I have promised that politically I'll save my sarcasm for non facebook posts.
No problem.
Whose a special special special special special super SMART party? Yes, its the smaaaaaaaaaaart Republicans.
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Smart.
Such smart questions from the village media. Which asks the same questions 14 times. Because they are stupid.
Maybe 15 will make them get it?
Puerto Rico recently voted for statehood. Of course, with the do nothing, know nothing congress we currently have (especially in the house of representatives) this means nothing. Government can't do much of anything right now, especially something new, never mind the fact that Puerto Rico might actually add a Democratic state to the union, so God Forbid we actually add another state to the Disunited States of America. Nonsense, all of it.
However, since I do want to avoid a second civil war, and I just don't think most people have the stomach for Excision , I think that the Puerto Rico situation might offer another middle ground. After Obama won, Secession petitions were filed in every state of the union, but the former confederate states got some of the highest amounts. So, the problem with secession is that it allows local areas to have control over the central government, which is the primary reason Lincoln was opposed to it. But the truth of the matter is, that this country has a long and storied tradition of holding territory that is not fully incorporated into the United States of America.
There are reservations (which are in theory soveriegn nations but in practice are abused by both federal and state governments, which is particularly ironic since if they are separate nations states shouldn't be able to touch them. At all. And yet states still have some influence in Indian territory). We have administered areas which are essentially colonies (like Guam or the Virgin Islands) and then we have a unique situation with Puerto Rico which is a common wealth, whose citizens get the protection of the US military and some basic benefits like Social Security and Medicare, without the ability to vote. They do not, however, pay federal income taxes.
Given how anti tax Red States are at the moment, I'm moderately certain that they would leap at the chance to stop paying Federal Income tax in exchange for their representation in Presidential Election and the Congress. Granted, social conservatives have a need to control a woman's body at all costs, but fiscal conversatives and Ron Paul Republicans seem to care about the size and influence of government more than they do about imposing their values on the rest of the nation. They still LIKE imposing their version of crony capitalism on the nation but taxes seem more important. So why not amend the constitution to give states the ability to go Commonwealth like Puerto Rico for several years at a time before they get another referrendum?
It's a win win proposition. The Red States pay less taxes, and the Blue States get to pass government reforms without the Red States interfering in everything that they do. Moreover, it is not as permanent as excision, because some red states are slowly becoming blue states due to demographics changes.
Hell, I think an even better slution is to allow the Red States to set just how much federal service their going to get. They want anything but basic defense from the military? They have to pay taxes. They will, of course, have to generate enough income to pay for their share of the national debt. That doesn't go away, especially given how our interest has increased due to their playing games with our credit rating, but they could still save a lot of money this way. Let them do what they've always dreamed...pay full price for medicare and medicaide with state generated revenue. Bear in mind that most of these states are a net loss anyway, and a simple condition that the states must allow federal taxation to be provided at par for ANY federal services (ie the states can raise the money any way they like, but they must be revenue neutral for any federal services provided) and I think they'd leap at the chance. Plus it would be a very education experience for the people in these states. There a few net revenue positive red states, but not many. It also fulfills the concern of strategic military necessity (ie, Fly Over country pretty much unites the more populated blue states and is necessary as a logistics pathway for defense of the country).
I know this sounds harsh, but
a) It would work. I sincerely believe that most red states would happily trade their vote in the congress and for the president rather than pay federal taxes.
b) It makes them prove that their theory of small governments will actually work.
c) It still allows freedom of movement for citizens, such that people stuck in a Red State can still leave for government services.
d) It helps make Red States more revenue neutral instead of being financial drains because corporations will set up shop their to take advantage of people that like to let themselves be exploited, thus boosting their income, thus improving their tax base, thus making them less of a drain on the rest of the country once (if ever) they decide to become a voting state again.
e) It does reinforce the idea that states have SOME level of sovereignty.
f) It actually encourages neofederalism because red states would LOVE to allow blue cities trapped in their borders to still state in the US in exchange for being able to stop paying income taxes. This could permanently free many imprisoned cities from Red influence like New York, Atlanta and Chicago.
g) It is a better alternative than civil war, which is what I see as a likely occurance if these desperate reality challenged people continue to lose influence and retain any power with increasing delusion and increasingly desperate measures like voter suppression and gerrymandered districts.
I like to play board games, and not the regular "Monopoly" version either, but hard core multi piece multi rule, on rare occasion multi day board games. Indeed, before my friend went feral, I used to go play board games every other monday night with a crowd of very intelligent, very talented individuals. Bear in mind that while I was raised on card games and board games as a familial 'rite of passage' I was often considered a 'dabbler' by some in this crowd because they took it rather seriously.
Thus, you can be assured that this is a crowd that takes things like rules seriously. Now in my observation of the culture of the games as played, there was a serious amount of respect paid when someone successfully navigated the rules in creative and innovative ways. Specifically, finding combinations of things whilst keep track of a seeming infinite number of moving variables made game play better for everyone because it made things seem more challenging but it also forced you to do better. This seemed (to me) particularly true with games that used heavy amounts of strategy with just a tiny bit of randomization.
Conversely, certain styles of moves were basically regarded as 'broken' beyond measure. If a rule was so good that it made the game basically unfun for anyone who didn't make it and was obviously either not playtested or just, well, stupid, it was generally tossed in the rubbish bin where it belonged. It is difficult to say exactly what the litmus test for this was; after all I'd seen some games where the qualification might be ignored because it was well enjoyed, whereas another seemingly innocuous rule was widely reviled and hated by all, but I think by and large it required a combination of loathing from all the participants as well the basic perception that it was not only blatantly unfair but also made the game 'unfun.'
Markets are powerful tools. We should reward people who play the game well because it helps make the entire system more vibrant. Having said that, at some point, certain features of a market are quite arguably called 'dick moves' that serve no one but people abusing the system. And lets be honest here, that's what it is...abusing the system. Markets for profit might not be 'fun' but a society is not, contrary to the claims of libertarians, only about the individual. After all, to quote the movie "Cloud Atlas"..."An ocean is composed of a sea of drops." There is no 'collective' that does not also consist of individuals, and a 'dick move' in a market is an unconcionable slander on those who participate in it.
The real question is, how is such a move enforced?
Well therein are certain problems. In a highly stratified society, the golden rule applies. Those with the gold, make the rules. This is the nature of humanity and virutally all civilizations in the history of man; the question is HOW MUCH power you allow the upper levels of society to have....but if the upper levels of society get to make the rules, of course they are going to make rules only for them.
Imagine if you will, at my friend's house, if all the games we played were tilted to his advantage (far from the case in actual reality since he was an excellent host who routinely stepped out of the way for someone else who wanted to play) and if someone did manage to find a clever combination to benefit themselves, that he tilted the field to make things better for himself...People would get fed up rather quickly and stop coming.
Now, in a system based on our own rather flawed constitution, with winner take all elections and the presumption on the power of the states, with tiny legislatures that are easily bought by ALEC and billionares, why then should we assume that markets function properly when they only benefit a few? Some argue that "Rule of Law" means we just have to obey this...others argue about how we need to protect the minority, whilst in the same breath arguing about the flaws of Affirmitive Action.
Are you in favor of allowing unjust protections for a minority or not? Or is it that you only want economic benefits that only serve you or your tribe? The great irony of our times is, of course, that there are many who argue for the justice of markets that benefit none but a tiny majority, not because of economic self interest, but because of a subconcious affiliation to regional politics and the tribalism that this entails. Think I'm wrong?
Well, I don't, but that's another subject for another time. Let's just say that I'm not the only one that thinks that and tribal motivations are strong.
But common sense does indeed demand that in a normal situation, if you wanted to have fun, you wouldn't keep showing up at the house of someone who rigged the rules only for their benefit, but if, in the interests of 'privitization' 401K's replace pensions, and social security is privatized and sacrificed on the alter of wall street, then you play at one house...or die.
Because really that's what libertarians are advocating about the so called Constitution of the United States, that I didn't vote for, nor did anyone living. The document is so difficult to amend that we will continue with rigged rules and either must leave the country (which is very difficult to do) or simply sit, trapped by their manufactured arguments crafted by billionares without any interest in mind.
They (Republicans and many sympathetic libertarians) say 'wealth redistrubtion' is highway robbery, and yet tactically feel that their only way to win is to have Citizen's United, which allows them to spend unlimited money in markets. They speak of rights in that only the government shall be restricted, but never the individual, as if only a government can imprison someone in poverty.
The idea that rights are only restricted to natural rights is ludicrous. The argument that only the government can imprision or take your life is also false since if medical necesity or wage stagnation forces you into a job you do not want, you are just as imprisoned by the so called 'free' market as if you were in an actual prison.
Snarky, clever libertians would argue, "Well be stuck in prison for a while and see how different you feel?"
To which I counter, be stuck in a minimum wage job working at Wal Mart at age 55 and we'll see.
Societies and cultures are formed by rituals and by rites...in ancient times in some cultures this was a walk about or a time of solitary contemplation. What rite can we enact to ensure the arrogance of willful deniers of reality must recognize their sins against their fellow man?
The irony in all this is that some of these people are indeed incredibly generous to charity. I speak not of the laughable illusion that donations to their favorite religion are charity, but a genuine effort on their part to give back to society, and to such individuals I laud and approve their efforts but they do seem to be in the genuine minority in the cause of their fellow liberatarians. We as a society must choose whether we want to reward someone who rigs the game to their favor (the exact opposite of a free market) or the individuals who actually contribute to society.
My impression of Mr. Paine has only gone up the more I have read about him. He is truly a man ahead of his time, and is not at all the sort that is often made out by Libertarians in their view of our founding fathers...well that is to say, eastern libertarians as compared to western style libertarians. Thomas Paine was no only liberal, but he was radically liberal for his time and his actions have caused me to change my planned reading of Keyes major economic treatise and instead replace the work (part of my 2012 goals) with "The Age of Reason" with a full intent to read, "The Rights of Man" in early 2013.
The purpose of Common Sense was to energize the common folk of the colonies of the America (the British colonies) to revolt against the monarchy, and to reject the concept of monarchism in general. What suprised me the most about the work were its strong biblical ties to the point that a significant portion of the document deals with religion and the current interpretation of the Bible. Nevertheless, this was brilliant on Paine's part, since his intended audience readily accepted religion and knew the Holy Bible quite well.
The core of his early arguments against the monarchy come from the Old Testament, and the well documented struggle between the early Israelite prophets and the desire of the Israelites to have a king, 'like everyone else.' Indeed, the bible is chalk full of anti monarchist statements, especially in the old testamant. And the arguments are strong ones....which were later countered by the concept of the Divine Right of Kings. As if, somehow, God himself endowed these individuals with superior and moral judgements...
But the biblical and historical record simply do not bear this to be the case, as Paine rather skillfully points out. His attack on the ludicrous idea of a heritary monarch is also quite skillful. Indeed, when you think about it, how often is the quality of greatness that thrusts an individual to prominence, either by work, chance or connection ever repeated to the next generation?
At best such individuals are usually a shadow of the former except in a very few cases where someone is brought up almost by birth to be a replacement in a family business, but even in such cases, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The concept of the monarchy is rather thoroughly and logically trashed by Paine, including the idea of a limited monarchy (especially a hereditary one) since historically such things tend to be unwieldy....if the monarch has any real power.
He spends the second part of the pamplet talking about America's potential, which is enthusiastic and great...though not as ground breaking as the first portion in the eye of time. Having said that it was still vital to awakening the common folk about what America could do and what it could be, and how the attempts at redress were folly at that point, and how a congress was needed to unite the people.
On the whole, the document is rather impressive and well constructed, but directly itself doesn't add much insight into my greater attempts at personal philosophy except shooting dead any fringes or romantic notions about Kings and Queens.
My thoughts on this came from a recent graphic that outlined the differences between the Libertarian, Democratic and Republican parties and listed that the Democratic party was an Oligarchy. This rather confused me, so I asked for some clarification. The clarification was interesting but essentially boiled down to a minority making decisions for the majority. My reply, "Short of Genetic Engineering it is now my observation that this will always be the case, the question is which minority and what is their relationship with the majority?" might have been misconstrued since the person who made the original post unfriended me as a result. I meant no offense, but sometimes people looking for it can take offense no matter what you do. I will, however, attempt to explain in greater detail what I meant below.
Enforcability
First though I feel the need to talk about the concept of enforcability. The actual enforcibility of a law has three important points that are to me self evident.
1) The rule of law is, at a practical level, essentially the rule of the largest mob of people or at least the ability of the state to enforce force but, in an attempt to provide the illusion and/or best attempt at fairness, divests the powers and decision making capacities of that mob into abstract concepts, enduring social contracts in the form of laws, and institutional mechanisms to ensure that those abstract concepts are applied as they are written, rather than as they are interpreted by people at any particular time.
2) Since this Rule of Law is an illusion in that, unless the power of the state is essentially godlike, it requires the belief and participation of the concept in the minds of the component members of that society, faith in the institutions that create and execute these laws must be maintained. What then, can reduce faith in this concept more then, than the crafting of a law which cannot be enforced and that the majority do not want to accept? If the vast majority of society abhors murder, then the state can, with relatively little resources and ease (comparatively) track the guilty and enact the penalty of law upon the culprit. Whereas, if the law in question is say...a speed limit, and the vast majority of the population believes that it should be 10 miles per hour higher than the signs posted, but despondent parents and well endowed insurance companies are able to set it at a specific level, then you end up with a mixed result in which the speed limit is largely ignored by the populace unless there happens to be a law enforcement official present, and even then, since it might go to a jury trial, a law enforcement official is more likely to simply look for the most egregious offenders rather than someone who violates the law just a little bit. The more arbitrary the police or other law enforcement agencies, the less likely people are to respect the law and thus endanger to some degree the concept of rule of law itself.
3) So long as there is a government, there will be tax, of one kind or another, in any society that attempts it. That is if there is any kind of Rule of Law. Abstract anarchist societies that believe in self governance are essentially under Rule of the Mob but it just happens to be a well disciplined and very polite mob. Rule by Robot/AI might also not require tax, but Rule of Law definitely requires the efforts of people because abstract concepts only exist when people who believe in them choose to manifest those concepts into the physical universe in a meaningful way by action or, when applicable, lack of action.
Where there is tax, there must be an allocation of resources. Until such time as there is a lack of scarcity of resources, a prioritization must be made on which laws are to be enforced since the observable trend of humanity is that a significant portion of the population will desire more services from their government than the government can provide, and if this is the case, then the laws that can actually be ENFORCED are the ones that come to the fore under wise rule. Popular demand has often demanded unenforcable laws be enforced, but the consequences are dire and the waste of resources are more often than not, rather severe.
Majority Rule
In any conceivable society hitherto now or in the near future that has Rule of Law, the consent of the governed requires the consent of the majority (even if that consent is simply an unwillingness to live rather than remain a part of that society). At such time as the majority of a society wish to change it (by vote, by violence, or by self removal) then it is changed. Thus, Rule of Law or even Rule of Status Quo requires majority consent.
However, it is also my observation that the majority is generally more than inclined to accept the status quo if their perceived basic needs are met. This means that great change requires great energy to perform, whereas small change does not require as much energy but can change the inertia of a society over time. This has some severe consequences, primarily in that those who expend the most energy tend to be able to make the most changes. Or in other words, "the squeaky wheel gets oiled". This is doubly true in more flexible societies (IE Democratic Republics).
The practical means of which is that basically, a minority willing to engage substantial time, effort and will are able to enforce their will upon the majority of the members of society. Merchants, who are able to use power by proxy in the form of capital goods, can hire lobbiests and other champions to whisper in the ear of lawmakers indefinitely. The religious, who literally believe that their God demands the law be interpreted a certain way, can form organizations whose sole purpose is to bend the law in their directions. occasionally purely secular organizations are also able to do this, such as the National Rifle Association, but let us be clear...such influence will always exist even if Religions, Capitalism or Private associations were banned. Even the most tyrannical oligarchy (as defined by the dictionary as compared to libertarians) will still have factions within it. The military will want funding that the intelligence services want to go to them, whereas the propaganda department will want funds or the civic works department etc.
Thus, in any society with a passive and disinterested populace (ie...human beings as they currently exist or have existed for all known and recorded history or are likely to exist for the foreseeable future) defacto cedes its power to the minority most determined to enact its will, through protracted campaigns at influence of law makers, or a willingness to use lethal force (such as a one party state or a merchant class willing to bribe law enforcement to bust up peaceful protests etc).
Minorities will always rule. The question is HOW they rule and what might be their relationship is to the majority.
There are many questions to be asked about a minimalist or maximalist government or even the concept of Natural Rights vs Expected rights, but those are topics for another time and post.
Common sense indicates from any serious student of human nature and history that, while a benevolent dictator is the most efficient of government, it's really only efficient for whom the dictator is benevolent to and, most importantly, transition of power is a nightmare.
I've covered that in previous posts, but what I want to point out is yet another example of cognitive dissonance in any American libertarian and conservative philosophies...
Libcon Posit:
1) Federalism is good.
2) Local Control keeps too much power from the central government.
3) Defense and other key critical areas by the central government is good and allows for defense against other large alliances.
Guess what? I agree.
I also like small governments. The government which governs least, governs best.
Where we radically disagree is on the fundamental nature of the state and of human nature.
Honest Libcons (As compared to greedy people who just want more), basically ascribe to the theory of Natural Rights. The problem with this, isn't the actual idea, but basically the same problem with the Communist Manifesto in that the Communist Manifesto was largely a reaction to the excesses of industry and as such goes on and on about class. Wheras Natural Rights was a reaction to Monarchy and so goes on and out about about rights as endowed by the creator and puts heavy emphasis on the individual.
Side Note -
This video is very popular among Libertarians because it highlights their mighty struggle against the State or the uncaring collective will of the we.
So instead of moderate clap trap, which simply seeks the middle of everything, I'm going to reaxiom the reaxiomation
libcons love to pull so much and simply call this radical idea "Rejectionism."
It rejects the idea that we need to reduce the world to this tiny little struggle between the individualism and capitalism or any ism of any kind whilst at the same time avoiding Anarchy.
I might build up on this, but I think the central tenet of Rejectionism is the rejection of Isms including the absense of the necessity of political philosophy.
Or in other words Posit 1) Don't go fucking nuts in any particular political direction.
Which must be followed by posit 2
2) Lack of a political direction is worse than no direction at all.
We've seen that from moderates and being Chaff just makes you a road hazard.
This might seem like a distraction but by defining and establishing political shorthand, it lets us reference it later.
-End Side Note
Specifically, I think with Rejectionism, another point has to be that there are a finite number of ways to do things. Which means that as awesome as the idea of keeping power in the form of the government in check by dispersing it among local governments, why in the name of all that is holy would you not do the same with individuals?
This obsession on the individual vs the collective makes libcons blind to the very facet of human nature that seeks to enslave them in government. There are greedy people in the world. Smart greedy people understand this and agree that government can hold other greedy people in check so everyone can profit, and dumb greedy people just want to be in charge or just want the government to get the hell out of the way so they can do whatever they want.
But the assumption of natural rights that the individual comes first and interferance should be as minimal as possible (and I agree with this) ignores the fact that since there will be as many opinions of what 'minimum as possible' is as there are people, then the PRACTICAL reality of what that means is that the rule of the majority should ultimately apply, if you accept that a sentient being capable of participating in society has equal value on a base level to all others.
That's a tough question...after all, the weak, children, the impaired, the insane etc, should be afforded protection by the majority, but are they truly citizens? They have rights in advanced society...so if you define citizenship as 'having rights' then yes, but if you define citizenship as 'the ability to participate at the base level of power' then 'er...maybe' applies because CHILDREN DON'T VOTE.
My point in this is, natural rights as a concept were fine but we've moved on since then and we're going to move a lot farther as our concepts of what it means to be human chance as we unlock the mind and link it to technology and unlock the genome and splinter as a species....
These are questions we would be wise to answer ahead of time and my answer is that any being capable of communicating with other beings and recognizing its worth and their worth and establish and negotiate terms for mutual benefice between the two should constitute a participating empowered citizen. The base line upon which the majority is constituted.
But the point is...if a balance between centralized and localized power in institutions is needed, then in no society should it ever be acceptable for power to accrue in that of individuals vs the majority such that the majority cannot check it.
In practical terms, that means that power is power and to separate government power from economic power is ludicrous. You do not need communism or even socialism to have societal mechanisms in place to prevent the accrual of wealth too high from the baseline, because since money is time and power and the abstraction thereof, possession of too much by such indivduals should be intolerable to society.
Because too much power in the hands of one unless in a situation with unlimited space and unlimited resources, inherirently will result in reduced power for the many.
Because the MANY is comprised of INDIVIDUALS. The 'collective' of collectivists ARE ALSO INDIVIDUALS thus making the entirity of the libertarian position ludicrous on its head. The very individuals they seek to break against are individuals themselve and they are imposing a tyranny of the minority and a tyranny of inaction due to their concept of natural rights, acting as if natural rights as a concept has abrigated since the foundation of the species, which it has not.
Its silly, and it has to stop.
