On Monday, January 28, 2013 1:05:28 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> Hi Craig,
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 28, 2013 7:24:11 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Roger,
>>>
>>> I agree with you, peace and freedom are not possible on this earth 
>>> without strong militaries. Game theory shows that to be the case.
>>>
>>
>> Which is why game theory tends to produce results which are amoral and 
>> ideological. 
>>
>
> Amoral, sure. Ideological, I don't get it.
>

By reducing the possibilities of human behavior of a game, you are 
automatically pushing a reductionist agenda. Short term instrumental 
thinking and reactionary postures are elevated above long term creative 
collaboration and innovation. The first rule of the game is: the rules 
don't change. That is a conservative ideology.
 

>
> I'm with you in strongly disliking war and violence, by the way. I just 
> don't see a way to survive and be free without an equilibrium based on fire 
> power. I wish that wasn't the case, but what's the way out?
>

I think the best hope is technology which puts us into other people's 
experience. Communications media have helped us learn about the 
perspectives of other people, so maybe if we confront the unedited 
realities of each other's experience it will take us to the next level. 
Otherwise, I donno, maybe there is no way out?

 
>
>>  
>>
>>>
>>> The problem in the USA, though, is the in(famous) military-industrial 
>>> complex. Powerful corporations profit incredibly from war. That's the wrong 
>>> incentive. They should profit from peace. The government should not be 
>>> allowed to pay for bombs, but only for the availability of bombs, through 
>>> agreements that pay the same weather the bombs are used or not.
>>>
>>
>> What is the difference between paying for bombs and paying for an 
>> availability of bombs? Like they can buy only stock options, but not stock? 
>> Why would the government want to buy the availability of bombs which they 
>> cannot use?
>>
>
> They can use them, but they pay a flat rate for the availability. If it 
> doesn't matter if they use more or less, powerful private interests have 
> less incentive to lobby for war.
>

I'm not sure that I understand the model. The flat rate would either have 
to be so high that the arms manufacturers would be covered no matter how 
much they use or else or they will adjust the quality of their product to 
match the rate. If its just availability and not possession, then the arms 
dealers would just play shell games and Ponzi schemes to give the illusion 
of inventory.

Thanks,
Craig
 

>  
>
>>  
>>
>>>  
>>> Cheers,
>>> Telmo.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net>wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Hi John Mikes 
>>>>  
>>>> You wrongly assume that the killing power of the infantry 
>>>> necessarily has to do with imperialism or aggression.  I
>>>> believe in PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER.
>>>>
>>>
>> That's part of the "Vietnam Never Happened" historical revisionist 
>> portfolio. A simple idea, but not really very useful since 1945. 
>>
>> Craig
>>  
>>
>>>   
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
>>>> *From:* John Mikes 
>>>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>>>> *Time:* 2013-01-27, 12:31:36
>>>> *Subject:* Re: The "fairness" argument and women in the infantry
>>>>
>>>>  Roger -� 
>>>> thank you for your clear-minded post. I my add: there is a shortage of 
>>>> men for the imperialistic politics the US seems to pursue and without 
>>>> resoring to general draft only the female input is hopeful.�
>>>> John Mikes
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  �
>>>>> The "unfairness" argument爁or allowing women into the infantry
>>>>> is emotionally based, thus爃ard to defend against, so that regrettably 
>>>>> I fell for it. 燭he argument is that爊ot allowing women into the 
>>>>> infantry is unfair to women because "they are just as good as men" 
>>>>> at fighting,� and not allowing them in the infantry is unfair to their 
>>>>> advancement.
>>>>> �
>>>>> This pov has been tested by the Bristih military, and it was withdrawn
>>>>> after 18 months because it didn't work.�
>>>>> �
>>>>> The function of the military is to insure our national security, not
>>>>>  to be fair to women, so that the correct question should be, instead,
>>>>> "will allowing women into the infantry improve the killing power of 
>>>>> the military ?"
>>>>> �
>>>>> �
>>>>>  
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@**
>>>>> googlegroups.com.
>>>>>
>>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>>>>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
>>>>> .
>>>>> For more options, visit 
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>
>>>>> .
>>>>> �
>>>>> �
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@**
>>>> googlegroups.com.
>>>>
>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>>>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
>>>> .
>>>> For more options, visit 
>>>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>
>>>> .
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**______________________________**
>>>> ________
>>>> *DreamMail* - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your 
>>>> leaving off. use again  www.dreammail.org
>>>> <%--DreamMail_AD_END-->
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@**
>>>> googlegroups.com.
>>>>
>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>>>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
>>>> .
>>>> For more options, visit 
>>>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>
>>>> .
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>
>>>  -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>  
>>  
>>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to