Thomas wrote:
>>>>>>"Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Turner <jturner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>
>
> >> international elites cooperate for their own purposes,
>
> Jeffrey> But cooperating is a lot different than conspiring.
>
> Don't understand the point. One slides into another. Cooperation is
> soft conspiracy that's likely out in the open, conspiracy organized
> cooperation that's somewhat behind the scenes. There's not much
> difference in principle, and how much you'll find of each depends on
> cir***stances. Neither is crazier than the other.
>
> Look: it's commonplace that those of a common trade like to get
> together if they can to arrange things to make their lives easier.
> Adam Smith said as much. So did the men who drafted the Sherman
> Antitrust Act. They even talked about conspiracies in restraint of
> trade. Were they all crackpots?
>
> Running big countries is a trade. Ditto for running global business.
I think you're stretching things. All the members of the TC are not
involved in either of those things.
> Why wouldn't people in those trades get together to arrange things to
> suit themselves? And if they notoriously get together, at Davos or
> wherever, to discuss common concerns why shouldn't the rest of us take
> an interest and get a bit suspicious about what's going on? That's the
> way we'd feel if it were shoe manufacturers.
They're not shoe manufacturers. The TC probably could be more open and
democratic, but that doesn't mean if fits into what the topic of the
original paper was exploring. You may want to look back at the Subject
line.
> Jeffrey> I have my doubts about the nefarious nature of the TC.
>
> They take the point of view of those in a particular trade. If you
> think the trade they're in has the same interests as the rest of us,
> for example if you think it would be good to have lots of global
> administrators running things in the way that makes sense to them,
> then you won't worry. If you have doubts about that way of doing
> things you'll have some questions.
What trade are the members of the TC in? It's obviously not a
democratic organization, but from the given description it is more
diverse than the Heritage Foundation or even the Brookings Institute.
For that matter, it may be more diverse than the U.S. Congress - or
at least the Senate. I'm all for openness and democratic institutions,
but there are far more serious threats, IMO, than the TC. We would have
been better off if the TC candidate had won in 1980, in my estimation.
--Jeff
--
It is only those who have neither
fired a shot nor heard the shrieks
and groans of the wounded who cry
aloud for blood, more vengeance, more
desolation. War is hell.
--William Te***seh Sherman
|
