Justice as fairness: we can do better than we are

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by betenoire

I'm not sure what that means?

I was referring to 2 things.

One, I think when we call the United State of America, "America", it discounts all of the other Americans living in North and South America and sounds very privileged and dismissive.

Two, I think North and South America should be more united, possibly as a single entity. Especially since many (if not most) of the problems of many of the other Nations on our continent (s) are the direct result of US policy over the years.

Thank you for asking!

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

I was referring to 2 things.

One, I think when we call the United State of America, "America", it discounts all of the other Americans living in North and South America and sounds very privileged and dismissive.

Two, I think North and South America should be more united, possibly as a single entity. Especially since many (if not most) of the problems of many of the other Nations on our continent (s) are the direct result of US policy over the years.

Thank you for asking!

It's not really a derail. It does relate. I do have a couple of follow-up questions. Why do you think that it is dismissive? No one is saying that Canada isn't on the North American continent and no one is saying that Brazil isn't on the South American continent. Brazil is, well, Brazil. Canada is Canada. I can't recall ever reading a Brazilian or Chilean saying "we too are Americans". Rather, when I've heard them make pronouncements of national pride they have expressed pride in being Chileans or Brazilians not in being Americans.

Secondly, what would it look like to have nations as disparate as Canada, the United States, Brazil, Peru, Mexico, Chile, et. al. as one national unit? We may be headed that way although I think that it would make the troubles of creating the EU an absolute nightmare. Are you saying that Canada and the United States should impose their legal and value systems on everything south US border with Mexico because that is precisely what would happen. What's more, I think that on balance, it's what we would *want* to happen. Consider that in Nicaragua abortion (just to take one example) is *perfectly* illegal. By that I mean that if a woman gets an abortion she is going to the big house for a very long time. Are you saying that we should impose Canadian laws on abortion and birth control on, say, very, very, very Catholic Mexico or Nicaragua which might have some definite feelings about it? OR are you saying that we should impose Nicaraguan values about abortion and birth control on the United States and Canada?

The EU is a great idea on paper and it may yet work out, but my reading of what is happening with the EU is that the member nations are realizing that it is not nearly as easy to blend such disparate nations as France, Germany and Spain into one political and economic entity and I would argue that those three nations have much more in common with one another than either Canada or the United States has with any South American nation you care to mention. So we're talking about blending political, social-cultural and economic systems into one political and economic entity going form the Arctic to Antarctica. That's a pretty tall order.

Consider that the United States, which is relatively culturally homogenous, has trouble holding itself together between the northern and western coastal states and the southern states.

Lastly, this would be the dream of multinationals or it would be an utter nightmare for the people living south of the US-Mexico border. Consider that either the multinationals will pull out of the US and Canada and move, en masse, south of the US border causing the job market here to completely collapse because there's simply no way that Americans and Canadians can compete with salary levels in, say, El Salvador OR the cost of living in the poorer South American nations will leap, overnight, to the levels of the US and Canada. Chances are, we'd get the worst of both worlds. Jobs would be sucked out of the two rich North American nations and put in the poorer South American nations. This would force the cost of labor, making it even *more* of an employers market than it already is. At the same time, goods and services that are affordable in the United States would be prohibitively expensive in Nicaragua. Lastly, even jobs that are place dependent would be subject to the downward pressure on wages. What sane construction company is going to hire American or Canadian workers at, say, $15 an hour when they could just as easily ship the same number of workers up from, say, Brazil at a fraction of the cost because they'll be paid at $2 an hour. Raise the wages all the way down the strip? Congrats, you've now created a seven-fold increase in prices overnight.

I understand what you are saying but I think that the consequences of such a merger would be absolutely disastrous and I cannot think of any benefit

Lastly, and please take this question in the spirit it was given, how much time has to elapse before white people in the northern nations will grant brown people in the southern nations the compliment of assuming that they are, in fact, capable of running their own affairs for good or ill? I'm not saying that the United States has not intervened nor am I arguing that the interventions have had anything to do with helping the people on the ground in those nations. I *am* saying that eventually--whether that is today or a century down the road--whites in the northern countries are going to have to admit that sometimes, the autocratic dictator who plunders the country and hands out largesse to his cronies is a home-grown phenomena. If the United States puts the dictator in place, we did that. But if the dictator came to power by revolution or homegrown movement, at some point don't you think it's actually the responsibility of the people of that nation? To me, there's a strange kind of reverse racism in the sentiment that most if not all of the problems of nations south of the equator populated largely by brown people cannot *really* be held responsible for the conditions of their own nations. I've never heard someone blame Nazi Germany or the USSR on, say, the United States or Belgium. I've never heard anyone put the onus of Fascist Italy or Franco's Spain on England or Sweden. It is only *ever* nations populated by brown people who, apparently, do not choose their governments or make horrible, historic mistakes in allowing precisely the wrong people to grab hold of the reins of power. No, it's always--each and every time--the fault of this or that Western nation. I'm not saying it *never* is, I'm saying that sometimes Brazilians or Iranians or Congolese or Chileans do what the French, Germans, and British *all* did at some point in their history and realize that their national leadership is inept, corrupt, or evil. Let nations of brown people be, well, nations. Sometimes nations make national errors and wind up with dictatorships or kleptocracies. If the next government of, say, France would we blame the United States or would we blame the French?


Cheers
Aj

[Apocalipstic]

Loving this discussion!

Actually people in much of South America (and I grew up there) HATE it that people in the US run around referring to ourselves as American. They are American too.

I agree that there would be problems, many you mention I had not thought of and do get your point.

Some random observations....

Not everyone South of the USA is Brown. Not everyone in the US and Canada is White. I don't see Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela etc as weak countries which need the great White people to the North to save them...I was thinking more of natural resources and having all we need to get us away from depending on China and OPEC. So did not mean to give that impression.

The EU mess is making me stop and think though that maybe I am being far too idealistic...especially financially.

Had not thought about all the division of church and state ramifications...agree it would likely be problematic to completely unite, but would like to see more Pan American synergy.

annnnd

Heck ya, blame the French for everything!

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

It's not really a derail. It does relate. I do have a couple of follow-up questions. Why do you think that it is dismissive? No one is saying that Canada isn't on the North American continent and no one is saying that Brazil isn't on the South American continent. Brazil is, well, Brazil. Canada is Canada. I can't recall ever reading a Brazilian or Chilean saying "we too are Americans". Rather, when I've heard them make pronouncements of national pride they have expressed pride in being Chileans or Brazilians not in being Americans.

Secondly, what would it look like to have nations as disparate as Canada, the United States, Brazil, Peru, Mexico, Chile, et. al. as one national unit? We may be headed that way although I think that it would make the troubles of creating the EU an absolute nightmare. Are you saying that Canada and the United States should impose their legal and value systems on everything south US border with Mexico because that is precisely what would happen. What's more, I think that on balance, it's what we would *want* to happen. Consider that in Nicaragua abortion (just to take one example) is *perfectly* illegal. By that I mean that if a woman gets an abortion she is going to the big house for a very long time. Are you saying that we should impose Canadian laws on abortion and birth control on, say, very, very, very Catholic Mexico or Nicaragua which might have some definite feelings about it? OR are you saying that we should impose Nicaraguan values about abortion and birth control on the United States and Canada?

The EU is a great idea on paper and it may yet work out, but my reading of what is happening with the EU is that the member nations are realizing that it is not nearly as easy to blend such disparate nations as France, Germany and Spain into one political and economic entity and I would argue that those three nations have much more in common with one another than either Canada or the United States has with any South American nation you care to mention. So we're talking about blending political, social-cultural and economic systems into one political and economic entity going form the Arctic to Antarctica. That's a pretty tall order.

Consider that the United States, which is relatively culturally homogenous, has trouble holding itself together between the northern and western coastal states and the southern states.

Lastly, this would be the dream of multinationals or it would be an utter nightmare for the people living south of the US-Mexico border. Consider that either the multinationals will pull out of the US and Canada and move, en masse, south of the US border causing the job market here to completely collapse because there's simply no way that Americans and Canadians can compete with salary levels in, say, El Salvador OR the cost of living in the poorer South American nations will leap, overnight, to the levels of the US and Canada. Chances are, we'd get the worst of both worlds. Jobs would be sucked out of the two rich North American nations and put in the poorer South American nations. This would force the cost of labor, making it even *more* of an employers market than it already is. At the same time, goods and services that are affordable in the United States would be prohibitively expensive in Nicaragua. Lastly, even jobs that are place dependent would be subject to the downward pressure on wages. What sane construction company is going to hire American or Canadian workers at, say, $15 an hour when they could just as easily ship the same number of workers up from, say, Brazil at a fraction of the cost because they'll be paid at $2 an hour. Raise the wages all the way down the strip? Congrats, you've now created a seven-fold increase in prices overnight.

I understand what you are saying but I think that the consequences of such a merger would be absolutely disastrous and I cannot think of any benefit

Lastly, and please take this question in the spirit it was given, how much time has to elapse before white people in the northern nations will grant brown people in the southern nations the compliment of assuming that they are, in fact, capable of running their own affairs for good or ill? I'm not saying that the United States has not intervened nor am I arguing that the interventions have had anything to do with helping the people on the ground in those nations. I *am* saying that eventually--whether that is today or a century down the road--whites in the northern countries are going to have to admit that sometimes, the autocratic dictator who plunders the country and hands out largesse to his cronies is a home-grown phenomena. If the United States puts the dictator in place, we did that. But if the dictator came to power by revolution or homegrown movement, at some point don't you think it's actually the responsibility of the people of that nation? To me, there's a strange kind of reverse racism in the sentiment that most if not all of the problems of nations south of the equator populated largely by brown people cannot *really* be held responsible for the conditions of their own nations. I've never heard someone blame Nazi Germany or the USSR on, say, the United States or Belgium. I've never heard anyone put the onus of Fascist Italy or Franco's Spain on England or Sweden. It is only *ever* nations populated by brown people who, apparently, do not choose their governments or make horrible, historic mistakes in allowing precisely the wrong people to grab hold of the reins of power. No, it's always--each and every time--the fault of this or that Western nation. I'm not saying it *never* is, I'm saying that sometimes Brazilians or Iranians or Congolese or Chileans do what the French, Germans, and British *all* did at some point in their history and realize that their national leadership is inept, corrupt, or evil. Let nations of brown people be, well, nations. Sometimes nations make national errors and wind up with dictatorships or kleptocracies. If the next government of, say, France would we blame the United States or would we blame the French?


Cheers
Aj

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

You’ve got to be kidding. Government regulations caused the economic disaster we are facing now.

Just consider the horror that privatizing prisons have caused. And in case prisoners are not worthy of concern how about private group home providers for children in foster care. South Dakota has become a powerhouse for private group home providers. NPR investigated them because of the inconsistencies in removing Native American children as well as complete disregard for the Indian Child Welfare Act. Native American children make up 15% of the child population, yet they make up more than half of the children in foster care.

Like any instance where Corporate America is involved the object is to maximize profits while providing minimum service. There is certainly no incentive to surpass the service provided by government. Corporate America will always do less while making obscene profits. I mean seriously look at the mess they made with the economy. They are cheerfully destroying financial stability around the world. And because they’ve done such a good job with the economy you want to put them in charge of education.

But then it was regulations the government passed that caused the problems.

I guess there really is no hope.

I give up.

Don't give up. Just because some don't agree. keep on saying what you believe over and over...the positive thought is out there now, in our collective mind cloud!

[loremar]

Get rid of capitalism and Democracy. I guess Anarchism would be better?

I know a person who made a good thought about anarchism and he thinks that it would work if everyone can just participate on direct democracy. No one is brought into office just representatives who will execute what everyone has decided upon.

Does anyone think it would work?

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by loremar

Get rid of capitalism and Democracy. I guess Anarchism would be better?

I know a person who made a good thought about anarchism and he thinks that it would work if everyone can just participate on direct democracy. No one is brought into office just representatives who will execute what everyone has decided upon.

Does anyone think it would work?

NO,

I want water and electricity and trash PU and schools and infrastructure and am more than willing to pay takes for these luxuries!

Communism and Capitalism both look good on paper. Add people and its a disaster.

Straight up Democracy is problematic too due to the time it would take for everyone to vote on every issue.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by loremar

Get rid of capitalism and Democracy. I guess Anarchism would be better?

I know a person who made a good thought about anarchism and he thinks that it would work if everyone can just participate on direct democracy. No one is brought into office just representatives who will execute what everyone has decided upon.

Does anyone think it would work?

No. In fact, I'm almost *certain* it wouldn't work. Anarchism is another one of those ideas that I would put in the category of 'great idea, wrong species'. Firstly, I do not trust direct democracy. There are 187 million whites in America. There's 300 million people in America. In a direct democracy the majority could impose an *absolute* tyranny on the minority with no restraints. Secondly, you have to have laws. Have to. Unless you are going to get rid of property (good luck) and get people to not prefer their kin and friends over random strangers (not happening) you will have conflicts of interests. Without laws there's no way to adjudicate those conflicts and they *will* happen.

Get rid of capitalism and replace it with what? There's a fantastic scene toward the end of the Terry Pratchett novel "Night Watch" which I'm going to share with you to illustrate the point about why getting rid of capitalism is a really bad idea. A revolution is starting, the hero--Sam Vimes--is a sergeant in the City Watch who is protecting the people against the army and the secret police. One person of true revolutionary fervor is having a conversation about how things will be once the revolution is complete with a shoe maker:

"Anyway, it says here in article seven on this here list--" Mr. Supple ploughed no. "--People's Declaration of the Glorious 24th of May," said Reg.

"Yeah, yeah, right...well, it says we'll seize hold of the means of production, sort of thing, so what I want to know is, how does that work out regarding my shoe shop? I mean, I'm in it anyway, right? It's not like there's room for more'n me and my lad Garbut and maybe one customer."

In the dark, Vimes smiled. But Reg could never see stuff coming.

"Ah, but after the revolution all property will be held in common by The People...err...that is, it'll belong to you but also to everyone else, you see?"

Comrade Supple looked puzzled.

"But I'll be the one making the shoes?"

"Of course. But everything will belong to The People."
"So...who's going to pay for the shoes?" said Mr. Supple.
"Everyone will pay a reasonable price for their shoes, and you won't be guilty of living off the sweat of teh common worker," said Reg shortly. "Now, if we--"
"You mean the cows?" said Supple.
"What?"
"Well, there's only the cows, and the lads at the tannery, and, frankly, all they do is stand in a field all day, well, not the tannery boys, obviously, but--"
"Look," said Reg. "Everything will belong to The People and everyone will be better off. Do you understand?"
The shoemaker's frown grew deeper. He wasn't certain if he was part of The People.

Elsewhere in the book, Vimes reflects on 'The People'

"People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn't that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people."

Both passages illustrate what I think is wrong with the idea of throwing out capitalism and democracy. Let's say we did. What would you replace it with? Would you get rid of money as well? At which point how would we do trade? Barter? I can't build a laptop computer--well, I probably could but I can't build the *components*. Where are the components going to come from? If I'm not getting paid, why on Earth would I get up at 4:45 in the morning to be to work at 7:30? Love of my employer? Not hardly. I do it because I get paid to do so, as it turns out I happen to rather enjoy my work but I wouldn't do it for free. So what would you replace capitalism with?

Now, back to democracy. Constitutional democracies are not perfect systems but they are the least bad system devised so far. But let's say we did everything through direct democracy. How would you go about protecting minority rights? How would you go about *preventing* people from, say, selling goods or services on the black market?

What would happen in an anarchy is that it would last about two weeks. Then the person who could convince the most people with guns to side with him would become Supreme Leader for Life. If you want to know what a nation without either capitalism or democracy looks like, you can do no better than either North Korea or Somalia. At least North Korea has a government. Somalia doesn't even really have that. There's no capitalism or democracy in Somalia, instead he who has the guns is he who makes the rules.

Governments are what Thomas Hobbes called a Leviathan. One purpose of having governments is to have an entity that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. In an anarchy, no single entity has a monopoly on the use of force and so people will be *hyper-sensitive* to Hobbesian traps. Hobbes said that in the absence of a state (he didn't say what kind of state) things would degenerate into a war of all against all. A Hobbesian trap, then, is when you think I'm going to come over the wall and take your tomatoes and so you put up defenses to prevent me from doing so. Seeing that you are arming up, I start to arm up. A *perfect* example of a Hobbesian trap, and one civilization escaped by the skin of our teeth, was the nuclear build-up of the Cold War. Once the United States detonated a nuke, the other great powers *had* to get one however they could. The Soviets developed their own and missiles to deliver them. So we developed our own missiles. We put missiles in Turkey, they put missiles in Cuba and so on.

Cheers
Aj

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Originally Posted by loremar

Get rid of capitalism and Democracy. I guess Anarchism would be better?

I know a person who made a good thought about anarchism and he thinks that it would work if everyone can just participate on direct democracy. No one is brought into office just representatives who will execute what everyone has decided upon.

Does anyone think it would work?

Not even a little bit. It sounds nice to refer to this sort of governance as "direct democracy". "Mob rule" just sounds so icky, you know? But that's what it is. I'm endlessly amazed whenever a person who is any sort of minority is in favor of this sort of system. I know several people who are, and every one of them is a straight, white, man.

In this sort of system, if the majority decides they don't want queer people getting married, well, tough shit, queer people! The majority has spoken! In fact, the majority has just voted that it's totally legal to kill queer people. I hope you're good at hiding!

Personally, I'm very much in favor of the checks and balances that are supposed to exist in our current system. As a queer woman, mob rule doesn't go well for me.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

I'm endlessly amazed whenever a person who is any sort of minority is in favor of this sort of system.

That's what people say about being conservative or republican.

Not that I think anarchy is the way to go. Just noticed the similar argument.

[Apocalipstic]

It allllll sounds good on paper.

The answer is somewhere in the middle.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

NO,

I want water and electricity and trash PU and schools and infrastructure and am more than willing to pay takes for these luxuries!

Communism and Capitalism both look good on paper. Add people and its a disaster.

Straight up Democracy is problematic too due to the time it would take for everyone to vote on every issue.

My opposition to direct democracy is that there is no way to protect minority rights. Direct democracy would, I suspect, be one-man, one-vote, one-time. Imagine if very large swaths of the Southern states, along with the mid-Western states had the power, in one fell swoop, to make the United States an officially Christian nation where homosexuality was outlawed? Do you think they would? I do. Do you think someone could design a campaign that would make it sound like that would be a great idea? I do. Do you think people would believe it? I *know* they would. How do I know? Because in February of 2003 a decisive majority of the American people believed--against ALL logic--that Jerry Falwell (Usama bin Laden) was the largest contributor and booster of the ACLU (Saddam Hussein's Iraq) and had *direct* involvement in attacking the United States. Half-an-hour on Google, would have given any of my fellow citizens all the information they needed in order to know that they were being sold a bill of goods and *why* it was a bill of goods. So forget the time it takes to vote, I'm concerned about the *consequences* of the vote!

Btw. in case there's anyone lingering that thinks it would be a good idea to have direct democracy consider that every single time an anti-gay marriage measure has been on the *ballot* (instead of in the legislature) it has been passed. Every. Single. Time.

Originally Posted by betenoire

The funny thing about anarchy is this:

For you to honestly believe it would work you'd have to have a pretty altruistic view of human nature. You know, the doctor will be very happy to care for your sick mother because she is very excited that you tend the chickens. The dude next door would never rape you because he is a good person and knows you are a good person who would never steal his car. Blah blah social contract blah blah.

The thing is, social contracts don't *work* in anarchies because there's no enforcement mechanism. Unless we're going to all go back to HGF lifestyle (thank you, no!) living in groups of no more than about 150 we can't *have* a social contract without enforcement mechanisms. Cheating is just too easy a strategy. You're absolutely correct, the doctor isn't going to care for your sick mother because you tend the chickens. It's not happening.

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

That's what people say about being conservative or republican.

Not that I think anarchy is the way to go. Just noticed the similar argument.

There are a number of things that would recommend conservatism (real conservatism not right-wing radicalism) or even the Republican party (not the current electoral coalition but an older Republican party, ask your grandparents) to various minority populations. There is simply *nothing* in anarchy to recommend itself to a minority population because they simply do not have the numbers to protect themselves should the majority decide that the minority is the problem. Couldn't happen? Tell that to *any* group of emigres living in populations where they have become middle-men merchants and are starting to accumulate a bit of wealth for their troubles. Tell it to Indians in South Africa, or the Chinese in Indonesia, or Jews pretty much anywhere, anytime in the last 1500 years or so. I think they probably have some *very* definite ideas about the desirability of the rule of law, specifically those parts that protect minority rights.

Cheers
Aj

[Corkey]

I don't get it, if I'm not an American than what am I? There are so many descriptors of what an American is that I don't see how my being one is any different that some one from Latin America. We're still Americans. Personally I'm from Turtle Island but thats another thread.

[betenoire]

Wait. Aren't North America and South America two different continents? That's what I was taught in elementary school - has something changed in the last 30 years that I'm unaware of?

North America, South America, Africa, Australia, Europe, Asia, Antarctica. Right? So all people from Canada, the US, Mexico, all the countries in Central America, and the Caribbean countries are all North Americans. Not Americans. If the continent is called NORTH America - why not North Americans?

Unless of course North and South America are the same continent now and I didn't get the memo. Which is possible. I hate georgraphy. I don't even know where Mississippi is.

[Artdecogoddess]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Btw. in case there's anyone lingering that thinks it would be a good idea to have direct democracy consider that every single time an anti-gay marriage measure has been on the *ballot* (instead of in the legislature) it has been passed. Every. Single. Time.



Cheers
Aj

Aj,
Hello - I snipped the above quote out. I lived in Maine in 2006. There was a ballot initative to include LGBT folks in civil rights protections for housing, education, accomidations and banking. This ballot initiative passed. It took literally 20 years of work - and it was denied at least 2x, but it passed in the end via a ballot. I think its super important to include the few times LGBT folks and allies have succeeded in winning protections.

ADG

[Kat]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

Not even a little bit. It sounds nice to refer to this sort of governance as "direct democracy". "Mob rule" just sounds so icky, you know? But that's what it is....

Never mind that this is a common misrepresentation of anarchic theory, which primarily involves elimination of the State, with a shift to essentially communal living -- how is "mob rule" any different from "democracy"?

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

In this sort of system, if the majority decides they don't want queer people getting married, well, tough shit, queer people! The majority has spoken! In fact, the majority has just voted that it's totally legal to kill queer people. I hope you're good at hiding!

But you've just described democracy in the U.S. right now! If a simple majority wants to ban gay marriage, it's banned (which is exactly what happened in Oregon seven years ago when a few counties legalized it for about 6 weeks.) Ditto any "freedom" that we may currently believe is a given, but probably won't be much longer (abortion, anyone...?) If enough ignorant fools vote for or against something in this country, it becomes law. That is the very definition of mob rule...

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

I'm endlessly amazed whenever a person who is any sort of minority is in favor of this sort of system. I know several people who are, and every one of them is a straight, white, man.

Well, I have long been what I like to call an "anarchic realist" -- I believe in anarchy as an ideal that can never possibly attained if human beings are involved.

Chipmunks, on the other hand...

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Can you actually declare war on inanimate objects?

And maybe I'm a skeptic but considering all the documented involvement that U.S. agencies have had in drug trafficking from heroin to cocaine it's hard to believe that their hearts are really in winning this war.

Well, the US Govt. is always declaring war on stuff like war and poverty...I agree its problematic.

I agree about not winning the war on drugs, but a lot of money and lives are wasted every day on it.

[Apocalipstic]

One of the things that really interests me here and in the OP is how continuing to have affirmative action but basing it on income would play?

I remember taking the ACT back in High School and noticing at the time how much easier the language part was for me since the only people I had heard speak English for large parts of my childhood were my parents who were very well educated in English and Speech. It did not seem fair that I only had to answer what sounded right to me, the English I heard at home.