Re: No Technical Content

Brian,

The premise that "dictatorships arise only from hardship and poverty"
is weak.  The details of Hitler's rise to political power actually
make a good case against this premise.  If a society's support for
a democratic form of government depends upon their economy always
running smoothly, then we are all in trouble.  Don't be confused by
dictatorships often bringing, in rather short order, more hardship
and poverty -- usually the dictatorship came first.

Another observation is that dictatorships in most places arise when
differences among the people are exploited, where some groups come
to regard other groups as "the enemy".  Ironically a period of
prosperity can give rise to a dictatorship if those slower to be
affected or benefit lose patience, or if those benefiting first
then unfairly seek to prolong privileges that would otherwise be
only temporary (example: Argentina).  Only a dictator then is able
to maintain order, since the people cooperatively are not able to
do it themselves.

I am alarmed by the seeming increase of influencers in many
currently democratic societies who play the blame game, or who
personally disparage their opponents, rather than trying to find
more convincing logical arguments/facts/data to offer.  Seems to
me that democratic society does in fact need cohesiveness,
especially a common understanding of what is fair.  And it needs
people who will value that fairness and justice more than money,
and who have little tolerance for blaming, disparaging, or other
demonizing in public discourse.

Karl Sauter



Brian Ellis wrote:
>
> Thanks for those who saved a Scotsman from subscribing to Fortune. I've
> read other documents on exactly the same subject.
>
> Whereas I have little doubt that security is an issue which is closely
> tied to sustainability, then I feel the Pentagon report, with our
> current state of knowledge, is somewhat premature. That, having been
> said, does not deny that migration and terrorism could result from
> regional deprivation of sufficient resources to sustain life. The Rwanda
> affair, 10 years ago, is a case in point.
>
> However, if the money spent on security in any nation had been devoted
> to preventing resource depletion, I venture to suggest that tight
> security would not have been necessary. I'll go farther, into more
> political realms: if just half the money spent on the two Iraq wars had
> been channeled into Iraq as medical, welfare and educational aid,
> instead of the useless sanctions, Saddam would have not risen to the
> position he did and the country would have had a reasonable autonomous
> government without a single coalition life lost. Dictatorships arise
> only from hardship and poverty (cf. Hitler, Mugabe, Stalin etc.). Surely
> our so-called "intelligence" (which has proved to be a misnomer) can
> detect the conditions ripe for the rise of a dictatorship before it
> happens and stop it at a bargain price before it gets a hold, with the
> help of aid to the ordinary people. Prevention is better than cure.
>
> So it is in the context of the Pentagon report. Instead of
> sabre-rattling and establishing a "Fortress-USA", it would be far
> cheaper to prevent the events occurring, in the first place. It reminds
> me of Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration, which I believe was igned,
> inter alia, by President George Bush Sr.:
> "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full
> scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing
> cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."
>
> The UN went farther at the WSSD and, in paragraph 5 of their 2002
> Declaration, it stated:
> "Peace, security, stability and respect for human rights and fundamental
> freedoms, including the right to development, as well as respect for
> cultural diversity, are essential for achieving sustainable development
> and ensuring that sustainable development benefits all."
>
> I believe that this sums it up. I pose many further questions about the
> relationship between sustainability and the current climate of security
> or, rather, the lack of it, globalisation, trade, governance, health and
> safety, poverty, forestry and agriculture, tourism, winning minerals
> and, above all, water and sanitation. Unfortunately, I know this view is
> not shared by all, especially by some right-wing elements in a number of
> countries who would rather believe more in closed-shop policies and the
> power of arms, and who would label me as 'commie' or, at least, 'liberal'.
>
> Brian
>
> Joe Fjelstad wrote:
>
> > http://www.fortune.com/fortune/subs/article/0,15114,582584,00.html