Whenever I come across yet another bit of flag-waving over the independence vs unification issue, the result is instant eye-rolling boredom and revulsion for the simple reason that the premises from which the issue is discussed all presuppose the State as the locus of action. This letter from Huang Jei-hsuan of Los Angeles, published in today's Taipei Times, was no exception - despite its' rhetoric.
"It would be a breath of fresh air if a “Taiwanese constitution” could replace independence vs unification as the main focus of discourse in the coming election season."
Hardly, as the very notion of preparing a new constitution directly impinges upon the issue of independence vs unification; the preparation of a new constitution presupposes de facto independence, which is precisely what the PRC is working day and night to undermine (moreover, the design of a new constitution could be pursued in such a way as to deliberately create institutional obstacles for any eventual unification - which is an argument I have made
previously). A new constitution could not possibly be neutral in regard to the independence vs unification question, nor should it, and nor should anyone pretend otherwise. Besides, to the limited extent to which a proactive attitude can be taken toward the future, I think it is far more important to consider preparation for alternative institutions outside the purview of the State as the collapse of current political economy approaches in both China and Taiwan.
Detlev Schlichter has a very beginner-friendly piece up in which he uses the "blue-pill vs red-pill" metaphor of The Matrix film to illustrate the contrast between the mainstream and Austrian analyses of what is happening. Yet I preferred the passage which describes the situation in very straightforward, non-metaphorical terms:
"The result of such distorted market signals is the accumulation, over time, of a tremendous cluster of errors, visible in the form of unsustainable asset prices, excess levels of debt, and an under-collateralized pile of inflated paper assets."
It's a very good piece for other reasons also, including the fact that it touches upon the matter of intellectual framework and the immunity of the mainstream presumptions to refutation by either logic or fact - which is what Nietzsche would have called the "necessary errors" of those whose careers are built upon the premise of political management of economic activity.
"A new constitution could not possibly be neutral in regard to the independence vs unification question, nor should it, and nor should anyone pretend otherwise."
ReplyDeleteSo true, whichever way anyone wants to spin it.
However, I will state that Taiwan will never be an actual democracy (or republic, or anything beyond a party-state at base) until the constitution is revised or scrapped in favor of a new one. The ROC Constitution is a KMT Constitution just as the ROC flag is the KMT flag. I can understand Huang Jei-hsuan's argument to some extent, but he makes a grave error in believing that a "Taiwanese constitution" could sidestep the unification vs. independence issue at all, little less totally.
Agreed Nathan, but I regard it as more interesting, more difficult and potentially more "profitable" to consider the PRC threat from non-State perspectives. After all, neither of us (nor any of the other reporters or "media commenters", or "squawkboxes") is in a position to influence the decisions of politicians to any significant extent - although that doesn't mean we can't try by crafting the arguments as best we can and trying to get them the "oxygen of publicity".
ReplyDeleteDid you see Okami win that thread on "soft power" at Turton's place with his bit of Stalin? I loved it, wish I'd said it myself, but here's the thing: unless Austrian analysis is very, very wrong, there is going to be a general economic and monetary collapse sooner or later* (i.e. a point after which the credit money bubble on which so much of the economy [in both China, Taiwan and elsewhere] rests can no longer be reinflated) and we know that neither the PRC nor the ROC States will voluntarily desolve themselves. So to me it seems the pertinent questions are how to set up and protect market instantiated alternatives to what are commonly regarded as State provided necessities (e.g. from trash collection to the justice system). What are the best ways of getting on with the task of replacing the State with the Market before the collapse takes place? The question applies as much to China as it does to Taiwan as it does to just about anywhere else.
Fail to prepare, prepare to fail, and all that right?
*I'm well aware of the "Cassandra" line, and the fact that Austrian analysis does not permit of precise predictions makes someone like me all the more vulnerable to the charge, but a true refutation of Austrian analysis would have to be made in reference to historical cases such as U.S. or German recovery post WW2, not to current events as they unfold month by month.
