🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5387@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> dean@violet.berkeley.edu (Dean Pentcheff) writes:
>The serious business of the universities _is_ to spread ideas,
>dangerous or not, across the nation and the world.  It is the business
>of the military to protect the nation which values such free thought.

Thank you; this is a good, relevant point.  As many regular net readers
know, I treasure good ideas.  However, I think it is proper to oppose
bad ideas -- not (normally) by forcible suppression, but by rational
discussion.  This must not be left solely to the universities, which
often entrench modish beliefs, but is every intellectual's business.
One of the "dangerous ideas" I oppose is the commonly encountered
(because commonly instilled!) non-judgemental attitude toward ideas.

It is worth reflecting on the difference between the proper role of
the U.S. military, as you have stated it, and the actual role of many
national militia, or even the role that ours sometimes seems to get
sucked into, of supporting political maneuvers rather than
protecting the citizenry from infringement of freedom by outside
aggression.  There are people who see no essential difference among
major world governments, but I think they're wrong (although the
difference unfortunately seems to diminish as time progresses --
could this be due to the spread of "dangerous ideas"?).

There are certainly many problems with government-sponsored research;
I have previously expressed opposition to undue reliance on it.
However, I don't see a viable alternative for research on specifically
military applications, given that that is uniquely government business.
I welcome attempts to keep an eye on it to make sure it serves the
proper overall function of the American military, but some attempts
at regulation are more realistic than others.  (Judgement, again!)