nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) (12/14/88)
Since there has been no traffic in this group lately I shall take the opportunity to follow up the comments from Jeff Daiell and Doug Thompson on the Big Brother issue. I know that what follows is only vaguely related to comp.society.futures but c.s.f. was where this debate started. In reply to my earlier posting Jeff states > ... I equate every Government on Earth with Big Brother ... Doug's response was > ... Ok. That's a good starting point ... In the opening paragraph of The Federalist No. 1, Publius (on this occasion Alexander Hamilton) says > It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the > people of this country [the USA!], by their conduct and example, to decide > the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not > of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they > are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on > accident and force. Jeff and Doug obviously believe that the verdict (200 years on) is that such good government cannot be established and Jeff further suggests that the group of accidents to which we ascribe the collective term 'free market' are actually to be preferred. I am deeply worried by such sentiments - the freedom to express which only exists because of the imperfect democracies which protect them. Some of us have been lucky enough to inherit representative forms of government from our forebears and like most inheritances it is easy to be complacent about them and attribute little worth to them. A democratic form of government is probably the least stable and most easily overthrown form known to man - we must always be on our guard lest we lose it. If Jeff's views are common then I think that democracy in the USA is on a very slippery slope. If the US Government really is subordinate to the free-market anarcho-capitalists then it is probably too late to save it. I shall watch your wretched, poor and hungry with great interest as you 'laissez-faire'. Doug equates this laissez-faire approach with feudalism. He does not go far enough. Even in a feudal system the powerful individuals will recognise that they have responsibilities that extend beyond their own selfish desires and freedoms. The large corporations which would be the equivalent of the feudal lords would have no such sense of responsibility. Witness the vain attempts of the current British government to persuade the business world to inject private funding into education. There is no profit. How could these companies justify such philanthropy to their shareholders? No, once again the 'libertarian' argument boils down to the law of the jungle. The Anarcho-Capitalism which Jeff dreams of may well provide an ideal environment for him to excel in (although I doubt it) but it would certainly not give any succour to the weak. Jeff's three small children had better not be weak if they are to inherit his kingdom. Nick Taylor Department of Computer Science JANET : NICK@UK.AC.HW.CS Heriot-Watt University ARPANET : NICK@CS.HW.AC.UK 79 Grassmarket /\ / o __ /_ UUCP : ...!UKC!CS.HW.AC.UK!NICK Edinburgh EH1 2HJ / \ / / / /__) Tel : +44 31 225 6465 Ext. 491 United Kingdom / \/ (_ (___ / \ Fax : +44 31 449 5153
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/16/88)
In article <2089@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk>, nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) writes: [ Re libertarianism ] > If Jeff's views are common then I think that democracy > in the USA is on a very slippery slope. If the US Government really is > subordinate to the free-market anarcho-capitalists then it is probably > too late to save it. Now this is an interesting subject. There obviously has to be a balance between the market and the government, or between the individual and society, or however you want to describe it. Where you, Jeff, and I differ is where that balance point has to be. Most Americans tend to less like government interference in the economy than most Europeans, for whatever reason. The original intent was that the U.S. government be completely subordinate to the individuals and their representatives, the states. This was the basis for the Articles of Confederation, the first Constitution (if you like) of the United States. Unfortunately, the States turned out to be poor representatives for the people. The Constitution represented a large swing back towards the power of the government. Then the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) swung things back towards the individual. The pendulum has been swinging ever since. I suspect that most Americans are more-or-less happy with where it is now, though there's quite a bit of sentiment that the government has too much power and not enough controls. I certainly think we could do with a swing towards Libertaria. > I shall watch your wretched, poor and hungry with > great interest as you 'laissez-faire'. I doubt if it'll ever swing that far that way again, but people like Jeff are a necessary part of the balancing act. Just because a high wire artist's left arm is hanging over space doesn't mean they would be better off there, but neither should the arm be cut off, lest they fall over to the right. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net.
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (12/17/88)
In article <2089@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk>, nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) writes: > > I shall watch your wretched, poor and hungry with > great interest as you 'laissez-faire'. Your job will grow less burdensome with each passing month! The number of wretched, poor, and hungry tend to drop dramatically the closer a society gets to Liberty. Of course, there are inequalities ... but what is considered lower-income here in the U. S., which is closest to a fully free society, is considered affluent in more coercive lands. Just think of all the poor people who could improve their standard of living, IF it were not against the law in most cities for them to use their personal vehicles to provide transportation to others for profit. IF they were not barred from professions they're qualified for because of license fees. IF they were not forbidden to work in their own homes because of zoning laws, and cannot afford a second location for business purposes. IF they did not have to send so much of what little income they have to Washington, London, Praetoria, Moscow, etc. The examples could go on and on, but the reality is: Government is bad for the poor, and great for the privileged. > Doug equates this laissez-faire approach with feudalism. The irony is, every step away from a free market brings feudalism closer. The bigger the government gets, the greater the concentration of wealth in the hands of the wealthiest 2%, or 1%, or 0.5%. That's why Big Business backs the two tax-subsidized parties here in the USA, and not the Libertarians --- they know that a free market would end their gravy train. Big Business *wants* Big Brother. > Even in a feudal system the powerful individuals will recognise > that they have responsibilities that extend beyond their own selfish desires > and freedoms. The coercive imposition of these "responsibilities" is the hallmark of totalitarianism. The final line of the National Socialist platform was "The common good before the individual good." > The large corporations which would be the equivalent of the > feudal lords would have no such sense of responsibility. *What* large corporations? The corporate form, at least with limited liability (which is its biggest source of potential for eventual oligopoly or monopoly), is a creature of (tah-dah!) ... The State. And, as noted before, firms get to *be* giants with Governmental help. For instance, here in these United States, anti-trust laws are more often invoked against smaller firms on behalf of bigger ones than vice-versa. Regulations tend to benefit the bigger firms, which can afford the extra costs they impose. Tax laws are written to benefit the megafirms, not Mom-and-Pop companies. > the 'libertarian' argument boils down to the law of the jungle. Wrong. Actually, anything else boils down to 'survival of the politically astute, the biggest contributor, the closest to the most powerful politician or bureaucrat' -- what one writer called "the aristocracy of pull". Also, the more affluent a society gets, the more able are its members to help the less fortunate. Compare what's given to charity in the various United States to what's given in undeveloped lands. Jeff Daiell (opinions my own until confiscated by the IRS) -- Fiat Justitia, Ruat Caelum
doug@isishq.FIDONET.ORG (Doug Thompson) (12/29/88)
NT> From: nick@cs.hw.ac.uk (Nick Taylor) NT> Since there has been no traffic in this group lately I shall take the NT> opportunity to follow up the comments from Jeff Daiell and Doug Thompson NT> on the Big Brother issue. I know that what follows is only vaguely related NT> to comp.society.futures but c.s.f. was where this debate started. NT> In reply to my earlier posting Jeff states NT> > ... I equate every Government on Earth with Big Brother ... NT> Doug's response was NT> > ... Ok. That's a good starting point ... NT> In the opening paragraph of The Federalist No. 1, Publius NT> (on this occasion NT> Alexander Hamilton) says NT> > It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have NT> been reserved to the NT> > people of this country [the USA!], by their conduct and NT> example, to decide NT> > the important question, whether societies of men are NT> really capable or not NT> > of establishing good government from reflection and NT> choice, or whether they NT> > are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on NT> > accident and force. NT> Jeff and Doug obviously believe that the verdict (200 NT> years on) is that such NT> good government cannot be established and Jeff further NT> suggests that the group NT> of accidents to which we ascribe the collective term 'free market' are NT> actually to be preferred. I am deeply worried by such sentiments - the NT> freedom to express which only exists because of the imperfect democracies NT> which protect them. Some of us have been lucky enough to inherit NT> representative forms of government from our forebears and like most NT> inheritances it is easy to be complacent about them and attribute little NT> worth to them. A democratic form of government is probably NT> the least stable NT> and most easily overthrown form known to man - we must NT> always be on our guard NT> lest we lose it. If Jeff's views are common then I think that democracy in NT> the USA is on a very slippery slope. If the US Government really is NT> subordinate to the free-market anarcho-capitalists then it is probably NT> too late to save it. I shall watch your wretched, poor and hungry with NT> great interest as you 'laissez-faire'. I think such sentiments, and sentiments that are related, are disturbingly common. More than half the US electorate did not vote in the last election. I am a member of a political party. I have run for office and even been elected a couple of times (way back when I was young and foolish). I did so with a deep conviction in the ideals of public choice, democracy, and "the people's virtue". I got involved in the last Canadian election too. BUT . . . my enthusiasm for and belief in the democratic institutions is all but dried up. That's why I can relate to the "anti-big-government" sentiments of Libertarians. I see little good produced, even by my own party, or for that matter *even by myself as an elected official* because of the huge millstone of of big bureaucracy that was hung around my neck the moment I was elected. I have grow extremely disenchanted by the public-opinion wars, and the way you have to sell yourself