Re: CONTROL FREAKS

>I think the point isn't that totalitarian states won't last: we know
>that.  The point is that those trying to establish a totalitarian
>state can do a hell of a lot of damage to the rest of us before they
>fail.

That's not clearly true.  The totalitarian states we know of developed years
ago in a much less fluid environment.

A few years ago, there was a UK TV drama about a contemporary Labour Party
Prime Minister.  In the course of the show, the new PM announced that he
would immediately impose exchange controls to "keep money in Britain."
(This was written before the real Labour Party officially eschewed exchange
controls in a furtue Labour government.)  The joke is that two weeks before
the election of a Labour PM, all the loose investment funds would have left
the UK anyway.  Nothing left to block.

I think that a *new* totalitarian state would have a hell of a time
borrowing money and all of the existing states are cash poor.  They need to
borrow.  They don't want to be distracted by rioting pensioners.  Even the
secret police don't work for free.  Currency devaluation would hurt as well.

After all, there can't be a totalitarian state that doesn't massively change
(introduce uncertainly into) the conduct of life and business in its country
(and if it is large, in the world).  Markets have a way of dealing with
uncertainty.  Capital flight (seeking safer investments) and high interest
rates (to compensate for risk).

DCF

In article <199409111501.AA02333@panix.com>,
Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>I think the point isn't that totalitarian states won't last: we know
>>that.  The point is that those trying to establish a totalitarian
>>state can do a hell of a lot of damage to the rest of us before they
>>fail.
>
>That's not clearly true.  The totalitarian states we know of developed years
>ago in a much less fluid environment.

In the rise of a sudden totalitarian state, you're probably right: frankly,
 I don't think that's got a high probability.  Even were a radical group
 to win elections, it takes time to change the way a country works: a real
 example is that Clinton was elected two years ago, and he's only now
 gotten around to gutting the second amendment.

I think the biggest danger we face is graduaully increasing totalitarianism
 across the board, through mechanisms such as GATT and European Union --
 there seems to be a world-wide push to smooth differences among nations
 out into a single (yes, here it comes) "New World Order."

It's not the sudden that'll cause the damage: it's the gradual.  "Picture
 world boiling frogs."
-- 
L. Todd Masco  | "Hide, witch, hide!  The good folk come to burn thee, their
cactus@bb.com  |  keen enjoyment hid behind a gothic mask of duty." -JS/BATE

Todd Masco:

| I think the biggest danger we face is graduaully increasing totalitarianism
|  across the board, through mechanisms such as GATT and European Union --
|  there seems to be a world-wide push to smooth differences among nations
|  out into a single (yes, here it comes) "New World Order."

	While the harmonization of laws can threaten freedoms, it can
also substantially reduce the cost of doing buisness in multiple
jurisdications, while only slightly reducing the amount of
jurisdictional hacking that can be dome to protect yourself from
governments.

	The substantial reductions in cost that harmonization bring
will create stronger multinational companies, while weakening the
control of governments.  As multinationals grow in strength,
governments become more willing to bow before them; witness the
bidding war that both Toyota and BMW got state governments into when
building plants lately.

	The New World Order being created is one of multinationals
that control huge amounts of money, capital and talent.  Companies
such as Honda, Mitsubishi, IBM, GE, Boeing and AT&T control a goodly
portion of the world.  And they are not able to react to market
conditions as fast as smaller companies that are eating their lunch.

	The order created, much to the dismay of Governments and the
CEOs of these companies, will be one where small companies manage to
do much that big companies do today, and do it cheaper and better.
Exceptions come in a few areas where economies of scale really exist;
aircraft and computer chips spring to mind.

	The real new world order will not be controlled by any 'super
power,' (althoguh we will have to contend with the remains of the
great powers for a long time), but by the international nature of
buisness, which doesn't like the added cost of working in a
totalitarian state.

Adam