From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!zeppo!whuxlb!ech
Newsgroups: net.followup
Title: Re: Computers \& Society - (nf)
Article-I.D.: whuxlb.592
Posted: Thu Sep 23 15:44:06 1982
Received: Mon Sep 27 21:00:52 1982

#R:watmath:-351700:whuxlb:5200006:000:2613
whuxlb!ech    Sep 23 15:01:00 1982

pur-ee!tony has focused the discussion somewhat, but as usual we are
now open for a general political debate.  The problem of collecting and
implementing the choices of individuals as collective choices is the
fundamental problem of politics for the last 10000 years or so.  The
libertarian problem is that there are decisions which, if made by each
individual, would benefit the individual directly, but would destroy
many if the decision were made by all.  A simple example is to steal
whatever you need; as long as there are only a few predators, it pays
to be a predator, but if EVERYBODY does it the structure collapses.
If you could choose not to pay taxes, but still reap the benefits of public
roads and other tax-supported services, the individual choice would be
obvious.

Thus, "being able to choose the nuclear or non-nuclear power company" isn't
a technical detail: if each option is popular enough, I have to put up with
BOTH the nuclear waste AND the dirty air!

The technical details end up in the political process.  For example, how do
you go about doing environmental protection?  The fact that you even WANT
to protect the air, water, what-have-you is that you recognize the existence
of a finite, more-or-less closed system.  The technical details are to
(1) ASSESS the "indirect cost" -- i.e. third-party negative aspects --
of a given technology;
(2) METER the damage done; and
(3) CHARGE the user of the technology for the indirect costs.

It is noteworthy that current political practice does not make use of the 
"assess, meter, and charge" model of the previous paragraph.  Various people
(e.g. M. Friedman) have proposed such techniques: "pollute all you like,
but we will meter the damage and tax the producer."  This permits the market
to decide if the product produced at high cost to the environment is worth
the now DIRECT cost of producing it.  Current political practice is in sharp
contrast: either ban the technology outright, or impose "maximum standards"
with fines associated for exceeding the standards.  The intent is the same,
but the effects are quite different: the manufacturer is forced to locate
"emission restriction" technology which MAY NOT EXIST.

Finally, we can't just dismiss the technical aspects of "assess, meter,
and charge"; they are distinctly non-trival, and of course the assessments
(and damage fees) are always open to political challenge.

So, here's a refined challenge: how do you get technology assessment done
by an impartial, but technically capable, organization?  Sounds like the
definition of a "technical court system."  Feasible?

=Ned=