Technotranscendence wrote:
>
> 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.:)
It was me extolling honor, not the reverse...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:21 MDT