My analysis of third parties in 2012, mainly because I'm NOT voting for Mitt Romney and I'm not voting for Obama.
So as I have stated before, I'm not voting for Obama in 2012 given among other strikes:
Signing the NDAA allowing indefinite detention of US citizens. - I don't care if he was 'forced' to sign it or avoid losing political capital.
Capitulation to the Republicans on the Debt crisis. - You do not negotiate with political terrorists and encouraging this kind of behavior actually did more damage to our credit rating than the deficit itself did.
Treatment of Occupy - You might not be a fan of occupy but a coordinated response by the DHS against mostly peaceful protesters to get mayors and police to crush them in a short period of time is absolutely unacceptable.
Failure to Prosecute Bush - This isn't going away. Ever.
Now Added: Absolutely terrible governance on the health care debate. Failure to fix the senate allowed a handful of democrats to have their way including Olympia Snow when it should have been HIM leading the debate, not the other way around.
Caveat: If the Supreme Court is as blatant about throwing down AHA as they were with Citizen's United and ignore existing precedent for the last 60-70 years, I will be forced to vote for Obama. It is not that they might throw it down that bothers me, as there are several ways they can do this but if they effectively make the commerce clause interpretation go back to what it was pre 1937 it means that the conservative justices all lied about their honoring of Stare Decisis, and that the Supreme Court is a wholly political and illegitimate branch of government.
As such, fixing the court will take priority over Obama and I might even move early to have a vote that matters.
Again, it isn't IF they reject the law but HOW.
At any rate...so 3rd parties.
Not a fan of Libertarians really, especially the randian streak but they are a strong party and any 3rd party doing well sends a message to the Cowardly Democrats. This is a rather interesting article about the chances of the Libertarian candidate this year. He could play spoiler. We have a whole generation that has forgotten Ross Perot and they don't remember much about Nader either. 12 years is an eternity in the small political minds of most Americans, but he has the advantage of a significant majority position in a lot of areas that are important people; specifically low deficits and a complete uncaring about social conservatism. Ron Paul SAYS he is socially liberal but he's not. Which means he has voted to repeal many protections on a federal level for women's rights...or not voted in favor of them. Gary Johnson is different. He's also opposed to the absolutely STUPID war on Drugs which Obama has actually ramped up through Holder the Idiot.
I admit, I just don't like the Greens. I should. I am a firm AGW believer. The greens are more liberal than most democrats and I should be voting for them all the way. I. Don't. Care. Unlike my parents, I am not a big fan of Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader after he ran in 2004 despite a need for the left to rally against Bush. They seem way too caught up in their own view point, and they also believe in the carbon tax which I think is useless. Better to have, literally, a conservative tax because their beliefs are doing more damage to the planet. Seriously. Reality denial should cost people money, especially in a political system where cash is speech. I might vote green, but they've got a lot to do to impress me, and I haven't investigated them this year. If they're like they have been the last several election cycles, forget it.
One group that is definitely attracting my attention is the Pirate Party. I can see Occupy aligning with them more than the Greens even though they support both groups. Indeed if the Occupy movement could form an alliance with the Pirate Party they might be able to make some significant headway. I doubt they could win, simply because the Pirate PArty is so new, but they could do what third parties do best which is affect the narrative, and SOPA, PIPA, CISPA and Copyright and Patent Law have gotten ridiculous in this country. More importantly, the PP could theoretically do a better job of creating a third party alliance with the special snowflake greens and libertarians to reform the electoral process since they are not left/right but instead pro freedom which both greens and libertarians can embrace.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Monday, April 30, 2012
Review - The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
This book has aged far better than the Communist Manifesto, both in terms of the applicability of the theories found therein, and in terms of the respect with which it is had by the general population. However, having read it, I find the general application of anarchy libertarianism to be functionally hilarious. Smith neither advocates nor evidences for the kind of magical 'free market' thinking espoused by today's captains of industry.
What he does do, is show with stunning thoroughness, the ripple effects of limits by the state on resources that are artificially placed or by private individuals in such a state or by circumstances. He does indeed show the nature of a TRUE free market, which is allowed to operate on its own and show the historical real world examples that allow one nation to prosper and another to perish.
