I suggest that both those who refute an already adopted global policy and those who initially proposed it be rewarded. Rewards may urge bold or influential individuals in different forums to exhibit their readiness to engage in the critical examination of an adopted global policy. For example, rewarding both those who offer a solution to the global terrorism problem and those who refute the adopted policy to contain the problem, may urge bold or influential individuals to critically examine the policy. All concerned may, then, learn from the mistakes and the unwanted and unintended consequences of the adopted policy that were pointed out by those who critically examined the policy and proposed refutations. The end-result may be more options to choose from for reforms. In other words, rewards provide incentives for making policies more easily reversible and thus protect the world from big mistakes that may lead to its collapse.
Popper’s negativism and situational logic are instructive in the implementation of my suggestion. Though Popper does not discuss global politics, his followers - Agassi, Jarvie, Kagayama and others - develop his negativism and situational logic considerations further. When the issues are survival and global politics, negativism and situational logic considerations attain global – wide-scale - dimensions. My suggestion is spelled out both from Popper’s philosophy and the developments proposed by his followers. It is not surprising, however, that not all agree with my suggestion.
According to neoconservative liberals, global politics is the outcome of competing global policies to any global problem. Any global policy, they say, may be naturally replaced by more adequate policies within the available bunch of global policies proposed to solve any global problem at hand: Competition among policies to restrain global terrorism may naturally replace less adequate policies. According to social democrats, global politics is the outcome of expert knowledge adopted by bureaucrats, who are authorized to reasonably choose the policy to be applied to the global problem at hand. Any policy may be replaced, social democrats go on, by a more adequate policy proposed by experts.
Neither neocons nor social democrats find good sense in giving bold or influential individuals, incentives to engage in the critical examination of the adopted global policy. Meanwhile, political, social and economic developments within the context of globalization point towards the formation of a democratic global government or institution, in order to implement global politics. Armed both with Popper’s negativism and situational logic considerations, and with more options to choose from, a global government may moderate the confusion around global politics and more easily reverse mistakes.
on rewards or maybe not so much on rewards but on two different outlook to global politics each expecting to reap a bettr reward than the other: outlook -1 according to this outlook global politics should be procedural only without any redlines it cannot cross if procedures lead there. explanation: if it is decided in line with the accepted procedure - say majority vote to let a region to its destiny (say Darfur) even if we know there is systematic extermination of a people, then we should abide to this decision. outlook-2 there are redlines that we should not cross even if the accepted procedures (say a majority vote) lead that way. In this case thenwe should interfere where there is systematic extermination even if the majority vote says otherwise. Though outlook-2 is less democratic than outlook-1, the adoption of outlook-2 builds more trust in the system than outlook-1. The bottom line is what is the minimum intervention necessary to maintain trust in a system, a democratic system that can destroy itself and turn into a dictatorship if trust in it is not maintained
2 comments:
I suggest that both those who refute an already adopted global policy and those who initially proposed it be rewarded. Rewards may urge bold or influential individuals in different forums to exhibit their readiness to engage in the critical examination of an adopted global policy. For example, rewarding both those who offer a solution to the global terrorism problem and those who refute the adopted policy to contain the problem, may urge bold or influential individuals to critically examine the policy. All concerned may, then, learn from the mistakes and the unwanted and unintended consequences of the adopted policy that were pointed out by those who critically examined the policy and proposed refutations. The end-result may be more options to choose from for reforms. In other words, rewards provide incentives for making policies more easily reversible and thus protect the world from big mistakes that may lead to its collapse.
Popper’s negativism and situational logic are instructive in the implementation of my suggestion. Though Popper does not discuss global politics, his followers - Agassi, Jarvie, Kagayama and others - develop his negativism and situational logic considerations further. When the issues are survival and global politics, negativism and situational logic considerations attain global – wide-scale - dimensions. My suggestion is spelled out both from Popper’s philosophy and the developments proposed by his followers. It is not surprising, however, that not all agree with my suggestion.
According to neoconservative liberals, global politics is the outcome of competing global policies to any global problem. Any global policy, they say, may be naturally replaced by more adequate policies within the available bunch of global policies proposed to solve any global problem at hand: Competition among policies to restrain global terrorism may naturally replace less adequate policies. According to social democrats, global politics is the outcome of expert knowledge adopted by bureaucrats, who are authorized to reasonably choose the policy to be applied to the global problem at hand. Any policy may be replaced, social democrats go on, by a more adequate policy proposed by experts.
Neither neocons nor social democrats find good sense in giving bold or influential individuals, incentives to engage in the critical examination of the adopted global policy. Meanwhile, political, social and economic developments within the context of globalization point towards the formation of a democratic global government or institution, in order to implement global politics. Armed both with Popper’s negativism and situational logic considerations, and with more options to choose from, a global government may moderate the confusion around global politics and more easily reverse mistakes.
on rewards or maybe not so much on rewards but on two different outlook to global politics each expecting to reap a bettr reward than the other:
outlook -1
according to this outlook global politics should be procedural only without any redlines it cannot cross if procedures lead there.
explanation: if it is decided in line with the accepted procedure - say majority vote to let a region to its destiny (say Darfur) even if we know there is systematic extermination of a people, then we should abide to this decision.
outlook-2
there are redlines that we should not cross even if the accepted procedures (say a majority vote) lead that way. In this case thenwe should interfere where there is systematic extermination even if the majority vote says otherwise.
Though outlook-2 is less democratic than outlook-1, the adoption of outlook-2 builds more trust in the system than outlook-1. The bottom line is what is the minimum intervention necessary to maintain trust in a system, a democratic system that can destroy itself and turn into a dictatorship if trust in it is not maintained
Post a Comment