poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (03/29/85)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 28 Mar 85 Volume 5 Number 9
Contents: Lots of suggested new subjects
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wednesday, 20 March 1985 23:52:32 EST
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
Subject: metadiscussion and real discussion
Long-time readers of Poli-Sci will recall that the digest has gone through
light periods before, but has always been revived when someone posts a long
flaming message, usually having a lot more to do with politics than
political science. On the other hand, those of you who have been
involved with university political science departments know that such a
distinction has long since disappeared, if there ever was one.
For example, voting techniques clearly can be classified as political
science. Specific policy decisions are clearly politics. But then there is
this nebulous region in between about the role of government, the sayings of
John Locke, libertarianism, etc., that might best be called philosophy, or
perhaps political philosophy.
Here is a subject that I think falls into that nebulous area, but is
concrete enough so as not to bore people to tears: Is it possible to
organize society so that as completely as possible, the consequences of a
persons actions are felt only by him, and not by others? For example, on
principle I don't like seat belt laws. But as our society is currently
organized, people who don't wear seatbelts are costing me real money, and I
like that even less than violating my principle. So I support seatbelt
laws. Now if a person could ride around without a seatbelt and die in
peace, without costing me anything, then let him. Now it is possible to
take this argument to an extreme. Any person who isn't working as hard as
possible, staying in perfect health, etc., is costing me money indirectly
because he increases the demand for doctors and thus their cost, or earns
less and thus pays less taxes, so I pay more, etc., etc. Where does one
draw the line? How do our humanitarian instincts enter into this? If I see
a car accident, I'm not going to let a person bleed to death just because
they didn't wear a seatbelt (I am CPR trained and so should you be). If he
dies, I'm not going to let his family starve. In other contexts, usually
welfare and Social Security, this has been called the "free rider" problem
of people not paying for some benefits, but receiving them anyway.
Political scientists and economists have grappled with this issue in
numerous books, but to my knowledge, have never come up with a satisfactory
solution except for simple cases. This seems to me perhaps to be a moral or
lifestyle or personal values problem, which cannot, I claim, be solved
through political action. No amount of government action will make people
eat right or exercise. The Russians have tried and failed. Similarly for
everything from premarital sex to driving carefully. The only possible
solution seems to be persuasion, particularly if you can tie the goal in
with sexual attractiveness. That always works.
------------------------------
Subject: Getting the ball rolling... (New Russian Leader)
Date: 20 Mar 85 21:38:32 PST (Wed)
From: "Tim Shimeall" <tim@uci-icsd>
Gorbachov seems to have experience mainly with the internal affairs of the
Soviet Union, principly their agricultural system. This is in marked
contrast to such past leaders as Andropov. True, the Soviet economy
is in dire straits, so this is probably the best choice at the current
time, but I would have expected a Gromiko to be selected, simply due
to his international role as the Soviet Union's foreign minister.
Now, I freely admit that I am FAR from an expert on the Soviet
Government and its internal affairs, so I would greatly welcome
an information (or opinion) on this subject.
Tim
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 85 08:35:57 PST
From: Richard Foy <foy@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
How about the budget as a topic. A Kiplinger News letter gave the budget in
terms of what I would pay with a typical middle class income. It follows.
Budget Spending (billions) What I Pay
Defense $285.7 $2715
Veterans 26.8 254
International 18.3 174
Science, space 9.3 88
Energy 4.7 44
Enviornment, resources 11.9 113
Agriculture 12.6 120
Commerce, housing 2.2 21
Transportation 25.9 246
Community development 7.3 70
Education, training,
social services 29.3 278
Social security 202.2 1922
Medicare 67.2 638
Health 34.9 332
Income security 115.8 1100
Justice 6.6 63
General gov't 5.2 50
Revenue sharing, etc. 2.8 27
Interest (net) 142.6 1355
Misc. receipts - 37.5 - 356
Totals $973.7 $9253
Notes: Social security and Medicare are in trust funds financed by payroll
taxes. The amount collected exceeds the amount paid out.
Income security includes about the same amount for government pensions
as it does for welfare type items.
One can see that there is no way out of the budget crunch. There are only
four items big enough to make a dent on the deficit and they are all sacred.
It seems to me that by the end of the current four year period we will be
well on our way to economic disaster.
What do the poli-sci's think is the answer?
richard
[this looks like an appropriate spot to insert the following graph:
2
|
|
|
1 |
|
/
/
----
0 --------------------------------
1800 1900 2000
^
You are here
The line of course represents the national debt in TRILLIONS. A trillion
is an amount that represents $4000 for each man, woman, and suckling babe
in the country. The graph, due to the "ascii blackboard", does not show
the really sharp turn taken in the past ten years correctly. The current
debt limit is $1.8T, shortly to be reached. This is more than half the GNP!
I don't think that there is any way out short of massive debt monetization.
And we all know what that means. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Thu 21 Mar 85 09:11:18-PST
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Put up your dukes!!
OK toads, I'm tired of not having anything to argue about! I will defend
any or all of the following outrageous positions against all comers:
1) Abortion should be legal at birth + or - nine months
2) The best defense policy would be to airlift to every soviet
citizen a Sears catalog and a gift certificate for $100, annually.
3) Limited slavery/indentured servitude should be legal.
4) All anti-discrimination laws relating to private businesses should
be repealed.
5) All government social welfare programs should be phased out in order
to reduce the incidence of poverty.
6) We should actively pursue genetic engineering in order develop superior
and/or specialized organisms.
7) There are sound biological reasons for many of the differences in social
position between men and women.
8) There is nothing wrong with incest, as long as you keep it in the
family.
9) Religious training should be banned for being detrimental to logical
thinking.
10) All age-based restricitions/rights should be eliminated in favor of
ability tests.
11) There is no free lunch.
I actually believe some, but not all, of these assertions, but I will
defend each of them (at least to a point). I would also like to hear
what's on other people's minds, but I *hate* falling asleep at the
terminal.
Hope I've tweaked at least a few!
TCS
------------------------------
Date: Sun 24 Mar 85 22:29:41-PST
From: Steve Dennett <DENNETT@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Subject: Political "Logic"
Sometimes, when I read about the reactions of politicians (and their
bureacratic cronies) to information that doesn't support their biases, I
don't know whether to laugh or scream.
The recent example that has prompted this message relates to a law is
particularly aggravating to those of us living in the wide-open western
states. I refer to the federal 55 mph speed limit, now 10 years old. It
was the subject of a recent study by the National Research Council, which
found that:
- the speed limit is violated by 74% of the drivers on roads affected by it.
- the speed limit is primarily supported by those not affected by it (e.g.
Easterners and urbanites who rarely drive).
- the speed limit costs 50,000 man-years per year in wasted time (i.e.
about 700 lives/year).
- the speed limit theoretically saves 500 lives per year; but the drop in
deaths since the law was enacted can easily be attributed to the decline in
highway fatalities that has been recorded almost every year since 1928
(due mainly to safer cars, better road, etc.).
- the amount of gasoline saved is less than 1% of the U.S.'s total fuel
consumption.
Given this information, what did the NRC recommend? Why, keeping the law,
of course.
As a staff member of the House Committee that originally introduced the
bill put it, "There is nothing in the NRC report that indicates to the
committee that the 55 mph speed limit should be changed."
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------