From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Fri Dec 10 2004 - 08:37:09 GMT
Dear Platt,
You wrote 8 Dec 2004 09:10:18 -0500:
'It seems to me your solution to terrorism is to offer terrorists Dutch
style socialism whereby money is forcibly extracted from the pockets of the
productive citizens of the world to pay off killers in the hope that in so
doing, the killers will renounce their decapitating ways and become model
world citizens. I find no historical evidence that large scale
redistribution of wealth assures peace any better than encouraging and
rewarding the productive members of society by means of a free market
system.'
Does that (implicitly) mean that you at least concede that my suggested
solution would not imply giving in to terrorist blackmail?
As I told you before, the money needed for a social security system is not
forcibly extracted from the pockets of Dutch tax payers. Almost all of them
are convinced that it is right that they pay for it. Political debate is
only about a little more or a little less. That's not socialism as I
understand it and as it was meant by Marx, as the 'means of production' and
the decisions on how to utilize them stay safely in the hands of their
owners.
Dutch experience shows that we don't need large scale redistribution of
wealth to assure peace. The USA would be a much safer place if most of its
expenditure on national security would be redirected into social security
and (to the small extent necessary to meet its obligation to spend 0,7% of
GNP on it) into development aid.
Until recently it DID assure peace (in combination with encouraging and
rewarding people in a guided market system) in the Netherlands. (Mind you
that political assassinations, like those of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh,
that shocked the Dutch politial landscape in recent years, had almost no
precedent in the Netherlands since the assassination of Willem van Oranje,
the Dutch founding father.) It does not assure peace in the Netherlands any
more, because the Netherlands had become part of a globalized world without
a globalized social security system.
I will leave the discussion whether terrorism is biological to others this
time. We have gone into that before.
You wrote:
'As for the UN and Global Courts -- well, one look at the Iraq oil for food
scandal is enough to convince me that trusting international politicians to
do the right thing would be disastrous.'
What struck ME, was that those 'international politicians' didn't behave
like supranational politicians, but tried to serve national interests. Of
course you should never trust them. That's why I proposed checks and
balances. These are indeed still lacking to a large degree (but less so than
in most nations).
Why do you lump UN and a Global Court of Justice together?
What about my argument that you need a carrot (global welfare state) as well
as a stick (military capacity/global police force) for world peace? A free
market system alone doesn't serve as a proper carrot. It creates wealth for
the average participant (enough state intervention to guard the rules), but
it also creates losers (and disproportionate winners) and excludes people
from participation as well.
The USA has police and courts internally and lots of state-inforced rules
for a proper functioning of its 'free market system' (often more than in
Europe). Why not develop them (again: with checks and balances) on a global
scale?
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 10 2004 - 09:00:24 GMT