[MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] the military-industrial-congressional complex

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

I will refer to the military-industrial-congressional complex as "MICC" 
for short.  This is what Jon and I said a few minutes ago on another 
thread:


On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Mike Miller wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Jonathan King wrote:
>
> > Wasting money on manned space projects is truly a perverse thing to do. 
> > The direct kills of our course of action today is just a tiny 
> > proportion of the correctly imputed cost. Opportunity costs are 
> > staggeringly huge.
>
> Yes, but as I said before:  **The same money is being spent in either 
> scenario!!** Buy bombs = Buy space program.  But you claim...
>
>
> > > The same money is being spent either way,
> >
> > Only if there's a budget constraint. You may have noticed that, at 
> > least recently, there isn't.
>
> No.  There is always some constraint on spending.  There is always some 
> limit.  Money is constantly being moved from one place to another place. 
> They don't *just* print more money every time they want to spend some!


So I can see that it is possible that giving space money to a bomb company 
could help them to gain more political power and get even more bomb money. 
But, it seems at least as likely that the opposite effect will obtain and 
they will get less bomb money because they are getting more space money. 
That is the theory behind some of the advocacy for more government funded 
manned space travel.


The bigger issue here is the MICC.  Eisenhower warned of this in his 
farewell address, as everyone knows, but he referred to the 
"military-industrial complex."  His notes show that he had referred to it 
originally as the military-industrial-congressional complex but he deleted 
the word "congressional" before giving his talk, supposedly because he was 
proud of his good relations with the US Congress.  Here is some of his 
talk:

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE58Y2LETAs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY&mode=related&search=

Eisenhower noted that it was possible for companies to move from making 
plowshares to making swords, and vice versa, but WWII had created a 
"permanent armaments industry of vast proportions."

   American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make
   swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation
   of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent
   armaments industry of vast proportions.

During the Kennedy presidency, and for years afterward, the focus was on 
competition with Russia both in missile/bomb development and in space. 
Kennedy proposed in 1962 that the US "go to the moon" during that decade. 
Most people thought the moon money could be spent better some other way 
(e.g., making bombs or eliminating poverty).

I think that the connection of weapons development and manufacture with 
the space program was established back in those years.  Rockets were first 
developed as weapons and later were used for flight.  Obviously, companies 
that make rockets can make them for war or for peace.

Now I agree with everyone who says that we can do better things with our 
money and if I were king, that is what we would do.  Our big problem is 
that we are unable to put power in the hands of people who will do the 
right thing for us.  The problem is deceptive and not simple.  We have a 
very complex dynamical system where any sort of intervention that we can 
think of is met by an overwhelming counterforce.

So the question is:  How can we take steps that will permanently take 
power away from the so-called MICC?  We need a system of government that 
is influenced minimally by big-money interests.  How do we get there from 
here?

Another problem to consider is the influence of the mass media which can 
be owned by weapons manufacturers.  Maybe we should add an "M" for media 
and refer to the MICMC (military-industrial-congressional-media complex).

Anyway, all good suggestions will be appreciated.  I think we need to work 
on some fundamentals like use of Condorcet methods in voting or at least 
Instant Runoff voting in federal elections.  That would help to break 
apart some of the power of the major political parties.  We obviously need 
more laws to protect us, but laws are made by Congress -- a big part of 
our problem!

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion