warren@ihnss.UUCP (Warren Montgomery) (04/23/84)
This newsgroup recently appeared on my screen after a long absence when I lost my subscriptions file. I see that the same old topics (unions, free-market economics, nuclear power and weapons, taxes, etc) are debated with the same old enthusiasm. I would like to contribute a few logs to the fire in the form of some thoughts on the underlying causes of our troubles in these areas. A basic problem in a lot of conflicts in society is that people have stopped trying to work out their differences and tried instead to turn every issue into a power struggle, to be determined by emotions and excercise of power, rather than rational compromise. I think that this is a good deal of the difference between labor-management relationships in the US and Western Europe, versus in Japan. For both sides, winning something has become more important than agreeing on a solution that gets the job done. Nuclear power is another good example. Rather than work out a reasonable set of standards for the use of nuclear power, power companies and consumer activists wind up fighting each other in court, adding long delays to plant construction and not increasing the safety of the resulting plants. Even the names we assign to causes (progressive/regressive taxation, pro-life/pro-choice, anti-nuke, right-to-work, welfare for the rich) seem chosen to encourage emotional conflict, rather than rational decision making. The result of this trend has been to make it more difficult if not impossible to accomplish some tasks. It has also lead to increasing frustration and cynacism when the system did not produce a workable solution. It is self perpetuating, since once one side in a conflict decides not to try to resolve it but to turn it into a battle, the other side generally can gain more by escalating it rather than trying to resolve it. (Like a company that declares bankrupcy to avoid court battles over product liability or to void labor contracts rather than work through an equitable solution with the workers.) The trend towards turning minor conflicts into power struggles is everywhere in our society and rarely seems positive. (Doctor's and lawyers fight an increasing battle over liability, needlessly increasing the cost of medical care. The courts fight eachother in a battle in which people are sentenced to more and more severe sentences, and then released in an increasingly short proportion of the sentence, rather than working out some better set of standards for determining who should be in jail and for how long that can be fair to all.) A second point about the debates in net.politics and other groups that tackle issues leading to conflict is that many of the most violent debates arise from different views on more basic ideas than those debated. (For example, you will never be able to convince people of your viewpoints on Regan's economic programs unless you come to some agreement with your audience on what the government should do in the economy.) Debating from different sets of premesis is like trying to play a game in which each player has a different set of rules for determining the outcome. It's far more satisfying to try to understand the underlying causes for disagreement and to try to see the other person's point of view. In all likelyhood, I will shortly unsubscribe to net.politics again, but felt like contributing my 2k bits worth to this newsgroup. I wish I had some solutions to offer, because I seriously feel that our inability to resolve differences rationally is making the world a more dangerous and less pleasant place to live. -- Warren Montgomery ihnss!warren IH x2494