Parlamentul iranian a aprobat o lege care prevede ca musulmanii care se convertesc la alta religie sa fie spanzurati.

In septembrie, parlamentul iranian a aprobat codul penal islamic, care prevede pedeapsa cu moartea pentru orice barbat care se converteste la o alta religie si inchisoarea pe viata pentru femei. Legea a fost aprobata cu o majoritate covarsitoare: 169 voturi pentru si doar 7 impotriva, informeaza The Telegraph.

Legea aprobata nu numai ca incalca drepturile omului, dar este si in contradictie cu Constitutia iraniana, al carui articol 23 sustine ca "nicio persoana nu poate fi pedepsita pentru credintele sale".

Dreptul la libertate religioasa este garantat de Declaratia Universala a Drepturilor Omului, de Acordul International asupra Drepturilor Civile si Politice si de Conventia Europeana asupra Drepturilor Omului.

Putini politicieni si preoti iranieni gasesc insa ca exista vreo contradictie intre Constitutia iraniana si legea ce prevede pedeapsa cu moartea pentru cei ce isi schimba religia.

David Miliband, ministrul de Externe al Marii Britanii, este unul dintre putinii politicieni straini care si-au exprimat opozitia fata de aceasta lege. Nu au existat proteste din partea comunitatii internationale: Germania, principalul partener economic al Iranului, si-a dublat in ultima perioada volumul de schimburi aconomice cu aceasta tara. ONU nu si-au exprimat o pozitie oficiala.

Expertii internationali in drepturile omului sustin ca presedintele Ahmadinejad doreste sa aduca din nou in atentia publicului problema apostatilor pentru ca problemele reale ale tarii, cele economice, sa nu fie dezbatute.

Pentru multi iranieni insa, aceasta lege este o nedreptate. Rashin Soodmand (foto), in varsta de 29 de ani, stabilita in Londra, povesteste cum tatal ei a fost spanzurat cand ea avea doar 13 ani pentru ca s-a convertit la crestinism. Acum, fratele sau a fost arestat pentru ca este crestin, chiar daca nu a fost ulterior musulman.

"L-au arestat si l-au tinut inchis o luna. Dupa aceea, l-au eliberat si am fost foarte fericiti. Credeam ca s-a terminat. Insa dupa sase luni l-au arestat din nou, si de data asta l-au pus sa aleaga: ori renunta la crestinism, ori il spanzura. Tata nu a vrut sa renunte la crestinism", povesteste Rashin.

In iran traiesc aproximativ 10.000 de crestini, dar in afara de acestia exista alti sute de mii de persoane care au trecut de la islamism la alte religii.

Looking into matter of 'Sobornost' I find a good quote from I.V.Kireyevsky who can be regarded as the initiator of the terminology:
"In the physical world each being lives and is
maintained only by the destruction of others,
while in the spiritual world the construction
of each personality constructs all and
each lives by the life of all."

This is the idea of Sobornost and I should say is implicit in the Gospels and in full in John 17.

The quote from Kireyevsky to me illustrates not only sobornost but also the holistic nature of Orthodox anthropology, and captures the difference between the communitarian vision of Orthodoxy, in contrast to the individualist/collectivist view of much Western thought. A few Western writiers managed to capture something of a similar vision -- Charles Williams, with his idea of coinherence and people like G.K. Chesterton and Dorothy Day. Any others?

Bishop Seraphim's LiveJournal is an amazing compendium of thoughts, quotations, photos, and comments on art, literature and life. He has a large number of followers, many of whom make interesting and sometimes erudite comments.

Quote:
I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am President of the United States.

Quote:
This will not be a call issued in one speech or one program - this will be a central cause of my presidency. We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges.

Quote:
That's why I will call on a new generation of Americans to join our military, and complete the effort to increase our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines.

Quote:
Today, AmeriCorps - our nation's network of local, state and national service programs - has 75,000 slots. They tap America's greatest resource - our citizens.

Quote:
As President, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots,

Quote:
People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem - they are the answer.

Quote:
We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods. We'll enlist veterans to help other vets find jobs and support, and to be there for our military families. And we'll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

Quote:
And we'll use technology to connect people to service. We'll expand USA Freedom Corps to create an online network where Americans can browse opportunities to volunteer. You'll be able to search by category, time commitment, and skill sets; you'll be able to rate service opportunities, build service networks, and create your own service pages to track your hours and activities.

Quote:
So when I'm President, I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year. This means that by the time you graduate college, you'll have done 17 weeks of service.

Quote:
At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities. At the community level, we'll develop public-private partnerships so students can serve more outside the classroom.

For college students, I have proposed an annual American Opportunity Tax Credit of $4,000. To receive this credit, we'll require 100 hours of public service. You invest in America, and America invests in you -

Quote:
To marshal their talents in building a new energy economy, I will launch an initiative to give our veterans the training they need to succeed in the Green Jobs of the future. It's time to end our energy dependence at home so our national security isn't held hostage to oil and gas from abroad.
Quote:
And we will not leave out the nearly 2 million young Americans who are out of school and out of work. We'll enlist them in our Energy Corps,

At the Edinburgh Festival in 2004 Ted Honderich gave a lecture that included moral support for the Palestinians in their struggle against neo-Zionism -- neo-Zionism being the enlarging of the state of Israel beyond its original borders, with what that has entailed and will entail for the Palestinians. This was objected to by the chairman and some other members of the undergraduate Jewish Society in University College London, and also by the Union of Jewish Students. A campaign was begun of which the aim of was to have the college take down the website at which you are looking.

It's also a very clear example of rhetorical anti-racism genuinely threatening academic freedom. I'd call it rhetorical anti-racism because I simply won't accept the Jew/Israeli conflation. Even so, it poses questions that I have no immediate answers to. I can imagine many of the arguments I've routinely made re: no platform being made by the students at UCL and yet I vehemently disagree with what they're doing. Not least of all the sheer fucking hubris of the student pontificating upon the acceptable future for Honderich, an Emeritus Professor at UCL.

Danny Stone, Campigns Organiser for the Union of Jewish Students called Honderich's comments "an abuse of UCL resources, and desecration of the name of UCL". Stone added that "an apology may not be enough", instead suggesting that the professor receive further education "about the issues and the students he'll be dealing with."

he UCL Jewish Society has also joined UJS in calling for clearer guidelines to be published on the use of UCL personal webpages. Samuel Lebens, President of the Jsoc, stated: "UCL's website should not be allowed to air views that are so removed from fact and so likely to disrupt the good relations between different religious groups on campus. As chairman of the Jewish Society, I will be challenging the administration to create clear guidelines as to what can and cannot be said from the platform of UCL"

I've argued in the past for a communitarian understanding of students unions. They are institutions run for, as well as theoretically by, their membership. As such, the decision making forums of the institution may reach conclusions about what constitutes acceptable use of the platforms it offers, providing it does so in an open and democratic way.  To suggest otherwise implies a certain understanding of how what Chantal Mouffe calls the Democratic Paradox should be resolved. Democracy and liberty stand in tension with each other, as you can never foreclose the possibility that democratic processes may lead to illiberal outcomes. It's impossible to resolve the conflict, as opposed to negotiating it in political life, without privileging one term over the other. Yet to privilege democracy over liberty risks tyranny and to do the reverse is just, well, shit, in a way that's difficult to summarise in an off-topic point on a blog post. To deny that a students union may legitimately reach conclusions that stand at odds with liberal principles is a perfect example of trying to resolve the paradox by, tacitly or otherwise, holding one value (in this case liberty) to be necessarily prior to the other. Let's reject this as a crap and superficial* attempt to resolve a profound paradox at the heart of political life.

Yet once we've rejected the priority over liberty over democracy, it becomes much more difficult to make a knock-down in principle argument to support Honderich. Obviously there's lots of empirical questions left here (e.g. were the campaigining students indicative of wider concerns amongst the student body? were the computing regulations about not bringing UCL into disrepute or causing offense arrived at through a democratic process?) but these can be left aside for now, as can the differences between universities and students union. I can concieve of a situation where the (unjustified) attacks on what Honderich carried the sort of democratic legitimacy I've been talking about. If such a situation held, does Honderich still have the right to work and write in a way that stands at odds with the democratically reached ideas of a common good and acceptable behaviour within the institution? On a purely theoretical level, I'd say no. Yet in this particular case that revulses me. What becomes of academic freedom?

*In case anyone objects, I'm really not calling Rawls and his ilk "crap and superficial". The difficulties faced by an insistence on the priority of the right over the good are all together more complicated.

There is, I think, a needless haste in ascribing a negative effect to the Protestant lack of autocratic controls in religious and governmental authority favored by the Roman and the Eastern sects. It is, all in all, a very positive thing for true religion to have freedom. Weak religious expressions may need force or “office” to provide what argument, persuasion, and diligence in ministerial labor would otherwise provide.

What you call “excessive individualism” I would call serious learning and a focus on the propriety of the state of the soul before God without the inordinate overreaching of some form of philosophical communitarianism. Popularity is not an evidence of authenticity. The centralization of clerical power has no probative force in determining matters of theological purity. Church Councils are to be respected but can and have and do, err. Tradition alone without the steady submission of all and any tradition to the voices of the Prophets and Apostles themselves reduces every theological question to one of the power of those in positions of authority rather than a question of the truth or falsity of a given answer. The genius of Protestantism is our ability to disagree upon disputable matters while holding fast to the essentials of our faith.

The natural separating power of submitting any and every question to the Holy Scriptures themselves and ascribing to God the work of teaching those who will and will not obey the truth in righteousness is really the only possible way to deal with any doctrine. Even if one is convinced, so that they will believe whatever their specific sect of the historical Church says, they have still made a choice, albeit one in ignorance. To say, for example, that “I will believe whatever the Church of Rome teaches to be true”, is still an individuals own decision; it is a choice they make based upon their judgment of the data at hand. The community doesn’t make the decision for them because at the end of the day, everyone is called by God to determine whom they will and will not follow. God, or man, or Community, or State, or Church, or whatever. This is an unavoidable fact of human experience.

Christopher Neiswonger

Please note "BBC Sunday AM" must be credited if any part of this transcript is used.

ANDREW MARR: Now, when he stood for leadership of the Conservative Party David Cameron warned that a vote for him would be a vote for change.

The Tories must change the way they look, and talk, and think, and feel, he said. In the six months since he took over he's focused on what he calls quality of life issues - the environment, families, and now, as he revealed when I spoke to him yesterday, human rights.

I began by asking him whether his compassionate Conservative Party is as far from its Thatcherite past as New Labour was different from old.

DAVID CAMERON: It is a large leap for the party because, you know, we're recognising we've lost three elections in a row. We're recognising that what people want at the next election is not a party that's going to try and turn the clock back to 1997, but that's going to build on what Labour have done. There are some good things that have been done and there are some bad things. And they want a party that says right, let's keep the good stuff, let's change the bad stuff and let's move on from there.

So it is a big change. Some of the changes I'm making are about for instance, making sure we've got a better balance of men and women candidates. Some of the changes in terms of the very clear commitment to the National Health Service and building on that. Some of the changes in terms of not saying, you know, here are up-front tax cuts but let's put stability first. These are changes, they're important and they're a start. And I'm pleased with the way people are responding. But it's going to be a very tough contest the next election, and I've got a lot of work to do.

ANDREW MARR: How far further does the Conservative Party have to go to change? I mean, just the small things like changing the logo, the torch and so on. I don't know if you're going to change the name as well!

DAVID CAMERON: No, you're going on about it, it's not, it's not the appearances that need to change. What we need to do is show that. I mean all politics is really about is showing that you're the right bunch of people to meet the big challenges facing the country, the competitive challenge in a world of China and India and economies like Brazil. The challenge of reforming public services, the challenge of the environment. People are going to asking at the next election, who's right for the future, who's identified the big challenges, who's changes their own party to meet those challenges. That's what we're doing.

ANDREW MARR: There was a very interesting piece in one of the magazines this week saying that the strategy was to create an aroma around the Conservative Party, suggesting that it's all still a bit fuzzy, and it's going to remain pretty fuzzy for a long time to come.

DAVID CAMERON: I read that, but I don't really think that's fair. These aren't aromas, these aren't or whatever, these are proper changes that people can see and people can see what the modern compassionate Conservative Party that I lead stands for.

ANDREW MARR: Let's just stick with aroma for one further question. To what extent do you think that you can make a change simply by the way you speak, raising issues, and to what extent is it going to then be about tough laws, changing people's behaviour by the tax system, ultimately by sending them to prison if you have to?

DAVID CAMERON: Well it is a mixture of those things. I think one of the problems this government's got, and the Labour party has, is they do give the impression of all you can do is change a law and everything is for the government to do. And in my view they don't share responsibility. The truth is if you want to deal with the really big problems of today, whether it's the environment or whether it's knife crime, you've got to recognise we're all in this. We have a shared responsibility.

Governments should do some things - yes - change the law on carrying a knife. But we also need a change in popular culture, we need parents to take their responsibilities, we need schools to take their responsibilities. So talking about shared responsibility is important for politicians. Because if we pretend that we have all the answers, which we don't, all you get is more cynicism and more frustration about politics. So let's explain what the shared responsibilities are.

ANDREW MARR: But the thing that makes you different, any politician different, is in the end you can change the law. Everybody else can talk, you know, vicars can talk, journalists can talks, but you can change the law. Let's come on to specifics. Tony Blair was talking this weekend, last couple of days, about changing the culture again when it comes to knife crime, when it comes to violence, when it comes to anti-social behaviour, more summary justice, more use of ASBOs, a different culture in the courts. Do you go along with that?

DAVID CAMERON: Well we do need changes. I think Tony Blair's problem is frankly he's had, you know, nine years, three big majorities, and 54 pieces of criminal justice and Home Office legislation to sort out these problems. And to the extent to which there is still a problem and there is, is that he is not the right person to fix it because he's the person running the country for the last nine years. But yes we do need to make changes...

ANDREW MARR: Would you agree that judges are in denial, for instance?

DAVID CAMERON: I think in some cases there are problems with judicial decisions, no doubt about it. But we can't point the finger of blame endlessly. We might come with constructive suggestions. And I've got one particular suggestion I'm going to be making on Monday, in a big speech in this area. The Prime Minister says he wants to re-balance the criminal justice system in favour of the victim. I agree with that and I'll be putting forward how I think we can do that. Let's take the Human Rights Act. I don't think it's been a success. It has actually hindered the fight against crime. It's stopped us responding properly in terms of terrorism, particularly in terms of deporting those who may do us harm in this country.

And at the same time it hasn't really protected our human rights. We've got a government that's tried to get of jury trial, for instance. So I think we need a new approach. Let's look at getting rid of the Human Rights Act and say instead of that, instead of having an Act that imports a, if you like, a foreign convention of rights into British law, why not try and write our own British Bill of rights and responsibilities, clearly and precisely into law, so we can have human rights with common sense. That would be a constructive way forward.

ANDREW MARR: So, let's be clear, you're talking about withdrawing from the European Human Rights Convention?

DAVID CAMERON: No, we're not talking about that. I think the alternatives are this: you can have the government's approach which is the Human Rights Act, that allows people to look in a court in Britain at the European Convention of Human Rights, for all the reasons I've given, and for all the reasons in a way the Prime Minister's given, it's not working.

You could just get rid of the Human Rights Act and allow people to go to the European Court, as happened before the Human Rights Act. It is one way of doing it, but it's not really satisfactory because it means British citizens have to go into a foreign court to enforce their rights. So why not instead look for a more British solution of actually writing down into British law, British rights and responsibilities, in a commonsense way.

ANDREW MARR: And to be clear, this would be a sort of special form of law. We don't have a Constitution, a single written Constitution in this country.

DAVID CAMERON: That's right.

ANDREW MARR: But this would be something analogous to the German's basic law or the French Constitution when it comes to Human Rights.

DAVID CAMERON: We need to look at that. One thing we could do, for example, this is a possibility. You could say that a Bill of Rights couldn't be amended under the Parliament Act, so you couldn't have something where the Lords and Commons disagreed and you just crashed it through, as the government sometimes do.

That is a possibility. So I do think it's important in a world where you've got these big bureaucracies, whether it's the Inland Revenue and big government. We do need a way to make sure that people can protect their rights. So I think this could be a very positive step forward. A lot of work will have to be done on it. I don't pretend we've got all the answers, of course not. But this is, I think, a positive step forward. And looking at how we really could rebalance the system in a way that will work.

ANDREW MARR: Sure - another area of constitutional argument just at the moment is the whole business of the Scots and the English. Lots of people are saying now there should be English votes for English laws - Ken Clarke is clearly attracted by that - and there's quite hubbub now saying that the Scots are getting too much public money, that the old Barnett formula, in fact Joel Barnett himself has said this, needs to be looked at again. Are the Scots getting too much public money at the moment, proportionately?

DAVID CAMERON: I don't have any plans to change the arrangements. Obviously we're in opposition, we have the opportunity to look at these things and we should do so. But I don't have any plans to make changes. And we should look at funding on the basis of need. And I think that's the right way, right way round. But I want, you know, I am a passionate Unionist, I think that Scotland brings a huge amount to the United Kingdom. The Scottish people bring a huge amount to the United Kingdom and I don't want, and I'm a Cameron, there is quite a lot of Scottish blood flowing through these veins.

ANDREW MARR: It's clearly the problem that you could have is in effect one party, shall we say the Conservative Party, had won a majority of seats in England, and was therefore in effect the government of England when it came to most of the things that voters were interested in, and there might be another party, Lib-Lab party or whatever it might be, still formally the British government.

DAVID CAMERON: Well I would put it another way which it would mean in the future that you couldn't have a government that could override the wishes of MPs sitting for English constituencies on matters that affect England in terms of health and education and transport.

ANDREW MARR: But it's tricky?

DAVID CAMERON: Well I don't see why it should ... I want parliament to be back at the centre of national life. I think one of the problems under this government is Parliament and the House of Commons has been so by-passed.

ANDREW MARR: Well let's turn to another Scot, Gordon Brown, who's made it very clear recently he wants to see Trident modernised. It could cost a vast amount of money - anywhere between £10 billion and £25 billion. Are you in favour of that?

DAVID CAMERON: Well I've always supported the British nuclear deterrent. I was never a member of CND and I've always thought it's right that we have a nuclear deterrent, and that's what Trident is. And then Trident comes to the end of its life and clearly we need to look at ways we can replace it.

ANDREW MARR: What does Trident, or its successor rather, really protect us from in the post-Cold War world?

DAVID CAMERON: We live in a more unstable, and often and in many ways a more dangerous world. And I think that as a nuclear power you always have the advantage of not being threatened in terms of being threatened in terms of blackmail. And I think that the British nuclear deterrent is, if you like, a long-term insurance policy.

ANDREW MARR: And what about civil nuclear power, because that's the other great debate at the moment? Now I know you've always said you've got other people looking at this at the moment. But what's your personal instinct in terms of, you know, the importance of having different sources of energy.

DAVID CAMERON: But my instinct is that we should have a proper energy review and I think the Prime Minister set up a review and then suddenly he gets out of bed one morning and says, no, I know the answer is nuclear. Well that's not how you have a review. The right way to review these things is to ask, right, what do we need in terms of carbon emissions, and how are going to cut carbon emissions in this country?

What do we need in terms of security, what's safe in terms of how much fuel to get from one source or one part of the world? Let's set a framework like that. And that's what our energy review is looking at, and it will make its announcement, probably in advance of the government's announcement. And I'm not going to pre-empt it by ...

ANDREW MARR: Fair enough.

DAVID CAMERON: ...picking this technology or that technology.

ANDREW MARR: Fair enough, but nuclear isn't the magic bullet from what you're saying.

DAVID CAMERON: I don't think there's any magic bullet. I mean, I think there's no magic bullet, there's a direction I'd like to see the country go in, which is far more de-centralised energy.

I think we've still got a very 1930s system of the big national grid, the huge power stations, there's often waste, a lot of electricity, and we can have far more local generation, far more investment in energy efficiency and far more local projects that actually are green, lead to greener and cleaner energy.

ANDREW MARR: You are going to have to take a decision.

DAVID CAMERON: Absolutely...

ANDREW MARR: ...on nuclear power, because if these plants are going to be replaced.

DAVID CAMERON: Andrew, let's have a review, let's have a proper review.

ANDREW MARR: You actually have to write the cheque, if you come into power, you have to take that decision.

DAVID CAMERON: We have to set the framework and say what do we need in terms of carbon emissions? What do we need in terms of security? Then you make the decision. But let's try and get these things in the right order.

ANDREW MARR: You've been famous for your windmills and your bicycles and all of that stuff. At the end of a Cameron administration would we be seeing much less cheap air travel? Would travelling around in petrol-driven or diesel-driven cars be much more expensive? Would you actually put in place the changes that would force us to change our behaviour?

DAVID CAMERON: This shouldn't become an issue of doom and gloom and taxes. You know, there will always be some things, there will have to be tough decisions and I won't flinch from them, because actually in terms of tackling climate change is one of the biggest challenges we face in our world. But I will not flinch from touch decisions. But it isn't true to say, as some do, that, you know, there's like a choice between sitting with the lights on and the planet going to hell in a handcart, and sitting in the dark. You know, we can all invest in energy-saving lightbulbs. And each energy-saving lightbulb you know saves you £7 a year, so it's good for you as well as good for the environment.

ANDREW MARR: Sure - but we're all hypocrites. We all, you know, if there are cheap flights to the South of France people are going to take them. And in the end politicians are going to have to change the system so those cheap flights disappear.

DAVID CAMERON: Well politicians have got to create a framework where we meet the carbon emission targets. And if you look at the biggest producer of carbon at the moment in terms of the British economy it is electricity generation. So the energy review is absolutely vital. And I think sometimes people single in on air travel because it's a small area, but it's very fast growing, so people single in on that. And I think much better to try and create the framework and then work out how you're going to meet it and that's what I'm determined to do.

ANDREW MARR: Let me ask you about something that's come under the general heading, since your speech, of general wellbeing which apparently includes tax credits for families and all of that. Suggestions that you've made up to now would spread the amount of government money going to families with children much more widely. And because you are focusing on the tax system it would help people with a bit of money more than it would help people right at the bottom of the pile. For all the arguments about means testing, doesn't it actually get the money to where it's most needed?

DAVID CAMERON: Well there obviously are advantages in a means tested system in terms of making sure you're hitting a particular group. But there are disadvantages in terms of the bureaucracy. And what I was doing in that very wide-ranging speech on the family - by the way I was saying it isn't all about money, that's the point - there are many ways in which we can help families, and we ought to recognise that the family is the answer to so many of the problems in this country in terms of poor educational achievement, and drugs and alcohol and the poor housing.

Actually families do a fantastic job in our society, and there are many things that aren't about money. But I think it is worth looking at this issue of child care, and I think it is worth looking at tax relief on child care. The point I was making is you can get tax relief on your mobile phone bill but you can't get tax relief on the money you spend on child care. Now is that right? Is that really sensible? And I think we should look at that.

ANDREW MARR: Is there a bit of a personal journey for you in all of this? Because it wasn't that many years ago when you were voting against paternity leave, against an extension of maternity leave and maternity pay, against some of these flexible working pro-family policies?

DAVID CAMERON: I don't think this is all about passing laws. One of the things I've been saying is that actually if we want to have more flexible working, which I do, and want to have more, a better balance for people between their work and family life. A lot of this is actually about celebrating the great things that companies do.

A lot of companies say to me, if you do too much legislation then you get the top down solution that won't deliver. And a lot of companies are doing amazing things. I was talking to a bank recently that has the right for everyone in that bank to ask for flexibility in terms of hours and shifts and all of that. Well that's great, and so we shouldn't think this is all about passing a law or issuing a regulation - it isn't.

ANDREW MARR: You take on Tony Blair across the despatch box, you're beginning visibly to square up to Gordon Brown. Assuming that Gordon Brown does become Prime Minister in the not too distant future, do you think that he should call a General Election as a new Prime Minister with a different direction?

DAVID CAMERON: Well, it's hard enough running one political party without trying to work out who's going to run the other one. I don't know when we're going to have this...orderly transition, I don't know. I mean the Prime Minister said he's fight, he'd run a full term but he's obviously come back from that. I think if there's a very early changeover and suddenly he's not running a full term then people haven't got what they voted for and I think there'd be a very strong case for an early election.

Clearly I would like a General Election tomorrow, Andrew. I want to get on and get rid of this government that I think's doing such a bad job, and I want the Conservative Party to offer a really good moderate, sensible, centre-right alternative. That's what I'm dedicated to doing. I'd like a General Election as soon as possible.

ANDREW MARR: That's a friendly message to the Chancellor. David Cameron thank you very much.

DAVID CAMERON: Thank you.

INTERVIEW ENDS

NB: this transcript was typed from a recording and not copied from an original script.

Because of the possibility of mis-hearing and the difficulty, in some cases, of identifying individual speakers, the BBC cannot vouch for its accuracy

Have your say

Your comment

Name
E-mail address
Town or City
Country
Comments

The BBC may edit your comments and not all emails will be published. Your comments may be published on any BBC media worldwide.
Terms & Conditions

]]> http://johnschwenkler.wordpress.com/?p=187 Tue, 20 May 2008 16:11:31 +0000 John http://johnschwenkler.fr.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/i-may-look-skinny-but-im-not-made-of-straw/ In my post yesterday on the Patrick Deneen-Jim Manzi spat on Peak Oil and the appropriate responses thereto, I argued against using the state as a mechanism of social change:

... in addition to being a reactionary neo-agrarian, I am also a somber, sober, what’s-the-point-anyway pessimist with a spectacular distaste for politics and political “solutions” and an abiding fear of what would happen if someone tried to tell my subdivision-dwelling, gas-guzzling father in law to change his lifestyle. (He’d shoot, that’s what.) While I’m all for, e.g., the prospect of slowly pulling the rug out from under the big air carriers, opening the skies to real competition, and waiting to see how things shake out, the idea that we - “America”, I mean, as opposed to the businesses that will stand to profit hugely if indeed this is the solution - ought to start building high-speed trains strikes me as foolish. I am, in short, a Deneen-loving Manziite, a Libertarian-Communitarian, one of those folks who wants to have his MacIntyre but Nozick, too.

Now, Prof. Deneen fires back - by no means at me in particular, but at the anti-coercion, pro-free market, pro-individual choice crowd more generally - with this:

This argument (given all of its simplifications here) is specious. The Guvment is constantly intervening in our market system, helping certain outcomes and hindering others. We may disagree with particular ways it intervenes, but only the most optimistic libertarian "spontaneous order" fundamentalist believes that a political, economic and social order can exist without government (and yes, I have met a few of those).

A good deal of the current order is the result of the partnership of large scale industrial enterprises and Guvment. Many policies favor companies that engage in economies of scale, rather than less efficient smaller scale and local undertakings. The U.S. system has had a long tradition - spanning party lines - of supporting what Lincoln and others called "internal improvements" - canals, railroads, roads, airports, as well as telegraph, telephone, internet, etc. - to expand commerce among and between the States as well as internationally. The growth of Guvment and the increasing scale of the economy increased together, constantly in tandem. It could be argued that this is simultaneously the logic of market capitalism that requires a strong state (of course, a liberal state) in order to expand with firm expectations of stability and enforcement of laws and contracts, and it is the logic of the Constitutional order (modified and interpreted increasingly so along the way), which was designed in significant part to support this economic logic (as Antifederalists saw on their first reading).

We have seen recently that the Guvment is an essential partner in the operation of a "free" market - the Fed's intervention and support for the financial system (not only banks, but now investment firms) was only the most visible way that we have seen what is otherwise the constant presence of Guvment in our markets. Another good example is that of the Bush administration's significant regulatory activity in striking down various State regulations in areas such as auto emissions, environmental impact, and food safety, with the aim of creating uniform regulation in these and other areas across the nation for the sake of convenience and efficiency of industry. This from a party that has, for over half a century, rhetorically defended Federalism, localism, and the use of the States as "laboratories." Both parties defend greater centralization and homogenization when it suits the particular ox they don't wish to be gored.

The guvment puts more than a finger on our economic scale - without its constant intervention through regulation, legislation and enforcement, we would not have the system that we call "the free market." It is specious even to suggest that within the legislative and regulatory boundaries there is a great deal of economic freedom, since the very type of economic activity that will occur will be significantly defined by those bounds. Without the legal definition of a corporation as a "person," our economic activity would be very different. The growth of corporations has in turn resulted in extraordinary influence over our guvment. In important respects, the two are now so deeply intertwined that it's difficult to think of either of them as separate from one another. The larger point is that guvment is always involved in the economy, influencing its direction and activities in one way or another. The fundamental debate is not whether it should do so, but how and to what end.

Well, yeah. But it's entirely possible to say all of this - to go on and on about the ways in which the policies of centralized government in the US have favored big business at the expense of small - and end up being, well, Tim Carney, for example. And so it's by no means "specious", upon recognizing that the government's attempts to regulate the market have had these effects, to go on to argue that the best way to work toward achieving an alternative set of ends - density over sprawl, trains over planes, small farms over industrialized agribusiness - is to get rid of the policies that helped establish the current hegemony in the first place. It's not "specious", after admitting the incontestable fact that government must have some role in maintaining political and social structures and encouraging enabling the functioning of a healthy economy, to go on to claim that this role ought to be as minimal as possible. It's not "specious", after acknowledging the importance of certain forms of life and economic activity different from the ones that currently predominate, to think that the best way to encourage (or at least begin to encourage) such developments is to let them develop.

Of course, it's also not specious to reject this (small-l) libertarian line of thought and argue instead that what is needed is a sort of economic affirmative action, a set of policies that give a deliberate boost to certain worthy forms of life or segments of the business sector which - whether through "market forces", state intervention, acts of God or the devil, or plain dumb luck - are currently at a competitive disadvantage. And I think that this kind of argument needs to be given a fair hearing. But it's crucial to recognize that the Law of (Supposedly) Unintended Consequences applies here to at least as great a degree as it does in the case of "regular" affirmative action: state action is always a crude instrument for promoting virtuous social change, and if the Iraq war, drug war, culture war, and many more such skirmishes haven't driven this point home, then I don't know what will.

Look, I'm not a libertarian, even if I do occasionally play one on the internet. But I think this point is worth belaboring, if only because the only thing that irks me as much as pro-growth industrialists masquerading as free-market conservatives irk Prof. Deneen is folks who complain at one moment about the evils of "untrammeled capitalism" and "unrestrained free markets" while at the very next instant pointing out the ways that state-sponsored subsidies, standards, regulations, bailouts, and so on prop up some portions of the economic sector while thwarting others. Nobody gets to have it both ways, and as always the truth is bound to lie somewhere in the middle. And Lord knows I'm not trying to defend movement conservatism or the Bush administration. But it seems to me that if there's anything that "small is beautiful"-types and doctrinaire libertarians ought to be able to agree on, it's that a bit more freedom from would, in the present circumstances, make for a corresponding increase in our freedom for.

[ADDENDUM: Of course it goes the other way, too: those who are uncomfortable with political centralization need to recognize that reversing this course will require a good deal of economic decentralization, too. (This is presently one of my favorite hobby-horses.) But then it seems problematic to think that the way to break this cycle is by (nation-) state action rather than, well, a bit more inaction.]

[ANOTHER ADDENDUM: Here is Wendell Berry (from The Unsettling of America):

This has become, to some extent at least, an argument against institutional solutions. Such solutions necessarily fail to solve the problems to which they are addressed because, by definition, they cannot consider the real causes. The only real, practical, hope-giving way to remedy the fragmentation that is the disease of the modern spirit is a small and humble way - a way that a government or agency or organization or institution will never think of, though a person may think of it: one must begin in one's own life the private solutions that can only in turn become public solutions.

That there could be governments or governmental institutions that could help to improve our present circumstances does not show that our current ones are in any position to do this. Call it quietism if you must - in the current situation, though, such a recognition does translate quite directly into a sort of political program, albeit one which centers on the attempt to strip the bulk of the power from certain of the institutions that currently wield it and return it to where it belongs. And it's also important to recognize that there are a lot more ways to be political than just through, well, politics. Berry again:

The responsible consumer ... escapes the limits of his own dissatisfaction. He can choose, and exert the influence of his choosing, because he has given himself choices. He is not confined to the negativity of his complaint. He influences the market by his freedom. This is no specialized act, but an act that is substantial and complex, both practically and morally. By making himself responsibly free, a person changes both his life and his surroundings.

Yes. We. Can.]

But first, let's promise to do away with the question of who is and isn't a conservative. That's a word that's pretty much meaningless nowadays, and if a guy who writes for NR, cautions political restraint, and defends the principle of subsidiarity wants to call himself one, then let's overlook his indefatigable techno-optimism and let him do just that. The same goes for the Wendell Berry-reading, Peak Oil-worrying Georgetown professor with a mean Luddite streak and a taste for Tocqueville. The term's enough of a slander these days that pretty much anyone willing to claim the mantle deserves the, err, privilege of giving it a run. Okay? Okay.

Fine, then. Let me state up front that my sensibilities - my personal beliefs, as one of my undergraduates might say - are hugely in sympathy with Patrick Deneen. As a sprawl-hating, CSA-joining, futurism-distrusting communitarian-agrarian-urbanist green with only a few months left of a borrowed car and neither a cell phone nor a cable TV connection, I find myself perversely attracted by the notion that modern life is somehow unsustainable, and that putting things back in order will require us to

begin a rather significant project of infill of existing living arrangements, particularly the suburbs, to achieve the necessary population density to justify public transportation,

and

build high speed trains between the more far-flung cities of the U.S., in anticipation of the demise of the airline industry,

and

encourage more local forms of economic activity, particularly agriculture.

And so on. My heart leaps, you know?

But the difficulty is that in addition to being a reactionary neo-agrarian, I am also a somber, sober, what's-the-point-anyway pessimist with a spectacular distaste for politics and political "solutions" and an abiding fear of what would happen if someone tried to tell my subdivision-dwelling, gas-guzzling father in law to change his lifestyle. (He'd shoot, that's what.) While I'm all for, e.g., the prospect of slowly pulling the rug out from under the big air carriers, opening the skies to real competition, and waiting to see how things shake out, the idea that we - "America", I mean, as opposed to the businesses that will stand to profit hugely if indeed this is the solution - ought to start building high-speed trains strikes me as foolish. I am, in short, a Deneen-loving Manziite, a Libertarian-Communitarian, one of those folks who wants to have his MacIntyre but Nozick, too.

And so I nod knowingly when Jim Manzi fires back with something like this:

What if we had reacted to the predictions throughout the 1970s and 80s that we would reach peak oil in about 2000? Do you think that some of these proposed changes would have slowed economic growth and prevented the world from being in the current position of paying an ever-dwindling share of total output for oil? What other difficult-to-anticipate changes might some of these interventions have had? Could the idea of purposely restructuring the transportation, housing and agricultural sectors of the U.S. economy based on a prediction for an event that we have proven to be very bad at predicting – and for which the world’s leading experts refuse to provide anything other than very broad guidance – induce a sense of humility? It does in me.

The force of this argument derives, I think, from its skepticism of both prediction and reaction. We may not know all the things we think we know, and the appropriate response to beliefs that are characterized by such epistemological limits needs to be one that incorporates a good deal of restraint: not just individual restraint when it comes to buying, building, and selling (which of course we are beginning to see more of, anyway), but also political restraint when it comes to proposals that call us to "use whatever energy bounty we have now" (!!) in the service of remaking suburbia, constructing new transportation systems, and restructuring the face of American agriculture. As the current quagmire in the Middle East reminds us quite vividly, overreaction very often comes at a greater cost than simply sitting around and doing nothing.

I am not, however, advocating that we do nothing. But to look at a nation where more and more people are leaving the suburbs, buying smaller cars and homes, joining CSAs, planting urban gardens, eating local and organic food, and so on, and peg it as a place where, short of a concerted, presumably top-down effort to make Europe into "our future exemplary living arrangement",

we WILL use the existing surplus and still cheap energy to continue the great American wasteland - the build-out to nowhere, an economy premised upon an infinite future of cheap transportation, an agricultural system based on energy inputs that far exceed calorie outputs, and the destruction of arable farmland for endless tracts of McMansion temples to the modern ego

seems unfair. We need to change, and we have responded by - well - changing: certainly not in all the ways and to the degree that may be needed in the long term, but changing nonetheless. Moreover, and I think that this is closer to Manzi's bigger point, it is crucial not to underestimate our resourcefulness, and our ability to find distinctively American ways (e.g.) to cope with our problems instead of going the route of Western Europe. Lord knows I love Western Europe and very often have a sneering distaste for the "distinctively American", but He's also well aware that the folks across the pond have got their problems, too.

Which brings me to my grand conclusion. If that which is small, local, traditional, sustainable, and ecologically responsible is worth defending, as I for one lack no confidence that it is, then it ought to be defensible in ways that don't hang on Black Swan scenarios, but appeal instead to the intrinsic superiority of certain ways of living to others. We ought to turn off the lights and walk rather than driving, not because the alternative is another Great Flood, but because using energy responsibly is the right thing to do. We ought to strive to promote close-knit communities with thriving local agricultures and economies, not because failure to do so will leave us unable to cope with Peak Oil, but because such ways of living are good ways (for humans) to live. And the changes that make such behaviors more common will have to come, as any real cultural change must, from below. Going on about the remote prospects of Impending Doom distracts us from such facts, and feeds the tendency to substitute the political for the personal.

[UPDATE: Prof. Deneen comments:

Ultimately what I am talking about here is a change in culture - one that is not drastic or catastrophic as some here seem to think would be the case - not specific policy prescriptions.

Fair enough, though I do think it's wise to be clearer upfront about that. I also stand by the claim that the best argument for cultural change is the one that appeals to the goodness of certain ways of life rather than predicting the fall of the sky. This is why Wendell Berry is at his best when he talks about farm life and the Kentucky of his boyhood, and at his worst when he goes on angry rants about technology and the soullessness of modern life.]

What are the critics of classical liberalism saying? What are liberals saying in response? Chandran Kukathas surveys the key communitarian criticisms and suggests how liberals can reply.

"Theoretical Foundations of Multiculturalism" por Chandran Kukathas

I remember when Pope John Paul l died, when I was in junior high school. We Catholics mourned his death as if he were our father. I remember feeling incredible loyalty and devotion to Pope John Paul ll, my priests and The Church. My faith was in the Roman Catholic Church, works and sacraments.

Watching the funeral of JPll 20 years after the Lord brought me out of the Catholic Church and into the Kingdom of God, I was amazed to see the near worship of the man, with political dignitaries kneeling before his coffin.

Also in 2005 I got to see the cathedral Duomo in Milan. It was one of the most pagan things I've ever seen. As the priest offered up the host in Latin, I observed from the tourist area the huge image of "Mother(goddess) and Child", the hundreds of prayer candles, the statues of saints which looked like ancient Roman gods, and the focal point: above the altar, a huge stained glass image of the sun, with all it's rays beaming out. You know, like in Babylonian religion. Roman-Babylonian paganism was blended with Christianity to make a deceiving and attractive mix.

Here is a short comparison list for those who may be unfamiliar with Catholic doctrine. Catholics need to hear the gospel from us. We are Christ's ambassadors to bring the good news of freedom from the bondage of (pagan) religion and works-righteousness. Right after I was "confirmed", God used one of His ambassadors to send me a Bible, and through reading the gospel, He opened my eyes so I could see Jesus. God is still saving His lost sheep by His grace.

• Salvation through God vs Salvation through Roman Catholic Church.
• Salvation through Jesus vs salvation through Pope.
• Mediator is Jesus vs Mediator is priest.
• Intercessor is Jesus vs Intercessor is priest.
• Jesus was offered up as sacrifice once, vs Eucharistic Christ offered up as a sacrifice often- every time the Mass occurs.
• Authority is Scripture vs Authority is tradition.
• Salvation through Grace and Faith vs salvation through works.
• Salvation through repentance and faith in Jesus vs salvation through Eucharist, confession to priests, confirmation and other sacraments, not to mention Mary, rosaries, holy water, candles, statues, scapulars, and more.
• Discipleship in the Word vs being a good Catholic.
• Discipleship by teachers and preachers of the Word, vs Mary and the Saints.
• Devotion to Jesus Christ vs devotion to the Roman Catholic Church.

... that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light... 1 Pe.2:9.

First, for those of you who may not be familiar with what Collectivism is, let's look to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary for a definition;

COLLECTIVISM:
1:a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control
2: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

- Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary; Entry - Collectivism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Collectivism
Accessed on March 31, 2008

Here is another, perhaps more complete, definition:

Collectivism holds that the individual is not an end to himself,
but is only a tool to serve the ends of the group.

What is the key principle underlying collectivism?
The theory of collectivism (in all its variants) holds that man is not an end to himself, but is only a tool to serve the ends of others. Collectivism, unlike individualism, holds the group as the primary, and the standard of moral value. Whether that group is a dictator's gang, the nation, society, the race, (the) god(s), the majority, the community, the tribe, etc., is irrelevant -- the point is that man in principle is a sacrificial victim, whose only value is his ability to sacrifice his happiness for the will of the "group".

What is the opposite of collectivism?
The opposite of collectivism is individualism. Individualism declares that each and every man, may live his own life for his own happiness, as an end to himself. Politically, the result of such as principle is capitalism: a social system where the individual does not live by permission of others, but by inalienable right.

- Capitalism.org FAQs
http://www.capitalism.org/faq/collectivism.htm
Accessed on March 31, 2008

Now that you know what Communism, oops, I mean collectivism is, you will know what to look for as you read the interview linked below that Barack Obama gave just 10 years ago...

Here are just two of the more audacious quotes from the interview;

[One Quick Note; As I was reading this, before posting this piece on my blog, I thought to myself, "Wow, the title of Obama's book was really like a freudian slip wasn't it. Obama and his closest supporters actually had the "Audacity to Hope", that people wouldn't realize the true content of his character in a National Campaign. The Democrats really messed this one up allowing him to get this far - unless this is what they all believe! I guess we shouldn't be surprised really... A quote of Maya Angelou's came to my attention in the last few days, she said (paraphrased) Believe somebody when they show you who they are... the FIRST time.]

Anyone familiar with Star Trek will identify the first quote of Obama's as sounding eerily familiar to the Borg! Automatons without thoughts of their own, with no desire, but that of the collective. Does Barack imagine himself some come-to-life version of the Borg Queen?

Obama on Individualism, vs. Collective thought, action and deed...
In America,” Obama says, “we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.”

- Barack Obama,
Interview with the Chicago Reader, 1995

Obama on the Million Man March, which he attended:
Historically, African-Americans have turned inward and towards black nationalism whenever they have a sense, as we do now, that the mainstream has rebuffed us, and that white Americans couldn’t care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing"

- Barack Obama,
Interview with the Chicago Reader, 1995

Please go to Nice Deb's Blog to read the rest of the interview...

OH, WAIT!!! I almost forgot! What about Hillary, you say?

In case you think I'm just slammin' Obama, please consider the following - Hillary is no different than Barack. She just has a different name for describing the good Democrats that she has met along the campaign trail. She describes them as good "Communitarians". [Communitarianism is basically the same as collectivism, denial of all forms of self, in the pursuit of the benefit of the whole, with no thought to the goodness of invidualism. In other words, denying our God-given freedom of thought even for the good of the majority.]

"I was shocked when I learned Iowa and Mississippi have never elected a woman governor, senator or member of Congress," Clinton told the paper. "There has got to be something at work here. How can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi? That's not the quality. That's not the communitarianism, that's not the openness I see in Iowa."

- Hillary Clinton, stated to the Des Moines Register,
October 2007, while campaigning in Iowa during the Primaries

Now, you may say Communitarianism is the opposite of libertarianism, and you may be right, but it is also the enemy ideologically to the United States as a Freedom Loving Constitutional Republic! We were not set up as a Socialist/Communist government. Which is the TRUE agenda of both Collectivism, and Communitarianism. And those who say, either ignorantly, or dishonestly that it's not would end up paving the way for those who recognize it as such, and destroy our country along the way.

Conservatism, Individualism, Capitalism, and its friends in philosophical ideology are what's best about the United States and what has made this country the most free in the world. We cannot let Collectivists, Communitarians, Socialists, and Communists oppress us like they have millions of other poor unfortunate souls across the world (See the Former Soviet Union (USSR), Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, etc...) and are doing to this day (see China, Chavez/Venezuela, Kim Jong Il/North Korea).

Thanks to "Nice Deb", who brings news of the interview to the blogosphere, and to "Jet Jaguar" over on FreeRepublic.com who notified me of the posting of this expose at Ace of Spades.

UPDATE - April 21, 2008:

Several have written requesting the URL of the original article at the Chicago Reader.
Please accept my apologies for not including it initially in this post:

DeZutter, Hank, "What Makes Obama Run", The Chicago Reader, December 8, 1995, http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/archive/barackobama/, accessed on April 21, 2008

Things have a way of coming round again. It’s my youngest son’s first birthday tomorrow. Of course that’s special in itself, but it carries the potential for discord – my wife and I also have a two year old daughter. We jokingly think of her as our mini-boss, in training at least. She’s got that type of personality. So giving presents to her brother alone, something she’s never experienced, was looming as a problem. Then I thought of my great-grandmother, and everything has fallen into place.

Sometimes good ideas linger in the background, ignored far too long. My great-grandfather migrated to Australia from England before the First World War, survived the debacle in Turkey, married and eventually settled in a small tourist town on the south coast near Melbourne. Poppa Potts had lied about his age to join the army, and when he made it to the coastal strip he near built the local pub by himself. He was that sort of guy – happy to tell the tall tale, eager to build. After he retired from carpentry he built model chairs, boats and the like out of wooden pegs. Very clever.

And Nana Potts was at the centre of her small community, when it really was a small community before Melbourne’s suburbs began to spread out into it. When I was a very small child we moved north, so I didn’t get to see much of them, but twice a year Nana would do something that should have stuck more firmly in my memory, though it’s only properly surfaced now, over three decades later. For my brother’s birthday she’d send a package with one present for him and something small for me. On my birthday it was the opposite.

There’s something to be said for communitarianism like that, for understanding how relationships work and trying to smooth them over. It’s not about greed or commercialism, and it surely isn’t about being communistic, as people so often declare with misplaced vitriol these days. It’s about sharing, and learning to do it as an adult, to help other people out.

So we’ll be doing the same for our younger kids, because we want them to remember that for every special moment in their lives someone else might feel a twinge of sadness. That’s my great-grandmother’s legacy. But for all the world I’m still puzzled that it skipped two generations, and nearly a third.

Noreena Hertz says in her book, The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy:

"My argument is not intended to be anticapitalist.  Capitalism is clearly the best system for generating wealth, and free trade and open capital markets have brought unprecedented economic growth to most if not all of the world.  Nor is the book intended to be antibusiness.  Corporations are not amoral but, I will argue, they are morally ambivalent.  In fact, under certain market conditions, business is more able and willing than government to take on many of the world's problems [emphasis mine]" (Hertz, 12).

Notice the assumptions and lack of analysis here.  She (1) assumes that capitalism is the most efficient wealth generating system (look up the economists Thorstein Veblen, and neo-Marxists Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy if you would like to see critiques), (2) that the distribution of wealth is negligibly important, and (3) ignores the role capitalism has played in the erosion of government willingness to take on global problems.

David C. Korten, in his otherwise excellent book, When Corporations Rule the World, says:

"With regard to political values, I remain a traditional conservative in the sense that I retain a deep distrust of large institutions and their concentratrions of unaccountable power.  I also continue to believe in te important of the market and private ownership" (19), and "the problem is not business or the merket per se but a badly corrupted global economic system that is gyrating far beyond human control" (23).

Some of his non-socialist social changes are worth note.  I'll mention a few and their page numbers.  He advocates taxes on financial transactions and capital gains (271), regulation of derivatives (272), enforcement of antitrust laws (272), modify intellectual property right laws (274-75), and require annual profit payout to shareholders (274), among other things.  In addition, society should guarantee a minimum floor of income (276), progressive income and consumption taxes (276), and a more equitable pay (277).  In short, some sort of kindhearted welfare capitalism seems to prevail.

Similarly, Sackrey, Schneider, and Knoedler's Introduction to Political Economy advocates some sort of Swedish 'middle way'--i.e. some sort of welfare capitalism, to solve the problems of free market economics.  They say:

"Thus the experiences of Sweden demonstrate the possibility of a "Middle Way" between unregulated capitalism and command communism:  social democracy . . . Sweden proved that a country can maintain full employment, be efficient and productive, and give all citizens the right to decent levels of food, clothing, health care, to a job, and to some control over their lives" (243).

Other books and authors recommend some sort of relocalization of the economy--such as (at least at face value) every author in The Case Against the Global Economy. 

The consensus, I suppose, is this: "Globalization has caused harms X, Y, and Z, through unmitigated capitalist development of wealth and power.  I don't advocate socialism, i.e. state ownership of the economy and/or redistribution of wealth, but I think the solution can be developed through a (more or less) relocalized welfare capitalist state."

The problem with the relocalized capitalist state idea begins with both the questions (1) given the current system, how are you going to get there (i.e. a practical question of means) and (2) if these problems are caused by the laws of capitalist development, and the problems are solved in proportion to the regulation of capitalism/ists, why isn't a complete redirection of the means of wealth generation in society through change in ownership on the top of your priorities list?

Concerning question (1), the concensus among the antiglobalization movement is that global capital has unprecedented global power, privilege, wealth, and influence, that allows them to dominate life on Earth.  Moving relatively laissez faire capitalist states to some form of relocalized welfare capitalism will erode capitalists existant power--facing perpetual opposition from the powers-that-be.  Furthermore, the maintenance of such a state is extremely difficult, due to deregulation pressures and capital strikes.  In Sackrey et. al., they note of Sweden, "In general, the econmic performance of Sweden deteriorated after 1970 due to a number of factors, including globalization, industrial decline, and the aging of the popuilation . . . [and] these forces--global competition in traditional manufacturing, the flight of transnational corporations to the developing world, and the aging of the population--have presented problems throughout the developed world" (232).  In the globalized economy, the fact that the forces that generate wealth, i.e. capital, are privately owned and increasingly global and mobile, prevents the long-term sustainability of welfare capitalist futures, and the move to a welfare capitalist present.  Moves to a welfare capitalist state without a change in ownership of at least some industries leaves corporations, not tied to territories as states are, to move to more profitable areas, furthering their relative power to said states.  This is why taxes are so high in welfare capitalist nations--maintenance of such programs in capitalism necessitates taxation for revenue, whereas it could come from profits directly under socialism.  This practical critique--that maintenance of capitalism undermines welfare programs--reveals (I think) a larger critique.  If our society is better and these problems are remedied insofar as we move away from capitalist laws of operation and distribution, why won't a complete move away from capitalism be. . . a better world?

Daylight Saving Time. As I did my best to ignore my pleading alarm clock, my hazy mind wandered to the topic of political economy. Have you ever looked out on a foggy morning with zero visibility, tracking ghostly, shapeless forms until they take shape just feet away? Blinking off the fog of sleep, the thought of externalities congealed in stark contrast to the murky backdrop of my thoughts. Just your average morning, yes?

I should contextualize. In my political ideologies class we have been reading Michael Sandel’s Democracy’s Discontent in which he makes the case for communitarianism (though he prefers the term republicanism). To summarize by means of quotation: “Liberty depends on sharing in self government… It requires a knowledge of public affairs and also a sense of belonging, a concern for the whole, a moral bond with the community whose fate is at stake.”

The political economy of voluntarism (by which Sandel means liberalism, with its highest ideal of unencumbered, individual choice) and communitarianism can be viewed in terms of externalities - the messy leftovers inherent in two-party economic transactions. In selling cheap carpet tiles, for example, the producer and the distributor exchange product for cash. But cash isn't the only thing the producer is left with; there is now the issue of what to do with the waste byproduct (which one can imagine to by filled with toxic compounds). Rather than engage in a secondary economic transaction, the producer can take disposal into its own hands: vertical integration, the great capitalist cost-cutter. Which is of course to say, dump the waste in the river. Or behind the elementary school. Or in the runoff to the aquifer, et cetera.

The voluntarist approach and that of the communitarian, then, differ as follows. Since the physical fact of the manufacturing byproduct is unchosen, the voluntarist will see it as an illegitimate encumbrance on the choice to conduct the transaction with the distributor. This illegitimate encumbrance must therefore be neutralized by the government footing the cost of, for example, river cleanup. This must be seen as neutral, because it doesn't place limitations on what individuals, through their free enterprise, can engage in. It fulfils the liberal goals of freedom in affirming and dignifying the capacity of choice and volition in individuals.

Reading this, the republican communitarian is screaming bloody murder. This is lunacy! they proclaim. And in this case, I'm inclined to agree. The communitarian approach is to point out that neutrality isn't possible. In this case, liberal government presupposes that river pollution can be post hoc cleaned up to its original state with no permanent effect - contrary to ecological fact. More over, it presupposes in its pretended neutrality that there is nothing wrong with industrial pollution in the first place, that the salient issue to be bracketed is not the pollution but the voluntary production of carpet tiles. Rather than subsidize this pollution by picking up the cleanup tab, the communitarian approach is to build consensus that the pollution is intrinsically harmful. As an externality, it cannot be neutralized. It must, then, be managed, must be shifted back onto the producer. Bearing the monetary responsibility for its own environmental damage, the producer will now have the economic mandate to reduce pollution during the process as the more economical alternative. If the producer still acts against the good of the community, the community would have strong moral grounds to impose strict mandates against such pollution. The specific policy tool used is not important; what matters is that the externality of the pollution was deemed harmful to the community and for that reason eliminated by returning responsibility for the waste to the producer.

Sandel’s book has been very thought provoking to me, and some of the broader themes deserve to be addressed in a book review in a later post. Keep your wits about you until then!