For once, I and Anders G. Romarheim agree on something. He made the same point I did about media coverage of hostage takings in June, when he accused NRK and TV2 of being spokespieces for the terrorists. From his opinion piece in Dagbladet:

The mass media is not a mirror of reality. On the contrary, they actively shape reality. When a news desk presents the videos of an Islamist terrorist group, they lift the terrorists up from being unknown shadow figures to Islamist TV stars. The media coverage is shaping who the terrorists are. ..

Some have asked if I really believe that the hostage takings would end if one stopped showing the videos. No, unfortunately, but I think it will contribute to reducing their numbers. I base this view in part on the work of the researcher Dipak Gupta. Gupta has looked systematically at which kind of methods terrorist groups use. His data show that terrorist groups increasingly specialize on particular kinds of methods. They largely choose methods they have experience with, and methods they've had success with before. Filmed hostage takings, with unrealistic demands for release, are on their way to becoming a certain success.

By carelessly handing out prime time coverage, the media are actively making filmed hostage takings a successful terrorist method. The rational cohice for terrorist groups is consequently to continue to take hostages. News editors can not ignore this relationship, and their decisions can not remove them from the reality they describe. Unless the media are able to redefine their role in this relationship, I'm not certain that we can forgive them because they don't know what they're doing.

TV2 responded with the usual excuse: We have to cover the news! And it's not like the terrorists care about what's aired on Norwegian TV news anyway. Dag og Tid interviewed Øystein Bogen, head of TV2's foreign news department:

- Isn't it playing along with the terrorists to show these videos? - Was it playing along with terrorists to show the airplanes that crashed into the World Trade center? Even though part of the goal of the terrorists is to communicate with the media in this way, we can not refrain from showing these events. These are big, international news which are important and relevant in the overall news perspective.

- If you judge by the criteria of importance, isn't it then enough to just tell what's going on?
- TV is and remains a medium for moving pictures. We can not refrain from showing our viewers footage from breaking and important events just because some people might find the message unpleasant. And we always explain that this footage is taken and distributed by the terrorists themselves. In general, it takes a lot for us to refuse to air footage which is both important and interesting, as long as the footage exists.

- Everything indicates that the terrorists direct attacks adapted to the dramaturgy of the media. Does TV channels have a responsibility to prevent terrorists from communicating this way?
- To take the Nicholas Berg video as an example, which was aimed at the US: I can't see that TV2 is particularly relevant to the American government.

- If a Norwegian had been taken hostage, would the Norwegian government be able to see it on TV?
- It would be distasteful to go into an ethical evaluation of what we would do in such a hypothetical case.

- But terrorists are trying to influence people, not just in their home countries, but across the world?
- I don't believe many of our viewers find the message of these Islamist groups appealing, even though they're allowed on the TV screen. To cut a man's neck off to propagandize for a political message, is probably behavior few people can support. In the case of Berg, and many similar cases, pictures more than words will expose the brutality and barbarity of the hostage takers, and thus perhaps help the viewers to understand what is going on and what the terrorists really stand for.

This is a total abdication of responsibility. Bogen reveals no indication that he understands the dilemma, and some of his counterarguments are so nonsensical that it's difficult to believe they were made in good faith. Nobody has said that TV2 helps to recruit terrorists by airing their videos. And I don't believe it's relevant that the videos could make viewers less willing to excuse terrorism. What matters is that the terrorists themselves believe their cause is furthered when their videos are aired, and that they are encouraged by the amount and kind of coverage they receive. Encouraged to do it again.

TV2 is not CNN, but that is no excuse for taking part in this evil game.

Thanks for bringing this debate out to a wider audience in English Bjørn. Since we basically agree on this topic there is no need to elaborate at length on my part. Just a few additional comments:

What is evident is that news editors do not see -or refuse to see - the role they play in these filmed abductions. They do not seem to understand that they are being exploited by media savvy terrorists. To such accusations they tend to just shake their heads and retort: independent media....freedom of speech....case closed.

10 days ago I debated TV2 at the Journalist education at HIO in Oslo. HIO, (and a school in Volda) are the main hatching arenas for future media people in Norway. They "all" go the same schools. It was an interesting debate where I dare to say that the students largely supported my view. TV2's representative admitted that some of the statements you quoted above were below par. And also conceded that this remains a problem due to the hectic nature of the media world.

For the record, I also criticized NRK (The National Broadcasting Service). They have shown less of the video material. TV2 continue to cross the line with the recent video of Margaret Hassan of Care International.

I object to showing hostages pleading for their life. One reason is because in the early videos (April) in which three Japanese were threatened with daggers, the kidnappers instructed them to cry for their Prime Minister: "No Koizumi!!"
Pleas can be scripted and instructed by the kidnappers. It was strange to see how poor Bigley (RIP) kept repeating phrases like: "Blair...you say you are compassionate, now show that you are compassionate" Was it him speaking?? Did he think out clever ways to address central rhetoric from Blair's policy vocabulary all by himself?? We will probably never know.

anders,

Did he think out clever ways to address central rhetoric from Blair's policy vocabulary all by himself?? We will probably never know.

There has to be a very high probability that it was scripted.

Bjørn,

On the general point of censorship, I would imagine when people think of it they see a state run media in the totalitarian communist mould.

In the case of censoring news coverage of hostage-taking a state run media would not be the end result -- an elite sponsored media acting hand in glove with an increasingly totalitaian capitalist regime would. ie. Fox news or similar.

The idea that you might actually get a rational solution under the present set up either here in Norway or in the United States is frankly, utopian. It ain't gonna happen. The poltical apparatus is already far too corrupt for it to be a possiblity.

Scott: I'm not talking about censorship, just the kind of self restraint that follows naturally once news media realize the role they're playing here.

an elite sponsored media acting hand in glove with an increasingly totalitaian capitalist regime would. ie. Fox news or similar.

I think you need to look up the definition of "totalitarianism" - and the history of the regimes classified by it. A totalitarian regime is a dictatorship which attempts to control every aspect of the lives of citizens. The US is not such a country, nor close to being one. You may believe it's less democratic than it should be, but as there are many stages between "democracy" and "totalitarianism", it's not honest to say "increasingly totalitarian" when you for instance mean "increasingly restrictive".

This is not about censorship. It's about press ethics and press conduct. In Norway the media has agreed voluntarily not to cover suicides as a general rule. Agreeing not to run errands for the terrorists should be a similar convention that the media's own institutions should establish and enforce. No prime-time screening of the terrorists' own-produced videos with both sound and images would suffice to make the public understand the atrocities taking place.

The videos are designed to incite fear. The news shows are designed to produce high ratings. It's an unfortunate combination that is easy to exploit.

I think you need to look up the definition of "totalitarianism" - and the history of the regimes classified by it.

Bjørn, you are putting words into my mouth that I didn't say.

What I did say was:

. . . . . would not be the end result -- an elite sponsored media acting hand in glove with an increasingly totalitaian capitalist regime would. ie. Fox news or similar.

In other words I am suggesting a tendency towards totolitarianism and not that western democracies are at the present time totalitarian according to the accepted definition of the term.

Totalitarian regimes establish complete political, social, and cultural control over their subjects. The process of becoming totalitarian is not instantaneous however, it does not occur over night. Different aspects of society can become totalitarian independent of others that retain a degree of relative freedom.

It is also worth pointing out that if we are going to keep to rigid semantics you are wrong to say that it's not honest to say "increasingly totalitarian" when you for instance mean "increasingly restrictive".. You can argue that it is not accurate to use the word totalitarian in that context but but to say that it is dishonest is inappropriate.

If we want to try to open up the concept of totalitarianisl to a more meaningul understanding I can refer you to The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy by J.L. Talmon and even more interesting One Dimensional Man by Herbert Marcuse. The latter, written in 1964, contains a prescient description of modern western society on a par with that of Orwell's in 1984.

. . . . . and btw, while the USA may not be totalitarian within its own boundaries it becomes so in a global sense the moment Bush snr says "The American Way of life is not negotiable" and his son says "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists."

totalitaian capitalist regime would. ie. Fox news or similar.

I think you need to look up the definition of "totalitarianism"

good point Bjørn, given that totalitarianism and capitalism are opposites. An odd statement from Scott given that we have 5 networks rooting for Kerry, while only Fox is very balanced on the news, and slightly conservative with commentators. Fox is probably 60-40 for bush, while the others are 75-25 for Kerry.

So, by my calculations, the US media is for Kerry 415 (75*5 + 40) to Bush 185 (25*5 + 60).

Do you get Fox News Channel in Norway, or in the Oslo area?

anders,

It's about press ethics and press conduct. In Norway the media has agreed voluntarily not to cover suicides as a general rule.

I agree with you that such a practice would be an ideal. It does however presuppose a mass media that is independent of any powerful economic interests that themselves have a political voice.

Here allowing privately funded political adverstising shows its ugly side and would lead inevitably imo to the situation I described; a mass media controlled totally by Rupert Murdoch's News International corporation acting in the interests of poltical parties that support his elitist poltical interests.

given that totalitarianism and capitalism are opposites.

Gunnar, with all due respect, that is rubbish.

As I pointed out above George Bush snrs words "The American Way of Life is not negotiable" is one of the most succinct announcements of complete political, social, and cultural control ever made.

An interesting side issue but not by any means unrelated is Fox News brilliant use of the propagandist Big Lie in their masthead; Fair and Balanced.

The Big Lie -- repeatedly state the precise opposite of the truth as a self evident fact in the loudest possible way.

As I pointed out above George Bush snrs words "The American Way of Life is not negotiable" is one of the most succinct announcements of complete political, social, and cultural control ever made

Scott, you must be right. How could I be so easily fooled by the vaast right wing conspiracy? I previously would have thought that "The American Way of Life is not negotiable" indicates that whatever happens, americans are not willing to give up the american way of life, ie, freedom, democracy, rule of law.

But now, I see that you're right. In fact, we're being forced to endure the american way of life by some evil australian.

Leftists have an unhealthy obssession with Fox News.

Assuming for arguments sake that Fox is all right-wing prop all the time, why should it bother anyone given the myriad other media choices?

It reveals the totalitarian mindset of the Left that they can't tolerate even one news outlet that is noticeably different in perspective.

I'm feeling this immense dèja-vu!

During the Cold War, there was a chorus of people -- in the media, the arts and the self-professed cultural "elite" -- who hammered into our heads that the Soviet Union was not hostile, that America was our true enemy, that Leonid Brehznjev -- that bloated ball of corruption who invaded Afghanistan and started the whole mess which kick-started Osama bin Laden's Jihadist career -- was our nice old neighbor.

This time around -- this time -- I'll speak up: if you are a friend of terrorists, if you defend terrorists under the pretense of "free speech", then you are my personal enemy and the enemy of every free citizen in every country in the world.

'Nuff said.

-A.R.Yngve
http://yngve.bravehost.com

Scott in Pennsylvannia

It reveals the totalitarian mindset of the Left that they can't tolerate even one news outlet that is noticeably different in perspective.

Another example of irrelevant political stereotyping used to avoid the issue of propagandist advertisiing in western societes carried out by elite interests to further a poitical agenda. ie. Rupert Murdoch's News International Corporation which is was and always will be a politically partisan organisation.

Just for the record I am highly critical of left wing politics. Typically socialists and communists are interested only in furthering their poltical interests and are utterly unconcerned with the interests of the people they claim to represent. Tony Bliar for example is a socialist.

Re. Totalitarian control of the media: If Rupert Murdoch had an opportunity to put all his competitors out of business and become the sole distributor of news over the whole of the planet do you think he would take the opportunity?

"The American Way of Life is not negotiable." George Bush snr.

Scott, you must be right. . . . . .

Your post above Gunnar is an excellent example of the Appeal to ridicule fallacy.

Scott,
Countries act in their own particular national interests. America does this as do France Norway, Iran, etc. When GB Sr. Says "The American Way of Life is not negotiable." He is saying that America will act in its own self interest. Would you expect any different from the leader of any other country? Maybe you have an example of a country that acts against its national interests?

Your posts regarding Fox news and Mr. Murdoch are entertaining in a sort of side show way. You don’t like Fox news? Fine, change the channel, there are plenty of places to get lefty news from. You think Ted Turner wouldn’t like to put all his competitors out of business and become the world’s sole provider of news? Of course he would. He is paid by the shareholder of his company to do just that. There are no unbiased sources of news on this planet to my knowledge. You single out Murdoch like he is the exception when he is really just another face in the crowd.

Back to topic: Journalistic Ethics and other oxymorons.

In my opinion, Øystein Bogen, gave a disgraceful performance to say the least. Given that he apparently has no control over what information is presented or how it is presented, I can only wonder what it is exactly that he does as head of TV2's foreign news department? The total denial of responsibility was remarkable. Worse than this though, is the fact that he apparently didn’t even understand the line of questioning or recognize the possibility that there even was an ethical dilemma surrounding the airing of terrorist propaganda films.

"increasingly totalitaian capitalist regime"

*lol*

When a government increases its over its population, restricted how and how they may not behave to an even greater extend, then they are hardly inkeeping with the individual consumer choice that facilitates the success of a capitalistic system ;-)

Cheers
Dave.

In the first place: If US had not invaded Iraq, then these things would not happen. Besides, what other means, which they do not employ, do you think the resistance fighters, or terrorists if you will can fight with against such an overwhelming force?
The simple answer is that they are fighting for their country, and use any means necessary to win, without US invation, this would not happen.

Franko,

An interesting post as on two occasions you dismiss out of hand the very thing that marks out a civilised society:

First example:

He is saying that America will act in its own self interest. Would you expect any different from the leader of any other country? Maybe you have an example of a country that acts against its national interests?

If any nation or group of nations is going to take on an international role then that is precisely what they have to do; respect the needs and wishes of other nations and on occasion defer to their needs. Society itself is based on an awareness of the other person's needs. Without that consciousness you simply descend into barbarism -- which of course is what we are seeing today. It should come as no surprise that this is the consequence of an ideology that champions the aggressive, egotistical pursuit of material self interest,

Second example:

You think Ted Turner wouldn’t like to put all his competitors out of business and become the world’s sole provider of news? Of course he would. He is paid by the shareholder of his company to do just that.

Again you accept that these are legitimate goals for these organisations and the people who lead them.

They are not. Anyone with this kind of motivation and consciousness is entirely the wrong kind of person for such a position. They simply haven't grown up enough.

Gunnar, Maryland:

To claim that totalitarism and capitalism are opposites is rather far-fetched. Capitalism is an economic system, totalitarism is a name used on different despotic political systems.

It is fully possible for a country to be both despotic and capitalist - and there have been and are many examples of this.

I understand that you support capitalism as an economic system. You probably have many good reasons to do so. To claim that this one economic system always provides political and other liberties, however, is a lie.

Øyvind

Allan: You come dangerously close to defending the use of terrorism as a strategy. Divide clearly between explanations of why terrorism occurs and what may be considered justified response to occupation. Shooting at soldiers invading a country is normally legitimate resistance. Blowing up civilians and taking hostages is not.

Scott: You come close to suggesting that altruism is a leading principle in international politics and in media management. Altruism is in my opinion a very rare phenomenon. Let me quote the fantastic classic from USA for Africa, We are the World: "There's a choice we're making, we're saving our own lives." Fighting poverty can even be depicted to serve our own personal interest in the long run.

The classic political realist Morgenthau goes so far as to argue that it is immoral not to serve the national interst. Because the government is the agent, and the principal is the people. What right do elected officials have to disregard their own people's interests? He also argues that if all states follow their national interests we increase predictability in the international system. Predictability has security as one of its bi-products.

Anders: I dont defend terrorism as a strategy. I rather -explain- it as a strategy. However, I did use to have the impression that the violence in Iraq was caused by mostly fanatics from neighbouring countries, but this has been shown to be untrue, actually the violence is in 80-90% of the cases caused by Iraqees themselves. So yes, is it not true that this is resistance to US invasion?

I never said my position in whether I defend or oppose it, my earlier positions should have shown that I dont. And the simple reason for that is that I dont believe that the intention justifies the means, which is also why I also opposed the invasion in the first place. You know what they say: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Now, let me also say that I think the media is being used equally much by the US military as by the terrorists. The media should also show more of the civilian casualties caused by US bombs (during the start phase), but instead they play tapes provided to them or are tagging along showing nightly light shows instead of showing the real results of this bombing. So yes, I think the media is being used by both parties in this issue.

"We are the World: "There's a choice we're making, we're saving our own lives." Fighting poverty can even be depicted to serve our own personal interest in the long run"
Well, I heard a statement on the national TV channel in Australia tonight. It was a discussion on the relations between AU and US, and actually a Washington guy in America said that AU served an 'unsinkable battleship' off the coast of Asia.
The leader of the debate could not believe her own ears, and had to repeat what he said, and he blatantly put it forward again.
I doubt the Australian people will take that well.

To claim that totalitarism and capitalism are opposites is rather far-fetched. Capitalism is an economic system, totalitarism is a name used on different despotic political systems.

Capitalism is a more than an economic system, although it's focus is on economics. It is full social system based on the principle of individual rights. Man has the natural right to life, liberty and property. In reality, these rights are inseparable. Totalitarianism describes a situation where an all powerful state violates human rights.

It is fully possible for a country to be both despotic and capitalist - and there have been and are many examples of this.

You seem to be using "capitalist" as a synonym for "economic activity". This is incorrect. There is no contradiction between totalitarianism and robust economic activity. For example, Nazi Germany, Communist China, and Saudi Arabia. In Nazi Germany, there were property rights in "name" only. The gestapo came to a factory owner and said "you vill produce veapons". This is not capitalism since threatening to violate the right to "life", they also violate "liberty" and "property".

To claim that this one economic system always provides political and other liberties, however, is a lie.

You're right that "capitalism" by itself doesn't fully specify a political system, but I never claimed it did. To build a society base on the "opposite" of totalitarianism, which is the individual right to life, liberty and property, one logically concludes that to "secure these rights, governments are instituted among men". To protect these rights, the society needs to have checks and balances to avoid the concentration of power, and to evaluate all laws according to whether they protect these rights, or violate them.

It's simply incorrect to ever use the phrase "totalitarian capitalist". While America has many faults, it's even more ludicrous to call America "an increasingly totalitarian capitalist regime".

"is it not true that this is resistance to US invasion?" Yes, that's basically true. But a lot of it is ILLEGITIMATE terrorist resistance to U.S. invasion. We must distinguish between the reasons for actions and the methods applied in the actions. Hostage taking is always atrocious and can never be justified by any "great" cause in my opinion.

Is all resistance and military opposition by definition illegitimate? I would say no. At least not more illegitimate than the invasion itself. If it is illegitimate then we must also consider assymetric warfare as a whole "illegitimate". This would be fantastic for war-mongerers with overwhelming military capability. However, guerilla movements would not be too concerned I guess...

Altruism is in my opinion a very rare phenomenon.

This discussion cropped up before with the same basic form as here: A statement that Altruism is rare.

My reply is the same as it was then; that altruism -- the ability to empathise with "the other "person is the very foundation on which any and every society is built.

When it's fundamental importance is forgetton and it is not honoured and nurtured social disintegration is the result, Which is precisely what we are seeing today.

You can trace the origins of the myth of selfish man back to the Enlightenment and the philospher Thomas Hobbes. In recent years it has been championed by economic theorists -- in particular the neo-liberals of the 1980's. Today the myth lies so deep in the consciousness of western man that hardly anyone bothers to question it any more.

That is when it becomes really dangerous.

my last post was a reply to Anders.

Gunnar,

it's even more ludicrous to call America "an increasingly totalitarian capitalist regime".

In a global context it most certainly is not. America claims its right to defend and further its interests anywhere in the world. It claims its way of life is self evidently superior to all others and beyond challenge. The rest of the world does not have the opportunity to challenge this democratically.

