[cap-talk] Capabilities and Freedom vs. Safety

[Marcus Brinkmann]

Hi,

I agree with much what you said, so only cherry picking what's left
Also, increasingly getting off-topic, so not sure if it's useful to
continue it here.  It's an extraordinarily important topic, but also
very difficult and not very technical.

At Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:34:04 -0400,
"Jonathan S. Shapiro" <shap at eros-os.com> wrote:
> > But what
> > about the harm done by access restrictions?
> 
> I am very aware of this harm. There are some days when I do not think
> you believe this. I am not seeking a straightjacket for users or
> computation (I might make an exception for RAID systems this week). I am
> seeking a middle ground.

I am happy to hear this.  However, my comment was intended broader.
There seems to be an active lack of awareness and research in this
area, possibly due to biased funding (no surprise there) and the
difficulty of the matter.

[...]

> > Strategies of equity of living conditions, education, and cultural
> > change, just to give examples.
> 
> I used to believe this, but I don't think it is simple anymore. I
> believe that it is an obligation to present each person with real
> opportunities at several levels, primarily including education. There is
> no obligation to force them to accept them, and no obligation to "prop
> up" the people who decline to engage in society. If I can mangle an old
> saying: you have to lead the horse to the water, show them that it *is*
> water, and give them a credible chance to drink. After that, if the
> horse dies of dehydration it's the horse's fault.

As to what is morally right (or more right), equal conditions or equal
chances, I won't say much but just observe that equal conditions has
always been a popular goal within worker movements, while equal
chances is the watered down version that's being used by the mighty to
rationalize inequity in an ever increasing unequal society.  We are
far from either, so for all practical purposes it doesn't matter with
which one you go.  As long as it is not used for rationalization, I
can live with either of these.

Of course the above list was not meant to be exclusive.

> An interesting and disturbing study was recently published. What it
> shows is that the "terrorists are motivated by poverty" theory is wrong.
> If the study is sound (and I suspect it is), terrorists often come from
> above-average incomes and have significantly more education than the
> norms for their societies.

This is not surprising.  It's also well known that Nigeria spammers
are not the poorest people in the world.  People with more resources
and power can be more efficient terrorists, and if you look at the
statistics then you will see that this is also true for nation states
(with the US being in the lead).  The myth you cite reveals a symptom,
not a cause: Terrorism is, almost by definition, what they do to us,
and we are the rich people and they are the poor guys.  Adding false
prejudice on top of others is not leading to anything sensible, of
course.

Terrorism is complex, and in fact rejected by an overwhelming majority
of people everywhere, rich or poor.  But the resentments that are
widely held against the west in the islamic world are very easy to
understand.  One needs to look no further than the "National Security
Council Memorandum 5801/1", "Statement By The National Security
Council Of Long-Range U.S. Policy Toward The Near East," Januar 24,
1958.  It's an instructive source.  Similar documents will exist
today, but of course they are not public yet.  And don't get fooled by
the age of the document.  Although our collective memory dates back
only to last weeks HappyMeal, in arab countries the situation is quite
different.

Thanks,
Marcus