Euston Manifesto

[couchcommander]

See young Skywalker, the POWER OF THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL is revealed out of your own mouth

*buzzing of a lightsabre* And I will now use it to destroy you! *crackle* *smash* *crackle*

The power of the market will subvert attempts to control the internet, with self interested share holders hoping to make big profits and you getting more and more choices. Remember, YOU are a free agent, and do not have to stand still and take what is being offered.

The problem is not with perfect markets - the idea that the the best producers will be rewarded due to an increased demand, and that scarcity will be controlled by a rising cost the more scarce a product becomes is a no brainer.

The problem is with capitalism.

(and now here it goes...*buzz*) Namely, some people have it, some people don't. Those that do have it have a much greater potential for making more capital than those without. Due to the selfish nature of these people they will invariably attempt to do just that, make more capital for themselves. Further, due to the inherently finite nature of the economy this will result in the collection most of the capital in their hands, and the destruction of the market.

That is why these internet toll booths are going to be such a problem. It's not a walled garden we are free to walk around to get to other, free, goodstuff - we're already inside the walls, trying to get out. And there is a limited number of people who hold the keys, right now they are forced to let everyone out the same... but that may change.

The main trunk lines that connect the various MAN's together are vital. Even the "free" internet providers we have now, wireless, etc., depend on those lines for wider communication. Further, running new highspeed lines cross country is very expensive, as I am sure you know.

Unfortunately, these big corporations control these lines, and are really the only ones with both the capital and the interest to make new ones.  Thus, they, in effect, together have a monopoly on the service.

In the end, I have no problem with markets. If a perfect market were to ever exist, I think it would be great. Unfortunately, all types of things, in fact a virtually never ending list, distort markets and ensure that they are anything but perfect, even in the most lassiez-faire economy.

You're only hope, master, is to accept the teachings of couchism and try and control the "force" for the better of all mankind - only it has the true power to save you!

 

[a_majoor]

Young Skywalker, the Invisible Hand permeates the Universe and connects all things. As one of the first Masters teaches:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

and:

As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual value of society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

Adam Smith may not have known of Thucydides, but even the ancient Greeks had some awareness of the factors which motivate us:

If these words are judged useful by those who want to understand clearly the events which happened in the past and which (human nature being what it is) will at some time or other and in much the same way, be repeated in the future.

Once you wrap your head around the idea that the vast majority of people are motivated by self interest, then you will understand why Utopian, socialist, authoritarian and command economies are doomed to fail: people find ways to manipulate the system to promote their own self interest. Since free markets and Capitalism make no bones about this (and indeed only operate because they harness individual self interest), they ALWAYS outperform their competitors, and societies built around these principles have far more flexibility and adaptability in the long run than their competitors. If free markets are not perfect, then let us discover what is blocking the free flow of information and capital, and correct the distortions of the market.

The first clear example of this may be the Peloponessian Wars, where Athens lost their Army and Fleet in the disastrous invasion of Sicily, yet was still able to continue the fight for almost a decade against Sparta and her allies, the former members of the Delian League who revolted against Athens and the Persian Empire, which bankrolled Athens enemies. Only a few decades after the end of the war, Athens had rebuilt and was once again the leading power in the Hellenetic world. Just a short while after the end of the Peloponessian Wars, Thebes defeated the Spartans in battle and invaded Laconia. Sparta, a rigid autocracy, was shattered and never recovered from this blow.

The only "advantage" of command economies is they use the armed power of the State to mediate economic outcomes, and can supply resources to areas where market economies would not. The examples in history are almost always negative, the raising of mass armies and militarization of societies seems to be the most common outcome, followed by Pharaonic Monuments , "bridges to nowhere" and mass corruption. If the writers of the Euston Manifesto can find some way out of this trap (besides saying "we will do better"), then more power to them.

Since free markets do not support the negative outcomes of command economies, I will remain on the side of the angels.

 

[couchcommander]

If free markets are not perfect, then let us discover what is blocking the free flow of information and capital, and correct the distortions of the market.

The problem, as I see it, is the severely unequal distribution of capital which gives certain individuals or organizations much greater wealth generating potential, as well as an ability to protect this wealth generating potential from smaller challengers.

Real world example is where I work right now - we could be in a position to begin challenging the big box retails (there products stink, their service is horrible, etc).- but we've specifically shied away from doing that because the last time we made a noticeable dent in their profits they basically just bought all the product that we usually get from our suppliers and sold it for a much lower margin (we suspect basically at a loss if not barely breaking equal).

Further, actors within the free market are rarely if ever perfect actors - in fact they are kind of dumb, often choosing lesser product for no real good reason (we get them all the time "I want one of these"..."actually this brand  is both better and less expensive".."I still want one of these").

And once again a problem that just needs addressing is the massively unequal distribution of wealth - in Canada the last 10 years of growth have gone almost exclusively into the hands of the extremely wealthy, CEO's now make on average somewhere around 400 times more per hour what your average blue collar worker makes (was not always the case).

(real world examples and statistics! the Austrian school doesn't like me anymore.)

You thoughts on a possible remedy?

To me the solution is, once again, direct and truly democratic intervention by the people, for the people, of the people to realign the market to primarily, I suppose would be the right word, serve the needs of these said people while still rewarding innovation, work ethic, etc.  (not the Euston Manifesto! Couchism!)

Once again, it is their self interest I am counting on to ensure that their needs will continue to be met, you will find no quibbles about that principle here - I just have a different way of harnessing (I preferr to liken it to nuclear power generation vs. a nuclear explosion - both generate a lot of heat, but the latter only really benefits those who control it).

And I don't think I would classify it as a "command" economy. The market is still there, the only thing is that the actors within it are both the consumer and the voting shareholders if they choose (which all are free to do).

 

[a_majoor]

Wealth has always been uneaqually distributed. In ancient times the ditribution was quite extreme, and even today, in command economies, authoratarian societies and even socialist and semi sociaist economies the divisions are far more pronounced than in Free Market societies.

The non free market societies use the armed power of the State to create and retain these divisions of wealth (feudal farmers were at the mercy of the armed knight who's estate they worked, the growth of walled towns and citizen militias that could protect merchants and tradesmen was one of the factors which broke the feudal system). In Free Market societies, the "rich" can certainly try to maintain their wealth and privilage against all comers (usually through the power of the State, i.e. special tax exemptions, regulatory obstructions of potentiall challengers, etc.), but there are so many avenues and outlets, a far greater proportion of people can achieve wealth and at least middle class status than anywhere else. Even the rich are not immune, there is a saying "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations", so they have to work hard to stay on top.

I have been emphasising the idea that people are free agents who work for their own self interest. Your examples simply demonstrate that a. the management of your competing "Big Box" store is willing to make short term sacrifice in order to ensure their long term profit (self interest, don't you know....), and b. People are not perfect "rational actors", but see their own self interest differently from you. If they want product "A", maybe they have judged the savings from comparison shopping are not worth the extra effort involved. It is for them to judge, not you. You can attempt to educate people and well done for trying, but in the end, who makes the decisions and who bears the consequences for buying product "A"? Certainly not you.

To me the solution is, once again, direct and truely democratic intervention by the people, for the people, of the people to realign the market to primarily, I supose would be the right word, serve the needs of these said people while stil rewarding innovation, work ethic, etc.  (not the Euston Manifesto! Couchism!)

You see the power of the Austrian School? You simply cannot escape it! Direct Intervention, as you are implying, would mean the people could participate in the market without tax or regulatory obstruction. The Jedi Masters Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard and Adam Smith would be very proud.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Namely, some people have it, some people don't.

You can make the same statement about good looks, sexual attractiveness, intelligence, athletic ability, and a host of other desireables.  What plans do you have for levelling those playing fields?

 

[couchcommander]

Direct Intervention, as you are implying, would mean the people could participate in the market without tax or regulatory obstruction[/color].

Why yes, that is in fact exactly what I want.

The "state" and the "people" would cease to be two separate entities, there would simply be "the people" who together while promoting their own self interest through the mechanisms we now both appear to agree on, contribute to the overall health of the society.

Indeed it is only by giving the individual the ability to effectively control his or her own life that we can bring about the society we both want - one that is free, democratic through and through, and rewarding of an individuals efforts.

We will use each persons own self interest to ensure their continued prosperity by giving them the power to actually make the choices required to bring this about.

Re: Mr. Sallows

I don't have a problem with people being rewarded for their efforts, in fact I strongly encourage it, it is the cornerstone of a successful, innovative economy.

But I do see what you're saying Mr. Sallows - in the end, I would state it as my most fundamental goal to have each and every person achieve one thing and one thing alone-  happiness - that is really, in the end, all I care about.

However, as not many people will in fact become truly happy, I want to give everyone the opportunities they need to live, grow, and succeed as the person they want themselves to be and thus hopefully minimize some suffering. I am not, however, on some crusade to make everyone "equal".

 

[a_majoor]

So Couchism is Libertarianism after all. Libertarians believe that the best way for people to achieve their potential is to allow them to engage in voluntary interactions and create voluntary associations to carry out projects beyond the reach of any single individual. The State exists to prevent the use of coercion in these voluntary affairs and to provide a level playing field and clear set of rules (i.e. contract law) for all to abide by. The other main purpose of the State is to provide the Judiciary, as a neutral means of settling disputes.

Now this is almost as airy-fairy as Socialist and Utopian plans, which is why I am a small "l" libertarian. Voluntary associations can only go so far, and certainly there are fairly large projects such as infrastructure which can be more efficiently handled by centralized means. In this case we take our voluntary associations one step higher by electing representatives (the government) to mediate between the wants of various voluntary associations and individuals to plan these projects more "efficiently".  Of course, this is also problematic, since this is the wedge where State power intrudes more and more in your lives. There is also the problem of "voluntary associations" such as the Hells Angels or the Mafia to consider, and the infiltration of the State by criminal elements.

I am an advocate of strict term limits and would also like to see shorter terms of office for most levels of government to prevent the growth of an entrenched political "class". People like Jean Chretien or Joe Clark, who were professional politicians for most of their adult lives really have no connection at all to you and I, and are hardly advocates for the individuals and voluntary associations libertarians (or Libertarians) see as being the fundimental units of society. (BTW, the late Jane Jacobs, hardly a right winger, made a very similar argument about the utility of cities in creating the climate of togetherness and trust that encouraged voluntary interaction).

Like Brad has said, people are not imbued with equal levels of intelligence, beauty, ability or Arete, so there is no way to completely level the playing field, and not everyone will come out on top. the best we can hope for is to create conditions which allow equality of opportunity, so people can maximize their own potential. If you don't end up like Bill Gates, then perhaps you will end up like Bill Smith, which may not be such a bad thing.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>However, as not many people will in fact become truly happy, I want to give everyone the opportunities they need to live, grow, and succeed as the person they want themselves to be and thus hopefully minimize some suffering.

Do you want to give them opportunities, or do you intend that the rest of us must join you in giving them opportunities?  There is a difference.  How do you reconcile making one person happier with making another person unhappier?

 

[couchcommander]

Now this is almost as airy-fairy as Socialist and Utopian plans, which is why I am a small "l" libertarian. Voluntary associations can only go so far, and certainly there are fairly large projects such as infrastructure which can be more efficiently handled by centralized means. In this case we take our voluntary associations one step higher by electing representatives (the government) to mediate between the wants of various voluntary associations and individuals to plan these projects more "efficiently".  Of course, this is also problematic, since this is the wedge where State power intrudes more and more in your lives. There is also the problem of "voluntary associations" such as the Hells Angels or the Mafia to consider, and the infiltration of the State by criminal elements.

I am an advocate of strict term limits and would also like to see shorter terms of office for most levels of government to prevent the growth of an entrenched political "class". People like Jean Chretien or Joe Clark, who were professional politicians for most of their adult lives really have no connection at all to you and I, and are hardly advocates for the individuals and voluntary associations libertarians (or Libertarians) see as being the fundamental units of society. (BTW, the late Jane Jacobs, hardly a right winger, made a very similar argument about the utility of cities in creating the climate of togetherness and trust that encouraged voluntary interaction).

Well i couldn't have said it better myself.

However, as I mentioned before, i find our current governmental system "democratic" in name only. The representatives we elect end up, like greedy shareholders, largely, at least it seems from their actions, not caring THAT much about the good of the people, but rather - politics.

Their concern is simple, what do I need to do to get reelected?

This is not something that is heinous or should not be expected, we've already agreed people will serve their own interests; it's, really in the end, what is to be expected. We've put these people into a gravy boat.

The solution? Well I suspect by now you've started thinking about what I might propose, and it's the same across the board. Return governance to the people.

Now this is just a brief synopsis of our views on a system of government, but here it goes.

Federally there is an assembly of 501 citizens. These citizens serve 2 year terms and are selected randomly from the eligible population and required, unless their are extenuating circumstances, to serve (think jury duty). This is NOT voluntary, unlike the corporate boards. The reason for this is to ensure everyone is represented.

The assembly as a whole has "elections" every year, one year 251 are elected, the next, 250 (similar to how the US senate works). This ensures that there is always a "veteran" group in the assembly, and some type of a continuity in the government. At the conclusion of every year, a "speaker" is selected by the assembly from the departing group - he would function as a "leader" per se, of the assembly (more involved than our current speaker is), to give it some more direction. Primarily, this assembly would operate divided into a number of committees looking at specific areas of governance, but assembling as a whole to pass legislation or debate and decide matters of national importance.

Now as much as I loath it, there is a need for an elected (our sense) "representative", on a longer, say 4 year term, to give some definite direction to the government and to control the mechanisms of government. Because I think power corrupts, I will make it hard on whoever decides to try and do this by having not only one, but two "presidents" elected, who then must govern by consensus (anything that they cannot decide would be sent to the assembly to prevent deadlock). Their job is to propose legislation and direction to the assembly, to oversee the civil service and ensure that it serves the wishes of the assembly. In the end, they are responsible to the assembly, which can bring them down or veto anything they may decide to do.

After this the next political divsion would be rural or urban regions (think metropolitan areas). However, there would be no "second" layer of government to squabble over dumb things and eat up billions of dollars in tax dollars in overhead - it would be an extension of the national government.

Much like large companies have regional offices, who, while following the same guidelines, principles, operating directives etc. from the head office - so that the company is uniform across the country - they adapt to the region in question. Regional assemblies and their committees would do much the same thing.

Exactly how this works is a much longer post - but I would stress thinking in terms of large companies. Though spread out across the land, they are relatively the same throughout it, while having sufficient regional division to account for the differences.

A quick example: A regional assembly says "hey, we need to build more public transit", the national assembly decides gives out funds for transportation infrastructure in their budget, the national transportation committee decides to give funds for public transit development in said region, dispenses funds for this purpose to the regional board of the public transit authority, said board decides where to put it, public transit authority builds infrastructure while regional board oversees.

Due to the uniform nature of the government and it's agents, development is kept very efficient due to the fact that this public transit authority is actually a corporation responsible to the national transportation committee on country wide matters (it's board of directors really), and at the same time the regional boards . The reason it is efficient is both profit motive for the management and a national mandate to provide urban transportation services - thus the entire country uses the sames buses, trains, stations, training, etc. - large savings due to volume, but still maintaining regional quality due to the regional boards.

So, to recap - national assembly of average citizens on short terms, headed by one person selected from this group, changed every year. Two presidents who operate on the basis of conesus amongst themselves, representing the nation as a whole and proposing directions and legislation to the assemblies. The government is further represented at the regional level by smaller assemblies which make decisions affecting the region itself following the direction of the national assembly.

Government services are provided by national corporations directly responsible to both their respective national committee, and regional boards to ensure that the quality of service is good outside of the capital.

Do you want to give them opportunities, or do you intend that the rest of us must join you in giving them opportunities?  There is a difference.  How do you reconcile making one person happier with making another person unhappier?

No I am not going to drag people down, in fact, as I stated before, I would strongly encourage and support excellence. I would, however, support those who are struggling as well.

I will point out, and this is very important, there is NO, ABSOLUTELY NO, difference in the help that would be provided due to ethnicity, sex, etc.

If a person needs help or assistance, they will get it, and it will be tuned to their level of need regardless of who they are or where they came from.

You mention happiness though, and I have question for you, largely unrelated to this discussion, but still - what is more condusive to happiness, collecting vast amounts of material wealth or leading a compassionate life, and while taking care of your own needs, helping others meet theirs?

 

[a_majoor]

Well, it seems rather than seeking to remove the sand from the gears (like Prime Minister Harper is proposing with senatorial term limits and fixed election dates), you want to overthrow the system and start over with a mishmash of parts from the historical BTDT bin.

I see the ancient Eklassia, Spartan Ephors and the Spartan Dual Monarchy, corporate boards of directors....

What I see little of is the division and separation of powers (Legislative, Executive and Judicial), which could easily lead to tyranny through clever demagogues dominating the Eklassia.

I also predict a huge problem getting anyone besides first year poli sci students to buy into this, since it is so disconnected from present day society. We have a Westminister parliamentary system with strong provinces because that is the historical, geographical and social background this nation was built on. The American Republic reflects their historical, geographical and social roots, just as the Parliamentary system of the UK reflects their roots (since the UK is so much smaller than continental North America, there is no reason to have "provinces", for example).

My advice to you is to centre your chi, look at the hows and whys of our present day system and see where applying some lubrication or removing a bottleneck would make things better. As a practical exercise, you will discover more of the mechanics of our system, and be better able to take effective action to achieve my goals. As Obi Wan would say: "I sense a great disturbance in the Invisible Hand, as if millions of citizens cried out for their property rights"

Summer assignment: read this thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/26663.0

edit to add link

 

[Brad Sallows]

>These citizens serve 2 year terms and are selected randomly from the eligible population

If we can agree their authority to do anything will not extend any further than wiping the sputum off the back of the chair in front of them when they sneeze, I might be convinced to allow it.

>what is more condusive to happiness, collecting vast amounts of material wealth or leading a compassionate life, and while taking care of your own needs, helping others meet theirs?

It depends on the person.  There is no correct answer to that question.  If a person is happiest being a miserable skinflint, he should have the freedom to be one.  That's the point, you see: no one can decide another person's happiness; in forcing others to conform to your ideals, what you are really doing is making yourself happier.

 

[couchcommander]

You are indeed right there is a strong historical influence on certain ideas - but nothing like that practically has really been tried to any major extent.

As I said, this is a brief overview, but on that note I find the necessity for a prohibitive and inefficient divisions of power rather small considering the nature of the principle ruling body - randomly selected citizens on a short term who will serve only once. The only people one would really have to worry about is the elected representatives - but limiting them to one term once again would be refreshing.

Of course the judiciary is independant, and there are many checks and balances in the forms of auditing offices and oversight and comptroller positions. The exact document for how this all fits together is... still in development....but right now sits around 20 pages.  It's getting closer, and I would be happy to forward it to you once completed (some months away).

In the end though, once again Brad is absolutely right.

I personally wouldn't, considering the untested nature of this and my own hesitant nature, jump in with both feet right away.

