poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (11/29/84)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Poli-Sci Digest Mon 26 Nov 84 Volume 4 Number 107
Vote, n. The instrument and symbol of a freeman's power to make
a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.
--Ambrose Bierce
Contents: Disarmament?
Jubilee
Living the life of E. Coli
Electronic Democracy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 Nov 1984 0708-PST
From: CAULKINS@USC-ECL.ARPA
Subject: Unilateral Disarmament
In a recent POLI-SCI digest (V4 #105) Rick McGeer said:
"... we can never again unilaterally disarm, as we did in the
1970's. ..."
The idea that the US somehow disarmed in the 1970s is a myth which
seems to have been invented by the Reagan Administration. The facts*
are as follows: During the period from 1970 to 1980 the US produced 6
new models of warheads:
TYPE PRODUCTION MISSILE # DEPLOYED
---- ---------- ----------- ----------
W62 1967-1978 MMIII 900
W68 1970-1979 Poseidon 3480
W69 1970-1976 SRAM (B-52) 1140
W70 1971-1977 Lance 945
W76 1977-1983 Trident C4 2028
W78 1979-1983 MMIII 900
During the same period the US replaced all Minuteman I missiles with
Minuteman IIs (1973); finished deployment of the Minuteman III (1975);
and proceeded with development of various flavors of cruise missiles;
SLCM (72-79), ALCM (76-79), and GLCM (77-80). This is only a partial
list of US disarmament activity in the 70s.
* - Nuclear Weapons Databook, Vol 1, U.S. Nuclear Forces and Capabilities
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 84 17:37:54 pst
From: Rick McGeer (on an aaa-60-s) <mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley>
Subject: Re: Unilateral Disarmament
I was thinking more of conventional arms.
-- Rick.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 84 15:29 EST
From: Steven Gutfreund <gutfreund%umass-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Year of Jubilee (Yuval)
The laws of Yuval are D-orisa, (from the written Torah) and
in D'vorim (Deutoronomy) they are clearly stated as applying
the moment the Jews entered Israel (crossed the Jordan). [Not
after the Babylonian exile as one person stated]. They do
not apply today according to the consensus of opinons.
[Explanatory note: among the property repatriated every 50 years were
slaves. --JoSH]
------------------------------
From: wdoherty@mit-jason (William Doherty)
Date: 28 Nov 1984 1650-EST (Wednesday)
Subject: Life as a Cell
I like Jeff's comparison of the planet with a human life.
It's reminiscent of Lewis Thomas' "Lives of a Cell" and
Lovelock's "Gaia."
Will Doherty
[The life of a cell, indeed. I presonally don't want to be a cell;
with this model of the world you have thrown out any concept of individual
rights, individual feelings, aspirations, or anything else that makes
us human. I will not be a cog in a social machine. --JoSH]
Looking at the world from one simplistic point of view, whether it be
viewing the earth as a cell, or believing solely in the rights of the
individual, will not provide a good impression of what actually
occurs.
The reason it is important to look at the earth as an organism, or a
cell, is to understand that the earth, just as individual humans,
requires some maintenance as a total system, rather than simply as the
individual parts it comprises. Governments and corporations using the
earth's resources do not regard these resources as the property of
everyone on the planet, but as a resource available for them to take
whenever possible without negotiation, but in any case with the least
input of capital possible. Thus, the resources that are most difficult
to protect are the resources that are most difficult to clearly assign
ownership, as they are commonly owned, i.e. air and water.
Few advocates exist for the protection of these resources and those
advocates that do exist have little power to legislate and enforce
environmental protections. Everyone has incentive to fix these
problems, for themselves and for those to come, but the incentive is
spread equally over the entire population, thus no one takes the final
responsibility and little or nothing is done, to the disincentive of
all.
[The world=body argument here is circular, I think. There is no reason
to believe that the world needs "total maintenance as a system", except
that you think of it as an organism, and vice versa. Pointing out that
some resources are not private property and thus not well conserved
only suggests to me that those resources maybe should be private property
after all... --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Mon 26 Nov 84 09:26:09-PST
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
Subject: Electronic democracy
It has been suggested that electronic voting would mean that the
poor would be less well represented. I think a case can also be made
that the uneducated would be less well represented.
If anyone is interested, I would be happy to defend the postion
that both of these would be *benefits* of electronic democracy!
TCS
[E.D. is hardly necessary for the poor to be less well represented.
Indeed I claim that the poor will be less well represented in any
political system whatsoever. Consider the current one.
As usual, this becomes obvious when considered from the opposite
point of view than the one commonly taken. In any political system
which dabbles deeply in the economic life of its country, political
power becomes a source of great potential profit. It is thus worth
a lot of money to obtain this power; and that money will be spent
by those who have it. The law is most avidly bought and sold when
it is worthwhile to acquire it. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 28 Nov 1984 16:20:04 PST
Subject: Electronic Democracy
From: David Booth <DBOOTH@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
"I think the chances for fraud are greatly increased. When
votes take place rarely, substantial effort can be put into
detecting fraud. This isn't possible when votes take place
every day. A slight bias in the voting to pass some little tax
provision could mean big bucks to certain groups."
