Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!zehntel!vlsvax1!qantel!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!yale!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <7800871@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 8-Dec-85 00:03:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800871
Posted: Sun Dec  8 00:03:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Dec-85 06:29:50 EST
References: <7559@ucla-cs.UUCP>
Lines: 490
Nf-ID: #R:ucla-cs:-755900:inmet:7800871:177600:26463
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Dec  8 00:03:00 1985


>/* Written  9:27 am  Dec  1, 1985 by jim@ISM780B in inmet:net.politics */
>>>>The interesting thing about aid to the contras is that I think you're
>>>>quite right -- aid to other governments or movements by our GOVERNMENT
>>>>should not be lightly undertaken (actually, I doubt it should *ever*
>>>>be undertaken, but that's another story), but I'll bet there are a LOT
>>>>of things our government does with LESS information (at a guess,
>>>>funding primary education for poor children, or requiring utilities to
>>>>provide service to the destitute) that you ARE in favor of.  Sauce for
>>>>the goose -- sauce for the gander: TAXING people should not be lightly
>>>>undertaken either, but I don't hear you coming out and arguing against
>>>>it when it is for causes that you (with limited information, no doubt)
>>>>like.
>>>
>>>How the hell do you know what I am in favor of, or what I know?
>>
>>I don't!  I phrased it as a bet and a guess for this very reason!
>
>But your "sauce for the goose" only follows if your guess is correct,
>but your rhetoric doesn't acknowledge this.  

Whoa!  You're arguing that supporting the overthrow of a "sovereign" nation
should not be lightly undertaken, and claiming that the alternative, leaving
it unmolested, should require less evidence.  I'm pointing out that 
you MIGHT be doing the sort of thing you dislike in another context.  Were
this a private conversation, I probably wouldn't have brought it up, but since
you're not the only one reading this, it seems worthwhile to bring the
reader's position into it too.  How many readers who vote for taxation
are aware they've taken a stand?

>And you *accuse* me of
>selectively not arguing against things I like, without being able to
>substantiate the claim, aside from the fact that that is universal behavior
>but is *not* what I was accusing Jan of.  

If you state it as a fact that it *is* universal behavior, I'll assume that
it is also *your* behavior, in which case my "sauce for the goose" argument
holds up quite well.

If I misunderstand you, please say so.


>Rather, what he *does* argue for
>he hasn't justified.  Have you heard me argue *for* taxes?  Most of your
>paragraph above is much stronger than "bet" and "guess".

I have NOT heard you argue for taxes.  Of course, IF you have voted for them,
you have advocated them (unless you think that one shouldn't vote one's
conscience, or that folks are not impressed by the vote).  Only you know,
so far, whether you have voted for them.  

>...

>
>>>Why would you want me to argue against taxes when you don't think I have
>>>enough information to argue for them?
>>
>>Because if your point is that if you don't know enough you shouldn't support
>>positions, then it seems to me to be only consistent to agree that if you
>>don't know enough you shouldn't vote for taxation.
>
>I only vote when I feel I have enough information to yield a reasonably high
>probability that one solution is better than another.  

So do you suppose that Jan (or indeed, anyone who might disagree with
you on the Nicaraguan issue) considers his position in the same light?

>...
>Also, you are indulging in a fallacy.  A vote is not the same as advocacy.
>Since to vote yes or no or not at all are all actions with consequences,
>one *must* choose one such consequence; one chooses that which seems best.

Indeed.  To vote FOR a tax issue involves the consequence that one has
put an iota more power behind the state's power to tax.  Is this the
same as "advocacy"?  It's certainly highly stylized, but it seems to
me that it is.  If you mean to draw a purely artificial distinction
between what you express on a ballot, and what you express in prose,
that's fine by me, but both are listened to, both are taken to
represent your opinion, and VOTES affect law.

>I asked why you would have me argue against taxation, and you did not answer
>that, unless your claim is that not voting for taxation is the same as
>arguing against it, a strange claim but one you seem to be making.

Oooh!  I hate this!  You said:

	>Why would you want me to argue against taxes when you don't
	>think I have enough information to argue for them?

AND IN DIRECT RESPONSE, I said:

	Because if your point is that if you don't know enough you
	shouldn't support positions, then it seems to me to be only
	consistent to agree that if you don't know enough you
	shouldn't vote for taxation.

To say it again, Jim, if your point about Jan's position about Nicaragua
is that he doesn't have enough information to advocate the overthrow
of a sovereign state, and he therefore shouldn't take such positions,
then it surely also applies to OTHER situations where ANYONE forms an
opinion on what they feel is enough information.  In particular, lots
of folks vote FOR (say) school levies.  To do so enhances the power of
the state to tax, and the polls are widely used as an opinion-indicator.
To vote FOR a school levy is thus to put oneself in the camp of those who
wish to increase taxes (for whatever  reason one thinks sufficient).

It is also a measure of support to those who would take a little more of
one's paycheck to put under government control.  Is this to be done 
WITHOUT STRINGENTLY SUFFICIENT INFORMATION?  Hell no!  And yet folks
do it all the time.  To claim that Jan didn't check carefully enough
before suggesting a view on netnews (which, after all, the state cannot
use as authority for anything) and to accuse him of intellectual dishonesty
because the facts look different to you strike me as a pair of rather
overblown responses.  As an instrument in showing you just HOW overblown,
I've invoked the POSSIBILITY that you've voted for issues  important
to other folks as Nicaragua is to you.  My claim is not that
"not voting for taxation is the same as arguing against it", but rather that
voting for taxation is an act of the same sort as advocating it.
My GUESS is that you have voted for taxation at some point (most voters
have, I suppose), but the point stands even if you personally have never
done so -- intellectual dishonesty is quite a different thing from 
intellectual completeness.

>I do have an advocacy in re Nicaragua: to not violate OAS conventions and
>the general rule of international and morality by interfering in the
>affairs of another sovereign state without extreme cause; in particular
>overthrowing an established government is a clear and sever violation.
>I do not think that supporting *not* overthrowing a state is symmetrical
>in its need for factual basis with supporting *to* overthrow a state.

Ho hum.  If the state were some sort of magical entity, this would be true,
but it's not.  The only worthwhile means I've heard of for judging a state
is by the fate of the individuals in its power.  At least some Nicaraguans
don't like their state.  If people in the US agree with them, perhaps they
should be free to help them.  If they disagree, perhaps they should be
free to donate time to the Sandinista government.  Right now, explicit
foreign aid by individuals is prohibited by the Logan act (probably
by several others too).  My reaction to this sort of controversy is that
the Logan act should be repealed, and people should be free to 
send their money to the Contras, the Sandinistas, or to Joe Bob, based
on the information the individuals consider sufficient.

>>>From my *values*, not from information,
>>>I favor children being educated, even if it means they grow up to build bombs
>>>to destroy us, I favor the destitute not starving or freezing to death
>>>even if it means increasing the chances of having my throat slit,
>>>and I favor a society with good roads, maintained buildings,
>>>and a healthy environment with preserved natural habitats, even if
>>>it means fewer of the technological toys I love.  I am quite open
>>>to possible ways to achieve these ends.  I am well aware of a
>>>wide range of weaknesses in the ways these things are being done.
>>>I can see what the effects of the current policies are; if
>>>someone offers a different solution, I certainly wouldn't reject
>>>it, but I would ask for analysis before *supporting* it.  I am
>>>familiar with libertarian arguments and am willing to respond to
>>>them.  I refuse to take a position without being willing to
>>>defend it.  And I demand the same of others.
>
>>Check -- I'm glad to hear it.  But have you ever VOTED for any of
>>these things being done by the state?   (It is not, of course, my
>>place to monitor the voting -- the question is rhetorical) It would
>>seem to me that this would constitute taking a position to about the
>>same extent Jan did.  Jan offered an opinion on netnews.  *IF* you
>>voted for any of these things (and I don't say you did) then you
>>bolstered a government solution to one of the social problems
>>involved.
>
>As above; voting yes and voting no both have consequences.  If I suspect,
>based on evidence and analysis, that one is preferable over the other then
>I have an obligation to vote in that way even in the face of partial
>information.  Of course I also have an obligation to inform myself as best
>I can within normal constraints.  If I do not feel qualified to judge, or
>feel that my confidence in my information is poor enough as to risk
>interfering with the votes of those more knowledgeable (not too likely in a
>general election!) then I abstain from a vote.  I reject your claim of
>analogy.  If you still feel it is valid, please elaborate.  Jan made a strong
>claim.  Just how strong a claim that a course is correct is a vote for that
>course?

Well -- in the US a bunch of votes is sufficient to topple one foreign
policy and put in another.  Advocacy on netnews is NOT, no matter how
heated or well-informed.  In short, a vote is a more dire sort of advocacy,
the kind the authorities back up with guns and paycheck withholding than,
advocacy within netnews.

>...
>Remember that Jan said that we have a MORAL OBLIGATION to support the
>Contras, not that he suspects that the world would be better off if we did.
>Even if he did not make so strong a statement, the vehemence with which
>the pro-Contra stand is taken, and the name calling applied on both sides
>is clearly at a very different level of advocacy as a vote.
>This is not to say that issues on which people vote are not strongly
>advocated, but the advocacy and the vote are different, and you were
>talking about me voting, not about me advocating.  Voting and taking a
>stand are *independent*, regardless of how often they are asscocieted.
>
>Just to be perfectly clear, I am not claiming I have never advocated without
>analysis, or that I have never taken a stand on an issue without properly
>understanding it.  I am not claiming that I am free of all intellectual
>dishonesty or that I should not be criticized for it; that would be
>intellectually dishonest (:-).  I welcome such criticism where it applies,
>since the whole reason to value intellectual honesty is because we value
>truth.  But showing that I have been dishonest does not *invalidate* my
>claims or *excuse* anyone else of such dishonesty.  I do not buy the concept
>"Who are you to talk?", which just leads to a social framework of mutually
>supported immorality.  I am perfectly aware that by putting the issue on the
>table I open myself to scrutiny.

A very good point.  The logic of the argument  holds regardless of the
conduct of the arguer.  My point is that you've over-reacted (impolitely)
to Jan's stuff (of course, I'm not polite, always, myself), and your
rhetoric is made suspect by demanding that his advocacy must pass 
a severer test than yours (he must talk about degradation and death in 
HIS proposal for what to do in re Nicaragua, but you don't have to).

>....
>>>>>Instead you
>>>>>produce catchy little slogans like the one above, littered with dishonesty,
>>>>>and making no reference to the degradation and death of real human beings
>>>>>that such policies can produce.
>>>>
>>>>I've heard no reference by you to the forced relocation of the aborigines
>>>>in Nicaragua, perhaps I wasn't listening.  Nor, have I heard you mention
>>>>the suspension of civil liberties.  Again, perhaps I didn't notice, and
>>>>again, if you didn't mention these things: Sauce for the goose.....
>>>
>>>Mention them as support for *what*?  Have I denied them?  Am I unaware of
>>>them?  Do you hold that they are sufficient reason to support the Contras?
>>
>>Not at all!  But your point is that Jan "made no reference to the
>>degradation and death of real human beings" that supporting the contras
>>can produce.  I've seen YOU make no reference to the degradation and death
>>that forced relocation and suspension of human rights can produce,
>>so why should Jan make reference to similar things that "may" occur
>>if the Contras are supported.  My point is that you've no right to insist
>>Jan do it if you've failed to do it (unless you're offering him a trade?)
>
>But you miss the point.  What do I advocate that could be seen as producing
>same, unless it is *not* overthrowing the Nicaraguan government, which
>could only get there rather indirectly?  

I get it.  Does it count that Jan only suggested "aid" to the contras,
which (after all) only turns into explosions "rather indirectly"?

>I *do not* advocate forced
>relocation or suspension of rights (although I recognize the latter as often
>being necessary during wartime, and even when not necessary still is a
>consequence.  Was the forced relocation of Americans of Japanese ancestry
>during WWII a justification for the Japanese to attack the U.S.?)  

Given that the Japanese attacked in 1941, and the relocation occurred in
1942, it would have been quite a trick for the Japanese to forsee
relocation (remember, nothing like it had happened in US history).  

>Do you
>really see them as equivalent?  

I see -- the parallel is that the Sandinistas didn't explicitly 
remove all civil rights until recently, so that the suspension of civil
rights cannot be used as a pretext for justifying Contra aid unless
the Japanese-American Internment may be used as a pretext for Pearl Harbor.

That's cute -- I like it.  The problem for you is that IF a revolution
were to happen in the US that endangered and oppressed people, THEN
the Japanese would have had a case for an attack on that government's
authority -- not on Pearl Harbor.  IF that government then were to
declare martial law, then those who argued that "The US still has a
pretty free government" would have been dealt a mild blow. (Mild only
because the counter-argument that they only did it because they "had
no choice" can be raised).

>If you do, then I will concede to your
>request: not overthrowing the Sandinistas could allow them to carry out
>policies which lead to death and degradation; it is possible (but not
>demonstrated!) that it would be at higher levels than the combined effect of
>overthrowing them and the actions of those who would follow.  We know of
>policies of this sort already occuring: forceable relocation of the Miskito
>Indians with little regard for their culture (but they have been re-relocated
>and the Sandinista government has admitted fault in strongly self-critical
>terms) and restrictions of the freedom of press and interference with the
>actions of other political parties (although under fire from the Contras with
>allegedly 50-60% of spending going toward defense, and even so there is
>little evidence of curfews or suspension of due process); it is possible that
>stopping the fighting would lead to tighter restrictions whereas, if the
>Contras take over, even though many of them are a bunch of cutthroats (that
>is well-documented!), the democratic elements outside of the Sandinistas
>would establish a stable and open government, even though there is no reason
>that I can see, given the history of Nicaragua and the area, to think that
>the odds favor it.  Is that the sort of thing you want?  

It was indeed -- Thank you.
>...
>
>You say
>>so why should Jan make reference to similar things that "may" occur
>>if the Contras are supported.
>"may"?  The whole point is that the *nature* of the Contras is violence.

So?  I argue that the nature of ANY government, particularly one that
claims tight control of its citizens is violence.  My point is that
if he should, you should.  Not that neither of you should.

>>>...
>>>One
>>>of us is making a rhetorical error somewhere.  It it is me, show me how.
>>
>>I think it is you, but I don't think you did it out of intellectual dishonesty,
>>but out of carelessness.  Jan didn't make reference to the "degradation and
>>death" associated with supporting the contras, but YOU didn't make any such
>>reference to the "degradation and death" brought about by their opponents.
>
>You didn't answer me.  What statement should I have made?  

How about: "Nobody contends the Sandinistas have clean hands.  Though
self critical about it afterwards, they've done forced relocation, killed
people, beaten others, suspended civil rights -- in short the sort of things
one expects of an authoritarian government under a lot of pressure. But
the Contras strike me as worse.".

Degradation and death didn't come into this except as implicitly understood
by everyone as being in the cards for both sides, until YOU mentioned it
as something Jan SHOULD have mentioned.  He didn't, but you HADN'T, and
it's just nasty of you to insist that a government in power is somehow
more sacred than a revolutionary movement (or did you prefer 
pre-revolutionary Nicaragua to post-revolutionary?)  

>Can you give me
>an exact hypothetical quote, 

(above)

>and show me where in the dialogue I should have
>inserted it? 

Perhaps you should have just avoided suggesting that
Jan argue according to one set of rules while you
get another.

>Remember that what *I* said was that the *question* was whether
>we had the *right* to destroy the Nicaraguan government and people.

And it's NOT a good question (if you leave out the implication that
anybody has said they want to destroy the Nicaraguan people), but the
question of whether we have the "right" to do nothing while people are
being killed is worth asking, too.  BOTH sides involve "degradation
and death".  That one involves less than the other is hard to prove,
and there's enough gore to go around without the debating trick of
insisting that the fellow advocating one move in a complex and bloody
situation is required to mention that HE's talking about degradation
and death.

>...

>>>I
>>>am almost certain I understand you position.  It is that the world is black
>>>and white.  Jan is against the Nicaraguans.  I disagree with him, so I must
>>>be for them.  Since I am for them, I must favor everything they have ever
>>>done.  I cannot see how else you could reach your sauce for the goose
>>>statement otherwise.
>>
>>Interesting.  I've already stated that I'm against any government
>>intervention for or against the Contras. (I think the repeal of the Logan
>>Act would be fun, so that US citizens could support whomever they chose).
>
>Your treatment *seems*  to imply that the opposite of supporting death and
>degradation by the Contras is supporting death and degradation by the
>Sandinistas.  Since I do not support aiding anyone to kill anyone else
>while Jan does, I don't see how your "sauce" argument applies.

Look:  Find me a Contra who believes that the contras, and only the contras,
are responsible for the armed struggle going on there.  Find me one who
believes that his people would be alive and free under the Sandinistas.
If you have trouble finding such a person (and I propose the "search"
as a thought-experiment) perhaps it is because THEY believe that things
are better in the most important ways if THEY win.  It's not certain to
me, but I suspect a fair portion of those guys think they'll do better
if they have Yankee aid.  

>>>>The subject WASN'T "degradation and death", so Jan wasn't obligated to
>>>>mention it.  Perhaps there's MORE "degradation and death" under the
>>>>current government than there would be under the Contras.  You have
>>>>some way of knowing that we don't (perhaps you have some way of
>>>>quantifying "degradation")?
>>>
>>>The point is the degradation and death at the hands of the Contras *now*.
>>>That *is* the subject; Jan favors support of people who are shooting
>>>and blowing things up.  That means death and degradation.  Some of
>>>such is documented.  Even if you are not familiar with the documentation,
>>>you can reasonably assume that there is *some*, can you not?
>>
>>Sure!  So tell me, have the Sandinistas NOT done this?
>
>AGAIN, I do not support those policies of the Sandinistas!!!

WHOA!  Just let's hear the answer to the question.  Jan is indeed proposing
to send aid to the Contras, and whatever his reason, if the Sandinistas
kill and degrade (notice how "blowing things up" has crept in) people,
then COUNTERING them (even if it means other instances of killing and
degrading MAY have as firm a basis in terms of 
minimizing death and degradation as NOT countering them.  Certainly in
ARGUMENT one may not simply insist that this is not true -- one may therefore
not require that the "other side" be held to closer rules of conduct
than the "good side".

>Jan *does* support the Contras.  The whole *point* of the Contras
>is to kill and blow things up.  You cannot support the Contras
>without supporting killing and blowing things up.  

Oh sure..... I can just hear the Contra's wife: "Well dear, another nice
day of killing and blowing things up?"  "Yes Honey, today will be a 
quota-buster for sure.  Think I'll kill our cat first".  I know of no
movement, anywhere, whose members thought of themselves as having as
an end value the destruction of lives and property.  To accuse the 
Contras of this (without providing facts) is to do what you yourself
have asked that Jan not do -- take a position without revealing 
the factual basis.  As you say, this wouldn't excuse Jan from doing it,
but your own position is weakened if you seem to be requiring Jan's
side to meet specs that your side does not meet.  Let's be clear here:
the issue is whether to fund the Contras.  For the moment, let's simplify
the situation by saying that Jan says "yes" and you say "no".  If you
simply place, as a bald statement, that the whole point of the 
Contras is to blow things up, (after stating in great detail the importance
of supporting a position factually) then you'd better be able to 
back it up -- and the notion that "The whole point of the contras is to
kill and blow things up" strikes me as off in left field.  You may not
agree with the Contras, but it would be like saying the whole point
of the Highway system is to have accidents, or that the whole point of the
legislature is to enslave people.

>You *can*
>support non-intervention without supporting killing and blowing things up,
>as is the case with the Contadora nations.  and you *can* oppose the
>Sandinistas without killing and blowing things up, as do most of the
>opposition groups in Nicaragua and many "liberal" and centrist
>politicians in the U.S. and elsewhere.
>So, why do you ask the questin you do, unless it is from a Manichean view?

Let me ease your bafflement.  As I understand it, "Manichaean" refers to 
a tendency to divide the world up into starkly evil and starkly good 
parts.  For example, if I were to tell you that blowing things up and
killing was ALWAYS evil, and therefore supporters of it were EVIL,
and that standing neutral or refusing to blow things up was ALWAYS
better, then I'd be taking a Manichaean stance.  As it happens, I'm saying
that even remaining neutral has both good and bad sides, that it's possible
to kill and blow things up in a good cause (though I'm not here saying
that the Contras are, merely that the action, while repugnant, may have
overridingly good consequences).  Similarly, the refraining from action
involved in neutrality is NOT always or purely good, and I've pointed
this out.  

If you say: "Jan should mention that the policies he's supporting result
in real degradation and death", but then argue that restraint is a better
policy, you'd better be prepared to argue that restraint results in less
degradation and death.  In particular, you'd better be prepared to show
that restraint does NOT result in degradation and death unless you are also
willing to talk about such degradation and death as a 
result of restraint.  As a widely-read person
who makes a big point about how necessary it is to be well informed before
advocacy, I asked you to tell us either that there is NO such degradation
and death (in which case you would indeed be excused from the sauce for
the goose.... argument) or to concede that the Sandinistas have indeed
indulged themselves, in which case LEAVING them in place involves
(judging from the past) degradation and death, in which case an advocate
of THAT policy (leaving the Sandinistas unmolested) must ALSO mention
degradation and death -- he's advocating letting it continue.

>>>What *evidence* of such death at the hands of the Sandinistas can you show?
>>
>>Let's not forget "Degradation".  The Sandinistas have suspended civil
>>rights, and forcibly relocated some aborigines.  They have forcibly
>>censored the press, and I vaguely recall reading that violence was
>>used in  various of these actions.  Certainly degradation has
>>resulted. If you are CLAIMING that all this stuff was done without any
>>degradation or death, then I'm fascinated (I won't ask you to prove a
>>negative, simply to state that "I've read all this stuff I claim to
>>read, and found not ONE reasonably substantiated death").
>
>Where have I ever claimed such a thing?  Where have I been an apologist
>for violent policies?  Jan is an apologist for violent policies.
>(Or would anyone argue that the Contras are using peaceful means?)

Nobody argues that -- hardly.  Sauce for the goose though -- the 
Sandinistas have dirty hands too.  Let's not demand that their
opponents be the only ones who must admit to advocating violence.

It doesn't MATTER that you aren't arguing that the Sandinistas should
be supported.  It doesn't MATTER that I think you're correct about the
stance our country should take ("stay out").  What matters is that you're
asking Jan to argue as if he were evil, or advocating evil, when it's
unknown to any of us what the best move is.