From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Fri Mar 24 2000 - 23:33:02 MST
On Friday, March 24, 2000 5:38 AM Michael S. Lorrey retroman@turbont.net
wrote:
> > But did MAD work? Angelo Codevilla, in _Informing Statecraft_ (see
> > http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/IP1_Know.html), tells of how a lot of
> > evidence came up in the 1980s and early 1990s that the Soviets, in fact,
> > were preparing for an all out nuclear war. Whether this was paranoia on
> > their part or the planning stages of a first strike remains to be seen.
> > That the Soviets also continued a military buildup -- in both
conventional
> > and nuclear forces -- seems to support the latter.
>
> Whether it worked or not is irrelevant. The Soviets are the example of
> the
> individual without honor or integrity. My position is that it was and is
> unreasonable and unconstitutional for our nation's leaders to place US
> in the same position as a bunch of untrustworthy thugs and tyrants.
>
> You do not structure your society expaecting everyone to behave as
> poorly
> as the worst member, because given such expectation, many surely will
> behave in such a manner. Expecting people to behave honorably as a
> default
> raises the standard of performance, and you only treat those who do not
> do so (criminals) by a different standard once they have done so.
I don't completely disagree with Michael here. My comments were only anent
Mutually Assured Destruction.
I would say one thing though regarding "structuring" society, one would have
to beware of uncouraging certain forms of behavior by allowing hgih pay offs
for bad behaviors. For instance, and to stick with international relations,
if you make treaties in good faith with, say, the Soviets (or the Nazis),
then you have to expect them to break the treaty. It's almost pointless to
make treaties with such states. The high pay off for them is it legitimizes
their form of government and it usually puts those who would hold to such
treaties at a disadvantage.
> You argument that this is insufficient in a world where an individual
> will have the capability to destroy the earth does give one pause as to
> whether this is still rational to expect, since it only would take one
> bad apple.
Not exactly my argument. Who is Michael arguing with here? My only
contribution to this thread was the part on MAD. I'm mad about MAD.:)
For the record, I do not and have not ever argued that any or all the Cold
War powers had the ability to destroy the Earth. The Earth and life are
much tougher than that. Of course, life would have been miserable for a
little while after a total nuclear war, but the Earth would not vaporize a
la "Beneath the Planet of the Apes.":)
> I would rather live in a world where the bad apples are
> weeded out early, a la, David Brin's concept of declaring Propationary
> Personalities (see his Uplift War trilogy), than to have a wholesale
> abrogation of the rights of the individual, and I think that since we do
> have a bit of a 'ramping up' period ahead of us, that this be tried
> first.
I would rather move to space and watch from a safe distance to see if Brin's
society comes about and works according to the lines he (or Michael) has
(have) laid down.:) The Uplift Trilogy is not my manual for political
science. (Not that i'm about to offer one either.:)
> > > An honorable person needs no external consequences. A society that
> > > relies
> > > only on external consequences has acknowledged that men are nothing
but
> > > savages and have no honor or rights.
> >
> > Honor does not pay the rent. Anyway, if one looks at honor as the
desire to
> > be moral, and if one doesn't accept the kind of Platonic morality
Michael
> > hints at, but the more worldly, Aristotelean or Objectivist one I tend
> > toward, then the goal of morality is successful life -- not to be
honorable
> > in spite of what will be, but to be honorable in hopes of what will be.
>
> Ah, but it does keep the landlord and tenant both on their best
> behavior,
> without the extortion of overwhelming force, or the might of public
> humiliation.
I agree, but it not the sort of Platonic honor Michael hints at. I try to
keep my word because that's the kind of person I want to be. But I suspect
many (not most, but enough) people keep their word because they either fear
the penalties of getting caught or they are paranoid. It would be
interesting to see how much real honor a society needs to keep going versus
"The Fable of the Bees" type compromises.
Also, if honor always had bad consequences, any person following it or
society based on it, would soon cease to exist. My point being: Michael
has yet to answer me on this one.:)
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:37 MST