Reason Online, the online presence of libertarian political magazine Reason, is featuring a book review of Cory Doctorow's book, Little Brother. Little Brother re-imagines George Orwell's classic, dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, as a modern cyberpunk thriller for a young adult audience.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-08
Maybe I should have used the term Anglo-American as many English speaking countries seem to share similar political culture to some extent?
Anyway, there are many types of governments and rule. I would rather hand the power to a democratically elected multi-party government and parliament that is forced to negotiate with all the parties of the society, than to, say, a single party or some behind-the-scenes elites and/or corporations. (Besides of 1984 you could read some new cyperpunk dystopias too where, for example, big corporations have the power and government role is restricted to a minimum; not exactly a nice place either).
Somebody is going to hold the political power anyway, whether we wanted it or not, even in total anarchy. Better to make the system as transparent and democratic as possible in order to avoid corruption and decisions that are wrong from the start. Democratic government sure has its problems, as people are not perfect and as they may sometimes act like fools, but I haven't seen a better form of government yet.
Member since:2005-06-29
Exactly my point. I don't get it!
On this side of the pond - well, in NL at least - we look with amazement towards what's happening in the US. People receiving mortgage and loans even though they aren't credit-worthy? Shady practices in the financial world? The country's largest banks in financial troubles? Isn't there anyone regulating and overseeing the financial industry over there?
In NL, all banks and financial institutions are under strict regulation by the state, and they are strictly monitored, because we realise that without a solid, trustworthy financial structure, your economy is in serious danger. If people lose confidence in their banks - simply put - and withdraw their money, the whole economy will collapse.
This is what is happening now in the US. The financial system is collapsing, and had the government controlled it much more tightly, this would have never happened.
Why do you think that so far, this large financial crisis left NL more or less untouched, even though we have one of the most outward-facing (and thusly supposedly the most affected) economies in the world? Exactly - because our system of monitoring and controlling the financial institutions in order to foster confidence is working.
People who advocate no governmental meddling at all (Libertarians) should take a long hard look at the world, and realise the countries which have the lowest crime rates, the best monetary distribution, the most equality, the least amount of people living below the poverty line, and the happiest people are welfare states.
Like I said on my weblog today, show me one example of a libertarian governmental model working out better for citizens than a welfare model as seen in most European countries. Just one.
Member since:2005-11-11
"On this side of the pond - well, in NL at least - we look with amazement towards what's happening in the US. People receiving mortgage and loans even though they aren't credit-worthy?"
What you seem to be missing out on is that it is the government's fault so many non credit worthy people got mortgages and loans. You've been given the links in this very talk section.
Here's another from 1999:
"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."
- http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A057... (the pressures alluded to in the article were painted as a positive thing)
OK yeah, maybe it looks a little weird to you to see us happy to leave companies out to dry when they fail. For us it's the flip side of being able to take risks and get ahead. People losing homes a: maybe shouldn't have tried to get them in the first place (but were free to try, a good thing) and b: were encouraged to do so by government pressure on financial institutions. The blame is split between freedom/risk taking, which we like (and hey, it's worked pretty well for us for the most part), and the government. Hardly any surprise then that it's the government that gets most of the flak.
Edited 2008-09-26 02:27 UTC
Member since:
2005-07-08
It also seems to be an essential part of the US political lingo and culture that we Europeans (and to some extent even Canadians) often have hard time to understand.
In the everyone-for-himself style paranoid American atmosphere government and even things like welfare system are often seen as the cause of problems rather than a solution, as odd as it may sound to a happy person living in a happy European welfare state. I suppose its been like that since many refugees, Utopian groups or people just looking for easy riches left the European shores to build a better life of their own in America, free from their former oppressive European governments. They might have had many things right then, but things have changed and we are just not living in the 1700's anymore.
Americans, on the other hand, seem to have difficulties understanding (central, Nordic & western) European democratic politics where many parties, instead of only fighting, and at least ideally, try to find a solution that is as good for everyone as possible, by means of constant negotiation and compromises. Americans do not often seem to trust negotiation, not to mention compromises, as a political solution but want money and direct power for themselves instead.
Edited 2008-09-25 14:38 UTC