mwm@UCBOPAL.CC (Mike Meyer, I'll be mellow when I'm dead) (09/17/85)
In article <269@pedsgd.UUCP> pedsgd!bob writes: >In article <3632@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: >>A study of intellectual history will show you that it was around >>1900 that socialist ideas began having their greatest impact >>on leading political thinkers, though it took time for them to >>"trickle down" to the mass of second-hand idea dealers such as >>politicians and the press. > >This reply begs the question, which is >How is it that the people of Scandinavia (and the rest of Western Europe, and >the US ) allowed themselves to be decieved into accepting democratic socialism >when it was clearly contrary to their best interests? The answer to this question can be found in a 130 year old quote from Thomas Macaulay (British historian, circa 1857): The day will come when (in the United States) a multitude of people will choose the legislature. Is it possible to doubt what sort of a legislature will be chosen? On the one side is a statesman preaching patience, respect for rights, strict observance of public faith. On the other is a demagogue ranting about the tyranny of capitalism and usurers asking why anybody should be permitted to drink champagne and to ride in a carriage while thousands of honest people are in want of necessaries. Which of the candidates is likely to be preferred by a workman? . . . When Society has entered on this downward progress, either civilization or liberty must perish. Either some Caesar or Napoleon will seize the reins of government with a strong hand, or your republic will be as fearfully plundered and laid waste by barbarians in the twentieth century as the Roman Empire in the fifth; with this difference, that the Huns and vandals who ravaged the Roman Empire came from without, and that your Huns and vandals will have been engendered within your country, by your own institutions. <mike
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/18/85)
In article <8509171814.AA23399@ucbopal.Berkeley.Edu> mwm@UCBOPAL.CC (Mike Meyer, I'll be mellow when I'm dead) writes: > The answer to this question can be found in a 130 year old quote from Thomas > Macaulay (British historian, circa 1857): > > The day will come when (in the United States) a multitude of > people will choose the legislature. Is it possible to doubt > what sort of a legislature will be chosen? On the one side is > a statesman preaching patience, respect for rights, strict > observance of public faith. On the other is a demagogue ranting > about the tyranny of capitalism and usurers asking why anybody > should be permitted to drink champagne and to ride in a carriage > while thousands of honest people are in want of necessaries. > Which of the candidates is likely to be preferred by a workman? > . . . When Society has entered on this downward progress, either > civilization or liberty must perish. A classic false dilemma. It's amusing that someone still quotes this even in the face of today's societies where poverty is trivial by the standard's of Macaulay's time, made so by a combination of great prosperity and substantial redistribution. Yet respect for rights is not significantly different (except perhaps in more egalitarian ways) than in his time. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (09/19/85)
> In article <269@pedsgd.UUCP> pedsgd!bob writes: > >In article <3632@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall) writes: > >>A study of intellectual history will show you that it was around > >>1900 that socialist ideas began having their greatest impact > >>on leading political thinkers, though it took time for them to > >>"trickle down" to the mass of second-hand idea dealers such as > >>politicians and the press. > > > >This reply begs the question, which is > >How is it that the people of Scandinavia (and the rest of Western Europe, and > >the US ) allowed themselves to be decieved into accepting democratic > >socialism when it was clearly contrary to their best interests? > > The answer to this question can be found in a 130 year old quote from Thomas > Macaulay (British historian, circa 1857): > > The day will come when (in the United States) a multitude of > people will choose the legislature. Is it possible to doubt > what sort of a legislature will be chosen? On the one side is > a statesman preaching patience, respect for rights, strict > observance of public faith. On the other is a demagogue ranting > about the tyranny of capitalism and usurers asking why anybody > should be permitted to drink champagne and to ride in a carriage > while thousands of honest people are in want of necessaries. > Which of the candidates is likely to be preferred by a workman? > . . . When Society has entered on this downward progress, either > civilization or liberty must perish. Either some Caesar or > Napoleon will seize the reins of government with a strong hand, > or your republic will be as fearfully plundered and laid waste > by barbarians in the twentieth century as the Roman Empire in > the fifth; with this difference, that the Huns and vandals who > ravaged the Roman Empire came from without, and that your Huns > and vandals will have been engendered within your country, by > your own institutions. > > > <mike This quote is absolutely great. Macaulay is consistent, his logic flawless. I fully agree with him that in the long run the free market requires "some Napoleon or Ceasar" (or gen. Pinochet). Macaulay was fully aware that a simple "absence of any political system" is not viable. I myself prefer liberty than the civilization :-). Piotr Berman PS. I would reformulate the quoted question as follows (my change in the upper case, former version in []): > >How is it that the people of Scandinavia (and the rest of Western Europe, > >and the US ) allowed themselves to be decieved into accepting democratic > >socialism IF [when] it was clearly contrary to their best interests? The question as it was posed presumed that humans are usually irrational as voters. However, the very same people who expose this point of view frequently adher to a theory assuming that peoples behavior may be explained as the rational pursuit of their objectives. As I see it, this theory must assume that some objectives (like consumption of goods, assuring education of children, protecting health) are rational and some are not. The envy of "workmen" would be irrational. What about power, fame, status etc.? These would be characteristic "irrational" objectives of the well-to-do. Still, they influence the economical and political decisions as well. My claim is that the contemporary free-market economics is based on flawed assumptions on human nature, or, more plausibly, on a value judgement similar to Macaulay's: "socialist" motives (like egalitarian impulses) are labelled "irrational", striving for power and status is labelled "rational". P.B.
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (09/20/85)
In article <763@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >In article <8509171814.AA23399@ucbopal.Berkeley.Edu> mwm@UCBOPAL.CC (Mike Meyer, I'll be mellow when I'm dead) writes: >> The answer to this question can be found in a 130 year old quote from Thomas >> Macaulay (British historian, circa 1857): >> >> The day will come when (in the United States) a multitude of >> people will choose the legislature. Is it possible to doubt >> what sort of a legislature will be chosen? On the one side is >> a statesman preaching patience, respect for rights, strict >> observance of public faith. On the other is a demagogue ranting >> about the tyranny of capitalism and usurers asking why anybody >> should be permitted to drink champagne and to ride in a carriage >> while thousands of honest people are in want of necessaries. >> Which of the candidates is likely to be preferred by a workman? >> . . . When Society has entered on this downward progress, either >> civilization or liberty must perish. > >A classic false dilemma. It's amusing that someone still quotes this >even in the face of today's societies where poverty is trivial by the >standard's of Macaulay's time, made so by a combination of great prosperity >and substantial redistribution. Yet respect for rights is not significantly >different (except perhaps in more egalitarian ways) than in his time. >-- > >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh We now have a Supreme Court willing to rule that growing your own corn to feed your own hogs is interstate commerce, and hence subject to Federal regulation. We have federal courts willing to rule that putting up your own antenna on your own property is theft from a cable operator. We have laws that require each and every citizen and resident of the United States to reveal to the government each detail of their financial affairs. In Berkeley, we have an 80-year-old woman who has gone to jail for attempting to enter her own house. Somehow, I think people's privacy was a lot more respected during Macaulay's time: and of all the rights that a human being possesses, that is the one that I, at least, cherish most. Rick.
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (09/23/85)
In article <1803@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: >The question as it was posed presumed that humans are usually irrational >as voters. However, the very same people who expose this point of view >frequently adher to a theory assuming that peoples behavior may be >explained as the rational pursuit of their objectives. > To be wrong is not teh same thing as to be irrational. A great many people believe in a free lunch. It is difficult to disbelieve it since so many politicians promise it. The problem with a democracy is that it degenerates into demegoguery -- as soon as people learn that they maintain political power by promising what people would like them to be able to deliver rather than what they can, it is game over. Lying now becomes a successful political strategy and between ignorance and a desire to be deceived everybody loses. A democracy is only viable when the voters have accurate information, and as soon as the state learns that it can control people to the extent of voting for them through feeding them wrong information it inevitably does. -- Laura Creighton (note new address!) sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa