13 January 2007

to market to market

One of the little things that has been rattling around my thoughts for a while is the proposition, "what does it mean to live in a market economy"? Not in the meaning of privatisation of previously publicly provided services, but the little things that suddenly hit you.

For me, one of those has been White Pages online, and how the default setting is for the business directory, not residential. The implication is that we would mostly be looking for a business number, we'd already know any private ones. Or, on balance, we would know more residential numbers that we need, than business numbers.

I guess someone's done the analysis and that's why it's set to business. But I have to say it signalled to me another little chip away at whatever it is we mean by 'society'. It's much more important to be calling a business, so we can do business. Don't take your eyes off that GDP.

Anyway that's a little thing and if I want to get all bothered by it, problem bilong me. I'd be interested in anyone else's little examples, though. They add up, you know.

But this is a
whole other thing: US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for detainees (actually, more against them than for them) threatens companies not to give business to legal firms representing detainees at Guantanamo (via Surfdom and prawfsblawg) (and elsewhere, for that matter). It'd be easy to dismiss it because it is the Bush administration which has taken bastardisation of the system of government to a new low and I guess we have no expectations of sense, decency or an understanding of the limits to government in a supposed democracy. But Stimson's comments betray either such a fundamental lack of understanding of the limits of the law, or just unbridled arrogance, that they can't be ignored.

If the government of a country is so focused on protecting economic activity that it will threaten companies about who they should do business with, there is a plot that has been lost (if you follow me), all legal niceties aside.

In this case, of course we also have to think about what Stimson's comments mean for David Hicks. We always knew he would never a get a fair trial, but did we expect this? Well, Mr Ruddock? Anything to say?

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good to see your back!

Mr Ruddock may have little to say at the moment, but his News Limited mates are working overtime on damage control:

The kids dumped by Hicks (The most disgusting paparazzi work that I have seen for years) http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21048687-5007132,00.html

And for real spin:
http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21016780-7583,00.html (Editorial: Hicks's day in court is much overdue).

Davoh said...

funny really, power blackouts (electricity deprivation, none of the toys work). Last time the lights went out, spent the time a. furious, b. resigned, c. lighting a candle, d. wandering around the house wondering what to do, e. found a piano Shit! it worked, f. peeked out of the window and noticed flickering lights in the street, and g. ventured out and had a chat with the neighbours for the first time in two years.

mm, there must be a story there, somewhere .. heh.

(and Hicks has done his time - enough is enough, bring him home.)

phil said...

There's a baby boom in northern Qld because the inhabitants had to fall back on making their own fun when Cyclone Larry cut the power. Obviosuly a bit of race memory going on.

You can play a piano in the dark, it's good fun. As Ray Charles said, "I'll throw in the black keys for free."

About Me