On 21 Nov 2013, at 13:41, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
On 21 Nov 2013, at 11:05, Telmo Menezes wrote:
If nobody complains on his local decentralized power, the central
should have nothing to say, but if the locals complain about their
powers, the central power can be used as an arbiter.
I agree that this is a risk. I don't claim that there is any system
that could be implemented and would solve all the problems, that's the
danger with ideologies.
My belief is that "human evolution" -> "better forms of governance",
not the other way around. So democracy, with all its flaws, was made
possible by a new level of human development. Here I mean evolution
and development in the broad sense, not the biological sense. This is
made clear by the attempts to force democracy on less developed
My point is that, as we evolve further, maybe the
decentralized system can exist without incurring so much on the risks
that you mention, and at the same time being much more resilient to
About this I am not sure. With local powers you augment the risk of
the "little bureaucratic sort of bosses".
With some level of "spiritual maturity", I can conceive that you are
right, but since sometimes I am not sure such spiritual maturity
exists, nor even that it is on a near horizon.
The deeper problem relies in the fact that most humans are
think by themselves, and they confuse "p -> q" and "q -> p" all the
The (human, but not only) sciences are still driven by the appeal
authority. We have never been "modern".
I'm happy to read this. I thought this confusion was a central
in society for a long time, without being an expert in logic.
The problem is that "p <-> q" is far better than nothing, in the
so our brains are hardwired to "reason" by association, instead, of
validity. Logic is by essence counter-intuitive (which explains the
logician's sense of humor).
The short term/long term conflict is unavoidable. Humans face it
time, like when hesitating to stop smoking, or to stop producing
It is even more complex today due to globalization. With the 20th
earth has become a finite space, and this has to be taken into
it is not a simple task, as we have to change habits that we have
very long time. In the long run, we will have to escape the planet
continue to run forward. But meanwhile, we have to accommodate with
finite resourcing, with or without global warming. That's a reason
fight against corporatism, special private interests, international
collar criminality, etc.
Right, but the hope of some people who propose a radically free market
is that it would work more like the immune system, and that it would
allocate resources in a more efficient way than central control.
I am for a free market. The market should be independent of the
(central) power, except for the modalities of the contracts, the
selling technic, etc.
long term view is not foreign to markets. This is precisely what
investments are. Warren Buffet became extremely rich by taking a long
view on investments, not by doing high-frequency trading. But again, I
say this with the human evolution caveat in mind.
Local powers can easily design laws against foreigners, and develop
selfish local profits method. In the UD this could enlarge the gap
between black and white, or between middle class and lower classes.
I would favor a stable central power, which would enforce few but
basic important laws and rules, on which everyone agrees. Then the
local powers can implement special politics and experiences.
Somehow I do believe that the Americans were close to this, but they
failed to prevent prohibition, and that remains a bit of a mystery for
me. I am open to the idea that there has been a real well prepared
conspiracy, not by "illuminati" but by by a collusion of special
interests (paper, oil, pharma, military, jails, and the black market,
I'm also strongly in favour of experiments. For example, and this
would certainly annoy most libertarians, I am very excited by the
Swiss plan to provide a base level of income to all citizens.
I have always defended that idea.
it because it's so simple and non-intrusive. You just give everyone
the same base income, no matter how poor or rich they are.
Yes. That is what the communist never grasped. It makes no sense to
distribute the money from the rich to the poor, this makes the richer
less rich, and very quickly the poor even much less rich. As long as
people don't use lies and dishonest methods, people should be able to
enrich themselves as much as they want. But we must find a way to
prevent the bad use of money to enrich oneself. And this asks for very
special laws against the fake speculation. The problem is that with
enough money, you can multiplied your richness easily by dishonest
means, and this perverts the system.
it will remove unnecessary and even counter-productive jobs, free more
people from meaningless lives and attack the entire "job mentality".
One can hope...
I agree. I believe that it will be more easy to avoid counter-
productive jobs if there is a minimal salary. It would stabilize the
little markets, and would annoy only those who are addicted to "more
money at all price".
For the "job mentality", I'm afraid we will need a coming back to
seriousness in the human sciences, but this will take time, and some
catastrophes. The "job mentality" is not unrelated to the current
institutionalized religions, and the current conception of reality.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.