From the Notebook

I found this tiny photo of me when I was a young girl in China. I grew up and came to United States and have not been back, but I believe that just as I am still the same person, China did not change as such as most have thought (but just as well has potential to change). So, I think I can still say something about China that might be relevant.

Like many other countries in history (including US in the earlier time), China’s growth has a lot to do with low labor cost. But like many other countries, growth will lead to the rise of labor cost. However, US in history had been an exception for this rule. Due to vast usable land, and lack of established social residual, the price of land had not rise significantly due to growth, so people would more likely to live comfortably without raising the labor cost too much for a long time. This would not be true for China.

Chairman Mao had said something like "you can paint the newest and the most beautiful picture on a blank sheet". This seems to described the social development in US. As for China, it is not exactly the case. China is one of the few countries has the longest history. Tradition is a sword with two edges, it often help to maintain stability, but it may often provide limitations that can hinder new developments. A blank space can be used to lead to many possibilities, social and culture establishment may often eliminate some possibilities. More over, a society is like a living organism that it often will age with time, it often reflected on the people that their sentiments are more likely to be pessimistic, lack of wild eye wondering, and more of wise men’s skeptical.

Personally, I think Mao is a very troublesome person as I believe he seemed to have full understanding of the dark side or weakness of human nature and used the knowledge for his own benefit. But I think Mao did something that have positively impacted the development of China. To some extend Mao had break the tradition of China. In addition, Mao's public persona present the confidence and new found hope that inspired optimism in the nation.

The most sweeping disruption to tradition of China is the "Cultural Revolution". But it not only broke the tradition, it also fundamentally undermined Mao's own regime. Inconsistency often invites reflection. After near twenty years of the establishment of the Communist China, "Cultural Revolution" basically turned its own establishment upside down. You can that the communist ideology and the Mao’s system developed based on it are introduced to people in China in some what brain wash type of process, and brain wash is similar to hypothesis. But this type process requires consistency. When significant inconsistency and disruption occurred, people will wake up, and start analyzing and judgment process of their own.

"Cultural Revolution" woke up more and more people, and by the time Mao died, people started to question the legitimacy of his regime (which was accepted by many people without any question). Accordingly, the "Reform and Open Up" led by Ding Xiaoping is less of a choice, but more of necessity in order to keep the regime intact, that he basically need to give people better life in order to prevent people from asking too many questions.

Up to now, the so-called communist regime or socialist regime is pretty much an empty shell. What the leader in China so carefully hold on to is a government that insisting on its absolute power while how to define this government is not clear. Ideologically, many principles of communism or socialism are abandoned. If it was never the case that absolute equality existed, at this time absolute public ownership is gone. As far as class struggle, it is the communist party and people in the party that have the money and power (I heard people saying that if you are not a party member, you would not even get funds for research projects), who are the people supposed to raise against?

I am not happy about a lot of things in China, but I am not an opposition against the regime either. The question is what would the leadership do next. The policies of the leaderships after "Reform and Open up" had lead to economic development, but it seems that it is time for reforms that are more fundamental. Whether they can do it and whether they will be successful has historical importance in China.

Reforms are inevitable in order to solve many problems in China. I will just list some of them:

Inconsistency or illegitimacy of the government. As I mentioned earlier, it is obvious the communist regime or the socialist system only existed in name now. This means that the regime could face pressure from both sides. It is conceivable that not only there will be people that push for more reform and freedom, there will be people that want to go back to the old days.
The reform did bring many financial benefits for many people. But it also took away the "iron bowl" from many people, it is obvious many would not be happy about it. As many government owned factories are closed down, or down sized, and as gap of income and wealth becomes bigger, there are support base for people wanting to go back.

The June 4 event certainly started with the push for more reform, but there was rumors that the crack down was not actually in fear of the students, but to prevent power struggle within the party from those that wanted to go back from the reform. I don’t know if the rumor is true, but from the known facts, it did seem that there was a power struggle surrounding the event.

Internal structural conflicts. If Mao ruled with iron fist, the grip of the current leader in China is much loose. Economy reform presented many opportunities for operatives in the system to persue personal financial gains. As any one and every one is grabbing the stake, there are more and more incidents that local governments are in conflicts with the central government.

Corruptions. The most obvious problem in China is corruption, and it is nothing new. When Mao broke the tradition, it is more cosmetic than substance. The corruption that are on going in China is not much different from history. Obviously it is due to the long lasting tradition of "governance of individuals", not "governing by the law", it is the tradition that Mao did not break. As the people in power do as they wish, the ordinary people will not only lose the faith about government, they will lose hope, become cynical and lawless. Essentially, it is moral corruption of the society.

Ideological development as the result of "Reform and Opening Up". The intellectuals under Mao’s governance essentially were lack of the ability for critical thinking. But after the "Cultural Revolution", it is impossible for at least some of the new generation not to pick up this ability. In the beginning of the "Reform and Open up", science and technology were elevated to important spot of national conscious. But science is based on rational thinking that respect facts and established rules developed based on the facts. Natural development of critical thinking will lead to more and more people demand governing under the rule of law, and the freedom of the society.

There are many discussions about whether China will become leader or even dominating force in the world. I think it is too early to ask this question. Although from the outside, it seems that China enjoys economic prosperity , the foundation that can maintain stability thus sustain the prosperity is not present. From economic perspective, because of the system of "governing by individual" not only is not be able to provide clear rules to rely on, it also lacks consistency. As the leadership changes, there could be sweeping changes to the economic system. Without consistency and stability in economic system, prosperity would not be reliable. The prosperity China experienced now is not much different from those times in history, it can become a burst bubble at time.

I believe that the leaderships in China have to face the fact of ideological inconsistency of the government now. The answer is not to go back, but to provide new ideology foundation of the government. They ought to make systematic changes, that is to convert governing by individuals under the hollow form of communism to governing by the rule of law. Rule of law and rational, critical thinking have often been seen as the tradition of western culture, but there are roots in Chinese tradition as well. People often emphasized on the mysterious elements of Taoism's teaching, but the essence of Taoism is reason (it is not a coincident that the name Tao means reason.) Actually, before Confucius was packaged as doctrines and rigid tradition, Confucius arrived to his thoughts based on critical thinking and reasons. The leadership in China ought to realize that rule of law is not another doctrine that can be established by the will of the leaders, it ought to be based on the solid foundation of rational and critical thinking. The foundation is solid because in the end, everyone is and could be subject to and in acceptance of reasons, and it is also because changes made based on reasons can be gradual, and systematic, while the results are certainly be the mostly acceptable.

Unlike many people, I don't view communism as evil in principle. It seems that all ideologies are based on principles that are good or even noble. The basic principle of communism is that everyone should be treated equal, which is basically exact the same as the principle of democracy. What is wrong about communism and socialism is that they take the wrong road on how to get there, and it is evidenced by the Chinese experience along with experiences of other socialist countries It is obvious that the Chinese government already abandoned the practice of communism and socialism method that led to despair, what the leader of Chinese government need is official transformation in ideology following the practice.

The conflicts between central government and local governments are basically power struggles. Under the frame work established based on rule of law, the conflicts can be solved case by case in benign ways. In fact, under certain mechanism, the conflicts may be part of the force for providing check and balance of the governing system, especially in dealing with issues such as corruptions.

Looking back in the history of China, corruption is a persistent disease that cause most of the ill fates, which is a clear indication about fundamental flaws of the established political system and cultural tradition of China. Lack of systematic establishment for governing under the rule of law is the reflection of actual condition, lack of mechanism of check and balance is possibly one of the underline reason for this system. One of the immediate results of corruption is that there is not an independent force of business interests that can be part of the mechanism for check and balance in the society level. Lack of rule of law, lack of check and balance, corruption will only accelerate which will inevitable result in a lawless system until the point of break, then the same process will repeat under the new system. In the end, social disruption due to instability results from the claps of old system often will wipe out economic development, only the cycle of deterioration and destruction repeat.