Mike, this is an excellent discussion. I'll ponder it a bit and comment on it at my place as well (or link to it here). I'll have to work on it later. I'm heading out.
ReplyDeleteI should add that creating alternatives is a crap shoot without complmentary attempts to reduce or remove the parasitical nature of State power, otherwise the alternatives may just get destroyed or co-opted.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting this same word, "state," can imply both lack of movement (stasis, for example) and movement (the state of a current but ongoing trend or situation, the state we are now in, etc.). This furthers my understanding of the state as a contradictory entity. The question for me is not so much if but rather when the state will end as a viable construct, and when it does, will what replaces it be any more viable? Will it be any improvement? Most people believe some form of authority is yet needed; I have issues with this (I've flirted with free-market anarchism for a time, as you have probably already surmised), but it seems to be a mental block for most individuals. Speaking of blocks--or, rather, "bloc"--my best guess, considering what has happened in Europe over the past several decades, that some form of bloc will be the next "stage," if you will, with regard to political authority. This might be challenged--and indeed it currently is--by economic problems in Europe, but I think this will probably be the next political device (although I like it about as much as I like the state). I dream of the day when we don't need the political parasite, but the idea of the political construct is, to me, a Prisoners Dilemma in its own right: you and I and everyone else have far more to gain by trusting each other and working together toward our own mutual benefit, but since I cannot trust you 100%, I need something beyond me to ensure you will follow through on your side of the bargain even though the construction of such an entity is to our mutual loss (i.e., it is parasitical, as you've pointed out). I don't see people getting beyond that, and I admit it would be quite idealistic to believe they ever could, but I still hold out some minute hope that someday, someway, somehow. . . .
ReplyDelete"The question for me is not so much if but rather when the state will end as a viable construct, and when it does, will what replaces it be any more viable?"
ReplyDeleteViable for whom?
"Most people believe some form of authority is yet needed..."
What's wrong with their own?
"...some form of bloc will be the next "stage," if you will, with regard to political authority..."
Cart before the horse: "stages" and theories are used to differentiate the form of historical events according to aspect, but events that have already taken place; to ascribe stages and theories to future events is... premature. I don't know what's going to happen to the form of political power beyond some sort of collapse - and even on that I'm vague. There's too much going on to be able to make predictions beyond the very general and obvious. All I know is to claim the devolution of political power to the individual.
"...you and I and everyone else have far more to gain by trusting each other and working together toward our own mutual benefit..."
Yes and we already do this through the market. In effect, the old women in the traditional market where I buy my veg and fish from already trust me and other customers like me to go to work and keep up a regular income in order to keep them in the business of supplying broccoli, fish etc... Likewise I rely on my customers to keep their jobs at the large electronics firms and the smaller suppliers so as to keep me in my job.
"...but since I cannot trust you 100%, I need something beyond me to ensure you will follow through on your side of the bargain even though the construction of such an entity is to our mutual loss..."
Well it depends what that "bargain" is. In the jobs-income-trade example above, this need for security is met by the aggregation of the market and economies of scale: losing one or two customers might not matter too much so long as the aggregate remains roughly the same.
With regard to something like crime and the "bargain" of civil society, then obviously we'd both have a need to define infractions of this "bargain" together with mechanisms for resolving such infractions justly. Of course these mechanisms will have their costs (in potential errors and abuses, as well as mere $ costs), but whether those mechanisms must necessarily result in a mutual loss surely depends to some extent on their design.
In disregard to the tendency of political power to concentrate and corrupt over time in almost any system, it's relatively easy to imagine how a State run criminal justice system could be designed to minimize abuses and errors. That's the sort of thing which the pragmatists focus on and continually insist is possible because they disregard the concentration and corruption of political power over time as a systemic threat.
That sense of "faith in reason" though is something I think should not be relinquished, even as the prospect of radical (or even simply rational) reform of the current State-run system seems to recede.