like a bloody commodity to get elected. NT> Doug equates this laissez-faire approach with feudalism. He does not go NT> far enough. Even in a feudal system the powerful individuals will recognise NT> that they have responsibilities that extend beyond their NT> own selfish desires NT> and freedoms. The large corporations which would be the equivalent of the NT> feudal lords would have no such sense of responsibility. You're quite right Nick. NT> Witness the vain NT> attempts of the current British government to persuade the business world NT> to inject private funding into education. There is no NT> profit. How could these NT> companies justify such philanthropy to their shareholders? No, once again NT> the 'libertarian' argument boils down to the law of the jungle. Well, the justification is that the factory floor needs drones with a certain level of literacy, therefore they should support schooling for the peasants at least until the fourth grade. What we are finding in Canada is that the University's efforts to get industry to support them are paying off rather well. The university is selling itself to business and students alike as a "factory" to produce a "commodity" that is in high demand, skilled workers for industry and job-tickets for unemployed youth. You must remember that a corporation is not a feudal institution, but a democratic one. The shareholders *elect* their boards of directors. So the Board members are not free-agents, but representatives of the shareholders. A Feudal Lord is generally accountable to no one but himself. However, I think the democratic flavour of corporate politics would quickly be lost in the anarcho-capitalist ideal Jeff presents such that a few big actors (Conrad Black, Whatsisface Trump, etc.) would end up with sole control of such vast resources that they could do whatevery they damned well pleased. That would result in some nobless oblige and patronage of the arts, and a sense of Feudal superiority. Heck, even southern US slave-owners in the early 19th century often thought they were doing their "niggers" a favour! NT> The Anarcho-Capitalism which Jeff dreams of may well provide an ideal NT> environment for him to excel in (although I doubt it) but NT> it would certainly NT> not give any succour to the weak. Jeff's three small NT> children had better not NT> be weak if they are to inherit his kingdom. Of course, remember that after a very few years of operation an anarcho-capitalist model would result in the weak being 98 per cent of the population and the strong being about 2 per cent. Even among that 2 per cent there would be struggling. We are talking about a kingdom here, and in mot kingdoms there is only one king, and the power of that king is nearly absolute. The king is strong, and everyone else had better like it or go hang! What makes this all all relevant to c.s.f is the idea that computer communication, like this, might do something to that society-wide process of public-opinion shaping which has become, in our age, completely corrupt and/or arbitrary. The public will support its democratic institutions if the public has a meaningful way of getting and being involved. I think the argument has been made that societies need collective institutions. I think the argument has also been made that current devices for public accountability and responsiveness are seriously lacking. Maggie Thatcher, Ronnie Raygun, and Brian Buloney are three of the stupidist, meanest, nastiest, most mentally incompetent and completely dishonourable politicians that history knows of. Yet they all won re-election in three of the world's greatest and oldest democracies. That is sobering! Brian squeaked in through a three-party split with 40-odd per cent of the vote (75 per cent turnout). Ronnie got in with 50 and a bit on a 50 and a bit per cent turn-out. I don't have the stats for Maggie handy, but my bet is that in the multi-party British system she got a good deal less than 50% of the votes cast. That too is sobering when you thing about the basic democratic principle of "majority rules". In Canada and the US we have governments/leaders that the majority of the people voted against. (Probably in britain too) The crisis lies in the inability of constitutions and electoral procedures to come up with a way of translating that into a defeat of the government. Call it fractured and divided opposition. In America a majority of voters stay home on election day. In Canada, the majority of voters divides its ballots among too many parties letting the government survive even a decisive public rebuff. That has to lead that majority to wonder about the "meaning" of democracy. Of course there is another propblem, the complexity of some of the issues presented to the electorate. Foreign Policy, Economic Policy, etc. etc. When such issues are discussed in the campaigns, they are dealt with as a small body of rather meaningless slogans. Most voters readily admit being somewhat confused about the issues. Few really believe that their choice is really *informed*. Mass media (esp. TV) rewards "leadership" qualities, and the tough guy image. Thus the one with the best tough guy image wins the election. If you want to win election in a modern democracy, project yourself as a tough guy. Will computer communication media help to change that? Will it make content a little more important than image? That is where this all leads in my mind. TV mass media are busily destroying democratic institutions in a very indirect way by corrupting the process of political campaigning. I'm looking for ways to rescue it. =Doug -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fido 1:221/162 -- 1:221/0 280 Phillip St., UUCP: !watmath!isishq!doug Unit B-4-11 DAS: [DEZCDT]doug Waterloo, Ontario Bitnet: fido@water Canada N2L 3X1 Internet: doug@isishq.math.fidonet.org (519) 746-5022 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
fbaube@NOTE.NSF.GOV ("F.Baube") (01/12/89)
Lest JD's attempt to get the discussion back on the track go completely unrecognized .. As Americans (as most of the people on this list are, I assume) we should *assume* as a philosophical exercise that the govern- ment and other network controllers will abuse their responsibi- lities, if not now then in the future. How about a discussion of grass-roots efforts to implement end-to-end communications security for private citizens ? I've heard of a project called "LiberTech" that was marketing a cheap public-key system; are there any other notable efforts going on anywhere ? #include <disclaimer.h>