Salon: The real enemies of the poor On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Faustine wrote:
What about the idea of "reputation capital" you people are always going on about, my prior knowledge of a couple of the authors makes me certain they wouldn't dream of putting their name on sloppy work...
I'm not one of those 'you people'. Arguments from authority are of no worth. Past performance is not a reliable metric for future performance. The ends never justify the means, each step must self-justify.
What argument from authority? Barring the sudden onset of senility or insanity, familiarity with past work gives you a general indication of whether or not you want to read something. Even reading this list, I'm sure there are people you read first and people you skip totally...And how likely is it that the first 15 essays are excellent but they saved the crappy ones for 16 on? ha! True story: several months ago I went as a "fly on the wall" to a roundtable-type meeting, sort of a gathering of the experts to discuss an issue. As the meeting went on, I noticed one man totally rose to the occasion and dominated the entire conversation: he knew the subject better than absolutely anyone there, and countered every objection with a dissection of such wit and precision he pretty much annihilated them. Even more impressive, while the others were as arrogant, blustering and pompous as you might expect, he was incredibly soft spoken and did it all without even raising his voice once: the very archetype of cool, quick, impartiality. Incredible! When I left the meeting, I had no idea who this amazing old wizard was or the slightest thing about his background--just that it was worth it to find out and read his research. All I'm saying is that his background credentials and published work was every bit as impressive the performance at the meeting...and that one of his essays is on the list. :) Now with a backstory like that, you actually mean to tell me I don't have a good reason to look forward to reading it? HA!
I strongly want global trade and cultural exchange. I do not want global government or corporate enterprise. You mean global corporate enterprise, or corporate enterprise at all? Actually both. The 1870 law which created the modern monster of a 'corporation' should be thrown out.
Replaced with what, though. That's the hard part.
Corporations, and other business organizations, should be able to sell to their like type across the relevant 'big pond'. A corporation should not be able to exist in two different countries as a single organization.
So the answer is to break them up and create more paperwork and bureacracy? Even if your last point is the "right answer" in theory, I don't see how the implementation of it would get you the results you're after, in terms of effects on society.
I want direct interaction of business in government to be prohibited. How? Any solution I can think of has the potential to be more problematic than the problem itself. So what solution(s) have you thought of? Quid pro Quo...
The obvious first step would be to limit government to its constitutionally proscribed role: get them out of activities best left to the private sector. But without the incentives for a thriving nonprofit sector in place (yes, 501(c)(3)s are international corporations too), it can't happen in a way people could be comfortable with enough to accept. Nonprofits are the key to creating a civil society, and in my opinion it's a huge mistake to ignore their role in taking over services that the private sector can't or won't. How could voluntary collective action be anything BUT good..? Oh well.
Business is an expression of individual rights. Business should not be able to contribute in any way to the democratic process (there is a reason that business/commerce is mentioned the way it is in the Constitution...
Realistically speaking, even if the entire US government collapsed tomorrow and you had "complete anarchy", it wouldn't be complete because large corporations have enough capital, resources, and sufficient organization to stay together to the point that they could maintain some semblance of order in their local area. Look at the way the oil companies function in Africa; look at the way drug cartels (an international business operation if ever there was one) influence policy in Columbia. Not that there's anything good or desirable about it--it's just that Joe Blow the Democracy Advocate doesn't have the slightest bit of influence over them one way or the other, government or not. So given that, you're faced with the prospect of massive legislation as the only alternative. That doesn't seem too promising either.
An observation that is sure to piss some C-A-C-L's off, but the reality is that in 'free market' economics ala Hayek or Von Mises the potential for 'Bill Gates' wealth is nil. A 'free market' system isn't about getting filthy rich. It's about participating in a 'community'.
Unfortunately, this involves a confusion between capitalism and democracy. But unlike you, I don't think there's any contradiction in being pro-free market and anti-consumptionism. I hate the idea that so many people seem to think accumulating material goods is an acceptable substitute for an inner life. But just because I choose to live simply and don't drive in favor of commuting, recycle, etc. doesn't give me the right to demand others do the same.
Bottom line, the world is the way it is because people make it that way. It is not an inviolate law of nature (or if you accept that then some other precepts become questionable; free will, rational, responsible, pre-meditation, etc. ).
But the examples I gave above point to the idea that pure democratic anarchy is every bit as bound to fail as the ideal of pure democratic communism was (what's the real difference, when you think about it?) precisely because of the way people tend to make things, given the chance. What's to keep the strong and clever from ganging up on the weak and stupid? The amoral from ripping off the principled and pious? Anywhere, ever? The Constitution and the rule of law is the best chance we have... ~Faustine.