janw@inmet.UUCP (10/31/85)
[Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka] > The world would be much better off if a good world government could be > established. That is a large if. Social experimentation is DANGEROUS. Given the if, in the *short* run it would be. But by the time the government stopped being good, it would not stop being a govern- ment. And all your eggs would be in one basket. Social experimentation *is* dangerous; so is social drift. Willy-nilly, we all *are* in a social experiment. So how do we minimize the danger ? I suggest, by diversification. That means, no global government; also, less national government. E.g., during the 60's and 70's USA public education was all but ruined by "experimentation". I put the word in quotes because the basic scientific rules of experimentation were not observed. Rather, the changes were introduced by true believers who would not take NO for an answer from nature. Some of the "experi- menters" were politicians, some judges, some members of the edu- cational establishment, and it is hard to say who was worse. And the *same* kind of changes were made all over the nation. Where was their goddamn control ? Of course, the package clearly and miserably failed. It was our milder version of the Cultural Revolution. Now things are creep- ing back, in some ways, to prerevolutionary days and the SATs are creeping back up. But experiments in education were sorely needed ! They are still needed. To some insufficient extent, they are conducted. But how much *could* be done and cannot be tried. Personally, I believe what is worth learning in the 12-year course, could easily be taught in 2 or 3 years. Get rid of tenure, hire 4 times fewer teachers at 4 times the price. Don't teach kids how to live: you don't know it yourself. Don't entertain them: if you are any good, the learning itself will be fun. Don't discipline them: if you have to, you should be fired. Don't teach basketball or basket weaving. All this will save time. Let lecturing be done on TV, by the best lecturer in school: that will free teachers' time for question-and-answer sessions and working with individuals. Never adapt to the slowest students, teach the brightest and let them explain to the rest. That will save *lots* of time. Using that time, teach them to en- joy reading. That will save more time. Never rebuke or punish or grade anyone; flatter a lot, but mainly keep them absorbed and fascinated by the wonders of the subject itself, like Mr. Wizard. (It takes talent; an untalented teacher is engaged in the worst form of child abuse, destroying mind and soul forever. Pay for the talent, whatever it takes). I've digressed; the point is, suppose I'm wrong, still somebody else will be right; as likely as not, her ideas will sound *more* eccentric than mine, and *she won't be allowed to try them*. [I've changed my mind on the generic she]. For the central government, the state governments and the cen- tralized educator associations, wielding government power, are the chief enemies of experimentation and progress in education - because they are the enemies of pluralism. Instead they gave us the "experiment" of the American Cultural Revolution. Now consider taxes. Forget about them being theft, just consider the optimal ways to steal. We had the '81 tax package rushed through congress without being read by most congressmen, much less the public. A large "experiment" if ever there was one, made on the body of the whole nation. But the accumulations of previ- ous decades of tax laws which that package sought to correct, were an even larger "experiment", made with even less aware- ness. Compare this to the "free enterprise zones" idea. It would let *true* experimentation, by private people, into these zones. It has the support of the administration *and* of black and hispan- ic leaders (in both cases lukewarm). Almost no one is openly against. If successful, it could solve the most festering prob- lems: inner city decay, ghetto youth unemployment. The "tax ex- penditures" are small. Yet something invisible is in the way; enough to block the thing for five years, and no end is in sight. The question is *not* whether we can afford social experimentation. If we could freeze the status quo in every respect, that would be the largest "experiment" of all, and one certain to be fatal. The question is, can we curb, at least in some areas, the wholesale "experimentation" by the state, and make way for some true experimentation, much safer and much more productive. Let me list a few reforms that I feel would be both safe and hopeful. They may not be *politically* realistic. - phase in free enterprise zones. - phase in education vouchers. - abolish tenure in public schools ; compensate the teachers. - reduce the rules for teacher and school certification : if students score high on tests, this should be enough. - gradually allow paramedic practitioners an almost equal status with doctors ("almost" - as a sop to professional self-respect). - same for paralegals and lawyers. - make things easier for para-police organizations like Guardian Angels. - change environmental protection rules on the highly successful West German model: pollute if you wish, but *pay in proportion*. - abolish all affirmative action laws and regulations (no need to phase out, internal corporation rules take care of that). - abolish minimum wage (no need to phase out, inflation took care of that). - legalize all illegal immigrants, with the proviso that if they commit a crime or draw too much welfare benefits, they can be deported. - make immigration free to anyone who (a) passes an easy English test; and (b) agrees to be deported under the conditions of the previous item. This can be phased in by gradually relaxing the English test. - legalize marijuana. - allow condemned prisoners the option of suicide. - gradually replace income tax with consumption (sales) tax. - in view of successful office automation, and the accumulated effects of Parkinson's law, require by law a yearly reduction of civil service staff of, say, 10%. - similar rule for clerical defense personnel. - make government financially responsible for unfair damage to private persons (e.g. judicial error resulting in a prison term). - limit the length, in letters, of new laws. - let jury, not judges, decide what a law means. (This would promote a rule of law instead of the rule of lawyers). - make any new law pass revision by a jury who must unanimously agree they understand it. - adopt a sunset law for all government agencies, regulations, and laws (except for the constitution and the sunset law). Jan Wasilewsky
bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) (11/03/85)
Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ Keywords: In article <28200239@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: { An assertion that social experimentation goes on continuously, } { a criticism of US education in the 60's and 70's, and } { a fairly sensible proposal for further experiments in response to } { Frank Adams assertion that social experimentation is DANGEROUS } I'd like to disagree with slighly about US education having lived through it. Mostly it wasnt too bad, alot of it was a waste of time, and anybody whos parents encouraged them to read and learn managed to do pretty well. >Let me list a few reforms that I feel would be both safe and >hopeful. They may not be *politically* realistic. > { the afore mentioned proposals - many deleted } >- change environmental protection rules on the highly successful > West German model: pollute if you wish, but *pay in proportion*. Would like you to define "highly successful" in this context. Personally I prefer "dont you dare pollute, but if you do pay in proportion". >- gradually replace income tax with consumption (sales) tax. As long as consumption includes the buying of companies, stocks, bonds, or real estate, and exempts some minimal amount for food, clothing, and shelter, I'm all for it. What do you do about goods purchased in other countries? >- limit the length, in letters, of new laws. >- let jury, not judges, decide what a law means. (This would > promote a rule of law instead of the rule of lawyers). >- make any new law pass revision by a jury who must unanimously > agree they understand it. >- adopt a sunset law for all government agencies, regulations, > and laws (except for the constitution and the sunset law). > > Jan Wasilewsky Well spoken Jan. I would add a couple of restrictions here: - Require that all legislation include provisions for financing. This should be sufficient to overcome the *free lunch* mentality the libertarians harp about without dismantling the system completely. - Require that all legislation have a measurable goal and will become automatically void if it fails to meet that goal. Thus a proposal for education might state the goal is to raise the median SAT score 5 points per year, starting in 1988, measured every 2 years. If scores are not at least 10 points higher in 1990, the program is terminated. - Every citizen should recieve an accounting statement every year stating which laws where passed, who voted for and against them, which ones expired, how much tax he had paid, where it went, what the value of services he recieved in return, etc. Admittedly, some of these would have to be estimates, but the idea is to provide the citizen with enough information to decide if he is getting screwed, and who to blame if he is. The press currently does an inadequate job reporting these things because it doesnt sell many papers, but could probably do a great job of exposing fraud or inaccuracy in the estimates, which does. Very often I also think that legislators should be hired and that the vote should only be used to fire them, but that is for another time. -- Bob Weiler The odds against my opinions reflecting those of my employer are nearly astronomical.
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (11/04/85)
In article <28200239@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >[Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka] >> The world would be much better off if a good world government could be >> established. That is a large if. Social experimentation is DANGEROUS. > >Given the if, in the *short* run it would be. But by the time the >government stopped being good, it would not stop being a govern- >ment. And all your eggs would be in one basket. In many important respects, all our eggs ARE in one basket. The risk of nuclear war is real, and would be eliminated by a world government. It would NOT be eliminated by having smaller national governments. More like increased. Governments can get better as well as worse. >E.g., during the 60's and 70's USA public education was all but >ruined by "experimentation". But that experimentation was not nationally mandated. It was done by the various states and local governments. >The question is *not* whether we can afford social experimentation. >If we could freeze the status quo in every respect, that would >be the largest "experiment" of all, and one certain to be fatal. Just to make it clear, I was not proposing that we should. Only that social experimentation be done with a great deal of care and consideration. ------------------------------ [Portions of the following discussion are specific to the U.S.] >Let me list a few reforms that I feel would be both safe and >hopeful. They may not be *politically* realistic. > >- phase in free enterprise zones. I have my doubts. This sort of thing tends to affect where people work but not who works there, and enrich certain companies at the expense of the government (read taxpayers). Britain's experience seems to indicate this. >- phase in education vouchers. A reasonable idea. I suspect a lot of its support comes from people who put their children in private schools to avoid integration, however. >- abolish tenure in public schools ; compensate the teachers. Agreed. While we're at it, let's get rid of the idea that all teachers at a school should be on the same pay scale, regardless of subject. >- reduce the rules for teacher and school certification : if students > score high on tests, this should be enough. All right, but some people aren't good at taking tests. Don't make test- taking the only way to succeed. >- gradually allow paramedic practitioners an almost equal status with > doctors ("almost" - as a sop to professional self-respect). >- same for paralegals and lawyers. Or just have more medical and law schools. >- make things easier for para-police organizations like Guardian Angels. No. Para-police organizations without strict controls can go bad very fast. >- change environmental protection rules on the highly successful > West German model: pollute if you wish, but *pay in proportion*. Yes. This isn't so much Libertarian as just good economic sense. Capitalist, to be sure. >- abolish all affirmative action laws and regulations (no need > to phase out, internal corporation rules take care of that). Internal corporate rules came into existence only because of the laws. >- abolish minimum wage (no need to phase out, inflation took care > of that). I support this in conjunction with a negative income tax. By itself, I don't think it's a good idea. >- legalize all illegal immigrants, with the proviso > that if they commit a crime or draw too much welfare benefits, they > can be deported. >- make immigration free to anyone who (a) passes an easy > English test; > and (b) agrees to be deported under the conditions > of the previous item. > This can be phased in by gradually relaxing the English test. I just plain don't think this will work. It is a relatively high-risk experiment, even if the test is quite stringent. >- legalize marijuana. The sooner the better. >- allow condemned prisoners the option of suicide. I don't think, given the current state of society, that suicide should be condoned in any circumstances. >- gradually replace income tax with consumption (sales) tax. As indicated above, I would rather see a negative income tax. >- in view of successful office automation, and the accumulated > effects of Parkinson's law, require by law > a yearly reduction of civil service staff of, say, 10%. >- similar rule for clerical defense personnel. This is impractical. >- make government financially responsible for unfair damage > to private persons (e.g. judicial error resulting in a prison > term). More grist for the lawyers. >- limit the length, in letters, of new laws. There are many ways around this one. Just divide your bill up into pieces. >- let jury, not judges, decide what a law means. (This would > promote a rule of law instead of the rule of lawyers). >- make any new law pass revision by a jury who must unanimously > agree they understand it. These two clearly go together. Both have far-reaching implications and require careful thought. >- adopt a sunset law for all government agencies, regulations, > and laws (except for the constitution and the sunset law). Ditto, but I've already thought about this one. Just applying it to the laws and regulations suffices; if the law authorizing an agency expires, so does the agency. First of all, this would have to be a constitutional amendment; just passing a law would be meaningless. Second, at least if this idea is extended to the state level, certain crimes should be exempt -- at a minimum, murder, assault, and theft. Perhaps all crimes with victims should be exempted. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/07/85)
