From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!poli-sci Newsgroups: fa.poli-sci Title: Poli-Sci Digest V2 #147 Article-I.D.: ucbvax.7754 Posted: Wed Jun 23 15:40:02 1982 Received: Sun Jun 27 05:23:11 1982 >From JoSH@RUTGERS Wed Jun 23 15:39:25 1982 Poli-Sci Digest Thu 24 Jun 82 Volume 2 Number 147 Contents: Travel States' (and other) Rights (3 msgs) Insanity Plea Part of the Problem ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 21 Jun 1982 2012-EDT From: Bill HofmannSubject: Hard currency and Travel Restrictions As Dave Leavitt pointed out, the national reason (including specifically the legal one) for blanket travel restrictions (to a country) is an economic one. The administration's recent decision to halt travel to Cuba is based specifically on the Trading with the Enemy Act (note, this is probably not the exact title of it...), and it isn't travel that is banned, but rather giving currency to the country (this was the Administration's stated reason, in fact). -Bill ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jun 1982 1859-PDT From: Terry C. Savage Subject: Rights There has been a lot of talk about "rights" in the digest recently, and I'm not sure I understand what different people mean when they use the term. If it refers to some kind of requirement imposed from the outside (e.g. "God-given" rights), then I would like to know the source of the information indicating that these "rights" exist. A more practical (and frequently more irritating) definition of rights is that they consist of agreements between the members of the society, with no "cosmic" significance. If this definition is accepted, it would be entirely reasonable for a town to decide that "xyz religion" will be the local town church, by agreement. Assume that there are some reasonable provisions for people who do not agree to leave, and we consider the situation where the agreement is unanimous. Is there any reason why these people should have their agreements modified by an outside force? No! Ignoring for simplicity the question of children, if a group of adults decide that they want to live a certain way, on land that they own, ad there lifestyle does not impose tangible damage on others (being offended doesn't count), then those people should be allowed to live as they choose, regardless of whether it is racist, polygamus, weirdist, or whatever. Although greatly modified by the complexities of reality, this is the basis of the philosophy of "states rights"--voluntary selection of lifestyle by a local group. The objection generally raised concerns the "rights" of those who do not agree with the decsion, and it is also generally assumed that moving away is not a reasonable option. In order to address one particular problem, lets assume that all of the transition issues of moving (ie transportation costs, a reasonable price for existing property, etc) could be solved. What, then would be the objection to letting communities determine their own standards entirely and allowing those who disagree to leave? To avoid a class of obvious objections, impose the condition that any "offender" would have the option of permanent exile rather than the punishment prescribed (with the understanding they will be subject to the punishment if they return). Rather than try to address all possibilities in advance, I'd like to see what objections people raise. Comments, please! T.C.Savage ------------------------------ Date: 22 June 1982 0922-EDT (Tuesday) From: Robert.Frederking at CMU-10A (C410RF60) Subject: Two comments First, the fact that local governments are less powerful may make them less attractive to special interests, but it also makes them easier targets, and thus worth the effort. Pick any major national corporation and compare its budget to that of its home city, and consider how hard it would be to buy off a majority of the politicians. All sorts of things like pollution and special favors are totally uninfluenced (usually) by local governments, because they're overpowered by the company. Secondly, don't count on the U.S. protecting you, even if they *do* give you a visa. They can only keep you safe in countries where U.S. influence matters, and there is some semblance of central control. U.S. citizens disappear every once in a while in places like South America, and the Feds can do diddly either because the national government really has no idea what is happening out in the provinces, or because they don't care what the U.S. thinks of them. ------------------------------ Date: 22 June 1982 0943-EDT (Tuesday) From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A Subject: commence insanity flaming Well now that Hinckley got off, it's time for everyone to put in their two cents about the insanity defense. Way back when, the insanity defense was a good thing. I read somewhere (sorry folks, no references) that several hundred years ago, the death penalty was used for many more crimes than in recent history. The insanity defense saved many a person from hanging. "I'm sorry your honor, I must have been insane when I parked in front of that fire hydrant." Since severe penalties aren't very common any more (how many people got gassed last year?), I see insanity now used as a way to get off a serious charge. Clinical psychiatry is inexact at best, and more accurately a pseudoscience. Is it ever possible to find a bunch of psychiatrists that will agree in court? It's obvious that everyone who's in prison is at least slightly insane. We see it on 60 Minutes or the news all the time. Some guy is ruled insane, sent to the asylum, found sane a few years later, gets out, murders ex-wife in a particularly grotesque manner, and then goes back to the asylum. The psychiatrists plead innocent. I think that what really matters is that the person committed the crime. The victim dies just as readily if the guy is sane or insane. I say that they go to jail anyway. If you want to give them some counseling in prison, fine, but no chance of getting out because they are found sane. Actually I'm hoping that Hinckley is now found sane, so he will walk free. This will outrage people enough to eliminate the insanity defense. It will alsoinspire some modern-day Lloyd Ruby. Now I'm not advocating that, but I wouldn't shed many tears if it happened. ------------------------------ Date: 21 June 1982 21:19 edt From: Richard Lamson at MIT-MULTICS Subject: With us or against us The question is not whether it is possible to be neutral on an issue, but rather whether remaining silent about the issue is really a neutral stance. Consider a roomful of purple people, of whom you are one, with no green people present. A racially prejudiced person makes some sort of derogatory remark about green people. Your possible responses are: a) Agree aloud with her or him. b) Disagree aloud with her or him. c) Say nothing. I claim that by choosing to say nothing, you are implicitly supporting that person's racism. Now consider the number of times you have been present when an offensive joke about blacks, asians, homosexuals, various ethnic groups, etc., was uttered. Each time you failed to speak up concerning the offensive nature of the comment, you have displayed your implicit agreement with the sentiment of the speaker. This is not neutrality. -- Richard Lamson (Lamson at MIT-Multics) ------------------------------ End of POLI-SCI Digest - 30 - -------