Hi Wim,
Your respose was extremely well thought out and argued. Thank you very much
for sharing.
I agree that "stimulating trade' "direct investments", "regional
cooperation," etc are the appropriate responses to improve economic and
social factors in the region.
W:
I do admit however (and I am not the only Quaker to do so) that
society needs police forces (with a legal monopoly of using armed
violence) against criminals. I don't like Pirsig's simplification
of society against biology and intellect having to support
society in this, but as a rough approximation it stands. Against
criminals who operate globally one needs police forces who do so
too. When criminals are backed by nations, these police forces
may even need to revert to military means.
The problem however is that in the experience of a huge majority
of the world population there is no global society that can
legitimize such global policing. Any nation or group of nations
pretending to use force in the name of world society will be
accused by a large part of the world of partiality, of using
force only in its own interests.
ROG:
I agree completely.
W:
the US is simply not
accepted and acceptable as policeman of the world. And
understandably so. I don't really know a solution for this
problem.
Mayby commando troops consisting of say Gurkha's could succeed in
Afghanistan where Americans and Russians cannot?
R:
The american people have no desire to fulfill this role, I think some think
that the world expects it though. The best answer may be for countries to
police themselves, and for us to support those that -- at least -- haven't
aligned toward our destruction. Certainly there are obvious risks with this
approach too.
W:
In an earlier posting I suggested that a lot of reactions to the
terrorist attacks (mainly by Americans of course, but also of
others who feel their way of life is attacked) are part of an
ancient social pattern of value of retaliation in kind or even
pre-emptive violence from one society against another society.
"That will teach them never to do that again!" I don't agree with
Jonathan (16/9 13:50 +0300) that pre-emptive violence is better
than retaliatory violence. Both are part of the same social
pattern of value that dates from a time when people couldn't see
that the world is a whole and that humanity is essentially one
society. The response to crime on a local as well as a global
scale should be justice and setting up a political system that
protects everyone, not retaliatory or pre-emptive violence by the
victims and reinforcement of an outdated political system of
autonomous nations pretending to be seperate societies that can
harm each other without -earlier or later- harming themselves.
R:
Interestingly enough, the most successful model of this type of situation
identified by game theorists in non-zero sum games (where you can cooperate
or compete) is Tit-for-Tat. It has been shown in theory to be superior to
all other strategies at encouraging cooperation and supressing exploitation.
Many believe that its simplicity and successfulness have lent toward it being
discovered without foresight both evolutionarily and socially (NOTE this
doesn't make it RIGHT!) The strategy is to start nice and cooperate, but
respond in kind to exploitation. Of course, I think responding in kind can
include more than just violence. The achilles heel of TfT is it can lead to
self sustaining patterns of noncooperativeness.
As for your brilliant insights on inequality, I must admit that I agree
STRONGLY that inequality can lead to two problems:
1) Feelings within the less-successful of anger, resentment and the
temptation to even things out forcefully, and
2) Increased opportunity with the more successful to exploit the power
imbalance
I also agree that every successful society has to learn how to best balance
this issue to minimize the above two concerns without creating further
problems via gross redistribution (ie contributing to the problem with "free
riders" and suppressing the creative drive itself). Different solutions exist
in different modern nations, but I know of none that has no income
redistribution, or that has no systemic processes that attempt to reduce
gross inequities. Of course, there are recent examples of collectivist
nations that took it so far that it self destructed....
I also agree that wealth leads to the creation of more wealth. I believe
value creation is a positive sum process, not a zero sum one. This of course
does just accentuate inequalities.
W:
Every center of gravity of fortune in history suppressed economic
advancement in a wide circle around itself by attracting greedy
people and/or their investments and by creating political
structures defending their interests.
R:
Again I agree. Exploitation is a universal characteristic ploy of those in
power. It needs to be carefully controlled.
W:
Exploitation has always
been first and foremost something between local/regional
privileged and underprivileged primarily facilitated by
ideological legitimization (systems of ideas of the privileged
dominating those of the underprivileged) and only secondary by
brute force. International exploitation is therefore less a
matter of "stealing" and more a matter of "receiving" (buying
something knowing it has been stolen). You implicitly acknowledge
this when you write to Squonk 18/9 21:49 -0400: "I steal oil? No,
I buy oil. Saudis sell oil. ... If you have problems with
exploitation by totalitarian Saudis of their people, then say
so."
R:
Not sure if I agree with the international exploitation concept as primarily
an issue of "receipt of stolen goods". And as you know, neither I nor Squonk
ever suggested the Saudis steal their oil either. I do, however, believe
that exploitation in 3rd world countries is greater than in 1st world
countries. And I believe that most (not all) the exploitation is local or
systemic, and that regardless of the source of exploitation, that the very
fact that people are exploiting each other contributes significantly to very
reason the country is poor. The solution is indeed systems, and procedures,
and mores, and rules of law that discourage win/lose exploitative practices
and that contribute to win/win behavior, cooperation and friendly
(intellectual) competition.
W:
And of course international exploitation is offering prices
for what you buy and asking prices for what you produce that
imply hugely different wage levels of the producers and getting
away with that because of the oligopolistic structure of markets,
home market protection, protection against spreading of
technology etc. In the end the unfavorable terms of exchange for
underprivileged countries are due to status differences.
R:
Hold on now! You've thrown in a lot of concepts in 2 sentences. I believe in
free markets. I believe local efficiencies and expertise are a strength of
global capitalism. I think protectionism and monopolies -- especially state
sponsored monopolies -- are damaging to free enterprise. I think that many
social problems can't possibly be solved by competition -- but that many can.
I also think that minimum wage laws are very, very problematic solutions
(they are attempts at redistribution, but not the best solution in most cases
as they can act as a tax on hiring.) I am still confused on your beliefs
though.
W:
Who decides what is equal? That is the result of a struggle
between systems of ideas... for instance on this list.
R:
Again I agree. The interplay of ideas and what Karl Popper calls "social
tinkering" within competing states. In the end, the judge of ideas is to a
great extent in the harmony that they produce.
W:
Those "values of allowing people to have the freedom and
creativity to pursue their own interests", which you see as the
root and legitimization of Western wealth, may rather be the
result of the flocking together of greedy and resourceful people
from everywhere.
R:
Yea, and teaching someone to fish can be called "propagandizing youth to
destroy the lives and freedom of our gilled friends." I am being facetious,
but the solution that I see to inequality is to actively help others to
creatively pursue their own interests in ways that don't exploit others.
Again, this conversation has been fascinating. Thank you.....
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:31 BST