ROGER RESPONDS TO BOBBY, ANDREAS,
MARCO, JONATHAN, HORSE and DAN
BY USING MARCO's COMPREHENSIVE POST
FROM OCT 19TH. (With PS to Marco's Sunday Post)
BOBBY:
Is (democracy) it the most moral form of government ? It would be so if the
most
moral people are elected.
MARCO:
Indeed.
ROGER:
You both idealizing democracy in a way that totally misses its quality. I
suspect this is one major contribution to your troubles with the issue,
Marco. See below.
BOBBY:
In all democracies, money, ambition , influence, popularity, good looks,
debating skills, and gimmicks are the norm for reaching the highest
office.
ROGER:
In other words, social values.
BOBBY:
And upon assuming office the "supporters" demand their pound of flesh.
A cycle of corruption builds up.It spreads to the institutions.
Slow or fast, the system heads towards a functioning anarchy and
when it comes to the crunch - its everyman for himself or join a
mob...
MARCO:
Your words meet my fears, Bobby. The social level is invading the intellect.
Market is the current weapon: today they don't burn the books, they buy
writers and readers.
ROGER:
The effectiveness of democracy does not depend upon noble, moral
philosopher-rulers. Its success comes from the mature realization that you
can't eliminate the self-focused part of human nature. Rather than try to
stamp out selfishness, modern societies have focused on channelling it to the
common good (to get ahead you must add value to others) AND by establishing a
system of neutralizing checks and balances. The exploitative tendencies of
opposing groups are offset against each other. Certainly the system is still
evolving, and FAR from perfect, but I see it as getting better ...at least
when we step back and view it on the scale of generations.
As for Bobby's comments about 'functioning anarchy' and the big 'crunch'....
get serious. Have ya'll seen how comfortable biological life has become in
the past century in successful pluralistic democracies? Starving people?
Anarchy?...PLEASE! Can't you see the clear pattern of longer-term social
advance? Hell, slavery was still widespread 150 years ago. The advance in
biological and social quality over the past few generations is pretty
obvious, and it is spreading at an increasingly fast pace to 'third world'
countries. (Which by the way, are virtually the equivalent of where today's
modern economies were before evolving the social solutions of democracy,
plurocracy, free property rights, etc, etc.)
ANDREAS:
Find a way to tell people what they give away/big corporate companies
steal from them. (like for example clean water / air / soil )
actually I never thought I would write something like this.
ROGER:
To temper my Free Enterprise bias, I agree 100% with these views on the
threats of pollution and the depletion of resources. This problem needs to be
solved... possibly by extending the successes of free enterprise. I have
heard proposals for adjusting Generally Approved Accounting Principles to
counteract the exploitive tendencies of our current methodology. This is off
topic though.....
ROG (PREVIOUSLY WROTE)
What would a modern intellectual theory of the economy look like? Well,
it would include concepts drawn from the study of chaos, VALUE attractors,
networks and indeterminism (a miniscule change can result in totally
disparate outcomes). It would include the concepts of evolution -- which
now includes not just the competitive aspects of Darwin's big idea, it would
also include the cooperative aspects. It may also include many of the old
classical concepts dating back to Adam Smith, Hegel and Newton, but these
would be tempered by modern knowledge. In short, we would probably see
the competitive/cooperative/value driven/decentralized/networked economies
that are thriving worldwide.
MARCO:
mmm... I've doubts about "value driven" and "decentralized". Actually the
western economy is seen by many as a USA-centered economy, in which the only
value accepted is the dollar price.
ROGER:
I mean all the social values.... fame, fortune, popularity, influence,
glamor, style, moral fortitude, etc, etc... The USA just happens to be one
of the most free and dynamic versions of allowing these (admittedly shallow)
social values to flourish and advance in a stable, sustainable way. Less
dynamic cultures moving to a more dynamic choice is not necessarily less
dynamic. I can argue that it is MORE dynamic, especially if each tries new
variations based on proven successes and failures and adapts it to the local
environment. This creates a learning, iterative feedback loop that is so
widespread in the successful quality advances that Pirsig calls EVOLUTION.
ROG (PREVIOUSLY WROTE):
Different economies and divisions within economies continue to compete to
discover
the most dynamic, flexible, variable response. The most dynamic versions of
the most dynamic economic system are thriving, and according to the
evolutionary
beliefs central to the MOQ, THEY WILL CONTINUE TO DOMINATE AND EVOLVE.
Eventually new music (economic) genres will surface.
MARCO:
Many groups and only one style is the end of music. I do prefer that all the
groups can choose, play... and "jam" many diverse genres. Who wrote on these
pages something like "Versatility is human, specialization is for insects" ?
In these days, the economic "genres" are going to reduce to only one....
ROGER:
Such little faith in DQ! I look around at the history of the
universe/biology/society/science and see a clear advance toward complexity,
freedom, adaptability, variety and choice. I guess it is people worrying
like you do that helps keep the advance going. Perhaps optimists such as
myself contribute a bit as well?
MARCO (ORIGINALLY WROTE):
Who are today the pariahs of the system? Communists? Religious?
Intellectuals? Idealists? No. The pariahs, the sinners are usually
poor people which have not been able to ride this crazy horse that is
the western model. Is there someone listening to them? Are we fighting
the tendency to throw them out of the window?
ROGER (PREVIOUSLY RESPONDED TO MARCO):
Free enterprise and democracy didn't create poverty, it inherited it. And
with time, I am convinced it can HELP solve it. But the solution won't be
painless or immediate. But to maximize dynamic complexity and evolutionary
advancement it is clear that we need to extend opportunity to ALL.
MARCO:
Not only inherited, I guess (see below). However, to extend opportunity to
all is a good intellectual slogan but I don't see evidences that this is the
main purpose of our society. Differences are good if they are input for
dynamic enhancements, but today differences are in many case so huge that
too many people live a desperate condition in which no opportunity is left.
ROGER:
Virtually every country which has adopted the modern social model has seen an
explosive advance in biological and social advancement. Post WWII Japan,
Korea, Taiwan, etc, etc. And all this in the span of a little over one
generation! Not bad, when you consider the few hundred thousand years we
spent as hunter gatherers and the ten thousand years or so as herders and
farmers. The set-backs that have occurred usually happened as a result of
allowing elite groups to go unchecked that then do the age old things that
exploitative people always do...they suppress dynamic advance to maintain
their own power. These societies are starting to realize the problem now, and
seem to be evolving.... I wish them well.
MARCO:
The western economic system is the winner. Now, it pretends to invade the
whole world. It shouts that we are in a global village, no frontiers between
us. This is "true" when our companies want to sell American soft drinks,
Japanese cars or Italian clothes... but when we talk about the poverty of
South America, Africa, or Eastern Europe, suddenly the frontiers appear
again. "If THEY are poor, it's not OUR fault".
ROGER:
It is not the fault of free, pluralistic, highly evolved societies that other
societies are less evolved. (This argument does not hold though if the
advanced societies advanced via imperialistic exploitation -- if this is your
position then I retract MY argument). You appear to be confusing the issue
of a frontier with the concept of causation. Successful social patterns IS
THE SOLUTION, NOT THE PROBLEM! The global village concept is the voluntary
extension of successful capitalistic and democratic institutions to other
cultures. They are free to adopt or not adopt it, but they need to live with
the consequences. Recent history seems to show a massive realization that
they can't afford not to adopt the model as rejection leaves them where they
started.
But if you insist on blaming the model......
MARCO:
It's not fair to argue we just inherited their poverty. Let me say that we
created their poverty by creating our richness. Poverty is a relative
condition.
ROGER:
So let's stamp out success! Let's stamp out successful cultures because it
makes the failures look bad!!! (Just joking) I realize that you are not
suggesting any such absurd recommendation. (You go on to suggest....'help')
I would also suggest that others learn from success and that we open our
culture to those that want to adopt it. (And allow those that don't to make
that choice too!) Free choice and all.
MARCO:
The double problem of those populations is that they come from a
different culture, and they have no means to enter our culture. Now we are
on a vantage point, but this must be also an occasion to accept our duties.
If the village is one, we also must give our help for the solution.
ROGER:
The culture and the social model are so intertwined that they are virtually
one. You are right that they can't exactly adopt another model 'as is.' They
will probably either have to adapt it to their cultural norms, change their
cultural norms, or reject the model. I see pros and cons to each solution.
Hopefully all such models will be tested and the various cultures can also
learn from each other.
You seem to suggest that the creeping of western economic/social solutions is
both bad and not happening fast enough.... which is it? (My,my, aren't I
dualistic today! ;^))
MARCO:
Today the mission to solve the problem is highly delegated to the market. So
our kids play football with balls made by kids in Pakistan for one dollar a
day. Is it right? Can we wash our hands like Pilate?
ROGER:
No, I think it is fair to demand just working conditions and rights. It is
also fair to boycott those that exploit children. I pledge to give up
watching soccer for the rest of the year as a sign of solidarity! ;^) The
Free enterprise system needs checks and balances too! So in the end, we
agree.
MARCO:
Dear Roger, when we talk about the infinite social and intellectual chances
we have thanks to the new technologies, I hope we all remember that the 70%
of the population of this world have never seen a telephone. The material
poverty conditions the intellectual poverty. How can those populations
understand the western way of life? They are just attracted by our richness,
and a McDonald's cheeseburger is their dream....
ROGER:
Agreed. We should not force our solutions on them. They've seen
cheeseburgers though, so I guess they can choose their own path. Over the
long haul my guess is they will. I hope some reject the Western model
altogether. You're right, diversity is good.
MARCO (To Bo)
In our democracies, what's good is measured by a set of
intellectual patterns known as Human Rights. The journey to a definitive
acceptance of them is still long, however I'm optimistic.
ROGER:
So in the end we are both optimists! Welcome! ( But let's both agree to keep
a healthy scepticism too!)
MARCO:
The society has found new ways to
attack the intellect: as said, they don't burn books, they buy the writers.
And the human rights (as currently we intend them) can't do a lot.
ROGER:
I think the intellectual level is doing pretty good. It may only be evolved
to the level of a young teenager, but it is certainly shaping up well....zits
and all!
MARCO (On Jonathan):
We need a dynamic intellect to control the dynamic society. New ideas, a
change of scene. One example? Jonathan wrote:
JONATHAN:
democracy gives a degree of acceptance to
minority views, and even reinforces them in
institutions like a parliamentary opposition
(which may even include a state-funded shadow
cabinet). We value opposing opinions and the
dialogue between them so much that this
is the basis of our legal system. Even though
democracy largely accepts the majority view, we
value minority opinions not because we think that
they are right, but we have to consider the possibility
that the majority might be wrong.
MARCO (To JONATHAN):
That's all right, but... will ever be possible to surpass the (SOMish?)
dichotomy majority/minority? What about a system in which there's no need to
catalogue people in minorities, a network of individuals, everyone unique
and proud to be different? In this utopia, the need of democracy (as we
intend it today) could be surpassed.
ROGER:
The point of democracy isn't to label minorities and majorities, it is
(partially) to protect the interests of those who can be exploited by those
tempted to abuse their power to exploit (and history shows the exploiters to
be fairly widespread). Society arises as people form coalitions and networks
in mutual win/win relationships. To a certain extent, that is what society
is. Unfortunately, there are tendencies of coalitions to take advantage
(win/lose) of those not in that coalition. The majority/minority metaphor is
one particular aspect of this tendency. The wealthy or noble 'minority'
exploiting the unempowered 'majorities' is another example. Horse provides
the example of 'evil multinationals' as another. But he is a self described
'libertarian socialist' , and I wouldn't be surprised if some members of this
forum think that it is the 'libertarian/socialist' contingent of society that
is the major threat. (either that or that destabilizing cartel of
meat-eating vegetarians! ;^))
I think Dan and Jonathan and I represent a view that society is formed out of
the complex interplay of competing and aligning perspectives. It is the
process that is critical, not the personalities. As such, individual leaders
and multinationals and majorities aren't the demons, they are part of the
process. At any given time the plurality probably shifts a bit too far left
or right, but then it swings back around again. But the process includes the
very act of arguing which direction is too far left, and which is too far
right.
THIS DISCUSSION IS THE PROCESS! THE DREAM IS THE REALITY.
And such is the beauty of it all.....
Roger
PS -- This came in after I started so I have tacked it on.....
MARCO:
But the question was not about a working system. It was about a moral (in
moq terms) system. IMO a moral system must have of course dynamism, more
intellectually than socially.
ROGER:
A system that won't work doesn't exactly qualify as moral either. I already
addressed your more dynamic issue above, but to clarify, I would suggest that
the most dynamic model is currently winning. Variations will blossom out of
this, and we will continue to learn from those that reject the model
altogether. Your argument seems to be that the only critical element of
variation is between models, not within models. As for 'intellectual'
dynamism, the quality (especially the functional or working quality) of the
social model is the essential foundation of the intellectual dynamism. We
don't need a better intellectual solution to society, we need good society
upon which to establish intellectual advance. Intellectual advance is
science, math, knowledge, technology etc.
MARCO:
Too many evidences tell me that the influence
of the market (social) on the public opinion is reducing any intellectual
dynamism. That's why the biggest democracy on earth is still full of
ancestral "wild west" values, and its dynamism is more social than
intellectual. And that's why we have just "working solutions" and we are
blind to many problems of the world.
ROGER:
Actually I would have to argue that the major intellectual advances in
science, math, technology etc are coming from this and other western
societies. As for 'public opinion', your (IMO misguided) attacks on Western
Society are a perfect example of the confusion that is rampant today
throughout the media. The cool thing is that it works so well even with
'public opinion' and every major media outlet misunderstanding it.
MARCO:
So I did not find my answer. I'm not sure that democracy is able to support
new dynamic enhancements. That is, I'm not sure it's the most moral
solution.
ROGER:
I do not understand your confusion. Not at all......Have you missed the
incredible intellectual achievements that are coming out of western society?
Quantum physics, air travel, cosmology, chaos theory, the MOQ, the internet,
this post! etc......
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:27 BST