poli-sci (08/04/82)
>From JoSH@RUTGERS Tue Aug 3 20:57:16 1982
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 4 Aug 82 Volume 2 Number 160
Contents: Nuking the People (3 msgs)
Get Out of Jail Free Cards (2 msgs)
Libertarian SF (2 msgs)
The Guns of San Francisco (2 msgs)
Here's the Plot, What's the Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 1982 0824-EDT
From: Mike Inners <INNERS at CMU-20C>
Subject: Using nuclear weapons against 'The People'
Perhaps you can explain how you use nuclear weapons against the Communist
(or any other) 'invaders' without killing the general populace? Perhaps
we should deal with Poland by nuking Warsaw? By their very nature, nuclear
weapons cannot be aimed at anyone but 'the people' of the target country,
unless you are one of the apparently all-too common breed of US rightists
that don't consider the ordinary inhabitants of Communist countries to
be 'people'. The government of North Korea doesn't have much to redeem
it, but using nuclear weapons against it would be just mass murder -
of the Korean people, which governments have a nasty habit of hiding
within.
-- Mike Inners
------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 1982 1650-PDT
Subject: Use of Nukes against people or governments
From: Mike Leavitt <LEAVITT at USC-ISI>
This is one more area where consrvatives and libertarians
often disagree sharply. All but the smallest nuclear weapons are
instruments of mass desctruction if they are anything (whether
for deterrence or war-fighting). Conservatives accept the need
to use them to kill large segments of populations living in
territories controlled by hostile governments, even though many
of the people are "innocent bystanders" in any reasonable sense
of the word. Although it is a controversial point, most
libertarians reject the use of nuclear weapons for this reason.
Thus libertarians would take the phrase "the people of Korea"
etc. in a very different sense than would conservatives (where
"people" is seen as merely a Communist code word).
Mike <Leavitt at USC-ISI>
------------------------------
Date: 3 August 1982 19:18-EDT
From: Bill Hofmann <WDH at MIT-MC>
Subject: Nukes, wealth
While it is true, as APPLE points out, that the real AVERAGE standard
of living in Third World countries has risen, this hasn't been due to
an across the board increase, but rather due to the rapidly increasing
fortunes of a small elite in each country. In fact, in most Third
World countries since WWII, the differential between the top 5 and
bottom 5 percent has been increasing rather noticably.
Well, all of the referenced threats are verified (the one about Korea
was openly discussed in the period), in general from presidential
documents. The reason Nixon did't authorize use of nuclear weapons
was that North Vietnam called his bluff (Nixon said "better watch out,
or we'll nuke you," NV said "go ahead") and he feared that the
domestic reaction would be too strong.
-Bill
------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 1982 0734-PDT
From: CAULKINS at USC-ECL
Subject: CIA "out of jail free" cards
From a message by Will Martin:
[I am reminded here of the CIA "Get Out Of Jail Free" cards, which
had text like "The bearer of this document is entitled to aid and
assistance from all US forces. He is authorized to wear non-standard
uniform, carry special weapons, and enter off-limits areas. Do not
detain or question him. If he is killed, do not remove this document
from his body...etc."]
I'm fascinated; when did the CIA do this ? Are they still ? Seems
quite dangerous, since the KGB or anyone else could copy the text and
then have carte blanche to do all sorts of neat and evil things.
Self-authenticating documents are possible, but counter**N measures
make their design and reliability dubious. The phrase "do not detain
or question" is particularly dangerous.
Yours in paranoia,
Dave C
------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 1982 0818-PDT
Subject: Re: CIA "out of jail free" cards
From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin)
I believe that they were issued to CIA operatives in RVN during
the late unpleasantness; copies are constantly advertised for
sale in magazines like Soldier of Fortune. There was a recent
editorial note in SOF describing a law-enforcement bulletin which
had been sent out over some national law-enforcement distribution
which warned police that the cards were fakes and not to believe
that the guy a cop pulled over for speeding and flashed the card
was a secret agent on government business -- I suppose some
people had gotten away with using them this way.
I don't think they are currently used, but who can say?
Will (or somebody using his name...)
------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 1982 10:31:44-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Re: Re: Libertarian SF
Now that someone has clearly articulated the somewhat murky message at
the end of VENUS BELT the arrogance of Smith's brand of Libertarianism is
even clearer. Somebody owns Venus?!? How? The same way we got to own most
of this country? (It occurs to me that this issue, and its effect on the
development of the US, is another of the ones that Smith just sweeps under
the rug (in claiming that the two Bears, being of Indian descent, were
relatively unaffected by history).)
I found ALONGSIDE NIGHT to be a great deal more plausible in that it
doesn't flatly contradict some well-understood sections of our past
(historians have strongly suggested that the British would have destroyed
the infant U.S. either militarily or economically (which latter is a lot
harder to unite against than an invading army)).
------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 1982 1224-EDT
From: JoSH <JoSH at RUTGERS>
Subject: Re: Re: Libertarian SF
I would agree that the U.S. Government, the current owner of the US
territory, expropriated much of it, and bought the rest from parties
(eg, France) who had done the same. Note that the Government is the
true owner of the territory in the libertarian sense, having ultimate
say in its disposition regardless of the wishes of the citizen "owners".
(Not to mention charging rent...) But then libertarians never really
expected a government to respect anyone's rights to begin with.
One must allow Smith's assumption in the story, however, that Venus
contains no life at all, much less intelligent life. At which point,
why shouldn't someone own it? What's the size of an object at which
ownership of it becomes "arrogant"? The libertarian doctrine of
ownership as a natural right claims that ownership derives from trade
or from use of something previously unowned. This surely would apply
to a planet (in the story, making a lot of useful asteroids out of a
useless hellhole) as well as a patch of farmland.
--JoSH
------------------------------
Date: 3 August 1982 09:28-PDT (Tuesday)
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: the five billion dollar guns
I suppose eminent domain doesn't apply or may not apply
because the city doesn't say you have to turn in your gun; only that
you have to get rid of it.
A national gun control law may be another matter. If
estimates of 5x10^7 handguns are accurate, the US might find
themselves in for a $5x10^9 liability if they try to implement gun
confiscation. This is a significant amount in tight budget times. It
would have to be tested in the Supreme Court. Has anyone read any of
the decisions (if there were any) that said that gun control was not a
"taking" under the constitution?
BTW, I don't like gun control, but I don't think I would mind
some safety standards (child-proof safeties, must be able to fire ten
times in one minute without exploding, etc.)
Dick
------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 1982 1016-PDT
From: WILKINS at SRI-AI (Wilkins )
Subject: handguns
If anyone in California is worried about the SF Police overriding the
Fourth Amendment, they should look at Proposition 8, passed this June,
and they'll really have something to worry about.
David
------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 1982 1554-EDT
From: JoSH <JoSH at RUTGERS>
Subject: Here's the Plot, What's the Title?
Does anyone keep track of current conspiracy theories? I met an old
friend up for a high-school reunion recently, who told me how the
world is being secretly run by the British Oligarchy who control the
international banking system, and how the British Intelligence
through their Georgetown think-tanks control the Democratic Party
and are trying to ruin America by having it adopt the Global 2000
report as its platform. He supported these claims with a veritable
barrage of facts and figures. It seems that he is but one of an
multitude of people who believe these (same) things, and they have
newsletters, run people for President, etc, some of which he told
me about, though the only name I could remember out of the avalanche
was Lyndon Larouche.
Is there really such an organization? Is it really as off the wall
as my friend (who can go overboard at times)? This all reminds me of
the time my college roomate had a visit from an old friend of his who
tried to convert us to Scientology...
--JoSH
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------poli-sci (08/04/82)
>From JoSH@RUTGERS Tue Aug 3 23:20:23 1982
Poli-Sci Digest Wed 4 Aug 82 Volume 2 Number 160
Contents: Nuking the People (3 msgs)
Get Out of Jail Free Cards (2 msgs)
Libertarian SF (2 msgs)
The Guns of San Francisco (2 msgs)
Here's the Plot, What's the Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 1982 0824-EDT
From: Mike Inners <INNERS at CMU-20C>
Subject: Using nuclear weapons against 'The People'
Perhaps you can explain how you use nuclear weapons against the Communist
(or any other) 'invaders' without killing the general populace? Perhaps
we should deal with Poland by nuking Warsaw? By their very nature, nuclear
weapons cannot be aimed at anyone but 'the people' of the target country,
unless you are one of the apparently all-too common breed of US rightists
that don't consider the ordinary inhabitants of Communist countries to
be 'people'. The government of North Korea doesn't have much to redeem
it, but using nuclear weapons against it would be just mass murder -
of the Korean people, which governments have a nasty habit of hiding
within.
-- Mike Inners
------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 1982 1650-PDT
Subject: Use of Nukes against people or governments
From: Mike Leavitt <LEAVITT at USC-ISI>
This is one more area where consrvatives and libertarians
often disagree sharply. All but the smallest nuclear weapons are
instruments of mass desctruction if they are anything (whether
for deterrence or war-fighting). Conservatives accept the need
to use them to kill large segments of populations living in
territories controlled by hostile governments, even though many
of the people are "innocent bystanders" in any reasonable sense
of the word. Although it is a controversial point, most
libertarians reject the use of nuclear weapons for this reason.
Thus libertarians would take the phrase "the people of Korea"
etc. in a very different sense than would conservatives (where
"people" is seen as merely a Communist code word).
Mike <Leavitt at USC-ISI>
------------------------------
Date: 3 August 1982 19:18-EDT
From: Bill Hofmann <WDH at MIT-MC>
Subject: Nukes, wealth
While it is true, as APPLE points out, that the real AVERAGE standard
of living in Third World countries has risen, this hasn't been due to
an across the board increase, but rather due to the rapidly increasing
fortunes of a small elite in each country. In fact, in most Third
World countries since WWII, the differential between the top 5 and
bottom 5 percent has been increasing rather noticably.
Well, all of the referenced threats are verified (the one about Korea
was openly discussed in the period), in general from presidential
documents. The reason Nixon did't authorize use of nuclear weapons
was that North Vietnam called his bluff (Nixon said "better watch out,
or we'll nuke you," NV said "go ahead") and he feared that the
domestic reaction would be too strong.
-Bill
------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 1982 0734-PDT
From: CAULKINS at USC-ECL
Subject: CIA "out of jail free" cards
From a message by Will Martin:
[I am reminded here of the CIA "Get Out Of Jail Free" cards, which
had text like "The bearer of this document is entitled to aid and
assistance from all US forces. He is authorized to wear non-standard
uniform, carry special weapons, and enter off-limits areas. Do not
detain or question him. If he is killed, do not remove this document
from his body...etc."]
I'm fascinated; when did the CIA do this ? Are they still ? Seems
quite dangerous, since the KGB or anyone else could copy the text and
then have carte blanche to do all sorts of neat and evil things.
Self-authenticating documents are possible, but counter**N measures
make their design and reliability dubious. The phrase "do not detain
or question" is particularly dangerous.
Yours in paranoia,
Dave C
------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 1982 0818-PDT
Subject: Re: CIA "out of jail free" cards
From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin)
I believe that they were issued to CIA operatives in RVN during
the late unpleasantness; copies are constantly advertised for
sale in magazines like Soldier of Fortune. There was a recent
editorial note in SOF describing a law-enforcement bulletin which
had been sent out over some national law-enforcement distribution
which warned police that the cards were fakes and not to believe
that the guy a cop pulled over for speeding and flashed the card
was a secret agent on government business -- I suppose some
people had gotten away with using them this way.
I don't think they are currently used, but who can say?
Will (or somebody using his name...)
------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 1982 10:31:44-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: Re: Re: Libertarian SF
Now that someone has clearly articulated the somewhat murky message at
the end of VENUS BELT the arrogance of Smith's brand of Libertarianism is
even clearer. Somebody owns Venus?!? How? The same way we got to own most
of this country? (It occurs to me that this issue, and its effect on the
development of the US, is another of the ones that Smith just sweeps under
the rug (in claiming that the two Bears, being of Indian descent, were
relatively unaffected by history).)
I found ALONGSIDE NIGHT to be a great deal more plausible in that it
doesn't flatly contradict some well-understood sections of our past
(historians have strongly suggested that the British would have destroyed
the infant U.S. either militarily or economically (which latter is a lot
harder to unite against than an invading army)).
------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 1982 1224-EDT
From: JoSH <JoSH at RUTGERS>
Subject: Re: Re: Libertarian SF
I would agree that the U.S. Government, the current owner of the US
territory, expropriated much of it, and bought the rest from parties
(eg, France) who had done the same. Note that the Government is the
true owner of the territory in the libertarian sense, having ultimate
say in its disposition regardless of the wishes of the citizen "owners".
(Not to mention charging rent...) But then libertarians never really
expected a government to respect anyone's rights to begin with.
One must allow Smith's assumption in the story, however, that Venus
contains no life at all, much less intelligent life. At which point,
why shouldn't someone own it? What's the size of an object at which
ownership of it becomes "arrogant"? The libertarian doctrine of
ownership as a natural right claims that ownership derives from trade
or from use of something previously unowned. This surely would apply
to a planet (in the story, making a lot of useful asteroids out of a
useless hellhole) as well as a patch of farmland.
--JoSH
------------------------------
Date: 3 August 1982 09:28-PDT (Tuesday)
From: KING at KESTREL
Subject: the five billion dollar guns
I suppose eminent domain doesn't apply or may not apply
because the city doesn't say you have to turn in your gun; only that
you have to get rid of it.
A national gun control law may be another matter. If
estimates of 5x10^7 handguns are accurate, the US might find
themselves in for a $5x10^9 liability if they try to implement gun
confiscation. This is a significant amount in tight budget times. It
would have to be tested in the Supreme Court. Has anyone read any of
the decisions (if there were any) that said that gun control was not a
"taking" under the constitution?
BTW, I don't like gun control, but I don't think I would mind
some safety standards (child-proof safeties, must be able to fire ten
times in one minute without exploding, etc.)
Dick
------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 1982 1016-PDT
From: WILKINS at SRI-AI (Wilkins )
Subject: handguns
If anyone in California is worried about the SF Police overriding the
Fourth Amendment, they should look at Proposition 8, passed this June,
and they'll really have something to worry about.
David
------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 1982 1554-EDT
From: JoSH <JoSH at RUTGERS>
Subject: Here's the Plot, What's the Title?
Does anyone keep track of current conspiracy theories? I met an old
friend up for a high-school reunion recently, who told me how the
world is being secretly run by the British Oligarchy who control the
international banking system, and how the British Intelligence
through their Georgetown think-tanks control the Democratic Party
and are trying to ruin America by having it adopt the Global 2000
report as its platform. He supported these claims with a veritable
barrage of facts and figures. It seems that he is but one of an
multitude of people who believe these (same) things, and they have
newsletters, run people for President, etc, some of which he told
me about, though the only name I could remember out of the avalanche
was Lyndon Larouche.
Is there really such an organization? Is it really as off the wall
as my friend (who can go overboard at times)? This all reminds me of
the time my college roomate had a visit from an old friend of his who
tried to convert us to Scientology...
--JoSH
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------