Bill Bartlett writes:
> Martin William Smith wrote:
> >alister air writes:
>
> >> Just out of curiosity, do you ever wonder why there's no broadly
> >> united left coalition... anywhere?  Do you think that pointless (and
> >> inaccurate) diatribes against fellow anti-capitalists might have
> >> something to do with it?
> >
> >I don't think so.  I think it is because left thinkers are paralyzed
> >to some degree by their own rejection of government.  A coalition
> >won't work for long without structure and rules.  As soon as there are
> >structure and rules, there is government.
>
> Interesting theory, trouble is it appears to be based on readily
> observable facts. Most "left" thinkers don't reject "government",
> most left thinkers don't even reject the political state.

I didn't mean complete rejection.  I meant reluctance to err on the
side of too much structure and too many rules.  Gun shyness.

> [...]
>
> >How widely should power be distributed?  Suppose it is completely
> >distributed (100%).  Then every person has a veto.  All votes must be
> >unanimous.  Since no vote will be unanimous in a large population, no
> >votes will pass.
>
> This assumes three things:
>
> (1) that every person should have a say in every decision. This is silly, I
> don't want a say in every issue, I only want a say in issues that actually
> affect me; and

That would include quite a bit.  I agree that no one would be able to
keep track of a significant amount of the legislation that would be
proposed in a public referendum system.  You couldn't do a credible
job of keeping track of the things that affect you.  You would have to
pick your fights, but if power were completely distributed, you would
have to pick from the entire list.

> (2) that there must always be irreconcileable conflicts of interest
> between people that will cause them to have irreconcileable
> disagreements; or

I didn't say anything about reconcilability.  It doesn't matter
whether issues are reconcilable or not.  Unless everyone agrees,
nothing happens.  The process of reaching reconciliation would take so
long that there would be a logjam of legislation awaiting
reconciliation.

> (3) that sensible people with a common interest will not be able to
> some to a sensible agreement on important issues that affect their
> common interest.

So only sensible people with a common interest will vote?  No.
Everyone will vote, and there will be disagreement.  Fundamentalist
Christians will vote against teaching evolution.  That issue will not
be resolved.  Racists will vote for a whites only territory.
Antiracists will vote against it.  Islamists will vote for Islamic
law.  Christians will vote against it.  Issues like these would be
proposed and no reconciliation would be achieved.  You can't base a
universal suffrage government on "sensible people" and "common
interests" unless you decide who are the sensible people and what are
the legitimate common interests.

> I'm not too sure why you assume any of these things. Humans are
> basicly a species that has evolved to co-operate for the common
> good. Can you explain why you believe this has changed? They are
> vital questions for anyone on the left, if your assumptions are
> correct then the left is definitely on the wrong track.

The left is definitely on the wrong track.  Not everyone is on the
left.  You can't have a society that only includes left thinkers.
There will always be fundamentalists of every flavor.  There will
always be conservatives, fascists, and the just plain stupid.
Whatever you come up with must account for all these loose cannons.
To answer your question, nothing has changed.  People are as they
always have been, cooperative sometimes, uncooperative at others.
Competitive, criminal, clever, evil, stupid, and ignorent.

> [...]
>
> >What about stupid people?  I mean really stupid people.  And there
> >*are* lots of them.  Should stupid people have the same voting power
> >as intelligent people?
>
> If the intelligent people co-operate, we can usually get the
> *really* stupid people to follow us blindly, following people
> blindly is one of the major symptoms of base stupidity after all. As
> for the moderately stupid, you don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to
> know that what's in your best interests will be the same as what's
> in the best interests of other people in the same boat.

That's your big plan?

> >  Should there be disqualifying acts of
> >stupidity that cause a person to forfeit his voting right?  For
> >example, if you own a swimming pool and you don't teach your children
> >to swim and one of them falls into the pool and drowns, then you are a
> >really stupid person
>
> Fascinating theory, the implications being that if you don't fence your
> pool, but your kids *don't* fall in and drown, then you are not as
> stupid.

That's *not* the implication.  The implication is that if you don't
fence your pool and don't teach your kids to swim, and one of them
falls in and drowns, then you can't be trusted to take an interest in
good government.  If you can't even be bothered to protect your own
children, you *won't* be bothered with civic duty.

> > and you should not be allowed to vote on matters
> >that affect everyone.  Or maybe a stupid act should be punishable by
> >loss of voting right for a specific length of time.  If your child
> >drowns in your swimming pool because you didn't teach him to swim, and
> >you are convicted of this stupidity, then you are deprived of your
> >voting right for, say, 15 years.
>
> I like it in principle, though the penalty seems quite severe. (But
> then you *are* a yank, so I suppose I should expect that.)  I was
> just thinking that you might want to keep some powder dry for second
> and third such offenses. If your kids drown in the pool one after
> the other and you *still* don't fence the pool, I'd say the
> penalties need to start getting stiffer, but you don't leave much
> room for that.

I over-simplefiled.  I think it should be a balance between some civil
service and loss of voting right.  For example,  0 years civil service
and 15 years loss of voting right, or 5 years civil service concurrent
with 5 years loss of voting right.

> Seriously though, why do you yanks think that a punitive system is
> the only way to convince anyone of what's good for them? Where do
> you get off?

There are two main aspects to such a system.  The punishment aspect is
purely for the person's psychological benefit.  We're not talking
about criminal behavior here, as in robbing a bank or murder.  These
parents will be severly damaged psychologically.  Psychological damage
is often a result of any seriously stupid behavior.  People need to
redeem themselves and redemption requires sacrifice.

The other aspect is protection of the rest of society from stupid
people.  Government must be self-correcting as much as possible.  One
way to enhance the self-correction process is to remove as much
stupidity from it as you can.

> >These decisions and others must be made by the members of any
> >coalition.  You can't just say everybody is equal and nobody has to be
> >bound by rules they don't like.
>
> Why must decisions about what is best for me and my family be made by
> people who would be unaffected by such decisions?

Which decisions are you talking about?  What you are saying is
obviously right, except it doesn't refer to anything.  Which
decisions?

> >It's not surprising to me that left coalitions fall apart.
>
> I think the real reason is that they aren't based on the essential
> element of common interest. You see, as I mentioned, most on the
> left don't reject political power and the political state. In fact
> they want such power for themselves. They can't *all* have it you
> see, so there is a fundamental conflict of interest between them.

There is no interest that is common to everyone, except, for example,
we need about 16% oxygen in the air and we need relatively clean
water, etc.  But people will disagree even on those things.  Some
people will put up with some air pollution rather than give up their
cars.  Some people will put up with some water pollution rather than
do away with the nitrates in fertilizers.

> Such fundamental conflicts of interest are at the heart of most cases of
> lack of co-operation.

I agree.

> Which is what leads anarchists and others from the libertarian left
> to the conclusion that the political state and political power is
> incompatible with a society operating on co-operative
> principles. Its not really ideological, its just being practical.

I don't see how that follows.  There are always conflicts of interest,
so there is always a need for a state that provides a basis of laws
under which those conflicts *can* be resolved.

martin

Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701