poli-sci@ucbvax.ARPA (09/29/84)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Poli-Sci Digest Sat 29 Sep 84 Volume 4 Number 91
"The only existing things are atoms and empty space;
all else is mere opinion." -- Democritus
Contents: KoreaP
Rights etc
Homework
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 84 16:46:06 EDT
From: dca-pgs <dca-pgs@DDN1.ARPA>
Subject: Korean War Questions
In the Korean War, there appears to have been a considerable lag
between the commencement and the conclusions# of cease-fire
negotiations.
What is the most accepted interpretation of why the North Koreans
Initially agreed to negotiate, and why a cease-fire agreement was
ultimately concluded? (I don't remember if the PRC was involved in
the talks.) Was it mainly military disadvantage, or were there other
reasons, and did those reasons remain constant or change over the
course of the negotiations? What are the chances of another NK/SK
conflict?
Thanks for all info, both direct & bibliographical.
-Pat Sullivan
------------------------------
Date: Tue 25 Sep 84 12:10:45-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS@USC-ECL.ARPA>
In response to Josh:
1) I don't believe in "rights" as most people define them, so, in
response to the specific question, no, I would not have that
"right".
2) As a practical matter, of course I wouldn't shoot you for it.
It would probably help if , for the term coercion, I substitute
the phrase "attempts to modify the behaviour of..", which is much more
value neutral. In this particular example, I enjoy the "coercion" or I
wouldn't be on the list! In the more general case, if someone is
attempting to modify my beha\viour in ways that I don't care for, I
will typically use the minimum level of "coercion" needed to prevent
the modification, whcih, in this case, would be counter-persuasion!
Prior restraint--restriction based on probablilities
In the case of a past act, such as a murder, whatever, that has
already occurred, it is possible to have functional certainty that
harm was done. In the case of all prior restraint laws, which include
censorship,porn restrictions,driving restrictions(including drunk
driving) where no accident is involved, and other such, people are
being restrained, and often punished, because they are in some way
increasing the probablity (or so some say) that harm will be done
to someone.
I have never seen this issue addressed directly. It would be
silly to say that increasing the probablity of harm should not be
restricted at all, but how much of an increase should be considered
significant? How great should the harm be to be considered
significant? If for example, some act could be determined to
increase the probablility that someone will lose a nickel form
1% to 2% in the next year, that act should be ignored by the
law--that kind of change is in the noise of daily variations. If,
however, some act is judged to raise the probablility of death for
someone from 2% to 20% in the next year, that act should be
restricted somehow.
I would be interested in any comments people have! I don't
(yet!) have a specifc point to make, but I would suggest that
1) In order to impose a restriction, some quanitifed understanding
of the potential harm that might be done must be
obtained.
2) The amount of harm for consideration should be the increase
in probablity times the quantified harm
3) Some minimum threshold of "effective potential harm" must be
crossed before a restriction would be imposed.
I should point out, to avoid at least *SOME* flames, that I have no
illusions about the "accuracy" of the calculations--I submit that
the process (hah!) of going through the calculation will force peole
to see what it is they are really proposing.
TCS
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 84 15:49 EDT
From: Aspnes@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: Re: Justice, Correct and Current
I don't see a double standard. "We" cannot *know* that our principles
are correct. We also cannot *know* that another's principles might be
more correct than ours. It is the denial of the possibility of
correctness among others that Mr. Cox lambasts the Nazis and the
Communists for; how can we call ourselves more correct if we share their
faults?
Mr. Cox states: "... I am confident that, if [we are unsure of our
principles to the point that we do not exclude Nazism and Communism from
possible outcomes of our political process], we will in fact not
survive, but will be replaced by some society which is less certain of
its own unworthiness."
I sense an argument here that seems to be running to "among pirates, one
must act as a pirate." Certainly we would not want to allow a
fundamentally unjust and unfree government to rise in this country. But
can we stay that process be erecting a government that is both unjust
and unfree without the need for revolution? Here, I believe, is the
double standard.
--Jim (Aspnes@MIT-MULTICS)
------------------------------
Date: 28 Sep 84 14:29 EDT (Fri)
From: _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Individual vs collective justice
From: JoSH <JoSH at RUTGERS.ARPA>
From: James A. Cox <APPLE @ MIT-MC>
Subject: freedom
I am in agreement with you on another unstated assumption, namely that
there is an objective truth and that most people spouting their nutty
theories are wrong in an absolute sense.
Tell, tell, tell!
------------------------------
Date: 28 Sep 84 16:31:28 EDT
From: Mike <ZALESKI@RUTGERS.ARPA>
Subject: Government on the move: Home computer use
Recently, there has been some discussion in the net.general
newsgroup on Usenet about last Sunday's edition of Sixty
Minutes. Since I did not see this program, I can only
paraphrase what I have read and toss this out as a topic for
discussion. Maybe someone out there is watching this situation
closely and can comment and be a little more specific about what
is going on?
What I read: Appearantly, the International Ladies Garment
Workers Union (ILGWU), a branch of the AFL-CIO, has been fighting
to make it illegal for people to do piece-work type work in their
homes somewhere in the New England area. Sixty Minutes interviewed
some women who were doing some sort of sewing work at home and
earning about $8 per hour. The claim is that these moves against
home piece-work are part of a bigger plan to move in on/crack down
on the computer business in which many people work at home. It is
further claimed that unions have been losing members lately and that
muscling in on the computer business seems like a good way to bolster
their ranks (though attempts so far have not been too successful).
Personally, I wouldn't want anything to do with a union. At best,
it would be a waste of money. At worst, it helps feed a bunch of
thugs who should be exterminated. I certainly hope this government
movement - if indeed it is one - is quickly stiffled.
-- Mike^Z Zaleski@Rutgers [allegra, ihnp4] pegasus!mzal
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------