bargain for better conditions. He is a
> slave. Why else would barbed wire and machine guns be needed to keep
> him in the socialist "worker's paradise"?
Communism is really the ultimate form of monopoly capitalism. There is
only one corporation that owns everyone and everything in the country.
There is only one employer, the state. Mikhail Gorbachev actually said
this himself a few days ago.
> > ... but some of the things you said show that you have been
> > listening to good talkers instead of reading good books. They
> > can't get away with distorsions like that in print.
What a laugh. I suppose you consider communist newspapers reliable
sources of information.
By the way, it would strengthen your case if you would read a
dictionary and learn how to spell.
> > Think for a second and compare yourself with the patriotic soviet
> > workers who are furious with the political dissedents for selling
> > out the USSR.
After never having had a chance in their lives to read anything
except state propaganda, to listen to any media except state
radio and TV, to see any movies or plays except state productions,
to speak freely or meet any foreigners without risk of being sent
to prison, to attend any schools except state run institutions
designed to mold their perception according to "socialist realism",
what do you expect? They don't have free access to any information
except what the state wants them to have. How can they judge without
having good information?
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 7 May 87 00:46:43 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Free will
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> > People can ALWAYS choose.
> Can you choose not be scared when you see a truck coming at you?
People can always choose their ACTIONS. When the Nazi with the red
hot poker demands the plans for the atom bomb, you may not be able
to not be scared, but you ARE able to not tell him the plans.
...Keith
------------------------------
Date: Thu 7 May 87 00:58:30-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Free will
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
People can always choose their ACTIONS.
Ah so it is the actions. Yes that I agree. I thought you meant that
people have the right to think irrationally.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 7 May 87 01:12:23 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Free will
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> Ah so it is the actions. Yes that I agree. I thought you meant
> that people have the right to think irrationally.
People have the right to think irrationally. They also have the right
to act irrationally so long as they don't violate anyone's rights.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu 7 May 87 09:58:43-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Discrimination
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
We were discussing your proposed ideal world in which it would be.
You just broke your own rule on not telling people how to think. (And
yes, you guessed wrong too.) In my proposed ideal world, there would
be no need for affirmative action. It's getting there that's the
problem.
Yes, and justifiably so, given that they were convicted of a crime
which involved violating someone's rights.
We were discussing discrimination against a person because of the
color of his skin.
It should be a crime, but of course that will just be another
disagreement between us. Only time will tell. Remember it took a
while for humans to consider slavery or fraud evil enough to have laws
against them.
Anything *I* start will be color blind.
Yup, discrimination is color blind, people of any color can do it.
Against whom? Is a person guilty of the crimes of his ancestors?
Let the court decide on the merits of the case. After all in your
ideal world anybody can sue for anything and the court is supposed to
be the ultimate referee in such kind of disputes.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu 7 May 87 10:00:52-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Discrimination
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Every single one of them? (Have you lost the context again?)
Just enough of them to make laws necessary as in the case of laws
against fraud. Perhaps you are the one who has lost the context.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu 7 May 87 10:04:13-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Free will
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
People have the right to think irrationally. They also have the
right to act irrationally so long as they don't violate anyone's
rights.
Sure, except sometimes they can't choose not to think irrationally
e.g. when they panic. (-: Yeah, imagine them trying to exercise their
right not to panic when the truck is about to hit them in a few
seconds. :-)
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu 7 May 87 11:08:36-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Discrimination
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Sequel F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
> Some whites are already taking protectionist measures even when
> they are not suffering from past injustices.
Good for them! Remember "equal protection under the law"?
(-: Sounds like they are excellent recruits for the :-)
(-: libertarian/objectivist (aka "you can discriminate for all you want") :-)
(-: cause. I am sure they want their "right" to discriminate protected. :-)
(-: If they have questions about the "self-correcting" forces of the :-)
(-: market, just wink and tell them (off the record of course) to take a :-)
(-: look at Japan. Hey, for a country that have traditionally :-)
(-: discriminated against women, they are doing very well---perhaps :-)
(-: discrimination pays. Japan is going to be #1 twenty years from now. :-)
(-: They are already #1. Just say that the self-correcting stuff is a :-)
(-: bunch of BS to get enough people to vote for the :-)
(-: libertarian/objectivist cause. If they (the "them" in your "Good for :-)
(-: them!") have problems with the state not being allowed to :-)
(-: discriminate, just tell them that's just a minor technicality. Hey, :-)
(-: when cops and police chiefs in our current system can cheat and :-)
(-: steal/sell exam papers for many years without being caught (one of :-)
(-: them squealed), just make sure there are no squealers or just put :-)
(-: enough of their kind in government (police/court/military say) and :-)
(-: they will never be caught. So, long live discrimination! :-)
(-: Or discrimination now, discrimination forever! :-)
Of course, libertarians/objectivists know better, they are too noble
and moral to do such things. Though some may be too idealistic (too
much abstraction) as not to see this being a possible consequence. I
am sure Karl Marx never thought that communism would turn out to be
such a big lose.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu 7 May 87 17:13:56-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Discrimination
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
I think it outrageous that several college students were suspended
for organizing a "white history day" shortly after a "black
history day".
(-: Perhap they didn't know that everyday is already a white history
day. :-)
Willie
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Saturday, 13 Jun 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 75
Today's Topics:
Taxation &
History (2 msgs) &
Equal education?
Discrimination (5 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < TCS@ECLA.USC.EDU>
Date: Fri 29 May 87 10:50:08-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@ECLA.USC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Taxation scheme
I have always felt that funding of the goevernment via taxes should
be limited to the sales tax, period. It's the closest approximation
I can think of for taxing people for the "infrastructure" use that
they could otherwise free-ride -- you pay to the extent that you
interact with the system. Since wealthy people tend to buy more,
they will pay more -- I have no problem with that. This solution
also doesn't distort the economy and pricies in any particular
direction, it just increses the general price level.
TCS
------------------------------
Return-path: < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
Date: Sat, 30 May 87 13:13:29 CDT
From: "Kirk Augustin" < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
To: MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
Subject: Re: History lessons...
After viewing all the lessons of history I am surprized that people
still don't recognize the enemy. Greece might still be forested and
fertile if a few greedy people hadn't sent all the trees to the bottom
of the mediterranean in the form of trireams. Whether there is
mathematical symetry to the cycle or not, there are those that profit
from war and will be agitating for it whenever they can. After a
particularly bloody one like WWI they have to wait alittle longer to
be successful, but they always are because people are so easily
manipulated. Even you raise to the call of "journalistic integrety",
but think about it. A good war sells alot of newspapers. I am not
trying to excuse the USSR for their transgressions, I am trying to
point out that their actions seem more reasonable to them than our
actions seem to me. We have a double standard that is bound to start
another war. The KAL 007 flight could not cause a war alone, but it
could be a start. Fortunately it wasn't but we must never allow
something like that to happen again. There are only 2 facts we need
to even consider when evaluating the incident. 1)Failure to follow
even the simplist of flight rules over restricted bases will guarantee
being shot down in any country in the world. 2)Our government must be
withholding information on the incident from the public because of the
presence of NORAD, etc. In my mind the emeny is clear. When you
withhold information from the public and make inflamatory speeches you
are trying to prevent democracy from working. This can never be
permitted if we value our freedom. People who know better must speak
out or there will continue to be Hitlers in the future. The USSR may
hve a totally corrupt government, but we are the ones keeping them in
power. Without all our saber rattling how long do you think the
soviet people would put up with food lines?
------------------------------
Return-path: < cit-vax!elroy!smeagol!jplgodo!chas2!carlos@seismo.css.go
Return-path: v>
From: < elroy!smeagol!jplgodo!chas2!carlos@seismo.css.gov>
Date: 26 May 87 20:39:44 GMT
Subject: Re: USS Stark Incident
ccs006@ucdavis.UUCP (Eric Carpenter) writes:
> ...American ship means NOBODY shoots at us? That mistakes don't
> happen?...
When I was a kid watching war movies i used to wonder if mistakes
happened in war. If for example you shot one of your comrades by
mistake, or if an ally plane shot down another ally plane. I told
myself, NO these mistakes can't happen: you can't shoot another guy
that's on your side. I've never been to war, but talking with people
who have, watching movies like PLATOON, and now the STARK incident
tell me that war is not so much dangerous because the "bad" guy is
trying to kill you but dangerous because anyone on either side is a
target from anywhere and for anybody on any side! These accidents
are, I'm sure, more common than anyone realizes...
--
---> ...cit-vax!elroy!smeagol!jplgodo!chas2!carlos
Carlos Carrion
Space Flight Operations Center
Jet Propulsion Laboratory MS 301/250D, Pasadena, CA 91109
------------------------------
Return-path: < ihnp4!killer!elg@seismo.css.gov>
Date: 8 May 87 04:49:17 GMT
Subject: Re: Equal education?
KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") says:
> What really is so terrible about students not doing equally well?
> I think there IS something terrible if a student really tries to
> learn but is forbidden from learning, or from entering his chosen
> profession. But I don't think that a person who chooses to ignore
> the world of learning has any right to be somehow force-fed
> knowledge.
>
> The best way to help the poor is to not be poor.
> ...Keith
Yes, but the only way to not be poor, is to have an education.
As for what is really so terrible about students not doing well:
Certainly, we have a need for "grunts" (unskilled laborors). But that
need declines as the years go by. The low-cost trencher puts dozens of
shovel sloggers out of business (basically, a worker only has to dig
the part of the ditch that's near a building or sidewalk nowadays).
And there's something else that's becoming apparent: The U.S., and the
world at large, has a shortage of talent. Half of MIT's graduates are
Asians. The engineering and CS classes here at USL are similiarly made
up. I must conclude that the only thing keeping the U.S. in engineers
is the fact that we're importing engineers as well as Mexican
vegetable pickers. Sooner or later, the exporting countries are going
to realize what they could be doing with all that talent (e.g. make
their countries more self-sufficient, instead of exporting tons of
petroleum, etc.). Then what?
So besides the onerous smell of creating a permenant underclass (via
unequal educational funding, racial discrimination against black
youth, etc.), there's more important things at stake, too.
Somone mentioned that our educational system does a lousy job of
educating both the slow-performers and the "gifted" performers. A
nifty little statistic comes to hand. Half of those classified as
"gifted" (IQ above 135 is the cutoff, I believe), are classified as
"gifted underachievers". That is, people who have the ability, but for
some reason, do not perform well in school. Many or most of these
people do not go on to college. I run a C-64 based bulletin board
system. Most of the adult users are people who are intelligent and
literate, but who are nevertheless in a lower socioeconomic class
(remember, we're talking about a $160 computer here -- something that
I, a "poor college student", can even scrape together via part time
jobs etc.).
In conclusion, I don't believe that the survival or enhancement of the
human race is going to be furthered by the squashing of intelligence
and discouraging of rational thought.
--
Eric Green elg%usl.CSNET CS student, University of SW Louisiana
{cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg Apprentice Haquer, Bayou Telecommunications
Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 BBS phone #: 318-984-3854 300/1200 baud
Lafayette, LA 70509 I disclaim my existence, and yours, too.
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 10 May 87 01:28:32 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Guilt
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> > Is a person guilty of the crimes of his ancestors?
> Let the court decide on the merits of the case. After all in your
> ideal world anybody can sue for anything and the court is supposed
> to be the ultimate referee in such kind of disputes.
Wrong again. Nobody is guilty of anything anyone else did.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun 10 May 87 08:01:58-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Guilt
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Nobody is guilty of anything anyone else did.
That might very well be the case. The court would let you know that
if that's the case. That doesn't prevent you from sueing if you
choose to. Which is my point and which you got it wrong again.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 10 May 87 01:31:42 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Free will
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> Sure, except sometimes they can't choose not to think irrationally
> e.g. when they panic.
Speak for yourself.
Anyway, we weren't speaking of panic, but of discrimination. Do you
seriously mean to claim that some people are unable to NOT
discriminate?
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun 10 May 87 08:06:24-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Free will
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> Sure, except sometimes they can't choose not to think irrationally
> e.g. when they panic.
Speak for yourself.
Perhaps you should consider joining "Degenerators Anonymous." That
point is totally irrelevant.
Anyway, we weren't speaking of panic, but of discrimination. Do
you seriously mean to claim that some people are unable to NOT
discriminate?
Beats me, but some people sure seem to be unable to tell that it is
bad.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 10 May 87 01:48:29 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: More
To: WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: mwm%violet.berkeley.edu@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU
> From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> > You are seriously suggesting that someday an employer will be sent
> > to the electric chair for not hiring a black person?
> No but someone who reasons like you would.
An odd thing to say, seeing that I oppose the death penalty for all
crimes, and that I don't believe the action in question is a crime
anyway.
I mentioned execution only because you had compared reluctance to
hire members of all races to murder.
> Wouldn't the denial of freedom as a punishment be sufficient for all
> individuals who as you said love their own freedom?
Not all individuals love freedom. But whatever else prison does or
doesn't do, it does keep criminals off the streets.
> Furthermore if your model of the individual is true, any form of
> state mandated punishment would be a rarity as individuals would
> respect the rights of others not because they are going to be
> punished for violating the rights of others but rather because
> it is *MORALLY* right.
Yes, I think so. And because victimless crimes would be legalized.
Using drugs, selling drugs, evading taxes, gambling, prostitution,
usury, and pornography would cease to be crimes. Drugs would be much
cheaper, so users wouldn't have to steal to support their habit. And
people would cease seeing the laws as arbitrary social conventions and
start obeying them again. And there would be less poverty, hence less
theft.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Saturday, 13 Jun 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 76
Today's Topics:
Property Rights &
Drunk Driving &
Education (2 msgs) &
Discrimination &
Objectivism
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < TCS@ECLA.USC.EDU>
Date: Fri 29 May 87 12:40:18-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@ECLA.USC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V7 #66
TO: Keith and list
RE:"Buying in" to the system in the US
When you purchase a property, you generally do NOT purchase
the mineral rights. Similarly, in this country, when you purchase a
property you do NOT purchase the "sovereignty" rights.
Particularly in the case of all the western lands in the
US, you can make a very good argument that the
country/government/"people"/whatever you want to call the
corporate entity actually did buy or otherwise acquire the land,
and at that point owned it. When they later transfered it to the
states or to individuals, they retained the sovereignty rights.
If a person owns a piece of land, they can sell it to
someone else, but retain certain rights. If both parties agree,
no problem.
A corporation can do the same thing.
Why not a government?
With regard to kids buying in to the parents contract, it
is very similar to the notices you occasionally get about change
of terms in a credit card. It will read something like "Your
continued use of this card constitutes your agreement to these
terms." Since you are not forced to continue to use the card,
this is entirely reasonable.
The only requirement, then, is that the government must
allow you freedom of exit from the country if you choose not to
abide by the terms in effect when you become an adult (or an
embryo, or whenever we can agree that people should be able to
make independent decisions -- I'm not trying to fight THAT issue
here!). The fact that all other available areas may be even less
to your liking may be unfortunate, but has no moral content.
While the US does not permit complete freedom of exit,
the differences seem to me to be small.
There are many things about the US that I would change,
but I am absolutely convinced that I am living here voluntarily.
This does not mean that I feel morally bound to obey all laws, or
that I agree not to try to change the ones I don't like. I
sometimes like to drive faster than 55mph, and sometimes I do.
There is some probability that I will get caught, and the law
prescribes fines. I then fight it (within the system) or pay the
fine (also within the system), but in either case the system
responds responsiblity to the implicit contract I have made by
continuing to live here. As Keith quite correctly points out,
legality and morality are fundamentally unrelated. Legality is
testable against the legal code -- I maintain that morality is
fundamentally untestable. The quest for certainty in life is
doomed to failure -- even in physics.
If you see a logical inconsistency in this, I would very
much appreciate pointers to it.
Have fun!
TCS
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 31 May 87 15:51:58 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Drunk Driving, a Victimless Crime?
To: SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA
I do not believe that drunk driving is a victimless crime. I don't
know what I said that led you to believe otherwise.
It is true that government should not forbid 20 years olds from
drinking, on the dubious grounds that they MIGHT drive, even if they
have no car and no license. It is also true that "routine" drunk
driving tests are outrageous and an violation of the 4th amendment.
But if someone is caught driving drunk, I think they should take away
his license. And if he kills anyone, he should go to prison for a
long long time.
If I have any bias in this matter it is against the drunks, since I
neither drink nor drive, since I have to walk through heavy traffic
every weekday, and since I too have lost friends to drunk driving.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < mcvax!cs.vu.nl!biep@seismo.css.gov>
From: "J. A. \"Biep\" Durieux" < mcvax!cs.vu.nl!biep@seismo.css.gov>
Subject: Re: Equal education?
Date: 12 May 87 11:26:11 GMT
KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
> Yes, I remember using a restroom marked white's only when I was
> young. What exactly am I guilty of for doing so, and what can I do
> to pay for it? Mandatory segregation should be, and has been,
> abolished. I don't see what more needs be done.
This has always bothered me: what's wrong with segregated public
restrooms? Is sexism caused by having separate mens and womens rooms?
What about non- smokers restrooms?
As I understand a restroom is a place where one has to feel at ease,
because the matter is rather personal. So where possible, if a group
feels more at ease in a separate place, and the means are there,
please build separate restrooms. I can very well imagine having
separate restrooms for homosexual and heterosexual persons, etc, at
school for teachers and pupils, etc.
That has nothing to do with discrimination (well, in the political
sense), but with privacy, and privacy is a very important thing.
OK, go ahead, flame me.
--
Biep. (biep@cs.vu.nl via mcvax)
You can distribute this iff your recipients can.
Which they can iff *their* recipients can.
Which...
------------------------------
Return-path: < pyramid!ubvax!frank@ames>
From: ubvax!frank@ames (Frank Warren)
Subject: Re: Equal education?
Date: 20 May 87 19:26:49 GMT
WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Willie Lim) writes:
>
> From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
>
> I am not to worried about people being "indoctrinated" with the
> idea that they should think for themselves, or with the idea that
> they should not try to run their neighbor's lives, or collectively
> steal their neighbor's wealth.
>
> Assuming, of course, those were the things that they got after the
> indoctrination. Racists could very well selectively use those
> "truths" to justify their acts.
Truth, Willie, exists only as a relationship between statements.
Values, ethics and morality is a kind of insanity we carry around with
us and which exists as an interlectualized generalization of our
social instincts. You would think both yourself and Keith insane if
you were a lizard, making it entirely solo in the world, and heard
these same discussions.
>
> For a person to have any reasonable chance of learning the truth,
> he must be exposed to it.
>
> I heard recently that someone in France "proved" that the Holocaust
> didn't exist as part of his Ph.D. work. It would be very distrubing
> if people who are exposed to it, think that he has the "truth" now.
>
There is some chance that, since we have suppressed all of those
records, and all the other allies did too, that we are being misled
about the extent of the holocaust, that it was really intended as
genocide, or some other factors which are significant. There is no
question that Hitler was a murderer and an insane son of a bitch who
had to be stopped. Genocide makes a murder neither more nor less
horrible, neither more nor less cruel. The history of the world is
filled with religious persecution, Willie. I've known too many
blonde-haired, blue-eyed jewish folks to believe it was racial.
> It is enough that the injustice be stopped.
>
> Wouldn't you think that your arguments would be very appealing to the
> Nazis at the end of WWII? I certainly don't think it is enough to
> just stop the genocide then, the guilty must be hunted down and
> punished.
According to our own released records, Willie, Hitler killed 9 million
Germans along with 6 million Jews. Hitler is often brought up, but
strangely enough the number of Germans who resisted his regieme, were
caught and murdered for it are virtually never mentioned. Racism,
Willie? It was okay for him to murder 9 million Germans but not a
single Jew?
What purpose does this punishment serve? In the case of mass murder,
it is tempting to say, yeah, let's string these boys up, give them a
taste of their own. Yet this rather smacks of vindiction and
vendetta. Are you sure this is what you want to be proposing?
Keith makes a lot of sense in his proposals for a free society. In a
free society, mass murder is not possible; concentrations of power are
left so low deliberately that, aside from national defense forces,
nobody has enough power to enact this kind of horror. The
maintainance and extention of freedom in our society should be one of
our primary goals. And I agree with Keith that getting all involved
in making up for past wrongs, and enforcing the powers of an
increasingly monolithic and unresponsive government is leading us down
the wrong kind of road. As the government of this country becomes
more statist, it becomes necessarily fascist. If Hitler had not got
away with imposing Martial Law, which we are doing here by small steps
and tiny degrees, the Holocaust could not have happened.
Keith's mistrust and dislike of big government has practical, as well
as theoretical, strengths.
My remarks about Hitler and such will likely draw some strong
protests. But these are essentially emotional appeals that people
have been conditioned to respond to emotively rather than rationally,
and your use of them is not a an appeal to reason but one to emotion
of a man and a regieme we have been taught to stand for all the evil
in the world. I am surprised that you would have used it since you
usually do better than that.
As for reverse discrimination, since when do two wrongs make a right?
And since when does a vendetta bring back the dead? There is a
significant body of thought in the theory about the law that we ought
not to punish anyone who breaks the law; once the deterrence has
failed, they argue that punishment becomes merely a form of bloody
self-gratification. I have real doubts about this line of thinking,
and propose it only for its theoretical interest and the fact that it
has been around for a while in some circles of legal philosophy
-- Frank
------------------------------
Date: Sun 10 May 87 08:16:11-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: More
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
An odd thing to say, seeing that I oppose the death penalty for
all crimes,....
But you asked the question. One would think that a person who hold
such a belief would not ask such a question.
....and that I don't believe the action in question is a crime
anyway.
As I have said before that is one of our major disagreement. I
believe it is a crime.
I mentioned execution only because you had compared reluctance to
hire members of all races to murder.
Nope, I said it should be considered evil. That would take time, it
took us sometime to consider things like murder, slavery, or fraud
evil. I am just adding discrimination to the list.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 10 May 87 17:09:35 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Objectivism
To: testa-j%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA
Cc: lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU
> From: ~joe testa~ < testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
> > Most Objectivists reject the label "libertarian". I myself don't
> > mind, mostly because I identified myself as a libertarian until a
> > few months ago.
> I'm curious -- would you be willing to explain why you changed your
> mind?
It's not so much that I changed my mind, it's more the way the words
are used. I have found that many people who call themselves
libertarians support very different things than I do. Many of them
reject objectivism. Many objectivists reject libertarianism. I am
not happy about this split, but I cannot undo it or ignore it. I do
not fully agree with objectivism, but I come a lot closer to complete
agreement than with libertarianism. In any case, the word libertarian
now seems to be used to mean many different things. It has lost much
of its original meaning. This is the same thing as happened with the
word "liberal", which once meant pretty much what "objectivist" now
means, but which now means something quite different. I would only be
causing confusion by calling myself a liberal, intending the original
meaning, while others attribute the new meaning to it and imagine me
to favor the policies of FDR and LBJ. The same now seems to be true
of the word "libertarian".
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 23 Jun 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 77
Today's Topics:
College and Jobs (3 msgs) &
History (2 msgs) &
Rights (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < dmw@gauss.ECE.CMU.EDU>
Date: Sunday, 24 May 1987 14:39:46 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@gauss.ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: degrees
As someone looking through big piles of resumes, I can state what we
are looking for in a programmer in order of importance:
1) Good experience with C and UNIX. Must know at least as much as us,
with no training required. If we had time to train, we wouldn't be
hiring.
2) Good communication skills and the ability to work well with a team.
Getting the specs right is half the problem. Good English required to
write documentation.
3) Self-starter. Applicant will work semi-independently without lots
of hand-holding. Shouldn't wander off into hyperspace if left alone.
4) Knows the fundamentals, like numerical methods and graphics.
Specifics can be learned on the fly, but learning fundamentals takes
too long.
5) Knows something about CAD tools.
Note that we don't care where this knowledge and experience was picked
up, just that the candidate has it. Some of the best applicants
didn't complete college, but they have successfully completed large
projects, started their own little firms, etc. I use the job
application and resume to get basic claims of knowledge and experience
and then verify tem with references. A strong recommendation from a
former manager or advisor counts more than anything else.
This last point partly answers the question "Why go to college?" To
get into the old boy/girl network. College is not so much learning
from books and lectures, as being immersed into a community of
students and scholars.
------------------------------
Return-path: < pyramid!ubvax!frank@ames>
To: pyramid!ames!soc-politics@ames
From: ubvax!frank@ames (Frank Warren)
Subject: Re: Discrimination
Date: 26 May 87 19:08:12 GMT
WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Willie Lim) writes:
>
> From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
>
> If the government were to decree that no brown eyed people may
> get a job, that may well lead to a Holocaust.
>
> No, the government acts may simply be due to individuals within the
> government not been able to discard years of prejudices that cause
> them to exercise their individual "right" to discriminate. It is
> even worse when the citizens tacitly closed their eyes to such
> government acts because they share the same personal feelings as
> those individuals in the government. That is, you can't effectively
> prevent a government from doing anything if there are not enough
> people willing to make the government obey the laws, however well
> intentioned the laws may be. Hence individual prejudices can become
> the state's prejudices. Perhaps you think that individuals in the
> government are very different from individuals outside the
> government.
>
>
> Willie
> -------
Willie, you have entirely missed his point. Keith is arguing for less
government for precisely the reason that power tends to be abused to
gratify or satisfy those who govern, their private beliefs and
passions. At least this is what I have understood him to be saying,
to be arguing for less centralization and less massive power. You
cannot have a Holocaust without massive abuse of individual rights --
murder is murder and it is equally evil regardless of the motive. You
seem sometimes to be trying to make a case that it would not be as bad
if one of us murdered a man because we hate him personally rather than
murdering him because we don't like slavs or whoever. Is it less evil
to murder people because they are bolsheviks than because they are
jewish? Of course not.
The more free a people are, the less they are -- and the less they can
be -- subjected to massive external force. Would we have atomic
weapons and the threat of the genocide of the entire race without
massive government power structures? Who else has ever built such
weapons?
The great evils you are against provide much strength for Keith's
point of view. Distribute power, decentralize it, keep the structures
small, and the money, organization and numbers it takes to
systematically oppress people tends to disappear.
------------------------------
Return-path: < TCS@ECLA.USC.EDU>
Date: Fri 29 May 87 13:01:59-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@ECLA.USC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V7 #68
RE:Statistical Discrimination
Assumtion 1) It has been demonstarted that Group A statistically does
better at task X than Group B
Assumtion 2) Screening potential employees costs time and money
Assumtion 3) A company needs to hire some people to do task X
Assumtion 4) The company has a moral/legal obligation to it's
owners/shareholdes to maximize profits by not
wasting money.
Conclusion: The company is morrally obligated to only interview
from Group A in order to minimize hiring costs
and maximize profits.
Anybody havae a problem with that?
TCS
------------------------------
Return-path: < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
Date: Sat, 30 May 87 18:08:03 CDT
From: "Kirk Augustin" < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
To: COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Are we better off today?
Thanks for the support. I was beginning to feel alittle
overwhelmed. If we question what we are doing alittle more often, not
only can we improve the quality of life, but we can improve our own
credibility.
------------------------------
Return-path: < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
Date: Sat, 30 May 87 18:15:04 CDT
From: "Kirk Augustin" < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
To: COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Pearl Harbor and the National Security Agency
Thanks for adding the name of the "Puzzle Palace". I think that is
where I first read about that Pearl Harbor could have been avoided but
I only remember concepts and not detail. This makes me a lousy
debater but this point was an important one.
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 10 May 87 18:49:21 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: More
To: REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
> From: Robert Elton Maas < REM%IMSSS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
> May I assume that now, on the night of May 9-10, you (KFL) still
> haven't sent the long-awaited shortened-reply to 126k message?
Right.
> (1) The USSR, not the USA, was mostly responsible for defeat of Nazi
> Germany from sheer attrition on battlefront. ...
There were plenty of countries fighting against Germany, but the US
had the most impact. The USSR may have lost the most citizens, but
many suspect that their published numbers were an attempt to cover up
the extent of Stalin's merciless purges. The USSR could not have
ndone much in any case without the billions of dollars of US aid they
received (and never paid back despite having agreed to). Do not
forget that the USSR was allied with Nazi Germany, which was not
surprising since the two socialist countries stood for pretty much the
same thing, until Germany's surprise attack. They together attacked
Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, and Romania. Without the
AID of the USSR, Hitler's insane plans might have been aborted before
they began.
> > If the constitution was ammended to declare open hunting season on
> > Californians, you would have no objection? You wouldn't try to
> > fight back?
> I would have no right. But if it seriously affected my life, I might
> turn revolutionary, that is I might enter into armed guerilla war
> against my unacceptable government, ...
So you see no morality on either side. The only rule is do whatever
you can get away with.
> There is no absolute "evil" like some Satan fellow. There is merely
> personal opinion as to what is evil, ...
I agree that there is no such being as Satan.
Are you saying that every opinion as to what is evil is equally valid?
If I say it is evil to kill you and Charles Manson says it's evil NOT
to kill you, those are equally reasonable opinions?
> When I say lotteries are evil, I am expressing my personal opinion,
But who decides whether they should be allowed, given that all
personal opinions on the subject are equally valid?
> except I normally wouldn't bother expressiong such unless I had
> reason to believe the other person by all logic should agree with me
> based on what he said before. In your case, you said things that
> would seem to logically point toward you agreeing that the way to
> money is by working by producing, not by farting around doing
> something totally useless that happens under the system to yield
> income unrelated to any concept of useful production, ...
How can you so consistently misunderstand me, no matter how many times
I repeat myself? Let me try it one last time. There is no RIGHT way
to make money, nor is making money (or having children, as you say, or
worshipping the One True God, as some others say) RIGHTer than doing
anything else with one's time. ANY way of making money (or of doing
anything else) is equally good, just so long as it doesn't involve
defrauding or coercing another person.
Defrauding is defined as deliberately using deception to get something
of value from someone, for instance telling them that a brass trinket
is gold when you know it isn't. Coercion is defined as using force or
threat of force to get something of value from someone, for instance
pointing a gun at someone's head and demanding his wallet.
Anything else us just fine. I don't give a flying fork what it
"undermines". I'm no Reaganite.
> If you truly understand evolution, it can guide your life, give you
> some overall direction, tell you that making babies and helping them
> grow up is good, and that contemplating your navel under influence
> of drugs is bad, even though both may feel equally good in a
> hedonistic sense.
But you have never said why it is good to spread one's genes. What if
they were defective? What if a cure for defective genes was
available. Would you refuse to take it on the grounds that your genes
want to preserve themselves as they are? Why should you care what
they "want"?
Evolution simply says that what exists is what has tended to exist.
It applies equally to inanimate matter. Rocks one finds tend to be
hard because soft ones eroded away long ago. That doesn't mean there
is any virtue in a rock being hard or any evil in its being soft.
> Obviously freedom and capitalism are fundamental elements in your
> philosophy / morals, although I don't know for sure if they are
> primitive or derive from other elements.
Freedom comes first, all else follows. I prefer capitalism, and I
believe most people will, but there is nothing wrong with people
getting together and practicing socialism or any other system.
Freedom is about choices. The prime question is whether individuals
have the freedom to choose, or whether the church or the state or the
majority vote will make their choices for them.
> > Personally, I do not believe in sacrifice. I won't stop someone
> > else, but if someone tells me that *I* have to be sacrificed to
> > *his* cause, I will not consent.
> If you mean true sacrifice (altruism), I agree with you. If you mean
> apparent sacrifice (pseudo-altruism) which is really the Selfish
> Gene at work again, my moral code would go with the Gene rather than
> my personal body if the case was ever so clear cut.
But are you saying that you choose this moral code for yourself, or
that you feel it should be forced on others against their will? The
former is just fine. I won't stop you from sacrificing yourself. The
latter is not fine. I WILL stop you from sacrificing ME.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < pyramid!ubvax!frank@ames>
To: pyramid!ames!soc-politics@ames
From: ubvax!frank@ames (Frank Warren)
Subject: Re: Reply to REM - Part II of II
"J. A. \"Biep\" Durieux" < mcvax!cs.vu.nl!biep@seismo.css.gov> writes:
>
> In article < 8705120243.AA23897@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> ,
> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>
> > I do not value skill. Or hard work. Or good luck. I value actual
> > goods and services such as food and shelter.
>
> I think here is a basis for many of the problems. One can only accept
> libertarianism if *and*:
> 1 - one accepts that from the power most people have over their body
> follows the right over that body.
> (Quite hard to swallow for most people - what about those
> who are lame? Sorry, guys, but you don't have the right to
> eat; perhaps there is someone who wants to feed you...)
> 2 - one is mainly interested in material things.
> (Just a matter of taste.)
> 3 - one believes that everybody can be held equally responsible
> for his/her deeds.
> 4 - one is willing to state that no one can be held responsible for
> the fare of others.
>
> The latter who seem a wish to deny responsibility to me. Just by
> stating one isn't responsible it doesn't become true.
>
> =-=-=
>
> BTW, Yes, I think if somewhere someone starves, and I could have
> prevented it (reasonably), I am guilty of his death. In fact, I think
> I am guilty of a lot of things. Not a nice idea, but I won't try to
> deny it.
>
> I think rights are things one might *earn*. Either because he has a
> certain responsability (in the sense: he can justly be held
> responsable), or because he works hard.
> About the former: If someone has enough responsability, it may be a
> crime to abide to the law, if he sees the law is wrong at that point.
> So he has the right (and even the duty) to break the law.
>
Biep, you seem to be obsessed by the idea that you are responsible for
the world and everything in it, a delusion of a kind of godhood in
which if you do not prevent damage you have created it.
The world is, and always has, run according to its own rules. Death
is nature's way of adjusting the population balance and famines are as
old as man's massive settlement and proliferation on the planet.
While it may make you feel more, what?, loved/secure/important to
claim responsibility for everything and everyone, it is not a healthy
attitude. The Politburo is the Soviet Union is the most powerful body
of men on earth and yet they still cannot stop a sneeze.
If Keith is not proposing the following, I am:
The world got here without your help, has been running with life for
over a billion years without your help, and can quite well do without
your meddling and without mine. Indeed most of our pressing problems
in resources and ecology are there precisely because we've been
meddling very hard with the natural order. The world and the universe
doesn't give a damn about you or me; it's just a collection of
inanimate objects. Right and wrong, guilt and salvation and honor and
love exist only in your own mind and in the minds of others -- they do
not have real existence. It is because of this that man is the only
creature that goes insane -- he can get lost in a maze of his own
ideas, a situation the animals of the world are spared by virtue of
being less complicated.
What I am proposing is not that anyone is "wrong" but, rather, that
the ideational complex may be just that -- too complex. The world
survives fine without many complicated ideas. It got here without
them, runs without them and has always run best when left to its own
devices.
One of our most dangerous delusions, and a destructive thread which
runs thorugh the last 3000 years of western thought, is that man is
somehow gifted beyond imagining and that he should remake the world in
his own image. Yet it not the world which sprang from man, but he
which sprang from the world. How much can it be changed before man
himself becomes and obsolete dinosaur to the structure he has created?
I believe in freedom, in each individual pursuing his own goals and in
his fulfillment of his potential -- but only so long as it is not
achieved at the expense of the goals and fulfillment of others. The
world is anarchy, gentlemen, and no law you ever pass will prevent
earthquakes, tornados and floods, nor stop famine or sunspots, or make
the stars shine one whit more or less bright.
Those who propose extensive controls are too taken with the idea that
man possesses power which is, frankly -- and thankfully, beyond his
grasp.
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Sunday, 28 Jun 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 78
Today's Topics:
History (3 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mark@osupyr.UUCP (Mark Welch)
Subject: Re: Soviet history
Date: 1 Jun 87 03:30:04 GMT
kirk@UWM-CS.MILW.WISC.EDU ("Kirk Augustin") writes:
> We like to think that we are so different from the Soviets,(it can't
> happen here) but I see it differently. The Soviets have good reasons
> to want security and stability at all costs, after all many people
> starved in the war and other earlier times were almost as bad.
It is true that the Russian people suffered many hardships throughout
the war. However, the hardships the Russians face today (shortages of
everything, long lines to get the most basic of staples) can hardly be
considered the result of the war, but rather of the inefficiencies
and shortcomings of a socialist economy which creates no incentive
to produce.
> But
> are we all that independent? Look at the people sending their money
> to the PTL. The Russians have transfered their religious faith to
> the state but that doesn't make them any more subserviant than us.
> In fact the state in this country has more expertise in manipulating
> the media so that it probably has more control than the soviet state.
The Soviet state *owns* the media. The Soviet state decides exactly
what the Russian people will hear and see, down to the last detail.
Shortwave radio broadcasts from other countries are jammed by the
Soviets, while here in the US, Radio Moscow comes in loud & clear on
my shortwave (but I suppose you know that already :-).
As for religious faith, they have none, except for a few Baptists
and Pentecostals. I suggest you read the book *The Persecutor* by
Sergei Kordakov (sp?). Mr. Kordakov was a KGB agent whose job it was
to break up meetings of `believers', often using the gentle
persuasiveness of the rubber truncheon.
> Look at the current 'drug war' hype that is being leveled on us. The
> soviet leadership is not capable of anything that slick with the
> vodka situation.
This is also because media organizations, which want to attract
viewers, feel that the opinion/interest of the majority of Americans
is that the drug problem should be stopped at all costs. Hence, they
produce stories and articles about the topic. Not that I agree with
the `Just Say No' approach ... I'm just saying that this seems to be
the way it is.
> Basically we all have what is known as the 'great ape'
> syndrome where we want protection and order from our leaders,
> otherwise the president would not have so much sway and fads like
> yuppieism wouldn't happen.
The president has so much sway in American society right now only
because he knows how to sell his ideas to the American people.
> With Pearl Harbor you still miss the point. 6 carriers sound like
> alot until you realize that they were much smaller than the carriers
> we built. The Zero, like most Japanese planes, were constructed
> mostly of wood, were underpowered, and unarmored. They did much
> better than we thought they would considering what they had to work
> with, but from letters and documents of the time we know that they
> were never considered a real threat.
The Japanese had taken over all of Southeast Asia, and there was talk
of creating a great Pacific empire. This is not a `real threat'?
> Battle ships like the Arizona
> were the last of the great white fleet and only had value as targets.
Question: Why do battleships like the USS New Jersey still operate
today? The fact of the matter is that battleships are still
feared instruments of military power. However, I am no
military strategist: refer me to a text on World War II
military strategy or one of the `numerous' books on Pearl
Harbor that you claim exist, and I shall read them with an
open mind.
> Still no answer to the A-bomb question. Everybody keeps saying
> that it saved millions of lives by avoiding a landing. This doesn't
> make sense. Japan was near depletion of all resources. The
> firestorm techniques we perfected on Dresden were disasterous to
> the Japanese cities. Offensive action was impossible and attempts
> at negotiated surrender were offered by them many times. It would
> not have been at all difficult to set up a bomb demo. Infact they
> would have welcomed it as a way to save face. But since no attempt
> was made to even try, the intention was obvious and the question
> becomes unimportant. There was no urgency since there was no fleet
> left to attack us. Why did we have to move so quickly? Since it
> was known most of the victims would die of radiation poisoning,
> lukemia, etc., the a-bomb was banned by laws against chemical
> and biological warfare, and there was no excuse for using it.
What you are forgetting is that the Japanese were fanatically devoted
to their cause. In the island hopping phase of World War II, the
soldiers had so scour every square inch of freshly captured islands to
check for Japanese soldiers that were lying in ambush. If an invasion
had instead taken place, each and every Japanese citizen would have
fought to the bitter end. It would have taken several additional years
to end the war, and it would have killed many millions more people
than the bombs killed. I certainly do not approve of the bomb as
`just another tactical method', but in this case and this case only it
kept millions of additional people from dying.
> All these detail are totally unimportant. We have a right to be
> critical of the soviet union, but by not even considering the
> possible corruption within this country, we are giving ourselves
> up to another enemy without even firing a shot.
Agreed. But the fact that I can read what you wrote, and the fact that
you can say whatever you want without fear of punishment, indicates
that at least the mechanism by which we all can become aware exists
here like no other place.
Disclaimer: This was typed very late at night. cat flames > /dev/null
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
- Mark Welch
- 1528 Neil Ave #C / Columbus OH 43201-2341 / 614 299 1297 -
- UUCP: cbosgd!osupyr!mark || mark@osupyr.uucp -
- Any email under 200 degrees greatly appreciated. -
- `More bowling balls, man! More bowling balls!' -
------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!bugatti!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 87 08:58:57 pdt
From: Steve Walton < ametek!bugatti!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
To: cit-vax!kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.edu
Cc: cit-vax!kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu
Subject: History and the truth
You say, Kirk, that you are losing patience with this sort of
response. You the proceed to *begin* your response with a reply to
the (very short) *end* of my posting, which I admit was ad hominem.
However, such comments about style and proofreading can be found in
any book about writing.
I posted a rather long answer to you, including books which
document my claims. Have you actually read _A Day in the Life of Ivan
Denisovich?_ _Harvest of Shame_? _The Gulag Archipelago_? If you
dismiss all of them with a wave of the hand and a statement that "the
silly 'Evil Empire' concept is not at all documented," then you
deliberately blind yourself to the differences between the US and
USSR. For a (perhaps) more balanced account by journalists who are
traditionally described as "liberal", try Hedrick Smith's "The
Russians" and David Livingstone's (not sure that name is right)
"Russia: Broken Idols, Solemn Dreams."
You say "Surely you do not believe that all convicted individuals
are guilty." Well, what I believe isn't terribly relevant here. We
are discussing the relative merits of the American and Soviet systems
of government. To answer your question, no I don't believe that. But
there is a huge difference between saying (as you do) that the
American system is fundamentally unjust and repressive and saying (as
I maintain) that it is fundamentally just and respectful of freedom.
I see such incidents as errors, and not as evidence that there is
no moral difference between the United States and a police state,
whether that police state is South Korea, Somoza's Nicaragua, or the
USSR.
Do yourself a favor, Kirk: use your next vacation to visit the
Soviet Union. Take a few American books and magazines in your
suitcases with you, and while you're in the USSR, buy some Soviet
books and magazines to bring back. See whose border guards let the
material from the other country pass.
------------------------------
Return-path: < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
Date: Sat, 30 May 87 16:18:07 CDT
From: "Kirk Augustin" < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
To: MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
Subject: Re: Soviet history
I realize that some people feel strongly about politics but I have
never seen a response so rude or superficial. You have totally
ignored everything I said and conceded nothing. Since you did not
list objections to everything I assume you must have agreed
occasionally but were unwilling to admit it so that the conversation
could go no farther. I am not sure there is a point in continuing
then, but I must repond to what I consider insulting.
You attack my entire form of discussion as being invalid if any
facts are questionable. I consider this terribly insulting. What I
was trying to do was share a perspective with intellectual equals.
Instead I find myself being restricted to a form similar to proving a
syllogism in an exam. My debating skill or recall of facts is
unimportant if I can help you imagine what the world looks like from
another person's eyes. It doesn't matter how many troops we landed in
Siberia or why we did it. What matters is how the soviet people feel
about it. If you scare someone and they shoot you, it doesn't matter
what your motives might have been or what kind of gun they used. Then
you insult me by making me sound totally biased. When did I ever say
to only criticise the US? As a matter of fact I was constantly
critical of the USSR. The only good that I was trying to express
about the USSR was that the common people have been misled and are
motivated by the same positive goals we are. You trivialize my
criticism of the US by saying that the free press makes it redundant.
This I find particularly frustrating. If you had been actually trying
to understand my viewpoint, you would have known that I believe that
the beauracracy of the political parties and the profit motivation of
the press is effective censorship. What good is freedom of speech if
you have no way to get others to listen. Look at Vietnam; hundreds of
kids had to get their heads bashed in before the adults at the Chicago
convention decided that a change in policy might be a good idea.
Don't make fun of this view by saying I believe in some conspiracy
between the press and the government. Can't you see that it is wrong
for the press to only act after kids are getting clubed in the street.
Just because they sell papers just as well with clubed kids as war
shots doesn't mean that the watchdog press idea really works. If you
want a formal argument I could provide it, but between open minded
people it should not be necessary and I don't have time for it.
Since you like facts so much I will respond to some of them. To
emphasis how threatened we were by Japan in WWII you overstate the
value of their planes and carrriers. Unlike all other countries in
WWII, the Japanese were so short of materials that they skimped
incredibly on their planes. The zero was probably the smallest plane
of the war and could carry very little in way of bombs. It was made
mostly of flamable bambo and wood and was easily shot down. Infact
the zero was the only combat plane to have no armor at all. Then you
used rigged numbers on carrier values. You can make Japanese carriers
look good by showing numbers for small planes packed to the gills, but
the truth is that Japanese carriers were only half to two thirds the
size of ours. Even more of the truth is that they were never even
remotely a threat. High tech produces impressive results like Japan's
success in China, but the problems of geography and raw materials
negated any real threat to the US. But even more important is the
question that you miss totally. When I ask why we were at Pearl
Harbor at all, you should think back to the confrontation of fleets
off of Samoa earlier, and even earlier there was the humiliating way
Japan was forced to become part of our trade empire. Can you absolve
the US of all responsibility for Pearl Harbor being bombed?
Then there is still the a-bomb. If our little technical geniuses
had their way, an atomic bomb would have been dropped with flares and
whistles capable of being noticed for a 100 miles. During early
evening when people are home, things are quiet, and the sky is getting
dark, this is not difficult. Then Japan would have had the added
psycological and economic burden of caring for hudge numbers of people
with melted retinas. If I understand you correctly and you consider
this "insignificant" then there is no common ground for us to continue
discussion. If you meant something else you had better explain
yourself. All other arguments I have heard for dropping the bomb
still do not wash. Japan obviously wanted to surrender. This was
also the hardest thing they had ever done. There is no evidence of
any negotiations on our part; no counter offers, prisoner exchanges,
no extensions. We had nothing to lose by negotiating and time was in
our favor. Japan was getting economically and politically weaker by
the day. In a few more months the war fanatics might have killed
themselves or been killed. Regardless of the success probabilities,
other methods were not even tried so there can be no excuse for
dropping the bomb on a city.
Atleast I cannot charge you with racism. When you claim that the
Germans were guilty of murder for sinking the Lusitania after warning
that it would be sunk, you show that you are equally biased against
non US Europeans as well as non US Asians. If yore reacting against
the cold nature of submarine warfare, then how can you possibly defend
the bomb? What would you have the Germans do? Were they supposed to
surface and search all enemy ships for US citizens before sinking
them?
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Monday, 29 Jun 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 79
Today's Topics:
Justice, and "Public Interest" &
South Africa &
Vietnam &
History &
Socialism
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames>
Subject: Ideas, Justice, and "public interest"
Date: 4 Jun 87 00:11:33 GMT
Reply-to: macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod)
dave%lsuc%math@math.waterloo.EDU writes:
>
> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU.UUCP (Keith) writes:
> > I understand it is illegal to publicly claim in Canada that the
> > Holocaust is false. Do you consider this a reasonable law?
>
> I personally consider that the statement above is an
> oversimplification and that the law is reasonable.
>
> Section 177 of the Criminal Code makes it illegal to wilfully
> publish false news that is likely to cause injury or mischief
> to a public interest.
Can you image the Pandora's box of chaos that would ensue if America
had similar laws? Take your pick of any of the "Xxxx - Gate" scandals
of the past few years. Does anyone doubt that Nixon would have
invoked such laws? Regan?
One would hope that the resulting trial did establish the truth or
falsity of the charges. Still, my reading of such laws is that they
would produce an unconstitutional chilling effect on free speech, and
are about one step short of prior restraint.
My apologies to our Northern neighbors, who have to endure our acid
rain and live with our geopolitical decisions, but I'm glad that the
US constitution has as its conceptual base the rights of > individual<
men.
Mike MacLeod
------------------------------
Return-path: < rochester!ur-valhalla!micropen!dave@seismo.css.gov>
From: rochester!dave@micropen.arpa (David F. Carlson)
Subject: South Africa MUST be free
"I'm gonna sit on my ass and wonder
What to do?
'Cause in South Africa there is
Aparthied for my people."
-- Black Uhuru
I recently purchased an album by my fave Harry Belefonte
from 1964. The album was done with signer Miriam Makeba,
a South African singer and the album is very similar to
Lady Smith Black Mubatta(sp?) in texture/harmony although
it has folk guitar for accompaniment. The album, although
wonderful and heartily recommended, is not the point of
this article.
On the back of the album is a plea to free jailed South
African black leaders, among them, Nelson Mandela.
Not doubt, everyone has heard that plea before but it pains
me to know that this plea was made in *1964* when I was
still in diapers, when Johnson was president, when China
had more people than McDonald's has served!
Intelligent people of the net: it has been *23* years
since that plea for human rights went out and we are still
"sitting on our asses and wondering what to do." My god
people! Our humanity is lessened when anyone's humanity
is denegrated. South Africa is a blight on the free nations
of the world. I would feel much better about the Holocaust
if I wasn't convinced that such inhumanity will occur again
and again in this world. (Vis' Pol Pot's massacre of his
countrymen.) We must not let this aberration in morality
continue for our children to revile at--the way our politicians
seem quite content to do to us. A just war?--I think so.
Thank you for your indulgence.
--
David F. Carlson, Micropen, Inc.
...!{seismo}!rochester!ur-valhalla!micropen!dave
"The faster I go, the behinder I get." --Lewis Carroll
[I beleive the group is called 'Ladysmith Black Mumbaza' - Ladysmith
is a town. - CWM]
------------------------------
Return-path: < amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arpa>
From: MacLeod < drivax!macleod@ames.arpa>
Date: 8 Jun 87 04:54:36 GMT
Subject: Re: PLATOON, Vietnam vets
In article < 17051@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes:
> In article < 1456@rti.UUCP> wfi@rti.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes:
> > ...I will maintain that we had no business
> > being there until the day I die. Yet I find your trashing of the
> > average Joe who went to 'Nam as offensive as the right-wingers...
>
> You're jumping to conclusions if you think I blame the average
> American soldier for what happened in Vietnam. The foot soldier is as
> an expendable tool as his rifle is. The battlefield commanders,
> the policy makers back home, the voters who elected the politicians,
> they are the ones responsible for what happened.
I disagree. The American soldiers who volunteered to go to Vietnam
in the belief that they were supporting freedom, defending their
families and country, and doing the right thing acted on the noblest
of principles. There were others who went who simply did as they
were told. And there were others who went because they got to kick
some ass.
Whatever their reasons, > they< were the ones who went. > They< shot the
rifles. > They< dropped the bombs. > They< dropped the Agent Orange.
Those who went to war in the belief that they were supporting American
ideals were victims of the cruellest, bitterest hoax ever perpetrated
on America. The others who went, and "just followed orders", belong
in moral category of their leaders.
There were Americans who protested the war, and there Americans who
refused to be drafted to fight. It saddens me that now, after the
Vietnam Veterans have been "rehabilitated" into objects of sympathy,
that there is > still< no sympathy - in fact, still contempt - for
those who > saw< that the Government was doing evil, > said< so, and
> refused< to play along. Most draft evaders have been permanently
exiled from America because of their conscience.
As you can see, my sympathies are with those who had the guts to
disagree, not those who > made the war possible in the first place< .
There will those who disagree, saying that you can't, in retrospect,
apply these lofty moral standards to a period of white heat and
intense distress like the Vietnam years. But it's always like this.
The moral choices are inescapable. We prosecute Nazis who pulled the
trigger, or gassed individuals. We don't accept their pleas that they
were "following orders".
------------------------------
Return-path: < ray@cs.rochester.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 87 09:13:57 edt
From: Ray Frank < ray@cs.rochester.edu>
Subject: Re: Soviet history
Reply-to: rochester!ray@RUTGERS.EDU (Ray Frank)
kirk@UWM-CS.MILW.WISC.EDU ("Kirk Augustin") writes:
> We like to think that we are so different from the Soviets,(it can't
I don't like to I LOVE to think we are so different.
> The real point was that we had no historic, cultural, or geographical
> ties to the islands we occupied in the Pacific. Japan knew we were
> there for exactly the same reason they wanted the islands so both
> sides knew the conflict was inevitable. My question was why even be
> there at all?
Why WERE we there????
A more important question is why were millions of soldiers from Japan
in China killing millions of innocent civilians there? Finally, do
you think is was noble of the US to attempt a worldwide embargo of war
supplies such as oil, iron ore, etc. on Japan to halt their imperia-
listic terror in China and elsewhere?
ray
------------------------------
Return-path: < prl%ethz.UUCP%cernvax.bitnet@berkeley.edu>
From: prl%ethz.UUCP%cernvax.bitnet@berkeley.edu (Peter Lamb)
Subject: Re: Socialism
Date: 31 May 87 15:00:33 GMT
Reply-to: bernina!prl@berkeley.edu (Peter Lamb)
KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
> > From: "Kirk Augustin" < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
>
> > Hitler fooled around with some socialists to get started, but by
> > 1932 he had killed them all and was pure capitalist by his
> > standards as well as everyone elses.
>
> His movement was always called National Socialism. It differed from
> other forms of socialism only in that the others claimed to welcome
> people of all races. He was certainly no more a capitalist than
> Stalin.
His movement was called the National Socialist Democratic Worker's
Party: it was about as socialist as it was democratic. It was
extremely anti-communist (the treaty with Stalin notwithstanding).
By kfl's argument East Germany is democratic, since they call
themselves the German Democratic Republic.
>
> > Capitalism is 'get what you can any way you can' by its own
> > definition.
>
> No it isn't. Find me this definition in any dictionary. Capitalism
> is that system in which individuals have inalienable rights, i.e.
> rights that no government can take away, which include the rights to
> life, liberty, and property (see Locke) all of which Hitler violated
> on an enormous scale.
>
From the `Shorter Oxford English Dictionary':
Capitalism: (...pronunciation...). 1854. [f. next; see -ism]
The condition of possessing capital or using it for production;
a system of society based on this;
dominance of private capitalists.
Capitalist: (..more characters not in the ACSII sequence..). 1792.
[- Fr. capitaliste; see Capital sb. 2, -ist]
One who has capital, esp. one who uses it in business enterprises (on
a large scale).
Neither of the definitions offered by kfl or kirk seem to quite agree
with what the dictionary says, although `dominance of private
capitalists' seems to be much more like kirk's definition than kfl's.
Poor Locke, he never had anything to do with the term, though he did
write about the limits of state power and when citizens were justified
in overthrowing it.
> ..... Socialism, by denying me
> the right to wealth I created or voluntarily traded, violates this
> principle. We can see the results of this in the USSR, in Ethiopia,
> in China, In Cuba, in Cambodia, and many other socialist countries
> whose citizens are in abject poverty. There aren't any socialist
> countries with a decent standard of living, with a reasonable amount
> of medical care, with as little class-consciousness as there is in
> the US, with as little racism as there is in the US, with a
> sufficient quantity of nourishing food, or any of the other things
> socialists in this country are always going on about.
It depends on what you call socialism and who you call socialist. If
you include the euorpean social democratic governments, there are
quite a few doing quite nicely, thank you. There are not a few
avowedly capitalist countries in which there is a considerable amount
of abject poverty, rascism etc.
>
> Funny, I have't seen a lot of slaves around lately. Perhaps this is
> because the worker can go find another job. The employer/employee
> relationship is symmetrical in a capitalist system. An employer can
> deny a job do an employee, and an employee can deny his services to
> an employer. The employer can find other employees, and the employee
> can find another employer.
The demise of slavery in the US seems to have had little to do with
that country suddenly becoming capitalist....
Peter Lamb
uucp: seismo!mcvax!ethz!prl eunet: prl@ethz.uucp Tel:+411 256 5241
Institute for Integrated Systems
ETH-Zentrum, 8092 Zurich
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 30 Jun 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 80
Today's Topics:
Transactions &
Thought Laws &
Socialism &
History (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < TCS@ECLA.USC.EDU>
Date: Fri 5 Jun 87 17:01:06-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@ECLA.USC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V7 #71
To : Willie and list
RE: "bad faith" in trasnactions
It is misleading to look only at the economic outcome of a
transactions. Individuals do not act to maximize profits, but t
rather to maximize "utility", which can be loosely defined as "getting
as much of what you like as possible". Some of that will be c
economically quantifiable, and some won't. If someone gets more
satisfaction out of dealing with people who don't have brown eyses, I
(as a brown eyed individual) think that's a little weird, but it's
none of my business.
TCS
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 87 16:33:27 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Freedom of speech
To: dave%lsuc%math%math.waterloo.edu@RELAY.CS.NET
> From: dave%lsuc%math%math.waterloo.edu@relay.cs.net
> > I understand it is illegal to publicly claim in Canada that the
> > Holocaust is false. Do you consider this a reasonable law?
> I personally consider that the statement above is an
> oversimplification and that the law is reasonable.
> Section 177 of the Criminal Code makes it illegal to wilfully
> publish false news that is likely to cause injury or mischief
> to a public interest. ...
Such a law is not reasonable. Why shouldn't a person be allowed to
express his opinion? Saying it is up to a government or a jury to
decide whether the opinion was correct or at least harmless to a
'public interest' (whatever that is) is an ancient and obsolete idea.
The two opposing ideas are:
1) What can be said should be up to the government, church,
majority, or elite. Members of the general public must
be protected from harmful ideas.
2) What can be said is up to the individual saying it. Members
of the general public are in no danger from radical ideas.
> It should be noted that Zundel was convicted by unanimous
> decision of twelve jurors, who had to have concluded beyond
> a reasonable doubt that what Zundel published was false,
> that he knew it to be false, that he did it wilfully and
> that his actions were likely to cause injury or mischief to
> a public interest.
The idea behind a jury is that they are drawn from the general
population. Why was it considered safe to expose them to the
offending writings? And not safe to expose the general public
as a whole to them?
You, members of that jury, and any readers of this message that
agree with you, apparently reason that *you* would not be harmed
by exposure to such writings, but the unwashed masses would, and
must be protected from unsavory ideas for their own good.
Years ago, I used to wonder at the contradiction of Great Britain and
its Commonwealth - on the one hand they were experimenting with
socialism, on the other hand they still had a Queen and a royal
family. Today, I know it is no contradiction. Socialism and Royalism
are pretty much alike. The common element is elitism, the idea that
the elite, whether they are called the Nobility or the Party, know
what is best for the rest of us, and that the main thing needed from
us is unquestioning obedience.
Unfortunately, the US is not immune. The Meese commission concluded
that exposure to pornography leads to crime, but they did not
recommend that they themselves be placed under surveillance, even
though their conclusion would cause one to believe that they are now
very likely to become criminals, having been exposed to so much
pornography during their 'study'. The idea is clearly that they are
immune to any ill effects, it's only us peons that must be protected
for our own good.
Of course, if they had any respect for individual rights, or for the
constitution they swore to uphold, they would not have recommended
that pornography be illegal, even if the evidence that it led to crime
was overwhelming, which it was not.
> I posted a lengthy article analyzing the appropriateness
> of using the criminal courts to deal with hate literature
> a couple of years ago. If there is interest I will repost it.
Please do.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < ray@cs.rochester.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 87 13:20:07 edt
From: Ray Frank < ray@cs.rochester.edu>
Subject: Re: Socialism
Reply-to: rochester!ray@RUTGERS.EDU (Ray Frank)
> > From: "Kirk Augustin" < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
> > makes me wonder if your conditioning is already too strong.
In a communist system if you don't agree you are sent to a 'place' to
have your mind 'purified' because if you disagree to loudly you
certainly must be crazy.
> > Socialism and communism simply are human addmissions that we should
> > also be guided by ethics as well as profits.
You are guided by ethics alright. The party's ethics.
> > However I will admit that any idea of how to legislate ethics
> > without turning into a monstrous beaurocracy is beyond me.
It's not a problem for the communists, they've been at it a long time.
They legislate everything including how you will think.
> > When you help the neighboring pioneer raise a barn or hunt buffalo
> > with your Indian tribe, that is pure communism.
No, when you help your neighbor raise a barn and there is a gun at
your back forcing you to do it then that is communism.
> > Private ownership of private goods has no conflict with communism.
> > Communism simply is where the means of survival should be available
> > to all. This means a place to work and live.
Private ownership? A place to live? Work??? How many Russians own
their own home or have a car or color TV? They work their asses off
and stand in line for potatoes. This is living? My cat doesn't work
and lives in a 7 room house and has all the food and cat toys he can
use. I would think the average human being should be able to live
better than the average household pet.
> > In capitalism you can lock a worker out until he is willing to
> > become a slave.
Yes, but they are highly paid slaves and are usually willing slaves as
well. In communism nobody cares if they are willing or not they WILL
work and they will get little for their efforts. Check recent history
and see what happened to Polish workers who tried to organize for
better pay and benefits.
> > Think for a second and compare yourself with the patriotic soviet
> > workers who are furious with the political dissedents for selling
> > out the USSR.
Why should a soviet worker be furious with a political dissident.
That poor fellow is probably having his brain turned into mashed
potatoes at some 're-orientation hospital'. In no time at all he'll
perform like good little robots should. Just ONE big happy family.8-)
ray
------------------------------
Return-path: < umnd-cs!umn-cs!meccts!meccsd!mvs@RUTGERS.EDU>
From: mvs@meccsd.mecc.mn.org (Michael V. Stein)
Subject: Re: History Lessons
Date: 7 Jun 87 04:17:11 GMT
Mike.Meyer@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (My watch has windows) writes:
> Total immediate deaths from the two bombs is estimated at less than
> 150,000 (much closer to 100,000, actually). I don't have an estimate
> for the number of people who died of radiation poisoning, but make it
> the same, so you have a total of 300,000 people dead/wounded from
> those two bombs. That's probably high, but add 1/3rd to that to get
> to a round 400,000 deaths from the two bombs.
Your estimates are way to high. About 80,000 Japanese A-bomb
survivors have been studied since WW II. Approximately 8500 of them
were exposed to doses in the range of 100,000 to 600,000 millirem.
This group suffered about 200 excess cancer deaths up to 1974. This
is inconsequential to the thousands who died from the direct effects
of the bombs.
Aside from this error though, I found your article well thought out..
--
Michael V. Stein
Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services
UUCP ihnp4!meccts!mvs
------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!bugatti!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 87 13:10:21 pdt
From: Steve Walton < ametek!bugatti!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
To: cit-vax!cowan@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Pearl Harbor and the National Security Agency
In Poli-Sci V7 #73, Rich Cowan < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU> writes:
Kirk Augustin makes two claims in his last couple of responses to
Keith Lynch. The first of these -- that the US decoded the message
warning of Pearl Harbor hours in advance of the attack, and may
have actually let the disaster happen in order to win unanimity for
a US entry into the war, is discussed in gory technical detail in a
book I recommend to everyone:
The Puzzle Palace, by James Bamford (1982?)
This book is basically the *Only* major source on the National
Security Agency. The NSA started in 1952, I think. The history in
the book starts with the roots of the NSA: elite code-breaking
teams that started around World War I.
I second Rich's recommendation of this book. However, its account of
the events surrounding the Pearl Harbor attack is a masterpiece of
indirection. Essentially, Bamford describes the Sunday morning
interception and decoding of a message from the Tokyo Foreign Ministry
to the Japanese Embassy in Washington, DC. The message contained the
Japanese response to the latest American demands for withdrawal of
Imperial Japanese forces from Indochina: namely, the Japanese
declaration of war against the United States. It was intercepted at
about 9 AM Eastern time on December 7, 1941, some four hours before
the attack began. The message was decoded, the decoder realized its
importance (obviously!) and sent it around the government. An effort
was made to send a message to Pearl telling them the war was about to
start, but was put into an envelope instead of being sent
electronically. Had it been sent, it would have arrived at Pearl 20
minutes before the attack started. It might have possibly arrived a
full two hours before had everything gone right, but as usual, it
didn't.
However, Bamford neglects to mention an important point: the
decoded message contained NOT ONE WORD about the Pearl Harbor attack.
Why should it? It was a diplomatic message for the Japanese Embassy,
not instructions to the Imperial Japanese Navy. Even if all had went
well and the "war is imminent" message had arrived at Pearl two hours
before the attack (at 6 AM Hawaii time on a Sunday, remember) it isn't
at all clear that it would have had any effect. Bamford's
juxtaposition of a description of the Pearl attack with the decoding
of the war declaration appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead
the reader into thinking that we knew of the attack beforehand, even
though he presents no new evidence to that effect.
According to the cover of the paperback edition, NSA agents went
into public libraries and removed sources that were referenced by
the book soon after it was released.
Paperback book covers aren't terribly reliable as scholarly sources.
I don't know about that claim, but I can
certainly believe that the combined effects of U.S. "security"
agencies and institutional self-censorship distort the information
available to the public on matters related to U.S. defense policy.
Agreed. But contrast our situation with the Soviet Union, where the
KGB and GRU are only answerable to the Politburo and their actions are
completely kept from the Supreme Soviet and the Soviet public. Closer
to home, look at the British Official Secrets act. Our situation
isn't ideal, but it is better than many of our allies', to say nothing
of the USSR.
One cannot get his or her education about these matters by merely
taking a random sample of that which is published and expect to
preserve one's "objectivity"; the selection of what is studied and
what is not is too strongly influenced by the power of the military
establishment.
Agreed as well. Anyone who hasn't read _At Dawn We Slept_ cannot
claim to be well-informed about the events of December 7, 1941.
I believe the December issue of Atlantic Monthly had an article on
the NSA and the DOD's "Black Programs" that will make Keith Lynch's
expostulations about the incredible "freedoms" in US society sound
ridiculous.
Well, I've heard Bamford speak on national security issues several
times on public radio since the publication of _The Puzzle Palace_. I
can buy a copy of his book in any bookstore. (I just looked in my
local B. Dalton, if you must know; they had three copies of the trade
paperback edition.) I dare say that if the Soviet emigre' author of
"Inside the Soviet Military" went back to the USSR, we wouldn't hear
much from him again because he'd be taken out and shot. I certainly
can't buy a Russian translation of his book at a Moscow bookseller.
Steve Walton
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Thursday, 2 Jul 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 81
Today's Topics:
History &
Nicaragua &
Socialism (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < trwrb!uucp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
From: foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy)
Subject: Re: History Lessons
Date: 8 Jun 87 21:19:28 GMT
Reply-to: foy@aero.UUCP (Richard Foy)
Mike.Meyer@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (My watch has windows) writes:
>
> Uh, can you give references for that? I haven't seen anything
> _anywhere_ indicating Japanese overures to the US. The only thing I
> know of is them asking the USSR to approach the US about a surrender.
> Since the USSR wanted to prolong the war long enough to take
> territory from the Japanese (which they did), this didn't work out
> so well.
>
The book "From Potsdam to Hiroshima" (Sorry I don't remember the
author) makes a pretty good case, including a number of quotations
from official memorandum of that period, that the A-bombs did not save
lives or speed the end of the war. I was glad at the time when the
bombs were dropped. Now I don't believe that I should have been.
The opinions I have expressed are mine alone.
Richard Foy
------------------------------
Return-path: < news@cs.rochester.edu>
From: klapper#@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl Klapper)
Subject: Work in Nicaragua (from jobs)
I had a couple of responses by mail to which I couldn't reply
(something about mail privileges) so I am putting the conversation
here, as suggested by Ken Yap in a misc.jobs post:
In reply to:
Remember, technically we are not at war with Nicaragua, theoretically,
Nicaragua is a friendly nation.
Me:
Just because we aren't technically at war with a country doesn't mean
that they're a friendly nation. We have not been technically at war
with the Soviet Union any time after World War II, but we haven't
exactly been buddy-buddy.
Involvement in countries with whom we have strained relations is risky
business. When these relations collapse, Americans in such countries
have a high ransom value, e.g. in Iran. This danger is aggravated
when, as in the case of Nicaragua, the country has a totalitarian
government supported by paranoia about an American invasion and
infiltration. Lacking hard proof, they will not hesitate to use any
available bodies to support their contention.
When the Sandinistas parade you in front of news cameras as an
American "spy" or "terrorist", don't expect the rest of us to bail you
out. Nor will your liberal congressmen pity you: they'll believe the
party line that you work for the CIA.
Dave Kehoe:
Yuck yuck -- you must have worked all day to write
something that funny!
Just like Eugene Hasenfus!
Me:
Yuck Yuck!
Just like Nick Danilov!
Yuck! Yuck!
Just like the hostages in Iran!
Yuck! Yuck! Yuck!
My, you have a warped sense of humor.
Rick Matt:
So where did you study internatinal law? If we are not at war with a
country, the country is legally "freindly", whether or not you happen
to agree with the countries politics.
I hope you someday relaize a better way to help fight totalitarian
governments than to vent you anger and frustration on your fellow
Americans. (We are, in case your politics save spilled over too far,
still fellow Americans; even if you don't like what some fellow
Americans do.)
Me:
1) I had the practical sense in mind, not legalisms. If there is "bad
blood" between two countries, there are several ways, short of war,
for one to persecute the nationals of the other. Some of these may
violate international law and may even be deterred by that law or by
"world opinion". I wouldn't bet my life on it, though.
2) You seem to think that I am angry at Americans working in (or for)
Nicaragua. On the contrary, if I was really angry with these folks, I
wouldn't warn them of the dangers before they committed themselves.
Instead, I would let them trust congressmen who do not know them or
the power of the U.S. government to protect them from foreign
governments. [If every country intervened on behalf of its
non-residents as much as the U.S., we would be in WWIII by now.]
Please send replies to this bboard.
------------------------------
Return-path: < ray@cs.rochester.edu>
From: Ray Frank < ray@cs.rochester.edu>
Subject: Re: Socialism
kirk@UWM-CS.MILW.WISC.EDU ("Kirk Augustin") writes:
> Now for our sense of freedom and justice. Before we arrived the
> Indians had their own possesions but nobody could own the land,
> trees, or game. They all needed to share the use of the natural
> resources to survive. An individual that wanted to hunt buffalo
> without the rest of the tribe was socially ostracised because he
> scattered the herd and made life rough for everyone else.
Indians are human beings and suffered the 'human condition' that
afflicts all of us. They had their wars and their atrocities towards
one another. What makes them look less evil or terrible is that they
had not yet invented weapons of mass destruction and death such as
rifles and cannons, etc. You seem bent on forming some sort of
historic utopia to fantasize about. Forget it, it never existed.
> How do I know this system is really so corrupt? Because I am very
> good at using it myself. I have had many tenents buy buildings for
> me and have made large profits off the 'slave' labor employed by the
> US. Since the 20's we have used foreign countries for our slave
> camps, but that just makes the illusion of freedom and prosperity
> easier to maintain. Foreign workers don't get health benefits or
> safty checks. Then if they complain too much we yell communism and
> have them jailed. The US isn't rich because it is prosperous, it is
> because it is ruthless and drains most of the wealth of the world.
> I know because I am part of the system. You can be a tenant or a
> landlord, and I chose not to be a tenant. But I am not going to be
> like the other hypocrates and try to bend labels to hide the
> injustice.
You sound embittered. The system worked for you. You got what you
wanted and yet you are unfulfilled and you blame the system for this.
You blame our society and bite the hand that fed you. You are the
maker of your own misery. Not society or the system. You are unhappy
with the way things are for YOU. What about other cultures? Other
countries? You sound very comfortable in your misery. Some countries
have people who are also unhappy with their lives and they wallow in
the dirt and mud instead of 100 grand homes. Life is what you make it
to be. Stop looking for a scapegoat. You are your own worst enemy or
best friend. Attitudes like yours can never be satisfied no matter
what system of government they exist in. You are a landlord and yet
you put down landlords as tyrants and scum. There are good landlords
and bad ones. Which one are you. Do you throw entire families into
the street because they are late with the rent? Do you have slums
that you pass off as housing? Are you a slum lord and the guilt is
catching up with you? As a landlord you are in a position to do a lot
of good for people. Are you doing it? Is your name cursed by your
tenants as they go to sleep at night or praised? If you are 'one of
them landlords' then that is the kind of person you are and don't
blame society for that. Every bit of good that exists in any society
starts with each individual. The government is only the tool of the
sum total of these individuals. Remember, the system is not corrupt,
the individual is. The system is there to be used and manipulated in
whatever way we indiviuals see fit to use it. This is no as easy in
communist countries. The system there does not reflect individuals
but rather a select few who manipulate and use the system as they see
fit. Rather than worry about the system which only reflects what
others are doing you should be concerned with what you as an
individual are doing to make that system better. If you do your small
part to make life better for others you are doing exactly what is
required of you and no one should expect more of you.
ray
------------------------------
Return-path: < scgvaxd!psivax!seamus@seismo.css.gov>
From: psivax!seamus@seismo.css.gov (Jim Garrison)
Date: 9 Jun 87 18:43:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Socialism
> > From: Kirk
> From: Keith
> > Socialism and communism simply are human addmissions that we should
> > also be guided by ethics as well as profits.
> A system of laws representing ethics are compatible with, indeed
> necessary for, capitalism. The prime ethical principle is an
> individual's right to be left alone. Everything unethical boils down
> to a violation of this fundamental right. Socialism, by denying me
> the right to wealth I created or voluntarily traded, violates this
> principle. We can see the results of this in the USSR, in Ethiopia,
> in China, In Cuba, in Cambodia, and many other socialist countries
> whose citizens are in abject poverty. There aren't any socialist
> countries with a decent standard of living, with a reasonable amount
> of medical care, with as little class-consciousness as there is in
> the US, with as little racism as there is in the US, with a
> sufficient quantity of nourishing food, or any of the other things
> socialists in this country are always going on about.
The above paragraph is amazing! There are no socialist countries with
a decent standard of living?? There are no socialist countries with a
reasonable amount of medical care? What about Sweden? Do you think
it provides an inadequate standard of living? (its per capita income
(1980) was $14,281 vs only $11,675 for the US (1983)). Do you not
consider a public health service which provides health care to
EVERYONE to be "decent" enough for you? Last time I was in Sweden I
found no shortage of nourishing food.
Do you not consider Sweden to be socialist? Your previous (sloppy)
usage of "socialist" would not exclude Sweden. (I will not repeat your
attempt to discredit socialism by association with Hitler as I found
it offensive.) I personally do not consider Sweden to be a "pure"
socialist state in which all members share in ownership of the means
of production, work, and distribution of products. However, Sweden
appears socialist in its distribution of products. It has
comprehensive national health care, and a work fare system for the
long term unemployed which has helped to reduce the unemployment rate
to 2.2%.
I see all the misery you mention in your paragraph to be
characteristic of unrestrained capitalism not socialism. The United
States is where one must look among developed nations if one searches
for an appalling lack of medical care. Among developed nations, the
US is virtually unique in not providing EVERYONE (not just the
wealthy) with adequate health care. The medical care available to the
poor is substandard which is one reason the US has one of the highest
infant mortality rates.
> > In capitalism you can lock a worker out until he is willing to
> > become a slave.
> Funny, I have't seen a lot of slaves around lately. Perhaps this is
> because the worker can go find another job. The employer/employee
> relationship is symmetrical in a capitalist system. An employer can
> deny a job do an employee, and an employee can deny his services to
> an employer. The employer can find other employees, and the employee
> can find another employer.
The view of a symmetrical relationship between employer and employee
is absurd. Almost without exception Labor Theory Economists reject
such claims of symmetry. The resources available to an average firm
are much greater than those available to the average worker. If I
leave my company they will survive. The company I work at can go
longer without replacing me than I can last without an income. The
worst consequences are investors losing money for the firm compared
with a worker starving without money to buy food. Death vs. a loss of
money is NOT symmetrical. Yes, I know that in Libertaria: --No worker
will starve because he will always be able to find another job.--
There is still no symmetry. The trauma and proportional monetary cost
of losing a worker and a worker getting laid off are not equal.
(BTW- I don't quite agree with the original poster's comment about
workers being forced into slavery, but I recognize the ample evidence
of an asymmetrical relationship between employer and employee.)
> > ... but some of the things you said show that you have been
> > listening to good talkers instead of reading good books. They
> > can't get away with distorsions like that in print.
> If you can rebut a single thing I said, please do so.
Please see above for my rebuttal. As to the reading...
> I strongly suggest you read Ayn Rand's _Capitalism: The Unknown
> Ideal_. I know you aren't going to. It is obvious you are too
> closed minded. I would do as well to suggest to a junkie that he
> just stop shooting up. But I am suggesting it anyway.
I don't know if the original poster has read the referenced book. I
read it. It was garbage. It would serve well as a case study for a
class in rhetoric or propaganda. It had more distortions of the
truth, flawed logic and deliberately misleading "lines of reasoning"
than any other published work I have ever encountered.
seamus
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Thursday, 2 Jul 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 82
Today's Topics:
Living Standards &
Libertarianism &
Socialism
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 87 17:18:30 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Are we better off today?
To: COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU
Cc: kirk@UWM-CS.MILW.WISC.EDU
> From: Richard A. Cowan < COWAN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
> The other point raised by Kirk, but still not well documented, is
> the notion that modern society is really backward in some respects,
> compared to older civilizations.
> ... excerpted from Noble's book, "Forces of Production."):
> "Practitioners of science and technology ... successfully cultivated
> and fostered the mythology of technological progress, ...
For years, the Left has claimed to represent progress and prosperity.
It is interesting that now they are saying "What is so great about
progress, anyway?"
This is the "revolution of lowered expectations" as popularized by
former governor Jerry Brown of California and former president Carter.
Its roots go back to Rousseau and to everyone who ever carried on
about the former golden age. A reasonable attitude during the dark
ages, but not so reasonable today.
Yes, there are inventions we could do better without. Socialism and
the nuclear bomb, for instance. Though as long as the former exists,
I am sure glad our side has the latter.
Just when was this golden age, this better age you would want to turn
the clock back to?
And what are you going to tell the billions of people who would have
to die for the world to get by without modern technology?
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Fri 12 Jun 87 21:47:08-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: Why I am not a libertarian
I am not libertarian not because I believe in any other political
system, but because I don't find libertarian arguments compelling
enough to say they must be right. I can see that their position is
internally consistent, but I can't see why it is right and just.
If you say that libertarianism is the most practical form of
government, and that private industries and charities will do a better
job than government ones, then I have to say that that point is still
not proven. You can give examples of the failures of
government-managed economies. Still, the government does not always
do a bad job of things, and these arguments give no reason why the
government's powers should be limited precisely where the libertarians
say they should. For that, I have to look at the principles
libertarians offer to see whether I think their system is inherently
more just.
I can see that one can build a clear and consistent system on the
premise that government should have no role except to prevent force
and fraud. At times I have even found it appealing, since laws are
backed up by police force and jails, and as a Quaker I feel uneasy
about the jails and don't want to multiply the reasons for sending
people to them. But for me the argument that the government has no
right to make any demand on my money falls apart in the face of the
suffering of other people and its demand on me. I understand that the
need of children for vaccinations against polio or measles does not
imply that the government must supply them. The government might not
do the best job of it. But I don't understand why my right to
property is so absolute that is always should take precedence. Simply
saying that it is not the government's business won't convince people
who don't already agree.
One person has been suggested to explain the moral basis of
libertarianism, Ayn Rand (I know there are libertarians who don't
agree with her, but she is the only suggestion I had). I have read
The Fountainhead and a book of essays by Ayn Rand. In The
Fountainhead, I found some fairly unappealing characters, some mockery
(in the story of what happens to Catherine Halsey) of the work I
myself enjoy best and in which I feel the most sense of
accomplishment, and a justification for rape (evidently the
objectivist "friend" of mine who attacked me was not betraying his
principles in doing so).
The essays were less offensive, but I could see that Ayn Rand was
quite right in saying that her philosophy was opposed to Christianity.
True, Ayn Rand's "selfishness" does not preclude all generosity, and
Christian charity need not preclude all concern for oneself. But
there is a fundamental conflict between the view that my purpose
should be to love God with all my heart and all my soul and all my
might and to love my neighbor as myself and the view that my purpose
should be to satisfy my needs and that I have no obligation to anyone
else.
I am a Christian and a Quaker. I believe that I am responsible to
others. I do not believe, like Keith, that if I see someone drowning
I have no obligation to make any attempt to save that person. Christ
has charged me to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless. The
libertarians among you will no doubt reply that, even if I do have
such an obligation, that doesn't mean I should impose that obligation
on everyone by law. In fact, I myself believe that my legal
obligations are not and should not be identical with my moral ones. I
believe that answering to that of God in everyone includes respecting
everyone's freedom of conscience, and so I join libertarians on some
issues. People should be free to follow their conscience, even to do
and say things which I believe are wrong for them, so long as they are
not harming other people, and purely spiritual harm should be beyond
the scope of the law.
But if I reject the objectivist premise that I am responsible only to
myself I still have no reason to believe that the government should be
limited as libertarians say it should. I could just as easily choose
other limits, like our Bill of Rights. Where I agree with
libertarians, I seem to agree by chance, and not because we share the
same philosophy. Where I disagree, as in the case of
anti-discrimination laws, I have no reason to be persuaded by their
principles, having rejected the philosophical reasoning I have seen
for them. I don't believe that freedom of conscience extends to
harming other people and violating their rights, and I think that
discrimination does just that.
I can't think of any political philosophy to offer as an alternative
to libertarianism. My own convictions lead me more often to personal
commitments than to political ones, and my political beliefs are not
very general and systematic. But I still can't find any reason to
believe in libertarianism.
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic.arpa
------------------------------
From: mark@osupyr.UUCP (Mark Welch)
Subject: Re: Socialism
Date: 4 Jun 87 18:41:26 GMT
Reply-to: mark@osupyr.UUCP (Mark Welch)
kirk@UWM-CS.MILW.WISC.EDU ("Kirk Augustin") writes:
> I have read Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", but that is irrelavent. Our
> little discussion doesn't seem to be getting very far though. There
> doesn't seem to be even been any agreement on groundwork so complex
> issues are out of the question. I could look up quotes and titles to
> prove everything I said but then we would just shift the argument to
> interpretation of the authors or their credibility. Besides I am
> starting to get alittle overemotional so I think it is time to shift
> to basics.
I only asked for some kind of information to back up what you said.
If you can give me the name/title of one or more books on the subjects
that you have been running on about, then I shall read them with
an open mind.
> To explain my point of view requires starting with the
> impressions of a child.
> We talk about alot of ideals in this country
> like freedom and justice, but our realities are in stark contrast and
> showed me that very little of what people believe is really true.
Again, the fact that you can say these things on the net, and the fact
that I can read them, is proof that it is possible (in fact,
frequently done) to criticize the government and American society and
not be punished for it. This at least is a freedom that you do not
see in other countries.
> First there those war movies to instill patriotism. When you realise
> that all those 'gooks' and 'krauts' are the same as your friends and
> neighbors since we all originated from different countries, you start
> to wonder what kind of people were responsible for the filming.
The people who make those movies are people who want to make a fast
buck off of people who want to see violent resolutions to the `us vs
them' mentality. Action movies are made because they sell ; there is
an audience for them. Movies and media in general are only motivated
my money; they print/publish stories that they think will appeal to
readers/viewers, thus increasing their sales, thus increasing the
amount of money they have.
> Especially when you see open racism accepted by local officials. I
> remember a film they showed at school that was supposed to motivate
> us to be good law abiding boys and girls. It was similar to the
> 'Scarred Straight' idea with scenes of how bad prison was. But
> what it did was to show that our legal system was no better than
> the criminals. A criminal acts out of personal weakness but a
> legal system has no excuse for cruelty. If life is so important
> and the only mitigation for murder is 'heat of passion', then
> capital punishment is the worst crime possible because it is done
> totally 'in cold blood'. If you ever watch the newsclips for the
> cases like Rosenbergs, Bruno Haupman, or the infamous McCarty
> hearings, you would see that even to a child it would be obvious that
> our ideals are a lie.
What was the film? Maybe I've seen it... In any case, any kind of
violence is to me immoral and wrong unless out of self-defense (read:
if someone is rapidly approaching me with the intent to kill me, then
AND ONLY THEN am I empowered to inflict damage on another human
being). The criminal may act out of weakness, but I don't think you'll
find sympathy in the criminal's victims. However, the state is no
less morally guilty when it executes a criminal ... it is only done
out of retribution, and not out of any semblance of justice. (warning:
the preceding sentence was subjective opinion)
> So what is the truth? Read about other cultures and times. If you
> read enough anthropology you find more lies.
Again, sources please. If you do not wish to substantiate anything
then I shall not respond any more and let you continue with your
opinions. Otherwise, prove these things to me.
> We are supposed to be
> living in the zenith of luxury and health. But that is not true. It
> turns out that primitive human tribes lived longer than we do if you
> discount infant mortality.
Sources please. (see above)
> And the average work day was only 2 hrs
> instead of 8. If you think for a moment, none of the longevity
> examples come from high-tech cultures.
Is not the average life expectancy in the US estimated at least every
10 years?
> Now for our sense of freedom and justice. Before we arrived the
> Indians had their own possesions but nobody could own the land,
> trees, or game. They all needed to share the use of the natural
> resources to survive. An individual that wanted to hunt buffalo
> without the rest of the tribe was socially ostracised because he
> scattered the herd and made life rough for everyone else. Sharing
> what you did not make yourself is a basic part of normal human
> sociology. But the culture we call civilization came and was
> different. One man could claim anything in the name of King George
> and back it up by hired force. Then others could accumulate wealth
> from the labor of others by passing on this claim. That is in
> effect what a landlord is today. He does not create, hires others
> to enforce, and feels no social responsibility. I always hear that
> the profits are rewards for taking risks, but without social
> responsibility these risks merit rewards as much as the risks taken
> by a thief.
> How do I know this system is really so corrupt? Because I am very
> good at using it myself. I have had many tenents buy buildings for
> me and have made large profits off the 'slave' labor employed by
> the US. Since the 20's we have used foreign countries for our slave
> camps, but that just makes the illusion of freedom and prosperity
> easier to maintain. Foreign workers don't get health benefits or
> safty checks. Then if they complain too much we yell communism and
> have them jailed. The US isn't rich because it is prosperous, it
> is because it is ruthless and drains most of the wealth of the
> world. I know because I am part of the system. You can be a tenant
> or a landlord, and I chose not to be a tenant. But I am not going
> to be like the other hypocrates and try to bend labels to hide
> the injustice.
Question for anyone more knowledgeable on the subject: Is it possible
to enact a law regulating the wages that a US-based corporation must
pay foreign workers (kind of like a minimum wage extension), or (as I
suspect) is it dependent on the laws of the foreign country?
As for being either a tenant or a landlord, there are several options:
-- Become a landlord by saving your money, then buying property,
then spruce it up a little and charge a lot to tenants that
want/need to live on that land. (your solution)
-- Lobby for some kind of regulation of the housing industry, such
as an administrated maximum rent or something like that.
-- Remain a tenant. (for now, my solution)
Note however that the opportunity exists to become a landlord. Not
that the system is perfect, but suggest a better one that actually
works, not one that only sounds good in theory.
Only recently have native Americans begun to file lawsuits asking for
the return of lands taken illegally from them. I do not dispute that
Americans of European ancestry have done great injustices to native
Americans. How do you propose rectifying the problem?
> There used to be a kinder way of life that was plowed under by
> the greed and corruption that we live with now. If you do not
> wish to call them communism and capitalism that is fine, but no
> matter what you call it, you do not have the right to use a label
> to ignore racism and violence.
> Stalin and even Hitler can be atleast somewhat
> understood because they were emotionally unstable and had the idea
> that they were doing some good, but you must not fail to see how the
> little man who scorched Dresden just to see if he could do it is far
> worse.
The `little man' you speak of (I do not know much about the bombing of
Dresden; again, refer me to a book or similar source on the subject)
would almost be the same as Hitler and Stalin. Each takes pleasure in
killing. Stalin killed tens of millions to stay in power (btw, as far
as is known he *KNEW* what he was doing and why). Hitler killed 10
million in an attempt to wipe out several nationalities because he
thought that this would achieve the `purity' of the Aryan `race'. The
people who planned the bombing of Dresden were motivated by one or
more of the following: a) they felt that Dresden was a significant
military target and wanted it leveled, or b) they killed hundreds of
thousands of civilians out of sheer pleasure and a feeling of
superiority. I see none of the above as being unequal in heinousness,
unless you look at numbers killed (This is of course subjective). As
far as I believe, they can all be understood, but this not imply that
they should be forgiven.
`Why does one man assert power over another? To make him suffer.'
--Orwell
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Mark Welch
- 1528 Neil Ave #C / Columbus OH 43201-2341 / 614 299 1297 -
- UUCP: cbosgd!osupyr!mark || mark@osupyr.uucp -
- Any email under 200 degrees greatly appreciated. -
- `More bowling balls, man! More bowling balls!' -
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 7 Jul 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 83
Today's Topics:
Sovereignty Rights &
Inflation &
History (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 87 00:50:03 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Sovereignty rights
To: tcs@ECLA.USC.EDU
> From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@ECLA.USC.EDU>
> When you purchase a property, you generally do NOT purchase
> the mineral rights. Similarly, in this country, when you purchase a
> property you do NOT purchase the "sovereignty" rights.
No, of course not. In fact I recently had this very argument (not on
this list) with someone who was trying to convince me that murder
should be legal within a private house unless there is a house rule
against it.
The question is not whether government can establish any laws which
apply on private property. They can. The question is what those laws
can be.
I don't agree with your terminology. Sovereignty is not something
that is attached to a piece of land like minerals are. Sovereignty is
something each individual has. It is inalienable, meaning that it
cannot be traded, sold, overruled by majority vote, or otherwise lost.
A government is simply a voluntary organization of individuals for the
purpose of protecting their rights. The only power government has
over people who do not explicitly to it, is the power to prevent them
from violating rights. Hence laws against murder, theft, etc.
If a government owns land, it can set whatever rules from that land
that the majority of citizens decide on. But these rules do not apply
after the land is sold.
> The only requirement, then, is that the government must
> allow you freedom of exit from the country if you choose not to
> abide by the terms in effect when you become an adult ...
> The fact that all other available areas may be even less
> to your liking may be unfortunate, but has no moral content.
No, government's only power is to protect the rights of its citizens.
It has no other power at all.
> I maintain that morality is fundamentally untestable.
If this were true then there would be nothing fundamentally wrong with
gouging out a child's eyes. The person who does this could simply say
he has a different morality than we do. And if we were to punish him,
our punishment would be just as arbitrary as his crime. If this were
true, World War II was pointless, since Hitler had a perfect right to
invade other countries and massacre millions of innocent people. I do
not believe this is true. I believe there IS a true morality, and it
consists of interacting with others only voluntarily. I believe that
people such as Falwell who have besmirched the concept of morality
with pointless platitudes and innumerable senseless arbitary rules of
conduct have done more damage than any number of Charles Mansons or
Ted Bundys. At least they are honest about being criminals. Falwell
attacks from the inside, like maggots, like AIDS, bringing ridicule on
the very concept of absolute morality, to the incalculable detriment
of all of us.
> The quest for certainty in life is doomed to failure -- even in
> physics.
Wrong. While theories in physics may change, reality remains the
same. It is reality that people need food, water, and air to live.
It is reality that people are capable of using their minds and bodies
to procure these things, and that people who fail to do so can live
only at the expense of others. It is reality that people are capable
of denying these things to others against their will. This is the
root of morality. Nothing will change it so long as it remains true
that people need things, that they can obtain these things, and that
they can deny these thing to another.
Science has disovered the chemical composition of food, water, and
air, allowing people to procure these more readily and more
efficiently, and ultimately even to manufacture them out of resources
in outer space. Science in the future may discover more, perhaps a
way to make water out of rock by a process of transmutation. But none
of this changes reality. No possible discovery will cause it to be
possible to survive without water, etc.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < ssc-vax!dickey@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
From: dickey@ssc-vax.UUCP (Frederick J Dickey)
Subject: Re: Inflation
Date: 15 Jun 87 14:07:05 GMT
KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
> Gold is and silver are mined at a slow pace relative to the amount
> already in circulation.
>
> There would seem to be little chance of gold supplies suddenly
> doubling. Neither practical transmutation nor seawater mining nor
> space mining appears to be anywhere close to fruition. But a
> doubling of the supply of paper money is inevitable. At 5%
> inflation it takes only 14 years. In some countries it takes only
> a few weeks.
One of the side effects of the Spanish conquest of the New World was a
dramatic increase in the supply of gold in Spain. I have vague
recollections of having read that this caused all kinds of problems
with the Spanish economy.
>
> I am not proposing that the government establish a gold based
> currency. It would be better that what they are doing now, but I am
> not proposing it. I am proposing that they legalize alternative
> currencies. Banks and consortiums could issue currrencies based on
> gold, silver, real estate, marijuana, or whatever there is a market
> for.
> ...Keith
What about a plutonium standard? Nobody wants plutonium production in
their neighborhood (in Washington state, everybody would be real happy
if they shut down the N reactor at Hanford). This would help limit the
supply of plutonium. It would have some interesting side effects. For
example, you wouldn't want to have a nuclear war since that would
involve destruction of your wealth. :-)
------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Fri 12 Jun 87 21:46:39-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: reply to Kirk Augustin
I understand you to be making the following arguments:
1. The history taught in Soviet schools is not as distorted as is
claimed.
I don't know enough about the battles of World War II to comment on
this.
2. The history taught in the US (whether in the schools, or in
papers, or the information that is generally available) is equally
distorted.
The US government tries to squelch dissent. Information is classified
for political reasons, political dissidents are followed by people to
intimidate them, files are kept on perfectly legal dissent, and
information is used to blackmail dissidents. These things appear to
still be happening (judging from the experience of the sanctuary
movement and the harrassment of people who have visited Nicaragua).
This suppression of dissent does not prevent the publishing of books
like "The Puzzle Palace". The same dissidents who are harrassed by
government agencies have no trouble holding public demonstrations,
giving interviews to newspapers, and bringing suits against the
government. If I can't get the information I need from the newspaper,
I can get it at the nearest bookstore (which happens to be run by a
long-time peace activist who believes in radical non-violence). The
government has a lot of power to squelch dissent that I don't want it
to have, but it can't stop me from getting alternative views or
opposing its policies.
The Soviet Union tries to squelch dissent. Dissidents are tortured,
sent to prison, and incarcerated in mental hospitals. The people who
do these things may be morally no worse than the people who try to
suppress dissent in the US, but it appears that the Soviet system is
more effective in promoting their interests, and less effective in
promoting those of the dissenters.
3. The Soviets have many justifications for their actions, and we
should not judge them harshly, considering their circumstances and how
far they have had to come.
4. US actions are evil, and our dropping of the A-bomb and our
intervention in foreign countries are completely unjustifiable.
I understand that the Soviets have plenty of reasons to build up their
arsenal. They need it for self-defense, just as the US needs its
arsenal for self-defense. It is understandable that the Soviet Union
wants a buffer of client states to stand in the way of any European
invasion (you may not think the US would attack the USSR, but look at
it from their point of view). It is understandable that the US
government doesn't want Marxist states aggressively exporting
communism on this coast (you may not think that Nicaragua is a threat,
but look at it from Reagan's point of view). It is understandable
that the US dropped the A-bomb on Japan (you may not think it was
necessary, but look at it from Roosevelt's point of view).
5. The US is morally equivalent to, or worse than, the Soviet Union.
Perhaps it is morally equivalent, if you compare US behavior in Latin
America with Soviet behavior toward its neighbors, or if you compare
the weapons produced by both. Perhaps not, if you compare the freedom
of the citizens of the two countries, or the behavior of both toward
Europe after World War II. I don't know why you want to prove that
the US is morally no better than the Soviet Union. Maybe you are as
tired as I am of leaders who unleash our security agencies on our own
citizens and claim to be promoting freedom because they are
belligerent towards socialist countries. Maybe, like me, you have
seen too much oppression around the world paid for with US money and
weapons and called "support for democracy". But you do seem to be
saying not just that the US is wrong, but that Soviet policies are
more understandable and justifiable than ours. I don't agree. Sauce
for the goose is sauce for the gander.
6. Communism is, at least in theory, morally superior to capitalism.
Communism is at least a noble ideal, even if flawed in practice, while
capitalism is simply greed.
To me they both sound fine as ideals. In the ideal communist society,
the state has withered away, nobody is oppressed any longer, and
people naturally share "to each according to his need and from each
according to his ability." In the ideal capitalist society, the free
market naturally allocates eveything where it should go. Workers are
easily able to find jobs at good pay, because government restrictions
do not hamstring business and raise unemployment. Those few who are
unable to work are amply provided for by private charity. The
question is not so much which has the best picture of an ideal society
(ideals can usually be made to look good) as which has the most
reasonable beliefs about the rights people have and which is
practical. (I can't bring myself to be convinced that either is
ideal.)
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic
------------------------------
Date: 13 Jun 87 22:11:15 EDT
From: Charles < MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: History lessons
To: kirk@UWM-CS.MILW.WISC.EDU
After viewing all the lessons of history I am surprized that
people still don't recognize the enemy. Greece might still be
forested and fertile if a few greedy people hadn't sent all
the trees to the bottom of the mediterranean in the form of
trireams. Whether there is mathematical symetry to the cycle
or not, there are those that profit from war and will be
agitating for it whenever they can.
Well, I come to different conclusions. On details: seems to me that
the number of triremes vs. the number of trading vessels was very
small (also, there was the matter of the Persians). Trade in the
ancient med. was bustling. Blaming all wars on evil weaponsmakers is
a trifle simplistic anyway.
Even you raise to the call of "journalistic integrety", but
think about it. A good war sells alot of newspapers.
The 'living-room-ness' of the Vietnam war was instrumental in
bringing it to an end. If the news media had a vested interest in
keeping the war going, would they be so stupid as to publicize the
bloodiness and pointlessness of it, and so inflating the frustration
at home? (Not to mention the personal anti-war feelings of many of
the journalists who covered it.) Also, notice that the government was
unable to stop this process. There are journalism scholars who
question whether US involvement in WWII, WWI or Korea would have been
carried through in the same way with Vietnam-style press coverage (the
*technical* means not then being available, but the same motivations
for the press being present).
I am not trying to excuse the USSR for their transgressions, I
am trying to point out that their actions seem more reasonable
to them than our actions seem to me.
And I see it the other way around. On a different level, there are
dissidents in the USSR who share your opinions, but about the USSR.
(Many of them are guests of the government.)
We have a double standard that is bound to start another war.
The KAL 007 flight could not cause a war alone, but it could
be a start. Fortunately it wasn't but we must never allow
something like that to happen again.
Well, it will be difficult for us to make perfectly operating
aircraft, and perfectly right-thinking Russian and Korean pilots. I
don't think there was ever a chance of the KAL shoot-down starting a
war. I take comfort in the cool heads that prevailed in the USS Stark
incident, which was more dangerous.
There are only 2 facts we need to even consider when
evaluating the incident. 1)Failure to follow even the simplist
of flight rules over restricted bases will guarantee being
shot down in any country in the world.
Not so at all. The 'rules of the game', in fact, are the aircraft is
intercepted and escorted out of the appropriate airspace or at worst
forced to land. We do that (escort away) with the occasional Russian
aircraft (military aircraft) that stray near the US coast. This is
not the first time a airliner has strayed over unfriendly territory,
you know.
2)Our government must be withholding information on the
incident from the public because of the presence of NORAD,
etc.
Two levels of answer: 1 - Keeping secrets about national defense is
perfectly fine by me (real national defense secrets, that is, and
Norad seems to fit that bill). 2 - The ones who made the mistake are
the Russians, for misidentifying a 747 as (probably) an SR-71. On the
other hand, it was dark.
In my mind the emeny is clear. When you withhold information
from the public and make inflamatory speeches you are trying
to prevent democracy from working. This can never be
permitted if we value our freedom.
So there are no secrets? Trident submarine patrol locations should
published in the New York Times? I'm not sure how making speeches is
anti-democracy, by the way.
People who know better must speak out or there will continue
to be Hitlers in the future. The USSR may hve a totally
corrupt government, but we are the ones keeping them in power.
Without all our saber rattling how long do you think the
soviet people would put up with food lines?
What keeps the Soviets in power is armed force, the same thing that
put them in power. (From a specific point of view, its what
puts/keeps every government in power, but its especially obvious in
countries with poor economies. Armies are the last thing to go
hungry.)
Charles
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 7 Jul 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 84
Today's Topics:
History and the truth
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!bugatti!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 87 11:03:12 pdt
From: Steve Walton < ametek!bugatti!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
To: cit-vax!kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.edu
Cc: bugatti!walton, cit-vax!kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu
Subject: History and the truth
I've edited your message as I replied, Kirk, but I think I've left in
the substantive comments.
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 87 16:38:23 CDT
From: "Kirk Augustin" < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
Aren't the people in the USSR basically like us? Could a small
power group be manipulating them by using missinformation? Could
we also be acting on missinformation from a similar power group in
the US?
I believe the answers are no, yes, and no. Soviet society is so
different from ours that Soviet and American citizens don't even mean
the same things by the same words. A little example: a fellow
astronomer who is fluent in Russian and has many Soviet friends once
asked an ordinary Soviet citizen, "What about freedom of speech?" The
Soviet responded, "We have complete freedom to praise the glorious
workers' paradise" or words to that effect. When my friend asked,
"What about freedom to *criticize*?" he was met with an apparently
genuine blank stare. The Soviet had a completely different definition
of freedom.
Americans often act on misinformation, but it is largely willful
ignorance on their part, not suppression of facts by the government.
I posted a note some time back to Poli-Sci about what Soviet
schoolchildren are taught in school about World War II. In brief, it
is almost a total fiction. "Ok, but we have people who believe the
Holocaust never happened," I hear you think. Yes, but the Soviet view
is in the official, government-printed textbook and there are no
opposing views available anywhere.
My reactions to books and statments critical of the USSR are
sort of a 'so what' attitude. I never said the USSR was a great
place to live. Infact I charge their government with deliberately
amplifying the external threats to their security, to increase the
governments importance in the role of defender. However I am also
very skeptical of some of these authors. Many of them have made a
great deal of money by defecting and being critical of the USSR.
I can understand a 'so what' attitude about long lines in the grocery
store. I cannot understand such an attitude about people being
tortured to death in "psychiatric hospitals" for criticizing the
government. Please, *please* read Amnesty International's human
rights reports on the Soviet Union.
As for emigres making money: they could not possibly have known in
advance that the books they wrote would sell well and make them rich.
They wrote them because they wanted to tell the truth. Anyway, except
for one or two like Solzenitzyn (sp?), I really doubt many of them are
rich. Most of them left in order to do the kind of art the government
wouldn't let them do at home.
The PTL scandal
shows that people will say things contrary to their beliefs if they
are paid enough.
This still seems like a red herring to me. Why do you think the PTL
scandal is anything more complicated than people being bilked by a
phony preacher? Such things have been happening for thousands of
years in all societies.
Most people in prison will tell you at great lenghts
how bad they have been repressed and persecuted by this government.
The point is that the value of a government is subjective, and
people with firsthand experience with the USSR will tell you that
the people like it. If you were to have absolutely free and total
elections today, my guess is that nothing would change. The
minority of dissenters may be correct, but few people have been
able to break free from the cultural conditioning in the USSR.
Sad but true. The problem is that the people who claim to be happy in
the Soviet Union have no access to information about what it is
*really* like in the West. Those who do, leave. At the time the
Berlin Wall went up in 1961, people were leaving East Germany so fast
that the country would have been empty by 1970. They could watch West
German television and see for themselves what life was like on the
other side.
My next response is that I do not believe that the US is totally
corrupt. What I do believe is that we are affected by the same
kind of conditioning as the people of the USSR are. I believe that
there are those who profit from fear just like there are in the
USSR and that most of us are just as badly informed.
I re-emphasize that it is lack of information in the Soviet Union and
lack of education in the United States. Not at all the same thing.
For example you mentioned
bringing books into the USSR. As a matter of fact I have
corresponded with several USSR citizens and sent highly provacative
books in the mail. Most of these packages were opened but none
were stopped. Yet others that I know can get nothing through.
This is not chance, it is because those others were obviously
promoting a philosophy that could be considered a threat to the
safety of the USSR by some people.
If mere written ideas are considered a threat to the safety of the
USSR by the government (NOT just "some people," but those in power),
it is very clear they fear the truth. Define "highly provocative," by
the way. Krushchev's memoirs? "The Gulag Archipelago"? The Sears
catalog? (I'm not being facetious here; they really do confiscate
it.)
We are told and
believe that the USSR is like a huge prison that everybody wants to
leave. This is totally wrong. If you think about it realistically
you will see that it is actually breach of contract. The USSR is a
poor country for a number of reasons, so to get the higher
education that is needed by both the individual and the country,
the costs are delayed until after graduation. These highly trained
individuals that then leave the USSR for the high income potential
of the west are welching on their debt. This doesn't prove that
the USSR is like a prison, only that salaries are low and we see
what we want to believe. Think about it.
I have thought about it. You're saying, in essence, that the
government there allows Soviet citizens to attend only state-sponsored
schools and then prevents them from leaving after they graduate
because of what the government has invested in their education. It
sounds to me like the Soviets are denied freedom at every step of the
way. A debt is a result of a contract freely entered into; being
forced to attend a state-sponsored school doesn't count.
I never said "everyone" wanted to leave the Soviet Union. When
the borders are open, though, many many more people go from East to
West than vice versa. It was North Vietnam that closed free passage
across the DMZ in 1956. And while South Vietnam was no paradise
before 1975, there weren't any boat people. Think really hard, Kirk,
about what life there must be like if people are willing to climb into
an obviously leaky boat and sail out into the Pacific after turning
over their life's savings to a shady character simply in order to
leave.
How many people in the US incorrectly believe that
you cannot own a company in the USSR or you cannot practice a
religion the way you want. Both of these ideas are totally false.
They are not totally false. The majority of Soviets work for
government-owned companies. Capitalism is an extremely dirty word
there. (And before you tell me that Communism is a dirty word here,
let me remind you that we have Communist and Socialist Parties in the
US. There is no Capitalist Party in the USSR.) As for religious
freedom, no Americans have chained themselves to the fence in front of
the Soviet Embassy in Washington because of religious persecution
here. I can only reiterate my plea to read the reports of independent
human-rights groups.
There is not one country that is
controlled by the USSR that sends more than they receive. We think
of these countries as slaves, but they actually enjoy a higher
standard of living than the USSR does. Infact if the soviets had a
few more Cubas they would probably go broke.
The East Europeans are allowed to have a higher standard of living
because they are closer to the West. There would be armed revolt if
things in East Berlin were as bad as in Moscow, to say nothing of
Gorky. (I am told that the areas of the Soviet Union which are closed
to Westerners are not militarily sensitive. They are places where
people are embarassingly badly off.)
The Soviets decided in 1945 that the next war with Germany was
going to start halfway across Germany. The last one started halfway
across Poland, and that wasn't enough of a buffer. They view what
they spend on keeping Eastern Europe as part of their defense budget.
The real complaint religions have
in the USSR is that all children are required to attend public
school where religions are shown in a bad light. But would you
want fundamentalists to be able to warp their children by sending
them to private schools that didn't teach evolution in this
country. These examples are not quite the same in both countries
but the idea is similar.
The ideas are *totally different*. I really don't care if
fundamentalists send their children to private schools which don't
teach evolution. More important, the government doesn't really care,
either. (Keith will tell me this isn't completely true, and he's
correct, of course.) We have Hebrew schools, Catholic schools,
Lutheran schools, Seventh Day Adventist schools, and so on in this
country. People in the Soviet Union have been arrested for teaching
the Hebrew language in their own homes on their own time.
The difference can be understood if you think of the USSR as
a ship at sea in hostle waters. When the operations of a large
body is all that keeps everyone from an unpleasant fate we accept
much more athority. A sea captain is absolute athority at sea and
nobody would even question what he said if their appear to be
sharks in the water.
Since it should be more obvious to us that we are all actually
in a peaceful lagoon and there are no sharks, it is up to us to
make the first move.
Hitler and Stalin sure look like sharks to me. Your analogy is
inexact, since the Soviet ship of state is heavily armed and has
proven itself willing to shoot at practically anything that moves,
Mathias Rust notwithstanding. When researching "The Target is
Destroyed," Seymour Hersh uncovered fairly well documented instances
of the Soviets shooting down their own civilian airliners by mistake.
Before being critical of the
USSR we should clean up our own act first. We talk alot about
freedom and democracy but we have had McCarthyism and corrupt wars
that contradict these ideals. Until we stop seeing ourselves as
all good and the USSR as all evil, then we are as at fault as they
are.
I think this is our fundamental disagreement. You are saying that we
cannot criticize others because we ourselves are not perfect. That's
like saying we can't put murderers in prison because we've all lost
our temper and hit someone at some time in our lives. The difference,
and it is fundamental, is between a system which is fundamentally free
but has made some grevious errors and a system which is fundamentally
repressive. We have shown ourselves willing and able to improve. The
Soviets are still basically living in the nineteenth century in a
feudal empire.
This must be correct or
else we must assume that there is something inherently evil about
the soviet people; but if we believe that then we would be guilty
of the same racism that we would be charging them with. The next
step is to begin taking a critical look at our policies in the past
to see how they have been used by the soviet beauracracy to make us
look like a threat to their security. But first I would like
feedback on the concept before continuing.
I don't believe that the Soviets are inherently evil; I believe their
government is. One of the things which really stuck in my mind from
Hedrick Smith's book "The Russians" is his statement that the Soviet
citizenry feels no responsibility for the actions of their government.
They have no say in who runs the government or in what those people
do. I suggest that one of the reasons we went through a national
trauma over Vietnam and Watergate is because a majority of our
citizens supported the governments which took those actions. Even if
Afghanistan were plastered all over the front page of Pravda, I'm not
sure it would make very much difference.
Now, a few of my own ideas. In these days of nuclear weapons, we
cannot march in and throw the Soviet government out and wean the
people to democracy as we did with Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.
What we can do is to put our relationship with them on some kind of
rational basis. The trouble is, I'm not sure what that rational basis
should be. It is clearly important to prevent them from expanding
their sphere of influence any further, so strong responses to the use
of force of arms for this purpose is called for. But the old
"containment" idea never worked, because it totally gives the
initiative to the Soviets, allowing them to choose the time, place,
and manner of struggles with them or their allies. Overall, I think
our best strategy is to treat our relationship with them as an
extended version of the Prisoners' Dilemma game, and to engage in the
"tit for tat" strategy which appears optimum in that game. You'll
remember that in the Prisoner's Dillema each prisoner is given a
choice between "cooperating" and "defecting". If one defects and the
other cooperates, the defector gets a big reward. If both cooperate,
they both get a small reward, and if both defect, they both lose big.
Unfortunately, if they only play once, both will make the rational
choice to defect and both will lose. The way out is to play the game
more than once, with the strategy: "Cooperate on the first turn;
thereafter, do whatever your opponent did on the previous turn." It
seems to work. Reference here is Axelrod's "The Evolution of
Cooperation." I submit that we have tried to do this with the
Soviets. For example, we put the cruise and Pershing missiles in
Europe, but now negotating to remove them if the Soviets remove their
comparable weapons. We'll see if Gorbachev actually can pull it off.
Personally, I think there is a 10% or so chance of a military coup in
the USSR in the next few years to get rid of Gorbachev. I'm sure
there are elements of the Soviet high command who are somewhat envious
of the general-turned-premier in Poland. If that happens, we're in
deep trouble.
Steve Walton
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 7 Jul 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 85
Today's Topics:
Taxes &
History
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 87 17:37:14 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Fair tax?
To: TCS@ECLA.USC.EDU
> From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@ECLA.USC.EDU>
> I have always felt that funding of the goevernment via taxes should
> be limited to the sales tax, period. It's the closest approximation
> I can think of for taxing people for the "infrastructure" use that
> they could otherwise free-ride -- you pay to the extent that you
> interact with the system.
Well, that would be fairer that what we have now. So would a flat
income tax. At least a sales tax would be less intrusive.
But a person who buys something isn't necessarily interacting with
the "system", only with another person.
There is the question of what the sales tax applies to. Buying
groceries? Books? Church service? An employee's time? Stock? What
about increased value of one's investments?
> Since wealthy people tend to buy more, they will pay more
It is interesting that Democratic congresmen are denouncing sales
taxes on the grounds that they are "regressive", that the rich would
pay less than the poor. This is with reference to an increased
federal gasoline tax, for instance. I guess they regard me as rich,
since I never buy any gasoline. :-) I really wonder if some of them
haven't been living in cloud cuckoo land too long.
If there could be a fair tax, it would treat all economic transactions
equally. A clever lawyer can always move the fine lines between sales
and income and investment and donation, anyway.
Why not a contract fee? Any financial transaction that was made
without paying it would not be enforcable in court. It is
enforcement, after all, which the "system" provides, not the goods or
services themselves. Anyone who didn't want to pay the fee would be
free not to, if they were willing to forego the enforcement. I think
this would be the fairest "tax", since no coercion is involved, and
since individuals are always free to opt out.
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!bugatti!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 87 00:48:13 pdt
From: Steve Walton < ametek!bugatti!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
To: cit-vax!kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.edu
Cc: cit-vax!kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu,
Cc: Subject: History and the truth
> I have been trying to show that our blindly positive self view
> and our superficial, negative view of the USSR are part of the reason
> for the conflicts between our countries. We assume that there are
> only military solutions to the problems because we do not let
> ourselves see the entire situation. We have a cultural conditioning,
> mostly intentional, that is not easily transcended and is similar to
> what we dislike about the USSR.
I disagree profoundly here. My self view and my view of the United
States are not "blindly positive." And, as I said in my last message,
our problems with the USSR are due to fundamentally different beliefs
about the proper relation of people to their government. We believe
government should be the servant of the people, and they believe just
the opposite.
> It is not easy to explain to people,
> who have never actually had to face some of the really ugly parts of
> our society, that they exist, but that is where I think I should
> continue.
Conversely, I think I should continue trying to make you see the
really ugly parts of the USSR. I'm not sure how to do this, since you
ignore my advice to read books either by people who've lived in their
system or by relatively unbiased third parties. You seem entirely too
willing to think that our flaws are do to our system being
fundamentally unjust while accepting the USSR's actions as being
understandable excess on the way to a just society.
You are correct when you note that the US does not have direct
democracy on the model of the Greek city-states, but I would maintain
that this type of government is patently impossible on the national
level and that the "democratic republic" or "representative democracy"
which we now have is the next best thing. Your comment that what we
have is what the Greeks called tyranny is interesting; you seem to be
arguing that our government has too much power while at the same time
defending a government which exerts far more control over its
citizens.
> We do not have religious freedom when
> dancing, singing, music, and alcohol are illegal because a church
> says it is. There are 8 states that I know of that have these
> restrictions and there are probably many more.
While the roots of such restrictions are undoubtedly religious, their
existence does not mean we do not have religious freedom, unless your
religion requires you to dance, sing, perform music and consume
alcohol. Religious freedom means being able to worship as you
yourself choose without fear of government coercion. We have such
freedom, the Soviets don't.
> This is why I keep
> bringing up the PTL. The heritage foundation is one of the strongest
> lobbying groups in the country. They had absolute control over
> millions of people and billions of dollars.
And PTL just filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. As for the
Heritage Foundation: yes, they have a lot of influence in the current
administration. Common Cause has a lot of influence with the
Democratic majority in Congress; does that upset you as well?
> Remember it was less than 200 years ago we
> burned witches and less than thirty years ago we electrocuted
> communists.
If you are going to hold the Salem witch trials against the
present-day United States (which didn't exist at the time!), why are
you unwilling to hold Stalin's pogroms and forced collectivization
(and resultant famine) against the present-day USSR? That government
has never condemned Stalin's actions; they don't even admit they
happened.
As to the Rosenbergs: I am against the death penalty. However,
best present evidence is that they were guilty of treason. So was
Alger Hiss, for that matter, and he's still alive. Both the
Rosenbergs and Hiss have had books published recently about them by
people who started out believing they'd been wronged but who ended up
being convinced of their guilt by the evidence against them.
> You seem to think that we have a fundamentally better
> system because there is more opportunity for input from individuals
> to nulify other power groups. This sounds good but in practise it
> doesn't work. Your very example of how so many people can be in
> favor of Vietnam and we could still be wrong proves my point.
No, I believe we have a fundamentally better system because individual
action is much less restricted than it is in the USSR. Yes, many
people favored Vietnam, but many were against it; those against made
their opinion known in no uncertain terms, even on the floor of
Congress. How many speeces in the Supreme Soviet have been made
condeming the use of nerve gas in Afghanistan?
You won't get any argument from me that our policy towards Nicaragua
at present is foolhardy and gun-happy.
> Finally we come to capitalism. Yes it is a dirty word to the
> soviets, but we wouldn't tolerate it for a minute here either.
> Capitalism has no ethical attachments at all and makes no moral
> decisions. If you can get a better return by buying guns and taking
> control instead of making products to trade, pure capitalism dictates
> that might makes right. That is the whole concept of capitalism;
> capital is the source and the result of everything.
Maybe we need a new word for it. I'm sorry, Kirk, but this paragraph
is just a crock. Capitalism is the *only* economic system compatible
with human freedom, because it is the only one under which I have the
ability to freely choose to sell goods and services to whoever wants
them at whatever price we both agree to. Using guns to conquer other
peoples is not capitalism, it is imperialism and it is wrong. But who
has large armies sitting in countries which don't want them there?
A friend of mine was in Prague for a scientific meeting in the
spring of 1968. After the Soviet invasion, he left the city and
stayed at a friend's house in the suburbs. A noise in the distance
finally resolved itself into an approacing Russian tank. Every few
hundred yards, it stopped, cranked its turret gun to just above
housetop level, and fired a few hundred rounds in a 360 degree circle,
apparently just as a warning. Are these nice people?
> My point is that we look like hypocrates and
> fools to the rest of the world, but to the USSR we also look very
> dangerous.
Probably true. In many ways we are hypocrites; our defense
establishment is much closer to socialism than capitalism. But the
reason we look dangerous to the USSR is because we are a success and
they are not. They may have as big a military as we are, but in terms
of economic, social, and political influence the Soviets are not only
second to the US, they are behing Germany and Japan. You comment that
you are not suggesting there is a better system than ours; if not,
what are you suggesting?
> Try to imagine how the soviet people think and they will be easier
> to understand. Of course freedom to criticise the government seems
> outrageous to them. They feel surrounded by the enemy, so hurting
> the government is like yelling fire in a crowded theater.
One wag has commented that the USSR is the only nation in the world
surrounded by hostile Communist neighbors.
> Nobody
> believes that one person has the right to trample on the freedoms of
> others. With the defectors it is even clearer. Nobody is forced to
> accept higher education; if they sign a contract they should fulfill
> their part of the bargain.
But if you want a higher education in the USSR, there is no source but
the government-run schools. So you have no choice, unless you leave
at birth. But you can't, because your parents signed this "contract"
(more like forced labor) with the government, and your parents
couldn't because their grandparents...Need I go on? It is still
coercion; the plain fact is I can leave the US any time I want and no
one in the government will try to stop me. The last time I went to
Germany I got a new passport in three days; I didn't need it since no
one looked at it at Frankfurt airport. Try walking east through the
Berlin Wall sometime. Then try walking back.
> The reason more
> people don't defect is not that there are fences and guards, it is
> because they can't think of a way to bring their wealth with them.
You show an appalling ignorance of East Bloc emigres in this sentence.
Many of them leave with nothing. Many die trying to get out. When
the fences and borders are not there, they leave in droves. At the
rate Germans were leaving the East for the West at the time the Wall
went up, East Germany would have been entirely depopulated by 1970.
And if it is because of the higher standard of living, doesn't that
show that we are doing something right? After all, East and West
Germany were one equally devastated country in 1945.
> Of course there are artists who just can't express their talents
> properly in the restrictive atmosphere of the USSR, but they are few
> and rarely vocal in their discontentment.
Really? Try reading the biographies of those who left--Baryshnikov,
Nureyev, Mstislav Rostropovich, Solzenitsyn--as well as those who
stayed--Prokofiev, Shostakovich. (I'm most familiar with musicians
myself, being a classical music nut.)
> Even if the soviet
> government was the worst in the world, what kind of person would turn
> on the country of their friends and family like some of these
> defectors do.
One who had seen his government turn on those same friends and family
first. How would you feel if your brother was taken out and shot for
publishing a brochure advocating a different form of government?
> In no culture in the world is it acceptable to air
> internal grievences to strangers.
But that isn't what they did; they aired internal grievances
internally and were sent to prison for it.
> To respond to a few comments from your last message, I have to say
> that I don't believe that anyone was arrested just for teaching
> Hebrew at home. Hebrew is listed as a course in some of the exchange
> programs so it is valued as a language just like latin.
I told you where to go to read the proof that it does happen, namely
Amnesty International. The exchange courses are largely for cosmetics
and are for external consumption only.
> Others I
> have talked to support this view that religious teaching is
> completely tolerated as long as the public program is not hindered.
But teaching the existence of a supreme being can be taken as
"hindering the public program," since the latter teaches atheism.
> [note low USSR standard of living then:
> What we must remember is that our standard is
> abnormally high. We are a young country that recently cashed in our
> raw materials. The initial investments actually were generated by
> the economies of other countries. Together with shear size this gave
> us a world dominating position that we put to good use. For the last
> 100 years the wealth of a disproportionate part of the globe was sent
> to the US in the form of raw materials.
Well, it is probably true that the initial investment in the East
Coast came from overseas, namely Europe. But everything west of the
original 13 colonies was found, developed, and used by Americans who
moved West. I'm not sure what you mean by the recent cashing in of
our raw materials. We only had a "world dominating position" between
1945 and perhaps 1975, an eyeblink in historical terms. Once our
former adversaries in Europe and Asia had rebuilt after a war which
left us untouched, their standard of living reached the same heights
ours has. And they have no raw materials, and live in countries which
have been densely populated for thousands of years. What do they have
that the USSR and its allies don't?
> I almost regret adding these comments here because they fuel this
> silly idea of comparing these two countries, but I think it
> contributes to the overall misconception to leave it.
Kirk, what valid basis is there for judging another government other
than how it deals with its neighbors and how it treats its own
citizens? Actions speak louder than words, as they say.
> My main point is similar to your last paragraph on stategy to deal
> with the USSR. If we try to understand the soviets from their point
> of view, we will see that they are not evil, they are very pragmatic
> and somewhat justifiably paranoid, but can be tolerated. They have a
> capacity for evil as we do, but by understanding them better we can
> avoid military confrontations that do neither of us any good. You
> mentioned that Gorbachev's future looked bad, but if that does happen
> could that be partially our fault.
Paranoid, by definition, is an irrational fear. I agree that they are
pragmatic, as in pursuing their own self interest even if they are not
true to their own expressed ideals. It is that very self interest
which I mistrust. We have avoided a war with them for forty years, a
very long time for two such heavily armed camps to face each other
without conflict. If Gorbachev goes, we will never know whether it
was because he failed to get what he said he could from us or whether
we embraced him so much that more hard-line elements in the Soviet
government got rid of him.
> You like the cruise missles and
> pershings because that gives us something to bargain with, but we
> must see it through their eyes. These weapons are fast enough and
> hard enough to defend against to make a first strike viable.
They can't defend against what we have now. The Pershings and cruises
can't be used for a first strike, being too far away from the major
Soviet ICBM fields to destroy them. I also don't think a first strike
is possible for either side with any of our weapons, but that's an
arms-d topic.
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 7 Jul 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 86
Today's Topics:
States' Rights &
Equal education &
Genocide &
History &
Potpouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < lll-lcc!atari!apratt@RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 87 10:38:43 pdt
From: lll-lcc!atari!apratt@RUTGERS.EDU (Allan Pratt)
Subject: Supreme Court and States' Rights
I heard on KCBS this morning that the Supreme Court upheld a
Congressional bill to withhold federal highway funds from states which
do not impose a drinking age of 21. The Court held that the 21st
Amendment prevents Congress from imposing a minimum drinking age on
the States, but did not prevent Congress from making funds contingent
on one.
To take this to its logical extreme, it seems that the Court will
allow Congress to make Federal funds contingent on anything Congress
wants. Is there any State which can get along without Federal money?
I don't think so. That means that, in spite of the Constitution, all
States are at the mercy of Congress for everything they do. If
Congress doesn't like it, they'll make funds contingent on doing
things their way.
I only heard what I wrote in the top paragraph... Did the Court place
any restrictions on this precedent? Is this somehow less catastrophic
for States' Rights than I think?
/--------------------------------------------\
|Opinions expressed above do not necessarily |--Allan Pratt,Atari Corp
|reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else.|...lll-lcc!atari!apratt
\--------------------------------------------/
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed 17 Jun 87 08:28:47-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Equal education?
To: pyramid!ubvax!frank@AMES.ARPA
From: ubvax!frank@ames.arpa (Frank Warren)
As for reverse discrimination, since when do two wrongs make a
right?
Since when has one wrong make a right? By the way, do you happen to
know how many wrongs (i.e. not counting 0) make a right? Many people
believe that the taking of a life is a wrong and yet we still have the
death penalty. If you are such an objective believer in two wrongs
not making a right, one would expect you to vehemently oppose the
death penalty in your messages to Poli-Sci. Or is that you don't see
death (as a punishment) as a wrong? If that's the case when is a
wrong not a punishment or a punishment not a wrong? Or is that you
don't think that discrimination is a crime? If that's the case, we
have a fundamental disagreement.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Tue 16 Jun 87 13:44:36-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Genocide
To: pyramid!ubvax!frank@AMES.ARPA
From: ubvax!frank@ames (Frank Warren)
There is some chance that, since we have suppressed all of those
records, and all the other allies did too, that we are being
misled about the extent of the holocaust, that it was really
intended as genocide, or some other factors which are significant.
Well if you really think that, please provide us with the evidence.
You are the first individual I know to come closest to claiming that
the holocaust never existed. So prove it, Frank.
The history of the world is filled with religious persecution...
The history of the world is also filled with ethnic violence as amply
discussed in "The Economics and Politics of Race" by Thomas Sowell.
I've known too many blonde-haired, blue-eyed jewish folks to
believe it was racial.
Just in case you missed it, several messages back, Mike Meyer and I
agreed to lump discrimination (be it based on religion, sex, race,
ethnic group, village/province/region of birth, color of the eyes,
height, etc.) under the term "racism" just for brevity. So does your
"racial" fit our broad definition of discrimination?
According to our own released records, Willie, Hitler killed 9
million Germans along with 6 million Jews. Hitler is often
brought up, but strangely enough the number of Germans who
resisted his regieme, were caught and murdered for it are
virtually never mentioned.
Pointers please.
Racism, Willie? It was okay for him to murder 9 million Germans
but not a single Jew?
No (i.e. it is not ok to commit murder, just in case you miss it). Is
it (i.e. murder) ok with you Frank? Suppose you have to rank the
murders in order of lack of choice and you are not allowed to wimp
out. How would you rank the murder of Jews (because of their
religion) and the murder of Germans (because of their political
beliefs)? How would you rank the murder of people simply because of
their height (too tall or short say) with these? (Hint: Changing
one's height is lots harder (i.e. lack of choice) than changing one's
religion which is harder than changing one's political beliefs.)
What purpose does this punishment serve? In the case of mass
murder, it is tempting to say, yeah, let's string these boys up,
give them a taste of their own. Yet this rather smacks of
vindiction and vendetta. Are you sure this is what you want to be
proposing?
Suppose Hitler is alive today. What would you do with/to him? Send
him to Hawaii? Suppose he continues giving instructions to repressive
regimes on how to commit genocide and get away with it. What would
you do then, Frank? Are the Nazi hunters vindictive people, Frank?
Or are they just trying to increase the cost of committing genocide so
as to minimize the occurrence of genocide in the future? If
individuals know that there is a high likelihood of their being
punished (i.e. pay a high cost) for committing genocide would there be
more or less genocide, Frank?
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 87 14:12:34 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: History and the truth
To: ametek!bugatti!walton@CSVAX.CALTECH.EDU
Cc: cit-vax!kirk@UWM-CS.MILW.WISC.EDU
> > From: cit-vax!kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.edu < Kirk Augustin>
> > I have been trying to show that our blindly positive self view
> > and our superficial, negative view of the USSR are ...
> From: ametek!bugatti!walton@csvax.caltech.edu < Steve Walton>
> I disagree profoundly here. My self view and my view of the United
> States are not "blindly positive."
Same here. Anyone who thinks that Steve Walton or I have blindly
positive views of the US has obviously been paying no attention to
what we have written.
> > It is not easy to explain to people,
> > who have never actually had to face some of the really ugly parts
> > of our society, that they exist, but that is where I think I should
> > continue.
As I have mentioned more than once on this list, I spent two years in
prison for a crime I didn't commit. Right here in the US. So don't
tell me I am not aware of the ugly parts. Anyone who attempts to use
my imprisonment to justify Communism deserves to get flamed like
nobody has been flamed before.
> You are correct when you note that the US does not have direct
> democracy on the model of the Greek city-states, but I would
> maintain that this type of government is patently impossible on
> the national level ...
Right. Pure majority rule is not reasonable anyway. This is because
individuals have rights that the majority cannot violate. The freedom
of action of a government in a free society is as constrained as are
the actions of an individual in the USSR.
> > This is why I keep bringing up the PTL.
The PTL is a joke.
> > Capitalism has no ethical attachments at all and makes no moral
> > decisions. If you can get a better return by buying guns and
> > taking control instead of making products to trade, pure
> > capitalism dictates that might makes right. That is the whole
> > concept of capitalism;
Your ignorance is appalling. Why don't you try and learn something
about a subject before you flame it? It is Socialism in which might
makes right. Capitalism is the only system in which individual rights
are recognized, in which the individual is an end in himself and not
the means to the governments ends.
> > The reason more
> > people don't defect is not that there are fences and guards, it is
> > because they can't think of a way to bring their wealth with them.
Wrong again. I suppose you think they build walls, watchtowers,
electrified fences, and minefields just for the hell of it?
> > We are a young country that recently cashed in our raw materials.
You think most of our wealth comes from raw materials? Guess again.
The country with the most farmland and the most mineral resources is
the USSR.
> > For the last 100 years the wealth of a disproportionate part of the
> > globe was sent to the US in the form of raw materials.
And the people who sent us those raw materials did so voluntarily.
They clearly thought that what they were getting in return was worth
it. I think so too. Those raw materials had been there for eons, but
this did not help the abject poverty of most of the world until
someone came along who found a constructive use for those materials.
Only in Capitalism is anyone motivated to find uses for things. In
Socialism everyone is motivated only to follow orders.
For the first time in history much of the world is NOT in extreme
poverty. Whose doing is that? Which system?
...Keith
------------------------------
Return-path: < TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Tue 16 Jun 87 15:54:06-EDT
From: ~joe testa~ < testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Subject: mailbag bits & pieces
This editor is not being very cooperative today, so here are a few
random comments on recent digest postings, all lumped into one message
. . . (go ahead and break it up if you feel the urge, Charles)
Terry C. Savage < TCS@ECLA.USC.EDU> writes:
> As Keith quite correctly points out,
> legality and morality are fundamentally unrelated. Legality is
> testable against the legal code -- I maintain that morality is
> fundamentally untestable. The quest for certainty in life is
> doomed to failure -- even in physics.
Yes, in theory -- but what legal system does not implicitly reflect
the moral standards of its creators? On what basis can the legal code
be justified?
"J. A. \"Biep\" Durieux" < mcvax!cs.vu.nl!biep@seismo.css.gov> writes:
> This has always bothered me: what's wrong with segregated public
> restrooms?
Plenty. On what basis should people be afforded different public
facilities based on a totally irrelevant factor such as race?
> Is sexism caused by having separate mens and womens rooms?
Of course not. A rest room is provided to perform biological
functions. Men and women intrinsically do this differently. People
of different races do not.
Nor is racism "caused" by having separate rest rooms for whites and
blacks. However, it does help perpetrate racism. If people grow up
and spend most of their lives isolated from those of other races, they
are much more likely to belive the racist lies that they hear . . .
they have no first-hand evidence or experience with which to refute
them.
> What about non- smokers restrooms?
Sounds good to me, since any one could freely choose to not smoke, and
thus be eligible to use the non-polluted air there. A black person is
not free to be white, however.
> As I understand a restroom is a place where one has to feel at ease,
> because the matter is rather personal. So where possible, if a group
> feels more at ease in a separate place, and the means are there,
> please build separate restrooms.
And if i would feel at ease if only blond-haired persons shorter than
me were allowed in, would you advocate a separate restroom be built
for this reason?
> I can very well imagine having separate restrooms for homosexual and
> heterosexual persons,
If we start building separate restrooms for people which other people
don't like for whatever arbitrary reason, the porcelain companies will
become very rich.
No, wait, we already have: they are in every house and apartment,
where you are free to exclude any unwanted guests and have as much
privacy as you desire. I thought you were discussing public
facilities.
> That has nothing to do with discrimination (well, in the political
> sense), but with privacy,
Nonsense. When you say something equivalent to "i need privacy from
persons of a different race more than from persons of the same race",
it has everything to do with discrimination. When people get together
to discriminate, it becomes political.
> and privacy is a very important thing.
Agreed, but this isn't the way to demonstrate that.
ubvax!frank@ames (Frank Warren) writes:
> Values, ethics and morality is a kind of insanity we carry around
> with us and which exists as an interlectualized generalization of our
> social instincts. You would think both yourself and Keith insane if
> you were a lizard, making it entirely solo in the world, and heard
> these same discussions.
Does this mean that *i* am a lizard? :-)
> According to our own released records, Willie, Hitler killed 9
> million Germans along with 6 million Jews...
> It was okay for him to murder 9 million Germans but not a
> single Jew?
I'm confused . . . are you saying that none of the Jews were Germans?
> Keith makes a lot of sense in his proposals for a free society. In a
> free society, mass murder is not possible; concentrations of power
> are left so low deliberately that, aside from national defense
> forces, nobody has enough power to enact this kind of horror.
No, it means that the *government* does not have such power.
Individuals would be free to acquire as much power as they can.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
joe testa @ Ohio State University, Department of Physics
BITNET: testa@ohstpy ARPA: testa-j%osu-20@ohio-state
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Tuesday, 7 Jul 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 87
Today's Topics:
History (2 msgs) &
Education
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < ray@cs.rochester.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 87 08:51:24 edt
From: Ray Frank < ray@cs.rochester.edu>
Subject: Re: Soviet history
Reply-to: rochester!ray@RUTGERS.EDU (Ray Frank)
>
> Still no answer to the A-bomb question. Everybody keeps
> saying that it saved millions of lives by avoiding a landing.
> This doesn't make sense. Japan was near depletion of all
> resources. ... and attempts at negotiated surrender were
> offered by them many times.
>
I read an article in a 1970 edition of Look magazine that had detailed
the last months of the Pacific war. Japan did make some feble
attempts at negotiating an end to the war but always on their terms.
They also made great efforts in trying to get Russia on their side
after the defeat of Germany claiming that between the two of them they
could rule the world. Of course with nothing to offer from Japan,
Russia turned them down although not until Russia had many meetings
with certain Japanese officials and thought over the offer in depth.
The military in Japan was still very much in control of the government
towards the end of the war. It was already decided by the military
that Japan, if invaded, would fight until the last soldier and
civilian died. They had more than 20,000 planes in reserve ready for
defending their beaches. They had 2,700,000 crack soldiers and
27,000,000 militia prepared to meet the oncoming invasion. Figures
like these can only leave one with a picture of a blood bath on both
sides if an invasion came. Mostly though, it would have been those
millions of ill-prepared militia men that would have perished.
Although much of Japan's industry was destroyed, their ability to
produce bullets for rifles was down only 50 percent. This meant that
they probably had millions of rounds ready for the invasion. Bullets
kill just as effectively as bombs and artillery shells if they hit
human flesh. A lot of the milita would only be armed with weapons
such as spears, knives, bayonets, etc. But millions of them thrusting
themselves at the landing forces in human wave attacks would have
results in many deaths on both sides. With out a doubt many more
would have died then in the two atomic bomb attacks.
ray
------------------------------
Return-path: < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 87 16:00:48 CDT
From: "Kirk Augustin" < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
To: MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
Subject: Re: History lessons
I try to condense my thoughts as much as possible and assume that
readers will follow the concepts, but your reply shows that it isn't
working so I will try to be more specific.
If you follow anchient history and that of Greece in particular,
you will see that trade, prosperity, and peace are all connected,
while war, poverty, destruction, and instability are all counterparts.
It may seem that prosperity can be the result of war but this is an
illusion caused by how wealth can be redistributed by war. The losers
certainly become poor, but so do the workers who actually support the
war effort and the soldiers who put up their time and sometimes life.
Every book I have ever read blames the destruction of the Greek
societies on their wars. There were some years when several thousand
triremes were built and sunk. There is no way the Greek ecology or
economy could possibly handle that kind of stupidity. In contrast,
the shipbuilding for merchant use was insignificant. There have been
some slow climate trends in the middle east, but all historians blame
the loss of the forests of Greece, Crete, Lebanon, etc. on the
stupidity of man, and mostly military ship building. Without trees
you have nothing to produce mulch or stop erosion and poverty is
ensured. Honest workers and merchants had absolutely nothing to gain
from war and were never the cause. All of the wars were caused by
greedy people who were able to manipulate the goverment and cause a
situation where they received undue compensation at the expense of
everyone else. If we learn anything at all from history, it is that
this is what creates all wars, past and present, and I can't believe
you could possibly argue with this.
When it comes to defending our countries actions you again ignore
my points and try to make your own that to not apply. You say that we
can't get away with doing terrible things because the press is the
watchdog. Then you say, "See, they exposed Vietnam to us so that we
could do the right thing." This is totally wrong. First of all the
press was responsible for letting us into the war to start with. Did
you ever see anything in the press about the plebicite they were
supposed to have or how popular Ho was with the people in all of
Vietnam? Then in the war who was it that reported the false body
counts to us? If all this coverage was so effective and honest, then
why did it take so long to cause reaction? Why is it that the war
became politically unpopular only after kids started getting their
heads bashed in at political events where the press still prefered to
ignore it if they could. The only place I saw pictures of the
decapitated heads on poles, collections of ears, prisoners pushed out
of helicopters, tiger pits, etc. was in the foreign press. Sure there
were individual journalists who tried, but the record speaks for
itself and it stinks. Next you use the Stark incident as proof that
the press ensures freedom. I am sorry but this is just silly. If you
remember the plane that shot the Stark was from Iraq. This is the
country that is supposed to be on our side. However the threats by
Reagan are being made against Iran, because they are supposed to not
be on our side. For some reason we are supposed to believe that we
must destroy the Iranian's silkworm missles to stop another attack
like the Stark incident. Where the heck is our watchdog now? Finally
we come to the KAL 007 flight. Regardless of how the press acted, you
still say that somehow the Soviets acted in some terrible manner. I
am again sorry but you make no sense when you say that any other
country follows the policy of escorting out or forcing the plane to
land. What do you think the soviet pilot was doing when he was flying
alongside and waving his wings? What was the Korean pilot doing when
he went into a steep dive and 90 degree turn directly out of soviet
territory? The US observation plane that was following directly
behind the KAL 007 was an R-135 not an RS-71 and was different from
the KAL 007 only in size. Given all this information we must conclude
that there was no other possible action that could have been taken by
the soviet pilot. You said 'escorted or forced to land', what you did
not say is that if they do not land as ordered, then they are to be
forced to land in pieces and that is exactly what happened. Since the
soviets have not shot down strays that have complied, we have no
reason to doubt their integrety in this matter. And since we also
have shot down many planes that have failed to comply, we cannot
comdemn this action. As a matter of fact, a german paper listed 7
planes that were downed by the US just in the Florida area alone.
You knew perfectly well that what I meant by the government
subverting democracy by keeping secrets was not the locations of
trident subs. The government has alot more information about the KAL
007 flight then they released. We heard nothing about conversations
by the plane, the military traffic controllers, the NORAD operators
that watched it all happen, the R-135 that followed, technicians that
serviced the plane, etc. There are numerous people that were
responsible for stopping something like this from happening, had the
power to do something, and we are never even told about them in the US
press. You have to read british papers to even hear about these
things. This makes it obvious that there are those who profit from
the lynch mob mentality that the press coverage created, and this is
what I meant by 'anti-democracy'. When you withhold the information
that people need to form an informed opinion, you no longer have
democracy. Basically you missed my entire message. Governments do
not maintain power through their military might. They exist only by
popular support. Governments can exist without support for awhile,
but are inherently unstable and will fall. The soviet government has
atleast as much if not more popular support as our, yet we are in
total conflict with them. This proves that an entire population can
be decieved. And only a totally ignorant person would assume that
only the soviets were capable of being decieved.
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 87 18:21:05 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Education
To: ihnp4!killer!elg@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
> Date: 8 May 87 04:49:17 GMT
> Return-path: < ihnp4!killer!elg@seismo.css.gov>
> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") says:
> > The best way to help the poor is to not be poor.
> Yes, but the only way to not be poor, is to have an education.
True, but it need not be a formal education, and if it is, it need
not be at taxpayer expense. If a formal education is so valuable,
people should be willing to loan money for the purpose.
Your position would be more defensible if taxes to pay for high
schools came only from graduates of public high schools, and if
tax money that paid for federal aid to colleges and to college
students came only from college graduates who benefited from
such a program. I never went to college, and I strongly resent
being compelled to pay to educate my future competitors. If I
can do the job without a degree, let them compete on an equal
footing, or at least pay for their degree without robbing me.
> As for what is really so terrible about students not doing well:
> Certainly, we have a need for "grunts" (unskilled laborors). But
> that need declines as the years go by. The low-cost trencher puts
> dozens of shovel sloggers out of business ...
Farmers hire illegal aliens because they can't find any Americans
willing to do manual labor. We are extremely far from completely
automating farming, mining, or even manufacturing.
People without formal education are quite capable of doing plenty of
things besides manual labor. Check on how many major companies were
founded by high school dropouts. Check on how many self made
millionaires never went to college, and in some cases never went past
the 8th grade.
There is a glut of high school graduates and of college graduates. As
a result of this, standards of what is needed for a given job tend to
be increased, and standards of what is needed to graduate tend to be
lowered. Many high school graduates cannot even read and write, much
less know any foreign languages, trigonometry, history, how to keep a
bank account, rent an apartment, or use a library. I don't think kids
should be allowed in the second grade, much less the 12th, without
knowing how to read and count. Better students are bored to tears by
the rate at which subjects are taught. If illiterates can get a high
school equivalency dimploma in a year or two of studying, why can't
students graduate high school in the 3rd or 4th grade?
In fact, the high school education of today is much like the 6th grade
education of 100 years ago. Or like the 6th grade education of today
in Japan. If those years are wasted, why not skip them? Either
graduate the kids in 6th grade, let them skip the first 6 grades, or
teach them more in the full 12 years? If the latter, perhaps we
wouldn't need so many college students, so many colleges, or so many
tax dollars for education.
It seems to be almost a law of nature that if you throw enough tax
dollars at something, it becomes worthless. City bus systems, health
care in countries with socialized medicine, art inspired by federal
endowments for the arts, passenger railroads, and the space program,
for instance. The same applies to education.
> And there's something else that's becoming apparent: The U.S., and
> the world at large, has a shortage of talent.
Right. And I think that too many tax dollars are the cause, rather
than the cure.
> So besides the onerous smell of creating a permenant underclass ...
There appears to be no evidence for such a thing. There is enormous
mobility in the US. In both directions.
If there is an underclass developing, perhaps it consists of those
people without the will to tackle the paperwork and start feeding
at the public trough.
> Half of those classified as "gifted" ... are classified as "gifted
> underachievers". That is, people who have the ability, but for
> some reason, do not perform well in school.
This is mostly because school is so horribly boring to them. Tell
them, tell them again, and then tell them what you told them. Then
assign 10,000 practice problems. Then review it. Repeat the process
the following two school years.
The wonder is that all love of learning isn't permanently burned out
of all of them.
A more relevant statistic is how these people do in real life. I
understand this does not correlate at all, negatively or positively,
with achievement in shcool.
> In conclusion, I don't believe that the survival or enhancement of
> the human race is going to be furthered by the squashing of
> intelligence and discouraging of rational thought.
Neither do I. But this is precisely what government run education
results in.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Thursday, 9 Jul 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 88
Today's Topics:
Equal education &
Quotation &
FCC Information Tax &
Land Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed 17 Jun 87 08:58:15-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Equal education?
To: pyramid!ubvax!frank@AMES.ARPA
From: ubvax!frank@ames.arpa (Frank Warren)
Keith makes a lot of sense in his proposals for a free society.
I would attribute those proposals to Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and
other eminent libertarians/objectivists. That is those who first
propose them and not those who read about them and then propose (i.e.
regurgitate) them to somebody else.
In a free society, mass murder is not possible; concentrations of
power are left so low deliberately that, aside from national
defense forces, nobody has enough power to enact this kind of
horror.
Sounds great in theory but how can you ensure that the system will
remain that way for "eternity"? (I have said many times before that I
have no problem with the IDEALS of such a society.) How can you
ensure that the system will react properly (i.e. still have the
characteristics you want) when subjected to stresses like terrorism,
plague, aggressive actions by other countries and other national
disasters? Or is it the case that you don't think things like these
will ever happen? If so please provide the proof. Also, you better
have good mechanisms for preventing the national defense forces from
becoming abusive. By admitting that it is ok for power to be
concentrated at the national defense forces, you are saying there are
situations in which such a concentration of power is a necessity. If
that is the case, it would be more productive to show how a system of
checks and balances can be used to control such a necessary
concentration of power, especially in times of stress. Take a look at
how coercive the military can be on the civilian government in
democratic societies like the Phillippines and Argentina.
Willie
------------------------------
From: pete@valid.UUCP (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Interesting quote
Date: 19 Jun 87 18:39:03 GMT
"Our very freedom is secure because we're a nation governed by laws,
not by men. We have the means to change the laws if they become
unjust or onerous. We cannot, as citizens, pick and choose the laws
we will or will not obey."
-President Ronald Reagan, speaking tho the United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners in Chicago on 4 Sept. 1981
[from a letter to the editor of the San Jose Mercury News by Dwight
James Simpson, Professor of International Relations at San Francisco
State University]
--
-Pete Zakel (..!{ridge,sun,elxsi,ucat}!valid!pete)
------------------------------
Return-path: < alliant!apollo!hays.UUCP@seismo.css.gov>
From: apollo!hays.UUCP@seismo.css.gov (John Hays)
Subject: Re: ATTENTION ALL MICRO USERS!!! FCC INFORMATION TAX AHEAD!!
Date: 14 Jun 87 21:45 GMT
Reply-to: mit-eddie!ulowell!apollo!hays@RUTGERS.EDU (John Hays)
hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes:
> Hi friends,
>
> A terrible piece of news I just read about in the New York
> Timesthis morning. The FCC just voted 4-0 to impose a $4.50 - $5.50
> an HOUR tax on people who are using the phone system to transmit
> information across state lines. This INCLUDES anyone hooking up
> to a network, not just people dialing out of state!! I suppose
> people dialing into a system with access to Arpanet or even USENET
> might be charged this tax; the information services (Compuserve,
> etc.) are slated to be charged this tax as of January 1. This is
> an outrageous tax which would squelch the burgeoning
> telecommunications industry, and is totally unjustified. I would
> urge people to write letters to their Congressman to protest this
> unfair and exorbitant "information tax" which is based on
> superstition and lack of understanding of the telecommunications
> industry.
>
> -Mitsu
I apologize for including the entire article in my follow-up, but
since I added a few groups (ham-radio/apple/legal/politics) I thought
that it would be good for them to see the original article. [Also
limited dist to usa]
If what Mitsu has quoted is accurate then we better get going right
away!
However, before writing to your congressman, we should do our
homework. The FCC has a fairly open door policy and before any of
these types of rules go into effect they issue a "Notice of Proposed
Rule Making" and assign it a number based on the year and sequence of
the proposal. A comment period is established where in interested
parties may make FORMAL and INFORMAL comments to the FCC board.
The reason I added the ham-radio groups to this discussion is that
they (we) have a lot of experience in handling such issues. A yet to
be determined battle over keeping radio frequencies in the 220-222
Mhz. range open to amateur radio [Used primarily for Amateur Packet
Radio Computer Networking] is underway right now. So there will be
some experienced people to help consult in this FCC Issue.
A plan of action:
1. Find out if this is an accurate statement of the
(proposed) new rules.
2. If there is still a comment period, get the NPRM Number
and text and post it to the net. [The text may need to be
condensed due to the length of some of these puppies]. If
the comment period is closed a request to re-open the
comment period should be forwarded to the FCC and copied
to your Congressional Reps/Senators.
3. Outlines for the filing of Formal Comments should be
developed and posted to the network.
4. Everyone on the net should make sure that local BBS are
updated on this issue.
5. EVERYONE should file comments (FOR or AGAINST) with well
thought out reasons for their position. KEEP IT
PROFESSIONAL, NO NAME CALLING, ACCUSATIONS, OR THREATS....
6. Copy your comments to every member of your Congressional
Delegation (Both Senators and your Representative).
7. A temporary newgroup should be set up to follow the issue
so that it doesn't have to fill all of the groups listed
above.
8. DO NOT MAKE A FORM LETTER FOR EVERYONE TO SEND, THEY
SHOULD BE INDIVIDUALIZED!!!!
Let's get organized and get going.
John
=====================
--
John D. Hays, Consultant UUCP: ...!decvax!wanginst!apollo!hays
Corporate Systems Engineering ...!uw-beaver!apollo!hays
Apollo Computer Inc. CIS: 72725,424 {weekly}
!MY OPINIONS, not Apollo's!
------------------------------
Return-path: < TCS@ECLA.USC.EDU>
Date: Wed 17 Jun 87 15:11:18-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@ECLA.USC.EDU>
Subject: Sovereignty
To: kfl@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
To: Keith and list
Subj: Sovereignty
(Note--I have altered the order somewhat for clarity of my
response)
> I don't agree with your terminology. Sovereignty is not something
> that is attached to a piece of land like minerals are. Sovereignty
> is something each individual has. It is inalienable, meaning that it
> cannot be traded, sold, overruled by majority vote, or otherwise
> lost.
I'm following common usage and the dictionary by defining
sovereignty as the power to control what goes on in a particular
area. From Webster:
"1)Supremacy in rule or power 2)power to govern
without external control 3) The supreme political power in a
state."
This fairly clearly is meant to apply to actions within an
area, not a cosmic characteristic of individuals. So, when the
government retains sovereignty rights, they retain the "supreme
political power" to decide what happens in an area (eg the property
you buy). In fact, sovereignty is sometimes explicitly traded, often
for cash, between governments. The implied contract that you buy into
by continuing to live in the US (or any nation, for that matter) is
truly enormous.
> > When you purchase a property, you generally do NOT purchase
> > the mineral rights. Similarly, in this country, when you purchase a
> > property you do NOT purchase the "sovereignty" rights.
> No, of course not. In fact I recently had this very argument (not on
> this list) with someone who was trying to convince me that murder
> should be legal within a private house unless there is a house rule
> against it.
>
> The question is not whether government can establish any laws which
> apply on private property. They can. The question is what those
> laws can be.
See above. By retaining sovereignty, and you buying into
the contract by remaining, the government can pass essentially
whatever laws it pleases (although there are always practical
limits to what can be enforced and what people will tolerate).
> If a government owns land, it can set whatever rules from that land
> that the majority of citizens decide on. But these rules do not
> apply after the land is sold.
You missed the point. The vast majority of sales are
limited sales, and include neither mineral nor sovereignty
rights. The government sells the land EXCLUDING the sovereignty
rights.
> > The only requirement, then, is that the government must
> > allow you freedom of exit from the country if you choose not to
> > abide by the terms in effect when you become an adult ...
> > The fact that all other available areas may be even less
> > to your liking may be unfortunate, but has no moral content.
> No, government's only power is to protect the rights of its citizens.
> It has no other power at all.
I assume you meant the government's "only right" or "only PROPER
power". The government in fact has a great deal more POWER than
that. And "proper", of course, is subject to debate (see below).
> > I maintain that morality is fundamentally untestable.
> If this were true then there would be nothing fundamentally wrong
> with gouging out a child's eyes. The person who does this could
> simply say he has a different morality than we do.
That is essentially correct (To avoid a possible side-flame, my
PERSONAL morality would prohibit this!).
> And if we were to punish him, our punishment would be just
> as arbitrary as his crime.
Well, "arbitrary" is a curious word here. This
hypothetical child-maiming scum-bag has one view of the world,
and our society has another. The rules in our society say (or
actually, SHOULD say, in my view. They don't really) that if you
do nasty things like that, you're history. If someone does it, we
waste them. Sounds pretty consistent to me. We can't justify our
actions by passing the buck to some higher authority (God,
"absolute" morality, whatever), which means (gasp!) that we have
to take responsibility for our own actions! I have a sense of
right that I believe in (very close to yours, I suspect), and my
conscience does not require external supports to defend my
concept of what is right. The outcome in a conflict of rights is
determined by superior power (which includes persuasion,
knowledge, etc, not just brute firepower). It would be nice if
there were some cosmic referee, but I have yet to see EVIDENCE
(as opposed to assertions) that such a force exists. It's not
emotionally satisfying -- the quest for certainty is the primary
reason people create/turn to religions. Your "absolute morality"
is a religion (Webster:religion: 4) A cause, principle, or belief
held to with faith and ardor).
> If this were true, World War II was pointless, since Hitler had
> a perfect right to invade other countries and massacre millions
> of innocent people.
Not pointless at all -- we were defending our view of the world
against a child-maiming scum-bag. WE did not grant him the right
you suggest.
> I believe there IS a true morality, and it consists of
> interacting with others only voluntarily.
This is my PERSONAL morality as well, but I do not claim divine
status for it.
> I believe that people such as Falwell who have besmirched
> the concept of morality with pointless platitudes and
> innumerable senseless arbitary rules of conduct have done
> more damage than any number of Charles Mansons or Ted Bundys.
I agree that he is dangerous, but we all chose our "concept of
morality". I just happen to think Falwell's sucks, and I will
resist his attempts to impose it on me or others.
> > The quest for certainty in life is doomed to failure -- even in
> > physics.
> Wrong. While theories in physics may change, reality remains the
> same.
I apologize--my initial comment was sufficiently incomplete that the
point was lost (except, perhaps, to some physicists or philosophers in
the audience). The Uncertainty Principle in physics states (generally)
that you can't know a particle's position and momentum at the same
time. If you know where it is (was), you don't know where it's going
(is). REALITY IS NOT FIXED. It is influenced by the eye of the
beholder. The closest thing you get to certainty are reliable
probabilites, which are good enough for almost everything, except
emotional satisfaction.
As a side comment, how can you be certain that you are not in fact a
brain in a vat, with all of the "reality" around you simply a set of
stimuli fed to you by members of a communist society, trying to root
out possible individualistic ideas before they have to deal with them
in the "real" world? I concede that data indicate that this is highly
unlikely, but if the whole data set is NFG -- can you be CERTAIN?
Certainty is a hopeless quest, and does not represent the "real" world
(I assert). Personally, I have come to terms with probabilities.
> No possible discovery will cause it to be possible to survive
> without water, etc.
Not true, actually. Silcon/Sulphur life forms have been
postulated, and the chemical properties seem to work. No obvious
need for water. We haven't SEEN any yet, but the universe is a
big place......
I look forward to your comments.
TCS
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Friday, 10 Jul 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 90
Today's Topics:
History (very long)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 23 Jun 87 23:41:20 EDT
From: Charles < MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Soviet history
To: kirk@UWM-CS.MILW.WISC.EDU
Cc: poli-sci@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
[ This got tremendously long, for which I apologize. - CWM]
To explain my point of view requires starting with the
impressions of a child. We talk about alot of ideals in this
country like freedom and justice, but our realities are in
stark contrast and showed me that very little of what people
believe is really true.
... I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you that you're
wrong, but this certainly is an interesting discussion! You seem to
see western culture (and specifically the U.S.) as basically and
criminally flawed. I see it as an ideal which is still evolving
toward achievement. I point to the freeing of slaves, educational
reforms and giving the vote to blacks and women as steps in this
direction (i.e. I take the long view).
First there those war movies to instill patriotism. When you
realise that all those 'gooks' and 'krauts' are the same as
your friends and neighbors since we all originated from
different countries, you start to wonder what kind of people
were responsible for the filming.
And yet this country also made films like "All Quiet on the Western
Front" (twice, and written by a foreigner! horrors!) - an anti-war war
movie, "Little Big Man",a pro-indian western, "M*A*S*H" - anti-war,
'The Big Red One' - a subtle anti-war movie, "The Fighting Sullivans"
- a heartbreaking anti-war movie, 'The Razor's Edge' and 'Circle of
Iron' - movies espousing Zen philosphy ideals, '1984' - a
this-could-happen-to us movie, 'Colossus', 'Omega Man', 'Silent
Running' - anti-technology, 'I will Fight no more Forever' -
pro-indian, 'The Lincoln Conspiracy' - a 'subversive' description of
Lincoln's assasination, 'Catch-22', 'On the Beach', 'The Trip' - a
movie presenting a non-frenzied view of LSD - and so on. If the media
are as controlled as you say, how is it that films like this get made
at all? *Somebody* is spending bags of money to make them...
I remember a film they showed at school that was
supposed to motivate us to be good law abiding boys and girls.
It was similar to the 'Scarred Straight' idea with scenes of
how bad prison was. But what it did was to show that our
legal system was no better than the criminals. A criminal
acts out of personal weakness but a legal system has no excuse
for cruelty.
... I take it you've never been mugged, or had a friend murdered or
raped. Just what sort of punishment for crimes do you then espouse?
I personally prefer that criminals suffer for their crimes. Its one
of the reasons *I'm* not a criminal.
If life is so important and the only mitigation for murder is
'heat of passion', then capital punishment is the worst crime
possible because it is done totally 'in cold blood'.
... so what retribution for a murder done by a rapist, or the 7-11
robber who shoots the clerk so he cannot be identified? It might be
more to the point to let victims (or surviving relatives) decide
punishment for criminals, but I'm not in favor of that either.
Punishment for a crime is a basis of our society (and every other
society). I personally think that murder should be punished with
death. The primitive, socialistic societies you prefer generally have
death penalties for many crimes, not just murder (since they don't
have prisons). How do you rationalize that?
If you ever watch the newsclips for the cases like Rosenbergs,
Bruno Haupman, or the infamous McCarty hearings, you would see
that even to a child it would be obvious that our ideals are a
lie.
... on the other hand, the trials of thousands upon thousands of
people charged with murder, robbery, etc. go on every day. Are the
ideals they represent a lie too? I seem to remember the McCarthy
hearings being ended not too very long after they started, as the
minds of the people cleared of the hysteria. If its a 'systemic'
thing, how is it we didn't have Rosenberg cases all through our
history? How come we didn't have a Rosenburg case this week? (By the
way, there was a not-quite-recent book espousing the opinion that the
Rosenbergs were in fact giving secrets to the Russians - not that I
beleive that.)
So what is the truth? Read about other cultures and times.
If you read enough anthropology you find more lies. We are
supposed to be living in the zenith of luxury and health. But
that is not true. It turns out that primitive human tribes
lived longer than we do if you discount infant mortality.
... an interesting sleight-of-hand. Lets NOT discount infant
mortality. Its a useful measure of the society's ability to protect
its next generation (also a measure of the freedom allowed its women).
Also, might we look at how susceptable primitve cultures are to
disease vectors? By a number of measures, Western civilization IS
living at the highest point of human wealth and advancement. Average
calorie intake is a good measure in this regard, so is energy (all
forms) used. A farmer with a tractor uses more energy than one with a
mule or a hoe; he also grows a lot more food, and that allows me to do
something other than grow food.
And the average work day was only 2 hrs instead of 8.
So? I presume these are the primitive cultures you espouse. In that
case, I prefer the leisure time I get from my 8 hours than they get
from theirs.
If you think for a moment, none of the longevity examples
come from high-tech cultures. It is always yogurt eaters from
the caucases, eskimos, Indians, etc.
... facinating. An interesting discussion might be what makes a more
energetic culture move away from political systems like the ones you
prefer. I myself LIKE the higher technology; I'd much rather watch my
videotape of 'Citizen Kane' than listen to my 125 year old grandfather
tell that same story for the 30th time around the family hearth (but
then I'm a ramblin' kind of guy).
There are some really good books on the Kalahari bushmen if
you want to read more about it. And how about violence. It
turns out that even with all the bad examples, the picture of
homosapiens is serenity and peace when you consider the
timespan and cultural diversity.
... funny, I don't see that. Lets look at some primitive cultures
(pre-western-contact): africans - constant tribal warfare, American
Indians - constant tribal warfare, South Americans - tribal and empire
warfare, Japanese - constant (institutionalized) warfare, etc. Might
one of the distinct advantages for the Kalantaris is their isolation
and small numbers? That doesn't help larger societies.
Now for our sense of freedom and justice. Before we arrived
the Indians had their own possesions but nobody could own the
land, trees, or game.
.... and yet these same indians had no compunction about stealing
another tribes' women and horses. In fact, stealing another tribe's
things was not a crime, just a fact of life. In general nomadic
groups don't value the land, since staying on a specific piece of it
is actually a liability after a while (american indians were fairly
territorial about their burial grounds, though).
They all needed to share the use of the natural resources to
survive. An individual that wanted to hunt buffalo without
the rest of the tribe was socially ostracised because he
scattered the herd and made life rough for everyone else.
Sharing what you did not make yourself is a basic part of
normal human sociology.
... and yet the Zulus, the Aztecs, and others made tyranizing other
groups a way of life. American indians did not generally help other
tribes in difficulty. The 'noble savage' is a pleasant fiction,
generally not borne out by closer study.
But the culture we call civilization came and was different.
One man could claim anything in the name of King George and
back it up by hired force.
.. and yet in the days before Britain garrisoned their colonies in
the americas, warfare with the indians was already endemic. There
wasn't an army per se, just local militias (a cooperating group of
neighbors, banded together for common defense - sound familiar?) The
British army came over here in large part to keep the French out, by
the way.
Armies are a luxury afforded cultures that have climbed out of a
subsistance existance. They are a major reason that non-subsistance
cultures can defeat subsistance cultures. Should we then doom
mankind to eternal subsistance culture? Seems a shame. I'd have to
give up my electric guitar and bass, for one thing...
Then others could accumulate wealth from the labor of others
by passing on this claim. That is in effect what a landlord
is today. He does not create, hires others to enforce, and
feels no social responsibility. I always hear that the
profits are rewards for taking risks, but without social
responsibility these risks merit rewards as much as the risks
taken by a thief.
... ah, now we get down to the nub of things. Property is theft.
Theft of property is theft of theft (and property of property :-). My
parents own their house, and yet their ancestors fought in South
Carolina against the British. In fact, profits are obtained by taking
risks, that's why Steve Wozniak is so rich. That's why Henry Ford was
so rich. That's why I'm able to sit in my apartment and type this,
rather than grubbing potatoes in Ireland - my ancestors took a risk
(when it WAS a risk). It might be interesting to discuss the American
Indian's "general territoriality" - where a tribe or group of tribes
would stay in the same general area and keep other tribes out of that
area, but move around and live in different places in that area...
How do I know this system is really so corrupt? Because I am
very good at using it myself. I have had many tenents buy
buildings for me and have made large profits off the 'slave'
labor employed by the US.
...good for you. If you don't like this sort of thing, why do you
do it?
Since the 20's we have used foreign countries for our slave
camps, but that just makes the illusion of freedom and
prosperity easier to maintain.
... more accurately, foreigners are willing to work for less, and so
American companies hire them. When was the last time a U.S. Marine
put a gun to a South Korean's head and said, "make that silicon chip
or you're dead"?
Foreign workers don't get health benefits or safty checks.
They generally get paid very well (for their country standards).
Safety checks and health benefits are (or should be) a matter of
employer-employee relations. If the foreign workers don't like their
jobs, they can always find others, or do we have a social
responsibility to give money to everyone? You may think so, but I do
not. That just makes everyone equally poor.
Then if they complain too much we yell communism and have them
jailed.
... no, we hire somebody else. I think part of the problem is you see
any government that cooperates in any way with us as 'us'. That
doesn't really work (as we discovered in South Vietnam) - they have
their own cultural history at work, not ours.
The US isn't rich because it is prosperous, it is because it
is ruthless and drains most of the wealth of the world.
... facinating. Yet the U.S. creates a huge amount of manufactured
goods from the raw materials it imports and exports this back to the
rest of the world. Perhaps this doesn't count to you, but I value a
tractor rather more highly than a lump of iron ore and a small pile of
bauxite.
I know because I am part of the system.
... gosh, so am I. And yet I don't draw the same conclusions as you..
There used to be a kinder way of life that was plowed under by
the greed and corruption that we live with now.
... when exactly was this kinder way of life? Surely before the first
babylonian cities. The same forces (and reactions) that brought that
about brought about our civilization today.
If you do not wish to call them communism and capitalism that
is fine, but no matter what you call it, you do not have the
right to use a label to ignore racism and violence.
... I do not ignore them, I deny that violence and racism are solely
a 'product' of western civilization (have a look at asian and arab
history).
Stalin and even Hitler can be atleast somewhat understood
because they were emotionally unstable
... and yet these two were supported by the majority of their nation's
people (however misguided). I'm not sure what your point is here...
and had the idea that they were doing some good,
... in the same way that every society of any size or political makeup
believes they are 'doing good', by doing good for themselves...
but you must not fail to see how the little man who scorched
Dresden just to see if he could do it is far worse.
... no, I don't! The 'little man' was actually the 8th Air Force and
RAF Bomber Command, fighting a war with the tools at hand (technology
having escalated the scale and destructiveness of nations since the
first copper ax was forged). The bombing of Dresden, Berlin, London,
Coventry, Rotterdam, Ploesti, Warsaw and all those other European
cities would not have happened at all if Hitler hadn't stomped on
Poland and started WWII. (Indeed, some people will tell you that it
was Chamberlain's slavish we-must-all-get-along policy that deluded
Hitler and the Germans into starting the war at all.) Nobody forced
Hitler to kill all those Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and Russians in
death camps, or forced Stalin to kill all those Ukranians, Poles, and
Russians in his various pogroms.
I think instead, that you think your little man is far worse
because he's one of 'us' (actually, he was a Brit).
Anyway, I still see our conversation coming dangerously close to a
shouting match, something I don't want to happen. I doubt seriously
whether you or I will convince each other of much of anything, but
that's ok. The exchange of ideas is the important thing, eh?
Charles
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Thursday, 9 Jul 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 89
Today's Topics:
Constitutional Convention &
Education &
History (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < WILKIE@OFFICE-1.ARPA>
Date: 25 Jun 87 08:52 PDT
From: Tony Wilkie /DAC/ < TLW.MDC@OFFICE-1.ARPA>
Subject: Constitutional Convention
Amidst the glitz and pedantry of the Constitution's birthday, I
have (or thought I have) seen references to a Constitutional
Convention, the aim of which would be to make over or improve from
the roots up, the original.
Does anyone on the net know anything about this (who, what when
where) or if this is just something which is discussed as a
possibility?
Tony- < TLW.MDC@Offince-1.ARPA>
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed 24 Jun 87 10:12:16-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: degrees
To: Hank.Walker@GAUSS.ECE.CMU.EDU
From: Hank.Walker@gauss.ece.cmu.edu
As someone looking through big piles of resumes, I can state what
we are looking for in a programmer in order of importance:
Note "looking for in a *PROGRAMMER*". We can't generalize what you
said to the hiring of all kinds of personnel e.g. nuclear engineer or
surgeon? Have it occurred to you that a programmer requires less
formal training than a nuclear engineer or a surgeon?
4) Knows the fundamentals, like numerical methods and graphics.
Specifics can be learned on the fly, but learning fundamentals
takes too long.
Here is the crux of the problem. Hackers can learn the fundamentals
on their own (this might change later as the technology evolves). For
fields like nuclear engineering or medicine, it is harder to learn the
fundamentals on your own. Going to college might actually be more
efficient (at least in terms of time) in this case.
This last point partly answers the question "Why go to college?"
A question like this usually gets ask when there isn't a glut of
college grads out there. Perhaps it didn't occur to you that we have
a labor shortage in the software industry or that undergraduate
programs in computer science haven't been around that long or that
computer science as a field is still a baby. Haven't you noticed the
number of people already in the field who have no formal training in
computer science? How many nuclear engineers or surgeons do you know
who have no formal training in their respective fields?
Beware the myopic screw: If that is how it works in the computer
industry then that must be how it works in the world. E.g. If a
college drop-out like Steve Jobs can be (was) a CEO of a large company
(Apple), then you don't need a degree to be a CEO of a large company.
This of course ignores that only a handfull of CEO's don't have
college degrees. You can actually count them (something around 50) in
a list of 800 CEOs published in a recent issue of Forbes. That is
pretty dismal statistics for those with no degrees since they form a
large segment of the population. The odds look better if you have a
college degree.
Willie
------------------------------
From: jim@epistemi.UUCP (Jim Scobbie)
Subject: Re: History and the truth
Date: 19 Jun 87 12:07:23 GMT
Reply-to: jim@epistemi.ed.ac.uk (Jim Scobbie)
> The United States is morally superior
> to the Soviet Union. We are a democratic country founded on respect
> for individual liberty.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
> One last point (don't take it too personally): proofread your
> submissions. It has been pointed out before on Usenet that while
> misspellings, poor grammar, and incorrect punctuation do not prove
> you are incorrect, they do indicate to others that perhaps your views
> are not well informed.
>
> Stephen Walton ARPA: ametek!walton@csvax.Caltech.EDU
> BITNET: WALTON@CALTECH. UUCP: ...!ucbvax!sun!megatest!ametek!walton
Slagging someone off for including some spelling mistakes really makes
me respect *your* argumentation, you know?
Its quite obvious that you and other dogmatists lack one important
freedom: the freedom of thought. It's not that the red guards will
lock you up if you don't do the 'god bless america' routine, its worse
than that - you totally lack the ability to free yourself from the
prescriptive opinion of your own society, which you must clearly
believe to be correct. You and your like are a danger to my peace, to
world peace, since you must surely want to make all others like
yourself, you being morally superior. Germany used to be full of
people like you. The US and the USSR are no different in my eyes, nor
in those of many of my friends.
jim s.
--
Jim Scobbie: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh University,
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND
UUCP: ...!ukc!cstvax!epistemi!jim
JANET: jim@uk.ac.ed.epistemi
------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!bugatti!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 87 17:33:40 pdt
From: Steve Walton < ametek!bugatti!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
To: cit-vax!kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.edu
Cc: cit-vax!kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu
Subject: History and the truth
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 87 17:19:58 CDT
From: "Kirk Augustin" < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
I think you have your idea of the 'role of government' backwards.
The soviets believe that the state exists totally for the benefit
of the people. Infact they believe that someday the state will not
be necessary and will wither away.
They believe this because it is part of their state religion, not
because it is necessarily true.
Of course what is good for the government
can sometimes help the peole and we all accept some of these losses
of freedom, but to totally put our countries at odds on this point
is terribly wrong. Infact this misunderstanding is the basis for
my entire argument. There are many thing wrong with the USSR but
they are obvious. They do not scare me because they are done
openly, are understandable, and are being done away with slowly.
Then this is the basis for my entire response to you: You suggested
originally that our problems with the USSR were an irrational response
to an imagined threat from a country which isn't much worse than ours.
You have tried to justify and/or explain away their actions, as you do
in this statement. I'll say it once more: our countries are at odds
because of fundamentally different ideas about the nature of human
freedom and about the proper relation of a government of a country to
the citizens of a country. Even so, we would probably ignore them
just as we ignore many dictators around the world except for the fact
that they have shown a marked tendency over the past 40 years to
invade, conquer, and impose their noxious form of government on,
previously sovereign countries.
The things they do are not done openly; people have been arrested
for "anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda" for publishing reports of
them. They are not understandable; state sanctioned torture is never
understandable unless the state is a totalitarian dictatorship
dedicated to holding on to power at all costs. It is true that it is
not as bad now as it was under Stalin, but the form of government
there now is fundamentally the same as it was then; "another Stalin"
could easily arise.
The problems in this country are totally invisible to the very
people who could do something about them. It seems that people who
are insolated from the problems are not even capable of imagining
that they could exist. These problems are caused intentionally by
those who profit from them and are becoming worse all the time.
They aren't invisible to me. Congress is continually meddling in the
economy, to the general detriment of the country. A permanent
underclass has arisen in our inner cities. We are spending ourselves
into permanent debt. We have a huge permanent military which wastes
most of the money we spend on it. The problem is not that they are
invisible, the problem is that nothing short of replacing the majority
party in Congress will result in any kind of fundamental change. And
I don't mean replacing them with Republicans, either.
The
reason I keep bringing up the soviets is that by analogy I thought
that if you could see how the soviet people are manipulated, you
might also see that it is done here. Instead I get all this stuff
about how bad it is there. But who cares about how it is there?
I see quite well how the Soviet people are manipulated, which is why I
am absolutely sure that I am not being manipulated in the same way.
They can live any way they want as far as I am concerned, but you
can't use them to prove anything about this country being good.
Why not? You are trying to use them to prove this country is bad by
showing we're no better than they are.
We use wealth to make ourselves
sound good, but what does that mean. Any psycologist,
anthropologist, historian, etc. will tell you that we have been
conditioned to life in the fast lane and it is killing us. Wealth
is no measure of happiness.
Wealth is a valid measurement of the amount of physical comfort and
well-being which are provided to the citizens of a country. While it
is certainly possible to be wealthy and unhappy, I doubt it is
possible to be happy while in abject poverty.
You talk about freedom but what are
you really saying? Try starting your own school. You say that it
is so easy and proves that we are free from conditioning. Well you
are dead wrong.
I never, never, never said it was easy to start one's own school. In
fact, I agree with you that it is ridiculously difficult. I'm not
sure who you are arguing with here; I've never claimed our system was
perfect or as free as it could be. In fact, I think it is far short
of ideal.
You even dismiss the Heritage
Foundation. If you ask anyone familiar with our political system
they will tell you that PAC's are the biggest threat we ever faced.
I didn't dismiss the Heritage foundation; I merely commented that
countervailing think tanks have lots of influence with other power
groups in Washington. The real problem, as I think we agree, is that
the government has too much power. If we could severely restrict the
government's ability to control our lives, all the PAC's in the world
wouldn't matter a bit. In fact, they'd probably disappear because
there wouldn't be any point to people spending money on them.
The freedom that is missing in this country is within our own
minds. I challange you that you do not want to see the truth.
I don't think my own mind is not free. I will not accept your
conclusions until we agree on the facts. I challenge *you* to admit
that we have the most free society which has ever existed. I admit
that that freedom is slowly slipping away and that we must fight to
get it back.
There is an easy example in you last reply. You immediately
believed the person who told you about the 100's of rounds fired
every 100 yards or so. Think about it. Most tanks only carry 20
to 30 rounds total. Actually most of them are difficult to even
get at.
I wasn't clear. The tank in question fired bullets in a circle from
its turret-mounted machine gun. They obviously didn't fire shells or
my friend wouldn't be around to tell the tale. And I believed the
story because I know the person involved to be a trustworthy witness.
So my real question is what are you willing to believe?
Are most people in the US similar to you in their beliefs? Isn't
it possible that the view of the majority of people could still be
wrong?
I am not willing to believe in a massive conspiracy to brainwash me
into thinking things about this country which aren't true. I am not
willing to believe that we and the USSR are morally equivalent, as you
have been trying to argue. And I am not willing to believe that our
quarrels with the USSR are mere results of "misunderstandings" which
would go away if we understood each other better. My replies to you
are full of what I do believe--namely, that whatever our failings the
United States is the most free society that has ever existed. I
suspect a majority of Americans believe this as well. Of course, we
could all be wrong, but you're a long way from proving you're right.
Imagine that you were living in Imperial Rome.
But I'm not. There are so few similarities between Imperial Rome and
the 20th century United States that drawing analogies between them is
fatuous.
South Africa is another good example. Individually
it sounds ok to want to live separately and provide jobs to
neighboring natives that live poorly, but together these are the
elements of slavery and cannot be tolerated.
The problem with South Africa is not that people want to live
separately, the problem is that the government is restricting people's
freedom by requiring them to live elsewhere than where they want to.
What is South Africa a "good example" of, anyway? How does that
example apply to the United States?
We are living among
the best public relations experts in the world and don't see the
danger. In fact we only see what they want us to.
You keep making unsubstantiated statements like this. Which PR experts
want me to see most of what is on the evening news? If you wanted to
present our country as a Utopia, you wouldn't allow the daily rundown
of murders, muggings, rapes, robberies, and corruption of public
officials on the TV every night, would you? You wouldn't allow
special reports on "the plight of the homeless." You would only run
good news about John Doe having received a medal for screwing the most
bolts into tractors last month and about the wonderful things your
government is doing for you. Now, Kirk, go and find a copy of Pravda
and see if what I just said is an accurate description of it.
Imagine being
born on the wrong side of the tracks. How long would you be able
to work at McDonalds before you turned into a mental vegetable or a
criminal knowing that you had no other future?
Well, one of my brothers worked at a McDonalds for six years. He's
now an assistant manager, and making pretty good money at it.
If I may be so bold as to summarize our discussion so far: You believe
that the US/USSR split is due to misunderstandings, and that if we got
to know them better we would not be so hostile to each other. You
also believe that the citizens of the US are blind to its shortcomings
due to conditioning by one or more power groups. Finally, you claim
that we are actually much less free than I believe, and that we are
really not much more free than the citizens of the USSR. I reply that
the first and third of these statements are patently false, and have
given evidence to support my claim. I cannot judge the truth of the
conditioning argument, except to reply that it is not true of me,
because I believe many things to be true which I'm sure those in power
would rather I didn't.
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Thursday, 16 Jul 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 91
Today's Topics:
Taxation &
Getting Shot At &
Statistical Discrimination &
Socialism &
History
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < mcb@lll-tis.arpa>
From: mcb@lll-tis.arpa (Michael C. Berch)
Subject: Re: Taxation scheme
Date: 25 Jun 87 01:19:29 GMT
Reply-to: mcb@lll-tis.arpa (Michael C. Berch)
TCS@ECLA.USC.EDU (Terry C. Savage) writes:
> I have always felt that funding of the goevernment via taxes should
> be limited to the sales tax, period. It's the closest approximation
> I can think of for taxing people for the "infrastructure" use that
> they could otherwise free-ride -- you pay to the extent that you
> interact with the system. Since wealthy people tend to buy more,
> they will pay more -- I have no problem with that. This solution
> also doesn't distort the economy and pricies in any particular
> direction, it just increses the general price level.
In what way does a sales tax have any relationship to paying for the
use of the infrastructure? Why should I pay ten times more in (sales)
taxes than a person I earn ten times more than? Have I, in some way,
consumed ten times more "infrastructure"-based government services?
"Interacting with the system" != "consuming government services".
If the goal of taxation is to fund agreed-upon government services in
some reasonable approximation of the proportion in which they are
consumed, then there is NO reason for wealthy or high-income people to
pay substantially more than poorer or lesser-earning people. Does it
cost more to defend me against (say) the threat of a Soviet ICBM
attack than it costs to defend a poor person? Does it cost less or
more to provide police protection for me or for an inner-city
resident? Unless there is a relationship between what you pay into
government and what you get out, it's simply redistribution of income,
which "distorts the economy" more than anything else I can thing of.
My idea of a fair system is a per capita tax for the government
"infrastructure" (that is, everyone pays the same amount) supplemented
by a small flat tax on income (everyone pays the same percentage) for
those services which are consumed in relative proportion to income.
Everything else can be funded by user fees.
Michael C. Berch
ARPA: mcb@lll-tis.arpa
UUCP: {ames,ihnp4,lll-crg,lll-lcc,mordor}!lll-tis!mcb
------------------------------
From: don@opal.berkeley.edu (Don Curry)
Subject: Re: USS Stark Incident
Date: 25 Jun 87 23:09:27 GMT
Reply-to: don@opal.berkeley.edu (Don Curry)
carlos@chas2.UUCP writes:
> ccs006@ucdavis.UUCP (Eric Carpenter) writes:
> > ...American ship means NOBODY shoots at us? That mistakes don't
> > happen?...
>
> When I was a kid watching war movies i used to wonder if mistakes
> happened in war.....
> These accidents are, I'm sure, more common than anyone realizes...
> --
> ---> ...cit-vax!elroy!smeagol!jplgodo!chas2!carlos
> Carlos Carrion
> Space Flight Operations Center
> Jet Propulsion Laboratory MS 301/250D, Pasadena, CA 91109
How right you are! I have been bombed, strafed, shelled, sniped and
machine gunned by people on my own side, and probably have been guilty
of similar lapses myself (although I can't say that I ever became
aware of having done so!). These things are inevitable in war; it is
not so neat and clear as most people not involved would like to think,
and the usual idea, when in doubt, is to shoot first, and ask
questions later. Otherwise, if you guess wrong, and it is the enemy,
you may not get a chance to shoot at all!
Lest you get the wrong idea, let me say that those events were the
exception, not the rule, and usually we were taking legitimate fire
from the enemy, and putting our fire on them, and not just shooting
without any thought of who or what the target was. But they did
happen, and people did get killed as a result. Just an occupational
hazard.
don@opal.berkeley.edu
Don Curry
Computer Facilities & Communications,
University of California,
Berkeley CA 94720 (415) 642-0587
"Dh' aindeoin co theireadh e!"
------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed 24 Jun 87 11:33:44-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re:RE:Statistical Discrimination
To: TCS@ECLA.USC.EDU
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@ECLA.USC.EDU>
Assumtion 1) It has been demonstrated that Group A statistically
does better at task X than Group B
Assumtion 2) Screening potential employees costs time and money
Assumtion 3) A company needs to hire some people to do task X
Assumtion 4) The company has a moral/legal obligation to it's
owners/shareholdes to maximize profits by not
wasting money.
Well to illustrate how ridiculous your assumptions (note spelling)
are, let's do the following. Fact: Japanese and West German workers
are more productive than our factory boys. So your conclusion would
be that companies would have hired a lot of Japanese and/or West
German workers. See the point? That is, imperfections in your
assumptions (after all we are all imperfect human beings trying to
come up with the perfect solution), in this case you ignored (among
other things) the cost of hiring someone knowing that that someone is
the most qualified. Also the set of experienced workers would fit
group A very well. By your argument, there would no need to hire new
inexperienced workers. You also ignore the effect of time i.e. the
actual members forming group A may change or that the business
environment may change as a result of group B getting too large (e.g.
higher birth rates). By then maximizing profits may mean doing
unusual things (i.e. wasting money under a different set of
circumstances) like moving out or investing in training or social
programs.
Regarding assumption 4, have you read the Businessweek lately?
Especially about the lack of say of shareholders in awarding golden
parachutes? Very often such parachutes are the result of power
struggles (e.g. personality conflicts, ego fights involving a
powerful few (sounds familiar? hint: concentration of power) and not
the shareholders at large) at the top of the company rather than due
to fulfilling the "moral/legal obligation to maximize profits by not
wasting money."
Well, while we are at this (statistical discrimination), let me quote
(I have to quote to minimize the potential of emotional reaction from
misinterpretation) from Sowell's book "The Economics and Politics of
Race." (Remember that Sowell is a conservative.)
2nd and 3rd paragraphs, page 146:
"The notion that some groups cannot be educated and are useful only as
`hewers of wood and drawers of water' was rejected even by the leading
contemporary proponent of genetic differences in intelligence, Arthur
Jensen. Jensen's original 1969 article that began the current
controversy argued that the academic efficiencies of disadvantaged
schoolchildren were unnecessary, and could be corrected by using
different methods, even if such methods had no effect on their I.Q.
scores. Other scholars' research has suggested that I.Q. scores can
also be substantially affected by environment---without claiming that
the tests are therefore invalid or irrelevant. For example, black
orphans raised by white families in the United States have I.Q.s at or
above the national average. Moreover, many European groups living in
cultural isolation---whether in Europe or the United States---have had
I.Q. scores as low as (or lower than) those of blacks---and those
groups who rose socio-economically in the United States also had their
I.Q.s rise substantially, even when there was very little
intermarriage to change their genetic makeup. Moreover, even at a
given time, there is considerable variation in I.Q. scores across a
wide spectrum within each group, and considerable overlap between
groups (though, unfortunately, the technical definition of `overlap'
in the psychometric literature greatly understates this).
In short, the issue is not whether some groups' children are
unteachable, nor whether some group lacks highly intelligent
individuals, but is about averages and their interpretation.
Historical data indicate that these group averages themselves can
change by large amounts over time. Jewish soldiers in the U.S. Army
during World War I scored so low on mental tests that a leading
authority considered this evidence to `disprove the popular belief
that the Jew is highly intelligent.' But just as the Jews rose
spectacularly in the economic sphere so did their mental test scores,
which now exceed the U.S. national average. Other groups, such as
Polish Americans and Italian Americans now have I.Q. scores at or
above the national average of 100, even though their scores were
usually in the low- to mid-80s back around World War I.
Internationally, the average I.Q. in Japan has risen by about seven
points in one generation, and is today the highest of any nation."
Second paragraph, page 196:
"All that is unique about our times is the extent to which we ignore
earlier times, and regard our racial or ethnic differences as
unprecedented. In reality, today's intergroup differences are not
only smaller than in the past, but are continuing to narrow. The
proportion of high school dropouts among blacks was twice as high as
among whites in 1967, but this ratio is nowhere near the differences
between the Germans and the Irish in the early part of the century.
Moreover, by 1972 the black dropout rate was only 66 percent higher
than among the whites."
Anybody havae a problem with that?
See the problems with statistical discrimination?
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 87 02:09:57 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Socialism
To: psivax!seamus@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
> From: psivax!seamus@seismo.css.gov (Jim Garrison)
> There are no socialist countries with a decent standard of living??
> ... What about Sweden? ... its per capita income (1980) was $14,281
> vs only $11,675 for the US (1983)
I believe that was before taxes. The ratio would proabably be
reversed after taxes. Sweden is a mixed economy, same as the US. How
much is due to socialism, and how much to capitalism? The best way to
find out is to look at purely socialist countries. Why aren't you
willing to do so? The answer is obvious.
> Do you not consider a public health service which provides health
> care to EVERYONE to be "decent" enough for you?
But it doesn't. If a sufficiently old or un-useful person needs a
major operation, he won't get it. He will be left to die. And there
are no private clinics to turn to. Everyone gets the same service.
Except the elite. They go to special clinics. Or get treatment in
other countries.
And what about the doctors? What if they don't wish to work for the
state? What if they want to specialize in something the state does
not approve of?
And what about the medical insurance companies? What right does the
state have to expropriate their business?
In the US, everyone has access to medical care, of the quality and
quantity he chooses. He can opt out entirely, or choose any level of
medical insurance provided by any company of his choice. It's not
totally free market. Prices have been driven out of sight by
government subsidies and by excesive lawsuits. All doctors must be
licensed by the state. But it is light years ahead of what any
European country has. When is the last time you heard of any medical
breakthrough from Sweden?
> I will not repeat your attempt to discredit socialism by association
> with Hitler as I found it offensive.
You repudiate those who call themselves socialist and practice
socialism consistently. You accept only those who are mixed
economies, and only by ignoring the more unpleasant details.
The only difference between Hitler's National Socialism and Marx's
International Socialism is whether all races or only some races are to
be included. Since I don't particularly care whether I am enslaved or
simply murdered, the difference is moot.
Here are some quotes:
1) "This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to
the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for
every truly human culture ... The basic attitude from which such
activity arises, we call - to distinguish it from egoism and
selfishness, idealism. By this we understand the individual's
capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow
men."
2) "Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of
many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action
of all members of society, can it be set in motion."
3) "Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary
barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of
devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of substinence;
industy and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there
is too much civilization, too much means of substinence, too much
industry, too much commerce."
4) "All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are
daily being destroyed. They are disloged by new industries, whose
introduction becomes a life and death question ..."
Which German socialists wrote which? Can you tell which is Marx and
which is Hitler?
> The view of a symmetrical relationship between employer and employee
> is absurd. Almost without exception Labor Theory Economists reject
> such claims of symmetry.
And I reject Labor Theory Economists. THEY are absurd.
Unemployment is six percent. Unfilled jobs are eight percent.
Actually, unemployment is lower, since many employed people are
officially unemployed, for tax purposes.
> The resources available to an average firm are much greater than
> those available to the average worker.
Irrelevant. They need to find N workers. Your need to find only 1
job.
> If I leave my company they will survive.
More companies fail than individuals starve.
> The company I work at can go longer without replacing me than I can
> last without an income.
Then you aren't saving enough of your income. I'll bet I can go
longer without an income than my company can go without replacing me.
Not that it matters, since neither of us would have any real problem
finding a new company/employee.
> The worst consequences are investors losing money for the firm
> compared with a worker starving without money to buy food. Death
> vs. a loss of money is NOT symmetrical
You have "loss of money" on both sides of your equation. On one side
but not the other, you arbitrarily assume he will starve.
> I don't know if the original poster has read the referenced book. I
> read it. It was garbage. It would serve well as a case study for a
> class in rhetoric or propaganda. It had more distortions of the
> truth, flawed logic and deliberately misleading "lines of reasoning"
> than any other published work I have ever encountered.
Have you anything specific to say against it? How about some page
numbers and quotes, instead of this "I just don't like it and you
can't make me" tantrum.
...Keith
------------------------------
From: jim@epistemi.UUCP (Jim Scobbie)
Subject: Re: Soviet history
Date: 19 Jun 87 12:15:42 GMT
> If the
> ruling powers in the U.S. have so much control over the media, how is
> it we find out all these awful things about ourselves? How is they
> permit history books that show the US in a bad light? How is it we
> find out about the Iran/Contra fiasco? Watergate? CIA excesses? FBI
> excesses? Vietnam war excesses? Jim Bakker's (amazing) excesses?
And what makes you think that you *do* find out all there is to know?
Irangate seems to be the bore of the year - funny that. I expect the
greatest democracy in the world just couldn't stand another scandal at
the top.
jim s
ps do you lot still sing national anthems with the ol' hand on the
heart from the age dot under the stars and stripes? Not that I'm
insinuating any responsibility-free loyalty to the mother country, or
anything.
--
Jim Scobbie: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh University,
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND
UUCP: ...!ukc!cstvax!epistemi!jim
JANET: jim@uk.ac.ed.epistemi
[ Do you lot still wage religious wars against the Irish? Not that
I'm insinuating that I don't have a little Irish blood in me... :-)
In any case, I expect that any series of scandals involving any series
of Presidents would not 'bring down' the United States. -CWM ]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Monday, 20 Jul 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 92
Today's Topics:
Discrimination &
Socialism &
History
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed 24 Jun 87 15:22:02-EDT
From: Willie Lim < WLIM@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Discrimination
To: pyramid!ubvax!frank@AMES.ARPA
From: ubvax!frank@ames (Frank Warren)
Keith is arguing for less government for precisely the reason that
power tends to be abused to gratify or satisfy those who govern,
their private beliefs and passions.
One does not need a massive government to have discrimination by
government officials acting on their individual beliefs. It just
takes a few individuals acting out their beliefs against a few other
individuals. Is abusing the rights of a few individuals by state
officials acting on their own personal beliefs ok? How can you then
guarantee the protection of individual rights?
At least this is what I have understood him (Keith) to be saying,
to be arguing for less centralization and less massive power.
My point is not how much or how little power should the government
have but how government (however minimal) should be controlled. Even
if we were to have a minimal government as proposed by libertarians,
there is still the potential of the military or the police becoming a
problem. (-: Groups of soldiers are more effective tools for mass
murders than mobs of politicians or civilians. :-)
The more free a people are, the less they are -- and the less they
can be -- subjected to massive external force. Would we have
atomic weapons and the threat of the genocide of the entire race
without massive government power structures? Who else has ever
built such weapons?
Weren't weapons built as a result of carrying out a legitimate
function of government i.e. national defense? If so, then you are
saying that we can't have these weapons (and hence "effective"
defense) without massive government power structures. If not, then
how can a people prevent themselves from being "subjected to massive
external (i.e. foreign) force"? Perhaps you can tell me if the US
government has ever claimed to build weapons specifically for
oppressing people and not for national defense.
The great evils you are against provide much strength for Keith's
point of view.
Let me just state this: arguing against a ban on swimming to prevent
drowning doesn't mean arguing for drowning. Isn't learning how to
swim an option too? Seeking a careful diagnosis of the problem is
another alternative. Experimentation (e.g. starting a libertarian
colony) is another option. (-: One good experiment is worth a thousand
flames. :-)
Distribute power, decentralize it, keep the structures small, and
the money, organization and numbers it takes to systematically
oppress people tends to disappear.
Sounds great when it comes to controlling the civilian government.
Have you any suggestion on how the tools of oppression i.e. the
military and the police can be controlled without making them
ineffective for national defense or the preservation of law and order?
How many Lt. Colonels does it take to have a coup? How many generals
does it take to commit geonocide? How many policemen does it take to
commit a crime? I have yet to hear a convincing argument in this
direction.
Willie
------------------------------
Return-path: < moss!ihlpa!doit@RUTGERS.EDU>
From: moss!ihlpa!doit@RUTGERS.EDU (Roeseler)
Subject: Re: Socialism
Date: 26 Jun 87 03:35:44 GMT
tedrick@ERNIE.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:
> [...]
> Communism claims to be a system guided by ethics, but in fact that
> is just propaganda aimed at manipulating the behavior of the
> masses. If the masses believe that the government is motivated
> by ethical considerations, they are more likely to remain passively
> obediant.
> [...]
>
> [...]
> Under communism all the workers are slaves to the power elite.
> [...]
>
> [...]
> Communism is really the ultimate form of monopoly capitalism.
> There is only one corporation that owns everyone and everything in
> the country. There is only one employer, the state.
> [...]
I wonder whether you talk about *pure communism/socialism*
according to Marx or the current form of communism that one
finds in the USSR today?
The above statements describe the state of affairs in
the Soviet Union/Communist countries. However, one would more
accurately define their political system as *State Capitalism*
rather than *Communism* as it was envisioned by Marx and
Engels.
I think there is little disagreement that the political system in the
USSR is intolerable in terms of its neglection of human rights.
Nevertheless, socialism is a real historical alternative to
capitalism. Unfortunately, the industrialized countries have accepted
Moscow's propagandistic claim and have come to believe that Marx's
philosophy corresponds to the Russian view and practice. Marx's
critics correctly point out that he (Marx) failed to see that a
bureaucratic system, totally controlling individuals, could emerge as
an alternative to socialism.
More fundamentally, however, the western way of life is still
challenged by Marx's "Historical Materialism." Specifically, the
theory of *alienated labor* and the resulting need for
*private property* is ignored in the West. In fact, freedom is
primarily defined in economic terms and therefore compromised
by the economic *reality.* On the contrary, Marx's concept of
man is aimed at the *full development of the individual
personality.* He is concerned with the liberation of man from
*a kind of work which destroys his individuality, which
transforms him into a thing, and which makes him into a slave of
things." (From "The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts").
The idea of a *soulless* person, an all-powerful state
bureaucracy, and people who have surrendered their freedom is
totally alien to Marx. His philosophy represents a protest
against the dehumanization and automatization of man. The
distortion and ignorance of his theories in the western world is
unnecessary -- especially in the light of unlimited access to
his original writings.
--
Armin Roeseler ...ihnp4!ihlpa!doit
------------------------------
Return-path: < kent@xanth>
From: kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Kent Paul Dolan)
Subject: Re: History lessons...
Date: 24 Jun 87 19:57:15 GMT
Reply-to: kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Kent Paul Dolan)
There are probably 100 people lined up around me trying to type fast
enough to flame this guy, but an opportunity like this one is still
too ripe to pass up. It's hard to believe a mind could be this
clouded and still allow the owner to post an article. Miracles
surround us every day. Flaming the handicapped is just a weakness of
mine, I know. At least I'm not given to sachrine and insincere
politeness. ;-)
kirk@UWM-CS.MILW.WISC.EDU ("Kirk Augustin") writes:
> After viewing all the lessons of history I am surprized that people
^^^^^^^^^
> still don't recognize the enemy.
Boy are we about to get a lesson in not reading history...read on!
> Greece might still be forested and
> fertile if a few greedy people hadn't sent all the trees to the
> bottom of the mediterranean in the form of trireams.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
Present examples show in India that hunger for firewood, and
in Brazil the urge to turn forest to farmland, is enough to
denude a country of trees. The way I read the story, the
Greeks accomplished it by raising goats, who not only eat the
grass, but pull it up and eat the roots so it can't grow back,
and also debark and girdle trees. This is the same flock of
goats that gave us the Saraha desert. I didn't realize these
goats used the wood to build boats! ;-)
> Whether there is
> mathematical symetry to the cycle or not, there are those that profit
^^^^^^^
> from war and will be agitating for it whenever they can.
The words are the words of English, but what are these two
thoughts (thoughts ?) doing in the same sentence?
> After a
> particularly bloody one like WWI they have to wait alittle longer to
> be successful, but they always are because people are so easily
> manipulated.
I guess this is an Arms of Krupp reprise?
> Even you raise to the call of "journalistic integrety",
^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
> but think about it.
I can't even make it into a sentence. Was that "raise", or
"rise to"? Is there an English term for nonsequiture?
How about follow the bouncing thoughts?
> A good war sells alot of newspapers.
We seem to sell a great plenty in peacetime, too.
> I am not
> trying to excuse the USSR for their transgressions, I am trying to
> point out that their actions seem more reasonable to them than our
> actions seem to me.
Who's this "them"? Most of the country is fed government
approved news. Private publishing is a crime! Probably most
of the populace has no idea what their country has been doing,
and of course, the ones that approve the news are in favor of
murdering the innocent; they have Stalin's example to go by,
who made even Hitler look like a piker.
> We have a double standard that is bound to start
> another war.
Yeah. We don't want to be taken over like Czechoslovokia,
Roumania, Hungary, West Germany, Albania, Latvia, Lithuania,
Estonia, Poland, China, Viet Nam, Cambodia, North Korea, and
many other sovereign nations taken in bloody conquest by the
communists since 1917. The old double standard; we don't go
out and act like they do.
> The KAL 007 flight could not cause a war alone, but it
> could be a start.
Incidents much less traumatic than the senseless murder of
hundreds of innocent civilians have started wars in the past.
Only the threat of world destruction allows the communists to
commit such attrocities today.
> Fortunately it wasn't but we must never allow
> something like that to happen again.
Oh, I agree, but not the way you mean it. I'd go for one city
for each airplane, in the future. You wouldn't want me for
president.
> There are only 2 facts we need to even consider when evaluating the
> incident.
Just "massacre" would be enough for normal people.
> 1)Failure to follow
> even the simplist of flight rules over restricted bases will
> being shot down in any country in the world.
Not really, and it seems that the entire Soviet Union must be
considered a "restricted base", for this argument to pertain.
> 2)Our government must be
> withholding information on the incident from the public because of
> the presence of NORAD, etc.
When you have no idea what in the owrld is going on, its _so
nice_ to just invent a big conspiracy/coverup to make it seem
like smug little you is granted information (by clairvoyance,
perhaps?) that all the free world's press couldn't find. You
notice, in this country, when the scent of scandal is in the
air, and there are facts to back it up, we have public
hearings for weeks on end to root out every last bit of
subterfuge. You think a country that would allow a Watergate
or an Iran-Contra affair to fill the public press and make the
presidents involved look like fools or criminals has any power
to hide its secrets? Then why aren't these powers being used
right now? If you paid attention to ANY of the evidence
around you every day, you'd realize this is the most open
system of government in the world.
> In my mind the emeny is clear.
^^^^^
If it is, that's the only thing.
> When you
> withhold information from the public and make inflamatory speeches
> you are trying to prevent democracy from working.
If anybody in government could see any way to withhold
information from the United states press corps, believe me,
they would have started using it long ago.
No, the right to make inflamatory speeches is part of what
democracy's all about. Check out that old first amendment
again.
> This can never be
> permitted if we value our freedom.
If we stop permitting speeches with which we disagree, we have
lost our freedom immediately.
> People who know better must speak
> out or there will continue to be Hitlers in the future.
"People who know better" should indeed. How come we get you,
instead?
> The USSR may have a totally corrupt government,
Nah. pick up one of those history books you were claiming to
have read, and check out Vlad the impaler. the USSR rates 5
on a scale of 100 where that kind of corruption ahs to fit the
same scale.
> but we are the ones keeping them in power.
Nope. "Any people has the government its people deserve." As
long as her sons will serve in an army whose main task is to
oppress her own people, Mother Russia has just what she
deserves.
> Without all our saber rattling how long do you think the
> soviet people would put up with food lines?
Well, the ones who objected in Poland, Czechoslovokia, and
Hungary wanted a bit more than shorter bread lines. The
Soviets seemed to be quite capable of killing and
incarcerating enough of them to make food lines seems the
lesser evil, without our help.
Please go _read_ some history, before lecturing the rest of us
on our failings in historical perspective. Then, go take a
few creative writing classes, so you can manage to arrange
your thoughts into some coherent, readable ensemble of words,
sentences, and paragraphs with a clearly identifiable flow of
thought. Then, try some political science classes, so you
have some understanding of your subject matter. Last, upgrade
your sources from the National Enquirer. Then come back and
lecture to your heart's content on that evil, conspiratorial
enemy, the US government.
It is just amazing how fuzzy political thinking so often
carries over into wordcraft, as just plain fuzzy thinking. Or
perhaps the causal relationship is the other direction.
Kent.
--
Kent Paul Dolan, LCDR, NOAA, Retired; ODU MSCS grad student
UUCP : kent@xanth.UUCP or ...{sun,harvard}!xanth!kent
CSNET : kent@odu.csnet ARPA : kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu
USPost: P.O. Box 1559, Norfolk, Virginia 23501-1559
Voice : (804) 587-7760 -=][> Last one to Ceres is a rotten egg! -=][>
// Yet
// Another
\\ // Happy
\\// Amigan!
Voluntary C coding is a form of auto-flagellation.
[ Of course, it is East Germany that was conquered by the Russians
- CWM]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Sunday, 26 Jul 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 93
Today's Topics:
India and Dhimma &
Right and Wrong &
Sovereignty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < @po2.andrew.cmu.edu:sohan+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 87 15:53:18 edt
From: sohan+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai)
Subject: Re: Dhimma, its history, religious tolerance etc.
where after defending Dhimma in its historical context, Ali
Minai writes:
While equality
seems to be very desirable thing to our Western-oriented
minds, it can be assigned other interpretations which would
lead to a very different list of "basic human rights" than the
current one.
Could you elaborate on that one, Ali?
I agree entirely that
under the mores and attitudes of contemporary civilization, a
concept like dhimma is both impractical and unnecessary, which
is why it is no longer practiced. I have little sympathy for
reactionary regimes like Iran, but do recognize that they have
a right to exist. It seems that most people are unwilling to
make this concession----a fact which marks our time and our
age as a far from tolerant one.
Despite his ignorance of some aspects of history, which have led him
to certain wrong conclusions, Ali should be praised for the
open-mindedness (relative) he has exhibited. But tolerance and
open-mindedness are not to be stretched to the extent that intolerance
and narrow-mindedness are to be accepted and tolerated. I am referring
to Ali's recognition of the right to exist of regimes which do not
respect the life and liberty of its citizens - let me say,
inhabitants. In this respect, our time and age could be considered
intolerant -- of intolerance.
And finally, since sci-netters demand some relevance to India - lemma
tell you Ali Minai, it is probable that you are of Indian Hindu
origin. If so, it is very likely that the people whose practices you
defend are the very same people who forced your ancestors to convert
to Islam (through physical or economic violence), robbed their temples
and then razed them to the ground. Of course, your ancestors' loss of
prayer houses was compensated for by the building of prayer houses for
their new religion, frequently at the same old spot for convenience,
so maybe I shouldn't count that against them. In that context, I can
only admire your open-mindedness in defending those same people who
harassed your ancestors.
___
Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai
P.S. This is being cross-posted to talk.politics.misc too, with the
idea of phasing it out of soc.culture.indian, if/when necessary.
------------------------------
Return-path: < @wiscvm.wisc.edu:BJWOPERA@TAMSIGMA.BITNET>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 87 13:31 CDT
From: < BJWOPERA%TAMSIGMA.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject: The reality of right and wrong
> Right and wrong, guilt and salvation and honor and love exist only
> in your own mind and in the minds of others -- they do not have
> real existence.
The acknowlegement that these concepts exist in the "mind" but don't
have "real" existence is a telling reflection of the belief in a
mind/body dualistic universe. I reject this premise. The living
being is a functioning organism. The body and the mind are aspects of
that functioning. They are not separable "things". Therefore, the
assumption that ideas are not "real" is unfounded.
I believe my ideas are largely in line with the quoted author despite
my first paragraph. I propose the following. Good and evil have
nothing to do with absolutes in nature. Good and bad do not describe,
in terms of an ultimate natural moral code, any aspect of human
behavior. Pollution, murder, altruism, and cuddling have no goodness
or badness inherent to them in the sense that infrared light is
inherent to the heat of a fire. We have these concepts confused when
we talk in absolutist terms.
However, this does not mean that good and bad are meaningless. They
come to have meaning when living beings become aware of their ability
to influence their surroundings and their ability to decide how to
influence those surroundings. Those surroudings include the other
beings and all matter and energy. Good is a quality of the acts,
thoughts, etc. which preserve the functioning of the organism and the
functioning of those organisms to which the acting organism considers
its interests to be bound. Bad is the quality which leads to a
cessation of the functioning.
The "function" of living is very complex. This function can be
hindered and helped in many ways. Thus, there are many degrees of
good and bad. Also, there is considerable confusion when the beings
take up a consideration of good and bad because there are many
perceptions of what serves the purpose of the continuing function of
life well and what serves it poorly.
I point this out to agree with the writer that the concepts of good
and bad are in us rather than external to us in the sense that they
come to be with life. This is because conscious life considers itself
worthy of preservation. Why this last fact is so is utterly beyond my
comprehension but I certainly feel it. I just don't have any basis
for its explanation since I don't turn to the supernatural realm.
> What I am proposing is not that anyone is "wrong" but, rather,
> that the ideational complex may be just that -- too complex. The
> world survives fine without many complicated ideas. It got here
> without them, runs without them and has always run best when left
> to its own devices.
Here the writer says that nobody is "wrong" but that our ideas are
"too complex" (for our own good I suppose). I would point out that
[overly complex] = [wrong] in my mind. We are too complex for what?
If over complexity isn't wrong what is it? I agree that we are overly
complex. I say this because I believe our complexity may well be
detrimental to survival. Therefore, I am willing to say that some
ideas are wrong because of their complexity.
NOTE: This submission of mine is exempt from the last paragraph :-)
> Those who propose extensive controls are too taken with the idea
> that man possesses power which is, frankly -- and thankfully,
> beyond his grasp.
Finally, a point of utter agreement. I want it to be clear that I
have written this to agree with the original author on most points. I
would only point out that "good" and "bad" have real meaning. Just
because that meaning is not rooted in the universe (at least as far as
we know) in the same sense as our understanding of quantum theory does
not mean that the concepts are to be dismissed. They have meaning
because underneath all this lies that inexplicable (to me) desire for
life to continue functioning.
thanks for the forum
brendan wyly
bjwoperator@tamsigma.bitnet
bjw6278@tamvenus.bitnet
------------------------------
Return-path: < TCS@ECLA.USC.EDU>
Date: Fri 26 Jun 87 16:06:18-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@ECLA.USC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Poli-Sci Digest V7 #77
To: Keith and list
Subj: Sovereignty
(Note--I have altered the order somewhat for clarity of my
response)
> I don't agree with your terminology. Sovereignty is not something
> that is attached to a piece of land like minerals are. Sovereignty
> is something each individual has. It is inalienable, meaning that it
> cannot be traded, sold, overruled by majority vote, or otherwise
> lost.
I'm following common usage and the dictionary by defining
sovereignty as the power to control what goes on in a particular
area. From Webster:
"1)Supremacy in rule or power 2)power to govern
without external control 3) The supreme political power in a
state."
This fairly clearly is meant to apply to actions within
an area, not a cosmic characteristic of individuals. So, when the
government retains sovereignty rights, they retain the "supreme
political power" to decide what happens in an area (eg the
property you buy). In fact, sovereignty is sometimes explicitly
traded, often for cash, between governments. The implied contract
that you buy into by continuing to live in the US (or any nation,
for that matter) is truly enormous.
> > When you purchase a property, you generally do NOT purchase
> > the mineral rights. Similarly, in this country, when you purchase a
> > property you do NOT purchase the "sovereignty" rights.
> No, of course not. In fact I recently had this very argument (not on
> this list) with someone who was trying to convince me that murder
> should be legal within a private house unless there is a house rule
> against it.
>
> The question is not whether government can establish any laws which
> apply on private property. They can. The question is what those
> laws can be.
See above. By retaining sovereignty, and you buying into
the contract by remaining, the government can pass essentially
whatever laws it pleases (although there are always practical
limits to what can be enforced and what people will tolerate).
> If a government owns land, it can set whatever rules from that land
> that the majority of citizens decide on. But these rules do not
> apply after the land is sold.
You missed the point. The vast majority of sales are
limited sales, and include neither mineral nor sovereignty
rights. The government sells the land EXCLUDING the sovereignty
rights.
> > The only requirement, then, is that the government must
> > allow you freedom of exit from the country if you choose not to
> > abide by the terms in effect when you become an adult ...
> > The fact that all other available areas may be even less
> > to your liking may be unfortunate, but has no moral content.
> No, government's only power is to protect the rights of its citizens.
> It has no other power at all.
I assume you meant the government's "only right" or "only PROPER
power". The government in fact has a great deal more POWER than
that. And "proper", of course, is subject to debate (see below).
> > I maintain that morality is fundamentally untestable.
> If this were true then there would be nothing fundamentally wrong
> with gouging out a child's eyes. The person who does this could
> simply say he has a different morality than we do.
That is essentially correct (To avoid a possible side-flame, my
PERSONAL morality would prohibit this!).
> And if we were to punish him, our punishment would be just
> as arbitrary as his crime.
Well, "arbitrary" is a curious word here. This
hypothetical child-maiming scum-bag has one view of the world,
and our society has another. The rules in our society say (or
actually, SHOULD say, in my view. They don't really) that if you
do nasty things like that, you're history. If someone does it, we
waste them. Sounds pretty consistent to me. We can't justify our
actions by passing the buck to some higher authority (God,
"absolute" morality, whatever), which means (gasp!) that we have
to take responsibility for our own actions! I have a sense of
right that I believe in (very close to yours, I suspect), and my
conscience does not require external supports to defend my
concept of what is right. The outcome in a conflict of rights is
determined by superior power (which includes persuasion,
knowledge, etc, not just brute firepower). It would be nice if
there were some cosmic referee, but I have yet to see EVIDENCE
(as opposed to assertions) that such a force exists. It's not
emotionally satisfying -- the quest for certainty is the primary
reason people create/turn to religions. Your "absolute morality"
is a religion (Webster:religion: 4) A cause, principle, or belief
held to with faith and ardor).
> If this were true, World War II was pointless, since Hitler had
> a perfect right to invade other countries and massacre millions
> of innocent people.
Not pointless at all -- we were defending our view of the world
against a child-maiming scum-bag. WE did not grant him the right
you suggest.
> I believe there IS a true morality, and it consists of
> interacting with others only voluntarily.
This is my PERSONAL morality as well, but I do not claim divine
status for it.
> I believe that people such as Falwell who have besmirched
> the concept of morality with pointless platitudes and
> innumerable senseless arbitary rules of conduct have done
> more damage than any number of Charles Mansons or Ted Bundys.
I agree that he is dangerous, but we all chose our "concept of
morality". I just happen to think Falwell's sucks, and I will
resist his attempts to impose it on me or others.
> > The quest for certainty in life is doomed to failure -- even in
> > physics.
> Wrong. While theories in physics may change, reality remains the
> same.
I apologize--my initial comment was sufficiently incomplete that
the point was lost (except, perhaps, to some physicists or
philosophers in the audience). The Uncertainty Principle in
physics states (generally) that you can't know a particle's
position and momentum at the same time. If you know where it is
(was), you don't know where it's going (is). REALITY IS NOT
FIXED. It is influenced by the eye of the beholder. The closest
thing you get to certainty are reliable probabilites, which are
good enough for almost everything, except emotional satisfaction.
As a side comment, how can you be certain that you are not in
fact a brain in a vat, with all of the "reality" around you
simply a set of stimuli fed to you by members of a communist
society, trying to root out possible individualistic ideas before
they have to deal with them in the "real" world? I concede that
data indicate that this is highly unlikely, but if the whole data
set is NFG -- can you be CERTAIN?
Certainty is a hopeless quest, and does not represent the "real"
world (I assert). Personally, I have come to terms with
probabilities.
> No possible discovery will cause it to be possible to survive
> without water, etc.
Not true, actually. Silcon/Sulphur life forms have been
postulated, and the chemical properties seem to work. No obvious
need for water. We haven't SEEN any yet, but the universe is a
big place......
I look forward to your comments!
TCS
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Saturday, 8 Aug 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 94
Today's Topics:
Civilian Defense &
Discrimination &
Socialism &
History
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < @wiscvm.wisc.edu:BJWOPERA@TAMSIGMA.BITNET>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 87 15:15 CDT
From: < BJWOPERA%TAMSIGMA.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject: Civilian defense (request for references)
I am interested in the subject of civilian defense as an alternative
to a military defense which relies on technology to defend territory
and inflict physical damage on the agressor. Civilian defense is the
concept of nonviolent resistance to overcome the ability to rule which
is imposed by external invaders or internal usurpers. This concept
relies heavily on the notion of defending a society rather than the
traditional approach of defending territory which is an indirect
approach to defending the society.
If anybody has any suggestions of articles or books on this subject I
would be most appreciative. I am aware of some of the work done by
Gene Sharp in this area. Any other suggestions would be most helpful.
Please, reply directly to me and I will summarize for the net if there
is sufficient input.
Also, it would make an interesting idea to toss around among ourselves
perhaps. So consider this a "call to discussion" of the subject as
well.
thanks
brendan wyly
bjw6278@tamvenus.bitnet
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 87 18:19:26 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Discrimination
To: TCS@ECLA.USC.EDU
> From: Terry C. Savage < TCS@ECLA.USC.EDU>
>
> Assumtion 1) It has been demonstarted that Group A statistically
> does better at task X than Group B
>
> Assumtion 2) Screening potential employees costs time and money
>
> Assumtion 3) A company needs to hire some people to do task X
>
> Assumtion 4) The company has a moral/legal obligation to it's
> owners/shareholdes to maximize profits by not
> wasting money.
>
> Conclusion: The company is morrally obligated to only interview
> from Group A in order to minimize hiring costs
> and maximize profits.
I disagree. For one thing no company is morally obligated to do
anything other than refrain from violating individual rights (by which
I mean they cannot murder, steal, or defraud).
It costs something to ascertain an individual's skills. But not so
much that the effort of interviewing people in group B will not be
paid for many times over by the work of the people in group B who are
found able to do the work.
If people in group B are willing to work for $1000 less a year, and,
if hired, work for the company for an avergae of five years, then the
benefit to the company of hiring a B rather than an A is $5000. If an
interview and followup sufficient to determine if a B is competent
costs the company $100, then it will be profitable to conduct the
interview if the chance of competence is more than 2% (given that it
costs nothing to judge the competence of an A, and given that members
of A also work an average of five years).
Alternatively, companies could simply charge for the interview. Just
as companies that require urine tests for employment generally require
the potential employee to pay for the urine test himself.
If the job is with a government contractor, this may not work. Many
government agencies require that only group A people be bid on a task,
regardless of competence (here, group A is college graduates). This
should of course change.
Please CC any responses to me, since this list is running way behind
again.
...Keith
------------------------------
From: lk@m-net.UUCP (Leeron Kopelman)
Subject: Re: Socialism
Date: 30 Jun 87 11:01:21 GMT
Reply-to: lk@m-net.UUCP (Leeron Kopelman)
To paraphrase Winston Chuchill: 'Democracy is the worst form of
government, except for all the others.'
"Mutual aid", such as the neighborly help given in raising a barn, is
just that, "mutual aid", and is a far cry from "communism".
Modern day examples of "Mutual Aid" would be the Amish and the Israeli
"Moshav", a type of settlement which is distinctly different from the
"Kibbutz".
------------------------------
Date: 28 Jun 87 23:29:50 EDT
From: Charles < MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Soviet history
To: kirk@UWM-CS.MILW.WISC.EDU
[Sorry this took so long to reply to. Its been a busy month! - CWM]
I realize that some people feel strongly about politics but I
have never seen a response so rude or superficial. You have
totally ignored everything I said and conceded nothing.
I refuse to get angry, but you're tempting me. If its rude and
superficial not to agree with you, then I'm guilty on both counts.
Sorry about that. I just don't plain agree with your interpretation
of political reality, and since you picked examples of history to
back up your points, I argued against their validity.
My debating skill or recall of facts is unimportant if I can
help you imagine what the world looks like from another
person's eyes.
This is silly. If I couldn't see how you view the world, why on earth
would I bother to argue with you? You seem to presume that your view
is obviously the view of all rational people, and therefore anyone who
argues with you is obviously shallow. A bad attitude, in my opinion.
If I didn't respect your opinion, I would not have bothered to reply
at all. As a matter of fact, I was enjoying this debate rather a lot,
until now, anyway.
Since you did not list objections to everything I assume you
must have agreed occasionally but were unwilling to admit it
so that the conversation could go no farther.
...sigh. Sorry, no, it doesn't mean that. I wasn't aware I was
required to argue everything. I argued the things that interested me
most. You'll have to make do with that, but please don't start making
assumptions about what I beleive.
If you had been actually trying to understand my viewpoint,
you would have known that I believe that the beauracracy of
the political parties and the profit motivation of the press
is effective censorship.
...yes, I quite understand you belief. However, just because you hold
that view does not mean that I hold that view. I was offering a
counter-argument.
Look at Vietnam; hundreds of kids had to get their heads
bashed in before the adults at the Chicago convention decided
that a change in policy might be a good idea.
... in point of fact, most of the delegates at the Chicago convention
chose to support the Johnson war policy (adopted somewhat reluctantly
by Humphrey), and it became part of the Democratic platform, and what
Humphrey ran on.
Don't make fun of this view by saying I believe in some
conspiracy between the press and the government.
... please don't let's start trying to pre-empt each other's
arguements. It doesn't help.
Can't you see that it is wrong for the press to only act after
kids are getting clubed in the street. Just because they sell
papers just as well with clubed kids as war shots doesn't mean
that the watchdog press idea really works
Please go back and look at the press coverage of and after the Tet
offensive (predating the democratic convention). In fact, the press
as a whole had reservations about the war at that point, and even
before, which showed up in their coverage. You speak (again) with the
benefit of hindsight, in effect saying, "well, the press *should* have
said this, the people *should* have thought this". At the time,
correct answers were hard to find. There are historians who will tell
you that it took Tet, the realization that victory would not come
easily or soon to convince a majority of the people that the war
should end, and that the press was leading that view. Decidedly, this
was not the government's view.
I see the role of the press vis-a-vis government as essentially
advisarial, and so does most of the press and most of the government.
If its a vast conspiracy, why do they feel this way?
...but between open minded people it should not be necessary
and I don't have time for it.
Here it is again. I don't agree with you, therefore I am
closed-minded. Heavy sigh. Now, on to the fun stuff.
The zero was probably the smallest plane of the war and could
carry very little in way of bombs.
... since they were fighter planes, its not suprising they didn't
carry many bombs. The japanese employed an assortment of dive-,
level- and torpedo-bombers to sink ships and deliver bombs. Zeros
were not the smallest planes (or even the smallest fighter) of the
war, the Japanese, British, Italians and Russians made smaller ones
(the Oscar, Gladiator, Cr-42, and I36 respectively come to mind, and
I'm sure I could find more if I tried). Here's an example of why I
argue with your facts. You make statements about how insigificant the
Japanese were, and back it up with incorrect quotations of facts. I
cannot see how a generalization build on falacies can be so
'obviously' correct.
How is it then that these piddling japanese managed to do so well?
They controlled a vast amount of territory in China, Burma, Malaysa,
the Phillipines, and various islands after the first year of the war
with the US, and held it for a darn sight longer.
What good is freedom of speech if you have no way to get
others to listen.
... part of freedom is that people are free NOT to listen to you (or
me) if they chose not to. One of the features of a free society is
that things sometimes don't often turn out like you (or I) want. A
society evolves as its people's attitudes about themselves and the
world evolves.
Unlike all other countries in WWII, the Japanese were so short
of materials that they skimped incredibly on their planes.
... in fact, the Japanese made a design decision to make their planes
light and maneuverable. Among other things, it gave them greater
range, which in the Pacific and China is a good thing. They had the
materials to put armor onto their planes (and did, as the war went on
and the rigors of air combat against a large air force showed the
fault in the design decision). Compare the N1K "George" with the
Zero.
It was made mostly of flamable bambo and wood and was easily
shot down.
...bambo?!? The Zero was an all-metal fighter. Just where are you
getting your 'facts' from!?! In point of fact the Japanese had a
*surplus* of planes as the war drew to a close. Hence their ability
to throw masses of planes away at Okinawa and still be ready to
deliver a 'sunday punch' of kamikazes against the 'Olympic' invasion
fleet.
You can make Japanese carriers look good by showing numbers
for small planes packed to the gills, but the truth is that
Japanese carriers were only half to two thirds the size of
ours. Even more of the truth is that they were never even
remotely a threat.
This is a clever debating tactic (cheapen the US victory by making
their enemies look puny), but it doesn't wash. Look at what the
Japanese did during the war. They controlled vast areas in the
pacific and came close to making it to India against the (high-tech,
by your definition) British. They gave us a run for our money for
quite a while. It was sheer luck that they were defeated at Midway so
badly, or at all - which was one of the key elements in the Pacific
war. How did these guys kick us out of the Philippines, Wake, and the
rest of the western pacific?
High tech produces impressive results like Japan's success in
China, but the problems of geography and raw materials negated
any real threat to the US.
... then on earth why did they attack us? These peaceful, loving,
friendly Japanese of yours never existed in 1941. The reason they hit
us is they made an incredibly stupid decision based on a racist (yes,
racist) model of what the U.S. public would do in the face of a
crushing defeat at the outset of hostilities. The rest of it was
simple imperialism on their part.
Can you absolve the US of all responsibility for Pearl Harbor
being bombed?
... Yes. Do you beleive that we had 'no right' to withhold raw
material shipments to put pressure on the Japanese to withdraw from
China? In fact, I can't see any good reason why the Japanese would
strike the Americans at all. We went through all this before.
Bombing Pearl was pretty much the ONLY way the US population could
have been convinced to go to war with Japan.
Then there is still the a-bomb. If our little technical
geniuses had their way, an atomic bomb would have been dropped
with flares and whistles capable of being noticed for a 100
miles.
... If these 'technical geniuses' were so evil and pervasive, why
wasn't what you suggest done? (By the way, the delivery of the
Hiroshima bomb by a single plane, rather than a group, convinced the
Japanese that it was a weather plane. Many left bomb shelters and
were caught outside by the blast.) In any event, this horrible little
man (or men, now) of yours was overruled by his superiors, which
doesn't matter to you, but since you're splitting hairs about being
'more horrible'...
I have this curious feeling of deja-vu. I often talk to people
younger than myself, who base all of their judgements of history in
strictly modern (i.e. their lives) terms. About all I can say to them
(in less than 8 hours of backround material) is, "it was a different
world then". Older people in the conversion nod, younger people wag
their heads, knowing "the real truth".
Then Japan would have had the added psycological and economic
burden of caring for huge numbers of people with melted
retinas. If I understand you correctly and you consider this
"insignificant" then there is no common ground for us to
continue discussion.
... alas, I fear you are right (about the common ground). I'm having
trouble dealing with this one 'oh-so-horrible' event. Consider other
factors. "Operation Starvation" (see below); Japanese biowar
experiments on Korean and American prisoners, in preparation for
possible biowar against the Chinese and/or Americans (oh yes, the
Japanese had their horrible little men too) to be delivered by balloon
(yes, balloon - over 200 Japanese bomb-balloons landed in the U.S.,
and it doesn't take that many to deliver a plague); firebombs,
kamikazes, banzai charges. It was a horrible time. It was a
different world.
Japan obviously wanted to surrender.
... more accurately, some parts of the Japanese government wanted to
surrender, some did not. The Emperor, in his hands-off way, chose not
to force the issue until after the A-bombings. The Japanese could
have surrendered at any time. We monitored Radio Tokyo (for instance,
we monitored their rejection of the Potsdam ultimatum on July 30th,
1945). If the Japanese were going to surrender, they had ample reason
and opportunity. Their cities were being bombed into non-existance,
and the Allied blockade (the aptly named 'Operation Starvation') was
expected to starve about 7 *million* Japanese to death by the Spring
of 1946. And yet they did not surrender. I've already gone through
what the militant Japanese wanted from the surrender, and why we felt
we could not let the government survive intact.
In a few more months the war fanatics might have killed
themselves or been killed. Regardless of the success
probabilities, other methods were not even tried so there can
be no excuse for dropping the bomb on a city.
... no dice. In fact, things were tried. As early as 1 Jan. 1944, we
were floating trial balloons (that we made sure were picked up by the
Japanese) that the Japanese would be able to pick their own form of
post-war government, but that 'militarist' elements would be removed.
The Potsdam declaration of July, 1945 warned of 'utter destruction'
unless the Japanese surrendered, of which the Japanese already had
ample evidence (they rejected this in a broadcast from Radio Tokyo
that we picked up). In those long months for the militarists in their
bomb-proof bunkers to kill themselves, how many civilians would have
died? I would prefer not to argue horrible vs. horrible.
When you claim that the Germans were guilty of murder for
sinking the Lusitania after warning that it would be sunk, you
show that you are equally biased against non US Europeans as
well as non US Asians. If yore reacting against the cold
nature of submarine warfare, then how can you possibly defend
the bomb? What would you have the Germans do? Were they
supposed to surface and search all enemy ships for US citizens
before sinking them?
... In the large sense all war is murder, and not something I am at
all in favor of. In fact, the 'rules of war' stated that submarines
were supposed to surface, search ships for war materials, and sink
only those carrying them (german subs often did this, until the Brits
started sending out Q-ships). My comment was directed at your comment
concerning the 'media' handling of the Lucitania sinking, and its
bearing on US entry into WWI. I find your comments about your
opinions of my 'bias' extremely insulting, but it figured you would
try that sooner or later.
Charles
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Monday, 17 Aug 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 95
Today's Topics:
Free Speech &
Liberty &
Socialism &
Truth &
Civil Defence
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < dml@nadc.arpa>
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 87 16:43:19 EDT
From: dml@nadc.arpa (D. Loewenstern)
To: kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Free Speech, etc.
Cc: dave/%lsuc/%math/%math.waterloo.edu@relay.cs.net
If I may butt into this conversation...
> From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
> Subject: Freedom of speech
> > From: dave%lsuc%math%math.waterloo.edu@relay.cs.net
> > > I understand it is illegal to publicly claim in Canada that the
> > > Holocaust is false. Do you consider this a reasonable law?
> > I personally consider that the statement above is an
> > oversimplification and that the law is reasonable.
> > Section 177 of the Criminal Code makes it illegal to wilfully
> > publish false news that is likely to cause injury or mischief
> > to a public interest. ...
> Such a law is not reasonable. Why shouldn't a person be allowed to
> express his opinion? Saying it is up to a government or a jury to
> decide whether the opinion was correct or at least harmless to a
> 'public interest' (whatever that is) is an ancient and obsolete idea.
Keith: Do you agree that it is legitimate for the government to
prevent the spread of libels against > individuals< ? Should I be
allowed to print in a publically-distributed newspaper, in the guise
of fact, "Recent evidence proves that Jack Kemp has been in and out of
mental institutions since he was nine." with no shread of evidence?
What would that do to Sen. Kemp? Would he have to spend campaign
money fighting the lie? Should he give up valuable air time, which he
intended to use to push his ideas, to prove where he was during his
adolescence? Should I be permitted to attempt to damage other
people's reputations by lying about them publically?
Unless you feel that it would be better to contact personally each
person who heard the falsehood and explain the truth, the only
recourse is to prevent the dissemination of lies.
If a trial were held over this issue, would the jury be "harmed" by
exposure to the false ideas? Of course not, because by serving on the
jury, they will learn that the ideas are, in fact, false. False ideas
are harmful only so long as they masquerade as truth.
If I should not be permitted to lie about others publically, why
should I be permitted to do so if the others I lied about were a
group? Again, should the group be forced to combat a lie merely
because I have access to public media? It is in the public interest
of Canada to protect the reputation of those who have been smeared.
If the purpose of the law were to prosecute radical opinions, it would
have been made broader, but its purpose is to prosecute > lies< .
> The two opposing ideas are:
> 1) What can be said should be up to the government, church,
> majority, or elite. Members of the general public must
> be protected from harmful ideas.
"LIES" are a special subclass of harmful ideas.
> 2) What can be said is up to the individual saying it. Members
> of the general public are in no danger from radical ideas.
Very few people actually believe this. The American Bill of Rights
protects most types of speech -- but there are exceptions. "No one
has the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater."
You seem to have the belief that a right disappears if any other right
is permitted to impinge upon it.
> The idea behind a jury is that they are drawn from the general
> population. Why was it considered safe to expose them to the
> offending writings? And not safe to expose the general public
> as a whole to them?
Explained above -- knowing that a lie is false makes it relatively
safe.
David M. Loewenstern
Naval Air Development Center, code 7013
Warminster, PA 18974
< dml@nadc.arpa>
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 87 18:54:16 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Liberty
To: ubvax!frank@AMES.ARPA
Cc: mcvax!cs.vu.nl!biep@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
> From: ubvax!frank@ames (Frank Warren)
> The world is, and always has, run according to its own rules. Death
> is nature's way of adjusting the population balance and famines
> are as old as man's massive settlement and proliferation on the
> planet.
I think death can be abolished, eventually. But not by compulsary
sharing of the resources we currently have available.
> If Keith is not proposing the following, I am:
> ... most of our pressing problems in resources and ecology are there
> precisely because we've been meddling very hard with the natural
> order.
I disagree. People are living in closer harmony with nature than ever
before, at least in the industrialized countries. Most resources that
people now fear we will run out of weren't even known about until
relatively recently. Iron ore, coal, oil, radio spectrum space,
titanium, synchronous satellite slots - in a hundred years people will
probably be bemoaning the predicted exhaustion of something we haven't
even heard of yet.
> The world and the universe doesn't give a damn about you or me; it's
> just a collection of inanimate objects.
It's also a collection of animate objects, for instance you and me.
It is conscious rational beings like us who give the universe meaning.
> Right and wrong, guilt and salvation and honor and love exist only
> in your own mind and in the minds of others -- they do not have
> real existence.
It is true that only by using our minds are we aware of these. But
the same is true of light, pressure, mass, and the rest of reality.
The only essential difference is that guilt, love, etc, unlike heat,
momentum, etc, are meaningful only in relation to conscious beings.
That doesn't make them any less real.
The question is not whether love exists, but whether it is loving to
compel one person to feed another. Coercion is never loving.
> It is because of this that man is the only creature that goes insane
> -- he can get lost in a maze of his own ideas, a situation the
> animals of the world are spared by virtue of being less complicated.
Insanity is possible when one loses touch with reality. One's ideas
must be in accord with reality for a sane and happy life. It is true
that a person with no ideas cannot go insane. But that is not a human
way of life. Animals can live without ideas, because they have
instincts. But a person without ideas is a hopeless retard who will
soon die unless kept alive by the labor of one or more productive
individuals.
> The world survives fine without many complicated ideas.
Yes, but WE don't.
Sorry to jump all over you when you were defending me, but I want to
make sure nobody identifies your ideas with mine. You seem to be
willing to abandon the world of ideals and ideas to the socialists and
advocate living in mindless simplicity. Such a defense against
socialism is as bad as any defense OF socialism. The world of ideas
is on the side of liberty, and free individuals must never forget
that, lest we lose our liberty and our lives.
...Keith
------------------------------
From: inmet!janw@seismo.css.gov
Subject: Re: Socialism
Date: 25 Jun 87 15:55:00 GMT
[tedrick@ERNIE.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP ]
> Communism is lies, lies, lies, and more lies. Unfortunately, the
> communists have discovered that a large proportion of the people
> will succumb to a systematic campaign of lies, propaganda, and
> information control. When combined with a system of brutal
> repression without constraints, you have an unbeatable system of
> political control.
All quite true (as everything else in this article); I'd like to
add that besides *lies* and *repression*, there's *brainwashing*
which combines the two but is something different. It makes peo-
ple condition *themselves*, censor their own thoughts, invent rea-
sons why they ought to conform - because any other line of think-
ing is too painful and too dangerous.
People who have gone through prison and camps - even torture -
without giving in, often crumble at the thought of a *repeat* ex-
perience. And lesser people crumble at the idea of endangering
their little privileges - especially if they are allowed to crum-
ble little by little.
Gradually you get a whole society spying on itself, controlling
itself, skilled in crime-stop, blackwhite, and doublethink (see
1984). You get more than obedience - active support, ready
enthusiasm, which is what makes totalitarian police states dif-
ferent from authoritarian ones (and what also enthuses many
Western visitors to these workers' paradises).
The system also makes people brainwash *each other*: a simple
(and very important) example is parents instilling their children
with the official values and dogmas - which they themselves
disbelieve - in the hope that this will save the children from
dangerous conflicts; and also because kids have a way of repeat-
ing what they hear at home.
I remember my sister (aged 5) going out with me (aged 12) and
my mother, and exclaiming, at the sight of a newly painted
gate: "this is Stalin caring after us!". My mother later confided
to me that she had just itched to reply "no, it's the house
superintendent" - but she hadn't dared.
BTW, let no one indulge in a spurious distinction between Commun-
ism and Stalinism. Communism, wherever it is, *is* Stalinism, as
Nazism is Hitlerism. It has been carefully planted, watered and
weeded by the Kremlin Gardener. The continuity is unbroken. All
deviations were carefully eradicated. But the tendency to devi-
ate was relatively slight, because Stalinism is the normal, na-
tural shape Communism takes. (This does not negate the difference
in day-to-day policies - or the important evolution that Com-
munism, a.k.a. Stalinism, undergoes over many decades).
Jan Wasilewsky
------------------------------
Return-path: < @wiscvm.wisc.edu:BJWOPERA@TAMSIGMA.BITNET>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 87 13:30 CDT
From: < BJWOPERA%TAMSIGMA.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject: Good and Bad
> Right and wrong, guilt and salvation and honor and love exist
> only in your own mind and in the minds of others -- they do
> not have real existence.
The acknowlegement that these concepts exist in the "mind" but don't
have "real" existence is a telling reflection of the belief in a
mind/body dualistic universe. I reject this premise. The living
being is a functioning organism. The body and the mind are aspects of
that functioning. They are not separable "things". Therefore, the
assumption that ideas are not "real" is unfounded.
I believe my ideas are largely in line with the quoted author despite
my first paragraph. I propose the following. Good and evil have
nothing to do with absolutes in nature. Good and bad do not describe,
in terms of an ultimate natural moral code, any aspect of human
behavior. Pollution, murder, altruism, and cuddling have no goodness
or badness inherent to them in the sense that infrared light is
inherent to the heat of a fire. We have these concepts confused when
we talk in absolutist terms.
However, this does not mean that good and bad are meaningless. They
come to have meaning when living beings become aware of their ability
to influence their surroundings and their ability to decide how to
influence those surroundings. Those surroudings include the other
beings and all matter and energy. Good is a quality of the acts,
thoughts, etc. which preserve the functioning of the organism and the
functioning of those organisms to which the acting organism considers
its interests to be bound. Bad is the quality which leads to a
cessation of the functioning.
The "function" of living is very complex. This function can be
hindered and helped in many ways. Thus, there are many degrees of
good and bad. Also, there is considerable confusion when the beings
take up a consideration of good and bad because there are many
perceptions of what serves the purpose of the continuing function of
life well and what serves it poorly.
I point this out to agree with the writer that the concepts of good
and bad are in us rather than external to us in the sense that they
come to be with life. This is because conscious life considers itself
worthy of preservation. Why this last fact is so is utterly beyond my
comprehension but I certainly feel it. I just don't have any basis
for its explanation since I don't turn to the supernatural realm.
> What I am proposing is not that anyone is "wrong" but, rather,
> that the ideational complex may be just that -- too complex. The
> world survives fine without many complicated ideas. It got here
> without them, runs without them and has always run best when left
> to its own devices.
Here the writer says that nobody is "wrong" but that our ideas are
"too complex" (for our own good I suppose). I would point out that
[overly complex] = [wrong] in my mind. We are too complex for what?
If over complexity isn't wrong what is it? I agree that we are overly
complex. I say this because I believe our complexity may well be
detrimental to survival. Therefore, I am willing to say that some
ideas are wrong because of their complexity.
NOTE: This submission of mine is exempt from the last paragraph :-)
> Those who propose extensive controls are too taken with the idea
> that man possesses power which is, frankly -- and thankfully,
> beyond his grasp.
Finally, a point of utter agreement. I want it to be clear that I
have written this to agree with the original author on most points. I
would only point out that "good" and "bad" have real meaning. Just
because that meaning is not rooted in the universe (at least as far as
we know) in the same sense as our understanding of quantum theory does
not mean that the concepts are to be dismissed. They have meaning
because underneath all this lies that inexplicable (to me) desire for
life to continue functioning.
*****************
On another subject:
I am interested in the subject of civilian defense as an alternative
to a military defense which relies on technology to defend territory
and inflict physical damage on the agressor. Civilian defense is the
concept of nonviolent resistance to overcome the ability to rule which
is imposed by external invaders or internal usurpers. This concept
relies heavily on the notion of defending a society rather than the
traditional approach of defending territory which is an indirect
approach to defending the society.
If anybody has any suggestions of articles or books on this subject I
would be most appreciative. I am aware of some of the work done by
Gene Sharp in this area. Any other suggestions would be most helpful.
Please, reply directly to me and I will summarize for the net if there
is sufficient input.
Also, civilian defense would make an interesting idea to toss around
among ourselves perhaps. So consider this a "call to discussion" of
the subject as well.
thanks for the forum
brendan wyly
bjwoperator@tamsigma.bitnet
bjw6278@tamvenus.bitnet
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Monday, 17 Aug 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 96
Today's Topics:
Socialism &
The South Pacific (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < ametek!bugatti!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 87 09:15:32 pdt
From: Steve Walton < ametek!bugatti!walton@csvax.caltech.edu>
To: cit-vax!ai.lcs.mit.edu!kfl, cit-vax!seismo!psivax!seamus
Subject: Socialism
Just some more gasoline on the fire:
From: psivax!seamus@seismo.css.gov (Jim Garrison)
Date: 9 Jun 87 18:43:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Socialism
> From: Keith
> There aren't any socialist
> countries with a decent standard of living, with a reasonable
> amount of medical care, with as little class-consciousness as
> there is in the US, with as little racism as there is in the US,
> with a sufficient quantity of nourishing food, or any of the other
> things socialists in this country are always going on about.
The above paragraph is amazing! There are no socialist countries
with a decent standard of living?? There are no socialist countries
with a reasonable amount of medical care? What about Sweden? Do
you think it provides an inadequate standard of living? (its per
capita income (1980) was $14,281 vs only $11,675 for the US
(1983)). Do you not consider a public health service which
provides health care to EVERYONE to be "decent" enough for you?
Last time I was in Sweden I found no shortage of nourishing food.
In the absence of an agreed upon definition of "socialism," I believe
we are forced to accept that countries which call themselves
socialist, are. Your example of Sweden seems far outnumbered by
Keith's examples. I tend to agree with Keith's implied definition
that socialism is a system in which all means of producing goods and
services are owned by the government.
Beware of using dollar figures to compare standards of living in
these days of volatile exchange rates. Best to use something like
"number of hours an average worker has to work to bring the
necessities home." On this basis, I believe the US still has the
highest standard of living in the world. In the USSR, for example, a
car can be had for about 5,000 rubles, ($6,000 at the official
exchange rate) but that's more than two years of the average Soviet
worker's salary.
Hwever, Sweden
appears socialist in its distribution of products. It has
comprehensive national health care, and a work fare system for the
long term unemployed which has helped to reduce the unemployment
rate to 2.2%.
Most of the West now lives with a mixed economy: some state owned
enterprises and some private ownership, with a large tax-financed
system for providing what they have decided are the necessities of
life to those who can't afford them. I predict the recent lowering of
tax rates in the US will result in many people leaving Western Europe
for the US, with a consequent decline in the tax take they use to
finance the safety net. Canada has already been forced to match our
tax rates to keep their businesses there.
Different countries count the unemployment rate differently. The
US, for example, bases ours on telephone surveys. By the measure of
"number of new jobs created" (easily found from IRS records), the US
economy has been far better for workers during the last decade than
any of the countries of Western Europe, most of which have seen either
no growth or a net decline in the number of jobs.
Among developed nations, the
US is virtually unique in not providing EVERYONE (not just the
wealthy) with adequate health care. The medical care available to
the poor is substandard which is one reason the US has one of the
highest infant mortality rates.
Sources? Many factors enter into an infant mortality rate, such as
nutrition (which depends on the stability of the family), rates of
drug abuse, and age of mother. Is quality of prenatal care dominant?
The view of a symmetrical relationship between employer and
employee is absurd. Almost without exception Labor Theory
Economists reject such claims of symmetry. The resources available
to an average firm are much greater than those available to the
average worker. If I leave my company they will survive.
This isn't always true; at least one of my coworkers was at a company
which was, in essence, conquered by its top employees who threatened
to resign en masse if changes weren't made at the top.
However, I have disagreed with Keith on this symmetry point
before, and find it valid. The question is, what do we do about it?
I don't much care for our current solution of government-mandated
monopolies for providing labor to entire industries. I also don't
care for the late nineteenth century solution of looking the other way
when a company's owners hired thugs to beat up employees exercising
their right to free assembly. They got away with it because the
wealthiest men had a great deal of political influence and were able
to prevent the government from protecting their employees' rights.
Libertarians seem to overlook this episode of history.
I've not read "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," but I'm sure it has
been responded to at some length in articles and books. Does anyone
have references?
Stephen Walton ARPA: ametek!walton@csvax.Caltech.EDU
BITNET: WALTON@CALTECH UUCP: ...!seismo!cit-vax!ametek!walton
------------------------------
Return-path: < wild@Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 87 16:39:42 PDT
From: wild@Sun.COM (Will Doherty)
To: arms-d%oscar@Sun.COM, prog-d%oscar@Sun.COM
Subject: Nuclear-Free Palau Needs You
Help the World's First Nuclear-Free Nation Uphold Its
Constitution
U.S. nuclear policy requires the participation of many countries
around the world. But the rapidly growing nuclear free zone movement
insists that all people should have the right to exlude nuclear
materials, especially nuclear weapons, from their territories. In the
last decade over 3500 nuclear free sones have been created in 24
countries. 20 countries have declated their nuclear-free status by
law. There are now five regions designated as international nuclear
free zones by treaty, most recently the South Pacific.
Palau, a small island nation of 15,000 people in the Western Pacific,
is the first country in the world to adopt a nuclear-free national
constitution. Ever since 1979, when 92% of Palauan voters made that
decision, the United States, which controls Palau under a United
Nations Trusteeship, has put increasing pressure on them to give up
their nuclear-free status.
In seven consecutive elections on the nuclear issue, Palauan voters
have refused to relinquish their nuclear-free constitution, despite
increasing economic coersion and massive disinformation campaigns.
Recently, political and economic screws have been tightened by several
turns in preparations for yet another vote in June. Palauan's power
is being cut off nightly, water service limited to four hours a day,
and their one radio station has been closed down.
Palauans' only defense for their land, culture, and sovereignty is
their nuclear-free constitution. Yet they have been told repeatedly
by Washington that their constitution is "unacceptable" to the U.S.
For more information on the situation of Palau and its nuclear-free
constitution, contact: The Nuclear Sovereignty Project
Box 1047
Bolinas, CA 94924
415-868-1900
To contact the Palauan people directly, contact:
Ibedul Gibbons / Alfonso Oiterong
Koror State Office Building
Box 116
Koror, Republic of Palau 96940
Relevant people of influence in the United Nations are:
Your Country's UN Ambassador and
Secretary, UN Trusteeship Council and
Secretary, Subcommittee on Small Territories and
Human Rights Commission and
Secretary, UN Security Council all at
United Nations Headquarters
New York, NY 10017
Relevant people of influence in the US Congress are:
Hon. Mark Hatfield and
Hon. Claiborne Pell and
Hon. Alan Cranston and
Hon. Robert Kennedy all at
US Senate
Washington, DC 20510
and
Hon. Morris K Udal and
Hon. Ron Dellums and
Hon. Howard Berman and
Hon. Don Edwards and
Hon. Stephen Solarz and
Hon. Sidney Yates all at
US House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Will Doherty
------------------------------
Return-path: < nosc!humu!uhccux!bob@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu>
From: nosc!humu!uhccux!bob@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Bob Cunningham)
Date: 1 Jul 87 19:35:08 GMT
Subject: "you're on your own, you're a sovereign nation"
That simple phrase marked the end of an era yesterday when the U.S.
symbolically closed its trusteeship over the islands of Micronesia, 40
years after it began in the wake of World War II. It also marks the
beginning of true self-government for the Republic of the Marshall
Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and (probably soon) the Republic of Belau.
Those particular words were part of a speech by (now ex-) High
Commissioner Janet McCoy in light rain before flower-bedecked
dignitaries in Kolonia on Pohnpei, capital of the Federated States.
Similar ceremonies were held in the hot coral glare of Majuro, and in
the waning sunlight of hilly Saipan where the blue-and-white flag of
the trusteeship that has flown over the islands since 1947 was hauled
down at sunset for the last time.
Legally, the end came last November 3rd when President Reagan
officially announced the end of the U.S. trusteeship, though the
United Nation which originally made the U.S. trustee of Micronesia has
yet to formally approve the termination and has not yet officially
recognized the new Pacific governments.
Until their "discovery" by western sailors a century and a half or so
ago, the various peoples on the 2,100 resource-poor islands of
Micronesia existed on a fairly simple subsistence level with a variety
of different cultures and somewhat-related languages with varying
degrees of contact with each other via short and long-range voyaging
canoes.
After their discovery, various parts of the area were claimed---and
some copra and other plantations set up---by several western
governments, primarily Spain and Germany. In the early part of this
century Imperial Japan was given a League of Nations mandate to
control virtually all of them. Subsequently, the islands became the
scene of some of the bloodiest fighting in World War II. After the
war, the new United Nations awarded Micronesia to the U.S. to be held
as a "strategic trust territory".
Guam remains a U.S. territory, as has been (except for Japanese
occupation during WWII) since it was separately acquired from Spain a
century or so ago.
The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands with its capital on
Saipan chose to become a self-governing U.S. commonwealth; residents
are U.S. citizens but cannot participate in U.S. national elections,
though they elect their own governor, lieutenant governor, and a
legislature of 9 senators and 14 house members; it has a population of
about 20,000 on 14 islands totally 184 square miles.
The Federated States of Micronesia with its capital of Kolonia on
Pohnpei becomes a sovereign nation in 'free association' with the
United States. It consists of four island group states (Truk, Pohnpei,
Yap, and Kosrae) and has a strong federal government lead by a
president chosen from a 14-member National Congress, and a population
of about 88,000 spread across over a large number of islands with a
total land area of only about 279 square miles.
The Republic of the Marshall Islands with its capital on Majuro is a
sovereign nation lead by a president who appoints a council of
ministers from parliament, a 33-member body called the Nitijela; a
12-member Council of Iroji (chiefs) advises the president on
traditional matters. It has a population of about 35,000 over 24
inhabited islands totalling 66 square miles of land.
The Republic of Belau is still a self-governing trust territory, but
will become sovereign when the compact of free association is
ratified. It has a popularly elected president, and an elected
National Congress consisting of a 16-member House of Delegates and a
18-member Senate. There is also a 16-member advisory council of
chiefs. It has a population of about 13,000 on 8 inhabited islands
with about 179 square miles of land. Voting on the compact of free
association (which contains a clause allowing the U.S. to have
transiting ships containing nuclear weapons...in conflict with the
nuclear-free constitution of Belau) was yesterday, 75% approval of the
voters is required for ratification; preliminary results show
ratification running only about 60%, leaving Belau's status still in
doubt at the moment.
The 'free association' compacts are modeled loosely on the
relationship of the Cook Islands with New Zealand with no real
precedent in U.S. nor international law. Under this concept the
Micronesia nations have self-government, conduct their own foreign
affairs and the right to join and participate in international bodies;
the U.S. takes full responsibility for the defense of the islands for
15 years (50 years for Belau). People on the islands are citizens of
their own countries, but are considered "habitual residents" of the
U.S., freely able to enter the U.S., take jobs, and attend school in
the U.S.
U.S. defense obligations give the U.S. the right to deny access to
foreign military personnel and to negotiate to put in U.S. bases. The
compacts says the U.S. ultimately decides what is a defense matter.
The U.S. also has agreed to providing airport safety, navigation, and
international postal services, disaster relief, and public health
services. Subsidiary agreements include a $150 million endowment to
benefit Marshallese affected by nuclear testing programs (notably on
Bikini and Enewetak). Various other forms of financial aid will be
provided by the U.S., with estimates ranging as high as $2.5 billion
over the next decade or so. The compacts can be ended unilaterally by
either side with 6 months notice.
The U.S. has missile-testing sites in the Marshall islands, and
long-range plans exist for bases and staging areas in the Marianas and
on the large island of Babelthuap in Belau.
[The Micronesia nations are still economically very weak, with many
social and health problems, and badly in need of basic services such
as roads, water supplies and communications. They are resource-poor,
with virtually no raw materials, and little capacity to export
anything. In many cases, lack of good water sources limits the
population capacity of most islands. There is a strong suspicion
among many Micronesians that their economic weakness is at least in
part the result of a deliberate policy by the U.S. to keep them
economically dependent, a newer and only slightly subtler form of
colonialism. The new governments are generally widely officially
recognized by most other nations, and in the United Nations the Soviet
Union and others has contended the trusteeship cannot be ended without
at least the approval of the Security Council...and there is
considerable sentiment in the U.N. to reject the 'free association'
compacts in favor of unlimited sovereignty for the new nations.]
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Monday, 17 Aug 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 97
Today's Topics:
Responsibility &
Religion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < cmcl2!phri!lewando@seismo.css.gov>
From: cmcl2!phri!lewando@seismo.css.gov (Mark Lewandoski)
Subject: Re: Reply to REM - Part II of II
Date: 1 Jul 87 23:33:52 GMT
frank@ubvax.UUCP (Frank Warren) writes:
> Biep, you seem to be obsessed by the idea that you are responsible
> for the world and everything in it, a delusion of a kind of godhood
> in which if you do not prevent damage you have created it.
Pardon me if I jump inappropiately into the middle of this, but I
cant help myself. The ideas you express here touch a nerve in me.
Now, this hyperbole of obssession and godhood... one can have firm
ideas and ideals without obsession and accept resonsipbility (even if
you cant spell it!) without being a god...
> The world is, and always has, run according to its own rules. Death
> is nature's way of adjusting the population balance and famines are
> as old as man's massive settlement and proliferation on the planet.
> While it may make you feel more, what?, loved/secure/important to
> claim responsibility for everything and everyone, it is not a
> healthy attitude.
Yes death and famine are old, older than humans, no? That doesnt mean
we accept every death of every human as the *sigh* natural order of
the universe. Extinction of whole species is also older than humans.
Does that mean you get on the railroad and game-shoot buffalo until
every one is left dead and rotting??
> The world and the universe
> doesn't give a damn about you or me; it's just a collection of
> inanimate objects. Right and wrong, guilt and salvation and honor
> and love exist only in your own mind and in the minds of others --
> they do not have real existence.
Is this a little silly? Youre saying that just because you cant kick
an idea with your foot like a rock, it doesnt exist. Racial inequality
is just an idea, and yet men, women and children in S. Africa are
tortured and killed because of what exist in the mind. We could get
move from metaphysical to the physical, if you like: an idea exist in
my brain and threfore we know it must have a physical component: a
particular neuron network. In that sense it exist. And I will can act
on the idea, so its existence affects the existence of inanimate
objects, animals and people in the world. But didnt we have this
conversation when we were sophomores in college??
> What I am proposing is not that anyone is "wrong" but, rather, that
> the ideational complex may be just that -- too complex.
Ultimately, each individual must decide what is right and wrong, based
on their values. Enough of us agree on enough of those values so that
society functions. (Not to imply that the majority is always right).
But are you argueing that right/wrong doesnt exist? I think not since
below you express what you feel is right and wrong: an ideal of
freedom as long as another doesnt suffer for it. So is whats wrong is
clear in an extreme situation (ie I kidnap and rape someone) then
right/wrong is less clear in a less clear and more complex
situation... but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist!!
> The world
> survives fine without many complicated ideas. It got here without
> them, runs without them and has always run best when left to its own
> devices.
But what a dull boring world it would be!! "Runs best"?? What system
of values are you applying when you say the world "runs best" with no
self aware meddling creatures to think complicated ideas about the
world?
> One of our most dangerous delusions, and a destructive thread which
> runs thorugh the last 3000 years of western thought, is that man is
> somehow gifted beyond imagining and that he should remake the world
> in his own image. Yet it not the world which sprang from man, but
> he which sprang from the world. How much can it be changed before
> man himself becomes and obsolete dinosaur to the structure he has
> created?
So to avoid this you suggest we disappear so the world can run best??
Make up your mind!
Well, I admit I often think that humans are the coolest creatures to
burst on the scene in the last handful of millenia or so... I agree
with you that we it is terrible terrible what weve done to many specie
and parts of the world. Hell. lets throw in damage to ourselve also!
And yet the worst may be to come...wouldnt you say we have a
_responsibility_ not to fuck things up more?? A resonpibilitity
because were the only creature evolution has thrown upon the world who
can twist it so and the only creature capable of preventing nuclear
destruction.
> I believe in freedom, in each individual pursuing his own goals and
> in his fulfillment of his potential -- but only so long as it is not
> achieved at the expense of the goals and fulfillment of others.
You and I agree on this. On how it achieve it? That might be an
interesting talk.
> The
> world is anarchy, gentlemen, and no law you ever pass will prevent
> earthquakes, tornados and floods, nor stop famine or sunspots, or
> make the stars shine one whit more or less bright.
Thw world is not anarchy. As a scientist I know better than that. I
can learn the rules that control earthquakes, tornados, etc. And while
I cant legislate them away, I can prevent then from killing people, as
best as possible (which gets better as our science does). You agree
with this, dont you?
But please please do not include famine as inevitable as starshine,
because that is plain stupidity. We may not be able to control the
flow of every river and storm, but we do have more control over the
flow of food. That we can legislate. That is politics and ideas
resulting in human misery and death.
> Those who propose extensive controls are too taken with the idea
> that man possesses power which is, frankly -- and thankfully,
> beyond his grasp.
Well, I dunno. You started with a reply to someone who suggested that
if one particular person can prevent the death of another particular
person and doesnt, then he shares some kind of responsibility for that
death. You disagree with this??
Maybe you disagree with the significance of this or what we should do
about it, or where this leads, but it seems like a very clear and
simple idea to me. Not at all complicated. What has it got to do with
godhood and tornados and earthquakes??
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 87 00:42:21 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Religion vs. liberty?
To: SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA
> From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
> Subject: Why I am not a libertarian
> I am not libertarian not because I believe in any other political
> system, but because I don't find libertarian arguments compelling
> enough to say they must be right. I can see that their position is
> internally consistent, but I can't see why it is right and just.
The problem is, we have to have some political system. One can remain
uncommitted about religion or the big bang theory or a lot of things,
but not about our political system, because we have to have one and
because refusing to make a choice is just a choice like any other, and
is certainly not a good choice because it abdicates responsibility to
those with less hesitancy and forethought, many of whom want to make
this country either socialist or a theocracy.
It is not reasonable to be neutral on issues such as freedom of
religion and freedom of speech. All that those who wish to take these
away need are enough people who really don't care one way or another,
or who do care but are not sure enough of theselves to bother to take
a stand.
> If you say that libertarianism is the most practical form of
> government,
Practical for what? Totalitarian controls can be quite practical, if
liberty is not a value. My contention is not that liberty is more
practical than its alternative, but that it is more moral. It is the
only system compatible with a truly pluralistic culture, in which
individuals have radically different ideas about morality, the purpose
of life, religion, politics, and one's obligation to others. Laws
should say not that a behavior is self-destructive, or that it is
obscene, or that it is condemned in the Bible, or that it is
pointless, or that it is rude. Since people have such different
opinions on these points, laws should only prohibit actions which
strongly infringe on another individual's fundamental rights.
In your religion, it is wrong not to help others. That's fine. In a
free society nobody stops you from helping others. But your religious
beliefs are not enacted into law, so that people with different ideas
on right and wrong would be punished for not agreeing with your
religion. That would not be fair.
> Still, the government does not always do a bad job of things, and
> these arguments give no reason why the government's powers should be
> limited precisely where the libertarians say they should.
Well, a lot of people do try to justify liberty on the grounds of
efficiency. I believe it is more efficient, but that misses the
point. One can easily get caught up into an endless round of
anecdotes about major failures and successes in government and in
business. I offer such anecdotes only to rebut those who believe that
without a strong and interventionist government that everything would
fall to pieces, when the evidence is overwhelming that the opposite is
more nearly true.
Liberty is justified on its own grounds. I don't see how anyone can
believe otherwise unless they think it is reasonable for a person to
be locked up when he has harmed noone, or unless they think that doing
nothing is harming someone. (Someone may be harmed if you do nothing,
but that is not your doing or your fault.) Anything else is imposing
one arbitrary morality on everyone else.
As for why government should be limited to defense, police, and the
courts, government is simply that which has a monopoly on the use of
force. And government cannot initiate force against anyone, it can
only respond, otherwise it is an arbitary tyranny. Its only purpose
is to halt or prevent violations of individual rights, by force or
otherwise if possible. It is never justified for an individual to
initiate the use of force, so it can't be justified for any group of
individuals to do so either. It is justified to use force to defend
one's rights, of course.
Unless force is somehow involved, government has no reason to be
involved with anything else. Why does government build waterworks?
Because in so many cases no company finds it worthwhile, in other
words they judge that the benefits are not worth the costs.
Government has no such constraint. They can use force to take the
money to pay for the water project from individuals against their
will.
If a project is universally believed to be a net loss, nobody should
build it. If a project is almost universally believed to be a net
loss, let those who believe otherwise risk their own money on it.
They might strike it rich. They might lose their shirts. In neither
case should anyone else be compelled to subsidize them or be
subsidized by them. If a project is almost universally believed to be
a net gain, there shoul be no shortage of companies willing to invest.
In no case should government get involved, except to ensure noone is
being defrauded or exposed to unagreed to risk, for instance
downstream of an unsafe dam.
> But for me the argument that the government has no right to make any
> demand on my money falls apart in the face of the suffering of other
> people and its demand on me.
I understand your religious reasons for believing this. But why
impose this duty on others? You can excommunicate and/or shun those
who don't behave in the way you approve of. But why advocate that
they be forcibly imprisoned if they simply wish to opt out? Why not
just ignore them? They aren't hurting by not helping. If they are
guilty of anything then so are those who are suffering - they aren't
giving money to others either. What you are saying is that a poor
person is automatically moral, but if he them creates some wealth he
is suddenly guilty unless he gives some of it away, even though his
actions (not giving away money) are the same in either case.
How can one decide what is the right amount to donate, unless it is
whatever one's conscience dictates? But saying that some outside
authority can punish you if it is too little implies some objective
standard. What would that be? How does one avoid a religious war
between the five percenters and the eight percnters? The only
defensible numbers would be 0% or 100%. Either the wealth really
belongs to whoever created it, who is then free to donate as much or
as little he chooses, or it really belongs collectively to all mankind
(or perhaps to the race, the nation, or God (in practice, the
priesthood)). If the latter, some individual or committee gets to
decide where all the money goes. And why would they be any better at
it that the individual?
I believe that the traditional amount was 10%. But the tax rate is
much higher than that. Social Security tax alone is now over 14% even
for the lowest income brackets. And most of it goes to people
wealthier than oneself. One could arge against taxation on the
grounds that it prevents one from giving as much as one otherwise
could to the needy. And no, you cannot deduct Social Security tax,
property tax, gas tax, phone tax, or any other tax except state and
federal income tax, regardless of how much you give to charity.
> ... I don't understand why my right to property is so absolute that
> is always should take precedence.
Because your property is yours. Why else should anyone have any say?
In a truly free country, if you want to give all of your property to
the poor, no bureaucrat can step in and demand you give him half of it
for a missile base.
> some mockery (in the story of what happens to Catherine Halsey) of
> the work I myself enjoy best and in which I feel the most sense of
> accomplishment, ...
Come on. Just because Ayn Rand had a character who was a social
worker who drove someone to suicide doesn't mean she was prejudiced
against all social workers. She also had some businessmen she
portrayed in an unflattering light. Her point is that many people who
think they are doing good, aren't. That's all.
> ... there is a fundamental conflict between the view that my
> purpose should be to love God with all my heart and all my soul and
> all my might and to love my neighbor as myself and the view that my
> purpose should be to satisfy my needs and that I have no obligation
> to anyone else.
Well, Rand was describing the minimum necessary to stay out of jail,
not the paragon of virtue. She did feel that creating wealth was a
greater virtue that giving away wealth. And that giving away SOMEONE
ELSE'S wealth, against their will, is no vitrue at all.
There is nothing in objectivism that says you can't love God and your
neighbor. It does say you can't persecute your neighbor for not
loving God, or for loving the wrong God, or for not loving his
neighbor.
> I am a Christian and a Quaker. I believe that I am responsible to
> others.
Do you believe those who don't feel responsible to others, or not
responsible enough, should be persecuted? If not, you have no
conflict with Ayn Rand.
> I do not believe, like Keith, that if I see someone drowning
> I have no obligation to make any attempt to save that person.
I would attempt to save the person. I would probably refuse to speak
to someone who didn't. BUT I would NOT attempt to have him
imprisoned. A person has a right to ignore others, but that doesn't
mean it is always reasonable to do so. A person has freedom of speech
but it is not reasonable to spread Nazi or Communist propaganda, or to
advertise cigarettes with attractive athletic models. Wrong and
illegal are not the same.
> I don't believe that freedom of conscience extends to harming other
> people and violating their rights, and I think that discrimination
> does just that.
If an employer doesn't hire someone because of his color, that is a
violation of his rights only if he somehow had a right to that job. I
don't think that is reasonable. What if the employer never offered
that job in the first place? Isn't that the same crime?
Where would dicrimination laws end, anyway? If two people form a
business partnership in a half black city, and neither of them is
black, is that a violation? If the company president hires his son,
who will someday inherit the company, rather than someone off the
street, is that discrimination? In a half black city, must all
marriages have exactly one black partner?
> I can't think of any political philosophy to offer as an alternative
> to libertarianism.
Well, we have to have something. Not choosing just throws away your
vote. However well thought out one's reasons for not voting are, the
effect is the same as if one was simply too feebleminded to find the
polling place.
Some Christians have suggested making the US an officially Christian
country. We can amend the constitution, they explain. These are
mostly the ones who really believe that Oral Robert can raise the
dead, so there is no reasoning with them. When I ask them how they
would feel about theocracy if Jews or Muslisms or Hindus happened to
be in the majority, they respond by threatening me with hellfire.
You don't seem to be in that category. But please consider carefully
any changes you would make to a totally free society to see if they
are inspired by your religious beliefs, and if so, please consider
what the laws would be like if someone with a quite different religion
were to make these changes. So long as not all people are of the same
religion, the law should be neutral on the subject.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Wednesday, 19 Aug 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 98
Today's Topics:
Freedom of Speech &
Non-violent Protest &
History
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: harvard!huma1!sadun@seismo.css.gov (Lorenzo Sadun)
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech
Date: 2 Jul 87 18:51:48 GMT
Reply-to: harvard!huma1!sadun@seismo.css.gov (Lorenzo Sadun)
KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
> > From: dave%lsuc%math%math.waterloo.edu@relay.cs.net
>
> > Section 177 of the Criminal Code makes it illegal to wilfully
> > publish false news that is likely to cause injury or mischief
> > to a public interest. ...
>
> Such a law is not reasonable. Why shouldn't a person be allowed to
> express his opinion? Saying it is up to a government or a jury to
> decide whether the opinion was correct or at least harmless to a
> 'public interest' (whatever that is) is an ancient and obsolete idea.
>
> ...Keith
Now wait a minute! There's a difference between expressing IDEAS
(which are neither intrinsically true or false, and are not covered by
the law) and expressing false NEWS.
I strongly believe in unfettered freedom of expression of ideas --
including even the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie (I joined the
ACLU after that case) or the continuing efforts of the Sparticus Youth
League. Ideas, however obnoxious, should be debated freely and
supported or refuted with whatever facts the various sides can dig up.
Such is the thrust of the (US) 1st Ammendment.
Knowably false NEWS (otherwise known as hoaxes), on the other hand,
should not enjoy such complete immunity. Screaming "fire" in a
crowded theater is legitimately illegal if no fire exists. There are
laws against slander and libel (defined as the dissemination of news
that is (a) false, (b) damaging, and (c) published either with
knowledge of its falsehood or with "reckless disregard for the
truth"), and these laws are reasonable.
The point is that while ideas and opinions can be bandied back and
forth, to form sensible opinions we need reliable facts. There must
be something to guarantee that the news we read in the paper isn't
just the invention of a malicious editor. I don't want the government
to provide me with my news, but I do feel that juries of 12 ordinary
citizens armed with the libel and slander laws can be trusted to keep
the press and media reasonably reliable.
My own opinion is that the US libel and slander laws are quite strict
enough as is, and that a law such as Canada's is excessive. Not
"absurd", "out of left field", or "a major threat to liberties
everywhere", (quotes being of imaginary opponents of the law) but
still excessive.
Lorenzo Sadun
------------------------------
Return-path: < wild@Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 87 14:52:50 PDT
From: wild@Sun.COM (Will Doherty)
To: conscience@Sun.COM
Cc: arms-d%oscar@Sun.COM, prog-d%oscar@Sun.COM
Subject: Activist Disarms First-Strike Weapons System; Needs Your
Subject: Support
Nonviolent Peace Activist Facing 20 Years
for Disarming Part of First-Strike Weapon System
The Government calls it ``sabotage'' -- the destruction of
military materials. Katya calls it disarmament. She says ``It's
better to destroy a few *machines* than to let those machines help
murder millions of *people*.''
On June 2, Katya Komisaruk brought her crowbar, hammer, and
drill to Vandenberg Air Force Base to dismantle the crucial navigation
system of the nuclear arms race, Navstar. When the projected 18
Navstar satellites are placed in orbit, they will emit signals
enabling the Trident II and other new missiles to target with
incredible accuracy. If we launch a first strike it will take Navstar
to guide the U.S. missiles to the Soviet silos and command centers.
This accuracy is useless for defense or ``deterrence''. We cannot
live with either side having the ability to start and win a nuclear
war, and this is why Katya went after a Navstar mainframe control
computer.
Katya has lived most of her life in the S.F. Bay Area. She
graduated from U.C. Berkeley, with an M.B.A., in 1982. She's worked
with the Livermore Action Group, the Vandenberg Action Coalition and a
variety of other peace groups around the country.
Katya has been indicted for destruction of national defense
materials and government property, two felonies with a possible
combined sentence of *twenty years in prison and a $500,000 fine*.
She will face trial in Los Angeles, far from her support community,
sometime this summer. Her defense will be based on the Nuremberg
Principles: a citizen has not only the right, but the duty, to
interfere with her government when it is preparing for a war of
aggression, a crime against humanity. This case is an important
opportunity to educate the public about first-strike weapons, about
the right of citizens to resist, and about the right of juries to vote
their consciences.
Katya's next hearing will be her arraignment Wednesday, July
1, 9:30 a.m., at the U.S. District Courthouse, 312 N. Spring St.,
Los Angeles. This is our first chance to show our support for Katya
to people in the area where she will be tried. Please let your
friends in L.A. know about this hearing!
[ My apologies for the lateness of appearance in poli-sci - CWM]
Here's what you can do:
- Invite Katya to speak to your group/organization.
- Write letters in support of Katya. (Write to the Editor, L.A.
Times, or to the District Court Judge, c/o of Katya Komisaruk (see
address below).)
- Help publicize and organize around this case.
For more information, please send to:
Katya Komisaruk
1716 Felton St., S.F. CA 94134
------------------------------
Return-path: < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 87 13:52:41 CDT
From: "Kirk Augustin" < kirk@uwm-cs.milw.wisc.EDU>
To: MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
Subject: Re: Soviet history
It does appear that we both believe very strongly in views that are
equally distant, but it still seems worth exchanging views even though
agreement probably isn't possible. However to be of any value there
is something you must keep in mind. This may sound like I am
cheating, but you are obligated to use more personal effort than I to
see the other point of view. The reason for this is that I am already
much more familiar with your point of view. I hear it constantly from
everyone. I was raised with it and used to believe it myself. I now
believe that our culture, like that of the Russians, Nazis, Romans,
Greeks, ect. , contains a false image created collectively by those
who wish to manipulate the majority of the population to gain personal
wealth. This is not some strange conspiracy theory because it is easy
to see that it happens when we talk about the Egyptians, etc. I
charge that appeals to our emotions like patiotism and materialism
have been used to manipulate us and cause us to accept a point of view
that is artificial. For a minute pertend that I might have a point
here. Then think about the way you have been responding to my
attempts at finding cracks and contradictions in our self image. You
have obviously been reacting out of anger. You have taken it as a
personal attack and have been using the same general platitudes that
have been feed to use as a defense. Have you ever really sat down for
a time and considered the implications of any of my points before
responding? I realize that I haven't given your points much
consideration either, but I don't have to. I already know your point
and can see very clearly when you are avoiding mine. This is pretty
provacative so I should give you an example of what I mean.
One of the first points in the last message was about crime. We
believe that this is not really all that complex of an issue; we know
that people have a greedy side that must be controlled and that taking
what isn't yours is bad. My point was that things are not at all what
they seem. My frustration is that you didn't even begin to see what I
meant. Instead you generalised my argument into one of "property is
theft". By this I can see that you have already stereotyped me into a
catagory and was responding to that type of point of view. This is
why we are not getting anywhere. In my argument about crime I was
careful to only use examples where the people we could call owners had
nothing to do with the creation of property. Landlords are a perfect
example because they are simply an extension of the phony, legalistic
manipulation of property rights that occured when the colonies were
formed. Sure some landlords do cause housing to be constructed, but
most don't and that merely adds a level of complexity that is better
left for later. The point is that by virtue of a good credit rating,
one person can get the law to permit him to accumulate the wealth
produced by another. The wealth being the money earned by the person
who is forced to pay rent. You glossed over this issue before by
waving the flag of freedom and saying that the tenant has the freedom
to move or become a landlord himself. This is superficial and is the
kind of misconception that I am trying to stop. When we were only 13
colonies there was somewhere to move to but not any more. I used to
sell realestate and can tell you a few things about buying property.
The insurance companies and banks don't base their red-lining on the
address of the property in question, but on the address of the
potential buyer. As a matter of fact when I wanted to sell inner city
property it was useless to try to sell to anyone from the
neighborhood; he could never meet the price of the suburban doctors,
lawyers, teachers, etc. that just wanted to use the property as a tax
shelter. Then much of the tax shelter advantages only lasted for 5
years or so because of the interest and depreciation schedules so
these suburban owners never put any money back into upkeep of the
property. Still there is the silly idea that the local residents are
somehow responsible for slums and urban decay. We like to believe
that laws are based on noble principles like truth and justice, but
they aren't. Any lawyer will tell the our legal system is based on
property rights and pragmatism and not ethics. This does not imply
that I would even begin to know how to change this or would even want
to, but the point is that we can never improve things until we atleast
understand them better. Your view of crime and justice is a good
example. You believe that punishment and fear is all that stops any
of us from commiting crimes. This is a common belief in this country
because we have our foundation from the Calvinist and Puritan
religious doctrines that people are basically evil and our life on
earth is to be atleast a test if not a punishment already. But these
are false beliefs. When man moved out of the forests and into the
plains during our evolution, our survival was based on the goodwill of
the far ranging food gathers that kept the young, sick, and old alive.
Contrary to popular belief, man's benevolent nature far outweighs his
greed, and all evidence indicates that crime and punishments were
virtually nonexistent in societies without a corrupt, wealthy, and
powerful heirarchy. There are still examples today in areas of the
world that have not been destroyed yet. There are African tribes like
the Kalahari bushmen, north american tribes like the Eskimos and Hopi,
south american tribes like the Panya, and then the many polynesian
tribes. In all of these societies the most dreaded punishment is
social ostricism. This is not to say that these were necessarily
utopias. They have experienced murder, theft, war, etc. , but there
is a balance in these societies because they realise what the sources
of problems are and try to neutralise them. This is where we are
failing. We are believing our own rationalizations and digging the
pit deeper. The simple truth is that punishment or fear of it never
stops crime. In fact it creates it. People have the inherent need
for social acceptance and given the possibility, will always chose the
socially acceptable method of satisfying their desires. You say you
do not commit crimes because you are afraid of the punishment but I
don't believe you. You don't commit crimes because you don't want to
and don't have to. There is no human alive who wants to commit
crimes. Those who do commit crimes believe either mistakenly or
correctly that they have no choice. You are part of the privileged
class in our society and have so many opportunities that crime would
be silly. But there are many who have no chance at all. Even if they
got the education or money, they could not succeed in this system
because the social training of their childhood won't let them. Infact
harsh punishments actually create crime. What chance is there for
rehabilitation when the offender can blame his time in jail on a cruel
judge instead of his own act. When a society commits act of cruelity
on individuals it is teaching those individuals that it is ok to treat
people that way, just don't get caught. Punishment is not and never
has been a valid part of the legal system. Punishment is an evil
equal to the original crime and only serves to make crime justifiable
since it is done by the main social linstitution. If murder is bad
because of the intrinsic value of human life, then how can we possibly
condone capital punishment. All it does is say that murder is ok as
long as you have enough power to stop retaliation. The only valid and
effective way to treat criminals is to simply stop the antisocial
activity from continuing. This means that jails can never be
considered punishment instead of preventive detention. Any other view
comes from one or more of the following falacies. People are evil by
nature and correct behavior has to be beaten into them. Those kind of
people are inherently different and are incapable of controling
themselves. If you believe either of these 2 popular misconceptions
then we really need to move down to a more basic level of discussion.
If you think about it, how could anything good ever come from treating
anybody badly. And where does the right come from. If we truely
believe in the principles of democracy, then how can an institution
possibley have more rights than that of an individual. If an
individual can not kill, then how can he delegate the right for the
legal system to commit capital punishment? The individual has
mitigation for murder, fear, outrage, etc., and has a concience to
control it, but the legal system has none of these. It has no excuse
for terminating a person's life since it has no emotional need, and at
the same time there is no concience to prevent terrible mistakes.
Remember there was a soldier executed during WWII for cowardice. He
hadn't done anything different from hundreds of others, but once you
set up a mechanism it is self sustaining. Nobody feels responsible
anymore. That is when terrible thing can happen. Since a government
could not exist unless people delegated their authority to it, each
individual is still responsible for whatever the government does, but
everybody thinks that somehow others will take care of it. Look at
the Vietnam conflict. Few individuals were in favor of napalming
whole villages, but it happened because few individuals thought it was
their responsibility to stop it.
There is much more I would like to react to from your last message.
Frankly it seems to me that you aren't trying very hard to see my
point. I mean how could you possibly say that I believe that there is
some kind of huge conspiracy that is covering up all this corruption?
Instead I will keep to this one small area for now to see if we can
get somewhere. In summary, my point is that we defend treating others
harshly because we say that they are somehow dangerous by nature, but
by saying this and acting that way we are actually guilty of what we
charge the others with. People have natural instincts against killing
other human being so throughout history we have somehow dehumanized
others first. This leads into racism and other concepts that have
been around for a long time and could use careful examination. It is
senseless to let cycles repeat themselves over and over in history,
and it is even worse to let ourselves be manipulated. I do not want
to debate, want I want is for others to imagine themselves in
different contexts. Ask the question, "Is it possible that I would
act just like my enemy does now if I was in his place?"
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************
Poli-Sci Digest Wednesday, 19 Aug 1987 Volume 7 : Issue 99
Today's Topics:
India (2 msgs) &
Non-violent Protest &
Libertarianism &
Religion (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-path: < @po3.andrew.cmu.edu:sohan+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 87 15:54:55 edt
From: sohan+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai)
To: outnews+ext.nn.soc.culture.indian@andrew.cmu.edu,
To: outnews+ext.nn.soc.culture.jewish@andrew.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: dhimmee
> #> berleant@ut-sally.UUCP (Dan Berleant) writes:
> #> > Matter of fact, an analogy between South Africa and *India* is
> #> > more justified. I'm not saying it is justified, just *more*
> #> > justified. The conclusion is that
> #>
> #> Please justify your statement. In WHAT way is India analogous to
> #> SA ? I can't
>
> Religion based discrimination
> ========
Very true. India has a long history of one minority, while in power,
discriminating against the majority on the basis of religion.
:-)
Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai
------------------------------
Return-path: < @po5.andrew.cmu.edu:sohan+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 87 01:02:01 edt
From: sohan+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai)
Subject: Re: setting the record straight (Dhimma)
> co-resident non-Muslims. In order to guarantee the ethical
> development of the human race as well as the continued survival in an
> atomic age, the political sovereignty of Muslims must be curtailed
> everywhere in the world. Thus while Muslims as human beings possess
> all the human rights which more civilized peoples possess, until a
> major reform of Muslim attitudes takes place, Muslims cannot be
> granted the same political rights as other peoples and Muslims must
> be politically suppressed.
> ...
> P.S. I have noticed a serious misunderstanding of Enlightenment
> ideals of tolerance in this forum. Enlightenment ideals are
> "fighting" ideals. To promote tolerance the intolerant cannot be
> tolerated. Voltaire signed his letters "ecrasez l'infame" meaning
> wipe out religious bigotry and intolerance. Nowadays, people who
> hold such values and goals should sign their letters "ecrasez
> l'islam!"
I have agreed with Martillo on some counts - e.g. that there exist
areas in the world where medieval Islamic values persist and make life
intolerable for non-Islamic residents in these areas and that
intolerance is one thing that is not to be tolerated. But here he is
going too far. The ethical development of the human race is not
positively pursued by suppressing the rights of any section on the
basis of their practices - negative or otherwise. How would you like
it, Martillo, if the "USENET powers" deny you your right to post on
the net based on their opinion of your behaviour as uncivilized?
The point is that subjective judgments should not be used as a basis
for curtailing anyone's rights. People's rights are too serious a
matter to be trifled with on the basis of judgments which cannot be
guaranteed to be devoid of subjectivity. What should be done is to
work towards minimizing the effects of negative practices on those who
do not wish to share in them. For example, in the case in point, all
efforts should be made to provide succor to those peoples who might be
oppressed as a result of atavistic Islamic practices and any efforts
at imposition of unfair treatment on such people should be resisted
instead of working to oppress those who might be perceived as
uncivilized.
Sohan C. Ramakrishna-Pillai
------------------------------
Return-path: < joeh@Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 87 15:41:05 PDT
From: joeh@Sun.COM (Joe Heinrich [Tech_Pubs{Hardware}])
To: conscience@Sun.COM, wild@Sun.COM
Subject: Re: Activist Disarms First-Strike Weapons System; Needs
Subject: Your Support
Cc: arms-d%oscar@Sun.COM, prog-d%oscar@Sun.COM
Will:
The implication, then, is that she would rather these
weapons were *less* accurate. My God, do these people never
think anything through? Maybe she ought to work for the
Pentagon. She mimics its mindset perfectly.
By the way, how far did she get with her ``crowbar, hammer,
and drill''?
RE:``On June 2, Katya Komisaruk brought
her crowbar, hammer, and drill to Vandenberg Air
Force Base to dismantle the crucial navigation
system of the nuclear arms race, Navstar. When
the projected 18 Navstar satellites are placed in
orbit, they will emit signals enabling the Trident
II and other new missiles to target with incredi-
ble accuracy. If we launch a first strike it will
take Navstar to guide the U.S. missiles to the
Soviet silos and command centers...''
--Joe
------------------------------
From: inmet!janw@seismo.css.gov
Subject: Re: Reply to REM - Part II of II
Date: 3 Jul 87 04:12:00 GMT
> 1 - one accepts that from the power most people have over their body
> follows the right over that body.
> (Quite hard to swallow for most people - what about those
> who are lame? Sorry, guys, but you don't have the right to
> eat; perhaps there is someone who wants to feed you...)
First, I don't quite see what *lameness* has to do with eating
and feeding - perhaps things wouldn't be so "hard to swallow", if
one used one's hand, rather than one's foot? As an indictment
of libertarianism, this looks a bit *lame*, as if you
*put your foot in your mouth*. :-)
More seriously, libertarianism (as I understand it) *does* imply
that everyone has an absolute right to his/her body - everyone,
not just able-bodied people. The right is not dependent on a par-
ticular degree of agility - it is not greater in acrobats than in
bunglers, or in hale people than in paralytics. In this sense
the right does *not* follow from "power over that body" (as stat-
ed above). A kidnapper does not acquire *rights* over someone's
body together with *power* over it.
If *power* does not necessarily confer rights, neither does
*need*. The fact that a sick person *needs* help to feed him
evokes natural *sympathy*; that is normally enough to make sure
he does not die. It certainly does not give a sympathizer the
right to commandeer someone else's body or labor to help the in-
valid - these other people have rights, too.
Besides compassion, there may be, and usually exist, con-
tractual obligations to help the sick.
This is quite enough; to draw, from the existence of helpless
people, the necessity of an all-powerful state is to extend a
presumed right to anything one needs into a denial of anyone's
right to anything at all.
> 2 - one is mainly interested in material things.
> (Just a matter of taste.)
I don't see *any* connection between libertarianism and this
assertion. *Of course*, this is a matter of taste - and
libertarianism is *against* legislating matters of taste.
> 3 - one believes that everybody can be held equally responsible
> for his/her deeds.
Why ? Libertarian views can be held without this postulate.
> 4 - one is willing to state that no one can be held responsible for
> the fare of others.
*Except when one voluntarily undertakes such responsibility*.
An all-important qualification.
> BTW, Yes, I think if somewhere someone starves, and I could have
> prevented it (reasonably), I am guilty of his death. In fact, I think
> I am guilty of a lot of things. Not a nice idea, but I won't try to
> deny it.
Well, if you are so guilty, stop blaming others and put your
own moral house in order. Surely people who don't subscribe to
your moral views are less accountable for not following them
than you who do subscribe to them?
You admit guilt, but words are cheap. Forget your *past* guilt.
There are people starving right *now*, and you *can* prevent it.
Have you given them *all* your income yet - and all your earning
ability? If not, you can do more. Your moral theory *obligates*
you to do it, right now. If you do not, then you don't really
hold that theory. Put up or shut up.
Jan W.
------------------------------
Return-path: < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Fri 3 Jul 87 14:28:34-PDT
From: Lynn Gazis < SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: Re: Religion vs. liberty?
To: KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU
Keith, there are many evils in the world. If I have just worked
against the ones I can see clearly, I have done all that can be
expected of me, even if I have not been able to form an opinion of all
of them. I am not really throwing away my vote because I don't have a
political philosophy as comprehensive as libertarianism. I have clear
political opinions about some things, such as freedom of conscience
and peace. If a government needs to support and not interfere with
freedom of conscience, that says a lot about what the government may
or may not do. Without freedom to believe the religion you choose,
say or write what you choose, and gather together with people who
share your beliefs, there can be no effective freedom of conscience.
Without some protection of privacy and some protection of the rights
of the accused, there would also be no freedom of conscience, since
the government could threaten people without having solid evidence
that they have broken the law. Also, in order for freedom of
conscience to be protected, laws should be objective, for if people
can not tell whether or not they are breaking the law then the
government can apply the law arbitrarily to people with unpopular
views. It is true that on many issues, like tax reform, I am unable
to make up my mind what position is best, but there are enough
differences between candidates on freedom of conscience issues and
peace issues on which I do hold a position that I have no trouble
voting.
I am glad that you do see a distinction between what should be legal
and what is moral. I had had the impression from some earlier
postings that you thought that the minimal standards one should follow
in order not to be thrown in jail were also the only standards one
needed to follow in any case.
Lynn Gazis
sappho@sri-nic.arpa
------------------------------
Return-path: < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 87 23:04:37 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" < KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Religion vs. Liberty?
To: sappho@SRI-NIC.ARPA
> I am glad that you do see a distinction between what should be legal
> and what is moral. I had had the impression from some earlier
> postings that you thought that the minimal standards one should
> follow in order not to be thrown in jail were also the only
> standards one needed to follow in any case.
Well, it depends on what you want to accomplish. If your only goal is
to stay out of jail, the minimum standards are the only ones you need
to follow. I believe that more is necessary, but perhaps not in the
same direction as you do.
I think it is good to help one's neighbor, especially in an emergency,
or if he lost all his property in a fire, or whatever. I don't think
it is any kind of commandmant that one should do so, or that one
should be punished for not doing so. The only real crimes are those
involving force or fraud. I don't think it particularly admirable to
help a neighbor who is a perpetual parasite. If you think it is, if
you think that people have a duty to help others regardless, why
doesn't this same duty apply to those others? How can they get away
with helping no-one, not even themselves?
The prime good is what is good for oneself. This is the basis for all
ethics, all morality. This is explained in Ayn Rand's _The Virtue of
Selfishness_.
Rand DOES hold that her Objectivism is not compatible with
Christianity. I am not sure I agree. She certainly had Oral Roberts
brand of hellfire Christianity in mind when she wrote that. I agree
with her that the system which preaches that the Bible is literally
true, that the universe is about 6000 years old, that rocks were
created with multiple consistent ways of dating them as being far
older, that starlight and neutrinos were created in transit, bearing
information about supernovas that never happened, that plants and
animals were created with vestigial related organs whose only possible
purpose is to trick us into falsely believing in evolution, that
innocent souls that offended no-one are called into brief worldly
existence and then tormented forever with unlimitted torture for the
crime of falling for the deception rather than disbelieving their
minds and their senses and taking the Bible on blind faith, is a
nightmare view of existence, and if I believed such horrors for a
moment, my only prayer to the omniscient omnipotent torturer would be
to cause this nightmare universe never to have existed.
Such a view of Christianity, as practiced, is incompatible with
altruism anyway. A true altruist (one who puts the good of his
neighbor ahead of his own) who believed in fundementalist Christianity
would kill as many infants as he could. Infants are held to be
without sin, since they have no chance of voluntary redemption. By
committing mass murder, the Christian would ensure his own damnation,
but would be saving a large number of fellow humans from a similar
fate. What greater instance of selfless self-sacrifice could there
be?
The fundamentalist, if not reduced to incoherent outrage at this,
would respond that doing this would be contrary to God's will, and
altruism is not a value of itself, but only to the extent that God
wills it. And why is God's will objectively good? If one feels more
sinful when one sins than when one's neighbor sins, even though an
equal amount of sin is in the world either way, it must be that God's
will is not objectively good, but that one is motivated by sheer
self-interest. If one must be nice to one's neighbor to stay out of
hell, that is what one will do. If one must instead torture and kill
one's neighbor, that too is what one will do, if God ordered it (as
the Bible says He often has - it is a very violent book).
No, objectivism is not compatible with that kind of Christianity. For
one thing, in objectivism some things, such as murder and robbery, are
just plain wrong. Not because God arbitrarily willed it, and not
subject to His changing whims.
Whether you find it compatible with your brand of Christianity, and if
so, which to reject, is up to you.
...Keith
------------------------------
End of Poli-Sci Digest
**********************