Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (12590)	4/25/2004 1:49:45 PM
From: glenn_a	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

Hi Darffot. Well, I'm not the biggest fan of Fukuyama that's for sure. I personally don't know why democracy has to be "liberal". It really depends what you mean by "liberal". If liberal is considered in its economic context, as purely a matter of unfettered free trade, then I think liberal can precisely mean non-democratic. I think this is precisely the complain that the so-called anti-globalization movement has with the Washington Consensus policies of the World Bank/IMF. If you replace the word "liberal" with "tolerant" and/or "representative", then I think you've got a real foundation for genuine democracy, that is rather than democracy based on the rights of preservation and accumulation of capital, you have a democracy based on the collective will of its citizens, supported by a tolerance and respect for other points of view. Actually, this is where I really disagree with the Fukayama view, that there is "one right way" to "do" democracy. I see know reason why democracies need to have at their basis the rights of capital "over" the rights of the will of the people, even if they have different views on how capital should be managed in a society. Take, for instance, the societal context of the Iroquois Nation. From my knowledge, this was a highly representative and democratic form of social organization. Yet, they did not view ownership of the "commons" as did a "liberal" industrial society. And in many ways, I find something very attractive about the notion of "sharing" the commons as a free resource. Modern industrial capitalism is really a reversal of the notion that the commons is a shared resource amongst society. Rather, anything and everything is up for being parcelled or commoditized, and sold off to the highest bidder who now "owns" this particular chunk of what was perceived to be a common good. Of course, even in capitalist societies, there are still elements of a "commons", such as parks or public schools systems. In Canada, thank god, our health care system is viewed as a common good that should be available to all who are in dire need of care. Of course, an enterprise has to be economical as well, however, and Canada may move to some form of two-tier health. It's hard to say which is the better way to go for the good of Canadian society. But the debate is a healthy one, and more than anything, I hope we can always as a society challenge our most deeply-cherished beliefs, to see what works best of "all" Canadians, and yet proves to be both affordable and economical. ((since property rights are essential to sustained real growth, the liberal part is actually more important than the democratic part)) OK, but what does the use of the word "property rights" above really mean? To me, yes, it makes sense to have legal responsibility for something under one's care, so that one is encouraged to take personal responsibility for it. Certainly, the development of a middle class has historically in western history been accompanied by the rise of a broad land-owning class. However, take the case of Argentina. It's corrupt elite sold off core components of the societal commons - mining rights, water, land - to local and foreign investors. What about the people who live on this land? What are their "rights" vs. the "rights" of the new owner of the local river's water supply. Do they have any? Who should say what happens with Bolivian gas? Is Bolivian gas the "property" of a foreign-backed oil company who for example obtained consessions to this natural resource through bribing local officials? Or on a more fundamental level, is Bolivian gas the "property" of the Bolivian people. These are important questions, and I don't necessarily think there is one "rigth" way to answer them. Certainly, I don't think the evolution of Western Industrial Capitalism is any great benchmark upon which the progress of future nations should be judged. Perhaps they will find a better, more humane path? Perhaps they will not? But it should be their "right" to find their own way. And in my opinion this right is "as important" as any liberal notion of "property rights". Not necessarily more important, but "as" important. So in the case of Iran, I see know reason why a democratic Iran needs to evolve along the line of the "liberal" capitalist West. It "may" evolve along this line, but it may not. Perhaps the Iranians will find their "own" way. I think some humility on the part of Western societies about possible options for societal growth on the part of "lesser" developed nations is sorely needed. JM2C on the matter. Best wishes, Glenn