Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Experimentation and Danger Message-ID: <767@mmintl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 00:39:29 EST Article-I.D.: mmintl.767 Posted: Mon Nov 4 00:39:29 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 07:44:26 EST References: <28200239@inmet.UUCP> Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT Lines: 113 In article <28200239@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >[Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka] >> The world would be much better off if a good world government could be >> established. That is a large if. Social experimentation is DANGEROUS. > >Given the if, in the *short* run it would be. But by the time the >government stopped being good, it would not stop being a govern- >ment. And all your eggs would be in one basket. In many important respects, all our eggs ARE in one basket. The risk of nuclear war is real, and would be eliminated by a world government. It would NOT be eliminated by having smaller national governments. More like increased. Governments can get better as well as worse. >E.g., during the 60's and 70's USA public education was all but >ruined by "experimentation". But that experimentation was not nationally mandated. It was done by the various states and local governments. >The question is *not* whether we can afford social experimentation. >If we could freeze the status quo in every respect, that would >be the largest "experiment" of all, and one certain to be fatal. Just to make it clear, I was not proposing that we should. Only that social experimentation be done with a great deal of care and consideration. ------------------------------ [Portions of the following discussion are specific to the U.S.] >Let me list a few reforms that I feel would be both safe and >hopeful. They may not be *politically* realistic. > >- phase in free enterprise zones. I have my doubts. This sort of thing tends to affect where people work but not who works there, and enrich certain companies at the expense of the government (read taxpayers). Britain's experience seems to indicate this. >- phase in education vouchers. A reasonable idea. I suspect a lot of its support comes from people who put their children in private schools to avoid integration, however. >- abolish tenure in public schools ; compensate the teachers. Agreed. While we're at it, let's get rid of the idea that all teachers at a school should be on the same pay scale, regardless of subject. >- reduce the rules for teacher and school certification : if students > score high on tests, this should be enough. All right, but some people aren't good at taking tests. Don't make test- taking the only way to succeed. >- gradually allow paramedic practitioners an almost equal status with > doctors ("almost" - as a sop to professional self-respect). >- same for paralegals and lawyers. Or just have more medical and law schools. >- make things easier for para-police organizations like Guardian Angels. No. Para-police organizations without strict controls can go bad very fast. >- change environmental protection rules on the highly successful > West German model: pollute if you wish, but *pay in proportion*. Yes. This isn't so much Libertarian as just good economic sense. Capitalist, to be sure. >- abolish all affirmative action laws and regulations (no need > to phase out, internal corporation rules take care of that). Internal corporate rules came into existence only because of the laws. >- abolish minimum wage (no need to phase out, inflation took care > of that). I support this in conjunction with a negative income tax. By itself, I don't think it's a good idea. >- legalize all illegal immigrants, with the proviso > that if they commit a crime or draw too much welfare benefits, they > can be deported. >- make immigration free to anyone who (a) passes an easy > English test; > and (b) agrees to be deported under the conditions > of the previous item. > This can be phased in by gradually relaxing the English test. I just plain don't think this will work. It is a relatively high-risk experiment, even if the test is quite stringent. >- legalize marijuana. The sooner the better. >- allow condemned prisoners the option of suicide. I don't think, given the current state of society, that suicide should be condoned in any circumstances. >- gradually replace income tax with consumption (sales) tax. As indicated above, I would rather see a negative income tax. >- in view of successful office automation, and the accumulated > effects of Parkinson's law, require by law > a yearly reduction of civil service staff of, say, 10%. >- similar rule for clerical defense personnel. This is impractical. >- make government financially responsible for unfair damage > to private persons (e.g. judicial error resulting in a prison > term). More grist for the lawyers. >- limit the length, in letters, of new laws. There are many ways around this one. Just divide your bill up into pieces. >- let jury, not judges, decide what a law means. (This would > promote a rule of law instead of the rule of lawyers). >- make any new law pass revision by a jury who must unanimously > agree they understand it. These two clearly go together. Both have far-reaching implications and require careful thought. >- adopt a sunset law for all government agencies, regulations, > and laws (except for the constitution and the sunset law). Ditto, but I've already thought about this one. Just applying it to the laws and regulations suffices; if the law authorizing an agency expires, so does the agency. First of all, this would have to be a constitutional amendment; just passing a law would be meaningless. Second, at least if this idea is extended to the state level, certain crimes should be exempt -- at a minimum, murder, assault, and theft. Perhaps all crimes with victims should be exempted. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108