Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fw: Rainbow Question

Expand Messages
  • Charles Vermont
    ... From: Charles Vermont To: Existentialism List Date: 22 August 1999 10:34 Subject: Rainbow Question ...
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 26 2:41 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      For those who missed it the first time around:


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Charles Vermont <Funchoice@...>
      To: Existentialism List <existlist@onelist.com>
      Date: 22 August 1999 10:34
      Subject: Rainbow Question


      On 17th August I outlined the following situation:

      >>>You are General Violet, head of the armed forces of a country called Indigo. Indigo has the following characteristics:

      a.. It is a less developed nation with a GDP per head in the bottom quartile for the world
      b.. Five families own most of the agricultural and industrial companies in the country. These are the Blues, the Greens, the Yellows and the Oranges and your family, the Violets, the richest of the lot.
      c.. The system of government is democratic, but for a member of one of the great five to hold the presidency would upset the delicate power balance between them. Therefore the President is your brother in law, Mr. Red. He has no power base but is also related to all the other four families.
      Indigo is suffering from a period of poor economic performance. This is leading to rioting in the cities. The trade unions are demanding more money and jobs for their members. The President refuses to take any action, afraid of upsetting any one of the five families. As a result the Blues and Greens have formed an alliance against the Oranges and Yellows. Both are training militia men on their estates and have already bought a large amount of weaponry. This rivalry is polarising the country, and even your grandchildren are being jostled at school because they refuse to take sides (as per your instructions). More sinisterly, the various Blues, Greens, Oranges and Yellows who lead the army, navy and air force are plotting against each other.

      The US and British ambassadors have visited. They put pressure on you to act to prevent wide-scale civil unrest. They hint at the possibility of a 'peace-keeping' mission whether you want one or not.

      Overthrowing the democratically elected President and imposing martial law will inevitably mean the detention of hundreds of conspirators and thousands of letters from Amnesty International. Supporting him may mean your ejection from the military high command and the other families ganging up on yours. There is also the possibility of a 'friendly' intervention from Nato.

      Following existentialist principles, what would you choose to do?<<<

      For me this situation is about the companion of freedom, namely responsibility. The Blues, Greens, Oranges and Yellows are all acting in a way which undermines the stability of Indigo's government. Unless General Violet imposes martial law then there is likely to be insurrection, civil war, and a great deal of bloodshed. However, if he does take this action then the result will also be bloodshed, so he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

      If I was General Violet I would reason as follows: The stability of the very fabric of Indigo's society is at risk here. Without that stability there will be a major reduction in the freedom of choice. By this I mean that if civil war occurs there will be shortages of food, water and housing, and the price of life will be very cheap. In such circumstances the mass of the population will have little choice but to search out the necessities of life, a situation which they mostly do not face at the moment. Under martial law there will be a significant reduction in choice over freedom of speech and freedom of association. For many there will also be political detention and very little freedom except the choice to commit suicide. However, there will still be more freedom of choice in Indigo under martial law than if a civil war erupts.

      This line of reasoning leads me to the conclusion that Indigo has tried the freer political atmosphere of democracy but the population has not taken sufficient responsibility for it. In other words, a new system has been tried and the people have been found wanting. Perhaps the problem lies with the five families who control the reigns of power in Indigo, perhaps it lies with their allies and followers, but the stark truth is that democracy has failed this time.

      As someone committed to freedom of choice I want to minimise the effect on Indigo of the failure of democracy so we can try it again as soon as possible and this time succeed. Therefore I would impose martial law.

      Returning to my own thoughts on this situation, I am not entirely happy with my suggestion. It seems to me it is a utilitarian approach since I am saying that what matters is the maximisation of freedom of choice in Indigo. I don't know why I am uncomfortable with this and would appreciate some input from others on the list.

      Charles Vermont
      London, UK
    • Gretchyn Lenger
      Okay Charles, i like the premise but the hypothetical is difficult. You call this a democracy but it seems to be more of an aristocracy if 5 families own a
      Message 2 of 3 , Aug 26 1:44 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Okay Charles, i like the premise but the hypothetical is difficult. You
        call this a democracy but it seems to be more of an aristocracy if 5
        families own a majority of the wealth. If as Gen Violet my true motivation
        was the greatest freedom for all, wouldn't i rather break up the five to
        benefit the many, distribute the wealth - including my own - and go more
        socialist? Of course, then it would be Cuba and I have an embargo to deal
        with, right?
        But the most authentic choice Violet could make is an equal distribution,
        even of his own, if that's his primary motivation.


