This from an article by Jared Diamond called "why Societies make disasterous decisions." Although he talks about the "tragedy of the commons," which neo-classical and libertatian economists are quick to point out as one of the few important hypothetical scenarios for us to think about in terms of the choice of economic system, he also, below, alludes to the much more widespead problem of what we might call the "fortress society." Market Fundamentalists affinity for the former scenario is that they claim it as evidence for the need to have property rights for all property rather than leaving some property "common" or, heaven forbid (no, they really think it does) creating any sort of communal society. I have spoken a little about this before.

The latter scenario, of the Fortress society, which, in effect, is what Diamond speaks to below, is one that these economists are less likely to find problematic--or at least problematic in a way that the market can't solve on its own. But the truth of the matter is that if problems like these are to be solved, the guilt must be spread evenly, the externalities compensated for by their creators. In this case I have found it very curious that the most publicized public fines have been the indecency fines levied by the FCC. I suppose it makes sense for the media to pay extra attention to the fines being levied against it, but it seems like there is a more public interest in these fines as being something that actually goes after the "bad guys." But does it really make sense for these to be the big fines? Who really believes that Janet Jackson's tit was that damaging? Could it even be proven? Of all the public agencies to stand up and start enforcing the penalties on its books--and even raising the penalties to make them actually punitive, why this one? And if there was any WAY that these penalties could be enforced, why this one? Certainly there are many media conglomerates that could be defined as defying all sorts of ownership rules--why not penalize them for this? Instead, its all about content, a fairly banal measure in material terms but something that makes good press in the red states.

On the one hand, I am glad that a public agency is trying to protect the public from an industry and its externalities; but on the other it seems like there are so many other industries that do far more damage. In the latter case, the difference seems to be that these economists would stand up and oppose that sort of leveling of the playing field or enforcing of penalties for other industries but, for ideological reasons, probably find the FCC fines appropriate. Not only is this contradictory and probably indicative of a deep seeded conflict of interests, but it is yet another example of one of the many ways that our own growing fortress society, which sees the protection of the public as secondary to the protection of a select group--notice I am diffusing the agency of who is making this emphasis possible--as drifting towards the route of "sociteies which make disastrous decisions."



"Failure to solve perceived problems because of conflicts of interest between the elite and the rest of society are much less likely in societies where the elite cannot insulate themselves from the consequences of their actions. For example, the modern country of which the highest proportions of its citizens belong to environmental organizations is the Netherlands. I never understood why until I was visiting the Netherlands a few years ago and raised this question to my Dutch colleagues as were driving through the countryside. My Dutch friends answered, "Just look around you and you will see the reason. The land where we are now is 22 feet below sea level. Like much of the area of Holland it was once a shallow bay of the sea that we Dutch people surrounded by dikes and then drained with pumps to create low-lying land that we call a polder. We have pumps to pump out the water that is continually leaking into our polders through the dikes. If the dikes burst, of course the people in the polder drown. But it is not the case that the rich Dutch live on top of the dikes, while the poor Dutch are living down in the polders. If the dikes burst, everybody drowns, regardless of whether they are rich or poor. That was what happened in the terrible floods of February 1, 1953, when high tides and storms drove water inland over the polders of Zeeland Province and nearly 2000 Dutch people drowned. After that disaster, we all swore, 'Never again!' and spent billions of dollars building reinforced barriers against the water. In the Netherlands the decision-makers know that they cannot insulate themselves from their mistakes, and that they have to make compromise decisions that will be good for as many people as possible."