9984: Re: 9982: Re:9969 Re:9892: Re:9889 Florestal replies to Poincy (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: "[iso-8859-1] Jean Poincy" <caineve@yahoo.fr>

 
> Poincy’s arguments so far failed to pass any test
> that
> would show consistently his solutions would solve
> the
> economic and social problems of Haiti. 

To speak in past tense of my argument failing the
test, there must be circumstances where it was applied
in the exact manner I am presenting it. There has
never been any such situation in contemporary Ayiti.
One should not be tempted to equate my formula with
past dictatorships in Ayiti. The closest one to what I
am advocating can be found at the country's inception
with Christophe and he has always been my reference.

If there was success with him then why not today when
ideas are more refined? We should allow ourselves to
explore this avenue rather than blindly battling
against it in favor of democracy, the kind for which
Ayiti is unfit considering the political culture in
the country.

> Some of the tests may be whether or not security
> will
> always, in the case of Haiti, be conducive to
> economic
> development. 

That's quite a speculative approach to affirm that my
argument has failed. If you mean to assimilate the
period where there was political stability under
Duvalier with security and there was no economic
progress, I have no quarrel with that, but you need to
keep in mind that such was never REALLY assiociated
with workable means of economic development. 

To make an objective judgement, both security and the
pursuit of economic development must be present. I
mean real economic development and not the bogus
economic development of the assembly industry in the
70s. Put aside Christophe's era, in no time in Ayitian
history you will find the coordination of
security/political stability and sustainable economic
development.

>While he claims that creativity is
> required for economic development...

I firmly stand behind this and add wise macro-economic
policies to go along with it.

> it is not proven that by having security you will
> automatically get creativity.  

Maybe that's your idea. There is a one way
relationship between the two and you got it in
reverse. Security can be a product of creativity and
never the other way around.
 
> He’ll get no arguments from me on the first part. On
> the second part, he is suggesting that we all have
> the
> abilities, if not the same, to feed our stomach, and
> is denying that when resources are limited, one with
> multiple talents may take not only his share but
> also
> those of the lesser talented, making it extremely
> difficult for them to carry out their responsibility
> of feeding themselves. 

If we agree that government is the creation of men
whom were feeding themselves without its presence, but
at an undesired risk of mutual destruction, then we
will also agree that its primary function is to be the
absolute security agent of the society. 

However, later on more responsibilities fall on its
lap for the simple fact that equality is just
impossible to achieve, the reasons you cited exemplify
that quite well. At this juncture, all that it can do
is to make sure equity (and not equality)is "au
rendez-vous" to have a well-balanced society and again
to keep effective its primary function as a security
agent. 

Where there is no equity, justice fails, the victims
react and the society falls into chaos. In any society
you find such a scenario, the government's existence
becomes precarious. In fact, all that a government
does with its social programs is to enhance its main
function as a collective security provider. I would
say that aiding the disables, the impotents or the
victims is just an auxiliary policy of collective
security.

The "exclusion principle" is inherent to any society
where men aim at going beyond survival and want more
out of life. This principle is that if I make a dollar
I can buy a piece of bread, otherwise I'll go hungry.
It's not the fault of any other man. It's unfortunate
that naturally some would fall in this category, but
this is a hard fact of life that one must have a grip
on. 

This is one's labor we are talking about. This is the
basis of one's most important property right. Should
we expect in a society of no government the stranger
be obliged to share the fruit of his labor with
another stranger that he has never seen? I don't think
so. However, and this is were I agree with you, for
some reasons one might suffer injustice from another
unduely, this is negative externalities that only an
absolute security agent can correct. 

The only way the government can counteract that is by
being a bread provider for some and enacting social
policies protecting the weak. This has nothing to do
with compassion. This has to do more to rational
politics, good politics and real politics aiming at
maintaining a well balanced and peaceful collectivity.
If you wish to call that compassion, be my guess.

Again, I am restating the foremost responsibility of a
government is to ensure collectivity and anything else
that you mention just fall in the category that
supports its RESPONSIBILITY. The government of Ayiti
is not immuned from such. The more it fails to do so,
the less we will have a functioning society.

I can push it further to say that the more a
government enables individuals to conduct their
private activities for their own interest provided
that negative externalities can be curbed, everyone
will benefit directly or indirectly from others'
fruit. 

It's like taking different instruments executing
different tunes, but when put all together, you get
the most sensual touch to one's auditory nerves. 
    
> There is nothing wrong with getting outside help. 

I agree with you. But when you know they don't want to
give you and if they happen to give you, it can't help
you achieve what you want, what's the point of begging
instead of trying to pull things by yourself? Ayiti's
asking for help is not justified. They have nothing in
the making. There is no WORK IN PROGRESS. Just prove
me wrong on that case. If there were something in the
making to show and there is a need for financial
assistance, I would fully support external financial
assistance. 

That is not the case. If you keep asking when there is
nothing in the making and they keep refusing you, I
call it begging and it is humiliating. If by
compassion they give the few pennies, what will those
pennies be used for if it's for private use?
 
> It can also be argued that the WORK IN REGRESS –
> assuming economic decline here - is caused by
> successive dictatorships and lack of democracy.

A revision of Ayitian history and right at the
beginning with Christophe, needless to say Toussaint's
era, will prove you wrong.
 
> Here again, as in many of Poincy’s arguments in this
> post or in past ones, the problem is simple and so
> is
> the solution. 

Yes! Indeed, the problem is simple. It becomes complex
as we are seeking complex solutions to resolve it. All
Ayiti has been doing is laying out inappropriate and
complex solutions. It's a matter of knowing what to
do.

> Competition between countries does not
> seem to be a factor. External forces don’t seem to
> affect the conditions in the country and its
> relatively short life span does not seem to
> influence its prosperity. 

Of course these factors are considered. In fact, along
with hardship, they are the seeds of creativity. They
are far to be an impediment. Fearing competition is
inherent to the Ayitian mentality; it is reflected in
their aggressive and hateful attitude toward one
another.

> existed for thousands of years in a state that may
> have been worst then what Haiti is now. Haiti is new
> and still in a learning curve, and not until the
> 20th
> century was denied the right of existence and had to
> make do with illiterate slaves and their illiterate
> descendants with no traditions of running a large
> social group and no time to learn how to do it. 

This argument would hold, if at any point you could
show that there was an interest or a will of making
things different. In the mid 1950s almost every
country was getting their piece of the pie from the
industrial  revolution one way or another, Ayiti was
one country that did not know any form of progress. 

Considering Ayiti as still young and justifying its
backwardness after almost 200 years is an offense to
mankind. 

> It
> took thousand of years to the European and Asian
> societies before they made it there. Haiti is less
> han
> 200 years old.   

You are talking of societies that have contributed to
modern civilization even during their period of dark
ages. This is not the case for Ayiti. I could
understand, progress could be slow, but they are
regressing every day. Look at the way the politicians
are behaving today. Let's be real at least once!

One can evaluate its level of creativity when facing
hardship. A society can remain at the survival cap 
only when creativity is lacking. If you tell me they
find way to survive all that long. I will tell you
that's it! Finding means of survival does not make a
people creative. It is natural to find means of
survival and one will always find something. 

But being creative goes beyond the point of survival.
One can't just survive, one must live and Ayitians are
not living. If they were creative, they would find
ways to go beyond their state of survival. Rather,
they fall in the most vicious and rapacious way of
life. Do we call this creativity? I don't think so. I
don't know about you. 

I am sorry, it's a hard fact. I don't let pity and
compassion veil my eyes.

Ayiti has lived, lives and will live
Mozeb

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Courrier : http://courrier.yahoo.fr