Intelligent Design has been in the news lately because of Creationists. The concept has been used by them to argue against Darwinism and evolution. Creationists say that there is definition and sophistication about the world that evolution alone cannot explain, because it is based on randomness and chaos. They ask, how could the erratic nature of evolution produce the order and complexity we see today? They believe that since there is such order all around us, from the length of a day to the orbits of the planets, that there must been a specific plan and a Creator behind it. Hence Creationists' religious belief in Intelligent Design.
The other day I read an article that said religious belief initially had nothing to do with the concept of Intelligent Design. Creationists have latched on to the idea to forward their own agenda, the article explained. Scientists noticed and commented on an intelligent design in nature long before religious types got a hold of it. They saw that nature had this ability to organize itself into something intelligent from pure chaos. James Gleick, in his book "Chaos", points to the ability of nature to create beautifully organized things out of its chaos without the suggestion that there is a Creator or God with a specific plan behind it.
I believe there is something inherent in nature that creates order out of chaos. The example I use to illustrate this is an experiment used in elementary science. You take a piece of paper and sprinkle iron filings on it. One sees a clump of iron filings on the paper, helter skelter. Next you rub a magnet underneath the paper and as you are watching a symmetrical design emerges. This is how the universe and the world developed, through similar magnetic forces that have worked on stuff flying around chaotically, bringing it together and organizing it.
Everything starts off like the "Wild Wild West" I like to say. First there is a chaotic, wild situation and them it gravitates to an orderly situation. The universe started off like the Wild Wild West. Civilization started of as the Wild Wild West. Democracy started that way. One thing more immediate that started off this way is the internet. Originally in started with no rules or specific order. Its first practitioners wanted it that way, free to find its own level. Part of the reason for this is that no one really knew what it was going to end up to be. Also, the first users of this fledging enterprise didn't wanted any one group imposing their own agenda on it. However, as the internet grew it found order as it expanded and adapted to change. The internet found its intelligent design by just being and out of the necessity to survive and continue.
On a primary level the Creationists are right, as scientists have pointed out, that there is an intelligent force organizing nature and humankind. We are all made of that intelligent stuff called DNA. However, on its own DNA is not very smart, only potentially. It has to engage external forces like the environment, nurturing and change to become something intelligible. Nothing is intelligent from the beginning. It took the long drawn out efforts of nature and time to create the intelligence we see today. It didn't happen with the wave of a wand, as Creationists tend to see it.
.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Thursday, February 24, 2005
All politics is local
There is something to the axiom "all politics is local".
I discovered how true that axiom is through my essays. My essays talk in broad terms about the political landscape of the world. However, most people think more locally, in terms of what is happening in their lives. They are more concerned about how things affect their world, not the larger world. One reader wrote that though my holistic thoughts about the world make sense she really didn't care because it was all she could do to keep body and soul together without being bogged down with world affairs. And that is how it is for most of us, just making it through the day. One thing I discovered is that I elicit more interest from readers if I touch on issues that directly affects them - things they can immediately identify with.
To understand some of my grand ideas about the world readers often put them into a context that relates to them. They put it into the context of how they see things and what affects them personally. I wrote an essay on the coexistence of democracy and capitalism and said I believe their togetherness means that neither can survive without the other. I thought I was pretty non-ideological with my argument. However, people often read things with preconceptions and project them onto what they are reading. For instance, I mentioned the word 'capitalism' and some readers immediately saw red and think of greed because that is how they are programed. Initially I am thrown off guard by such views but I understand where they're coming from and I also know that whatever I say will not change minds. Also, from that kind of response I feel a bit inadequate because I feel there is something I haven't been communicating because people have interpreted me wrong, as being too rosy about the world, which isn't true.
The next two paragraphs are a response to a reader who I believe thinks I have put too rosy a spin on things. He puts his concerns in the context of his locality, America. He feels that the America he knows and hopes for is fading away, due to the mean spirited politics that have enveloped it recently. I didn't think I was going to make him feel any better but I wanted to clarify some thing about what he may have interpreted. I wanted to show him I am less political and ideological than I think he thought I was.
This is what I wrote in response:
I am going to say what first comes to mind after reading your letter. I am sure you've heard it before: We live in the best possible world. However, in saying that I am not being an apologist. Overall, I see humanity as "red in tooth and claw" . Though that redness has been tempered and modified over the centuries, it nevertheless keeps popping up. Greed is one of those inherent traits that keeps popping and will never be completely eradicated. Humankind in always a work in progress. It will never be completed or perfected. It will always have faults and imperfections that need putting down and taming. And if there is a meaning to life, I think it is about keeping vigil and managing the beast. I think that on the whole and under the circumstances humankind is doing the best it can. However, that doesn't mean we can't do better or that we shouldn't try harder. We still require a lot of work and it happens incrementally - two steps forward, one step back . Part of the problem is that humankind is always shifting and never staying still. There is always something new, new variables, new situations, new people. The message, as the message about greed, often has to be repeated and relearned.
I've wondered why I have a positive view of the world while some other don't. (It's not so much that I am positive but pragmatic- dangerous notion in some circles.) I believe it has to do with things like circumstance and the combination of nurture/nature. If I had been born under different circumstances, had different parents or my mother had a different attitude when she was carrying me I may have seen the world differently. I see how chancy it can be as to who we become when I look at my sister who is rather negative about humankind, as was my father.
Perhaps I will not win any arguments or convert anybody with what I say. However, that's not really my point. It's more like an exercise. I am comfortable in what I believe and my main objective is to make my argument clear so a least people can understand and agree or disagree with it. I cherish views like yours because they keep me grounded and from straying into a "Pollyanna" world.
I discovered how true that axiom is through my essays. My essays talk in broad terms about the political landscape of the world. However, most people think more locally, in terms of what is happening in their lives. They are more concerned about how things affect their world, not the larger world. One reader wrote that though my holistic thoughts about the world make sense she really didn't care because it was all she could do to keep body and soul together without being bogged down with world affairs. And that is how it is for most of us, just making it through the day. One thing I discovered is that I elicit more interest from readers if I touch on issues that directly affects them - things they can immediately identify with.
To understand some of my grand ideas about the world readers often put them into a context that relates to them. They put it into the context of how they see things and what affects them personally. I wrote an essay on the coexistence of democracy and capitalism and said I believe their togetherness means that neither can survive without the other. I thought I was pretty non-ideological with my argument. However, people often read things with preconceptions and project them onto what they are reading. For instance, I mentioned the word 'capitalism' and some readers immediately saw red and think of greed because that is how they are programed. Initially I am thrown off guard by such views but I understand where they're coming from and I also know that whatever I say will not change minds. Also, from that kind of response I feel a bit inadequate because I feel there is something I haven't been communicating because people have interpreted me wrong, as being too rosy about the world, which isn't true.
The next two paragraphs are a response to a reader who I believe thinks I have put too rosy a spin on things. He puts his concerns in the context of his locality, America. He feels that the America he knows and hopes for is fading away, due to the mean spirited politics that have enveloped it recently. I didn't think I was going to make him feel any better but I wanted to clarify some thing about what he may have interpreted. I wanted to show him I am less political and ideological than I think he thought I was.
This is what I wrote in response:
I am going to say what first comes to mind after reading your letter. I am sure you've heard it before: We live in the best possible world. However, in saying that I am not being an apologist. Overall, I see humanity as "red in tooth and claw" . Though that redness has been tempered and modified over the centuries, it nevertheless keeps popping up. Greed is one of those inherent traits that keeps popping and will never be completely eradicated. Humankind in always a work in progress. It will never be completed or perfected. It will always have faults and imperfections that need putting down and taming. And if there is a meaning to life, I think it is about keeping vigil and managing the beast. I think that on the whole and under the circumstances humankind is doing the best it can. However, that doesn't mean we can't do better or that we shouldn't try harder. We still require a lot of work and it happens incrementally - two steps forward, one step back . Part of the problem is that humankind is always shifting and never staying still. There is always something new, new variables, new situations, new people. The message, as the message about greed, often has to be repeated and relearned.
I've wondered why I have a positive view of the world while some other don't. (It's not so much that I am positive but pragmatic- dangerous notion in some circles.) I believe it has to do with things like circumstance and the combination of nurture/nature. If I had been born under different circumstances, had different parents or my mother had a different attitude when she was carrying me I may have seen the world differently. I see how chancy it can be as to who we become when I look at my sister who is rather negative about humankind, as was my father.
Perhaps I will not win any arguments or convert anybody with what I say. However, that's not really my point. It's more like an exercise. I am comfortable in what I believe and my main objective is to make my argument clear so a least people can understand and agree or disagree with it. I cherish views like yours because they keep me grounded and from straying into a "Pollyanna" world.
Friday, February 18, 2005
In Defence of the Corporation
Recently I saw a documentary called “The Corporation”. It was, as you can imagine, about corporations and their business practices. The Corporation was portrayed negatively. I, however, see this institution in a more positive light.
My interest in the Corporation began when I asked myself the question why do corporations exist? Generally the response to this question is a negative one: to exploit people; for the benefit of a few. However, I unconsciously asked the question rhetorically and thus had something in mind. What I had it in mine was that one of its purposes is to advance Democracy. When I suggested this idea to others they laughed or gave me a dirty look.
The notion that the Corporation promotes Democracy admittedly seems far fetched. Nevertheless, I think it’s true. But before I get into that, let me point out something that I think we all agree on, that the modern world wouldn’t be possible without the Corporation. If this economic engine didn’t exist the material needs of the world couldn't be met. Smaller enterprises like traditional family businesses wouldn’t be able to cultivate or harness the resources needed to support a big modern civilization. Only big business can build and maintain the infrastructure we need to survive and continue, those in communication, transportation, energy, health and in food production and its distribution. Also, smaller enterprises couldn’t raise the vast amounts of capital required to finance essential services like railroads, hydroelectric dams, oil refineries, airports and harbors. Another thing, without this institution we wouldn’t have the managerial skills, which it invented, to run and maintain this complex world we live in.
Only big business or corporations could have developed, produced and distributed the technologies we’ve needed to survive and continue. Oh yes, individuals may be the ones who invented them but it’s the corporations that have the resources to develop and market them so that we can all benefit from them. And in that there is a form of democracy because corporations have made products and technologies available to all, not discriminating. Another often overlooked fact is that many of the technologies corporations have produced have also advanced democracy. Take, for example, television and newspapers, telephones and the internet. Those technologies have developed our communication skills and in turn our democratic skills. Even the car, one of the Corporation’s greatest and most ubiquitous developments, has contributed to democracy. Cars give us mobility. Mobility is a form of freedom and choice, rights that are synonymous with democracy.
Television was made possible by the Corporation. I would say it has been the most influential technology in promoting democracy. A prime example of this influence is the civil rights movement in the United States in the fifties. That movement wouldn’t have had much of a chance if it wasn’t for TV and the mass audience it created. TV provided the platform to make it an issue of consequences. It made and changed public opinion. Without this mass media, the denial of civil rights, in a land that professes to be just and democratic, may still be unresolved. TV has had a similar influence throughout the world in educating and changing public awareness on other critical social issues such as universal suffrage and human rights.
The Corporation is the chief agent of capitalism. As such it has help create and steward an ownership society. Ownership, whether it be in real estate or in stocks and bonds, is an integral part of a well oiled Democracy. Even one’s labor, which corporations can’t function without, is considered private property. As Arthur Schlesinger said (referred to in an earlier essay), private ownership is the backbone of Democracy because “it provides the only secure basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom. Even though it has been inadvertent, The Corporation has helped build and reinforce that base.
My interest in the Corporation began when I asked myself the question why do corporations exist? Generally the response to this question is a negative one: to exploit people; for the benefit of a few. However, I unconsciously asked the question rhetorically and thus had something in mind. What I had it in mine was that one of its purposes is to advance Democracy. When I suggested this idea to others they laughed or gave me a dirty look.
The notion that the Corporation promotes Democracy admittedly seems far fetched. Nevertheless, I think it’s true. But before I get into that, let me point out something that I think we all agree on, that the modern world wouldn’t be possible without the Corporation. If this economic engine didn’t exist the material needs of the world couldn't be met. Smaller enterprises like traditional family businesses wouldn’t be able to cultivate or harness the resources needed to support a big modern civilization. Only big business can build and maintain the infrastructure we need to survive and continue, those in communication, transportation, energy, health and in food production and its distribution. Also, smaller enterprises couldn’t raise the vast amounts of capital required to finance essential services like railroads, hydroelectric dams, oil refineries, airports and harbors. Another thing, without this institution we wouldn’t have the managerial skills, which it invented, to run and maintain this complex world we live in.
Only big business or corporations could have developed, produced and distributed the technologies we’ve needed to survive and continue. Oh yes, individuals may be the ones who invented them but it’s the corporations that have the resources to develop and market them so that we can all benefit from them. And in that there is a form of democracy because corporations have made products and technologies available to all, not discriminating. Another often overlooked fact is that many of the technologies corporations have produced have also advanced democracy. Take, for example, television and newspapers, telephones and the internet. Those technologies have developed our communication skills and in turn our democratic skills. Even the car, one of the Corporation’s greatest and most ubiquitous developments, has contributed to democracy. Cars give us mobility. Mobility is a form of freedom and choice, rights that are synonymous with democracy.
Television was made possible by the Corporation. I would say it has been the most influential technology in promoting democracy. A prime example of this influence is the civil rights movement in the United States in the fifties. That movement wouldn’t have had much of a chance if it wasn’t for TV and the mass audience it created. TV provided the platform to make it an issue of consequences. It made and changed public opinion. Without this mass media, the denial of civil rights, in a land that professes to be just and democratic, may still be unresolved. TV has had a similar influence throughout the world in educating and changing public awareness on other critical social issues such as universal suffrage and human rights.
The Corporation is the chief agent of capitalism. As such it has help create and steward an ownership society. Ownership, whether it be in real estate or in stocks and bonds, is an integral part of a well oiled Democracy. Even one’s labor, which corporations can’t function without, is considered private property. As Arthur Schlesinger said (referred to in an earlier essay), private ownership is the backbone of Democracy because “it provides the only secure basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom. Even though it has been inadvertent, The Corporation has helped build and reinforce that base.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Another thought about Democracy
I am very interested in Democracy and how it works. So I was quite interested in reading what two well known academics, Cornel West and Natan Sharansky, had to say about it.
Cornel West, a Princeton professor, is the author of "Democracy Matters" and Sharansky, an Israeli politician and former Soviet dissident, is the author of "The Case For Democracy". Sharansky's book has been adopted by the Bush White House as a template for establishing Democracy in places where it doesn't exist, like in Iraq and other Middle East countries . As a reviewer put it, West "touts dialogue as route to democracy". Sharanshy's theme is " 'the town square test': if a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of imprisonment or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society." There is something simplistic and naive about what both authors think. However, that's how Democracy is generally portrayed, in wistful, jingoistic terms. I exaggerate. Yet that's how Democracy is seen, as one or two dimensional when really its multi-multidimensional.
Both men seem to be preaching to the choir. Their audiences pretty much understand what they are talking about. And that's the thing about Democracy, only those that have done it really understand and appreciate it. It's an esoteric enterprise, very convoluted and complex. It require a lot of things happening at once - some undesirable. It is something that is in our blood. For those of us who live it, it's natural, like breathing. Catch phrases and platitudes like those the two author used are very heart warming for those who have experienced Democracy. But in practice they wont help start Democracy where it hasn't existed, or keep it. Dialogue alone will not ignite democracy, nor will free speech in the town square.
To be fair, though, West was talking more about how to maintain and preserve democracy in a Democracy. Dialogue is certainly one way of doing it, freely debating issues and openly questioning motives of those in power, without being harassed. He was driven to say what he said by something he deeply feels, and rightly so, that there are people in power who are trying to stifle and cut off debate. Though dialogue is an extremely important cornerstone of Democracy, I am sure West understands that dialogue itself is not enough. It also requires strong arm tactics to achieve it as he can attest to. For instance, as an African-American West knows tactics like affirmative action have been necessary to gain democracy. On paper Democracy looks pretty neat but in reality it's quite gut wrenching and contradictory.
The contradictory, gut wrenching part is perhaps why many don't want anything to do with Democracy. It requires a lot of work and social upheaval. It requires a foundation. Sharansky's town square, free speech template is essentially based on a foundation he hasn't acknowledged. He has had the luxury of living this foundation in Israel, whereas other haven't. For his town square test to happen successfully there have to be in place a number of back-up systems. Not only does there have to be a constitution that flatly states and supports ones right to free speech but a legal system to back it up if, as inevitably will happen, someone denies that right. Also, the recognition of individual liberty and freedom usually precede and accompany that right. These things take time to cultivate. My point is this, that it is over simplistic to say that dialogue and passing the town square test is Democracy. Voting itself is no guaranty of Democracy. Nor are those other two axioms on their own.
If the president of the United States relies on a simplistic axiom like Sharansky's to advance Democracy, I don't think the cause is being served well. It requires stronger factors, factors which have taken western Democracies generations to cultivate, things like universal suffrage, polyphony and just the simple tacit understanding of what it is to be democratic. Ironically, Democracy has advanced most through the pursuit of self-interest and property rights. If such avenues had been encouraged from the start in Haiti and other places where the world has tried for decades to establish Democracy, it would now be on a roll. If West's dialogue and Sharansky's free speech were dovetailed with those other things I mentioned, then their axioms would really be something to crow about.
I had this crazy notion that someday there might be a S.W.A.T teem to establish Democracy.
Cornel West, a Princeton professor, is the author of "Democracy Matters" and Sharansky, an Israeli politician and former Soviet dissident, is the author of "The Case For Democracy". Sharansky's book has been adopted by the Bush White House as a template for establishing Democracy in places where it doesn't exist, like in Iraq and other Middle East countries . As a reviewer put it, West "touts dialogue as route to democracy". Sharanshy's theme is " 'the town square test': if a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of imprisonment or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society." There is something simplistic and naive about what both authors think. However, that's how Democracy is generally portrayed, in wistful, jingoistic terms. I exaggerate. Yet that's how Democracy is seen, as one or two dimensional when really its multi-multidimensional.
Both men seem to be preaching to the choir. Their audiences pretty much understand what they are talking about. And that's the thing about Democracy, only those that have done it really understand and appreciate it. It's an esoteric enterprise, very convoluted and complex. It require a lot of things happening at once - some undesirable. It is something that is in our blood. For those of us who live it, it's natural, like breathing. Catch phrases and platitudes like those the two author used are very heart warming for those who have experienced Democracy. But in practice they wont help start Democracy where it hasn't existed, or keep it. Dialogue alone will not ignite democracy, nor will free speech in the town square.
To be fair, though, West was talking more about how to maintain and preserve democracy in a Democracy. Dialogue is certainly one way of doing it, freely debating issues and openly questioning motives of those in power, without being harassed. He was driven to say what he said by something he deeply feels, and rightly so, that there are people in power who are trying to stifle and cut off debate. Though dialogue is an extremely important cornerstone of Democracy, I am sure West understands that dialogue itself is not enough. It also requires strong arm tactics to achieve it as he can attest to. For instance, as an African-American West knows tactics like affirmative action have been necessary to gain democracy. On paper Democracy looks pretty neat but in reality it's quite gut wrenching and contradictory.
The contradictory, gut wrenching part is perhaps why many don't want anything to do with Democracy. It requires a lot of work and social upheaval. It requires a foundation. Sharansky's town square, free speech template is essentially based on a foundation he hasn't acknowledged. He has had the luxury of living this foundation in Israel, whereas other haven't. For his town square test to happen successfully there have to be in place a number of back-up systems. Not only does there have to be a constitution that flatly states and supports ones right to free speech but a legal system to back it up if, as inevitably will happen, someone denies that right. Also, the recognition of individual liberty and freedom usually precede and accompany that right. These things take time to cultivate. My point is this, that it is over simplistic to say that dialogue and passing the town square test is Democracy. Voting itself is no guaranty of Democracy. Nor are those other two axioms on their own.
If the president of the United States relies on a simplistic axiom like Sharansky's to advance Democracy, I don't think the cause is being served well. It requires stronger factors, factors which have taken western Democracies generations to cultivate, things like universal suffrage, polyphony and just the simple tacit understanding of what it is to be democratic. Ironically, Democracy has advanced most through the pursuit of self-interest and property rights. If such avenues had been encouraged from the start in Haiti and other places where the world has tried for decades to establish Democracy, it would now be on a roll. If West's dialogue and Sharansky's free speech were dovetailed with those other things I mentioned, then their axioms would really be something to crow about.
I had this crazy notion that someday there might be a S.W.A.T teem to establish Democracy.
Friday, February 11, 2005
Develop through perverse means
I have this idea that we develop through perverse means.
The idea popped into my head as I was contemplating the contradictory nature of society. By contradictory I mean we seem to espouse one thing and do another. For instance, we espouse Democracy but simultaneously we encourage undemocratic institutions like Capitalism to exist. Basically what I am saying is like a reverse psychology, that we behave in an opposite manner to what we believe in order to achieve what we believe.
The Buddha is the only one I know who commented on this type of behavior. He didn’t couch the idea in the same way but said something similar. What he said is something like this, symbolically of course: One generally has to leave one’s house by the front door and reenter by the back to appreciate what’s inside. What he meant by that is that we generally learn things indirectly, like going from A to B via C and D instead of taking the direct route. Another way of explaining it is that we have to lose something before we can appreciate it. One theory I have as to why its like this is because we learn more convincingly through perverse, backward means than through, normal, straight forward means.
Learning from mistakes and mishaps is perverse. One analogy I’ve used to support this idea is about a child who burns itself on a stove element after being told not to touch it. Ironically the child learns more from that experience of burning itself than the from the sensible parent telling it not to do so.
This is also perverse: “The world needs problems because they make us better”. Essentially what that statement is saying is that we inadvertently improve ourselves through negative means. For example, we have made ourselves better because of wars, community strife, environmental pollution and economic upheavals. Problems test and challenge us. That statement reinforces what I believe, that we learn more convincingly about how we ought to conduct ourselves from negative events than we do from positive events. Things like Aids, SARS and terrorism really get our attention, more so than things that don’t give us strife. Problems provoke and compel us to rethink things, seek solutions and understanding. In the process, because we are pushed and motivated, we become more intelligent and sophisticated.
That statement was made by an economist, Julian Simon. In respected to problems, he was thinking in terms of resources. At the time he said it the world was having problems with shortages and rising prices of commodities like oil and copper. Those problems triggered a search for alternatives and stepped-up conservation. Society was jarred by those problems and forced to think anew and act differently. He realized that in going through the procedure of finding alternatives and implementing conservation, society as a whole was improving itself because it was gaining knowledge and new techniques. These gains manifested themselves into other areas of society, also sharpening our skills in how we organize and govern ourselves. Though its hard to measure, problem solving has had an incremental effect on us.
Kant said that humans are inherently lazy. I know that from my own experience. Isn’t it perverse that we need problems to challenge us so not to be lazy? The great economist Adam Smith showed that our own self-interest must come first if we are to take care of the interests of others. Now, that’s perverse.
The idea popped into my head as I was contemplating the contradictory nature of society. By contradictory I mean we seem to espouse one thing and do another. For instance, we espouse Democracy but simultaneously we encourage undemocratic institutions like Capitalism to exist. Basically what I am saying is like a reverse psychology, that we behave in an opposite manner to what we believe in order to achieve what we believe.
The Buddha is the only one I know who commented on this type of behavior. He didn’t couch the idea in the same way but said something similar. What he said is something like this, symbolically of course: One generally has to leave one’s house by the front door and reenter by the back to appreciate what’s inside. What he meant by that is that we generally learn things indirectly, like going from A to B via C and D instead of taking the direct route. Another way of explaining it is that we have to lose something before we can appreciate it. One theory I have as to why its like this is because we learn more convincingly through perverse, backward means than through, normal, straight forward means.
Learning from mistakes and mishaps is perverse. One analogy I’ve used to support this idea is about a child who burns itself on a stove element after being told not to touch it. Ironically the child learns more from that experience of burning itself than the from the sensible parent telling it not to do so.
This is also perverse: “The world needs problems because they make us better”. Essentially what that statement is saying is that we inadvertently improve ourselves through negative means. For example, we have made ourselves better because of wars, community strife, environmental pollution and economic upheavals. Problems test and challenge us. That statement reinforces what I believe, that we learn more convincingly about how we ought to conduct ourselves from negative events than we do from positive events. Things like Aids, SARS and terrorism really get our attention, more so than things that don’t give us strife. Problems provoke and compel us to rethink things, seek solutions and understanding. In the process, because we are pushed and motivated, we become more intelligent and sophisticated.
That statement was made by an economist, Julian Simon. In respected to problems, he was thinking in terms of resources. At the time he said it the world was having problems with shortages and rising prices of commodities like oil and copper. Those problems triggered a search for alternatives and stepped-up conservation. Society was jarred by those problems and forced to think anew and act differently. He realized that in going through the procedure of finding alternatives and implementing conservation, society as a whole was improving itself because it was gaining knowledge and new techniques. These gains manifested themselves into other areas of society, also sharpening our skills in how we organize and govern ourselves. Though its hard to measure, problem solving has had an incremental effect on us.
Kant said that humans are inherently lazy. I know that from my own experience. Isn’t it perverse that we need problems to challenge us so not to be lazy? The great economist Adam Smith showed that our own self-interest must come first if we are to take care of the interests of others. Now, that’s perverse.
Friday, February 04, 2005
An adjunct
The following is born of a reader's comment. She also suggested that I post it on my blog. So here goes:
Thank you for you comment. It triggered in me a thought, something I haven't explained well, something that is central to the way I think about the nature of our human governance and the need for an antithetical system like capitalism and democracy (Democracy). It has to do with our imperfection and fallibility and that it will always be that way. Because we are naturally like that we must have a system of governance that deals with it as reality. The system I tout deals head on with this reality, doesn't avoid it, and does the best with it under the circumstances and also contains it. The system of Democracy acknowledges the imperfection and fallibility in human beings and turns it on its head, so to speak, into something workable. Unlike Communism which manipulated and forced people to change against their will, Democracy uses more a carrot and subtle coercion to influence and change people's less desirable tendencies. Democracy also realizes that people are naturally complacent and lazy and tend to fall back into their natural patterns. Democracy has fashioned itself for this inevitability. One thing I believe is that we develop through perverse means, which I think I have implied above, and meaning something like we don't do the right thing from the start even though we know its right. It's like applying reverse logic to function. We generally have to be encouraged to do the right thing through perverse, illogical means. Democracy deals with this like no other system.
We can all see in ourselves the weakness I speak of, such as our tendency to cheat on our taxes, to be corrupted, to cut corners when we can and to avoid doing what we know we should do. But often our weaknesses are not known to us so we have to be shown them. The system of Democracy we have, with it's bipolar make-up, constantly jolts us to keep with the "program". We always have to be reminded of who we used to be and what we could go back to being. So we have to have a system of governance that can deal with all this. And it always has to reinvent itself and us.
Thank you for you comment. It triggered in me a thought, something I haven't explained well, something that is central to the way I think about the nature of our human governance and the need for an antithetical system like capitalism and democracy (Democracy). It has to do with our imperfection and fallibility and that it will always be that way. Because we are naturally like that we must have a system of governance that deals with it as reality. The system I tout deals head on with this reality, doesn't avoid it, and does the best with it under the circumstances and also contains it. The system of Democracy acknowledges the imperfection and fallibility in human beings and turns it on its head, so to speak, into something workable. Unlike Communism which manipulated and forced people to change against their will, Democracy uses more a carrot and subtle coercion to influence and change people's less desirable tendencies. Democracy also realizes that people are naturally complacent and lazy and tend to fall back into their natural patterns. Democracy has fashioned itself for this inevitability. One thing I believe is that we develop through perverse means, which I think I have implied above, and meaning something like we don't do the right thing from the start even though we know its right. It's like applying reverse logic to function. We generally have to be encouraged to do the right thing through perverse, illogical means. Democracy deals with this like no other system.
We can all see in ourselves the weakness I speak of, such as our tendency to cheat on our taxes, to be corrupted, to cut corners when we can and to avoid doing what we know we should do. But often our weaknesses are not known to us so we have to be shown them. The system of Democracy we have, with it's bipolar make-up, constantly jolts us to keep with the "program". We always have to be reminded of who we used to be and what we could go back to being. So we have to have a system of governance that can deal with all this. And it always has to reinvent itself and us.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Double helix continued
Niall Ferguson was the first to ask out loud in his book “Cash Nexus” whether democracy and capitalism could be the double helix of the modern world. I believe I was the first to think it. However, I am glad the question came first from a person of his stature and credentials because if I had put out this idea first I don’t think I would have been taken seriously. Admittedly, it is a rather odd idea.
Here is the mindset that led to my unorthodox conclusion: When I first started studying democracy, capitalism and human governance, I felt that democracy and capitalism were special. Their exceptionalism occurred to me as I wondered about the collapse of communism. It wasn't just that communism collapsed. It seemed to have collapsed in favor of them. And its collapse didn't spawn a new form of government but instead the void left was filled by democracy and capitalism (Democracy). I believe this happened because there was no alternative or choice in human governance left.
To my mind, humankind had reached a point where all other possible forms of government had been exhausted. Over a period of time the combination of democracy and capitalism had shown that as a system they were the only practical means of government for the future, if Civilization wanted to survive and continue. I felt in good company thinking this because it is essentially what Fukuyama said in his book “The End Of History”.
Unlike the dramatic upheavals that came with changes in human governance, like with the revolutionary birth of Communism or Nazism, Democracy’s ascendency was not marked by political violence, Democracy's triumph and acceptance instead occurred tacitly, like a ‘quiet revolution’. This suggested to me that the world had reached a level of sophistication and understanding where it no longer needed to decide by violent means how it was ultimately going to organize and govern itself.
The triumph of Democracy didn’t happen randomly or because it out-witted, out-flanked or out-spent Communism. It triumphed through a process of elimination. Human governance basically has been an empirical exercise, keeping those things that work and eliminating those things that didn’t work. When humankind started to experiment with types of governances it wasn’t sure what type it would eventually require. That’s because it was still evolving and it wasn’t quite sure in what direction it was evolving. The emergence of the modern world changed all that. It is mostly the modern world which has determined what governance or government has eventually triumphed. If it was a static world Communism may have triumphed. But since it’s a constantly changing, fluctuating, world, Civilization and humankind chose Democracy because the components of democracy and capitalism can best manage it.
There is one other reason why Democracy triumphed. It is predisposed to humankind’s inherent needs and aspirations unlike Communism and other form of government before.
I believe democracy and capitalism are the double helix of the modern world because they were the two surviving doctrines of governance in the world. Both for some time have been at the heart of Western governance, a governance, I might add, that’s generally been quite successful. However, as I said in the previous essay, many intellectuals still consider them opposing doctrines. But for me the fact that they have coexisted in opposition for some time and continue to do so tells me they were meant to be together and that neither can survive without the other. I will use what somebody else said to help me make this point.
“Has Democracy a Future" is an article written by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. for Foreign Affairs, back in 1997. In response to his own question he wrote, “While democracy requires capitalism, capitalism doesn’t require democracy, at least in the short run”. In the short run? Essentially what that statement says is that capitalism, in the long run, requires democracy. Schlesinger was forthcoming about how democracy requires capitalism: “Democracy is impossible without private ownership because private property - resources beyond the arbitrary reach of the state - provides the only secure basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom.” However, he didn’t venture into how capitalism might require democracy.
I think I found reason why in the long run capitalism requires democracy. I found it in the economies once known as that “Asia Tigers”, who in their rush to emulate the industrial West only adopted capitalistic principles. I understand why they didn’t equally embraced democratic principles. If they had, democracy’s disruptive tendencies would have impeded them from attaining their economic goals. Capitalism on the quick can ill afford such a distraction. For a time these countries were extremely successful, to the point of even outperforming the West economically. However, having reached the limits of unfettered capitalism they recognized that, due to external and internal pressures, sustainable capitalism require reform, which only democratic activity and institutions can deliver. For instance, democratic practices affords the transparency and accountability that sustainable capitalism requires. For example, investors will not continue to invest or do business in companies or countries who’s accounting practices can’t be scrutinized - a requirement capitalism is not inclined to furnish on its own. Democracy brings about reform that also combats destructive, corrupt business practices. Moreover, unfettered capitalism is too high octane to be endured for a prolonged period of time and thus needs modification and tempering, something only democracy can do. If left to its own devises, capitalism can be ruinous, as we have witnessed.
Capitalism needs the antithesis of democracy to keep it alive, awake and legitimate. Democracy needs the antithesis of capitalism to keep it alive, awake and legitimate. In essence that is how a double helix behaves, challenging the other to do better. The litigious discourse and agitation capitalism introduces through the marketplace, through participation in it and in private ownership as Schelinger explained, does keep democracy legitimate and vital. Karl Marx, one of the great theorists on human governance, didn’t see the need for this kind of antithesis in government because he wasn’t a dualist. But to his credit he foresaw that capitalism would implode if its contradiction went unchallenged, which democracy does challenge. And visa versa.
Here is the mindset that led to my unorthodox conclusion: When I first started studying democracy, capitalism and human governance, I felt that democracy and capitalism were special. Their exceptionalism occurred to me as I wondered about the collapse of communism. It wasn't just that communism collapsed. It seemed to have collapsed in favor of them. And its collapse didn't spawn a new form of government but instead the void left was filled by democracy and capitalism (Democracy). I believe this happened because there was no alternative or choice in human governance left.
To my mind, humankind had reached a point where all other possible forms of government had been exhausted. Over a period of time the combination of democracy and capitalism had shown that as a system they were the only practical means of government for the future, if Civilization wanted to survive and continue. I felt in good company thinking this because it is essentially what Fukuyama said in his book “The End Of History”.
Unlike the dramatic upheavals that came with changes in human governance, like with the revolutionary birth of Communism or Nazism, Democracy’s ascendency was not marked by political violence, Democracy's triumph and acceptance instead occurred tacitly, like a ‘quiet revolution’. This suggested to me that the world had reached a level of sophistication and understanding where it no longer needed to decide by violent means how it was ultimately going to organize and govern itself.
The triumph of Democracy didn’t happen randomly or because it out-witted, out-flanked or out-spent Communism. It triumphed through a process of elimination. Human governance basically has been an empirical exercise, keeping those things that work and eliminating those things that didn’t work. When humankind started to experiment with types of governances it wasn’t sure what type it would eventually require. That’s because it was still evolving and it wasn’t quite sure in what direction it was evolving. The emergence of the modern world changed all that. It is mostly the modern world which has determined what governance or government has eventually triumphed. If it was a static world Communism may have triumphed. But since it’s a constantly changing, fluctuating, world, Civilization and humankind chose Democracy because the components of democracy and capitalism can best manage it.
There is one other reason why Democracy triumphed. It is predisposed to humankind’s inherent needs and aspirations unlike Communism and other form of government before.
I believe democracy and capitalism are the double helix of the modern world because they were the two surviving doctrines of governance in the world. Both for some time have been at the heart of Western governance, a governance, I might add, that’s generally been quite successful. However, as I said in the previous essay, many intellectuals still consider them opposing doctrines. But for me the fact that they have coexisted in opposition for some time and continue to do so tells me they were meant to be together and that neither can survive without the other. I will use what somebody else said to help me make this point.
“Has Democracy a Future" is an article written by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. for Foreign Affairs, back in 1997. In response to his own question he wrote, “While democracy requires capitalism, capitalism doesn’t require democracy, at least in the short run”. In the short run? Essentially what that statement says is that capitalism, in the long run, requires democracy. Schlesinger was forthcoming about how democracy requires capitalism: “Democracy is impossible without private ownership because private property - resources beyond the arbitrary reach of the state - provides the only secure basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom.” However, he didn’t venture into how capitalism might require democracy.