The level of research he does is also fascinating, especially understanding that he lived in an age which required months of travel and had no form of instantaneous communication. To know all of the things he did about the American colonies, China, India etc, he had to talk with people who had been there or travel there himself. It is understandable that it took him as long to write it as he did.
Having said that, Smith himself was quite the philosopher and was a good and charitable man. Nothing at all like many of capitalism's more ardent defenders in this day in age. Explain to me, upon reading this book, how the CEO of a cooperation, as an agent of that cooperation is able to justify an 8000% ROI that is sufficiently greater than the base salary man below him?
Smith talks at great lengths about the value of having a skilled labor force and a middle class which has a lot of money. In fact, he actually shows the damage of stratification for locking up capital in silly ways. When I read "The Wealth of Nations" I certainly don't picture Ronald Reagan and if I do, I DEFINITELY don't picture George W. Bush and tax cuts. The dangers of deficits are certain but the concept of a non gold based currency is post Smith.
At some point, I think economics moves beyond the 19th century, and while I think his comments on the nature of being and the value of wages and production are astoundingly insightful for his time, much of which is still applicable to today, I also think there have been many fundamental shifts since then, including such radical notions that women can vote, slavery is a bad idea, black people are not an inferior race etc. I say this not to imply that Mr. Smith should be faulted for advancing such ideas (he assuredly does not) but rather had these new technologies and ideas existed at his time, his thorough and universal work would certainly have incorporated them.
Mr. Smith is amazing. His so called 'disciples' are not. There some solid ideas in this work, but it should be regarded as 'holy' no more than that other 200 year old document, 'the constitution.'
What he does do, is show with stunning thoroughness, the ripple effects of limits by the state on resources that are artificially placed or by private individuals in such a state or by circumstances. He does indeed show the nature of a TRUE free market, which is allowed to operate on its own and show the historical real world examples that allow one nation to prosper and another to perish.
The level of research he does is also fascinating, especially understanding that he lived in an age which required months of travel and had no form of instantaneous communication. To know all of the things he did about the American colonies, China, India etc, he had to talk with people who had been there or travel there himself. It is understandable that it took him as long to write it as he did.
Having said that, Smith himself was quite the philosopher and was a good and charitable man. Nothing at all like many of capitalism's more ardent defenders in this day in age. Explain to me, upon reading this book, how the CEO of a cooperation, as an agent of that cooperation is able to justify an 8000% ROI that is sufficiently greater than the base salary man below him?
Smith talks at great lengths about the value of having a skilled labor force and a middle class which has a lot of money. In fact, he actually shows the damage of stratification for locking up capital in silly ways. When I read "The Wealth of Nations" I certainly don't picture Ronald Reagan and if I do, I DEFINITELY don't picture George W. Bush and tax cuts. The dangers of deficits are certain but the concept of a non gold based currency is post Smith.
At some point, I think economics moves beyond the 19th century, and while I think his comments on the nature of being and the value of wages and production are astoundingly insightful for his time, much of which is still applicable to today, I also think there have been many fundamental shifts since then, including such radical notions that women can vote, slavery is a bad idea, black people are not an inferior race etc. I say this not to imply that Mr. Smith should be faulted for advancing such ideas (he assuredly does not) but rather had these new technologies and ideas existed at his time, his thorough and universal work would certainly have incorporated them.
Mr. Smith is amazing. His so called 'disciples' are not. There some solid ideas in this work, but it should be regarded as 'holy' no more than that other 200 year old document, 'the constitution.'
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
[Constitution] The Mother of All Amendments
I have personally become convinced that unless we slide further towards democracy, our nation is doomed to dictatorship or oligarchy. My simplest evidence for this is the sheer corruption of the federal government. I don't care which of the two realities you live in, pick two of the three branches of government and you're likely to find them totally non functional. In my case, I think it is all three.
The Senate is the most dysfunctional legislature on the planet that has any actual power. It lost all legitimacy (to me at least) when they proved utterly unable to fix health care. Leaving aside the fluid question of rights, it is a vitally important national industry that is broken for a lot of people (like...millions) and it couldn't produce something better than the AHA. There are some things good in the AHA. But if THAT is the best the Senate can produce....
The abject failure to fulfill its basic duty to ratify or even reject executive nominations on a simple majority also to me says the body is not legitimate. The filibuster is not in the constitution.
The house has some still but is currently run by morons and was always designed to be a racaus collection of frat boys and sorority girls compared to the senate. Which it is.
The supreme court is likely to strike down the AHA. And while there are things in AHA that I don't like, the supreme court's reasons for doing so appear (on pre examination) to utterly ignore previous precedent. I know conservatives like to argue otherwise, but frankly, I really don't care about their interpretation of the constitution anyway. They look at the document and either think its fine or that we need to remove some amendments. Combined with Bush v Gore and Citizens United and the Supreme Court is an illegitimate institution. It does not represent the will of the people, either past, present or future but it does represent the will of the minority. It is a political institution that is supposed to be apolitical.
And the executive...the imperial presidency. Unaccountable to anyone. Able to ignore the law of the land and only paying lip service to our rights, both in the current president and the president before that.
The states have lost power (in part legitimately, because the south proved that they can't be trusted with power by ignoring the 14th amendment to the constitution for 80 years. The Voting Rights Act is totally legitimately focused on those racist southern states that thought segeration was a nifty idea.) However, they are supposed to be a counter to abusive federal power.
Most importantly, the people have lost power. The leadership is corrupt, and given the wealth of the nation, 9 justices, 500+congressmen and 200+ top cabinet posts and administrators are EASY to bribe with billions in lobbying money and reelection funds. When you say Cash is Speech, corruption is the result.
But that's the subject for another blog entry. For this one, I believe the root fix is to have a constitutional convention with one primary focus. If you want to do other stuff, go for it, but don't expect it to pass and insist that the things it produces are segmented. Many older folks who still view the constitution as some kind of sacred text are scared to death of an Article V convention because anything could happen. CRAZY people might mess with it.
Guess what? They're doing this now.
The way to do this is, state by state, pass an amendment which has no time limit and requires a 90% agreement of the state legislature or population to repeal calling for a constitutional amendment which says the following:
Amendment 28
Section 1 - The several states shall all provide a reasonable mechanism by which the population of that state may pass a popular referendum.
Section 2 - The people of the united states shall collectively have the right to place a popular referendum on a federal ballot providing said referendum shall collect signatures amounting 1% of the population.
Section 3. - No referendum may repeal or alter the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, thirteenth, fourteenth or fifteenth amendments; save the amendment clarifies or enhances the freedoms in a manner acceptable to the population affected thereof.
Section 4. - Any referendum must declare a method of adequate funding within the text of the amendment itself.
Section 5. - Congress and the several states may not aggregate amendments, but must allow each that qualifies to be voted on individually.
Section 6 - The period of election for the referendum shall not exceed one year after which the referendum qualifies for the federal ballot.
Section 7 - Congress and the several states shall have no authority to alter or rescind this amendment, though they may be given the power to enforce amendments individually created by the referendum process described within this amendment. The Federal Court may not declare an amendment to the constitution unconstitutional but may find a party (individual, state, federal or institutional) to be in violation of an amendment.
Section 8 - An amendment passed by at least 50% of the electorate in a single election will then be subject to another election approximately one year later. If the amendment passes with a majority in both cases, the constitution is amended.
Section 9 - Congress and the several states shall have the power to ensure by legislation that the provisions of Section 4 are properly enacted.
The Senate is the most dysfunctional legislature on the planet that has any actual power. It lost all legitimacy (to me at least) when they proved utterly unable to fix health care. Leaving aside the fluid question of rights, it is a vitally important national industry that is broken for a lot of people (like...millions) and it couldn't produce something better than the AHA. There are some things good in the AHA. But if THAT is the best the Senate can produce....
The abject failure to fulfill its basic duty to ratify or even reject executive nominations on a simple majority also to me says the body is not legitimate. The filibuster is not in the constitution.
The house has some still but is currently run by morons and was always designed to be a racaus collection of frat boys and sorority girls compared to the senate. Which it is.
