War, Peace, and Politics

This is in response to an article pointing out recent cyber attacks traced to S. Korea, and mentioning China's stated goal of being able to win an information war by the middle of the 21st century.

Once again one of the many differences between the actual and the ideal worlds is highlighted. A lot can happen in the 40 years between now and the middle of the 21st century. My hope is that the deep idealogical conflicts that seem to exist between China and the USA are resolved in that amount of time, and that China joins the growing clan of "good democracies" in which the rule of law is supreme. Naturally, you can't require that a "good democracy" be democratic; our own republic is not. Niether can you really require any particular system of rationing: capitalism works for us, and it works for really good reasons, but our own military is a perfect demonstration of the fact that an alternate system for the distribution of goods and services can operate harmoniously. We don't practice capitalism. We just defend it. There are things that have the outward appearance of capitalism, but which are not capitalism. For example, the military cafeterias have a set price worldwide, and the price goes up every year in lock step with corresponding increases in our pay and allowances. The defense commisary system sells products at prices which do not always reflect the local marketplace. Milk, for instance, is particularly expensive in the local economy, but I pay almost the same milk price here as I did in Texas. On the other hand, some things are cheaper "out in town", on the real markets, because the commisary system has what may be termed a habitual audience. Yes, they're trying to make money, but not "too much", in some sense that wouldn't make sense to a capitalist. The profits are re-invested in the audience, and the operations are periodically inpected by military brass, so clearly the executives are working to a different measuring stick than those of your local capitalist grocery store.

So what is it about this rule of law that might unite all the nations? I'm still not sure, but without it, you can't have free markets. If the law of the land is might, then the markets are ruled by might, and that is not free, and that doesn't produce efficient distribution of goods and services. In fact, I would claim that the unfettered flow of information about the state of the market from place to place improves the lot of those who have access to it, so anyone with the power to control information will control the spice. The rule of law requires transparency into the operations of governments and markets. It requires universal education, so that the masses may understand the law at least well enough not to be easily duped and manipulated. And it requires that the masses have the right and ability to defend themselves against anyone that would trample on these rights, to include such arms and organization as may be necessary.

Universal education is a very difficult project. Even harder is to build and maintain the irrepressable spirit of a people. But given those requisites, no enemy, no matter how bold or clever, can defeat that people. Most enemies wouldn't even try. To attempt it, they'd need a large society with a seriously skewed outlook on international relations. I suspect that such an outlook could not stand up to serious critical scrutiny, so they'd have to be trained not to think critically about their government or its policies. A common thread at [- a certain school I recently attended -] was the assertion that America's present political enemies have developed just that type of society. Supposedly, these societies place strict controls on the information entering and leaving their countries, and its disemination in other respects. Perhaps the average totalitarian communist doesn't know what he's missing by living in such a country. Perhaps he's happy that way. But it does place a damper his nation's ability to win international friends and influence other nations in a favorable way.

We have developed our own ways to become odious, both within and without. Fortunately, we also have term limits, periodic (mostly) fair elections, and a governing body which is itself subject to the law. Therefore, armed conflict over leadership is neither necessary nor tenable. A coup in the USA would not work; nobody would respect it, and not one sensible person would participate. Should anyone attempt it, they've got the entire populace to fight off, not just a complacent ruling class. The closest thing that ever happened was the KKK and the religious right, both of which infiltrated governing postions to advance their own agendas at the expense of the law. That, then, is the shape of our nation's deadliest enemy.

In sum, I firmly believe that all the cyber-warfare is for naught if we neglect the essential governance of our collective spirit, and so long as that spirit is maintained, the rest will fall into place naturally.