I think I found reason why in the long run capitalism requires democracy. I found it in the economies once known as that “Asia Tigers”, who in their rush to emulate the industrial West only adopted capitalistic principles. I understand why they didn’t equally embraced democratic principles. If they had, democracy’s disruptive tendencies would have impeded them from attaining their economic goals. Capitalism on the quick can ill afford such a distraction. For a time these countries were extremely successful, to the point of even outperforming the West economically. However, having reached the limits of unfettered capitalism they recognized that, due to external and internal pressures, sustainable capitalism require reform, which only democratic activity and institutions can deliver. For instance, democratic practices affords the transparency and accountability that sustainable capitalism requires. For example, investors will not continue to invest or do business in companies or countries who’s accounting practices can’t be scrutinized - a requirement capitalism is not inclined to furnish on its own. Democracy brings about reform that also combats destructive, corrupt business practices. Moreover, unfettered capitalism is too high octane to be endured for a prolonged period of time and thus needs modification and tempering, something only democracy can do. If left to its own devises, capitalism can be ruinous, as we have witnessed.
Capitalism needs the antithesis of democracy to keep it alive, awake and legitimate. Democracy needs the antithesis of capitalism to keep it alive, awake and legitimate. In essence that is how a double helix behaves, challenging the other to do better. The litigious discourse and agitation capitalism introduces through the marketplace, through participation in it and in private ownership as Schelinger explained, does keep democracy legitimate and vital. Karl Marx, one of the great theorists on human governance, didn’t see the need for this kind of antithesis in government because he wasn’t a dualist. But to his credit he foresaw that capitalism would implode if its contradiction went unchallenged, which democracy does challenge. And visa versa.
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Double helix of the modern world
A couple of years ago I read a book entitled the Cash Nexus written by Niall Ferguson. The subject of the book, as outlined on the jacket, was about money and power in the modern world. However, that’s beside the point. In it Ferguson asked an intriguing question that has stayed with me: “Are capitalism and democracy [liberal democracy] - to borrow an analogy from the field of genetics - the ‘double helix’ of the modern world?“
Ferguson’s question was provoked by a grand theory postulated by Francis Fukuyama in his book “The End of History”, written ten years earlier. Fukuyama came to the conclusion that with the collapse of communism , ‘liberal democracy‘, its only rival, was now the only form of government left in the world. Why it triumphed over communism and all other forms of government, Fukuyama explained, is because it only can fulfill humankind's needs and aspirations in and for the modern world. Humankind has inherently two great needs to satisfy, its economic well-being and its desire for recognition and freedom. Fukuyama concluded that the ‘liberal’ part of liberal democracy satisfied humankind’s economic needs and the ‘democracy’ part the desire for freedom and recognition. With his question Ferguson was wondering if Fukuyama had truly discovered the holy grail, the secret, the DNA of modern human governance.
With the term ‘liberal democracy’ Fukuyama was talking about the two aspects of human governance known to western Democracy; capitalism and democracy. He used the term liberal instead of capitalism because, he explained, it sounded less negative. Some intellectuals, though, regard capitalism and democracy as two opposing philosophies of governance, incompatible. However, Fukuyama concluded differently. He sensed that in combination they are both necessary in order to have a legitimate and viable form of governance that can and will meet the needs of modern humankind. Communism obviously didn’t have these two branches of governance, hence its collapse.
Ferguson’s question is intriguing because it points to something profound, that everything in the universe, the world, nature and humankind is composed of, two halves or aspects of itself. Everything has a ‘double helix’. However, the concept of a double helix or DNA has never been associated with human governance. Why hasn’t it? I wondered. Human governance should be no exception. It’s not removed from the natural world or its fundamental laws. It is also an organic system which requires a binary system to keep it alive and functioning.
The discovery of the double helix in human governance is a coming of age for humankind. Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’ is a metaphor for this coming of age. However, his idea of the end of history shouldn’t be interpreted as the end of history as such because as long as humankind is around, history will still be made. For example, there is still history to be made in the fine tuning and in the full implementation of the double helix of liberal democracy so that all of humankind can benefit from it.
Next I will explain what makes liberal democracy the double helix I think it is.
Ferguson’s question was provoked by a grand theory postulated by Francis Fukuyama in his book “The End of History”, written ten years earlier. Fukuyama came to the conclusion that with the collapse of communism , ‘liberal democracy‘, its only rival, was now the only form of government left in the world. Why it triumphed over communism and all other forms of government, Fukuyama explained, is because it only can fulfill humankind's needs and aspirations in and for the modern world. Humankind has inherently two great needs to satisfy, its economic well-being and its desire for recognition and freedom. Fukuyama concluded that the ‘liberal’ part of liberal democracy satisfied humankind’s economic needs and the ‘democracy’ part the desire for freedom and recognition. With his question Ferguson was wondering if Fukuyama had truly discovered the holy grail, the secret, the DNA of modern human governance.
With the term ‘liberal democracy’ Fukuyama was talking about the two aspects of human governance known to western Democracy; capitalism and democracy. He used the term liberal instead of capitalism because, he explained, it sounded less negative. Some intellectuals, though, regard capitalism and democracy as two opposing philosophies of governance, incompatible. However, Fukuyama concluded differently. He sensed that in combination they are both necessary in order to have a legitimate and viable form of governance that can and will meet the needs of modern humankind. Communism obviously didn’t have these two branches of governance, hence its collapse.
Ferguson’s question is intriguing because it points to something profound, that everything in the universe, the world, nature and humankind is composed of, two halves or aspects of itself. Everything has a ‘double helix’. However, the concept of a double helix or DNA has never been associated with human governance. Why hasn’t it? I wondered. Human governance should be no exception. It’s not removed from the natural world or its fundamental laws. It is also an organic system which requires a binary system to keep it alive and functioning.
The discovery of the double helix in human governance is a coming of age for humankind. Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’ is a metaphor for this coming of age. However, his idea of the end of history shouldn’t be interpreted as the end of history as such because as long as humankind is around, history will still be made. For example, there is still history to be made in the fine tuning and in the full implementation of the double helix of liberal democracy so that all of humankind can benefit from it.
Next I will explain what makes liberal democracy the double helix I think it is.
Friday, December 10, 2004
Democracy
I have had Democracy on the brain for several years. It also happens to be one of the big issues of our times. There is something satisfactory in knowing I am being current and topical.
Democracy is not unlike what a judge once said of pornography: I’m not sure what it is, but I know when I see it. Most of us know democracy in much the same way. I also think of Democracy as something akin to driving a car. We can drive a car without necessarily understanding the mechanics involved, or how to maintain it. The same goes for Democracy. We can do it and be it without necessarily knowing or understand how or why it works. I think knowing the full nature of Democracy is on par as difficult as knowing the nature of consciousness.
The other night I was watching a televised discussion on the prospects of democracy in Iraq. I heard something very interesting. One interviewee said, as a way of explaining the difficulties that were being encounter there in establishing it, I don’t think we really understand Democracy, or how it works. On hearing that I immediately understood what he was talking about. We really don’t understand it. Also, I think we generally are pretty naive and delusional about it, especially when it come to implementing it in places that have never practiced it before, like in Haiti or Iraq.
I remember reading about a professor of Democracy who was quite exited about going to Iraq to help establish it. I can imagine how he felt, exhilarated at the prospects of having a chance to create something from scratch and being on the cutting edge. At first be found the endeavour very promising. However, as violence and instability began escalating, he started having second thoughts. What he discovered from the growing instability and violence is perhaps something he unconsciously knew all along, that if you don’t have a stable environment to build it in, Democracy hasn’t a chance. For instant, women who were taking up the cause were been threaten with death. Under such circumstances Democracy will have little chance to take hold and flourish. In Iraq, as soon as its nascent roots were been planted, insecurity was ripping them out.
It’s not that the professor who went to Iraq to help establish Democracy was delusional about its chances but more so that he was naive. He was naive enough to believe that the instigators of the war in Iraq knew what they were doing. He believed, as they did, that their model for democratic nation building would work. Those plans were poorly thought out, if they were at all. Anyway, the establishing of Democracy in Iraq was more like an after thought, as a way to legitimize its occupation.
My feeling is that one of the big flaws about establishing Democracy anywhere is that people don’t understand its exceptional nature. For instance, what is about it or us that supposes and allows it to exist?
One of my catch all phrases is, Democracy is contingent on many things. Our professor friend knew of one of its major components, security. But that alone is not enough. Communism offered its citizens security, but it didn’t naturally bring about Democracy. However, you can say that the security communism did produce prepared the ground work for many ex-communist countries to establish Democracy later, as many are doing now.
To help better understand what I mean when I say Democracy is contingent on many things, I’ve used the human body as an analogy. I think the human body and Democracy are quite similar. They are both organisms and their function and health are contingent on many parts interacting. For instance, take the heart or the brain. Though they are major organs which without the body couldn’t function, both are not only contingent on each other for survival but also on a host of other parts such as kidneys, liver, lungs and so on. Democracy functions and remains healthy in very much the same way. It relies on a host of interwoven contingencies such as the rule of law, pluralism, property rights, equality, freedom of choice and mobility and even the right to be indifferent about it.
The general cursory idea of Democracy we have is government of the people, for the people and by the people. This idea includes one person one vote. But again, the right to vote is just one component like security is. Without either we would not have Democracy. But neither on their own guarantee Democracy. To guarantee it, what we vote for has to be backed up and defended by other things, like some of the things I mention above. If it isn’t, a situation like what happened in Germany in 1933 will occur. Then, Hitler was democratically elected but there weren’t sufficient back-up systems to keep Hitler democratic. In Germany at the time the law and courts were weak, the press was ineffectual in holding government accountable, people weren’t treated equally and in general it was a closed, non-pluralistic society. In such a climate it’s easy to understand why Hitler managed to become a totalitarian.
What happen to Democracy in Germany illustrates an overlooked aspect of it, that it is a very sophisticated enterprise. People point to that incident as a way to highlight Democracy’s vulnerabilities. However, that incident points out to me that Democracy them wasn’t yet fully developed or sophisticated enough for the modern world. It hadn’t sufficiently developed its back-up systems to ensure it wouldn’t in time turn into totalitarianism. And many of those back-up systems are unspoken and tacit.
The ‘tacity’ of Democracy is also something that is overlooked went trying to transplant it in places like Iraq. Much of our Democracy, and what makes it successful, is unspoken. It’s a state of mind, a life style. Ironically, it‘s successful because we can generally take it for granted. It’s there like the air we breath. We sleep and eat it. Its in our bones. We don’t have to openly think about it. It’s naturally there. However, for Democracy to be like that it has take centuries of evolution and being passed down. And here it is, people think that Democracy can be parachuted into a place that has never experienced it before and it will naturally be accepted and take root.
I think culture has a lot to do with the acceptance of Democracy. Societies that are democratic are societies that are constantly in flux, and changing. Non-democratic societies tend to be traditionally based which leaves little room for flux or change. They discourage change. Societies that are democratic are competitive. Uncompetetive societies are for the most part undemocratic. Inflexible, static societies abhor Democracy because it insists on change and sweeping away intransigent traditions, such as those that deny universal suffrage, the separation of church and state, freedom of choice, minority rights and the bifurcation of authority.
One economist said this of Democracy, it is a universal value. He said it’s like Mother Nature and added, it’s hard to argue against Mother Nature. It’s also hard to argue against Democracy.
Democracy is not unlike what a judge once said of pornography: I’m not sure what it is, but I know when I see it. Most of us know democracy in much the same way. I also think of Democracy as something akin to driving a car. We can drive a car without necessarily understanding the mechanics involved, or how to maintain it. The same goes for Democracy. We can do it and be it without necessarily knowing or understand how or why it works. I think knowing the full nature of Democracy is on par as difficult as knowing the nature of consciousness.
The other night I was watching a televised discussion on the prospects of democracy in Iraq. I heard something very interesting. One interviewee said, as a way of explaining the difficulties that were being encounter there in establishing it, I don’t think we really understand Democracy, or how it works. On hearing that I immediately understood what he was talking about. We really don’t understand it. Also, I think we generally are pretty naive and delusional about it, especially when it come to implementing it in places that have never practiced it before, like in Haiti or Iraq.
I remember reading about a professor of Democracy who was quite exited about going to Iraq to help establish it. I can imagine how he felt, exhilarated at the prospects of having a chance to create something from scratch and being on the cutting edge. At first be found the endeavour very promising. However, as violence and instability began escalating, he started having second thoughts. What he discovered from the growing instability and violence is perhaps something he unconsciously knew all along, that if you don’t have a stable environment to build it in, Democracy hasn’t a chance. For instant, women who were taking up the cause were been threaten with death. Under such circumstances Democracy will have little chance to take hold and flourish. In Iraq, as soon as its nascent roots were been planted, insecurity was ripping them out.
It’s not that the professor who went to Iraq to help establish Democracy was delusional about its chances but more so that he was naive. He was naive enough to believe that the instigators of the war in Iraq knew what they were doing. He believed, as they did, that their model for democratic nation building would work. Those plans were poorly thought out, if they were at all. Anyway, the establishing of Democracy in Iraq was more like an after thought, as a way to legitimize its occupation.
My feeling is that one of the big flaws about establishing Democracy anywhere is that people don’t understand its exceptional nature. For instance, what is about it or us that supposes and allows it to exist?
One of my catch all phrases is, Democracy is contingent on many things. Our professor friend knew of one of its major components, security. But that alone is not enough. Communism offered its citizens security, but it didn’t naturally bring about Democracy. However, you can say that the security communism did produce prepared the ground work for many ex-communist countries to establish Democracy later, as many are doing now.
To help better understand what I mean when I say Democracy is contingent on many things, I’ve used the human body as an analogy. I think the human body and Democracy are quite similar. They are both organisms and their function and health are contingent on many parts interacting. For instance, take the heart or the brain. Though they are major organs which without the body couldn’t function, both are not only contingent on each other for survival but also on a host of other parts such as kidneys, liver, lungs and so on. Democracy functions and remains healthy in very much the same way. It relies on a host of interwoven contingencies such as the rule of law, pluralism, property rights, equality, freedom of choice and mobility and even the right to be indifferent about it.
The general cursory idea of Democracy we have is government of the people, for the people and by the people. This idea includes one person one vote. But again, the right to vote is just one component like security is. Without either we would not have Democracy. But neither on their own guarantee Democracy. To guarantee it, what we vote for has to be backed up and defended by other things, like some of the things I mention above. If it isn’t, a situation like what happened in Germany in 1933 will occur. Then, Hitler was democratically elected but there weren’t sufficient back-up systems to keep Hitler democratic. In Germany at the time the law and courts were weak, the press was ineffectual in holding government accountable, people weren’t treated equally and in general it was a closed, non-pluralistic society. In such a climate it’s easy to understand why Hitler managed to become a totalitarian.
What happen to Democracy in Germany illustrates an overlooked aspect of it, that it is a very sophisticated enterprise. People point to that incident as a way to highlight Democracy’s vulnerabilities. However, that incident points out to me that Democracy them wasn’t yet fully developed or sophisticated enough for the modern world. It hadn’t sufficiently developed its back-up systems to ensure it wouldn’t in time turn into totalitarianism. And many of those back-up systems are unspoken and tacit.
The ‘tacity’ of Democracy is also something that is overlooked went trying to transplant it in places like Iraq. Much of our Democracy, and what makes it successful, is unspoken. It’s a state of mind, a life style. Ironically, it‘s successful because we can generally take it for granted. It’s there like the air we breath. We sleep and eat it. Its in our bones. We don’t have to openly think about it. It’s naturally there. However, for Democracy to be like that it has take centuries of evolution and being passed down. And here it is, people think that Democracy can be parachuted into a place that has never experienced it before and it will naturally be accepted and take root.
I think culture has a lot to do with the acceptance of Democracy. Societies that are democratic are societies that are constantly in flux, and changing. Non-democratic societies tend to be traditionally based which leaves little room for flux or change. They discourage change. Societies that are democratic are competitive. Uncompetetive societies are for the most part undemocratic. Inflexible, static societies abhor Democracy because it insists on change and sweeping away intransigent traditions, such as those that deny universal suffrage, the separation of church and state, freedom of choice, minority rights and the bifurcation of authority.
One economist said this of Democracy, it is a universal value. He said it’s like Mother Nature and added, it’s hard to argue against Mother Nature. It’s also hard to argue against Democracy.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Comment on Liberalism vs Conservatism
The other day I received a comment, off blog, on my essay Liberalism vs Conservatism. In my essay I said that one group was apt to accept change more easily than the other. The person who commented wrote that perhaps why some people don't want to change things is because of fears of the unknown. This is what I wrote:
I have been thinking about your comment and you are right, there is a fear for change, in challenging the status quo and accepting new things. But sometimes change is necessary for the overall well-being of society, like in the accepting of civil and equal rights for all. Liberals are more likely to address such issues than are conservatives.
Resistance to social change can have a detrimental effect on a community, such as in the resistance of granting equal rights to blacks in America. Conservative in America feared that giving blacks equality would destabilize and erode their way of life. They had a point but consistent resistance to that kind of social change was making things worse because blacks were become more vocal and violent in their demands for social change and equality. Liberals understood better the need for such change, not only for humanitarian reasons but for logical ones and the safety of the community as a whole.
I am now working on another posting and it is about change and its inevitability. Societies that adapt to change and work with it are the most successful. Change offers a vital service. As societies mature they tend to became lazy and complacent, traits that can have a negative effect on their continuance and survival. Change helps knock out the cobwebs that develop from such tendencies. However, resistance to change can also be good. It forces a rethink, a reexamination and a reinforcing of what is important to us like the values and tradition that keep our families and society functioning and stable. In that respect change is a balancing act.
Change is inevitable but we can learn to use it to our advantage. As the saying goes, you have to change to remain the same. And it occurs for two reasons, to move things forward so they don't become stale and to replace the things we use up .
I have been thinking about your comment and you are right, there is a fear for change, in challenging the status quo and accepting new things. But sometimes change is necessary for the overall well-being of society, like in the accepting of civil and equal rights for all. Liberals are more likely to address such issues than are conservatives.
Resistance to social change can have a detrimental effect on a community, such as in the resistance of granting equal rights to blacks in America. Conservative in America feared that giving blacks equality would destabilize and erode their way of life. They had a point but consistent resistance to that kind of social change was making things worse because blacks were become more vocal and violent in their demands for social change and equality. Liberals understood better the need for such change, not only for humanitarian reasons but for logical ones and the safety of the community as a whole.
I am now working on another posting and it is about change and its inevitability. Societies that adapt to change and work with it are the most successful. Change offers a vital service. As societies mature they tend to became lazy and complacent, traits that can have a negative effect on their continuance and survival. Change helps knock out the cobwebs that develop from such tendencies. However, resistance to change can also be good. It forces a rethink, a reexamination and a reinforcing of what is important to us like the values and tradition that keep our families and society functioning and stable. In that respect change is a balancing act.
Change is inevitable but we can learn to use it to our advantage. As the saying goes, you have to change to remain the same. And it occurs for two reasons, to move things forward so they don't become stale and to replace the things we use up .
Monday, November 22, 2004
First Discipline
The First Discipline.
Humankind has devised many disciplines to facilitate and make life easier for itself. Without these disciplines we could not cope with or manage the complexities of our world, natural or man made. These disciplines vary. They include the disciplines of science, sociology, philosophy, psychology and history. The singular most important discipline is economics.
Economics is the most important because not much in life is possible without it. Imagine erecting a building with out first taking economic factors into consideration, like the expense of cement or how much it will cost to maintain it. Some might argue that science is the most important discipline because its research and development affords us the technologies which sustains us, or builds that building. True, but in the final analysis science has to rely on economics because it provides the funds that pay for it all. Economics collects and distributes the moneys and resources science needs to produce the technologies that make life possible. As for the other disciplines, they also wouldn’t be affordable if we first didn’t have our economic house in order. In today's world all disciplines are in a sense luxuries made possible by economics and the management skills and money it makes available to pay for them.
Any housekeeper understand the fundamental importance of economics in maintaining the family. It is the discipline that puts a roof over our heads, cloths on our backs and food on the table. Economics is not just about money and budgeting, it’s also about the wise use of time and resources. Because its practice is so fundamental to our survival and continuance I’ve dubbed it the husbandry of Civilization. Very little else of meaning is possible without first having our economic house in order.
The practices of economics, in some form or other, has been around since the beginning of Civilization. It was the first discipline, born of an immediate necessity. It started simply from a number of fundamental tasks of life, such as the growing and gathering of food, the organizing of households and the first exchange of goods and services. From this a pattern and a routine began to emerge in life, one meant to help ensure security, survive and continuance. This routine required a methodical and some imaginative thinking, a mindset that would become the beginnings of economics. The first economic system was traditional, so called because it was simple and followed tradition lines. For example, a son would follow in his fathers footsteps into the same profession. A farmer’s son would be a farmer . A carpenter’s son would be a carpenter. Women led traditional lives in that they stayed home, reared children and did the household chores. The higher aspects of economics were managed the same way, by a perennial ruling class.
Many things have changed the nature of economics throughout history. One big change was caused by a great plague - The Black Death, (14th-18th cc.) which killed a lot of the working population in Europe. The high death toll in cities increase demand for labor there and caused one of the greatest shifts of labor ever , from feudal farms to the cities. This shift in labor marked the beginning of the end of agrarian based economies. However, no event had more of an impact or affect on economic thinking and planning than the Industrial Revolution which began in l8th century. It was from that point that economics really began to emerge as the premier discipline.
Modern economics began to develop in the early part of the 19th century. It coincided with the emergence of a middle class which itself was an emergence of the Industrial Revolution. What the Industrial Revolution wrought to humankind needed a sophisticated management system, hence the birth of modern economics. Humankind needed a discipline that could help manage and temper the impact and upheavals of industrialization and its transformation from an agrarian society. Economics as we know it today developed not only as a means of alleviating those problems and dislocations but also for the allocation, replacement and conservation of vital recourses. Economics introduced the theories on how things could be done better, cheaper and more efficiently. It introduced the theories and practices for doing things on a mass scale.
Modern economics also has its roots in pessimism. In many respects it is a result of pessimism. One early economist, Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), argued that the world’s population increase could not be sustained indefinitely. He believed that the earth’s resources were finite and that the growing demand for them would soon deplete them, leaving the human race in dire straits. He didn’t think that the food supply could keep up with human demand. I believe his dire predictions about the future of humankind is what gave this disciple its commanding stature and the jolt to find ways of managing human and natural resources better. Malthus’ economic predictions were so pessimistic that since then economics has been known as the ‘dismal science’, dismal because its responses chiefly have been due to dismal predictions.
I am sure the negativity Malthus projected provoked some major rethinking about how to economically organize things better and being more efficient. But then, this is the essence of this discipline, to react to circumstances and predictions, good or bad, and adjusts accordingly. The raison d'être of good economic theory and management is to find new and innovative ways of sustaining and maintaining humankind.
Fundamentally economics is driven by negative factors, like the worry of running out of things or not having enough. Another negative factor that determines economic policy is a natural one, thermodynamics. I would say that this is the ultimate determining factor of economics, how its orientated and put into practice. It’s the second law of thermodynamics that’s at the heart of it. Its euphemistically known as the law of entropy. It basically states that things and systems will inevitably decline and fall apart. So this means the technologies - from a hammer to a subway system - we’ve developed to maintain and sustain ourselves will in time decline and deteriorate. It also means we will run out of resources and food like Malthus predicted. However, there is one way of combating this decline and that’s through the act of renewal (the first law states this can happen under the right circumstances). And that’s where economics comes in. It’s the means of renewal. The only way to combat entropy and achieve renewal is through sound economic planning, through the good management of resources, upkeep, replacement and having the financial resources to do it.
To be continued...............
“Civilization, like leisure, is only possible after needs have been met”. The only way those needs ultimately can be met are through economic means. Civilization, then, is only really possible after certain vital economic needs have been met.
Humankind has devised many disciplines to facilitate and make life easier for itself. Without these disciplines we could not cope with or manage the complexities of our world, natural or man made. These disciplines vary. They include the disciplines of science, sociology, philosophy, psychology and history. The singular most important discipline is economics.
Economics is the most important because not much in life is possible without it. Imagine erecting a building with out first taking economic factors into consideration, like the expense of cement or how much it will cost to maintain it. Some might argue that science is the most important discipline because its research and development affords us the technologies which sustains us, or builds that building. True, but in the final analysis science has to rely on economics because it provides the funds that pay for it all. Economics collects and distributes the moneys and resources science needs to produce the technologies that make life possible. As for the other disciplines, they also wouldn’t be affordable if we first didn’t have our economic house in order. In today's world all disciplines are in a sense luxuries made possible by economics and the management skills and money it makes available to pay for them.
Any housekeeper understand the fundamental importance of economics in maintaining the family. It is the discipline that puts a roof over our heads, cloths on our backs and food on the table. Economics is not just about money and budgeting, it’s also about the wise use of time and resources. Because its practice is so fundamental to our survival and continuance I’ve dubbed it the husbandry of Civilization. Very little else of meaning is possible without first having our economic house in order.
The practices of economics, in some form or other, has been around since the beginning of Civilization. It was the first discipline, born of an immediate necessity. It started simply from a number of fundamental tasks of life, such as the growing and gathering of food, the organizing of households and the first exchange of goods and services. From this a pattern and a routine began to emerge in life, one meant to help ensure security, survive and continuance. This routine required a methodical and some imaginative thinking, a mindset that would become the beginnings of economics. The first economic system was traditional, so called because it was simple and followed tradition lines. For example, a son would follow in his fathers footsteps into the same profession. A farmer’s son would be a farmer . A carpenter’s son would be a carpenter. Women led traditional lives in that they stayed home, reared children and did the household chores. The higher aspects of economics were managed the same way, by a perennial ruling class.
Many things have changed the nature of economics throughout history. One big change was caused by a great plague - The Black Death, (14th-18th cc.) which killed a lot of the working population in Europe. The high death toll in cities increase demand for labor there and caused one of the greatest shifts of labor ever , from feudal farms to the cities. This shift in labor marked the beginning of the end of agrarian based economies. However, no event had more of an impact or affect on economic thinking and planning than the Industrial Revolution which began in l8th century. It was from that point that economics really began to emerge as the premier discipline.
Modern economics began to develop in the early part of the 19th century. It coincided with the emergence of a middle class which itself was an emergence of the Industrial Revolution. What the Industrial Revolution wrought to humankind needed a sophisticated management system, hence the birth of modern economics. Humankind needed a discipline that could help manage and temper the impact and upheavals of industrialization and its transformation from an agrarian society. Economics as we know it today developed not only as a means of alleviating those problems and dislocations but also for the allocation, replacement and conservation of vital recourses. Economics introduced the theories on how things could be done better, cheaper and more efficiently. It introduced the theories and practices for doing things on a mass scale.
Modern economics also has its roots in pessimism. In many respects it is a result of pessimism. One early economist, Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), argued that the world’s population increase could not be sustained indefinitely. He believed that the earth’s resources were finite and that the growing demand for them would soon deplete them, leaving the human race in dire straits. He didn’t think that the food supply could keep up with human demand. I believe his dire predictions about the future of humankind is what gave this disciple its commanding stature and the jolt to find ways of managing human and natural resources better. Malthus’ economic predictions were so pessimistic that since then economics has been known as the ‘dismal science’, dismal because its responses chiefly have been due to dismal predictions.