[Bob Weiler bob@pedsgd] Bob: your constructive criticism is much appreciated. After sticking my neck out with specific suggestions, I expected flames. > In article <28200239@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > { An assertion that social experimentation goes on continuously, } > { a criticism of US education in the 60's and 70's, and } > { a ... proposal for further experiments in response to } > { Frank Adams assertion that social experimentation is DANGEROUS } > I'd like to disagree with slighly about US education having lived through > it. Mostly it wasnt too bad, alot of it was a waste of time, and anybody > whos parents encouraged them to read and learn managed to do pretty well. Of course I exaggerated, especially in the Cultural Revolution comparison. One can well see you've survived it. Still, school education clearly went downhill in that period, as witnessed by the average test scores. This should be set against enormous increase in money appropriations. Clearly someone did something wrong. That many individuals and even whole schools survived al- most intact, I can quite believe. For the individuals, you your- self give one explanation: family. I should guess that probably *good* schools survived best, while mediocre became bad, and bad became terrible. This is just a guess, based on the assumption that good teachers (and well-prepared students) can adjust better to new requirements. E.g., New Math isn't a bad idea in itself - provided you have really good teachers. And then don't let us forget the general point: it was the wrong kind of "experiment"; it would still be that, even if, by wild chance, it had succeeded. Montessori and Suzuki are examples of the *right* kind of educational experimentation. > >- change environmental protection rules on the highly successful > > West German model: pollute if you wish, but *pay in proportion*. > Would like you to define "highly successful" in this context. Well, if you have so much heavy industry in such a small area, you've got to be successful if the place is still habitable. US problems are easy compared to theirs. But people who have lived there assure me it is not just habitable, but very attractive. Hence the epithet "highly". > Personally I prefer "dont you dare pollute, but if you do pay in > proportion". But everyone pollutes, to some extent. So if you prohibit, you must set thresholds. And then industries with political pull come and prove that a higher threshold is necessary to them, and *they* are necessary to the country. Also, they gain by going *up* to the threshold. Also, criminal prosecutions are messy. All that is avoided if you scrap the prohibition and set a high enough fee. Then the corporations hire engineers, instead of lawyers and lobbyists, and start figuring out how to save on that fee. Or else they put their money in cleaner enterprises. And if this contributes to the decline of smokestack industries, I wouldn't mourn. > >- gradually replace income tax with consumption (sales) tax. > As long as consumption includes the buying of companies, stocks, bonds, > or real estate, and exempts some minimal amount for food, clothing, > and shelter, I'm all for it. What do you do about goods purchased in > other countries? I would rather exempt certain *kinds* of goods completely than a fixed amount of anything - because I don't like the state poking its nose in people's purchases. I would exempt food staples, basic medicines, rent and fuel. As for goodies purchased abroad, there seem to be only 2 solutions: nothing (which is what states with sales tax do) or an import duty. The first is simpler, but if such imports really undermine the system, you might be reduced to the second. A lot depends on geography: e.g., Luxembourg could hardly afford the simpler solution. I wouldn't tax purchase of companies etc. (real estate maybe) because it penalizes commer- cial activity (just as income tax does). Don't kill that goose, collect the golden eggs at the rear end. Why should a company changing hands be an occasion for taxation ? Does unbroken record with a single owner somehow deserve a reward ? Let the economic blood circulate freely. If the government is out to soak the rich and the corporations, let it tax their harmful activi- ties (like pollution), not their useful activities like playing the market. All this, putting libertarian arguments aside. (As to why sales tax is more libertarian than income tax, I see two reasons. First, the government won't know as much about the individual; second, the individual won't have to fill those forms, that