From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 94 17:00:40 PDT
To: eagle@deeptht.armory.com
Subject: Re:  Warrentless Search
Message-ID: <199404180000.AA21589@access1.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Mr. Davis said:

The average citizen operates from a paradigm of self interest, perhaps
extended to his/her family.  If a governmental action does not resonate
with this paradigm- (i.e. "what's in it for me?")- the government action
goes largley unnoticed.  When the Reagan administration exhumed the 1888
Law allowing military to assist law enforcement, but not make arrests, I
took note of that because it directly affected my life.  Almost no one
else paid any attention to it.

<-

What you describe, as near as I can tell, is the effect of
"entrepreneurial politics."  That is when a policy (allegedly) creates
general and widespread benefits at a cost that burdens a small portion of
the popolous.  The incentive is strong for the few opponents to oppose it.
These tend to pass when the opponents are poorly represented and cannot
make their objections widely known.

Compare these with:

Client politics:  When the benefits of a policy are concentrated, but the
burdens widely spread.  Small groups have powerful reasons to support the
regulation/legislation.  The opponents have little reason to resist if
it even is clear that the legislation will effect them.  These usually
pass when watchdog groups are not present.

Interest-Group politics:  Costs and benefits are narrowly concentrated.
The public doesn't have much incentive to be bothered with the legislation
and doubts there is a serious effect to them.  Interest groups usually
carry the day here.

Majoritarian politics:  All or most of society hopes to gain; all or
most hopes to gain.  Interest groups have little incentive to form.


In general what you seem to want to attribute to a basic non-concern by
the people in general is really the fact that none or little of the
citizenry feel themselves effected by the legislation.

The circumvention of the rights against warrantless search in such a major
way is a majoritarian politic issue, and is not comparable to the
example that you gave, (baring more specific information).

Ignoring the potential ramifications of a seizure of constitutional rights
to fight the symptoms of some invented "Crime Crisis" is to me much more
indictive of citizen's apathy.  I make this assertion with the admission
that I don't know the specifics of your example, as you did not provide
them.

I feel this conversation, which facinates me, bears off of the cypherpunks
topic.  Unless the voices calling for a more technical and a less
political subject matter have waned, I think we should consider another
forum.

Personally I find the discussion of centralist issues in general important.
It's the tie in to cryptography and the lack of a comprehensive list
position on the political nexus with the technical that worries me.

Sorry for the bandwidth in any event.
See, J.Q. Wilson, The Politics of Regulation (1980) for a deeper discussion.

-uni- (Dark)