franka@tekcad.UUCP (08/20/83)
#R:houxb:-24500:tekcad:20100002:000:846
tekcad!franka Aug 19 09:24:00 1983
*******************************************************************************
I think this is an idea that deserves some thought. Our elected officials
spend too much time and energy running for re-election. Every decsion they
make is thought over with re-election in mind. Perhaps we would be better off
with officals who didn't have to worry about being re-elected. They could
make decisions based on what is good for the country not on what will get
them re-elected.
Greg German
uiucdcs!uiucuxc!german
*******************************************************************************
... on the other hand, it could cause a "grab for all the graft you
can get, because you only go around once in office" syndrome.
We all know it's not the elected officials
who hold the REAL power, anyway, don't we.
Frank Adrianlllenoir@uok.UUCP (11/03/83)
#R:sb1:-14200:uok:6600005:37777777600:248
uok!lllenoir Oct 31 01:53:00 1983
I've noticed that 'Zionism' and 'Semitism' are being used as 2 seperate
terms. I never really thought about it.. but what is the difference in meaning?
I really would like to know.
Lionel
University of Okalahomamilhodge@uok.UUCP (11/03/83)
#R:sb1:-14200:uok:6600017:000:1497
uok!milhodge Nov 1 22:18:00 1983
People to the subject at hand I feel doctor King should be honored
for his contributions to civil rights,but wouldn't it be better to wait to
give him a holiday of his own untill those dreams he envisioned were realized
Even now in this country there is blatant racism in every sector. In the south
and the north for that matter blacks are still having to wage a constant battle
to get out of the slums and into "normal" american society. In the south-west
Indian schools are being closed down and most of the Indians still living
on the reservations live in squalid conditions. Not to mention the raise in
membership of the KKK in the past few years.
I feel Doctor King made a great impact on american society his
ideals shouldn't be forgotten,but if a national holiday is given to MLK
then some people could be lulled into a false sense of security as to the
state of racism in america.
If the MLK holiday is approved I agree with the 4th response as to
what should be done on his holiday. don't let it become just another day off
for a bunch of government workers.
Lionel, as to the difference between zionism and semantism.
A semantic person is a Jew,a Zionist is a radical terrorist using
all of the tools of terror to try to achieve the goals of the Jews.
I myself am anti-zionist but not anti-semantic. I don't support any
terrorist group, but I have nothing against the Jews
Mike Hodge
University of Oklahomalllenoir@uok.UUCP (11/03/83)
#R:bunkerb:-24700:uok:6600006:37777777600:1830
uok!lllenoir Oct 31 02:33:00 1983
First of all, I'm not sure what this arguement is doing
in 'net.politics' but since it is here...
While attending an Engineering Club party
I over heard the statement ".. the guy belives
in creation. How can anybody with a rational mind
believe in creation?" or something to that
affect.. anyway this statement was made
by a man in reference to one of the profs
here at the university. This sort of attitude
seems to be prevalent throughout a rather
large portion of our society. It is a fact
that admitting to being a christian makes
one a natural target for statements like
that one and for more open harrasement as well.
One thing that seems to be forgotten when
a discussion of 'church vs state' is that
the founding fathers of this nation were
God fearing individuals. When they wrote in
the part about church and state remaining
seperate, they wanted to prevent the church
from getting to intwind in the running of
the country. They did not forsee that this
would bring about the end of prayer in
schools, arguments over wether or not Easter
cermonies should be held in state parks,
and city councils being told that a Nativity
seen down town would be unconstitutional.
I think it is important to remember that
this nation has it's deepest roots buried
in the Bible. The book is the basis behind
some of our most fundimental beliefs.
If some people ever took the time to read
it the world would at least not be any
worse off and would proably be abetter place
to live in. One does not have to be a christian
to see this..
Well.. it appears that I have digressed from
the original and also have flamed enough
to burn down several forest full of Smokey
the Bears anyway that was my opinion and
I promise from now on I will restrict my
remarks to net.religion.
Lionel
University of Oklahomamilhodge@uok.UUCP (11/03/83)
#R:bunkerb:-24700:uok:6600018:000:82
uok!milhodge Nov 1 22:22:00 1983
OOOO OWOWOWOW (flame off sometime lionel)
mike
O.U.milhodge@uok.UUCP (11/03/83)
#R:unc:-598400:uok:6600019:37777777600:1302
uok!milhodge Nov 1 22:41:00 1983
Hi me again. It seems unfair at first glance that so many
restrictions are put on where people can pray and where it is appropriate
to quote from a religous text and all that
well it is unfair. But you have to look atr the situation that brings
things like this about.
All throughout society is the "VOCAL MINORITY" that tries to get
books banned, organized (with no chance to say no) prayer in school,
creationism taught in public schools, and T.V. with nothing but "Little
House on the Prairie". All of these things are done in the name of
decency, the American way and the BIBLE. After a while people get
tired of having the bible shoved down their throats as the main reason
for doing something.
I have never had problems with religion and school.
my high school ran early morning bible studies that attendance at was
totally opotional(I never went)
^and was never forced to go either
but anytime I felt the need to pray (like before a test) I would
just lower my head and pray. Nobody came up and said "No NO you can't
do that here, this is a public school." But I would have taken offence
if there had been a manditory morning prayer. (
(gee shouln't this be in net.religion)
mike hodge
O.U.
(that's in Okla.)walsh@ihuxi.UUCP (B. Walsh) (11/03/83)
Mike,
I believe you meant Semitic. If you were not anti-semantic you would
not be against the meaning of language! :-)
B. Walshwalsh@ihuxi.UUCP (B. Walsh) (11/03/83)
Lionel,
Per your request: (quoted from Webster's)
Zionism: A theory, movement or plan for setting up a Jewish national
or religious community in Palestine.
Semitism: Jewish character or qualities; policy favorable to Jews:
predisposition in favor of Jews.
B. Walshdje@5941ux.UUCP (11/03/83)
uok!lllenoir asks: I've noticed that 'Zionism' and 'Semitism' are being used as 2 seperate terms. I never really thought about it.. but what is the difference in meaning? I really would like to know. Zionism is the belief and position that the Jews have claim to a national homeland, namely Israel. There is no such thing as "Semitism." The term "anti-semitism" refers to bigotry against Jews. Sometimes it is pointed out that other ethnic groups besides Jews are Semitic, but that's a red herring with respect to the above definitions. I hope this clears up the question without taking a partisan position. David Ellis / AT&T Bell Labs, Piscataway NJ / ihnp4!5941ux!dje
smb@ulysses.UUCP (11/03/83)
From: milhodge@uok.UUCP Message-ID: <3665@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 2-Nov-83 23:34:21 EST Lionel, as to the difference between zionism and semantism. A semantic person is a Jew,a Zionist is a radical terrorist using all of the tools of terror to try to achieve the goals of the Jews. I myself am anti-zionist but not anti-semantic. I don't support any terrorist group, but I have nothing against the Jews Mike Hodge University of Oklahoma Leaving aside the fact that word is "antisemitic", not "anti-semantic", Mike Hodge's statement is factually incorrect, and in fact is an attempt to use the tools of semantics (used correctly here) to express a political statement. Please, can't we give accurate definitions??! Zionism is best defined as the movement for a Jewish national homeland, i.e., the creation of the state of Israel. Most, though not all, Zionists are Jews. Many prominent Jews have claimed that Zionism is so inextricably tied to Judaism that one can't oppose the one without opposing the other. Others disagree. Note that this definition says nothing about methods, terrorist or otherwise. Now -- some Zionists have espoused or resorted to terrorist tactics. So have some anti-Zionists. This says nothing about the merits of either cause. Some people claim that the government of Israel is itself a terrorist organ- ization, though this is considerably more debatable, on semantic grounds if no others. There are many left-wing Israelis and Zionists who have strongly denounced the military policies of the current government, because they, too, consider them immoral. This says nothing about the morality of Zionism. Opposition to Zionism itself takes two forms, philosophical (it's an exclusivist movement (some would say racist)) and practical (a Zionist state by its very existence must displace Palestinians). Zionists call it a nationalist movement, no different than other nationalist movements around the world -- movement that are, in general, supported by those most vehemently anti-Zionist. They also point out that Palestinians are welcome in a Jewish state, which could and should be as pluralistic as say, the (culturally Christian) United States. Opposition to Zionism on the grounds that it is inherently "terrorist" is a sad example of twisting definitions to suit a political end. I hope that most people out there can accept my definitions as accurate and non-judgemental; I've tried very hard not to let my personal beliefs show through. --Steve Bellovin
odom@uiucuxc.UUCP (11/04/83)
#R:sb1:-14200:uiucuxc:21200021:000:1553
uiucuxc!odom Nov 3 11:34:00 1983
I thought that definition was a little bit biased
so I checked it out in the only dictionary I have
available at work (my Oxford's at home). According
to a government owned Random House College Dictionary
Revised Edition copyright 1980 in a spiffy red cover
the definition of zionism is:
n. a world-wide Jewish movement for the establishment
in Palestine of a national homeland for the Jews.
This usage derives from Zion:
n. 1. A hill in Jerusalem on which the Temple was built.
2. The Jewish people. 3. Palestine as the Jewish homeland
and symbol of Judaism. 4. Heaven as the final gathering
place of true believers.
While the word SemitIsm means:
n. 1. Semitic characteristics esp. the ways, ideas, influences
of the Jewish people. 2. a word or idiom peculiar to, derived
from the or characteristic of the Semitic langauge.
This word originates from Semite:
n. 1. A member os any of various ancient and modern peoples
originating in SW Asia among whom are Hebrews and Arabs.
2. A Jew. 3. A member of any of the peoples supposedly
descended from Shem.
Whew. Anyways, if you're really interested in this topic
let me suggest reading Abba Eban's autobiography. His
interest in Zionism and entry into that cause is pretty
elucidating. His mind-set changes after that were fairly
incredible too. The Arab-Isreali Reader is another state-
of-the-Art book...I believe it was edited by Prof. Dawn
on staff (last I checked) at the U of Illinois and a known
expert in the field. Sorry to be so long.
susansanders@aecom.UUCP (Jeremy Sanders) (11/06/83)
Lionel,
Your confusion about the implied difference between Semitism &
Zionism is justified; your original impression was correct - there is no
difference between the two. If this sounds biased, you're right. I am
certainly a Zionist, but it would be a real stretch of the imagination
to make a terrorist.
Jeremy Sanders
{philabs,esquire,cucard}!aecom!sanderswisen@inmet.UUCP (12/15/83)
#R:gatech:-267700:inmet:7800036:177600:235
inmet!wisen Dec 12 13:12:00 1983
Mr. Offut is factually incorrect. Prime Minister Bishop visited US in
summer, and actually got to talk to a State Dept. official in DC. Lotsa
good it did him.
------Bruce Wisentaner
cca!ima!inmet
} !wisen
harpo!inmet andree@uokvax.UUCP (12/20/83)
#R:pyuxa:-43800:uokvax:5000047:000:601 uokvax!andree Dec 18 17:15:00 1983 /***** uokvax:net.politics / ucbesvax!turner / 9:29 pm Dec 16, 1983 */ He also suggests that certain kinds of comments on the part of observers of his ritual obeisance would provoke a physical attack from him. I would like to know the precise extent of his willingness to censor other people's opinions with his knuckles. It would help me in gauging the danger to freedom posed in this country by emotional patriotism of this intensity. --- Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner) /* ---------- */ So, there's NOTHING I can say to you that would cause you to make a physical attack on me? <mike
wisen@inmet.UUCP (12/31/83)
#R:brunix:-607800:inmet:7800039:177600:1305 inmet!wisen Dec 29 18:07:00 1983 Maybe it's just too bad that Cambridge voters are so easily swayed by reports that big bucks are being spent on them :-) The voters in Boston, on the other hand, are less easily swayed. In Boston's mayoral elections, the candidates who raised the most money lost big, and the two candidates who eschewed expensive campaigning (in the primary campaign) passed through the primary into the final. [Though I must mention that the final loser put a $250K self-imposed limit on campaign spending, while the final winner spent about $350K; the media money may have helped the winner in the final, but I chose without benefit of TV. As Ellen Goodman said, for every generalization there is an exception.] Anyway, I think it takes a significantly massive amount of money to brainwash the voters hereabouts, and I have no objection to certain parties wasting their resources here, on halfway measures. On the other hand, you'd better hope that no special interest groups ever get access to UseNet, because I'm certain that all of you out there, "Liberal" and "Conservative" alike, are already brainwashed. . |\ ------Bruce Wisentaner /| \ cca!ima!inmet / | \ } !wisen o / | \ harpo!inmet ^_. _/___|===== O\/`O \_______/] \_(
msimpson@bbncca.ARPA (Mike Simpson) (01/03/84)
>> On the other hand, you'd better hope that no special >>interest groups ever get access to UseNet, because I'm >>certain that all of you out there, "Liberal" and >> "Conservative" alike, are already brainwashed. >> -- Bruce Wisentaner, {cca!ima, harpo}!inmet!wisen The proliferation of newsgroups and sub-newsgroups would seem to indicate that the UseNet has already been taken over by special-interest groups. :-) Seriously, the Boston/Cambridge contributions are so left-leaning that I wonder if the 'intelligentsia' are engaged in intellectual subversion of the American psyche. We seem to be the only country whose 'intellectual leaders' don't like the country they live in. American 'Liberals' (collectivist statists, actually) seem to be more guilty of this than 'Conservatives'. Flames are welcomed, but temper your flames with this information -- I have lived in the Boston/Cambridge area for 22 years, recently moving to the North Shore of Massachusetts. -- -- cheers, Mike Simpson, BBN msimpson@bbn-unix (ARPA) decvax!bbncca!msimpson (Usenet) 617-497-2819 (Ma Bell)
wisen@inmet.UUCP (01/04/84)
#R:allegra:-214900:inmet:7800040:177600:452
inmet!wisen Jan 3 09:43:00 1984
Looks like pretty bad news for Dallas. Or maybe pretty bad news for
11-year-olds. But I asked my computer if this info by itself prognosticated
a miserable future, and it replied
"clink ribbit click bingg INSUFFICIENT DATA dinggkrik dong". 8-)
.
|\
------Bruce Wisentaner /| \
cca!ima!inmet / | \
} !wisen o / | \
harpo!inmet ^_. _/___|=====
O\/`O \_______/]
\_( wisen@inmet.UUCP (01/07/84)
#R:allegra:-214900:inmet:7800042:000:308 inmet!wisen Jan 5 09:44:00 1984 Hey Mike, I've lived in Boston as long as you've lived in "the area", and I'm STILL politically dyslexic (can't tell right from left) :-) Guess I must have inherited some immunity from my parents. :-) I would have mailed this, but dumb system map doesn't know that you're a stone's throw down the street.
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (03/17/84)
How long is this going to go on?
How many of these articles were posted? I'm getting fed up typing "n".
Isn't there a way to kill streams of identical articles like the current
one?
Sophie Quigley
...!{decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigleyliberte@uiucdcs.UUCP (liberte ) (03/27/84)
#R:watmath:-704600:uiucdcs:29200110:000:533 uiucdcs!liberte Mar 26 23:24:00 1984 ... I'd certainly love to invest in a scheme that resulted in feeding the hungry while making me richer..... ---------------------------------------- Then invest in the teaching of agricultural methods that are self-sufficient, e.g., methods that are organic, use composting, crop rotation and indiginous or appropriate plants. This is the first step. Every dollar saved can be reinvested in further education and towards greater *real* productivity. Check into "Organic Gardening" magazine by Rodale Press. Daniel LaLiberte
nrh@inmet.UUCP (04/12/84)
#R:ihuxl:-93600:inmet:7800070:177600:809 inmet!nrh Mar 12 01:20:00 1984 Oh drat! I've just learned that my off-the-cuff analysis of how much food our agricultural surplus could be turned into is off by a factor of ten. As near as I can tell, I misquoted the price of potatoes (misread the decimal point). The price of potatoes is in fact about $7 per 50 pound bag, leading to a price of $0.14 per pound of potato, (not $1.50) meaning that our agricultural surplus easily suffices to feed all the hungry of Africa and the East. It turns out that (assuming no OTHER errors) we can add 1300 (not 130) calories to everyone's diet. That would be enough to bring everyone up past the 100% minimum referred to in my almanac. That'll teach me. Thanks to eag!sdc for pointing out my error. Harpo won't let me reply to him directly. And now, back to the uncivilized melee....
jacob@hpfclo.UUCP (jacob) (07/12/84)
Tim Sevener: I would like to know the source of your information about the Soviets observing the arms treaties. Is there someone else (besides the President, that is) "who knows" that made that statement? Jacob Gore ihnp4!hpfcla!jacob
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (08/07/84)
SOVIET CHEATING
A joint statement by the
Defense Dept., State Dept., CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff
states: "Soviet compliance performance under 14 arms control
agreements signed since 1959 has been good." The SALT I agreement
established the Standing Consultative Commission in which both
the US and the USSR can bring questions about arms compliance.
In 1981 the US Commissioner of this Commission stated "The SCC
has never yet had to deal with a case of real or apparently
clear and substantial noncompliance with an existing agreement."
Then what about all the allegations that the "Soviets have cheated"
on past arms agreements? The State Dept. issued a report dealing
with various questions brought by both the US and the USSR to the
SCC. In 3 cases of possible Soviet cheating further US intelligence
revealed that there were no violations involved, in one case
both sides later agreed to precise definition of "heavy" ICBM's,
in a final case the USSR ceased the activity the US had considered
as violating past treaties. The State Dept. Report also dealt with
14 popular allegations of cheating by the USSR that had never been
brought before the SCC and reported in every case that there has
been no Soviet cheating. In several instances what was alleged as
"cheating" is actually REQUIRED by arms agreements!
The Soviets, for all their faults , do not want to
be incinerated anymore than we do.
This is not to suggest that the Soviets would not or have not tried
to stretch the interpretations of past treaties to increase their own
armaments. But in this case all past Presidents except Ronald Reagan
have successfully stopped the Soviets by appealing to the body
which is supposed to monitor arms treaty compliance.
Tim Sevener
ATT- Bell Labs, Whippanyjacob@hpfclo.UUCP (jacob) (08/10/84)
A short note, in response to Mike Kelly's comparison. Not necessarily agreeing with his conclusions, I find his arguments pretty good -- they even contain no namecalling! I would like to object to one specific observation: USA is not surrounded by hostile borders, and USSR is. I doubt that a complete study on this subject has ever been published, but from my observations, the soviet border patrol's primary job has been, for decades now, not keeping intruders out of the USSR, but keeping (time to invent a possibly new, but cute word) extruders in the USSR. One certainly doesn't need nuclear weapons for that. Even if the case was otherwise -- if there indeed was danger to the USSR from its "hostile borders" -- do you think they aim their missiles at their own borders? I don't buy "hostile borders" argument in a nuclear arms discussion. Jacob Gore inhp4!hpfcla!jacob
keller@uicsl.UUCP (10/05/84)
I've run across this yellow rain controversy in several of the publications that I subscribe to. The story seems very confused. As far as I remember the evidence for a toxin is based on sketchy reports from refugee camps and the evidence against a toxin comes from two scientists from a reputable U.S. university who went over and found that the yellow stuff is, in fact, bee shit. Since I haven't seen good hard evidence (pictures and chemical samples) I tend to believe the bee shit reports. Not that I don't think the Ruskies capable of using a yellow rain...they regularly piss on people. When the enemy is as evil as the Soviets you are bound to get this kind of rumor. Remember the psi scare where they were supposed to have discovered how to harness psychic energy? -Shaun
nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/06/84)
#R:unmvax:-46600:inmet:7800154:177600:188 inmet!nrh Nov 3 16:03:00 1984 Those interested in getting on the LP's mailing list, or in more info about the LP can call: 800-682-1776 (except in Texas) The regular phone of LP party headquarters is 713-686-1776.
benk@inmet.UUCP (11/08/84)
#R:tjalk:-36200:inmet:7800160:177600:2981 inmet!benk Nov 6 16:49:00 1984 Thanks, Dick, for your observation. Alas, most of the people in this country ( well, at least most of the voters ) have become completely insensitive to such remarks -- and many, I fear, really DO share the world-view lurking behind Reagan's words. The U.S. in the late '70s and early '80s bears a chilling resemblence to Germany in the late '20s and early 30's. In both instances, a major world power suffered, in rapid succession, 1.) a major defeat in a war, 2.) an economic recession, and 3.) previously unheard of levels of inflation the net effect of which was to totally demoralize a once proud people, turning many essentially decent, Christian, God-fearing souls into little more than drooling, deranged hyenas. In Germany, it was the Brown Shirts who terrorized the nation; in the US we have NCPAC, and suchlike organizations to contend with. No, they aren't out in the streets breaking heads ( yet ), but don't forget that violence can be ideological as well as physical. If it weren't for this environment, Reagan wouldn't have been able to get away with his gaffe so easily. In our present conidtion, we are a country full of vengeful people: out to reclaim military victory against just about any 'adversary', even miliarily impotent Central American/Caribbean nations whose combined armed forces wouln't be a match for the Kalamazoo, Mich. Police force. In this respect Reagan is following in you-know-who's footsteps precisely: A.H. went after Austria and Czechoslovakia first *because* they were sure victories, which bought him 1.) a tremendous P.R. ( read propaganda ) advantage at home, and 2.) more time for a military buildup. Most historians now concede that Nazi Geramany would have been a knockover for the armies of England and/or France as late as the time of the Czecho invasion, if either Chamberalain and/or Daladier ( or whoever it was that month ) had had the courage to take action. I hope and pray that the contry will come to its senses without having to have sense banged into it, as was the case with the Nixon/Agnew '72-landslide-turned-into-impeachment-hearings debacle. Maybe Reagan is more or less assured of a victory today. Nevertheless, if Mondale can stave off Reagan in at least one or two states plus the District of Columbia, and the Democrats retain control of the house and at don't blow things in the Senate, all will not have been lost -- at lest a tinge of moral victory will be detectable. On the other hand, if Reagan pulls a 50-stater, and the congress becomes solidly Republican, I'm afraid that we're in for very grim times, even worse than those black days of 1973 and 1974. Its now 4:41 p.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 6th, election day; with just a few hours left before I'll sit down in front of my T.V. and watch my fellow Americans march of like a pack of lemmings for the sea. I plan on having a bottle of Jack Daniels and a bucket of ice along with me -- the better to deaden the pain. -- Bitfiled Ben
nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/18/84)
#R:ucbcad:-277400:inmet:7800181:177600:10341 inmet!nrh Nov 16 14:10:00 1984 I'm told that an article of mine may be garbled. In line with the USENET idea of "too much is not enough", I herewith re-submit it. (with the usual apologies to those who've seen it before). >***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 3:34 pm Nov 7, 1984 >> We support full restitution for all loss suffered by persons arrested, >> indicted, tried, imprisoned, or otherwise injured in the course of >> criminal proceedings against them that do not result in their conviction. >> When they are responsible, government police employees or agents should >> be liable for this restitution. > > This would be ok, if it were restricted to cases where the charges > were shown to be frivolous or without any reasonable grounds. > Otherwise, it is pretty easy to see that a system like this > would tie the hands of the judicial system to such an extent that > many criminals would never be brought to trial, because the > police would fear that they would lose too much money if they > lost the cases.. Yes, indeed. On the other hand, our criminal courts NOW suffer from such a problem because, after all, one is innocent until proven guilty, confessions may not be extracted by torture, etc. >> We applaud the growth of private adjudication of disputes by mutually >> acceptable judges. > > So do I, because it saves the courts money. But this can never be > the only system available, because there will be cases where the > disputants can't agree on a judge, and where after the judgement > they refuse to abide by his decision. So some higher court must > exist, which alone can use force to enforce its decisions. On the other hand, just as credit agencies function now to deter deadbeats by sharing information, a reputation for ignoring arbiter's decisions would result in very few people willing to deal with you, except on a cash-up-front basis. It's EXPENSIVE to be an outcast. >> We oppose the current practice of forced jury duty and favor all-volunteer >> juries. > > Then all juries will be made up of extremists who have the time > and motivation to sit on many juries and impose their attitudes > on the judicial system. Thus, the volunteer armed forces are all extermists who have the time and motivation to go through boot camp and impose their attitudes on the military? Thus, the boy scouts are all extremists who impose their attitudes on the boy-scout system? I don't suppose the notion that the state must adapt to people rather than the other way around appeals to you? That quite plausibly under such a situation you would offer your services as a jurist for a certain amount of time and money, and then the court would put you where it wanted you, not necessarily (not even very probably) on a case you were interested in? My mother got interested in the trial of a mafia type in Cleveland, and went every day. I'll bet she would have volunteered for Jury duty (at an appropriate rate of pay, of course). >> We recognize that full freedom of expression is only >> possible as part of a system of full property rights. > > Huh? Freedom from taxation = freedom of speech? I don't get it. Mexico says they have freedom of the press -- it just happens, though that the government controls the supply of newsprint. 'Nuff said? >> We further condemn indirect censorship through >> government control of the postal system... > > Here's another one out of left field. The postal system censors > people? It does indeed. It is a federal crime to send unsolicited obscene material through the mail. Since it is NOT a crime to send unsolicited political material or unsolicited non-obscene advertisements through the mail, this is censorship. >> We support repeal of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which >> classifies information as secret that should be available to taxpayers, >> violates freedom of speech and press, and prohibits public discussion of >> covert government paramilitary activities and spying abroad. > > If they were public, they wouldn't work, would they? > The IIPA doesn't just mandate government secrecy -- it makes facts already available to the public illegal to publish. In particular, if a government keeps something secret, it doesn't need to use the IIPA, but if there's a leak to the press, it can use IIPA to protect agents in the field. It can also censor books about the CIA and such on those grounds. >> We deplore any efforts to impose thought control on the media... > > How about thought control BY the media? You don't like it? Switch it off. Change channels, buy another magazine or unsubscribe to net.politics. If you don't like what the government's doing for the "good of society", it is likely to roll right over you like a bulldozer. >> To complete the separation of media and State, we support legislation to >> repeal the Federal Communications Act and to provide for private >> homesteading and ownership of the airwave frequencies, thus giving the >> electronic media First Amendment parity with the other communication media. > > And permitting broadcasting companies to jam each other's > frequencies? Is this freedom of speech? Read what they say: private "homesteading and ownership". Get it? they don't get to jam what they don't own. >> Government harassment or obstruction of unconventional religious groups for >> the beliefs or nonviolent activities must end. > > I'd like to see some evidence that there is such harassment. > The seizure of an amishman's horse team in the late '70's or early 80's because he refused to pay income taxes on religious grounds is one example. The arrest of Sun Myung Moon (whom I detest) for Tax evasion is another. >> We demand an end to the taxation of privately owned real property, which >> actually makes the State the owner of all lands and forces individuals >> to rent their homes and places of business from the State. > > No, it forces them to pay taxes. There are lots of differences, and > this isn't a good analogy. You can sell your property and alter it, > and pay a very small fraction of its value in taxes, whereas this > isn't the case with rental. Nope, you can only alter it according to zoning laws, you can only sell it if it meets building standards, you can only rent it according to rent control rules (if theree are any), and you can only live in it subject to health regulations. Get the picture? >> We condemn recent attempts to employ eminent domain to municipalize >> sports teams or totry to force them to stay in their present location. > > That's because you don't live in Oakland. :-) The Baltimore Colts managed to leave Baltimore by a combination of getting the movers to arrive at night, and secrecy. When the "plot" to leave was discoverd, the mayor began exploring with the City Council ways of keeping the Colts from moving to Indianapolis. I believe the colts made it (this happened mostly during a weekend when I was visiting Baltimore) but silly as it sounds, its now joke -- a privately-owned athletic team was sneaking out because they were afraid they'd be forced to stay. When discovered sneaking out, the fears of the team owner were no doubt confirmed by the action. The team owner (can't remember his name) was not very popular, but that hardly excuses this miserable attempt at interference with private business. > >> We oppose the issuance by the government of an identity card, to be required >> for any purpose, such as for employment, voting, or border crossings. > > How do you check the identity of people who are voting or > cossing borders, then? (And don't say that you don't have > to.) > Gosh, Wayne, there IS no federal ID card (the closest thing is probably your passport), and yet these things are carried out. As for identity, I find most people take American Express or Visa. It is ILLEGAL for people to insist on getting your social security number for other than tax, draft, and social security reasons (a few farsighted people were around when this idea of giving everyone a number got started) and yet, society manages -- you needn't show your passport when you vote. The libertarians are merely arguing that the FEDS shouldn't take it on themselves to issue national identity cards. As for crossing boarders: You don't have to check that stuff. :-) >> We call for the abolition of all federal secret police agencies. In >> particular, We seek the abolition of the Central Intelligence Agency and >> the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and we call for a return to the >> American tradition of local law enforcement. > > Try fighting the Mafia or international terrorism with > local law enforcement agencies. I'd rather fight the Mafia by starving it to death. Its main moneymakers have traditionally been liquor, gambling, drugs, and prostitution. If these activities were all legal and largely unregulated the mafia would be weaker (partly because it would be unable to compete, and partly because it would have less reason to exist). So far, the US has largely been spared terrorism. I suspect this situation would continue were the USA to become less involved in world political affairs, a situation libertarians work for. >> Maintaining our belief in the inviolability of the right to keep and bear >> arms, we oppose all laws at any level of government restricting the ownership, >> manufacture, transfer, or sale of firearms or ammunition. We oppose all laws >> requiring registration of firearms or ammunition. We also oppose any >> government efforts to ban or restrict the use of tear gas, "mace", or >> other non-firearm protective devices. We further oppose all attempts to ban >> weapons or ammunition on the grounds that they are risky and unsafe. > > So anybody is free to stockpile as many weapons as he can > buy, until he has enough to outfit a personal army and take > over a few large cities. And to think that people term libertarians unrealistic. C'mon, Wayne. Why worry about that when the forces of international terrorism need only build a briefcase nuke to accomplish the same end? Further, What will this madman do once he's got the city? Threaten to blow it up? Threaten to kill everyone in it? How will he and his army escape retribution? Why hasn't this already happened in states with no gun control? Sheesh!
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/19/84)
> >> We applaud the growth of private adjudication of disputes by mutually > >> acceptable judges. > > > > So do I, because it saves the courts money. But this can never be > > the only system available, because there will be cases where the > > disputants can't agree on a judge, and where after the judgement > > they refuse to abide by his decision. So some higher court must > > exist, which alone can use force to enforce its decisions. > > On the other hand, just as credit agencies function now to deter deadbeats > by sharing information, a reputation for ignoring arbiter's decisions would > result in very few people willing to deal with you, except on a cash-up-front > basis. It's EXPENSIVE to be an outcast. I think another part of the platform stated that any sort of federally issued ID was not acceptable, so how do you know that the guy who moves in next door and starts burning tires in his yard is an outcast? (And even if you are an outcast you can still make yourself a terrible nuisance to people even if they know all about you.) > >> We recognize that full freedom of expression is only > >> possible as part of a system of full property rights. > > > > Huh? Freedom from taxation = freedom of speech? I don't get it. > > Mexico says they have freedom of the press -- it just happens, though > that the government controls the supply of newsprint. 'Nuff said? The key word is (as usual) "full". If the government takes 10 % of my paycheck, that doesn't prevent me from saying anything I please any time I want... > >> We further condemn indirect censorship through > >> government control of the postal system... > > > > Here's another one out of left field. The postal system censors > > people? > > It does indeed. It is a federal crime to send unsolicited obscene > material through the mail. Since it is NOT a crime to send > unsolicited political material or unsolicited non-obscene advertisements > through the mail, this is censorship. It is not an inherent part of the nature of the postal system that this is illegal. Wouldn't it be easier to make it legal than throw out the entire postal system? > >> Government harassment or obstruction of unconventional religious groups for > >> the beliefs or nonviolent activities must end. > > > > I'd like to see some evidence that there is such harassment. > > > The seizure of an amishman's horse team in the late '70's or early > 80's because he refused to pay income taxes on religious grounds is > one example. The arrest of Sun Myung Moon (whom I detest) for > Tax evasion is another. If people's religous beliefs conflict with the law, they will have to change them. The laws aren't made specifically to harass people's religous beliefs. > >> We demand an end to the taxation of privately owned real property, which > >> actually makes the State the owner of all lands and forces individuals > >> to rent their homes and places of business from the State. > > > > No, it forces them to pay taxes. There are lots of differences, and > > this isn't a good analogy. You can sell your property and alter it, > > and pay a very small fraction of its value in taxes, whereas this > > isn't the case with rental. > > Nope, you can only alter it according to zoning laws, you can only sell > it if it meets building standards, you can only rent it according to > rent control rules (if theree are any), and you can only live in it > subject to health regulations. Get the picture? All of these things I will agree with you are unnecessary and should be done away with. This isn't what the issue was, it was "taxation of privately owned real property". This, I hold, is legitimate, whereas the forms of regulation you mention are not. > >> We oppose the issuance by the government of an identity card, to be > >> required for any purpose, such as for employment, voting, or border > >> crossings. > > > > How do you check the identity of people who are voting or > > cossing borders, then? (And don't say that you don't have > > to.) > > > > Gosh, Wayne, there IS no federal ID card (the closest thing is probably > your passport), and yet these things are carried out. As for identity, > I find most people take American Express or Visa. It is ILLEGAL for > people to insist on getting your social security number for other than > tax, draft, and social security reasons (a few farsighted people were > around when this idea of giving everyone a number got started) and yet, > society manages -- you needn't show your passport when you vote. > The libertarians are merely arguing that the FEDS shouldn't take it > on themselves to issue national identity cards. I never said they should! I only said that they should issue passports. I seriously doubt that any other countries would even admit American citizens if we didn't issue them. Wayne
nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/23/84)
#R:ucbcad:-277400:inmet:7800182:177600:10093 inmet!nrh Nov 21 05:37:00 1984 >***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 4:59 am Nov 20, 1984 >> >> We applaud the growth of private adjudication of disputes by mutually >> >> acceptable judges. >> > >> > So do I, because it saves the courts money. But this can never be >> > the only system available, because there will be cases where the >> > disputants can't agree on a judge, and where after the judgement >> > they refuse to abide by his decision. So some higher court must >> > exist, which alone can use force to enforce its decisions. >> >> On the other hand, just as credit agencies function now to deter deadbeats >> by sharing information, a reputation for ignoring arbiter's decisions would >> result in very few people willing to deal with you, except on a cash-up-front >> basis. It's EXPENSIVE to be an outcast. > >I think another part of the platform stated that any sort of federally >issued ID was not acceptable, so how do you know that the guy who moves >in next door and starts burning tires in his yard is an outcast? (And >even if you are an outcast you can still make yourself a terrible nuisance >to people even if they know all about you.) Let's not quibble -- any system that can *prevent* people from being troublesome involves prior restraint, and is most unlikely to be libertarian. The question is whether having government action as a final backup to arbitration is a NECESSARY way to deal with troublemakers. My point was merely that government doesn't seem to be REQUIRED -- that there are non-governmental ways of doing it. Certainly there are non-governmental methods of self-identification (as I pointed out, most people take American Express). >> >> We recognize that full freedom of expression is only >> >> possible as part of a system of full property rights. >> > >> > Huh? Freedom from taxation = freedom of speech? I don't get it. >> >> Mexico says they have freedom of the press -- it just happens, though >> that the government controls the supply of newsprint. 'Nuff said? > >The key word is (as usual) "full". If the government takes 10 % of my >paycheck, that doesn't prevent me from saying anything I please any time >I want... On the other hand, if the IRS may call you and say: "We've frozen you're bank account, pending a hearing", or, "Mr. Moon? Please make an appointment to see Mr. So-and-so", and get off unsinged, even if they've made a mistake, I think you DON'T have freedom of expression, if the government can do this to you, particularly if you're not politically powerful or sophisticated. (I agree, even the government wouldn't do it arbitrarily to Mike Wallace :-) >> >> We further condemn indirect censorship through >> >> government control of the postal system... >> > >> > Here's another one out of left field. The postal system censors >> > people? >> >> It does indeed. It is a federal crime to send unsolicited obscene >> material through the mail. Since it is NOT a crime to send >> unsolicited political material or unsolicited non-obscene advertisements >> through the mail, this is censorship. > >It is not an inherent part of the nature of the postal system that this >is illegal. Wouldn't it be easier to make it legal than throw out the >entire postal system? Your question seemed to be directed at the notion of the post office censoring people. Since you ask, though -- the postal system is a tremendously costly boondoggle, filled with peculiar regulations, similar in spirit to the censorship regulation, which are determined by popularity as opposed to rationality. As long as it need not fear competition, as long as its budget is determined by political and not market forces, this will be so. For example -- it costs as much to send a one-ounce letter to you if you live in some remote farm in another state as it would to send mail to you if you lived in the same city and picked up your mail at a central depot. Why? Because "Rural Free Delivery" has an impact on the Farm Vote. To talk about the ease of keeping the post office as opposed to throwing it away is a little like talking about the ease of keeping a hungry tiger in the room with you rather than letting it out (or leaving the room yourself). All the US need do is announce that the post office will cease operations on (say) 1/1/87, and that as of 1/1/85, ANYBODY can run their own post office for whatever rates they like. Yes, this will have an adverse effect on federal pension possibilities for people retiring before 1987, NO, those employees need not suffer (at least to the extent that they'd be the only experienced workers in a semi-new industry, as opposed to cradle-to-gravers). The post office item in the 1982 US budget was 707 million dollars. This was money collected as taxes. The taxes were used to support the government's notion of how a post office should be run. The taxes were extracted by threat of force, (read the Privacy Act notification that comes with form 1040). Is it really right to extract from citizens by force the money needed to run by forced monopoly what could be a profitable private field? The postal receipts for New York City alone in 1982 were $741 million. [budget figures from 1984 World Almanac] >> >> Government harassment or obstruction of unconventional religious groups for >> >> the beliefs or nonviolent activities must end. >> > >> > I'd like to see some evidence that there is such harassment. >> > >> The seizure of an amishman's horse team in the late '70's or early >> 80's because he refused to pay income taxes on religious grounds is >> one example. The arrest of Sun Myung Moon (whom I detest) for >> Tax evasion is another. > >If people's religous beliefs conflict with the law, they will have to change >them. The laws aren't made specifically to harass people's religous beliefs. Sun Myung Moon's religious beliefs and practices do not "conflict with the law", at least, that is not what is being claimed. He is being harassed because he (like everybody else with an even moderately complex financial structure) is vulnerable, and because he is unpopular. You asked for evidence of the use of tax laws for harassment, and now you have (pointers to) it. Whether the laws were particularly made for harassment purposes, or just handy for harassment doesn't really matter, does it? Those who feel that it is moral to enforce tax payments must accept the morality that is implied by the means of enforcement they select. In this case, one's individual freedom is the plaything of the state (unless you can PROVE you didn't violate ANY of the IRS code). >> >> We demand an end to the taxation of privately owned real property, which >> >> actually makes the State the owner of all lands and forces individuals >> >> to rent their homes and places of business from the State. >> > >> > No, it forces them to pay taxes. There are lots of differences, and >> > this isn't a good analogy. You can sell your property and alter it, >> > and pay a very small fraction of its value in taxes, whereas this >> > isn't the case with rental. >> >> Nope, you can only alter it according to zoning laws, you can only sell >> it if it meets building standards, you can only rent it according to >> rent control rules (if theree are any), and you can only live in it >> subject to health regulations. Get the picture? > >All of these things I will agree with you are unnecessary and should be >done away with. This isn't what the issue was, it was "taxation of >privately owned real property". This, I hold, is legitimate, whereas >the forms of regulation you mention are not. I think it's been made painfully clear that the state regards "private property" as "on loan from the state". I suspect that the reason there would seem to be few laws against destruction of one's own property is that this is not likely to catch on in a big way. On the other hand, the zoning laws remain, et cetera. That you're willing do do away with the non-tax regulations gratifies me, though. No doubt someone else will come forward to argue that they believe in (say) "health regulations". Remember -- these abominations were VOTED in. As soon as you concede that private property is NOT absolute, you've opened the door for its endless manipulation by politics. This was the point of this part of the libertarian platform -- to illustrate one way in which "partly private" property manifests itself and to criticize it. The mentality behind it -- that property derives its legitimacy from one's compact with the state -- was their target. >> >> We oppose the issuance by the government of an identity card, to be >> >> required for any purpose, such as for employment, voting, or border >> >> crossings. >> > >> > How do you check the identity of people who are voting or >> > cossing borders, then? (And don't say that you don't have >> > to.) >> > >> >> Gosh, Wayne, there IS no federal ID card (the closest thing is probably >> your passport), and yet these things are carried out. As for identity, >> I find most people take American Express or Visa. It is ILLEGAL for >> people to insist on getting your social security number for other than >> tax, draft, and social security reasons (a few farsighted people were >> around when this idea of giving everyone a number got started) and yet, >> society manages -- you needn't show your passport when you vote. >> The libertarians are merely arguing that the FEDS shouldn't take it >> on themselves to issue national identity cards. > >I never said they should! I only said that they should issue passports. >I seriously doubt that any other countries would even admit American >citizens if we didn't issue them. You said (read it aloud) "How do you check the identity of people who are voting....". How does a libertarian society deal with passports? The obvious answer is not to. Soon, banana republics would spring up and stand in line to sell "citizenships of convenience" (for a fee, of course), just as one now finds ships registered under "flags of convenience" by multinational corporations.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/23/84)
#R:ucbcad:-277800:inmet:7800184:177600:6333 inmet!nrh Nov 21 06:07:00 1984 >***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 1:02 pm Nov 17, 1984 >Sure, >economics happens all the time, but the question is whether it happens in >the way we want it to happen. In a free market, economics happens PRECISELY as "we" want it to happen, given the constraints of limited resources. This is because the market's character is determined by its inputs, and a free market by the choices of its participants. > >>>> 4. Power corrupts, either by attrition (the people with power become >>>> corrupt) or by attraction (corrupt people attempt to gain that >>>> power). >>> >>> True, but the problem is, what system is least corruptable? In a >>> system where the government didn't have most of the power then >>> a few strong individuals would eventually get it all, and they >>> would probably be more corruptable than the government we have now. >> >> No, Wayne. (I note in passing your curious phrase: "where the >> government didn't have most of the power") In a system where the >> government cannot be used by the rich to keep the poor from becoming >> rich, economic power tends to spread out. I'd love to hear the basis you have >> for believing that a few strong individuals would get it all. > >In the late 19th century, the government excercised very little control >over the economy, and a few people got all the money. This happened all >throughout the Industrial Revolution, and only ended when the government >took an active part in regulating the economy and private enterprise. > Wayne -- this is simply NOT true. I suggest you check out (for example) Milton Friedman's discussion of railroad collusion (impossible before the fares were regulated). >> This is MOST interesting. The notion that government is the only way >> to prevent bombings is one that I suggest you argue with Pinkerton. > >Oh, you are advocating private armies to protect businesses. It is a very >short step from protection to active harassment of competitors, and before >long you have a small private war on your hands. Yes. Those small steps -- marijuana to heroin, necking to nymphomania, private defense guards to private armies. > >> > You can make an awful lot more money in the private sector than >> > in government, >> >> Not so. One makes the most money being closely associated with the >> government, though not on the government payroll, I admit: >> >> The largest owners of land were the emperors, the relatives of >> emperors, and the intimate associates of emperors. >> Livia, wife of Augustus and mother of Tiberius, became the >> largest property holder in the Roman Empire. It is said that in >> terms of acreage owned, she was the largest private landowner in >> the history of the world. >> [ Max Shapiro, >> "The Penniless Billionaires" >> pg 50] >> A little more recently, Hugo Stinnes assembled the largest industrial >> conglomerate in history. He did it with the collusion of the 1920's >> German government, which supplied him with low-interest loans >> (actually, its more complex than that, but it's what happened) >> during a period of hyperinflation. In the last >> nine months of 1923, the Stinnes concern made a PROFIT of over >> 428 QUADRILLION marks. His PERSONAL estate was estimated to be >> over $1 billion in 1923 (about 4 octillion marks). He was >> a member of the Reichstag. > >Please give contemporary examples of American millionaires getting rich >through the government, please. > Find a copy of "Reason" magazine -- December, 1984. The cover story, "Welfare for the Well-Heeled" documents the economic effects of "industrial development bonds" (IDB's). A brief excerpt: A fundamental purpose of IDB's is to enable businesses to finance projects that otherwise wouldn't be done. Yet some of Texas's richest business people get the financing. In the Dallas area, the world's biggest real estate developer, Trammell Crow, quickly saw the value of the tax-exempt bonds. In 1980 he got $3.5 million to build a warehouse and distribution center in suburban Carrollton. A year later, he used $9.4 million worth of IDBS to build a film and television studio in the posh Las Colinas development of Irving. Seventy-year-old Crow, a folksy, self-made multi-millionaire who praised the spirit of free enterprise when the Republican national convention came to town this year, does more than a billion dollars' worth of real estate deals a year -- but still goes to Texas development commissions, hand extended, for cheap credit. .... In the city of Dallas, multimillionaire Ray Hunt, son of the late right-wing billionaire oilman H.L. Hunt, persuaded the Dallas city council to declare a high-rent block in downtown Dallas "blighted" so he could use $1.5 million worth of IDBS to build an underground parking garage with a park on top. >> > (except >> > for the most ruthless, who establish monopolies and get incredibly >> > rich). >> >> Now this is a very often held, but quite puzzling idea. Certainly >> if one COULD establish a monopoly, one would. BUT -- find one. One >> NOT backed by government, regulated by government, encouraged by >> government. One that stays around for a long time. >> >> Let me know if you find one. I'm still looking. In the meantime, >> concede the monopoly point -- there's almost no indication that they >> are stable short of government intervention. For backing, see >> "Machinery of Freedom", by David Friedman. I'm also trying to >> get hold of a book called "Uncle Sam the Monopoly Man", but >> I haven't read it. >> To anticipate you: The phone company is not a natural monopoly, and was >> facing severe competition when it formed (you'll find reference for this >> in a Time magazine article written about the Bell breakup at about the >> time the breakup took effect). > >During the Industrial Revolution, again, there were numerous monopolies >that disappeared only when the government passed anti-trust laws. >Now the government does support some monopolies, like the Postal Service, >and I will agree with you that it should stop this. But without >government intervention, monopolies are inevitable. I am STILL waiting for a list of these monopolies. Remember -- they had to evolve without the use of government, and be stable.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/23/84)
#R:pyuxd:-27200:inmet:7800185:177600:2003 inmet!nrh Nov 21 06:46:00 1984 >***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 12:01 pm Nov 18, 1984 >It seems to be the prevalent opinion that, as a compassionate and responsible >society, we cannot let people die because they are too poor to pay for >medical care. You can try to change this perception by writing about how >silly this is, but in the meantime, you're stuck... I believe he was writing about how silly it was to FORCE people to pay for the poor and sick. If we are a "compassionate and responsible" society, surely no force need be levelled against our citizens to accomplish this (save the force of moral obligation). On the other hand, one hears often from those who would advance goals (not allowing people to die because they cannot afford medical care) without considering consequences (one must decide how much money may be legitimately spent, and how much is "too much" (for example -- should every person in jeopardy by a virus receive the (last I heard) frighteningly expensive interferon? How much money should be spent on medical research, considering that all the money in the world might not end death, and given that one cannot spend all the money in the world in this attempt, how can we (in conscience) limit medical spending? After all, another dollar spent might increase the average lifespan by a fraction of a second. How DARE we not spend every DIME on extending the human life span? After all, some multi-millionaires cannot afford to send up in the Space Shuttle raw materials for medicines that can only be made in microgravity, but need they DIE, just because the multi-millionaires are too poor to do this? You get the drift, I'm sure -- every good cause (and every bad cause) must compete for our attention. The only excuse for not spending everything on ONE cause is that resources are finite -- and there are all these other causes. Oddly, those who would leave choices up to individuals tend to be criticised by those same people busily pointing out how "moral" society is.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/23/84)
#R:pyuxd:-27200:inmet:7800186:000:3290 inmet!nrh Nov 21 16:53:00 1984 (I speak here for my own beliefs. Libertarians in general may vary quite a bit). >***** inmet:net.politics / pyuxd!pyux / 12:11 am Nov 15, 1984 >It boils down to this: libertarians value individual freedom as paramount. >(As, I admit, I do myself.) Yet they claim that they have no responsibility >to the society that they live in. Not at all. We admit the requirement not to initiate force or fraud. We admit responsibility for our own actions and our own choices. We agree that property is a human right, and that therefore the property of others is theirs, not subject to our theft. >Democracy provides for majority rule and >law, and sets up the rules governing how the benefits a society is supposed >to provide get distributed, AND how each person is to be responsible for >contributing (monetarily or otherwise) to the sustenance of society and its >benefits. As do communism, totalitarianism, and the rest. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" -- remember? That a government may define these things doesn't give them legitimacy (rather the opposite). >Those who choose to claim "I get no benefits from society" are >clearly lying, unless they live in a cave, built their own domiciles with >their hands and make no use of ANY societally provided facility. On the other hand, those who claim "I PAID for what I got from society" and have a basis for this claim owe nothing to society. This holds true even if they had paid labor build them a mansion in Beverly Hills. The notion that one can never pay enough for "society" is the notion that society is the source of all wealth. Not true. The other aspect of this paragraph I find disturbing is the notion that EVERYTHING must be paid for. What do you do when someone gives you a gift? What do you do when someone accedes to your right to walk on your own land? Certainly in the first case you don't whip out the checkbook or ask if they take VISA? Certainly in the second case you don't send them a check (at least, not for that reason). >(Obviously >anyone using this network doesn't qualify, since they are a priori using >resources belong to other members of the society---even if they own their >own computers, priced as they were by society's marketplace, they are using a >public telephone network. > Oh I get it. One can never pay enough to have paid one's phone bills. Or is it: one can never pay enough to those who've freely given you use of their computer facilities? Don't confuse "society" (which is a function of human interaction) with "government" which is an attempt to dominate society. People may owe much to society, but little or nothing to government. In particular, the government tends to claim credit for anything that happens in a society, even though the society managed it IN SPITE of the government. >Why does the libertarian standpoint sound like the rantings of a child who >wants something but doesn't want to have to do what is required (e.g., >work, interact sociably with other people) to get it? Too much wax in your ears? Not enough listening? Sub-standard mental processing of the libertarian standpoint as you've heard it? Why does your paragraph sound like a churlish attempt to side-step the merits of a philosophy?
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/25/84)
In article <inmet.1829> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: > The notion that one can never pay enough for "society" is the notion > that society is the source of all wealth. Not true. I'm not so sure that it isn't true. At least as good a case could probably be made that it is as that society contributes nothing to wealth, which seems to be the main libertarian argument. Consider: All wealth consists of re-structuring of materials, most of which cannot be done by any one individual. Without teaching, each individual has to be an inventor of every process used. Taeching proceeds by example, by language, and is the passing on of the combined discoveries of society. It is not the transmission of one person's knowledge to another, but the funnelling of many inventions through many teachers. Suppose that our learner now has learned all the arts and crafts. How then does he produce an automobile? Does he build steam-shovels to dig the ore? Not at all. Teams of other people provide the ore to other teams who turn it into steel .... No wealth can be created in the absence of society, whatever the means used to persuade people to give you what you personally want to have. I think it is silly to say either that society IS or IS NOT the source of all wealth. Without a properly functioning society there is no wealth, but individuals have to function properly within that society to create it. You might as well say that the sea is not the source of fish. It all depends on how you look at the question. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt
nrh@inmet.UUCP (12/02/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / watmath!cdshaw / 10:04 pm Nov 20, 1984 >The main thing which bugs me about libertarianism (aside from the smugness >evidenced by some of its adherents) is the incredible frequency with which >it is used as an excuse to avoid payment of taxes & levies in general. > This is awkwardly phrased -- if I understand the literal meaning of this sentence, you are aware of the inside procedures of the IRS (or some similar agency), and thus know how often a form 1040 comes back with "Sorry, I'm a libertarian" written on it. The meaning behind this sentence may well be: "I dislike libertarianism because libertarians are always moaning about taxes." Well, people who worry about pollution are always moaning about pollution, people who worry about nuclear war are always moaning about military spending, or diplomatic heavy handedness. Not all that surprising that people who believe that the state should be slimmer should moan about it eating yet another course of a BIG dinner. >Is libertarianism a dogma of monetary expediency or what ??? Or what. >I seem to remember from John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" that he stated >that laws for the common good are legitimate, but laws regulating individual >welfare are not. Laws are supposed to prevent you from hurting me, not you >from hurting you. > >Given this kind of line, objections to medicare because "medicare pays for >pacemakers and pacemakers are against my beliefs/morals/desire to pay" seem >irrelevant to libertarianism. Well, not quite. Think of it this way: bad enough that the government should spend our money against our will, but worse that it should spend it on things (my favorite is enforcement of laws against suicide) that some of the people being forced to pay find morally abhorrent. >The wrong lib. argument is : "I'm free to participate as fully as I wish >in society... I don't like X in program/tax regime Y, so I don't want to pay >for that portion of Y which goes to finance X". In other words, society should >operate contrary to IBM : everything should be unbundled & I'll pay for what >I want. > >Unfortunately, society doesn't come unbundled (at least not the version I got >(V7 release 3.233) (-:).. so making arguments of the above type is a waste of >time. "Society" needn't be unbundled -- GOVERNMENT should be unbundled. I doubt you could "unbundle" society (whatever you had left would still be "society") but I see no similar objection to government ceasing certain activities and letting them be handled by the private sector. >This is especially true of universal-pay-for-it schemes such as medicare, >since opting out would be hard to manage on a subprogram-by-subprogram basis. >This is par for the course, in fact, in all insurance-like programs: everyone >must pay, or the system won't work. Pfui. The government could sell federal land to raise the money to pay people the equivalent value of what they'd invested in medicare and social security. The raised money is then GIVEN to those people. People are then free to join PRIVATE retirement plans, medical insurance companies, (or, of course, to have great parties instead), and so forth. (This idea was in the 1980 libertarian platform). If you don't like the "all at once" problem of federal land sales, you could instead have the government guarantee easy payments of its debt to the people it had taxed, and get almost the same effect. In either case, of course, the government STOPS collecting for social security and medicare, and begins auctioning government controlled medical facilities. >If you enjoy some of the benefits, you >must pay for the entire package, no matter what. Not quite a strong enough statement: EVEN IF YOU WOULDN'T TAKE THE BENEFITS IF OFFERED, YOU MUST PAY FOR THE ENTIRE PACKAGE. >The babble that "I am free, so I have property, so I can do what I >like with it, therefore, I won't pay taxes for a particular set of things" >is vacuous, pure & simple, since if the argument were followed through, then >society would no longer exist due to people refusing to pay for the services >we all know & love. "Society" would no longer exist? Not so. "Government" would no longer exist? Maybe, maybe not -- it would certainly act differently were it dependent on popular contributions, the way listener-supported radio is.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (12/07/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / dciem!mmt / 4:49 am Nov 28, 1984 >Consider: All wealth consists of re-structuring of materials, most >of which cannot be done by any one individual. Without teaching, each >individual has to be an inventor of every process used. Taeching proceeds >by example, by language, and is the passing on of the combined >discoveries of society. It is not the transmission of one person's >knowledge to another, but the funnelling of many inventions through >many teachers. Suppose that our learner now has learned all the arts >and crafts. How then does he produce an automobile? Does he build >steam-shovels to dig the ore? Not at all. Teams of other people provide >the ore to other teams who turn it into steel .... No wealth can be >created in the absence of society, whatever the means used to persuade >people to give you what you personally want to have. > Even if society is the source of SOME wealth (which I'm happy to concede) it doesn't follow that you must then "pay" society. In particular, most people learn things from parents, and from schools paid for by parents. Parents in turn do not (ordinarily) demand that you devote your life to paying them back -- the learning and the schooling were GIFTS from them, they do not EXPECT payment. My point was that it is wrong to think that, because you find yourself with schooling, education, and a place to live as you grew up, it means that you must tally up these costs, and then pay someone back for them. It is also wrong to think that all wealth you may create is owed to some agent of society because "society" conferred such immense benefits on you. Society did so freely, mostly without stating any future price for your schooling, housing, etc. That "society" may hope to collect benefits from your accomplishments given these tools does not make GOVERNMENT correct in demanding money "as the agent of society". Remember, you can't just go to some building somewhere and find the central source of "society", you must consider the actions of individuals here. When I say that "society" fed you, I'm really talking (ordinarily) about one's parents, one's friends, the teacher who gave a little extra time. These people did what they did freely -- "society" is an abstraction meant to avoid the complexities of dealing with the myriad individual choices, but breaks down when one talks about "the motives" of society, or debts owed to "society".
emks@uokvax.UUCP (12/20/84)
/***** uokvax:net.politics / zinfandel!steve / 10:31 pm Dec 16, 1984 */ ...Reagan's CIA Terrorism for the Third World manual they found lying around, looked in the chapter on neutralizing government leaders, and offed her. /* ---------- */ And just when did they publish this document, Steve? I have a feeling that the Senate Intelligence Commitee would like to know, too. The Central American publication didn't follow proper administration policy, and they got zapped for printing it. And I'm certain Mr. Reagan would like to know about "his" CIA Terrorism for the Third World manual, too. Just how did you arrive that it must be "Reagan's"? What ever happened to DCI, NSC, DoD, and Senate oversight? kurt
mike@hpfclp.UUCP (mike) (01/16/85)
How can you believe that Socialism is better than Capitalism? Socialism places the group as the standard of value. The consequence of this that all Socialists blank-out is that it turns productive individuals into animals to be sacrificed for the group by the whims of any non-producers holding political power. All is just if it is in the name of "the people", "the society", or "the common good". That is the creed of Socialism. Those who are better and more productive are to be penalized because of their ability. The products of their work are confiscated and consumed by non-productive capitalism-hating looters. From each according to his ability to each according to his need is the equation that has time after time brought the productive industrial capacity of nations to a standstill. Yet you say this is better than Capitalism. It is perfectly rational for "the working group" to try to improve their situation. But to do this by acquiring political power to enforce laws that abrogate individual rights, that forces employers to pay certain salaries, that stifles competition among employers for the best workers available, and stagnates industry because they are no longer allowed to make a profit; this is the glory of Socialism. Yet you say this is better than Capitalism. You say: >> As the Industrial Revolution developed it became apparent to many that >> the working class, those who are hired by others to work for wages, were >> getting the short end of the stick in many ways. They were >> systematically excluded from a life of dignity and satisfaction (they >> still are). Is it more dignified and satisfying that no industry should exist so that the working class has not to worry about getting the short end of the stick? Is it more dignified and satisfying that there would be no employers because the the men of vision, the industrialists, the men willing to risk all that that they have in order to start a business are stopped by the penalties inflicted for their efforts? Is it more dignified and satisfying that those of no vision and little courage should beg and scratch for an existence simply because "the good of society" does not allow the "money hungry" capitalists to start a business and thus give those of lesser ability an honest paying job? Yet this is what Socialism advocates. >> Various socialists have emphasized different elements in the new society >> which they desire to create. But since the situation of the working >> class is a product of capitalism, socialists agree that capitalism has >> to go. I submit to you that the situation before Capitalism, before the Industrial Revolution was far, far worse. Before Capitalism, there was nothing more than a slave economy where the product of the slaves and serfs could at any time be siezed by whatever ruling gang was in power. The chance of getting ahead, of making life possible and bearable hardly existed at all. There were no factories to work for, no corporations, little technology, and few economic opportunities to pursue. At that time, if an individual didn't own the rights to land, he was practically forced to become a slave to those who did. The advent of Capitalism changed all this. With Capitalism came the concept of "making money" and of "making wealth". No longer was it necessary to loot, steal, or cheat those possessing wealth in order to acquire it. No longer was it necessary to depend on human slaves to create wealth. Capitalism is and will always be the only moral economic system available to man. It is the only system that does not sacrifice the virtuous to the non-virtuous or the individual to the group. Yet you say that Socialism is better. >> So that's a brief description of socialism. Let's have some discussion of >> democratic socialism on the net. "Democratic Socialism" is a misleading term; that is if you consider democracy a society that protects individual rights. If you consider a democracy any organization whereby all rights of the minority are subordinate or invalidated by the decisions of those elected to power, then what you really have is "Democratic Gang Warfare" where whatever leaders who have the biggest voting block can apply unlimited power and force against those who don't. A government without individual rights as the primary premise of its existence is nothing more than an atavistic example of the primitive hunter-gatherer tribes of the Stone Age. >> Libertarianism is a shallow ideology which defends private privilege, >> not public liberty. I will not defend the Libertarianism because I am not one of them nor do I believe that they hold individual rights as the keystone of their platform. If I am convinced otherwise, then more power to them. >> I invite all libertarians to buy a one-way ticket to Bhopal, India, >> where they will not have to deal with OSHA or EPA which are destroying >> our precious freedom in the USA. Do not lull yourself into thinking that industrial accidents wouldn't happen under Socialism. The only chance of this would be if the Socialists had their way and wiped out industry all together. Union Carbide may be responsible for the Bhopal Accident and if they are then the degree to which they make reparations and pay damages is the degree to which the men of that company hold human life as a standard of value, a standard by which all other values and actions can be measured. >> Does it ever occur to libertarians that taking some of the rich man's >> wealth and giving it the poor man can increase the poor man's freedom >> and result in a net increase in freedom? Are you serious?!? Money will not make a poor man free. A society or government that believes it is right in "taking" the wealth of the rich to give to the poor is nothing more than state of robbers and looters. Ah, but robbing and looting are just fine under Socialism because it's the group we're interested in, not those morally depraved philosphically impotent individuals that make up that society. Socialism is a moral blank check which will never amount to anything more than a tool that allows power-hungry bureaucrats to usurp the politcal freedom of the individual. >> Socialism aims to establish a society in which no man has arbitrary power >> over another simply because he possesses property. That is not the aim of Socialism. Socialism is a society where the individual has no rights, property or otherwise. And without property rights no other rights are possible. If a person does not own or is not justly compensated for the product of his work, then he does not own his life. He is a slave. Capitalism works by the virtue of property rights and by the virtue of free-market competition that demands the best from each of us. It works because those who have ability and work hard are rewarded and those who are lazy and imcompetent are not. But Capitalism can only work in a politically free climate that holds individual rights as its highest ideal. It's either/or. Either you have Capitalism and a society of free individuals or you have a caste society of the rulers and the workers. The caste society, unfortunately, is the predominate heritage of the human race. Socialism is the society for brainless insects and emotion-driven savages. Capitalism is for the intelligent, free, rational human being. A is A. Michael Bishop ihnp4!hpfcla!mike-b
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/27/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 4:01 pm Jan 21, 1985 >> Now for some kickers. Banks are still failing, and not all banks are FDIC >> insured. Also to get 10% on your money you have to use non FDIC insured >> form of investment. Or another words people have to RISK their savings >> just to maintain a decent return. Finally, the single biggest expense >> older people have is medical. Medical expenses have gone up more than any >> other type, so the probability of older people being able to not touch >> their principle is low, since they would need to pay their medical >> expenses. > >It would be a lot easier to just have the government pay all the >medical expenses of people over a certain age. Oh no! Wayne, consider, you can spend ANY AMOUNT of money on keeping someone alive. You can spend ANY AMOUNT of money to try and keep them just a little healthier than they already are. If you put the government in charge of paying all medical bills for people over a certain age you do a couple of horrible things: 1. You put the government in the position of deciding who is "too expensive" to keep alive. 2. By artificially lowering the price of medical services to zero, you give old people "signals" through the price system that medical help is plentiful. It is not. Doctors do not come out of nowhere just because more old people want them to, and yet this is the situation that would be consistent with the new price scheme. How will you provide the extra doctors? 3. You will establish a monopsony, that is, a one-buyer situation. The government will no doubt choose a particular price to pay doctors for a given service, and no doubt the price will be modified by complex local criteria, but what it comes down to is this: some things (those that cost on average, more than government is willing to pay) will be undersupplied. Others will be oversupplied. Do you really want to have people suffer because there are not enough kidney-machines, when there are too many hospital beds? This is the sort of nightmare you're going to let the elderly in for. 4. You will create great pressure for government to control the diet of the elderly, and later, everybody. I bring this up as an excuse to mention F. Paul Wilson's wonderful story "Lipidleggin'", which is reprinted in "The Survival of Freedom", a collection edited by Jerry Pournelle and John F. Carr. >Also there could be >government run "old people's homes" for those people who by some bad >luck have lost all their savings. Similar problems here, I think. How to prevent hell-holes? Who do you sue when the GOVERNMENT gives old people a half-destroyed, dangerous building to live in. Don't think it would happen? You must never have read about the fate of "project" housing for the poor. >GIving SS money to people who don't >absolutely need it is silly. Instead of letting people think, "I don't >have to save up for my old age because I will get social security", >they should be thinking "I'd better save my money and be careful with >it, because all I can be sure of is that the government won't let me >starve to death". Most people won't look forward to this sort of >minimal support, but at least they won't die because of lack of food >and medical care. Look, Wayne. I don't want you to starve, (really!) but I don't propose to feed you off the government dole. To say that adults cannot fend for themselves, to tell them that government will take care of them, is no service to the adults involved. What has happened, do you suppose, to those who were on government pensions in hyperinflated Germany? It's difficult to imagine what could cause the collapse of the dollar now, but it was probably as hard to imagine what could kill the Mark in Germany. It is true that pension funds go belly-up, and it is true that their insurers go belly-up, but it is also true that this is pretty rare, that such people are the legitimate objects of (private) charity, and that what you propose has serious side-effects. On top of everything else, once in place, if your plan became obviously a bad idea, it would be about as hard to remove as Social Security is now. >> What social security needs is not to be disbanded, it should be >> strengthened. How? Simple, put the tax on one's whole income and make it >> progressive. Also, charge employers a progressive social security tax. >> For every dollar of an employees salary that is over a hundred thousand >> dollars, the employer must add a a matching dollar to the social security >> fund. Further, every time prices are raised for a given service or >> product, then the social security fund must get half the amount of the gross >> income due to the increase in price. > >Great, more incentives not to make money. Just what we need. Amen, Wayne, Amen.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/27/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 9:40 am Jan 22, 1985 >> > > However for Libertarians to argue that the reign of private property >> > > will mean the end of all force is an error. >> > >> > Excuse me, but I don't recall hearing any libertarian advance that >> > position. To tell people that your opponents make points that your >> > opponents do not in fact make is called "building a straw man". >> >> Yes, indeed. But what you may not realize is that Sevener just LOVES to >> build straw-men. > >I have seen some pretty silly things that libertarians have posted >lately, which leads me to suspect that Tim Sevener doesn't really need >to build straw men to make people look stupid. Whoa! Let's not have any linkage between the validity of Sevener's straw man and the (arguable) incorrectness of OTHER libertarian arguments. If Sevener uses straw men, he should be called on it (I did so). >Here are some from the >recent Libertaria debate: (I have forgotten who posted this, but there >was not a shred of support for these claims) Not every statement need be supported from first principles in every article: I offer this sentence, for example. For some, the quotes you give, listed below, are self-evident. If you wish support for them, by all means, contact the authors. Now let's take a look at how another libertarian (me) sees the quotes you list. >> ... the legal code would be so much easier to understand it would >> be inconceivable that a lawyer's prowess would enter into the play. I agree that this (as stated) is incorrect. It's certainly conceivable that a lawyer's prowess might be required. On the other hand, without excusing the original author whom I believe to be wrong, the point of what was being said was that lawyers are less NECESSARY in a private justice system. In particular, any member of a libertarian society might say "I'm a lawyer" and start practicing. I very much doubt we'd demand the same degree of overeducation from our lawyers if they had to compete with slick-talkers from Podunk High with a good feel for an agreeable solution, and a good eye for detail. As it is, Lawyers artificially limit their own numbers, *WITH THE COLLUSION OF THE STATE* and keep their priesthood sacrosanct. It is EXTREMELY unlikely, in my view, that a libertarian society would either tolerate or require *THAT* sort of lawyer/priest. >> How about Jill is constantly employed, since there is no unemployment. >> Jill doesn't have to worry about inflation and has had enough money to >> save up for her future years. I'd say that mck has dealt pretty well with inflation. As he points out, unemployment would very likely be quite limited (I didn't understand the term he used) in a libertarian society. If you wish to argue economics with him, please be my guest (I'm glad that mck and I seem to agree, it sure looks like he knows more than I about the subject). On the other hand, before launching into him, perhaps you could forward that list of monopolies, hmmmm....? Or perhaps, as was the case with that list, you should simply concede the point (nothing unmanly about it) in the face of your own relative ignorance (again, I'm not trying to be pejorative) of economics? >> Her sons both opted not to join the service >> since there was little incentive (think what the volunteer armed services >> would be like if there were 100% employment of civilians...). I don't recognize this quote, but I'd be surprised if nobody elected to join the armed forces -- think of how many are "weekend" members of the National Guard now! Even in the face of 100% employment, there are some opportunities that don't exist except in the military (certain forms of patriotism demand it, certain sorts of people are happier under very structured regimes). Whether this military is private or not is another, separate, question. >Now, I wouldn't think of claiming that these are typical Libertarian >arguments, but they certainly aren't "straw men" either... It bears repeating: Sevener misrepresented the libertarian position. It's worth saying: NOBODY is saying the the quotes you give above are straw men.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/27/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 11:40 am Jan 23, 1985 >> > A Response to Ken Montgomery's query: >> > from me: tim sevener: >> > "As I was walking that ribbon of highway >> > I saw a sign said , "No trespassing" >> > But the other side of the sign said nothing >> > That sign was made for you and me" Woody Guthrie >> >> Why should land not be subject to the same inviolateness as any >> other kind of property? >> >> Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" >> ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] >> kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only] > >Earlier I pointed out how naked FORCE had been used to claim the Indians >territory (they had no concept of "owning" land, merely staked out territories). >The same thing took place in the expansionist days of the Roman Republic. >The aristocracy took control of large portions of Italy and other conquered >territories as part of their participation in Roman wars of expansion. >The aristocracy's large estates ("latifundia") were often unproductive. >But what did it matter? The aristocracy had plenty to live off from their >control of the land. Moreover they displaced the smaller Roman farmers >and replaced their labor with that of slaves. The smaller Roman farmers >were often more productive in their use of the land. But they were excluded >from working the land because it was "owned" by the Roman aristocracy. I hope you are not claiming that this expansion was in any way a Libertarian phenomenon! >The same thing that occurred in Rome is a common problem in many Third World >countries. The Somoza family owned 70% of all the land in Nicaragua before >the Sandinista Revolution. In this case and many others in which a landed >aristocracy owns most of the land, much of the land goes idle. It is left >idle both for the enjoyment of the aristocracy, and because there is little >incentive to make it productive. You will note that in such a situation (land seized and controlled by an oligarchy with obvious links to government) there is little incentive for anyone to attempt to buy land -- they don't have any reason to think that their new property would remain theirs. >The aristocracy is guaranteed a portion of >their sharecroppers income anyway. While the peasants would often be glad >and have been proven to work very hard to make the land productive if they >were given the chance, they are excluded from making the land productive >by the claims of private ownership. Hmmm..... Let me see. If I can't buy land here, then I go somewhere else, right? No? What's that Mr. Sevener? I'm supposed to stay and seize land by political means? And here, of course, we have some tricky stuff -- If I still am the legitimate owner of the land seized from me, I've the right to take it back. If, on the other hand, I just feel that A should have more land and B should have less, by what right may I enforce my preference? Certainly a CLAIM of land may be made for evil purposes, but it needn't be respected unless it is valid. >Some Economists who study development have examined successful cases of >development- the US, Japan, and other countries. They have concluded that >land reform, or the distribution of land to a number of small farmers >rather than concentration of ownership by an elite has been a pivotal factor >in successful development. They conclude that agriculture is critical to >successful development -it is the base for industry rather than the other way >around. Who are "Some Economists"? You capitalize the term, implying a degree of importance to these people. Let's hear their names, please. >It should also be noted that both the US and Japan have done the >opposite of countries such as Ethiopia: rather than penalizing agriculture >they have provided price supports and subsidies, extension services and other >aid to make agriculture profitable for the small producer. Yes sir! There's no argument that the government can't cause production to happen, merely that it happens without this sort of crap. It turns out that some fairly large percentage of our farmers are NOT subsidized (I'm quoting a "USA Today" column 1/24/85 from memory, here), and yet we have no soybean famine (soybeans are among the crops not subsidized). I agree that price supports caused production. A LOT of production. That it was needed, or efficient, or even pleasing, is arguable. >This conclusion supports neither Libertarianism nor collective socialism. In fact, it seems to me to support only the thesis that government subsidies did not cause underproduction. Is this news? >For it suggests that some limits to property are vital to people's well-being: PING! Exactly how and when the US re-distribute land among its farmers? If this never happened, on what do you, or the economists you invoke, base this idea? Remember, price supports are a little different from saying: "You, off this land, it belongs to him, now". >so long as a few people (like the Somozas) monopolize onwership that >productivity will lag, and people will be mired in poverty and hungry. Indeed -- a good reason to get OUT of that place. On the other hand, people seem to survive there -- how? Why should the landowners give them even that much? >Thus some intrusion on property rights, implicit in land reform, is good. Not supported. Any bad action may have good effects, but whether the action itself is good or not surely depends on its net effect. That land reform helped in one situation is interesting, but how do you measure the cost in terms of opportunity? Where will smart farmers choose to farm? Where they can be sure to get well paid. Does a place that puts limits on how big a farm may get before being divvied up strike you as a secure place to be an enterprising, land-buying farmer? I hope not. >On the other hand, it shows that many small farmers actually owning their >land are more productive than large collective farms. Excuse me, but I don't think you gave us enough information to make the underpinning to this conclusion clear. I do happen to agree on this point -- The Soviet Union is a classic case. On the other hand, there seems to be some evidence that large agribusinesses (larger than one family, say) are more efficient than small ones. >This is in line with >the notion that people are motivated by their self-interest to work harder. >The critical factor here is the DISTRIBUTION of wealth and the means of >production. Just saying that all property rights are absolutely sacred >(and somehow "fair") seems indefensible to me. At least with property rights, there are few surprises. When the military shows up and kicks you out, that tends to be a surprise (not a happy one). Certainly property rights TEND to be more fair in operation than politically granted boons -- remember, it is human beings (not the owners) who decide who will get what land if you allow the government to redistribute privately, legitimately owned land. >Did not the kings claim that they in some sense "owned" all the land in their >realm? Is this then a case of Libertarianism? If not, why not? I believe they generally claimed to be "defenders", but they certainly were not libertarians. Libertarians in general do not claim the "droit du seigneur", the right of taxation, the low, middle, and high justice, the right to enslave, or attack. Need one continue? >If some corporation or individual comes to control (or group of corporations >and individuals) most of the economy what does the freedom of property >mean to the vast majority who own nothing? People generally own their labor. They may exchange the labor for capital (remember, only "most" of the economy is controlled by the cartel). The "freedom of property" means that the capital they acquire may not be wrested from them by someone who controls more government power than the laborers do. Freedom of property gives them a CHANCE. Control of that freedom limits the chance. >THIS is the problem for Libertarianism: it is the problem I have already >raised with case of industrial monopoly. I don't recall when you raised this, but, as near as I can tell, NOBODY has posted an example of a stable monopoly not supported by government. If you can't find one, I'd advise you not to worry about monopoly in the face of freedom -- it's NOT a natural condition. I've had this challenge out for a while ("Find a monopoly that's stable and not propped up by government") and of the two answers, Standard Oil and a welding company called, I think, "Cleveland Electric" the first was unstable, the other turned out to have about 200 competitors and not to control even half of its market. >It is the problem posed by >saying property rights are absolutely sacred without considering the >justification or original source of such rights, nor their consequences. Hmmm..... Consequences. Is an outcome fair? Why? To justify interfering a free market, you must be able to show that you're smarter than the market mechanism -- that your criterion of fairness will result in better consequences than the unconstrained choices of the participants. I'm listening, but one warning: DON'T SUGGEST ANY HUMAN BEING, OR GROUP OF HUMAN BEINGS, as arbiters of what is fair. If they live in our society, they'll become objects of corrupting forces that will destroy (unless they're saints) any objectivity they may start out with. I'll say it again, a society that depends on too many saints in the right places is one we CANNOT construct and maintain.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/27/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 11:45 am Jan 23, 1985 >> From R.J. Stewart: To a libertarian, however, the relativistic >> axiom suggests a principle, that goes something like: >> >> Since my philosophy has no special significance, I should not do >> things to promote it that I would not want other people to do in >> promoting *their* philosophy. >> >This sounds like a paraphrase of: >1)the Golden Rule >2)John Rawles basic principle for his Social Contract theory of justice: > namely, that the best society would be that which I would agree to, > if I do not know what my position would be in that society. > >This principle acknowledges the true problem of government-how to resolve >individuals conflicting desires and aims. If one accepts this as the >fundamental problem of government (which I do) then one comes to the conclusion >that Rawles and other Social Contract philosophers like John Locke came to: >that society and government is based upon a social contract between all its >members. Thus a just society will not exclude or deny people certain >rights or privileges just because those people happen to have inherited >no claim to a large portion of society's goods, while other people have >inherited a majority of claims to society's goods. This is a little vague, but it sure sounds like you're saying: "Just because Joe inherited millions, doesn't mean he gets to KEEP them -- I have a right to some of that money just by being human". If that's what you're saying, you are incorrect, and should say it more directly so you can be more directly refuted. If you're merely saying that certain rights, such as the ownership of one's self and the fruits of one's labor, and the right to give owned property to another person, then I certainly agree with you. >On the other hand, freedom itself is a good which I will undoubtedly find >desirable regardless of my possessions. Most people would not desire >an equal claim to clothing that is all the same , or all of >inferior quality. Most people would also accept that axiom that justice >means that those who work harder should be paid more. >They may accept >that "efficiency" may be increased if people are paid solely their >worth on the market, but that is another problem than justice. >Yet this is what Libertarians claim is the "only" measure of worth- >worth on the market. Not that I suspect you of straw-manning us again, but do you mind telling us the author of this "claim"? I mean, it's not as if libertarians ordinarily kick people or walk right through them, even if they own no property. Also, could you distinguish please between the notion of "worth on the market" and "what someone's worth", in such a way that it makes sense in the context of the quote I've asked for? Remember, libertarians may well think of a "social market", just because the metaphor makes sense, not that he expects literal buying and selling. >Libertarianism also has the tendency to put the rights of property above >any other rights. Hmmmm.... Given that human rights devolve from the ownership of your own body, it's not surprising that the distinction could be blurred by someone sufficiently obtuse. David Friedman pointed out that property has no rights -- HUMANS have rights to property, thus, what you're calling "property rights" is simply a branch (and possibly the basis of human rights). >We have already seen this in Libertarians defense of >killing to protect property. Why yes, in extremis. Please reference the specific article you're talking about though (I use notes, so an article i.d. wouldn't help, so if you could post the author, the date, and a brief quotation....). It's not as if libertarians ever support the initiation of force to pre-empt an intrusion, though, and it's not as if you can find a libertarian willing to kill because somebody picks up his briefcase by mistake. >Yet they fail to ask the question: what could >be "worth more" to me than my own life? What could be "worth more" to me than my own life? Well, the lives of the people I love, certain sorts of liberty (remember Nathan Hale) for all, and, I sometimes think that it would be worth my life to see you go through a whole article without misrepresenting anyone. >Do I have the right to take away >someone's ultimate "property" and the very ground of their freedom by taking >somebody's life? Property rights usually involve rights to water and the >prohibition of someone else's property from denying access to water. >Is it acceptable then to deny people the right to food, which they need >to live? This does NOT FOLLOW! That I can deny someone the right to eat MY cucumber sandwich doesn't mean that I have some way of forbidding them ALL cucumber sandwiches. Even if I've got a lock on cucumber sandwiches, perhaps they can eat fish instead. Get the picture? Denial of a particular bit of property to a person does NOT imply denial of ALL property to a person. In practice, only Governments ever come close to being able to deny all property to a person. >Should they be denied the right to an education, which they need >to be full members of society? Oops! There's just one little problem. The "right to an education" implies the "requirement to educate". The most direct way of doing this would be to partly enslave (draft) a bunch of teachers and.... No? Okay, partly enslave a bunch of property-owners and...., ah! I see that you believe it's okay to partly enslave (tax) one bunch but not the other. By the way, how much education do they need? A college degree? Reading and writing? Who decides? How much? No Saints, please. >I am not arguing that human rights simply devolve into property rights. >Rather human rights come before property rights--without the protection of >the person then there is nobody to be free, nor does it make sense to >talk about anybody's "property", for the concept of property itself >requires the prior concept of an owner of such property. Without an >owner there can be no property. >Human rights are above property rights. Tim, you seem willing to steal from some to give "rights" to others. On what basis do you decide? How do you test to see that it hasn't gone too far? How do you determine that you're stealing enough?
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (01/29/85)
>> >> Socialism aims to establish a society in which no man has arbitrary power >> >> over another simply because he possesses property. >> >> That is not the aim of Socialism. Socialism is a society where the >> individual has no rights, property or otherwise. And without property >> rights no other rights are possible. If a person does not own or is not >> justly compensated for the product of his work, then he does not own his >> life. He is a slave. Capitalism works by the virtue of property rights >> and by the virtue of free-market competition that demands the best from >> each of us. It works because those who have ability and work hard are >> rewarded and those who are lazy and imcompetent are not. I don't know who the poster of the news that contained the first sentence was, since Michael Bishop, in the response I read, only calls him "You". What Bishop quoted from about "Democratic Socialism" seemed reasonable and not especially extreme to me. Some of what Bishop said was ok too. He's absolutely right about the need for a strong Capitalism in the Industrial Revolution. But Marx said that too, which didn't stop M from saying that things had gone too far by the mid nineteenth century. Marx wanted Capitalism to rage until it became possible to grow and progress by more humane means than the impoverishment of entire populations and social classes. Capitalism today has become more humane; in Marx's time stealing could get the death penalty in Britain. But there is still a Third World tied to world markets, in which only a lucky few can make a decent income in capitalist modes of enterprise. The rest slave or hunger or barely subsist. I'm sure the average worker in the Philippines or Brazil or Hong Kong or Thailand, when not unemployed, works as hard as any American or Japanese or European worker ("roughly"), and the gene pool is the same in the Third and the First World. Anybody who argues, like Bishop, that capitalism is FAIR has got to be joking. The problem of property rights is not that they are all bad, so that their abolishment is called for. The problem is that property rights are arbitrary and unfair. The most unfair property rights, I think, are inheritance rights. But property rights are great incentives. I like making money. I know very few people who don't like making money when the chance is made available to them. >> >> Socialism aims to establish a society in which no man has arbitrary power >> >> over another simply because he possesses property. >> That's not an extreme statement, its a reasonable one. Just because socialists and people who have called themselves socialists haven't yet succeeded in making societies that are unmistakably better than capitalism doesn't change the moral of most socialist writing, which Bishop agrees with, that arbitrary power is wrong on its face. We've done well enough to be generous. This isn't the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. We can have capitalist institutions which encourage production and register consumer needs along with socialist institutions which provide education and culture, and mediate the most gross violations of equity (I think extreme amounts of wealth, especially when they are held by the children of productive people, are sickening, for instance. Extreme poverty is sickening too ). Maybe growth would be a little slower. A decent, alert, and mixed socialism might have lots of other advantages (less crime, less war, more art and culture, cleaner streets) which could go to everybody. Instead of citing examples like Cambodia and the USSR, just look at countries like Sweden and Norway, which are much closer to the ideals of democratic socialism than any of the so-called socialist countries. They're not bad examples to emulate, not bad at all. Tony Wuersch amd!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/29/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 12:02 pm Jan 23, 1985 >> >response from nrh to richard carnes: >> >[Let me throw in another libertarian fable here, although it is not directly >> >relevant: The Mayflower lands, and most of the Pilgrims remain on board to >> >settle on a political coni
rjc@snow.UUCP (R.caley) (01/30/85)
> From: mike@hpfclp.UUCP (mike) > Newsgroups: net.politics > Subject: Re: Orphaned Response > Message-ID: <13600008@hpfclp.UUCP> > Date: Wed, 16-Jan-85 00:28:00 GMT > Article-I.D.: hpfclp.13600008 > How can you believe that Socialism is better than Capitalism? ^ | You are on **VERY** shakey ground using this word in a political (economic..) argument - define "better" and I'll take you seriously! I wont attempt to reply to all this article (130+ lines) lifes too short :-) Here is the conclusion:- > That is not the aim of Socialism. Socialism is a society where the > individual has no rights, property or otherwise. And without property > rights no other rights are possible. If a person does not own or is not > justly compensated for the product of his work, then he does not own his > life. He is a slave. Capitalism works by the virtue of property rights > and by the virtue of free-market competition that demands the best from > each of us. It works because those who have ability and work hard are > rewarded and those who are lazy and imcompetent are not. But Capitalism > can only work in a politically free climate that holds individual rights > as its highest ideal. It's either/or. Either you have Capitalism and a > society of free individuals or you have a caste society of the rulers > and the workers. The caste society, unfortunately, is the predominate > heritage of the human race. Socialism is the society for brainless > insects and emotion-driven savages. Capitalism is for the intelligent, > free, rational human being. > > A is A. > > Michael Bishop > ihnp4!hpfcla!mike-b Point 1) Remember in what follows I am a strong *ANTI* marxist but I have read quite a bit (well it's better than working) Point 2) Socialism is a society where the rights of the individual are protected by a strong government which has power to control the population in order to keep them free (Sounds like the western democrocies rather than the extreme right wing USSR) ie the paternalistic state. Point 3) Without the right of property *ALL* other rights are unaffected and in some ways less likely to be userped (how do you spell that?) by others.This is the only bit of Marxist (rather simplistic) doctrine which I aggree with. Point 4) Capitalism works in any society where the individual can be rewarded for doing something.You don't need to be free to be rewarded (Theres a good boy uncle Adolf will buy you a sweet for turning in those nasty Jews). Point 5) Calling your political opponents brainless insects is not exactly the sign of advanced ceribral activity. Point 6) Before flameing me read [a] Point 1 above [2] The comunist manifesto (Marx & Engles) and if you can [3] My posting on Anarchism on the net . Three quotes 1) Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4 from this all else follows. 2) Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains 3) We hold these truthes to be self evident,that all men are born equal..... [ These may be slight misquotes my memory is not good on other peoples dogma ] I don't think I need to say where they come from. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "In the beginning was a flame ...... " Paul Kantner. .......... mcvax!ukc!flame!ubu!snow!rjc [ Any opinions in the above crawled in while I wasn't looking ]
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/31/85)
In a recent article, I stated, without attribution, that the 20% of the private farms in the Soviet Union supplied about 80% of their food. I still can't remember where I heard this, but rather than simply let it go unsupported, let me give you (this time with attribution) some related information: Yet even in this hidebound society, private enterprise flourishes -- where it is given the chance. In the countryside, peasant plots make up 2 percent of the Soviet Union's farmland -- and supply 30% of all meat, milk and vegetables and 60% of all potatoes. U.S. News & World Report Feb 4, 1985 (pull date) pp 42. I suspect that my original statistic, if correct, probably referred to non-peasant, but nonetheless relatively autonomous agencies. Perhaps someone else knows where it came from?
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (02/06/85)
The Soviet government has encouraged private plots and private food markets since Khrushchev, partly to reduce stealing, partly to appease the peasant population, and to paper over the miserable failures in collective farming. If the government didn't try to keep the peasant population happier, migration to urban areas would increase or Stalin-era style repression would have to be used to keep peasants on their farms. Taking this into account, it's hard to know how figures about the proportion of agricultural output produced on private peasant plots show a failure of Soviet agricultural policy, in the absence of contextual information. First, the yield from a given plot varies enormously, so that perhaps 2% can reasonably produce, say, between .002% and 25% of a nation's supply of a given crop or agricultural food under optimal growing conditions. Knowing that private plots are more productive and wanting to keep peasants on their land, the Soviet government might be giving their peasants good land. Second, the food markets may be restricted to specific crops and foods, so that state agricultural planning policy presumes a balance between state and private production in the total agricultural product. If the state decides that "peasants will be encouraged to produce meat" and that "therefore the state won't produce so much meat", then the numbers used by US News wouldn't be indictments of the Soviet system; rather they might just ratify the success of balanced planning mechanisms. All that figures about private agricultural production in the Soviet Union show today is that Stalin's extreme collective farming policy was a failure. Do we need US News and World Report to tell us that in 1985? Tony Wuersch
nrh@inmet.UUCP (02/06/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 10:18 pm Feb 1, 1985 >> > But it isn't really ignored by the Libertarians, it is a central point of >> > most of their arguments even though they refuse to admit it. The major >> > thing most Libertarians seem to rail about is paying taxes. >> >> Bullsh*t! I rail about conscription! I rave about victimless crimes! I >> shout about censorship! Pretty clever article (summed up as: Libertarians >> only complain about taxes...taxes are only one loss of liberty...libertarians >> don't really care about liberty), too bad you couldn't have made it 99999 lines >> long; you would really have made a great point then. >> >> --Cliff [Matthews] >> {purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff >> {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff >> 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143 > >Perhaps I am wrong, but I have noticed a great concern with taxes as >"theft" and so forth by Libertarians. I guess one reason that the >right to tax has been important in my own arguments is that I agree >with removing victimless crimes from the legal code, preventing censorship, >and abolishing draft registration. But I cannot agree with arguments >that there is no justification for taxation, or other such group fees >as union dues. >I also notice that your response totally ignores the major subtance >of my arguments on taxation as some sort of "absolute infringement of >freedom". >Perhaps I am also ignoring the more purist ideology of Libertarians >versus the use the power elite is likely to make of such ideology. My goodness! A socialist concerned with what use the rhetoric of an ideology is to be put. Suppose you put your own house in order first, bub. The socialist rhetoric is much more a threat to people's well-being because it places no explicit limit on the power of the state to enslave. >While it is nice that some Libertarians on the net have admitted that >not *all* property ownership is legitimate or worthy of defense >that is a point that has only been conceded under my own questioning. Hmmm.... Let's not crow about false victories. Please present the quotes so that people may judge for yourself. As the author of some statements you seemed to take as meaning that libertarians do not regard property rights as absolute rights, let me clarify: apparent property rights may conflict: thus it is not possible for apparent property rights to be absolute. A fine shade of meaning, but one worth pondering. >It seems to me that Libertarians have not presented any means for >removing current inequalities of wealth and control of property. Nor have we presented any means for making sure department stores stay open on weekends. One of the failings of the statist philosophy is the emphasis on the need for specific tools to accomplish a given goal, whether any effort need be expended to accomplish that goal or not (a Department of Energy, a Windfall Profit tax on oil). I've quoted from a history on the US something of what happened when this country was young, before we had a great deal of regulation. Now let me suggest some further reading: Take a look at "Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980" by Charles Murray. >Those people who own America just *love* an ideology which they can >use to justify their own control of property and remove any governmental >or other public impediments to their absolute control of such property. Excuse me, but I believe they'd have shit-fits if a libertarian society were put in place. Just to start: what would the people who own GM stock think of free auto trade, hmmmm? What would the Mafia think of unrestricted (to adults) drug availability? What would the AMA think when anyone could call himself "a doctor" (though not an AMA doctor) and advise people? What would corporate polluters think when confronted with massive numbers of law suits regarding their treatment of the air (without a governmental agency to limit their liability?). Again, as a socialist, you have a much harder row to hoe if you want to talk about rhetoric and its usefulness to the ruling class, or haven't you heard about the special stores in Russia where only tourists and party members may go? >One need only look at Weber's "Protestant Ethic" to see how a doctrine >which starts out as primarily religious or spiritual can quickly become >subverted to justify a rising elite. Of course, I will concede that >Marxism has been no different in being used to justify a group's >claim to power. >But it seems to me that Libertarians as a whole are quite naive. That's okay. I've always had a soft spot for socialists -- they mean well, but normally can't IMAGINE the consequences of their own philosophy, no matter how many times it's put into action. > tim sevener whuxl!orb >---------- > Nat Howard
nrh@inmet.UUCP (02/06/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 10:23 pm Feb 1, 1985 > >So why should democracy be restricted to only that sphere that has >been carved out as "government"? Perhaps because people are thought to have rights irrespective of what a nearby majority might think? >What I would like to see is more >democracy in the workplace. What I would like to see is more accountability on USENET. Use a straw horse and have it show up on your point score. Misquote someone or quote out of context, ditto. Attempt to answer hard facts with cheesy rhetoric, and down you go as a fool on the Big Board. (Just hoping). >After all, for one thing people >usually spend 40 hours out of their 168 hours of the week at work. >Moreover, what people do in their work is often one of the most >important things in their lives. Well? Form a company that does this. If it is not economically efficient, don't expect us to help, but if it is, great! Oh, don't try to do this in a socialist country -- you'll find that their criteria of exactly what will be voted on and what won't be, and what will be subject to democracy and what won't be may differ from yours. If so, you're out of luck. >Many current problems of worker >morale have come about because most people feel they have no influence >or stake in their job. If I am not consulted about major decisions >then why should I take any interest in the outcomes of such decisions? Because you're *PAID* to do it, and you *AGREED* to do it. Or is that too abstract and propertarian for you? >And why should I care if they are successful or not? What "they" are you talking about? >This is one of the fallacies of Libertarianism: myopically focussing >upon the State alone as the source of all political power. The private workplace has the following nice feature to it: if the work environment is not consonant with economic reality, then the work environment will self-destruct, without anyone having to shoot anyone. This is *NOT* true of the "worker's paradise" of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. >There is just as much "political" power involved in deciding whether >plants will be open or closed, who will be hired, what levels of >production to shoot for and other decisions made everyday in the workplace. Of course you'll find that politics there is simply part of what business decisions are made. Nobody gets shot for such decisions, nobody gets killed, and nobody gets taxed (unless the "political" government gets called in, that is). >Why do you suppose a constant source of gossip is that entity called >"office politics"? I think the term "office politics" is a popular >expression of the fact that decisions at work and in the office *are* >political decisions. Oh true! There is, of course, the little feedback mechanism of economic failure, and the fact that the decision-makers either are, or are backed by the people who risked their capital in the first place. In other words, whatever "office politics" may do, it is subject to market discipline. This is not true of agencies, such as the government, which steal from others who do economically correct things. >Such decisions affect not only the owner of >the company but also the workers who work in it and the community >in which the company is based. The same thing might be said of everyone who hears of "Tim Sevener". Are you willing to put it up to a vote (periodically, of course) what you may and may not say on the net? If not, why not? >However under the current prevalent >systems of management and control, such decisions tend to be >authoritarian in nature- they come from the top of the pyramid down. Why not? Those who pay the piper may call the tune. If you think you've found a way to suspend this little rule, let us know, but if you haven't..... I'm particularly amused that you, an apparent advocate of central planning complain about "authoritarian" central planning ("from the top of the pyramid down") or aren't you aware of how apartments are doled out in Moscow? >.... >Why not extend democracy to the workplace? "You register your car, why not your sexual preferences?"
nrh@inmet.UUCP (02/07/85)
***** inmet:net.politics / nrh / 8:19 pm Feb 4, 1985 >Please present >the quotes so that people may judge for yourself. Ooops! That should be: Please present the quotes so that people may judge for themselves. Sorry for any confusion.....
nrh@inmet.UUCP (02/13/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / apollo!dineen / 9:16 am Feb 8, 1985 > I grant that >there aren't any Libertaria's out there to emigrate to but whose fault is >that? (It is a significant fact, I think.) Just as a matter of historical interest, I know of two incidents (third-or fourth-hand) that are instructive. It seems there was an organization called the Phoenix Foundation, the purpose of which was to find some unclaimed habitable land, claim it, and start a libertarian society there. The first claim was made in the Minervan Reef system off the coast of Australia. A cairn was built on the "land", and telegrams were sent to every head of state in the world. The king of Tonga, the closest nation, emptied out his prisons, sending the prisoners to fight the claimants. The cairn was destroyed and the libertarians fled. The other incident had to do with a nation that was going to leave British-French Co-dominion. The Phoenix foundation went to this country (sorry, can't remember the name) and started agitating for the new constitution to be libertarian. The outgoing government apparently CALLED THE BRITISH BACK to handle the "menace", and, as I understand it, the head of the Phoenix Foundation is now in a British prison for "sedition". As I say, these are third- or fourth-hand stories, make of them what you will.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (02/13/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 1:44 pm Feb 8, 1985 > >If IBM were the only menace, that wouldn't be so bad. What worries me >is that what tends to fill the vacuum are groups like the Mafia (not to >mention foreign governments). Of course, this is more of an argument >against anarchies as opposed to Libertarias. > > Wayne >---------- > My understanding is that the Mafia tends to fill the vacuum only when government CREATES it by making something illegal. The Mafia is no longer a large liquor supplier, and its biggest moneymakers are drugs and prostitution, and, where it is illegal or highly-regulated, gambling. Remember, if something is legal, the competition to supply it tends to be intense, and people prefer to deal with those who won't break your legs when you complain about the quality of the merchandise. Conversely (and I admit I'm extrapolating here) the Mafia presumably makes the most at illegal industries because it can depend on government preventing large entrepreneurs from entering, and it can use unreasonable tactics against small ones. Not that I know anything at all about the Mafia firsthand (really!).
jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (02/16/85)
> >What worries me > >is that what tends to fill the vacuum are groups like the Mafia (not to > >mention foreign governments). > > > > Wayne > >---------- > > > > My understanding is that the Mafia tends to fill the vacuum > only when government CREATES it by making something illegal. > This isn't quite accurate. I hear that organized crime is now pushing everyone else out of the waste disposal business on the east coast of the U.S. They are especially interested in the disposal of hazardous wastes. They can charge high prices for this because there are strict laws regulating how this can be done. They pretend that they are following these laws, but instead dump the stuff just about anywhere (making sure that it can't be traced back to them). This could be construed as the government creating a vacuum by making something illegal, but I think the above quote refers to laws which outlaw something that many people really want or use, like prostitution or gambling. Also, organized crime was deeply involved in making gambling legal in Nevada. It now owns many of the casinos, and makes a mint. How does this jive with the idea that the Mafia profits when the government makes something illegal? The main feature of groups like the Mafia is complete unscrupulousness. They care only about money and power. If they can get it by taking advantage of victimless crime laws, they do it. If they can get it by cornering a legitimate market so that they can charge high prices without earning them, they do it. And if they can manipulate the government to legitimize a market they already have cornered (i.e. gambling), they do it. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak
nrh@inmet.UUCP (02/17/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / emory!kim / 6:54 pm Feb 11, 1985 >The facts about Reagan's economic policies are finally becoming clear. >.... >This is all due to congress you say. A report by the Senate Republicans shows that >congress authorized spending of only $5 billion more than Reagan requested in his >first four years of budgets. That's 0.02% of the defict. So much for that >myth. Far be it from me to be a staunch Reagan supporter, but it seems to me that your facts don't support the logic -- it is Congress which wields the final budget authority, and in this case, as you say, they authorized MORE than Reagan asked for. I'm not saying that Reagan is not making a mistake by ADVOCATING such budgets -- he is -- but his advocacy of a bloated budget hardly means that Congress must pass one, and the blame for it can hardly rest on Reagan when the Congress passes a LARGER budget than he asks for. He did, of course, make a mistake by not vetoing the budget and having the veto be overridden, but that is about the most he could have done (along with protesting about Big Government all along). That he failed to do those things still doesn't make HIM responsible for what CONGRESS does -- it makes him an accessory.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (02/17/85)
>>> Martin Taylor >> Nat Howard > Martin Taylor Nat Howard >***** inmet:net.politics / dciem!mmt / 11:26 am Feb 13, 1985 > >>>***** inmet:net.politics / dciem!mmt / 8:33 pm Feb 4, 1985 >> >>>In the absence of any possible demonstration, no-one can refute the >>>apparently fantastic claims of utopian life in Libertaria; neither >>>can one refute the claims of those who argue the merits of a true >>>socialist state. All the same, one can look at the performance of >>>different states that tend (slightly) in one direction or the other. >> >>Are you willing to be convinced by your own argument? >> >>About six months ago, I published a list of >>countries that had been partitioned and divided into more- and less- >>socialist countries, along with their per-capita income. The >>more-socialist nations, North Korea, East Germany, People's >>Republic of China, all had lower per-capita income than their >>"other halves". >> >> >> More-Socialist Less-Socialist >>Germany 7,180 11,130 >>China 347 2,143 >>Korea 786 1,880 >> > >Although these countries claim the name of socialist for themselves, >most are simple dictatorships with a centrally planned economy. I think >to be fair, you should include Sweden, W.Germany, France ... among >the "more Socialist" countries (and even the UK, athough Thatcher is >tearing it down as fast as she dare). It is more than passing strange >to hear (from JoSH) that Hitler led a Socialist country (because his >party was called National Socialist) or that Stalin did, or that >Kim Il Sung does. None of these Nazi, Fascist, or Communist dictatorships >approach the socialist ideals as closely as do most Western democracies. Hmmm..... It is true that I made no attempt to judge whether these countries were "really" socialist. I know of no inarguable way to do this. I posted the table because you suggested the comparison between countries which "tended (slightly)" one way or the other -- not between countries which "were" one or the other. It would certainly not be worthwhile to do that because of the obvious difficulty of getting certain socialists to agree that obviously evil or corrupt countries or organizations were socialist, and because of an analogous bias on the part of certain non-socialists. In particular, your saying that Western Democracies approach the ideals of socialism more closely than (say) the People's republic of China strikes me as shaky (after all, wealth, freedom, and relative happiness could be part of those ideals), but I'm certainly willing to concede that one must define socialist ideals before one can argue the point. I am curious, however, by what measure West Germany may be termed more socialist than East Germany, and similarly for Korea and China. You may recall that this discussion began with the difficulty of appraising the merits of Libertaria -- a hypothetical country characterized by little or no government control. If I may shift my ground slightly, I point out that the "more socialist" countries are noted for their high degree of government control, compared to the "less socialist" countries. Whether this is done in the name of socialism is probably not as important (given the difficulty of measuring whether something is "really" socialist). As for your suggestion that I look at Sweden, W. Germany, France, and the UK, consider: of these countries, only W. Germany has, as I understand it, a "twin" that may be used for comparison. That is, of course, East Germany. Am I incorrect in my understanding that East Germany is more socialist than West Germany? Of course, one COULD stretch a point and argue that the US was once part of the UK. In which case: More socialist Less socialist UK 6,191 8,980 :-) The point of my article was that there was a fairly restricted set of pairs countries that one could compare; we seem to be agreed that when one makes the comparison the degree of central control correlates well (inversely) with the per-capita income. I'd be very interested in a correlation of the degree of wealth with the degree of government-permitted inequality of wealth, but I don't have the figures to do it.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (02/20/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / ttidcc!regard / 10:38 am Feb 16, 1985 >While "market value" is generally a good concept for pay scales, it has >been shown that in the case of women "market value" does _not_ govern the >wages. In San Jose, although there is a shortage of nurses, the pay scale >of nurses has not changed significantly in over 10 years. (It has risen, as >in cost-of-living raises, but not in response to demand). Other studies >have been done to show that "market value" does not function in this >context. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that there's a shortage of nurses in LA if the prices offered are low. How long has the shortage lasted? Do you have some reason to think that the hospitals involved will not start paying more for nurses? What, by the way, are the relative salaries for male and female nurses of equal experience? >Projected cause -- in a society that values it's women less than men, it >ceases to matter what the actual job function/task performed is (the values >society places on any job are arbitrary, anyhow. That we pay business >people [regardless of sex] more than teachers _floors_ me.). Here we have the classic we-need-controls argument. Pick out something that is surprising about the way the price system has decided things and then claim that the result makes no sense to you. Well, it surprises me too, but not very much. For one thing, the "perqs" of a college professor are (in some ways) greater than those of most businessmen. I know of no businessmen with tenure, for example. For another, governments control the salaries of the mass of teachers. The whole problem with the "comparable worth" idea is that it requires third parties to define comparable worth -- and experience shows that third parties tend to be ill-informed and to become targets for manipulation. >Part of the >purpose of the equal-pay-for-equal-work issue, and the affirmative action >program is to force a reevaluation of the roles of certain sectors (women, >blacks, etc) of the population so that "market value" will begin to >function. Affirmative action practices are, in themselves, discriminatory >in a reverse manner to historical discrimination practices. However, the >intent (and in some cases, the result) is to open fields/wages etc. up for >those whom society has rigorously excluded. Once we reach a baseline of >equity, affirmative action and equal-pay-for-equal-work will cease to be >issues. Excuse me, but how do you intend to keep people from taking advantage of such subsidies to "take it easy"? I remind you that there was never any such subsidy for Jews, and yet Jews (after a lot of hard work) achieved economic parity with the population as a whole. As for this achievement of "equity", I don't buy it. What politician is going to say: "Okay, folks, equity has been achieved, no more affirmative action for anybody?" How is "equity" going to be reached when a subsidy for certain "downtrodden" groups becomes a "right" rather than a short-term privilege (much as social security has become a "right")? >(Always presuming that children are raised with similar >expectations, which, of course, they aren't. You can't dress your daughter >in pink and lace for her whole life, and reward only nurturing behaviour, >then expect her to "freely" choose to become a truck driver). >---------- > I think it's a little rough of you to ask the taxpayers to fund agencies to determine the "comparable worth" of all jobs, and at the same time ask them to raise children YOUR way, otherwise this agency will continue to do its work (and control everyone's salary) until children ARE raised the way you want. Perhaps you could try to convince people of this WITHOUT suggesting that government FORCE them to do it?
mazur@inmet.UUCP (02/21/85)
> What, by the way, are the relative salaries for male and female nurses
Here are some cases of "Same Job, Different Pay". This is taken from the
January issue of Working Woman. They cite their source as the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1983 annual median averages.
OCCUPATION WEEKLY (MEN) WEEKLY (WOMEN) RATIO
%women to men
Physicists/Astronomers $674.18 166.48 24.7%
Judges 801.64 433.19 54.0
Dentists 672.80 403.60 60.0
Social Workers 397.84 308.08 77.4
Computer Programmers 502.76 406.42 80.8
Teachers (except college) 405.52 350.16 86.3
Lawyers 656.15 576.46 87.9
Registered Nurses 403.12 401.95 99.7
Beth Mazur
{ihnp4,harpo,ima}!inmet!mazurnrh@inmet.UUCP (02/22/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / mazur / 10:26 pm Feb 19, 1985 >> What, by the way, are the relative salaries for male and female nurses > >Here are some cases of "Same Job, Different Pay". This is taken from the >January issue of Working Woman. They cite their source as the Bureau of >Labor Statistics, 1983 annual median averages. AHEM! The question I asked was: What, by the way, are the relative salaries for male and female nurses of equal experience? The table you give has two interesting points: first, male and female nurses are reported as having approximately the same salaries, which certainly seems to undermine ttidcc!regard's notion that nursing represents some sort of special hotbed of prejudice against women, although I concede that the forces of evil may underpay nurses as a way of getting at the 99% who are women, and ignore the problem of the 1% who are men. The second interesting thing about it is that, as I understand it, women have begun recently entering the professions in greater numbers, which would mean men already in those professions would be over-represented in the ranks of the more-experienced, and (normally) higher paid. The interesting thing about trying to find out statistically why one person is paid more than another is that we don't know how to do it: Clearly, neither feminist fund raisers nor the average well-informed citizen knows of this stunning fact: only 40 percent of the earnings of white men can be accounted for by measurable factors. That is, if we look at a population of white men, a full *60 percent* of the differences in earnings among them cannot be explained by anything we can measure. Conventional discrimination cannot possibly be an issue in this particular population. Yet the unexplained residual swamps the largest difference in male-female earnings that could possibly be due to discrimination. This is why we cannot rule out the possibility that the entire earnings gap between men and women is due to real personal productivity differences that cannot be measured. The upshot is that the *presence of discrimination can be neither proven nor disproven with statistical tests*. from "The 59 cent Fallacy" Jennifer Roback Reason Magazine, September, 1984 The point I'm trying to make (and in which I think Ms. Roback and I would agree) is that while discrimination certainly exists, it is very hard to measure, and that statistics NOT corrected for such things as we can measure (such as experience) merely muddle the issue.
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (02/22/85)
> OCCUPATION WEEKLY (MEN) WEEKLY (WOMEN) RATIO > %women to men > Physicists/Astronomers $674.18 166.48 24.7% > Judges 801.64 433.19 54.0 > Dentists 672.80 403.60 60.0 > Social Workers 397.84 308.08 77.4 > Computer Programmers 502.76 406.42 80.8 > Teachers (except college) 405.52 350.16 86.3 > Lawyers 656.15 576.46 87.9 > Registered Nurses 403.12 401.95 99.7 > > Beth Mazur > {ihnp4,harpo,ima}!inmet!mazur This does not prove the case, as you are comparing all men with all women, rather than men and women of similar experience and background. More relevant would be, say, a comparison of male and female dentists who graduated from the same school and having been practicing continuously for the same amount of time. I suspect that there still will be a difference, though it will likely be FAR smaller than suggested by the figures produced above. Comparing within a particular profession is not sufficient; other adjustments must be made. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (02/23/85)
> > OCCUPATION WEEKLY (MEN) WEEKLY (WOMEN) RATIO > > %women to men > > Physicists/Astronomers $674.18 166.48 24.7% > > Judges 801.64 433.19 54.0 > > Dentists 672.80 403.60 60.0 > > Social Workers 397.84 308.08 77.4 > > Computer Programmers 502.76 406.42 80.8 > > Teachers (except college) 405.52 350.16 86.3 > > Lawyers 656.15 576.46 87.9 > > Registered Nurses 403.12 401.95 99.7 > > > > Beth Mazur > > {ihnp4,harpo,ima}!inmet!mazur > > This does not prove the case, as you are comparing all men with all > women, rather than men and women of similar experience and background... > ...Comparing within a > particular profession is not sufficient; other adjustments must be > made. > > David Rubin In fact, the results of a salary survey published last year showed this rather strikingly. It was confined to engineering professionals only, and correlated age, sex, years of experience, years of education, and pay history. If you look at the average female engineer's salary, it is lower than the average male engineer's salary. However, the average work experience of female engineers was proportionally even lower. In fact, male and female engineers of equivalent experience received essentially the same pay. Apparently the female engineers often started at a lower salary than their male counterparts, but their average annual pay increases were significantly larger. I realize that this does not address the traditions of low pay for women in other sectors, but I for one was pleasantly surprised. Baba
nrh@inmet.UUCP (02/27/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / ucbvax!wallace / 6:57 pm Feb 22, 1985 >In article <1977@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >[Embedded quotation omitted] > . > . > . >> >>I've reprinted your entire article (minus signature) to demonstrate a >>point: you have yet to give an example of a stable monopoly not >>regulated or otherwise helped by government. I agree that your logic >>with your assumptions COULD lead to somewhat-more-stable monopolies, but >>my argument was empirical: there have been no historic examples of such >>monopolies. Either come up with some, or please, please, stop talking >>about the dangers of monopoly. > >Hmmm. I'm not the original poster here, but I don't like the flavor of this >argument. Try applying such logic to a discussion on the consequences of >WWIII: > > I agree that your logic with your assumptions COULD lead to a > somewhat-more-destructive superpower thermonuclear exchange, > but my argument was empirical: there have been no historic examples > of such exchanges. Either come up with some, or please, please, > stop talking about the dangers of such exchanges. > >Riiiight. > >Moral: Just because it's never happened doesn't mean it never will, especially >if basic conditions change (the original discussion was about the potential >evolution of monopoly power under a perfectly free economy, which has never >existed yet either, right?). > >Dave Wallace >(...!ucbvax!wallace, wallace@Berkeley) >---------- > There are plenty of theoretical objections to monopoly -- the main ones have to do with diseconomies of scale and substitution of other products for the monopolized one. If we'd had the potential for nuclear wars as long as we've had the potential for non-state-aided monopolies, and no nuclear wars happened, that would be a pretty good argument against their likelihood. The ORIGINAL, original posting (a long time ago) was an argument by Wayne Christopher, in which he argued that a libertarian society would be undesirable because it nothing would prevent monopolies. As it turns out this seems to be quite untrue, for various theoretical reasons, but quite dramatically, it is also true if you look at the question historically. A lot of people have the idea, though, that it would happen, and that it HAS happened, and so it's worth pointing out, whenever people raise this particular objection to libertarianism, that there's no basis over a very long time for thinking that such monopolies are stable. On the other hand, I think that your "nuclear war" example is a little unfair -- if it were to happen, it wouldn't be a matter of history because there'd be nobody to write down the event. Monopolies, we would live through, nuclear war, we wouldn't be able to look back on.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (02/27/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / whuxl!orb / 7:00 pm Feb 22, 1985 >> Mc Kiernan >> Should I ever possess a piece of land such that an Indian can >> reasonably demonstrate that (s)he is legitimate heir to a legitimate owner >> who had the property wrested from h(im|er), I will turn it over. > >This misses the point. Of course no Indians will have any "deed" or "title" >to any land since they did not consider land something that could be owned. >To the Indians such a question would be equivalent to asking what gives >anybody the right to breathe the air: where's the title for such an activity? >Who owns the air? How do you claim to wrest *my* air from me? > tim sevener whuxl!orb >PS - I would also like to ask the Libertarians on this net what they paid >for the privilege to use the net. Did you pay your $$$$$ for the right to >express your opinions? WHAT!! You think that some people should be able >to express their opinions without *paying* for it!! Heresy!! >---------- > Tim: I don't ordinarily pay for freely-given gifts. Libertarians have argued in this forum that one doesn't have to, but you've responded here as if such objections were never made. They have been. Please get over this notion that libertarians want everyone to pay for everything. That's impossible and silly. Think of it this way: There are three ways I can get what I want from you: I can receive it as a gift, I can purchase it from you, or I can initiate force or fraud to get what I want from you. Libertarians are only interested in a society relatively free of the last method. I would prefer (I think) the first method, but it's not practical in most cases. Of course, we've in general no OBJECTION to the first method at all. For details, you might check out Friedman's "Machinery of Freedom" -- the chapter "Love is Not Enough" is what inspired this article. Of course, it's possible you knew this all along, in which case, chalk up another straw man for you..... By the way, when I speak here of "Libertarians", I'm speaking for myself and most of those libertarian philosophers I've read.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (02/27/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / mhuxr!mfs / 4:13 am Feb 23, 1985 >> > Are you really suggesting that the way to lower health care costs is >> > to loosen the standards required to practice medicine?? >> > Marcel Simon >> >> Think about all the activities that you take part in each and every day >> that, were someone important to have made foolish decisions, could leave >> you dead. Ever drive a car above 30 miles per hour? Were the designers >> of the car government certified? Do you know how many people could die >> if electricity were to be cut off to large sections of a city because a >> computer program failed? Should all those programmers be government >> certified? >> >> --Cliff > >A car does have to pass certain safety standards (seat belts, 5 MPH bumpers >etc) and I have to be certified (driver's license) and the car has to >be recertified each year (inspection). Just a few side-notes: Some states have vehicle inspections and some do not. It was found a few years ago that the ones WITH inspection were no safer statistically than the ones without. "60 Minutes" sent a crew to the office of the governer of one of the states with inspection to ask him why the inspection program was going to continue anyhow..... On another front, one little European country had no drivers licenses until quite recently (sorry, can't remember which). >If the kind of blackout you >describe did have the effects you cite (not at all obvious. did anything >of the sort happen after the two big New York blackouts of 1965 and 1977) >the utility would for sure not get any kind of rate increase, and have >to pay some heavy fines, a powerful incentive not to screw up. > >But all this is besides the point. I drive the car myself, so as long >as the car maker provides regulated safety standards, if I use them >improperly or not at all, I only have myself to blame. I have no >such recourse when I am prescribed some drugs by a physician, or >if I am being operated on. I HAVE to trust that doctor. The only >basis for that confidence is that thge doctor has undergone >some training before being able to practice medicine. There's still no need to require that the doctor be certified by the STATE -- a simple call to the AMA (which would certainly prosecute vigorously anyone using their name falsely) would suffice to make sure you had a doctor trained "the good old way" rather than a Doctor Feelgood they've never heard of. >The original posting (by Koenig) proposed the loosening of >these requirements to insure better medical practice and lower costs. >I argue that would be folly, and would invite quacks to provide >inferior medical service, supposedly at lower cost. I'm quite willing to believe that the "average" medical competence would go down -- but think of how high "average" medical competence would be if we forbid anyone except the people who were in the top 10 of their medical schools to practice medicine! On the other hand, we'd wind up with only a couple of thousand doctors, tops (and of course, the rich would get the overwhelming majority of their time). In a sense, this is what we've got now -- an artificially savage competition for medical school because of the immense rewards reaped by an artificially small number of (admittedly very qualified) doctors. Clearly, the public interest would not be served (and is not served) by artificially restricting the practice of medicine to the ultra-competent. The question is, what happens if you don't restrict it at all? The answer is that you get a spread of degrees of competence, but so long as one enforces liability laws, one finds that the incompetent quickly drop out, and so long as professional associations may form and certify professionals, one has the option of paying more for a "guaranteed-competent-by-the-AMA" doctor. How much more? Well, less than we pay now (you see, they have to compete with the people who didn't quite have the sterling academic record, but who could get into medical school anyhow (as such medical schools would be able to turn out "doctors" even without the AMA and the State Licensing Board's approvals), and with the acupuncturists, and with the herb doctors, and with the rest. The doctors at the top would be no less competent -- they'd just have to compete with everyone else, as opposed to letting the State winnow the competition in advance.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (03/02/85)
I agree that there's been no utterly free society so that there's no "utterly" unregulated place for "utterly" unregulated monopolies to have formed. Of course, that's not *quite* what I was saying. My challenge is to find monopolies not regulated in such a way as to tend to bolster the monopoly. In other words, something like OPEC would be a such monopoly, except they don't happen to control 100% of the oil market (or even 90%) because no outside body forces them to split up when they form a cartel, and no outside body similarly prevents others from joining the oil business, nor protects OPEC should OPEC try and use force against the newcomers. It should, of course, be noted that what seem like laws not meant to protect the status quo may bolster a monopoly position (for example, highly regulated industries are harder for people to enter because of the (artificially) high fixed costs involved). Any industry of national scope is somewhat regulated, of course, if there are tariffs. As it happens, I do believe that monopolies are not stable unless given special, generally government-based protection. As Daniel McK. points out, such monopolies leave themselves open to "cracking" if they charge rates over their marginal costs -- if, in other words, they get greedy. I know of only one example of a firm NOT getting greedy, and it was broken up under antitrust laws. As for whether McK's logic shows this to be inevitable or not, or not, I suspect the argument supports the notion that there'd be no monopoly in a Free Economy, but doesn't prove it. No surprise there. It's pretty hard to prove economic stuff -- about all you can do is try and understand things and show how their past behavior (in this case the absence of supported monopolies) meshes well with your understanding.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (03/02/85)
***** inmet:net.politics / ttidcc!regard / 1:57 pm Feb 27, 1985 >------------------------partial text of article---------------- >>>***** inmet:net.politics / ttidcc!regard / 10:38 am Feb 16, 1985 >>>While "market value" is generally a good concept for pay scales, it has >>>been shown that in the case of women "market value" does _not_ govern the >>>wages. In San Jose, the pay scale of nurses. . . Other studies have been >>>done to show that "market value" does not function in this context. > >>The table you give has two interesting points: first, male and female >>nurses are reported as having approximately the same salaries, which >>certainly seems to undermine ttidcc!regard's notion that nursing >>represents some sort of special hotbed of prejudice against women, >>although I concede that the forces of evil may underpay nurses >>as a way of getting at the 99% who are women, and ignore the >>problem of the 1% who are men. >------------------------------------------------------------------ >I often end up wondering if anybody really pays attention to what is >actually posted, rather than reading their own prejudices/slants into >everybody elses articles. The first article posted referred to the nurse >vs. truck driver commentary, disagreeing with the argument that "free >market" will sort out the actual "worth" of any particular job (held by men >or women). The second refers to the posting on relative salaries of men >and women in same industries. No mention was made of nursing being a >special hotbed of prejudice against women. I agree that you didn't use the word "hotbed", but it sure sounded to me as if you were arguing that nurses were underpaid because they were women, leading to the natural notion that the field of nursing was an especially obvious or significant (hence a hotbed) example of anti-female prejudice. >The point, that the free market >system does _not_ regulate the "worthiness" of many jobs, was completely >ignored. Excuse me, but the response I made to this was that many things about the price system may *seem* strange. I pointed out that it was reasonable that there's a shortage of nurses in an area if the salaries there are low, and asked how long the shortage had lasted. I also pointed out that arguing that the prices make no sense to you is a device frequently used by those who wish to impose price supports, or price controls, or some such. I thought it would be clear that just because something SEEMS strange doesn't mean that it isn't functioning in concert with reality -- it may be that your understanding of the whole picture isn't perfect. >--------------------partial text of article------------------ >>>(Always presuming that children are raised with similar expectations, >>>which, of course, they aren't. You can't dress your daughter >>>in pink and lace for her whole life, and reward only nurturing behaviour, >>>then expect her to "freely" choose to become a truck driver). > >>I think it's a little rough of you to ask the taxpayers to fund agencies >>to determine the "comparable worth" of all jobs, and at the same time >>ask them to raise children YOUR way, otherwise this agency will continue >>to do its work (and control everyone's salary) until children ARE raised >>the way you want. Perhaps you could try to convince people of this >>WITHOUT suggesting that government FORCE them to do it? >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Another example, *sigh*. I didn't recommend agencies, or task forces. Nor >did I even recommend other people raise their kids the way I raise mine. >I certainly have my own opinions, and practice them, and even discuss a >few of them in net.kids, but I don't suggest the government force anybody >to use my methods. It sure sounds to me as if you were arguing that the price system was out of whack somehow, and that something should be done. It is absolutely true that you did not propose government action, and I shouldn't have acted as if you did -- my experience though is that when someone want's "something to be done" to "fix" a strange situation that has arisen before and will likely arise again between free individuals, that they are talking about government. Sorry if I pounced -- It may be that I'm just overreacting (as you say) to my own expectations. What DO you suggest be done? As for the idea that you aren't suggesting that other people raise children in the way you would raise them, I point out that your use of quotation marks around "freely" implies that females raised in a certain way (daughter in pink and lace for whole life, nurturing behavior rewarded) would not be expected to make a free choice. This sounds to me like you're suggesting that daughters NOT be raised this way, but again, my own bias is that true freedom is very desirable. Having a cup of coffee and forgetting about it is not a bad idea -- communication over the net is a little like being drunk. I don't think people often realize how much the tty/batch-type interface restricts normal social signals. Had we been sitting together somewhere, a great deal of misunderstanding could have been avoided by real-time interaction and by picking up body-english signals from each other. I really did read your article though -- again, I apologize if I didn't read between the lines correctly.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (03/02/85)
Tim -- concluding the media are biased because 70% of newspapers came out for Ronald Reagan is going a little far -- roughly 59% of the popular vote was for Reagan, and if you break it down by districts -- as with the newspaper reading areas or electoral college voting, you get an even larger percentage for Reagan. I very much doubt that showing that the newspapers are roughly in accord with the populace shows them to be especially biased. I do agree that the press partakes of the biases of the people around them.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (03/09/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / dciem!mmt / 12:01 pm Mar 6, 1985 > >>On another front, one little European country had no drivers licenses >>until quite recently (sorry, can't remember which). > >Belgium, and Belgian drivers were a byword for danger throughout >Europe. See a car with a "B" on it, and keep WELL CLEAR. It really >isn't a very good example in favour of non-regulation. >-- > >Martin Taylor Naturally, one would want figures to back up their reputation (on the other hand, I too have heard of their notorious reputation and will agree with you, for the moment, that there's something to it). On the other hand, give them ten years under licensure, and if they DON'T improve, it would show that the bad driving habits are not stopped by the license requirement. Unfortunately, my one other memory of the news item was that the plan was to "grandfather" the people already driving -- that is, those who could prove they'd already driven would not need to get a license. It's really too bad. It would have made a nice test. I live in Boston, Massachusetts, a place legendary for its bad drivers. I'd love to compare accident rates (normalized somehow for traffic density) between Belgium, Mexico, Italy, and Massachusetts, but can't find the figures. Anybody have access to these numbers? The point of my bringing up the Belgian experience at all was that the world didn't end if you didn't license people to drive -- that there was even one fairly modern nation that had failed to do so. Naturally, I agree that failing to license people might result (absent all other criteria) in more fatalities -- more automobile miles travelled results in more fatalities. ANYTHING that results in more people driving (without somehow causing more careful driving) results in more fatalities. It's one of the trade-offs inherent in having automobiles around at all. Thus, there's no reason to suppose that the licenses must be based on anything sensible for one to think that the fatality rate might go down -- denying licenses at random would have this effect (assuming that the licensing law was obeyed). Finally, there's no statistical reason to think (yet) that the behavior of Belgian drivers was due to absence of licensure. It will be interesting to see what happens once the non-licensed drivers cease to drive, but I suspect we'll have no way of isolating that effect from others.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (03/16/85)
Drug sales in Ca. may indeed be "free" in the sense that the price is not directly regulated, but the market is hardly FREE unless there are no interventions by government. If it really WERE a free market, for example, people would be able to advertise brands of pot, legitimate pharmacy-chains would be able to have nice, attractive displays of opiates, and you'd see pot-vendors at baseball games. Whether the people who sell drugs NOW are effectively regulated in their behavior has little to do with whether the market is regulated. In particular, if someone is liable to arbitrary loss of their rights to government BECAUSE they're in a particular business (even though they initiate neither force nor fraud) that is NOT a "free" market.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (05/21/85)
>/**** inmet:net.politics / gargoyle!carnes / 2:21 pm May 13, 1985 ****/ >In article <> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: >> >>How do you define "racism" and "taxation?" > >"Racism" in social-scientific contexts means something like the >belief that one's own ethnic group is innately superior >(intellectually or morally) to some other ethnic group. "Theft" >usually means an unlawful transfer of wealth. Taxation, of course, >is governmental collection of revenues. You'll note here that Carnes steers clear of dictionary definitions, perhaps because I and others have cited dictionaries that had definitions of "theft" and "taxation" consistent with the slogan "Taxation is theft". (For example, my "Webster's New World" defines theft as an instance of stealing, and "steal" as "To take or appropriate ... without permission, dishonestly, *or* unlawfully, esp. in a secret or surreptitious manner". I've added emphasis around the word "or" because certain pinheads have missed the point of it being a disjunction, not a conjunction. The "World"'s definition of taxation makes only tangential reference to the taxation possibly being LEGAL -- as I read the definition, one could certainly have illegal taxes). >To repeat the main point of my article: Showing that affirmative >action is or is not racism, or that taxation is or is not theft >according to this or that definition, does not by itself prove >anything about the justice or injustice of these practices. Not at all, but then that's not the point of a slogan, is it? The point of a slogan is to START people thinking about a certain issue, or perhaps to STOP them from thinking about it. An example of a slogan that is used to START people thinking about an issue is "If guns are illegal, then only criminals will have guns". The notion that a law merely makes things illegal, that it does not magically destroy guns possessed by those who will not go along with the law was new to me (I was quite young). An example of a slogan meant to STOP people from thinking would be "Zap the Jap". It conveys no information, makes no new connections in people's minds. >"Aff. >action is racism," "taxation is theft," "profit is theft," "abortion >is murder," etc. make good slogans but bad arguments, and those who >use them as arguments only demonstrate that they can't tell the >difference. The words "Richard Carnes" are a good expletive, but a bad name. Those using them as a name only demonstrate that they can't tell the difference. Tsk! Whether it is a good argument or not doesn't say much about its usefulness in general, does it? Just because the phrase "Richard Carnes" doesn't make a good argument shouldn't prevent you from using it for other things, should it? The same with slogans -- just because they are not good arguments (in Richard Carnes' view) should not prevent their use as rhetoric, to start people thinking of things. It's interesting, though, that the dictionary definitions of the words support the notion that "taxation is theft", unless one gives the government permission to tax. That many folks don't recall giving such permission to anyone is the basis for a good argument. Nat Howard
nrh@inmet.UUCP (06/18/85)
(Sorry for all the quoting here, but it seems something I presented as a fact has been called into question. To get things straight, I'll include both sides (unfortunately, Stubblefield is excerpted by npois!adam -- Stubblefield's original article never made it here). >/**** inmet:net.politics / npois!adam / 4:43 pm Jun 6, 1985 ****/ >Nat Howard says: > >>As for nuclear power plants, the same government you like for giving us >>OSHA also arbitrarily limits the possible damages of a nuclear accident >>to some artificially low figure. Why? Because insurance agencies would >>hardly insure reactors in cities for the amounts of damage they might >>actually cause. As it is, of course, the government has spoken, and it >>is the government, not the market, which must be blamed for any >>artificially imprudent placement or construction of nuclear power >>plants. > >Peter Beckmann (cited by Bob Stubblefield) says: >>"Contrary to widespread misconceptions, liability insurance for nuclear >>accidents is fully private with not a cent either contributed or confis- >>cated by the government (with the unimportant exception of small reactors >>under 100 MW, used mainly at universities and research labs). Liability >>up to $160 million is covered by a pool of private insurance companies, and >>any excess over that figure--which has never materialized and is unlikely to >>occur in the future--would be taken from a fund which utilities would con- >>tribute up to $5 million per licensed reactor or, with the present 92 li- >>censed units, up to $460 million, bringing the liability coverage to a total >>of $620 million." ACCESS TO ENERGY, May 1985 (Vol.12, no.9) Box 2298, Boulder >>CO 80306 > >Bob Stubblefield says: >>I share Nat Howard's loathing of government intervention in economic affairs, >>but my study of the facts has led me to conclude that nuclear power has been >>hamstrung rather than subsidized by the government. The fact that some >>libertarians are quick to rally to the popular anti-nuclear cause is one >>of the things that makes me uneasy about the movement. > Surprised by the implication that nuclear reactors are insured entirely by private industry, I decided to see just how "widespread" the "misconception" that the government is subsidizing liability insurance for nuclear reactors. To find out, I called the public information office of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Washington D.C., and spoke with a very helpful man named Frank Ingram. Mr. Ingram told me that under the Price Anderson act of 1957, as amended in 1975 (public law 94197) the current government-imposed upper limit on nuclear liability for a single nuclear accident is $630 million. The figure floats somewhat according to the number of reactors online. It is, of course, a matter of interpretation whether an upper limit on nuclear liability constitutes a "subsidy". It may be that the money is all raised privately, but if the AMOUNT of money that must be raised is artificially lowered by government, I believe you'll agree that this constitutes (rather directly) a subsidy. To make this point just a little clearer: suppose, instead of $630 million, Price-Anderson limited the liability to (say) ten cents. Would it not be obvious that the insurance costs of the reactors were lower than they should be? (say, $0.01/year). One may argue that if the limit were set higher than the actual likely liability, it is not a subsidy, but then, why impose a limit? Note that my contention is NOT that nuclear reactors are evil, or particularly dangerous. I suspect, though, that things about them would be somewhat different were the market allowed to work, and were government not allowed to place an upper limit on liability for a nuclear accident. I suppose it is possible that I misunderstood something you said (I only have, after all, an excerpt of your article) or that Mr. Ingram at the NRC said. I invite suggestions or clarification.
gary@ISM780.UUCP (08/21/85)
------- > Note that this >count includes ONLY American servicemen. Remember that there would also be >approximately 500,000 British troops involved in the invasion (source: >"Triumph and Tragedy" by Winston Churchill) as well as a large number of >troops from the Soviet Union. ----------------- ---------------------------- While I agree with Mr Seshadri's point, I think including "a large number of troops from the Soviet Union" is merely a supposition. The fact is that the Soviets did not declare war on Japan until 2 days after we vaporized Hiroshima. Gee, thanks for your help, comrades :-). Also, it is of little use debating whether we would have lost "only" 50,000 or 1,000,000 US troops in a Japanese invasion. In fact the estimates from our miltary did range between those two numbers. (Little known is that the among the casualties in Hiroshima were 12 US Navy fliers, who were prisoners of war in Hiroshima's city jail. Also there was an Allied prisoner of war camp one mile north of the center of Nagasaki, but I can't find any number of estimated lives lost in my references.) Unfortunate as the entire affair was, it is true that there probably would have been *at least* as many Japanese casualties had the war proceeded with a conventional invasion, complete with the fire bombing Japanese cities. Consider, between May 9-10, 1945, incendiary bombs on Tokyo had destroy 1/4 of the city with 83,000 killed and 40,000 injured, and *that* didn't prompt the Japenese to sue for peace. That figure is almost equal to the casualties in Nagasaki (100,000 killed in Hiroshima). Does it really matter whether they occurred over 2 days or 2 milliseconds? It's pretty obvious that the bomb accelerated an end to the war and that, even if it didn't save Japanese lives (that it saved Allied lives in indisputable), it probably didn't cost any more than would have been lost otherwise. I do agree, however, that the Nagasaki bomb wasn't necessary. We probably wouldn't have dropped that one had it not been an unfortunate translation of the Japanese response to the Hiroshima bomb and threat to drop another one. The message was translated something like "We choose to *ignore* your demand to surrender", when it really meant something like "We want to think about your demand to surrender a while." For an execellent account to the entire atomic bomb project during WWII, I refer the reader to _A World Destroyed, The Atomic Bomb and the Grand Alliance_, by Martin J. Sherwin, Vintage Books, copyright 1973, 1975. Gary Swift, INTERACTIVE Systems Corp., Santa Monica, Ca., (213) 453 8649 {decvax!cca | yale | bbncca | allegra | cbosgd | ihnp4}!ima!ism780!gary
az@ada-uts.UUCP (08/22/85)
> ***** ada-uts:net.politics / amdcad!linda / 1:02 pm Aug 20, 1985 > In yesterday's newspaper it was reported that Jerry Falwell, leader > of the Moral Majority, met with Botha. Afterwards, he publicly > promised to start a $1 million media campaign in favor of > the South African government's current policy. I've heard Jerry Falwell publicly disapproving of apartheid. What he was talking about was the campaign in favor of reinvestment. While practically all blacks in South Africa are against apartheid, a lot of them are against divestment as well.
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (08/24/85)
> Glad to know the Sandinista thugs were democratically elected. >But then , haven't you heard, so was Michael Gorbachev -- or have >you cancelled your subscription to Pravda ??? > > Ari Gross The force of your logical argument is nearly overwhelming, and I welcome your deep contributions to an intellectual and honest evaluation of political questions. But I seem to be a bit slow; could you please restate the (conclusive, no doubt) historical, political, and moral justification for referring to the Sandanista government as "thugs"? And could you please review your analysis indicating the parallel between the governmental structure of the USSR and Nicaragua? I'm sure I can trust you to revise your previous statements if a fresh investigation of the facts doesn't square with any preconceived notions or uncritically examined biases, the sort of thing we are all liable to slip into from time to time. It is so fortunate that we humans, despite our passions, have access to a powerful self-critical faculty that helps us stay on the tortuous path to truth and understanding, is it not? -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (08/24/85)
> A distinction must be made between innocent bystanders and a group > that deliberately places themselves in a dangerous situation. > I have no sympathy for the latter when they get into trouble. Perhaps I am wrong, but I get the impression that it is not merely deliberately placing oneself in danger that results in you having no sympathy, but that you in some way disapprove of the politics of those involved. Surely you have sympathy for those who harbored jews in Nazi Germany, or for those who rush into burning buildings to save people trapped inside? If in fact the people involved here were conscientious and believed that by their actions they were acting morally, and in fact that their actions were demanded by their (religious) faith, would you have sympathy for them? If in fact the people of Nicaragua were actually being unfairly attacked by mercenaries backed by the U.S. government, that the situation were such that the capturers were acting immorally and the captured persons were acting morally, would you have sympathy? Note that these are hypothetical questions; I am asking you how you would feel *if in fact you accepted their presumptions*. Now, if you would say yes to any of these, would you consider the possibility that your lack of sympathy is based upon your belief that situation is not as indicated by these hypothetical questions? If such a disagreement is present, I suggest that it would be more direct and honest to voice and justify those disagreements, rather than implying that the persons involved deserve their fate on some sort of general grounds independent of your biases. >What bullying foreign policy? Surely you don't deny that the U.S. uses its size and weight to *some* advantage? I don't see this sort of denial of the U.S. acting against the interests of others as being very honest. >Which country greets >its citizens returning from abroad in coffins? In many places they just collect them off the streets. The number of Americans killed in hostilities in this century is *relatively* quite small. Your question does not address the complexities of political reality, or the important questions of *why* Americans are responded to with hostility, whether justified or not; it surely is not simply because we all wear white hats and the others are all evil black hat wearers who are fundamentally opposed to good; that should have gone out with Zoroastrianism. Your question is designed to appeal to an emotional, nationalistic response; the dangers of such an approach to world politics has been amply documented and discussed elsewhere. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
janw@inmet.UUCP (08/28/85)
> > Glad to know the Sandinista thugs were democratically elected. > >But then , haven't you heard, so was Michael Gorbachev -- or have > >you cancelled your subscription to Pravda ??? > > > > Ari Gross > > The force of your logical argument is nearly overwhelming, and I welcome your > deep contributions to an intellectual and honest evaluation of political > questions. But I seem to be a bit slow; could you please restate the > (conclusive, no doubt) historical, political, and moral justification > for referring to the Sandanista [sic] > government as "thugs"? And could you please > review your analysis indicating the parallel between the governmental > structure of the USSR and Nicaragua? > > -- Jim Balter (ima!jim) I cannot speak for Ari Gross, BUT if you ever see a country where pre-schoolers are militarized and singing slogans in sweet unison, you can bet your subscription to Pravda :-) that confronting you is yet another implementation of a familiar model of government. (There are other tell-tale signs, too...). The country can be called the USSR, nazi Germany, or Cuba, or Nicaragua, and the slogans may differ, but the political structure , the "technology of power" varies remarkably little. Apparently, the model, to work at all, must hang together. Besides, the craftsmen who designed this particular copy, had their blueprints all ready. E.g., Nicaraguan secret police has been planned, organized, and is still run, by East German professionals, heirs to the finest traditions of both Gestapo and the KGB. The word "thugs" is probably redundant here. -- Jan Wasilewsky
nrh@inmet.UUCP (08/31/85)
>/* Written 6:15 pm Aug 16, 1985 by umcp-cs!mangoe in inmet:net.politics */ >In article <7800377@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: > >>Charles: as with the discussion of consumer testing agencies, you seem >>to have never heard of the private agencies that already accomplish the >>things you think must be done by government. Netnews makes people sound >>nastier than they mean to be (some study at CMU tends to confirm this, >>I'm told) so please don't take the following advice unkindly: Please try >>to consider what private alternatives exist before arguing that >>something must be done by government. A surprising (and to me, >>heartening) number of things most folks feel must be done by government >>are done quietly and efficiently by private organizations. > >I don't think you understand the nature of my concerns. I have no problems >per se with a private post office, or with any of a host of proposals. But >using UPS or UL or Consumer's Union as examples has serious pitfalls, since >all of these facilities exist in an environment where there are governmental >agencies to pick up the business that these organizations cannot or will not >take on. It simply doesn't follow that, in the absence of such agencies, >private corporations will fill the void. Perhaps they will, but I think it's >likely that some business currently handled by the government would not be >picked up. Examples? Mail and consumer testing are (to me) pretty obvious winners in a private environment. There's a clear market, and private agencies have been viable EVEN THOUGH the government was offering similar services "for free". What do you think the government absolutely MUST do? >In the case of private corporations picking up enforcement duties, I get >the strong impression that people simply don't care that such a system >would perpetuate the current situation which enormously favors those >with money. When justice is something you buy, it is hard for me to >imagine that any but the rich will have justice. If you own the local police in (say) New York (perhaps by owning the Police Commissioner) that's it -- you've got a lock on it. You need not worry about the poor forming independent police agencies (or do you?) and you need not worry about collecting revenues from people who don't like your service. In a libertarian society, you've got to watch out for "Guardian Angels, INC", "Pinkerton Protectives", and a host of others. If a functionary you've corrupted is discovered you can't just retire him, buy his assistant, and quash the investigation -- you've got to buy off all the other protective agencies -- and if you haven't done this already, you've got very little control of "justice" in a region. Oh, Justice would be for sale in a libertarian society, but for a much higher price than it is in ours. And of course there'd be no question of things like gun control prohibiting people from owning the means to protect themselves (unless they volunteered). Would idealistic and honest civil refuse to be bought? Sure, but so would idealistic and honest employees. By the way, does anyone have figures indicative of relative honesty (private vs. public sector)? Say, percentage incidence of supply disappearance?
janw@inmet.UUCP (08/31/85)
> OK, Gene, its a bet: 50 cents says your free world fascists: Botha of > South Africa, Marcos of the Phillipines, Pinochet of Chile > are gone before counterrevolution succeeds in Nicaragua, > Angola or Afghanistan. > Andy Berman ..ihnp4!ihlpg!berman 3 comments suggest themselves apropos this extraodinary bet. First, there is a semantic problem. To call the Afghan resistance "counterrevolution", Mr. Berman must believe that the Soviet invasion constitutes "revolution". Is that at all possible ? Second, as far as Afghanistan is concerned, the Soviets may indeed be winning Mr. Berman's bet for him. Their current strategy is very simple and consists of *methodically exterminating the whole rural population*. It may work. The third comment flows from the second and concerns South Africa. If the racist bigots there could sink to the *Communist* level, they could solve their problems. There *would* be majority rule. The *whites* would become the majority, by murdering the present majority. Fortunately, there are no signs of them contemplating such a "solution" - which fact underscores, once again, the moral chasm between the team Mr. Berman is betting against, and the one he is rooting for. Jan Wasilewsky
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/01/85)
>/* Written 2:32 pm Aug 12, 1985 by SCIRTP!todd in inmet:net.politics */ > >Since no living American has experienced an invasion of America, >we cannot expect them to fully comprehend the repercussions of >war in Main Street, USA. While I don't claim to know the extent >of those repercussions, I am sure any attack on America (which >if non-nuclear at first, would quickly turn nuclear) would >destroy the lives of millions. My understanding was that during WWII the Japanese took territory on an American island off the coast of Alaska, and bombed both Alaska and California. Perhaps you should not be so quick with the "no living American" stuff.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/01/85)
>/* Written 6:09 pm Aug 21, 1985 by gargoyle!carnes in inmet:net.politics */ >/* ---------- "Have welfare programs hurt the poor" ---------- */ >> [Suggestion that people read "Losing Ground", by Charles Murray for >> evidence that social programs have hurt those they were intended to help. > >Christopher Jencks gives Murray a point-by-point refutation in the >May 9, 1985 *New York Review*. Jencks basically concludes that >*Losing Ground* is poor sociology, although it addresses some >important and interesting questions. I'm intrigued, and will read the article. In the meantime..... >To begin with, contrary to Murray's claim, it is not true that the >*material* condition of the poor deteriorated between 1965 and 1980. >First, the official poverty rate declined from 1950 to 1980: > > 1950 1960 1965 1970 1980 >P.R. 30 22 17 13 13 % Excuse me, but exactly WHICH claim of Murray's are you talking about? If you're talking about the sort of poverty measured by the official poverty index, you'll find that your figures are reflected in a graph on page 65 of Murray's book. It's also sort of obvious that the great drops in poverty end around 1968. > >(It has gone back up to ~16% since 1980.) In addition, the official >poverty line represented a higher standard of living in 1980 than in >1965, because of a flaw in the way the Consumer Price Index measured >housing costs. Furthermore, the official statistics do not take into >account the in-kind benefits provided by welfare programs such as >food stamps and low-cost medical care and housing. Jencks: "In >1965, Medicare and Medicaid did not exist, food stamps reached fewer >than 2 percent of the poor, and there were 600,000 public housing >units for 33 million poor people." Taking these benefits into >account, Jencks estimates the "net" poverty rate at 18% in 1965 and >at 10% in 1980. Remarkable. Murray dealt with this point in detail in "Losing Ground", in advance, in a section called "Progress Didn't Really Stop -- The Poverty Measure Is Misleading" (in this part of "Losing Ground", the sections were likely objections to his arguments). To quote: The official poverty statistic is based on gross cash income. What would happen if we were to include the dollar value of the "in-kind" assistance (Food Stamps, Medicaid, housing benefits) in income? What would happen if we were to take underreporting of income into account. What would happen if we were to take tax and social security liabilities into account? In other words, what would the poverty figure look like if we were to consider net income available for consumption spending? Timothy Sneeding, then at the Institute for Research on Poverty, developed such an estimate, which I shall refer to as "net poverty": The percentage of the population remaining beneath the poverty level after net income for consumption spending has been estimated. In the fifties, in-kind transfers were so small that we may assume the percentage of net poor was within a percentage point or two of the official figure (the underreporting factor was the source of any difference between the figures, offset to some extent by tax liabilities). As late as 1968, the gap between official poverty and net poverty was still quite small -- only 2.9 percentage points. The decreases in net poverty continued into the early 1970s. It was 1972 when progress on net poverty slowed, two years after the marked slowdown in the fall of official poverty. Thereafter, net poverty failed to sustain additional reductions. In 1979, net poverty stood at 6.1 percent of the population, compared with 6.2 percent in 1972, despite more than a doubling of real expenditures on in-kind assistance during the interim. Using net poverty as the measure changes the size of the baseline of persons living in poverty, but it does not change the nature of the puzzle: Huge increases in expenditures coincided with an end to progress. (pp 63) You will note that Murray was quite aware of the "net poverty" notion -- and that his claim was NOT that there are more poor, but that the process of lowering the number of poor has slowed. >.... >"First, contrary to what Murray claims, `net' poverty declined almost >as fast after 1965 as it had before. Murray's claim is that people spent an awful lot of money to try and eliminate poverty and that instead we got a slowing of the elimination of poverty. Your quotations from Jencks seem to indicate that he agrees. Having net poverty decline "almost as fast" when a great deal more money has been spent on making it decline seems like a poor payoff. >Second, the decline in poverty >after 1965, unlike the decline before 1965, occurred despite >unfavorable economic conditions, and depended to a great extent on >government efforts to help the poor. "Unfavorable economic conditions", eh? I suggest you read the section Murray calls "Of Course Progress Stopped -- The Economy Went Bad". In particular: Economic Growth during the 1970's was actually *greater* than during the peacetime 1950's, memories of Eisenhower prosperity notwithstanding. The average annual growth rate from 1953 to 1959 was 2.7 percent, noticeably lower than the average annual than the average annual growth of 3.2 percent from 1970 to 1979. Moreover, the lower growth of the of the seventies took the form of a few very bad years. During those years that had growth rates as high of those of the palmy days of the 1960s, the trendlines on poverty "should" have behaved as they did during the comparable growth years of the fifties and sixties. But they did not..... Even after holding both population change and inflation constant, per capita GNP increased only a little less rapidly in the seventies than it had in the booming sixties, and much faster than during the fifties. Growth did not stop. But, for some reason, the benefits of economic growth stopped trickling down to the poor. (pp 59) >Third, the groups that >benefited from this `generous revolution,' as Murray rightly calls >it, were precisely the groups that legislators hoped would benefit, >notably the aged and the disabled. The groups that did not benefit >were the ones that legislators did not especially want to help. >Fourth, these improvements took place despite demographic changes >that would ordinarily have made things worse. I'll defer comment on this one until I've read Jencks, except to note that Murray has a section labeled "It Would Have Been Worse Otherwise", he leads into his notion that there was a shift in the pattern of acquisition of jobs by the poor. Why? Well, the government HAD started messing around with the economic destinies of the poor and..... >Given the >difficulties, legislators should, I think, look back on their efforts >to improve the material conditions of poor people's lives with some >pride.... Nobody faults their efforts. Efforts, though, are cheap. It is RESULTS that are to be measured, and RESULTS which must determine whether a choice was bad or good. Murray's book is about RESULTS, not efforts, intentions, or wishful thinking, except insofar as these led to poor results. > [Jencks' objection to Murray regarding AFDC regulations and literacy] > >Murray, in discussing the percentage of people who fall below the >poverty line when transfer payments from the government (Soc. Sec., >AFDC, etc.) are ignored, calls this "the most damning" measure of >policy failure, because "economic independence -- standing on one's >own abilities and accomplishments -- is of paramount importance in >determining the quality of a family's life." Jencks comments: "This >is a classic instance of wishful thinking. Murray wants people to >work (or clip coupons) because such behavior keeps taxes low and >maintains a public moral order of which both he and I approve, so he >asserts that failure to work will undermine family life. He doesn't >try to prove this empirically; he says it is self-evident. But the >claim is not only not self-evident; it is almost certainly wrong.... It seems to me that I've seen studies showing that unemployed families tend to be pretty miserable and have a high breakup rate. I'll see if I can dig one up. >"While I share Murray's enthusiasm for work, I cannot see much >evidence that changes in government programs significantly affected >men's willingness to work during the 1960's. When we look at the >unemployed, for example, we find that about half of all unemployed >workers were getting unemployment benefits in 1960. The figure was >virtually identical in both 1970 and 1980. Thus while the rules >governing unemployment compensation did change, the changes did not >make joblessness more attractive economically.... Since black women >receive about half of all AFDC money, Murray's argument implies that >as AFDC rules became more liberal and benefits rose in the late >1960s, unemployment should have risen among young black men. WHOA! Do I hear even an echo of "and if nothing else changed" here? >Yet >Murray's own data show that such men's unemployment rates fell during >the late 1960s. Murray's argument also implies that young black >men's unemployment rate should have fallen in the 1970s, when the >purchasing power of AFDC benefits was falling. In fact, their >unemployment rates rose.... Murray is so intent on blaming >unemployment on the government that he discusses alternative >explanations only in order to dismiss them.... > >"As Murray rightly emphasizes, no society can survive if it allows >people to violate its rules with impunity on the grounds that `the >system is at fault.' Murray also argues that the liberal impulse to >blame `the system' for blacks' problems had an important part in the >social, cultural, and moral deterioration of black urban communities >after 1965. The such deterioration occurred in many cities is beyond >doubt.... All this being conceded, the questions remains: were all >these ills attributable to people's willingness to `blame the >system,' as Murray claims?... Murray is right to emphasize that the >problem was worst in black American communities. But recall that his >explanation is that `we -- meaning the not-poor and the >un-disadvantaged -- had changed the rules of their world. Not our >world, just theirs.' If that is the explanation, why do all the same >trends appear everywhere else as well? Hmmm.... I suspect that this is partly a matter of definition, and partly a matter of the poor inhabiting the same planet as the rest of us. If, for example, the presence of illegal heroin leads some into crime, does it not also create echoing crime among those for whom crime is simply an easier way to make money, as demonstrated by the bucks raked in by those with habits to support? >"*Losing Ground* does not answer such questions. Indeed, it does not >ask them. But it does at least cast debate over social policy in >what I believe are the correct terms. First, it does not simply ask >how much our social policies cost, or appear to cost, but whether >they work. Second, it makes clear that a successful program must not >only help those it seeks to help but must do so in such a way as not >to reward folly or vice. Third, it reminds us that social policy is >about punishment as well as rewards, and that a policy that is never >willing to countenance suffering, however deserved, will not long >endure. The liberal coalition that dominated Washington from 1964 to >1980 did quite well by the first of these criteria: its major >programs, contrary to Murray's argument, did help the poor. But it >did not do as well by the other two criteria: it often rewarded >folly and vice and it never had enough confidence in its own norms of >behavior to assert that those who violated these norms deserved >whatever sorrows followed." I'm delighted to hear such agreement.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/01/85)
>/* Written 1:47 pm Aug 22, 1985 by decwrl!black in inmet:net.politics */ >/* ---------- "Censorship" ---------- */ > > For all of you who fear censorship by the "Extreme Right," here's a >few examples of what we can expect from the our dear friends on the Left. > > Below are some extracts from an article from the August 26, 1985 >edition of the Spotlight (reprinted by permission, Copyright 1985 by >Cordite Fidelity Corp., 300 Independence Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20003. >All rights reserved.) > >"LIBERALS BIG ON CENSORSHIP" > >.... > > "* In Torrence, California, Irv Rubin, the National Director of the >terroristic Jewish Defense League (JDL), is demanding that the city expel >the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) by formal ordinance. the IHR's >'crime' is that it insists on exercising its right to publish historical >material reporting facts and findings which are different from the >Establishment's orthodoxy. Four years ago a man sued the IHR for scorning >'established historical fact,' a cause of action theretofore known only >behind the Iron Curtain. > Whoa! The way I heard it (admittedly over NPR) was that the IHR was sued because it offered a reward for evidence that anyone was gassed in the camps in Germany, and then refused to pay when a man came forward with such evidence (no, I don't know what the evidence was). It's not (yet) illegal in the US to have an active fantasy life, even a sick one, but it is FRAUD to offer a reward for disproof of your fantasy and refuse to pay up when proof is presented. Was it really four years ago? This was on the radio about a month ago, if I recall.... In any case, if I've correctly identified the incident, and if the "Spotlight" is this clear all the time, I think I'd turn down a free subscription offer......
lkk@teddy.UUCP (09/03/85)
In article <7800404@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > > The third comment flows from the second and concerns South Africa. >If the racist bigots there could sink to the *Communist* level, >they could solve their problems. There *would* be majority rule. >The *whites* would become the majority, by murdering the present >majority. Fortunately, there are no signs of them contemplating >such a "solution" - which fact underscores, once again, the moral >chasm between the team Mr. Berman is betting against, and the >one he is rooting for. > > Jan Wasilewsky UNFAIR, UNFAIR, UNFAIR!!! Your analogy is entirely misleading. Of course the white South Africans would not exterminate the Black population in that country. Their entire economy is based upon exploiting that population. To exterminate them would be to commit national suicide. What the Soviets are doing now in Afghanistan is at about the same level of terrorism as what the U.S. did in Vietnam (operation Phoenix, napalm, Agent Orange, etc.). A better analogy is to compare the Soviets in Eastern Europe vs. the the South African govt. in "Black Homelands". The differences seem to vanish. I see no evidence that a worker in Transkei is an better off than a worker in say Poland. At least in Poland they live in a viable country that is more than a parasitic creation of another (as in the case of Trankei). -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/04/85)
> >[Unknown] > >Since no living American has experienced an invasion of America, > >we cannot expect them to fully comprehend the repercussions of > >war in Main Street, USA. While I don't claim to know the extent > >of those repercussions, I am sure any attack on America (which > >if non-nuclear at first, would quickly turn nuclear) would > >destroy the lives of millions. -------- > [Also Unknown] > My understanding was that during WWII the Japanese took territory > on an American island off the coast of Alaska, and bombed both > Alaska and California. > > Perhaps you should not be so quick with the "no living American" > stuff. ------- The two Aleutian islands taken by the Japanese were uninhabited. They never bombed Alaska or California. Perhaps you are confusing the movie 1941 with reality. Even Pearl Harbor was only an attack on a military base, not an invasion or an attack on civilian targets. Civilian casualties at Pearl Harbor were very small. No living American has experienced an invasion of America. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (09/06/85)
Bill T., I hate to be the one to bring you the bad news, BUT, California and Oregon were both attacked by the Japanese during the beginning of WWII. Granted, the attacks were miniscule in comparison to everything else that happened, but the Japanese Navy did carry out minor harrasement raids along the coast. The ones that come to mind most clearly were the dropping of small hand-held anti-personnel bombs on the town square of one Oregon town. (Not sure which town so I will not stick foot in mouth and give wrong one.) Thirty years after the incident, the town held a rememberence and managed to locate the Japanese Naval flier who did the bomb dropping. He was invited to take part in the festivities. Fortunatly, noone was injured in the raid, so folks got along fine during the festivities. The second incident which comes to mind was extremely interesting in that it was more like the movie "1941". A Japanese sub managed to navigate the Columbia river all the way to Astoria where, on a quiet Sunday morning, a few months into the war, it surfaced just off the Navy pier, loaded its deck gun, and proceeded to try to hit the gas storage tanks on a hill just above the Navy installation. Sailors aboard a U S destroyer docked at the pier just stood and watched for the first two rounds as they thought it was one of their own just practicing. By the time the Japanese fired their third round, it had become apparent as to what was going on and a general alarm was sounded. Alas, they were too late. After the third shot (all three were misses) the sub buttoned up, turned around, and dove, never to be seen again up the Columbia. Needless to say that the mouth of the Columbia was well guarded after that incident. As far as California is concerned, there was some shelling from a submarine along the Santa Barbara area. In regards to the airplane which bombed the Oregon town, it was very small and was launched from a submarine. There was some type of watertight housing on the deck of the sub. The thing was bolted together and launched. I personaly saw this aircraft as it flew over my town at least ten or twelve times. The pilot never dropped anything in our area however. The plane would come in from the sea about dusk and circle over Aberdeen and Hoquiam, Washington for about 15 minutes, then return to the sub. Frantic calls to the nearest Army Air Corps base near Tacoma would bring down a flight of rickety training planes equipped with very rudimentery weapons to look for the sub. The problem was was that it took over an hour to get the Army down our way to look for the sub. By the time they got there, the pilot was sitting in the sub's wardroom sipping tea and telling his friends about how everyone was running to and fro on the ground when he passed over them. Japanese subs roamed up and down the west coast for most of 1942, sinking quite a few ships. A dozen or so were torpedoed off the Washington coast, but they were mostly part of what we called the Scandanavian Navy. These were small coastal steamers used to move lumber up and down the coast and usually captained by Norwegian or Swedish captains. Once the Japenese found out that putting a hole in one of these steamers did nothing more than dump a lot of wood into the water, they stopped trying to sink them. Mainly because, even with a hole in them, many would make it to port anyway. The scarriest thing the Japanese did was to send ballons over the Pacific ladened with both anti-personnel mines and incindiary devices. About a dozen people were injured when they found these things. They are still being found out in the forests of western Washington, Oregon, and B.C.. So, Bill, its not quite true that the Japanese never attacked the mainland. As for the Aleutians, there were people on those islands. There were fishing villages that were only partially inhabited (off-season). The Japanese put those people on their fishing boats and sent them back to the mainland. This was how we found out about the "invasion". It was quite awhile before we mounted a counter attack to find that the Japanese had skedaddled just hours before we came ashore. That is the main force had been taken off the islands. Just setting the record straight. T. C. Wheeler
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/06/85)
>/* Written 12:36 pm Sep 4, 1985 by ihlpg!tan in inmet:net.politics */ >> >[Unknown] >> >Since no living American has experienced an invasion of America, >> >we cannot expect them to fully comprehend the repercussions of >> >war in Main Street, USA. While I don't claim to know the extent >> >of those repercussions, I am sure any attack on America (which >> >if non-nuclear at first, would quickly turn nuclear) would >> >destroy the lives of millions. >-------- >> [Also Unknown] [actually, NRH] >> My understanding was that during WWII the Japanese took territory >> on an American island off the coast of Alaska, and bombed both >> Alaska and California. >> >> Perhaps you should not be so quick with the "no living American" >> stuff. >------- >The two Aleutian islands taken by the Japanese were uninhabited. They >never bombed Alaska or California. Perhaps you are confusing the movie Uu>1941 with reality. Even Pearl Harbor was only an attack on a military >base, not an invasion or an attack on civilian targets. Civilian >casualties at Pearl Harbor were very small. No living American has >experienced an invasion of America. >-- Annoyed at the implication that I would confuse the movie "1941" with reality, I called the Boston Public Library, and asked them whether the Japanese bombed the mainland. In "the Simon & Schuster Encyclopedia of WWII", pp 48, it is said that over 1000 "balloon bombs" -- anti-personnel incendiary reached North America, most in Canada. In one such landing, Six people were killed. In September 1942, according to the same reference, a single Japanese airplane dropped 2 bombs in Oregon (this was the only Japanese plane to attack the continental US). As it happened, one of the folks at the BPL was stationed in Alaska late in the War. He points out the the government evacuated the Aleuts from the Aleutians early in the war. So, Mr. Tanenbaum, I am NOT confusing the film "1941" with reality. While we agree that there was never a massive invasion with lots of soldiers of Anytown, USA, there were evacuations, bombings, and invasions in force of US territory. To the soldiers in Alaska, or the folks killed by balloon bombs, or the people watching the two bombs drop from that plane in September 1942, these events no doubt felt like an invasion (remember, they didn't know the Japanese had no more planes around, no other carriers with which to invade other islands, nor any way of making the balloon bombs more accurate.
porges@inmet.UUCP (09/07/85)
[Is bug?] >Even Pearl Harbor was only an attack on a military >base, not an invasion or an attack on civilian targets. Civilian >casualties at Pearl Harbor were very small. No living American has >experienced an invasion of America. Not only was Pearl Harbor a (mostly) military target, but in 1941 Hawaii was not officially part of the United States, being rather a territory that the US captured in the Spanish-American War, a war that is not currently considered one of our most moral moments. Furthermore, fewer people were killed in the sneak attack on the fleet than would have been killed if those same ships had been sunk at sea, since most of the crew members weren't on the ships but ashore. Not that I exactly take the side of the Japanese in WWII... -- Don Porges ...harpo!inmet!porges ...hplabs!sri-unix!cca!ima!inmet!porges ...yale-comix!ima!inmet!porges
csanders@ucbvax.ARPA (Craig S. Anderson) (09/09/85)
>-------- >> [Also Unknown] >> My understanding was that during WWII the Japanese took territory >> on an American island off the coast of Alaska, and bombed both >> Alaska and California. >> >> Perhaps you should not be so quick with the "no living American" >> stuff. >------- >The two Aleutian islands taken by the Japanese were uninhabited. They >never bombed Alaska or California. Perhaps you are confusing the movie >1941 with reality. Even Pearl Harbor was only an attack on a military >base, not an invasion or an attack on civilian targets. Civilian >casualties at Pearl Harbor were very small. No living American has >experienced an invasion of America. >-- The Japanese DID make a few attacks on the American mainland. A rogue Japanese submarine surfaced off the coast of California in the days following Pearl Harbour and fired some shells at an oil refinery. Not much damage was done. Also, near the end of the war, the Japanese made lots of parachute bombs that they would release high in the atmosphere to be blown by winds over to the U.S. Though most landed harmlessly in the ocean, a few made it to the mainland. One of them landed in a tree in Oregon; when a woman went up to investigate, it exploded, killing her. BTW, the Japanese did invade Guam, which was (and still is, I think) a U.S. territory. Craig Anderson. >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
shebs@bcsaic.UUCP (stan shebs) (09/09/85)
In article <1178@ihlpg.UUCP> tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >They never bombed Alaska or California. Did anyone else see a little news item a few weeks ago about a former Japanese pilot who came back to visit a small Oregon town near which he had dropped a couple of incendiary bombs? Apparently it was some sort of harebrained scheme to set the entire West coast ablaze with forest fires. Obviously no one on the generals' staff had spent February in Oregon :-) stan shebs
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/14/85)
> > [Is bug?] > > >Even Pearl Harbor was only an attack on a military > >base, not an invasion or an attack on civilian targets. Civilian > >casualties at Pearl Harbor were very small. No living American has > >experienced an invasion of America. > > Not only was Pearl Harbor a (mostly) military target, but in 1941 > Hawaii was not officially part of the United States, being rather a > territory that the US captured in the Spanish-American War, a war that > is not currently considered one of our most moral moments. Furthermore, > fewer people were killed in the sneak attack on the fleet than would > have been killed if those same ships had been sunk at sea, since most > of the crew members weren't on the ships but ashore. Not that I exactly > take the side of the Japanese in WWII... > -- Don Porges > ...harpo!inmet!porges > ...hplabs!sri-unix!cca!ima!inmet!porges > ...yale-comix!ima!inmet!porges C'mon spit it out, what are you inferring? You said "Not that I exactly....." what do you mean, you're not sure who's side you would have been on during the war? Perhaps you're just non-committal.
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (09/16/85)
In article <7800426@inmet.UUCP> porges@inmet.UUCP writes: > >[Is bug?] > >>Even Pearl Harbor was only an attack on a military >>base, not an invasion or an attack on civilian targets. Civilian >>casualties at Pearl Harbor were very small. No living American has >>experienced an invasion of America. > > Not only was Pearl Harbor a (mostly) military target, but in 1941 >Hawaii was not officially part of the United States, being rather a >territory that the US captured in the Spanish-American War, a war that >is not currently considered one of our most moral moments. Furthermore, >fewer people were killed in the sneak attack on the fleet than would >have been killed if those same ships had been sunk at sea, since most >of the crew members weren't on the ships but ashore. Not that I exactly >take the side of the Japanese in WWII... > -- Don Porges > ...harpo!inmet!porges > ...hplabs!sri-unix!cca!ima!inmet!porges > ...yale-comix!ima!inmet!porges As I recall, Hawaii was a British colony (the Sandwich Islands) before we got them: that's why the Hawaiian flag still has the Union Jack in its upper left corner. King Kamehameha the Great agreed to this in return for British help in conquering Maui, Lanai, Molokai, Oahu and Kauai. We picked it up about the turn of the century, but I think that we purchased it from Britain. -- Rick.
lkk@teddy.UUCP (09/17/85)
In article <7800426@inmet.UUCP> porges@inmet.UUCP writes: > Not only was Pearl Harbor a (mostly) military target, but in 1941 >Hawaii was not officially part of the United States, being rather a >territory that the US captured in the Spanish-American War, a war that >is not currently considered one of our most moral moments. Furthermore, >fewer people were killed in the sneak attack on the fleet than would >have been killed if those same ships had been sunk at sea, since most >of the crew members weren't on the ships but ashore. Not that I exactly >take the side of the Japanese in WWII... Hawaii was not captured in the Spanish-American war, since it never belonged to Spain. Rather, it was annexed by the United States after the overthrow of the monarchy there by U.S. pinaple and sugar interests (most notable Sanford B. Dole). -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (09/17/85)
> >> >[Unknown] > >> >Since no living American has experienced an invasion of America, > >> >we cannot expect them to fully comprehend the repercussions of > >> >war in Main Street, USA. While I don't claim to know the extent > >> >of those repercussions, I am sure any attack on America (which > >> >if non-nuclear at first, would quickly turn nuclear) would > >> >destroy the lives of millions. > >-------- > >> [NRH] > >> My understanding was that during WWII the Japanese took territory > >> on an American island off the coast of Alaska, and bombed both > >> Alaska and California. > >> Perhaps you should not be so quick with the "no living American" > >> stuff. > >------- > >The two Aleutian islands taken by the Japanese were uninhabited. They > >never bombed Alaska or California. Perhaps you are confusing the movie > >1941 with reality. Even Pearl Harbor was only an attack on a military > >base, not an invasion or an attack on civilian targets. Civilian > >casualties at Pearl Harbor were very small. No living American has > >experienced an invasion of America. --------- > [NRH] > Annoyed at the implication that I would confuse the movie "1941" with > reality, I called the Boston Public Library, and asked them whether > the Japanese bombed the mainland. > > In "the Simon & Schuster Encyclopedia of WWII", pp 48, it is said that > over 1000 "balloon bombs" -- anti-personnel incendiary reached North > America, most in Canada. In one such landing, Six people were killed. > > In September 1942, according to the same reference, a single Japanese > airplane dropped 2 bombs in Oregon (this was the only Japanese plane to > attack the continental US). > > As it happened, one of the folks at the BPL was stationed in Alaska > late in the War. He points out the the government evacuated the > Aleuts from the Aleutians early in the war. > > So, Mr. Tanenbaum, I am NOT confusing the film "1941" with reality. > While we agree that there was never a massive invasion with lots of > soldiers of Anytown, USA, there were evacuations, bombings, and > invasions in force of US territory. To the soldiers in Alaska, or the > folks killed by balloon bombs, or the people watching the two bombs drop > from that plane in September 1942, these events no doubt felt like > an invasion (remember, they didn't know the Japanese had no more planes > around, no other carriers with which to invade other islands, nor > any way of making the balloon bombs more accurate. ----- I concede I did not know of the balloon bombs or of the other mainland incidents you and several others mentioned. I retract and apologize for the remark about the movie 1941. However, with the possible exception of anyone who may have been on those two Aleutian Islands, no living American has experienced an invasion of America. Those mainland bombings were dwarfed by Pearl Harbor, and neither constitutes an invasion. Also, the Phillipines, Guam, etc., may have been U. S. territories, they are usually not considered as part of what is meant by "America". Since we now agree on the facts, if not the semantics, we hopefully can terminate this discussion. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
porges@inmet.UUCP (09/23/85)
> > >Even Pearl Harbor was only an attack on a military > > >base, not an invasion or an attack on civilian targets. Civilian > > >casualties at Pearl Harbor were very small. No living American has > > >experienced an invasion of America. > > > > Not only was Pearl Harbor a (mostly) military target, but in 1941 > > Hawaii was not officially part of the United States, being rather a > > territory that the US captured in the Spanish-American War, a war that > > is not currently considered one of our most moral moments. Furthermore, > > fewer people were killed in the sneak attack on the fleet than would > > have been killed if those same ships had been sunk at sea, since most > > of the crew members weren't on the ships but ashore. Not that I exactly > > take the side of the Japanese in WWII... > > -- Don Porges > > ...harpo!inmet!porges > > ...hplabs!sri-unix!cca!ima!inmet!porges > > ...yale-comix!ima!inmet!porges > > C'mon spit it out, what are you inferring? You said "Not that I exactly....." > what do you mean, you're not sure who's side you would have been on during > the war? Perhaps you're just non-committal. Sorry for the unclarity. What I was hoping to imply was not "The Japanese were the good guys in World War II" but "The characterization of the attack on Pearl Harbor as a totally incomprehensible attack against America is not completely straightforward, since the American forces were themselves not on their own soil (or water)". I have no doubts that the Axis was the aggressor (and worse) in the war. My last sentence was irony, not intentional neutrality. (Having said that, I'll ask for more trouble: GIVEN that the Japanense were starting a war of aggression, the outrage over it being a "sneak attack" has always seemed redundant to me; as if the main thing wrong with the enemy in that war was that they hadn't made an appointment. Once again: I do not support Japanese/Nazi expansion! See what a little ambiguity of the net can lead to?) I have also been corrected through news and mail on the history of Hawaii: The territory was not seized during the Spanish-American War, but annexed by fiat at the urging of American agricultural business.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (09/24/85)
>/* Written 8:05 pm Sep 8, 1985 by sophie@mnetor in inmet:net.politics */ >/* ---------- "Re: A suggestion for a ground rule" ---------- */ >...It is one thing to object >to things one might consider disgusting even though it poses >no threat to oneself (such as homosexuality). It is another >to object to things that one considers pauses a personal threat. >I object to pornography for this reason. It scares the hell out >of me to know that some person might read some of that crap and >decide to act out his fantasies on me against my will. That >has NOTHING to do with what other people do in the privacy of their >own bedroom, it has to do with MY safety. Excuse me, but even if a very strong statistical, as opposed to causal, link between pornography and violence existed, you still would have no kick coming. There are laws against people raping you, attacking you, detaining you. or even threatening you. These laws are just and worthwhile. There are NO laws against people fantasizing about doing these things, no laws against deciding to do them, but there are laws against doing them. Why? Because it only harms you when these things are done, not when they are considered. Eliminating pornography because there might be (my understanding is that it is hardly beyond argument) a statistical link between porn and violence ignores the point: violence is already illegal. If you could show that some people react involuntarily with violence when confronted with porn, you could perhaps legitimately make it a crime to show THOSE people pornographic things. As it is, I don't know of any such identifiable class of people, and the violence you fear is already against the law. To object that making porn illegal would result in fewer rapes per year is silly. Segregating men and women might accomplish the same objective, as might castrating all men. The fact is that our society is free enough to recognize (most times) that it is the CRIME that is the thing to be made illegal, not the circumstances which MIGHT lead to crime. > >.... Nobody's objecting to >people's sexual preferences here, they're objecting to hate >literature which endangers their safety. Then sue for reckless endangerment! Of course, if you don't think you could win..... >> So my advice, to those who are considering jumping >>on the anti-pornography bandwagon, is to think twice >>about what you are doing. By attacking one of society's >>basic freedoms you are helping to discredit the entire >>women's rights movement. > >Gee, and I thought the right to physical safety was one of our >society's basic rights too. Sounds like some rights have to >be balanced out against others in some cases, eh? (<- I'm from Canada) > That's EXACTLY right. The danger of censorship (which carries with it the rationale that the state may PREVENT certain non-violent, non-intrusive behavior because non-identifiable folks MIGHT react in dangerous ways) must be balanced against an unproven implicit claim: that you would be safer in a society where pornographers operate outside the law. (Remember, making pornography illegal merely makes it illegal -- it doesn't stop it).
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/09/85)
> >[eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke)] > >Similarly, if not more so, denying the existence > >of the holocaust is (I believe) *very* dangerous in the long run. > >On this basis, I would support a law/ruling prohibiting individuals from > >making such claims. The trouble is, I can't *prove* it is dangerous. > > [Rick : mcgeer@ucbvax] > The hell it's not. "You shall know the truth, and the truth will > make you free". In the long run, teaching kids socialism is > dangerous, and I can damned well prove it: look how many people > on this net believe in socialism. > ... Or consider the rather vast number > that assured us that there were and are no concentration camps in > the Soviet Union, or that Nicaragua is a wronged paradise... > > If people are allowed to say that there was no holocaust, a cer- > tain percentage on the lunatic fringe will believe it -- but so > long as the vast majority speaks the truth , and speaks it loudly > and clearly, the risk to freedom from them is far less, in my > mind, than from those who would deny them speech. I think you're both right in your assessment of danger - but Rick is right in his conclusions. Denying Holocaust *is* dangerous - and prohibiting such denial makes it *more* dangerous. The danger comes not only in the long run, by creating a precedent of cen- sorship, but *immediately*, and on the same Holocaust is- sue. Unless you run a regime that makes people disappear, and other people afraid to speak of it, - you CANNOT suppress ideas, and every attempt to do so *strengthens* these ideas - especially lunatic ones for which it is the first hard fact in their favor. Think of the wide publicity the condemned Nazi got, think of his permanent place (along with Horst Wessel) in their martyr gallery. I believe that Canadian hate law to be quite counterproductive. We (and I mean all Western countries) are simply no good at limiting liberty. For better or worse, we are condemned to keep expanding it. Jan Wasilewsky
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (10/12/85)
In article <7800485@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >............... I believe that Canadian hate law to be quite >counterproductive. I agree. Prior to his trial the vast majority of Canadians had never heard of that certifiable nut-case known as Ernst Zundel. The story is quite different now and I would be surprised if a significant minority existed who did not know of him and his views. Thus, by trying Zundel the Ontario government: 1) gave this man a national forum with which to spread his "message", 2) continued down the slippery path of censorship, a move which has every potential of being used against those ordinary citizens who may desire to voice dissent against the government or its policies, and 3) affirmed the right of the government to establish an official version of historical events that cannot be questioned or disputed. Should one take issue with this version one may find oneself in jail. We have come to expect this type of thought control from Eastern Bloc countries, but to experience it right here in the West is indeed distressing. J.B. Robinson What forest? All I see is them thar trees.
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/31/85)
[Gary Samuelson : garys@bunker] > > >> "Scientific Creationism" cannot be taught honestly; but I'd > > > > Just in case anyone notices this : I meant "intellectual honesty", > > not intending at all to impugn sincerity or personal integrity of > > those who believe in it. --Jan Wasilewsky > > OK, if you say you do not intend to impugn sincerity or personal > integrity, I'll have to take your word for it. But in that case, > what do you mean by "intellectual honesty"? OK, what I mean by it (and I won't quarrel over definitions) is playing by certain rules of the intellectual game. Some people don't know the rules and some forget them when under the influence of a strong emotion. In both cases they may be quite sincere but their way of reasoning may lack intellectual honesty. One such rule is that evidence must be sifted on its own merits and not according to whether it supports what one already believes. Many well-meaning and sincere people forget this when their strongly held beliefs are in question. Perhaps we all do sometimes. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/03/85)
An authoritative opinion, to put things in perspective: ] ... over two decades ago, there was only Cuba in Latin America, ] today there are Nicaragua, Grenada, and a serious battle ] is going on in El Salvador. [Marshal N. V. Ogarkov, then Soviet Chief of Staff, writing to his counterpart in Grenada, Major E. Louison]
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/04/85)
Apparently some people make the unspoken assumption: "If a paper is right-wing, it should be suppressed". Actually, La Prensa *cannot* be right-wing; due to censorship, its published content is much the same as in the other papers. People buy it just for that faint *flavor* of independence. Inadequate as it is, it is the *only* outlet for unofficial, non-servile information and views. The authorities don't kill it outright, probably, for the same reason - it serves as a safety valve. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/05/85)
The following is from "The Economist", Oct. 19, describing the situation in Nicaragua as it was before the October 15 decrees: ] The private businesses that are still allowed to operate mostly ] buy from and sell to government agencies. The identification of ] the Sandinist movement with the state is close: there is a San- ] dinist army, a Sandinist police force and a Sandinist television ] news program, and "Sandinism" is taught in schools and universi- ] ties. ] The leader of the small Liberal Party, Mr. Virgilio Godoy, who ] has tried hard to work with the Sandinists and formerly served as ] their labour minister, said recently: ... ] ] People worry that if they do anything, the army will take their ] ] son, or their business will be closed or some import will be con- ] ] fiscated. We cannot get people out of their houses to a rally ] ] because we cannot give them a guarantee that nothing will happen ] ] to them afterwards. Jan Wasilewsky
gil@cornell.UUCP (Gil Neiger) (11/11/85)
In article <7800610@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >Apparently some people make the unspoken assumption: "If a paper >is right-wing, it should be suppressed". Actually, La Prensa >*cannot* be right-wing; due to censorship, its published content >is much the same as in the other papers. People buy it just for >that faint *flavor* of independence. Inadequate as it is, it is >the *only* outlet for unofficial, non-servile information and >views. The authorities don't kill it outright, probably, for the >same reason - it serves as a safety valve. > > Jan Wasilewsky This is only true if you assume that "If a paper is pro-government it must be official and servile." El Nuevo Diario is a privately owned independent paper in Managua that happens to be pro-Sandinista. -- Gil Neiger Computer Science Department Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853 {uw-beaver,ihnp4,decvax,vax135}!cornell!gil (UUCP) gil@Cornell.ARPA (ARPAnet) ; gil@CRNLCS (BITNET)
gil@cornell.UUCP (Gil Neiger) (11/11/85)
In article <7800610@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >Inadequate as it (La Prensa) is, it is >the *only* outlet for unofficial, non-servile information and >views. The authorities don't kill it outright, probably, for the >same reason - it serves as a safety valve. > > Jan Wasilewsky Is this the reason that President Reagan allows what little oppposition there is to him in the U.S. press? To serve as a safety valve? It just might be the case that he believes in freedom of the press, as do the Sandinistas. Let us not forget that Nicaragua is in a state of emergency (one more real than that which our president declared last spring), and the Sandinistas are being given very little room in which to practice what they preach. -- Gil Neiger Computer Science Department Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853 {uw-beaver,ihnp4,decvax,vax135}!cornell!gil (UUCP) gil@Cornell.ARPA (ARPAnet) ; gil@CRNLCS (BITNET)
nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/15/85)
Hold on thar! Wasn't social security originally supposed to be a way in which one provided for one's OWN later well-being? I seem to recall this little matter of it being a "trust fund", not a "social welfare agency".
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/15/85)
>> [ tim sevener whuxn!orb] >> > The point is that Jan has offered absolutely no evidence to refute >> > Richard's claims about the *distribution* of food in Communist countries. >> (1) Well ... why not try *reading* the article you are >> responding to ? It is so short. And the last paragraph goes: >> "Uneven DISTRIBUTION has compounded this shortage" etc. >As I recall (the article is now off my machine) your point was that >uneven distribution made things worse than the average only in China. (1) If that's what you recall, how do you reconcile it with your "absolutely no evidence" claim above ? (2) The article must be on your machine 'cos I reposted it to- gether with what you are answering now. Once more, reading before responding is *such* a good habit. (3) In any case, here is the relevant paragraph; it is by Fox Butterfield, and in this country *no one* knows better (check his credentials): ] Uneven distribution has compounded this shortage of food. A Com- ] munist periodical in Hong Kong disclosed in 1978, while I was ] there, that the annual grain ration of 200 million Chinese ] peasants was less than 330 pounds a year. "That is to say", the ] journal said, "they are living in a state of semistarvation". If you compare this with the average for the whole country, that's quite a bit of unequal distribution. Of course, any uneven distribution *within* the 200 million can only aggravate the pic- ture (meaning, simply, death for some). >You did not point out that in fact most countries in the world have >a far more uneven food distribution than China. Of course I didn't; there is no reason to believe it. If you read my "Food for China" note you will find some factors of unequal distribution that exist(ed) in China but not in most countries. >> (2) You might also try *reading* Richard's statement you quoted. He >> made *no* "claim about distribution of food". >Your point is well-taken. I was responding to your critique of Richard's >article and never read the original. You are doing it again. I was speaking of reading *the statement you quoted*. Haste makes waste. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/15/85)
[ tim sevener whuxn!orb] From Jan Wasilewski: >> (3) By breaking off the quote where you did, you made it factual- >> ly misleading (unintentionally, I presume). It appears to be say- >> ing that China is only as bad as India or Pakistan in feeding her >> people. But in the original, an important BUT follows, proving >> that she is much worse - as bad as Bangladesh. >This is ridiculous. Travelers and relief agencies in Bangladesh >all report etc. (1) This is amazing! I point out that by breaking the quote in the middle you changed its meaning; and *you* answer that that meaning was ridiculous ! Did you then cook the quote on purpose, to make it less ridiculous, and *then* proceed to refute it ? Allow me to disbelieve it; I still think your distortion was unintentional. (2) I don't at all mind your calling the report of a leading expert in the field ridiculous; such irreverence is refreshing; let us see however your grounds for it : >This is ridiculous. Travelers and relief agencies in Bangladesh >all report massive starvation and hunger. homeless people and >beggars on the street. Visitors to India report the same thing. >On the other hand, this has *not * been reported in China. I know that; and I am more than sure Butterfield knows that. You ignore, however, two important peculiarities of China that make these observations irrelevant. They both proceed from its totalitarian system of government. First, the cities are fed, whatever happens to the countryside. And cities are where the visitors come. (Of course, given the same average figures, that makes the plight of the majority *worse*). Second, a totalitarian society is a closed society. The capacity for concealment, deception and Potemkin village building is un- limited. If you doubt it, consider the Chinese famine of the ear- ly sixties - the greatest in world's history! Only now, in the 80's, has it become the subject of Western studies. And *that* only because China itself released the relevant demographic data. If a holocaust like that can be concealed, what cannot ? Of course, that closed nature of a Communist society distorts statistics no less than tourists' impressions. The study of such societies has therefore to apply quite different methods than the study of non-totalitarian countries. One thing about your "tourist" argument remains true. It *is* worthwhile to cross-check statistics by the observations of live people. But in the case of a Communist country, the best people for the purpose are not visitors; but *refugees*. (As for the figures you quote from Ruth whatshername, for which the best you can say is that she's connected with an institute in a nonaligned country - after due deliberation, I decided to ig- nore them). Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/15/85)
The following is from "China, Alive in a Bitter Sea", by Fox Butterfield, Bantam Books, p. 15. The data applies to late 1970's > > For recent Western Studies show that food consumption per capita > > is actually only about what it was in the mid-1950s, and, more > > surprisingly, no better than in the 1930s, before World War Two. > > > > These studies suggest that the average daily calorie supply in > > China is between 2,000 and 2,100 per person. Two thousand > > calories a day is the level of India, 2,100 is the norm in Pakis- > > tan. Americans eat an average of 3,240 calories a day. > > > > But what makes these figures worse is that three fourths of the > > protein in the Chinese diet and five sixth of the calories are > > derived from food grains like rice, wheat and corn, rather than > > from other richer and more varied sources like meat, fish, eggs, > > vegetables, or sugar. In Asia only Bangladesh and Laos approach > > these proportions. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > Uneven distribution has compounded this shortage of food. A Com- > > munist periodical in Hong Kong disclosed in 1978, while I was > > there, that the annual grain ration of 200 million Chinese > > peasants was less than 330 pounds a year. "That is to say", the > > journal said, "they are living in a state of semistarvation". ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/15/85)
[ tim sevener whuxn!orb] >> Land reforms *can* feed people. ... But in places >> like China, Cuba, and Nicaragua, there are overriding factors. >> For in these countries, the real *power over food-producing >> resourses* is in the hands of the central government and so is >> less distributed than ever. >I totally agree land reforms *can* feed people. But your second >point is a questionable thesis. I am not about to defend large-scale >collective agriculture. But those in the collective do have some >power in determining how the collective's quota will be met. No, the point I was making (but too briefly) is different. It is *not* that agriculture is run by collectives and the quotas for these set by the government. I would say the same if the plots were *individual* - provided that the country is totalitarian. Remember, we were talking of a more even distribution of "power over food-producibg resourses". If political power of the cen- tral leadership is *absolute* - then *all* the land, the imple- ments, the cattle and the *people* on that land BELONG TO THEM - to the Politbureau or an equivalent group. *Appearences* may be different, and policies may be lenient, but that's the reality behind them. After the Bolshevik and the Maoist revolutions, farmers *thought* the land was now theirs. Forced collectivization proved to them who was the boss. Relations of property (individual or collective) and control have a different meaning in these societies. For a quite different example, consider Thyssen, the German in- dustrialist who financed Hitler's rise to power in 1933. As soon as 1935, having disagreed with the new bosses, he was expropriat- ed and in exile. He did not realize that, under the new rules of the game he had helped to establish, property rights didn't matter. Peasant or tycoon, it's the same story. Communist agrarian revolutions have a clear pattern: (1) Land-hungry farmers support the revolutionaries; together, they dislodge the landlords, or whoever controls the land. (2) The revolutionaries consolidate control. The farmers have the land; their taxes are growing, their prices limited, but in exchange they get schools and medicines; (3) The (former) revolutionaries expropriate the farmers, under the guise of collectivization. They need capital for their other goals; also, they see any economic independence as a challenge. And the farmers, not having any political influence in the new system, cannot defend themselves. They are now worse off than ever. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/16/85)
[ tim sevener whuxn!orb] >A common statistical fallacy is to cite overall averages or per capita >figures. To think that merely *citing* any correct datum can be a fallacy, is itself a fallacy. A pretty obvious one. >For example, ten people could have a thousand dollars in total, >with one person having $991 and the rest having $1 apiece. Right. Now try and repeat the same example, pro rata, with *calories*. (Say, 2000 a person a day - 1000 would kill them). One person consumes 19,820 calories a day, the rest 20 calories a day. Impossible ? Well, that should tell you why per capita figures make more sense for nutrition than income. (Under certain conditions, they can be quite useful for income, too. It all depends on additional constraints). >Thus per capita figures are very misleading and almost never used >by social scientists doing serious comparisons of goods distributions. But used *a lot* for comparing food consumption in different nations. Or at different periods in one nation. >> (4) Now, since you are interested in statistics, try and verify >> the following theorem: "If the average person is hungry, then >> *some real people* are hungry, whatever the distribution". See, >> averages do tell you something. In fact, per capita figures are >> universally and correctly used in this field of study. >Your theorem is obviously correct that if people on average are hungry, >therefore some people must be hungry. Good. A point of agreement. >However your next statement, >that mere overall averages are perfectly OK is wrong. Since I never made that statement, and find it meaningless, I have to return it to you. I said they are universally *used*: a matter of fact that you do not dispute. I also said using them is *correct*, i.e. not a fallacy. I can also add they are *useful*, i.e. yield meaningful conclusions. This is demonstrated by the theorem above and its application to China in my original article. Jan Wasilewsky
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (11/19/85)
> Tim, when you say congress approved 95% of Reagan's requests, >was that by number of requests, or $??? Here we are, sitting back with >what probably amounts to the number 3 Armed Services in the world, faced >with bozos that have openly declared "WE WILL BURY YOU!" and people are >to blind to see that we have to maintain a strong defense. The only way I can see that someone can come to the conclusion that we have the no. 3 armed services in the world is through severe brain damage. A great deal is made by anti-Soviet ideologues of Khrushchev's phrase. I don't think the Soviets are sweeties, but if you want to be *rational*, you have to be *honest*, rather than just interpreting everything in a way that satisfies your prejudices. I notice that the people who go into froth mode screaming about what one deposed Soviet Premier said over twenty years ago and interpret it as the guiding political principal of a huge, clumsy bureaucratic nation which has strayed far from its ideological roots, never wonder about the peculiar phrasing. I just recently buried my mother, but it was hardly an act of aggression. The Russian phrase is hardly even idiomatic; if you understand anything at all about Russian culture (unlikely) you will realize that "we will bury you" means we will outlive, outsurvive you. The sentiment seems to be present on both sides; our fearless leaders refer to "the ashheap of history". And talk about "a strong defense" is also rabid ideological frothing at the mouth. First it is necessary to establish a correlation between military spending and defense. If we were spending the money on defensive systems then it might make sense, but even SDI requires, as one of its basic design assumptions, build-down of Soviet offensive weaponry (and, if the Soviets were stupid enough to waste their money on developing their own SDI instead of plowing it into enough offensive weaponry to defeat SDI, then since the best target for an SDI system is another SDI system, we could guarantee nuclear war by providing the incredible temptation to shoot down the opponent's SDI first and fire the missiles with the confidence that the surviving SDI would prevent retaliation). So we should be channeling funds into foolproof verification systems if they are necessary (it appears to me that we already have sufficient means), and then the next time the Soviets offer a comprehensive test ban treaty with verification (and they seem to be making offers like that a lot lately), CALL THEIR BLUFF (if you think it is a bluff). But Reagan and friends do not do so because they do not want disarmament. The public statements of McFarlane, Abrams, Teller and others with vested interests in weapons development, Weinberger, etc. make this clear. The explicit direction of the Pentagon, as driven by presidential directives, is toward winning a nuclear war. This is extremely well documented in the public record (if you have any doubts, read Robert Scheer's excellent book "with Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush & Nuclear War", more than half of which is quotations with sources; of course there will be ad hominem attacks against Scheer or his thesis independent of the actual facts, presented by people with feeble minds). So at least be honest and talk in terms of a strong offense and heavy padding of the pockets of TRW and General Dynamics and infusion of money into the favorite projects of many people on the net, which is the *real* result of military spending. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (11/19/85)
>>If the Sandinistas are so totalitarian, why haven't they killed the new >>leaders of La Prensa? Why haven't they even shut the paper down? > >because if they do so they will be totally isolated from the western world >by loosing the support or sympathy they have from some western countries >and especially the Contadora group and the rest of south america. >you see, whenever someone says "there is no freedom of the press in Nicaragua" >they can say "but look at La Prensa"... You are right, they can say that. Whenever someone says "there is no freedom of the press in Nicaragua" you agree with them simply because you already believe it. Arguments that Nicaragua is a totalitarian regime are based entirely on emphatic assertion, and ridiculous ideological blathering that all governments of a certain form necessarily take a certain course (I heard Kissinger say in his interview with David Frost that it was ok to depose Allende because, not only was he a Marxist, but he was only elected by a plurality). But if you want to know the number of teeth in a horse's mouth, you should get it straight from the horse's mouth. Check with people who have actually *been* to Nicaragua; if you have never spoken to such a person then your comments on the subject are nothing more than stupid knee-jerk reactionary right-wing drone repetitive rantings following a party line. The fact is that it is the U.S. that is totally isolated from world opinion concerning Nicaragua, and that rejects the Contadora process. The main question that we should really be concerned with is, does the U.S. have the right to destroy the government and the people of the sovereign nation of Nicaragua? And even if, incredibly, it is decided that we have the right, we might want to ask whether we should bother, because unlike "other" totalitarian regimes, the Sandinistas have armed not just the army but the *populace*, and those people aren't too keen about being "liberated", so we are likely to have a rather bloody mess on our hands. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/23/85)
RE: Khrushchev's phrase "We will bury you". Jim Balter's interpretation is right: it did not mean "We'll kill you" but "We'll outlive you". Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/24/85)
[Jim Balter (ima!jim)] >The fact is that it is the U.S. that is totally isolated from >world opinion concerning Nicaragua, and that rejects the Conta- >dora process. You are out of date on both points. >The main question that we should really be >concerned with is, does the U.S. have the right to destroy the >government and the people of the sovereign nation of Nicaragua? "Destroy the *people*" - does not deserve an answer. "Destroy the government" ? - Depends on the means employed. Having sold the Nicaraguan people down the river with its aid to the Sandinistas, the US has an OBLIGATION to at least match that with aid to the resistance. Jan Wasilewsky
ashby@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU (11/24/85)
You say you want the story straight from the horse's mouth, from someone who has been to Nicargua? A friend of mine has spent the last two years in Honduras as a Peace Corps volunteer. During this time he has visited Nicargua. Did he find a charming land of freedom and happiness? NO! He reported an armed camp, with few freedoms and rampant paranoia. Does he expect the Sandies to stay around? No. Although they did do a lot for the poor in the beginning, they have ignored them of late. Worse, they have totally alienated the middle class, on which the success of any country is based. Finally, you say that the US has rejected the Contadora process. Obviously you haven't kept up with recent developments. For it is now the Sandanistas who reject that process, and the US which supports it. So, why don't you get YOUR facts right, and quit belly-aching about how bad the US is. Open your eyes to the abuses of the Sandanistas. Or do you agree with what they are doing?
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (11/25/85)
>>The fact is that it is the U.S. that is totally isolated from >>world opinion concerning Nicaragua, and that rejects the Conta- >>dora process. > >You are out of date on both points. You don't say? Elaborate please. >>The main question that we should really be >>concerned with is, does the U.S. have the right to destroy the >>government and the people of the sovereign nation of Nicaragua? > >"Destroy the *people*" - does not deserve an answer. >"Destroy the government" ? - Depends on the means employed. Based upon friends who have been to Nicaragua and people who have been there who I do not know personally but have heard speak or have read testimony from, upon the statements of foreign journalists and politicians, upon the statements of Eden Pastora and other former Contra members, upon statements of members of the U.S. administration, upon published analyses by persons from the right, middle and left, upon consideration of the composition of the Contras, upon their apparent effectiveness, upon the amount of U.S aid and what is being bought with it, I think I can arrive with fairly high probability at a determination of the means being deployed, which would include thousands of civilian deaths, some torture, general harassment of the populace and attempts to undermine the effectiveness of the government and the everyday working of society through the pressures of war, with very strong popular resistance against the Contras and extremely little popular support. Since the Nicaraguan people have been armed by the government, it is difficult for me to see how the Contras could act as a "liberating" force, even if there were any evidence of any significant desire to be liberated. What, pray tell, is your carefully considered, objective analysis? >Having sold the Nicaraguan people down the river with its aid to >the Sandinistas, the US has an OBLIGATION to at least match that >with aid to the resistance. I have already mentioned intellectual honesty. It requires that analysis be objective, based on evidence, and that one's unexamined prejudices be rooted out and questioned. Your statement suggests several questions: What is your evidence that the Nicaraguan government is unusually bad as governments go? What is your evidence that it is worse than under Samoza? What is your evidence that the Nicaraguan people do not support their government? That they are unhappy about any help they might have gotten from the U.S. to depose Samoza? That they favor the Contras? That they want the U.S. to help the Contras? That the Contras are a representative resistance? What is your knowledge of the composition of the Contras? Of their basing mode? Of their structure? Their leadership? What does our aid buy? How is it channeled to the Contras? Are the interactions between the Contras and the U.S. legal in terms of U.S. and/or international law? What are your figures for the amount of aid given to the Sandinistas? To the Contras? How much more aid to the Contras would it take to "match" that given to the Sandinistas? You say "at least match"; would you prefer to exceed? If so, why (objective analysis)? By how much? What is your legal or moral justification for supporting the violent overthrow or disruption of another sovereign nation? In just what way are we obligated? Are U.S. interests better served? By what concrete measures? What are your figures for deaths to date in Nicaragua due to the resistance? What are the anticipated deaths? How long is the conflict likely to last? With what likely outcome or outcomes? What will be the long-term economic costs to Nicaragua? If the Contras win, what will be the concrete effects on the mortality rate, literacy rate, homicide rate, rape rate, level of drug and alcohol abuse, level of prostitution, domestic violence, freedom of the press and the church, land and food distribution? Do you have figures on their current status? Have you examined the Vietnam experience for possible parallels and lessons that might be applied to Nicaragua? Since you claim that you are intellectually honest and thus come to your conclusions based upon unbiased analysis and evidence and not mere ideology and unexamined prejudice, and since you are advocating continued material support of violent attacks on a sovereign nation, a course not lightly taken, I think it is reasonable to expect you to be able to answer most of these questions and be prepared to investigate all of them in an objective fashion as support for the position you have taken. Of course, I don't really believe that you have honestly considered these questions or would be willing to honestly examine them. Instead you produce catchy little slogans like the one above, littered with dishonesty, and making no reference to the degradation and death of real human beings that such policies can produce. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
gil@cornell.UUCP (Gil Neiger) (11/25/85)
In article <13700029@uiucdcsp> ashby@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU writes: >You say you want the story straight from the horse's mouth, >from someone who has been to Nicargua? A friend of mine has >spent the last two years in Honduras as a Peace Corps volunteer. >During this time he has visited Nicargua. Did he find a charming >land of freedom and happiness? NO! He reported an armed camp, >with few freedoms and rampant paranoia. I was in Nicaragua this year and although I can't say I found it a land of complete happiness, it certainly did not appear to be an "armed camp." If your friend came in through the Honduran border (where the war is going on), that may explain why he found it quite different. >Does he expect the Sandies to stay around? No. Although they >did do a lot for the poor in the beginning, they have ignored >them of late. Worse, they have totally alienated the middle >class, on which the success of any country is based. It is true that the Sandinistas have not been doing as much for the poor as they did immediately following the revolution. This is largely because Nicaragua is now fighting a war of survival (a fact forgotten by many of the Sandinistas' critics) and some 60% of the government budget goes to defense. The working class of Nicaragua complain now because such things as the right to strike have been suspended. Much of the renewed suffering on the part of the working class is could be avoided if the Sandinistas did not want to avoid totally alienating the middle and upper classes, which has not, contrary to what you say, happened yet. >Finally, you say that the US has rejected the Contadora process. >Obviously you haven't kept up with recent developments. For it >is now the Sandanistas who reject that process, and the US which >supports it. What are your recent developments? There is a Contadora draft treaty that the Sandinistas have stated their willingness to sign. The U.S. has indicated no interested in Contadora in quite some time. The Contadora countries, realizing the intransigence of the U.S. have stated that they will suspend the Contadora process at the end of this month is no new progress is made. A key point is the presence of foreign military advisors. The Contadora treaty draft would prohibit them in Central America. Nicaragua says it is willing to remove all such advisors from Nicaragua. The U.S. and nations such as El Salvador refuse to sign the treaty as long as it they point remains in it. Furthermore, a few years ago the U.S. unilaterally suspended the bilateral talks with Nicaragua that it was holding in Manzanillo, Mexico. Nicaragua has repeatedly stated its desire to continue such talks. The U.S. refuses. >So, why don't you get YOUR facts right, and quit belly-aching about >how bad the US is. Open your eyes to the abuses of the Sandanistas. >Or do you agree with what they are doing? I feel that the Nicaraguan government, which is what the Sandinistas are, has a right to defend the country, difficult as that may be. It is unfortunate that they have suspended civil rights in the course of doing so. I do not agree with all of their policies. However, if a person can see all the events occurring inside of Nicaragua solely as the result of the Sandinistas pursuing their own goals and can see no U.S. culpability there, then that person needs to open their eyes. -- Gil Neiger Computer Science Department Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853 {uw-beaver,ihnp4,decvax,vax135}!cornell!gil (UUCP) gil@Cornell.ARPA (ARPAnet) ; gil@CRNLCS (BITNET)
@amd.UUCP (11/26/85)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 15-NOV-1985 15:01--------------------- I know I might be getting a little picky here but when has there been a Communist agrian revolution. This in itself is a contridiction. Marx was fiercely anti-peasent he felt they were to conservative and stupid to be of any good. People neither China nor the Soviet Union no matter what they say are communist. Both governments act in much the same way as the governments that were overthrown. I am only attacking terms here. Please be careful. Brian Mahoney
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (11/26/85)
> Having sold the Nicaraguan people down the river with its aid to > the Sandinistas, the US has an OBLIGATION to at least match that > with aid to the resistance. > > Jan Wasilewsky I hope someone has some verifiable figures handy. The Carter administration committed a few million to the Sandinista regime shortly after they took power, partly in recognition of the fact that "our son-of-a-bitch" Tacho Somoza and his pals had looted most of the Nicaraguan treasury on their way out of town, and partly in an effort to retain some degree of influence in Nicaragua. I do not believe that very much aid was actually delivered. I would be suprised if the U.S. has not already spent more on the Contras, but given the CIA's accounting methods, it would be hard to get accurate numbers. At the time that the aid was offered, there were still significant democratic and nationalist factions within the Sandinista directorate. Offering aid in an attempt to strengthen their position was both morally and realistically a reasonable thing to do. I fail to see how doing so "sold the Nicaraguan people down the river", when the Sandinistas were already in power and indeed were at the peak of their popularity. People of a Manichean bent will doubtless take this as an endorsement of the Sandinista regime. They will be mistaken. Baba
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/27/85)
[-- Jim Balter (ima!jim)] >>>The fact is that it is the U.S. that is totally isolated from >>>world opinion concerning Nicaragua, and that rejects the Conta- >>>dora process. >>You are out of date on both points. >You don't say? Elaborate please. US government had some initial hesitation about the Contadora process; then it decided to endorse it. It has been officially supporting it now for years. You are a genuine Rip van Winkle. The isolation of US on the Nicaraguan issue ended later than that. But it did end. --In Europe, the press - left, center and right of center - used to be very critical of USA on this issue. Now (judging from stray issues of several periodicals), centrist and right-of-center press is more critical of Nicaragua than the USA. That change occurred even before Oct 15 decrees, though they clinched it. (BTW, right-left axis here concerns foreign policy, so that, e.g. Mitterand is not on the left). --In Latin America: I've not been looking at their press (one of these days I really should) - but who do you think supported the Con- tras through the year when the funds were cut by Congress ? Un- named Latin American sources. Unofficial position of many people there is very different from their speeches. --Ortega had a *very* cold reception at that last UN session. --Finally - just happened to read in today's (Nov 26) NY Times an article by a liberal democratic congressman. It is entitled: Bridging the Gap With Nicaragua. The content corresponds to the title: as you can see, his position is much nearer yours than mine. He argues thus: >We have nothing to lose; perhaps the Sandinistas are now >ready to deal. Mr Ortega surely must recognize that Nicaragua >is growing more and more isolated... Obviously, on the Nicaraguan issue, USA isolation and Nicaragua isolation are inversely related ... (BTW, I see nothing wrong in checking if Ortega is ready to deal. Any deal, though, should include power sharing and cutting ties with Havana and Moscow). (Also BTW, I could never understand all the fuss about Ortega's trip to Moscow - there is some in that article, too. And, since it doesn't impress me, I never made it an argument for others). Jan Wasilewsky
nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/27/85)
How remarkably unpleasant: >/* Written 4:50 am Nov 25, 1985 by jim@ISM780B in inmet:net.politics */ >.... >I have already mentioned intellectual honesty. It requires that analysis be >objective, based on evidence, and that one's unexamined prejudices be rooted >out and questioned. Your statement suggests several questions: [42 or so (I counted but not carefully) questions about Nicaragua omitted, some of which were quite specific -nrh] >Since you claim that you are intellectually honest and thus come >to your conclusions based upon unbiased analysis and evidence and not mere >ideology and unexamined prejudice, and since you are advocating continued >material support of violent attacks on a sovereign nation, a course not >lightly taken, I think it is reasonable to expect you to be able to answer >most of these questions and be prepared to investigate all of them in an >objective fashion as support for the position you have taken. Oh *I* get it! Jan is not intellectually honest if he advocates something on the best information he has! Of COURSE! Isn't this more than a little silly, Jim? You're accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty because he doesn't know information that I doubt you know, but holds opinions different from yours. Jan WOULD be intellectually dishonest if he were deliberately ignoring some fact, but not if he fails to dig it out (he may have other things to do). The interesting thing about aid to the contras is that I think you're quite right -- aid to other governments or movements by our GOVERNMENT should not be lightly undertaken (actually, I doubt it should *ever* be undertaken, but that's another story), but I'll bet there are a LOT of things our government does with LESS information (at a guess, funding primary education for poor children, or requiring utilities to provide service to the destitute) that you ARE in favor of. Sauce for the goose -- sauce for the gander: TAXING people should not be lightly undertaken either, but I don't hear you coming out and arguing against it when it is for causes that you (with limited information, no doubt) like. >Of course, I don't really believe that you have honestly considered these >questions or would be willing to honestly examine them. Keep calm, but one way to help Jan examine them would be to post your own answers to ALL those questions. Since a great many of them dealt with contingencies, I suspect you won't be able to answer all of them with anything like authority. Is it intellectually honest of you to require answers of the opposing side that can't be tested? >Instead you >produce catchy little slogans like the one above, littered with dishonesty, >and making no reference to the degradation and death of real human beings >that such policies can produce. I've heard no reference by you to the forced relocation of the aborigines in Nicaragua, perhaps I wasn't listening. Nor, have I heard you mention the suspension of civil liberties. Again, perhaps I didn't notice, and again, if you didn't mention these things: Sauce for the goose..... The subject WASN'T "degradation and death", so Jan wasn't obligated to mention it. Perhaps there's MORE "degradation and death" under the current government than there would be under the Contras. You have some way of knowing that we don't (perhaps you have some way of quantifying "degradation")?