is, be engaged in involuntary service to the government. Theft may be bad but slavery is worse.) > >- limit the length, in letters, of new laws. > >- let jury, not judges, decide what a law means. (This would > > promote a rule of law instead of the rule of lawyers). > >- make any new law pass revision by a jury who must unanimously > > agree they understand it. > >- adopt a sunset law for all government agencies, regulations, > > and laws (except for the constitution and the sunset law). > ... I would add a couple of restrictions here: > > - Require that all legislation include provisions for financing. > This should be sufficient to overcome the *free lunch* mentality > the libertarians harp about without dismantling the system completely. > > - Require that all legislation have a measurable goal and will become > automatically void if it fails to meet that goal. Thus a proposal > for education might state the goal is to raise the median SAT score > 5 points per year, starting in 1988, measured every 2 years. If scores > are not at least 10 points higher in 1990, the program is terminated. > > - Every citizen should recieve an accounting statement every year stating > which laws where passed, who voted for and against them, which ones expired, > how much tax he had paid, where it went, what the value of services he > recieved in return, etc. Admittedly, some of these would have to be > estimates, but the idea is to provide the citizen with enough information > to decide if he is getting screwed, and who to blame if he is. The press > currently does an inadequate job reporting these things because it > doesnt sell many papers, but could probably do a great job of exposing > fraud or inaccuracy in the estimates, which does. I like all of these very much. But a clear and concise form should be selected for all this documentation such that the aver- age education survivor is able to monitor it. > Very often I also think that legislators should be hired and that the > vote should only be used to fire them, but that is for another time. This sounds quite interesting. I wish you would elaborate. Jan Wasilewsky
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (11/08/85)
In article <344@pedsgd.UUCP> bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) writes: >- Every citizen should recieve an accounting statement every year stating > which laws where passed, who voted for and against them, which ones expired, > how much tax he had paid, where it went, what the value of services he > recieved in return, etc. Admittedly, some of these would have to be > estimates, but the idea is to provide the citizen with enough information > to decide if he is getting screwed, and who to blame if he is. The press > currently does an inadequate job reporting these things because it > doesnt sell many papers, but could probably do a great job of exposing > fraud or inaccuracy in the estimates, which does. I'm afraid this would just produce a new government beaurocracy, which I don't think would justify its costs. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (11/11/85)
> > .. suggestion that each citizen should get a statement of accounts > > from the govt. each year .. > > I'm afraid this would just produce a new government beaurocracy, which I > don't think would justify its costs. You mean the accounting departments at major companies don't justify their costs? Actually, though, all of this information *is* available through various publications. If you think it's that great an idea there's nothing stopping you from starting a company that provides this service to people willing to pay for it. It might even take off! -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (11/12/85)
> >- Every citizen should recieve an accounting statement every year stating >> which laws where passed, who voted for and against them, which ones expired, > > how much tax he had paid, where it went, what the value of services he > > recieved in return, etc. Admittedly, some of these would have to be > > estimates, but the idea is to provide the citizen with enough information > > to decide if he is getting screwed, and who to blame if he is. The press > > currently does an inadequate job reporting these things because it > > doesnt sell many papers, but could probably do a great job of exposing > > fraud or inaccuracy in the estimates, which does. > > I'm afraid this would just produce a new government beaurocracy, which I > don't think would justify its costs. > > Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka It wouldn't take nearly as large a beaurocracy to keep track of one government as it does to keep track of 200 million citizens, but we already support several types of the latter kind of beaurocracy. I think the cost of setting up this program would be more than offset by the increased efficiency of a government which *knew* it was under constant scrutiny by its citizens. Imagine a citizen receiving his report: "What!? X% of my taxes were used to keep the price of milk high? And my congressman voted *for* that!? And he didn't bother to vote on many of these other issues!? That's the last time they get *my* vote!" Currently it is *very* difficult for the average citizen to get this kind of feedback from their government. Feedback is used extensively in most complicated, high-performing systems to improve performance. Since our system of government includes very little in the way of feedback it's not suprising that 'government' has become almost synonymous with 'inefficient'. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
