Hi Paul
"Near-rightness" is probably the best that societies can muster. Human beings are not perfect and it follows that the institutions or systems we implement won't be perfect. That does not, of course, mean we throw up our hands and admit defeat. We can always do better and from time to time we see reforms that seek and sometimes provide solutions to problems.

Having worked in government for a number of years the biggest failing would be the deeply rooted culture of un-accountability. Reticence to admit mistakes and tendency to sweep major flaws/inadequacies under the carpet.

You only have to look at the effects on whistleblowers like Kessing when he allegedley made public the report the government was willing to keep buried, in relation to airport security.

It is natural for ordinary people to look to governments or large institutions to provide answers when they have been tasked with that responsibility. In a democracy we are all able to bring those organisations to account if we choose to do so. It is not always easy and the processes are at times unwieldy and unecessarily bureacratic.

More open and transparent government is what we should aim for even if it will by it's nature probably fall somewhat short of the mark.

This is a particularly good article. It gives a brief account of the historical context of liberalism in the 17th C, the dark side of the Enlightenment. It would be interesting to trace how rationalistic individualism (John Locke and others) morphed into management systems that actually deny that individualism. This is the interesting bit. We have the denial of ancient authorities, enthusiasm, and a greater dependence on rationality that is bound to produce rational systems of management. The irony is the freedom is lost and the opposite of the Enlightenment ideal is produced. This confirms my opinion that the freedom much touted by Enlightenment thinkers is a facade with no foundation in being. We have traded the freedom of the Christian, based on objective events in the world, for an ideal that is, in the end, fragile and easily subverted. Liberalism turns out not to be liberal after all.

Peter Sellick

The silver lining of the world fincancial crisis has helped to focus world attention on the glaring failures of supposedly fail-safe systems, headed up by agencies with political appointees.

As billions of people look on at the theatre of the G20, the conclusion reached by many by-standers is likely to be that everything will not be all right, despite the detailed plans and systems agreed upon at G20. Our leaders of nation states have yet to come up with credible, long term solutions that will prevent re-occurence of harmonised disasters.

Will their new systems fix the most flagrant abuses of the multitude of loop-holes in free markets? Absolutely not - 'name and shame' is the pathetically weak sole sanction for the board with global responsibility for bringing rogue traders to account.

Will the agreement of G20 leaders to rapidly escallate systems to reduce the carbon impact threatening life, translate into emmissions lower than 450ppm CO2? No - emmissions will rise ever more quickly and melt the polar ice caps.

International agreements are not equipped for decisive action unless they are backed up with harsh sanctions that give no sanctuary to rogue states and rouge individuals.

What we will witness with each global pandemic, is more spin on solutions that let nation states have plenty of wiggle room to continue to do as they like.

However, each global failure will strengthen the case for the end game where we have a strong global government backed up with international courts that have as their core values, the acceptance of universal human rights, openess, accountability, community engagement, secularity, curiosity, creativity, and scientific skepticism as a means of furthering a sustainable existance for the citizens of Earth.

When that day arrives, the tyrannts like Omar Bashir, Dear Leader, Mugabe and the greedy Wall Street spivs will have no where to hide.

Certainly most clouds have a silver lining and the meltdown is no different. At the least, it will keep everyone on their toes and perhaps make people arrive at the uncomfortable ( for some ) realization that the only real security comes from within oneself.

aint systems great [we have systems in systems], like the airport incident was a result of the underground system ,it is reported that a hellsangel tatooist moved onto the others systemised turf, then viollated their systems rules ...by bringing a gun to the systems negotiation meeting, and the systemised result is clear for all to see

but im moved by another system resulting in my commenting on the finantial system, here [not at my other forum] ,who's system saw me get a one day suspention

anyhow re the finantial system i noted the g20 has ok-ed the selling of a huge tonage of gold http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/g20-supports-imf-plan-raise/story.aspx?guid={5ABAE8F2-060D-44BC-9905-EB79665AEACE}&dist=msr_1&print=true&dist=printMidSection

it can do this because the imf repayment system got some extra gold
quote>>..The IMF, which holds more than 3,200 tons of gold, is the third-largest holder in the world after the U.S. and Germany.

Most of the IMF's gold holdings come from the fund's member countries, which are required to commit 25% of their quota in gold.

The fund can't sell those holdings into the markets. >>

noting many other gold sales went out of the system to the wrathchild private wealth system, but return to the quote

>>..But an additional 403.3 tons of gold the fund acquired through off-market transactions in 1999 and 2000 - such as interest payment from countries that received IMF loans - are not subject to the restriction...<<

but such is the power of those outside the system [to run the banking , media , medical ,law systems as they see fit]

noting the media system neatly left out the gold bit ...lol

Epilogue

1.
Having recently done a bit of flying between Sydney and Melbourne, I came to realise that “near-rightness” is simply not an option when it comes to piloting a commercial aeroplane. For a situation that throws up a significant amount of opportunities for massive failure, the airline industry makes few mistakes, and when they do, they spend a large proportion of resources to discover how and why. What I did realise is that the piloting of a plane requires the correct mix of both rational systems and human involvement. As a model, the way in which air is managed and monitored is a good one. The amount of resources involved in doing this, is traded off against managing the significant risks involved in flying a big steel tube through the air.

2.
Suggestions by some that the secularisation of society has led to this malaise are unsound - religion is just another system – it is just as circuitous, self-supporting, and pernicious as a management system. This is why the Enlightenment occurred, along with the French and American revolutions. The values of the Enlightenment were sound – it is the corruption of those values which we are currently living with.