"'Guthrie used to quote a proverb about not letting the camel's nose into your tent. I think more than its nose is in. Bloody near the whole camel is. Or soon will be, if we sit meek.'" (p. 506)
Maybe Guthrie read Poul Anderson's Technic History:
"'Can't you see what this will bring? If the unions get that kind of voice in management, it won't be the camel's nose in our tent. No, by damn, it will be the camel's bad breath and sandy footprints, and soon comes in the rest of him and you guess what he will do.'"
-Poul Anderson, Mirkheim IN Anderson, Rise Of The Terran Empire (Riverdale, NY, 2011), pp. 1-291 AT Prologue, Y minus 9, p. 15.
But it turns out that the Camel's nose is an old story.
Nicholas van Rijn, the unmistakable speaker in that second quote, is concerned about unions because they:
"'...are political organizations as well, tied in with government like Siamese twin octopuses. You let them steer those funds, and you are letting government itself into your business.'" (ibid.)
I want unions that are independent not only of government but also of union-employed full-time bureaucrats and are fully controlled by and accountable to their members. Van Rijn would like this even less.
31 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I believe what you want, as regards unions, is an impossibility. You can't have any kind of large scale organization without a bureaucratic organization. And of course unions will become lobbyists pressuring politicians and gov'ts to advance their own interests, good or bad. And so we end up with the kind of cartelization condemned by Guthrie and Old Nick.
Over the last few weeks I have been rereading Jonah Goldberg's LIBERAL FASCISM: THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN LEFT FROM MUSSOLINI TO THE POLITICS OF MEANING (Doubleday: 2007), which describes precisely this process. Ever since the "Progressives" of the early 20th century, the American left has been seeking to extend the power and scope of gov't in all areas and activities of life. Sometimes for reasonable particular causes, but always with the goal of expanding gov't.
And I say that stinks! It means the eroding and subverting of real LIBERTY, which is not always the same as "democracy." So my sympathies lies more with Old Nick and Guthrie.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
As a matter of fact, I agree that the kind of union that I would prefer can exist only in periods when large numbers of members are moved to take action and to hold their representatives accountable. The rest of the time, any organization falls back on bureaucratization which can be stifling. I have experienced bureaucrats' contempt for their members.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And what you want is not going to happen. Also, more significantly, such unions inevitably become lobbyists pressuring politicians and gov'ts for concessions and favors. And corporations as also had to become lobbyists, in sheer self defense. And also became corrupted by cartelization.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It happens sometimes. I am just rereading THE STARS ARE ALSO FIRE, 40, about the escalating troubles on the Moon.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And never for long. And ends once the lobbying and wheeling and dealing with politicians starts.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Indeed. We can hope to make some progress during such turbulent periods.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I believe that can be done only by lessening the powers and scope of gov't. Make it less necessary to lobby and pressure politicians.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Whereas I would want improvements like higher wages, safer work conditions and an enhanced health service.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And that's best done by employers and their employees themselves, without letting any gov't stick it's big camel's nose into the tent!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Wages and work conditions, yes. Health service, no.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then I have to disagree. I see no need for gov'ts to butt in even with health care.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is not butting in! The British National Health Service is perfect as long as it can be maintained and defended. It is our service, not something imposed on us as if by an alien invader!
Paul.
All our lives, we do not have to worry about or pay for expensive health insurance. In the RLI (Royal Lancaster Infirmary), my daughter and granddaughter were born, my son-in-law received a lot of care and eventually died, my wife received a life-saving operation, I was rushed in overnight when my General Practitioner, on a routine check, realized that my blood pressure was way over the top. It is now kept down by monthly free prescriptions. This list has lengthened as I remembered more incidents while writing it. No way is any of this the government butting into our lives. It is a service that we all maintain and politicians know that they must at least pay lip-service to maintaining it.
That’s like wanting a down up, or for human beings not to sweat.
As the song puts it, “Meet the new boss/Just like,the old boss…”
Kaor, Paul!
But you are overlooking a few points. First, I was thinking here about the future, in the Technic timeline of Nicholas van Rijn, of the general cartelization, de facto gov't control, of both unions and ostensibly private corporations like the Home Companies within or near the Solar Commonwealth. Second, IIRC, nothing was said about how medical care was handled in MIRKEHEIM, which made me assume that came under the contracts between employee unions and employers. Last, Old Nick began his life and career at a time when libertarianism, wary distrust of the state, was still strong.