Economically, the leadership of China insisted on the grip of iron fist under the surface of economic reform. If no business can exist without "mountain to lay back on", there is no chance the independent business interest can survive under the current system. In the end, the system that cannot self correct can only grow worse, until to the tipping point.

What would happen in China in the next several decades could be critical in China’s history. It appears that it will need a "cultural evolution" from the society level that will built common consensus on the importance of rules of law and rational thinking. Based on this cultural transformation, political reforms can be conducted. There might be different possibilities for how to conduct the political reform. But reforms need to be built on common consensus, respect for rule of law that based on reasons and facts can provides solid foundation for this.

In order to build this common consensus, art and entertainment can provide useful means as they are far reach, and the effect is lasting. In this, there should be more artistic freedom that could precede political freedom. Not only pieces from western world should be introduced to more people, original works that reflect independent thinking that contemplate the problems of China should be encouraged here.

If there is ever a rule about how some nation can prosper more than others, it is the rule that culture must be open, more freedom should be enjoyed by the people. The Chinese leadership had been asking the question of how to foster creativity, the answer is the same, i.e., openness and freedom (I like to think that I have provided important inventions, which I could never dreamed of, and the road to get where I am now is completely unpredictable. It is very obvious to me that if I stayed in China, I would not be able to get what I got now. So, I like to think I myself is a testimony for the advantage of the freedom in the United State). In the end, what is good for China is also what is good for the world.

             You probably know that this is a title for a movie that is still in theater now.  If you have seen the movie, you will notice the irony of this title.  But for what the movie presented to us, and what it leads to, the title is a good fit for this movie.

            For most people, this movie led us to a world we are not familiar with and wish that it does not exist.  But obviously it does exist, and facing it will bring new light on the world that we think we know about. 

            To be honest, I found the first part of the movie especially fascinating.  Yes, it is very brutal, it is so intense, and sometimes it is so overwhelming that it is difficult to breath.  It is because that it felt so real.  The cinematic technique that is used made we felt like active participants, breathing the same air, at the same atmosphere.   For at least a few moments, we felt like it is our world.

                   We often talk about the world.  But the world for each of us is different, and most people do not seem to realize this simple fact.  In fact, most of the social activities are based on the assumption that we all live in the same world. 

            But the world we face as individuals are different.  By presenting an extreme case, it makes us consciously aware of this simple fact.  By bring this extremely dysfunctional family to our attention, I think it found the core of the true that related to this matter. 

            The purpose of formal education is to deliver the established human knowledge system to be accepted by the individuals, the effect is to build common consensus.  But interactions with the world and negotiations with environment started at home, when one was born, and it will shape the person fundamentally as who he or she is.

            Although it is not impossible for people to change certain aspects of their personality, it is very difficult to reshape a person entirely.  So, the impacts of the parents on a child’s life are profound. 

            The general consensus is that parents would see their children as natural extension of themselves, so that they will treat their children as themselves, or even more.  But what people should do does not mean that is what they would do.  For whatever reason, for example, the environment that they grow up in shaped their world view may be far different from the common consensus, so our assumption can be invalid in some cases.  When dealing with social issues, general assumptions often become obstacles in understanding the reality of different worlds that individuals reside in. 

            One had to believe that what happened to Clareece “Precious” Jones is extremely rare.  But it is conceivable that it could happen, and we occasionally do hear stories like this in real life.  Most importantly, from contemplating the extreme cases, we often could start to rethink our understanding of the world from fundamental level. 

            By assuming that all parents are treating their children as the extension of themselves, we ignored the possibility that this recognition may not be nature and complete. The fact that children shared DNA with their parents does not necessary mitigate the fact that they are after all individuals separated and could be independent of their parents.  Often, depending on the mind sets of the parents, they could be viewed as adverse to the interests of the parents.

            One of the common misconceptions regarding family relationship including spousal or blood relationship is that love is often provided as default assumption.  Although in many cases love is deeply embedded in the daily interaction and not so obvious, there are many cases it is simply absent. 

             Although it could be rare, in some cases (such as what we have seen in this movie, especially in the case of the father), parents are treating their children as a  complete stranger, and taking full advantage of their full access and control over the children, and explore the vulnerability of the children without any restrain. 

            In many cases, however, parents knowingly or without conscious awareness taking the advantage of the situations to a certain degree.  It might not be obvious, in some cases, both the children and parents could not even be aware of the problems.  These hidden harms done by the parents could be very damaging, because the existences of them are not detected, thus not dealt with. 

            Although it can hardly to be seen as a blessing, “Precious” can point out the obvious monstrous behaviors of her parents as to the cause of most of her problems, taking a clear break from it, and start with a clean sleeve (so to speak, because she probably have to deal with the damage to her health for the rest of her life).  But for many people, many physiological damages caused by their parents are hidden and intertwined with their personality, thus it might be harder to break free from.

            The sad thing about this cycle is that most of the time, the problem originated from the psychological problems of the parents, that they are unintentionally harming the well being of their children unknowingly. 

            There are many modern literatures that revealed this type of problems.  In fact, this theme seems to be the focus of many modern literatures.  However, psychology and modern social science field failed to provide ways to lead us to basis understanding and solutions about this problem.

            In addition, formal education is mostly focusing on introducing the established human knowledge system to the individuals, little attentions are paid to the actual development of the mind.  Lack of understanding on the human minds and lack of effort to address the problems in the development of human minds leaves everyone to themselves to struggle, to sink or flow, only a lucky few can find some wise parents or close ones to provide them with some help. 

            But it is important for society (not just for the sake of individuals) that we should get better understanding of the problems and find solutions.  In this film, the father of the young girl is the cause of many of her problems.  Although the film did not provide us with his side of the story, as it did with her mother, I think in the end it is safe to say, it is of the same kind.  This is also the cause of the many problems in the society.  People usually do not do something bad to others out of hate (except in the case of revenge, in which case the start of the chain ought to be something other than hate.  People do things that end up hurting or harming others because of their own interests.  In the case that people carry things to the extreme that they recklessly harm others without any consideration is often because that they often justify their behavior as a victim (as the mother of “Precious” did in the movie). 

            Obviously not every one that had been harmed by others will turn out to harm others in a recklessly way, only those that are extremely selfish would do so.  Selfishness does not seem to be characteristics that are fully determined by the environment, but the psychological and emotional damages in a person’s early years (often are caused by parents directly or due to lack of protections or guidance from the parents) to a selfish person can make one easily felt to be a victim and becomes extremely selfish and reckless.  Thus breaking the chain of harms should be a goal of the society. 

            Although each individual case may be different, and there are many factors that could be part of the equation in the problems, we can start with a simple approach.   Most so called “social science” studies had put too much emphasis on using “scientific method” and building “scientific model” (please see my post “Some Thoughts about Arts and Science” for related information).   People seem to forget that essentially scientific method starts with assumptions (although ends with verification of the assumptions), thus non-linear creative thinking is the start of all scientific process.

            In confronting the current problems related to the relationship of the parents and children, the first consideration could be as simple as what types of behaviors of the parents are most harmful to the children psychologically, and the second consideration could be simply what are the causes of the those behaviors, so that we will know how to fix it. 

            I heard people commenting that you need to take a test to drive a car, but any one can be a parent.  In the case of “Precious”, her mother is getting paid from the government for her and her daughter.  I do think there is something wrong with this.  Although the solution for “Precious” is obvious, in most cases the solution is to fix the problem.  But in order to educate people on how to be parents, there ought to be basic understanding and consensus on what to do and what not to do.  I do not believe we are there yet. 

            The story of “Precious” is also related to the question of influence of environment and individuals’ responsibility.  The movie did a very good job for putting us in her shoes.  As we are experiencing what she had to deal with day and night, we start to realize her crushing reality.  When people are talking about individuals’ responsibility, we all seem to assume the basic assumption that there are reasons to do so.  The disaster in Haiti put many people’s devastation into our minds.  But we ought to remember, there are many devastations happening every day in this world.  Before we talk about responsibility, we ought to provide an environment that meets the basic assumption of what it means to be human, that there is certain level of human dignity that the society will protect, otherwise we are asking for too much.

            Some might think the subject matter of this film is too brutal and depressing.  But I think this film is incredibly optimistic.  If a young girl like Clareece “Precious” Jones can overcome all the brutalities, desperations, misfortunes and obstacles, then literally there is nothing a human being cannot do. 

              The “right wing” operatives often accuse the media for supporting “left wing” agenda, but as far as I can see, the media also take the curve balls thrown by the “right wing” operatives and run with them.

            Take for example the case of White House party crashers.  Did someone made mistake in the job?  Yes.  Is it a national security issue?  No.  But some “right wing” operatives insisted that it is a national security issue, even national security crisis, and from media reactions, many seemed to agree with them.

            I might have developed some resistances towards the talks of “right wing” operatives because many times the arguments presented by them are really about keeping scores and put the other side down, not for the benefit of the country, and not even for ideology reasons.  Some “right wing” operatives even openly said that they hope president Obama would fail.  So it is no surprise that someone would take a mistake in the first State Dinner of President Obama and make it into a national security crisis. 

            First of all, the State Dinner is a social event, and like most social event, the environment is not as uptight as official government environment.  It will be one thing if someone got into a national security meeting uninvited, but the actual harm for someone to get into a State Dinner is not so severe

            It will be different if someone (invited guests or party crashers) sneak in a weapon that could harm the president, other government officials, or guests of the country (in this case, the Prime Minister of India and his officials).  Invited or not, everyone went through security check, there was no breach in the party. 

            I think the most of the blames should be carried by the party crashers (as it should be in similar social events).  In most of the social events, the invitations are basically discretionary, and there is no need to specially emphasis that no one that is not invited will get in.  It is often up to the guests themselves to obey social rules and pay respects for the hosts not to show up uninvited. 

            It is true that the State Dinner is not just an ordinary social event.  It is true that the President is the leader of this country (and in some sense, the leader of the world).  But the President is chosen by the people, and the government is serving the people.  Only based on practical reasons that ordinary citizens cannot all be invited into social events hosted by the President, and ordinary citizens will not usually show up uninvited out of respects for the President and the country.

            So, although it is a mistake of the people who should check closely to prevent party crashers to get in, and the party crashers should be put into shame for embarrassing the President and the country, but there is no national security issue here. 

            It is not a national security issue because it occurs often that random and ordinary citizens can get close to the President and government officials in various events.  Thus just random people getting close to the President is not a national security issue, the situation is not fundamentally different from campaign events or other similar events.  

            In short, it will become a national security problem if secret information is leaked to people not authorized, or if the President, high ranking government officials, or guests of the country are in real or potential danger.  None of these happened. 

            Therefore, I believe that in a social event, a few uninvited guests may cause embarrassments for the hosts (for this matter, there is no guarantee that invited guests would be absolute safe, think of Tania West for example), but it is not a security breach, not to mention a national security crisis. 

            I actually think that it showed a little snobbery on the people who suggest that otherwise harmless people that crash a party (even if a State Dinner) will generate national security crisis.  The president and high ranking government officials are not made of materials that exposing to ordinary people alone will cause any damage to them. 

            So, it became annoying when media attentions on the party crashers sustained for many days.  I think it is safe to say that most of the media outlets do not have a stake to see that President Obama fails, but it did reflect a common problem in the media.

            Media outlets first and foremost are dealing with the news, and the more attention grabbing is the news, the more successful would be the media outlets providing the news.  For attention grabbing, shocking effect with simplicity and intensity is the key.  Due to human survival mechanism, people incline to pay close attention to abnormal information, even if the information could be useless after further evaluation. 

            So, it is not a surprise that media love the party crasher story.  It is simply, it is shocking, and unheard of (who did what?), thus many jumped on it without finding real harm.  To me, it is a media storm initiated by the “right wing” operatives, and fueled by the media. 

            Civilizations are built on interpreting and reinterpreting past events.  As we contemplating the effects of the events, conclusions are drawn on what should and should not be done.  Collectively what appeared in the media often become the reflections of the social scrutiny, so media scrutiny is not a small part of the society.

            Actually, the party crasher episode reflected the power of media.  The Salahis did not sneak into the White House, they were accompanied by a camera crew.  I heard someone said that you can become an expert on anything if you have a camera crew following you.  I don’t know if it is true, but the camera crew might have gotten the Salahis into the State Dinner.  As people are saying that the State Dinner is no small matter, it is an evidence of the power of media.

             While the party crashers are not actual threat to the national security, the failed Christmas Day Bombing is certainly a threat to national security.  But the media reaction to this event is also exaggerating. 

            First, I don’t think it is absolutely wrong for the Homeland Security Secretary to say that the system worked, although there are grounds for improvement.  I don’t think it is pure luck that the plot did not succeed.  Because the terrorist watch list, the terrorist organizations had to recruit people that can pass check points of the security system, so the skills and abilities of the terrorists that can carry out the plots may not be as high as before, and the amounts of explosives that they can carry without being detected are limited, which require higher skills and generate less success rates, thus the failure of execution in Christmas Day could be the direct results of the preventive measures.  In addition, as passengers nearby quickly spot the terrorist, it proves that increasing public awareness also is paid off.

            The media reactions seemed to prompt Obama Administrations to implement many measures, some of them I think could be a little over kill.  Some say that the Obama administrations began to look more and more like Bush administrations.  I think here the saying that you get what you asked for might apply.  Politicians are elected to present the people, so they cannot be insensitive to the demands of the people.  As the demands of the people are often measured by media reactions,  it is no surprise when media overacted, the government might also overreacted.

            For example, is it necessary to subject anyone from certain countries to intense scanning and checking?  We got to remember, if everyone is on the list, then pretty much no one is on the list.  It is not just fairness to the people from these countries, but also the effectiveness and efficiency of the measure.  Having to check more people more closely, either there had to be more people and (equipments) to do the job, or people on the job will have to do more.  Mostly likely both will happen, so cost will be increased, and quality might be decreased. 

            There seems to be an easy alternative.  The Christmas Day Bombing suspect is on some type of list (or database), and for some reason being on this list (or database) did not provide for him to be checked so that the explosive could be found.   How about just subject people on the list (or database) to detailed security check (sniff dogs, packed down, body scanner, anything or everything possible that can help to detect anything possible), but not the general public or people from certain countries? 

            It seemed that the government (mostly CIA) even had information on most of the September Eleven Attackers, so the information gathering tasks are at least somewhat successful in most part.  For the purpose of preventing terrorists to carrying on explosives or other dangers weapons to airplanes or other public places, the focus should be how to use the information gathered, and for this purpose, they can and should choose to error on safer side.  Basically speaking, government can announce that anyone can be subject to extensive security checking, but focusing on only people that there are bases for this type of extensive checking.  For people that wrongfully end up on the lists, they should be given the right to submit evidence to clear their names.

            In a democratic society, the media does not and should not hail on every move of the President and the government.  But media scrutiny should first begin with the scrutiny of itself.  The internet helped to deliver information faster and faster, so people, especially people in the media tend to quickly make judgment, thus mostly rely on instinct, not reasons based on analysis of the information.

            There is a reason for instinct often to be called animal instinct.  It often based on physical reaction to external stimulus.  As far as the process goes, logic and reasoning often are not part of it.  In short, it is reaction without rational thinking.  In many personal events, people are more in touch with the environment, and reactions required are closely related to particular instances, instincts are often very useful. 

            However, social events are different.  Societies are built on concepts and reasons.  Social structures basically are human made structures that are viewed as useful for intended purposes.  Government certainly is an important social structure, so is the media.  The usefulness of the government and media is based on its action and reaction in the society so that to achieve most preferable results.  This means that neither government, nor media should rely on instinct, but should collect facts from various sources and analyze the facts in order to draw conclusions that can lead to actions. 

            In the democratic society, media is often viewed as the reflection of the society.  But in actuality, media often lead the society.  There is a reason for the media to be called media elite.   This requires people in the media to take this responsibility seriously and apply thinking and reasoning in their job more.  

            In the discussions regarding policies responding to the economic crisis and the health care debate, people often talked about the danger of government take over of the businesses.  But here I like to talk about the danger of some corporations and special business interests take over the government.

            If you are paying attention, you would agree this danger is actually real.   In a democratic society, the government should be representing the people.  Although there are imperfections in the system (that I will talk about in the following portion of this post), the system is set up that generally speaking, if the government is taking over the businesses, no particular person will be benefited from it. 

            So, if government take-over actually happened, it would most likely be based on the belief that it will benefit the public, not to benefit particular group of people.  In the currently situation, the argument about government take over actually is lack of factual support.  Government on behave of tax payers rescued banks, financial institutions, insurance companies and auto industry at risk, while not necessarily share the benefit if these entities becomes profitable.  Actually, there are signs that many are making huge profit but tax payers would not be benefited.  So, in actuality, it is not government take over, but government hand out or government care taking.

            About health care reform, the representatives for private insurance companies acted as if that there is a fundamental rights for them to operate as is that have to be protected by the government.  I will write more about the rights of corporations below in this post, here I like to say that health issue is first and foremost a public issue.  For instance, the swine flu vaccine are administrated by the government, and government are currently responsible for the health and safety related issues in general.  So, the government as the representative of the people has the right to be involved more into the health care related businesses if it will benefit the public. 

            The danger of special business interests take over the government is real because there could be certain people that will benefit personally by influencing the policies of the government.  With this incentive, it would more likely that some people will try to stire the policies in the ways that will benefit them even if it will harm the interests of the general public.  If fact, it is possible that certain people will ignore the tremendous harms to the public in order to obtain relatively modest benefits for themselves.  Needless to say that there is no justification for them to do so. 

            However, there is no effective way to prevent them from doing so in the current political system.  In my view, as a general policy, special business interests have been elevated above the interests of the general public.  So, the danger of corporation take over the government is not a potential threat, but is a danger that already produced harmful results (take the entire episode of health care reform legislation, the influences of various corporations and industries are not so invisible). 

            I like to say here that as a business owner myself, I am not against business interests.  But I believe that as a business owner, the basic principle is that the business should benefit the public, otherwise, there is no reason for the business to exist in the first place.  In other word, if the business benefits the public, then it is in the interest of the public to protect the business, so there is no real conflict between the public and the businesses. 

            The conflict only exists when the business owners forget about this fundamental principle and focus on the short term gain.  In the market economy, the earning from the business is general the reward from the public for the useful contribution to the society, so doing good to the public is not just a moral issue, it is a prerequisite for the actual survival of the businesses. In the long run, business cannot survive if they are harming the public interests, sooner or later, either there are new market mechanisms to correct the mistakes, or the public will be feed up and change the policies that generated the unjust results.    