lkk@teddy.UUCP (12/06/85)
In article <817@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: > >If small governments are so much better, why are the best governments in >the world all of relatively large countries? (Of course, the worst >governments in the world are also all of relatively large countries. >But that doesn't answer the question.) What??? I don't see any evidence for this. Sweden is a small country (pop. 8 million) yet it has one of the finer governments in the world. SO do Denmark, Holland, Costa Rica. Large governments include: soviet union, china, and India, none of which would make my top ten list. Small governments have the advantage that they generally don't have as many competing constituencies (cf. USA), generally representing a relatively homogeneous population, with common goals. Small governments can also be more responsive to their constituents, being "closer" to the action. ---- BTW, Chile had about 50 years of continuous democratic experience before Nixon and Kissinger engineered its downfall. -- Sport Death, (USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk Larry Kolodney (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa -------- Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. - Helen Keller
nrh@inmet.UUCP (12/08/85)
/* Written 5:29 am Nov 22, 1985 by franka@mmintl in inmet:net.politics.t */ >[discussion of "mean time to nuke war" in multinational vs world > government situations] > >If small governments are so much better, why are the best governments in >the world all of relatively large countries? (Of course, the worst >governments in the world are also all of relatively large countries. >But that doesn't answer the question.) I'm not sure it has an answer. I rather prefer small governments because you can move away from them relatively easily, and they can't command the degree of unwieldiness that large ones can. I think your notion that a nuclear war is more probable under one large government than a small one has some justification, but only if world government turned out to be a very well-done thing indeed. If it were any kind of democracy, and didn't overrule the "right" of local rulers to count the ballots, we'd better get ready for Chinese in the schools. I point this out not to poke fun at your ideas, but to remind everyone that details of the organization of such a government would be CRUCIAL in determining its stability and its character.
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/11/85)
In article <1772@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: >In article <817@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: >> >>If small governments are so much better, why are the best governments in >>the world all of relatively large countries? (Of course, the worst >>governments in the world are also all of relatively large countries. >>But that doesn't answer the question.) > >What??? I don't see any evidence for this. > >Sweden is a small country (pop. 8 million) yet it has one of the >finer governments in the world. SO do Denmark, Holland, Costa Rica. > >Large governments include: soviet union, china, and India, none of which >would make my top ten list. > >Small governments have the advantage that they generally don't >have as many competing constituencies (cf. USA), generally representing a >relatively homogeneous population, with common goals. > >Small governments can also be more responsive to their constituents, being >"closer" to the action. In my book, 8 million is not a small country. Medium-sized, rather. I had in mind the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, Australia, France, West Germany. India wouldn't make my top ten, but it wouldn't make the bottom ten, either. For truly awful governments, besides the Horrible Communist Monsters, look at Cambodia, Albania, most of Africa. The disadvantage of small governments is that they are more vulnerable to being taken over by a small group. Also, in a mostly homogeneous population, what minorities there are are more vulnerable to exploitation by the majority. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
nrh@inmet.UUCP (12/15/85)
Oops! Did it again.... >/* Written 3:11 am Dec 8, 1985 by nrh@inmet.UUCP in inmet:net.politics.t */ >/* Written 5:29 am Nov 22, 1985 by franka@mmintl in inmet:net.politics.t */ > >I think your notion that a nuclear war is more probable under one >large government than a small one has some justification, but only >if world government turned out to be a very well-done thing indeed. Sorry! I meant, of course: "I think your notion that a nuclear war is *less* probable.....
lkk@teddy.UUCP (12/16/85)
In article <878@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: [Talking about the inherent susceptability of small countries to domination by currupt or violent cliques.] >In my book, 8 million is not a small country. Medium-sized, rather. I >had in mind the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, Australia, France, West Germany. >India wouldn't make my top ten, but it wouldn't make the bottom ten, either. >For truly awful governments, besides the Horrible Communist Monsters, look at >Cambodia, Albania, most of Africa. > >The disadvantage of small governments is that they are more vulnerable to >being taken over by a small group. Also, in a mostly homogeneous population, >what minorities there are are more vulnerable to exploitation by the >majority. Still don't buy it. There are many African countries that are larger than Sweden and are still quite bad. Zaire, one of the largest countries in Africa, is also among the most brutal and corrupt (and a U.S. ally, BTW). The reason why AFRICAN countries tend to be so bad is because in Africa, countries do not, for the most part, correspond to nations. They tend to be arbitrary areas, carved up by the colonial powers. They tend to encompass several mutually hostile tribal groups. When a member of one of these groups takes power, his group prospers at the expense of the others, hostility ensues. A very relevant example of this is the current situation in Angola, where Jonas Savimbi's UNITA guerrillas are fighting the Marxist government. In recent months, there has been growing support in the US for aiding UNITA, in the name of stopping Communism in Africa. None of the people who write in support of Savimbi mention that he is a democrat, or what his politics are at all. This is because Mr. Savimbi really has no political viewpoint. He has taken arms from the Chinese and the South Africans, as well as the CIA. Currently, he finds it convenient to spout an anti-Communist line, so he does. But don't be deceived, UNITA is not *FOR* anything, they are merely *AGAINST* the current government of Angola, which happens to be Marxist. They are not against it *BECAUSE* it is Marxist, but rather because the leaders are of a different tribal group. What Jack Kemp and others who support aiding UNITA are asking us to do is get the United States involved in a tribal conflict that is certainly none of our business. But I digress... -- Sport Death, (USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk Larry Kolodney (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa -------- Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. - Helen Keller
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/19/85)
In article <1822@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: >In article <878@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: >[Talking about the inherent susceptability of small countries to > domination by currupt or violent cliques.] >>In my book, 8 million is not a small country. Medium-sized, rather. I >>had in mind the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, Australia, France, West Germany. >>India wouldn't make my top ten, but it wouldn't make the bottom ten, either. >>For truly awful governments, besides the Horrible Communist Monsters, look at >>Cambodia, Albania, most of Africa. >> >>The disadvantage of small governments is that they are more vulnerable to >>being taken over by a small group. Also, in a mostly homogeneous population, >>what minorities there are are more vulnerable to exploitation by the >>majority. > >Still don't buy it. There are many African countries that are larger >than Sweden and are still quite bad. Zaire, one of the largest >countries in Africa, is also among the most brutal and corrupt (and a >U.S. ally, BTW). This has gotten a bit off the subject. My original claim was not that there was a positive correlation between size of country and quality of government. Indeed I explicitly stated that most of the worst governments are also very large. In pointing out the disadvantages of small governments, it was not my purpose to argue that they are inherently worse than large ones. Only that there are disadvantages to offset the advantages. I do think that really small sovereign governments, less than about 100,000 people, are dangerously unstable. There aren't many nations of this size which are really independant, so this is really just an opinion. If small governments were better than large ones, I would expect to see a negative correlation between size and quality of government. In fact, I can detect no correlation whatsoever. >What Jack Kemp and others who support aiding UNITA are asking us to do >is get the United States involved in a tribal conflict that is >certainly none of our business. But I digress... Your analysis (which I deleted) is correct as far as it goes. But the fact is that nations which are our enemies are supporting that govern- ment, hoping to gain and cause us to lose thereby. That makes it our business. The fact that it is a local, tribal conflict does make it only a local, tribal conflict; the presence of Cuban soldiers makes it something more. (Which is not to say we should intervene. Just that there is some reason for intervention.) Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
lkk@teddy.UUCP (12/28/85)
