From: Dennis Paull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>You have made many good points in describing the problem. However the range
>of solutions is broader than your world view seems to allow.
There may be theoretical, technical solutions for some aspects of these
environmental problems, but we have no "political" means to implement them
universally. One can't save the bow of our Titanic while the stern sinks.
People who assume away the political problems are skipping the hard part.
American politics selects for "more-of-the-same" -- it was designed to
resist change (constitution). It's a positive-feedback system that can
only become more-and-more extreme until it fails.
Here is how our political system works on the local level:
BAD DRIVES OUT GOOD
by Jay Hanson (8/1/97)
"The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be,
first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to
discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the
society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual
precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they
continue to hold their public trust."
James Madison, FEDERALIST #57 (1787)
"I see the White House is like a subway -- you have to put
in coins to open the gates."
Johnny Chung (1997)
Systems that select for failure are often called Greshamite systems after
the English financier Sir Thomas Gresham (1519?-1579). His name was given to
Gresham’s Law, the economic principle that "bad money drives out good. "
When depreciated, mutilated, or debased (bad) money circulates concurrently
with money of high value (e.g., silver or gold), the good money disappears
because of hoarding. As more and more people notice that good money is being
hoarded, more and more good money is hoarded -- runaway positive feedback.
Ultimately, the monetary system fails.
American Democracy can also be seen as a Greshamite system. To understand
why, first consider the theoretical premise of our political system: a
government that is willing to act for the Common Good. Next, consider two
very different candidates for public office. Ms. Honesty believes in the
principle embodied in our Pledge of Allegiance "... liberty and justice for
all." If Honesty is elected, she will treat everyone fairly and pursue the
Common Good.
Mr. Corruption is a good capitalist who is motivated to pursue his own
private gain. He has studied the system carefully and knows that he can gain
political power by rewarding his friends and punishing his enemies.
Which of these candidates has the advantage? Obviously, Corruption has the
advantage! Here's why:
Mr. Jones is a local developer who has money, employees and influence.
Philosophically, he is an average, self-interested individual who was
trained by television (and to some extent by his family and formal
education) to consume as much as he can. In fact, Jones can’t even remember
ever hearing about public goods.
Will Mr. Jones contribute to Ms. Honesty? No, why should he? If she wins,
Jones will receive justice and fairness from her anyway (a public good). If
she loses, Jones will be punished by Mr. Corruption for helping her.
Will Mr. Jones contribute to Mr. Corruption? Yes, because Jones has been
promised a change of zoning (a private good) so he can build his new gated
community. Jones writes a check for $2,000 to Mr. Corruption and has a few
dozen employees volunteer to help out on Corruption’s campaign.
American Democracy tends to elect politicians who are motivated to maximize
their own private gain (there are some rare exceptions). Runaway positive
feedback occurs as politicians need more and more money to run for public
office. As this process continues, more and more politicians are corrupt.
Bad drives out good and Corruption drives out Honesty. To what end? In the
end, we do not even have a political system (one-person-one-vote), only an
economic system (one-dollar-one-vote).
Jay
