Hurray Hurray Hurray!
Although I was uneasy about how it would go this morning when Obama spoke with Gen. McChrystal, I am more than enthusiastic about the President's superb choice of Petraeus to replace him as the top commander in Afghanistan.
Gen. Petraeus is an excellent selection. When virtually every politician and pundit, in early 2007 thought Iraq was lost, Bush did a probably unprecedented, certainly ahistoric and abnormal thing. He changed the war strategy mid-war, when everyone said the new strategy would fail miserably. It didn't. Gen. Petraeus (and Bush's initially unpopular, but ultimately very vindicated decision) is the reason Iraq's violence virtually (in relative terms) disappeared and its government can now function at a reasonable level compared to the rest of the world.
Now that Petraeus is in charge, things will start to happen. Go Obama!
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The Energy of the Future
I knew that solar energy is the most efficient source of energy (since it's powered by fusion, after all), but I wanted to know more after I talked a few days ago with a friend who believes that nuclear power and super batteries are the way of the future. I wish we had way more nuclear plants - they're super cheap (in energy production costs) and super green. But we don’t. And I’m sure batteries will become better over time, but batteries do not generate energy.
Anyway, I found the following from the US Department of Defense's 2007 study called "Space-Based Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security" -
"The magnitude of the looming energy and environmental problems is significant enough to warrant consideration of all options, to include revisiting a concept called Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) first invented in the United States almost 40 years ago. The basic idea is very straightforward: place very large solar arrays into continuously and intensely sunlit Earth orbit (1,366 watts/m2) , collect gigawatts of electrical energy, electromagnetically beam it to Earth, and receive it on the surface for use either as baseload power via direct connection to the existing electrical grid, conversion into manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or as low‐intensity broadcast power beamed directly to consumers. A single kilometer‐wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today. This amount of energy indicates that there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a SBSP capability."
I knew that orbiting solar panels would have vastly more efficient energy-gathering power, but I didn't know it was this much! Read the section I put in bold again. I don't know exactly how much energy is estimated to be contained in all known recoverable conventional oil reserves, but it's certainly more than a decade’s worth of world energy consumption (and it’s probably well more than two or three times that – 20 to 30 years). So, this sentence in bold, if accurate, is saying that a panel (or set of panels) just one kilometer wide in space would produce at least ten times more power in a year than the entire world consumes in a year!
Solar energy, gathered from orbit really is better than any alternative.
We already have the technology to launch and maintain satellites in space. We already have photovoltaic cells (solar energy gathering technology). The only thing we cannot yet do is beam energy in the form of electromagnetic waves. I have no idea how long that might take to have.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that we can beam energy to earth, but we cannot put in orbit panels effective enough to capture all of the energy that the sun is outputting. Let’s say that our kilometer wide panel can only capture a mere one percent of the sun’s energy beaming onto it. That would mean that it is capturing at least ten percent of the world’s energy consumption for one year (since the sun’s output per year is equal to at least ten years of world energy consumption). So far so good. Since the US consumes about a quarter of the world’s energy (last time I checked), then this kilometer wide panel (or set of panels) in orbit could produce each year more than one third of the energy consumed by the entire United States! The impact would be staggering – and remember, this would be for a solar panel that is only gathering one percent of the sun’s output, which I would imagine is a very inefficient, poorly designed solar panel.
However…there is an economic barrier to this project since satellites cost billions of dollars (and this was my friend’s principal argument against orbiting solar panels). But a cost-benefit analysis is obviously in favor of doing this! The entire world's energy supply being met and exceeded by only a few dozen satellites could only outweigh any conceivable cost.
To put it simply, the enterprise which can put up the first orbiting solar panel could be the world's first trillionaire! Hydrocarbons (and nuclear power plants) would become obsolete (at least as soon as we can manufacture every machine to be electrical) and we would never want for energy - and eventually, no nation on earth would want for energy, as soon as the infrastructure to procure the transmissions from space are in place in a given nation.
It sounds too good to be true, but then again, so was nuclear energy. However, orbiting solar panels won't have the whole radiation/meltdown thing, or the nuclear bomb baggage. So once orbiting solar panels begin, they probably won't ever decline like nuclear power did.
The study also says:
"NASA and DOE have collectively spent $80M over the last three decades in sporadic efforts studying this concept (by comparison, the U.S. Government has spent approximately $21B over the last 50 years continuously pursuing nuclear fusion)."
Cold fusion would grant unimaginable levels of energy - like one fusion plant could power the entire world's energy needs for centuries. But the technology is way more complicated than nuclear fission plants; plus it is apparently impossible to achieve (according to most physicists since the 90’s).
So what are we talking about here?
While both cold fusion and orbiting solar panels would eradicate all of our current energy problems while simultaneously destroying the global warming problem, only the orbiting solar panels are economically realistic and technologically feasible. And despite this, for every dollar spent by the US govt. on orbiting solar panels, $262.50 have been spent on a pipe dream that has no real chance of going anywhere. (Here’s the math - 21 billion is equal to 21,000 million – so we’re essentially comparing, in dollar terms, a ratio of 2100 to 8 or 262.5 to 1).
As soon as the US government starts to actually fund this effort, like it funded the nuclear power stuff in the 30's and 40's, there might be a revolution in energy! I hope so.
Anyway, I found the following from the US Department of Defense's 2007 study called "Space-Based Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security" -
"The magnitude of the looming energy and environmental problems is significant enough to warrant consideration of all options, to include revisiting a concept called Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) first invented in the United States almost 40 years ago. The basic idea is very straightforward: place very large solar arrays into continuously and intensely sunlit Earth orbit (1,366 watts/m2) , collect gigawatts of electrical energy, electromagnetically beam it to Earth, and receive it on the surface for use either as baseload power via direct connection to the existing electrical grid, conversion into manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or as low‐intensity broadcast power beamed directly to consumers. A single kilometer‐wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today. This amount of energy indicates that there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a SBSP capability."
I knew that orbiting solar panels would have vastly more efficient energy-gathering power, but I didn't know it was this much! Read the section I put in bold again. I don't know exactly how much energy is estimated to be contained in all known recoverable conventional oil reserves, but it's certainly more than a decade’s worth of world energy consumption (and it’s probably well more than two or three times that – 20 to 30 years). So, this sentence in bold, if accurate, is saying that a panel (or set of panels) just one kilometer wide in space would produce at least ten times more power in a year than the entire world consumes in a year!
Solar energy, gathered from orbit really is better than any alternative.
We already have the technology to launch and maintain satellites in space. We already have photovoltaic cells (solar energy gathering technology). The only thing we cannot yet do is beam energy in the form of electromagnetic waves. I have no idea how long that might take to have.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that we can beam energy to earth, but we cannot put in orbit panels effective enough to capture all of the energy that the sun is outputting. Let’s say that our kilometer wide panel can only capture a mere one percent of the sun’s energy beaming onto it. That would mean that it is capturing at least ten percent of the world’s energy consumption for one year (since the sun’s output per year is equal to at least ten years of world energy consumption). So far so good. Since the US consumes about a quarter of the world’s energy (last time I checked), then this kilometer wide panel (or set of panels) in orbit could produce each year more than one third of the energy consumed by the entire United States! The impact would be staggering – and remember, this would be for a solar panel that is only gathering one percent of the sun’s output, which I would imagine is a very inefficient, poorly designed solar panel.
However…there is an economic barrier to this project since satellites cost billions of dollars (and this was my friend’s principal argument against orbiting solar panels). But a cost-benefit analysis is obviously in favor of doing this! The entire world's energy supply being met and exceeded by only a few dozen satellites could only outweigh any conceivable cost.
To put it simply, the enterprise which can put up the first orbiting solar panel could be the world's first trillionaire! Hydrocarbons (and nuclear power plants) would become obsolete (at least as soon as we can manufacture every machine to be electrical) and we would never want for energy - and eventually, no nation on earth would want for energy, as soon as the infrastructure to procure the transmissions from space are in place in a given nation.
It sounds too good to be true, but then again, so was nuclear energy. However, orbiting solar panels won't have the whole radiation/meltdown thing, or the nuclear bomb baggage. So once orbiting solar panels begin, they probably won't ever decline like nuclear power did.
