From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!poli-sci Newsgroups: fa.poli-sci Title: Poli-Sci Digest V2 #160 Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8197 Posted: Tue Aug 3 23:23:29 1982 Received: Wed Aug 4 04:58:21 1982 >From JoSH@RUTGERS Tue Aug 3 23:20:23 1982 Poli-Sci Digest Wed 4 Aug 82 Volume 2 Number 160 Contents: Nuking the People (3 msgs) Get Out of Jail Free Cards (2 msgs) Libertarian SF (2 msgs) The Guns of San Francisco (2 msgs) Here's the Plot, What's the Title ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Aug 1982 0824-EDT From: Mike InnersSubject: Using nuclear weapons against 'The People' Perhaps you can explain how you use nuclear weapons against the Communist (or any other) 'invaders' without killing the general populace? Perhaps we should deal with Poland by nuking Warsaw? By their very nature, nuclear weapons cannot be aimed at anyone but 'the people' of the target country, unless you are one of the apparently all-too common breed of US rightists that don't consider the ordinary inhabitants of Communist countries to be 'people'. The government of North Korea doesn't have much to redeem it, but using nuclear weapons against it would be just mass murder - of the Korean people, which governments have a nasty habit of hiding within. -- Mike Inners ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 1982 1650-PDT Subject: Use of Nukes against people or governments From: Mike Leavitt This is one more area where consrvatives and libertarians often disagree sharply. All but the smallest nuclear weapons are instruments of mass desctruction if they are anything (whether for deterrence or war-fighting). Conservatives accept the need to use them to kill large segments of populations living in territories controlled by hostile governments, even though many of the people are "innocent bystanders" in any reasonable sense of the word. Although it is a controversial point, most libertarians reject the use of nuclear weapons for this reason. Thus libertarians would take the phrase "the people of Korea" etc. in a very different sense than would conservatives (where "people" is seen as merely a Communist code word). Mike ------------------------------ Date: 3 August 1982 19:18-EDT From: Bill Hofmann Subject: Nukes, wealth While it is true, as APPLE points out, that the real AVERAGE standard of living in Third World countries has risen, this hasn't been due to an across the board increase, but rather due to the rapidly increasing fortunes of a small elite in each country. In fact, in most Third World countries since WWII, the differential between the top 5 and bottom 5 percent has been increasing rather noticably. Well, all of the referenced threats are verified (the one about Korea was openly discussed in the period), in general from presidential documents. The reason Nixon did't authorize use of nuclear weapons was that North Vietnam called his bluff (Nixon said "better watch out, or we'll nuke you," NV said "go ahead") and he feared that the domestic reaction would be too strong. -Bill ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 1982 0734-PDT From: CAULKINS at USC-ECL Subject: CIA "out of jail free" cards From a message by Will Martin: [I am reminded here of the CIA "Get Out Of Jail Free" cards, which had text like "The bearer of this document is entitled to aid and assistance from all US forces. He is authorized to wear non-standard uniform, carry special weapons, and enter off-limits areas. Do not detain or question him. If he is killed, do not remove this document from his body...etc."] I'm fascinated; when did the CIA do this ? Are they still ? Seems quite dangerous, since the KGB or anyone else could copy the text and then have carte blanche to do all sorts of neat and evil things. Self-authenticating documents are possible, but counter**N measures make their design and reliability dubious. The phrase "do not detain or question" is particularly dangerous. Yours in paranoia, Dave C ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 1982 0818-PDT Subject: Re: CIA "out of jail free" cards From: WMartin at Office-8 (Will Martin) I believe that they were issued to CIA operatives in RVN during the late unpleasantness; copies are constantly advertised for sale in magazines like Soldier of Fortune. There was a recent editorial note in SOF describing a law-enforcement bulletin which had been sent out over some national law-enforcement distribution which warned police that the cards were fakes and not to believe that the guy a cop pulled over for speeding and flashed the card was a secret agent on government business -- I suppose some people had gotten away with using them this way. I don't think they are currently used, but who can say? Will (or somebody using his name...) ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 1982 10:31:44-EDT From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX Subject: Re: Re: Libertarian SF Now that someone has clearly articulated the somewhat murky message at the end of VENUS BELT the arrogance of Smith's brand of Libertarianism is even clearer. Somebody owns Venus?!? How? The same way we got to own most of this country? (It occurs to me that this issue, and its effect on the development of the US, is another of the ones that Smith just sweeps under the rug (in claiming that the two Bears, being of Indian descent, were relatively unaffected by history).) I found ALONGSIDE NIGHT to be a great deal more plausible in that it doesn't flatly contradict some well-understood sections of our past (historians have strongly suggested that the British would have destroyed the infant U.S. either militarily or economically (which latter is a lot harder to unite against than an invading army)). ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 1982 1224-EDT From: JoSH Subject: Re: Re: Libertarian SF I would agree that the U.S. Government, the current owner of the US territory, expropriated much of it, and bought the rest from parties (eg, France) who had done the same. Note that the Government is the true owner of the territory in the libertarian sense, having ultimate say in its disposition regardless of the wishes of the citizen "owners". (Not to mention charging rent...) But then libertarians never really expected a government to respect anyone's rights to begin with. One must allow Smith's assumption in the story, however, that Venus contains no life at all, much less intelligent life. At which point, why shouldn't someone own it? What's the size of an object at which ownership of it becomes "arrogant"? The libertarian doctrine of ownership as a natural right claims that ownership derives from trade or from use of something previously unowned. This surely would apply to a planet (in the story, making a lot of useful asteroids out of a useless hellhole) as well as a patch of farmland. --JoSH ------------------------------ Date: 3 August 1982 09:28-PDT (Tuesday) From: KING at KESTREL Subject: the five billion dollar guns I suppose eminent domain doesn't apply or may not apply because the city doesn't say you have to turn in your gun; only that you have to get rid of it. A national gun control law may be another matter. If estimates of 5x10^7 handguns are accurate, the US might find themselves in for a $5x10^9 liability if they try to implement gun confiscation. This is a significant amount in tight budget times. It would have to be tested in the Supreme Court. Has anyone read any of the decisions (if there were any) that said that gun control was not a "taking" under the constitution? BTW, I don't like gun control, but I don't think I would mind some safety standards (child-proof safeties, must be able to fire ten times in one minute without exploding, etc.) Dick ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 1982 1016-PDT From: WILKINS at SRI-AI (Wilkins ) Subject: handguns If anyone in California is worried about the SF Police overriding the Fourth Amendment, they should look at Proposition 8, passed this June, and they'll really have something to worry about. David ------------------------------ Date: 3 Aug 1982 1554-EDT From: JoSH Subject: Here's the Plot, What's the Title? Does anyone keep track of current conspiracy theories? I met an old friend up for a high-school reunion recently, who told me how the world is being secretly run by the British Oligarchy who control the international banking system, and how the British Intelligence through their Georgetown think-tanks control the Democratic Party and are trying to ruin America by having it adopt the Global 2000 report as its platform. He supported these claims with a veritable barrage of facts and figures. It seems that he is but one of an multitude of people who believe these (same) things, and they have newsletters, run people for President, etc, some of which he told me about, though the only name I could remember out of the avalanche was Lyndon Larouche. Is there really such an organization? Is it really as off the wall as my friend (who can go overboard at times)? This all reminds me of the time my college roomate had a visit from an old friend of his who tried to convert us to Scientology... --JoSH ------------------------------ End of POLI-SCI Digest - 30 - -------