JoSH@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (JoSH) (09/25/85)
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 25 Sep 85 Volume 5 Number 37 Contents Neighborhood control Nicaragua Prisoner's Dilemma ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Sep 85 11:28:39 edt From: Liudvikas Bukys <bukys@rochester.arpa> Subject: neighborhood watch, etc I intend to find references for my assertions about political use of rationing, the form of neighborhood political control, etc. It will take some time, though, especially since I have lots of stuff to look through, and debating on POLI-SCI has to be one of my lesser priorities. Meanwhile, I am happy to see the debate producing opposing references. I shall return. -- Liud -- <bukys@rochester.arpa> ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Sep 85 11:08:05 PDT From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA> To: poli-sci@rutgers Subject: Comments I found the latest message very intereting. In fact I have saved a copy (which I usually don't do) for source material for letters to Congress etc. I hope that Lynn, Power and Steve don't mind me quoting them. The bar charts of force ratios presents one picture. I wonder if Josh would be willing to portray total forces in the same manner. I think as Steve mentioned that total forces is much more meaningful. It seems to me that the most important thing for people like Lynn, Power, Steve and myself to do is to really try to understand what is motivating the people who support the hawkish approach. I have a friend who is relatively conservative. I have a lot of discussions with him. My main purpose is to try to understand. I find that we can generally have a usefull discussion. However when we get to a certain point related to the possiblity of nuclear war he will quit the conversation. I wonder if the possiblity of nuclear war is too threatening for some people to evan discuss it as contrasted with denying the possibility that our current approach may be increasing the danger rather than reducing the dasnger. Josh my reaction to your editorials. Most newspapers evan the most liberal or the most concervative that I read; evan the TV editorials tend to give opposing views more exposure. How about adding to your comments a few selected words from the files of opposing views? [Rather, I generally add my comments TO the "files" of opposing views --with some vague intent of preserving balance... --JoSH] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Sep 85 09:27:08 PDT From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill) Subject: Nicaraguan armed forces Josh: you backed up your figures showing an "alarming" per-capita rate of men under arms by Nicaragua, but you failed to respond to my points in response to your original statement. Just as a reminder, they were: 1) The relevant statistic is not the soldiers/citizen ratio, but the absolute number of soldiers, since it is the latter that fight, not the former. 2) Since Nicaragua has a relatively small population, the absolute numbers are less threatening than your statistics. 3) Since Nicaragua faces the unalloyed hostility of four states surrounding it, plus the United States' forces indefinitely "on maneuvers" in Honduras, plus the Contra, it might be interesting to compare the total of those to the force level of Nicaragua. I would also like to add to these a further question: just why are these forces considered threatening? I have no doubt that the Reagan Administration would jump for joy if Nicaragua invaded any of its neighbors, since that would provide a politically saleable pretext for overthrowing its government. Therefore, Nicaragua's forces cannot be considered a threat to its neighbors. Are they a threat to the Nicaraguan citizenry? If so, then I have to ask why the Sandinistas have so extensively armed the population. To make an interesting fight? Anxiously Awaiting Your Reply, Steve Upstill [OK. I posted the "alarming" figures in response to your question, "Why should we be upset about Nicaragua?" Nicaragua is one of the most militarized nations in the world (in the top 5). I find this unsettling in itself. The forces in Nicaragua at the same time (a) much larger --in absolute terms-- than necessary to protect itself from its geographic neighbors, and (b) useless against a determined invasion by the US, should such occur. So: What are Nicaragua's forces for? --JoSH ps-- Disapproval of Nicaragua on my part is not to be taken as approval of any other government or policy...] ------------------------------ Date: 17 Sep 85 16:32:10 EDT From: Tim <WEINRICH@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Subject: Misuse of editorial privilege [Thank you for the compliment, but I shall not accede to your request...] Personally, I have nothing against your addendums. I find them bearable at worst, useful and enlightening at best. But I'd like to point out that they are probably self-defeating. This digest has gotten itself a reputation for having a libertarian bias. Many people have mentioned this on the digest itself and to me in person. You argue that it is unbiased because anyone can send in anything they want to, but this misses the point. The editor of this digest is a libertarian, and the editor always has the last word in any argument, should he decide to use it. Anyone who knows the art of rhetoric as well as you clearly knows the power of having the last word. But whether or not you agree with this, the fact remains: people perceive this digest to be biased. Some people dont read it for this reason. And even the people who do read it never find out whether libertarians can win a fair argument. This is a shame, because I believe (and I hope you believe) that libertarian philosophy does not need an unfair advantage in order to win arguments. A powerful combination of facts and principles are hard to ignore, whether or not you have the last word. Personally, it makes no difference to me how or when you reply to people's messages. But I think these points are worth considering. (And, needless to say, I think that anyone who found your joke offensive must take themselves far too seriously.) Twinerik ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Sep 85 16:33:38 PDT From: mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley (Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s)) Subject: Prisoner's Dilemma... Here's a problem which we all have heard before, but I'd like to go over it again, principally to get the opinions of the Libertarians and non-Libertarians on this net... Detroit has motorcycle-like cars which could be sold, right now: basically, they are motorcycles with light metallic shells for protection against the elements. They should be relatively cheap, and are ideal commuter vehicles. Easy to park, take up less room on the road and freeway, very efficient. But. They are dangerous, for the same reason that a motorcycle is dangerous: have an accident with a car at freeway speeds and you're hamburger in a metal wrapper. Have an accident with another one of these get-arounds and you're probably better off than you would have been in a two-auto collision: seatbelt and air bag or not. Clearly we are all better off if we drove these cars for commuting. BUT if only a small minority drive them, they are very dead. Aren't we then better off if we're coerced into driving get-arounds for commuting, since this way we're assured that everyone else will have them as well? Waiting to be contradicted, Rick. [Aha! Something interesting and theoretical for a change. The Prisoner's Dilemma has a strong similarity to the Tragedy of the Commons. Essentially we have a situation where every person's behavior maximizing his individual benefit combines to everyone's detriment. Such situations are all too common. The solution, in my mind, is to adopt a system of interactions arranged so that each person's actions in his own interest redound to the greater overall good as well. A coercive system will only have these properties if the coercer is fairly beneficent and more or less omniscient. In practice neither is generally true: coercers work in their own interest, and on the basis of no more information than anyone else. Let us suppose the Congress were to adopt Rick's scheme and make it the law of the land. What would happen to all the existing cars? Would they be thrown away? That's not the best way to start saving money, which was the whole idea! If not, the kiddiecars will be sharing the same roads with people on vacations, not to mention carpools, busses, and trucks. Separate lanes for kiddiecars? Most accidents happen at intersections, folks. A separate road system, that doesn't intersect (on stilts, maybe)? Lots of savings there... Commuters aren't the only people on the road, and most people don't only commute. I think that the market would have given us kiddiecars if that's what people wanted--but they didn't. And safety was probably the least of their concerns. I suspect that comfort and general utility were uppermost. The Honda Civic type car goes a good way toward the commuter-style vehicle, especially compared with the chrome-encrusted land yacht of yesteryear. And who has done the most to *hurt* the imported econoboxes? Why good old Uncle Sam, with his import quotas (yes, I know all the actual details). Oh, well, this "editorial comment" has gotten 'way out of hand. Sayonara! --JoSH] ------------------------------ End of POLI-SCI Digest - 30 - -------