            Most large corporations are publicly traded companies.  As I stated in my earlier post, there is a disconnection between representation and ownership similar to the disconnection between government and the general public.  As publicly trade companies are still considered as private companies, there are even less transparencies in these companies than the government.  So that there is a danger that some people will focus their own interests first that they will do something to harm the public and the companies solely for their personal gains.  We saw many examples of this kind recently.  This is basically the reason that leads to the financial crisis.

             Focusing on protecting short term business interests is not just lack of vision, it is basically in violation of basic principle of the business.  As people emphasis on the survival of the fittest, it is those that are paying attentions for the needs of the society and working to fill those needs that will be successful.  Trying to use undue influence (as I will write in the following paragraphs, most of influences on the political system by business are undue) on political machine will often lead people to forget about the principle, and will lead to deterioration of the health of the business and possibly lead to downfall of the business.

            The influences of businesses on politics and most of the related activities under the current political system are based on the right to petition of first amendment of the constitution.  But I believe this interpretation of the first amendment rights is wrong first because there is a clear distinction between business entity and nature entity (i.e., human).

            Fundamentally, business entities are fictional entities as they are defined by their activities.  A nature person is defined by physical existence.  Rights for the natural person are based the person’s rights of survival and condition of the survival.  A business exists for one basic purpose, to make money for people involved in the business.   But it is obvious that not all activities that can make money are allowed by the society (for example, the assassin for hire business would never be a legitimate business in any society), so there is no fundamental rights for such business to exist, let alone enjoy the protection of first amendment rights.

            For example, can an assassin for hire businesses insists that they have a right to exist and use their money and influences on politics to change laws to legalize killing and even go further to make laws for it be easier for people to hire them?  It may seem as far fetching, but in real life scenarios, there are things happening that we may well make this analogy. 

            There are many attempts to reduce the influence or effects of the lobbyists.  But I think the target is mislead and not to the core.  Yes, gifts or sponsored events will make the job of lobbying easier, but access alone make the lobbying act an unfair act above the public. 

            It is obvious an average private citizen would not have the chance to talk to congressman or senator in person and in private about their concerns, so why the lobbyist are allowed to do so? 

            In Justice Sotomayor’s confirmation process, there are questions about whether judges are allowed to make law.  I think judges are making law at least collectively as common law system is the supplemental system to the legislative laws.  But no doubt legislators are making sweeping policy decisions that often have more significant effects on the society. 

            I think most people know that judges are not suppose to have ex-party contacts in the cases that they preside on, so why legislators making sweeping policy decisions are allowed to have behind the scene, close door meetings with special interests?

              Even if we assume that corporations enjoy the same type of constitutional rights as natural person, the right to petition does not necessarily protect the right to lobby.  Would any and every citizen be given the right to have face time with the legislation member?  Then why are corporations given this privilege?

            I am not suggesting that businesses do not have legitimate concerns regarding legislative policy, and I am not suggesting that businesses cannot have their opinions heard.  They can provide their inputs regarding legislations in writing (that will be part of the public record that anyone can see), and can talk to legislative members in public gathering, just like the average citizen. 

            You make think this will make the legislators’ offices more like judges’ chambers.  But isn’t it what they should be?  Do you prefer their offices be more like private clubs, or market places?           

            During his campaign, President Obama promised to change Washington.  In order to do that, he needs to make fundamental changes that can fix the broken system, the kind that I wrote in this post.  I believe it is the time for him to lead the legislative body to do so.

• Main
• Archives
• Albums
• Links
• Admin

• Absoluteness
• Intelligence
• About Brain Simulation
• The Human Conditions
• An Insiders’ Game?
• Is the movie “Inception” itself an Inception?
• Arts
• The Giant Leap Backward?
• Designer Babies and Designer Brains
• Learning

• General [27]
• Introduction [1]
• Current Events [13]
• Special Topics [25]

• RSS 0.90
• RSS 1.0
• RSS 2.0
• Atom