Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [OT] _happy_ poltical things

[Robin Green]

On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 05:26:54PM -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
>   1. Sane Trade
> 
>      Every region should have the right to make trade policies which
>      protect and/or promote the self-sufficiency of the region.
>      Beyond that baseline, free trade rules.  (Of course, who exactly
>      speaks for "a region" is the hard question.)

I would argue that, perhaps counterintuivitely, such a "right" is meaningless
unless it is backed up by an absolute and unbreachable prohibition on
contracting to limit your trade policy.

[Just like the absolute and unbreachable prohibition on selling yourself
into slavery. Any contract which compels slavery is null and void. You therefore
cannot breach it (in a lawyerly sense) because even if you try to, you do not 
create
a legally valid contract. (In the relevant jurisdictions, etc. etc.)]

Otherwise, what will happen is the same thing that happens now: less powerful
nations will often (but not always) agree to more powerful nations' demands
(especially the US's demands) to skew their trade policies to the (perceived)
interests of the more powerful nations, and especially their most powerful
constituents (i.e. big corporations).

However, unlike with the slavery case, *in my opinion* such a prohibition is
both completely impossible to define effectively and completely impossible
to enforce, within any conceivable capitalist-like system.

The fundamental problems then, are twofold:

  - Lack of democratic accountability: The people who make these kinds of trade
    deals are not as accountable to their populations as they should be

  - Economic and military imperialism: The type that says: If you try to pursue
    an independent path, if you are "a threat of a good example", we may 
ruthlessly
    try to crush you - economically and, if necessary, with physical violence.

My view is that you can't get rid of economic and military imperialism, and
unaccountable governments, by doing some "liberal" tweaking around the edges.
Only a non-capitalist world system like participatory economics
( http://www.parecon.org/ ) could hope to do that.

>   3. We'll absorb a small number of hits, gratis.
> 
>      9/11 blows.  It was, truly, an Evil-with-a-capital-E act.
> 
>      Hey bad guys: very interesting.  We're going to trump that,
>      though: with love.  Say, have you spoken with your _wife_ lately?

I don't know what this is supposed to translate into in terms of actual 
practical
policy, but what is needed first and foremost is to remove terrorist's 
capabilities
to do more harm, by arresting them, removing them from positions of power, or 
killing
them if necessary, and attacking the things which cause terrorism to become 
such a
huge problem (money supply, injustices driving people into the arms of Bin 
Laden, ...
and on the state terrorism side, things like, unaccountable institutions, 
propaganda,
Western indifference towards victims of Western imperialism, etc.)

When a madman is on the loose killing people, society's first priority is not 
to "send him
some love". He may not respond to love, or he may not respond in the way you 
want.
Society's first priority is to stop him from killing people.

Having got my rational objections out of the way, I feel I must impart some of 
the emotional
side which was lacking in the previous two paragraph: Your point 3 is 
religious/spiritual
nonsense. People like you - and I know this is harsh - are seen as an 
embarassment by many in
the anti-war movements. It is reminiscent of airheaded daydreaming from the 
Sixties (John
Lennon - all we need is love? Really? So we can all just join hands and 
everything will be OK?),
or the teachings of Indian so-called spiritual gurus, or "yogic flying", or 
many other fads
which substituted a vague and generalised notion of "love" for rational thought.

(I know that many people - perhaps including yourself - think that 
"Chomskyites" like me are an
embarassment to the anti-war movements - and in much the same way - so I'm 
aware of the
irony in the previous paragraph. But it is how I feel.)

I know it is nonsense - but, at the same time, I am somewhat attracted to and 
sympathetic to it,
because of my personality.

But.

Love is *not* all we need. The notion that things would be better if *only* 
people were a little
nicer, is simplistic and can even be a tarpit, because it downgrades the 
importance of understanding actually-existing institutions and how they tend 
towards corruption
through the influence of money and other forms of power - again, substituting 
mindless "happy
thoughts" for real analysis.

-- 
Robin

pgpbum5YZaHkw.pgp
Description: PGP signature