| WEBLOG PAGE |
Click on WebLog link to access the original
WebLog site.
WebLog site.
What difference between essays and blogs?
The amount of thought that goes into them.
Blogs are just that - blogs.
The new blogs begin below. Yahoo
discontinued to original WebLog site and I
couldn't make the recommended alternate
work here.
The amount of thought that goes into them.
Blogs are just that - blogs.
The new blogs begin below. Yahoo
discontinued to original WebLog site and I
couldn't make the recommended alternate
work here.
20 August 2009
Democracy - and Complexity
American democracy, entwined as it is with free markets, rule of law
and rights, really is complex. And despite the time that is was written,
the Constitution did a masterful job of balancing all of that with reality -
the reality of the times, but surprisingly consistent with changes that
have occurred since, even national and international trade - not
perfectly, and not without controversy, but impressively.
Enter progressive political administrations that are both naive and
ignorant - ignorant of history, ignorant of economics, and ignorant of
human nature. Not unsurprisingly,they are making the same mistakes
that so many progressives have made through recent history,
particularly the mistake of believing they can change human nature to
be as they wish it would be, and control it through bureaucracy.
California, being smaller and less complex than the entire country
is doing its part to prove the ineptitude. Finances - economics - go
without the need for much explanation. Politicians appear to think they
can do whatever they wish to do and it will pay for itself; when it doesn't
they are amazed - or perhaps just confused. Additionally they recently,
through urging of the Supreme Court, decided to integrate the prison
populations of a grossly crowded prison system. Of course it didn't
work, surprise, surprise, and there were riots. But how could that be?
Diversity is gospel, right? And they decided to "get tough on crime"
though they weren't willing or able to build more prisons.
But California is not alone, nor does the national legislature pay
much attention to such inconvenient details. They (the nationals) are in
the process of screwing up the detention of immigrants and immigrant
families; families should stay together, right? But how? And then there
is the case of Guantanamo. And health care, and global warming, and
energy, etc.
The problems are similar: each is being dealt with as unrelated to
anything else. And, again surprise, surprise, there are unintended
circumstances to deal with when the problem is placed within the
whole. Who would have thunk it? Certainly not ideological progressive
politicians with little knowledge of, or interest in much beyond politics,
and their own individual power.
It has long been known that democracy is not practical beyond the
local; there are too many diverse opinions and conflicting objectives.
The ultimate result is gridlock at best, but anarchy at its worst, and
special interests and wildly expensive and pervasive communications
feed the contrary emotions. Is the United States headed for anarchy?
Perhaps more to the point is it headed for bankruptcy? Or both at the
same time? Probably not. Instead we will be "saved" by inflation on the
economic end and damned into perennial gridlock on the other. The
two will feed each other of course and probably keep much of anything
useful from happening. But unless they succeed in destroying free
enterprise, we will stagger on, regionally, according to Robert D.
Kaplan, who sees us becoming more and more regional, with pockets
of success laced with wastelands of abject poverty - a different kind of
anarchy.
But we are not alone; we are being aided and abetted, because the
rest of the world is far worse off and its more ambitious try to come the
West, and particularly the United States in ever greater numbers. When
they have valuable skills, and integrate into the American culture, that's
not all bad, but when they don't it just adds to the chaos; both are
happening.
We live in interesting times. Despite technology and increased
educational opportunities it is a time of towering ignorance, but
because of the technology and education many, many are aware of how
it could be, and agitate for that - blindly I might add. But alas,
entrenched power and even more, ambitious new power pockets, have
different ideas and are willing to employ suppression and terrorism to
achieve them. As I have said often, terrorism only destroys, but it does
so quite cost effectively; suppression just keeps much useful from
happening. So who builds? We shall see; perhaps we are headed
back to gated communities (castles?) protected by hired police forces -
with devastating weapons of destruction. That is more realistic, after
all, than total destruction, for we are likely not going to give in to total
destruction passively, at least not in the United States.
Meanwhile our progressive politicians stumble on, ignorant and
oblivious, thinking they are making the world a better place in which to
live.
Democracy - and Complexity
American democracy, entwined as it is with free markets, rule of law
and rights, really is complex. And despite the time that is was written,
the Constitution did a masterful job of balancing all of that with reality -
the reality of the times, but surprisingly consistent with changes that
have occurred since, even national and international trade - not
perfectly, and not without controversy, but impressively.
Enter progressive political administrations that are both naive and
ignorant - ignorant of history, ignorant of economics, and ignorant of
human nature. Not unsurprisingly,they are making the same mistakes
that so many progressives have made through recent history,
particularly the mistake of believing they can change human nature to
be as they wish it would be, and control it through bureaucracy.
California, being smaller and less complex than the entire country
is doing its part to prove the ineptitude. Finances - economics - go
without the need for much explanation. Politicians appear to think they
can do whatever they wish to do and it will pay for itself; when it doesn't
they are amazed - or perhaps just confused. Additionally they recently,
through urging of the Supreme Court, decided to integrate the prison
populations of a grossly crowded prison system. Of course it didn't
work, surprise, surprise, and there were riots. But how could that be?
Diversity is gospel, right? And they decided to "get tough on crime"
though they weren't willing or able to build more prisons.
But California is not alone, nor does the national legislature pay
much attention to such inconvenient details. They (the nationals) are in
the process of screwing up the detention of immigrants and immigrant
families; families should stay together, right? But how? And then there
is the case of Guantanamo. And health care, and global warming, and
energy, etc.
The problems are similar: each is being dealt with as unrelated to
anything else. And, again surprise, surprise, there are unintended
circumstances to deal with when the problem is placed within the
whole. Who would have thunk it? Certainly not ideological progressive
politicians with little knowledge of, or interest in much beyond politics,
and their own individual power.
It has long been known that democracy is not practical beyond the
local; there are too many diverse opinions and conflicting objectives.
The ultimate result is gridlock at best, but anarchy at its worst, and
special interests and wildly expensive and pervasive communications
feed the contrary emotions. Is the United States headed for anarchy?
Perhaps more to the point is it headed for bankruptcy? Or both at the
same time? Probably not. Instead we will be "saved" by inflation on the
economic end and damned into perennial gridlock on the other. The
two will feed each other of course and probably keep much of anything
useful from happening. But unless they succeed in destroying free
enterprise, we will stagger on, regionally, according to Robert D.
Kaplan, who sees us becoming more and more regional, with pockets
of success laced with wastelands of abject poverty - a different kind of
anarchy.
But we are not alone; we are being aided and abetted, because the
rest of the world is far worse off and its more ambitious try to come the
West, and particularly the United States in ever greater numbers. When
they have valuable skills, and integrate into the American culture, that's
not all bad, but when they don't it just adds to the chaos; both are
happening.
We live in interesting times. Despite technology and increased
educational opportunities it is a time of towering ignorance, but
because of the technology and education many, many are aware of how
it could be, and agitate for that - blindly I might add. But alas,
entrenched power and even more, ambitious new power pockets, have
different ideas and are willing to employ suppression and terrorism to
achieve them. As I have said often, terrorism only destroys, but it does
so quite cost effectively; suppression just keeps much useful from
happening. So who builds? We shall see; perhaps we are headed
back to gated communities (castles?) protected by hired police forces -
with devastating weapons of destruction. That is more realistic, after
all, than total destruction, for we are likely not going to give in to total
destruction passively, at least not in the United States.
Meanwhile our progressive politicians stumble on, ignorant and
oblivious, thinking they are making the world a better place in which to
live.
21 August 2009
Limitations of History
Always being a proponent of trying to learn more history I
am now pointing to limitations. Inconsistent?
Not really, for the greatest limitation of the utility of history
is there is so much of it. Think about it in terms of the
numbers of people, the numbers of countries and cultures and
the time over which it spans. Even if one has time to read it in
depth, how to keep it all straight? It is a real challenge.
I was first impressed by this fact while in Sudan, having
tea with an Arab with whom I was pursuing a business
proposition. Before leaving for Sudan I availed myself of
several books describing the country, its culture and its history,
before the advent of the current Islamist regime, of course. He
immediately launched into its politics and history, assuming
that i was as familiar with it as he was with mine.
Americans, by and large, have little knowledge of the rest
of the world; the rest of the world, to the contrary (at least the
educated) have quite a bit of knowledge of America. There is a
reason for that: they have reason to want to know more about
America; we have little to want to know about them. Does that
sound arrogant? Think about it - think about all those
countries and cultures and how seldom we in America have
an opportunity to deal with them and what they are doing at any
particular moment - or what they might have done in the past.
And how many of them can we possibly get to know - and keep
straight?
Yet even the small ones (Serbia and Bulgaria and the
precipitation of World War I?) can and have influenced our own
history. But even then, our interest is usually restricted to
events. What of the people and what they think and
experience? There is little written, perhaps because there is
little interest - even within those countries for a number of
reasons, including education or restrictions in many that
discourage or punish too much investigation lest unpleasant
facts be divulged.
So what? The United States for better or worse has
constant relationships with most other countries, and we are
intent on encouraging them to do things as we do them, since
we KNOW that's the best way. Specifically all the world should
be democratic, and if it was we would all be better off.
Only many diplomats or business people, many more
tourists and almost all politicians who hold these views have
little enough understanding of the people of these countries,
their cultures or the difficulties they might experience in trying
to implement modern democratic republican governments,
and don't make too much effort to find out.
Our own government is famous for unintended
circumstances, that is, passing laws sufficiently vague that the
result is often quite different than that allegedly intended.
Some of that, I would contend, is intended to leave
opportunities for lawyers either to flesh them out or manipulate
them; but some of it is arrogant naiveté. Everyone, after all, is
pretty much the same, have the same dreams and desires, so
should have our advantages. Without pursuing that in too
much detail let it suffice to say that although most people in the
world envy our material advantages and opportunities, many
have some serious reservations about how we conduct our
lives and our business.
Put bluntly we and our leaders really don't understand the
world and its peoples very well and make little effort to. That is
a real problem when we are trying to dictate to them how they
should live, especially when there are serious impediments to
accomplishing it, even should they want to.
Limitations of History
Always being a proponent of trying to learn more history I
am now pointing to limitations. Inconsistent?
Not really, for the greatest limitation of the utility of history
is there is so much of it. Think about it in terms of the
numbers of people, the numbers of countries and cultures and
the time over which it spans. Even if one has time to read it in
depth, how to keep it all straight? It is a real challenge.
I was first impressed by this fact while in Sudan, having
tea with an Arab with whom I was pursuing a business
proposition. Before leaving for Sudan I availed myself of
several books describing the country, its culture and its history,
before the advent of the current Islamist regime, of course. He
immediately launched into its politics and history, assuming
that i was as familiar with it as he was with mine.
Americans, by and large, have little knowledge of the rest
of the world; the rest of the world, to the contrary (at least the
educated) have quite a bit of knowledge of America. There is a
reason for that: they have reason to want to know more about
America; we have little to want to know about them. Does that
sound arrogant? Think about it - think about all those
countries and cultures and how seldom we in America have
an opportunity to deal with them and what they are doing at any
particular moment - or what they might have done in the past.
And how many of them can we possibly get to know - and keep
straight?
Yet even the small ones (Serbia and Bulgaria and the
precipitation of World War I?) can and have influenced our own
history. But even then, our interest is usually restricted to
events. What of the people and what they think and
experience? There is little written, perhaps because there is
little interest - even within those countries for a number of
reasons, including education or restrictions in many that
discourage or punish too much investigation lest unpleasant
facts be divulged.
So what? The United States for better or worse has
constant relationships with most other countries, and we are
intent on encouraging them to do things as we do them, since
we KNOW that's the best way. Specifically all the world should
be democratic, and if it was we would all be better off.
Only many diplomats or business people, many more
tourists and almost all politicians who hold these views have
little enough understanding of the people of these countries,
their cultures or the difficulties they might experience in trying
to implement modern democratic republican governments,
and don't make too much effort to find out.
Our own government is famous for unintended
circumstances, that is, passing laws sufficiently vague that the
result is often quite different than that allegedly intended.
Some of that, I would contend, is intended to leave
opportunities for lawyers either to flesh them out or manipulate
them; but some of it is arrogant naiveté. Everyone, after all, is
pretty much the same, have the same dreams and desires, so
should have our advantages. Without pursuing that in too
much detail let it suffice to say that although most people in the
world envy our material advantages and opportunities, many
have some serious reservations about how we conduct our
lives and our business.
Put bluntly we and our leaders really don't understand the
world and its peoples very well and make little effort to. That is
a real problem when we are trying to dictate to them how they
should live, especially when there are serious impediments to
accomplishing it, even should they want to.