From: bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Barry Schlesinger)
Subject: Re: Government to Grant Swift Endangered Species Act Protection to Hundreds of Imperiled Species
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:19:00 GMT

(I don't know if this is coming from misc.legal, but if not, that 
group probably ought to be taken out of the newsgroup list...)

In article <1hnhckINNnna@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes...
>In article <22DEC199213514739@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov>, bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Barry Schlesinger) writes:
>=However, individuals may gain corrupting power independent of a 
>=government.  In fact, if there is no government or equivalent social 
>=compact, those individuals who start with more power will concentrate
>=it more to themselves and use it to contro others.  Those without
>=power will have less effective control over their own lives as they
>=would under a democratic government. Under a democratic government you 
>=can choose the rule makers and evaluate them by the rules they make,
> 
>You make such a nice sheep. Never questioned the propaganda they fed you in
>high school civics class, have you?  

High school civics!?  Millenia of history reveal that without social 
compact, society evolves into an oligarchy.  Or wasn't the remark 
about that?  

>Please answer the following questions:
>    1)	When's the last time your vote mattered in an election?

Well, I was a precinct captain in one election that was decided by 
four votes.  I probably turned more than that.  I remember one city 
council race in the same town that ended up in a tie.  And remember 
the state legislative race out West that was decided by a hand of 
poker when the votes were equal?  One vote sometimes can make a 
difference.  But that's not the real point.

>    2)	When's the last time an election was decided largely based on the
>	question of who had the bigger advertising budget?

On the other hand, think about the unsuccessful campaigns that had big 
money behind them, for example, Mark Dayton's Senate campaign, the 
challenger in Illinois whose mano-a-mano against Dixon opened the door 
for Carol Moseley Braun.  Money isn't everything.

>Now, please reevaluate your claim that "[u]nder a democratic government you can
>choose the rule makers."
> 

Well, the evidence presented does not impeach that claim. Unless one
is one of the oligarchs, _one_ person alone can never change the rule
makers in _any_ kind of society.  The real point (see above) is that
society is driven by what people do organized together in groups.  In
a democratic society, there is a peaceful mechanism by which the
majority can change the direction of society.  And it does happen from
time to time.  Now there are attempts to manipulate the process.  But
they don't always work.  

> >under the concentration of power by economics you have no such choice.
> 
>There is no such choice under "democratic goverments" either.  However, some
>people, like you, prefer to believe in the comforting illusion.

So then, who decided in 1980, that the United States should reduce the 
role of government and give more scope to the private sector?  Who 
decided in 1992 that it was time to reintroduce a government role in 
the solution of certain social problems?  Who was the puppetmaster?  
Or, just maybe, the majority of the people as a whole wished to go in 
these directions.  That there are limits to the ability of any one 
person or even groups to influence the changes in a democratic 
society does not necessarily imply that such influence is absent. On 
the other hand, in a society with no social compacts, such 
changes occur only through the use of economic power or through 
violence.



				BMS

Newsgroups: misc.legal