poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (06/05/85)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA> Poli-Sci Digest Wed 5 Jun 85 Volume 5 Number 25 Contents: BR Votes in Space Prior Restraint ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Book Review: The Pentagon and the Art of War, by Edward Luttwak Before reading this book, I would have agreed with you (anyone) that $50 screws and $600 toilet seats constituted a major problem, and that the Pentagon should institute major cost accounting overhauls. After reading this book, you will agree with me that such extravagances are the most minor of symptoms of the *real* problem, beside which they pale to insignificance--and that "major cost accounting" etc is the *last* thing which should be done. Why did it take US forces of 1500 troops (not counting supporting personnel) three days to take Grenada from 22 Cuban regulars and a bunch of conscripted construction workers? Why did we "lose" the war in Vietnam? To anyone interested in political science as abstract systems analysis, this book is a great exposition of how a system can be structurally incompetent, *even though every single individual in it is competent, well motivated, intelligent, ** and knows what the problem is!!*** For those interested in the military fortunes of the United States, it may help you to understand why we seem to be getting less and less military oomph for more and more money. Luttwak is no peacenik or soldier-baiter. He's author, among other things, of "The Grand Strategy of the Soviet Union." I personally don't think much of his proposed solution to the problems he points out, but I don't know a better. I believe that "The Pentagon and the Art of War" is worth your time (and money). --JoSH ------------------------------ From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley Date: 30 May 85 15:59:08 CDT (Thu) Subject: desirability of voting JoSH comments: > ... However, I'll be damned if I'll give it > to a political entity (read: any organization in which voting occurs). > I would suggest that a very loose collection of enthusiasts, a sort > of market in which engineering groups, publications, shows and > conventions burbled around "spontaneously", would have a much > better chance of actually (a) lasting long enough to do some good, > (b) coming up with viable designs, and (c) in the event of success, > being the basis of a free society, than a rigid organization following > "n-year plans". While I share some of his misgivings (and agree with his later comments about the desirability of clusters of smaller habitats rather than one large one), I do feel impelled to point out one issue of organizational dynamics. A group with no formal organization, making decisions by consensus, is much more easily dominated by a few aggressive people -- when decisions are by consensus, dissent is seen as counterproductive obstructionism. The purpose behind, say, "Roberts' Rules of Order", and the whole formal machinery of voting that goes with it, is to give everybody a voice and prevent a few vocal people from controlling the whole outfit. Mind you, I'm not saying that this is necessarily bad. I tend to agree with the view that parliamentary bodies' accomplishments are directly proportional to the degree to which they *are* dominated by small groups of strong individuals. (Of course, the accomplishments aren't necessarily the ones most of the members want...) But this augurs ill for a free society as an end product. If the loose collection of enthusiasts can accomplish the desired result while remaining a loose collection of enthusiasts, then it's OK. If the task at hand is demanding enough to require extensive joint efforts and close coordination -- I suspect that early space colonization may be -- then ballot boxes may be a better idea. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry [I would *still* disagree, but, possibly to your surprise, by going to the opposite extreme. I claim (and I'd really like to start a discussion over this) that if such a tight coordination is needed, a monocratic structure of some form is necessary. A "democratic" structure is the last thing you want. My concept of the market here is essentially a group of competing (voluntarily formed) monocratic structures in competition with each other. This foils the primary disadvantage of monocratic rule, namely that you often get the wrong man (woman) on top: those units fail and the others continue. In a democratic structure, the strong personalities who would be the entrepreneurs in the market would spend their energies fighting each other rather than competing, a difference I would analogize with the difference between a barroom brawl and a footrace. --JoSH] ------------------------------ Date: Thu 30 May 85 14:44:40-PDT From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA> Subject: restriction on harmless things (and more drunk driving) I agree with you that the idea that people can't make decisions about their own lives is dangerous. When it comes to things which are not bad in themselves, but are correlated with things that are and are easier to control than those things, I am less sure. I would like to decide each case individually, depending on how high the correlation is, how bad the thing to be controlled is (especially to people other than the person you are restricting; that person can make his or her own decisions, but not if doing so imposes disastrous consequences on someone else without his or her consent), and how restrictive the law being suggested is, rather than deciding a priori that no such laws are ever justified. I might be willing to be prevented from doing a few harmless things if that restriction would make it much less likely that I would be seriously injured by someone else, but not if the restriction were broader and the risk more remote. Your first two examples I would agree are bad laws. I do not agree about your third example. I can use a hypodermic needle and choose not to use heroin, so using a hypodermic needle isn't bad in itself. I can not drive drunk without risking the lives and health of other people. I will allow that something is not bad in itself if a person can, by exercising good judgement, avoid the bad consequences. I will not agree that drinking and driving, which unavoidably involves risks both to yourself and to others who did not consent to that risk, is not bad in itself just because some people are lucky enough to not reap those consequences. And I see no reason to allow other people to risk my life and not punish them. If it is not the government's business to protect people from being injured and killed by other people, then I don't know what is the government's business. (Your argument might, however, reasonably be applied to those efforts at reducing drinking and driving by things like raising the drinking age, rather than by punishing directly those who drink and drive.) Lynn Gazis ------------------------------ 4-Jun-85 15:31:43-EDT,1089;000000000001 Return-Path: <Mills.Multics@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA> Received: from CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA by RUTGERS.ARPA with TCP; 4 Jun 85 15:31:33 EDT Date: Tue, 4 Jun 85 15:26 EDT From: Mills@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA Subject: Re: seat belt laws flooding the nation. To: POLI-SCI@RUTGERS.ARPA Message-ID: <850604192601.585737@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA> I to don't think seat belts should be manditory because they enhance the user's safety. However, I do support the laws on the following grounds: A person wearing a belt/harness is better able to control a car than someone who is not. In evasive emergency manouvers, the radical turns etc. can make it almost impossible to stay in front of the controls in a usefull manner if not strapped in. If a person is less able to control their car, they are more likely to hit someone/thing. If they are more likely to hit me because of their choice not to wear a belt, they are infringing on my rights. A less justifiable argument is that their recklessness increases my mandatory car-insurance premiums. John Mills ------------------------------ End of POLI-SCI Digest - 30 - -------