It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institutions and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones.—Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter 6.

E debbasi considerare, come non è cosa più difficile a trattare, né più dubia a riuscire, né più pericolosa a maneggiare, che farsi capo ad introdurre nuovi ordini; perché lo introduttore ha per nimici tutti quelli che degli ordini vecchi fanno bene, e ha tepidi defensori tutti quelli che delli ordini nuovi farebbono bene.—Niccolò Machiavelli, Il Principe, Capitolo VI.

When we silence our differences we go back to a past that I am not proud of.

Press conference (that was not shown on TV) discussing the case of documentarist Elena Varela, who filmed a documentary on the conflict between forest companies and mapuches in Chile.

One of my favourite quotes is used by Ayn Rand in the first few pages of The Fountainhead:

The question isn’t who is going to let me; it’s who is going to stop me — Ayn Rand.

I read this book a couple of years ago, when I really enjoyed the ideas, despited of the stilted characters and dialogues. Anyway, we can always challenge ourselves — and the world during this process — if we act upon our believes and values. Or, using Rand’s words, ‘Every man builds his world in his own image. He has the power to choose, but no power to escape the necessity of choice’. Human beings always face this choice: What is the best use of the present time? Our answers determine our success and failure in every endeavour.

The song reflects a lot of my experiences when I was twenty, although I was actually eleven at the time the song refers to. I have hyperlinked some of the references that may not be clear for a casual reader.

I still love some of S&N songs, although I disagree with much of their politics. Anyway, they surely are consistent with their beliefs.

Recuerdo cuando yo tenía veinte años
mi pelo flotando, mi paso corriendo
saltando los charcos de calle Picarte
mi padre dormía con un ojo abierto
con el toque de queda, el alma en alerta
y yo maldiciendo milicos de mierda
con el corazon camuflado de sombras, de sombras

Recuerdo el olor de la chicha ‘e manzana
sentirse feliz por estar en la Teja
fundando ciudades, construyendo puentes
el vicerrector nos tenía prohibido
cantarle a la gente era muy subversivo
lo mejor sería agachar la cabeza
unirse al rebaño y no hacer poesía

Recuerdo en la tele Martín dale duro
jugate el pellejo como un pelo duro
recuerdo los hornos de cal de Lonquén
el gobierno escribe: así vamos bien
…mañana mejor

Recuerdo las buenas cervezas del Paula
donde Jorge Millas fumaba el futuro
lo bueno de aquello era estar convencidos
que todo lo que uno hiciera al momento
sería la llave y la puerta del tiempo
la lluvia era siempre un buen argumento
pa’ hacer navegado y bajar al invierno
al infierno…

Recuerdo a González rayando murales
y a toda la DINA escarbando mi casa
mientras yo a escondidas hacia el amor
riéndonos juntos de todo el horror
…todo el error

If you do not understand the lyrics leave it like that; please do not destroy them using any automated translator.

The CD also contained a beautiful version of Luchín, an old Victor Jara song. I think that child poverty affects me more now than ever before because Orlando is so close. And yes, I still think that capitalism is the solution.

I think that one of the major ‘whack on the head’ moments was realising that claiming an admirable objective is completely different from achieving it. That, in addition to the realisation that many good intentioned policies actually achieved opposite effects was enough to decide start reading about economics and ‘classical liberal’ approaches. The last part of my excuse is that I was first exposed to free market principles under Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship.

I still believe that imposing economic change without political freedom is wrong, and costed me years of rejecting open economies. The problem is this: an unelected government (a dictatorship to be honest) pushes for economic reform. Because I disagree in principle with a dictatorship and the lack of freedom, I will tend to oppose most policies, even reasonable ones. At some point this includes supporting the opposite of economic freedom, well, sort of. Chile represents a funny free market, an economic system that for many years lacked transparency.

An interesting feature of this dicothomy between ‘market freedom’ and ‘political freedom’ is the attitude towards democracy in Latin America. The Economist published the results of The Latinobarómetro poll, and even in countries like Chile—that has had major economic growth—around 50% of people are still ‘not very satisfied’ or ‘not at all satisfied’ with the way democracy works (see Figure 3 in the linked document). So, why are people still struggling to come to terms with a freer system? I would venture that there are at least two important reasons:

• The extreme level of inequality¹ still present in society. By the way, I do not believe that one of the reasons for this is the presence of a capitalist system but that the system is not truly capitalist² yet. The major issues would be: the existence of a small number of people restricting a proper access to a market economy for the rest of the population, and lack of property rights, with a substantial proportion of transactions in an informal economy³; namely Hernando de Soto’s dead capital argument.
• The feeling that there is a ‘restricted version’ of democracy, where there are still groups of people (e.g., higher ranks of the military, very rich people) who are beyond the reach of the legal system. That is, a feeling of lack of justice and unfairness, which I think is being corrected, albeit very slowly.

Is a future of free market and democracy possible for developing countries? I believe so, particularly if we are talking about ‘real capitalism’, with more responsible politicians and business people, as well as a preoccupation for the unintended consequences of electoral promises. May be there are too many ‘ifs’ in the previous sentence, but the experience of countries like Venezuela⁴—devastated by demagogy and government/business inbreeding—may be a good reminder for personal and social responsibility.

Footnotes

¹ I do not think that the mere existence of inequality is in itself an issue (I do not mind about the existence of multimillionaires). The problem is when there is still a large proportion of people that has little hope for the future, as is still the case in many Latin American countries.

² This is well put by Johan Norberg in his In defence of global capitalism book. By capitalism he means (PDF 112KB):

…the liberal market economy, with its free competition based on the right of using one’s property, the freedom to negotiate, to conclude agreements and to start up business activities. What I am defending, then, is individual liberty in the economy. Capitalists are dangerous when, instead of capitalist ownership, they join forces with the government. If the state is a dictatorship the enterprises can actually be a party to human rights violations, as for example in the case of a number of western oil companies in African states. By the same token, capitalists frequenting the corridors of political power in search of benefits and privileges are not capitalists either. On the contrary, they are a threat to the free market and as such must be criticised and counteracted. It often happens that businessmen want to play politics and politicians want to play at being businessmen. This is not a market economy, it is a mixed economy in which entrepreneurs and politicians have confused their roles. Free capitalism exists when politicians pursue liberal policies and entrepreneurs do business.

³ This problem is also linked to environmental degradation.

⁴ I am not ‘just picking’ on Venezuela. I lived five years in the country and have very good memories of its people and landscape.

P.S. 2005-11-10: Johan Norberg emailed me saying that ‘I’m sure I would also have shared your attitude had I experienced that’.

• Recovery of citizenship and accepting the principle of ‘ius sanguinis’ (acquisition of citizenship through descent—textually, by right of blood). This would give my son access to Chilean citizenship.
• Elimination of designated (non-elected) and lifetime senators.
• Reduction of the presidential period from six to four years.
• The president can now remove commanders in chief of the military and security forces, without requiring the consent of any external authorities.
• The National Security Council (Consejo de Seguridad Nacional) has its role greatly reduced, minimising its interference in public affairs.

Finally, after fifteen years of recovering democracy (year and a half after a famous plebiscite), there are substantial changes to the political system eliminating several of the vestiges (but not all) of a dictatorial system.

Flashback: twelve years of Catholic school listening about good and evil, some times as abstract concepts, some times personified in strange caricatures. Then in 1982 I came across The Rubaiyat, by Omar Khayyam and read:

Pen, tablet, heaven and hell I looked to see
Above the skies, from all eternity;
At last the master sage instructed me,
‘Pen, tablet, heaven and hell are all in thee’.

There are a few bad people amongst us, walking with hell inside them. As John Quiggin pointed out, this is a time for solidarity with Indonesian people.

Best practice does not necessarily mean ‘good practice’. As an example, until not long ago corporal punishment was considered best practice from a pedagogical point of view. Now it is neither considered best nor good, but an abhorrent practice. When used in environmental discussion, best practice is a catch all phrase (normally used by government) that really means we think it is good, it is done in other places and nobody has complained too much about it.

Have you ever wondered how come that there are so many things that need to be ‘saved’? Saved from what or from who? No is a very interesting word, because it means opposition and negation and it does not propose anything. If I say NO to something it seems that I do not need to be pro anything. I have met quite a few people in the environmental discussion in Tasmania that oppose forestry activity not necessarily because of the environmental effects—which are much more marked in agriculture, for example—but because is conducted by big corporations (as oppossed to many farmers). When asked ‘How would you provide all the goods and services without corporations?’ they produce very weak responses, because they have not thought the issue through, because they are against X rather than pro Y.

And going back to past elections and weasels

I have to acknowledge that I voted for Mark Latham in the 2004 federal election. In spite of Latham’s lack of coherence and a pathetic forest policy, I could not bring myself to stomach the Liberals’ policies towards refugees. As it should be clear to the reader by now, Labor and Latham had their bottoms kicked.

Back to almost the present, last week the ABC broadcasted Andrew Denton’s ‘Enough Rope’ program, after a short lived legal battle with News Limited. In the interview Latham showed to be a real psycho: he was accusing almost everybody else of acting like, mmh, Mark Latham. As Matthew 7:3 said ‘Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?’ or—if you are a King James person—‘And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?’ or—to add a Spanish touch—‘viendo la paja en el ojo ajeno pero no la viga en el propio’.

He showed complete disregard for his party colleagues, particularly Kim Beazley, the current leader of the opposition. What I find disturbing is not that he despises politicians (don’t we all do?) but that knowing the status of the party, the moral quality of his colleagues and the lack of conviction in their policies he still decided to present himself as potential prime minister material supported by that kind of people. Note to self: do not ever forget the level of stupidity reigning in the Labor party.