poli-sci (07/02/82)
>From JoSH@RUTGERS Thu Jul 1 20:40:35 1982 Poli-Sci Digest Fri 2 Jul 82 Volume 2 Number 150 Contents: Conservatives and Freedom (2 msgs) Collectives Voting Rights Guns (2 msgs) Silence and Neutrality (3 (long) msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Jun 1982 0810-PDT From: FC01 <FC01 at USC-ECL> In reply to 'Government's best that governs least' I agree to the statement, but not to the interpretation. The whole point of decentralizing control is that it is supposed to minimize the governmental influence and power (if the 'Conservative' point of view is to be believed). The whole problem is that by allowing local governments the power to decide, you allow them the power to govern to as large or small a degree as they wish. The decentralized control concept (as in computers) allows tighter control, not looser control! If the federal government gets out of the business of protecting the right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness, they are not reducing the oppresive form of government that our conservative friend seems to have such a distaste for, but rather allowing the oppression that we know full well exists at a local level to flourish unchecked from 'above'. I feel that good government doesn't govern least, but rather governs least restrictively to the individual. What then is least restrictive to the individual? ------------------------------ 1-Jul-82 06:38:33-EDT,1896;000000000001 Mail-from: ARPANET site MIT-MC rcvd at 1-Jul-82 0635-EDT Date: 1 Jul 1982 0317-PDT From: Ganesha at OFFICE-1 Subject: conservatives and freedom To: poli-sci at MC Maybe I don't know what a "real" conservative is, but I somehow find it hard to believe that conservatives promote freedom for everybody and all concerned. To avoid long flames, I will detail two cases in which I feel people who call themselves conservatives limit rather increase individual freedom: (1) Many people who call themselves conservative oppose my right to read or see what I want. If I am a publisher they certainly attempt to prevent me from publishing what I want to publish. If I happen to sell something they consider "objectionable" they want the power to take it away and prevent me from selling it. In fact, they want to prevent people from reading some things until others have looked over these things and say it's okay for me to read or see them. (2) If I send my children to a school "organized along conservative principles" [refering to a local public elementary school, citation available on request], do they have a right to dress as they (or I) see fit? No! Certainly not! They'll have to dress the way some other people see fit. Note: I am not arguing that a private school might not have the "you play with my marbles, you play by my rules" privilege but that the environment does not promote freedom of choice or autonomy. I am quite willing to listen to arguments that doing these things might lead to a better and more stable society, or that they will cure warts and improve my lovelife too BUT I don't think belief of these ideas is indicative of a greater love of fredom than those of other political pursuasions. Have fun Sends Steve ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 28 June 1982 08:44-PDT From: KING at KESTREL Subject: comparison of kibbutzim and Russian collectives Kibbutzim in Israel are totally voluntary (although there are some tax benefits for being a member and the government subsidizes the enterprises themselves for a few years). The Russian collective farms are anything but. Also, the kibbutzniks run their own show. This is not true in the Russian collective farms. It seems most improbable to me that the differences of the success of the two enterprises are mostly a matter of scale. Some of the kibutzim have over 3000 members; hardly a small enterprise. Dick ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 1982 08:57 PDT From: Sybalsky at PARC-MAXC Subject: Re: Literacy Tests, paying for power... "It's easy to think the world would be a better place if only the most literate had power -- but trying to institute such a system would open a huge can of worms. Better and easier, I think, to try to improve the system we've already got, by ensuring that no one will be denied the right to vote." Taking this to its extreme, consider the plight of a lone Urdu-only speaker in Great Falls, Montana. Clearly, he's not literate in English, and has no community to communicate with. Should he be allowed to vote? Since he has no way of getting information about local affairs, how is he to develop informed opinions? Back in the pre-Voting Act days, New York had a very simple literacy requirement: You had to have passed thru the eighth grade before you could vote, or else you had to pass a reading test pegged at the eighth grade level. Can of worms? Only if you were a Puerto Rican who hadn't bothered to learn English so good yet. Of course, literacy testing CAN be a problem -- but the correct solution is to make the test the same for everyone, not to do away with the "elitist" test itself. "No one should be denied his say in government simply for inability to pay, for to do so would be to deny full citizenship to the poor." Excuse me. If I'm paying for the services the government provides, why SHOULDN'T I have a little more say about them than the guy who doesn't pay? Otherwise, one can envision a world where the non-working majority in the welfare untermensch vote to tax the working minority highly enough to keep life styles equal. This is progress?!? I'd prefer to see us return to the pre-Income Tax state of affairs: Each state has representation in proportion to its population. Each state also had to cough up tax money to the Feds in proportion to its population. This gave us a balance of incentives in the census. If you wanted more power, you had to pay for it. These days, of course, New York City has no incentive to claim fewer people, and every incentive (in the form of Federal aid) to claim more. Hence, the recent court cases over the 1980 Census. I would like to see the return of some negative incentive for claiming large populations. ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 1982 1004-EDT Subject: SF HANDGUN BAN From: WDOHERTY at BBNG Any comments on the recent ban of handguns in the fair city of San Francisco? Will (WDOHERTY@BBNG) [It's actually somewhat more honest than the NYC one, which masquerades as liscencing requirements, administered much like the more flagrant of the literacy Jim Crow laws. Expect crime rates in SF to rise slightly. --JoSH] ------------------------------ Date: 29 June 1982 22:28-EDT From: Gene Salamin <ES at MIT-MC> >From the Peninsula Times Tribune 6/28/82: JACKPOT, Nev. (AP) - A man who shot and wounded a deputy sheriff after a minor traffic accident, then fell in a hail of gunfire from two bystanders, has died from wounds sufferd in the desert shootout. Joseph F. Bresin, 32, of San Luis Obispo, Calif., died Sunday at Magic Valley Memorial Hospital in Twin Falls, Idaho. ... [Elko County Sheriff Jim] Miller said he was "convinced there would have been alot of dead people" at the desert rest area where the shooting occurred if the two bystanders, who were brothers, had not intervened. Well now, what do you suppose would have happened if they had banned hand guns in Jackpot? ------------------------------ Date: 28 Jun 1982 0822-PDT From: FC01 <FC01 at USC-ECL> If silence implies consent then why is it that I have to sign an agreement before it becomes binding? Why isn't it simply binding unless I specifically sign a counter document. Not getting involved in every issue that disturbs you is not like watching a mugging and doing nothing, nor is this a case of consent. Getting involved takes time, given that time in our lives is fininte, and the number of issues of import to most people is large, this makes for very little time on each issue, and very little time enjoying the life that we are living. If you wish to yield all of the pleasure in your life so that others may be helped that is all fine and good, some of us like to enjoy life as well as help others, and therefor haven't the time to speak out on every issue of concern to us. What of the mugging then? Is it not a danger to the concerned citizen to attempt to stop a mugger? It is certainly a danger to not stop the mugger since you may be the next victim, but unlike political issues there isn't a great deal of time in which to decide whether to rush into the frey or to simply stay away. It takes me more than an instant to decide to jump on top of a man with a gun who is taking a purse. The purse isn't worth my life or the danger to the life of the victim. It isn't even worth the muggers life. How about a knife? Even at the worst I would just get a few cuts and perhaps minor permanent damage. I probably wouldn't get killed by the knife, but still I'll think about it first. Maybe he knows karate, should I really jump into his kick to the head for that purse? ------------------------------ Date: 29 June 1982 1156-EDT (Tuesday) From: Gary Feldman at CMU-10A Subject: neutrality There are two parts to this issue: first, the general concept of being neutral or silent on an issue, and secondly, how that relates to the specific context of civil rights. To help keep these issues distinct, I will discuss the civil rights particulars in a separate message. Unfortunately, this forces me to occasionally expand statements in this message, while postponing the justification for a later point. Please bear with me. First, for the benefit of people who need to read things five times before they can get it right, my original statement was: "in this area, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." The words are all signifficant and precise. "In this area" means not in all other areas. "Problem" does not mean guilty party or terrible person; it means a question in search of solution (look it up). "Part of the problem" does not mean cause of the problem; it means that in order to solve the problem, we have to deal with these people. Now let's look at the comments: "On every issue, even important ones, there are going to be a large number, possibly even a majority of people who are basically neutral." [Pistritto] "Denying the existence of people who are uninvolved and have a right to stay that way denies those people an important freedom" [Spencer] "To claim that there are no neutrals ... " [Spencer] These statements are fascinating, indeed ironic in view of the later remarks on drawing conclusions from information that isn't there. I never said there were no neutrals. Nor was my statement one about opinions, but rather it was about actions. A correct conclusion would be that I think people who remain neutral contribute to the continuing existence of racism. Not only do I not deny their existence, but I know they are a majority, and I know that the fight against racism MUST be aimed at those people (for a simple reason: trying to convert a die-hard racist is almost always a futile operation and a waste of time; it is the non-die-hards that we must converse with.) "... denies those people an important freedom: not to be conscripted into somebody else's fight, or shot for refusing." [Spencer] Damn it, where did I say that I thought neutral people should be shot? They have the same right to their stance that I have to mine, that Kilpatrick, Helms, Cox, and Bob Jones have to theirs. Now I certainly don't advocate violence against Jesse Helms; how can you possibly conclude that I would suggest stronger action against others? On the other hand, you are clearly trying to deny me the right to make a criticism against some group for their actions. Where the hell did you get this ridiculous notion that neutrality confers immunity from criticism? What makes you think that neutrality is a "free" position, that you get to take without bothering to state your justification, and then demand that I give you the same credibility that I give Cox for stating his arguments rationally? "... whether the person recognizes the notion of 'innocent bystander'" [Spencer] "Israeli settlers in the Golan Heights are part of the problem in that area whether they speak up or not." [Spencer] You accept for yourself the notion that in SOME situations, people who don't speak up can still be part of a problem, but you assume, with no stated justification, that the same could not possibly apply in the area of civil rights. (Let me clarify my position: anyone who participates as a member of American society is affected by the racism in that society, for better or for worse. I'll justify this statement elsewhere.) How can you accept a possibility for yourself, but deny it to me? "I have long thought that one of the best tests to determine the presence or absence of fanaticism is whether ..." [Spencer] "This is the statement of a fanatic ..." [McGrath] I'm not even a member of the NAACP, much less the Black Panthers. At least I will support Kilpatrick's right to his criticism of the Civil Rights Act, my right to criticize Kilpatrick, and my right to criticize people who do nothing. (My faith in your supporting that last right of mine has been severely shaken.) Now that you finally have a data point showing that your test of fanaticism is unreliable, perhaps you should find another test (such as going around shooting people, or perhaps making false accusations against people without even caring whether you have facts to back them up). "the words are those of the PLO, the IRA, perhaps the KKK, certainly the 'Moral Majority,' probably the American Nazi Party, maybe the hard-core zealous Communists. Not to mention the Inquisition. ... one step along the road that leads to blowing up airplanes full of people who never heard of you as a 'political statement' on behalf of 'oppressed peoples everywhere.'" [Spencer] "this is the reasoning used to justify the killing and maiming of children in acts of political terror;" [McGrath] Gee, how long have you two been spokesmen for all of these groups? Have you ever listened to them? When was the last time any of them took out some New Zealand aborigines who weren't participating in their struggle? Terrorists use one argument for themselves: their struggle is more important than human life. Except for assasinations (which don't seem to fall into your classification), they don't say "those people deserve to die because they are not helping us." They kill people because they think the act of terror will further their cause, and they don't particularly care if their own supporters are accidently killed. On the other hand, they use two arguments to justify their actions to others: the Khadaffi argument: "What? Me have hit squads? I know nothing;" and the PLO/IRA/etc. argument: "If it is all right for them to kill our people, then it must be all right for us to kill them." The KKK justifies their positions on the grounds that a) blacks aren't people; and b) America belongs to the White Christian folk. The Moral Majority and the Inquisition (are they different?) have the Bible as their justification, and of course their interpretation of the Bible is infallible truth. From what I have heard of the American Nazi party, they are too irrational to even bother with justifications. The only group that comes close to making a statment comparable to mine are the Communists. (I hope you don't take that as a reflection of my views.) And, if you accept their assumptions about what the "problems of the world" are, their analyses are fairly consistent. But an analysis of a problem, and a proposed solution are two very different things. Those communists who advocate violent solutions justify them not on this basis, but on the assertion that the good of the whole community is more important than the good of any individual member (an assertion with which I strongly disagree). There is yet another, much more insidious (even dangerous) flaw with your mutual reasoning: I made a statement about a very particular situation. You claimed that other people use that REASONING in other situations to justify violence, and therefore I should be condemned for using that reasoning, even though I never condoned violence. How far do you take this? For hundreds of years supposed Christians have used the Bible to justify massive violence. Should we ban the Bible? Do we condemn people who say "this is right because God said so", on the grounds that the Inquisition said the same thing? Hitler justified the annexation of Austria on the grounds that there were German people there. Does this mean that Britain is wrong for defending the Falklands on the same reasoning? If we condemn communist revolution, must we also condemn the American revolution? Or in other words, why do you find it so difficult to understand that an argument can be applied quite reasonably and correctly in one context, and quite unreasonably and incompetantly in another? Next we'll have to ban modus ponens because some terrorist somewhere made a correct conclusion from a false hypothesis. "Think before speaking, please." [Spencer] I do. Do you? The one solid example you give (Israeli settlers) supports my argument, not yours. Otherwise, you failed to give one solid shred of evidence or reasoning to justify anything you said. "This is, in short, such an EVIL statement ..." [McGrath] As evil as falsely accusing someone of being a fanatic? The remainder of your message had some respectable amount of reason in it. But your first paragraph was totally devoid of sensible content. I believe the only people who will take it seriously are those that don't pay attention to such fine points as sensible content. Am I upset about this? Understand that no one said "your statement is wrong because here are some people who clearly are neither part of the solution nor part of the problem." Instead, they said I was fanatical for making a statement like that, no matter how much I can justify it. "Which of the ... opinions on the "silence" issue am I agreeing with by not saying anything about it?" [JoSH] Neither. Sometimes silence is neutral, sometimes it isn't. However, based on past observation that you are likely to respond when your sensibilities are offended above a certain threshold (and assuming that you haven't changed, which is potentially false), I am likely safe in concluding that you have yet to be offended that much. I hope that the sheer length of this message doesn't put you over. Gary ------------------------------ Date: 29 Jun 1982 13:28:10-EDT From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX Subject: silence etc. It has been pointed out that "if you are not for us, you are against us" has been used by assorted nasties from all over the spectrum. This does not invalidate the idea beyond the invalidity of any simple slogan. I will give you a practical analogy which may offer a new light on the situation. Like many people on this list, I'm a heavy reader of [science] [fiction]; unlike most, I am heavily involved with running conventions. There is a series of problems that has cropped up in the past few years which are summarized (shallowly) as the need for a "weapons policy". The full background and arguments would fill several books, so I will simply note what many people have realized is the pervasive problem: not enough people, in the past [roughly five] years, have cared enough to stop improper behavior (i.e., anything that can directly harm other people--- swinging weapons, throwing objects off roofs, running fill tilt through crowds, etc.) at its source. There are all sorts of social and psychological ramifications to this, but what it boils down to is that we wouldn't have gotten anywhere near this deep if the nearest person to any misbehaving clown simply told hem to stop it. (Granted, we're not helped by out-and-out nuts like Robert Adams, who has said that he feels much more comfortable at a con carrying a real battleaxe, but he's the fringe of a fringe.) Certainly this means that to some extent everyone is responsible at least for hir neighbor's conduct! Doesn't this make more sense conservatively than handing over controlling responsibility to a bureaucracy of crudely-selected and poorly-trained enforcers? As for why many people "hate conservatives" (your word choice, not mine), the fact is that in the last 150 years decentralizing power from government has only allowed states and industries to centralize it for themselves---and, as others have pointed out, states and industries (even multi-nationals, because they consider that they primarily serve the small group of their stock- holders) have narrower interests than national governments and thus are far poorer guardians of the liberties of individuals who do not fit their narrower pattern. You, for instance, are condemned by your own statements against civil rights---do you feel that it is better that a minority should have no rights than that everyone should be constrained toward civilized conduct? In the musical "1776", a conservative spokesman says that people will follow his leadership because they would rather dream of being rich than face the reality of being poor. Certainly this is at best a sketch (aside from the limitations of Broadway, there are some known deviations from history), but it contains the germ of the conservative problem, which is can be seen as one of boundaries---when A's liberties infringe on B's, whose shall take precedence? Those of us who oppose traditional conservatism (and who consider true libertarianism as grossly unrealistic---L. Neil Smith was one of the first to speculate on how do we get from there to here, and his conclusions directly contradict what we understand of early American history) see limited willingness to support a balanced demarcation when A, for whatever reason, has more scope for exercise of his liberties than B. ------------------------------ End of POLI-SCI Digest - 30 - -------