In article <914@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: >>What Jack Kemp and others who support aiding UNITA are asking us to do >>is get the United States involved in a tribal conflict that is >>certainly none of our business. But I digress... > >Your analysis (which I deleted) is correct as far as it goes. But the >fact is that nations which are our enemies are supporting that govern- >ment, hoping to gain and cause us to lose thereby. That makes it our >business. The fact that it is a local, tribal conflict does make it >only a local, tribal conflict; the presence of Cuban soldiers makes it >something more. (Which is not to say we should intervene. Just that >there is some reason for intervention.) Since you admit there is no MORAL imperative in Angola (i.e. neither side is per se superior), you need to justify American action there by a STRATEGIC analysis. Your strategic analysis is that the presence of Cubans in Angola is some justification for American intervention. By that line of thinking, you could justify Soviet interference in Central America, Europe, and the Far East. Needless to say, the U.S. regularly expresses outrage over unsubstantiated COVERT Soviet interference in Central America. Who's pointing fingers at whom? -- Sport Death, (USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk Larry Kolodney (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa -------- Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. - Helen Keller
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (12/30/85)
> In article <914@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: > >>What Jack Kemp and others who support aiding UNITA are asking us to do > >>is get the United States involved in a tribal conflict that is > >>certainly none of our business. But I digress... > > > >Your analysis (which I deleted) is correct as far as it goes. But the > >fact is that nations which are our enemies are supporting that govern- > >ment, hoping to gain and cause us to lose thereby. That makes it our > >business. The fact that it is a local, tribal conflict does make it > >only a local, tribal conflict; the presence of Cuban soldiers makes it > >something more. (Which is not to say we should intervene. Just that > >there is some reason for intervention.) > > > Since you admit there is no MORAL imperative in Angola (i.e. neither side > is per se superior), you need to justify American action there by a > STRATEGIC analysis. > > Your strategic analysis is that the presence of Cubans in Angola is some > justification for American intervention. By that line of thinking, you > could justify Soviet interference in Central America, Europe, and the Far East. > > Needless to say, the U.S. regularly expresses outrage over unsubstantiated > COVERT Soviet interference in Central America. > > Who's pointing fingers at whom? > -- > Sport Death, (USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk > Larry Kolodney (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa > -------- > Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. > - Helen Keller I have a single objection, Larry. Since in Black Africa tribalism etc. dominates over any other political motives, it is difficult to find "nice guys", who would share our democratic values. Does it mean that US should give up seeking any influence over there? Secondly, one may object to Soviet interference from two points of view: a. it is immoral; b. it is not ours. The world being imperfect as it is, one should not scorn the second point of view to lightly. However, I personally would prefer our polititians to engage in different kind of debate. Currently, the dispute is where to send: a. military aid; b. loans and other kinds of traditional help. None of the above makes US a particularly valuable ally. USSR may match US easily in a., with some effort even in b. What is most striking is the futility of Western/Eastern help to the majority of the countries of the thirld world. To be an attractive ally, US should be able to help in the areas of real need, like a. controlling the population in a non-totalitarian manner; b. increasing the agricultural production in a way which would utilize local resource and be not overly dependent on imported machines, fertilizers, chemicals etc, one could think about improving local staple crops, increasing productivity of rural labor with minimal capital expenditures, etc. c. introducing new sources of energy, like small hydro, wind, fuel from plants etc; d. increasing internal sector of the economy (as opposed to export- - import oriented, export being dependent on few raw commodities; e. improving trnsportation network (the waterways and railroad of our ally, Zaire, are in worse shape than during colonial times); f. etc. Once US and our friends (like French) will be able to provide genuine help (which may even cost less than the current innefective aid), government of all sorts will flock to participate. Covert aid for Savimbi, overt aid, no aid, none of these provides any clue about the state of those nations (like Angola) in ten years from now. piotr berman
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (01/14/86)
>What is most striking is the futility of Western/Eastern help to the >majority of the countries of the thirld world. To be an attractive >ally, US should be able to help in the areas of real need, like > >a. controlling the population in a non-totalitarian manner; >b. increasing the agricultural production in a way which would > utilize local resource and be not overly dependent on imported > machines, fertilizers, chemicals etc, one could think about > improving local staple crops, increasing productivity of rural > labor with minimal capital expenditures, etc. >c. introducing new sources of energy, like small hydro, wind, fuel > from plants etc; >d. increasing internal sector of the economy (as opposed to export- > - import oriented, export being dependent on few raw commodities; >e. improving trnsportation network (the waterways and railroad of > our ally, Zaire, are in worse shape than during colonial times); >f. etc. > >Once US and our friends (like French) will be able to provide genuine >help (which may even cost less than the current innefective aid), >government of all sorts will flock to participate. Covert aid for >Savimbi, overt aid, no aid, none of these provides any clue about >the state of those nations (like Angola) in ten years from now. > >piotr berman Wasn't all that what the US Peace Corps was about? And it worked beautifully while it was allowed to. It should be reinstated, using the money now going into destabilizing Nicaragua. We would get a whole host of Central American (and other) allies, instead of driving one country after another into the Russian camp. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt