# Euston Manifesto



## a_majoor (13 Apr 2006)

THE EUSTON MANIFESTO proposes a renewal of Progressive politics: http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2006/04/the_euston_mani.html

Much of what we think of as liberal left (or Liberal party) ideas are mutated forms of what was known as "Progressive" politics back in the 1920s and 30s. Like its sister forms of Socialism from the same era (Fascism, Bolshevik communism, etc.) there are several key ideas, among them the ideas that people are to be considered as belonging to indivisible "groups", that property was to be used, controlled or managed by the State on behalf of one or more groups, and that the proper means of identifying and controlling resources for the group or groups was the State or a super national organization (i.e. "World Government" or the League of Nations) with unconstrained powers. Indeed many elements of the "New Deal" in the United States seem to have been inspired by Mussolini's Italy:



> *New Deal and statism*
> 
> "Fascism" in the 21st century has very strong connotations of mass murder and death camps, making it a highly loaded term. However in the 1930s it was treated as a technical term regarding how much control in a capitalist system the government should have over business. From the time the New Deal was introduced commentators tried to relate its control over business to the fascist model. These commentators ranged from contemporary Communists, to Republican Herbert Hoover, and libertarian economist Murray Rothbard. Ronald Reagan, a strong supporter of the New Deal at the time reversed positions and said in 1976, "Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal." Journalist John T. Flynn, a former socialist, in his 1944 book As We Go Marching, said that "the New Dealers...began to flirt with the alluring pastime of reconstructing the capitalist system...and in the process of this new career they began to fashion doctrines that turned out to be the principles of fascism." Historian Srđa Trifković says "Roosevelt and his “Brain Trust,” the architects of the New Deal, were fascinated by Italy’s fascism — a term which was not pejorative at the time. In America, it was seen as a form of economic nationalism built around consensus planning by the established elites in government, business, and labor."[17]



Regular readers know I abhor this sort of thinking, but since it is a firmly entrenched part of the Canadian political scene (Prime Minister Harper's "Hidden Agenda TM" would be probably be congratulated as sound Democratic Party policy south of the border), it is certainly worth examining. As Sun Tzu told us "Know your enemies....". If we really know and understand what "Progressiveism" means and the logical outcomes of its policies and premises, then we have very effective weapons to help us drive a stake through its philosophical heart, sever the head, stuff the mouth with garlic and burn the body by the crossroads at dawn.

A good starting point is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal


----------



## couchcommander (13 Apr 2006)

A couple of things.

From what I can tell, entries such as:



> 1) For democracy. We are committed to democratic norms, procedures and structures - freedom of opinion and assembly, free elections, the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, and the separation of state and religion. We value the traditions and institutions, the legacy of good governance, of those countries in which liberal, pluralist democracies have taken hold.



Seem to run in the face of commonly held definitions of fascism, which a quick visit to dictionary.com produces as:



> often *Fascism*
> 1.  a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
> b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
> 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.



Of course, like anything, the dictionary definition of a movement fails to encompass it's wholeness.

However the key feature, at least that I have been exposed to, is the centralization of control by either a single individual or an oligarchical group, importantly extending into social spheres, and the repression of opposing opinions.  

The economic side of this can take many many forms, and indeed often has a large amount of central control, however the means of production are often times still privately owned. Though the NAZI party may have been called the "National Socialist German Workers Party", I doubt anyone well versed in socialist doctrine would describe it as such. 

Secondly, and most importantly, I don't think the grand pum ba's of the Liberals or NDP are going to latch onto a manifesto done by a bunch of bloggers as the guiding principles of their party. 

Thirdly, just for fun (and I can't say I even read the article all the way through.... but I mean if we're going to start throwing Fascist around I might was well take a piece of the pie while it's in vogue), it seems that <a href="http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10666">this</a> reporter believes that the Conservative movement has in fact embraced Social Darwinism. For our readers, I will remind them that this principle laid the basis for Hitler's views on eugenics and racial superiority.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Apr 2006)

I always use Fascism in its correctly political sense, where the State controls or regulates the outcomes of the private use of capital. In that sense, Fascism is simply a subset of the larger concept of Socialism.

In any event, my point isn't to spend endless hours splitting definitions of how one subset or another of Socialism works, the essential ideas of Socialist philosophy must be opposed no matter what the "practical" manifestation is; Jack Layton might not be an abhorrent _person_ (I'll leave that to those who know him), but his _ideas_ have dangerous consequences.

The idea that "Progressives" are trying to harness the power of the Blogosphere to refine their ideas is actually funny in an ironic way;* the political "Right" can do this easily because it is an extention of the idea of the efficient market* (trading ideas on as wide a scale as possible to find and refine the good ones), something which Socialism implicitly or explicitly rejects!


----------



## couchcommander (14 Apr 2006)

Economic Socialism's, once again at least how I have been exposed to it, vital component is the owernship of the means of production by the people.

Private individuals, while being part of "the people", tend to be more classified singularily as "people". Thus:

Socialism: economic system whereby the means of production are owned by *the* people

Fascism - a_majoor style: economic system whereby the means of production are owned by *"people"*, while being directed by the state. 

I don't want to spend hours debating it either, but quite frankly it doesn't seem me, or many others, that Fascism could be described as Socialism; they are two different birds.  If you want to talk about the dangers of fascism, sure, we can do that.

As for Jack Layton, the man is a tool. You won't find any disagreement here.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Apr 2006)

It _might_ (perhaps not) be interesting to remember that modern, 20th century _Fascism_ began, in the 1920s, as a counter to _materialistic Marxism_.  Italian Fascists adopted the _ fasces lictoriae_ as a symbol of their ideal of political stability through unity.

The early Fascists were concerned that Italy was riven with political factions – each commanding enough votes to gain some power but none strong enough to unite the nation – shades of early 21st century Italy! (This is, in fact, one of the main arguments those *opposed* to proportional representation make: Canadians, they say, want stability and that can be achieved only through the sort of unity which a majority (preferable Liberal) government provides.  Does that, I wonder, make them (the opponents of PR) _fascists_?)

I agree with a_majoor that the fascism came to equate to rigid state control of everything but not, I think (and would be pleased to be corrected) because that is that _*nature*_ of the fascist _idea_ but, rather, because that is the inevitable consequence of any dictatorship – including the dictatorship of the proletariat.  All dictatorships end up being _socialistic_, I believe, and I also believe that social democracy leads to socialism which, inevitable, leads to communism so, I guess, all dictatorship must, eventually, become communist.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Apr 2006)

Good points there, Edward. Here is an interesting overview by Eugene Volokh about the dangers of unchecked government power(_any_ government, tribal, Imperial, theocratic, etc.)

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_04_09-2006_04_15.shtml#1144995826



> Jaruzelski charged with leading an armed criminal organization:
> 
> Poland's former communist dictator, General Jaruzelski, has been criminally charged with leading "a crime related armed organization." That organization, of course, was the government of Poland.
> 
> ...



Bluntly, the only way that any sort of Socialistic system can be made to work is to expand the power of the State, and to remove limitations of State power. This can and is be done in the name of "the People", the "proletariat", the "Volk", or any other group favored as "the people" and also invoked to suppress people who are defined as "enemies of (insert group)". Guild socialism, for example, invokes State power to regulate who can work in what field, establish and maintain the Guild monopoly, and ruthlessly punish any person or persons who undertake work in the field covered by the Guild, even if the Guild or Guild members are unable or unwilling to do the job themselves. This was common in the late Middle Ages, and has been resurrected in the 19th and 20th century by the Labour movement.

The nature of Socialism leads to a dictatorship or narrow oligarchy, but dictatorships and oligarchies are not socialistic in and of themselves (look at the period of absolute monarchies in Europe, or Japan under the Tokugawa shogunate, or Sparta during the classical period of Greece).


----------



## couchcommander (14 Apr 2006)

If I remember correctly, you are of course right Edward, in that the fascist movements in Europe during the early 20th century were by and large developed as a direct response to socialism, Marxism, communism, etc. 

It seems to me as well, that states which have been frequently identified as Fascist are, rather universally, anti-democratic.

And if only all dictatorships lead to communism, what a glorious Utopian place it would be!

We should be careful, however, not to confuse Marxism, ie dictatorship of the proletariat, with the much wider and rather amorphous term of "socialism." 

There are many, myself included, that hold the view that "socialism" actually necessitates democratic control of not just government, but all faucets of production. This does not, however, in my view, under any circumstance, necessitate _central_ control. 

In fact, there are those, myself included, who view our current "democracy" as nothing but yet another oligarchical tyranny of the powerful; and I am only in a very small part talking about parliament. We hold the view that despite all of our current "rights" and "freedoms", we actually have very little meaningful _ownership_ or _control_ over our lives. We feel that only by _democratising_ the entire state-industrial complex, can we, as individuals, actually achieve any meaningful influence over ourselves. Only once this has been achieved, can we actually work to better ourselves rather than the few. 

If you want me to elaborate on this point, feel free to ask, but be warned it's a rather long elaboration. 

In my opinion, any state in which the means of production are controlled by a few who are members of the government, rather than by the people as a whole, fails to be socialist, and rather is simply just another tyranny with a centralized economy. 

This leads to the commonly held view, at least in my circles, and you may have heard it, that there has, in actuality, *never* been a truly socialist nation in anything but name, even if significant allowances are made for "owned by the people". 

However, given that it is the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", we can easily see just how much is in a name. The same was true of the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics".


----------



## a_majoor (14 Apr 2006)

Man, I just love this stuff!



> In fact, there are those, myself included, who view our current "democracy" as nothing but yet another oligarchical tyranny of the powerful; and I am only in a very small part talking about parliament. We hold the view that despite all of our current "rights" and "freedoms", we actually have very little meaningful ownership or control over our lives. We feel that only by democratising the entire state-industrial complex, can we, as individuals, actually achieve any meaningful influence over ourselves. Only once this has been achieved, can we actually work to better ourselves rather than the few.



On this we are actually in agreement. Libertarians are all for taking control of "the means of production" and regulatory control of personal behaviors away from the State. On the other hand, I don't believe that Socialists, Progressives, Communists or whoever are talking about rigorous upholding of private property rights, free markets, free movement of people and capital and so on.

One of the most pernicious ideas on that side of the political spectrum is that people, or even "the people" are somehow unable to make decisions for the benefit of themselves and their families, or that the *net* result of positive individual decisions is also a *net* positive to the economy and society as a whole. Instead we have the idea that Platonic or Straussian "Philosopher Kings" , Führers, "Expert Committees" and so on who are _somehow_ imbued with the ability to outperform markets and societies with thousands or millions of times more interacting factors than they can even hope to discover, much less intigrate into the "five year plan". I don't claim to be that smart, and certainly a Trudeau or Ignatieff isn't either. (Maybe Edward is, though).

Saying Socialism involves control by "the people" evades the point. "The people" don't exist as an indivisible mass, not by "blood", race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, geographic location, economic circumstances or any other classification you care to invoke. The other question left open is who exactly defines who "the people" are.  Perhaps the most pointed counter example I can raise is this guy: http://gaypatriot.org/, a pro George W Bush Republican who supports the GWOT. Kind of upsets _that_ demographic. Dr Condolezza Rice is certainly not your typical "black" or "woman" according to people who purport to represent "Blacks" or "Women", and I hope she does decide to run for President in 2008, just to watch their heads explode.

I will end this lesson with the origins of the "Democracy"



> The word "democracy" combines the elements *demos* ("the people") and *kratos* ("force, power"). Kratos is an unexpectedly brutish word. In the words "monarchy" and "oligarchy", the second element *arche* means rule, leading, or being first. It is possible that the term "democracy" was coined by its detractors who rejected the possibility of, so to speak, a valid "demarchy". Whatever its original tone, the term was adopted wholeheartedly by Athenian democrats.



The ancient Greeks were very perceptive indeed. A valid _demarchy_ could only exist if the nature of people was vastly different than it actually is. Libertarians, Classical Liberals and Conservatives all are in agreement that people work primarily for their own self interest (after all, the human species has had up to five million years of evolution leading to our present state, any strategy besides self interest would have led to our extinction long ago), the main differences is what means we believe are necessary to keep these impuses from working destructively.



> If these words are judged useful by those who want to understand clearly the events which happened in the past and which (human nature being what it is) will at some time or other and in much the same way, be repeated in the future.
> 
> - Thucydides


----------



## couchcommander (15 Apr 2006)

> The main differences is what means we believe are necessary to keep these impuses from working destructively.



Yes I think that just about sums up the nature of the disagreement. 

You, like myself, do not see in any particular individual or group the required intellectual ability or alturistic nature to be able to direct all of our economic resources effectively. We both agree that only as a free flowing, whole unit, can we acheive maximum efficiencies. 

I think it is important as well, to highlight that you, like myself, seem to want nothing more than to be able to live you're life with all the benefits society can offer you, to live you're life in peace, security, and happiness, and most importantly, you, like me, it appears, want to be able to live you're life for your own benefit and those whom you love, free from exploitation. 

Finally, you, like myself, see the intrinsicly self interested nature of the human condition. And, you, like myself, do not see this, on it's own, as a bad thing. We both view a humans desire to better himself, and his loved ones, as a positive thing.

However, on this point I am forced to return to our first source of agreement; no one human is capable, nor should they be, of making decisions for all of us. 

And whether we like it or not, the persons who control the means of production make decisions everyday that effect wide segments of the population. Whether it is directly in regards to their employees,  the products they manufacture, or services they provide, or indirectly in what they send into the atmosphere or water supply, or even the type of resources they use, possibly depriving another of the ones they need; we are all effected by one another. 

In my view, it would seem, that given the effects that these decisions have on all of us, it would be much better, rather than letting the self interest of one man guide these decisions, to have these decsisions be made by those whom they effect, namely the workers, the consumers, and those who will have to live with the consequences.

It seems to me that rather than having one self interested individual make decisions about the allocation of capital resources, natural resources, human resources, etc., we should have those who it will affect, the public at large, make those decisions. Only then can we be sure that these forces are not being used for the betterment of one, or a few, at the expense of the rest of society. 

Now, I should make it clear, I am not advocating the election, as we would know it, of many groups of representatives to serve on various boards or committees to make these decisions. 

In my view, a popularity contest is a poor excuse for democracy, and our current state of affiars demonstrates this well. I am actually talking about returning the power of decision making to those whom it affects. 

I, and some others, would propose the election of various boards and committes, as many as are required to effectively direct the economic and public aspects of our nation, by lottery of interested persons in such numbers as is required to effectively represent the sprectra of interests, while still maintaining administrative efficienty, and with all of the rules and regulations in regards to term length and conduct that would be required to maintain integrity.

The question then becomes, well who owns all of the resources?

Quite simply, we all do. And as such, we are all responsible for them.

How will we be motivated?

Monentary compensation for self initiative, good work, and effective ideas would not be stopped; it would just be tempered by realism. No person, no matter how good, deserves 400 times what others are making. We do, however want to encourage innovation and success. I believe we can find a balance between these two forces.

And what of efficiency; boards and committes are not quick decision makers?

Just like there are chairmen of boards now in corporations, there would be chairmen of these boards. Further, just as there is both a board and managers responsible to them now, there would be managers responsible to the boards then, however they would be responsible to society as a whole through the board, rather than just shareholders. 

So that's the crazy idea. I can't say it is representative of the "left", in fact it is held by only a few people I am aware of. But there it is, read it over with an open mind, and tell me what you think.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Apr 2006)

I'll get to the rest later, meanwhile, about groups:

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/


----------



## a_majoor (17 Apr 2006)

And now back to our regularly scheduled political argument.

CC, what you are suggesting is a variation of what is touted as "Corporate Social Responsibility" (CSR), which suggests that corporations should not have maximizing shareholder value as their primary goal, but rather they should be harnessed to serve the needs of the various "stakeholders".

Bluntly speaking, that is theft. Shareholders invest money, and often time and effort into their corporations, and CSR and related initiatives attempt to place non shareholders on the same level as shareholders. (This is the same objection on a smaller scale to "income redistribution" and other welfare state schemes). Shareholders wealth is being taken from them and directed to purposes that the owners of the wealth (shareholders) may not wish. Even if the course of action chosen by the non shareholders is in agreement with the wishes of one or more shareholders, the net result will be that these shareholders will have LESS value to apply to whatever cause they choose, and thus be less able to carry out their chosen courses of action.

This is not to say that the current state of affairs in corporate governance is all smiles and roses. Proper governance should be a form of democracy as well, with the voting power being proportionate to the amount of wealth (shares) being voted, to represent the interests of the shareholders. Convoluted schemes of "special" shares and so on which leave a great deal of voting power in the hands of people or groups with minimal investment should be discouraged (maybe rewriting the tax code), while if your real intent is to shift economic power, then rewriting laws and regulations to encourage Employee Shareholder Corporations is the way to go.

Remember the words of Adam Smith:



> _ It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.
> 
> As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual value of society as great as he can. *He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it.* By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it. _


----------



## couchcommander (18 Apr 2006)

Oh no no, I am recommending the complete removal of shareholders period. All the means of the production, including the capital required to create new production, would be owned by the people as a whole, and administered by the people through the various boards, committees, and assemblies made up of said people. Certain assemblies would have, as it's pool for lottery, all citizens within a given area, aka national assembly and regional primary assemblies. Other boards or assemblies, such as those for specific corporations, would consist of volunteers from various groups, selected via lottery. ie a certain number of seats would be reserved for workers, a certain number for average citizens. People would volunteer for these positions, and be selected by lottery from the pool of volunteers for them. Term length would be whatever is determined to most efficient, but IMO should be kept short. 

I'm sure you're wondering, how does one raise capital? This is important to you, I suspect, because you view the ability to quickly and effectively raise capital as important to the success of an economy. I do as well. Currently, there exist many ways to raise capital, from banks, to private shareholders, to stock exchanges, etc. As well, you, like myself, are quite sure that some centralized system would be incredibly inefficient. Thus, the present systems would be replaced by a series of, you've probably guessed it, elected (in my sense) boards, on various levels, with various resources, with various specific mandates. They would have the responsibility to manage the distribution of capital to various corporations who submit to them for said capital. These boards could be very broad and far reaching, ie a national board with a mandate for the development and maintenance of the agricultural sector (as you can imagine, this board would be large, have several sub committees, and vast resources), to a local board with a mandate to encourage local innovation and entrepreneurship in the field of, oh, I don't know, sock production. The point would be to ensure that there are many avenues a innovative person or board could take to receive funding. 

At this point, you're also probably wondering about motivation. Shareholders are motivated to watch over the company and be responsible because it is their money they are throwing around. Well, just like these shareholders, each citizen owns the resources that they would be responsible for. Further, and I am sure this would be much more pressing on their minds, is that as an average citizen they will have to use these services in the end, and thus live with any mess they make. That, along with a well crafted set of regulations, will ensure the smooth and efficient running of the system. 

Now if you're argument is going be "well boards are incredibly inefficient", I would remind you that currently corporations are ran by a board of directors, as are banks and investment firms. The difference would be minimal in terms of the operations, but pronounced in terms of their conduct.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Apr 2006)

> administered by the people through the various boards, committees, and assemblies made up of said people. Certain assemblies would have, as it's pool for lottery, all citizens within a given area, aka national assembly and regional primary assemblies. Other boards or assemblies, such as those for specific corporations, would consist of volunteers from various groups, selected via lottery.



Couchcommander-

I'm curious what aspect of Canadian history gives you this touching faith in Government boards, committees or assemblies?


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Apr 2006)

>They would have the responsibility to manage the distribution of capital to various corporations who submit to them for said capital.

Was this a conscious effort at self-parody?  Hasn't this technique of economic management already been tried and found to underperform?  Hint: the detailed answer often involves the words "market", "information", and "signal".  There should also be considered the concept of a "decision cycle".  And, where are you going to find these lottery-appointed citizens whose altruistic willingness to serve wisely is alien to anything I've seen in real life?  I can't find any evidence that people can be bothered not to litter "their" parks maintained by "their" local councils with "their" tax dollars that would cause me to believe people are going to manage prudently companies in which they have a vague sense of a notion of ownership measured to a fraction in the fifth or sixth or seventh decimal place.  No, this is not a detailed logical argument; yes, this is an appeal to experience, intuition, and common sense.

The reason fascism and communism and socialism belong together is that they are all doctrines which emphasize the collective over the individual.  Once that is done, it's really not hard for adherents to find excuses to do almost anything to one person - or several - in the name of many.  Deride it as "slippery slope" you properly may - it's not self-evident that disaster must follow misstep - but it's a slope we've been down several times in the past and the forces of social gravity don't seem to have lessened.


----------



## couchcommander (19 Apr 2006)

I must restate that these are not "government" boards, or committees of "elected representatives" as is known now, or anything of the such. These are people, such as you and I, who have volunteered to serve on these boards, and have then been selected by lottery to do so from the pool of volunteers for a relatively short term.

I find the idea of career politicans and bureaucrats almost as distasteful as the idea of someone making more money that most small countries, as I am sure you do. 

My aim is to eliminate both and return decision making power to you and I. 

And there is nothing about altruism in it; and as I said before, I don't see a .0006% ownership doing any real good either. You have my 100% agreement on that count. 

What this is about, however, is people making decisions on issues that will affect them and their loved ones *personally.* Whether it is because they work for the company, they had worked for the company, they use their product or service, or they have ideas on how the business could be improved - whatever - it's inconsequential to me as long as they do indeed have an _interest_, whatever it is, in the corperation or industry that they will be asked to help manage on a part time basis. 

To my knowledge, this democratisation of the entire economic system has not been tried. 

Further, this is not placing the importance of the group over the individual. This is returning control of an individual's life to said individual, which is important to all of us. 

I think it presents, as I stated before, an unparalleled opportunity to return control of _our_ lives to us, rather than having it rest in the hands of some politician, bureaucrat, or shareholder.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Apr 2006)

I see you are advocating a form of *communitarianism*, but I think that Brad has summed it up far better than I ever could with a nice, pithy response.

I will point out that there are many examples of that type of thinking in action. I had a friend who lived in a housing co-op, and eventually moved out in frustration. This co-op had many of the ownership and management features you advocate, but rather than a "worker's paradise", it was an increadibly shabby and run down place. The primary proiblem is lots of the "owners" had great ideas about landscaping, parking lots, re roofing etc. (they had an _interest_, after all, since they lived there), but very few would pony up the money or voluntary labour required to actually impliment these schemes. A lot of time and effort was made during board meetings to pawn these costs off to the most well off members of the co-op, and of course the well off people who were most at risk for being tagged with the costs worked equally hard to avoid this, or moved out ( to the benifit of themselves and the detriment of the co-op).

On a larger scale, subsidized housing in my city of London is pretty shabby for many of the same reasons (they pawn the costs off to me, the taxpayer), and the "Projects" in the US and "Council Flats" in the UK suffer the same problems on a much larger scale.

What you are advocating leads to the "Tragedy of the Commons", which is an age old problem. Look up the article in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons , or follow Brad's advice and walk through one of your city parks for a first hand example....

(_edit to fix link_)


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Apr 2006)

>I must restate that these are not "government" boards, or committees of "elected representatives" as is known now, or anything of the such. These are people, such as you and I, who have volunteered to serve on these boards, and have then been selected by lottery to do so from the pool of volunteers for a relatively short term.

Leaving aside the possibility that we may find ourselves granting control to those who can't be engaged enough to even cut their own lawns, rather than those who maintain their fully-owned properties immaculately, why are people going to volunteer?  What will be their motives?  Please do not try to fob us off with a claim of "altruism".  That is not how people behave.  I can predict, based on historical perspective, that control will be sought by people who ultimately seek personal gain, and that control will be exercised to suit personal gain.

Governments are already directed by people who have "volunteered to serve" (ie. stood for office).  Companies are already directed by people who have "volunteered to serve" (ie. taken a job).  What is the foundation for your belief that we can magically improve upon this situation by changing the criteria for winnowing the pool of volunteers from elections and selection on merit, to random selection?


----------



## couchcommander (20 Apr 2006)

Brad Sallows,

You are definately correct that politicians have "volunteered" for their positions. However, as recent history has demonstrated, elected "politicians" primary perogative seems to me, at least, to be to simply get reelected. 

It usually has little to do with serving the interests of those they represent. Thus, we have to actually put those whom they are supposed to represent into power. 

Further, I would remind you that the failures of the "projects" and other social projects took place under their watch, under their rules, with their level of funding. I will at no time defend these, they were indeed a failure. 

However, as i said before, what I am proposing has never been tried. 

In regards to the possibility of corruption, it would seem to me that you raise a very good point. Someone may try and serve on a board and through that try and selfishly exploit it. It seems to me that this threat can be mitigated in several ways, some of which I have already touched on. 

Firstly, short terms. By reducing the amount of time someone has to attempt to exploit the system, we should be able to help prevent corruption due an established and comfortable "old boys club" developing, the effects of which we are all too aware of here in Canada.

Secondly, random selection from a pool of volunteers. Even if someone does only have on their agenda the exploitation of others, they would have to be selected by lottery in order to even be able to attempt to carry out their plans.

Thirdly, conflict of interest regulations. In the end, I am not a firm believer in regulations. They seem to do little to actually combat or solve problems. But regardless, they will exist, and make it perfectly clear that no one would be able to exploit their positions for personal gain (note the word exploit... we have already established everyone will be pursuing their own personal gain, which is fine, but we need to prevent them from exploiting others in pursuit of it). 

As well, to be clear, professionals will still be the ones who run coorporations and manage various aspects of government. There will still be managers, consultants, etc. 

These boards would be largely designed for oversight and broad direction, though taking more direct roles when feasible. 

Further, shareholders are often not experts in whatever it is their companies are doing, but they do an excellent job of making sure they get their money. As such, our board members should do an excellent job of watching out for their own interests. 

As for why would a person volunteer, I think the fact we are having this debate is testament to the fact we would have more than enough people.

I'm pretty sure this country has more than enough people who think they know how things should be done to fill the required positions. Those who don't even want to bother to mow their own lawn can continue to do so.

However, those of us, like you, a_majoor, myself and others who want to try and better ourselves and our country would finally have a way of making meaningful change for the better.


----------



## couchcommander (20 Apr 2006)

a_majoor,

Indeed communitarianism is a lot closer to what I am advocation than CSR, but I would still be very hesitant to associate with it as there are a number of things I hardily disagree with.

Lets, for the time being, just go with this being it's own idea. Call it whatever you want, I'll leave that to you, but choose something that doesn't, at least for the time being, associate it with something else. 

As for the problem of resource shortfalls, once again a valid concern.

However, resource allocation boards, like banks and shareholders now, would have a fixed budget with which they are to conduct their business in line with the resources required to acheive their mandates. 

We will still have an "economy" (ie not a state of abundance) and will have to manage it as such, or you will indeed be right, and we will end up with very little.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Apr 2006)

>As such, our board members should do an excellent job of watching out for their own interests.

Oh, I'm sure they'll watch out for their interests.  I'm also sure they'll make a frigging hash of whatever business they are running.  I'm not sure how committees of amateurs are going to consistently outperform career executives, but maybe you can enlighten us.  I'd like assurance in advance, rather than frig up the economy irretrievably with a naively optimistic experiment.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2006)

We can call this construct "Couchism", if you like, but you are simply pushing a rope. Human nature is all about *self interest*, not the collective. As I have tried to show in other threads, whenever individual self interest is unleashed, the results are amazing.

In the ancient world, they Mycenaean culture revolved around servicing the needs of the "palace" (a form of feudalism seems to have existed in Mycenae). The overall population density was low, wealth was highly concentrated and Mycenaean culture extended through Greece, and parts of the Aegean. After the fall of the Palace culture and the dark ages, essentially the same people, (speaking the same language, worshipping the same gods etc.) had developed a much different social organization revolving around the free ownership of land, where the *land owners * built the economic, political and military structures to maintain their social position we recognize as the Classical _Polis_. Classical Greek civilization spread across the Mediterranean and into Asia Minor. Those cities which developed or adopted Democracy indeed used juries appointed by lottery and strict term limits, _because they understood human nature_, and wished to limit the opportunities to abuse power.

This allowed Athens, above all others, to create and maintain an Empire (the Delian League), even in the face of opposition by Sparta and her Allies (the Peloponessian League) and the vastly larger and potentially wealthier Persian Empire. Only a combination of bad luck (the plague), Imperial hubris (the Athenian invasion of Sicily) and the combined resources of *all * her enemies could bring her down, and even then, Athens regained a prominent position in Greece prior to Phillip destroying Geek culture and imposing Macedonian rule.

Elizabethan England, Holland and Venice were liberal (for their age) states, and thus able to withstand the might of far more powerful Empires and States such as Spain, the Ottoman Empire and France under the Sun King Louis XIV.

In the modern age, the growth of the Asian Tigers and the remarkable rise of Ireland all resulted from a heavy dose of liberalization, deregulation and tax cuts.

Although there may be individual people who, through poor planning, bad choices and ill luck miss out, the overall lesson that can be derived from comparative studies across different times and cultures is that if people are free to work for their individual self interest, the net result is a positive one for their society.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Apr 2006)

Here is a manefesto I can live with:

http://www.freedomparty.on.ca/about/about.fpo.htm



> The Freedom Party of Ontario ("FPO") is an officially registered political party in the province of Ontario. You might think of an FPO government as one that will be socially "liberal" and fiscally "conservative".
> 
> Fiscally,* an FPO government will provide a level playing field * by making sure that nobody resorts to coercion, fraud, cheating, or other forms of wrong-doing in their efforts to pursue a better standard of living. An FPO government will greatly lower your tax burden. It will also *give you more power, control, and choice over your health care, education, auto insurance and electricity needs*.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Apr 2006)

Here is a link to a very long, but interesting and illuminating article:

http://www.mises.org/story/2099

A short exerpt which touches on the "New Deal"



> Every element in the New Deal program: central planning, creation of a network of compulsory cartels for industry and agriculture, inflation and credit expansion, artificial raising of wage rates and promotion of unions within the overall monopoly structure, government regulation and ownership, all this had been anticipated and adumbrated during the previous two decades. And this program, with its privileging of various big business interests at the top of the collectivist heap, was in no sense reminiscent of socialism or leftism; there was nothing smacking of the egalitarian or the proletarian here. No, the kinship of this burgeoning collectivism was not at all with socialism-communism but with fascism, or socialism-of-the-right, a kinship which many big businessmen of the twenties expressed openly in their yearning for abandonment of a quasi-laissez-faire system for a collectivism which they could control…. Both left and right have been persistently misled by the notion that intervention by the government is ipso facto leftish and antibusiness.



While I do not agree with the author's definition of fascism, the analysis is pretty spot on, and the rest of the article is alsowell worth your time and effort.


----------



## couchcommander (1 May 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >As such, our board members should do an excellent job of watching out for their own interests.
> 
> Oh, I'm sure they'll watch out for their interests.  I'm also sure they'll make a frigging hash of whatever business they are running.  I'm not sure how committees of amateurs are going to consistently outperform career executives, but maybe you can enlighten us.  I'd like assurance in advance, rather than frig up the economy irretrievably with a naively optimistic experiment.



The boards I propose would be diverse in their backgrounds. Average joe's are a large part of the involvement. The entire point is to democratize the entire economy. 

However, I would not expect them to make complex decisions unassisted. Members of these boards would include the senior management, workers representative, as well as recognized experts in the field. On top of this would be people not involved on the board but assisting it - ie consultants, etc. Overall, you and I would have a lot of support in making informed decisions.

The most important aspect of citizen involvement on the boards, however, would not be to make technical decisions about manufacturing processes or human resources, but to oversee these decisions and ensure that they pass a "common sense" test, and will continue to serve the needs of the citizens. 

Take for example an orange juice producing company. I wouldn't expect an average person to be able to decide on the technical aspects of orange juice, ie what oranges to use, how are they going to be concentrated, preservatives, etc. etc - I would however expect an average person to be able to tell if this orange juice tastes bad or is not making it onto store shelves (ie the Soviet effect). 

 Further, if a consultant or whatever advised them that the orange juice is contaminated or made with potentially life threatening ingredients - I would expect them to take action to stop it, rather than trying to cover it up or decide that even if there is a lawsuit, it will cost less than a recall (it has happened, more than one would think). 

You ask me to prove that the performance would be better, honestly that is impossible given that it hasn't been tried. 

My proposal would be to run it on a limited scale, ie a few test corporations, before jumping in with both feet. That way we would have hard evidence as to whether or not it is feasible.

a_majoor - I will make sure to read those articles.


----------



## a_majoor (1 May 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> The boards I propose would be diverse in their backgrounds. Average joe's are a large part of the involvement. The entire point is to democratize the entire economy.
> 
> However, I would not expect them to make complex decisions unassisted. Members of these boards would include the senior management, workers representative, as well as recognized experts in the field. On top of this would be people not involved on the board but assisting it - ie consultants, etc. Overall, you and I would have a lot of support in making informed decisions.
> 
> The most important aspect of citizen involvement on the boards, however, would not be to make technical decisions about manufacturing processes or human resources, but to oversee these decisions and ensure that they pass a "common sense" test, and will continue to serve the needs of the citizens.



Millions of people own shares in companies, either directly, as members of pension plans or as shareholders in mutual fund companies. Direct and mutual fund shareholders don't need hand holding, they just need to take the time to read the annual report and look at the value of their shares. Satisfied shareholders keep their shares, dissatisfied shareholders vote with their wallets.

I am not at home, so I don't have the reference at hand, but what you are advocating may be similar to Peter Drucker's vision of "Post Capitalist Society", which attempts to outline how a society could operate when the ownership of capital is largely in the hands of the workers (through their pensions and mutual funds), but they are not directly in charge of the engines of wealth: the pension boards and mutual fund companies have representation on the boards, but are responsive to the needs of the workers to maximize the values of their holdings. We see some of this already, the sheer size of mutual funds and pension board holdings make large segments of the market illiquid, companies are pressed into making short term decisions in order to maximize quarterly profit (rather than concentrating on the long term) and many opportunities exist to manipulate the market since although "ownership" is diffused, effective control is concentrated in few hands.



> My proposal would be to run it on a limited scale, ie a few test corporations, before jumping in with both feet. That way we would have hard evidence as to whether or not it is feasible.



I suggest you find companies which have "CSR" mission statements or otherwise claim to follow "Corporate Social Responsibility" and start examining their annual statements over a period of years. If you are an economics or political science student, this would be a killer assignment; tell your profs _I_ assigned this. I'm sure they will understand  



> a_majoor - I will make sure to read those articles.



Enjoy!


----------



## a_majoor (3 May 2006)

Fredrich Hayek outlines the problem in a very eloquent fashion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek



> *The economic calculation problem*
> 
> Hayek was one of the leading academic critics of collectivism in the 20th century. Hayek believed that all forms of collectivism (even those theoretically based on voluntary cooperation) could only be maintained by a central authority of some kind. In his popular book, The Road to Serfdom (1944) and in subsequent works, Hayek claimed that* socialism required central economic planning and that such planning in turn had a risk of leading towards totalitarianism, because the central authority would have to be endowed with powers that would impact social life as well.*
> 
> ...


----------



## couchcommander (4 May 2006)

That last article is indeed on the money as far as it goes with central planning. 

Central planning is far from what I am advocating however, as I too recognize the issues with having individuals trying to direct an entire economic system. 

I preferr to leave control of the system in the hands of those who depend and rely upon it rather than some bureaucrat or even worse greedy majority shareholder. Ensures the system will serve their needs, rather than those who exercise control, which, as you pointed out, has the effect of promoting authoritarian methods.


----------



## a_majoor (5 May 2006)

EPISODE V

a_majoor: "couchcommander, you do not yet realize your importance. You have only begun to discover your power. Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict, and bring order to the political thread of Army.ca."

couchcommander: "I'll never join you!"

a_majoor: "If you only knew the power of the Austrian School. Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your father...

coouchcommander: "He told me enough... he told me you killed him."

a_majoor: "No... I am your father. Join me, and together we can rule academia as father and son!""


----------



## couchcommander (8 May 2006)

NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!


----------



## a_majoor (20 May 2006)

The authors of the Euston Manifesto are trying to revitalize the left, and considering the ease with which most of their arguments can be crushed, this is a vital project. (I need an intellectual challenge as well).

In the spirit of fair play, I am referencing another set of prescriptions to assist our bretheren out in left field:

http://taylor.textamerica.com/details/?r=4836758



> *A Primer for the Recalcitrant Left*
> 
> 1.  When discussing Canadian politics, try to stick to Canadian politicians and processes.  Dragging George W. Bush into the discussion every other sentence might be entertaining (and especially for us on the right), but try to remember that he lacks executive authority within these borders.  Canada has her own elected representatives -- George is not now, and never will be, one of them.
> 
> ...



I still won't agree with you, but I will certainly listen with a lot more respect if you follow those simple rules.


----------



## couchcommander (20 May 2006)

> 2.  Corporations are not monolithic soul-crushing oppressors.  Every corporation, large or small, has human staff on its payroll and human investors as its shareholders.  Many of these humans collectively making decisions eventually brings about action (or inaction) within these companies.  Some companies have unsavoury practices, but most don't.  Why?  Bilking the customer on behalf of the shareholder is never a good idea, because you end up with fewer customers and less revenue.  And less investors, because many of them are also, not coincidentally, customers.  If you don't like a company's decisions, fine; don't buy their stuff, write the PR folks, organise a grassroots campaign, whatever.  Demonising corporations themselves makes you look every bit as foolish as conservatives who paint the so-called mainstream media as one monolithic souless agenda-driven monster.  Individual media persons might be stupid or shortsighted, but the whole enterprise is not evil.  Same goes for employees and companies.



I disagree, especially about the soul crushing (ask anyone who works for one, ).

On a more serious note, i still disagree. 

*edit* long winded rant gone. Needless to say it probably just would have come across as "And the corporations, they sit there, all corporationy".

Short version? The current organization and structure of a modern corporation prevents said human beings within the organizations from being _effectively_ responsible for their actions, other than if they effect the bottom line.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 May 2006)

I question your last.  I've attended familiarization sessions on both the military and civilian side of life in which it was explained that a person could be held responsible (legally) for his actions irrespective of whatever the organization above said or did.


----------



## couchcommander (20 May 2006)

Effectively is word I would stress. 

Read http://www.uswa.ca/program/content/3376.php . Notable exerpts:



> Widely known as the "Westray Bill," these amendments were inspired by the deaths of 26 men when the Westray coal mine exploded on April 5, 1992.
> 
> Designed to punish those corporations which failed to protect the health of their employees or the public, the amendments marked a significant shift in the liabilities of organizations for the failure of their senior officers to act.
> 
> Today, two years later, the "Westray Bill" has faded from sight. *Only one set of charges has been laid, and they were withdrawn...*



This is an extreme example. I am mostly referring to everyday things; choices as to how a company is run, what is produced and how, etc. 

The only _effective_ responsbility of the employee is to their boss, which ultimately ends up with the shareholders, who are ultimately responsbile for nothing the company does. 

Yes, legislation exists.... but... (see above)


----------



## a_majoor (20 May 2006)

Your idea of a corporation seems rooted in Newtonian Physics, gliding along in a frictionless frame of reference and only capable of effecting elastic collisions.

A Corporation is a person under law, and like a real person (i.e. you and I) is subject to many internal and external influences.

Management must plan product lines and allocate resources to create these products, in the hope they will be able to outdo the competition, make a profit and satisfy their existing shareholders. The have imperfect knowledge about the plans of their competitors, the market, government and natural forces which affect their environment. People who work within the corporation can effect the way the corporation is run, drones drag it down, while the bright sparks and high flyer's can raise it up. BTW Shareholders have the FINAL say in what a company does through their votes, and the Board of Directors has the ultimate responsibility in executing the wishes of the shareholders. (I agree many companies have shareholder slates and voting rules designed to circumvent this, but why would YOU become a shareholder in such a corporation?)

You yourself can choose to accept the way a corporation is operating (by buying its products on the open market, buying shares or choosing to work in it), or you can oppose it (buy competitor's products, make your own [i,e, go into competition], sell shares, refuse to work for the corporation).

Overcoming Inertia isn't the hardest problem in just Physics, apparently.


----------



## couchcommander (26 May 2006)

In my "the corporations, they sit there are corporationy" rant that I had removed (which I think almost should have kept), it is this fact which I highlighted as being their most dangerous aspect. 

In terms of liability within a corporation, despite the fact that the voting shareholders have virtually all of the de facto power, they have absolutely no liability for anything the corporation, as a result of it's responsibility to them, does (other than to their own humanity... but history has shown how far that goes). 

As I mentioned, furthermore, those people who are put in charge of corporations by said shareholders to act on their behalf are _effectively_, in all but the most extreme cases, free from responsibility as well. 

This is just speaking about things that are currently illegal, much less things that are simply not compassionate. 

What you have, in essence, is, as you pointed out, a legal entity with virtually all the same rights as a human being, except it has virtually none of the responsibility a human being has.

It's only purpose is to bring profit to the shareholders, and to provide well paying jobs for the management. 

This is what, IMO, needs to change. A corporate entity *should* serve the needs of it's consumers, the wider society as a whole (this includes maintaining profitability), as well as rewarding it's workers fairly for their labour and especially those who further these priorities, rather than just being responsible to the pocketbooks of shareholders who have no responsibility. 

I think these are priorities that you could agree with, in the end?

I would be interested in hearing your opinion though, as a relative expert (business finance is it?), as to how we should go about addressing my concerns, especially trying to accomplish my last?

IMO anywho. 

(sorry for the CNN paragraphs, but I've found people, not you a_majoor or mr.sallows, tend only to read the first and maybe last sentence if it's actually formed correctly).


----------



## a_majoor (27 May 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> This is what, IMO, needs to change. A corporate entity *should* serve the needs of it's consumers, the wider society as a whole (this includes maintaining profitability), as well as rewarding it's workers fairly for their labour and especially those who further these priorities, rather than just being responsible to the pocketbooks of shareholders who have no responsibility.



From the Capitalist and Free Market side of the fence, I would suggest that a corporation which does NOT serve the needs of its customers will not be in existence very long, regardless of the internal structure (sole proprietor, partnership or corporation). All the people you mention are free agents, and work as far as their personal circumstances allow to their own self interest. (The crux of your argument seems to be they are not free agents, which I will answer below).

I would argue that much of what you see as amoral capitalism is in fact, the amoral use and abuse of State power to gain and maintain advantage. For the capitalist or trade unionist, it is often better (for them) to gain the sanction of the State in order to use the armed power of the State against real or potential challengers. Trade unions, for example, lobby for restrictive rules and regulations to limit the ability of employers to hire non union workers, the most extreme example is perhaps the Ontario Teacher's Federation which makes it almost impossible to remove a substandard teacher (hence my decision to use private education). Other employers have similar travails, GM looses about $2000/vehicle for every car it makes, while Nissan has an average profit of $1200 with its non union work force.      

The Nissan vs GM example is a good one, Nissan's North American plants are in "right to work" states, and in order to keep their highly skilled workers, Nissan needs to pay a competitive wage and benefit package. Other foreign automakers do the same. Where it is impractical or regulation makes it impossible to do so, employers will look to automation (i.e. need to pay fewer workers), outsource or hire illegal aliens.

On the "Socialist" capitalist side of the fence, we see ever more restrictive rules and regulations about patents and copyrights (which do not benefit the creative authors of the works), never ending lobbies for corporate subsidies (with Canada being a particularly grotesque example; look at Bombardier, or the "fly by night" companies which contract for Canadian Forces equipment and close when the contract ends [HLVW truck factory in Kingston, TCCCS radio production facility in Calgary and so on]). These companies extract tax dollars from their competitors, money which cannot be used to create new and better products and services. Even the vultures who extract corporate welfare are not getting a full benefit, they must hire expensive lobbyists and expend considerable time, effort and energy from the running of the primary business to do so.

Shareholders have the responsibility to ensure they are investing in a sound corporation, and they understand the risks they are exposing themselves to (remember the Bre-X shareholders who went from @ $240/share to $0?).

Sad to say, the best solution is to pull out, get rid of the regulatory barricades which people hide behind (for the longest time, it wasn't clear that Enron had actually breached any laws or regulations at all, due to the complexity of the legal and regulatory environment they were operating under), remove subsidies and the armed power of the State from business (when you can get sent to jail, the armed power of the State is in full view) and simply create a level playing field where people can enter mutually beneficial contracts knowing the power of the State exists to enforce the contracts, not enforce uneven contracts where the State acts as an agent of one party against another.


----------



## a_majoor (27 May 2006)

The Euston Manifesto now has its own web site:
http://eustonmanifesto.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=38

The blogger who is posting about the manifesto is Norman Geras, and his blog is here: http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2006/05/euston_launch.html

Once again, I will point out the irony of the Left using the ultimate free market mechanism of Blogging on the Internet to strengthen their arguments, *since one of the fundamental beliefs of the left is to deny the efficiency of the free market!* Nevertheless, I do wish them success, since debating any subject is always more productive and interesting if they are intelligent and have something to say. Looking at the ruins of the Left as it exists today is no cause for celebration, _Hubris_ is always the vengeance of the gods. The behavior of the Liberal party from 1993 to the last election is a wonderful instruction to us all, unchallenged by any serious opposition they have fallen headlong into an orgy of spending, corruption and disdain for their constituents. We don't want to fall into that trap like the American Republicans are doing.


----------



## couchcommander (27 May 2006)

The free open nature of the internet is very much in the spirit of _compassion_ and _humanitarianism_, not profit; that's what makes it absolutely beautiful and wonderous. If you do not choose to associate these values with the left, then fine, that is your choice, but these are values that I hold dear. 

The internet about crossing barriers and allowing the free flow of information and ideas to all people regardless of who they are. It's not perfect, and in some places it has a long way to go, but their are many projects that are making significant headway in bringing it even to the poorest nations (anyone, as it stands now, can access the internet in Canada for absoltuely no charge). 

Yes, you can harness this to make money, of course. But that is not what what drives the content of the internet. Take this site for example. 

In the end and IMO, blogging in fact runs contrary to the ideals of the free market and especially capitalism. Blogging, as it is now, is free for use by anyone, and mostly free from even advertisements. It's a movement not about money but about connecting human beings and sharing ideas, *for that purpose alone*. 

If you want to see what the corporate, capitalist world has in mind for this creature of humanity, read this:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/05/25/the.web.toll/index.html

If these corporations get their way, they will be slowing down access to these resources of free thought, despite the fact that we already pay for access on both ends (I pay over 50 dollars a month for my massive connection, but that won't matter, and the server side already pays for their bandwidth, which are then both distributed to the carriers in the form of leasing of their lines), but they don't think it's enough and see an opportunity to get more.

This, my friend, is the crux of the problem.

You will probably argue that they are using the regulatory nature of the government to accomplish this, but that is in fact exactly the opposite. Currently government regulation prevents this, if let to be free they will be extorting - and it is indeed extorting as communication is a fundamental human endevour not to mention the fact we already pay for these services - ludacris fees for what is in essence not really adding anything, but rather just putting off taking away. 

They would simply be charging more from those whom have been sucessful because they are driven to ONE END ALONE, to make money. 

I ask you this: If the board of directions of these corporations was made up of average users, you and I perhaps, do you think they would be doing this? 

Would you, as a member of that board, permit them to inhibit your access to army.ca, blogs, news, academic institutions - whoever didn't agree to "protection" - because they simply wanted more money? 

Remember, the corporation is profitable - there is MORE than enough money in it not only to maintain service but to expand and enhance it while at the same time dropping rates. 

Would you vote to take away from yourself and those you care about, to give to those who really are not in need of anything more, for nothing in return? I think not, and THAT is why something needs to change. 

On the otherhand, if you and I were shareholders, making large sums of money off this venture - more than enough to ensure you could pay for whatever fees they decided to charge - would you not vote for this? Would you not vote to make even more money? I sure would, and the shareholders of those corporations sure ARE. 

That is the problem, Mr. Majoor. 

Once again, please let me know if you have a better idea.


----------



## couchcommander (27 May 2006)

re: GM - I'm not going to defend trade unions - I happen to have no particular affinity for them - but I hardly think all of GM's problems can be blamed on them.

It's like the MPIAA blaming movie downloads for reduced attendance at theaters - of course it wouldn't be the fault of sky high ticket prices and crappy movies.


----------



## a_majoor (28 May 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> It's like the MPIAA blaming movie downloads for reduced attendance at theaters - *of course it wouldn't be the fault of sky high ticket prices and crappy movies. *



See young Skywalker,* the POWER OF THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL *is revealed out of your own mouth. As for your insistence that the Blogosphere isn't a marketplace, consider that you, I and everyone else looks for Blogs and sites with useful content. Blogs compete in the marketplace of ideas, and so far, the Glen Reynolds (Instapundit) of the world rule the blog universe, since their customers find the product (information) more useful than that of competitors like the Daily Kos. Why do you suppose the dream of every blogger in existence is to be referenced on Instapundit? In the marketplace of ideas, the currency is the information and how many people accept or use it. This would be true if bloggers could only communicate by sending out phamplets, writing _samizdat_ or scratching coded messages on walls. What the Internet does is remove barriers of time and distance, you don't have to wait for Glen Reynolds to mail you, or get Instapundit slipped into your hand on a street corner, or decode messages on a wall, it is available the moment it is posted.

Like all other markets, information can be manipulated. Economics students suffered under the Keynesian model, the Phillips curve and IS/LM, even when it was completely obvious that these tools and metrics no longer had any connection to the real world (the "Stagflation" of the late 1970's which helped bring down the Carter Administration was impossible *by definition* in the Keynesian universe, yet existed none the less in the real world outside academia). The Keynesian model was discarded in favor of Classical economics and the Chicago school, since these ideas had observable correspondence to what was happening to the economy.

For subjects which have less direct correspondence with the real world, there are further levels of distortion available. The rejection of the classical cannon of Western Literature by the academic Left has no immediately recognizable consequences, but trying to decipher the thought process of modern recruits and officer candidates is a real challenge, to say the least. Lots of "alternatives" compete against the "dead white men", and although you know who's side I am on, it is not clear which cultural ideas will prevail.

Money is a useful metric, since it allows the exchange of information about dissimilar objects (your time is worth the hourly wage you choose to accept, and the box of Kraft Dinner you enjoyed is worth a certain fraction of your time. You can sell it to me if you believe it is worth more of my time, and take the money to buy a DVD, etc.), but it is not the ONLY metric. Your reputation, the information you use, the number of friends you have are all metrics that represent value as well.

WRT attempts to control the Internet (i.e. Internet tollways), this has already been tried with services like MSN and AOL, using the "walled garden" approach. While it is true there are plenty of sheep who don't mind only being able to access whatever Bill Gates or Yahoo! choose to show them, there are also enough people who will also pay for unfettered access. There are people who want to offer Internet access via wireless, Cable, phone, power lines, fiber optic cable or any other technical means you can imagine. The power of the market will subvert attempts to control the internet, with self interested share holders hoping to make big profits and you getting more and more choices. Remember, YOU are a free agent, and do not have to stand still and take what is being offered.


----------



## couchcommander (28 May 2006)

> See young Skywalker, the POWER OF THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL is revealed out of your own mouth



*buzzing of a lightsabre* And I will now use it to destroy you! *crackle* *smash* *crackle*



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> The power of the market will subvert attempts to control the internet, with self interested share holders hoping to make big profits and you getting more and more choices. Remember, YOU are a free agent, and do not have to stand still and take what is being offered.



The problem is not with perfect markets - the idea that the the best producers will be rewarded due to an increased demand, and that scarcity will be controlled by a rising cost the more scarce a product becomes is a no brainer. 

The problem is with capitalism. 

(and now here it goes...*buzz*) Namely, some people have it, some people don't. Those that do have it have a much greater potential for making more capital than those without. Due to the selfish nature of these people they will invariably attempt to do just that, make more capital for themselves. Further, due to the inherently finite nature of the economy this will result in the collection most of the capital in their hands, and the destruction of the market.

That is why these internet toll booths are going to be such a problem. It's not a walled garden we are free to walk around to get to other, free, goodstuff - we're already inside the walls, trying to get out. And there is a limited number of people who hold the keys, right now they are forced to let everyone out the same... but that may change. 

The main trunk lines that connect the various MAN's together are vital. Even the "free" internet providers we have now, wireless, etc., depend on those lines for wider communication. Further, running new highspeed lines cross country is very expensive, as I am sure you know. 

Unfortunately, these big corporations control these lines, and are really the only ones with *both* the capital and the interest to make new ones.  Thus, they, in effect, together have a monopoly on the service.

In the end, I have no problem with markets. If a perfect market were to ever exist, I think it would be great. Unfortunately, all types of things, in fact a virtually never ending list, distort markets and ensure that they are anything but perfect, even in the most lassiez-faire economy.

You're only hope, master, is to accept the teachings of couchism and try and control the "force" for the better of all mankind - only it has the true power to save you!


----------



## a_majoor (29 May 2006)

Young Skywalker, the Invisible Hand  permeates the Universe and connects all things. As one of the first Masters teaches:



> It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. *We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love*, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.



and: 



> As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual value of society as great as he can.* He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it.* By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.



Adam Smith may not have known of Thucydides, but even the ancient Greeks had some awareness of the factors which motivate us:



> If these words are judged useful by those who want to understand clearly the events which happened in the past and which (human nature being what it is) will at some time or other and in much the same way, be repeated in the future.



Once you wrap your head around the idea that the vast majority of people are motivated by self interest, then you will understand why Utopian, socialist, authoritarian and command economies are doomed to fail: people find ways to manipulate the system to promote their own self interest. Since free markets and Capitalism make no bones about this (and indeed only operate because they harness individual self interest), they ALWAYS outperform their competitors, and societies built around these principles have far more flexibility and adaptability in the long run than their competitors. If free markets are not perfect, then let us discover what is blocking the free flow of information and capital, and correct the distortions of the market. 

The first clear example of this may be the Peloponessian Wars, where Athens lost their Army and Fleet in the disastrous invasion of Sicily, yet was still able to continue the fight for almost a decade against Sparta and her allies, the former members of the Delian League who revolted against Athens and the Persian Empire, which bankrolled Athens enemies. Only a few decades after the end of the war, Athens had rebuilt and was once again the leading power in the Hellenetic world. Just a short while after the end of the Peloponessian Wars, Thebes defeated the Spartans in battle and invaded Laconia. Sparta, a rigid autocracy, was shattered and never recovered from this blow.

The only "advantage" of command economies is they use the armed power of the State to mediate economic outcomes, and can supply resources to areas where market economies would not. The examples in history are almost always negative, the raising of mass armies and militarization of societies seems to be the most common outcome, followed by Pharaonic Monuments , "bridges to nowhere" and mass corruption. If the writers of the Euston Manifesto can find some way out of this trap (besides saying "we will do better"), then more power to them.

Since free markets do not support the negative outcomes of command economies, I will remain on the side of the angels.


----------



## couchcommander (29 May 2006)

> If free markets are not perfect, then let us discover what is blocking the free flow of information and capital, and correct the distortions of the market.



The problem, as I see it, is the severely unequal distribution of capital which gives certain individuals or organizations much greater wealth generating potential, as well as an ability to protect this wealth generating potential from smaller challengers. 

Real world example is where I work right now - we _could_ be in a position to begin challenging the big box retails (there products stink, their service is horrible, etc).- but we've specifically shied away from doing that because the last time we made a noticeable dent in their profits they basically just bought all the product that we usually get from our suppliers and sold it for a much lower margin (we suspect basically at a loss if not barely breaking equal). 

Further, actors within the free market are rarely if ever perfect actors - in fact they are kind of dumb, often choosing lesser product for no real good reason (we get them all the time "I want one of these"..."actually this brand  is both better and less expensive".."I still want one of these"). 

And once again a problem that just needs addressing is the massively unequal distribution of wealth - in Canada the last 10 years of growth have gone almost exclusively into the hands of the extremely wealthy, CEO's now make on average somewhere around 400 times more per hour what your average blue collar worker makes (was not always the case). 

(real world examples and statistics! the Austrian school doesn't like me anymore.)

You thoughts on a possible remedy? 

To me the solution is, once again, direct and truly democratic intervention by the people, for the people, *of the people* to realign the market to primarily, I suppose would be the right word, serve the needs of these said people while still rewarding innovation, work ethic, etc.  (not the Euston Manifesto! Couchism!)

Once again, it is their self interest I am counting on to ensure that their needs will continue to be met, you will find no quibbles about that principle here - I just have a different way of harnessing (I preferr to liken it to nuclear power generation vs. a nuclear explosion - both generate a lot of heat, but the latter only really benefits those who control it). 

And I don't think I would classify it as a "command" economy. The market is still there, the only thing is that the actors within it are both the consumer and the voting shareholders if they choose (which all are free to do).


----------



## a_majoor (29 May 2006)

Wealth has always been uneaqually distributed. In ancient times the ditribution was quite extreme, and even today, in command economies, authoratarian societies and even socialist and semi sociaist economies the divisions are far more pronounced than in Free Market societies. 

The non free market societies use the armed power of the State to create and retain these divisions of wealth (feudal farmers were at the mercy of the armed knight who's estate they worked, the growth of walled towns and citizen militias that could protect merchants and tradesmen was one of the factors which broke the feudal system). In Free Market societies, the "rich" can certainly try to maintain their wealth and privilage against all comers (usually through the power of the State, i.e. special tax exemptions, regulatory obstructions of potentiall challengers, etc.), but there are so many avenues and outlets, a far greater proportion of people can achieve wealth and at least middle class status than anywhere else. Even the rich are not immune, there is a saying "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations", so they have to work hard to stay on top.

I have been emphasising the idea that people are free agents who work for their own self interest. Your examples simply demonstrate that a. the management of your competing "Big Box" store is willing to make short term sacrifice in order to ensure their long term profit (self interest, don't you know....), and b. People are not perfect "rational actors", but see their own self interest differently from you. If they want product "A", maybe they have judged the savings from comparison shopping are not worth the extra effort involved. It is for them to judge, not you. You can attempt to educate people and well done for trying, but in the end, who makes the decisions and who bears the consequences for buying product "A"? Certainly not you.



			
				couchcommander said:
			
		

> To me the solution is, once again, direct and truely democratic intervention by the people, for the people, *of the people* to realign the market to primarily, I supose would be the right word, serve the needs of these said people while stil rewarding innovation, work ethic, etc.  (not the Euston Manifesto! Couchism!)



You see the power of the Austrian School? You simply cannot escape it! Direct Intervention, as you are implying, would mean the people could participate in the market without tax or regulatory obstruction. The Jedi Masters Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard and Adam Smith would be very proud.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 May 2006)

>Namely, some people have it, some people don't.

You can make the same statement about good looks, sexual attractiveness, intelligence, athletic ability, and a host of other desireables.  What plans do you have for levelling those playing fields?


----------



## couchcommander (30 May 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Direct Intervention, as you are implying, would mean the people could participate in the market without tax or regulatory obstruction[/color].



Why yes, that is in fact exactly what I want. 

The "state" and the "people" would cease to be two separate entities, there would simply be "the people" who together while promoting their own self interest through the mechanisms we now both appear to agree on, contribute to the overall health of the society.

Indeed it is only by giving the individual the ability to effectively control his or her own life that we can bring about the society we both want - one that is free, democratic through and through, and rewarding of an individuals efforts. 

We will use each persons own self interest to _ensure_ their continued prosperity by giving them the power to actually make the choices required to bring this about. 

Re: Mr. Sallows

I don't have a problem with people being rewarded for their efforts, in fact I strongly encourage it, it is the cornerstone of a successful, innovative economy. 

But I do see what you're saying Mr. Sallows - in the end, I would state it as my most fundamental goal to have each and every person achieve one thing and one thing alone-  happiness - that is really, in the end, all I care about.

However, as not many people will in fact become truly happy, I want to give everyone the opportunities they need to live, grow, and succeed as the person they want themselves to be and thus hopefully minimize some suffering. I am not, however, on some crusade to make everyone "equal".


----------



## a_majoor (30 May 2006)

So Couchism is Libertarianism after all. Libertarians believe that the best way for people to achieve their potential is to allow them to engage in voluntary interactions and create voluntary associations to carry out projects beyond the reach of any single individual. The State exists to prevent the use of coercion in these voluntary affairs and to provide a level playing field and clear set of rules (i.e. contract law) for all to abide by. The other main purpose of the State is to provide the Judiciary, as a neutral means of settling disputes.

Now this is almost as airy-fairy as Socialist and Utopian plans, which is why I am a small "l" libertarian. Voluntary associations can only go so far, and certainly there are fairly large projects such as infrastructure which can be more efficiently handled by centralized means. In this case we take our voluntary associations one step higher by electing representatives (the government) to mediate between the wants of various voluntary associations and individuals to plan these projects more "efficiently".  Of course, this is* also * problematic, since this is the wedge where State power intrudes more and more in your lives. There is also the problem of "voluntary associations" such as the Hells Angels or the Mafia to consider, and the infiltration of the State by criminal elements.

I am an advocate of strict term limits and would also like to see shorter terms of office for most levels of government to prevent the growth of an entrenched political "class". People like Jean Chretien or Joe Clark, who were professional politicians for most of their adult lives really have no connection at all to you and I, and are hardly advocates for the individuals and voluntary associations libertarians (or Libertarians) see as being the fundimental units of society. (BTW, the late Jane Jacobs, hardly a right winger, made a very similar argument about the utility of cities in creating the climate of togetherness and trust that encouraged voluntary interaction).

Like Brad has said, people are not imbued with equal levels of intelligence, beauty, ability or _Arete_, so there is no way to completely level the playing field, and not everyone will come out on top. the best we can hope for is to create conditions which allow equality of opportunity, so people can maximize their own potential. If you don't end up like Bill Gates, then perhaps you will end up like Bill Smith, which may not be such a bad thing.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 May 2006)

>However, as not many people will in fact become truly happy, I want to give everyone the opportunities they need to live, grow, and succeed as the person they want themselves to be and thus hopefully minimize some suffering.

Do you want to give them opportunities, or do you intend that the rest of us must join you in giving them opportunities?  There is a difference.  How do you reconcile making one person happier with making another person unhappier?


----------



## couchcommander (1 Jun 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Now this is almost as airy-fairy as Socialist and Utopian plans, which is why I am a small "l" libertarian. Voluntary associations can only go so far, and certainly there are fairly large projects such as infrastructure which can be more efficiently handled by centralized means. In this case we take our voluntary associations one step higher by electing representatives (the government) to mediate between the wants of various voluntary associations and individuals to plan these projects more "efficiently".  Of course, this is* also * problematic, since this is the wedge where State power intrudes more and more in your lives. There is also the problem of "voluntary associations" such as the Hells Angels or the Mafia to consider, and the infiltration of the State by criminal elements.
> 
> I am an advocate of strict term limits and would also like to see shorter terms of office for most levels of government to prevent the growth of an entrenched political "class". People like Jean Chretien or Joe Clark, who were professional politicians for most of their adult lives really have no connection at all to you and I, and are hardly advocates for the individuals and voluntary associations libertarians (or Libertarians) see as being the fundamental units of society. (BTW, the late Jane Jacobs, hardly a right winger, made a very similar argument about the utility of cities in creating the climate of togetherness and trust that encouraged voluntary interaction).



Well i couldn't have said it better myself.

However, as I mentioned before, i find our current governmental system "democratic" in name only. The representatives we elect end up, like greedy shareholders, largely, at least it seems from their actions, not caring THAT much about the good of the people, but rather - politics. 

Their concern is simple, what do I need to do to get reelected? 

This is not something that is heinous or should not be expected, we've already agreed people will serve their own interests; it's, really in the end, what is to be expected. We've put these people into a gravy boat. 

The solution? Well I suspect by now you've started thinking about what I might propose, and it's the same across the board. Return governance to the people.

Now this is just a brief synopsis of our views on a system of government, but here it goes.

Federally there is an assembly of 501 citizens. These citizens serve 2 year terms and are selected randomly from the eligible population and required, unless their are extenuating circumstances, to serve (think jury duty). This is NOT voluntary, unlike the corporate boards. The reason for this is to ensure everyone is represented.

The assembly as a whole has "elections" every year, one year 251 are elected, the next, 250 (similar to how the US senate works). This ensures that there is always a "veteran" group in the assembly, and some type of a continuity in the government. At the conclusion of every year, a "speaker" is selected by the assembly from the departing group - he would function as a "leader" per se, of the assembly (more involved than our current speaker is), to give it some more direction. Primarily, this assembly would operate divided into a number of committees looking at specific areas of governance, but assembling as a whole to pass legislation or debate and decide matters of national importance.

Now as much as I loath it, there is a need for an elected (our sense) "representative", on a longer, say 4 year term, to give some definite direction to the government and to control the mechanisms of government. Because I think power corrupts, I will make it hard on whoever decides to try and do this by having not only one, but two "presidents" elected, who then must govern by consensus (anything that they cannot decide would be sent to the assembly to prevent deadlock). Their job is to propose legislation and direction to the assembly, to oversee the civil service and ensure that it serves the wishes of the assembly. In the end, they are responsible to the assembly, which can bring them down or veto anything they may decide to do. 

After this the next political divsion would be rural or urban regions (think metropolitan areas). However, there would be no "second" layer of government to squabble over dumb things and eat up billions of dollars in tax dollars in overhead - it would be an extension of the national government.

Much like large companies have regional offices, who, while following the same guidelines, principles, operating directives etc. from the head office - so that the company is uniform across the country - they adapt to the region in question. Regional assemblies and their committees would do much the same thing.

Exactly how this works is a much longer post - but I would stress thinking in terms of large companies. Though spread out across the land, they are relatively the same throughout it, while having sufficient regional division to account for the differences. 

A quick example: A regional assembly says "hey, we need to build more public transit", the national assembly decides gives out funds for transportation infrastructure in their budget, the national transportation committee decides to give funds for public transit development in said region, dispenses funds for this purpose to the regional board of the public transit authority, said board decides where to put it, public transit authority builds infrastructure while regional board oversees. 

Due to the uniform nature of the government and it's agents, development is kept very efficient due to the fact that this public transit authority is actually a corporation responsible to the national transportation committee on country wide matters (it's board of directors really), and at the same time the regional boards . The reason it is efficient is both profit motive for the management and a national mandate to provide urban transportation services - thus the entire country uses the sames buses, trains, stations, training, etc. - large savings due to volume, but still maintaining regional quality due to the regional boards. 

So, to recap - national assembly of average citizens on short terms, headed by one person selected from this group, changed every year. Two presidents who operate on the basis of conesus amongst themselves, representing the nation as a whole and proposing directions and legislation to the assemblies. The government is further represented at the regional level by smaller assemblies which make decisions affecting the region itself following the direction of the national assembly.

Government services are provided by national corporations directly responsible to both their respective national committee, and regional boards to ensure that the quality of service is good outside of the capital.



> Do you want to give them opportunities, or do you intend that the rest of us must join you in giving them opportunities?  There is a difference.  How do you reconcile making one person happier with making another person unhappier?



No I am not going to drag people down, in fact, as I stated before, I would strongly encourage and support excellence. I would, however, support those who are struggling as well. 

I will point out, and this is very important, there is NO, ABSOLUTELY NO, difference in the help that would be provided due to ethnicity, sex, etc. 

If a person needs help or assistance, they will get it, and it will be tuned to their level of need regardless of who they are or where they came from. 

You mention happiness though, and I have question for you, largely unrelated to this discussion, but still - what is more condusive to happiness, collecting vast amounts of material wealth or leading a compassionate life, and while taking care of your own needs, helping others meet theirs?


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jun 2006)

Well, it seems rather than seeking to remove the sand from the gears (like Prime Minister Harper is proposing with senatorial term limits and fixed election dates), you want to overthrow the system and start over with a mishmash of parts from the historical BTDT bin.

I see the ancient _Eklassia_, Spartan _Ephors_ and the Spartan Dual Monarchy, corporate boards of directors....

What I see little of is the division and separation of powers  (Legislative, Executive and Judicial), which could easily lead to tyranny through clever demagogues dominating the _Eklassia_. 

I also predict a huge problem getting anyone besides first year poli sci students to buy into this, since it is so disconnected from present day society. We have a Westminister parliamentary system with strong provinces because that is the historical, geographical and social background this nation was built on. The American Republic reflects their historical, geographical and social roots, just as the Parliamentary system of the UK reflects their roots (since the UK is so much smaller than continental North America, there is no reason to have "provinces", for example).

My advice to you is to centre your chi, look at the hows and whys of our present day system and see where applying some lubrication or removing a bottleneck would make things better. As a practical exercise, you will discover more of the mechanics of our system, and be better able to take effective action to achieve my goals. As Obi Wan would say: "I sense a great disturbance in the Invisible Hand, as if millions of citizens cried out for their property rights"

Summer assignment: read this thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/26663.0

_edit to add link_


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jun 2006)

>These citizens serve 2 year terms and are selected randomly from the eligible population

If we can agree their authority to do anything will not extend any further than wiping the sputum off the back of the chair in front of them when they sneeze, I might be convinced to allow it.

>what is more condusive to happiness, collecting vast amounts of material wealth or leading a compassionate life, and while taking care of your own needs, helping others meet theirs?

It depends on the person.  There is no correct answer to that question.  If a person is happiest being a miserable skinflint, he should have the freedom to be one.  That's the point, you see: no one can decide another person's happiness; in forcing others to conform to your ideals, what you are really doing is making yourself happier.


----------



## couchcommander (3 Jun 2006)

You are indeed right there is a strong historical influence on certain _ideas_ - but nothing like that practically has really been tried to any major extent. 

As I said, this is a brief overview, but on that note I find the necessity for a prohibitive and inefficient divisions of power rather small considering the nature of the principle ruling body - randomly selected citizens on a short term who will serve only once. The only people one would really have to worry about is the elected representatives - but limiting them to one term once again would be refreshing. 

Of course the judiciary is independant, and there are many checks and balances in the forms of auditing offices and oversight and comptroller positions. The exact document for how this all fits together is... still in development....but right now sits around 20 pages.  It's getting closer, and I would be happy to forward it to you once completed (some months away). 

In the end though, once again Brad is absolutely right.

I personally wouldn't, considering the untested nature of this and my own hesitant nature, jump in with both feet right away.

My proposal would be to bring about an "advisory body" of a similar nature to the proposed assembly (501 on 2 year rotating terms), and have it act in an unofficial role alongside parliament, debating issues and proposing legislation to parliament, who would have no obligation to do anything they ask at this point, but still giving us a chance to see how it would work in practice....

...if it works well, I can think of a relatively useless government organ that could use some sprucing up...*whistles*.... (starts with an S and ends in old geezer)

And re: happiness Mr. Sallows - there does exist arguments for what happiness really is - but that is another fight on another thread. For right now, just let me say you are absolutely right, we cannot determine what is "best" for each different person - we can only help them acheive what _they_ think is best for them - but at the same time can temper it with reason.


----------



## DJ (3 Jun 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >These citizens serve 2 year terms and are selected randomly from the eligible population
> 
> If we can agree their authority to do anything will not extend any further than wiping the sputum off the back of the chair in front of them when they sneeze, I might be convinced to allow it.



Can you explain your position on this in greater detail?  I'm slightly piqued.


----------



## couchcommander (3 Jun 2006)

Calvin said:
			
		

> Can you explain your position on this in greater detail?  I'm slightly piqued.



Not to speak for him, but I believe Mr. Sallows has a very unimpressive view of the nature of most of his fellow citizens.

To me, this is not unfounded (as history has shown them to be rather dull in large groups...  ), which is why I would like to test things out before actually jumping in. 

I myself have a slightly better impression - but not unrealistically so.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jun 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> You are indeed right there is a strong historical influence on certain _ideas_ - but nothing like that practically has really been tried to any major extent.



Totally incorrect. The classical _Polis_ was ruled in its entirety by the _Eklassia_, which was all male citizens of the _Polis_, who were further subdivided into various sub groups (such as the _Boule_ or juries) by lot. Once citizens had served in these, they were generally ineligible to be chosen again, indeed the only elective offices which were renewable were the _Strategoi_ (Generals). Because the Greeks were well aware of human nature, they tried to prevent the concentration of power through term limits, but recognizing there was a need for some long term consistency, made one exception (the _Strategoi_), who often turned out to be Demagogues who could persuade the _Eklassia_ to vote them in for multiple terms. Since the Jury could put the on trial Strategoi for failure to achieve their objectives, embezzlement etc. there was at least some check on their power, but this was only possible after the fact. The failure to separate powers also facilitated demagoguery, since _Strategoi_ could incite the assembly turn on their rivals (Athens had 10 _Strategoi_, for example).



> As I said, this is a brief overview, but on that note I find the necessity for a prohibitive and inefficient divisions of power rather small considering the nature of the principle ruling body - randomly selected citizens on a short term who will serve only once. The only people one would really have to worry about is the elected representatives - but limiting them to one term once again would be refreshing.



In addition to your thread, I am also assigning you the Federalist Papers  and Leviathan. There is a very good reason to separate powers, and the historical record is totally unambiguous about this. While I know you mean well, I suspect you are operating off a fairly shallow foundation of ideas. Brad and I both have jaundiced/realistic views of the way people operate; in my case from seeing them during various operations in Canada and different parts of the world and in day to day interactions here at home (I won't presume to speak for Brad). Any organizational/political system which does not have a true understanding of human nature at its core will not have any chance of success (in the sense that it operates the way it is "intended" to).


----------



## couchcommander (5 Jun 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Totally incorrect. The classical _Polis_ was ruled in its entirety by the _Eklassia_, which was all male citizens of the _Polis_, who were further subdivided into various sub groups (such as the _Boule_ or juries) by lot. Once citizens had served in these, they were generally ineligible to be chosen again, indeed the only elective offices which were renewable were the _Strategoi_ (Generals). *Because the Greeks were well aware of human nature, they tried to prevent the concentration of power through term limits, but recognizing there was a need for some long term consistency, made one exception (the Strategoi), who often turned out to be Demagogues who could persuade the Eklassia to vote them in for multiple terms.*



Yes, but the pool of citizens was not totally inclusive. After 451, unless BOTH of your parents were Athenian, you were not considered an Athenian citizen. Not to mention women weren't represented, or other notable differences in the exact mechanics I have described (BIG is the tyrannical nature of the assembly, as you have astutely pointed out, itself having no check in the form of a firm written constitution protective of individuals and minority groups (it did have a constitution, but not as we'd know it today) - it was free to enact virtually whatever it wanted leading to a tyranny of the majority ).  

But, to shy away from nit picking. Leviathan's a good read, never had the pleasure of the Federalist Papers. 

As I said, you are right that a lot of the ideas from history have influenced this, and of course the Athenian flirtings with democracy were one of them - but one can hardly call them the same. 

Re:  separation of power. It is my experience that our current representative system is, by and large, is blinded by this overly optimistic view you paint myself with. 

Choosing special citizens to "represent" the wishes of hundreds of thousands via a popularity contest seems to me to be, at the very least, equally bone headed as my own crazy idea. 

I'll reiterate that this has created a virtual "class" of entrenched citizens cut off from the real world and the population they serve, who's ONLY real concern seems to be to get reelected - not the good of the people they represent, not even what they'd want - whatever will help them get reelected, and the farther away from reality they go - i.e. the higher up in politics, the worse this gets. 

Whether this results in pushing legislation in favour of large pharmaceutical companies or bringing in a budget that actually effectively decreases the net take home pay for the neediest of Canadians - the result is a "good effort" at least not openly tyrannical like much of human history, but something in need of some serious change. 

Once again if you have suggestions I'm all ears, but as it stands the "representatives" or, as I preferr to call them, the _politicians_, as that is all they seem to be, have to go. 

On the separation of powers though - within the system I have described - what would you suggest? Once again I am very eager to hear what you would add .

In the end, would you not be willing to give this a try through the proces I described above, firstly as an unformal advisory body?


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Jun 2006)

>Can you explain your position on this in greater detail?  I'm slightly piqued.

The problem with governments is that with very few exceptions people use power in one of two ways:
1) To suit themselves.
2) To suit their view of how everyone else should be like themselves.

My reaction to cc's suggested citizens' assembly was prompted by the fact that the discussion once again jumps right into how we should choose our governors, overlooking the much more interesting and vital preliminary question of what degree we should submit to being governed.  I believe the correct formulation of a society's constitution and charter law must be a narrowly-defined set of powers written in plain language without escape clauses for governments, with all other powers and rights reserved to individuals.  If we have that then it matters less if we foul up the system by which we select governments or make a poor choice during selection, because the damage they do while in office can only be limited and temporary.

It's not hard to find ongoing discussions on the web in which the topic of the day is a variation on the theme, "How can we best organize society for the benefit of all persons?"  I may be thought over-confident or arrogant or self-centred or selfish or many of a number of other unflattering things, but in my view those are only pale shadows of the nature of the arrogance that permits a person to view people as bricks with which to build a better wall.  If there is a purpose to life and an afterlife, then while each of us may freely judge what other people should be (ie. an opinion) it is not given to any of us to execute sentence; that is reserved to the higher power.  If there is no purpose to life and no afterlife, then I can't imagine any moral restraint on the use of unlimited force by people who tire of unwanted interferences in their lives, and the whole fabric of society depends on the number of people who are content to go along in order to get along.  Either way I see an advantage in eschewing the temptations of majority rule.


----------



## couchcommander (5 Jun 2006)

Indeed a very interesting post Mr. Sallows.

What then would you suggest to be the limits of a governments power?

Human civilization - no in fact all human society has been about imposition of moral and value structures upon others.  You speak about limiting the power of government to institutionally impose the values of others upon you - well I submit that you are *ALREADY* a slave to the values of others and it has very little to do with government. 

Right now our entire lives are controlled by others - I'm sorry to point it out but it's true - when was the last time you made a decision that was completely free of outside interference? Unless you've grown up in a void, the answer is never.  You buy a home, get a job, try and keep it, get married and have children, pursue material wealth, buy Pepsi and Nike shoes - who came up with these ideals? It wasn't you. (this is not meant to be exactly you... I think you get my point though). 

So, we have a choice. We can either allow those in society who gather the most power around them to continue to dictate the course of our beliefs for *THEIR OWN BETTERMENT* - OR - we can bring in systems whereby you and I have the ability to actually influence *OUR OWN LIVES* in a meaningful manner, something individualism cannot achieve unless you plan to go live by yourself in a cave away from all other humanbeings. 

In the end, it's your choice. I choose the latter.

(Read Emile Durkheim's _Suicide_ for a look into the influence of society on what appears to be a very individualistic act - it is a 19th century case study, so understand sociology has progressed a wee bit from that groundbreaking piece)

*edit* In the end though, we want the same things once again. I too agree that right now our lives are far too controlled by other people's interests, and these interests often run contrary to what we want, desire, or even need. I realize that this is expressed through the control of our entire society by relatively small group of society - it's not just the government. 

My solution is to put _us_ back in charge of _our_ lives so that our interests can actually be addressed, and, most importantly as I stated above, so that you and I have some meaningful control over the direction our lives take rather than having it be dictated by others - something both you and I find repugnant.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Jun 2006)

>Human civilization - no in fact all human society has been about imposition of moral and value structures upon others.  You speak about limiting the power of government to institutionally impose the values of others upon you - well I submit that you are ALREADY a slave to the values of others and it has very little to do with government.

In what way?  My social and political values are apparently - I infer from popular discourse - outside the Canadian mainstream.  It is hard to conceive of being a slave to the external influence of other people any more than I can conceive of being a slave to gravity and oxygen.  Besides, even if social pressure were that strong, it would not negate the aim to throttle government power.  The less people can do by force under the veneer of law, the more they will have to do by persuasion.  Government is in many respects just an extension of some people's moralism.  Reduce the power of government, and that moralism matters a great deal less.

>Right now our entire lives are controlled by others - I'm sorry to point it out but it's true - when was the last time you made a decision that was completely free of outside interference?

Since you referred to both, I assume you don't confuse "control" and "influence".  The existence of a decision implies a choice of courses; the existence of courses implies factors which influence courses available.  Don't conflate that with control.


----------



## couchcommander (17 Jun 2006)

Mr. Sallows,

I say slave and I do mean it in almost it's literal sense. The values that you hold were not, as I pointed out, the sole product of your own imagination - they are a product of society around you; though your particular experience of that society may be differrent than others, leading to your differing viewpoints. 

But yet despite being so out of the "mainstream" you still conduct yourself within the bounds of societies norms and values which, not coincidentally, currently serve the needs of (not surprisingly) the powerful. 

You buy your Pepsi or Coca-cola, drive your car, wear your Nike's, get a mortgage, scoop up consumer electronics (once again, I don't mean litterally those items - but even if you wear Birkenstock to screw "the man", you are just putting money in another man's pocket who seeks to profit off of this "rebellion" by providing a nice designer shoe for your particular group to wear in rebellion against the other designer shoe). 

Indeed our lives are "influenced" by others, but they are also to a very real point "controlled" by others. When's the last time you ran down the street on a nice hot day in nothing but a loin cloth? Bet it'd feel great - but you probably don't regularly do it sober. Society does control you Mr. Sallows (and no, running down the street in a loin cloth just to try and demonstrate your point at this juncture is too late...)

However, I think you hit on a very real and very important point when you stated "Government is in many respects just an extension of some people's moralism". 

In that regard, you are absolutely right. I couldn't have said it better myself. But I will add, consumerism is, in many respects, just an extension of some people's moralism.

So once again I ask you, would you rather let the determination of what this moralism is reside with those who win phony popularity contests to become career politicians and shareholders who have no real concern for your wellbeing outside their own pocket books - or would you rather take control over this process and actually have some real control over the direction of your own life and those you care about?

In the end, would bringing these ideas about in a test situation be such a bad thing? Worst comes to worst, it self destructs - but it could quite possibly work as well.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Jun 2006)

>or would you rather take control over this process and actually have some real control over the direction of your own life and those you care about?

That alternative requires me to cede authority to neither politicians, shareholders, nor committees of common people.  I therefore can't imagine why you came up with the idea of the latter in the first place.  If you're so dead set on the idea that any degree of conformity or concessions amounts to slavery, why would you simply propose to exchange one set of masters for another?  Just because you like the fit and feel of a different set of chains doesn't change your self-described servitude.


----------



## Dave Mann (11 Jul 2006)

http://euston-canada.spaces.msn.com/
I am taking a Euston Manifesto- inspired resolution to the Federal Convention of The New Democratic Party this September 8-10, 2006.
The resolution and related topics are posted on the website.
Thanks in advance for your consideration.
Dave Mann


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jul 2006)

An interesting statement in that NDP link, under *The enemy of my enemy is my friend*:



> When do I feel more uncomfortable?  When I agree with George Bush or when I agree with Fidel Castro?  I would feel more comfortable with the man who will not throw me in jail when I disagree with him.



A rather interesting sentiment.  I can agree with that, but unfortunately it is only a partial statement and doesn't follow through to a conclusion that reflects the current world situation.  I wonder if the author would feel more comfortable with the 'religious fanatic' who would rather behead him when he disagrees with their 'radical religious beliefs'?  Where does he stand on that premise?  Would he side with George Bush or Osama Bin Laden?

Going or not going to jail is a whole lot different than being executed because you are an infidel.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jul 2006)

Dave, look at this thread to see what some of us think about the Euston Manifesto: 


MOD EDIT: I merged the threads Mr. Majoor


----------



## Dave Mann (12 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> An interesting statement in that NDP link, under *The enemy of my enemy is my friend*:
> 
> A rather interesting sentiment.  I can agree with that, but unfortunately it is only a partial statement and doesn't follow through to a conclusion that reflects the current world situation.  I wonder if the author would feel more comfortable with the 'religious fanatic' who would rather behead him when he disagrees with their 'radical religious beliefs'?  Where does he stand on that premise?  Would he side with George Bush or Osama Bin Laden?
> 
> Going or not going to jail is a whole lot different than being executed because you are an infidel.



Thanks George for taking a look at the Euston Manifesto Canada Blog.  I hope I'm replying to this thread soon enough.  I believe that not only would George Bush not throw me in jail for disagreeing with him but he would also respect my right to exist.   In Cuba I would last less than an hour before Fidel's goons threw me in prison.  So in either situation, George is my ally in international affairs and my adversary (not my enemy) on the domestic front.  Communists and social-democrats have been at each others throats since at least 1917.  When Lenin came to power he overthrew a coalition government headed by a social-democrat.  I believe that social-democrats, liberals and conservatives are now, as they have been since 1945, are allied against all forms of fascism, whether it be the left-fascism of Stalin or the Islamic fascism of Bin Laden.   Many European governments, headed by parties that are the European version of the NDP, were staunch supporters of NATO. I think that perhaps most of the members of Army.ca, when they hear "NDP" expect something that I am not.  In some cases, the negative stereotype of a NDPer is true, which is why the Euston Manifesto exists, to combat soft-on-third-world-fascism lefties like George Galloway and I would say Svend Robinson.


----------



## Dave Mann (12 Jul 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Dave, look at this thread to see what some of us think about the Euston Manifesto:
> 
> 
> MOD EDIT: I merged the threads Mr. Majoor



Thanks Moderator.  It's like I've landed in a different universe, where everything I say gets taken the oipposite to that intended.  Everyone here seems to write in English but I'm not sure.  Its very educational. (I'm serious)


----------



## Dave Mann (12 Jul 2006)

Regarding "A Primer for the Recalcitrant Left" posted earlier by a_majoor, I think that's what Euston Manifesto subscribers are trying to accomplish.  So I wont mention George again.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jul 2006)

My main objection to "the Left" is the premise that goals are to be accomplished through coercion, taxation and regulation, when in the "real world" these methods have a long and proven record of disastrous outcomes.

The free market provides mechanisms that achieve most of the stated desired outcomes of the socialistic "Left", and do so faster, more efficiently and with fewer negative outcomes (most of the negative outcomes accrue to the people who take the risks and "bet wrong" on the market).

There is much room for discussion as to where the dividing lines actually lie. Big "L" Libertarians would be content with a police force, an Armed Forces similar to Switzerland's and a system of courts. Small "l" libertarians recognize there are limitations to what voluntary associations of people can achieve, Conservatives believe there are greater roles for the government than that, and so on. 

So long as people like yourself are engaged in sensible discussion like the Euston Manifesto offers, I have plenty of time and intellectual horsepower to engage, but the shrill ranting that comes from the Left these days is just annoying and a waste of everyone's time and effort.


----------



## couchcommander (13 Jul 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If you're so dead set on the idea that any degree of conformity or concessions amounts to slavery, why would you simply propose to exchange one set of masters for another?  Just because you like the fit and feel of a different set of chains doesn't change your self-described servitude.



Ah the replies had clued me back into this thread - I had forgotten about it.

Mr. Sallows,

Being socialized is a product of being in a social group. The only way to get rid of that is to not exist as part of a social group period - which I don't think anyone here is proposing. My point was demarchy, as it is properly called, allows for the control of this social group to be transferred from the rich and powerful to you and I. 

Once again it comes down to a question - who would you rather work for, yourself, or a rich shareholder with no concern for your well being? I choose myself.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jul 2006)

I choose myself, too.  I don't choose a committee of "my peers", because given the alternatives they constitute the least well-informed set and have demonstrated a remarkable predilection in their other personae as "voters" to be as self-centred as CEOs, shareholders, and me.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2006)

Here is another analysis of the _Euston Manifesto_; this by Morton Weinfeld of McGill.  It was published in today’s _Ottawa Citizen_ and it is reproduced here in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=e20eb2fe-2b15-4105-9847-30d2d01aa851 


> Will the real left please stand up?
> *True liberals, who don't buy into the cultural relativism and anti-Americanism of today's left, need a movement of their own*
> 
> Morton Weinfeld
> ...



My major problem with the _Euston Manifesto_ is with Item 3: I refuse to take seriously anyone or anything which supports the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights which I regard as arrant nonsense of the lowest order.  Go look: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html and, for heaven’s sake, look past the preamble; look at Articles 15 and beyond – *Rubbish!*  Do we really plan to ask our sons and daughters to fight and die for some Bolivian’s _* right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay*_?  (Art. 23)  Those who do should line up on the left: the nice padded wagon going to the funny farm will be here soon.

As many of you who follow my ramblings in Army.ca will know I also don’t think that the settlement of the Israeli/Arab dispute (Item 7 of the Manifesto) is of great historical significance.  I will be sorry when we lose Israel, as I believe we likely will since we are unwilling to allow it to tidy up its own neighbourhood.  I will regard the demise of a vibrant, functioning, liberal democracy as a loss for humanity.  On the other hand I believe that the ebb and flow of civilizations (as Spengler, Toynbee and, more recently, Huntington and Kennedy see them) will continue, unabated, despite the inevitable wins and losses.

That being said, I agree with Prof. Weinfeld - http://www.mcgill.ca/sociology/faculty/weinfeld/ - that the Canadian left, especially, is too wrapped up in its juvenile, knee-jerk anti-Americanism to see that there is some real ‘meat’ in the _Euston Manifesto_ despite the unbearable blemish of the UN  Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Aug 2006)

I don't think the manifesto is going to get too much traction here:

http://www.dustmybroom.com/?p=4322



> *New Democrats are too right wing*
> 
> From the Canadian Auto Workers Union’s (CAW) new manifesto (In the Eye of the Storm: The CAW and the Re-Making of Canadian Politics - pdf):
> 
> ...



The Libertarian answer, of course, you do have a full say each and every time you participate in the market; and your say is greater and more complete when there are few barriers or distortion's in the market. This CAW manifesto is pretty scary, but at least it lays things out with no equivocation. You know what they want to do to you.........


----------



## a_majoor (28 Aug 2006)

The Libertarian answer to the Euston Manifesto:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=081406C



> *A Liberal, Radical and Progressive Manifesto   *
> 
> By Tim Worstall
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Aug 2006)

With the greatest amount of respect to all involved in this discussion, and I do respect them all,  this discussion reminds of a pack of dogs chasing tails.  Fascism, corporatism, socialism, communism, oligarchy, bureaucracy - all of them boil down to one group of people directing the lives of others.  The only real questions are who gets to do the deciding and for how long.  What tools they choose and to what end?

No matter how an individual or group defines themselves or is defined by others ultimately governance is about individuals making decisions for others on a variety of issues.  Every individual makes decisions according to their own understanding of rights, risks and benefits.  No two people are going to make the same decisions.  That guarantees two jurisdictions will come to different conclusions.  It also guarantees that over time, in any given jurisdiction, as one individual replaces another then criteria will change.  And no amount of written laws - on paper or stone - will change that irrefutable fact.  No constitution, party or national, no label, will prevent people acting pragmatically.

Just as barter capitalism was/is the norm in communist countries so _laisser faire_ is the long term reality in the ideas market.  Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" applies to the development of a philosophical consensus as much as it does to the development of a commercial consensus.  In the short term individuals and groups seek to alter the consensus, some are successful and some less so, but in the long term that body of 6,000,000,000 ends up where its going to end up as a result of 6,000,000,000 shaded decisions on any of at least that many issues.  

While I can understand the need for the philosophically inclined to try and categorize tools and schools it seems ludicrous to expect those definitions to hold in the real world.

Chinese Communist Party - or should that be the Chinese Mercantilist Party?  Or perhaps the Chinese Feudal Party?  Canadian Liberal Party?  For the French a Liberal is just short of an Anglo-Saxon Fascist, ie a shopkeeper with no principles, although their French socialism seems to be as corporatist as the Nazi socialists.  Meanwhile the Russian Communist bureaucrats seem to be as obsessed with controlling the state to their personal benefit as any Norman that invaded England ever was.  American Democrats declare themselves to be liberal, having been educated at liberal arts schools where political correctness demands conformity and they seek statist solutions, when early liberals perceived themselves as free-thinking, entrepreneurial types.  Meanwhile many Republicans appear to hanker after a President who is a Monarch-pro-tem and the head of the British Labour Party is an unabashed monarchist and believes in the value of empire. Canadian Conservatives became so Progressive that David Orchard had a shot at not only the Conservatives but also the Liberals and the NDP - not to mention Hellyer's Party of Canadian National UFOlogists.

At the end of the day I can only bring myself to consider, when choosing who I am going to allow to govern my actions, the track record of decisions of the individuals involved.  If they have been doing an acceptable job they get another shot at the task at hand.  If they haven't, well I will look for someone else.  Then I have to go out on a limb and trust that they might actually do what they say they are going to do.

Meanwhile the world ends up where it ends up, and I as an individual will adjust accordingly.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Aug 2006)

Political parties are pragmatic responses to the problems of governing in a parliamentry or republican system of government. Groups of like minded people get together in order to advance their common agendas; after the Restoration the advocates of popular rights, of parliamentary power over the Crown, and of toleration to dissenters were called Whigs, for example (even though not every Whig would agree which aspect was most or least important).

Labels are simplifications and a form of mental shorthand, you may not know explicitly what I am about when I tell you I am a Libertarian, but you have a mental image and "map" of the political space I might occupy. The Euston Manifesto is an attempt to stake out a piece of the moderate centre for the political Left, and indeed many on the Left who reject the Euston Manifesto would characterize themselves as "Progressive", so we may see more evolution in the language describing the political landscape in the future.

Some of this was hashed over a while ago in "Politics with more dimensions" http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23744.0.html, and I will post the chart again for the edification (and amusement) of all:


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Aug 2006)

But I thought us Bush supporting globalizers were neo-conservatives? Or was that a traditional conservative?  I am so confused.



> But what about globalization? Here you go:
> 
> "WHEREAS the NDP has always been opposed to neo-liberal globalization; and
> WHEREAS the NDP is the Party that most criticizes neo-liberal globalization; and
> ...



From: http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000661.html
via: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49333/post-435524.html#msg435524

"Every step and every movement of the multitude, even in what are termed enlightened ages, are made with equal blindness to the future; and nations stumble upon establishments, which are indeed the result of human action but not the execution of any human design .... No constitution is formed by consent, no government is copied from a plan ...They proceed from one form of government to another, by easy transitions, and frequently under old names adopt a new constition."  

Adam Ferguson, Essay on Civil Society, pp 119-120 (1767)  per  James Buchan, Capital of the Mind, p.223 (2003).


----------