My proposal would be to bring about an "advisory body" of a similar nature to the proposed assembly (501 on 2 year rotating terms), and have it act in an unofficial role alongside parliament, debating issues and proposing legislation to parliament, who would have no obligation to do anything they ask at this point, but still giving us a chance to see how it would work in practice....

...if it works well, I can think of a relatively useless government organ that could use some sprucing up...*whistles*.... (starts with an S and ends in old geezer)

And re: happiness Mr. Sallows - there does exist arguments for what happiness really is - but that is another fight on another thread. For right now, just let me say you are absolutely right, we cannot determine what is "best" for each different person - we can only help them acheive what they think is best for them - but at the same time can temper it with reason.

 

[DJ]

>These citizens serve 2 year terms and are selected randomly from the eligible population

If we can agree their authority to do anything will not extend any further than wiping the sputum off the back of the chair in front of them when they sneeze, I might be convinced to allow it.

Can you explain your position on this in greater detail?  I'm slightly piqued. 

 

[couchcommander]

Can you explain your position on this in greater detail?  I'm slightly piqued. 

Not to speak for him, but I believe Mr. Sallows has a very unimpressive view of the nature of most of his fellow citizens.

To me, this is not unfounded (as history has shown them to be rather dull in large groups...  ), which is why I would like to test things out before actually jumping in.

I myself have a slightly better impression - but not unrealistically so. 

 

[a_majoor]

You are indeed right there is a strong historical influence on certain ideas - but nothing like that practically has really been tried to any major extent.

Totally incorrect. The classical Polis was ruled in its entirety by the Eklassia, which was all male citizens of the Polis, who were further subdivided into various sub groups (such as the Boule or juries) by lot. Once citizens had served in these, they were generally ineligible to be chosen again, indeed the only elective offices which were renewable were the Strategoi (Generals). Because the Greeks were well aware of human nature, they tried to prevent the concentration of power through term limits, but recognizing there was a need for some long term consistency, made one exception (the Strategoi), who often turned out to be Demagogues who could persuade the Eklassia to vote them in for multiple terms. Since the Jury could put the on trial Strategoi for failure to achieve their objectives, embezzlement etc. there was at least some check on their power, but this was only possible after the fact. The failure to separate powers also facilitated demagoguery, since Strategoi could incite the assembly turn on their rivals (Athens had 10 Strategoi, for example).

As I said, this is a brief overview, but on that note I find the necessity for a prohibitive and inefficient divisions of power rather small considering the nature of the principle ruling body - randomly selected citizens on a short term who will serve only once. The only people one would really have to worry about is the elected representatives - but limiting them to one term once again would be refreshing.

In addition to your thread, I am also assigning you the Federalist Papers and Leviathan. There is a very good reason to separate powers, and the historical record is totally unambiguous about this. While I know you mean well, I suspect you are operating off a fairly shallow foundation of ideas. Brad and I both have jaundiced/realistic views of the way people operate; in my case from seeing them during various operations in Canada and different parts of the world and in day to day interactions here at home (I won't presume to speak for Brad). Any organizational/political system which does not have a true understanding of human nature at its core will not have any chance of success (in the sense that it operates the way it is "intended" to).

 

[couchcommander]

Totally incorrect. The classical Polis was ruled in its entirety by the Eklassia, which was all male citizens of the Polis, who were further subdivided into various sub groups (such as the Boule or juries) by lot. Once citizens had served in these, they were generally ineligible to be chosen again, indeed the only elective offices which were renewable were the Strategoi (Generals). Because the Greeks were well aware of human nature, they tried to prevent the concentration of power through term limits, but recognizing there was a need for some long term consistency, made one exception (the Strategoi), who often turned out to be Demagogues who could persuade the Eklassia to vote them in for multiple terms.

Yes, but the pool of citizens was not totally inclusive. After 451, unless BOTH of your parents were Athenian, you were not considered an Athenian citizen. Not to mention women weren't represented, or other notable differences in the exact mechanics I have described (BIG is the tyrannical nature of the assembly, as you have astutely pointed out, itself having no check in the form of a firm written constitution protective of individuals and minority groups (it did have a constitution, but not as we'd know it today) - it was free to enact virtually whatever it wanted leading to a tyranny of the majority ). 

But, to shy away from nit picking. Leviathan's a good read, never had the pleasure of the Federalist Papers.

As I said, you are right that a lot of the ideas from history have influenced this, and of course the Athenian flirtings with democracy were one of them - but one can hardly call them the same.

Re:  separation of power. It is my experience that our current representative system is, by and large, is blinded by this overly optimistic view you paint myself with.

Choosing special citizens to "represent" the wishes of hundreds of thousands via a popularity contest seems to me to be, at the very least, equally bone headed as my own crazy idea.

I'll reiterate that this has created a virtual "class" of entrenched citizens cut off from the real world and the population they serve, who's ONLY real concern seems to be to get reelected - not the good of the people they represent, not even what they'd want - whatever will help them get reelected, and the farther away from reality they go - i.e. the higher up in politics, the worse this gets.

Whether this results in pushing legislation in favour of large pharmaceutical companies or bringing in a budget that actually effectively decreases the net take home pay for the neediest of Canadians - the result is a "good effort" at least not openly tyrannical like much of human history, but something in need of some serious change.

Once again if you have suggestions I'm all ears, but as it stands the "representatives" or, as I preferr to call them, the politicians, as that is all they seem to be, have to go.

On the separation of powers though - within the system I have described - what would you suggest? Once again I am very eager to hear what you would add .

In the end, would you not be willing to give this a try through the proces I described above, firstly as an unformal advisory body?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Can you explain your position on this in greater detail?  I'm slightly piqued.

The problem with governments is that with very few exceptions people use power in one of two ways:
1) To suit themselves.
2) To suit their view of how everyone else should be like themselves.

My reaction to cc's suggested citizens' assembly was prompted by the fact that the discussion once again jumps right into how we should choose our governors, overlooking the much more interesting and vital preliminary question of what degree we should submit to being governed.  I believe the correct formulation of a society's constitution and charter law must be a narrowly-defined set of powers written in plain language without escape clauses for governments, with all other powers and rights reserved to individuals.  If we have that then it matters less if we foul up the system by which we select governments or make a poor choice during selection, because the damage they do while in office can only be limited and temporary.

It's not hard to find ongoing discussions on the web in which the topic of the day is a variation on the theme, "How can we best organize society for the benefit of all persons?"  I may be thought over-confident or arrogant or self-centred or selfish or many of a number of other unflattering things, but in my view those are only pale shadows of the nature of the arrogance that permits a person to view people as bricks with which to build a better wall.  If there is a purpose to life and an afterlife, then while each of us may freely judge what other people should be (ie. an opinion) it is not given to any of us to execute sentence; that is reserved to the higher power.  If there is no purpose to life and no afterlife, then I can't imagine any moral restraint on the use of unlimited force by people who tire of unwanted interferences in their lives, and the whole fabric of society depends on the number of people who are content to go along in order to get along.  Either way I see an advantage in eschewing the temptations of majority rule.

 

[couchcommander]

Indeed a very interesting post Mr. Sallows.

What then would you suggest to be the limits of a governments power?

Human civilization - no in fact all human society has been about imposition of moral and value structures upon others.  You speak about limiting the power of government to institutionally impose the values of others upon you - well I submit that you are ALREADY a slave to the values of others and it has very little to do with government.

Right now our entire lives are controlled by others - I'm sorry to point it out but it's true - when was the last time you made a decision that was completely free of outside interference? Unless you've grown up in a void, the answer is never.  You buy a home, get a job, try and keep it, get married and have children, pursue material wealth, buy Pepsi and Nike shoes - who came up with these ideals? It wasn't you. (this is not meant to be exactly you... I think you get my point though).

So, we have a choice. We can either allow those in society who gather the most power around them to continue to dictate the course of our beliefs for THEIR OWN BETTERMENT - OR - we can bring in systems whereby you and I have the ability to actually influence OUR OWN LIVES in a meaningful manner, something individualism cannot achieve unless you plan to go live by yourself in a cave away from all other humanbeings.

In the end, it's your choice. I choose the latter.

(Read Emile Durkheim's Suicide for a look into the influence of society on what appears to be a very individualistic act - it is a 19th century case study, so understand sociology has progressed a wee bit from that groundbreaking piece)

*edit* In the end though, we want the same things once again. I too agree that right now our lives are far too controlled by other people's interests, and these interests often run contrary to what we want, desire, or even need. I realize that this is expressed through the control of our entire society by relatively small group of society - it's not just the government.

My solution is to put us back in charge of our lives so that our interests can actually be addressed, and, most importantly as I stated above, so that you and I have some meaningful control over the direction our lives take rather than having it be dictated by others - something both you and I find repugnant.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Human civilization - no in fact all human society has been about imposition of moral and value structures upon others.  You speak about limiting the power of government to institutionally impose the values of others upon you - well I submit that you are ALREADY a slave to the values of others and it has very little to do with government.

In what way?  My social and political values are apparently - I infer from popular discourse - outside the Canadian mainstream.  It is hard to conceive of being a slave to the external influence of other people any more than I can conceive of being a slave to gravity and oxygen.  Besides, even if social pressure were that strong, it would not negate the aim to throttle government power.  The less people can do by force under the veneer of law, the more they will have to do by persuasion.  Government is in many respects just an extension of some people's moralism.  Reduce the power of government, and that moralism matters a great deal less.

>Right now our entire lives are controlled by others - I'm sorry to point it out but it's true - when was the last time you made a decision that was completely free of outside interference?

Since you referred to both, I assume you don't confuse "control" and "influence".  The existence of a decision implies a choice of courses; the existence of courses implies factors which influence courses available.  Don't conflate that with control.

 

[couchcommander]

Mr. Sallows,

I say slave and I do mean it in almost it's literal sense. The values that you hold were not, as I pointed out, the sole product of your own imagination - they are a product of society around you; though your particular experience of that society may be differrent than others, leading to your differing viewpoints.

But yet despite being so out of the "mainstream" you still conduct yourself within the bounds of societies norms and values which, not coincidentally, currently serve the needs of (not surprisingly) the powerful.

You buy your Pepsi or Coca-cola, drive your car, wear your Nike's, get a mortgage, scoop up consumer electronics (once again, I don't mean litterally those items - but even if you wear Birkenstock to screw "the man", you are just putting money in another man's pocket who seeks to profit off of this "rebellion" by providing a nice designer shoe for your particular group to wear in rebellion against the other designer shoe).

Indeed our lives are "influenced" by others, but they are also to a very real point "controlled" by others. When's the last time you ran down the street on a nice hot day in nothing but a loin cloth? Bet it'd feel great - but you probably don't regularly do it sober. Society does control you Mr. Sallows (and no, running down the street in a loin cloth just to try and demonstrate your point at this juncture is too late...)

However, I think you hit on a very real and very important point when you stated "Government is in many respects just an extension of some people's moralism".

In that regard, you are absolutely right. I couldn't have said it better myself. But I will add, consumerism is, in many respects, just an extension of some people's moralism.

So once again I ask you, would you rather let the determination of what this moralism is reside with those who win phony popularity contests to become career politicians and shareholders who have no real concern for your wellbeing outside their own pocket books - or would you rather take control over this process and actually have some real control over the direction of your own life and those you care about?

In the end, would bringing these ideas about in a test situation be such a bad thing? Worst comes to worst, it self destructs - but it could quite possibly work as well.