poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (11/10/84)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 8 Nov 84 Volume 4 Number 103
As it will be in the future, as it was at the birth of Man--
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began--
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
--Rudyard Kipling
[By the way, does anyone know what this refers to? --JoSH]
Contents: Emotionalism Everywhere
Evil Empires
Electronic Electioneering
Electoral Emolument
Rent Repression
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 08 Nov 84 07:48:40 PST (Thu)
Subject: Emotionalism in Politics
From: Martin D. Katz <katz@uci-750a>
A few issues back there was a comment (I think it was JoSH, but I am not
sure) that the Democrats deal emotionally with issues and the Rebublicans
deal more realistically. I have waited until after the election to respond
since this could be taken as a political, rather than political science
discussion.
I don't buy the emotionalism argument. I think that we all have several
aspects on which we judge a candidate (or proposal):
1) Emotional feelings
2) Moral acceptability
3) Is it good for me
4) Is it good for the community (country)
These are listed roughly in order of importance. This seems to apply to
both "Major parties." I think the major difference in this election was
which special interest groups were being listened to when the decisions were
made as to how to present the issues.
Examples:
1) The Republican's anti-semitism issue (warping the Democratic platform).
2) The Democrat's antinuclear campaign (partly based on realism,
but emotionally presented).
3) The handling of the deficit/taxation issue by both parties. The
Republicans made an emotion based appeal using the "Is it good for
me" approach. The Democrats made an emotion based appeal using the
"Moral acceptability" approach.
4) The "Prayer in School" and "Abortion" issues. There seemed to be less
discussion of legal and social effects of constitutional ammendments
in these areas, rather there was a major call to Jihad on both sides.
By Jihad I mean force the opponents to do what is correct, if they
oppose our moral position they are (by definition) immoral.
It's no wonder that Reagan won by such a large margin: Mondale handed him the
economy, took a stand which opposed moral intervention (thus leaving himself
open to being labeled immoral), and placed a large part of his campaign
effort into opposing nuclear arms (leaving himself open to charges of
weakening America). The Hart-Jackson-Mondale conflicts is still
remembered (the anti-semitism argument came to Reagan via the anti-Jackson
campaign), and having a woman on the ticket didn't entice a significant
number of women to vote.
Contrary to the argument made in the earlier issue, I think that Reagan
manipulated the emotions and morals better than Mondale. Maybe this is why
Reagan's coat tails didn't result in a Republican controlled house of
representatives?
I think that a remarkable number of people voted for Mondale under the
circumstances.
[(a) Yes, it was me (b) I agree that both campaigns were presented
emotionally, as are all campaigns (c) my point was that the *policies*
once the shouting was over were as I characterized.
(d) I suggest that people voted against Mondale because he is a wimp,
and that any deeper analysis not only misses the point but ascribes
motives that were simply not present to large parts of the electorate.
--JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 8 Nov 1984 10:56:55-EST
From: sde@Mitre-Bedford
Subject: Evil Empires
An overwhelming distinction, and one which virtually defines the difference
between truly evil systems and those which are merely bad, is the presence
or absence of the right to freely leave a system, place, organization, or
entity. If there is a coercive prohibition against leaving (as distinct
from merely saying that those who leave are "defectors" or whatever),
then those being held against their will are innocent prisoners and/or
slaves, and those imposing such wrongful imprisonment and/or slavery
are ipso facto evil.
If there is no such coercion, then it is at least arguable that there is
consent.
Moreover, the history of the U.S. is one of increasing respect for human
rights and freedoms (broadly speaking, although not monotonically).
Would those opposing the term "evil empire" to refer to the U.S.S.R.
also oppose using the term to apply to the Mafia or to Nazi Germany?
After all, one may have to negotiate with them or their ilk from time
to time, or is it only communists that one is not to call evil?
David sde@mitre-bedford
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 84 15:11:22 pst
From: Rick McGeer (on an sun) <mcgeer%ucbrob@Berkeley>
Subject: Russia, again...
Kolodney:
Look, there's hardly a nation on earth that hasn't done its share of
"evil" things. Look at american genocide against Native Americans.
Our virtually feudal control over latin america, harboring Nazi war
criminals. Talk about "empire", the entire western US was gained
via "imperialism". And the "holy father". Look at what the Catholic
Church has done in its glorious history: Kept millions in fearful
ignorance, propogated virulent anti-semitism, did the inquisition,
the crusades and so on.
