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=