As for he here and now, some comments can still be made. Nat Health might be popular in the UK, but it still has to be paid for by taxes, so it's not free. And the extremely mixed record of gov't, to put it mildly, makes me doubt it's perfect. And even the UK now has some private hospitals and clinics, which made me think they came to exist because of flaws in Nat Health.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Another thought I had was that since companies like Solar Spice & Liquors operated on an interstellar scale, far beyond the Commonwealth's rule, matters like health care still had to be settled by private agreement between SP & L and the relevant unions. NOT the gov't.
Mr. Stirling: Exactly! Gov't control of medicine still amounts to letting the camel stick its nose into the tent. With all that means.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course it comes out of taxes but it takes the hassle off the individuals and families needing health care. Of course there is also private health care if you can afford it but the bulk of the population relies on the NHS and resists any cuts to it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I still believe the UK would benefit, at the very least, from not having so much of its medical care handled by the state. I've seen too much bungling, corruption, and incompetence by gov't in the Us to think otherwise.
I don't often try to recommend books to you, but Jonah Goldberg's LIBERAL FASCISM was in many ways a real eye opener to me! Look it up sometime, when and if you have the opportunity.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The government bungles etc which is why we must always campaign to hold it to account.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And the best way to do that is by REDUCING its powers and scope of activities.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Not if that means no NHS and expensive private health care!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
What MIGHT work in the UK won't work in the US. And it's only in the private sector that you will find cost reducing innovations.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Won't be allowed to work in the US because it is opposed by private interests and on ideological grounds!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Not at all, such things simply CAN'T work. Too wasteful, inefficient, corrupting, and bureaucratic.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And I think that workers and their community can democratically provide a service without needing any wasteful or inefficient bureaucracy.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Again, that is not going to happen. You are asking people to do more than one kind of full time job: ordinary work, hold offices in a political system, AND apparently run, in this context, clinics and hospitals. Impossible, not going to happen.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
People know how to run their own workplace but management and the hierarchical system won't let them do it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Let me try to explain what I mean. Let's think of a few ordinary kinds of workers, such as a paralegal, baker, plumber, store clerk, farmer, etc., etc. It's simply not REALISTIC to expect such persons, after eight or more hours a day at their primary jobs, to also be legislators and politicians, or again, in this context, be running clinics and hospitals. NOR do I think many such workers would want to!
Moreover, whether for good or bad, you can't be an effective politician if it's only something you will do part time or on weekends. It takes hard work to run for office, and you might not even win. Also, even if you do get elected to the Commons or the US House of Representatives, a lot of your time will be working in committees or sub committees. A full time job, IOW.
A baker, plumber, paralegal, etc., also would not know how to run a clinic or hospital. Such places need a bureaucracy to manage the record keeping, finances, making sure things don't get hopelessly snarled up. That last is esp. important, because of how people's lives and health are involved. I would guess that calls for a rather specialized kind of bureaucracy. Bakers, farmers, plumbers, etc., are simply not qualified for that kind of work.
Hard reality always gets in the way of our dreams!
Ad astra! Sean
Civilization means specialization and division of labor. Even hunter-gatherers have hierarchies of social power; as you go up the scale, they get more elaborate, and usually more extreme. It’s the price of the entry-ticket.
I agree that civilization has been specialization and division of labour. With the benefits of automation, communications technology etc, I hope for a more democratic system where, e.g., organizational experts have an advisory rather than a managerial role. Humanity has to get out of its present mess (!), then, I hope, reassess a lot of its ways of doing things, like war for a start. One thing is certain (I think): the world will continue to change and the future will be very different, unlike whatever we imagine.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: Exactly! And I don't expect that specialization, division of labor, and hierarchies of social status and power to ever go away. Not if human beings are going to STAY human.
Paul: And I don't expect that "...more democratic system" to ever come about unless the powers and functions we have seen states assume since 1914 are severely cut back. And THAT is something, like it or not, many left wingers don't want, because they have been driving that centralizing of power in the state. As Jonah Goldberg described in painstaking detail in LIBERAL FASCISM.
I agree civil services of all kinds should have only a limited managerial authority. But if you are going to have states take over more and more functions that kind of authority will inevitably grow, as it has to if states are to even try carrying out those functions and powers assumed since 1914. As described by Jonah Goldberg in painstaking detail in LIBERAL FASCISM.
Nor do I expect war to ever go away. At its simplest wars most often occur because human beings quarrel so fiercely that wars becomes the only way of settling their disputes. And, as Anderson wrote in his preface to SEVEN CONQUESTS, wars occur because they suit the ends of the state. And he stressed those ends will not always be evil.
I strongly suspect that the more things change the more they will stay the same!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment