Political Philosophy and Ethics discussion
Political Philosophy and Law
>
Types of Government: General Discussion
Here's an interesting fella for you to get to know about. Lysander Spooner, a favored son of the great state of Massachussetts!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysande...
(he spent his last days at 109 Myrtle St, which is not far from my workplace)
Mod
Lysander Spooner, a favored son of the great state of Massachussetts!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysande...
(he spent his last..."
Lysander Spooner is a hero to the anarchocapitalist and libertarian right. He was particularly admired by Murray Rothbard, who propagated anarchocapitalist theory in the twentieth century. I partially read Spooner's book No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority (1870) decades ago. As the linked Wikipedia article observes, he was an abolitionist, but he believed that the South had a right to secede from the United States. He supported ad hoc violence against slavery, e.g. John Brown's actions, but opposed governmental efforts to suppress it. Go figure. Such ad hoc violence would never have abolished slavery. Indeed, John Brown's raid only made the South double-down on slavery.
Accordingly, Spooner's anarchocapitalism trumped his abolitionism. His rather kooky and excessively abstract views found their way into present-day anarchocapitalism and libertarianism. He is reminiscent (to me) of the medieval Aristotelians, who were great at deductive reasoning but not so good on inductive reasoning. Aristotle himself understood that deductive reasoning started with a premise, and the premise had to be established through inductive reasoning. If you accept anarchocapitalism's premises, you can argue deductively to a position that all government should be abolished. Such a position ignores the detrimental real-world effects of anarchocapitalism, which any person who reads history or carefully observes the contemporary world would recognize.
Well done. I liked learning about his 'private mail service' and how he was a 'self-taught' lawyer when he started out. ha
Mod
See the Public Choice topic of this group, including the reference in post 21 to Nancy MacLean's recent book Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America and my review of it. See also the Classical Liberalism; Libertarianism and Anarchocapitalism (especially Randal's book references in #21 and my book references in #s 24 and 35) and Government and the Economy; Property Rights topics.
Perhaps most important is Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, which Randal reviewed here. I plan to read this book after I finish writing my current book on the Electoral College.
There's an anarchist book reader's group here on Goodreads. 
The topic of anarcho-capitalism often rears its head in several running discussions. Whether the participants favor it or not is something I don't think can be determined. But you will find them at least talking about it, defending it, acknowledging its critics; and clarifying it among themselves. Useful links are sometimes cited.
https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
p.s. please pay no attention to my own remarks made in that group, strictly horseplay.
I just returned from a wonderful family trip to Barcelona Spain to take my grandson to see Leonel Messi and Barca play. For those uninitiated in the “beautiful game”, Messi is a soccer magician and Barca the best team in Spain and one of the best in the world. Meaningless except that Messi is my grandsons hero. Anyway, the long flight back to me to thinking about my family tree,prepared by my recently deceased father showing our family roots going back to the early 19th c in Spain. Same for my mothers paternal family from the Basque region of Spain. Both sides emigrated from the pitiful shell of a nation that was imperial Spain to the new world in the 19th c. And then to the US in the 20th. It occurred to me that my experience is that of most Americans, that we therefore are truly unique and different from others, and that our Founders really were onto something. By the time we got here, to the new world that is, the American Civil War was over and by the time we revived in the US, well Roosevelt was POTUS and then Kennedy. The citizen of Catalunya, where Barcelona is, has a historical perspective and reality grounded in the soil of Catalunya and the historical en,its with Madrid and central government....thus the events of the past year there. There was no such connection for us here in the US, as for all the rest. Here was and is the new. We bought into a set of ideals, first advanced in 1776 when my ancestors were herding cows in Spain. It’s no different for my Guatemalan friends today whose children will be the beneficiaries of those ideals however imperfectly implemented over the past 250years. Same for my Mexican friends and colleagues from Texas and New Mexico whose families predated most every American in the new world. Spain had no ideals that spoke to people and created a hopefulness for the future. America did and does. So while the passage was not pretty in places as Randall and others are wont to describe, and appropriately so so that we remember our mistakes and dead ends on our path forward; it was the necessary path. While I am an optimist I am not a utopian. The beauty of our nation is that in spite of our natural God given imperfections we were handed a system of government suited to those imperfections and told to do the best we can. One can argue that that’s all we have done and can do.
Apologies for the extended post but I had too much time to ponder the past week.
American professor says..."less democratic democracy makes a better democracy"? Or, makes a better government? https://tinyurl.com/ov6rbjw
It's weird --and the article yields a new term 'epistocracy' --but to me this theory isn't more eloquent than anything the great HL Mencken ever said.
claim: 'the size of any parliamentary or legislative body is approximately the cube root of its population'https://fruitsandvotes.wordpress.com/...
Charles Krauthammerhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles...
Interesting write-up in the Atlantic Monthly on his passing
https://tinyurl.com/yc57p2sz
Notable figure from the corridors of American conservatism, (former speechwriter under Carter, so I'm slightly puzzled as to how he wended his way there).
His books: Things That Matter: Three Decades of Passions, Pastimes and Politics
The Point of It All: A Lifetime of Great Loves and Endeavors
And finally his commencement address at McGill University in Canada: https://tinyurl.com/y89q29bw
Good post Felkis - I read his memoir recently and cane away with a profound appreciation for his contributions to American political discourse. He was of course, a committed conservative intellectual, but more to the point he was in the business of demolishing and exposing untruths and silliness in politics whether of the left or right. Did you ever notice that he always seemed to sit quite upright on TV appearances? That’s because he suffered a immobilizing disability early in his life that left him a paraplegic. He never ever mentioned or even alluded to his disability in his writings or speaking as far as I can tell. He was not someone I could agree with most of the time, but could many times and that’s all that a good thinker and writer can hope for and a citizen should ask for.
Thanks Charles. His career raises a lot of questions in my mind; but I'd like to wait to hear what Alan has to say. Maybe its a discussion that might be too topical (or, maybe a chat about this man might be better off in a different discussion section? I don't know)
Mod
I haven't read much of Krauthammer or even seen him on TV (except when I was at a restaurant that had Fox News on). I gather, however, that he was more of a political commentator than a political philosopher or scholar. I don't have a problem with the discussion so far, but I don't want to get into hot-button present-day political issues. So, if he wrote a book (I don't know whether he did) elaborating a political philosophy or theory (as did, for example, Russell Kirk, another right-wing columnist with whom I disagreed on most points, notwithstanding the fact that Kirk attended meetings as a consultant for a textbook company at which I was once employed), such writing could be discussed in the most appropriate topic (ask me, if there doesn't seem to be one). The point is to discuss overall principles and approaches as distinguished from day-to-day political issues. (I have allowed—and even initiated—a few limited exceptions to this rule, but they are exceptions that prove the rule.)
Thanks Alan. I'm glad I asked. I think I can limit the 5 or 6 musings that occur to me to just small related cluster. A man of letters like this--Harvard man--coming to public life in a generation which featured quite a few similar figures (Galbraith, or Kissinger for example) --did they typically start their careers liberal? I'm curious about these eastern-establishment 'wise men' who become presidential advisors. Did most of his peers start out liberal? Is such an 'about-face' common from that generation at that time? Or is conservatism in that generation of scholars more prevalent than I imagine?
Mod
That's a whole bunch of questions, for which I, for one, do not have an answer at hand. But the premise may be incorrect: there have been several different kinds of "conservatives" since World War II, for example paleoconservatives (back to medieval feudalism!) like Russell Kirk, theocratic conservatives (perhaps in the same subset as paleoconservatives), neoconservatives (the first generation was mostly leftist, even Marxist, before they turned, and the second generation has mostly supported an American international empire), libertarian conservatives (opposed to all of the above), and populist (Trumpist) conservatives (opposed to all of the above). As for the eastern establishment "Wise Men" (not all of them were from the east coast) who established US foreign policy after World War II, I could have told you more about them decades ago when I read several books by and/or about them—memory now fades . . . . But even they disagreed among themselves. George Kennan, for example, broke with Dean Acheson on some important issues, and Kennan, the inventor of the containment policy, later opposed the Vietnam War, saying it was a misapplication of his ideas. Kennan was a midwesterner, hailing from Wisconsin, though he attended Princeton. I've read books by both Acheson and Kennan, as well as books about them and the others, but I would have to revisit those books to answer your questions, and I don't have time to do that right now.
Question:Are there any obvious instances in history when a national government may be organized for democratic processes but the citizens themselves, being neither eager nor willing to embrace democratic ideals, allow their government to fail? Or, are there not enough instances of this that we can say what the typical result is? For example, the Weimar Republic. Does this represent an instance such as what I describe? Said another way: can a democracy maintain itself very long without public participation?
Mod
Are there any obvious instances in history when a national government may be organized for democratic processes but the citizens themselves, being neither eager nor willing to embrace de..."
I think it's not so much a matter of public participation as the fact that a significant portion of the population may prefer authoritarianism of either the right or left to constitutional democracy (a democratic republic). The Weimar Republic, I believe, is an example of this, though I am not an expert on pre-Nazi Germany. Similarly, the populist authoritarian movements around the world today involve much public participation, though of the wrong kind. In this way, democracy can devolve into authoritarianism and tyranny, as Plato recognized long ago and Madison not so long ago. In making these comments, I refrain from mentioning the obvious elephant in the room in the present-day United States. Suffice it to say that turnout in the November 3, 2020 election exceeded turnout in all presidential elections since 1900 (when women could not legally vote and African Americans were prevented from voting by Jim Crow laws). This did not prevent almost half the electorate from voting for a candidate who exhibits all the attributes of a would-be authoritarian and who is currently purging the defense department upper echelon in a possible attempt to effect a coup should his other efforts to reverse the election results prove unsuccessful. Stalin did the same thing before World War II, resulting in an initial terrible performance of his military when Hitler invaded Russia.
I'm avoiding the elephants also, ha. I just found myself today marveling at the paucity of true civics education I received in my public elementary school (you mentioned in another thread the difficulties facing today's civics teachers).It seems to me this is a very great stumbling block for modern Americans. I myself am appalled at the poor instruction in world history I received in my state's school system up until I entered college; and I wonder if the same situation prevails in the other fifty states besides the one where I matriculated. It certainly 'feels' lately as if democratic principles are fumbling and stuttering and I wonder if this is a factor.
I can't recall the last time I heard any admiration of the stirring sentiments of Lincoln, or Kennedy. It makes me suspect that US democracy relies too much on "figureheads", and when they fade from public discourse, democracy looks a little dowdy compared to the latest screaming headlines of our modern demagogues and militants.
In contrast to the philosophy of these men --which might have made some difference to my young mindset -- I remember instead being bored ad infinatum in grades 5-7, being over-fed every possible nuance of "American Colonies vs the British". Teachers always seemed to over-emphasize the utter righteousness of our colonists when confronted with "taxation without representation".
The dangers of revolution, the costs of revolution were never touched on; the mistakes of other revolutions in history (French, Roman, Russian, Irish) were never raised. 'Instability' and 'threat to civil stability' was never drawn with any concern or worry. {The point always harped on instead: 'how nasty those British were, hindering our freedom to make money!']
The other thick strand of American history I was treated to in those school-years: the US Civil War. Here, a different message: "how awful the Southern States were, almost upsetting the Union for the sake of profits made from slaves!"
So it was all 'mixed messages'; no real forward-thinking lessons insofar as what us kids (as young American citizens) must be 'on guard' for; must 'be wary of'. No wisdom as to how our nation needs to be steered today. (Just don't bring back slavery and never again let anyone tax us without representation! --Fine, got it, check, okay --we sure won't!)
Thus: I'm wondering if a people who are not ever inspired by democracy, who are never zealous for it --can long support the ideal. It takes work, after all; it is always "easier" to let a dictator take over.
p.s. Now that I think of it, never in elementary school did I hear scarcely a few words said about either Presidents Wilson or Roosevelt. Neither World War I nor II was ever part of the curriculum.
Mod
I have very little recollection of what they called "social studies" in my elementary school. I vaguely recall something about Thanksgiving (doubtless not considered accurate today), but that's about it. I had good teachers and pretty good textbooks in history and government in high school. We were required to take American history in (if I recall correctly) 7th grade and again in 10th grade. We were required to take world history in 11th grade and government/economics in 12th grade. So I got a fairly good grounding in these subjects in high school, though they did not, of course, incorporate any of the revisionist scholarship of later decades (some of which is good and some of which is not so good).
I would say that good education in history and government is essential to good citizenship. And I would say that I did receive such education in high school. But then, when I look around at what many of my high school classmates (who took the same mandatory courses) are thinking and saying on Facebook, for example, I have to wonder whether they paid any attention at all in those classes. Perhaps the courses could have been made more interesting. I came close to being a high school teacher but did not do so. From 1972 to 1978 I wrote high school social science textbooks and teachers' guides for a textbook writing company, and the teaching ideas we incorporated in such textbooks were, I still think, excellent. But our textbooks were considered too untraditional by the political right and too "unwoke" (to adapt, anachronistically, a current buzz word) by the political left. Such ideological battles continue today. How is it possible for a textbook on American history, for example, to be approved by both the Texas state school board and the Massachusetts state school board?
I do not know exactly what has happened to the teaching of history and government in high schools during recent decades. My impression is that these subjects have been crowded out by the emphasis on STEM and associated proficiency tests. If, however, we wish to preserve our democratic republic, we need to get back to teaching basic facts and concepts about history and government. The problem is that such matters become political footballs, with the extreme right and the extreme left each having their own agendas. Somehow we must focus on what the historical evidence provides and try to get students to evaluate same with critical thinking skills. If that fails, democracy is probably dead.
Interesting backstory. Maybe these also apply to my musings:
“...to suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.” --James Madison
“...only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” --Benjamin Franklin
Found these in a website called, 'Journal of the American Revolution '
Mod
Maybe these also apply to my musings:
“...to suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.” ..."
Yes, and that remains true today. These statements may derive, in part, from Montesquieu, who said that virtue was necessary for a republic. By "virtue," Montesquieu, Franklin, Madison, and others meant something broader than what we currently consider "virtue" to be: it meant intellectual as well as ethical virtue, and, in particular, the application of reason and critical thinking to political issues.
FWIW, I have a recent blog entry about the tension between democracy and goals Americans put much higher.: https://luckorcunning.blogspot.com/20...Democracy has never been a highly regarded principle to most Americans.
I thought I had just imagined this guy. John Anderson. But, he actually existed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B....
I expect one day, all facts will be like this.
Mod
H'mm! I also wonder what the country would have been like had Stevenson beaten Ike; or, if McGovern had won against Tricky Dick.
Mod
Stevenson (Adlai II) would have been, in my humble opinion, a better president than McGovern, though McGovern would have been better than Nixon.
Disclosure: I met Stevenson's son, Adlai Stevenson III, when I worked in his successful campaign for state treasurer of Illinois in 1966. I recall meeting with Adlai III and a small group of young people (mostly college students) in a conference room in downtown Chicago (I was chair of the Political Education Committee of "Youth for Adlai"). Adlai III told us that the worst years of his life were when he attended Harvard. Like his father, he was a very decent fellow. He was a United States Senator from 1970 to 1981. To my surprise, per Wikipedia, he still lives (age 90)!
Adlai Stevenson I was vice-president of the United States from 1893 to 1897. He was the grandfather of Adlai II and the great-grandfather of Adlai III.
I admit it, I have nil enthusiam for the coming year. Maybe it's just me but it just seems as if --now that it's clearly so easy for determined aggressors to wreak havoc --all of us are now just waiting for the next 9/11. Who will be the next oh-so-clever psycho who can prove he can outwit America? What faction, what splinter-group, what extremist? It feels like a game-show.
Mod
There are also three very problematic foreign policy issues that will confront the U.S. Government in 2022: (1) Russian's probable invasion and takeover of Ukraine, (2) China's probable continued incorporation of Hong Kong into its authoritarian system, and (3) China's possible decision to take over Taiwan.
This just in, from the Department of Out-of-the-Blue QuestionsHow is 'globalization' any less demonic than 'colonialism'? Aren't they one and the same, just wearing different robes? Don't they both diminish regional culture; don't they both marginalize indigenous peoples? Isn't today's 'globalism' just yesterday's 'imperialism'?
Probably not very novel an inkling. But it's on my mind tonight.
Types of government. I've known the term, "cacotopia" for a while, but was unaware of, "dysgenics", or, "kakistocracy" until this week. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakisto...
Leave it to those amazing Greeks. They had a word for everything.
Mod
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics
https://en.wikipedi..."
As the linked Wikipedia articles indicate, these terms were coined in recent times from Greek words. The ancient Greeks themselves did not use them. However, their language, somewhat like modern German, did have some word combinations of this kind. One famous example is Plato’s use of the word kallipolis (literally, “beautiful city” or “noble city,” the Greek word kalos meaning both “beautiful” and “noble” and polis, of course, meaning “city”) to describe his imagined city in speech. Republic 527c. As translator Allan Bloom remarked, “There were towns of that name (cf. Herodotus, VII, 154)" (The Republic of Plato, 2nd ed., trans. and ed. Allan Bloom [New York: Basic Books, 1991], 465n13).
I recall one of my professors saying long ago that Greek and German were the most philosophical of the languages.
(Unrelated to any of the above) Alan, what do you think about those instances in our legislatures when (either state-level, or Washington DC) half of the representatives stage a 'walk out'? In order to prevent a quorum?
You recall these incidents better than I do, I'm sure. Wasn't there some episode in Texas when the Republican gerrymandering grew so blatant that the Democratic side of that House headed for the hills to avoid ratifying? Was it Tom DeLay who caused that?
Weren't there other instances where the US budget was so deadlocked that Senators failed to take their seats in the Capitol building and DC had to simply shut down? How alarming do you find such events? Is such obstructionism legal?
Mod
Alan, what do you think about those instances in our legislatures when (either state-level, or Washington DC) half of the representatives stage a 'walk out'? In or..."
I don't have a strong opinion about these matters. I may or may not study and comment on them in my next book, Reason and Human Government. All in all, this question is a bit more granular than my normal thinking about political philosophy, but perhaps I will opine on it after all.
I understand, however, that such actions are within the letter of current law, but I'm not even certain about this. Like the man (Socrates) said, I don't think I know what I don't (yet) in fact know.
By the way, I am close to the finish line in writing Reason and Human Ethics. The paperback edition will be available sometime in June, with the Kinde edition two or more weeks thereafter.
re: #35 shazam! Mega -alacrity, considering the difficult caliber of your type of writing which involves so much cross-checking and citations. Dang.
Mod
It has been almost ten years since I retired from the practice of law (and, accordingly, gainful employment). This has allowed me time to research and write my books. After the publication of Reason and Human Ethics in June, I will have one or two books left to write: Reason and Human Government (for sure) and Principles of U.S. Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation (possibly). I may also slightly revise my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience to correct typos and add some supplementary material. Then I will be done with my book writing. What will I do at that point? Read for pleasure and edification (mostly, if not entirely, nonfiction) and perhaps write an occasional essay. But I will have accomplished what I always intended to accomplish in my retirement.
P.S. Depending on what happens in the presidential election of 2024, I may also have to come out with a third edition of my book on the U.S. Electoral College.
Unrelated question: what does everyone think of the concept of 'one world government'?As a college kid once, I stood in Hyde Park's "Speaker's Corner" --and listened to a mad loon preach this idea.
The crowd around me was unenthralled. I myself did not know what to make of it at the time. The man was impassioned but unconvincing.
But I put it to the members of this good forum. Do you think it could possibly work for the better?
Mod
As a college kid once, I stood in Hyde Park's "Speaker's Corner" --and listened to a mad loon preach this ide..."
I have not heard anyone advocating this in the 21st century. I did hear in sometimes in the 20th century, and I thought it was ridiculous. How were we going to get the Soviet Union and the United States to agree on a world government? Ditto today with Putin and the U.S., not to mention all the other countries out there.
Nevertheless, I still hear conservatives criticizing liberals for allegedly believing in the concept. I really don't think there are any prominent liberals anywhere who advance this totally unrealistic position.
Ha! It is really a preposterous concept, isn't it. Inconceivable. Geography divides the world up into competing parties. What possible circumstance could draw us all together agreeably under one governance? Aye, and what expectation would such massive paradigm shift be based on? Has, "centralized" governmental authority ever proven itself? All too easily, a recipe for world misery.
At the global level --the clamor of national hegemony, adjudicated by democratic practice --like it or nor, must probably be what we should always* heed.
(*barring the invasion of alien races bent on destroying humanity)
Mod
As the world exists now, with many different countries and even more individual cultures and economic circumstances, a world government would be impossible, even if people all around the globe agreed on the kind of political order that would be appropriate (which they do not). Perhaps we can revisit this concept, say, in about a thousand years from now, assuming that the world has not destroyed itself by then.
I may discuss this question in the third book of my philosophical trilogy—Reason and Human Government, which will probably not be completed and published for perhaps at least another couple of years. In the meantime, the second book in the trilogy, Reason and Human Ethics, is almost finished. It will be available in paperback sometime this month and in a Kindle ebook a couple weeks or so thereafter. Here is the book description on the back cover of Reason and Human Ethics:
This book argues that a secular, biological, teleological basis of human ethics exists and that reasoning and critical thinking about both ends and means are essential to human ethics. It examines how these principles apply in the contexts of individual ethics, social ethics, citizen ethics, media ethics, and political ethics.I discuss environmental ethics and human treatment of nonhuman animals in the chapters on social, citizen/media and political ethics.