That is totalitarian -- what is ludicrous is to simply state that it is not.

*The rest of the world does not have the opportunity to challenge this democratically.*

Not true. Remember the Philipines, where a democratically elected government requested that US military bases evacuate, to their own economic detriment.

Is there a single country where US forces occupy without the consent of the host country? Not as of June 1, 2004, where even in Iraq the provisional government wants the US to stay - so far.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of totalitarianism, which necessarily requires coercion.

In a global context it most certainly is not. America claims its right to defend and further its interests anywhere in the world. It claims its way of life is self evidently superior to all others and beyond challenge. The rest of the world does not have the opportunity to challenge this democratically.

That is totalitarian -- what is ludicrous is to simply state that it is not

At least, you concede that the US isn't totalitarian inside the country. I count that as progress. But, still I don't understand, are you saying that the US is "forcing" freedom on other countries?

Isn't that a contradiction in terms? In WW1, the people of Europe were liberated from Germany; in WW2, the people of northern africa, Italy, France, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Great Britain, Japan and China all owe the US some debt of gratitude for liberating them. South Korea, Nicaragua, Grenada, Kuwait, and now Iraq have also been liberated.

Scott: "altruism -- the ability to empathise with "the other "person is the very foundation on which any and every society is built."

This all sounds good, but is it realistic at the international level? Certain aspects of altruism may be present. But even within Norway, it is debated whether we give so much foreign aid ( more than 1% of GDP) to feel good about ourselves or because we are truly altruistic.

It's not a bad thing to care about the well-being of others. But such arguments is a great way to camouflage other policy objectives. This may result in countries...say.... "forcing" freedom on other countries"

This may result in countries ...say.... "forcing" freedom on other countries"

I agree that there is a strong 'self-interest' in US actions. Where US interests are not threatened, the US is unlikely to expend US "blood and treasure", as John McCain puts it. That being said, there is still nobility, courage and self-sacrifice as well.

Ok, so Europeans might be playing into their hands, but is the reverse also true? Consider that Kerry is up in Michigan, but wait, Al Qaeda to the rescue:

26 October 2004--Explosive contents in a train derailment have created a “Hazmat Level 3” situation in a Detroit neighborhood Monday. Nine train cars overturned just before 11 a.m. Senior Chief Roy Miller, of the Detroit Fire Department, said four of the cars contain methyl alcohol, but said there are no reports of a leak. Methyl alcohol is highly explosive and is used as a jet fuel. Homes were being evacuated in a 1-mile radius from the scene. Officers were reportedly going door to door to alert residents.

Despite media reports that the cause of the derailment was undetermined Monday, the Northeast Intelligence Network has received information from a source at the scene who stated that the cause of the derailment is “suspicious” in nature.

The number of recent train derailments and railroad incidents have increased somewhat alarmingly and can be considered a “statistical anomaly.”

This will certainly help Bush in the most populous city in MI. Are the terrorists irrational, or do we misunderstand them?

The conventional wisdom is that terrorists execute attacks against civilians to make a political statement, to affect public opinion in their favor. This may have been true for most terrorist groups, but things may be different now. It's possible that the attacks from the early 90s until today are being committed as part of a Jihad, with the actual goal of total war and victory over the west, albeit by unconventionial means. Although this is what they state they are doing, most people still assume the conventional wisdom.

Perhaps people, blinded by anti-americanism, believe that every hostile act is also motivated by anti-americanism, when they may be taking this Jihad seriously. This might explain why Europe is still in the crosshairs, since it's lax sexual ways are probably very offensive to them. This would explain why the wobbly europeans and Kerry don't get any credit for their actions. Spainiards must be wondering why they pulled out, since it certainly didn't stop the terrorists.

This would also explain why they didn't take credit for the dozen or so major terrorists attacks. Perhaps, the beheadings are primarily a recruitment tool, and European support is unimportant to them.

Scott,
You said:

“If any nation or group of nations is going to take on an international role then that is precisely what they have to do; respect the needs and wishes of other nations and on occasion defer to their needs.”

You are stating the obvious and it is unclear to me what exactly we are debating here. Anyhow, American foreign policy is as respectful of the needs and wishes of other countries as much any other country and more than most. However to expect America to act against it’s national interests in order to please non-Americans is silly and naive.

Yes America is labeled as a unilateralist state by Europeans and the UN for our actions in Iraq and elsewhere. This is because European countries have chosen the path of military weakness and as a result are unable to defend their interests abroad even if they wanted to. Europeans are unable to act because they are weak and divided. Thus, because they are weak they resent American power and would like America to be weak also.

The fact is, that on the international scene there is only America. No other country matters as much to the world because there is no other country able to impact international events outside it’s own boarders. If America were to withdraw and isolate itself, Europe and the UN would accomplish nothing anywhere on the planet. Essentially, exactly what they are doing now….nothing.…anywhere.

“Anyone with this kind of motivation and consciousness is entirely the wrong kind of person for such a position. They simply haven't grown up enough.”

I disagree, in a way. Turner and Murdoch are competing for eyeballs with each other and all other news organizations. Freedom to compete is the cornerstone of Western democracy, capitalism and freedom. As long as they conduct themselves within the confines of the law they are expected by the owners of their companies (shareholders) to put out the most compelling and competitive product they can.

I will grant you that world domination of all media should not be a goal of the either Rup or Ted and I don’t believe either man has world domination as a goal. Furthermore we Americans don’t have to fear this because we have laws against the monopolization of media. There will never be a monopoly news or information.

but is it realistic at the international level? Certain aspects of altruism may be present.

I would say it is essential. There is no shortage of wise people who are more than capable of seriously looking at global problems from a global perspective. What prevents them from emerging as potential leaders is the concerted full time effort of elites who live off the current myths.

But even within Norway, it is debated whether we give so much foreign aid ( more than 1% of GDP) to feel good about ourselves or because we are truly altruistic.

Yes there is a very high degree of selfishness in Norway.

"This is because European countries have chosen the path of military weakness and as a result are unable to defend their interests abroad even if they wanted to"
The Europeans have understood that abroad is in most cases a matter for diplomacy, not force.
Oh, and Europe is a big part of NATO last I heard, its NATO thats running Afghanistan right now isnt it? Obviously you want US to defend her interrests abroad with military might. How about those people living in those countries we're talking about, they dont really matter do they? As long as US interrested is defended, then thats what really matter, right? ...

"If America were to withdraw and isolate itself, Europe and the UN would accomplish nothing anywhere on the planet. Essentially, exactly what they are doing now….nothing.…anywhere."
Thats a lie. Europe has soldiers in Sudan for instance. Europe also intended to establish a separate European task force, outside NATO, but Colin Powell said that would not be something US could tolerate. But good thing, they are doing it anyway.

I believe it to be self-evident that even incidents of altruism (or rather reciprocal altruism) is actually conducted through self interest.

Self-interested behaviour in the form of mutually beneficial arrangements, are in themselves common in the natural world, and also stands as one of the guiding principles of Adman Smiths capitalistic philosophy (the division of labour). If you're a tax account you don't try and build your own house yourself. You hire the skills of a builder, and the specialist builders within an economy are hardly going to perform complex tax account calculations unassisted. From this both parties obviously benefit.

Quite literally; you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Such mutual arrangements require advanced cognitive abilities; specific memory capable of (re)identifying one's debtors & creditors and the capacity to spot a cheat. No wonder such behaviour is readily observed amongst human beings.

Real people aren't the ants social engineers wish that we were, ready to sacrifice life and limb for the benefit of the whole. Ironically ants are only willing to behave like this only because they are all genetically related. Furthering the interests of their hive really does further their own genetic self-interest. Allowing for greater propagation of their own genes (being sterile workers ants can't breed).

:-)

Cheers,
David.

PS: As for comments about totaliterian capitalism, I suppose so long as the means of production and private property remain untouched by governmental forces (say a country that has oly totalitarian social policy) then it would still remain capitalistic. However in most despotic regimes this is not the case. Most dictators do not fail to brin the means of production under their control through nationalisation.

Scott:
"I would say it is essential."

Hmmm...if altruism is essential and you go on to say:
"Yes there is a very high degree of selfishness in Norway."

Are you trying to say that Norway as a society is really up the .....creek?? Or have you just admitted that altruism isn't so essential since Norway is considered the world's best country to live in by the UN in spite of the selfishness you refer to?

I think your arguments are confused between the descriptive and normative aspects of state behavior. More altruism sounds good, but I wouldn't want to live in a country that spoils its assets jepordizing the security of the nation. There is precious little altruism in the field of security policy.

But we're drifting off thread here. Another interesting debate has just unfolded. Norway provided the U.S. with laser guidance equipment in Iraq. BIG commotion! "Terror-experts" say this increases the threat. The main expert in the NRK report has his CV here: http://www.isv.uit.no/ansatte/edvarda/Marcusb/marcus.htm
The words terror and terrorism do not appear. He may, still, know a lot about it, but from this document seems that he spends most of his time teaching statistics.

Gunnar:

This discussion is highly off-topic, but I find it fairly interesting, and I hope Bjørn will excuse me for writing another post on capitalism vs. totalitarism.

Gunnar, when I talked about countries that were both capitalist and despotic I did not think of neither Nazi Germany nor Stalin Soviet, both countries had another economic system as well as their sick political systems, they had a central-planend economy. While many German capitalists saw benefits in Nazism the economical thoughts of Nazism was not thoughts about free capitalism. That they were ordered to make weapons, however, is hardly a surprise - the country was in war - and as I am sure you know enterprises have been ordered to do lots of stuff also in democratic and nominally democratic countries.

Try to think of other despotic countries, Gunnar, now - let us see. There is Cuba and North Korea, of course, and they have central-planned economies, as well. But then there is countries like the apartheid South Africa, or like Chile under Pinochet, Indonesia under Suharto, or of course a bunch of African and Asian countries today. Capitalism as an economic system is worldwide, Gunnar. Democracy isn't.

Capitalism is not a political system. The ideas of capitalism, i.e. free-trade, market economy, etc. is, however, often combined with a political ideology - namely liberalism (an then a liberalism going beyond the economic field).

Liberalism can in many ways be considered to be the ideological opposite of totalitarian ideologies like Nazism.

However, just like Communism, Liberalism is an utopic ideology. The reality on the ground is often very different from the ideas.

The free market economy kills off itself, because weaker competitors are forced out of the game. The end result, if there is no state or other interference, is monopolies. Every capitalist country I can think of have some sort of regulations trying to lessen this effect. Microsoft has been forced to hire a lot of lawyers, am I not right? Furthermore a free market does not automatically give the people political and other freedoms. Strangely, the market economy, often seems to push the same lifestyle on all of us, the lifestyle of consumerism.

I would like to clarify using Haiti and Cuba as examples - and "freedom of speech" instead of "a free economy". Most people, except a few nutcases in "my" camp (I am what is referred to, I think, as a bleeding-heart liberal pinkie) knows that freedom of speech is a foreign concept on Cuba.

Haiti, though, had freedom of speech guaranteed by law after the fall of Baby Doc. Everyone could in principle start up a newspaper. Problem is: illiteracy is common on Haiti and even those who know how to read and write do not necessarily have the funds needed to start a newspaper. In theory, they are free to do so. In practice, they have no such freedom.

Similar examples can be found in the United States. While everyone, in principle, can start a TV Network, only those having the money can do it in reality. While everyone, in principle, can build up an enterprise, you will need founding capital. While everyone, in principle, are competitors on an equal market... well, you try competiting with Coca Cola, Microsoft, Intel, Wal-Mart, etc, and I can assure you that you will have major problems even if you were clever enough to make a superior product. In many ways, America - just like Norway - is a plutocracy - a country ruled by those who have money. In principle, it is democratic. In reality, it does not always turn out that way.

Øyvind

David wrote:

Most dictators do not fail to brin the means of production under their control through nationalisation.

Some dictators have, however, actually de-nationalized industry. This helps in making friends with the United States. Being friends with the United States is always helpful if you want to stay dictator for a long time.

Rule nr. 1 at dictator school must be:

#1 Do not piss of the United States

Rule nr. 2 I believe is:

#2 If you do piss of the United States be sure to have other important friends (Russia, China)

And rule nr. 3?

#3 If you do not piss of the States you can do pretty much what you want with your own population. If you are lucky enough to be a dictator in Central Asia - preferably of a country with a long and difficult name - no one will mind, anyway.

Øyvind

Capitalism is not a political system. The ideas of capitalism, i.e. free-trade, market economy, etc. is, however, often combined with a political ideology - namely liberalism (an then a liberalism going beyond the economic field).

Actually, it's within the political realm, but it's not a complete social system. The 3rd level of philosphy is morality, and the 4th level is politics. All political systems are based on a moral system. It's incorrect to try to separate or compartmentalize economics from the rest of politics, because it's not really possible to separate the right to life and liberty from the right to property. One can't really violate the right to property without violating life and liberty. One can't truly secure the right to property without securing the right to life and liberty.

Therefore, true capitalism cannot exist in a despotic system. It's impossible to imagine a situation where a dictator violates peoples right to life and liberty, without violating property rights.

But then there is countries like the apartheid South Africa

Good example, could the blacks own businesses and trade freely?

Apartheid legislation authorized the "reservation" of many skilled jobs and managerial positions for whites; qualified blacks were legally excluded from most senior-level jobs

So, their right to property was being violated, ie not true capitalism. It's important to realize that economic activity can exist, without true economic freedom (right to property). The US is an example. The right to property is regularly violated, but perhaps less so than other places. Like you say, we're talking ideals and theory, while the reality on the ground is a mixed bag. A dictator can allow all sorts of speech to occur, but when someone says something he doesn't like, they get killed. Speech can occur, without true freedom of speech.

Liberalism can in many ways be considered to be the ideological opposite of totalitarian ideologies like Nazism.

Agreed, if Liberalism refers to the classic liberalism of Hayek, etc. But notice that capitalism is part of classic liberalism. It has to be, any philosophy of freedom has to include the right to property. How can one own the tree, but not the fruit?

The free market economy kills off itself, because weaker competitors are forced out of the game. The end result, if there is no state or other interference, is monopolies. Every capitalist country I can think of have some sort of regulations trying to lessen this effect. Microsoft has been forced to hire a lot of lawyers, am I not right? Furthermore a free market does not automatically give the people political and other freedoms.

Actually, this is a myth created by socialists (who like to call themselves "liberals" in the US, since to call yourself a socialist is to say, please don't vote for me). All destructive monopolies have been "coercive" in nature. They have the force of government behind them (like ATT). No non-coercive so-called "monopoly" has ever been destructive, or been immune from market forces. See http://capitalism.org/faq/antitrust.htm
and http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=indefense_qa

The classic example is a small town with a single general store. It's a non-coercive monoply. With the socialistic idea of monopolies, these should be illegal.

In theory, they are free to do so. In practice, they have no such freedom.

You are confusing potential with actual. To be more precise, you have the right to your own life, the right to live the life as you see fit, as long as you don't violate anothers rights, and the right to your own labor, and the fruits of your labor. There is no right to succeed, or equal results, which is implied by the above statement.

And how does this relate to the topic? ..hmmm, if Europe had more of a free market, the same thing might happen in Europe as in the US: other more reasonable voices would be heard, the debate would open up more, and the marketplace of ideas would be more vibrant. The end result would be that people could change the channel if the state organized media insisted on giving the terrorists exactly what they are looking for?

Rule nr. 1 at dictator school must be:

#1 Do not piss of the United States

Rule nr. 2 I believe is:

#2 If you do piss of the United States be sure to have other important friends (Russia, China)

And rule nr. 3?

#3 If you do not piss of the States you can do pretty much what you want with your own population. If you are lucky enough to be a dictator in Central Asia - preferably of a country with a long and difficult name - no one will mind, anyway.

ROFL. Unfortunately, so true. I would add rules 4, 5, 6:

#4 Even if you don't piss off the US, and you don't have other big friends (like China/Russia), as long as you don't harbor and support wackos who are intent on killing a large number of americans, you can pretty much kill as many of your own people as you want. If you do harbor and support terrorists, and you're stragically important, then even bribing the whole UN won't help you.

#5 You can even kill people and enslave them, if you either have a) nuclear weapons, b) big trade contracts with the US, or c) have no strategic importance to the US.

#6 You can't even have a little war if a) you haven't pissed off the US, but b) you're pissing off the Europeans, and c) the US has a president that wants to impress his European buddies, and d) that president has the power to "wag the dog".

Øyvind and Gunnar: Good discussion, you guys make me want to look more into these political economist theories. I thought I knew them, but I obviously did know them well enough. Its interresting stuff.
One comment though, I think that a person can be free to enjoy life, liberty and property, but still without total freedom. For instance censorship. Censoring the media doesnt stop anyone from owning stuff, yeah?

I think that a person can be free to enjoy life, liberty and property, but still without total freedom. For instance censorship. Censoring the media doesnt stop anyone from owning stuff, yeah?

But you're switching people. The point is that you can't violate the right to liberty(like speech) of the person wanting to speak, without violating, or threatening to violate his right to life or property. I'm not saying that it's all the same right, I'm saying that the rights are related, they go together. How do you rob or kidnap someone? threaten to take away their life.

For society as a whole, You're right that it's not an all or nothing thing. The govt can violate some or all rights for some or all people, one time, many times, or continuously.

Too bad there isn't a foolproof defense against the government. A constitution with checks and balances is good, but only as good as the people of each generation. They said the "price of liberty is eternal vigilance". Too bad we fell asleep at the wheel.

Allan,

Censoring the media would in effect be interring with the property rights of the owners of these media entities.

If a company lacks the freedom to publish what its journalists regards as true, if it does not have freedom to use its presses, its broadcast technology to express its views due to censorship, then clearly this is a case of infringed property rights.

Cheers,

David.

Okay, so censoring is not a good idea when you're capitalist. And I think that this is quite basic ideas that should be included in all societies that wants them. However, this does not seem to guarantee free hospitals and education for everyone, rich or poor. This is why you would also need to 'taint' the pure capitalism with some good ol' fashioned socialism. I dont mind paying a bit tax if I know that it will guarantee everyone in the society the equal right to education and medical treatment, and thus: equal right to succeed in life.

However, this does not seem to guarantee free hospitals and education for everyone, rich or poor. This is why you would also need to 'taint' the pure capitalism with some good ol' fashioned socialism. I dont mind paying a bit tax if I know that it will guarantee everyone in the society the equal right to education and medical treatment, and thus: equal right to succeed in life.

For a moral system of rights to be valid, they have to be universal. Just like in the last example, you leave people out. There can be no right to something that needs to be supplied by someone else, since that would mean that the other person doesn't have rights. A right means that it's yours, free and clear. You don't have to pay for the right to life, liberty and property, because they are yours.

If there was a right to education, then teachers would have no right to charge for it, they would be slaves of everyone who wanted an education. Look at this way, any legitimate right would still exist if you were stranded on a deserted island. How would your right to education be satisfied on an island. Where are your education slaves?

No, education and medical treatment are not rights, but services that people can pay for. That said, there is nothing wrong with people pooling their resources to pay for education for all children, based on the general benefits of an educated public.

It is a joke for someone who admires Herbert Marcuse to talk about "totalitarian capitalism." Marcuse supported both Pol Pot and Chairman Mao (although, like so many admirers of Communist totalitarianism, he chose to live in San Diego, California under "totalitarian capitalism") I submit that Marcuse did not really know a totalitarian system when he saw one.

"No, education and medical treatment are not rights, but services that people can pay for. That said, there is nothing wrong with people pooling their resources to pay for education for all children, based on the general benefits of an educated public"

But thats what I said.. Tax is the pool that the educated public pays.
Besides, It seems to me like you forgot some people as well. Who is supposed to protect your (and everyone's) right to life, liberty and property?
Is that something that comes for free, or do we have police slaves?

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1477