poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (03/30/85)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Poli-Sci Digest Sat 30 Mar 85 Volume 5 Number 10
Contents: Sex
Gold
(got your interest now?)
Tarrifs
"For your own good"
other replies to TCF's "10-point plan"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 85 13:47:38 PST
From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Savage dukes
Savages list of positions tempts me to respond to all of them. However I will
control myself and address the question of biological reasons for difference
in social position between men and women..
It is obivous to anyone who can step back from their personal investment to
see that the biological differences bewteen males and females supports a
difference in social position. However it is much more difficult to step back
from our cultural conditioning and take an honest look at what difference in
roles is actually supported by the biology. For example many think that our
recent system of the male being the breadwinner is biologically supported.
The anthropological data and archeological data supports an oppostite
conclusion.
I have read several books that make a biological argument for the double
secual standard. The best ethnographic studies that I have seen again
would support an opposite conclusion.
I think that it is only the last ten thousand years of evolutionary
history that would support our recent definition of roles.
PS. I don't know why Savage is so opposed to other forms of thinking than
the logical.
richard
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1985 17:21 EST
From: Dean Sutherland <Sutherland@TL-20A.ARPA>
Subject: Bank runs etc.
Those of you who have followed the Ohio Svaings and Loan closings may be
interested in the following.
For an excellent history of banking in the United States (with examples from
other countries) read "The Case For Gold" by Rep. Ron Paul and Lewis Lehrman.
The book is the minority report of the US Gold commission of a few years ago.
The authors purpose in writing the book was to convince the congress that the
US should be on a hard money standard.
Although their arguments on that front are not entirely convincing (ie. they
did not win me over to their position without reservation), their history of
banking and monetary policy will take what you thought you knew and set it on
its ear. Since what they had to say disagreed completely with what I learned
in school, I did a fair amount of extra reading on the subject and discovered
that their facts (and probably their interpretation) are entirely correct.
All in all a good read.
Dean F. Sutherland
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1985 16:51 EST
From: Dean Sutherland <Sutherland@TL-20A.ARPA>
Subject: Tariffs
Assertion: The US should unilaterally remove all tariffs, import restrictions,
import quotas etc. (By unilaterally, I mean regardless of whether any other
nation reciprocates)
Armed with a handy reference book which was recently lent to me, I will
undertake to defend this postion against all contenders.
Dean F. Sutherland
Sutherland@tartan.arpa
PS. I will send a pointer to the book via direct mail to anyone who requests
it
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 85 13:14:21 PST
From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Government roles
I don't know the answer to Hank Walker's question on where do you draw the
line on government control. However I feel very strongly that passing such
laws as those mandating seat belts is the correct way of preventing him from
paying for the consequences of my not wearing them. The best way is to eliminate
laws which in effect requiare you to pay for my lack of responsibility, ie to
remove all government support for medical care. I truly believe that I am
bet prepared to take care of myself as are most people. The problem to me
is not defining the correct role of the government. Rather it is how do we
go from where we are to a system that makes more sense.
In other words simply abolishing various social legislation does not seem to
me to be too wise. I think rather we should start by abolishing legislation
which benefits the wealthy before we abolish legislation which protects the
poor. For example how about eliminating all professional licensing laws as
a step in that direction.
Ps I am not a libertarian. I tried it and didn't like it.
richard
[Indeed... perhaps you should (have?) read "The case against a Libertarian
Political Party" by Erwin Strauss, (editor of The Libertarian Connection")
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 85 15:24:09 PST
From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: Logic
I find Steve Dennett's logic not much better that the political logic he
complains about. He implies that the 50,000 man years wasted time 700 lives/
year is a greater loss than 500 deaths. That is, it is as bad to be driving
along on the freeway as it is to be dead. I doubt that many people would agree.
Most prisoners facing capital punishment seem to think that it is better to
be confined to a cell than to be executed. They would probably be evan more pleased to be driving. I know people that don't feel that
the time they spend on the highway is not wasted no matter what the speed.
With cellular phones the time spent in a car can become as productive as the
time spent in an office (at least if one believes the ads). In this view there
can be no comparison of the "wasted" time to the deaths.
I suggest that there is very little difference between politicians and
bureacratic cronies and reactions to information that doesn't support biases
than the rest of us. The only difference between people in congress and the
rest of us is that their biases are examined every two years or so by an
independant review board and if their biases are too far from acceptability
by the board they are fired by being voted out of office. I attended a town
hall meeting of my Congressman a few nights ago and I am forced to admit if
I am honest that he was probably the least biased person in the whole meeting,
including me.
richard
------------------------------
Date: Thu 28 Mar 85 16:55:51-PST
From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: Age-based restrictions vs. ability tests
I'd like to see you defend 10. Ability tests sound fairer than
age-based restrictions, but I'd like to know how you deal with
the fact that younger people often tend to be less responsible
than older people. For example, a driving age is unnecessary
to determine ability to drive; we have driving tests for that.
A drinking age is also unnecessary to determine ability to drink.
But younger people are more likely to endanger other people's
lives by drinking and driving than older people are, so having
a high enough driving age, a high enough drinking age, or both,
can cut down on the number of people who are killed by other
people's recklessness and stupidity. I had rather a responsible
17-year-old could drink and drive, but not both at once, and a
50-year-old who insists on doing both at once be restricted. But
a drinking age of 21, unfair though it is, makes it less likely
that I or someone I love will be killed or maimed by a drunk driver,
so I support that unless someone has a better alternative which
will still reduce fatalities from drinking and driving.
It is even harder for me to think how one can measure whether
someone is responsible enough to raise a family, so I don't
know what you would replace the marriage age with.
Lynn
[Well, Terry promised to defend his position, but let me get a
snipe in first: Suppose you take your "but younger people are
more likely ..." (which is statistically true) and replaced
it with "but black people are more likely" (which is also statistically
true). How do you like the laws your own logic leads to now? --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Thu 28 Mar 85 17:52:20-PST
From: Lynn Gazis <SAPPHO@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: abortion and infanticide
I see two differences between killing before birth and killing
after birth.
1. Most of the characteristics that I see as valuable in other people,
which make their lives worth protecting to me, are characteristics
which are acquired by associating with other people. There is a
sharp distinction between a fetus and a baby which is no longer
in the womb; a fetus has had no opportunity to associate with
other people. A baby is not much different than a slightly
older baby, so I can't see any reason to draw a line at a
particular point.
2. Guaranteeing a fetus's right to life imposes a great burden on
the woman who has to carry it for nine months. None of us can
take that burden away from her, even if we were willing to
assume it ourselves. Babies, however, can be raised by someone
else, and there are many people eager to raise them. I am
willing to pay for the support of those babies who are unadoptable,
and I think there are enough people willing to pay, and enough
people willing to take care of them for money, that we could
care for them even if the government didn't force everyone to
pay. I can understand why it might be more painful for a
woman to bear a child and give it up for adoption than to
abort it before she had a chance to get attached to it, but
I can't see that the same applies if she has a choice between
killing a child and giving the same child up for adoption.
So there is no compelling reason to allow her to kill the
child, as there is to allow her to kill the fetus.
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 29 March 1985 00:57:22 EST
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: balancing the budget
What's the big deal? If you freeze dollar spending at current levels, you
balance the budget in 3.5 years. If you allow the budget to grow at
inflation minus 1%, you balance in 6 years, and if you fix the budget in
real terms, you balance in 8 years. This assumes a 4-5% inflation rate, 3%
real growth, and no tax cuts. The more drastic measure is like cutting $43B
a year from the existing budget for 3.5 years. That requires wholesale
hacking. The intermediate choice requires cutting about $9B a year for 6
years. That requires eliminating the non-essentials like revenue sharing,
mass transit aid, etc. That basically amounts to the Reagan budget minus
the real defense growth. The final choice is relatively easy. Some
programs like Social Security are growing faster than inflation due to the
increasing number of recepients. That can be counterbalanced by some minor
elimination of flab.
[Unfortunately, the political realities are such that not only will the
budget not be frozen, but actively added to. According to J Peter Grace
in "Burning Money" (which I highly reccomend), off-budget items account
for more than half what the govt actually spends, more than doubling the
$854 billion official figure. One quote:
"The median family income has increased from $3187 in 1948 to $24100
in 1983. Meanwhile, its tax burden has increased from $9 to $2218
(including Social Security, from $39 to $3833). In other words, while
its income has increased 7.6 times, its income taxes have gone up 246.4
times. And to balance the Federal Budget, we'd almost have to double
this tax burden."
--JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------