The study also says:
"NASA and DOE have collectively spent $80M over the last three decades in sporadic efforts studying this concept (by comparison, the U.S. Government has spent approximately $21B over the last 50 years continuously pursuing nuclear fusion)."
Cold fusion would grant unimaginable levels of energy - like one fusion plant could power the entire world's energy needs for centuries. But the technology is way more complicated than nuclear fission plants; plus it is apparently impossible to achieve (according to most physicists since the 90’s).
So what are we talking about here?
While both cold fusion and orbiting solar panels would eradicate all of our current energy problems while simultaneously destroying the global warming problem, only the orbiting solar panels are economically realistic and technologically feasible. And despite this, for every dollar spent by the US govt. on orbiting solar panels, $262.50 have been spent on a pipe dream that has no real chance of going anywhere. (Here’s the math - 21 billion is equal to 21,000 million – so we’re essentially comparing, in dollar terms, a ratio of 2100 to 8 or 262.5 to 1).
As soon as the US government starts to actually fund this effort, like it funded the nuclear power stuff in the 30's and 40's, there might be a revolution in energy! I hope so.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Democracy, Freedom and the Equal Distribution of Resources
It would take a far larger work than an essay to analyze the relationship between political and economic systems. This essay is limited to two connected theses regarding that complicated relationship. The first is that democracy is the best political system because it provides more freedom to more people than any other political system. Inherent in this proposition is that freedom is what actually matters. The second is a critique of Robert Dahl’s assessment of the relationship between democracy and free market capitalism. Dahl describes a potential problem existing between free market capitalism and democracy. He explains that the unequal distribution of resources generated by the free market can limit the democratic potential in a nation or system. While this is an important, well argued critique, it is only part of the picture. He does not contend with some inherent implications of his argument. One implication is that, by contrast, an equal distribution of resources would not limit democratic potential. But, in fact, the equal distribution of resources could also limit democratic potential by limiting freedom. In only arguing that an unequal distribution of resources can limit democratic potential, when in fact both an equal and an unequal distribution can potentially do so, Dahl paints a conceptually myopic portrait of the relationship between the free market and democracy. Dahl additionally offers no explanations as to how the unequal distribution of resources might enhance democratic potential by enhancing freedom. Dahl needs to expand his critique so that he does not seem partial about the relationship between the free market and democracy. It would be outside the scope of this essay to provide all concievable answers to these questions; several possibilities are presented.
Democracy is the most worthwhile political system for a nation state. This is because it provides more freedom to more people than any other plausible political system. Democracy and freedom are not synonyms. They are certainly related, but they are distinct concepts. The value of democracy hinges primarily on its capacity to grant freedom, not on any intrinsic virtue. If another system provided more freedom than democracy, that system would be more desirable. Such a political system is difficult to conceive, however. Democracy is likely not only the best currently available, but the best that is plausible.
Robert Dahl, in his book On Democracy asks the question, “why should we believe that democracy is a better way of governing the state than any nondemocratic alternative?” [Dahl 45]. His elegant answer comprises ten points, or “desirable consequences” of democracy -
1. Avoiding tyranny [Dahl 45]
2. Essential rights
3. General freedom
4. Self determination
5. Moral autonomy
6. Human development
7. Protecting essential personal interests
8. Political equality
9. Peace-seeking
10. Prosperity
These features have a common theme. Nearly every consequence is directly related to the concept of freedom. The following is a less specific, general way of expressing each of these same “desirable consequences.”
1. Freedom from oppression
2. Freedom from oppression
3. Freedom
4. Freedom to choose for oneself
5. Freedom of conscience
6. Human development
7. Freedom from oppression
8. Freedom from oppression
9. Freedom from wars
10. Freedom from poverty
The final two points are expressed slightly facetiously. Expressing peace and prosperity as facets of freedom is to conflate the three concepts. They are all three related and interconnected, but it is outside the scope of this paper to explore their relationship. Nevertheless, a people mired in poverty or conflict is hardly freer than a people which is not. Without exploring every qualification, in general it can be assumed that peace and prosperity are types of freedom (or can be reasonably included in a broad definition of it).