The present work is the second volume in the author’s philosophical trilogy on free will, ethics, and political philosophy. The first volume, Free Will and Human Life, was published in 2021. The third, Reason and Human Government, is currently in progress.
As I emphasize in Reason and Human Ethics and will emphasize in Reason and Human Government, everything ultimately comes down reason and ethics (which are inseparable). There is an inverse relationship between ethics/reason and government: the more ethical/rational people are, the less government is necessary. Still, even if all people were rational and ethical, there probably would be a need for some kind of government, however minimal.
That's exciting news, Alan. Bravo. Are these all self-issued? Any chance of getting them picked up by a publishing house specializing in such topics? Routledge for example. Or get them into college curriculae at U Chi? (I don't know the plural for 'syllabus')p.s. I recall your favorite quote from our Founders, is Madison's(?) encomium re, men and angels.
Mod
I don't waste time trying to get a publisher. The academic publishers are not interested, because I write in a clear, nonjargonized manner that is accessible to what I call the "advanced general reader." The trade publishers are not interested, because they don't see dollar signs for publishing my work. I myself have a background in editing and publishing, and I have perfected the art of preparing a manuscript and converting it to a PDF that has all the (useful) qualities of a book issued by a regular publisher. I use an outside vendor to prepare the cover and the Kindle ebook. I upload both the print and Kindle files to Amazon's self-publishing platform under my personal publishing imprint, Philosophia Publications. The best part is that I have total control of the product. I don't have to compromise to meet the demands of either academic or trade publishers, and I get to keep all the royalties (Amazon takes a cut for using their platform). The only disadvantage for me is marketing. After I finish writing my last two books (yes, I will "retire" at some point), I will focus on sales (a disagreeable but necessary activity for me). I've done all right (from my perspective) on sales, but I would like to increase them--not for the money (I'll never get rich on this) but for my ideas, which are, in each book I've published, different from those in the academic or popular mainstream.
By the way, I never had the time to do this when I was gainfully employed as a practicing lawyer working 50 or more hours a week. I have been retired from law practice for almost ten years now, and these have been the best years of my life. I was fortunate to have a good financial adviser who made my retirement possible.
In 1947-8 the high school debate topic was united world government and I debated the affirmative/pro. The USSR did not seem clearly-totally inaccessible ideologically then. I became a UWF supporter and remained so into my early years at UChicago as an ideal/objective, even as the USSR moved further away. That ideal might have been achieved after the collapse of the USSR---though I do not recall anyone raising the possibility then. Now the US as well as Russia would not support it. jim vice
Mod
That's fascinating, Jim. And I thought I was the old-timer in this group! Yes, there was an opportunity at the end of the Second World War for a better relationship between the Soviet Union in the West (they had been allies after all in the war), but Stalin had other ideas.
Indeed, feudalism-steeped Russia has always had a deep, long-lasting xenophobia towards the more-modern nations surrounding her who have grown more friendly to western ways. It's similar to American provincialism, and just as hard to efface.See: All That Is Solid Melts Into Air: The Experience of Modernity
One thing that is different in today's world is the massive presence and power of multinational corporations. Just as in the US, corporations can play off state against state to secure benefits for themselves, multinationals can play off country against country to secure benefits for themselves. Hence, while a world government is highly unlikely, governments may nonetheless find that it is in their mutual self-interest to find ways to agree among themselves to protect themselves from multinationals. One example is the effort to agree on a global minimum corporate income tax rate.
It is hard to say whether such agreements will evolve or how far they will go. But it would appear that some kind of international structure will have to evolve in the coming decades to restrain multinationals.
Alan wrote: "Feliks wrote: "That's exciting news, Alan. Bravo. Are these all self-issued? Any chance of getting them picked up by a publishing house specializing in such topics? Routledge for example. Or get th..."Hello Alan. My name is Abdul. I just joined the group. I published my first book on Amazon a few months ago:
WHY AFRICA IS NOT RICH LIKE AMERICA & EUROPE: Why it must industrialize. A history of how the white man made it
It is mainly a work of political economy, though I do discuss political philosophy extensively in a chapter on the enlightenment. It explores 800 years of economic history in the West with lessons for developing nations like mine.
Like you, I knew it would likely be a waste of time searching for a traditional publisher. I am also battling with marketing. I would appreciate any pointers on getting sales going. Thank you
Feliks wrote: "This just in, from the Department of Out-of-the-Blue QuestionsHow is 'globalization' any less demonic than 'colonialism'? Aren't they one and the same, just wearing different robes? Don't they bo..."
Well coming from a previously colonized part of the world, there is a difference for me. At least we are making our own decisions now. They might be poor ones. They might be constrained by a global order in which the west dictates the tune, but at least we don't have our lives been run by a government of foreigners with no say at all in our own affairs. I still see globalization as a two way street, where though not to our advantage right now largely to poor internal decisions, that is something that could change with the right political will and decisive action. A good example from my continent would be Ethiopia, which within a short time has become a global player in the floriculture industry. Globalization no doubt at least in this case, played to their advantage. As to the issue of the diminishing of regional culture, while I appreciate the spice that regional varieties give the world, culture is for me partly a response to the struggle for survival. It is also not static but dynamic in nature. So my point is, if external ideas show themselves to help in the struggle for survival, what is wrong with imbibing them even if they transform the local culture? History has shown cultures open to ideas from outside to be enriched and not impoverished by them.
Mod
WHY AFRICA IS NOT RICH LIKE AMERICA & EUROPE: Why it must industrialize. A history of how the white man made it
It is mainly a work of political economy, though I do discuss political philosophy extensively in a chapter on the enlightenment. . . . I would appreciate any pointers on getting sales going."
Thank you, Abdul. Welcome to this group! I've now downloaded your book on Kindle and look forward to reading it. The book looks interesting, and it is definitely relevant to this Goodreads group.
With regard to marketing, I would recommend joining academia.edu (if you haven’t already done so): see https://www.academia.edu/about and https://www.academia.edu/signup. I've been on Academia.edu since 2014, and my profile page is at https://chicago.academia.edu/AlanJohnson. You can post information about your book as well as essays etc. for free. If you pay for a “Premium” subscription, you can create your own website on Academia and also gain other benefits. However, a Premium membership is totally optional, and I operated on Academia for many years without it.
With regard to technical assistance with your books, I would recommend Amnet (https://amnet-systems.com/give-us-a-s...). I prepare my own paperback interiors, but I use Amnet to assist with book covers and with ebook conversions. Your Kindle edition looks fine, and you may already use such a service. My only recommendation is that you hyperlink the endnotes in your ebook edition so that they are immediately accessible to the reader by toggling back and forth between the text and endnotes. Amnet and probably other services can do that. If you use a MSN Word platform for your manuscript, you can set it to create automatic hyperlinks to your endnotes.
I wish you the best in all of your endeavors!
I’m cross-posting this comment in the Research and Publication topic of this group.
Alan
Political Philosophy and Ethics
Books mentioned in this topic
The Electoral College: Failures of Original Intent and Proposed Constitutional and Statutory Changes for Direct Popular Vote (other topics)The Best Man by Gore Vidal (other topics)
Why Africa is not Rich like America & Europe (other topics)
All That Is Solid Melts Into Air: The Experience of Modernity (other topics)
Things That Matter: Three Decades of Passions, Pastimes and Politics (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Alan E. Johnson (other topics)Alan E. Johnson (other topics)
The formal written constitution of a government may not reflect the actual structure of its regime. For example, as observed on page 320 of Appendix B (“Theocracy in Seventeenth-Century New England and Sixteenth-Century Geneva”) to my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience, the former Soviet Union would have been considered a democratic republic elected by the people with full recognition of individual rights if one consulted only its written constitution. Such constitutional protections were, on paper, in effect during and after some of the worst years of Joseph Stalin's tyranny, including Stalin's mass arrests, show trials, and executions of officials, military officers, and peasants. The Communist Party (under the personal dictatorship of Stalin after the consolidation of his power) controlled the Soviet regime in reality, notwithstanding the rights trumpeted in its written 1936 Constitution (http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/r...). Cf. Nikita Khrushchev, Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev, ed. Sergei Khrushchev, trans. George Shriver, vol. 1, Commissar (1918-1945) (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004), 78-196, 216; ibid., vol. 2, Reformer (1945-64) (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006), 82-91, 98-170; Robert Service, Stalin: A Biography (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), 319-22 (adoption of 1936 Constitution and its aftermath), 336-56 (Stalin's "Great Terror").
The present topic addresses some of the basic alternative types of governments. Other topics in the present Goodreads folder address specific types of government in more detail, often with reference to particular historical manifestations of those types.
Edited July 5, 2024