[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

CL: The Economist on Giddens, Hayek & the LSE (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:50:16 -0400
> From: Robert Hettinga <[email protected]>
> Subject: CL: The Economist on Giddens, Hayek & the LSE

> Beware of socialists pitching new paradigms.

Or (the only good thing Reagen ever said),

Trust, but verify.

> must stand. This book is awesomely, magisterially and in some ways
> disturbingly vacuous.
> Prodi, the prime minister of Italy, plan to conduct in New York on September
> 23rd.

Is anyone going or know if the various discussions will be made available?

> on "five dilemmas". In merciful summary, these are (i) that globalisation
> is changing the meanings of nationhood, government and sovereignty. There
> exists

This is the definition of 'civilization', an effect that is clearly
observable by studying history. The relationship between citizen and state
depends on (among other things) speed of communication (or transport), and
resource control.

As the speed of transport increases nations have a tendency to homogenize or
share cultural traits (not to mention genes). As time goes by the nations
change size and number in relation to resource control, normaly you get a
few large countries and lots of smaller ones. As time goes by you'll see
more and more of the smaller nations forming combines, hegemonies, balkans,
etc. This tendency drives the globalization of human culture. It is a basic
aspect of human greed to want the whole shebang. That is a result of humans
being social in nature, and having a fundamental neurosis about self. What
finaly determines if one or more nations will exist is the general growth
rates of each fundamentaly (and this is a bitch to describe to any
precision) different national/social/psychological type. As long as none of
them have a growth rate that is hyperbolic in nature (ie infinite magnitude
in finite time) then a multiplicity of such 'nations' will continue to
exist. A fundamental question should be what and how to measure the growth
rates of nations within this context?

There also needs to be a fundamental distinction between government and
business, as is made with religions. Businesses need to be regulated but it
should be by a indipendant political system from that defining civil issues
regarding individuals. There should also be a distinct funding system which
is also indipendant, but responsible for providing all funding for the other
political agents. It would be regulated by some sort of representative
system whereby people could elect various officials to select the process
through a representative system. In short, every political entity in a
government should consist of publicly elected officials with appropriate
support staff. There should be strictly enforced and relatively short-lived
term limits. A distinction in allowable forces for a government to use
between exterior (army) threats and internal civil disturbance (militia),
and nary the two should meet or ever be involved in day to day law
enforcement. In regards the civil branch of the above (ie executive,
legislative, judiciary) the executive branch should also be some sort of
elected panel, the concept of an individual representative needs to die a
deserved death. Personaly I like the idea of a panel of single
representatives from each state.

> (2) a "new individualism" that is not necessarily selfish but which
> means that social solidarity can no longer be imposed in a top-down way.

It's about time. I believe that a study of polyocracies would provide a much
better model for a democratic system.

I've come to the conclusion that the best way to deal with human culture is
to base everything on the fundamental issue of individual distinction, this
is what it means for all people to be created equal.

> of problems-such as global warming, devolution, the future of the European
> Union-about which it is unhelpful to think in terms of left versus right.

That's because nature is by its very nature apolitical. Politics will
regulate human society, it won't control it.

> (4) Some jobs (defence, lawmaking) can be done only by governments, even

No, they can only be done by a monopoly. If they don't then the sorts of
social institutions we normaly talk about can't exist.

> though politicians are becoming less influential and pressure groups more
> effective.

Which sortta balances out thankfuly...

> should be no rights without responsibilities; that the protection of children
> is the most important bit of family policy;

Does he extrapolate this to some sort of all-encompassing social authorization
for government intervention as is currently trying to be implimented?

 that society should be "inclusive"
> but not "strongly egalitarian";

Which means what? We let people in but we don't treat them like they live

 that constitutions should aim for openness
> and transparency;

What the hell does that mean?

> that there may be a case for a world criminal court;

Only if nations aren't responsible for their own citizens...

I'd like to see the day when one nation sues another in a world court for
harms against their citizens...if the proposed system will require this as
easily as a single nation dropping on a single individual then it won't

> that there is a need to control excessive overshoots in financial markets
> but that the nature of these controls is "problematic"; that . .

Don't fall for the 'bigger is better' school of economics. Individualy
stable markets should be highly regional, probably not national and most
definitely not global. Stability comes from a voluntary long-term
relationship between participants.

       To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice.


       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      [email protected]
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-