-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jim wrote: >Are we seeing the beginning of the end of the concept of 'nation'? Are we >faced with the incontrovertible truth that we either abandon the concepts >of science/technology, accept a autocratic state where our every move is >reviewed for threat potential, or do we find another solution to the >problems of mankind other than the 'state'? Are these the only three >choices? No, I hope not. Unfortunately, to quote Bernard Brodie, I suspect this may be a case in which the rigidity lies in the situation, not in the thinking. As long as the technology exists, it's going to be problematic. So then the really interesting question becomes finding a way to translate a more pro-freedom, idealistic approach into practical policy within the situation and institutional framework as it exists now. You know, it sort of gets back to Herman Kahn's idea of "men of influence" as those who "write the documents that are placed in the hands of the decisionmaker at key moments." As a "community", (if a term like that even makes sense) we could use a few more Men of Influence in the policy arena, rather than leaving it entirely in the hands of the statists. We turn up our noses at participating in the process and then wonder why it all turns out so badly. What a surprise. A useful exercise might be the following: pretend Condi Rice asked you to draft up a point paper of policy recommendations related to technology and security to be presented to the President next week. Could you distill your approach into a set of bullet points--short, to the point, and easy enough for George Bush to understand? If anyone gives it a try I'd certainly be glad to see it. Even getting it out in a public forum like this might be beneficial, who knows. *** If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose that freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too. - --Somerset Maugham We live in a world where emergencies are always possible, and our survival may depend on our capacity to meet emergencies. Having said that, it is necessary also to say that emergency measures however good for the emergency do not make good permanent policies. Emergency measures are costly, they are superficial, and they imply that the enemy has the initiative. - --John Foster Dulles -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Hush 2.0 wl8EARECAB8FAjuuY68YHGF1dG8zMDEwOTRAaHVzaG1haWwuY29tAAoJEKadvsVlUK4P qTUAoINUXPrdyYgnIu+B4BaKmAbICIO3AJ92/YxjG2Y8lyE5FO2fZH3yGUUaQQ== =jrHQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
