poli-sci (06/23/82)
>From JoSH@RUTGERS Wed Jun 23 15:39:25 1982
Poli-Sci Digest Thu 24 Jun 82 Volume 2 Number 147
Contents: Travel
States' (and other) Rights (3 msgs)
Insanity Plea
Part of the Problem
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 21 Jun 1982 2012-EDT
From: Bill Hofmann <G.WDH at MIT-EECS>
Subject: Hard currency and Travel Restrictions
As Dave Leavitt pointed out, the national reason (including
specifically the legal one) for blanket travel restrictions (to a
country) is an economic one. The administration's recent decision to
halt travel to Cuba is based specifically on the Trading with the
Enemy Act (note, this is probably not the exact title of it...), and
it isn't travel that is banned, but rather giving currency to the
country (this was the Administration's stated reason, in fact).
-Bill
------------------------------
Date: 21 Jun 1982 1859-PDT
From: Terry C. Savage <TCS at USC-ECL>
Subject: Rights
There has been a lot of talk about "rights" in the digest
recently, and I'm not sure I understand what different people mean
when they use the term. If it refers to some kind of requirement
imposed from the outside (e.g. "God-given" rights), then I would like
to know the source of the information indicating that these "rights"
exist. A more practical (and frequently more irritating) definition
of rights is that they consist of agreements between the members of
the society, with no "cosmic" significance.
If this definition is accepted, it would be entirely reasonable
for a town to decide that "xyz religion" will be the local town
church, by agreement. Assume that there are some reasonable provisions
for people who do not agree to leave, and we consider the situation
where the agreement is unanimous. Is there any reason why these
people should have their agreements modified by an outside force?
No! Ignoring for simplicity the question of children, if a group of
adults decide that they want to live a certain way, on land that they
own, ad there lifestyle does not impose tangible damage on others
(being offended doesn't count), then those people should be allowed to
live as they choose, regardless of whether it is racist, polygamus,
weirdist, or whatever.
Although greatly modified by the complexities of reality, this is the
basis of the philosophy of "states rights"--voluntary selection of
lifestyle by a local group. The objection generally raised concerns
the "rights" of those who do not agree with the decsion, and it is
also generally assumed that moving away is not a reasonable option.
In order to address one particular problem, lets assume that all of
the transition issues of moving (ie transportation costs, a reasonable
price for existing property, etc) could be solved. What, then would be
the objection to letting communities determine their own standards
entirely and allowing those who disagree to leave? To avoid a class of
obvious objections, impose the condition that any "offender" would
have the option of permanent exile rather than the punishment
prescribed (with the understanding they will be subject to the
punishment if they return).
Rather than try to address all possibilities in advance, I'd like
to see what objections people raise.
Comments, please!
T.C.Savage
------------------------------
Date: 22 June 1982 0922-EDT (Tuesday)
From: Robert.Frederking at CMU-10A (C410RF60)
Subject: Two comments
First, the fact that local governments are less powerful may make
them less attractive to special interests, but it also makes them easier
targets, and thus worth the effort. Pick any major national corporation
and compare its budget to that of its home city, and consider how hard
it would be to buy off a majority of the politicians. All sorts of things
like pollution and special favors are totally uninfluenced (usually) by
local governments, because they're overpowered by the company.
Secondly, don't count on the U.S. protecting you, even if they
*do* give you a visa. They can only keep you safe in countries where
U.S. influence matters, and there is some semblance of central control.
U.S. citizens disappear every once in a while in places like South
America, and the Feds can do diddly either because the national government
really has no idea what is happening out in the provinces, or because
they don't care what the U.S. thinks of them.
------------------------------
Date: 22 June 1982 0943-EDT (Tuesday)
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
Subject: commence insanity flaming
Well now that Hinckley got off, it's time for everyone to put in their two
cents about the insanity defense.
Way back when, the insanity defense was a good thing. I read somewhere
(sorry folks, no references) that several hundred years ago, the death
penalty was used for many more crimes than in recent history. The insanity
defense saved many a person from hanging. "I'm sorry your honor, I must have
been insane when I parked in front of that fire hydrant."
Since severe penalties aren't very common any more (how many people got gassed
last year?), I see insanity now used as a way to get off a serious charge.
Clinical psychiatry is inexact at best, and more accurately a pseudoscience.
Is it ever possible to find a bunch of psychiatrists that will agree in court?
It's obvious that everyone who's in prison is at least slightly insane.
We see it on 60 Minutes or the news all the time. Some guy is ruled insane,
sent to the asylum, found sane a few years later, gets out, murders ex-wife
in a particularly grotesque manner, and then goes back to the asylum. The
psychiatrists plead innocent.
I think that what really matters is that the person committed the crime. The
victim dies just as readily if the guy is sane or insane. I say that they go
to jail anyway. If you want to give them some counseling in prison, fine, but
no chance of getting out because they are found sane.
Actually I'm hoping that Hinckley is now found sane, so he will walk free.
This will outrage people enough to eliminate the insanity defense. It will
alsoinspire some modern-day Lloyd Ruby. Now I'm not advocating that, but
I wouldn't shed many tears if it happened.
------------------------------
Date: 21 June 1982 21:19 edt
From: Richard Lamson at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: With us or against us
The question is not whether it is possible to be neutral on an issue,
but rather whether remaining silent about the issue is really a neutral
stance. Consider a roomful of purple people, of whom you are one, with
no green people present. A racially prejudiced person makes some sort
of derogatory remark about green people. Your possible responses are:
a) Agree aloud with her or him.
b) Disagree aloud with her or him.
c) Say nothing.
I claim that by choosing to say nothing, you are implicitly supporting
that person's racism.
Now consider the number of times you have been present when an offensive
joke about blacks, asians, homosexuals, various ethnic groups, etc., was
uttered. Each time you failed to speak up concerning the offensive
nature of the comment, you have displayed your implicit agreement with
the sentiment of the speaker.
This is not neutrality.
-- Richard Lamson (Lamson at MIT-Multics)
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------