I don't think you know what Authoritarianism means.

Let's just use the correct descriptions: syndoanarchalist cryptofascists.

Thanks.

Oh, and it's not a Monarchy in Saudi Arabia, since that would require the Saudi King to have been the tribal leader of all the tribes in that country, which never happened.

Enjoy your toys.

(Golob, that is. I have no idea what the hell WiS is on about, but then that's not unusual.)

Uh, Moscow 1980? Sarajevo 1984?

Other than that, a characteristically brilliant post, Jonathan.

a) it's one thing to admire the ideals of "notion of a government of the people, by the people in which the law is king and all is overseen by a vigorous judicial system" but it is pollyanna thinking, at best, if you really believe thats been implemented consistantly or fairly over the last 235 years in the U.S.

b) Seems like you really misread both the Omnivores Dilemma and Collapse, if what you took away was some sort of worship or apology for Authoritairnism, both books had their flaws but thats not really one of 'em.

c) Wasn't the 1980 Summer Olympics held in Moscow, but that doesn't count 'cause the freedom and rule of law loving Americans weren't at them, right?

And I don't wish to characterize Pollen or Diamond as fascists--just that both implicitly buy into the notion that there is a trade-off between liberty and efficacy.

On Moscow in 1980: with the boycott, I wasn't sure if that counted as a real Olympics.

-Amen Brother!

But this is one of the central concepts to micro econ and libertarianism; it's not that government is inherently bad, it is that there often times that government are making choices that arent optimal to the individual or group of individuals or that can't take into account the net effect on the individual or has the information that the entire market of individuals has. Or that the preference of values a central decision maker don't reflect the greater values of the decisions they are making for other people.

The regime was booted out a year before the games started, so while the games weren't held in an authoritarian state, they certainly were sponsored by one.

Take the Critical Areas Ordinances. Some people in King County might believe their liberty is being infringed upon by these laws restricting use of their land. But, these are laws enacted, enforced and written in a (more or less) functional democracy, with the consent of the majority of the residents in King County. I'd say this is an example of big-L Liberty being properly used to enact environment-saving restrictions on some people's little-L liberty.

In contrast, the anti-pollution measures taken by the Beijing government were decided and enforced by pure fiat. I'd argue, because the majority wasn't consented--because big-L Liberty was ignored--they failed.

It's a bargain with the devil that China seems to have made in order to get the economic benefits to modernize its economy. Remember only 30 years ago a billion Chinese were consistently under nourished, and it's probably not hard to fall into the trap that degrading the environment is not such a terrible thing compared to mass starvation.

Regarding the Jared Diamond magic wand idea: remember that in the short term, a "benign dictator" could theoretically do better than a democracy since it can dictate the "right" action and enforce it without opposition. Our democratic system, however, will always outperform dictatorships in the long term, since chances are dictators gets corrupted by power, or hand power off to his far less benign and maladjusted descendants.

The current sentiment that "we are losing" is just a temporary illusion. I see no need to feel defeatist about our political system.

I don't think Diamond was praising dictatorship as a preferred form of government. In the chapter before the one on China, he talked about General Balaguer of the Dominican Republic, who instituted many environmental reforms by force. I look at this not as an endorsement of dictators, but of strong, effective governments. The U.S. could (and has) instituted many of the same reforms by popular vote and representative government. China, as Fnarf noted, no longer has a strong government. Is that because of the rise of the evil capitalist bourgeousie? Possibly. China is in a weird transitional state.

On a good day, LA in the old bad days was still cleaner than what Beijing is now.

Although London used to be able to give it a run for the money back in Victorian times.

Heck, we could start arguing over the killer fogs in Paris at the time if you want, or why the Marais are known for their pestilence, but the reality is that Beijing today is far far far worse than LA ever was in the 70s.

Now, go out and enjoy our much milder smog here.

Otherwise, I like your thoughts. You probably don't care, however, for this factual information I've provided.