Consolidated power structures struggle for legitimacy. Partisans, like Phil Gramm, make the process more difficult and tend to be marginalized. Gramm's contribution to the consolidation process must be legitimized with more than his description of an inherent weakness of the masses that need him and neo-conservatives to lead them out of their dystopic delusions.
Since the benefit of consolidated power is highly exclusive, the general utility of it has to be phenomenologized. There must be a way to assure "The People" that power consolidated is not illegitimately unchecked. Thus, we have the function of the bureaucratic model of power.
It is necessary to create the appearance of pluralism in spite of elitist processes, policies and programs. While granting bureaucratic authority seems like sharing of power, it can be just the elitist administration of it, and one trick is to correlate events to give the appearance of legitimate public authority through pluralistic process of power.
We have, for example, the Bush administration lauding immunity of prosecution for telecoms in the war on terror, and the FCC announcing a precedent-setting ruling against Comcast's private regulation of internet content by not passing certain kinds of data tramsmissions.
Both cases fit an elitist model of power, and the solution also fits the model while falsely implying a legitimate pluralistic authority at the same time. This is just a psychological trick--a phenomenology.
Since the telecoms have been "allowed" to consolidate, and will continue to be allowed, private regulation of content has no legitimate authority of public process afforded by a free market mechanism if the content has no other route to take, or no free market alternative.
The argument is that centralizing telecom makes it easier to monitor for terroist signals intelligence. Really, for the most part, it's just a neo-con way to exercise command and control of communications for any purpose and gives authority to a supra-sovereign status.
The advocates of limiting the processes for freedom have no credibility of public service. They do not have the verifiable legitimacy of the public trust, never did, never will. Rather, that they cannot be trusted is thoroughly verified! That's why neo-conservatives advocate limiting, if not eliminating, the processes for ensuring freedom.
Free markets work. We just need to "allow" it to happen.
Finance free markets instead of consolidation of markets, freedom reigns!
Simple, effective, affordable regulation of markets is entirely possible with an easily verifiable legitimacy of the public good. We just have to decide to do it.
Very best wishes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment