Re: SB: Last long O-T message for a while, promise...(private)

[David Neeley <dbneeley@earthlink.net>]

David,

First, I apologize for a bit of rambling and disorganization. I am pressed 
for time, and simply don't have the leisure to make this a more 
tightly-honed commentary.

Once again you have provided much food for thought. I have said before that 
I think we have many areas of agreement. I am sending this as a private 
response, because I am not sure how much the public list can abide. I also 
think you are one of the happy few in society who can address these topics 
clearly and thoughtfully with minimum ego involvement.

On a few points, though, I think we disagree quite markedly. The 
difference, in my view, is significant in the direction of being able to 
accomplish actual change for the better.

I am quite familiar with Jim Hightower. He exemplifies the kind of useful 
social gadfly that sparks debate, although in my opinion much of his 
underlying credo is based upon mistaken views. He ascribes evil intent to 
many people who are bewildered when their intentions are questioned. That 
is a major reason, in my view, why we cannot get enough cooperation in 
effecting change. Just as few in society are truly able to foresee the 
consequences of their actions more than a few moments in advance, few 
corporate officers and directors have this mindset. They are, however, 
aware of their legal limitations and their duties to maximize value to the 
shareholders. (This is the fodder for much-needed critical examination--but 
that is a different point than I am making at the moment!)

For example, you quote approvingly a statement that corporations were 
formed during the colonial era to "plunder" other countries.

First, the governments at the time who sponsored expeditions were oriented 
exactly the same way. It was not unique to corporate bodies to want to 
profit from their highly risky expenditures.

The clearest parallel in modern times is the venture capital firm. Most of 
the ventures they back will fail, and capital invested will be lost. On 
those that profit, they expect to make up for all the failed ventures that 
lost money as well as make an overall profit. Among the "dot bombs" are 
many ailing or failed venture capital firms.

Similarly, during the period of colonization, each sailing voyage carried 
risk, let alone voyages to poorly-understood lands. Each expedition that 
shipwrecked or in which the inhabitants died testified to the high risk of 
the venture.

Without the corporations, much exploration and settlement would have been 
entirely impossible. No individuals had that kind of money; in those days, 
governments were hard-pressed to come up with the funds they did invest in 
this effort--and they expected a high return, too.

Wherever there is high risk, investors expect high reward for success. This 
seems a fundamental part of any individual's expectations for investing 
hard-earned cash.

Part of the objection of the American colonies was the degree to which the 
Europeans (both government and corporations) expected to receive a return 
on their investments. In many cases, the American Revolution left a 
negative balance in the investment accounts of corporations involved.

By the way, the corporate form didn't originate at all in response to the 
age of colonization. It was, instead, an outgrowth of the guild systems. It 
is fair to say that the era of exploration and colonization saw the use of 
this form to an unprecedented extent. That is quite by the way, though.

We would greatly agree about the excesses that have arisen in corporations 
today. However, these, too, are partly a response to the tremendous need 
for capital to engage in many businesses today. A single-purpose business 
set up for a limited period of years may sound wonderful in principle, but 
it is difficult to see investments of billions of dollars for automobile 
manufacturing or hydroelectric generating systems or many other industries.

In my view, the major point of failure is that government has lost much of 
its original rationale. When we speak of "national regulation" or better 
yet "world regulations", we wish to have our cake and eat it, too. Too 
often, the part of the Constitution that demands that "powers not 
enumerated" are left strictly to the States is ignored by Courts, by the 
Congress, and by commentators of all types.

Before we discard any part of the Constitution, it seems to me we should 
examine whether it has been discarded for ends good or ill.

I should add that getting a consensus to act for any world standards is 
like the proverbial difficulty of herding cats.

As I said before, small corporations have been the economic lifeblood of 
our country. Government favoritism to the conglomerates and 
mega-corporations has created much of the mischief which is rightly 
ascribed to our system. Any system devised by man can be exploited--not so 
much by evil intent as by neglect or by short-sightedness.

Still, when we look at the research conducted by General Motors into fuel 
cells, for instance, it is difficult to understand how strict limits to 
corporations that you propose would be applied to benefit society.

Over the years, I have met many people who are Directors of some very large 
corporations. The great majority of them have many of the same values that 
you or I would have. These folks must "muddle through" a system of 
governing laws which often tie their hands. Few of them have many of the 
evil intentions often ascribed to them by the strident criticism that we 
hear so often from the Jim Hightowers of the world.

It seems a rather simple premise that if you are interested in stimulating 
cooperation, you must find some common ground between your understanding 
and that of the other person you are seeking cooperation from. True, 
sometimes that cooperation is truly impossible and extraordinary means must 
be used to introduce change. These extraordinary means by no stretch of the 
imagination should include violence or tactics which attempt to substitute 
the often chaotic thinking of some kinds of protestors, in my opinion.

Truly lasting change comes from committed people who use peaceful tools to 
alter the thinking of the majority of the population. Ghandi is a striking 
example.

Due to the complexity and scope of the system we have today, we are denied 
the luxury of waving a wand and returning to the idyllic years of yesterday 
(which I would argue never existed for more than a brief instant, if then) 
when government was responsive and fair to all. In fact, just as we would 
mostly agree that the founders of our country had great wisdom in 
establishing the Constitution (except for the dumb parts!), it takes 
similar wisdom by succeeding generations to guard against deviation from 
the better intentions of those founders.

In fact, I would argue that the largest problem is not to decide where we 
want to go (although that is often an intractable vision). I would suggest 
that it is even more difficult to determine how to go from where we are to 
that goal.

If we look at the areas where we believe that unrestrained capitalism has 
failed, we must first be certain that the problems we are viewing are in 
fact a result of unrestrained capitalism. In most if not all cases, I would 
posit that the egregious problems come not at all from unrestrained 
capitalism but capitalism profiting from the direct participation of 
government.

In fact, I would argue that we no more have a truly capitalist economic 
system than we have a true democracy.

Were you to survey the basic thinkers in the Libertarian tradition as 
thoroughly as you survey the populist and liberal voices, I think you would 
find that in an actual capitalist society your power to act is restrained 
by the rights of your neighbors. A company that unreasonably pollutes would 
be subject to penalty from those whose air or water or land was polluted. 
Rather than a quixotic government regulation being the only real game in 
town, thousands or even millions of individuals would have full recourse to 
practical redress in the courts.

The problem with Libertarianism, though, is that it depends upon a higher 
proportion of perceptive, enlightened, and motivated individuals than we 
have--just as our present system depends upon the lack of such individuals 
to persist in its excesses.

The only practical solution I can see is through the power of influence by 
example. When we show better solutions that can be implemented by 
individuals, there can develop a critical mass over a rather limited number 
of years. The better we make our solutions known to the masses, the quicker 
these solutions can evolve throughout society.

Regards,

David Neeley


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, send a message to:
   <strawbale-unsubscribe@crest.org>

or for the digest to:
   <strawbale-digest-unsubscribe@crest.org>

Please send any list administration questions to
strawbale-owner@crest.org