Every organizational principle based on markets presuppose that people finally choose certain common good, not the immediate interest that is deleterious for the whole. The market principle has the same problems than the democratic principle: Both demand a high level of morality. The buyer need to have confidence in what the buyer promises.
And both, the market principle and the democratic principle undermine the morality upon which both are based: Both distill the same short sightedness, the same short term search for power and/or money. Without a different moral source, both converge to the anarchy and the mafia system, that are their respective caricatures. That is why Boockenforde said that about the liberal secular state, loosely based on both democracy and the market: "The liberal secular state lives on premises that it cannot itself guarantee. On the one hand, it can subsist only if the freedom it consents to its citizens is regulated from within, inside the moral substance of individuals and of a homogeneous society. On the other hand, it is not able to guarantee these forces of inner regulation by itself without renouncing its liberalism" 2014-12-18 21:11 GMT+01:00 meekerdb <[email protected]>: > > On 12/18/2014 2:17 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Alberto G. Corona <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> That depend on what you call self interest. Understood in the narrow >> sense as sort term egoistic interest without a notion of common good, a >> democratic regime would not last a single year. It is evident, even a child >> can understand that if a Judge, or a politician only attend his own >> interest, they will sell themselves to the one that pays more for their >> prevarications. That absurd despise of morality as irrelevan for politics, >> as if politics works like a mechanism of rational rules enforced externally >> without the need of internal self control is what is the cause of the >> unbelievable corruption that we can see everywhere. specially in Europe. >> > > I would argue that trade is the mechanism by which self-interest becomes > aligned with the common good. I further argue that the strong the trade > networks, the less power the oligarchy has, and this is the reason the > oligarchy uses demagogy to place limits on free trade. They correctly > perceive it as an existential threat. > > Consider and extreme scenario where courts are private companies. If you > and me want to sign a contract, we must also agree on a private court to > have jurisdiction over that contract. We agree to abide by that court's > decision. > > We will tend not to agree on courts runs by corrupt judges, so corrupt > judges go out of business. This strong trade network creates incentives > that aligns the self-interest of the judges with impartiality. > > > But all judges will be corrupt because the system says "self-interest > above all". You must know that businesses like to insert "arbitration" > clauses into their contracts with individuals which provide that any legal > dispute will be settled by a mutually agreed upon arbitrator. Why? > Because the arbitrators all know that they will get many cases from the > business, but only one from the customer. So they all heavily favor the > business. > > > If I don't abide by the court decision, then people will start being > afraid of entering into contracts with me. > > > But it will be too late, you (or someone like you who is more lucky) will > already be rich and powerful and able to dictate contract terms (c.f. > Micro$oft). > > My self-interest becomes aligned with following the law. > > > You are arguing from long term averages as though the system is stable and > converges to some fixed point. But I think it is very unstable and tends > to a winner-take-all plutocracy. Democracy tries to avoid this by > one-man-one-vote and the Australian ballot so votes can't be sold. Perhaps > we should have Australian ballot in the legislature. > > > A private police might be hijacked by criminals, but in a well > integrated network of free-trade, eventually cooperation becomes more > profitable than aggression. > > > It isn't "criminals" that are the problem. The police are hijacked by the > "Police Protection League" - public employee unions used to be illegal, but > not anymore. > > So the it's in the best interest of the police to protect the > cooperators, because they can pay better rates for the police's services. > > > Sure, the police are very good at protecting the property in Beverly > Hills. Protecting black people in Watts...not so much. > > > Can such a system be implemented? I don't know. It might be impossible > to get to such a well integrated economy. I am just describing the scenario > "at the limit" to justify my intuition that trade = peace, and that the > oligarchy does not desire an approximation to this scenario. > > > Oligarchy loves the idea. Trade is dominated by the rich. If all you > have to trade is labor, you have very little bargaining power. Who do > think got rich from polio vaccine? from the transistor? from computers? > Hint - it wasn't the guy who invented them. > > > > I am suspicious of people who advertise the need for more and more > centralised power, because they usually aspire to hold that power. > > > And I'm suspicious of people who think wealth will automatically be > distributed equitably. > > > >> >> And this is precisely the interest that is favoured by the mechanics of >> democracy and his aritmetical calculation of majorities by politicians >> oriented toward short term, four year mandates. The inevitable consequence >> is self disolving. >> >> It is like a familly ruled by democracy. It is a question of time that >> the short time interest of the kids will destroy the familly. >> >> From time to time democracy is questioned and for very good reasons. The >> only difference are the cycles of questioning of democracy. Some countries >> arrive at the logical consequence of democracy: anarchy or gobernment of >> the mob (as Plato called it) in less that forty years. Other, like EEUU or >> UK has lasted for hundred years. Probably by the strong sense of comunity >> and common good let´s say patriotism that exist in these countries. >> > > The UK is an interesting example because it has transitioned, mostly > peacefully, from monarchy to aristocracy to limited democracy. I think it > also illustrates the usefulness of tradition since it relies heavily on > tradition in law. This is can be threatened by too much immigration. > > Brent > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Alberto. -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
