Storm ship Alabama
Sep. 5th, 2005 07:07 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksThere was a rip of thunder in the middle of last night that sounded like a bomb going off. And I also have to assume that there was some kind of electrical power surge, because my bedside clock moved forward an hour. I listened to the radio for a full three minutes before I realized it was 4.35am, not 5.35am as my clock assured me. Irritating.
++++
I'm going to have to cut back on the lengthy posts here; with the new writing gig, I basically don't have any time for anything for the next few days. Come the weekend things will ease up (very slightly).
I enjoyed talking to the Youngster yesterday. Although I disagree with many of his thoughts (that anyone could disagree with David's conclusions never ceases to amaze him, but, there you go), he will always argue his case cogently.
Anyway, we got onto one American's theory/observation that we spend too much time these days trying to preserve things. Or, in another sense, "to encourage stability" in the world. This American's theory is that instability is good. My observation was that many Americans are great fans of change and instability, so long as it doesn;t affect them. A kind of academic nimbyism.
But it did get me thinking. Because, in one sense -- for the overall increased betterment of the human race, increased instability is good. In a Benthamite sense, you should back it, because progress is only achieved through change.
But, from the individual's point of view, instability is frequently bad. The Enclosure Laws might have been good in the long run, but tell that to the peasant who has lost the land on which he kept is two sheep, three ducks and a pig. It's a common mistake of politicians (and some economists) that the nation is the individual writ large -- that what is sensible for the individual to do must, by definition, be sensible for 50m individuals to do in concert. The instability/stability dichotomy is one example of where this is not true.
++++
I'm going to have to cut back on the lengthy posts here; with the new writing gig, I basically don't have any time for anything for the next few days. Come the weekend things will ease up (very slightly).
I enjoyed talking to the Youngster yesterday. Although I disagree with many of his thoughts (that anyone could disagree with David's conclusions never ceases to amaze him, but, there you go), he will always argue his case cogently.
Anyway, we got onto one American's theory/observation that we spend too much time these days trying to preserve things. Or, in another sense, "to encourage stability" in the world. This American's theory is that instability is good. My observation was that many Americans are great fans of change and instability, so long as it doesn;t affect them. A kind of academic nimbyism.
But it did get me thinking. Because, in one sense -- for the overall increased betterment of the human race, increased instability is good. In a Benthamite sense, you should back it, because progress is only achieved through change.
But, from the individual's point of view, instability is frequently bad. The Enclosure Laws might have been good in the long run, but tell that to the peasant who has lost the land on which he kept is two sheep, three ducks and a pig. It's a common mistake of politicians (and some economists) that the nation is the individual writ large -- that what is sensible for the individual to do must, by definition, be sensible for 50m individuals to do in concert. The instability/stability dichotomy is one example of where this is not true.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-05 12:23 pm (UTC)http://denbeste.nu/external/Peters02.html
If people want to comment on this 'instability is good' theory, could they please read it in full first.
DY
no subject
Date: 2005-09-05 02:36 pm (UTC)..and having read it, yes it does make sense on the surface, but the idea that intervention cannot work is to say that there is no virtue in temporary solutions and that only the longer-term view means anything - which I don't go along with. History is full of situations where the course of events is less horrendous because short-term solutions have brought long-term good.
Peters trumpets the view (in the context of US support for corrupt governments that "the Shah will always fall". Well no he doesn't and he doesn't need to. Solutions to world problems can be wrought by helping things to remain stable or to manage change. Transition between one state of being to another needn't come through bloody chaos. From a British perspective, Burma and Northern Ireland spring to mind.
Somewhat earlier the withdrawal from Empire was a process that has had its share of bloody conflicts. Something like India, Pakistan and Bangladesh going their separate ways has not been great but the alternatives could have been far far worse.
But Peters is right - change and progress are necessary long-term goals and seen from a centuries-long persepective, everything breaks down. But let's hear it for temporarily shoring things up sometimes.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-05 10:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-06 01:04 am (UTC)As the man himself put it:
"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo."
source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html
DY
no subject
Date: 2005-09-06 01:30 am (UTC)