In a quick counting, 9 out of 10 of the very reasons democracy is desirable deal directly with freedom. The 6th point, human development, is expressed eloquently in terms related to freedom by Dahl. The potential for human development in a society includes “…the scope within which adults can act to protect their own interests…take responsibility for important decisions, and engage freely with others in a search for the best decision” [Dahl 56]. Apparently Dahl’s explanation for why human development is a desirable trait of democracy is because, like every other consequence of democracy, it provides freedom.
For Dahl, democracy’s capacity to grant freedom is its great virtue. It is therefore quite reasonable to argue that, in sum, the reason democracy is desirable is because it provides more freedom than any other political system.
In dealing with abstracts, rather than practical application, a qualification must be included. A political system (or non-system) which provides an individual with complete freedom to act as he or she wishes is undesirable. Indeed, this system would fail at its fundament, because such a system could only provide complete freedom to a single individual, not everyone. As soon as the first individual to exercise his “complete freedom” to steal another’s car or burn down another’s house, the system has failed by allowing one individual’s “freedom” to impinge on another’s.
What is desirable then, is not the intractible concept of complete freedom for every individual. The question is utilitarian and becomes ‘which system will provide the most freedom for the most individuals?’ Democracy is that system.
Having explained that democracy is the best political system because of its vast freedom-granting potential, Dahl notes that it “has existed only in countries with predominantly market-capitalist economies” [Dahl 166, emphasis in original]. However, he warns, there are reasons as to why free market capitalism does not “favor” democracy [Dahl 173]. He explains that “because of inequalities in political resources [generated by the free market], some citizens gain significantly more influence than others over the government’s policies, decisions and actions” [Dahl 178]. Put in a less theoretical presentation, Dahl is saying that a person or organization such as a lobby with a lot of money (or some other powerful political resources) could buy off or pressure a law-maker or could directly persuade the voters themselves.
Suppose a rich person buys all the newspapers (or some other communications media). That person will naturally have more influence over voters than everybody else who cannot decide what is said in that particular communications media. This appears to limit the democratic potential, as Dahl asserts. The implied solution seems to be that wealth and political resources be distributed evenly among all individuals so that no single person is wealthy enough to own all the newspapers.
It is not so simple. Now imagine a system where all political resources and wealth are distributed evenly. Why could not a group of individuals – with the right to associate freely – combine their personal resources to influence the other voters? What if they combine their resources to purchase all the newspapers which, in the other scenario, were owned by a single individual? This group, composed of people who are otherwise political and economic equals, now have more political resources than a random citizen of the electorate. The unequal distribution of wealth generated by the free market cannot be blamed for this particular inequality of political resources, because the individuals of the organization each have no more wealth than anyone else. Yet the result and the effect on democracy would be the same in either scenario.
For the first scenario, the solution seems to be to distribute wealth evenly so that no single person would have the means to own all the newspapers. For the second, however, how could the combined means of many people to buy all the newspapers be taken away? That is, after all, the current state of all publicly owned media, whether newspapers or otherwise. The most plausible solution is to completely socialize the communications media such that every citizen owns an equal portion. However, if all the people collectively owned the newspapers, we have only created a solution with its own new problem. The newspaper media would become essentially state-controlled (millions of owners could not participate in the functioning of the media, so the state would be the natural director and manager).
State-controlled media, even in an otherwise completely democratic society, would contradict one of the requirements for a democracy. Dahl explains that “alternative sources of information [must] actually exist that are not under the control of the government” for a large-scale democracy to function properly [Dahl 86]. It is extremely easy to find examples of why state-run (or controlled) media is detrimental to freedom and incompatible with democracy, from the former Soviet Union to modern day China.
Then, what is the solution to our problem? There can neither be an inequality of wealth, nor an equality of wealth in which the right to associate freely is protected, nor can there be state-controlled media. The solution would likely be government regulation (anti-trust laws or some other kind of protection) such that neither the rich man nor the group can control all the newspapers (provided that the law does not infringe their right to associate freely). But an analysis of the best solution is outside the scope of this essay. The salient point is that the solution does not inform us on whether we should allow for an inequality of wealth (scenario of the rich man) or an equality of wealth (scenario of the group). In other words, both the free market and a system which grants equality of wealth can experience a limit on democracy – a limit which is identical for practical purposes.
The implication of Dahl’s critique can be carried further. For example, how could it be reasonably enforced that wealth be distributed equally? Assume there exists an economic system in which every person’s income equals every other person, regardless of his or her job or position. This does not ensure an equality of wealth unless everyone spends his or her money the same. If person A chooses to save her money and person B chooses to spend all of it, then person A will end up with more wealth. If laws are enacted to ensure that all income is spent in the same fashion, then the society borders on the creepy, highly undesirable world of Big Brother. Ensuring an equality of political resources can potentially limit freedom, rather than produce freedom. Dahl is silent on this, though he would certainly oppose such laws.
Dahl is equally silent on how an inequality of resources can actually generate or preserve freedom. In contrast to some of the potential limits a full equality of wealth might have on individual freedom, there are ways in which the inequality of wealth can be a boon to freedom. For example, if wealth were distributed evenly, one would have the difficult time of finding agreement between many, many others (as described in the second scenario about the communications media) in order to disseminate knowledge and ideas. This would be a much simpler task in the free market. According to the economist Milton Friedman, “In a capitalist society, it is only necessary to convince a few wealthy people to get funds to launch any idea, however strange, and there are many such persons, many independent foci of support” [Friedman 17]. A man is therefore freer to propagate ideas and to convince others of their soundness. This greater ability to disseminate ideas is an expansion of freedom, not a restriction of it. This potential benefit to freedom, and therefore to the basis for a democratic system, is the obverse of Dahl’s critique that the free market allows some political influences to be stronger than others. Dahl is completely silent on this side of the issue.
There are other ways the unequal distribution of resources relates to freedom, which Dahl fails to mention, or mentions them very indirectly. Three of Dahl’s ten reasons why democracy is the best system, as stated previously, are “protecting essential personal interests,” “self determination” and “human development.” In describing these points, Dahl says “you will surely want to exercise some control over the factors that determine whether and to what extent you can satisfy your wants – some freedom of choice, an opportunity to shape your life in accordance with your own goals” [Dahl 52]. Imagine a person, no matter how determined she is, no matter what lengths she goes to develop her mental capacities and her skills and natural proficiencies, finds that she can never attain an increase in wealth. She is limited by the sum total of wealth, which is distributed perfectly evenly throughout a society. She is less free than someone who, by the fruits of her perseverance, labor and talents, will actually reap the financial consequences of her actions. She is not free to act to “protect [her] own interests” and therefore to experience the “human development” and “self-determination.” that are desirable consequences of democracy [Dahl 56]. Dahl is silent on this aspect of the relationship between protecting one’s personal interests and the unequal distribution of wealth in the free market. Much (though certainly not all) of the inequality of wealth generated by the free market is the result of individual choices, made freely by individuals. Since the consequence of inequality of resources within the free market can be the result of the economic freedom that the free market grants to individuals, to deprive the system of the ability to generate an inequality of resources would be to limit freedom. And freedom is the desirable fruit of democracy.
The relationship between free market capitalism and democracy is complicated. Dahl’s critique can be summed up as ‘while democracy creates political equality, the free market can limit that political equality.’ This is an insufficient representation of the relationship between democracy and the free market, however. Democracy also creates individual freedom, and the free market can help to generate and ensure that individual freedom. The facet of the free market that Dahl specifically says can limit democratic potential – the unequal distribution of resources – is a facet of the free market that can help to preserve freedom. Yet Dahl presents only one side of this particular issue. Regarding the unequal distribution of resources, he exclusively explains that it is detrimental to democracy. If democracy really is all about freedom, as Dahl argues in the first place, then he should expand his critique of the free market to include how it can also protect that freedom.
Works Cited
Dahl, Robert A. On Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998.
Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.
Democracy is the most worthwhile political system for a nation state. This is because it provides more freedom to more people than any other plausible political system. Democracy and freedom are not synonyms. They are certainly related, but they are distinct concepts. The value of democracy hinges primarily on its capacity to grant freedom, not on any intrinsic virtue. If another system provided more freedom than democracy, that system would be more desirable. Such a political system is difficult to conceive, however. Democracy is likely not only the best currently available, but the best that is plausible.
Robert Dahl, in his book On Democracy asks the question, “why should we believe that democracy is a better way of governing the state than any nondemocratic alternative?” [Dahl 45]. His elegant answer comprises ten points, or “desirable consequences” of democracy -
1. Avoiding tyranny [Dahl 45]
2. Essential rights
3. General freedom
4. Self determination
5. Moral autonomy
6. Human development
7. Protecting essential personal interests
8. Political equality
9. Peace-seeking
10. Prosperity
These features have a common theme. Nearly every consequence is directly related to the concept of freedom. The following is a less specific, general way of expressing each of these same “desirable consequences.”
1. Freedom from oppression
2. Freedom from oppression
3. Freedom
4. Freedom to choose for oneself
5. Freedom of conscience
6. Human development
7. Freedom from oppression
8. Freedom from oppression
9. Freedom from wars
10. Freedom from poverty
The final two points are expressed slightly facetiously. Expressing peace and prosperity as facets of freedom is to conflate the three concepts. They are all three related and interconnected, but it is outside the scope of this paper to explore their relationship. Nevertheless, a people mired in poverty or conflict is hardly freer than a people which is not. Without exploring every qualification, in general it can be assumed that peace and prosperity are types of freedom (or can be reasonably included in a broad definition of it).
In a quick counting, 9 out of 10 of the very reasons democracy is desirable deal directly with freedom. The 6th point, human development, is expressed eloquently in terms related to freedom by Dahl. The potential for human development in a society includes “…the scope within which adults can act to protect their own interests…take responsibility for important decisions, and engage freely with others in a search for the best decision” [Dahl 56]. Apparently Dahl’s explanation for why human development is a desirable trait of democracy is because, like every other consequence of democracy, it provides freedom.
For Dahl, democracy’s capacity to grant freedom is its great virtue. It is therefore quite reasonable to argue that, in sum, the reason democracy is desirable is because it provides more freedom than any other political system.
In dealing with abstracts, rather than practical application, a qualification must be included. A political system (or non-system) which provides an individual with complete freedom to act as he or she wishes is undesirable. Indeed, this system would fail at its fundament, because such a system could only provide complete freedom to a single individual, not everyone. As soon as the first individual to exercise his “complete freedom” to steal another’s car or burn down another’s house, the system has failed by allowing one individual’s “freedom” to impinge on another’s.
What is desirable then, is not the intractible concept of complete freedom for every individual. The question is utilitarian and becomes ‘which system will provide the most freedom for the most individuals?’ Democracy is that system.
Having explained that democracy is the best political system because of its vast freedom-granting potential, Dahl notes that it “has existed only in countries with predominantly market-capitalist economies” [Dahl 166, emphasis in original]. However, he warns, there are reasons as to why free market capitalism does not “favor” democracy [Dahl 173]. He explains that “because of inequalities in political resources [generated by the free market], some citizens gain significantly more influence than others over the government’s policies, decisions and actions” [Dahl 178]. Put in a less theoretical presentation, Dahl is saying that a person or organization such as a lobby with a lot of money (or some other powerful political resources) could buy off or pressure a law-maker or could directly persuade the voters themselves.
Suppose a rich person buys all the newspapers (or some other communications media). That person will naturally have more influence over voters than everybody else who cannot decide what is said in that particular communications media. This appears to limit the democratic potential, as Dahl asserts. The implied solution seems to be that wealth and political resources be distributed evenly among all individuals so that no single person is wealthy enough to own all the newspapers.
It is not so simple. Now imagine a system where all political resources and wealth are distributed evenly. Why could not a group of individuals – with the right to associate freely – combine their personal resources to influence the other voters? What if they combine their resources to purchase all the newspapers which, in the other scenario, were owned by a single individual? This group, composed of people who are otherwise political and economic equals, now have more political resources than a random citizen of the electorate. The unequal distribution of wealth generated by the free market cannot be blamed for this particular inequality of political resources, because the individuals of the organization each have no more wealth than anyone else. Yet the result and the effect on democracy would be the same in either scenario.
For the first scenario, the solution seems to be to distribute wealth evenly so that no single person would have the means to own all the newspapers. For the second, however, how could the combined means of many people to buy all the newspapers be taken away? That is, after all, the current state of all publicly owned media, whether newspapers or otherwise. The most plausible solution is to completely socialize the communications media such that every citizen owns an equal portion. However, if all the people collectively owned the newspapers, we have only created a solution with its own new problem. The newspaper media would become essentially state-controlled (millions of owners could not participate in the functioning of the media, so the state would be the natural director and manager).
State-controlled media, even in an otherwise completely democratic society, would contradict one of the requirements for a democracy. Dahl explains that “alternative sources of information [must] actually exist that are not under the control of the government” for a large-scale democracy to function properly [Dahl 86]. It is extremely easy to find examples of why state-run (or controlled) media is detrimental to freedom and incompatible with democracy, from the former Soviet Union to modern day China.
Then, what is the solution to our problem? There can neither be an inequality of wealth, nor an equality of wealth in which the right to associate freely is protected, nor can there be state-controlled media. The solution would likely be government regulation (anti-trust laws or some other kind of protection) such that neither the rich man nor the group can control all the newspapers (provided that the law does not infringe their right to associate freely). But an analysis of the best solution is outside the scope of this essay. The salient point is that the solution does not inform us on whether we should allow for an inequality of wealth (scenario of the rich man) or an equality of wealth (scenario of the group). In other words, both the free market and a system which grants equality of wealth can experience a limit on democracy – a limit which is identical for practical purposes.
The implication of Dahl’s critique can be carried further. For example, how could it be reasonably enforced that wealth be distributed equally? Assume there exists an economic system in which every person’s income equals every other person, regardless of his or her job or position. This does not ensure an equality of wealth unless everyone spends his or her money the same. If person A chooses to save her money and person B chooses to spend all of it, then person A will end up with more wealth. If laws are enacted to ensure that all income is spent in the same fashion, then the society borders on the creepy, highly undesirable world of Big Brother. Ensuring an equality of political resources can potentially limit freedom, rather than produce freedom. Dahl is silent on this, though he would certainly oppose such laws.
Dahl is equally silent on how an inequality of resources can actually generate or preserve freedom. In contrast to some of the potential limits a full equality of wealth might have on individual freedom, there are ways in which the inequality of wealth can be a boon to freedom. For example, if wealth were distributed evenly, one would have the difficult time of finding agreement between many, many others (as described in the second scenario about the communications media) in order to disseminate knowledge and ideas. This would be a much simpler task in the free market. According to the economist Milton Friedman, “In a capitalist society, it is only necessary to convince a few wealthy people to get funds to launch any idea, however strange, and there are many such persons, many independent foci of support” [Friedman 17]. A man is therefore freer to propagate ideas and to convince others of their soundness. This greater ability to disseminate ideas is an expansion of freedom, not a restriction of it. This potential benefit to freedom, and therefore to the basis for a democratic system, is the obverse of Dahl’s critique that the free market allows some political influences to be stronger than others. Dahl is completely silent on this side of the issue.
There are other ways the unequal distribution of resources relates to freedom, which Dahl fails to mention, or mentions them very indirectly. Three of Dahl’s ten reasons why democracy is the best system, as stated previously, are “protecting essential personal interests,” “self determination” and “human development.” In describing these points, Dahl says “you will surely want to exercise some control over the factors that determine whether and to what extent you can satisfy your wants – some freedom of choice, an opportunity to shape your life in accordance with your own goals” [Dahl 52]. Imagine a person, no matter how determined she is, no matter what lengths she goes to develop her mental capacities and her skills and natural proficiencies, finds that she can never attain an increase in wealth. She is limited by the sum total of wealth, which is distributed perfectly evenly throughout a society. She is less free than someone who, by the fruits of her perseverance, labor and talents, will actually reap the financial consequences of her actions. She is not free to act to “protect [her] own interests” and therefore to experience the “human development” and “self-determination.” that are desirable consequences of democracy [Dahl 56]. Dahl is silent on this aspect of the relationship between protecting one’s personal interests and the unequal distribution of wealth in the free market. Much (though certainly not all) of the inequality of wealth generated by the free market is the result of individual choices, made freely by individuals. Since the consequence of inequality of resources within the free market can be the result of the economic freedom that the free market grants to individuals, to deprive the system of the ability to generate an inequality of resources would be to limit freedom. And freedom is the desirable fruit of democracy.