        At 10:41 AM 8/26/1999 +0100, you wrote:
        > For those who missed it the first time around: -----Original
        >Message-----
        >From: <Funchoice@...>
        >To: <existlist@onelist.com>
        >Date: 22 August 1999 10:34
        >Subject: Rainbow Question
        >
        > On 17th August I outlined the following situation: >>>You are General
        >Violet, head of the armed forces of a country called Indigo. Indigo has
        >the following characteristics: It is a less developed nation with a
        >GDP per head in the bottom quartile for the world Five families
        >own most of the agricultural and industrial companies in the country.
        >These are the Blues, the Greens, the Yellows and the Oranges and your
        >family, the Violets, the richest of the lot. The system of government
        >is democratic, but for a member of one of the great five to hold the
        >presidency would upset the delicate power balance between them.
        >Therefore the President is your brother in law, Mr. Red. He has no
        >power base but is also related to all the other four families. Indigo
        >is suffering from a period of poor economic performance. This is leading
        >to rioting in the cities. The trade unions are demanding more money and
        >jobs for their members. The President refuses to take any action, afraid
        >of upsetting any one of the five families. As a result the Blues and
        >Greens have formed an alliance against the Oranges and Yellows. Both are
        >training militia men on their estates and have already bought a large
        >amount of weaponry. This rivalry is polarising the country, and even your
        >grandchildren are being jostled at school because they refuse to take
        >sides (as per your instructions). More sinisterly, the various Blues,
        >Greens, Oranges and Yellows who lead the army, navy and air force are
        >plotting against each other. civil unrest. They hint at the
        >possibility of a 'peace-keeping' mission whether you want one or not.
        >Overthrowing the democratically elected President and imposing martial law
        >will inevitably mean the detention of hundreds of conspirators and
        >thousands of letters from Amnesty International. Supporting him may mean
        >your ejection from the military high command and the other families
        >ganging up on yours. There is also the possibility of a 'friendly'
        >intervention from Nato. <<< For me this situation is about the
        >companion of freedom, namely responsibility. The Blues, Greens, Oranges
        >and Yellows are all acting in a way which undermines the stability of
        >Indigo's government. Unless General Violet imposes martial law then there
        >is likely to be insurrection, civil war, and a great deal of bloodshed.
        >However, if he does take this action then the result will also be
        >bloodshed, so he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. If I was
        >General Violet I would reason as follows: The stability of the very fabric
        >of Indigo's society is at risk here. Without that stability there will be
        >a major reduction in the freedom of choice. By this I mean that if civil
        >war occurs there will be shortages of food, water and housing, and the
        >price of life will be very cheap. In such circumstances the mass of the
        >population will have little choice but to search out the necessities of
        >life, a situation which they mostly do not face at the moment. Under
        >martial law there will be a significant reduction in choice over freedom
        >of speech and freedom of association. For many there will also be
        >political detention and very little freedom except the choice to commit
        >suicide. However, there will still be more freedom of choice in Indigo
        >under martial law than if a civil war erupts. This line of reasoning
        >leads me to the conclusion that Indigo has tried the freer political
        >atmosphere of democracy but the population has not taken sufficient
        >responsibility for it. In other words, a new system has been tried and the
        >people have been found wanting. Perhaps the problem lies with the five
        >families who control the reigns of power in Indigo, perhaps it lies with
        >their allies and followers, but the stark truth is that democracy has
        >failed this time. As someone committed to freedom of choice I want to
        >minimise the effect on Indigo of the failure of democracy so we can try it
        >again as soon as possible and this time succeed. Therefore I would impose
        >martial law. Returning to my own thoughts on this situation, I am not
        >entirely happy with my suggestion. It seems to me it is a utilitarian
        >approach since I am saying that what matters is the maximisation of
        >freedom of choice in Indigo. I don't know why I am uncomfortable with this
        >and would appreciate some input from others on the list. Charles Vermont
        >London, UK
        Gretchyn Lenger
        USC/ITV, OHE 108
        Los Angeles, CA 90089
      • T Brooks
        Why not simply leave military life, for one (citing Camus Neither Victim Nor Executioner : I am a lover, not a fighter), and perhaps do one of two other
        Message 3 of 3 , Aug 26 7:38 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Why not simply leave military life, for one (citing Camus' "Neither Victim
          Nor Executioner": I am a lover, not a fighter), and perhaps do one of two
          other things: (1) begin a movement to leave this warped democratic state or
          (2) begin a movement for popular reform of the system, such as instituting
          proportional representation (to counter strength of just five families) and
          try to change from presidential system to parliamentary.

          Noone said solutions had to be easy.

          Thom Brooks
          Dublin, Ireland
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.