From: Samantha Atkins (email@example.com)
Date: Mon May 21 2001 - 02:38:36 MDT
"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote:
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
> > Giving an advanced and powerful technology over to an
> > organization that is fundamentally uncontrollable and is part of
> > the government's cloak and dagger side, is utterly unethical in
> > my book and much more dangerous a cure than the disease.
> Incidentally, I should note for the record that I think the US military
> (as opposed to the militaries of other governments) is basically under
> control and that even the upper echelons are composed of professionals who
> understand the proper role of the military in a democracy. I'm sure that
> the military does a lot of things I wouldn't approve of, and I'm sure that
> the upper echelons play politics with a vengeance to get the largest
> possible budget. But I would still describe the US military as being,
> fundamentally, under control. I suppose that makes me a naive dupe of the
> military-industrial complex.
NSA is not precisely US military. It is more covert and less
controlled than the CIA and has much broader theoretical powers.
For what it is worth, I don't think we as a country grasp the
proper role of a military in a democracy, or if we do that that
helps very much since the US was set up as a republic, not a
democracy. It is very unfortunate that we forget the
difference or what difference it was meant to make.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:36 MDT