Jay Hanson wrote:
>
> From: Michael Spencer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >I think the MAI is an attempt to wedge the gears of any possible
> >democratic governance before it become clear just what 100% free flow
> >of capital means. What it really means is....I think I feel a rant
> >coming on and I want to keep this short. :-)
>
> I do not understand why people assume that justice can only by
> served by a so-called democracy. IMHO, there isn't a chance of
> a snowball in hell that any kind of "democratic governance" can
> lead to anything but total disaster. Moreover, I see no a priori
> reason why an autocratic government can not produce at least as
> much justice as our present plutocratic government.
I am not an expert, but I am under the impression that
Franklin Roosevelt's National Recovery Act to get The United
States out of the "depression" of the 1930s was an example of this.
I am under the oppression that the NRA's *opponents*
characterized it as fascistic.
I believe there is a certain probability that (to secularize
the anti-demiocratic philosopher Martin Heidegger's
dictum from his old age:) "Only a god can save us." But
that would also be very sad, since, as Heidegger's teacher,
Edmund Husserl, urged, the ideal of Western Civilization
is a self-accountable humanity, in which (Kant:) every person
is an "end in themselves", and (Canetti:) there are neither leaders
nor followers, but rather a universal conversation of
responsible individuals who, in their mutual respect,
(Hegel:) know themselves in the form of absolute knowledge.
"Image of an image, symbol of a symbol -- image of a
destiny that is sinking in darkness...." (H. Broch)
>
> Does anyone want to discuss any of the following items?
>
> =================================================================
>
> Current assumptions:
>
> #1. The scientific community is correct -- that we have now
> exceeded the carrying capacity of our planet, and that
> continued "business as usual" will result in a global
> population crash in less than 35 years -- billions may die
> untimely deaths. [ http://dieoff.org/page5.htm ]
Wouldn't it be prudent to act as if this prediction was correct,
since, if it isn't and we act as if it is, we'll still
end up with a more capacious life world, whereas if it is and
we don't, Bosch and Brueghel's images of hell on earth
may indeed come to pass, and billions of persons will
die horribly.
>
> #2. The expected crash is the WORST possible outcome for
> societies all over the world. World governments must do
> whatever is necessary to avoid the crash.
IMO there is no conceivable "worst possible outcome". It's
like in arithmetic: for every positive integer "X", the rules for the
construction of the the positive integers stipulate that
there can be constructed "X+1" (the successor of "X").
>
> #3. Once carrying capacity was exceeded, political questions
> have "right" and "wrong" answers. The "right" answers will
> tend to delay the crash, the "wrong" answers will tend to
> hasten the crash.
>
> The "right" and "wrong" political answers can only be
> determined by scientists working collectively, utilizing
> modern technology. What point is democracy if scientists
> already know what the answers MUST be? [1]
Scientists can only give us certain "constraining
conditions". Science can never dictate policy *qua science*.
Example: If you have a boat with three people in it and science
proves the boat will sink unless the load is reduced to 2
persons, science cannot determine whether: (1) to throw one
person overboard so the other two can survive (*which* 2?).
(2) to have all three kill themselves so that none will
have it beter than the others, (3) whether, if it is
decided to "ditch" one, and which one, to throw him to
the sharks, or to eat him, and, even concerning how the
one sacrificial lamb's end, science cannot tell us whether
he should go as a result of a cabal by the other two, by a
shot in the back, or whether the 3 should decide who will
go by discussion, and then help the volunteer to go gently
into the night. Everything in this paragraph is
*politics*: All science is politically situated (not
to mention it's being politically *funded*).
>
> #4. America's political system is "structurally" defective.
> "Government by popularity contest" can only elect idiots and
> liars. There absolutely no way that idiots and liars can
> solve the colossal problems that confront our civilization
> today.
IMO democracy is a "small scale" structure. It can -- at
least theoretically -- be implemented in a small neighborhood
or work group, but not at the scale of a "many all too many".
[snip]
> #6. We need to HIRE our policy-makers based upon an explicit
> system of merit. Why don't we require all policy-makers to
> have a degree in either general systems theory or ecology?
> Moreover, they should have demonstrated good track records
> in local government before going on to national or global
> government.
Certification generally creates monopolies of the mediocre, at
the expense of quashing persons of exceptional talent who cannot
"hack the process", as well as oprotecting the public from
charlatans (Read Frank Norris's _McTeague: A Story of San Francisco_,
or Eric von Stroheim's film/screenplay based on it: _Greed_ --
it is a devastating indictment of the "dark side" of
state licensure laws!)....
>
> Bureaucrats could hire the best man or woman for the job
> based on explicit measures of merit -- to hell with popularity
> contests!
The god of mercy will come and save us (as opposed to the God of Job
coming and tormenting us...)....
>
> #7. Political theory is merely the rationalization of economic
> theory, with our present form of democracy serving as the
> rationalization of laissez-faire capitalism. Thus, in order
> to change our politics, we must first change our economics.
Ah! My proposal: That, just as we outlawed the buying and
selling of persons a century and a half ago, we now need to
take the next step in the humanization of "mankind", and
OUTLAW THE RENTING OF PERSONS, i.e., outlaw wage labor. And
should anyone reply: "That's not possible!", I'd be willing
to bet that, if push came to shove, all the Harvard trained
CxOs (<-UFOs?), along with the gret mass of
working men and women, could come up with a way to make it work....
[snip]
> #8. Metaphysical[2] beliefs are irrelevant except to gauge the
> emotional impacts of various policies on the public.
Habermas, Gadamer, et al provide the theory to get beyond
"metaphysics": the ultimate reality is "the conversation we are".
[snip]
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to think out loud
@ 06:00 on a snowy morning....
"Yours in discourse...."
\brad mccormick
--
Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(914)238-0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<!THINK [SGML]> Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