The supreme court is likely to strike down the AHA. And while there are things in AHA that I don't like, the supreme court's reasons for doing so appear (on pre examination) to utterly ignore previous precedent. I know conservatives like to argue otherwise, but frankly, I really don't care about their interpretation of the constitution anyway. They look at the document and either think its fine or that we need to remove some amendments. Combined with Bush v Gore and Citizens United and the Supreme Court is an illegitimate institution. It does not represent the will of the people, either past, present or future but it does represent the will of the minority. It is a political institution that is supposed to be apolitical.
And the executive...the imperial presidency. Unaccountable to anyone. Able to ignore the law of the land and only paying lip service to our rights, both in the current president and the president before that.
The states have lost power (in part legitimately, because the south proved that they can't be trusted with power by ignoring the 14th amendment to the constitution for 80 years. The Voting Rights Act is totally legitimately focused on those racist southern states that thought segeration was a nifty idea.) However, they are supposed to be a counter to abusive federal power.
Most importantly, the people have lost power. The leadership is corrupt, and given the wealth of the nation, 9 justices, 500+congressmen and 200+ top cabinet posts and administrators are EASY to bribe with billions in lobbying money and reelection funds. When you say Cash is Speech, corruption is the result.
But that's the subject for another blog entry. For this one, I believe the root fix is to have a constitutional convention with one primary focus. If you want to do other stuff, go for it, but don't expect it to pass and insist that the things it produces are segmented. Many older folks who still view the constitution as some kind of sacred text are scared to death of an Article V convention because anything could happen. CRAZY people might mess with it.
Guess what? They're doing this now.
The way to do this is, state by state, pass an amendment which has no time limit and requires a 90% agreement of the state legislature or population to repeal calling for a constitutional amendment which says the following:
Amendment 28
Section 1 - The several states shall all provide a reasonable mechanism by which the population of that state may pass a popular referendum.
Section 2 - The people of the united states shall collectively have the right to place a popular referendum on a federal ballot providing said referendum shall collect signatures amounting 1% of the population.
Section 3. - No referendum may repeal or alter the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, thirteenth, fourteenth or fifteenth amendments; save the amendment clarifies or enhances the freedoms in a manner acceptable to the population affected thereof.
Section 4. - Any referendum must declare a method of adequate funding within the text of the amendment itself.
Section 5. - Congress and the several states may not aggregate amendments, but must allow each that qualifies to be voted on individually.
Section 6 - The period of election for the referendum shall not exceed one year after which the referendum qualifies for the federal ballot.
Section 7 - Congress and the several states shall have no authority to alter or rescind this amendment, though they may be given the power to enforce amendments individually created by the referendum process described within this amendment. The Federal Court may not declare an amendment to the constitution unconstitutional but may find a party (individual, state, federal or institutional) to be in violation of an amendment.
Section 8 - An amendment passed by at least 50% of the electorate in a single election will then be subject to another election approximately one year later. If the amendment passes with a majority in both cases, the constitution is amended.
Section 9 - Congress and the several states shall have the power to ensure by legislation that the provisions of Section 4 are properly enacted.
Monday, March 5, 2012
[Right and Wrong] Choose Ye This Day Whom Ye Will Serve
Do you care more about your honor, or your party?
Let us assume that any given conservative you hear from sincerely believes that the move by the Obama administration to change the rules of insurance is about freedom of religion, not access to Birth Control. Let us assume that such an individual has spoken up prominently about it.
Rush Limbaugh spoke to it as a matter of birth control. Even if you, as a conservative, do not agree with Limbaugh, if you spoke up about the 'freedom of religion' issue, you have a moral obligation to condemn him with just as much fervor as you spoke in defense of 'religion'...unless you secretly agree with Rush Limbaugh. To me, there is no other assumption I can make.
Rush Limbaugh is the keeper of orthodoxy for the Republican Party. He, like Grover Norquist, forces Republican leaders to shift ever farther to the right. If like that, or secretly like that, this is fine, but there comes a point where you must speak up or lose any honor you may have.
Make no mistake, when a liberal, or a democrat (and I no longer even call myself that because of the abomination that was SOPA) does something wrong, especially THIS wrong, I speak up against it.
I have alluded that Mitt Romney does have core values...that they are the values of the LDS church and that he feels it is his moral and spiritual obligation to increase the prominence of his faith (and in the process increase the righteousness in his view of the nation) by being the first LDS president.
There is a well known story in the LDS church, where Joseph Smith, wrongfully arrested and placed in a jail, was sit to forced to sit and listen to a foul mouthed jailer, who insulted them, their wives, their daughters, and their faith. Finally, Joseph Smith could stand no more, and stood, clothed in radiance and majesty of the victim and said, "SILENCE, ye fiends of the infernal pit. … Cease such talk, or you or I die THIS INSTANT!"
The guard shut up.
A man, a real man, stands up against what is evil. A man, a real man, does not let a woman who wants to testify about the need for birth control pills for her gay room mate for health issues that have nothing to do with birth control, and Rush Limbaugh calls her a slut, saying tax payer funds (not insurance funds) would 'pay her to have sex' he is not only lying, but he is being a right bastard.
So in the one area that he cares about, his real values, Willard says the following: "“I'll just say this which is it’s not the language I would have used," Romney said. "I’m focusing on the issues I think are significant in the country today and that’s why I’m here talking about jobs and Ohio.”
Infernal pit...vs...'not the language I would have used.'
One of my favorite versus in the New Testament is as follows: Joshua 24: 15 "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
If you are going to put yourself up as a moral example, one of the most important duties of the president, and the best you can do to condemn this evil act by Rush is I would have used different language..." is a moral failure at best.
Let us assume that any given conservative you hear from sincerely believes that the move by the Obama administration to change the rules of insurance is about freedom of religion, not access to Birth Control. Let us assume that such an individual has spoken up prominently about it.
Rush Limbaugh spoke to it as a matter of birth control. Even if you, as a conservative, do not agree with Limbaugh, if you spoke up about the 'freedom of religion' issue, you have a moral obligation to condemn him with just as much fervor as you spoke in defense of 'religion'...unless you secretly agree with Rush Limbaugh. To me, there is no other assumption I can make.
Rush Limbaugh is the keeper of orthodoxy for the Republican Party. He, like Grover Norquist, forces Republican leaders to shift ever farther to the right. If like that, or secretly like that, this is fine, but there comes a point where you must speak up or lose any honor you may have.
Make no mistake, when a liberal, or a democrat (and I no longer even call myself that because of the abomination that was SOPA) does something wrong, especially THIS wrong, I speak up against it.
I have alluded that Mitt Romney does have core values...that they are the values of the LDS church and that he feels it is his moral and spiritual obligation to increase the prominence of his faith (and in the process increase the righteousness in his view of the nation) by being the first LDS president.
There is a well known story in the LDS church, where Joseph Smith, wrongfully arrested and placed in a jail, was sit to forced to sit and listen to a foul mouthed jailer, who insulted them, their wives, their daughters, and their faith. Finally, Joseph Smith could stand no more, and stood, clothed in radiance and majesty of the victim and said, "SILENCE, ye fiends of the infernal pit. … Cease such talk, or you or I die THIS INSTANT!"
The guard shut up.
A man, a real man, stands up against what is evil. A man, a real man, does not let a woman who wants to testify about the need for birth control pills for her gay room mate for health issues that have nothing to do with birth control, and Rush Limbaugh calls her a slut, saying tax payer funds (not insurance funds) would 'pay her to have sex' he is not only lying, but he is being a right bastard.
So in the one area that he cares about, his real values, Willard says the following: "“I'll just say this which is it’s not the language I would have used," Romney said. "I’m focusing on the issues I think are significant in the country today and that’s why I’m here talking about jobs and Ohio.”
Infernal pit...vs...'not the language I would have used.'
One of my favorite versus in the New Testament is as follows: Joshua 24: 15 "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
If you are going to put yourself up as a moral example, one of the most important duties of the president, and the best you can do to condemn this evil act by Rush is I would have used different language..." is a moral failure at best.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
My Review of The Communist Manifesto
So I finally read "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx. I am putting this on my political blog instead of my review blog primarily because to properly analyze this, I think I need to speak and include my political beliefs, though I shall start from a purely literary perspective. Actually, no, before that, I'll start from an effectiveness purpose.
Reading it, and seeing the political rhetoric within, I understand why it scares Republicans. The ideas espoused by Karl Marx have had a heavy influence on most every government on earth. Indeed, Communism, after Capitalism, was the dominant political philosophy of the 20th century.
The common wisdom of the modern day is that communism was proven wrong because the Russians, the most dominant communist country, ground to a halt due to lagging technological development, corruption and a general lack of freedoms by the local populace. But for something that didn't supposedly didn't work, country after country that wanted to transform themselves from a poor rural or pre industrial society, chose Communism instead of Capitalism.
Furthermore, the first section of the Communist Manifesto, which speaks of the historical class struggle, might be a bit...hyperbolic, but it also makes some strikingly resonant points. The elite in this country are utterly unaccountable. Look at SOPA.
A government, or an elite, that truly respected the median 80% of this country, would never try to pass such an abomination.
And yet, Donald Rumsfeld, as much of an idiot as he is, makes a good point. From orbit, look at North Korea vs South Korea.
And yet...
If it was simply dictatorship that would make a country suffer, why do so many dictators choose the trappings of communism?
I argue that in part it is the powerful rhetoric of Karl Marx's work. History might show that capitalism makes a population more prosperous than communists, simply based on the wealth of the members involved.
But is that what we should measure the value of a society by? The communists certainly didn't. At least at first. In the 1940's and 1950's under Stalin, it was about the accomplishments of their people, defeating the Nazis and putting Sputnik in orbit.
Symbols won the cold war. Landing on the Moon. Star Wars. The Olympics. Bit by bit, the people in the Soviet Union saw how capitalism made Americans free and rich and grew jealous and resentful that their own government didn't give them such freedoms.
And now we have 2012. The central tenet of Capitalism is markets, which requires competition. But maybe...without Communism to compete against, Capitalism is also starting to lose its edge. The very things that Karl Marx talks about in the Manifesto are starting to happen again.
The non 1% are starting to be slowly relegated to serf status. Renfields and other apologetics will whine that the poor in America have it great. They will say that they have freedoms here and such.
And yet...
SOPA, a blantant attempt to steal the internet, something that many people depend on for their work every day, or their enjoyment, was passed in this so called Capitlist Democracy.
Libertarians often say that we don't have capitalism any more. And judging by the workings of our government, I'd agree with them.
The problem with the Manifesto is that there is no real end game in mind. So Karl Marx basically figures that the Proletariat will rise up against the Bourgeoisie and that they will all privately work together in some sort of utopia. It doesn't take into account the most negative of human emotions such as fear, avarice and greed. Capitalism, on the other hand, does.
So the defacto modus operandi for Communism became to enforce its ideals on those who didn't want to obey the tenants of communism.
A free society works more efficiently.
But has our own society become an illusion? Do the elite who run the country realize that giving us the illusion of freedom makes us more productive? But if we were truly free, and our vote truly mattered, would we have to choose between Barack Obama, who with the rest of the Democrats wanted to steal the internet like a bunch of Mafia Thugs until the very last possible moment when the light of day was shown on them like cockroaches?
Or the Republicans.
And really...if you aren't a Republican or a Renfield, do I really need to say what's wrong with the Republicans?
Libertarians often talk about the evil government that forces them to obey laws they don't like under threat of a gun. Well, guess what folks, that is what government is...the biggest mob. The person who controls the appartatus of force and how it is wielded. The theory of the Rule of Law is that it at least depersonalizes that force and makes it less passionate and less arbitrary.
And then we turn around and make corporations people. We say that Cash is Speech.
So for those of us who hold ideals other than the dollar being the ultimate arbiter of what makes society valuable or what makes an individual valuable, are we not also 'under the threat of a gun'? Indeed, if we are the majority in a democracy and the minority can use the levers of power to prevent us from enacting policies that benefit the majority, at what point does it become Tyranny of the Minority?
They say it doesn't.
But then again, they say a lot of things.
I look at Russia with Communism and Russia with Capitalism and I don't see much difference.
I see a lot of differences here, but then I look at the treatment of Occupy Wall Street and I must wonder...are we really free or,like the matrix, are we merely given the illusion of freedom to increase our productivity, and as the need for that illusion goes away, so our so called freedoms are more and more brazenly stripped from us.
I think Karl Marx got an awful lot right, but he never really answered the question of what happens when the Communists 'win' and a new set of Bourgeoisie takes over.
Reading it, and seeing the political rhetoric within, I understand why it scares Republicans. The ideas espoused by Karl Marx have had a heavy influence on most every government on earth. Indeed, Communism, after Capitalism, was the dominant political philosophy of the 20th century.
The common wisdom of the modern day is that communism was proven wrong because the Russians, the most dominant communist country, ground to a halt due to lagging technological development, corruption and a general lack of freedoms by the local populace. But for something that didn't supposedly didn't work, country after country that wanted to transform themselves from a poor rural or pre industrial society, chose Communism instead of Capitalism.
Furthermore, the first section of the Communist Manifesto, which speaks of the historical class struggle, might be a bit...hyperbolic, but it also makes some strikingly resonant points. The elite in this country are utterly unaccountable. Look at SOPA.
A government, or an elite, that truly respected the median 80% of this country, would never try to pass such an abomination.
And yet, Donald Rumsfeld, as much of an idiot as he is, makes a good point. From orbit, look at North Korea vs South Korea.
And yet...
If it was simply dictatorship that would make a country suffer, why do so many dictators choose the trappings of communism?
I argue that in part it is the powerful rhetoric of Karl Marx's work. History might show that capitalism makes a population more prosperous than communists, simply based on the wealth of the members involved.
But is that what we should measure the value of a society by? The communists certainly didn't. At least at first. In the 1940's and 1950's under Stalin, it was about the accomplishments of their people, defeating the Nazis and putting Sputnik in orbit.
Symbols won the cold war. Landing on the Moon. Star Wars. The Olympics. Bit by bit, the people in the Soviet Union saw how capitalism made Americans free and rich and grew jealous and resentful that their own government didn't give them such freedoms.
And now we have 2012. The central tenet of Capitalism is markets, which requires competition. But maybe...without Communism to compete against, Capitalism is also starting to lose its edge. The very things that Karl Marx talks about in the Manifesto are starting to happen again.
The non 1% are starting to be slowly relegated to serf status. Renfields and other apologetics will whine that the poor in America have it great. They will say that they have freedoms here and such.
And yet...
SOPA, a blantant attempt to steal the internet, something that many people depend on for their work every day, or their enjoyment, was passed in this so called Capitlist Democracy.
Libertarians often say that we don't have capitalism any more. And judging by the workings of our government, I'd agree with them.
The problem with the Manifesto is that there is no real end game in mind. So Karl Marx basically figures that the Proletariat will rise up against the Bourgeoisie and that they will all privately work together in some sort of utopia. It doesn't take into account the most negative of human emotions such as fear, avarice and greed. Capitalism, on the other hand, does.
So the defacto modus operandi for Communism became to enforce its ideals on those who didn't want to obey the tenants of communism.
A free society works more efficiently.
But has our own society become an illusion? Do the elite who run the country realize that giving us the illusion of freedom makes us more productive? But if we were truly free, and our vote truly mattered, would we have to choose between Barack Obama, who with the rest of the Democrats wanted to steal the internet like a bunch of Mafia Thugs until the very last possible moment when the light of day was shown on them like cockroaches?
Or the Republicans.
And really...if you aren't a Republican or a Renfield, do I really need to say what's wrong with the Republicans?
Libertarians often talk about the evil government that forces them to obey laws they don't like under threat of a gun. Well, guess what folks, that is what government is...the biggest mob. The person who controls the appartatus of force and how it is wielded. The theory of the Rule of Law is that it at least depersonalizes that force and makes it less passionate and less arbitrary.
And then we turn around and make corporations people. We say that Cash is Speech.
So for those of us who hold ideals other than the dollar being the ultimate arbiter of what makes society valuable or what makes an individual valuable, are we not also 'under the threat of a gun'? Indeed, if we are the majority in a democracy and the minority can use the levers of power to prevent us from enacting policies that benefit the majority, at what point does it become Tyranny of the Minority?
They say it doesn't.
But then again, they say a lot of things.
I look at Russia with Communism and Russia with Capitalism and I don't see much difference.
I see a lot of differences here, but then I look at the treatment of Occupy Wall Street and I must wonder...are we really free or,like the matrix, are we merely given the illusion of freedom to increase our productivity, and as the need for that illusion goes away, so our so called freedoms are more and more brazenly stripped from us.
I think Karl Marx got an awful lot right, but he never really answered the question of what happens when the Communists 'win' and a new set of Bourgeoisie takes over.
Monday, December 5, 2011
[News] Liability in Press Laws
So I promised to type this up some time ago, but here are the basics. Several of my friends and I were all sitting around talking about politics. I think it goes without saying that there was a very wide spectrum of political beliefs present, but we, like the populace at large, held a general disgust with the media and its current environment. I think this discussion was timely, because of what has been going on in England recently with FOX news hacking into the phones of several prominent people. The government is holding hearings over a wide range of press abuses from the phone hacking to the paparazzi. Here in the US, there are numerous instances of extremely grievous abuses by Big Media (that includes Fox and all network and cable news) but even newspapers and magazines.
So the challenge lies in the fact, that the first sign of true oppression in a society is when the government moves to shut up or shut down the press. When you have a vibrant or democratic society, they need to find sneakier ways to do it like the “Protect IP” laws recently attempted to pass in Britain, Australia and here in the United States. You can still have an unspoken agreement among the major players that certain stories shall be spun a certain way (cough cough like Occupy Wall Street) but the truth is, I honestly believe in most cases this is simple idiocy, laziness and group think rather than some grand conspiracy.
They’re too incompetent and irresponsible to be in much of a conspiracy.
But how do you hold them responsible? Simply passing a law making certain kinds of behavior illegal is often ineffective, because they will either find clever ways to skirt the rules, or, if the enforcement is effective, then a government will use those enforcement tools to protect itself from embarrassing political stories. The “Official Secrets Act” in the UK, makes the abuses by the DHS in the US look like small potatoes.
So a friend of mine simply suggested the idea that you allow people to request that any footage or notes a media outlet took of them be made public in its entirety, and if they didn’t then they could be sued for damages of libel in a court of law. This is an excellent idea for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that it acknowledges that footage taken of an individual should guarantee THEM certain rights, not just the media. It also is an easily objective test. If you film me, I want the entire tape made public. If you won’t do that, you get sued.
That will discourage blatant manipulation which doesn’t carry the original intent of the individual.
Personally, I think we need more than that, but the fact that everyone present could agree on this reform seems like a very good place to start.
So the challenge lies in the fact, that the first sign of true oppression in a society is when the government moves to shut up or shut down the press. When you have a vibrant or democratic society, they need to find sneakier ways to do it like the “Protect IP” laws recently attempted to pass in Britain, Australia and here in the United States. You can still have an unspoken agreement among the major players that certain stories shall be spun a certain way (cough cough like Occupy Wall Street) but the truth is, I honestly believe in most cases this is simple idiocy, laziness and group think rather than some grand conspiracy.
They’re too incompetent and irresponsible to be in much of a conspiracy.
But how do you hold them responsible? Simply passing a law making certain kinds of behavior illegal is often ineffective, because they will either find clever ways to skirt the rules, or, if the enforcement is effective, then a government will use those enforcement tools to protect itself from embarrassing political stories. The “Official Secrets Act” in the UK, makes the abuses by the DHS in the US look like small potatoes.
So a friend of mine simply suggested the idea that you allow people to request that any footage or notes a media outlet took of them be made public in its entirety, and if they didn’t then they could be sued for damages of libel in a court of law. This is an excellent idea for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that it acknowledges that footage taken of an individual should guarantee THEM certain rights, not just the media. It also is an easily objective test. If you film me, I want the entire tape made public. If you won’t do that, you get sued.
That will discourage blatant manipulation which doesn’t carry the original intent of the individual.
Personally, I think we need more than that, but the fact that everyone present could agree on this reform seems like a very good place to start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)