The relationship between free market capitalism and democracy is complicated. Dahl’s critique can be summed up as ‘while democracy creates political equality, the free market can limit that political equality.’ This is an insufficient representation of the relationship between democracy and the free market, however. Democracy also creates individual freedom, and the free market can help to generate and ensure that individual freedom. The facet of the free market that Dahl specifically says can limit democratic potential – the unequal distribution of resources – is a facet of the free market that can help to preserve freedom. Yet Dahl presents only one side of this particular issue. Regarding the unequal distribution of resources, he exclusively explains that it is detrimental to democracy. If democracy really is all about freedom, as Dahl argues in the first place, then he should expand his critique of the free market to include how it can also protect that freedom.
Works Cited
Dahl, Robert A. On Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998.
Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
2010 National Elections in Iraqi
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575109613619617840.html
Again, as in the national election of 2005, more Iraqis turned out to vote than Americans ever do - and they did so again under threats of death from various terrorist and insurgent groups. One thing that struck me is that Fallujah, Fallujah had a 61% turnout! If you don't understand the significance of that you don't understand Iraq.
Whatever the myriad problems and bunglings that America and its leaders (Bush) and others introduced into Iraq, there is only one overwhelming fact:
Iraq was one of the most despotic places on earth before 2003, yet now free and fair national elections have been held twice (and provincial elections have been held a few times).
This is a huge win for the Iraqi people and for all of humanity. Yes it is fragile - but so are virtually all new democracies, from the East Europeans to Latin America, they're all fragile at first (which is why so many fail). And yes this one could easily fail. But this one is special - it is the first real democracy in the Arab world. Larry Diamond, in his book The Spirit of Democracy noted in 2008 that the only significant cultural block of the world without a single representative democracy are the Arabs.
This is significant because of Iraq's importance to the region - it's like France for Europe (Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia would be Germany and UK). This is not a tiny, non-influential nation.
No one man is more responsible for this change than George W. Bush.
Again, as in the national election of 2005, more Iraqis turned out to vote than Americans ever do - and they did so again under threats of death from various terrorist and insurgent groups. One thing that struck me is that Fallujah, Fallujah had a 61% turnout! If you don't understand the significance of that you don't understand Iraq.
Whatever the myriad problems and bunglings that America and its leaders (Bush) and others introduced into Iraq, there is only one overwhelming fact:
Iraq was one of the most despotic places on earth before 2003, yet now free and fair national elections have been held twice (and provincial elections have been held a few times).
This is a huge win for the Iraqi people and for all of humanity. Yes it is fragile - but so are virtually all new democracies, from the East Europeans to Latin America, they're all fragile at first (which is why so many fail). And yes this one could easily fail. But this one is special - it is the first real democracy in the Arab world. Larry Diamond, in his book The Spirit of Democracy noted in 2008 that the only significant cultural block of the world without a single representative democracy are the Arabs.
This is significant because of Iraq's importance to the region - it's like France for Europe (Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia would be Germany and UK). This is not a tiny, non-influential nation.
No one man is more responsible for this change than George W. Bush.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Scum of the Earth
In the largest battle in the Afghan theater since 2001, this is the kind of scum of the earth our military has to deal with...
From the Associated Press, Sunday, February 21, 2010 -
"On Sunday, Marine squads in the western section of Marjah used missiles to destroy a large, abandoned school compound that had been booby-trapped with explosives in Marjah. The school had been shut down two years earlier by the Taliban, residents told Marines.
"They said they would kill the father of any child that went to school," said farmer Maman Jan, deploring that his six children were illiterate."
From the Associated Press, Sunday, February 21, 2010 -
"On Sunday, Marine squads in the western section of Marjah used missiles to destroy a large, abandoned school compound that had been booby-trapped with explosives in Marjah. The school had been shut down two years earlier by the Taliban, residents told Marines.
"They said they would kill the father of any child that went to school," said farmer Maman Jan, deploring that his six children were illiterate."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
