jamespeek.com

Why do people allow others to rule over them despite constantly disagreeing with political agendas? Is being an American, a Canadian, a New Zealand Kiwi more or less important than a South African? Are American politicians, corrupt as they may be, actually guided by the invisible hand to guard my best interests because that in turn guards theres?

These are questions that Olson attempts to answer in his Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development article. Many things are implied or assumed that the reader will understand, and it would be to a reader’s advantage to examine the document closely and read it twice. While reading, ask yourself: “What has to be true for this to be possible?”.

The article explains the difference between roving bandits and stationary bandits. Before there were stationary bandits (dictators, presidents) there were roving bandits that would pillage communities and take from them what they wanted. The roving bandits eventually had a revelation and understood that they could get more from communities if they resided over them continuously and looked out after their well being and protected them. This so called monopolization of force enabled the stationary bandit to extract more money from these communities because the people had an incentive to work. The citizens knew that the bandit would protect them from other bandits.

I urge any student of politics or anybody interested in what is responsible for our current state to inspect the document.

Here is a link to the PDF for your inspection:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0554(199309)87:3%3C567:DDAD%3E2.0.CO;2-H

Today, Google’s market capitalization is almost $200 billion, which is almost five times the amount of Lockheed Martin a major war contract company. Google built a business on helping people obtain more knowledge and information while paving the way for many niche service industries to emerge on the internet. The price of the war in Iraq is said to cost the US government $100 billion per year. This means that the overall share price of Google, which reflects the overall worth we place on the company, could pay for two years of war in Iraq. Over the course of the past five years, the length of the Iraq war thus far, did we lose opportunities for Americans to create more companies like Google? Should we embrace new American businesses and not mend the wounds of our old businesses? To what lengths should we protect old businesses before we oppress potential new businesses by propping up companies like Lockheed Martin or GM? Is GM an icon that is worth preserving? Should Americans be raised to believe that resources are endless as long as you can afford them?

America’s most valuable asset is the creativity of it’s citizens. Americans sell ingenuity and innovation. The real question is how can we foster innovation and protect our icons?