I see no reason to put quote marks around the word "evil" in this little
diatribe. However. While America has wronged in the past, and continues to
do so in the present, there are degrees and quantities of evil; shades of
grey, if you will. Our influence in Latin America is minimal compared to
Soviet domination of Eastern Europe; "genocide" and "imperialism" are gross
overstatements of the case as it applies to the Americas. What bothers me
about Kolodney's letter is that it minimizes Russian wrongdoing, while
overstating the sins of America and of the Church. To compare American
treatment of native citizens, which is admittedly poor, to the Soviet Gulag
or the continuing repression of Eastern Europe is like comparing larceny to
axe-murder; one might as well, and as easily, argue that there is no moral
distinction between Russia of the eighties and Germany of the thirties.
In this life, we must make relative moral judgements. In any sane standard,
Russia comes out very badly.
Kolodney:
How about Egypt, Indonesia, Albania, Yugoslavia, Somalia?
None of these nations were ever absolutely in the Soviet grip, to the extent
of having large numbers of Soviet troops stationed on their soil and veto
power resting in Moscow. For that matter, China didn't, either. And you
know, Somalia was abandoned by the Russians when Ethiopia had a communist
revolution.
Lubar:
I am appalled, and frankly, frightened, to see an intelligent,
educated, normally clear-thinking person like Rick McGeer defend a
world view where we (USA) are good guys and they (USSR) are bad
guys, "evil". Don't get me wrong; I think the USA has a better
system, and I'm glad I live here, and all that. But Steve Upstill
is right about how that sort of world view leads to problems, like
an unwillingness to negotiate.
Well, thanks, I suppose. And I'm glad you find our system, despite its lack
of political prisoners, Gulags and subject states, better than the Russian.
However, you have misunderstood me. I didn't say we shouldn't negotiate.
Indeed, I believe we should. If we refused to deal with all the evil
nations on this planet, then we would deal with none of our adversaries,
almost none of the neutral states, and, sadly, few of our allies. The thugs
outnumber the good guys by an enormous margin on this sorry planet, and we
rather happily live cheek-by-jowl with many of them (Hello, Ferdinand,
Augusto; actually, it's a sad commentary on the global polity that Marcos, a
thug by any reasonable standard, isn't all that bad. Relatively speaking.)
We exist in this world and must take it as we find it, though we need not
leave it as we find it. In any case, we won't get any further ahead with
the Russians (or anyone else) by pretending to ourselves that they are not
what they manifestly are.
In such a viewpoint, there is no room for opinions, differences,
errors in judgment, good intentions, change of government leaders,
and no excuse for *caring* about "that evil empire" (which happens
to be made up of lots of people who don't like their government's
behavior any more than we do). You can't really argue with someone
using terms like "evil"; either you agree or you must be evil
yourself. And that's simply too few bits for an issue as important
as world relations.
Foo, what a load. In any case, no, I don't believe in Russian good
intentions, and there have been four "Little Fathers of All the Russias" in
my lifetime; if there has been any perceptible difference, it has escaped me.
And I don't particularly care about the fate of the Russian empire, save
that I find it highly desirable that it never rule me nor the civilized
societies on Earth; and if the Russian people truly detest their government,
they seem to be doing remarkably little about it. In any case, I do not
believe that either you, or Steve, or Kolodney are evil; I think you're
terribly naive and I'm glad that you're not making our foreign policy
decisions. I suppose it's mutual.
I'll leave you with one last thought. One has only to look at
history to see that one of the greatest causes of malicious, "evil"
deeds has been the goal of eliminating "evil" - all religious
persecution, for example. Yes, let's be realistic about the USSR.
But let's not label them in such a way that we no longer see them as
a *peer* which we must work with and try to understand, like them or
not.
I'd have said that the greatest evil in human history (WWII and the
slaughter of the Jews) was caused in part because the civilized world would
not resist Hitler when very little was required to stop him, and because the
world refused for many years to acknowledge Hitler for what he was. In any
case, I never said we should try to eliminate the Russians as evil. As
you've noted, we can't. We can't even get rid of Pinochet, not that we're
trying. However, that we can't eliminate them, and even that we must work
with them, is no reason to disregard their nature. That would be a most
peculiar moral view, if somewhat expedient. "A thug is a thug, unless, of
course, he happens to have The Bomb. Then he's misunderstood."
Rick.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 84 10:39:35 pst
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley (Steve Upstill)
Subject: Representative Govt.
I agree that there is far too much to government to leave it up to
direct vote, i.e. everything by referendum. On the other hand, there
are significant flaws in representational govt., summed up by the popular
attitude toward "politicians". Add to this the fact that we only get to
vote for representatives every N years, and usually get a restricted
choice then, and well ... you know.
An idea!!! (forgive me if this has been proposed before; I've been
avoiding much of the recent discussion) How about if everybody gets one
vote on every issue, but can assign that vote to a representative (proxy).
If you want to send your vote in a particular direction, you can so notify
your proxy (or do it directly). Otherwise, the proxy manages the votes
given to him/her. You can switch proxy at any time you become displeased
with his/her decisions. You can choose any proxy you like. Your level of
participation is directly proportional to your level of interest. You can even
take your vote back and cast it how you like, if interested. Maybe, you could
even assign your votes on foreign policy issues to this proxy, your votes on
taxation to this proxy, etc.
Needless to say, this idea is only made possible by information-processing
technology, as the transactions involved are super-numerous and rapid. So
how do you like that as a scheme for electronic democracy?
Steve
[Ahh, kind of like the Electoral College? --JoSH (-:]
------------------------------
Date: 8 Nov 1984 13:30:11 PST
Subject: Electronic Democracy -- E-mail discussion & decision making
From: David Booth <DBOOTH@USC-ISIF.ARPA>
Re: "Perhaps somebody who has been in [the Common-LISP@SU-AI] group
. . . could offer comments on whether it's succeeding or not and
how much concensus is actually achived online versus how much goes
on at in-person meetings after the mailing list has collected random
opinions." [Robert Maas <REM@SU-AI.ARPA>]
From the acknowledgments in Guy Steele's new book, "Common Lisp":
"The development of COMMON LISP would most probably not have
been possible without the electronic message system provided by
the ARPANET. Design decisions were made on several hundred distinct
points, for the most part by concensus, and by simple majority vote
when necessary. Except for two one-day face-to-face meetings, all
of the language design and discussion was done through the ARPANET
message system, which permitted effortless dissemination of messages
to dozens of people, and several interchanges per day. The message
system also provided automatic archiving of the entire discussion,
which has proved invaluable in the preparation of this reference
manual. Over the course of thirty months, approximately 3000 messages
were sent (an average of three per day), ranging in length from
one line to twenty pages. Assuming 5000 characters per printed
page of text, the entire discussion totaled about 1100 pages. It
would have been substantially more difficult to have conducted this
discussion by any other means, and would have required much more
time."
This doesn't entirely address Robert Maas' question, but it is an interesting
testimonial.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 84 15:46:07 pst
From: Rick McGeer (on an sun) <mcgeer%ucbrob@Berkeley>
How much to pay politicians? I think the only criterion that counts
is that it shouldn't be enough to live on. Damn it, we never had any
trouble with those yo-yos when they actually had to quit Washington or
Sacramento most of the time and earn a living like the rest of us. The
single worst idea in a representative democracy is to insulate a politician
from the effects of his decisions; he loses all of his incentive not to be a
damned fool. Moreover, forcing these jokers to work for a living will leave
them less time for mischief.
To make these proposals concrete, let's give these guys the wage
they earn now -- I believe it's on the order of $70K/annum -- but pro-rate
it for a three-month period, giving them about $17K. Now that's enough to
live on, sadly, but they'll have a hard time maintaining a residence plus
accomodations in Washington on that, especially if they have a family. We
won't have to legislate a day when Congress recesses; I guarantee that if
they're only getting three months' pay, on April Fool's Day they'll be long
out of Washington, and being cab drivers, lawyers, or hackers, or whatever
it is that these guys do when they aren't picking our pockets.
Rick
------------------------------
Date: Thu Nov 8 1984 12:09:22
From: Yigal Arens <arens%usc-cse.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
Subject: Rent Control
>From: Terry C. Savage <TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
>Rent control:
> I will not buy property in any area that has rent control. If all
>potential property owners took the same view, the municipalities
>that pass it would reap the disaster they deserve!
Not so. I've looked into small apartment building (3-8 apts) ownership in
Santa Monica, which has a pretty strong rent control law. Without actually
counting, I'd estimate that at least 50% of these buildings are currently
owned by someone who owns only that building, usually one of the tenants.
Far from causing a disaster, large property owners' desire to sell their
buildings in Santa Monica appears to have resulted in a decline in prices
that has simply made the properties more affordable. This has caused a
"distribution" of ownership of property in the city - a positive effect in
my view.
A contributing factor in Santa Monica is the extremely high price of single
family homes. An average 6 unit building in a nicer area costs slightly
less than double the price of an average 2 bedroom home in the same area
($450K and $250K respectively). Several people I know who can't afford a
home here are looking into buying a small apartment building (usually
together with friends). The greater tax advantages and the rental income
make that easier to do.
Yigal Arens
[The effects of rent control, like any other kind of price control, are
fairly simple to foresee if you're willing to look straight. If the
ceiling is above the market price, there isn't much effect; if below,
the supply dries up and blows away. (Look at the Bronx--it would be
a great place to film "Dresden: the aftermath" or "the Decline and
Fall of the Empire State") When the limit is in the middle of
a range, things get interesting. Some of the market disappears or
has to be propped up by other means--I seem to recall that Santa Monica
requires commercial buildings to have a residence unit in them (which
is funny, since that's the sort of thing zoning tries to prohibit
elsewhere). Anybody know the whole story? --JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------