I am sure the negativity Malthus projected provoked some major rethinking about how to economically organize things better and being more efficient. But then, this is the essence of this discipline, to react to circumstances and predictions, good or bad, and adjusts accordingly. The raison d'être of good economic theory and management is to find new and innovative ways of sustaining and maintaining humankind.
Fundamentally economics is driven by negative factors, like the worry of running out of things or not having enough. Another negative factor that determines economic policy is a natural one, thermodynamics. I would say that this is the ultimate determining factor of economics, how its orientated and put into practice. It’s the second law of thermodynamics that’s at the heart of it. Its euphemistically known as the law of entropy. It basically states that things and systems will inevitably decline and fall apart. So this means the technologies - from a hammer to a subway system - we’ve developed to maintain and sustain ourselves will in time decline and deteriorate. It also means we will run out of resources and food like Malthus predicted. However, there is one way of combating this decline and that’s through the act of renewal (the first law states this can happen under the right circumstances). And that’s where economics comes in. It’s the means of renewal. The only way to combat entropy and achieve renewal is through sound economic planning, through the good management of resources, upkeep, replacement and having the financial resources to do it.
To be continued...............
“Civilization, like leisure, is only possible after needs have been met”. The only way those needs ultimately can be met are through economic means. Civilization, then, is only really possible after certain vital economic needs have been met.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Liberalism vs Conservatism
When we hear the terms liberalism and conservatism we generally have a cursory idea of what is meant by them. In our rudimentary thinking we know liberalism as the domain of liberals, people who lean to the left in their politics, and conservatism as the domain of conservatives, people who lean to the right. We find these terms a convenient way of understanding and categorizing our politics. But beyond them being political labels, we really don’t know very much about these doctrines, their origins or functions.
I am fascinated by how loosely we use these terms. We like them because they are demonstrative and expedient terms. What they embody immediately defines for us people’s political persuasions and the lay of the political landscape. However, as complex ideas I find they have been over simplified and misused. Most often the terms liberal and conservative are used for shock value. Rarely are they seen as the symbiotic and interwoven mechanisms of an extremely sophisticated political system, the one we dwell in, Democracy.
In the beginning, I am thinking, all politics were conservative. That’s because humankind's fundamental instincts are conservative. Conservatism implies an adherence to tradition and a desire not to change. Change is inconvenient and painful. We would sooner not do it if we don’t have to. Hanging on to tradition and not changing things preserves the status quo and instills a sense of security. This conservative attitude was reflected in the first political systems humankind devised. One of the earliest conservative political systems was the Church and the culture of governance it spawned to preserve itself.
However, humankind could not live or thrive by conservatism alone. Humankind had individual needs and aspirations which required some flexibility in human governance. Flexibility, though, requires change, something that didn't come naturally to conservatives. In fact they were unsympathetic to it. Humans have an inherent need for freedom and recognition. Conservatives, though, were reluctant to fulfill this need for fear of loosing power and authority. They knew that free people would complain and demand accountability. So they were not inclined to fulfilling that need. Nonetheless, people began demanding it.
Sometime during Europe’s Reformation and Enlightenment period, from the 15th to the 18th century, things began to change. A swell began to build among the lay people demanding more flexibility from the conservative ruling class. There was a chorus of voices, particularly those of philosophers, urging the governing elite to loosen its grip, allowing its constituents to participate in their own governance. One philosopher, John Locke (1632-1704), urged that people should also be free to peruse their own self-interests, something that had been thwarted. What he was talking about was the idea of liberty, individual liberation from the confines of the Church and state.
The demand for liberty was the beginning of liberalism. Liberty meant a measure of freedom from the state, like one having the right to own property and one’s labour or making one’s own decisions about worship or having the right to move about freely. In order to bestow liberty on individuals the governing elite had to change their ways, reform and become more flexible and yes, liberal. Liberty, then, is a product of liberalism and a liberal disposition.
Somewhere along the way the idea of liberty became synonymous with todays conservatism and not liberalism, the doctrine which originally made it possible. Conservatives were now the libertarians. In this new context conservatives view themselves as the upholders of liberty and liberals are those who are anti-libertarian, as conservative once were.
This role reversal highlights a symbiotic relationship that exists between these two doctrines: Conservatives, after a period of reflection and digestion, claim for themselves the best ideas that liberals have formulated and worked hard to entrench. Take for instance, the emancipation of women and their right to vote. Conservatives originally were against women’s emancipation. However, after a period of time, enlightened conservatives accepted this right as gospel and mainstream. Affirmative action was another liberal issue conservatives had problems with. Conservatives opposed affirmative action at the outset, but as the years passed and the subject matured they came around to the understanding that it was important for a healthy society. Science, the bestower of the technologies which support society, is also a liberal endeavour which conservatives were once against.
One point I am trying to make here is that liberals are the ones who instigate new thinking and new solutions to social questions while conservatives are generally the ones who enshrine them. Most of us are a bit of both. One thing I think you can take away from this is that it takes two to tango, two to create a workable system. Without liberals we would not have the new ideas and solutions that are needed to deal with a changing world and without conservatives we would not have the consolidators and protecters of the worthy changes liberals come up with.
I will now reveal my bias, though not an alarming one. It is one that the reader may have to puzzle over. It’s this, that the modern political world exists in the context of liberalism. In other words, conservatism exist in the context of liberalism, not the other way around. Liberalism is the wedge behind which all politics follow. If it were the other way around we wouldn't have a modern world. Nor, I am sure, would we be the multifaceted and tolerant society we are today. Nor would we be a Democracy.
I am fascinated by how loosely we use these terms. We like them because they are demonstrative and expedient terms. What they embody immediately defines for us people’s political persuasions and the lay of the political landscape. However, as complex ideas I find they have been over simplified and misused. Most often the terms liberal and conservative are used for shock value. Rarely are they seen as the symbiotic and interwoven mechanisms of an extremely sophisticated political system, the one we dwell in, Democracy.
In the beginning, I am thinking, all politics were conservative. That’s because humankind's fundamental instincts are conservative. Conservatism implies an adherence to tradition and a desire not to change. Change is inconvenient and painful. We would sooner not do it if we don’t have to. Hanging on to tradition and not changing things preserves the status quo and instills a sense of security. This conservative attitude was reflected in the first political systems humankind devised. One of the earliest conservative political systems was the Church and the culture of governance it spawned to preserve itself.
However, humankind could not live or thrive by conservatism alone. Humankind had individual needs and aspirations which required some flexibility in human governance. Flexibility, though, requires change, something that didn't come naturally to conservatives. In fact they were unsympathetic to it. Humans have an inherent need for freedom and recognition. Conservatives, though, were reluctant to fulfill this need for fear of loosing power and authority. They knew that free people would complain and demand accountability. So they were not inclined to fulfilling that need. Nonetheless, people began demanding it.
Sometime during Europe’s Reformation and Enlightenment period, from the 15th to the 18th century, things began to change. A swell began to build among the lay people demanding more flexibility from the conservative ruling class. There was a chorus of voices, particularly those of philosophers, urging the governing elite to loosen its grip, allowing its constituents to participate in their own governance. One philosopher, John Locke (1632-1704), urged that people should also be free to peruse their own self-interests, something that had been thwarted. What he was talking about was the idea of liberty, individual liberation from the confines of the Church and state.
The demand for liberty was the beginning of liberalism. Liberty meant a measure of freedom from the state, like one having the right to own property and one’s labour or making one’s own decisions about worship or having the right to move about freely. In order to bestow liberty on individuals the governing elite had to change their ways, reform and become more flexible and yes, liberal. Liberty, then, is a product of liberalism and a liberal disposition.
Somewhere along the way the idea of liberty became synonymous with todays conservatism and not liberalism, the doctrine which originally made it possible. Conservatives were now the libertarians. In this new context conservatives view themselves as the upholders of liberty and liberals are those who are anti-libertarian, as conservative once were.
This role reversal highlights a symbiotic relationship that exists between these two doctrines: Conservatives, after a period of reflection and digestion, claim for themselves the best ideas that liberals have formulated and worked hard to entrench. Take for instance, the emancipation of women and their right to vote. Conservatives originally were against women’s emancipation. However, after a period of time, enlightened conservatives accepted this right as gospel and mainstream. Affirmative action was another liberal issue conservatives had problems with. Conservatives opposed affirmative action at the outset, but as the years passed and the subject matured they came around to the understanding that it was important for a healthy society. Science, the bestower of the technologies which support society, is also a liberal endeavour which conservatives were once against.
One point I am trying to make here is that liberals are the ones who instigate new thinking and new solutions to social questions while conservatives are generally the ones who enshrine them. Most of us are a bit of both. One thing I think you can take away from this is that it takes two to tango, two to create a workable system. Without liberals we would not have the new ideas and solutions that are needed to deal with a changing world and without conservatives we would not have the consolidators and protecters of the worthy changes liberals come up with.
I will now reveal my bias, though not an alarming one. It is one that the reader may have to puzzle over. It’s this, that the modern political world exists in the context of liberalism. In other words, conservatism exist in the context of liberalism, not the other way around. Liberalism is the wedge behind which all politics follow. If it were the other way around we wouldn't have a modern world. Nor, I am sure, would we be the multifaceted and tolerant society we are today. Nor would we be a Democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)