In one sense, the potential for fraud may be increased, depending on
how the system is implemented. Any proposed implementation should be
carefully scrutinized to determine its potential for fraud. Again,
simplicity is of the utmost importance.
In another sense, the potential for fraud may be substantially
decreased: recall the fraud that occurs every day in our current
system, as our elected representatives' votes are swayed by Political
Action Committees (PACs) and other special interests. This "slight
bias" does indead mean "big bucks to certain groups", and we
individuals are nearly powerless to do anything about it. We're stuck
with our representative at least until next election, and even then
there will most likely be only one other candidate to choose from.
In contrast, under a proxy system we could select the person we
really want to represent us -- instead of choosing between the lesser of
two evils -- and since our proxy selection could be revoked at any
time, proxies would have to be more sensitive to their "constituents".
From: Hank.Walker@cmu-cs-unh.arpa
"If you need electronics to vote, then voting isn't free."
Voting certainly should be free. If any electronics are required, they
should be equally accessible to rich and poor. See also my answer to
Mike Zaleski below.
From: Mike <ZALESKI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
"How will we prevent 15 year old crackers (criminals) from
disrupting the whole system? What computer system could
possibly support such a grand national operation with
reasonable reliability, response time, and security?"
From: David Booth <booth@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
"The proposed proxy system, even with a hierarchical discussion
system and the ability to assign different proxies to different
issues, is probably several orders of magnitude simpler than
the defense computer systems to which we now entrust our lives
each day. For a nationwide system to be secure and reliable,
it is essential that it be simple."
From: Mike <ZALESKI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
"This sounds to me like proof by hand-waving."
It was not intended as a "proof" -- it is merely a plausibility argument.
Until a particular system or implementation is proposed, it is pointless
to debate its security or insecurity.
From: Mike <ZALESKI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
"Most people don't have computer terminals."
From: David Booth <booth@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
"No, but it won't be long before they do. Furthermore, most
people *do* have televisions and telephones right now."
From: Mike <ZALESKI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
"You left out two other parts of my argument:
1. Most people do not have any desire to spend their spare time playing
around with computer terminals. This scheme strikes me as a thinly
veiled attempt to establish a techno-elite leadership.
2. Expecting that people will either spend money for this equipment
or pay a proxy will inevitably mean the poor get less of a voice in
the new electronic order."
I didn't address these points in my last message because I thought they
had been adequately addressed before. In answer:
1. People who do not want to spend their time on politics can choose a
proxy to represent them. Most people will choose to do this; it is
one of the major reasons for a proxy system.
2. As our representatives, proxies should be paid by the government,
based on how many people they actually represented. Individuals
should not have to pay to vote or pay to use a proxy, because that
would discourage participation and prevent the poor from being
represented. Similarly, if a proposed system requires any special
equipment, the required equipment should certainly be made
accessible to rich and poor alike.
From: Mike <ZALESKI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
"I don't know quite how you intend to use the phone system in this
electronic voting scenario, . . . ."
I certainly would not advocate using the phone system in its current
state. I mentioned that most people do have televisions and
telephones, but I did not mean to imply that our current phone and TV
systems should be used. I was simply trying to demonstrate that we do
have the technology available to implement a system of Electronic
Democracy.
----
From my original HUMAN-NETS message, which began this discussion:
"Widespread availability of computers and electronic
communication holds great potential for improving our
self-governance. The purpose of this message is to solicit
ideas of how this potential might be used to improve our
existing system of government, or as a cornerstone in a
completely new and better system of government."
-- David Booth dbooth@usc-isif.ARPA
------------------------------
Date: 28 Nov 1984 16:22:07 PST
Subject: Moving ongoing discussions from one list to another
From: David Booth <DBOOTH@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
This discussion of Electronic Democracy has suffered greatly from --
Are you listening, moderators? -- being moved mid-stream from the
HUMAN-NETS list, where it started, to POLI-SCI. Out of deference to
those who had followed from HUMAN-NETS to POLI-SCI, I tried to avoid
repeating answers on POLI-SCI. Unfortunately, the result was that
for many points and questions raised by POLI-SCI readers, either:
1. the point had been made already in HUMAN-NETS;
2. a reply had already appeared in HUMAN-NETS;
3. the answer would have been obvious to those who had read
the HUMAN-NETS part of the discussion; or
4. the point was irrelevant to the purpose of the
discussion, stated in HUMAN-NETS.
The moral:
Thou shalt think long and hard before moving an ongoing discussion.
-- David Booth dbooth@usc-isif.ARPA
[We did. However, remember that it was for purposes of exactly
this kind of discussion that PSci was split off from HNets in the
first place. --JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------