gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (10/12/87)
In article <5387@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> dean@violet.berkeley.edu (Dean Pentcheff) writes: >The serious business of the universities _is_ to spread ideas, >dangerous or not, across the nation and the world. It is the business >of the military to protect the nation which values such free thought. Thank you; this is a good, relevant point. As many regular net readers know, I treasure good ideas. However, I think it is proper to oppose bad ideas -- not (normally) by forcible suppression, but by rational discussion. This must not be left solely to the universities, which often entrench modish beliefs, but is every intellectual's business. One of the "dangerous ideas" I oppose is the commonly encountered (because commonly instilled!) non-judgemental attitude toward ideas. It is worth reflecting on the difference between the proper role of the U.S. military, as you have stated it, and the actual role of many national militia, or even the role that ours sometimes seems to get sucked into, of supporting political maneuvers rather than protecting the citizenry from infringement of freedom by outside aggression. There are people who see no essential difference among major world governments, but I think they're wrong (although the difference unfortunately seems to diminish as time progresses -- could this be due to the spread of "dangerous ideas"?). There are certainly many problems with government-sponsored research; I have previously expressed opposition to undue reliance on it. However, I don't see a viable alternative for research on specifically military applications, given that that is uniquely government business. I welcome attempts to keep an eye on it to make sure it serves the proper overall function of the American military, but some attempts at regulation are more realistic than others. (Judgement, again!)