Democracy And Free Markets: Is That All?

Recap and Refocus (June 22 – June 30)

Douglass Carmichael So, the last week, a last round of thoughts - but maybe not last, maybe a beginning...

History rises in waves, gets chaotic, and crashes. We never quite understand what happened, what is happening or is about to happen. Nevertheless cultures at times, and individuals and communities at not necessarily related times find grace, spirit, beauty, manners, and love.

I begin to see how the flux of man into machine and machine into man, driven by careers and profit, adds the swelling of a history that is out of control. It is our phase, and security driven rapid deployment of technologies, and health and food seeking markets for bioengineering and designer drugs will fuel the continuation of this wave.

But history always has been waves. Will we continue to play out the current constraints and lack of constraints? When does a real crisis occur, and a new leader emerge to create a new institution? Or we just keep muddling through? I have argued that the world that created ww1 and 2 is the same world that gave us the cold war and the same world giving us our stance towards terror and highly efficient economic competition. We might continue this way for some time, and people like me, who chose art and science and psychoanalysis, feel like we may have made a maladaptive choice. The last decades have not been kind to those who chose not to make capital accumulation the main goal. And we suffer for it by being marginalized. The World Economic Forum – well, if you don’t have a seat, can you really know what is going on – and share in the sideline fun with the beautiful people? And while we can say we are making it, those who died along the way, in war violence – the fifty million since 1945 – the car deaths, and the broken hearts and broken families and unrealized hopes or realized hopelessness, such as the more than two million in jail in the US and the 2 million who are worth more than a million – well, they did not make it. This world is not working for them. (Interesting match if we divided the top have in half and gave it to those in jail we would have 4 million with 500,000 each...?) http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/11/pf/millionaire/millionaires

If things do begin to crack, History shows that basically the new starts at the grass roots, lots of little efforts at "finding a way" - that is, the same conscious/unconscious drive at the smaller level that makes things happen at the larger level, without quite understanding what is going on. The smaller systems work just like the larger in this mix of conscious and unconscious, knowable and unknown.

New systems then might emerge - but they will have the same basic character of being mostly unconscious, adaptable, and attractive to enough humans to work - and the attraction is not at the level of value, but of workability. Values and such are part of each person's motives, and reflect their experience, and a good leader will play to those, resonate with them... So creating those grass roots things...

Therefore, I suggest - read carefully, create relationships - and build. Building is key. Have good projects, enlist a few others. Reconsider and reconfigure, and raise the stakes. Probably most of us have been doing that to some degree. As someone I read yesterday said "remember the role you are playing is part of the drama of the future".

Building bureaucracy or wealth is not good enough. Too easy. Building a garden, a park, a town, a cathedral, a university with a real commitment to mind and development, and in the process notice where the resistance comes from – that is the place to get political, and read, and build relationships. And if I am right, the focus is shifting towards regional and local economies, which means there are opportunities……

So if we agree that democracies and markets start opposed (one based on creating equality, the other based on creating inequality) but end coordinated, and that coordination becomes monopolistic, then my question : besides democracy and markets, is that all? Answer. Not at all. It requires happiness, happenings, and making things happen, getting our talents into reality.

I’d love to know what you think of this approach

Citizen Participation

(Participant) Doug, I like your emphasis on building relationships as a core concept. Both democracy and markets have that goal, but in a superficial way--politicians with voters, and salespeople with customers. Building deeper relationships, however, is a worthwhile and manageable goal. Getting happiness, though, is more elusive. Actions aimed directly at the self, in trying to be happy, are likely doomed. Actions aimed at creating others' happiness have a better chance, but ordinarily happiness is a byproduct of something else. Relationships, for example. Or building.

Douglass Carmichael Right. Jefferson's "happiness" was a measure of participation - haps - not personal hot tubbing.

(dictionary hap (hãp)

n.

hap = Fortune; chance.

A happening; an occurrence.

intr.v., happed, hap·ping, haps.

To happen.

[Middle English, from Old Norse happ.]

(Participant) I enthusiastically support John's idea of focusing on money and elections. I further believe that it fits well into Doug's opening sentence that this is not the last round but could be the beginning of what we have developed together. The equipment of groups like this should be like a good camera: the ability to shoot panoramas of the whole and focus into the smallest of details. I hope that this will be the case here.

One additional thought:

I agree with John that citizens should not "call the plays", but they are really the only legitimate source of deciding if the game should be baseball or football. In other words, in a democracy citizens should be the source of policy, but leaders and experts are needed to decide how best to transfer policy (wishes/desires) into practical action.

To translate this into ILF concerns: It is appropriate for us to insist on a holistic perspective for our discussions. But if we seek to transfer our ideas into action, we would do well to find a pathway involving citizen approval of our

"policy" conclusions.

(Participant) History often but not always repeats itself because it is driven by a new cast of characters who whether through hubris or ignorance choose to ignore history or convince themselves that this time it is different. We can often see similarities between our situation and what has occurred in the past but it is as important to understand the differences. One has to do with cycles the other with paradigm shifts. Our interpretation is a function of intelligence, knowledge, and human nature. Depending on which we rely on most can result in the wrong answer between cycle or paradigm shift. Greed or fear in the case of the stock market usually plays a greater role than intelligence and knowledge which lead to cycles of boom or bust.

We also are living in a world that is changing at a much greater rate than our biology’s ability to evolve. In this case, unlike the dinosaurs, it is of our own doing, which as an aside raises some interesting questions about evolution.

I don’t really understand arguments about being marginalized because if someone is doing something they truly love, does it really matter what someone else thinks. Also given that the people who are wealthy are such a small percentage of the population and if you don’t respect their choices or values, how can they make you feel marginalized?

Do we worry too much about the wealthy? Many of those who are wealthy are not the same as those who are earning the top incomes and vice a versa. Some have become wealthy because they work very hard and are prodigious savers. If it is any consolation many of those big houses with the expensive cars parked in the garage have very little or cheap furniture. These are people who rather than live their own lives are more concerned with impressing their neighbors, who they probably don’t even know very well. They are the ones with the big salaries but not much in net worth. They are the same ones who will learn that leverage is a two-edged sword. Then there are the truly wealthy with large incomes and net worth, some from "found money" (inheritance) others from a combination of talent, hard work, and luck.

Will others in our society be better off if the wealthy have less? Does it make me any better looking or popular or run faster if the prom queen or captain of the football team are less attractive and talented? Of course not. If we feel better because relative to the rest of the world we don’t look so bad then that is settling for a world of mediocrity. Pursuing art and science and even psychoanalysis and becoming wealthy are not mutually exclusive and by trying to convince ourselves that somehow our choices make us the better person perhaps means we have lost sight of why we do what we do, because it is OUR passion. If we are not pursuing our passion then we need to examine why and all the money in the world won’t make us happy.

We will always have elites whether it is measured by wealth or some other standard and those elites will be the ones who get to live at the beach. Life isn’t fair?

Are we any happier than we were 5000 years ago? If not, then what is the point of progress? The point is the same reason why people climb mountains and the grass is always greener on the other side.

Does everyone have equal opportunity in this country? No and they never will because we are not born on a level playing field for reasons of genetics and circumstance. Again, life isn’t fair. But, can we insure that everyone is given the opportunity to maximize their ability and pursue happiness? That is a two-way street. As long as we are leading the horse to water society has done its part but you can’t force the horse to drink and blame society or the elites for the consequences. I equate education and open access to career opportunities with leading the horse to water. Beyond that, is it society’s responsibility to make us happy? If so then aren’t we relying on society’s definition of happiness? Happiness comes from within. For some it is by helping others for others maybe it is writing poetry or accumulating wealth. In any case our decisions and our priorities will determine our lifestyle. I have surfer acquaintances that live in their vans and work occasionally so that they are always available for when the surf is up. They don’t begrudge the wealthy their big houses and cars because they don’t want what comes with that. They just want to surf and for them they feel that they have made the better choice.

It is all about choice and having the freedom to choose. I don’t want a return to local and regional economies because I like the benefits of large corporations like low prices and a multitude of really cool products. Do I think a renewal of community is a good idea? Who wouldn’t? It’s as easy as going next door and helping your neighbor or getting involved with your PTA or church or participating in the ILF. Will it solve the problems we have been discussing for the past several weeks?

I don’t want to take money away from the rich and give it to murderers and rapists and like most failing businesses more money is seldom what is needed. It is the best use of available resources that is required. Without redistributing wealth, which history has shown does not improve a society’s standard of living or remove power from elites; we could greatly improve our society. Just to be facetious, take all the money we spend on defense annually and give it to each citizen in equal amounts each and every year. We have now made everyone much better off without taking more money from any one group. Investors in defense stocks will put their money somewhere else.

How much health care and education could we have for the price of the war in Iraq? Our government doesn’t need more money so they can build more weapons, they need to make better choices with the money they already have. Is a renewal of community going to accomplish this and within what time frame or do we also need better decision makers?

Don, I think we also need leaders to not only help translate our wishes into action but to also help us see a better society that perhaps we as the general public can’t see on our own. To inspire us.

(Participant) "Dean Formally Announces White House Run"

In a call to disenchanted voters of all political stripes, Dean said, "You have the power to rid Washington of all the politics of money."

Amen brother!

(Participant) Don, I understand your comments on more citizen participation to mean that you would prefer a method by which citizens DIRECTLY vote on policy and legislation. I favor representative government where our elected officials in collaboration or consultation with their constituents develop policy and legislation. I also believe that quality leadership at times will take a stance that is in opposition to the desires of their constituents because they believe that their constituents are wrong. Opposing the Iraq war is one example.

Unfortunately, today the constituents are not the voters but the campaign contributors. I am suggesting that we make the campaign contributors and the voters one and the same by changing how elections are financed. This would return democracy to the people as originally intended.

Previous Page          Next Page

top