Re: The Corporation (was Re: CG: Ligatures etc)
Joshua Allen wrote:
>First, there is nothing wrong with a "military-industrial-government"
>complex on its own. The US system of mercantilism is remarkably similar
>to the system that ruled England's empire; which itself had historical
>precedence. When the US wanes, her place will certainly be taken by
>another marcantile power.
Having worked in the aerospace contracting industry, and also in
government, I agree. There are tons of controls to prevent funny
book-keeping based on two hundred years of military contracting
and government scandals, with auditing procedures and laws enforced
enough to keep this market segment much more honest than the
general market.
What Eisenhower was concerned about was that, in the cold war, the
country would be too deeply militaristic, allowing for excessive
military spending in general. That could lead to too much emphasis
on military operations. I think he was absolutely right about that.
Now that the cold war is over, and we are into small guerilla wars,
I think those times are gone, at least temporarily until we find another
great globe-splitting, warlike condition to replace it.
>Second; I think you are being too extreme about loss of "checks and
>balances". The constitution remains largely intact, as do the
>mechanisms for electing leaders.
The constitution is largely intact. But the influence of special
interests is too prevalent. There have been a few reforms intended
to reduce that influence, including so called soft-money reforms,
but third-party movements led mostly by wealth concentration is
still too strong. Though how to increase the strength of limits on
special interests is not something I have any clear answers for.
>If one can convince a large enough
>portion of the population to agree,
A large portion of the population, yes, but a large weath concentration
by a small proportion of the population translated into political will
is what should be limited. Having more populist ways to pass laws
(such as California's referendum system) at the national level would
be one good step in the right direction. But that can lead to the tyranny
of the public also.
>one can get all sorts of
>anti-corporate laws passed. IMO, the anti-globalisation crowd are
>mostly a bunch of people who are unable to get their ideas to win in the
>marketplace of ideas, and so claim that the system is broken.
Antiglobalists have lost that fight so completely, I don't see anything
likely to put them back in control at this point.
JMHO,
Rich