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/28/85)
[Brian Mahoney ucla-cs@decwrl] >I know I might be getting a little picky here but when has there been >a Communist agrian revolution. This in itself is a contridiction. Marx >was fiercely anti-peasent he felt they were to conservative and stupid >to be of any good. People neither China nor the Soviet Union no matter >what they say are communist. Both governments act in much the same way >as the governments that were overthrown. I am only attacking terms >here. Please be careful. I think your statement concerns substance, not just terms, and on *substance* you right. It is that 20th century Communists are not true followers of Marx. He *did* fiercely (the word fits the old guy well) believe in progress and that the maximum progress of capitalism would lead to his kind of socialism. He had little use for underdeveloped countries, or peasants. As for who has the best title to the word "Communist", it is a long story. The name had fallen into disuse when Lenin revived it. I just use the usual names. E.g., Republicans are no more or less republican than are Democrats. But if you come up with a good name for people like Mao and Castro, I am open to suggestions. I do not agree, though, that the Soviet and Chinese governments act much like the ones they replaced. Again, it is a long story. And much of the past creeps back in strange ways. But the system of government and just everyday life has changed dramatically - and not only over the years, but very soon. Then they kept changing. Jan Wasilewsky
jim@ISM780.UUCP (11/28/85)
>Oh *I* get it! Jan is not intellectually honest if he advocates >something on the best information he has! Of COURSE! Isn't this >more than a little silly, Jim? You're accusing someone of intellectual >dishonesty because he doesn't know information that I doubt you know, but >holds opinions different from yours. Jan WOULD be intellectually dishonest >if he were deliberately ignoring some fact, but not if he fails to dig >it out (he may have other things to do). Most of the questions asked pertained directly to support of Jan's position. Taking such a position without having the facts to support it, that is taking a position based on unsupported bias, is I think reasonably labeled intellectually dishonest. I call on Jan to support his position *with facts* that we have an *obligation* to support the resistance. >The interesting thing about aid to the contras is that I think you're >quite right -- aid to other governments or movements by our GOVERNMENT >should not be lightly undertaken (actually, I doubt it should *ever* >be undertaken, but that's another story), but I'll bet there are a LOT >of things our government does with LESS information (at a guess, >funding primary education for poor children, or requiring utilities to >provide service to the destitute) that you ARE in favor of. Sauce for >the goose -- sauce for the gander: TAXING people should not be lightly >undertaken either, but I don't hear you coming out and arguing against >it when it is for causes that you (with limited information, no doubt) >like. How the hell do you know what I am in favor of, or what I know? Now you are surely being intellectually dishonest, arguing against a strawman. Why would you want me to argue against taxes when you don't think I have enough information to argue for them? From my *values*, not from information, I favor children being educated, even if it means they grow up to build bombs to destroy us, I favor the destitute not starving or freezing to death even if it means increasing the chances of having my throat slit, and I favor a society with good roads, maintained buildings, and a healthy environment with preserved natural habitats, even if it means fewer of the technological toys I love. I am quite open to possible ways to achieve these ends. I am well aware of a wide range of weaknesses in the ways these things are being done. I can see what the effects of the current policies are; if someone offers a different solution, I certainly wouldn't reject it, but I would ask for analysis before *supporting* it. I am familiar with libertarian arguments and am willing to respond to them. I refuse to take a position without being willing to defend it. And I demand the same of others. >>Of course, I don't really believe that you have honestly considered these >>questions or would be willing to honestly examine them. >Keep calm, but one way to help Jan examine them would be to >post your own answers to ALL those questions. Since a great many of them >dealt with contingencies, I suspect you won't be able to answer all >of them with anything like authority. Is it intellectually honest of >you to require answers of the opposing side that can't be tested? I require answers that must be available before a claim can be made. Jan believes we have an obligation to right our wrongs. Fine. But to claim we sold the Nicaraguans down the river needs substantiation; the claim that we have an obligation to support the resistance requires evidence that that would right the wrong, and the claim that we are obligated to continue supporting the Contras until the previous aid is "matched" needs info about such aid unless Jan is willing to concede that we may have already matched it. My belief is that we have no right to interfere Nicaragua's internals, without extreme justification. I read World Press Review, Foreign Affairs, Newsweek, Time, L.A. Times, N.Y. Times, National Review, Conservative Digest, The Plain Truth, In These Times, Mother Jones, The Realist, The UTNE Reader, The Covert Information Bulletin, the academic and popular press, and a lot of other junk. Some of this material provides sources and cross-references and analysis from a variety of perspectives, and some does not. I have some evaluation of what is reliable, based on such correlation. I do not believe that every Sandinista is a wonderful human being. I do not believe they are not without fault. But I am familiar with the history of the Miskitos, the Chamorros, the attitude of the Nicaraguans to the U.S. and v.v., Ortega's public gestures and statements re conciliation with the U.S., , the Honduran involvement, the international evaluation of the Nic. elections, the history of the opposition parties and their treatment, the events of the Pope's visit and politics of the conflict between the papacy and the Nicaraguan conservative and liberal church, the history of the Samoza family, the history of Eden Pastora and the Contras in general, the effects of the war on Nicaragua, the U.S. State Department position on Nicaraguan arms shipments to El Salvadoran rebels and its basis, the history and degree of suspension of rights, and a whole lot more. I would like to know what *evidence* there is to support the idea that U.S. behavior is *justified*, or even that the Nicaraguan *people* favor it, since, as much as I have searched, I cannot find any such evidence in the liturature. I hear things like "it is an armed camp, and they censor La Prensa", but my response is, why is that sufficient justification for supporting violence against them, especially when it is not for apparently much more violent regimes (elsewhere or the Samozas), and why isn't that seen as the Nic. government's response to the attack? It isn't necessary for it to be a *reasonable* or *justifiable* response. We attack them so they go overboard so that *justifies* the original attack as well as hitting them harder? What justified our support of the Contras *in the first place*? Reagan said we didn't want to overthrow them, just pressure them to reach agreement with us. Is that sufficient reason to support guerrilla aggression? And it assumes that Nicaragua made no attempt at reconciliation, *but the record clearly shows otherwise*. So the State Department said that was just a show and they weren't serious; is that sufficient to attack? What would Nicaragua have had to do to pass our judgement? "Stop supplying arms to El Salvadoran rebels". But did the U.S. provide any means by which such stoppage could be verified? Has the State Department offered solid evidence that such shipments occur? Many parties have serious substantive, questions about the validity of documents the State Department offered as evidence that El Salvador was being supplied. If you are not willing to *assume* that the State Department would never dissemble, then the possibility that the U.S. demanded that the Nicaraguans stop doing something they never did in the first place becomes very real *in light of the evidence*, and very plausible in terms of a U.S. foreign policy in opposition to Nicaragua (for whatever reason). Are you willing to even *consider* this possibility? Intellectual honesty requires that you do. In any case, is attacking Nicaragua a reasonable approach? You have to at the very least make a lot of assumptions about the war in El Salvador, which is a whole other can of worms. It is all predicated on the assumption that who Jeanne Kirkpatrick says are the bad guys are the bad guys. But I've read her works, and I know where she is coming from. I'll base my opinions on the *facts*. >>Instead you >>produce catchy little slogans like the one above, littered with dishonesty, >>and making no reference to the degradation and death of real human beings >>that such policies can produce. > >I've heard no reference by you to the forced relocation of the aborigines >in Nicaragua, perhaps I wasn't listening. Nor, have I heard you mention >the suspension of civil liberties. Again, perhaps I didn't notice, and >again, if you didn't mention these things: Sauce for the goose..... Mention them as support for *what*? Have I denied them? Am I unaware of them? Do you hold that they are sufficient reason to support the Contras? Does that help alleviate the suspension or prevent a recurrence of the relocation? How can such support do anything but make it worse, up until (and not unlikely past) either cessation of the support or overthrow of the Sandinistas? Maybe it isn't intellectual dishonesty, maybe it is just an unfamiliarity the forms of logical connection. What statement would you have liked me to make? That we shouldn't support the Contras because those things did not happen? But that isn't my position, is it? Please answer this! One of us is making a rhetorical error somewhere. It it is me, show me how. I am almost certain I understand you position. It is that the world is black and white. Jan is against the Nicaraguans. I disagree with him, so I must be for them. Since I am for them, I must favor everything they have ever done. I cannot see how else you could reach your sauce for the goose statement otherwise. >The subject WASN'T "degradation and death", so Jan wasn't obligated to >mention it. Perhaps there's MORE "degradation and death" under the >current government than there would be under the Contras. You have >some way of knowing that we don't (perhaps you have some way of >quantifying "degradation")? The point is the degradation and death at the hands of the Contras *now*. That *is* the subject; Jan favors support of people who are shooting and blowing things up. That means death and degradation. Some of such is documented. Even if you are not familiar with the documentation, you can reasonably assume that there is *some*, can you not? What *evidence* of such death at the hands of the Sandinistas can you show? I understand that people who have a certain view of the Sandinistas *expect* such, but my whole point is that the *view* is not *substantiated*. And if there is such killing at the hands of the Sandinistas, it is only on top of that of the Contras, isn't it? And there would be more so by the Sandinistas being under fire, wouldn't there? And it wouldn't *lessen* until the Sandinistas were overthrown and Nicaragua was "under the Contras", would it? Which implies that overthrow is the goal, doesn't it? Not just matching aid, or supporting the Contadora process. And the Sandinistas would fight back all over again, wouldn't they? Now, what did I say? >>and making no reference to the degradation and death of real human beings >>that such policies can produce. ^^^ They can, can't they? Of course I can't see into the crystal ball, although I might have some suspicions based on the previous behavior of the national guard who are among the Contras. But all I said was, if Jan is going to *advocate* such policies, *he* has an obligation to consider the likely consequences. It isn't enough to say, if we don't support the Contras the Sandinistas *might* kill more people without some sort of analysis that they in fact would, and that there are not in fact other ways to avoid such a situation, like perhaps establishing economic and diplomatic relationships and making them a full-fledged ally. I have never seen any reason whatsover to think that the Nicaraguans are so foolish as to think that they would be better off with the Soviets, and I welcome such evidence. Simply asserting that they are Marxists or whatever doesn't cut it. Ortega's visits to the U.S. and his public statements requesting an alliance with the U.S. are part of the public record; *that* is evidence. It isn't sufficient evidence; it isn't conclusive; it isn't unbiased; but I suspect it is better than what you have. To be honest, while at some level of course it angers me, I thank you and Jan for challenging me eliciting my responses. While it may not affect either of you, I hope that it will lead at least a couple of people to *think* about the issues more and maybe even *investigate* them further themselves. Also, hopefully it will lead to new information for me. If there is *evidence* to support the contention that supporting the Contras will lead to desirable ends and that it is justified in terms of U.S. and international law and/or moral principles that I would be willing to accept, I would be very interested in hearing about it. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/29/85)
[baba@spar] >> Having sold the Nicaraguan people down the river with its aid to >> the Sandinistas, the US has an OBLIGATION to at least match that >> with aid to the resistance. >I hope someone has some verifiable figures handy. The Carter ad- >ministration committed a few million to the Sandinista regime >shortly after they took power ... I hope so too. More than $100 million is the figure I recall. And then there was international aid endorsed by USA. >At the time that the aid was offered, there were still significant democratic >and nationalist factions within the Sandinista directorate. Offering aid >in an attempt to strengthen their position was both morally and realistically >a reasonable thing to do. I fail to see how doing so "sold the Nicaraguan >people down the river", when the Sandinistas were already in power and >indeed were at the peak of their popularity. I have no doubt it was an honest mistake. Therefore, "sold down the river" is a harsh expression. This was a one-liner in response to some flaming rhetoric, not a dissertation. However, if it *was* a mistake that strengthened, not the democratic fac- tions, but the totalitarian core, and gave a push down the slip- pery slope of totalitarianism,- *if* this opinion of mine is true - the moral obligation is there. >People of a Manichean bent will doubtless take this as an endorsement of >the Sandinista regime. They will be mistaken. I hope you don't mean me. I detest Manichaeanism. I see much good not just in nice pink moderates like you but often in the most flaming reds. In fact, my maternal grandfather was a close col- laborator of Lenin and among the 20 men who voted to make the disastrous Revolution. He was a decent guy, and I can prove it. So was (I think) Albert Speer, a close collaborator of Hitler. Human affairs are complex. Still, some *systems* are much worse than others. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/29/85)
[ Gil Neiger gil@cornell] >>Inadequate as it (La Prensa) is, it is >>the *only* outlet for unofficial, non-servile information and >>views. The authorities don't kill it outright, probably, for the >>same reason - it serves as a safety valve. >Is this the reason that President Reagan allows what little oppposition >there is to him in the U.S. press? To serve as a safety valve? It >just might be the case that he believes in freedom of the press, as do >the Sandinistas. He probably does, but that is not the *good* reason why he doesn't clamp down on the press - not the reason acceptable to you and me. You wouldn't like to be at the mercy of his whim, would you ? The good reason is that he *can't*. Think of Presidents Johnson and Nixon, driven from power they loved so much, by hostile press. You may be sure they felt the press was unfair and subversive. They were sorely tempted - if they only could ! *That* reason is absent in Nicaragua. Goodness of Sandinista intentions is less important (road to hell and all that...). You seem to believe in it; I don't. (1)They call themselves Leninist; Lenin scorned press freedom as a bourgeois superstition; he finished it off in the first days of his rule. (2)If I am not mistaken, La Prensa censorship precedes any serious military pressure. (3)Finally, the censorship is universal, not just military (*that* could be justified *now*). So it looks like a combination of bad intentions (less important) and absolute power. True, *safety valve* isn't the only reason. There is also the *showcase* reason, for foreigners. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/29/85)
>[Jim Balter and Nat Howard arguing about "intellectual honesty"] Jim : Your argument with Nat, is, of course, none of my business(:-)), but one part arrested my attention. It was your very impressive list of sources which you read on Nicaragua. A veritable MOUNTAIN of material. This puts some of your past *misstatements of fact* in a quite *new* perspective. As: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >The fact is that it is the U.S. ... that rejects the Contadora process. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Now that is a BASIC non-fact, like Nicaragua bordering China. I responded to it mildly before, because I thought you were ignorant of the situation. Of course you shouldn't have said emphatically =The fact is= ; but all you owed us was an apology and a retraction. Now that I know HOW MUCH you know, - *what am I to think* ? Now someone with your *prosecutorial* cast of mind would have launched an investigation: how much did J. B. know, and when did he know it ? I'd rather jump to the kindest (and really the most probable) explanation: There must be a MOUNTAIN of a BIAS to screen from you that moun- tain of material. To let you notice only the facts you like. So, in addition to apology and retraction which you owe others, it seems you owe yourself a revision of your working methods. And, until it's complete, to disqualify yourself from judgements on "intellectual honesty". (I always skip them, anyway, in your oth- erwise interesting notes). Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/29/85)
Correction and apology: >>I hope you don't mean me. I detest Manichaeanism. I see much good >>not just in nice pink moderates like you but often in the most On re-reading, I don't like this "like you". It seems to pigeon- hole you in a quite undeserved fashion. This is not Manichaeanism, but it is another fallacy. I don't do that often.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (11/29/85)
>/* Written 7:25 am Nov 28, 1985 by jim@ISM780 in inmet:net.politics */ >>Oh *I* get it! Jan is not intellectually honest if he advocates >>something on the best information he has! Of COURSE! Isn't this >>more than a little silly, Jim? You're accusing someone of intellectual >>dishonesty because he doesn't know information that I doubt you know, but >>holds opinions different from yours. Jan WOULD be intellectually dishonest >>if he were deliberately ignoring some fact, but not if he fails to dig >>it out (he may have other things to do). > >Most of the questions asked pertained directly to support of Jan's position. >Taking such a position without having the facts to support it, >that is taking a position based on unsupported bias, is I think reasonably >labeled intellectually dishonest. I call on Jan to support his position >*with facts* that we have an *obligation* to support the resistance. But he's NOT taking a position without facts -- he's taking a position without (as he concedes you have) a "mountain" of facts. >>The interesting thing about aid to the contras is that I think you're >>quite right -- aid to other governments or movements by our GOVERNMENT >>should not be lightly undertaken (actually, I doubt it should *ever* >>be undertaken, but that's another story), but I'll bet there are a LOT >>of things our government does with LESS information (at a guess, >>funding primary education for poor children, or requiring utilities to >>provide service to the destitute) that you ARE in favor of. Sauce for >>the goose -- sauce for the gander: TAXING people should not be lightly >>undertaken either, but I don't hear you coming out and arguing against >>it when it is for causes that you (with limited information, no doubt) >>like. > >How the hell do you know what I am in favor of, or what I know? I don't! I phrased it as a bet and a guess for this very reason! >Now you are surely being intellectually dishonest, arguing against a strawman. It's even more vaporous than that! I'm arguing against a hypothesis, against a guess, for purposes of illustration. >Why would you want me to argue against taxes when you don't think I have >enough information to argue for them? Because if your point is that if you don't know enough you shouldn't support positions, then it seems to me to be only consistent to agree that if you don't know enough you shouldn't vote for taxation. >From my *values*, not from information, >I favor children being educated, even if it means they grow up to build bombs >to destroy us, I favor the destitute not starving or freezing to death >even if it means increasing the chances of having my throat slit, >and I favor a society with good roads, maintained buildings, >and a healthy environment with preserved natural habitats, even if >it means fewer of the technological toys I love. I am quite open >to possible ways to achieve these ends. I am well aware of a >wide range of weaknesses in the ways these things are being done. >I can see what the effects of the current policies are; if >someone offers a different solution, I certainly wouldn't reject >it, but I would ask for analysis before *supporting* it. I am >familiar with libertarian arguments and am willing to respond to >them. I refuse to take a position without being willing to >defend it. And I demand the same of others. Check -- I'm glad to hear it. But have you ever VOTED for any of these things being done by the state? (It is not, of course, my place to monitor the voting -- the question is rhetorical) It would seem to me that this would constitute taking a position to about the same extent Jan did. Jan offered an opinion on netnews. *IF* you voted for any of these things (and I don't say you did) then you bolstered a government solution to one of the social problems involved. Now it may well be the case that you NEVER voted for any of these things, or did so not agreeing that a vote constitutes "taking a stand". I'm using you as a sort of rhetorical backboard here, merely to point out that IF intellectual honesty should prevent one from taking any stands one cannot support with documentation and analysis, AND voting may fairly be construed as "taking a position", THEN voting for such an issue as a school levy without a thorough understanding of (say) 42 or so linked questions about schooling, the economy, the makeup of the schools (teacher, parent, and administrators) is intellectually dishonest according to the criterion of being unable to support a position you've taken. >>>Of course, I don't really believe that you have honestly considered these >>>questions or would be willing to honestly examine them. > >>Keep calm, but one way to help Jan examine them would be to >>post your own answers to ALL those questions. Since a great many of them >>dealt with contingencies, I suspect you won't be able to answer all >>of them with anything like authority. Is it intellectually honest of >>you to require answers of the opposing side that can't be tested? > I'll leave you and Jan to the intricacies of Nicaraguan affairs now; my real interest is in the issue of intellectual honesty (and Mom and apple pie!) in "net.politics*". Just to answer briefly other points you make, but which are intertwined with the Nicaraguan discussion: It's quite proper to require that facts be known before a claim can be made, but, for example, "to claim we sold the Nicaraguans down the river needs substantiation" is true enough, but non-quantitative. You'll certainly find men of good will who will disagree on definitions. Congratulations, by the way, on all your reading! I could never keep up! Do you REALLY read those things as often as they come out (you didn't say how often, but wouldn't that be the implication?)? Impressive! Oh yes -- >>>Instead you >>>produce catchy little slogans like the one above, littered with dishonesty, >>>and making no reference to the degradation and death of real human beings >>>that such policies can produce. >> >>I've heard no reference by you to the forced relocation of the aborigines >>in Nicaragua, perhaps I wasn't listening. Nor, have I heard you mention >>the suspension of civil liberties. Again, perhaps I didn't notice, and >>again, if you didn't mention these things: Sauce for the goose..... > >Mention them as support for *what*? Have I denied them? Am I unaware of >them? Do you hold that they are sufficient reason to support the Contras? Not at all! But your point is that Jan "made no reference to the degradation and death of real human beings" that supporting the contras can produce. I've seen YOU make no reference to the degradation and death that forced relocation and suspension of human rights can produce, so why should Jan make reference to similar things that "may" occur if the Contras are supported. My point is that you've no right to insist Jan do it if you've failed to do it (unless you're offering him a trade?) >Does that help alleviate the suspension or prevent a recurrence of the >relocation? How can such support do anything but make it worse, up until >(and not unlikely past) either cessation of the support or overthrow of the >Sandinistas? NOT my point at all! You implied that Jan should be doing something YOU haven't been doing (making reference to the degradation and death of real human beings....) and I am merely pointing out that YOU haven't done this. >Maybe it isn't intellectual dishonesty, maybe it is just an >unfamiliarity the forms of logical connection. What statement would you have >liked me to make? That we shouldn't support the Contras because those things >did not happen? But that isn't my position, is it? Please answer this! One >of us is making a rhetorical error somewhere. It it is me, show me how. I think it is you, but I don't think you did it out of intellectual dishonesty, but out of carelessness. Jan didn't make reference to the "degradation and death" associated with supporting the contras, but YOU didn't make any such reference to the "degradation and death" brought about by their opponents. >I >am almost certain I understand you position. It is that the world is black >and white. Jan is against the Nicaraguans. I disagree with him, so I must >be for them. Since I am for them, I must favor everything they have ever >done. I cannot see how else you could reach your sauce for the goose >statement otherwise. Interesting. I've already stated that I'm against any government intervention for or against the Contras. (I think the repeal of the Logan Act would be fun, so that US citizens could support whomever they chose). As I've explained above, it seems to me to be inconsistent of you to demand that Jan talk about degradation and death unless you're willing to do this also. I assume you are (as I say, I suspect this to be an error rather than anything else) but you HAVEN'T, so it seems to me to be strange that you refer to Jan's lack of such discussion as if it were bad because it didn't talk about degradation and death. >>The subject WASN'T "degradation and death", so Jan wasn't obligated to >>mention it. Perhaps there's MORE "degradation and death" under the >>current government than there would be under the Contras. You have >>some way of knowing that we don't (perhaps you have some way of >>quantifying "degradation")? > >The point is the degradation and death at the hands of the Contras *now*. >That *is* the subject; Jan favors support of people who are shooting >and blowing things up. That means death and degradation. Some of >such is documented. Even if you are not familiar with the documentation, >you can reasonably assume that there is *some*, can you not? Sure! So tell me, have the Sandinistas NOT done this? >What *evidence* of such death at the hands of the Sandinistas can you show? Let's not forget "Degradation". The Sandinistas have suspended civil rights, and forcibly relocated some aborigines. They have forcibly censored the press, and I vaguely recall reading that violence was used in various of these actions. Certainly degradation has resulted. If you are CLAIMING that all this stuff was done without any degradation or death, then I'm fascinated (I won't ask you to prove a negative, simply to state that "I've read all this stuff I claim to read, and found not ONE reasonably substantiated death").
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (11/30/85)
>He probably does, but that is not the *good* reason why he doesn't >clamp down on the press - not the reason acceptable to you >and me. You wouldn't like to be at the mercy of his whim, would >you ? The good reason is that he *can't*. Think of Presidents >Johnson and Nixon, driven from power they loved so much, by >hostile press. You may be sure they felt the press was unfair >and subversive. They were sorely tempted - if they only could ! I won't argue that a president could simply eliminate the press if he wanted to, but it seems to me that Watergate, Congress, public opinion, had something to do with Nixon leaving office. And to apply the statement to Johnson is rather simplistic too, it seems to me. >(1)They call themselves Leninist; >Lenin scorned press freedom as a bourgeois superstition; he finished >it off in the first days of his rule. Guilt by association and simplification. Certainly many Sandinistas call themselves Marxists; do you have documentation of them calling themselves Leninists? (Surely you don't equate the two, do you?) Even if they do, do they have the same tastes in food as Lenin? Do the Sandinista priests have the same attitude toward religion as Marx or Lenin? I consider Einstein a personal idol, and I agree with much of what he said, but it doesn't include his views on quantum mechanics or his apologies for Stalinism. La Prensa printed quite freely at first, and is still in business, so the Sandinistas differ at least in degree from Lenin. Judge the Sandinistas by the evidence you have about the Sandinistas, not through guilt by association. You can imagine what label I apply to that technique. >(2)If I am not mistaken, >La Prensa censorship precedes any serious military pressure. You may be mistaken. Can you document it? If you do, be sure to include what was censored. Many nations in the "Free World" censor their press to some degree, but we don't try to overthrow them. In the U.S., printing pictures of mutilated bodies over articles about U.S. officials is not generally tolerated. Do you apply the same standards to the Sandinistas as you do to everyone else? If not, why not? >(3)Finally, the censorship is universal, not just military (*that* >could be justified *now*). Do you mean universal to subjects that La Prensa covers, or universal throughout Nicaragua? If the latter, can you document the claim? Please clarify. >So it looks like a combination of bad >intentions (less important) and absolute power. There is no absolute power. They are not absolutely powerful against the U.S., nor are they absolutely powerful against dissention and eventual resistance. However, I grant that it can come pretty close; an example we can certainly agree on is the Ayatollah's Iran. But unlike you I don't believe this view of power of the Sandinistas follows from the evidence. >True, *safety valve* isn't the only reason. There is also the >*showcase* reason, for foreigners. I agree that, regardless of the Sandinista's goodness/badness, keeping La Prensa running positively affects their image. But that seems to me pretty small compared to the negative effects on PR of the shutdowns and of the state of emergency in general. It seems almost as though you are using the fact that they *do* keep La Prensa running as evidence that they are villains. It feels a whole lot like a hostile bias against the government and a friendly bias to La Prensa. It seems to me that there is a causal relationship between what La Prensa prints and the government's actions towards them. Only a detailed examination of that relationship can possibly yield any truth about the motivations involved. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (11/30/85)
>/* Written 6:25 pm Nov 28, 1985 by janw@inmet in ISM780B:net.politics */ >[baba@spar] >>> Having sold the Nicaraguan people down the river with its aid to >>> the Sandinistas, the US has an OBLIGATION to at least match that >>> with aid to the resistance. > >>I hope someone has some verifiable figures handy. The Carter ad- >>ministration committed a few million to the Sandinista regime >>shortly after they took power ... > >I hope so too. More than $100 million is the figure I recall. >And then there was international aid endorsed by USA. Here are some facts from "Counterrevolution in Nicaragua: the U.S. Connection" in _The Nicaragua Reader_ by Peter Rosset and John Vandermeer, Grove Press, 1983: In later 1979 and early 1980, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs held hearings on Carter's plan to give Nicaragua $75 million in postwar aid, with the main arguments against coming from Dr. Cleto Di Giovanni, a former CIA operative who later wrote the "Di Giovanni" or "Heritage Foundation Report" which is widely viewed as the original blueprint for Reagan administration policy toward Nicaragua. But the pro arguments from Viron Vaky, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, and AID (Agency for International Development), won out. The package consisted of $70 million in long-term, low-interest loans, and a $5 million grant. The AID director for Nicaragua testified that 60%, or about $45 million, would be "made available to private sector enterprises for the purposes of importing equipment, raw materials, farm machinery, and so forth from the United States"--that is, as export subsidies to U.S. companies. The remaining loan money would be channeled by the Central Bank "into various construction and agricultural projects throughout the country". The $5 million grant provided scholarships, technical and financial assistance to family cooperatives, a grant to the Social Action Committee of the Moravian Church for assistance to the Miskitu Indians, and similar programs to build up groups friendly to the U.S. The final part of the AID package was a "publicity campaign": "Extensive publicity will be given to the program loan and the activities it will finance. In addition to television, radio, and press coverage of the basic loan agreement, there will be similar coverage of sus-assignment signings. Forms and contracts used in the various programs will identify the U.S. government as the source of the funds. Signs will be placed at all construction activities identifying the project as U.S.-financed. And plaques will be affixed to public buildings (e.g., the agricultural school)." The new $7.5 million Nicaraguan Recovery Program II grant planned for FY1981 was designed to "strengthen private sector organizations by funding technical assistance to the confederation of business associations (COSEP) and its member organizations, lending capital to the independent cooperative associations (FUNDE), assisting Red Cross and church community development projects, supporting independent labor unions through the AIFLD, reinforcing the Central American Business School (INCAE), and funding U.S. professional exchange activities (LASPAU) ...". While the Reagan administration suspended assistance to Nicaragua several days after assuming office, he spared the grant program. The AID grant money was distributed out of the U.S. embassy in Managua. The Nicaraguan government stopped it in late 1982 because of the uses to which it was being put; many of the organizations receiving these funds had been implicated by the Nicaraguan government in plots against the government. >>At the time that the aid was offered, there were still significant democratic >>and nationalist factions within the Sandinista directorate. Offering aid >>in an attempt to strengthen their position was both morally and realistically >>a reasonable thing to do. I fail to see how doing so "sold the Nicaraguan >>people down the river", when the Sandinistas were already in power and >>indeed were at the peak of their popularity. > >I have no doubt it was an honest mistake. Therefore, "sold down >the river" is a harsh expression. This was a one-liner in >response to some flaming rhetoric, not a dissertation. Thanks for moderating your previous statement, but I don't find your excuses very convincing. The "flaming rhetoric" to which you responded was The main question that we should really be concerned with is, does the U.S. have the right to destroy the government and the people of the sovereign nation of Nicaragua? It is hard for me to see how following the current policy can avoid leading to a protracted and bloody war, and great loss of life and economic base in the long run. You may see it, but I do not. I do not consider my statement "flaming rhetoric" (certainly some of my statements are, but not the one you responded to). I do not consider the "sold down the river" comment a justifiable response, aside from its lack of basis in fact. >However, >if it *was* a mistake that strengthened, not the democratic fac- >tions, but the totalitarian core, and gave a push down the slip- >pery slope of totalitarianism,- *if* this opinion of mine is true >- the moral obligation is there. Even *if* your opinion is true, the moral obligation is not there unless a) violent attacks on sovereign nations are ever justified b) the Contras represent the forces of democracy c) there are not peaceful methods of achieving a non-totalitarian regime. So, aside from the fact that your opinion about current totalitarianism appears to me to be ungrounded in fact and the notion that we helped the Sandinistas down such a road appears unsupported, I have seen no support of (a), (b), or (c). What I would like to know is, if your opinion does not come from facts (you were not able to quote any to support it), where *does* it come from? Perhaps you would be interested in what Jeane Kirkpatrick had to say about violent attacks against other nations. The following is from her speech before the United Nations Security Council on March 25, 1982: "In his letter requesting this meeting, the Coordinator of the Nicaraguan government, Mr. Daniel Ortega Saavedra, made some extraordinary charges against the government of the United States. We naturally desire to respond to the grave charges that Mr. Ortega has leveled against our policies and our intentions and to comment on the state of relations between our two countries. He spoke of the interventionist strategy of the government of the United States and of statements and concrete actions that clearly evidence an intention to attack Nicaragua and to intervene directly in El Salvador. The attack made by Nicaragua on the United States is not haphazard, the charges made by the government of Nicaragua are not random. The government of Nicaragua has accused the United States of the kinds of political behavior of which it itself is guilty--large scale interventions in the internal affairs of its neighbors, persistent efforts to subvert and overthrow by force and violence the governments of neighboring states, aggressive actions which disrupt the normal conduct of international relations in the region--acts and intentions inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. These charges--as extravagant as they are baseless--are an interesting example of projection, a psychological operation in which one's own feelings and intentions are simultaneously denied and attributed--that is, projected on--to someone else. Hostility is the dominant emotion and projection the key mechanism of the paranoid style of politics, a style which, much to our regret, has characterized the political behavior of the Sandinista leadership since its arrival in power. The principal object of Sandinista hostility, I further regret, is the government of the people of the United States." Remember that this was while U.S. aid to the Contras was still covert. Can you find anything critical to say about Kirkpatrick's statement, or current U.S. policy in light of it? >>People of a Manichean bent will doubtless take this as an endorsement of >>the Sandinista regime. They will be mistaken. > >I hope you don't mean me. I detest Manichaeanism. I see much good >not just in nice pink moderates like you but often in the most >flaming reds. In fact, my maternal grandfather was a close col- >laborator of Lenin and among the 20 men who voted to make the >disastrous Revolution. He was a decent guy, and I can prove it. >So was (I think) Albert Speer, a close collaborator of Hitler. >Human affairs are complex. > Still, some *systems* are much worse than others. None of us *wants* to be Manichean, but in some areas we are nonetheless. You don't seem to be nearly as Manichean as Frank or Olson or Wheeler or Hill, but you appear to have blind spots. Just the monolithic way you categorize governments as single systems rather than sets of interacting systems seems as Manichean as Marx or Kirkpatrick ("slippery slope of totalitarianism"? or is that Richard Pipes' rhetoric?) to me. Could you please say something non-Manichean about about the Sandinistas, both individually and collectively, the Contras, Ronald Reagan, and the Committee on the Current Danger? -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (12/01/85)
>/* Written 2:05 pm Nov 29, 1985 by nrh@inmet in ISM780B:net.politics */ >>/* Written 7:25 am Nov 28, 1985 by jim@ISM780 in inmet:net.politics */ >>>Oh *I* get it! Jan is not intellectually honest if he advocates >>>something on the best information he has! Of COURSE! Isn't this >>>more than a little silly, Jim? You're accusing someone of intellectual >>>dishonesty because he doesn't know information that I doubt you know, but >>>holds opinions different from yours. Jan WOULD be intellectually dishonest >>>if he were deliberately ignoring some fact, but not if he fails to dig >>>it out (he may have other things to do). >> >>Most of the questions asked pertained directly to support of Jan's position. >>Taking such a position without having the facts to support it, >>that is taking a position based on unsupported bias, is I think reasonably >>labeled intellectually dishonest. I call on Jan to support his position >>*with facts* that we have an *obligation* to support the resistance. > >But he's NOT taking a position without facts -- he's taking a position >without (as he concedes you have) a "mountain" of facts. You are misreading; of course Jan has facts; I am asking him to *support* his position *with* facts. The issue isn't how many facts he has. It is, do his facts *support* his opinion? If so, I feel he has a responsibility to us, or at least himself, to show how, rather than just restating his opinion. >>>The interesting thing about aid to the contras is that I think you're >>>quite right -- aid to other governments or movements by our GOVERNMENT >>>should not be lightly undertaken (actually, I doubt it should *ever* >>>be undertaken, but that's another story), but I'll bet there are a LOT >>>of things our government does with LESS information (at a guess, >>>funding primary education for poor children, or requiring utilities to >>>provide service to the destitute) that you ARE in favor of. Sauce for >>>the goose -- sauce for the gander: TAXING people should not be lightly >>>undertaken either, but I don't hear you coming out and arguing against >>>it when it is for causes that you (with limited information, no doubt) >>>like. >> >>How the hell do you know what I am in favor of, or what I know? > >I don't! I phrased it as a bet and a guess for this very reason! But your "sauce for the goose" only follows if your guess is correct, but your rhetoric doesn't acknowledge this. And you *accuse* me of selectively not arguing against things I like, without being able to substantiate the claim, aside from the fact that that is universal behavior but is *not* what I was accusing Jan of. Rather, what he *does* argue for he hasn't justified. Have you heard me argue *for* taxes? Most of your paragraph above is much stronger than "bet" and "guess". >>Now you are surely being intellectually dishonest, arguing against a strawman. > >It's even more vaporous than that! I'm arguing against a hypothesis, against >a guess, for purposes of illustration. Your "illustration" contains explicit accusations. I find this line disingenuous. However, I acknowledge that illustration is an element of your intent. >>Why would you want me to argue against taxes when you don't think I have >>enough information to argue for them? > >Because if your point is that if you don't know enough you shouldn't support >positions, then it seems to me to be only consistent to agree that if you >don't know enough you shouldn't vote for taxation. I only vote when I feel I have enough information to yield a reasonably high probability that one solution is better than another. I was once approached at the door for a ballot survey. On a number of issues I claimed no opinion; the poller *insisted* I must have an opinion; I insisted not. She said I was the only person she had talked to who had no opinion. Don't *assume* that I am guilty! Don't use a strawman assumption of my guilt to diffuse my claims, the validity of which are independent of my guilt anyway. Also, you are indulging in a fallacy. A vote is not the same as advocacy. Since to vote yes or no or not at all are all actions with consequences, one *must* choose one such consequence; one chooses that which seems best. I asked why you would have me argue against taxation, and you did not answer that, unless your claim is that not voting for taxation is the same as arguing against it, a strange claim but one you seem to be making. I do have an advocacy in re Nicaragua: to not violate OAS conventions and the general rule of international and morality by interfering in the affairs of another sovereign state without extreme cause; in particular overthrowing an established government is a clear and sever violation. I do not think that supporting *not* overthrowing a state is symmetrical in its need for factual basis with supporting *to* overthrow a state. >>From my *values*, not from information, >>I favor children being educated, even if it means they grow up to build bombs >>to destroy us, I favor the destitute not starving or freezing to death >>even if it means increasing the chances of having my throat slit, >>and I favor a society with good roads, maintained buildings, >>and a healthy environment with preserved natural habitats, even if >>it means fewer of the technological toys I love. I am quite open >>to possible ways to achieve these ends. I am well aware of a >>wide range of weaknesses in the ways these things are being done. >>I can see what the effects of the current policies are; if >>someone offers a different solution, I certainly wouldn't reject >>it, but I would ask for analysis before *supporting* it. I am >>familiar with libertarian arguments and am willing to respond to >>them. I refuse to take a position without being willing to >>defend it. And I demand the same of others. >Check -- I'm glad to hear it. But have you ever VOTED for any of >these things being done by the state? (It is not, of course, my >place to monitor the voting -- the question is rhetorical) It would >seem to me that this would constitute taking a position to about the >same extent Jan did. Jan offered an opinion on netnews. *IF* you >voted for any of these things (and I don't say you did) then you >bolstered a government solution to one of the social problems >involved. As above; voting yes and voting no both have consequences. If I suspect, based on evidence and analysis, that one is preferable over the other then I have an obligation to vote in that way even in the face of partial information. Of course I also have an obligation to inform myself as best I can within normal constraints. If I do not feel qualified to judge, or feel that my confidence in my information is poor enough as to risk interfering with the votes of those more knowledgeable (not too likely in a general election!) then I abstain from a vote. I reject your claim of analogy. If you still feel it is valid, please elaborate. Jan made a strong claim. Just how strong a claim that a course is correct is a vote for that course? >Now it may well be the case that you NEVER voted for any of these things, >or did so not agreeing that a vote constitutes "taking a stand". >I'm using you as a sort of rhetorical backboard here, merely to point out >that IF intellectual honesty should prevent one from taking any stands >one cannot support with documentation and analysis, AND voting may >fairly be construed as "taking a position", THEN voting for such >an issue as a school levy without a thorough understanding of >(say) 42 or so linked questions about schooling, the economy, the >makeup of the schools (teacher, parent, and administrators) is >intellectually dishonest according to the criterion of being unable >to support a position you've taken. I agree with the subjunctive statement (IF ...) but not with the "AND voting ..." part of the premise, and thus not with the statement. Remember that Jan said that we have a MORAL OBLIGATION to support the Contras, not that he suspects that the world would be better off if we did. Even if he did not make so strong a statement, the vehemence with which the pro-Contra stand is taken, and the name calling applied on both sides is clearly at a very different level of advocacy as a vote. This is not to say that issues on which people vote are not strongly advocated, but the advocacy and the vote are different, and you were talking about me voting, not about me advocating. Voting and taking a stand are *independent*, regardless of how often they are asscocieted. Just to be perfectly clear, I am not claiming I have never advocated without analysis, or that I have never taken a stand on an issue without properly understanding it. I am not claiming that I am free of all intellectual dishonesty or that I should not be criticized for it; that would be intellectually dishonest (:-). I welcome such criticism where it applies, since the whole reason to value intellectual honesty is because we value truth. But showing that I have been dishonest does not *invalidate* my claims or *excuse* anyone else of such dishonesty. I do not buy the concept "Who are you to talk?", which just leads to a social framework of mutually supported immorality. I am perfectly aware that by putting the issue on the table I open myself to scrutiny. >I'll leave you and Jan to the intricacies of Nicaraguan affairs now; my >real interest is in the issue of intellectual honesty (and Mom and apple >pie!) in "net.politics*". Just to answer briefly other points you make, >but which are intertwined with the Nicaraguan discussion: It's quite >proper to require that facts be known before a claim can be made, but, >for example, "to claim we sold the Nicaraguans down the river needs >substantiation" is true enough, but non-quantitative. You'll >certainly find men of good will who will disagree on definitions. Granted; I only ask that Jan substantiate it within his own set of values. If he can show that aid to Nicaraguan industry after the revolution was channeled into the hands of Sandinista extremists and helped them consolidate their hold and led them to restrict Nicaraguan freedoms, then I would accept his phrase with the understanding that it is emotionally exaggerated and mischaracterizes the Sandinistas as being synonymous with the extreme factions, although I certainly would not accept his conclusion about the specifics of our ensuing obligation. However, I think it is easier to show that it is support of the Contras that had exactly that effect. >Congratulations, by the way, on all your reading! I could never keep up! >Do you REALLY read those things as often as they come out >(you didn't say how often, but wouldn't that be the implication?)? Impressive! I thought the range of items would make it clear I do not read all of them regularly; I only subscribe to some. However, I spend a lot of time at the magazine rack and usually purchase those which have major articles of interest to me. I do read A LOT. It does interfere with other activities. As does responding here. >Oh yes -- >>>>Instead you >>>>produce catchy little slogans like the one above, littered with dishonesty, >>>>and making no reference to the degradation and death of real human beings >>>>that such policies can produce. >>> >>>I've heard no reference by you to the forced relocation of the aborigines >>>in Nicaragua, perhaps I wasn't listening. Nor, have I heard you mention >>>the suspension of civil liberties. Again, perhaps I didn't notice, and >>>again, if you didn't mention these things: Sauce for the goose..... >> >>Mention them as support for *what*? Have I denied them? Am I unaware of >>them? Do you hold that they are sufficient reason to support the Contras? > >Not at all! But your point is that Jan "made no reference to the >degradation and death of real human beings" that supporting the contras >can produce. I've seen YOU make no reference to the degradation and death >that forced relocation and suspension of human rights can produce, >so why should Jan make reference to similar things that "may" occur >if the Contras are supported. My point is that you've no right to insist >Jan do it if you've failed to do it (unless you're offering him a trade?) But you miss the point. What do I advocate that could be seen as producing same, unless it is *not* overthrowing the Nicaraguan government, which could only get there rather indirectly? I *do not* advocate forced relocation or suspension of rights (although I recognize the latter as often being necessary during wartime, and even when not necessary still is a consequence. Was the forced relocation of Americans of Japanese ancestry during WWII a justification for the Japanese to attack the U.S.?) Do you really see them as equivalent? If you do, then I will concede to your request: not overthrowing the Sandinistas could allow them to carry out policies which lead to death and degradation; it is possible (but not demonstrated!) that it would be at higher levels than the combined effect of overthrowing them and the actions of those who would follow. We know of policies of this sort already occuring: forceable relocation of the Miskito Indians with little regard for their culture (but they have been re-relocated and the Sandinista government has admitted fault in strongly self-critical terms) and restrictions of the freedom of press and interference with the actions of other political parties (although under fire from the Contras with allegedly 50-60% of spending going toward defense, and even so there is little evidence of curfews or suspension of due process); it is possible that stopping the fighting would lead to tighter restrictions whereas, if the Contras take over, even though many of them are a bunch of cutthroats (that is well-documented!), the democratic elements outside of the Sandinistas would establish a stable and open government, even though there is no reason that I can see, given the history of Nicaragua and the area, to think that the odds favor it. Is that the sort of thing you want? Now that I have satisfied your requirement, I again ask that Jan make some mention, in light of his rather glib statement that we have an obligation to the Nicaraguans (which ones? The ones currently being killed?) to support the Contra terrorists (oh sorry, I wasn't supposed to use that word), of the realities of the IMMEDIATE, not HYPOTHETICAL, effects of such policies on the bodies, plantations, farms, power systems, and other institutions of Nicaraguans, including their freedom of *choice* (do you recall them voting to have the U.S. support the Contras? What sort of elitist paternalistic obligation is this? [questions for Jan, not nrh]). You say >so why should Jan make reference to similar things that "may" occur >if the Contras are supported. "may"? The whole point is that the *nature* of the Contras is violence. That is not the *nature* of non-intervention, which I advocate, even if it *could* be the result. I would not ask Jan to mention death and degradation if he were talking about *economic* sanctions. This sort of "this may", "that may" argument really is *not* intellectually honest. Almost anything *can* happen, but some things are *known* to happen (yes relocation is known to happen, but the overall results of not overthrowing the Sandinistas relative to overthrowing them is not *known*). >>Does that help alleviate the suspension or prevent a recurrence of the >>relocation? How can such support do anything but make it worse, up until >>(and not unlikely past) either cessation of the support or overthrow of the >>Sandinistas? > >NOT my point at all! You implied that Jan should be doing something YOU >haven't been doing (making reference to the degradation and death of >real human beings....) and I am merely pointing out that YOU haven't done >this. Again, Jan should have done it *because of the position he supports*. I didn't feel I supported that sort of position. For those who do feel that, I responded above. >>Maybe it isn't intellectual dishonesty, maybe it is just an >>unfamiliarity the forms of logical connection. What statement would you have >>liked me to make? That we shouldn't support the Contras because those things >>did not happen? But that isn't my position, is it? Please answer this! One >>of us is making a rhetorical error somewhere. It it is me, show me how. > >I think it is you, but I don't think you did it out of intellectual dishonesty, >but out of carelessness. Jan didn't make reference to the "degradation and >death" associated with supporting the contras, but YOU didn't make any such >reference to the "degradation and death" brought about by their opponents. You didn't answer me. What statement should I have made? Can you give me an exact hypothetical quote, and show me where in the dialogue I should have inserted it? Remember that what *I* said was that the *question* was whether we had the *right* to destroy the Nicaraguan government and people. The question is *not* whether the Sandinistas have the right to relocate Miskitos. Everyone (even the public position of the Sandinistas) agrees on that point. If Jan proposes a *solution* that involves violence, then I think he needs to make the nature of the violence explicit. Anyway, if he doesn't, I'll do it for him. >>I >>am almost certain I understand you position. It is that the world is black >>and white. Jan is against the Nicaraguans. I disagree with him, so I must >>be for them. Since I am for them, I must favor everything they have ever >>done. I cannot see how else you could reach your sauce for the goose >>statement otherwise. > >Interesting. I've already stated that I'm against any government >intervention for or against the Contras. (I think the repeal of the Logan >Act would be fun, so that US citizens could support whomever they chose). Your treatment *seems* to imply that the opposite of supporting death and degradation by the Contras is supporting death and degradation by the Sandinistas. Since I do not support aiding anyone to kill anyone else while Jan does, I don't see how your "sauce" argument applies. >As I've explained above, it seems to me to be inconsistent of you to >demand that Jan talk about degradation and death unless you're willing >to do this also. I assume you are (as I say, I suspect this to be an >error rather than anything else) but you HAVEN'T, so it seems to me to >be strange that you refer to Jan's lack of such discussion as if it >were bad because it didn't talk about degradation and death. I think I have now answered this. >>>The subject WASN'T "degradation and death", so Jan wasn't obligated to >>>mention it. Perhaps there's MORE "degradation and death" under the >>>current government than there would be under the Contras. You have >>>some way of knowing that we don't (perhaps you have some way of >>>quantifying "degradation")? >> >>The point is the degradation and death at the hands of the Contras *now*. >>That *is* the subject; Jan favors support of people who are shooting >>and blowing things up. That means death and degradation. Some of >>such is documented. Even if you are not familiar with the documentation, >>you can reasonably assume that there is *some*, can you not? > >Sure! So tell me, have the Sandinistas NOT done this? AGAIN, I do not support those policies of the Sandinistas!!! Jan *does* support the Contras. The whole *point* of the Contras is to kill and blow things up. You cannot support the Contras without supporting killing and blowing things up. You *can* support non-intervention without supporting killing and blowing things up, as is the case with the Contadora nations. and you *can* oppose the Sandinistas without killing and blowing things up, as do most of the opposition groups in Nicaragua and many "liberal" and centrist politicians in the U.S. and elsewhere. So, why do you ask the questin you do, unless it is from a Manichean view? >>What *evidence* of such death at the hands of the Sandinistas can you show? > >Let's not forget "Degradation". The Sandinistas have suspended civil >rights, and forcibly relocated some aborigines. They have forcibly >censored the press, and I vaguely recall reading that violence was >used in various of these actions. Certainly degradation has >resulted. If you are CLAIMING that all this stuff was done without any >degradation or death, then I'm fascinated (I won't ask you to prove a >negative, simply to state that "I've read all this stuff I claim to >read, and found not ONE reasonably substantiated death"). Where have I ever claimed such a thing? Where have I been an apologist for violent policies? Jan is an apologist for violent policies. (Or would anyone argue that the Contras are using peaceful means?) -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
gil@cornell.UUCP (Gil Neiger) (12/02/85)
In article <7800726@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >Having sold the Nicaraguan people down the river with its aid to >the Sandinistas, the US has an OBLIGATION to at least match that >with aid to the resistance. This is nonsense. The Carter administration approved $75 million in aid long ago, some of which was prevented from getting to Nicaragua (I believe) after Reagan came to office. The bulk of the aid was to middle and upper class business groups. Perhaps this is what you mean by "selling the Nicaraguan people down the river"? By aiding business groups instead of a popular revolution? If the U.S. has any obligation to aid the contras, it is only because that force was created by the U.S. However, this is more reason to cut off all aid to the contras, and instead treat Nicaragua as a sovereign nation, and resume bilateral negotiations with its government. -- Gil Neiger Computer Science Department Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853 {uw-beaver,ihnp4,decvax,vax135}!cornell!gil (UUCP) gil@Cornell.ARPA (ARPAnet) ; gil@CRNLCS (BITNET)
jim@ISM780.UUCP (12/02/85)
>(3) It is the *selection* of data that you really object to. >Remember the Marshal Ogarkov episode ? There, I posted a *com- >pletely* bare fact. You greeted it even more violently than this one. > ---Factophobia, all right. I already responded to this, but it really bothers me, since it is so blatantly false and so ad hominem. If I object to the *context* in which you post a datum, or your *interpretation* of a datum, you can always avoid the objection with this sort of ad hominem (rejecting an argument because of some characteristic of the arguer) response. But the fact of the matter is that I made it perfectly clear at the time what my objections were: Well, if you would provide the quote in context, maybe we could judge the interpretation better. >But are you sure *you* are not now dismissing valid evidence be- >cause it does not fit *your* preconceptions ? I have great deal of trouble determining just what the fragment of a quote is evidence *of*. Even if it means that some Soviet marshal sees Nicaragua as a tool for Soviet foreign policy, I'm not sure what that says about the Nicaraguan government, if anything. To claim that I reject the *selection* of data is completely ad hominem and unsupported. I didn't simply deny it, as people did with the statement that "We will bury you!" was misinterpreted; rather I said what my reservations were and requested clarification. When you post something much like "... there was Cuba, now there are Granada and Nicaragua, and a struggle is going on in El Salvador" is it really so biased of me to question the context and the significance when it is something that a socialist anywhere in world might say in various contexts, not just a Soviet Marshal? To call this a "bare fact" is misleading in the extreme. I should at the very least be *curious* about what the "..." is and why it wasn't included, shouldn't I? Since you labeled it "To put things in perspective:" you are certainly suggesting an interpretation or at the least a point of view, aren't you? Not a "*completely*" bare fact. If this were *science* you would not be criticizing my skepticism. I am not trying to suppress you, I want you to elaborate and be explicit. But you appear to be trying to suppress or discourage criticism. You mentioned UN votes, but haven't been specific. I will welcome such *evidence*, but I may not agree with your *interpretation* of what it indicates. I believe it is failure to agree with your interpretation that you are labeling as "objection to selection". Such objection would be rather pointless, since the material has already been posted. The only real form that objection to selection can take is *censorship*, which is something I am very much against (oh, and I just know someone will say "What about La Prensa?", but for the 100th time not being for the overthrow of a sovereign nation is not the same as being for their press censorship, which I oppose). I challenge you to show that I have ever prevented anyone from saying anything in any form. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (12/02/85)
> [baba@spar] > >> Having sold the Nicaraguan people down the river with its aid to > >> the Sandinistas, the US has an OBLIGATION to at least match that > >> with aid to the resistance. [janw@inmet] > > >At the time that the aid was offered, there were still significant democratic > >and nationalist factions within the Sandinista directorate. Offering aid > >in an attempt to strengthen their position was both morally and realistically > >a reasonable thing to do. I fail to see how doing so "sold the Nicaraguan > >people down the river", when the Sandinistas were already in power and > >indeed were at the peak of their popularity. > > I have no doubt it was an honest mistake. Therefore, "sold down > the river" is a harsh expression. This was a one-liner in > response to some flaming rhetoric, not a dissertation. > > Jan Wasilewsky I don't understand. Is there some reason why one-liners need to contain less truth than other observations? I think the word you want is "slogan", not "one-liner". > However, > if it *was* a mistake that strengthened, not the democratic fac- > tions, but the totalitarian core, and gave a push down the slip- > pery slope of totalitarianism,- *if* this opinion of mine is true > - the moral obligation is there. On the other hand, if it was an act that unknowingly strengthened the secret Illuminati cabal that *really* contols Nicaragua, and it hastens the immanentization of the eschaton with the return of the Old Ones - *if* this opinion of mine (which is as well substantiated as yours) is true - the moral obligation is utterly absent. Baba
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (12/02/85)
> Jim : Your argument with Nat, is, of course, none of my business(:-)), > but one part arrested my attention. It was your very impressive list > of sources which you read on Nicaragua. A veritable MOUNTAIN of > material. This puts some of your past *misstatements of fact* > in a quite *new* perspective. As: > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >The fact is that it is the U.S. ... that rejects the Contadora process. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Now that is a BASIC non-fact, like Nicaragua bordering China. > I responded to it mildly before, because I thought you were > ignorant of the situation. Of course you shouldn't have said > emphatically =The fact is= ; but all you owed us was an apology > and a retraction. Now that I know HOW MUCH you know, - > *what am I to think* ? > > Now someone with your *prosecutorial* cast of mind would > have launched an investigation: how much did J. B. know, > and when did he know it ? > > Jan Wasilewsky I'm really puzzled, Jan. I mean, with all those CAPITAL LETTERS and =typographical flourishes=, and *wounded self-righteousness* you =*MUST*= be right. But your statements are directly in contradiction to what information I have on the situation in Central America, something I pay attention to because I have friends in Honduras who are directly affected. The Nicaraguans rejected the Contadora formula to begin with, but in the face of their economic and military situation, they accepted it about a year ago. The U.S. state department, clearly unprepared for this eventuality, then backed off *its* support for the Contadora formula, arguing that it was "too vague" and full of "loopholes" after all. I don't remember the date, but at the time it was commented on as a remarkable example of heavy-footedness at the state department. What happened after that? Baba
gil@cornell.UUCP (Gil Neiger) (12/03/85)
In article <7800762@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >US government had some initial hesitation about the Contadora >process; then it decided to endorse it. It has been officially >supporting it now for years. I have never seen any indication that the U.S. was willing to sign the Contadora group's proposed treaty that Nicaragua has offered to sign. Could you please cite some sources here? > ... who do you think supported the Con- >tras through the year when the funds were cut by Congress ? Un- >named Latin American sources. Unofficial position of many people >there is very different from their speeches. Much of contra support during the period came from Israel and El Salvador. These are both governments that receive considerable military aid from the U.S. through which the U.S. can disburse military aid to pariahs such as Guatemala and the contras when such aid might be unpopular or illegal. >(BTW, I see nothing wrong in checking if Ortega is ready to deal. >Any deal, though, should include power sharing and cutting ties >with Havana and Moscow). Could you explain with whom and why the Sandinistas should share power? And why should they cut ties with Havana and Moscow? Do you recommend the U.S. funding armed insurgencies in western Europe to force countries there to end any ties they have with Cuba or the USSR? Or do you think negotiations are sufficient to get them to do so? And how do we keep the U.S government from constantly making commercial deals with the Soviet Union? Would you favor armed insurrections around the U.S. to prevent such economic ties? -- Gil Neiger Computer Science Department Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853 {uw-beaver,ihnp4,decvax,vax135}!cornell!gil (UUCP) gil@Cornell.ARPA (ARPAnet) ; gil@CRNLCS (BITNET)
janw@inmet.UUCP (12/04/85)
>[baba@spar] >> >> Having sold the Nicaraguan people down the river with its aid to >> >> the Sandinistas, the US has an OBLIGATION to at least match that >> >> with aid to the resistance. [janw@inmet] >> >> >At the time that the aid was offered, there were still significant democratic >> >and nationalist factions within the Sandinista directorate. Offering aid >> >in an attempt to strengthen their position was both morally and realistically >> >a reasonable thing to do. I fail to see how doing so "sold the Nicaraguan >> >people down the river", when the Sandinistas were already in power and >> >indeed were at the peak of their popularity. >> >> I have no doubt it was an honest mistake. Therefore, "sold down >> the river" is a harsh expression. This was a one-liner in >> response to some flaming rhetoric, not a dissertation. >I don't understand. Is there some reason why one-liners need to contain >less truth than other observations? I think the word you want is >"slogan", not "one-liner". Of course there is a reason. They contain less truth because they are shorter: less truth fits in. In this case the basically true assertion was not cushioned with qualifications. Just think how many qualifications are missing in "Columbus discovered America". What he discovered was not called America; other people discovered it with him; other people (the Vikings) had discovered it before; still others just lived there; and he himself never recognized that any new land was discovered. Still, as a one-liner, "Columbus discovered America" will do: Por Castilla y por Leon Nuevo mundo hallo Colon ! Now about slogans: A one-liner can make a good slogan, and still be true. E.g. : "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton). Or: "The government is best that governs least" (Thomas Jefferson). Or: "Probability theory is common sense verified by calculation" (I forgot the source). Sure, a line being catchy doesn't *make* it true. Or wrong. And (believe it or not) a text can be dull, and long, and also wrong. >> However, >> if it *was* a mistake that strengthened, not the democratic fac- >> tions, but the totalitarian core, and gave a push down the slip- >> pery slope of totalitarianism,- *if* this opinion of mine is true >> - the moral obligation is there. > >On the other hand, if it was an act that unknowingly strengthened >the secret Illuminati cabal that *really* contols Nicaragua, and >it hastens the immanentization of the eschaton with the return >of the Old Ones - *if* this opinion of mine (which is as well >substantiated as yours) is true - the moral obligation is utterly >absent. Well, let me try to outline the basic steps of the substantia- tion. (1) Nicaragua is essentially totalitarian in structure, though the *policy* has been relatively mild. (2) Totalitarian- ism, once past certain stage, becomes nearly irreversible. (3) Until that stage is reached, the regime needs the support of the population. (4) But it tends to ruin the economy while building up its machinery of control, repression, propaganda, and the armed forces. This detracts from the population support. (5) Foreign aid can allow it to achieve both goals. In short, the regime buys the people's patience with foreign aid, and uses it to shackle the people forever. Nicaraguan economy is in a bad shape; some say, in a shambles. Surely, it would be much worse off, and the regime would have far less support (or else would need to change), if it were not for a very large, by Nicaraguan scale, foreign aid it has received under Sandinistas. *Nothing remotely comparable* was received by the previous regime, or through the whole of the country's histo- ry. Of this aid, by far the greater part was not by USA. USA is only responsible for its part and the part it endorsed or en- couraged. It would not be wrong, however, to also match *other* foreign aid to the government with aid to the Resistance. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (12/04/85)
[baba@spar] RE: Contadora. Specific formulas come and go. Discussing them is part of the Contadora process we are speaking of . If USA government *rejected* (a binary word !) the Contadora *process* (this year or last), I'll eat my hat. One of the reasons I'm sure is that its severest critics keep accusing it of being cold or insincere in its support for the process. Rejection would be a peal of thunder; it couldn't be missed. Jan Wasilewsky P.S. OK, I checked: see Foreign Affairs, fall issue, article "Contadora Process Demystified". You may put your doubts to rest: USA still supports the Contadora process. In fact, everyone does. However, your spoof of the typographical superfluities of my article was both clever, and, I think, right.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (12/07/85)
>/* Written 5:19 pm Dec 1, 1985 by jim@ISM780 in inmet:net.politics */ >>The "availability of cheaper labor" means that there are people willing >>to do the work for less. Typically it means that the "cheaper labor" >>folks are POORER than the fellow who has the job already. >> >>So you offer the person who has the job a lower wage -- he refuses, >>he "needs" the salary he had. (This process can be VERY indirect -- >>the folks in Michigan, with a per-capita income of $11,466, >>can lose fleet contracts to the folks in Japan with a per-capita >>income of $9,864). >> >>You then offer it to the "cheaper labor", who accepts (You offer it >>first to the people you've been dealing with because that's smart >>business). The "cheaper labor" is not some subhumanoid hive-oriented >>creature who may be safely regarded as more compliant, or less >>deserving -- he (or she) is a human being, perhaps living in a poorer >>country, perhaps the victim of prejudice, perhaps simply less-skilled >>(though sufficiently skilled that he/she is useful to you). >> >>Is it so horrible that the free market in this case tends to distribute >>money among the downtrodden and away from those who refuse to compete? > >This denies all institutional aspects of market dynamics. I suggest you read >some Thorstein Veblen. I am not going to go into a lengthy debate here about >the realities of free markets; I would just like to point out that economists >much better educated in the intricacies than either you or I have argued >against this view. After Veblen and Joan Robinson Classicism was >widely considered refuted; it is now back in vogue, more, I would argue, for >political reasons than those of theory. Does the statement "Water tends to run downhill", "deny" the existence of pumps and siphons? No. I do not argue here that classical microeconomics is "the truth", merely that some of its conclusions remain true. Among these conclusions (or are they postulates?) is the notion that one will (where one can) buy cheap and sell dear. If this is not what they still teach in business school, please tell us all about it! >>>The current policy seems to be to >>>create conditions of extreme poverty and then lower the minimum wage for >>>minors. >> >>That's quite a remarkable statement. Where can I find the >>organization doing this? Lowering or getting rid of the minimum wage >>WOULD be a good idea -- before the imposition of the minimum wage, >>black youth unemployment was about the same as white youth >>unemployment. I assume that whoever is administering this "policy" is >>not couching it in terms of "creating conditions of extreme poverty" >>-- what do they (whoever "they" are) actually say about it? > >Excuse me, I did not mean to imply that a split minimum wage has been >implemented, but it has been favored by the Reagan administration. But Jim! I'm only somewhat interested in your statement about minimum wage -- I'm MUCH more fascinated to learn which government agency has set off to create poverty, and perhaps, what those agencies call their activities. > >>>The economic conditions force the minors to seek work instead >>>of attend school; the differential on wages gives them a competitive >>>advantage for *existing* jobs, lowering the cost to the employer and >>forcing the higher-paid adult out of work. >> >>Quite a simplistic analysis, this. I assume that this is backed up >>with some statistics, somewhere? In particular it seems to imply that >>the role of skill and experience can be neglected. In some jobs this >>is true -- some assembly-line work, for example. In other jobs (heavy >>equipment operation, carpentry) this is not true. > >This was hypothetical; it was rather shoddy of me not to make that clear. >And I was speaking of the move toward service sector jobs and the widespread >trend for formerly skilled jobs to become clerical due to the lower skill >required due to automation. > >>>Since labor is inelastic (something >>>conveniently ignored by free market freaks), the adult ends up unemployed, >>>his children drop out of school to go to work ... >> >>Once you're an "official adult", then it's nasty of Jim@ism780 to tell >>you that you can't have a job because Jim wants to keep employed >>somebody making (say) twice your anticipated wage, and until you're >>that age, you're pretty heavily under the thumb of your parents, at >>least as far as getting a real job goes. > >In areas where there is great labor competition there is little competition >among employers in regard to salary. Without minimum wage or >union-established wages (which are not "artificial" laws affecting a >"natural" market since all market behavior is subject to human laws, >especially the laws of property), if a service sector employer lowers wages >the employee cannot simply shop around for a higher wage. Oh please! Let's avoid the question of what is "natural"! As a matter of approximate definition in this context, "artificial" involves things imposed from outside the system of economic trade and physical laws, and "natural" involves those conditions reached without "artificial" restraint or stimulus. A natural market reaction to flooding is one thing (food goes up, insurance stocks go down). An artificial stimulus to food prices (people are taxed and the tax money used to buy food, raising its price) is another. I absolutely concede that the imposition of property laws by a government is "artificial", similarly that injunctions against force or fraud are also artificial. I don't argue that ONLY "natural" forces should be allowed to operate, merely that unnatural ones should be applied with the greatest care. Your mileage may differ :-) -- what other folks regard as "natural" and unnatural is interesting, but not all that important to the question of what to do in a given situation. >When the supply of >labor is high relative to the demand, wages drop. But one cannot simply >switch to a higher-paying field. The way our society is structured, we have >ignorant or unskilled people without that flexibility. We can let them reach >poverty levels when the evolution of the markets select against them, but >there is a high societal cost. It means increased crime, disease, and >suffering; the former two clearly hurt all of us (even libertarians :-). >And if the working force dies off due to "natural selection" and then the >environmental factors change again their unavailibility could adversely >affect the rest of us. > I'd be very surprised if the market for unskilled labor was so very inelastic in supply as that of, say, carpenters. If you need a ditch-digger, or a field hand, it takes a few minutes to show someone what to do. It doesn't matter whether the person was a farm laborer, a hobo, or a doctor -- the basics of unskilled labor are very easy to get across, even if you don't speak the language. This means that essentially all the cost of changing jobs in unskilled labor is the cost of moving around (they aren't called "migrant farm workers" because they can't move around, by the way), and the harder-to-evaluate cost of hearing about and deciding to take an alternative job. This is not "nice". This is not "good". This is not what I would like, but it DOES mean that there's relatively easy movement between unskilled jobs, which means in turn that aggregate demand for unskilled labor must go down before we have the spectacle of a fieldhand unwilling or unable to take a job as a ditchdigger when that of a ditchdigger is the same amount of work and pays more besides. If you're worried about computer programmers being unable to become librarians, then we're talking retraining. If you're worried about fieldhands becoming ditchdiggers, we're talking about moving. I don't argue this is EASY for farmworkers (I concede a certain amount of inelasticity) but I don't see it as the obstacle in TIME that retraining is. >>Labor inelastic (in supply)? Somewhat, certainly, but do you have any >>figures? If labor WERE very inelastic in supply, then we would NOT see a >>change in high-school students' behavior because of a change in wages. >>Further, the person in the high bracket (whose job is about to be >>destroyed unless he takes a pay cut) would then not even consider >>refusing the lower salary -- it would be madness. > >I would argue (without figures, sorry; but I don't notice too many economic >arguments made with figures) that labor is VERY inelastic *in some ways*. >You have only shown that it is not *totally* inelastic. It is you who made the bald statement "Since labor is inelastic....". and stated that this was ignored by free market types. I think the two statments are both false. Labor is SOMEWHAT inelastic, but there are things less elastic than labor (the supply of art by Da Vinci, and the supply of orbital vehicles, to name two very extreme examples, (yes, I could come up with less extreme examples, but since the discussion is non-quantitative, I'm avoiding a side argument by not doing so)). >The inelasticity >comes from restricted skill or other requirements limiting the jobs a person >is able to take, the costs associated with changing jobs due to search time, >overhead, and especially need to relocate, and the limited understanding that >flexibility is possible (meta-skill, if you wish; again, we can allow such >people to suffer the consequences, but it still is an inelasticity). No argument there -- except that you're ignoring compensatory factors like people who have more than one skill, entry of new people into the market, and the presence of substitutes for labor. (Labor demand is more elastic if one can replace a particular sort of laborer with a particular sort of machine). Another point to make is that any alternative involving artificial support of an industry hides the advantages of having different skills from people who might want them. >>Or perhaps you mean "inelastic in demand"? This would imply that >>jobs are NOT created in response to offers to take jobs for lower >>wages, nor destroyed in the face of demands for higher wages. But >>this propensity for destroying jobs in the face of demands for >>continued high wages would seem to be what you're complaining about, >>so I doubt you mean "inelastic in demand". > >It isn't what I am talking about, but again you indulge in a logical fallacy. >The correct implication would be that jobs are NOT *ALWAYS* created .... >There is a *range* of inelasticity. Quite correct. My mistake to have taken from your statement that labor was inelastic the implication that you thought labor was inelastic. I should have phrased it a little differently. Of course, to the extent labor demand IS inelastic, jobs are NOT created or destroyed in response to the fluctuating supply of laborers. >>Besides, it would imply that no jobs were destroyed by the imposition >>of minimum wage. How many elevator operators, shop girls, >>lamplighters, butlers, and maids, do you see around these days? > >Again, it would not imply any such thing, since the term is not absolute. >But I am interested in your demonstration that the loss of those jobs was >due to the imposition of minimum wage, either in whole or in part. I suggest then you take a look at "Minimum Wage, Maximum Folly" in Walter Williams' "The State Against Blacks", in which he talks about another set of low-paying jobs. Also, try Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" pages 226-228, and "The Unheavenly City Revisited" by Banfield, pp 107-108. Finally, Benjamin Page, in "Who Gets What From Government" has this to say: The minimum wage, for example, is supposedly designed to ensure a decent wage level for all workers by forbidding any wage payments below a certain hourly rate. But those hoping for an egalitarian result fail to take account of how employers respond to the minimum wage: they simply refuse to hire anyone who cannot produce more than the minimum wage's worth of work. Those who have jobs get paid the minimum, but many other jobs are abolished. Unemployment in certain industries (e.g., retail trade) and among those with low skill levels (e.g., many black teenagers) rises alarmingly. [pp. 170] > [discussion of immigrant labor -- Jim was talking about those from > "south of the Rio Grande"] >And again you are treating elasticity as a two-state phenomenon. >I should have said "labor is not perfectly elastic" instead of "labor is >inelastic"; sorry. Of course immigration is a form of elasticity, but people >whose spines are not already bent from stooping in the fields and who do not >know how to live 12 in a room on beans and tortillas and who cannot go back >to Mexico at the end of the harvest season incur a very high cost in taking >such jobs, reflecting inelasticity. And of course, I never claimed, (nor did any free-market advocate I know of make the claim) that the labor market (or any market, for that matter) is perfectly elastic. Let's avoid one-sided emotional overtones here -- inelasticity in supply doesn't always mean bending your spine and giving up your native land. It can also be reflected in going to medical school, or joining a trade union. >One of the consequences of the current >economic structure is that employers do not provide toilets for farmworkers, >and then complain that farmworkers are "unsanitary". I'm not sure how >a totally unregulated marketplace would alleviate that. Perhaps by making it profitable to do so. Right now, if you're an uneducated illegal immigrant, not currently capable of producing a minimum wage value (hence, you are employed doing piecework or employed illegally), your job-path upward is more than a little restricted. If there were no such thing as an illegal immigrant (because immigration was free), and no such thing as "minimum wage" there'd presumably be fewer artificial "chokes" on (say) registering for courses, getting a government job, joining the US Army, registering for various aid programs, getting jobs as lamplighters, shopgirls, elevator operators, movie ushers, butlers, maids, cooks, (and, hell, let's throw out licensure) hairdressers and social workers. I specifically do NOT hope that this would provide a toilet in whatever place you saw that lacked one. Nope -- in a free society, you're free to be a son-of-a-bitch. On the other hand, you're also no longer one of the very few places immigrants from south of the Rio Grande could work -- and why work for a son-of-a-bitch when they can work for pussycats? I can't (and won't try to) argue that a free economy eliminates the wretched: it merely provides them the widest range of opportunity. So what to do about the toilet problem? Well, we could REQUIRE toilets, but, as Milton Friedman points out in a 7/27/70 Newsweek column, that isn't necessarily the way to help the farm workers: A recent Wall Street Journal story gives a striking example-- the effects in Michigan of stricter federal and state standards for housing migrant farm workers. The intent: to improve the conditions of a group of low-paid workers. The result: to hurt the workers, the farmers, and consumers. "Higher labor costs," says the story, "have prompted many growers ... to switch to mechanized havesting in recent years, lessening demand for migrant workers. That trend has been intensified in the last two years as government agencies have implemented stricter housing regulations for growers participating in their migrant-worker placement programs.... "State and federal officials estimate that mechanization could eliminate from 6000 to 10,000 jobs in Michigan this summer that were previously done by migrants.... License applications [for migrant camps] are down 11 percent so far this summer.... "Nonetheless, approximately 50,000 migrant workers, mostly Mexican-Americans from Southwest Texas, are expected to come into Michigan looking for work this summer. That's about the same number as came through last year." Mechanization is a good thing if it is a response to a decline in the number of persons seeking jobs as migrant workers at low wages. That would mean that the former migrant workers have found better employment opportunities. Mechanization is a bad thing if it is a response to higher labor costs imposed arbitrarily from the outside. That simply wastes capital to replace people who are forced into unemployment or even less desirable jobs. *Migrant workers* are clearly hurt. It is small comfort to an unemployed migrant worker to know that, if he could get a job, he would have better housing. True, the housing formerly available may have been most unsatisfactory by our standards. However, the migrant workers clearly regarded it, plus the accompanying jobs, as the best alternative available to them, else why did they flock to Michigan? It is certainly desirable that they have better alternatives available to them, but until they do, how are they helped by eliminating alternatives, however unsatisfactory, that are now available? That is simply biting off their noses to save our faces. >The basis for economic structure is politics; regardless of what is >"natural", people will attempt to change the environment in the ways that >appear to satisfy their desires, and that will necessarily lead to group >action. Such as theft? I don't think that we'll ever be rid of it, but to argue that BECAUSE we'll never be rid of it, it should be SANCTIONED *would* be a mistake. Similarly, to argue that politics is always with us, and THEREFORE we must have a dynamic, expanding, allowed-to-meddle government *would* also be a mistake. By the way, history abounds with examples of trade without government (trade between nations) and government without trade (communes, families). Neither is the "basis" for the other -- rather the pursuit of goals is the basis of both. To argue that the basis for economic structure is politics is to argue that the basis for water structure is the riverbed. I think the comparison is apt. A riverbed may lead a river among alternatives, but it can't lead it uphill, it can't prevent the river freezing over, and it can't prevent it from drying out. Similarly, you may use political means to affect the market, but not to cause it provide "free lunches", not to suspend the laws of supply and demand. >This is why anarchy, libertarianism, and free markets can at best be >temporary phenomena. We started out as anarchists, and then we evolved. Huh? This doesn't fit in very well with what I've heard of primate evolution, or are you going back to non-social creatures altogether? The stability of a libertarian society is of course a matter of debate. By some standards, the US is a libertarian society (less so nowadays) and it has lasted 200 years. There have, as Murray Rothbard points out, been quasi-libertarian societies in the past that have lasted for some time. Another discussion, another time, I think -- but (and here we come to the promised comment) to simply state that politics is a useful way of garnering power and therefore no non-political system will be able to withstand it is to underestimate the tolerance of a libertarian society for (say) local governments, and to overestimate the power of politics. >An >anarchic society is like the primeval soup: elements group forming cells and >then larger organisms with increasing ability to respond in varied ways to >their environment. When you develop organisms with enough control over their >environments and enough awareness of how to achieve their ends and when the >desired ends go beyond mere survival, you get concentration of power and >feudalism. Since power cannot be totally centralized, you get subgroups >which eventually become strong enough to challenge the central authority. >Eventually you get a fairly stable fluctuation between centralization and >localization of power. The whole process gets warped by counter-selfish >behavior like loyalty, nationality, and the like. If the central authority >is able to actually control mental behavior (via wires, drugs, propaganda and >conditioning, coercive telepathy (Larry Niven's Thrintun), and the like) then >it can get severely warped in the centralization direction without the >central authority even risking loss of loyalty among armed enforcers. > >So you see, you will never have a perfect free market system because there >will always be brain-damaged people like me who do not think it is in their >best interests, and we'll form nasty coops with ugly tariffs and pervert your >lovely pure system. Now, Jim! I suspect you of deliberately baiting me! Do you recall my asking for a "perfect" free market? No? Perhaps you recall my saying (many times) that "Utopia is not an option"? You are, of course, WELCOME to form coops and live communally in any society where I find myself dictator. You'd even be free to have tariffs among people who've agreed to this. No sweat. You'll lose by it, of course. The people in the agreement will have to pay more than the folks outside it. Correspondingly, the people inside the agreement will be able to internalize externalities in ways not open to non-members (members would be able to correctly handle a free-rider situation involving only themselves). I object to none of this, provided that you initiate neither force nor fraud against those who didn't sign your agreement. >(For a fictional counterexample, read David R. Bunch's _Moderan_, with >robotized individuals (with "flesh strips" which retain their humanity) >living in individual robotized Strongholds.) I've read (and very much enjoyed) "Moderan". Funny, I don't seem to recall it seeming much like an anarchy at all -- much more like the vast, purposeless, profitless, sort of project a government comes up with. Of course, at the time of "Moderan", the terms could be quite meaningless.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (12/08/85)
>/* Written 9:27 am Dec 1, 1985 by jim@ISM780B in inmet:net.politics */ >>>>The interesting thing about aid to the contras is that I think you're >>>>quite right -- aid to other governments or movements by our GOVERNMENT >>>>should not be lightly undertaken (actually, I doubt it should *ever* >>>>be undertaken, but that's another story), but I'll bet there are a LOT >>>>of things our government does with LESS information (at a guess, >>>>funding primary education for poor children, or requiring utilities to >>>>provide service to the destitute) that you ARE in favor of. Sauce for >>>>the goose -- sauce for the gander: TAXING people should not be lightly >>>>undertaken either, but I don't hear you coming out and arguing against >>>>it when it is for causes that you (with limited information, no doubt) >>>>like. >>> >>>How the hell do you know what I am in favor of, or what I know? >> >>I don't! I phrased it as a bet and a guess for this very reason! > >But your "sauce for the goose" only follows if your guess is correct, >but your rhetoric doesn't acknowledge this. Whoa! You're arguing that supporting the overthrow of a "sovereign" nation should not be lightly undertaken, and claiming that the alternative, leaving it unmolested, should require less evidence. I'm pointing out that you MIGHT be doing the sort of thing you dislike in another context. Were this a private conversation, I probably wouldn't have brought it up, but since you're not the only one reading this, it seems worthwhile to bring the reader's position into it too. How many readers who vote for taxation are aware they've taken a stand? >And you *accuse* me of >selectively not arguing against things I like, without being able to >substantiate the claim, aside from the fact that that is universal behavior >but is *not* what I was accusing Jan of. If you state it as a fact that it *is* universal behavior, I'll assume that it is also *your* behavior, in which case my "sauce for the goose" argument holds up quite well. If I misunderstand you, please say so. >Rather, what he *does* argue for >he hasn't justified. Have you heard me argue *for* taxes? Most of your >paragraph above is much stronger than "bet" and "guess". I have NOT heard you argue for taxes. Of course, IF you have voted for them, you have advocated them (unless you think that one shouldn't vote one's conscience, or that folks are not impressed by the vote). Only you know, so far, whether you have voted for them. >... > >>>Why would you want me to argue against taxes when you don't think I have >>>enough information to argue for them? >> >>Because if your point is that if you don't know enough you shouldn't support >>positions, then it seems to me to be only consistent to agree that if you >>don't know enough you shouldn't vote for taxation. > >I only vote when I feel I have enough information to yield a reasonably high >probability that one solution is better than another. So do you suppose that Jan (or indeed, anyone who might disagree with you on the Nicaraguan issue) considers his position in the same light? >... >Also, you are indulging in a fallacy. A vote is not the same as advocacy. >Since to vote yes or no or not at all are all actions with consequences, >one *must* choose one such consequence; one chooses that which seems best. Indeed. To vote FOR a tax issue involves the consequence that one has put an iota more power behind the state's power to tax. Is this the same as "advocacy"? It's certainly highly stylized, but it seems to me that it is. If you mean to draw a purely artificial distinction between what you express on a ballot, and what you express in prose, that's fine by me, but both are listened to, both are taken to represent your opinion, and VOTES affect law. >I asked why you would have me argue against taxation, and you did not answer >that, unless your claim is that not voting for taxation is the same as >arguing against it, a strange claim but one you seem to be making. Oooh! I hate this! You said: >Why would you want me to argue against taxes when you don't >think I have enough information to argue for them? AND IN DIRECT RESPONSE, I said: Because if your point is that if you don't know enough you shouldn't support positions, then it seems to me to be only consistent to agree that if you don't know enough you shouldn't vote for taxation. To say it again, Jim, if your point about Jan's position about Nicaragua is that he doesn't have enough information to advocate the overthrow of a sovereign state, and he therefore shouldn't take such positions, then it surely also applies to OTHER situations where ANYONE forms an opinion on what they feel is enough information. In particular, lots of folks vote FOR (say) school levies. To do so enhances the power of the state to tax, and the polls are widely used as an opinion-indicator. To vote FOR a school levy is thus to put oneself in the camp of those who wish to increase taxes (for whatever reason one thinks sufficient). It is also a measure of support to those who would take a little more of one's paycheck to put under government control. Is this to be done WITHOUT STRINGENTLY SUFFICIENT INFORMATION? Hell no! And yet folks do it all the time. To claim that Jan didn't check carefully enough before suggesting a view on netnews (which, after all, the state cannot use as authority for anything) and to accuse him of intellectual dishonesty because the facts look different to you strike me as a pair of rather overblown responses. As an instrument in showing you just HOW overblown, I've invoked the POSSIBILITY that you've voted for issues important to other folks as Nicaragua is to you. My claim is not that "not voting for taxation is the same as arguing against it", but rather that voting for taxation is an act of the same sort as advocating it. My GUESS is that you have voted for taxation at some point (most voters have, I suppose), but the point stands even if you personally have never done so -- intellectual dishonesty is quite a different thing from intellectual completeness. >I do have an advocacy in re Nicaragua: to not violate OAS conventions and >the general rule of international and morality by interfering in the >affairs of another sovereign state without extreme cause; in particular >overthrowing an established government is a clear and sever violation. >I do not think that supporting *not* overthrowing a state is symmetrical >in its need for factual basis with supporting *to* overthrow a state. Ho hum. If the state were some sort of magical entity, this would be true, but it's not. The only worthwhile means I've heard of for judging a state is by the fate of the individuals in its power. At least some Nicaraguans don't like their state. If people in the US agree with them, perhaps they should be free to help them. If they disagree, perhaps they should be free to donate time to the Sandinista government. Right now, explicit foreign aid by individuals is prohibited by the Logan act (probably by several others too). My reaction to this sort of controversy is that the Logan act should be repealed, and people should be free to send their money to the Contras, the Sandinistas, or to Joe Bob, based on the information the individuals consider sufficient. >>>From my *values*, not from information, >>>I favor children being educated, even if it means they grow up to build bombs >>>to destroy us, I favor the destitute not starving or freezing to death >>>even if it means increasing the chances of having my throat slit, >>>and I favor a society with good roads, maintained buildings, >>>and a healthy environment with preserved natural habitats, even if >>>it means fewer of the technological toys I love. I am quite open >>>to possible ways to achieve these ends. I am well aware of a >>>wide range of weaknesses in the ways these things are being done. >>>I can see what the effects of the current policies are; if >>>someone offers a different solution, I certainly wouldn't reject >>>it, but I would ask for analysis before *supporting* it. I am >>>familiar with libertarian arguments and am willing to respond to >>>them. I refuse to take a position without being willing to >>>defend it. And I demand the same of others. > >>Check -- I'm glad to hear it. But have you ever VOTED for any of >>these things being done by the state? (It is not, of course, my >>place to monitor the voting -- the question is rhetorical) It would >>seem to me that this would constitute taking a position to about the >>same extent Jan did. Jan offered an opinion on netnews. *IF* you >>voted for any of these things (and I don't say you did) then you >>bolstered a government solution to one of the social problems >>involved. > >As above; voting yes and voting no both have consequences. If I suspect, >based on evidence and analysis, that one is preferable over the other then >I have an obligation to vote in that way even in the face of partial >information. Of course I also have an obligation to inform myself as best >I can within normal constraints. If I do not feel qualified to judge, or >feel that my confidence in my information is poor enough as to risk >interfering with the votes of those more knowledgeable (not too likely in a >general election!) then I abstain from a vote. I reject your claim of >analogy. If you still feel it is valid, please elaborate. Jan made a strong >claim. Just how strong a claim that a course is correct is a vote for that >course? Well -- in the US a bunch of votes is sufficient to topple one foreign policy and put in another. Advocacy on netnews is NOT, no matter how heated or well-informed. In short, a vote is a more dire sort of advocacy, the kind the authorities back up with guns and paycheck withholding than, advocacy within netnews. >... >Remember that Jan said that we have a MORAL OBLIGATION to support the >Contras, not that he suspects that the world would be better off if we did. >Even if he did not make so strong a statement, the vehemence with which >the pro-Contra stand is taken, and the name calling applied on both sides >is clearly at a very different level of advocacy as a vote. >This is not to say that issues on which people vote are not strongly >advocated, but the advocacy and the vote are different, and you were >talking about me voting, not about me advocating. Voting and taking a >stand are *independent*, regardless of how often they are asscocieted. > >Just to be perfectly clear, I am not claiming I have never advocated without >analysis, or that I have never taken a stand on an issue without properly >understanding it. I am not claiming that I am free of all intellectual >dishonesty or that I should not be criticized for it; that would be >intellectually dishonest (:-). I welcome such criticism where it applies, >since the whole reason to value intellectual honesty is because we value >truth. But showing that I have been dishonest does not *invalidate* my >claims or *excuse* anyone else of such dishonesty. I do not buy the concept >"Who are you to talk?", which just leads to a social framework of mutually >supported immorality. I am perfectly aware that by putting the issue on the >table I open myself to scrutiny. A very good point. The logic of the argument holds regardless of the conduct of the arguer. My point is that you've over-reacted (impolitely) to Jan's stuff (of course, I'm not polite, always, myself), and your rhetoric is made suspect by demanding that his advocacy must pass a severer test than yours (he must talk about degradation and death in HIS proposal for what to do in re Nicaragua, but you don't have to). >.... >>>>>Instead you >>>>>produce catchy little slogans like the one above, littered with dishonesty, >>>>>and making no reference to the degradation and death of real human beings >>>>>that such policies can produce. >>>> >>>>I've heard no reference by you to the forced relocation of the aborigines >>>>in Nicaragua, perhaps I wasn't listening. Nor, have I heard you mention >>>>the suspension of civil liberties. Again, perhaps I didn't notice, and >>>>again, if you didn't mention these things: Sauce for the goose..... >>> >>>Mention them as support for *what*? Have I denied them? Am I unaware of >>>them? Do you hold that they are sufficient reason to support the Contras? >> >>Not at all! But your point is that Jan "made no reference to the >>degradation and death of real human beings" that supporting the contras >>can produce. I've seen YOU make no reference to the degradation and death >>that forced relocation and suspension of human rights can produce, >>so why should Jan make reference to similar things that "may" occur >>if the Contras are supported. My point is that you've no right to insist >>Jan do it if you've failed to do it (unless you're offering him a trade?) > >But you miss the point. What do I advocate that could be seen as producing >same, unless it is *not* overthrowing the Nicaraguan government, which >could only get there rather indirectly? I get it. Does it count that Jan only suggested "aid" to the contras, which (after all) only turns into explosions "rather indirectly"? >I *do not* advocate forced >relocation or suspension of rights (although I recognize the latter as often >being necessary during wartime, and even when not necessary still is a >consequence. Was the forced relocation of Americans of Japanese ancestry >during WWII a justification for the Japanese to attack the U.S.?) Given that the Japanese attacked in 1941, and the relocation occurred in 1942, it would have been quite a trick for the Japanese to forsee relocation (remember, nothing like it had happened in US history). >Do you >really see them as equivalent? I see -- the parallel is that the Sandinistas didn't explicitly remove all civil rights until recently, so that the suspension of civil rights cannot be used as a pretext for justifying Contra aid unless the Japanese-American Internment may be used as a pretext for Pearl Harbor. That's cute -- I like it. The problem for you is that IF a revolution were to happen in the US that endangered and oppressed people, THEN the Japanese would have had a case for an attack on that government's authority -- not on Pearl Harbor. IF that government then were to declare martial law, then those who argued that "The US still has a pretty free government" would have been dealt a mild blow. (Mild only because the counter-argument that they only did it because they "had no choice" can be raised). >If you do, then I will concede to your >request: not overthrowing the Sandinistas could allow them to carry out >policies which lead to death and degradation; it is possible (but not >demonstrated!) that it would be at higher levels than the combined effect of >overthrowing them and the actions of those who would follow. We know of >policies of this sort already occuring: forceable relocation of the Miskito >Indians with little regard for their culture (but they have been re-relocated >and the Sandinista government has admitted fault in strongly self-critical >terms) and restrictions of the freedom of press and interference with the >actions of other political parties (although under fire from the Contras with >allegedly 50-60% of spending going toward defense, and even so there is >little evidence of curfews or suspension of due process); it is possible that >stopping the fighting would lead to tighter restrictions whereas, if the >Contras take over, even though many of them are a bunch of cutthroats (that >is well-documented!), the democratic elements outside of the Sandinistas >would establish a stable and open government, even though there is no reason >that I can see, given the history of Nicaragua and the area, to think that >the odds favor it. Is that the sort of thing you want? It was indeed -- Thank you. >... > >You say >>so why should Jan make reference to similar things that "may" occur >>if the Contras are supported. >"may"? The whole point is that the *nature* of the Contras is violence. So? I argue that the nature of ANY government, particularly one that claims tight control of its citizens is violence. My point is that if he should, you should. Not that neither of you should. >>>... >>>One >>>of us is making a rhetorical error somewhere. It it is me, show me how. >> >>I think it is you, but I don't think you did it out of intellectual dishonesty, >>but out of carelessness. Jan didn't make reference to the "degradation and >>death" associated with supporting the contras, but YOU didn't make any such >>reference to the "degradation and death" brought about by their opponents. > >You didn't answer me. What statement should I have made? How about: "Nobody contends the Sandinistas have clean hands. Though self critical about it afterwards, they've done forced relocation, killed people, beaten others, suspended civil rights -- in short the sort of things one expects of an authoritarian government under a lot of pressure. But the Contras strike me as worse.". Degradation and death didn't come into this except as implicitly understood by everyone as being in the cards for both sides, until YOU mentioned it as something Jan SHOULD have mentioned. He didn't, but you HADN'T, and it's just nasty of you to insist that a government in power is somehow more sacred than a revolutionary movement (or did you prefer pre-revolutionary Nicaragua to post-revolutionary?) >Can you give me >an exact hypothetical quote, (above) >and show me where in the dialogue I should have >inserted it? Perhaps you should have just avoided suggesting that Jan argue according to one set of rules while you get another. >Remember that what *I* said was that the *question* was whether >we had the *right* to destroy the Nicaraguan government and people. And it's NOT a good question (if you leave out the implication that anybody has said they want to destroy the Nicaraguan people), but the question of whether we have the "right" to do nothing while people are being killed is worth asking, too. BOTH sides involve "degradation and death". That one involves less than the other is hard to prove, and there's enough gore to go around without the debating trick of insisting that the fellow advocating one move in a complex and bloody situation is required to mention that HE's talking about degradation and death. >... >>>I >>>am almost certain I understand you position. It is that the world is black >>>and white. Jan is against the Nicaraguans. I disagree with him, so I must >>>be for them. Since I am for them, I must favor everything they have ever >>>done. I cannot see how else you could reach your sauce for the goose >>>statement otherwise. >> >>Interesting. I've already stated that I'm against any government >>intervention for or against the Contras. (I think the repeal of the Logan >>Act would be fun, so that US citizens could support whomever they chose). > >Your treatment *seems* to imply that the opposite of supporting death and >degradation by the Contras is supporting death and degradation by the >Sandinistas. Since I do not support aiding anyone to kill anyone else >while Jan does, I don't see how your "sauce" argument applies. Look: Find me a Contra who believes that the contras, and only the contras, are responsible for the armed struggle going on there. Find me one who believes that his people would be alive and free under the Sandinistas. If you have trouble finding such a person (and I propose the "search" as a thought-experiment) perhaps it is because THEY believe that things are better in the most important ways if THEY win. It's not certain to me, but I suspect a fair portion of those guys think they'll do better if they have Yankee aid. >>>>The subject WASN'T "degradation and death", so Jan wasn't obligated to >>>>mention it. Perhaps there's MORE "degradation and death" under the >>>>current government than there would be under the Contras. You have >>>>some way of knowing that we don't (perhaps you have some way of >>>>quantifying "degradation")? >>> >>>The point is the degradation and death at the hands of the Contras *now*. >>>That *is* the subject; Jan favors support of people who are shooting >>>and blowing things up. That means death and degradation. Some of >>>such is documented. Even if you are not familiar with the documentation, >>>you can reasonably assume that there is *some*, can you not? >> >>Sure! So tell me, have the Sandinistas NOT done this? > >AGAIN, I do not support those policies of the Sandinistas!!! WHOA! Just let's hear the answer to the question. Jan is indeed proposing to send aid to the Contras, and whatever his reason, if the Sandinistas kill and degrade (notice how "blowing things up" has crept in) people, then COUNTERING them (even if it means other instances of killing and degrading MAY have as firm a basis in terms of minimizing death and degradation as NOT countering them. Certainly in ARGUMENT one may not simply insist that this is not true -- one may therefore not require that the "other side" be held to closer rules of conduct than the "good side". >Jan *does* support the Contras. The whole *point* of the Contras >is to kill and blow things up. You cannot support the Contras >without supporting killing and blowing things up. Oh sure..... I can just hear the Contra's wife: "Well dear, another nice day of killing and blowing things up?" "Yes Honey, today will be a quota-buster for sure. Think I'll kill our cat first". I know of no movement, anywhere, whose members thought of themselves as having as an end value the destruction of lives and property. To accuse the Contras of this (without providing facts) is to do what you yourself have asked that Jan not do -- take a position without revealing the factual basis. As you say, this wouldn't excuse Jan from doing it, but your own position is weakened if you seem to be requiring Jan's side to meet specs that your side does not meet. Let's be clear here: the issue is whether to fund the Contras. For the moment, let's simplify the situation by saying that Jan says "yes" and you say "no". If you simply place, as a bald statement, that the whole point of the Contras is to blow things up, (after stating in great detail the importance of supporting a position factually) then you'd better be able to back it up -- and the notion that "The whole point of the contras is to kill and blow things up" strikes me as off in left field. You may not agree with the Contras, but it would be like saying the whole point of the Highway system is to have accidents, or that the whole point of the legislature is to enslave people. >You *can* >support non-intervention without supporting killing and blowing things up, >as is the case with the Contadora nations. and you *can* oppose the >Sandinistas without killing and blowing things up, as do most of the >opposition groups in Nicaragua and many "liberal" and centrist >politicians in the U.S. and elsewhere. >So, why do you ask the questin you do, unless it is from a Manichean view? Let me ease your bafflement. As I understand it, "Manichaean" refers to a tendency to divide the world up into starkly evil and starkly good parts. For example, if I were to tell you that blowing things up and killing was ALWAYS evil, and therefore supporters of it were EVIL, and that standing neutral or refusing to blow things up was ALWAYS better, then I'd be taking a Manichaean stance. As it happens, I'm saying that even remaining neutral has both good and bad sides, that it's possible to kill and blow things up in a good cause (though I'm not here saying that the Contras are, merely that the action, while repugnant, may have overridingly good consequences). Similarly, the refraining from action involved in neutrality is NOT always or purely good, and I've pointed this out. If you say: "Jan should mention that the policies he's supporting result in real degradation and death", but then argue that restraint is a better policy, you'd better be prepared to argue that restraint results in less degradation and death. In particular, you'd better be prepared to show that restraint does NOT result in degradation and death unless you are also willing to talk about such degradation and death as a result of restraint. As a widely-read person who makes a big point about how necessary it is to be well informed before advocacy, I asked you to tell us either that there is NO such degradation and death (in which case you would indeed be excused from the sauce for the goose.... argument) or to concede that the Sandinistas have indeed indulged themselves, in which case LEAVING them in place involves (judging from the past) degradation and death, in which case an advocate of THAT policy (leaving the Sandinistas unmolested) must ALSO mention degradation and death -- he's advocating letting it continue. >>>What *evidence* of such death at the hands of the Sandinistas can you show? >> >>Let's not forget "Degradation". The Sandinistas have suspended civil >>rights, and forcibly relocated some aborigines. They have forcibly >>censored the press, and I vaguely recall reading that violence was >>used in various of these actions. Certainly degradation has >>resulted. If you are CLAIMING that all this stuff was done without any >>degradation or death, then I'm fascinated (I won't ask you to prove a >>negative, simply to state that "I've read all this stuff I claim to >>read, and found not ONE reasonably substantiated death"). > >Where have I ever claimed such a thing? Where have I been an apologist >for violent policies? Jan is an apologist for violent policies. >(Or would anyone argue that the Contras are using peaceful means?) Nobody argues that -- hardly. Sauce for the goose though -- the Sandinistas have dirty hands too. Let's not demand that their opponents be the only ones who must admit to advocating violence. It doesn't MATTER that you aren't arguing that the Sandinistas should be supported. It doesn't MATTER that I think you're correct about the stance our country should take ("stay out"). What matters is that you're asking Jan to argue as if he were evil, or advocating evil, when it's unknown to any of us what the best move is.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (12/08/85)
>/* Written 12:03 am Dec 8, 1985 by nrh@inmet.UUCP in inmet:net.politics */ >My GUESS is that you have voted for taxation at some point (most voters >have, I suppose), but the point stands even if you personally have never >done so -- intellectual dishonesty is quite a different thing from >intellectual completeness. Sigh.... I meant, of course, "intellectual dishonesty is quite a different thing from intellectual INcompleteness". Sorry -- my own intellectual incompleteness, not my intellectual dishonesty, was showing there.
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (12/10/85)
> [baba@spar] > RE: Contadora. Specific formulas come and go. Discussing them is > part of the Contadora process we are speaking of . If USA > government *rejected* (a binary word !) the Contadora *process* > (this year or last), I'll eat my hat. One of the reasons I'm sure > is that its severest critics keep accusing it of being cold or > insincere in its support for the process. > Rejection would be a peal of thunder; it couldn't be missed. > > Jan Wasilewsky > > P.S. OK, I checked: see Foreign Affairs, fall issue, article > "Contadora Process Demystified". You may put your doubts to rest: > USA still supports the Contadora process. In fact, everyone > does. I thank Jan for pointing me to a resource that I had forgotten I'd had, Foreign Affairs. I don't usually think of it as a resource in debate because it is devoted almost entirely to opinions and policy options - past, present, future, and would-be policy makers selling their positions - rather than to historical and economic fact. Nevertheless, the article on the Contadora process is informative, though one must read beyond the author's bias as a member of the Reagan administration's Latin American policy team in 1980-81. In particular, it describes how the draft treaty agreed to by Nicaragua in September of 1984 was rejected by the U.S., for the reasons I mentioned in my previous posting. The Nicaraguans have been holding out for a comparable deal ever since. Baba
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/12/85)
>Now about slogans: >A one-liner can make a good slogan, and still be true. >E.g. : "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely" >(Lord Acton). Or: "The government is best that governs least" (Thomas >Jefferson). Or: "Probability theory is common sense verified by >calculation" (I forgot the source). > You've presented three counter-examples. Now, how about giving some examples? > >Well, let me try to outline the basic steps of the substantia- >tion. (1) Nicaragua is essentially totalitarian in structure, >though the *policy* has been relatively mild. (2) Totalitarian- >ism, once past certain stage, becomes nearly irreversible. (3) >Until that stage is reached, the regime needs the support of the >population. (4) But it tends to ruin the economy while building >up its machinery of control, repression, propaganda, and the >armed forces. This detracts from the population support. (5) >Foreign aid can allow it to achieve both goals. > (1) Depends on your viewpoint. Any government is *relatively* totalitarian when seen from a libertarian viewpoint, or *relatively* free as seen from a slave's viewpoint. I suspect Nicaragua is about average in today's world, more totalitarian than the USA, less than Chile. (2) Many, many counterexamples: recently, Greece, Argentina. Less recently Germany, Italy. Over history, almost every city, state or country in the world. (Although modern technology may make it increasingly difficult to dislodge a well-organized totalitarian government). (3) Almost any regime, well-established or not, needs the support of a sector of the population and the passive non-resistance of most of the population. Even the American Revolution was accomplished with the support of only 1/3 of the population. (4) I suspect that any substantial change in the form of government tends to give difficulty to the economy. Totalitarian regimes usually know more about getting and keeping power than about economics; but not all of them create havoc with the economy. Germany did much better than the rest of the Western world under the Nazis, and whether you call them Socialist, Fascist or Butchers, you can't deny they were totalitarian. (5) Foreign aid is irrelevant. Lots of Foreign aid goes into the pockets of the wealthy, no matter what the regime, especially if it is totalitarian. It takes a regime that cares (at least a little) about its people to ensure that foreign aid does some good for the people. After the regime is consolidated, if they have ruined the economy they will eventually be thrown out. If they haven't, but still need foreign aid, they must still be doing something for the people. Your point in (3-5) is not clear, or if it is the point it seems to be, it is not clearly established. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (12/13/85)
>/* Written 1:19 pm Dec 9, 1985 by whuts@teddy in ISM780B:net.politics */ >/* ---------- "Re: You ain't Done Nothin' if You ai" ---------- */ >In article <850@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: >>The only problem with this article is that it assumes the U.S. to be way >>over on the right hand side of the political spectrum. There is another >>insult (besides calling one's opponent a Communist) which has been used >>almost as often in this country, at least in the last 40 years. That is >>to call one's opponent a Fascist. > >This brings up an interesting point. Sure I've heard "fascist" used as an >epithet in this country, but primarily by fringe radicals. > >I HAVE NEVER HEARD A MAINSTREAM POLITICIAN CRITICIZE ANYONE FOR BEING A FASCIST. > >I HAVE HEARD MANY POLITICIANS USE THE WORDS "COMMUNIST" AND "MARXIST" AS >NEGATIVE EPITHETS. > >Can someone provide a counter example (in the past 20 years?). In one of my calmer moments I once told a guy pushing laser weapons at the airport that Lyndon LaRouche was a piece of dogshit and he called me a fascist. I thought that was kind of funny and felt lucky he didn't pull a gun on me. In this country fascists like Franco and Klaus Barbie are cool; it is the "premature anti-fascists" who got called up before HUAC. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
jim@ISM780.UUCP (12/17/85)
> You'd be amazed. Kennan quotes one Soviet statement, "typical of >thousands of others," which basically calls for all Communists to fight >to the death with the capitalist system, regardless of any notions of >law or national sovereignity. Lenin once said (and I can get the reference) >that it was ludicrous for the Soviet Union to advocate disarmament, since >violence was the only refuge of the progressive class. A 1972 Soviet book >on military strategy dismissed the "bourgeois" notion that nuclear war was >unwinnable, or even unjust, when used for a progressive cause. I could go >on and on. Apparently the Committee on the Present Danger, which populates the foreign policy positions of the Reagan administration, has adopted the positions of Lenin (with whom they of course are quite familiar). The published position of Adelman, the Rostows, Nitze, and the rest of the clan is that arms reduction and disarmament is a bad idea and that nuclear war is winnable and just if it leads to the triumph of the "Western world". George Kennan, former US ambassador to the USSR, whom you quote, is also very critical of the Reagan administration for emulating the worst traits of the enemy. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/04/86)
>/* Written 4:43 pm Dec 21, 1985 by abc@brl-tgr in inmet:net.politics */ > >The New York seat belt law is estimated to have saved over 170 lives >already. Does this count? >/* End of text from inmet:net.politics */ > Of course! On the other hand, it's annoyed a lot of other people, and cost them money. Does that count? Before you react with: "But even ONE human life is worth an awful lot of annoyance", consider this: Lowering the speed limit to 15 mph would save MORE lives. In other words, there is clearly a trade off between convenience and risk -- and they must be balanced against each other. I'm told that highway designers routinely assign a money value to human life so that they may design highways that are not infinitely safe. Does anyone happen to know what this value is?
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/04/86)
There's been some implication that libertarians and others who oppose the seat belt laws on grounds of personal freedom are, by opposing this law, somehow suggesting that people should not wear seat belts. How many times must these folks be told? Here's Frederic Bastiat from his essay "The Law", written in 1850: Socialism, like the ancient political ideology from which it emanates, confuses government with society. That is why, every time that we do not want a thing to be done by the government, the socialists conclude that we do not want that thing to be done at all. We are opposed to state education; hence, we are opposed to all education. We object to a state religion; hence, we do not want any religion at all. We are against an equality imposed by the state; hence, we are opposed to equality; etc., etc. It is as if they accused us of not wanting men to eat, because we oppose the cultivation of grain by the state. Let me forestall a few objections: First, I am not calling anyone a socialist -- Bastiat was answering the pre-Marx socialists of his day (different from the socialists of our day) and in the process made clear an important distinction. Second, I do not now accuse any specific person of the confusion between government and society (though it's certainly been a fruitful source of confusion on the net in the past).
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (01/07/86)
> >The New York seat belt law is estimated to have saved over 170 lives > >already. Does this count? ---- > Of course! On the other hand, it's annoyed a lot of other people, and > cost them money. Does that count? > > Before you react with: "But even ONE human life is worth an awful lot > of annoyance", consider this: > > Lowering the speed limit to 15 mph would save MORE lives. > > In other words, there is clearly a trade off between convenience and > risk -- and they must be balanced against each other. > > I'm told that highway designers routinely assign a money value to human > life so that they may design highways that are not infinitely safe. Does > anyone happen to know what this value is? ----- I don't know what value highway designers use, but the monetary value of human life in the U. S. is in the range of hundreds of thousands of dollars per life- more than $100k but less than a million. This is typically how much our society is willing to spend in taxes or government mandated expenses to save lives. The financial cost of compulsory seat-belt laws is trivial compared to the lives saved. Actually, seat belt laws, by reducing costly injuries, save society a bundle. Anyone who argues against seat belt laws on economic grounds is either ignorant or dishonest. The personal liberty issue is the only valid one the opponents of such laws have. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (01/09/86)
>/* Written 4:14 pm Jan 6, 1986 by afb@pucc-i> in ISM780B:net.politics */ >/* ---------- "Re: Star Wars, Computers and Doomsd" ---------- */ > > To a large degree, the Russians would measure the success of any all-out >nuclear attack on the United States not on the totality of damage inflicted >but on the destruction of certain vital strategic targets, such as SAC HQ in >Omaha, or NORAD in Colorado. The success of their attack would be far from >complete if they failed to get any of these targets. The value of an ABM >system which was 95% effective would be in greatly reducing the Soviet >certainty of getting the targets they *must* get in order to ensure "success". > > Thus, the mere existence of a 95% effective ABM system would be enough to >deter a Soviet attack in the first place. Isn't that the justification for >having a strategic missile force in the first place? > > Mike Lewis @ Purdue University The problem is that a design requirement of the proposed system is that the Soviets do not increase their current number of missiles. The situation is not static. If you set out to build a 95% effective system, when you are done the situation will be that you will have a much less effective system because your very actions have forced/justified the Soviets to produce a massive increase in missiles, warheads, dummys, etc. While destruction of incoming missiles is a very difficult task that is a great challenge for people working on the design of SDI systems, it turns out that, once you have built an SDI, there is another target that is easy to knock down. Another SDI system. I suspect that the only viable defense against the Soviets is cultural assimilation (something made impossible by the attitude of the current administration toward travel, visas, media exchange, etc.) -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/11/86)
>/* Written 3:11 pm Jan 7, 1986 by carnes@gargoyle in inmet:net.politics */ >>It's easy, Mr. Carnes. If they're Marxists, they're Bad Guys. There >>may be some humane, enlightened, or constructive policies they >>follow, but they're still Bad Guys. > >I'm glad that at least one person has grasped the basic principle of >dividing people into Good and Bad. One reason for so doing is that >it provides a parsimonious and easily understood explanation for all >the conflicts raging in the world. Good people will always be in >conflict with evil people. In all of the world's conflicts, it is >possible to discern a good side and a bad side. Some examples: >.... Huh? I thought the original article made it clear that Marxists were Bad Guys, but that (especially given the example of the Sandinistas rebelling against other bad guys) it didn't follow that the other side was "the good side". >>Would you be pleased if the changes taking place in Nicaragua were >>taking place in YOUR home state? If not, then the people running the >>Marxist states are Bad Guys -- regardless of the fact that the Czar, >>Chiang Kai-shek, Batista and Somoza were also Bad Guys. > >Wouldn't it be simpler to ask the Nicaraguans themselves if they are >pleased with the various changes that have taken place in their >country? I don't know the answer, but it is either Yes or No. That's an interesting idea. If the implication is that each Nicaraguan would say "Yes" or "no", then we agree (with the reservation that a Yes/No choice might have to be forced). But if you think the answer would be "Yes" or "No" if you were to ask the MASS of Nicaraguans (subject it to a country-wide voice-vote, say) then you've taken them as a collective entity capable of only one opinion, which is surely a mistake. >... >>The people of these countries are not guinea pigs, for use in some >>Grand Experiment to show how a New System can build a New Socialist >>Man. They are human beings just like you and me, and if WE wouldn't >>like to live under such an experiment, THEY shouldn't have to, >>either. > >How disgusting that the Sandinistas are using the Nicaraguans as >guinea pigs -- just like Auschwitz. How different from the Founding >Fathers, who when drafting the Constitution wisely contented >themselves with copying the time-tested features of European >political systems, instead of trying anything new and experimental. Would opening the doors of a lab experimenting on human beings and letting the victims out be classed as an experiment also, because it happened in a lab? Perhaps, but there's a difference here: you experiment on someone (in this context) against their will. If you simply let them out, (as the Founders did) you've *ceased* to experiment in the nasty sense -- you've given control of the "experiment" to others. I make a point of this because in the big libertarian-socialist flap a while ago, libertarians were accused of (from memory now) "ALSO trying to legislate their ideas into reality". On the face of it, correct. In a more important way, not correct. Libertarians are trying to NOT legislate their ideas into reality -- rather they're trying to release everyone from legislation (which may, of course, involve the legislative activity of removing legislative interference). By the way, I wouldn't automatically class a Marxist (that is, a believer in the Marxist theory of history, or an advocate of communism) as a Bad Guy, but as soon as they try and IMPOSE their theories forcibly, I'd say they've crossed the line.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/28/86)
>/* Written 9:30 am Jan 24, 1986 by doit@ihlpa in inmet:net.politics */ >/* ---------- "Re.: Politics and Ethics -- Sociali" ---------- */ >In <318@drutx.UUCP> David Olson writes in reply to Tim Sevener: > >Another point: your concept of wealth control bothers me. The market >is not a zero-sum game. Just because someone became wealthier, does not >*necessarily* mean that someone else became poorer. Because some people >control more wealth, does not mean that others *must* control less. > >For instance, I have a garden in my back yard that produces much of the >food (a form of wealth) eaten at my home almost all year long. Because >my garden flourishes, does not mean that someone else's garden has to >perish. Because I control my garden and enjoy food that comes from it, >does not mean that someone somewhere in the world has been made hungrier. >David Olson >..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo > > >Let me explain the concept of "wealth control" to you, using >your garden-example and expanding it. > >Nobody in the world is necessarily hungrier because you control >your garden, but with your decision, whether to let participate >others in the benefits of your garden or not, you make a >difference for those who are involved. The difference might >be negligible for those who don't care or don't depend on your >caring for them; for those who depend on your charity, this >difference is essential. You exercise power over those who >depend on you by deciding how/if/when... you distribute your >goods; not everybody is fortunate enough to have a garden... > >(Note in this context: for everybody whom you give more, somebody >else gets less. The market, that re-distributes >limited resources, is a zero-sum game). Nope! There's no MARKET here -- because you've made the assumption that the garden-owner is distributing his produce by charity rather than by participation in his market. A market is absolutely NOT a zero-sum game -- if it were, nobody would bother to spend money because their net benefit could not be increased nor decreased in so doing. To put it another way, I participate in a market (buy a widget) because I want the widget more than I want the money involved. The seller wants the money more than the widget. Whatever you may think about the morality by which widgets are not distributed free, both the buyer and the seller now have more than they had. This is called a POSITIVE-sum game because the participants experience a net benefit. It's fine to talk about non-market systems as being zero-sum, but please: the net is uninformed enough without the further spreading of incorrect notions. Of course, it's possible you meant something else by "zero-sum", or "market", but I doubt it. It's also possible I misunderstood what you're saying, in which case I invite clarification.
az@inmet.UUCP (01/28/86)
[Gil Neiger] > Nevertheless, if > you were a centrist politician would you want to be someone who tried > to work within the system (whether it was fair or not) when the contras > march into Managua? Of course not. And when Sandinistas are in Managua already, would you like to vote against the system (whether it was fair or not) ? Is not this where 65% of the votes come from? Alex Zatsman.
janw@inmet.UUCP (01/29/86)
>[Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan] >> [Tim Sevener] >> We can see how blatantly "terrorism" has been defined by Reagan and the >> media as "killing of Americans" in the shooting of four American >> military advisers in El Salvador by the guerillas. >---- >The killing of U. S. military advisors in El Salvador by the guerillas >is not terrorism. Reagan is wrong. See Tim, even you can't be wrong >all the time. -) Can't he ? I was under the impression that the four marines killed in that San-Salvador cafe were *not* military advisers but part of the embassy staff ... They had nothing to do with the war. Bill, you owe Reagan an apology.
gil@cornell.UUCP (Gil Neiger) (01/31/86)
In article <7800931@inmet.UUCP> az@inmet.UUCP (Alex Zatsman) writes: >When Sandinistas are in Managua already, would you >like to vote against the system (whether it was fair or not) ? > > Is not this where 65% of the votes come from? Do you agree then that the reason that Reagan won by such a landslide in 1984 (and Nixon in 1972) was that the Republicans were in the White House then? Who would dare vote agains them! International observers from all over the world agreed that the Nicaraguan elections in 1984 were free and open. I have never seen any reports of coercion of voters. Have you? -- Gil Neiger Computer Science Department Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853 {uw-beaver,ihnp4,decvax,vax135}!cornell!gil (UUCP) gil@Cornell.ARPA (ARPAnet) ; gil@CRNLCS (BITNET)
janw@inmet.UUCP (02/02/86)
[Gabor Fencsik {ihnp4,dual,lll-crg,hplabs}!qantel!gabor]
Your article on Hungarian elections was extremely enlightening to
me; and the problem of the evolution of Communist states is
vitally important. So can you elaborate a bit?
>I see Hungary as a dictatorship in an advanced state of decomposition.
What is it that ails them (more than usual) ? Economics ? Malaise ? Loss
of credibility ? Parallel economy, and independent human life in
general ? Why can't they just go on vacillating, loosening and
tightening the reins, forever ?
>The elections may be a step toward democracy or they may be a step
>toward the abyss: I don't pretend to know.
The first would require a change in Russia to be viable. What
kind of an abyss ? 1956 again ? Economic slump ? (But that's
hardly an abyss). On both horns of your dilemma, aren't there ri-
gid constraints to how far change can go ?
>The intentions of those
>engineering this show, as far as I can judge them, have nothing to do
>with democracy as you or I understand the word.
*Show* rings true. But why did they choose this kind of show ?
Is there a genuine desire for democracy (rather than simply being
treated well) in any part of the people ?
> "One intellectual excitement has been denied me. Men wiser and more learned
> than I have discerned in history a plot, a rhythm, a predetermined pattern.
> These harmonies are concealed from me. I can see only one emergency
> following upon another as wave follows wave ... "
"Don't know" is always a safe answer, as well as humble. I've
read Fisher's history, but I've learned more from people who
venture a unifying hypothesis, who dare to see a pattern, at the
risk of being wrong. Not necessarily on the scale of Marx or
Toynbee ... E.g., your "dictatorship in an advanced state of
decomposition" is such a pattern, and helps you see events in a
meaningful way; there's a whole lot of hidden assumptions in this
phrase - but the risk is worth taking.
Jan Wasilewskygoudreau@dg_rtp.UUCP (02/04/86)
In article <7800934@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >>[Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan] >>> [Tim Sevener] >>> We can see how blatantly "terrorism" has been defined by Reagan and the >>> media as "killing of Americans" in the shooting of four American >>> military advisers in El Salvador by the guerillas. >>---- >>The killing of U. S. military advisors in El Salvador by the guerillas >>is not terrorism. Reagan is wrong. See Tim, even you can't be wrong >>all the time. -) > >Can't he ? I was under the impression that the four marines killed >in that San-Salvador cafe were *not* military advisers but part >of the embassy staff ... They had nothing to do with the war. >Bill, you owe Reagan an apology. You are correct about the four marines. Also killed were two or three US civilians and a number of Salvadoran civilians. But of course, a sidewalk cafe is a military target, right, Tim? Bob Goudreau
cdrigney@uokvax.UUCP (02/06/86)
/* Written 8:41 am Jan 28, 1986 by orb@whuts.UUCP in uokvax.UUCP:net.politics */ At last, a subject I can sink my teeth into! This is long, but I wanted to give worthwhile answers. There's a short bibliography at the end, for people who'd like to know more. > Here are some important facts on the conventional arms balance in > Europe, from the book, Arsenal of Democracy by Tom Gervasi: > > 1)NATO spending exceeded Warsaw Pact spending each year through the 1970's > ending in 1979 with $212 billion for NATO vs $175 billion for the Warsaw Pact > Secretary of Defense Harold Brown estimated that during the 70's NATO > outspent the Warsaw Pact by $318 billion These comparisons are meaningless unless you carefully study how they're arrived at, and usually meaningless even then. For example, are these counting the salary of Soviet military personnel as what they're actually paid, or what the equivalent U.S. soldier is paid? And do you use the official exchange rate for rubles, the unofficial rate, or some strange weighted figure arrived at by extensive calculations? Dollars and rubles don't fight wars, men and machines do. Comparing dollar figures is useless. > 2)NATO holds the preponderance of naval force with 485 surface combatants > on station vs the Warsaw Pact's 195 If you don't count submarines, this figure is worthless. And counting up all types of ships, without taking into account the type and quality of the ship IN RELATION TO THE MISSION THEY PERFORM is utter nonsense. One might think Nato would be better building 100 Fast Attack Boats instead of one carrier, just because it gives them 100 times as many ships (err, actually I'd think it would be better, but NOT because it gives them more ships for the beancount). > 3)NATO has only 64 active divisions vs 68 Warsaw Pact active divisions: Again, meaningless bean-counting unless you consider the makeup and armament of the divisions. As well, are you familiar with the Russian organization of "invisible" divisions, which hides the command and control structure of two divisions in one? That's why the Germans in WW II organized their plans to defeat 160 Soviet divisions, and found to their dismay after destroying over 300 divisions that there were still plenty. For an excellent look at this, read Suvorov's _Inside the Soviet Army_. > however NATO has a standing force of 2,800,000 vs the Pact's 2,600,000 NATO has a *much* higher "supply tail" than the Warsaw Pact; that is, their supply & logistics uses a much higher fraction of their manpower. Soviet Doctrine is that the only need for resupply is ammunition and fuel (thus their desire for a Russia-Europe pipeline, a whole 'nother topic). > 4)NATO also has a preponderance of reserve strength. Adding active and > reserve forces NATO has 5,184,500 vs 4,800,000 men If you're going to talk about reserves (and you certainly should), what you must look at is mobilization curves - how long does it take NATO to get those 5 million into action, vs. how long does it take the WP to get its 5 million? A definite worry in planning is that for the first 2 weeks or so after mobilization you get a trickle, so if you wait 2 weeks while the other side's mobilizing, you take the chance they will be mostly mobilized when you're just beginning. But if you mobilize when you're not sure the other side is, the economic and political costs are huge, and you take the risk that the other side will get nervous about your mobilization and start to mobilize for real, even if they weren't before. This was a major factor in starting WW I, when mobilization times were measured in months, not weeks. (Note: Starting, not Causing) I don't think I agree with those figures, but that's beside the point. > 5)The above troop figures do *not* include an additional 326,800 French > troops As long as you clearly mention it, no problem. In practice, its very unlikely France would refuse to aid NATO, but that can be reasonably differed on. > Now to consider every militarists' favorite, the infamous "tank > comparison". As I have previously pointed out to myopically > focus solely upon the major weapon of the *last* war is to live > in the past. The tank balance is 27,200 Warsaw Pact tanks to > 11,800 NATO tanks. Tom Gervasi points out that if tanks were > really so critically short in NATO that it would be stupid for > the US to have provided 1,015 M-60A3 tanks and 771 M-48A5 tanks > to various countries in the Middle East and Asia. Similarly if > the British military truly thought tanks were critically needed > in Europe they would be foolish to have planned to send 800 > Chieftain tanks to Iran before the Iranian revolution led to > cancellation. I have great difficulty in believing the "It would be stupid for X to do Y if Z is true, so if X did Y then Z must not be true. It ignores the other possibility, that X is stupid (or, more kindly, mispercieves the situation). Furthermore, Europe is not the beginning and ending of U.S. and U.K. foreign interests - it's important, but so is the Middle East. So I don't find Tom Gervasi's argument persuasive. You have to consider not just numbers of tanks, but quality, and how they relate to doctrine and the use of anti-tank weapons, as well as artillery. Tests that say (I'm just making this up for an example) "An M-1 can destroy 3 T-72s, so it doesn't matter that the Soviets outnumber us 3 to 1." are of little value, especially if they don't take into account whether the M-1 has broken down or not (every 30 miles or so). The rate of production of tanks is also very important, because they get used up at a tremendous pace in the high-pressure crucible of modern warfare. In the few days of the 1973 Arab- Israeli war, 3 years production of tanks were destroyed. Further, you have to take into account doctrine. If you have 10,000 tanks and the enemy has 20,000, each of your tanks doesn't have to defend against 2 of the enemy's! He (ESPECIALLY where he == the Soviets) is going to concentrate his forces, so you may have 1000 tanks defending against 10,000. And with the silly Defense in Depth required by West German refusal to give up any more territory than they absolutely have to and the closeness of the Rhine preventing maneuver, the attacking forces have a tremendous advantage in concentrating forces. If Nato is unwilling to use nuclear weapons, then this advantage is accentuated. But I won't get into *that* subject here. > My previous figures for NATO antitank weapons was incorrect, the correct > figure is 193,000 antitank weapons for NATO vs 68,000 for the Warsaw Pact. What's being counted as an Anti-Tank weapon? Are you including automatic mortars in direct-fire mode, or just RPGs? Also note that the Soviets believe that the anti-Tank weapon is another tank. > NATO's antitank weapons employ the latest in precision guided > technology and electronics including laser, optical and > infrared guidance. Sophisticated weapons are real neat and all, but is a weapon that has an 80% kill ratio that costs 100 times as much as one that has a 10% kill ratio really a bargain? (Again, numbers are purely for illustrative purposes, I'm not arguing these are the exact figures.) > We have seen how deceptive mere quantitative comparisons can be > in the numerous Middle East wars. Time after time Israel's > highly advanced weapons largely from the US, have massacred > Arab Soviet-supplied weapons. This has been true even in cases > of a *quantitative* superiority for the Arabs. I tend to believe that the Israeli victories are more due to the superiority of Israeli tactics and training than their equipment, PLUS the suitability of the areas fought over for Armored warfare. And fighting a defensive battle for survival does wonders for morale. > To say there is a "conventional weapons gap" in NATO is as > absurd as saying the US is behind in the nuclear arms race. To say anything based on nothing but bean-counting is absurd, period. I don't particularly believe there's a gap between NATO and WP wide enough to be threatening, but I can see trends that might lead to that. Anyone interested in a better look at this topic than I've superficially sketched out should take a look at: _The Threat_ by Andrew Cockburn _Inside the Soviet Army_ by Victor Suvurov, an officer who defected from the Soviet Army. _Strategy_ by B.H. Liddell Hart, practically the textbook of the German and Israeli armies. This may be out of print, but its well worth tracking down. Anything else by Hart is liable to be good, for example his _History of the Second World War_, if you're interested in not only *what* happened militarily but *why*. The first is available in paperback, and is quite readable and informative. I don't know if the second is available in paperback, and the first part deals with Soviet Order of Battle in more detail than a casual reader might enjoy, but it's *very* informative. And the latter half presents a view of the Soviet army from someone who's actually been in it, and knows what he's talking about. While not directly linked to this, _Mig Pilot_, I believe by John Barron, presents an interesting look at the "elite" Soviet Air Defense forces (What do Soviet pilots like best about the Mig 25? It uses massive quantities of Alcohol for de-icer, so its airbases have huge quantities of alcohol around and you can get totally smashed with little effort.) Barron's books on the KGB are also excellent, but that's a whole other topic. I invite others to present lists of books on this topic they've found useful. --Carl Rigney USENET: {ihnp4,allegra!cbosgd}!okstate!uokvax!cdrigney
cdrigney@uokvax.UUCP (02/06/86)
>Written 7:25 pm Feb 5, 1986 by cdrigney@uokvax.UUCP in uokvax.UUCP:net.politics >> Written 8:41 am Jan 28, 1986 by orb@whuts.UUCP in uokvax.UUCP:net.politics >> Here are some important facts on the conventional arms balance in >> Europe, from the book, Arsenal of Democracy by Tom Gervasi: > >> 2)NATO holds the preponderance of naval force with 485 surface combatants >> on station vs the Warsaw Pact's 195 > If you don't count submarines, this figure is worthless. And > counting up all types of ships, without taking into account the > type and quality of the ship IN RELATION TO THE MISSION THEY > PERFORM is utter nonsense. I forgot to mention what that mission was: simplistically, NATO has to bottle up the Soviet fleets (especially submarines) and protect resupply convoys from the U.S. to Europe. There are some other missions, but those are the important ones. Ignoring the effect of submarines on the question of U.S. logistical support of NATO is about on a par with discussing WW II military tactics without mentioning tanks... --Carl Rigney USENET: {ihnp4,allegra!cbosgd}!okstate!uokvax!cdrigney
cdrigney@uokvax.UUCP (02/06/86)
> indicates Sevener's reply >> From Matt Rosenblatt: >> A few questions for Mr. Sevener: I hope you don't mind if I answer this one as well, Matt. >> 1. When the Germans sliced through Russia (and France) in >> World War II, how did German manpower (active and reserve) >> compare with Soviet and French/British manpower? Was it >> numerical superiority of men that won battles for the >> Germans, or numerical (and technical) superiority of >> weapons, mainly tanks? > I believe it was predominantly a matter of Germany's swift and > adept use of the latest technology at the time (namely tanks) > coupled with weak Russian resistance. Use based on books that had been available since the 30's (in particular, B.H. Liddell-Hart's _On Strategy_) and ideas that had been around since the 20's. No one but the Germans paid attention to these ideas for highly mobile warfare, and even they were very relunctant to adopt them. The astounding victories of Guderian and his ilk would have been far faster and more thorough if the General staff had not been so unwilling to encompass the new ideas. The ONLY reason anyone was evacuated at Dunkirk, for example, was that Hitler ordered Guderian to halt just short of it - he got there before the retreating BEF did. In the invasion of Russia, Moscow would have fallen the first year, if Guderian had been given fuel. Instead Hitler got distracted by the Caucasus, and the German forces were drawn into the deathtrap at Stalingrad. Germany's forces were *extremely* tiny at that time, even compared to France. The Russians outnumbered them on the order of 10 to 1, even at the beginning. I doubt there was any battle on the Eastern Front that Germany had numerical superiority in. They *destroyed* over 300 divisions in the opening months of the war, and were *still* outnumbered. A major reason for the weakness of Russian defense was the lack of experienced commanders, Stalin having slaughtered most of them in the Great Purge. Another reason was the hatred of the USSR troops for the Russian regime. In particular, the Ukraineans deserted wholesale, and would have willingly joined the Germans in marching on Moscow had they been given the chance. If anything this hatred is even greater today. German tanks were technically superior to Russian tanks; that was one of their major drawbacks. > One notes that the tiny island of England did much better in > holding out under conditions of regular V-2 raids. This primarily demonstrates the bankruptcy of strategic bombing to break civilian morale, a concept that has never proved itself. Were it not for an unfortunate (err, I mean fortunate) mistake on the part of the Luftwaffe's bombers, Germany would've been bombing useful targets, instead of wasting its time and resources (desparately needed on the Eastern Front) terrorizing civilians. > I don't suppose that Russia's morale is vastly improved. There's a world of difference between defending the Motherland and invading someone else. The only thing more dismal than Russian morale is Russian discipline - see _The Threat_ or better still _Inside the Soviet Army_ for details. I'll answer the other questions in a later posting if I find time, but bean-counting isn't really important anyway - it's just easy to do. There's a publication that gives the overall armament for every country in the world, but I don't recall its name at the moment - I'll post it when I find out. --Carl Rigney USENET: {ihnp4,allegra!cbosgd}!okstate!uokvax!cdrigney
cdrigney@uokvax.UUCP (02/11/86)
A few replies; I don't want this indentation to go too deep... >>> and > are aglew, >> is me. /* Written 8:04 pm Feb 7, 1986 by aglew@ccvaxa.UUCP in uokvax.UUCP:net.politics */ >>Then again, from the Soviet viewpoint, NATO troops waste too much >>time and money on useless training and luxury - why does everyone >>need to know how to read a map, anyway? >Maps? You've heard the story about instructions to army commanders >on the Finnish Front? "At the first opportunity, capture the >enemy's maps". This was inside Russian territory. I was being mildly derogatory, but Suvorov points out that the less Pact soldiers know about borders, the fewer will try to cross during peacetime. It's in the nature of most special forces to look down on each other - isn't part of being elite knowing that you're the best? And therefore everyone else is inferior? What Yankee weapons are worth stealing, by the way (just out of curiousity)? And why can't the Canadian SF get them? >So you get good career officers - moreover, the brightest >ambitious young men seek to become officers. But because of the soviet military system, and ESPECIALLY because every commander is responsible for any failure that occurs in his command (the vertical stroke), I'd think soviet officers tend to become cynical and greedy alcoholics. Now of course I don't know that, and wouldn't care to say how widespread this is, but Suvorov seems to imply that disillusionment comes pretty fast. The Vertical Stroke means that if you're commanding a platoon and one of your men screws up (for example, he steals equipment and sells it, then gets drunk on duty on the profits - apparently not all that uncommon), and you report it following the proper procedures, not only he gets in trouble, but you do too. It's your platoon, so if anyone in it fails its because you failed as a commander. And likewise, the company commander, the battalion commander, and so forth, all the way up the line, are responsible. This generates tremendous pressure not to take disciplinary action. And once the enlisted men realize they're not going to be disciplined, how do you control them? By "unofficial" punishments? Putting the fear of the Sargeant into them? What do you suppose the lifespan of a commander who rules his men through fear and hate is, once they go into combat and have live ammo? The Vertical Stroke means that its much easier to go along with the system than to buck it and try to do your job properly. >high tech. I think you and I both agree which wins out in >high-tech vs. low-tech. (The cockroaches win) Agreed. I think you take the western-barfight analogy too far - perhaps you're trying Reductio ad Absurdum? Perhaps the soviet wouldn't open with a massive tactical nuclear strike, but Suvorov seems to take it for granted. Your reaction that "perhaps they'll only do it if they *really* have to" is exactly the sort of western wishful thinking that he said Soviet officers couldn't understand. If it's any consolation, he also says that after he's briefed NATO officers on soviet doctrine and given them a simple tactical problem to solve "as if they were soviet officers" that NOT ONCE has anyone gotten it right. Not Once. (If there's any interest, I could post the question - it's very simple.) >As for smooth escalation, or the knock-out blow, no Soviet >commander is going to start a possibly nuclear conflict unless >he was sure he could win. NO ONE is going to start ANY conflict unless they're sure they can win - who would start a war if they thought they'd lose??? The whole point of deterrence, both conventional and nuclear, is to either make the opponent sure he couldn't win a fight if he started it, or at least raise sufficient doubts that he won't be tempted. >Escalation: the Soviets have small scale nuclear munitions, >according to USNI Proceedings. Certainly, although I believe their weapons tend to be larger than U.S. tactical nuclear munitions, possibly to make up for lack of accuracy. I recall reading somewhere that the soviets didn't really believe in a sharp distinction between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, but the argument wasn't supported strongly enough for me to really believe in it. >(note: but most people don't set out to fight. they set out to >prove themselves, like the Berlin Crisis) Was there fighting in the Berlin Crisis? Perhaps you could choose a better example? I'm familiar with Escalation Theory (cf Herman Kahn's _Escalation: Metaphors & Scenarios_), but the step from "threatening gestures" to "invasion" is very large. Of the 40 steps on the ladder he suggests as a model, I don't believe anyone has gone past 5 or 6, and even 3 is very rare and considered quite extreme. There are very few interests that the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. are really willing to go to a general war for - one of the major reasons for U.S. troops stationed in NATO is to make the Russians believe that a European invasion will involve the U.S., since thousands of its citizens would be killed. But this is already long enough, so we won't get into that. --Carl Rigney USENET: {ihnp4,allegra!cbosgd}!okstate!uokvax!cdrigney
janw@inmet.UUCP (02/13/86)
[Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs]
>February 7, 1986 is glorious day for all Haitians, and for all champions
>of the cause of justice. Today, Jean-Claude Duvalier, so-called
>President for Life of the Rupublic of Haiti, fled ignominously
>from the country that woke up to scream its disgust at having been raped
>and pillaged for 28 years, 4 months and 15 days.
>So rejoice, rejoice. We can all, finally, with "all God's children, join
>in the old Negro spiritual and sing 'Free at Last, Free at last, Thank God
>Almighty, We're Free at Last!'"
A glorious day, indeed. Congratulations, and best of luck!
In '76, when I lived in New York, I bought stray issues of a Hai-
tian emigre newspaper, and was impressed by a glimpse of the rich
culture of that impoverished nation.
People in this country can be proud of one thing: this time the
rebels were waving U.S. flags...
I wonder if M.-F. Simon would like to give us his views of what
people abroad could do to help Haiti prosper and keep her free-
dom. And how to retrieve the loot Baby Doc took with him? Do you
think an exchange of it for a safe asylum would be a good idea ?