tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-113810432024-02-27T20:59:22.338-08:00Vasper's Corner of Rant and IntrospectionMy own personal forum where I get to rant about topics that concern or interest me. Because I love to rant.Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-89830201083217311002015-11-15T14:18:00.000-08:002015-11-16T18:31:51.386-08:00Physics of Climate ChangeI've taken my time in responding to the latest slew of links and videos not because of the level of difficulty (although it was difficult) but by who presented them. <br />
<br />
I am primarily responding to this link and the video links included therein.<br />
<br />
http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/05/climate-stupidity-and-human-survival/<br />
<br />
Denis Rancourt is a published physicist who is also by most accounts a pretty good teacher. So when someone of substance states that AGW is a crock and goes on to present evidence that seemingly demonstrates that I have to take my time and consider the evidence carefully. <br />
<br />
To begin, I am not a physicist, my higher level math skills are sorely lacking. So I will be the first to admit when confronted by an accomplished physicist I feel I am out of my depth. <br />
<br />
I started off with the video links where he outlines the very basis of the physics of climate change. I will say my estimation of him as a teacher rose considerably because how he illustrated the basic equation that governs how hot the earth is based on energy input from the sun, I grasped immediately. I watched through the video two more times to make sure I understood the implications. <br />
<br />
The basic equation is as follows (Is)=(a)(Is) + (E)(Is)oT^4 where (Is) is Intensity from the sun, (a) is albedo of the earth and (E) is emissivity of the earth and T is the temperature. <br />
<br />
The equation must balance. Energy going into the system must equal energy going out otherwise T will rise or fall accordingly to make it balance. If (Is) increases and all other factors of (a) and (E) remain the same then T will increase. <br />
<br />
He agrees that the atmosphere provides a greenhouse effect of a net increase of roughly 33 degrees Celsius. He agrees that a doubling of CO2 in that atmosphere will in the worst case scenario increase the temperature 1.4 degrees C. <br />
<br />
1.4 degrees C 42 minutes in. <br />
<br />
Keep in mind that is lower than the lowest estimate of what the impact of doubling CO2 will have (1.5 to 4C). But let's go with that for now. <br />
<br />
@43:58 changing (a) or (E) has a much bigger effect. 100 times or 2 orders of magnitude. What could be a bigger change of land use than the disappearance of our ice caps? Droughts that are brought about changes in the hydrological scale that precipitate wildfires that devestate our forests and accelarate the creation of deserts. <br />
<br />
I agree with him that CO2 alone isn't enough to raise the temperature to the levels of the geologic historical average of 22C. No climate scientist I know of has said that CO2 is the only driver of climate, not even that it is the main driver of climate. <br />
<br />
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/introduction-to-the-basic-drivers-of-climate-13368032<br />
<br />
It is a very basic acknowledgement that the sun is the main driver of climate. <br />
<br />
CO2 is however, one of the levers of climate that we have out hands on. And all things being equal, this is what is driving the warming we are seeing right now. <br />
<br />
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate-intermediate.htm<br />
<br />
Looking at the problem in isolation, it is perfectly rational to conclude that CO2 by itself will never have a significant impact on our climate. But from Denis's own presentation of the formula and by his own words there are other aspects that would have way more impact. Albedo for example. From his own words he thinks that land use which impacts the reflective/absorptive properties of the earth would have a far greater impact than CO2. As we know when we are talking a 1 or 2 degree increase in global average temperature we are not saying that the temperature increase will be equal across all latitudes. It will in fact be disproportionately higher in the extreme northern and southern polar regions in comparison to the equatorial regions. A large enough increase in which we see a significant reduction in old ice sheets which have a coincidently large impact on the albedo of the region. If the northern and southern poles of our world which were historically the air conditioner of our planet experienced warming which reduced the extent of the ice sheets, what happens to the (a) in the equation. What happens to albedo? It reduces, reflecting less (Is) and thus further raising T. Which starts to further reduce (a) which increases the amount of (Is) that remains and thus increases T. This is called a positive feedback loop. Of course there is an upper limit that (a) will decrease with the disappearance of the ice sheets, but I would ask Denis who is a superior mathematician to calculate what the increase in T would be from that. After we figure out that increase, what other positive feedback loops kick in at that new level of T? The release of methane from the clathrates from the ocean? Which would then change (E). <br />
<br />
Yes the atmosphere does have some cooling effects, but we both agree that the net effect of the atmosphere is warming. Change the (E) of the atmosphere then you end up retaining more heat than you radiate away into space. <br />
<br />
Another part of his article I have some difficulty accepting is the graph he uses showing the historical temperature plotted against CO2 across geologic time (at 47:40). CO2 has been as high as 6000ppm in the past and the average temperature has been 22 degrees Celsius. Much warmer than today with much higher CO2 levels. Then he makes the statement that life did just fine. This is misleading for a number of reasons. <br />
<br />
I will agree that CO2 historically has been much higher with seemingly less sensitivity when it comes to climate. I was curious as to why and in my research it turns out that 500 million years ago our suns output was a few percent less. This falls in line with stellar evolution of main sequence stars. As stars age, they burn hotter and output more energy.<br />
<br />
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit2/mainseq.html<br />
<br />
Going back to Denis' equation at the beginning (Is) was smaller, so CO2 sensitivity is reduced proportionately. It could be much larger without turning Earth into Venus. <br />
<br />
Now let's address what 22 degree Celsius means. It would mean for much of Earth's history, beings that could thermo regulate were at a disadvantage. To put it plainly, while Denis' is correct that life flourished, we have to look at what life flourished, the only animals that were of any great size were animals that were not warm blooded. You had snakes the size of school buses, but of our distant ancestors you only had mammals the size of mice. That was the only size that had the surface area to mass ratio appropriate to be able to thermoregulate in those temperatures. I encourage Denis to look up "wet-bulb" temperatures. These are temperatures at which animals our size, cannot get rid of excess heat even at rest, fully naked in strong winds. These are lethal to our kind of life. So yes, that is what we are saying, we couldn't survive that. <br />
<br />
@52:52 it is the large mammals that are the most susceptible to extinction. The large ones are really endanger. <br />
<br />
I couldn't agree more. We are large mammals. <br />
<br />
This isn't an either/or proposition. It is not 'it is climate change OR habitat destruction'. It is climate change AND habitat destruction. Talking about immediate human impact on environment in no way lessens the importance of climate change and conversely climate change does not lessen to importance of our immediate impacts on environments through habitat destruction, pollution, and deforestation. They are additive, the causes do not substitute for each other. To speak of it as an either/or proposition is a red herring. Yes there are other actions we are responsible for, but it doesn't abrogate our responsibility for climate change. <br />
<br />
@6:23 into part 2. About papers on how they got it so wrong. <br />
<br />
If we go back to Denis' equation all those papers are trying to explain is where the (Is) went if it didn't raise T to the extent they thought it would. They are just balancing the equation. This would be the very same question Denis' would ask if he couldn't see that (Is) was reflected back into space through an increase in (a) or radiated out into space due to an increase in (E). If neither of those variables changed, (Is) has to end up somewhere. <br />
<br />
@7:10<br />
Denis refers to ocean measurements as hauling water up and putting thermometers into it. This practice was supplanted by satellite measurements that started in 1967, well before climate change was on the scene. That this method is still in use has been perpetuated by Monckton and is very much false. <br />
<br />
Basically part two devolves into one debunked myth after another (ie climategate, no access to raw data, scientists trying to protect funding over doing good science, etc). Which a few minutes on Google can set you straight so I'm not going to bother. <br />
<br />
His argument then becomes that nature is too complicated to find any relationships between cause and effect. For which I wonder why is he a physicist at all, if he feels he can never truly know if a cause is truly a cause. I can agree that trying to model natural systems can be complicated, but as Denis showed us in the beginning, the basic formula can be scaled up to be as complicated as you need it to be (as you find more variables to model). <br />
<br />
Denis' disdain for peer review is obvious. This can be traced back to his difficulties with the administration of U of O. Denis' does not hold any authorities body in good esteem so it is no surprise that he sees the peer review process in a similar light. His charge that scientists do not care about the truth anymore has no foundation. Any scientist that proposes to be an expert in their field is going to make sure that any paper they quote actually supports the science that they are doing, and I am not referring to any ambiguous political support, but technical and mechanical support of their work. This is how knowledge is built up. Previous scientists do the groundwork and those scientists that come after build upon it. It is a house of cards, if the base science doesn't support their work then all the work that follows is useless (or at least illustrates an unfruitful path). It is imperative that scientists understand what supports their work before continuing down the same path. <br />
<br />
I've done much the same thing throughout this article. When Denis' has made a claim I've investigated the source to see if 1) it has merit 2) has it been misconstrued. For me to make an assertion that Denis is wrong without actually looking at the sources I would be doing exactly what Denis is accusing the vast majority of scientists of doing. However it is in my best interest to know the facts and speak only to those, to do otherwise weakens my argument. The same can be said of scientists, it is in their best interest to be sure that the work that has been done before actually supports their own work, for if it is knocked down (like a metaphorical house of cards) that does significant damage to their reputations as serious scientists and in the final analysis that is all any scientist has; their reputation. <br />
Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-30277277421434665012013-08-28T13:25:00.001-07:002013-08-28T13:26:08.262-07:00In Matters of FaithIn some respects arguing with the chem trail/Agenda 21/AGW is a hoax crowd is similar to arguing to those of faith. The standards of evidence that they require to support their views are low to non-existent whereas the countervailing side must have unreasonable amounts of evidence and even then it may be rejected due to additional reasons of bias or downright conspiracy. <br />
<br />
<br />
Nothing in society happens in a vacuum. Sure there are those among the rich that would like nothing more than a majority of us to disappear in some disaster while they wait it out in a very comfortable bunker waiting for the day to emerge and take control of society in some post apocalyptic Ayn Rand fantasy. But these people, as the Conspiracy theorist/patriots/freedom lovers like to point out, are the few. <br />
<br />
<br />
Allow me to illustrate. A few years ago I had the opportunity to engage an in-law in a discussion on labour unions. Unions are mostly despised by those that are not in unions, I suspect out of jealousy, but those who are anti-union owe what rights and privileges they have to unions. "Oh yeah? But what about the laws in place protecting employees?" intones my in-law nodding sagely as she lays down what she thinks is her "ace" argument. "Do you think laws are static? Once they are on the books they are there in perpetuity?" I replied. "If unions disappeared after they got the laws passed that they wanted to pass, how long until those, whose best interest is to suppress the value of labour, get those laws undermined and repealed?" I asked. <br />
<br />
<br />
That is how society works,small groups work to game the system in their favour but if it tilts too much then there is a spontaneous countervailing rise in social movements, social justice if you will. Although the status quo will smear these groups with op eds and labels, even going as far as prosecuting them for made up crimes, these movements are a natural immune response to the cancer at the root of our society. <br />
<br />
<br />
The remaining question is why is the process taking so long. The answer is the status quo like any good cancer has long studied the natural immune response and has become quite adept at short circuiting it, dispersing it, marginalizing it and channeling it away from themselves. First is the media which they can misinform and misdirect the masses, next is the legal infrastructure in which they can change the rules as they see fit, next is the conspiracy groups to allow real issues get bogged down by heaps of nonsense, lastly the legitimate groups like the libertarians, democrats and republicans, groups that you can throw your support into but never control. <br />
<br />
<br />
I, in my travels, have had but a few hard questions for which I have sought answers. I have in return been given solutions that do not address the problem, have been told that my questions are illegitimate, have been labelled whatever out group label was fashionable to the group in question. <br />
<br />
<br />
I do not really have faith that people will unravel the knots in their reasoning on their own and they certainly do not willingly accept outside help. My hands are tied. Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-53118264728170565832013-08-27T14:02:00.001-07:002013-08-27T14:02:32.042-07:00ChangeMy blog has been somewhat boring as I've been using it to collate my notes on books that libertarians, objectivists, Tea Partiers and others have insisted I read before I could possibly have an opinion on a given subject.<br />
<br />
However, in doing the reading, I don't believe <i>one</i> of the people to whom I've made suggestions of books they could read have taken me up on it. <i>Not a single one.</i><br />
<br />
My behaviour comes from the perspective of being perceived as tolerant and open-minded. Yes, I have read your manifesto and yes, I find that the following things are wrong with it...(list detail of flaws here).<br />
<br />
I'm done with that. If someone wants to convince me that it is worth my time to read an article or book, then they should have read something from my list and critique it accordingly. I'm not going to waste my time anymore.<br />
<br />
This blog goes back to being what I love to do. Ranting and debating. Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-77178945179674786362013-08-27T13:53:00.001-07:002013-08-27T13:53:22.893-07:00Economics Unmasked ExcerptSometimes I read things that make such good sense, I have to post them.<br />
<br />
Excerpt from Economics Unmasked by Manfred Max-Neef:<br />
<br />
1. The use of local currencies, so that money flows and circulates as much as possible in its place of origin. It can be shown by economic models that if money circulates at least five times in its place of origin, it may generate a small economic boom. <br />
2. The production of goods and services as locally and regionally as possible, in order to bring consumption closer to the market. <br />
3. The protection of local economies through tariffs and quotas. <br />
4. Local cooperation in order to avoid monopolies. <br />
5. Ecological taxes on energy, pollution and other negatives. At present we are taxed on goods and not on "bads".<br />
6. A greater democratic commitment to insure effectiveness and equity in transition towards local economies. <br />
<br />
<b>Postulate 1.</b> The economy is to serve the people, not the people to serve the economy.<br />
<br />
<b>Postulate 2.</b> Development is about people, not about objects.<br />
<br />
<b>Postulate 3.</b> Growth is not the same as development, and development does not necessarily require growth.<br />
<br />
<b>Postulate 4.</b> No economy is possible in the absence of ecosystem services.<br />
<br />
<b>Postulate 5.</b> The economy is a sub-system of a larger and finite system, the biosphere; hence permanent growth is impossible. <br />
<br />
<b>Value principle:</b> No economic interest, under any circumstances, can be above the reverence for life. <br />
Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-5875663461017265142013-08-07T13:44:00.000-07:002013-08-07T13:44:08.960-07:00Radicals: The same everywhereLooking back on my adventures through cyberspace, all the long running arguments and back and forth poo-flinging, trials of one-upmanship, I have come to realize one simple fact:<br />
<br />
<b>Radicals are the same everywhere.<br />
<br />
</b>It doesn’t matter if you are debating radfems, racists, anti-communists, die hard libertarians, religious fanatics(of all stripes), Pro-Choice, Anti-Abortion, Men’s Rights Activists, eco-guerillas, anarcho-capitalist, anarcho-primitivists, or counter-revolutionaries. The polemic is all the same, it follows the same patterns, and it all leads to the same place; back where you started. You have a better chance persuading a stone wall than you do a radical of any ilk.<br />
<br />
<b>1. Radicals label you.<br />
</b><br />
It is imperative that radicals label you at the the earliest possible instance in an interaction. By labelling you they can determine if you are “in-group” or “out-group”, once they determine that you are one or the other (you HAVE to be one or the other, no fence sitting), they can go on to treat you appropriately, either by ridiculing you/ignoring you or if your “in group” getting all buddy-buddy with you and rope you into planning their next jihad. <br />
<br />
<b>2. Radicals attribute behaviours to you.<br />
<br />
</b>Once radicals got you pigeonholed, they begin to attribute an entire groups characteristics onto you. For example, if you happen to be a biologist, then a rabid anti-GMO advocate begins to blame you for Monsanto. Not logical, but it happens far too frequently. How do you argue with that?<br />
<br />
Biologist whose politics you do not like:<br />
<br />
<i>“But, er, I don’t even like GMO’s”<br />
</i><br />
Radical Anti-GMO activist:<br />
<br />
<i><b>“SHUT YOUR LYING BIOLOGIST, GMO-LOVING, MONSANTO-WHORING MOUTH!”<br />
</b><br />
</i>Radicals are also sure to use the word <i>“you”</i> and <i>“your”</i> as in <i>“you lefties are all alike”, </i>and <i>“your scientist mafia”.<br />
</i><br />
<b>3. Radicals are incapable of absorbing new information.<br />
<br />
</b>You craft an argument that clearly shows your radical opponent is wrong. What do they do? Do they read it and weep. Does their ideology crumble like a house of cards? Do they admit that perhaps they were mistaken? <b>NO.</b> They ignore what you’ve said, they ignore any evidence you may have provided that they cannot refute and plough on with thought-stopping memes. Do you seriously think a radical is going to listen to anything you, as an identified “out-group” has said? You have no rapport with this person, to him/her you are the antithesis of everything they stand for, to admit any falliability to you would be an unforgiveable weakness. If they cannot post up a link weakly refuting what you’ve said, then they just don’t bother. Ever notice how long it takes a radical to respond versus someone who is trying to understand the other persons position? A radical can respond with a thought-stopping meme or with a crushing wall of text/links (a la copy/pasta of course) in seconds whereas people who are legitimately trying to understand a persons position takes hours, even days to go through their oppositions position. This is why you will never win a debate with a radical. They have spent countless hours painstaking putting together their dismissive one-liners and padding their wall of text with new links. And if you are foolish enough to go through every link or read every book they suggest and furnish a critique, they will say your critique is wrong and either ignore you or hit you with another wall of text/links or further suggestions for reading. <br />
<br />
As you can tell from my blog I have taken people up on their offers to read books that support their point of view. And I have made extensive notes. I would note, however, I don’t think any of my opposition have ever read a single one of the counter suggestions I made. I think that some of the people I’ve crossed swords with don’t read at all. Which shows to me they are not willing to absorb new information. As one such opponent stated that we cannot “underestimate the conspiracy against liberty in higher learning institutions.” Right. Next.<br />
<br />
<b>4. Radicals are interested in recruiting more people like themselves.<br />
</b><br />
This is why they are so keen in identifying you right away. If you are strong in person and opinion, you are the enemy. If you are unsure then you can be brainwashed (bombarded by links and text and e-mails). By converting you they have added to the echo chamber. This is important and this is why radicalism can survive, because even if you hold a fundamentally flawed idea (like say, all people must die to save the environment) it becomes less extreme if you surround yourself with people that think like you do and espouse the same views. It normalizes your viewpoint. Radicals, like the mainstream, want the same things, they want to be accepted by others. For radicals, however, it is much harder to be accepted by others if your viewpoint is that all women who get abortions are baby killers and should be killed, or that all infidels from the West must convert or die. So radicals do what they can, they create specialized enclaves that exist in isolation from the mainstream. <br />
<br />
<b>5. Radicals are interested in having their message become the dominant message.<br />
</b><br />
All radicals entertain a fantasy. One in which after surmounting the insurmountable, they win. Their utopia is realized. The bad guys (the out group) have either died off or have converted to in-group. They write and talk endlessly about this “light at the end of the tunnel.”<br />
<br />
<b>6. Radicals talk in terms of absolutes.<br />
</b> <br />
They like to use the terms <i>“all”, "no", “every”, “always”, “Not one”, “never”.<br />
</i> <br />
Examples:<br />
<br />
“<b>All</b> men rape, even the good ones.”<br />
“<b>Every</b> muslim is a terrorist-in-waiting.”<br />
“Gays <b>always</b> have an agenda.”<br />
“There is <b>no</b> such thing as a competent woman.”<br />
“<b>Not one </b>women marries for love. <b>None!</b> They marry for a walking-talking wallet.”<br />
“Men will <b>never</b> stop oppressing women, they are incapable of stopping.”<br />
<br />
There are no exceptions for a radical. If something appears like an exception then torturous logical contortions must be enacted to explain how the exception is not an exception. Or the easier route, ignore the existence of the exception.<br />
<br />
What I have learned is that neither answers nor questions are black and white, there exists an interdependence of variables that influence outcomes and defy simple solutions. Most peoples brains are not cut out for that complexity, we like to keep things simple. For example, for radfems, the root of the problem is men, it is a seductive answer that if a solution is found for men then everything else, the economy, the environment, the culture, would sort itself out. For radical muslims, the root of their problem is the infidel. For radical communists, it is capitalism. For radical capitalists, it is socialism in the form of totalitarian governments. But for each radical and their perceived root, it is only one facet of the story, all of these are interdependent on other factors, which because we are human and not robots, we lose sight of because it is too damn difficult to hold it all in our heads. Think about it, how hard would it be to attract members into your radical group if your welcoming dialogue resembled the following:<br />
<br />
“Ladies and gentlemen, we have a problem with the institution of religion...no wait, back up start again, we have a problem with our political parties...no wait that doesn’t sound right...Government! We have a problem with our government....yes we do but that is not all...Big business they are behind it...no wait this is bigger than big business it’s the transnational corporations and their plutocratic elite masters! Yes! Hold on I forgot the banks...no, the Central Banks! Wait I forgot the International Bankers! Ok ok maybe there is more...political ideology! That is the driving force! But that is not all, there is economic ideology behind that! And behind that is the philosophy of money! Driving that is the ideology of POWER, driven, of course, by the currents of culture...is that all? I forgot about the philosophical memes infecting culture which are in turn enhance by religious symbology infecting culture...”<br />
<br />
You see what I mean? How do we unpack all that? How to unravel this mess exactly?<br />
<br />
Normally I would encounter a radical and laugh it off. How would they possibly ever be in a position to influence or control society? I thought about it for awhile and a couple things came to mind:<br />
<br />
1. Hitler - definitely had some radical ideas that even as a minority opinion he managed, through a perfect storm of events, get imposed on an entire nation. So there is that.<br />
<br />
2. To quote from <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkCEOSgLRt4">Zbigniew Brzezinski </a>"...in early times, it was easier to control a million people, literally it was easier to control a million people than physically to kill a million people. Today, it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people. It is easier to kill than to control....". <br />
<br />
Technology being the double-edged sword that it is, eventually, inevitably, gives the power of mass destruction to individuals, including radicalized individuals. So the same small group of fringe radicals with their wacky views of how the world should run (and who should be "removed" to make this happen) suddenly can be seen in a whole new light.<br />
<br />
It is not to say radicalism never had a place in society. These groups glom onto to nuggets of truth but then proceed to distort the consequences of that truth until it, and the proposed solutions to it, are as unrecognizable as they are unpalatable. The purpose these radical groups serve is to project these nuggets out into the mainstream where more rational and level-headed citizens can recognize they have a point, strip out this truth from all the dogmatic garbage that surrounds it, then champion realistic changes to the rest of society. Pressures that led to the formation of these radicals are hence relieved and the figureheads, having served their purpose, fade into the background (whether willingly or unwillingly).<br />
<br />
Increasing access to technology short circuits this process by giving the radicals a direct means to act on society without going through the "laundering" process where their diamonds in the rough can be polished, instead it is the twisted version of consequences and solutions that can be enacted, which usually involves some offending group of people dying in large numbers so the rest can live in paradise (i.e. genocide).<br />
<br />
The question then becomes how can we reach these radicals before they reach critical mass and "pull the trigger?" I can only surmise we do that by making the process of change more responsive and easier to partake in than wholesale destruction and matyrdom.<br />
<br />
Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-80154306720644447082013-07-26T16:12:00.000-07:002013-07-26T16:24:35.247-07:00Radical Feminism: Should we be OK with this?I came across this copy of a blog post from a radfem site. Now to be clear, I am not an MRA. I do possess a Y chromosome and have never been oppressed (so how could I possibly EVER understand?), but this kind of talk just bugs me, in a non-patriarchal way of course.<br />
<br />
Freedom and privilege for women I say yea, conspiring to off the male half of the human species and looking on us like we are subhumans, I say nay. <br />
<br />
I get it, they've been oppressed since the dawn of time. And yes their anger is a righteous one. But for all their claims of superiority and puppies and kittens, women must realize that taking the same road that men previously took doesn't give them the moral high ground, in fact last I checked, talking wholesale gendercide doesn't make you a good human being. <br />
<br />
So to reiterate, not MRA (not insecure about my loss of privilege), although I tended to get alittle punchy with the commentary the longer this went on. I can only tolerate so much stupidity.<br />
<br />
The entire thread is here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://pastebin.com/nwxBe2Ek">http://pastebin.com/nwxBe2Ek<br />
</a> <br />
My response to the snippets in <i>italics. </i><i>Aaaand Gooo!<br />
</i><br />
I think it’s important to begin a post like this by providing some context. You can’t just ask, “Are men aware of their condition?” and then simply proceed to discuss said condition, especially when men are reading. You need to offer some background so that people know where you’re coming from; so the post can’t be distorted; so nobody can play ignorant.<br />
<br />
How about a list of atrocities then? <i>Goes on to list rhetorical atrocities<br />
</i><br />
<br />
<i>So I’m going to go ahead here and concede, yes, those were men. I’m not going to make the argument that women get involved in these activities as well because statistical evidence says for the most part this is a male issue. We do live in a patriarchy after all. But here is where I take some issue, how did the patriarchy get established? As natives said to the white man after gazing upon his cities “Where are your women?” And to be clear they didn’t mean “your” as ownership or dominance but as in equals in the decision making process of how a society should operate. We are now all, <b>ALL</b>, trapped in this cultural meme. As a man I am just as helpless as a woman to change the direction. By myself anyway. I can’t do it alone, so who among the rad feminists are going to stand with me as I would stand with them? Sorry if my having a penis gets in the way of that.<br />
</i><br />
For those readers who may not know, men systematically massacred over nine million women over the course of many centuries, and then pretended it didn’t happen. So clearly, we’re not talking about institutionalized misogyny here. This is not “sexism“, or “woman-hating”. What men have done, and continue to do to women is, I believe, the inevitable result of some pathology in their genetic make-up. The violence they commit is inevitable. They were born that way, and were born to do it. This we must accept.<br />
<br />
<i>I’ve never killed a woman. Nor have I abused a woman. Nor to the best of my knowledge has any of my male friends (for if they did they would be my friend no longer). I don’t see the inevitability of this. What I see is that environment coupled with circumstance leads some down what you see is an inevitable path, but obviously does not apply to all persons of a specific gender.<br />
</i><br />
The Y chromosome is inferior to the X. It contains 78 working genes, compared to approximately 1,500 working genes on the X chromosome. As the Y passes from father to son, mutations accumulate slowly over the generations. Scientists are researching the decline of the Y with great frenzy at the moment. <br />
<br />
What this means is that with each generation, males are becoming genetically more inferior to females.<br />
<br />
<i>That is quite the claim, that females are genetically superior on the basis of having more genes. I guess that would make the tomato superior to females? And rice, and worms...I could go on.<br />
</i><br />
<br />
“Once upon a time, the Y sex chromosome looked much the same as the X sex chromosome. Both were X shaped, and matched up neatly. Like our other pairs of chromosomes, the two sex chromosomes exchanged genes as necessary to repair DNA and avoid harmful mutations.<br />
<br />
Then something went badly wrong. Around 166 million years ago, a huge chunk of the Y chromosome in one of our mammalian ancestors was turned upside down and reinserted. The change was so extreme that the Y chromosome no longer matched the X, and it became impossible for the two to swap genes. The Y chromosome began collecting mutations and losing genes, ultimately taking on its characteristic Y shape as a result.<br />
<br />
“In humans, it now carries a mere 19 of the 800 genes it originally shared with the X. Given that rate of loss, some geneticists have predicted that the chromosome will lose its final gene in 4.6 million years.” (New Scientist)<br />
<br />
Men are loathe to admit it. Despite the evidence staring them in the face, they are apparently in denial.<br />
<br />
<i>Not really, if it happens it happens, it doesn’t make me any less of a person that in 4.6 million years “men”, as I understand them, will not exist. Who is to say another event like the one that happened 166 million years ago won’t happen again? I think making an argument based on genetics opens a can of (genetically superior) worms, i.e. if the Y chromosome is a mutation that should be eliminated what about other types of known and commonly understood genetic damage, like trisomy 21? Are you willing to go down that road? That is not a path I wish to travel.<br />
<br />
So here is a question: if the sex-determinate gene on the Y chromosome jumps to an X and human males are left with a full complement of XX chromosomes, what would then be your excuse?<br />
</i><br />
Female longevity is not an accident. The Y chromosome is faulty, whereas the X is full of life-preserving properties. Take color blindness . This genetic fault manifests only in males, because females have their second X as a back up (kind of like having a second kidney in case one fails). Almost all intersex babies are male but doctors pretend they’re female. The only intersex people who are female are those with Turner syndrome. Wiki says “Turner syndrome only affects females” but this is not exactly true. Turner syndrome babies are born without an X. Males who would have been born with Turner syndrome are probably miscarried early on. They die because there are no genes in the Y to preserve life. Whereas if a foetus is female, they have their second X as a back up, and are therefore born alive. So it is not a “female” condition per se. What actually happens is that only females survive.<br />
<br />
<i>I would concede that males by nature are the more disposable gender, but let’s be realistic about the longevity, men take more risks, we are harder on our bodies then women. We can’t bear children, our biological investment in the act of procreation is minimal. We are built to be active and more aggressive. A good society would design ways to channel these biological imperatives, but what a patriarchy does is hands the keys of the kingdom to the more impulsive of the genders.<br />
</i><br />
<br />
Before you read it, let’s put the idea of “thoughtcrime” into context. Men are right now torturing women, and are proud of it...By contrast, what you are about to read is words. Nothing but words. Do not allow patriarchal propaganda convince you that words on a page, and torture, are one and the same.<br />
<br />
<i>Surely let us not equate words to actions, but since when is the disapproval of the act of contemplating genocide “patriarchal propaganda”?<br />
</i><br />
I would like to express how the knowledge of men being innately violent + a mutation has affected me in my everyday life. I knew that male violence was related to male biology for a year 1/2 maybe? (in that only men could be violent in that way and create a patriarchy) but when I read Sonia Johnson’s book where she explained how men were a mutation, this changed my sentiment to men. At first I was really happy to find this out because it made complete sense, in many ways (too long to explain though). It comforted me in ignoring men and acting as if only women existed, and focusing on creating safe women-only spaces. But something I never felt before, I started to feel sorrow for their state. It annoys me because I have never felt sorry for men before, only contempt, or ignorance at best. I look at them and I imagine what it would be like, knowing somewhere, deep down, that you are flawed, a mistake, and that your are dead, or not fully human, or inherently destructive, and if I knew that, I would probably kill myself. To imagine feeling this made me feel sorry. Do they know it? Or do they not fully understand it? All these efforts in making women believe we are aliens, non-human, naturally and internally flawed, walking defects => this is them projecting on us. They must know on some level they are flawed, but do they experience emotional pain from it? Do they feel emotions at all, or do they just pretend to? To which extent? Are they aware of their condition somehow?<br />
<br />
The thing is, if I treat them as mutants, what’s stopping us from killing them? Empathy? Fear? Fear of hurting ourselves, or that it will destroy our soul to do so, because being violent to someone means cutting yourself from emotions, therefore being more dead inside? Would it be bad to kill them all? To what degree does violence affect them or not? Can they only be affected by violence, and nothing else? Do they only understand violence? How does this affect our actions and decisions to take power away from them?<br />
<br />
<i>Why don’t you just ask a man? I suppose I don’t need to point out the parallels of what this poster is saying and what white culture said of the indigenous people’s they encountered. We all know where this reasoning leads...to genocide. I get the sense that some of the female posters on here have had bad experiences with the men in their lives. I sympathize. However to deal with your issues with certain individuals by projecting your solutions to encompass an entire gender, how does this make you any different than the men who used to (or still do) dominate you? By saying that the problem is men, and the defect is rooted in their genetic make-up essentially relieves not only the woman of how to work effectively with men to change society (by offering up a can’t-fix-em-then-kill-them-all scenario) but it also relieves the men, specifically your oppressors, of any need to change themselves, after all what can they do, it’s genetic. This is self-defeating. Even if you banded together and seized the moment to wipe out all men, at what cost to yourselves? Where goes your moral highground? How do you, after making that decision, differentiate yourselves from the flawed men you loathe?<br />
</i><br />
Also, I just realised yesterday that no man is part of me, and that litterally, I don’t have a dad, no woman has! I just understood the meaning of having the genes from my mother and my paternal grandmother. Only women are my people. Men do not exist within me and I have no father. My father is not my father but he is no-one. This may sound odd but it just struck me. And at the same time, it made me feel sorry for him. And the story Sonia tells in her book sisterwitch really resonated in me, when she explains that women felt sorry for those feeble beings and tried to feed them. Obviously I would never do that but it’s just strange to feel this. This is not a political statement, just to share the effect the knowledge has on me and I’m still processing the conclusions to be made from it in everyday life interactions with men. Perhaps it’s trauma bonding. Or over developed empathy towards dominants. How has this knowledge changed your sentiments towards men, or way of interacting with them, if at all? Other than female separatism, are there some conclusions you have made in your lives based on this knowledge?<br />
<br />
<i>This is just dumb. Biologically speaking we are the same species. I don’t have to point out that in the act of procreation that you inherited an X from your father who inherited it from his mother. That X is instrumental in forming who he is and in turn forming who you are. So in essence you acknowledge a everyman is part woman, but all badness and icky, so either the X is not as mighty as you think it is or there is more to the story.<br />
</i><br />
What you were saying about no woman having a dad, I’ve been going there with my own thoughts recently as well, stemming from my experiences with my own father, and the way that my husband is with my children. They’re not his kids. They don’t have a father. He might regard them as a appendages: get a wife, get a house, get some kids, and in that sense they’re his and belong to him, but other than that, he’s just an alien in the home. He helps out a lot with the kids, which I used to appreciate, but now I realise it’s another form of dominance, of trying to take over in the home and piss all over the place, leaving his mark. I’ve also realised that my 6 year old daughter humours him. How much mental energy is this taking out of her?? She certainly does not humour me, LOL! It’s no holds barred when it comes to telling me exactly what she thinks of me at any particular given moment.<br />
<br />
<i>This strikes me as certainly ungrateful and a certain measure of damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t. He helps out, you call it dominance and resent him for it. If he didn’t help out you would accuse him of neglecting his duties and accuse him of another form of dominance. Can’t win. Perhaps maybe if he ceased to breathe that would work for you? Too bad you didn’t figure this out before you got married, you could have saved both yourself and your soon to be ex-husband much grief. LOL, indeed.<br />
</i><br />
To answer your question about whether men experience emotional pain. I have a lot of brothers, have had various relationships with men and I’ve concluded that when they’re children they feel pain and are as close to female (i.e human) they’re ever going to be. But once they hit puberty they no longer feel emotions. They know that women do and “other” us for it. My husband was putting on one big fat act while we were “courting” before marriage. This has blown me away. If I wasn’t in such a vulnerable situation (in a foreign country with kids) he would have had to carry on with the act throughout our relationship, as almost all men do. But because he didn’t have to bother he practically dropped the act as soon as the ring was on my finger.<br />
<br />
<i>Has it ever occurred to you this is a reflection of culture? That boys are not allowed to cry or show emotion. From an early age we are told to “man up”, “grow a pair”, “quite being a wimp” and that “crying is for sissies”. There is no real place in our culture for the sensitive man. Even women will go out of their way to poke fun at the stereotype.<br />
</i><br />
Yes it’s interesting that you talk about your brothers because the other day I made the same comment to myself, as I was at my grandmother’s house looking at my family photos and when they were 3, 4 years old they actually looked human, had human expressions, you can see it in their eyes. But now, They’re lost, they lost capacity to emphathise. Puberty *is* the turning point.<br />
<br />
<i>The mystical turning point where boys turn into monsters (men)? Again I point to culture. We are not given the tools to deal with our emotions, it makes us fragile emotionally. Nor are we indulged to express our emotions unless it conforms with the ideal male stereotype, brooding, anger, rage, hate, stoicism.<br />
<br />
If we are not taught and encouraged how to appropriately express ourselves are we to be suprised when we express ourselves in wholey inappropriate ways? Whose fault is that? Certainly not something you can blame on a chromosome. In that kind of cultural milieu, how would you expect men to behave?<br />
</i><br />
However, I do very much believe that men experience one particular emotion very strongly— self-pity. I concur with the author of the following (taken from no pomo tumblr, author uknown)<br />
<br />
“Oh, they have toes, but the only feeling men have I’ve witnessed is self-pity. They have a lot of instincts like territoriality, protect your turf or woman, whatever they think they own– but I don’t call ball ingredients like testosterone, feelings or emotions. So isn’t it curious that you can’t even get most lesbians to say they’re man-haters? Instead they say, “Oh I don’t really hate men, now that I’m a lesbian, I never have to be around any. They just don’t affect my life anymore.’ This is what I call the lesbian false consciousness. When don’t we have to be around men? Don’t we ever walk the streets, buy groceries, deal with some patriarchal bureaurcracy, ride subways, trains or drive cars, see police, repairmen, don’t men live in our buildings in the cities or live around you in the country? If you work, aren’t there men around supervising you? If you’re in school, don’t you have any men teachers or have to sit with men in class? If you go to a hospital, aren’t there any men doctors or patients around? The lesbian answer is, “Oh, those; well I never pay any attention to them.” Take a good look next time you’re in what they call public which means man’s world; look at those men you don’t know and dig on how much attention your body and mind pay to trying avoid paying any attention to pigs, who are paying a lot of attention to you making sounds to scare you, stepping in your way or not moving so you have to walk around them or yield to their right of way…. Even the most down and out bum in New York has a whole repertoire of intimidation numbers to pull on women. No matter how far down you go in the prick hierarchy, every prick knows how to corner a woman, make her feel unsafe. And they all do it every day, even your good daddies and your shy brothers who never told you what they do to the women they don’t know.”<br />
<br />
<i>Ah yes the expert testimony of the unknown author. Let’s design society around those musings.<br />
</i><br />
<i>Again I would point out the parallels of this dehumanization to several other famous dehumanizations in history. So when this poster says “prick hierarchy” this is an all encompassing label that all men, everyday go out of their way to make women feel unsafe. Anyone can see that this is a absolute statement that has no bearing on reality. Reminds me of an issue my daughter has with dogs. She is terrified of them (from a intimidating encounter with a dog she encountered when she was a toddler), she opens the door when she sees her neighbour come home, unbeknownst to her the neighbour has a big dog with her. The dog gets startled when the door opens and barks, my daughter gets scared and runs back inside. The neighbour feels bad and knocks on the door and tries to tell my daughter that the dog is a nice dog and was just startled is all and would she like to try again. My daughter explains the origin of her fear and the neighbour replies that there are indeed some bad dogs out there, but most dogs are good and can be good given the chance. I thought that was a fitting metaphor to this discussion. There are some bad men out there, but most men are good or can be good if given the right environment and upbringing. The logic that is being put forward in these posts are men=bad, even if they act good they are probably hiding badness, thus because of the few encounters you’ve had with men that are bad, it is best to proceed with caution and treat all men the same way you’d treat bad men. The terminating clause of this logic being just that, terminating an entire gender.<br />
</i><br />
And while we’re on the subject of men’s primary emotion being self-pity, and not much else, I’d like to quote a woman from a forum called SAAFE, which is where prostituted women gather to support each other and share techniques on how best to survive. I find it interesting to read their comments because these women know men better than any other group of women on earth. <br />
<br />
<i>This is interesting the poster drawing from the experience of a prostitute who has experienced nothing of men but those that view her as an object or a commodity comes to the conclusion that all men, by and large, experience no other emotion that self-pity. I would point out that the men who generally frequent the services of prostitutes are not men who could sustain a relationship of any substance, hint: these men are not good people. I would suggest expanding your sample size to include men that didn’t frequent prostitutes? Just a suggestion.<br />
</i><br />
And if anyone knows about how men tick, it’s prostituted women. They need to, or they wouldn’t survive.<br />
<br />
<i>Yes prostituted women understand ALL men, even those multitudes that would never entertain the thought of engaging in paid-for intercourse /sarc. I would say that prostitutes are experts in narcissists, sociopaths, and the dregs of society. Which makes them experts on bad men, not all men.<br />
</i><br />
And BAM, there you have it. A prostituted woman reaches exactly the same conclusion as a lesbian separatist. That tells us something.<br />
<br />
<i>That people that are low on the rungs of society can be not so savoury?<br />
</i><br />
To conclude, I believe men do have an inkling of their condition. The world they have created is a living manifestation of this knowledge.Nature is on the side of females. We’re nature’s best, which is probably another reason why men hate us so much, and patriarchy promulgates lies about it, and constantly reverses the truth. The most absurd concept of all is the idea that there is a male God in the sky, who is the source of all life, who created Adam in his own image as the original prototype, with Eve as an add-on. Nature knows this is a reversal. It is males who are the add-ons to the species. They protest too much. They know, they know, they know.<br />
<br />
<i>Wow. Arrogance in line with anthropocentrism. Femopocentrism? It is repugnant to hear a man say “Men are superior to women”, it is equally repugnant to hear the other side of that statement.<br />
</i><br />
WordWoman says: <br />
<br />
Fascinating perspective, CBL! Really fascinating! I just got the Sonia Johnson books and am eager to read them. Thanks for your discussion of them.<br />
<br />
Along with the destructon of the environment there has been a decrease in sperm count in males.The sperm is likely to die off in response to environmental degradation long before the Y goes. Either way, men appear to be in decline.<br />
<br />
How likely is that to happen before irreversible destruction to the planet?<br />
<br />
<i>How do women expect to continue to procreate with a sudden degradation of sperm or men? Could it be that you propose to do the same thing that you are accusing geneticist of in that they are trying to find a way to preserve the Y, you will use science to try to find a way to clone yourselves?<br />
</i><br />
cherryblossomlife says: <br />
<br />
Yes, I think I read somewhere that pesticides or plastics or something are hurrying the mutation process along. It’s come a full circle. They’ve destroyed the planet and now nature is getting its own back.<br />
<br />
<i>Hello, you were along for the ride as I recall. Great way to abdicate your responsibility for the planet by putting all the blame squarely on male shoulders. What are you doing to put a stop to this? Are you protesting corporations? Do you speak about the invisibility of top-down hierarchical violence that is not couched in terms of the male gender perpetuated on the female gender? I guarantee that if women gathered together in great numbers pushing their babies along in prams to protest corporation like goldman sachs and Monsanto, the world would take notice. And if the state was stupid enough to pepper spray babies and mothers then they would overnight have to deal with a legion of very pissed-off fathers, husbands, and brothers. But would you rather play the passive victim, hiding out in your forums, conspiring as to how to bring down the male menance. You want the patriarchy gone, then learn to work with those that would help you accomplish that.<br />
</i><br />
<br />
witchwind says:<br />
<br />
Excellent! You’re right, if they didn’t know, they wouldn’t be so violently trying hard to “be on top” and to brainwash us into believing the contrary.<br />
<br />
thinking of what I said, the problem of taking violence in our own hands is that again, it focuses our energy on men in negative ways, it generates negativity in us – I suspect it would, but I can’t be certain. How do women who killed their batterers feel about it? Was it completely liberating or did it reinforce patterns of violence in themselves, creating addictive cycles of violence?<br />
<br />
At least it seems to go against positive building and focusing on ourselves and on creating our own reality, rather than being outward centred and doing according to men’s presence. Would it locate, yet again, power outside of ourselves? Valerie Solanas said that all men should do us and themselves a favour, to kill themselves now. That it would be the best service they could give to the world, free the world from their presence. Obviously this seems the easiest option, but I don’t think it’s likely to happen. They are very intent on continuing to pollute us and the world with their presence.<br />
<br />
If we applied the logic of Sonia Johnson, where there is no past nor future, all we would need to do is feel and act as if men already *were* dead, inexistant and extinct, something of a distant memory. I wonder what effect this would have!<br />
<br />
<i>Why don’t you read some history and consider how dimly the notion of genocide is looked upon. It is, by all definitions, the worst crime that can be perpetuated by our species. Think that won’t leave a black mark? Think again.<br />
</i> <br />
FCM says:<br />
<br />
i first considered the defective Y chromosome when i read it in dalys work, and then again in sonia johnsons sisterwitch conspiracy. it was almost incomprehensible to me, and in fact if i hadnt seen daly address it, i never wouldve accepted it from the less-credentialled johnson and this is intentional isnt it? how many ph.ds does a woman have to have, so that citing known facts is accepted and acceptable? ffs, men can look you right in the eye and tell you up is down and it takes a very confident woman to recognize within the privacy of her own mind that hes wrong, let alone say it out loud. we just shut down from the oppressiveness of the constant mindfucking reversals. thats what we have coming FROM THEM, and yet *we* are not allowed to SPEAK about the truth, or ask legitimate questions about mens worth at all. and thats what it comes down to isnt it? MENS WORTH. and how they dont really have any — they really are so much genetic garbage. they feel sorry for themselves and we feel sorry for them — this is the sum and substance of our relationship. it is unilateral pity towards the pathetic, defective male.<br />
<br />
saying it out loud feels good and right. :)<br />
<br />
<i>So says Hitler. I am coming to understand why the term “feminazi” exists. I wonder how you expect to have a rational conversation about this, how you expect to be “free” and respected if you think that the other side of this equation (who incidentally still holds most of the privilege you wish to have or at least have denied to men) is not even human, worthy of basic decency. I’ve met some pretty awful people in my time, a good chunk of them men, but this is up there.<br />
</i><br />
cherryblossomlife says: <br />
<br />
Ha! Yes, even prostitutes feel sorry for their clients. Everybody feels sorry for men, including men themselves.. And when you look at the science, you can see this pity is not misplaced. I’d feel sorry for myself if I was born male.<br />
<br />
<i>I don’t feel sorry for myself. I am quite comfortable in my own skin. I worry about my kids. I want to encourage a strong confident daughter who is not afraid to stand up for herself and a son who will respect women and stand by them when needed.<br />
</i><br />
FCM says:<br />
<br />
even the sheer physical redundancy of males is never addressed in the mainstream, even though that is obvious. we have only ever needed a few of them for reproductive purposes. their redundancy in terms of numbers, as well as the fact that they embody genetic garbage, and are at a critical mass of pure evil, is an unholy trifecta. these issues are generally not discussed even individually, and certainly not together (as in, 1+1+1=3 or 0+0+0=0 for that matter — haha) and we DEFINTELY arent allowed to even THINK about a possible solution for what is a very obvious and urgent problem.<br />
<br />
<i>And what is your FINAL solution? Sheesh!<br />
</i><br />
FCM says:<br />
<br />
god i wish fathers didnt exist at all. i cannot wait til some of you read sisterwitch. :)<br />
<br />
<i>I wish thoughts like this didn’t exist, but we don’t always get what we wish for.<br />
</i><br />
DavinaSquirrel says:<br />
<br />
I did a ‘default human is female’ post over a year ago, with pictures, so you can see the really pathetic Y. It’s another of patriarchy’s great reversals – that males insist they are the default human, when the reality is that females are the default human.<br />
<br />
<i>I’m not sure where you’d come up with that “males insist they are the default human”. Biology is pretty clear, we all start out looking like females, sexual differentiation not occurring till later in the pregnancy. However, for any one gender to insist that they are the default gender seems pretty silly on the face of it. What if we all defaulted to one gender or the other? We’d end pretty quickly as a species. Evolutionary biology has one gender bearing the children and the other contributing his genetic material. Don’t blame men for that arrangement, blame evolution.<br />
</i><br />
cherryblossomlife says: <br />
<br />
Thank you for that Weirdward! Especially the explanation of how post-modernism was feminism distorted. God, can’t they think of a <b>SINGLE</b> idea themselves?? <b>Jesus Christ!<br />
</b><br />
<i>Do I even have to go there? No man ever had an idea that didn’t come from a woman? This is a peculiar brand of plagarism. Congrats, you just plagarised at least 50% of recorded human history.<br />
</i><br />
karmarad says: <br />
<br />
Thanks Cherry for your courage and insights!It is so difficult to try to think straight from within this masculinist global society.<br />
<br />
When I consider the state of the land, sea, women, animals, and plants, and the constant and increasingly potent attacks on them, what I see is that a deformed masculine spirit has seized control of the earth and it has, freed of any controls, run rampant. By suppressing the female side of themselves and humanity as successfully as they have, the masculine spirit has – how to say this – become extreme, exaggerated, monstrous, lost any ability to abate the more destructive aspects of masculinity. I often speculate about what women would be like if we were raised in freedom.<br />
<br />
I’d add to that the question of what the world would be like if men were raised in balance and with destructive instincts controlled by a non-masculinist society. In a way I’m talking about both an essentialist view of human males as having all this destructive potential readily available within them, coupled with a social-constructionist view that the global society they have built increasingly encourages them to go mad with it. The madness is, in this way of thinking, getting progressively more destructive in its manifestations because it is unchecked.<br />
<br />
I’m currently reading Lierre Keith’s analysis, locating this loss of balance and suppression of the feminine and pathological exaggeration of the masculine in the rise of agriculture. Of course many other feminists have discussed this theory. The geneticist Adam Sykes ( in “Adam’s Curse”) starts from the notion that the Y chromosome at that point had the opportunity to obtain complete power over humanity’s course: “Driven on and on by the crazed ambition of the Y-chromosome to multiply without limit, wars began to enable men to annex adjacent lands and enslave their women. Nothing must stand in the way of the Y-chromosome. Wars, slavery, empires – all ultimately coalesce on that one mad pursuit…The mad scramble, fuelled by the most basic of unseen genetic impulses, seriously endangers the survival of the species – and the planet. In ten thousand years we have changed from an intelligent and resourceful animal…into a teeming species very rapidly destroying our beautiful planet.” I don’t agree with Sykes on many basic points, because he still writes with blinders, but I’ll take his moments of clarity gladly.<br />
<br />
Anyway, destruction caused by male domination has obviously become runaway. Women have enough to do with the process of getting free of their enslavement. But we aren’t going to have time to do this in any kind of orderly fashion – men aren’t going to stop the runaway and we have to address this concurrently with recovering our power. I even ask myself if the women’s liberation movement is directed by our own XX genes, sensing the impending destruction and impelling us to take action at this precise time of escalating threats to the earth. In any case, if male domination causes massive destruction, I don’t really think our planet will be destroyed. She can weather men pocking her with holes, poisoning her atmosphere, ruining her ecologies, killing her water – and come back in a few million years. She’ll be okay, but it’s a damn shame that this is the most optimistic thing I can say about the future, that a complete wipeout won’t destroy her. Too bad only trilobytes will be left to start over, or whatever non-human species make it through.<br />
<br />
<i>This was probably the most coherent comment on the blog, suggesting that there is a balance issue between the feminine and masculine.<br />
</i><br />
cherryblossomlife says: <br />
<br />
Thanks Karmarad, fascinating comment, as always.<br />
<br />
<i>Probably didn’t understand the full ramifications of the comment which essentially says that feminine and masculine should be in balance, which doesn’t support treating men like animals and/or eliminating them. It calls for changing the environment in which men grow up to channel and temper those genetic predispositions.<br />
</i> <br />
FCM says:<br />
<br />
women have been taking birth control pills for decades for example, when its perfectly “natural” for semen exposure to cause pregnancy. seems like altering biology (or “nature” if you will) is perfectly acceptable when its WOMENS biology thats being fucked with, and where the intent and effect is to support male power at womens expense.<br />
<br />
<i>If you can come up with something better than a condom for men, then fill your boots. No one is stopping you.<br />
</i><br />
cherryblossomlife says: <br />
<br />
Yes, I think so citizenaqueau. Nature is on women’s side, at least. Maybe that’s why men love cutting down rainforests and shit.<br />
<br />
<i>I would say that men and women love money, they love the nice things it buys them and they have been inculcated by an economic system that says that the nature of the goods of nature is “free”. So while I’ll concede that most of this economic garbage was thought up by men, as was the ideology of capitalism, and most of religion...where are the feminist thinkers on any of these subjects? Feminist economists? Feminist theologians? I recognize the fallacy of our our cultural institutions, but I don’t see much radical feminist analysis of these institutions. What would it amount to? Man=bad, woman=good. End of story.<br />
</i><br />
cherryblossomlife says:<br />
<br />
Honestly, go and google “BDSM porn” then come back here and say, “Well, some men are nice”. It doesn’t fly. And to be honest, it doesn’t MATTER, because those few nice men aren’t WORTH the millions and billions of women and children who have been hurt, tortured and killed by men since patriarchy began.<br />
<br />
<i>So I gotta ask, do all men look at BDSM porn? Poster seems to suggest that we do? Again we are ascribing the attributes of a subset of the male population to the entire male population.</i><br />
<br />
cherryblossomlife says:<br />
<br />
Remember the political system was INVENTED by men. WOmen had nothing to do with it. Yes, it’s a complex system, but patriarchy is a political system indeed, which employs all the same oppressive tactics as any other authoritarian regime (terrorizing and torturing the oppressed, using propaganda in the form of pornography, the stifling of women’s speech, discriminating in the job market etc etc). The question you have to ask is:<br />
<br />
“WHY do men create authoritarian regimes?” “WHY do they violently oppress women (and in some cases men of other ethnic or racial groups)?” “Why do they kill and hurt women and children so frequently?”<br />
<br />
Women haven’t a jot of political or economic power.<br />
<br />
<i>You forgot the economic system, religious system, cultural system. And you also forgot in the heat of your blaming that although it was invented by men it was(and is) <b>SUPPORTED</b> by women. You promptly erect the defence that “women haven’t a jot of political or economic power”. You forget that in an age when women are elected and appointed to the highest offices in state and corporate power that you are running potentially the most subversive and successful espionage strategy in the history of the universe; <b>you are raising our children</b>. You have the ability, under our noses and enmasse, to turn society on its ear. You are our children’s first consistent conctact with an adult, what you teach establishes our children’s intellectual and emotional foundation. So please, spare me the “poor me” routine.<br />
</i><br />
cherryblossomlife says:<br />
<br />
And exactly WHO is conditioning men to be violent? Don’t you think maybe pornography, computer games and the mass media (ALL invented by men) are a form of political control, a form of political propaganda, encouraging violence against women?<br />
<br />
<i>Poor parenting? You have no control over what goes on in your home? What media your children consume? Yeah, sounds like poor parenting. I live in this world, the world of the patriarchy, that I can’t control. I can, however, make sure my children know the difference between the world they are growing up in and the world that is possible.<br />
</i><br />
FCM says:<br />
<br />
NO men are against violence against women. none of them. it physically hurts me to read such wishful thinking about boys and men, and such lies about what men are capable of, and what they allegedly believe, AGAINST ALL EVIDENCE. stop hurting me! thanks!<br />
<br />
<i>Wow. Another absolute statement that does not reflect reality. Let me check, did I engage in any violence against women today...well I guess unless you count disagreeing with radfems as “violence” I would say no. But please educate me in the arcane ways that I am unwittingly promoting violence against women.<br />
</i><br />
karmarad says:<br />
<br />
Just want to stress something brought up by fcm…from the evidence to date, men, with fourteen times as much testosterone as women, tend strongly toward aggression, hierarchy, and dominance. Yes, making use of these instincts/predispositions, they have wrested control of human society. The result is urgent danger to our planet.<br />
<br />
BUT there is no such thing as biological determinism.<br />
<br />
A mature society can contain these instincts (I mean a society that does not valorize, hierarchy, domination, and aggression). They can be controlled and neutralized. There are many methods for containing male violence. Men themselves are inventing new methods for doing so as we speak. Many men are ashamed of their instincts and would like to have methods to control the destructiveness.<br />
Hormonal adjustments are important to look into. I look at trans people taking hormones, women coerced into taking hormones, birth control pills, Lance Armstrong, Alex Rodriguez and all the other sports figures trying to hypermasculinize by using hormones. I look at the ongoing efforts to control sex predators using chemical or surgical castration, especially men who have castrated themselves because they know they are dangerous. I see how modern medicine is using hormones to treat breast and prostate cancer. Treating women for “menopausal” symptoms of course is just filling them up with hormones to keep them looking younger and more available.<br />
<br />
One case haunts me. It was an Army doctor during and after the Civil War in the US. He became a rapist and was put into a mental institution. A very intelligent individual, he analyzed his situation and one day castrated himself. The relief he felt was enormous.<br />
<br />
There are many twists and turns in history. There are many intelligent men as well as the huge number of women pointing out the obvious here. I look at Derrick Jensen (Deep Green Resistance), for instance, who wants to save the earth and is right on the edge of understanding that it is men who must be contained first and foremost.<br />
I do think there is hope. Brute force is irrelevant to power today. Women are superb at the verbal swordplay of law and medicine and now have their entrees. I figure that all we have to do is continue to encourage birth control, literacy, access to the Net, and abortion if needed. Other feminists can help me here, explaining what exactly we need.<br />
<br />
And one other thing. It is crucial to insist that we are agents. We are subjects, not objects, and won’t be treated as objects in the media, in philosophy, in politics, or in any other way, any more. To be human is to be a subject. Let’s call it out each time men try to pretend we aren’t subjects, agents, just like them. It’s a good place to start.<br />
<br />
And good god, they’re still trying to prostitute us. They are still jacking off to pictures they have stolen from us. They think paying poor women (made poor by their system) a pittance somehow makes it right to perform virtual rape. They think their sex drives are the most important things going on. They feel entitled to degrade us. Let’s be honest, and I have talked to several men candidly about this: the necessity is to pretend we are not human. We’re like nice dogs to them in pornography and prostitution. Good doggie! (growl/attack/eat) Dogs like us are close to our wolf origins, remember! or even more close to human, let me say these words: shame, shame on you, you are disgusting to do this to other humans, and the women are human, and you are sickening.<br />
<br />
We have always borne the responsibility, and never received the credit for it. Let’s face it. We are the stable, grounded, child-raising, feeding, life-affirming sex, and men with their loud voices, their boundary violating, their pecking orders, have fucked our society up royally. Even in my lifetime I have seen a revolution. Cultural change won’t take long considering that there are three and half billion of us who are tired of not being quite human. That we are not killers, exploders, destroyers, has held us back since these methods are common in male arsenals but not in ours. These days these methods are irrelevant. Men are irrelevant. actually. If they want to become relevant again, they will have to learn self-fucking-discipline.<br />
<br />
<i>Other than the second last paragraph karmarad once again hit the nail on the head. Patriarchy needs boundaries. I think radfems miss the point that the patriarchy makes demands on both genders, the feminine to be invisible and submissive and the masculine to be competitive and domineering. Any individual (regardless of gender) that does not play the role gets singled out and squashed. I do not want to say that there is a direct comparision between the roles we play, there is not, but I would point out that men would do better <b>not</b> being under a patriarchy. It is dog eat dog out here, and although you are not predisposed to bear any sympathy for the male gender, you could consider the collapse of the patriarchy a selling point. Men establish worth by who/what we conquer, over the thousands of years this has morphed into how much money do we make and how much influence do we have in social circles. Could it be that it would be a burden we’d readily give up if we could establish our worth simply by being who we are and not what we can offer? <br />
</i> <br />
cherryblossomlife says: <br />
<br />
I was interested to notice that a man has liked this post, and his gravatar is interesting. It reads “SUpport Radical Feminism”. Now, any woman who supports radical feminism IS a radfem, whereas any man who understands radical feminism knows that, by default, he cannot be a radfem. Compare it to the Hugo Schwyzers of this world, self-proclaimed feminist men who believe they’re leading women to freedom… What an imbecile. So feminist men, egalitarian men, non-capitalist men, animal rights men, male ecologists and the like can fuck off… But if a man wants to “Support Radical Feminism”, then I feel very heartened by that… UNLESS he, and his ilk goes and does what men have always done, which is take over the movement and distort it.<br />
<br />
<i>I am emphatically not radfem, in fact most of you who identify themselves as radfem on this thread are repugnant in your understanding of the ideology. I think that giving women more power and education can alleviate problems like overpopulation, violence, environmental destruction, but the women in power have to reject the patriarchy and not supplant themselves just so they can hold on to a paycheque/position. They have to blaze their way to power on the platform on which they stand.</i> <br />
<br />
cherryblossomlife says:<br />
<br />
Peaceful Antithesist, I think yours was the lengthiest comment I’ve ever had here on cherryblossomlife. Well DONE. <br />
<br />
<i>This was after a series of censored male comments edited by the admin to say “Hai, I’m an MRA!” and this comment should read:<br />
</i><br />
Peaceful Antithesist, I think yours was the lengthiest comment I’ve ever had <b><i>censored</i></b> here on cherryblossomlife. Well DONE.<br />
<br />
<i>Women have been silenced, their opinions ignored for a long time. I get that. Women only spaces, that too I understand. You can have private forums in which the public cannot read unless they are logged in that way you can weed out the MRA’s. But to have a public post and willfully discriminate and purposefully demonstrate you are discriminating, why bother? It is like you give the oppressed a little power (in this case admin power) of the oppressor and watch them go wild with the new round of oppressing. Take that you dirty worthless men, I SILENCE YOU! HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES! Sheesh!<br />
<br />
For the record, if any rad fems post a comment to this article I’m not going to act like a child and post “Hai, I’m a RadFem.” I will allow it, because as a privileged male, I can share my space without fear.<br />
</i><br />
cherryblossomlife says:<br />
<br />
Why do MRAs come here? We’re talking about how much men hate women. What are they trying to prove? Are they trying to convince us they DON’T hate women..? Coz if that’s the case their tactics are crap, and they’re not very convincing. In fact, all they’re doing is proving us right. And if we’re right, and they DO, in fact, hate women… then why are they complaining about this post at all?<br />
Fucking oppressors.<br />
<br />
<i>Well to be fair, it is hard to convince anyone of anything if:<br />
<br />
You don’t value their opinion.<br />
You don’t regard them as human.<br />
You don’t let them speak.<br />
You are not open to listening.<br />
<br />
But yeah MRA’s pretty much hate women. Empowerment of women, to them, represents a diminishment of their power/status/privilege. You see this pattern time and time again in other oppressor/oppressed type of relationships (i.e. poor whites looking down on negroes although they were both oppressed by rich whites). To be MRA is to have an insecurity problem, they’ve been handed a rotten bit of luck in life, and since it is not permissible to own slaves anymore the last bastion of discrimination left is gender. To feel better about themselves they demonize the perceived weaker group, in this case women. If they are not the absolute last on the totem pole then they can accept their lot in life.<br />
<br />
<b>In Conlusion:<br />
</b><br />
If this post was some sort of satire where the women posting were treating men exactly the way men where treating women for thousands of years (i.e. that they are not people and their opinion is irrelevant) then it is brilliant, <b>brilliant</b> I tell you! Because it isn’t an experience for most men to have their opinion not only not matter, but be entirely negated solely for the fact that they are men. It is unsettling and disturbing and bravo for doing that for the sake of illuminating our behaviour. <br />
<br />
Unfortunately this isn’t satire (unless it is? Tell me radfems, my male mind is uncomprehending) and the lines of reasoning expressed in this thread lead to dark places. We should know, men already went there. Which leads me to state, <b>have you women learned nothing from our mistakes</b>? You want to repeat them because why? It’ll be different this time? Now that is <b>insanity</b>, doing the same action over again and expecting different results.<br />
</i>Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-29053729016876915592013-05-22T15:12:00.001-07:002013-05-22T15:12:02.056-07:00Unity of Law by Henry Charles CareyHi all, this post consists of notes I made when I was reading through <i>The Unity of Law</i>. Not terribly interesting but to maybe one or two people who suggested that I read this book.<br />
<br />
Pg viii- man starts with the poorest axes and poorest soils and improves upon both so the land yields ever larger returns. This is not so different than the green position of "leave the land in better shape than you found it."<br />
<br />
Pg ix- Soils, if not properly nurtured, do indeed suffer from diminishing returns, entire civilizations have been brought down by this fact. Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations <br />
<br />
Pg x – Mr. Carey recognizes the true wealth, the increase of the bounty of nature. Population growth and productivity do not grow in tandem, returns on land increase, then population increases, when the limit is near the pressure drives further innovation. Carey presupposes this can continue ad infinitum. <br />
<br />
Pg xii- Mr. Carey makes the argument since force can neither be created or destroyed the multiplication of human force must result in man usurping the force of nature and repurposing it for his needs. If that is so then we need to consider carefully for which we use this force and not to use it frivolously (i.e. fashion shows, advertisements, financial industry, etc). <br />
<br />
Pg xiv- I get the feeling that when this book was written numbers of men were a necessary precondition to subverting and claiming more force. Mr. Carey assumes a static process for progress. He also ties progress as a function of population (ie the greater the population the greater the progress). If population was the key then why have nations like Britain and the US established empires while nations like China and India are only now reaching their ascendancy?<br />
<br />
pg XX-Putting humanity on a pedestal. <br />
<br />
Pg. 2- He nicely illustrates the flaws of neoclassical economics: exclusions. <br />
<br />
Xxi- Mr. Carey states the mind is the only source of power. <br />
<br />
P4- focussed on using power to become the master of nature rather than the steward of nature. <br />
<br />
6- Mr. Carey makes the error is assuming the forces of nature are "gratuitous". Same mistake Henry Hazlitt makes, indeed all neoclassical economists make. <br />
<br />
Pg9- preciseness of language.<br />
<br />
P20- Mr. Carey spends pages stating that the lowest quality of soil is cultivated first and the productivity of the soil increased with technology. He says history demonstrates this and it most emphatically does not, the easier to cultivate soil was exploited first and as technology leapt ahead made it possible to cultivate lesser soils at an acceptable return. <br />
<br />
Pg 46- Mr. Carey follows reductionist thinking that by understanding the parts of the machine it is possible to replicate the entire machine. <br />
<br />
Pg 47 - no doubt referring to Newton's laws which do not apply at the quantum level. <br />
<br />
Pg 61- Mr. Carey refutes Adam Smiths motivations of man as being solely defined by material benefit. This is to be applauded. <br />
<br />
Pg 62-irony in the Goethe quote that is explicitly non-reductionist. <br />
<br />
Pg 78-96 attempting to draw a parallel between the gravitation of physics and the aspect of association. Heavy doses of social Darwinism, the more intellectual the man, the greater the diversity, the more perfect man becomes. <br />
<br />
Pg 98 - states that the power of association exists everywhere and is necessary to recycle materials and energy but places a premium of mans association above all others?<br />
<br />
Pg 101-individuality vs. centralization seems to be the ancestor of the individualism vs. collectivism argument. <br />
<br />
Pg 102 – “the more society tends to conform to the laws that govern our system of worlds.” I assume he means the natural laws of physics, if so where does unrestrained exploitation of the natural environment fit in to that? Assumes the position of controller does not mean exploiter. With control comes responsibility, without which, becomes nothing more than exploitation of master and slave, no harmony can be had. <br />
<br />
Pg 103 - his argument does not carry weight for soil. This assumes that farmers cannot recognize what constitutes good soil vs. poor soil. Of course the good soil would be exploited first. Eventually that agricultural land would be built over and lesser soils would be utilized because farming techniques made it possible to exploit which otherwise would be to arduous to work. <br />
<br />
Pg 122: Nature being a sum of never varying energy. Nothing that man does can alter that total. This is false. Even if it was true, by its own logic man could shift the total from usable to non-usable energy. <br />
<br />
Pg 132 I wonder if the exactness of subordination applies to Nature or if it must be imposed. <br />
<br />
Pg 145 - if self-direction tends towards perfection and perfection results in a more equitable distribution then why the concentration of wealth?<br />
<br />
Pg 148- with the increase in population why has the capacity for self-direction (which grows in tandem with association) not resulted in peace? Why have the magnitude and frequency of war increased as population increased?<br />
<br />
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hsDn2kNriI<br />
<br />
Pg 159 if power of self-direction allows us to increase association and thus wealth, where does competition play a role in this? If two men train their power of self-direction on a goal in which the end result is only one may own it, does not this power get blunted by interfering with the other and lessening the effect of association?<br />
<br />
Pg 174 - HC puts great emphasis on the diversification of employment and also states that those that do not give back to the earth inevitably starve. Some of this employment may be had with the maintenance and improvement of the Earth's ecosystems. <br />
<br />
Pg 175. Production increases and consumption rises to meet that increase. This is Jevon's Paradox. This is not a desirable thing inasmuch that most of the consumption increase occurs with those that are already rich. <br />
<br />
Pg 197- monopolies destroy association thus is undesired. <br />
<br />
Pg 206 - the societary positives and negatives do not exist in a vacuum. People are the catalyst, but they require the raw material provided by the environment. <br />
<br />
Pg 207 - speaking in ill terms about the tariff of 1824 makes me wonder if the power of association cannot be equally applied as an argument for globalization. <br />
<br />
Pg 215 - that capital over labour, matter over mind leads inevitably to rebellion is a damning statement against capitalism. <br />
<br />
Pg 234- he is describing exponential growth "wealth greater than in all the time since the Mayflower landed in Massachusetts." <br />
<br />
“If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” Herbert Stein, Economist<br />
<br />
Pg-258 economies consist of both consumers and producers, an ecosystem consists of the same, except that in nature there is no waste. Thus the economy, as robust as it is, is a pale comparison to an ecosystem. For an economy to be as vital and sustainable as the environment must be as waste free. All waste product must be recycled into new product. <br />
<br />
Pg 280 - when Carey talks about how much better Britain would be if they paid India a fair price for their materials so they in turn could serve as a market for Britains more highly refined trades seems to imply that this relationship can be amplified continually for even greater heights of wealth for both countries. It could be but for physical limits of resources. <br />
<br />
Pg 283 - Mr. Carey's argument is entirely contextual. He is right in so much as Malthus was wrong, temporally speaking. At the time the population about a billion, the carbon footprint/ecological footprint of each person was a fraction of what the average North American has. In Carey's time poverty was a distribution problem brought on by British short-sighted mercantilism. Today a similar argument could be made but for the physical limits we are hitting in terms of energy and resources. <br />
<br />
310 - it is as if Carey was saying that if the wealth was spread around more equally that self-respect and mutual respect increased. The question of what to do about the poor only becomes a question in a society that encourages inequality. <br />
<br />
314 - Carey seems to imply that Malthus's theory, given in its context, was a justification of the riches misdeeds and an absolution of whatever obligation the rich may have to the poor. Just like any economic ideology, a justification to be unapologetically rich. I would tend to agree, in this context, Carey was correct. Malthus had no idea what the ultimate carrying capacity was. <br />
<br />
376 - the always gratuitous services of nature implies that their is no cost to man. That value stands as a substitute for resistance, that value increases as the cost to man increases in no way accounts for the cost to nature and the cost to its ability to renew. <br />
<br />
384 - in the context, to avoid fever, dryer lands were selected while more fertile lands where left uncultivated. Certainly this is a fluke in the history of mankind as generally more fertile soils are cultivated first (Egyptian delta). A fluke brought about as one of the few native diseases that affected the settlers disproportionately (see Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond). This one instance does not a trend make. Also Carey has a peculiar definition of rich lands. He refers to "undrained" rich lands which by definition without the investment of substantial intervention are unusable. Lands that are easiest to cultivate are lands that are cultivated first. <br />
<br />
391 - again on the definition of soil richness. Rich soil is defined as its ability to bear crop in proportion to the preparation it requires in either labour or technology. If it isn't usable until much labour is expended or certain technologies are invented to exploit the soil profitably, then it isn't rich. It is similar to saying we'll never run out of land or energy because we have a whole universe to exploit. We might have a whole universe, but without the proper tools it is unavailable to us. We will never want for food as long as we have rocks that we can transform into food through magical alchemy. <br />
<br />
392- increased consumption goes hand in hand with increased production. We could theoretically support a much increased population if we consumed as did our ancestors did, but we consume at a much greater rate. Something has to give. Also what if we hit cognitive limits as well as physical limits? The point where more people doesn't result in an increase in the power of association nor an increase in the power of self-direction? Case in point, the modern laptop. Put one average person in the room and ask him to explain how it works, reverse engineer it, and build a new one. Increase the numbers, put 10 people in the room, 100, 1000, 10,000...at what point do you acknowledge that knowledge has become so specialized and intricate that the complexity cannot be replicated by any number of average people without access to highly rigorous and specialized education?<br />
Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-61401896930594202272012-09-10T14:33:00.000-07:002012-09-10T18:09:09.198-07:00Free to Choose Round 3: Final RoundThis is the third and final round (for me anyway, Keith if you'd like the last word, have at it). Keith response to my second rebuttal is <a href="http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?p=3007">here</a>.<br />
<br />
<i>The founding fathers would be considered libertarians given today’s lingo. They spent a lot of time making the US federal government as small ...</i><br />
<br />
Many of the founding fathers were classical liberals, calling them libertarians today is practicing revisionists history. The founding fathers wanted a government that was strong but not tyrannical and that is what they got with the Constitution. They never contested powers arrogated to the state level, it was never even a question, they were only concerned with federal level powers, which is why they enumerated them, except of course that pesky General Welfare clause.<br />
<br />
<i>I don’t take complete ownership of her philosophy. She’s a writer...</i><br />
<br />
Fair enough. Good to see you're not a purist.<br />
<br />
<i>Collectivist is evil. Liberty is not. Liberty is incorrectly called evil, and collectivist is rightly so...</i><br />
<br />
I don't know of any writings that call liberty evil. Plenty of writings that demonize collectivism though. I also wonder about framing the conversation in such binary terms, good vs. evil. But it is promising to see you say that a mix of freedom and communal action can work at least for primitive societies. <br />
<br />
<i>People do fight wars for freedom and democracy. I realize that doesn’t happen that ...You seem to be totally missing the evil of Germany and I find that scary.<br />
</i><br />
Germany was an imperial power, Britain was an imperial power, France, Russia, US, all imperial powers. None of the leadership cared about what was happening to the Jews, or the Chinese, or the Communists. Eugenics and antisemitism was just as popular in the US as it was in Germany. Britain and the rest of the European allies would have done just about anything to avoid a war with Germany. They stood by as he re-armed, then took back the Rhineland, then took Austria, Sudetenland, part of Czechoslovakia, Memel. It wasn't until he attack Poland that Europeans realized his interests wouldn't be sated with a piece of land here and there. FDR campaigned on a platform of staying out of the war but once elected started a PR campaign to convince the citizens that it was the right thing to do. After Pearl Harbor it was an easy thing to do. So while the people believed they were fighting evil (and they were), the leadership only cared about protecting their interests abroad and domestic. <br />
<br />
<i>Friedman explained that you can supplement social security with a negative income tax.</i><br />
<br />
I think Friedman argued that a negative tax combined with a flat tax would replace social security, minimum wage laws, food stamps and welfare. Which, if it performs as advertised, would be a pretty good deal and eliminate a lot of social spending.<br />
<br />
<i>I use greed because it is a shorthand. I also don’t like using the same words over and over. Acting in your own self interest is definitely not always greedy. It would only be greedy if you always acted in your own self-interest. And the points is that a government can’t know if you are being greedy, so it shouldn’t worry about this issue. Greedy doesn’t mean stealing. Knowing whether someone is stealing doesn’t require knowing teir motivations. It is scary to have government studying your motivations.</i><br />
<br />
I'm just going to comment on the last line as there seems to be some sort of moral firewall I cannot breach. It is scary to have your govt examine your motivations, but you must realize that TNC's are gathering an equally, if not more, intrusive portfolio about you and your habits, all the better to market to you. TNC's also have a nasty habit of sharing this information with the very govt you fear.<br />
<br />
<i>Greed is brought up by the left as a way to create a more collectivist society. They pit one class against another and call anyone who isn’t poor as greedy...</i><br />
<br />
Machiavelli once said in his work The Prince "In fact the aim of the common people is more honest than the nobles, since the nobles want to oppress others, while the people simply want not to be oppressed." Please pardon me for using such a statist but in his machiavellian way he speaks the truth. It is never wrong for someone to give voice to the voiceless. The poor have no voice. <br />
<br />
<i>Some poor become rich in a free system. It is possible here. My father was poor...</i><br />
<br />
The operative word is "some". Because there is only so much room at the top. I've heard that <a href="http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2011/08/welfarism-your-tax-dollars-paying-for-flat-screen-tvs/">argument before</a> about the poor with their flat screens and air conditioners. When I was a poor student I bought a computer piece by piece over a period of months and built it myself to save money, I had a small tv, a second hand VCR as well as a playstation that I had bought on credit. I was destitute, but not on welfare and I lived with other students in the same household who had similar things. So from the perspective of a survey our household would be living pretty well for being poor. <br />
<br />
Not that Obama is a saint (indeed he just carries on the last administrations agenda) but Romney's job at Bain Capital was to put people out of work by chopping up companies and selling off their assets. Tell me how globalization creates jobs for Americans. <br />
<br />
Class is a leftist political construct? Class is what most <a href="http://libcom.org/library/5-do-classes-exist">extant cultures</a> are built upon. Both Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek wrote about the working class but never identified with them. Even Ayn Rand divided the world up into producers and socialist parasites. <br />
<br />
If you have a book to recommend that debunks the concept of class I'd like to read it. <br />
<br />
<i>Corporations are people...You have a contradiction in your support for cooperation, but being against corporations.</i><br />
<br />
I've laid out my position quite clearly against corporations. There is no contradiction in being against corporate person-hood and for cooperation. Why do you think sole proprietorships or partnerships are insufficient? Why can investors not assume liability for their investment vehicle? <br />
<br />
<i>I see nothing wrong with corporations wanting profit just like I see nothing wrong in my wanting a salary. It takes profits to invest in new products. It is profits that lead to progress. You would like to kill progress!</i><br />
<br />
If asking corporations (and their investors) to take responsibility for their actions kills progress then so be it. It is not the kind of progress I want or need. Corporations are without a doubt destroying the future carrying capacity of our planet. They need to pay or they need to stop. This is not leftist or rightist. This is common sense. To do otherwise is slow suicide. <br />
<br />
<i>The problem in Greece aren’t the bondholders. You always have the leftist perspective on history. I can also recommend you read Amity Shlaes The Forgotten Man. The problem is the government spent a bunch of money it didn’t have.</i><br />
<br />
I will, as always, be happy to add another book to the reading list. Let us be clear, you were saying that the Greek people are rioting in the street implying it was the governments fault. I was pointing out that the Greek people are rioting because of austerity measures that the bond holders are insisting on. I won't excuse the Greek Govt's role in this crisis, but I will say that Goldman Sachs acted as the Greek Govt's enablers through an act of fraud to allow Greece entrance into the EU where they could continue to borrow. If that didn't happen, Greece could have devalued their currency and gotten their finances in order (after the Greek people cleaned house politically). Now the Greek people get no relief as the austerity measures are enforced upon them by the EU and IMF. How is that for freedom?<br />
<br />
<i>You can decrease the power of government, and therefore the influence of corporations on government. You just pass laws. Once a system is privatized, the “evil” corporations have less power. With smaller government, there isn’t anything for them to exploit. And furthermore, the problem now is generally bad government, not bad corporations. Why is energy expensive? Because Obama is against drilling, nuclear energy, coal, etc. The prices go up not because the corporations are evil, but because the government is restricting the supply.</i><br />
<br />
So with a smaller govt, who passes the laws? Govt? Who enforces the laws? Govt? I assume Govt still has monopoly on force, but how exactly will it keep it if TNC's operating on US soil, hire private security (read: private army). The power is still concentrated with TNC's (i.e. money) and although a small govt with it's now toothless ability to enforce the laws it passes will be equally useless to TNC's, they can act directly in their own self-interest. What government would want to fight a civil war against business? Today business gets govt to wage war on their behalf, in the future, they'll wage it themselves. <br />
<br />
You do realize what nuclear, coal, drilling (oil, gas) does to the environment right? You are essentially trading our future for access to energy right now. Again this isn't me being a lefty, this is just the facts. <br />
<br />
<i>Libertarians don’t have a backwards view of environmental policy. We believe that if get rid of the government educating and providing healthcare for everyone, it can focus on the few big issues like the environment. This is something that crosses states so it is a federal issue. We want an EPA, just a smaller one.</i><br />
<br />
I think you misread what I wrote. I said that you(libertarians in general) have economics backwards. But reading what you had to say about coal, nuclear and drilling I would say you have a backwards environmental policy too. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Other than privatizing every piece of land, body of water and expanse of air, what is the libertarian environmental plan? Why I am putting privatization off limits is because there is nothing to stop those with money from buying up what they need for exploitative purposes. So your back to law, how are you going to enforce those laws against illegal use by corporations (remember private army). <br />
<br />
<i>Your understanding of history is incorrect, and is exactly the anti-capitalist perspective. I don’t know what else you’ve read, but I can say you are mis-educated.</i><br />
<br />
Capitalism has one purpose, to grow by exploiting all resources available. Historically this was necessary to generate enough wealth to allow for specialization of labour and knowledge. I'm not anti-capitalist from historical perspective, I recognize the necessity, I am anti-capitalist from a future perspective. Capitalism is not the last ideology we will have simply for the fact, and again let me underline this is not a left or right perspective, capitalism must grow or it will die, and we are running into hard physical limits, i.e. peak minerals, peak oil, peak population, peak fresh water, etc. Julian Simon's predictions of infinite growth and substitutability notwithstanding (because it is plain silly). <br />
<br />
<i>The financial crisis was caused by bad regulation, not deregulation. Your words about globalization I disagree with. We want private insurance. You seem to think there is only government or paying out of pocket, and you forget private insurance.<br />
</i><br />
I agree there was definitely some bad regulation, but as you can see from the timeline here, there was significant deregulation that laid the groundwork for the <a href="http://www.openthegovernment.org/sites/default/files/otg/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf">financial crisis of 2008.</a> <br />
<br />
You can disagree with my words on globalization, but that doesn't change what I've demonstrated, that capital chases the lowest cost of labour. How is the manufacturing sector doing in the US since the introduction of NAFTA and the WTO? Gutted I think describes it. <br />
<br />
We have private insurance in Canada. I do not ignore private insurance, but in the context of discussing poverty (which we have been doing) private insurance does not figure into the discussion as the poor cannot afford it.<br />
<br />
<i>We don’t have to slash benefits to privatize social security. A private system will have a greater rate of return over time. You have the facts backwards, as usual.<br />
</i><br />
Actually that is what would have to happen. Unless you are going to flat out cut the benefits for those already retired, you will be running the systems in parallel with current retirees grandfathered in. Even so, you are going to underfund the SS even further by diverting some of the FICA money to private retirement accounts, accelerating the depletion of the SS Trust, in addition to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_%28United_States%29">600 billion dollars</a> in transition fees (conservative estimate), this means the SS benefits get exhausted sooner unless they are slashed. Lastly a private system that has a greater rate of return over time, assumes a steadily growing economy, which requires an energy source that can steadily grow as well (which seems to be in short supply). So my facts seem to be facing the right way. <br />
<br />
<i>Sustainable forestry is in action by private corporations. I live in Washington, and we have it here. Talk might not have been the best word as it could imply no action which I didn’t mean. I just meant that sustainable forestry is the big topic of modern forestry. The government can insist on making something sustainable, but let the private sector figure out how. Etc. Corporations can get smarter and more environmentally friendly over time. Note it takes profits to be able to spend the money to make something environmentally friendly. So when you suggest you want to kill profits, you are also killing environmental progress.</i><br />
<br />
But that is precisely the conflict of interest I am talking about and have been talking about repeatedly. It takes money to be environmentally friendly. Thus it cuts into profits, thus is in direct violation of a CEO's fiduciary duty to act in the shareholders best interests. Such CEO's can be dismissed and replaced.<br />
<br />
In public corporations, where directors are elected by the shareholders, directors have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to work in the best interests of shareholders and for the benefit of shareholders - and not in the best interests of individual directors or managers. How is that interest and benefit measured? ROI and EPS. It is argued that there is no strict interpretation of US law that says a director must maximize shareholder value (because of the business judgement rule under the duty of care) but directors can be removed by shareholders, CEO's by directors. So it is pretty clear that what the shareholder wants, the shareholder will get. <br />
<br />
Planting monocultures to replace old growth diversity isn't environmentally friendly. <a href="http://www.zerofootprint.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Forest_Restoration_V_Reforestation.pdf"> Mimicking natural stands</a> that takes more effort but is worth more in terms of carbon sequestration and biodiversity preservation. Of course, restoration costs more in time and money than reforestation and may include species that the timber companies deems "valueless". <br />
<br />
<i>There weren’t really private pensions before Social Security. At least not as sophisticated as now. It was in 1935 that it was created. It has definitely crowded out private programs and given a lower rate of return. It has hurt the poor more than it has helped them! They pay into this system and it sucks compared to the private pensions, which the rich have as well. It also serves as a means for politicians to keep themselves in power. Vote for me, I’ll protect Social Security. I can suggest you re-read Free To Choose at some point in the future. There is a lot to absorb. He spent a lot of time on SS.</i><br />
<br />
I remember reading that there were not many private pensions before SS. And SS wasn't supposed to be a pension but rather a supplement. Basically what that says is there was no private market for pensions (or private will to fund them), so at the time there was nothing to crowd out. SS grew over time to become more of a pension, but again the corporations were more than happy to outsource that cost as it is mostly paid by the employee. And it doesn't change the fact that for private pensions to work it must make a profit for the managers, else why do it?<br />
<br />
The lower rate of return for being invested in special interest bearing federal securities represents the lower level of risk and increases the predictability for future planning. It is certainly true you can get a greater return investing in the market, but you also have to assume a greater downside if the market goes south. <br />
<br />
One would have to speculate how much the private industry would love to get their hands on trillions of dollars of investments (think of the fees!). One would also have to wonder more about the most savvy investors raided such a market to milk it for everything that it is worth. If you can assault a countries currency, a pension fund would be easy pickings.<br />
<br />
<i>I’m for peace through generosity and strength.</i><br />
<br />
Well that is a start. <br />
<br />
<i>There are case studies of cities with failing schools. Check out the DC system as one of the best examples which I think spends $27K per ...</i><br />
<br />
I checked out the DC system and indeed it seems the cost per student is quite indefensible considering the results. So there is a problem, and my first question was to ask where all the money was going to, but none of the articles provided that break down. So while that needs to be fixed, vouchers have the following shortcomings: public money will end up going to religious schools in violation of the separation of church and state and private schools can establish their own admittance criteria (purposely excluding low performers to inflate graduation stats). The first one doesn't bother me much, but the second one does, because face it, you are going to end up with the same tiers in education that you have now, the rich desirable schools and the poor undesirable schools.<br />
<br />
So let's dispense with middle schools, high schools, colleges and universities altogether. Who needs credentialism? Teach kids the basics, then let then self-direct their own education. It'll save much money, the government will have little to do with it , it gives a wide range of choices and everyone learns to their own level at their own pace. Doesn't that sound like liberty?<br />
<br />
<i>I find a reference to Howard Zinn. A-ha, that explains my theory that you have a leftist perspective of history. His work is filled with half-truths. I’m sure if Friedman were to read it, he’d find tons of things wrong. I did. I can recommend you consider everything you “learned” as suspect.</i><br />
<br />
Howard Zinn wrote the history from the perspective of the oppressed, women, natives, white servants, black slaves and the poor. Which to my knowledge hasn't been done before for the obvious reason that (orthodox) history is written by the winner. So is it because he champions those that do not have a voice in rich white male society that he is a "leftist" or is it because of his politics? Kind of like what came first, the chicken or the egg? You can't champion the cause of the oppressed without being "leftist"? To consider "everything" I have learned as suspect is a tall order. I would be interested to know some of what you found in error in Zinn's book. <br />
<br />
<i>In Cuba, there are the poor people, and there is the government class.</i><br />
<br />
I thought you said class structure analysis was leftist?<br />
<br />
<i>Public housing causes crime because when no one owns something, there is no incentive to take care of it. It has nothing to do with the class, it has to do with this fact of human behavior.</i><br />
<br />
So you are saying that rich people and middle class people would run riot in a public housing complex? That is a <i>non sequitur</i>. Do you acknowledge that the users of public housing are poor? Poor people by definition are unlikely to own anything, because they cannot afford it. So if you take away public housing, they will go be poor somewhere else, but the conditions of poverty and inequality will still cause crime wherever they land. But I can agree on one thing with you, they don't need to be concentrated in public housing (just makes them easier to police), they need jobs that pay a living wage. <br />
<br />
<i>Removing the profit motive would be a disaster. I can say that you need to keep thinking until you realize that.</i><br />
<br />
If you could explain to me how an ideology can safely violate the second law of thermodynamics by insisting on infinite, exponential growth, then profits (an integral part of capitalism) can stay. If not, you are going to have to find another way. Or nature will find it for you. <br />
<br />
<i>You have a long way to go, and that is because you’ve read a bunch of stuff that has told you lies and corrupted your mind.</i><br />
<br />
Not to say I am without my biases, but I weigh everything I read critically. You may be aghast that I do not reach the same conclusion as you do about all of MF's ideas, but I am not a purist, I take what I like and I leave behind that which I think is not workable. Now and from the outset I have acknowledged that it is perfectly possible that I could be wrong and in fact I have discovered some limits to my knowledge in regards to the education system so that being said if you are going to tell me that what I've read is lies and corrupt, you are going to have to be more specific, and employ less hand-waving. <br />
<br />
I think we have come to an natural end in our discussion as you've expressed some reservations as to what authors I have used to anchor my intellectual foundations, so it is fair to say that you are no longer open to being convinced or learning and this conversation has just become one way.<br />
<br />
I would like to go on to thank for your time as throughout this debate it has deepened my understanding of libertarianism and where it fits in the liberalism framework.<br />
Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-86236709231098934422012-09-08T13:17:00.000-07:002012-09-08T13:29:28.555-07:00Free to Choose Rebuttal 2Keith has graciously responded to my first rebuttal <a href="http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?p=2988">here</a>. I'd like to again thank Keith for engaging in this exercise as it has forced me to improve my understanding of libertarians and it's relationship to objectivism. I've responded to him below. I can see his position that the government spending is getting out of control, but I think where he is coming from is that government is crowding out private delivery of the same services, whereas I am coming from the view that corporations are externalizing their costs onto the government.<br />
<br />
Keith's truncated statements (truncated for brevity, visit his site for his full argument) are in <i>italics</i>.<br />
<br />
Without further ado, let us proceed.<br />
<br />
<i>I can prove that libertarianism is much bigger than objectivism: Locke, Adam Smith, Bastiat, De Tocqueville, founding fathers, Edmond Burke, Von Mises, etc...</i><br />
<br />
The founding fathers were not libertarians, they limited federal powers but left everything else to the state level, plus the Constitution provides for the establishing of post offices, granting patents, regulating commerce between the states and suspending the writ of habeus corpus . I'll still concede that libertarianism is bigger than objectivism, but I'll still contend that objectivism injects the worst ideas into libertarianism. By adopting Rand as one of your own are you also taking ownership of her philosophy?<br />
<br />
<i>I believe Friedman deserves a... Freedom is about you, about the individual. You might not fight for freedom yourself, but respect others that do.</i><br />
<br />
The best thing about individuals is what they can accomplish together. Collectively. Yeah I said it. Collective action can be voluntary.<br />
<br />
<i>I like using the word liberty because it is a good name for what is important to me and because a lack of freedom is one of the biggest problems...</i><br />
<br />
I feel the same malevolence has been leveled at the terms "collectivism", "collaboration", "communal". Indigenous people have lived in a communal, collective fashion for thousands of years without devolving into a totalitarian state until an unfortunate encounter with Western civilization lead to their extermination and, in less violent circumstances, enslavement and indoctrination.<br />
<br />
It should be noted that when trying to hook the population into entering “voluntarily” into the bloodshed of the both world wars, the words “liberty”, “freedom” and “democracy” were flying thick. All to persuade the masses to fight for imperial interests. The ruling elite with all the lip-service paid to democracy and freedom had no intention of creating a more just society(pg 30, <i>Economics Unmasked</i> by Philip B. Smith & Manfred Max-Neef). Do you think World War 2 was against evil? It essentially boiled down to some imperial powers not being comfortable with Germany controlling resources that they already controlled or wanted to control. The same corporations and bankers funded and supplied both sides of the war.<br />
<br />
<i>I would privatize social security, not kill it. That is the libertarian solution. I think about it in terms of policies and ideas.<br />
</i><br />
Privatizing Social Security is certainly a libertarian solution as it links contributions to individuals and certainly fixes the free rider problem (if you are inclined to view it as a problem). But what is the solution for those that have insufficient contributions? Private charity?<br />
<br />
<i>No one has perfect knowledge in a transaction. But in the free market, you have more knowledge, more choices, and ...</i><br />
<br />
The free market and the calculations rendered by the "invisible hand" presupposes a perfect knowledge of the market, via information transmitted by prices. To be clear, this is not my obsession with perfect knowledge, this is an <b>assumed attribute</b> of the free market (I believe you referred to it as a “symphony”). What I am saying is this assumption is incorrect. If you agree that the knowledge is not perfect, then perhaps the model is insufficient. And I am in agreement that liberty, available for all, does lead to greater quality of life. But does freedom include the freedom to exclude or to restrict?<br />
<br />
<i>Greed is a term that others put on libertarians. I prefer self-interest. This is an example of Hayek’s point...</i><br />
<br />
Greed is a term that you used in your initial tweet to me (which you repeated here). This is a very objectivist position, and I find it indefensible. Greed is not a virtue. If you prefer rational self-interest (another objectivist term) can it be defined in a way as not to infer greed? I personally do not want to demonize anyone, I want to like libertarians, so help me out. <br />
<br />
Do you think that the dream if becoming rich is a way for the plutocracy to get the poor and middle class to buy into the system? Statistically speaking the poor and middle class will ever make up the majority, while the rich make up a select minority. <br />
<br />
<i>Corporations existed in the time of Adam Smith, in cities at least. Corporations are people...</i><br />
<br />
Corporations have existed since the 1500's but the were limited in scope and limited in time. It wasn't till 1819 that they were recognized to have the same rights as persons under law, and this was after Adam's time. An unfortunate ruling this was because corporations are not people, nor do corporations have the same goals or motivations as natural persons. Corporations are immortal (as long as they turn a profit) and the people that work for a corporation are interchangeable. So equating people and corporations as similar entities is in error. Calling corporations “voluntary associations” does not mitigate the twin facts that in this economy we all must work to eat (even more true in a libertarian sense) and the fundamental drive of any corporation, mandated by law, is a fiduciary duty to the shareholders (owners) to provide the maximum return. If you really cherish liberty and responsibility, then you should be ok with having only partnerships and sole proprietorships as the business models for free enterprises. <br />
<br />
<i>I agree that TNCs are threatening, but less so because the consumer is holding the credit card...People in Greece are rioting in the streets!<br />
</i><br />
People are rioting in Greece because the government is impoverishing the people at the behest of bond holders. Who makes up the bond holders? Mostly banks, TNC's, hedge funds and other countries. <br />
<br />
Libertarians have a strong dialectic on the nature of force. What is required for the transmission of force? Power. What stands in for power in our society? Money. What lends to the permanence of power? Laws. Who makes the laws? Govt. And if we are honest with ourselves many of those laws are heavily influenced (if not written) by TNC's. So let us engage in a thought experiment and see what changes in the equation with a small govt. How is power transmitted? If your answer is money, then does it matter who makes the rules/laws?<br />
<br />
<i>People love to point out that corporations and individuals are bad...</i><br />
<br />
You have acknowledged that corporations tend to co-opt the government apparatus for their own ends. Much of the <i>"dumb government policy"</i> is written by TNC's. Do you really expect this behavior to change because one part of the equation has changed leaving intact the power and influence of TNC's? This behavior is embedded in corporate structure and this doesn't go away when governments go away (or shrink). So you don't need to look at them as a group, you only need to look at the fundamental framework that every corporation is built on. This is a blind-spot in Milton's work and a blind-spot in libertarian thought.<br />
<br />
<i>You don’t know everything about a supply chain, but you can know something. We live in an information age...</i><br />
<br />
Indeed we live in an information age where we are deluged by terabytes if we so desire. So then why can we not internalize costs and make our economic model complete? Are we talking about the department stores available to the masses, or the “special stores” available to the <i>politburo</i>? I've already acknowledged that the soviet solution was woefully inadequate, but just because price information keeps our retail stores full, doesn't mean that it is taking a true account of the cost to our ecosystems to keep them full. The neoliberal model, economic liberal model, classical liberal model and the Keynesian (Social Liberalism) model have a backwards view as to where the environment figures into the economy. <br />
<br />
<i>I don’t worry about deregulation because I see the free market as a symphony and the government as screwing things up, as sand in the motor...</i><br />
<br />
Capitalism has a tendency to slowly consume its own capital in its drive to increase bottom line profits so the system comes with its own “sand”. This is an inevitable result of need for exponentially growing profits, growth has to hit hard limits. Deregulation in theory seems like a good idea, except that it leads to the concentration of power and influence (i.e. financial sector) so it appears that even in libertarian literature that some gov't intervention is necessary to guarantee competition, meaning that a pure free market (laissez faire) model is unbalanced, therefore incomplete. As for competition, I agree competition is better (collaboration better still) than monopolies and cartels, but I historically speaking capitalism's tendencies have been towards both of the latter. <br />
<br />
<i>Yes, the US was never a purely free market, but the reason it became a superpower is because it was the “land of opportunity”...</i><br />
<br />
I would counter that the "American System" was successful enough to be copied and successful enough to threaten the Anglo-Franco hegemony to spark WWI. I agree it was about freedom, but also freedom to lay down tariffs to squash foreign imports (see the earlier paragraph where I ask about freedom to exclude and restrict, is there some inconsistency in the application?) <br />
<br />
Globalization doesn't benefit anyone but corporations access to raw materials and cheap labour. The counter argument that we get cheaper goods because of it, rings hollow when your factory job has been outsourced to a country where they can pay their labourers half of what you were earning and no benefits. Of course you'll need all the cheap goods you can get to make your welfare cheque stretch further. <br />
<br />
<i>We aren’t waiting to address the poor. That is what vouchers, and a negative income tax, etc. are all about...</i><br />
<br />
I'm all for effective spending and cutting waste. You want to get people working again, you are going to have to realize that corporate supported globalization strategies are not helping your cause. It is my view that privatized insurance and health care tend to want to take care of people who can pay and the rest get sub-standard service or none at all. I have experience with public health care and had a few surgeries that would have wiped my family out had I had to pay for it. My care was excellent and I am better for having it, money was never a question. So I believe in universal health care, and I believe it is the hallmark of any great society. <br />
<br />
<i>It sucks to live for the government. I knew someone in Denmark who wanted to take some of his retirement savings and buy a boat... In the private sector, you’d go to jail for this.</i><br />
<br />
And yet this is what will have to happen for any serious drive to privatize SS. You will have to slash the benefits. And as for people going to jail for fraud in the private sector, after the last rounds of shenanigans with LIBOR (and every financial scandal leading up to that back from 2008) I am losing faith that anyone will go to jail from the too big too fails. Is this the kind of accountability we are to expect from the private sector? I know you response will be along the lines of “the government is not doing its job”, but how would you call these entities to heel without strong government? Where are the people with their credit cards, extracting the justice that has been denied?<br />
<br />
<i>I believe we require industrial civilization. I agree that Friedman assumes this and I do too. You talk about Hayek taking us backwards, but it turns out you want to...</i><br />
<br />
Prince Claus of the Netherlands once said:<br />
<br />
"Indeed, I believe that mainstream economics represents in many respects an orthodox consensus which can be shown to be deeply conservative. Such orthodoxy nearly always tells us we need more of the same that got us into the problem, to get us out of it again. It seldom tells us we need something new. Something new."<br />
<br />
This seems to be a pretty common presupposition. If “x” goes wrong, we need more “x”. For example, deregulation of the financial sector was a pretty terrible idea so the calls were for even more deregulation. The Federal Reserve made the situation worse by not exercising it's power of oversight, so the response? Give the Fed more power. How can we make industrial civilization better? The answer is...more industrial civilization! Other than the fact that industrial civilization is unsustainable and is killing our land base, it seems to be a good idea.<br />
<br />
You can love what big corporations deliver (as I secretly do) but that doesn’t change the fact that the production and delivery is unsustainable. You want to go forwards? Then take the next step beyond industrial civilization, hint: it won't look like big cities and bright lights, 8 lane highways and mega airports. <br />
<br />
<i>With regard to your clear-cut analogy. Private corporations talk about sustainable forestry, and have for decades... The idea of companies dumping toxic waste are long gone.</i><br />
<br />
So I wonder when that talk will turn into action? Or perhaps they need some more time to talk? Perhaps another couple of decades? Private ownership of land is not a panacea, it gives license to dispose of ones property the way they see fit to do so, and if that means to clear cut the land for a higher ROI, then that is what will happen. The only time that private ownership protects land is when it is bought by an entity that has that has the primary motivation to protect the land from exploitation. Of course who among us has the luxury of purchasing land that will not be used "productively". These are systemic effects of the drive for profit using an economic system that does not calculate real costs. <br />
<br />
As for companies no longer illegally dumping a quick google search turns up <a href="http://www.miningwatch.ca/news/troubled-waters-how-mine-waste-dumping-poisoning-our-oceans-rivers-and-lakes">some easy</a> and <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/us-coal-plants-dump-thousands-of-gallons-of-waste-into-drinking-water-supplies-a-day.html">recent examples</a>. As long as the fines for getting caught are less that the ongoing cost of paying for legitimate disposal, dumping will continue. The interesting thing is this is corporations operating in flagrant violation of government, so either they do not fear the monopoly of force, or they know that the monopoly of force is there to protect their interest and not the people (or land). <br />
<br />
<i>The military waste isn’t as much as you think. The US can afford a military, it is about 3% of GDP which is typical. We do live in a dangerous world — been to Syria or Somalia recently...</i><br />
<br />
I'm glad you worry more about failing education than the military might of two nations that have never posed a direct threat to the US. How about peace through generosity and helping? Nothing says that the US cannot arm every citizen (who would invade a country where every man, woman and child had access to firearms?) with an emphasis on <a href="http://leader-leader.com/blog/2012/05/24/wanted-leadership-lessons-for-national-security/">leadership</a> and conduct a foreign policy that has the world looking at the US as a friend and not a soldier. You want democracy and freedom to spread, live the example and stop exporting it at the end of a gun barrel.<br />
<br />
Examining the social spending I would agree that it seems to be getting away from your government (military spending outstrips SS by itself, <a href="http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/06/14/us-military-spending-over-the-years/">but just barely</a>). The question to ask is why does a program, that was initially supposed to be a supplement to private pensions and savings, now count as the primary retirement savings for over 70% of Americans? I suspect that you would answer that the government crowded out legitimate private competition over time, but could it be that SS was filling in a gap that was left when private pensions and savings began to dry up? Why would a corporation bother setting up a pension for staff when it can externalize those costs onto government? Private pensions and privatizing SS will only work if it can be made profitable to someone, and the profit is likely to come at someone else's expense. <br />
<br />
<i>You apparently don’t know that there are many kids in cities (not rich suburbs) where the costs are $24K per year yet people still fail. It isn’t a matter of budget cuts, there haven’t really been any...</i><br />
<br />
I wonder how it is that they could spend up to 24K per child and not be able to afford basic school supplies? Reference? No budget cuts? Reference?<br />
<br />
How about go one step further. Get rid of schools altogether. But keep libraries and the Internet free for all. Establish a rudimentary course for basic reading, writing and arithmetic, after that let those who want to learn more teach themselves or organize into peer groups that pursue specific interests. <br />
<br />
<i>Private schools are not better because of the money. It is for other reasons. They have many...</i><br />
<br />
Private schools are in part better because of their <a href="http://www.ourkids.net/private-schools-versus-public-schools.php">exclusionary</a> <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/04/23/bc-public-private-schools.html">nature</a>. Teachers have to teach to a narrower range of student ability than they do in public schools. Of course I still think that public educations inability to <a href="http://m.good.is/post/pencil-pushers/">afford basic supplies</a> because of budget cuts must hamper their ability to effectively educate, what say you? So I say instead of forcing education on kids and a static curriculum, allow them to learn what they want when they want it. <br />
<br />
<i>The root incentive for corruption comes from big government. The best way to minimize corruption is to minimize government which maximizes competition...</i><br />
<br />
I would disagree, the root incentive for corruption is having an economic system that is divorced from morals and ethics. If an activity makes money, society does it, if an activity doesn't make money, it will not appear in a free market(or any market), it cannot. It has to be external to the free market. The rest of your paragraph I've addressed earlier. <br />
<br />
<i>I don’t know of the Jan Wong story and I’m not interested in anecdotes. I can say that NHS is worse...Obama doesn’t even talk about that problem, the Republicans understand it and think about it.</i><br />
<br />
Friedman was full of anecdotes, but he has some interesting things to say. I'm not familiar with the workings of NHS so I'll have to take your word for it. I am familiar with the workings of socialized medicine in Canada and I have few complaints. Healthcare in the US is exemplary, for those who can pay or for those with the right insurance. As for Republican thought, the same thought brought us <i>trickle down economics, financial sector deregulation, No Child Left Behind,</i> among others. Of course, nobody is perfect. I really doubt that any answer lay with these two parties. If you read Carroll Quigley's <i>Tragedy and Hope</i> you'll understand why (you don't have to read the whole thing, just the first 200 pages of the book). <br />
<br />
<i>Friedman doesn’t have any moral blindspot. He has provided a safety net. The family is another one, so are churches, so is a negative income tax, so are vouchers, etc....</i><br />
<br />
Most of Friedman's solutions seems to be external to the free market. I wonder why that is? Privatization comes from the root Latin word <i>privare</i> (literally, to rob). To privatize means to deprive use of, which is the fundamental power of private property laws, it is not that you can do what you want with the land, it is that you can prevent others from having access to the land. You, like other libertarians, think that private property laws are there to protect you, but they are there to protect the plutocracy. Their ability to buy up and deprive others of the best land is disproportionately large and they will continue to do so, protected by the private property laws that libertarians insist everyone respect. This, I think, is why the libertarian position is the least threatening to the wealthy, you seek small weak government and strong property laws, which seems like a good deal for the rich. <br />
<br />
Although governments are perfectly able (and sometimes willing) to destroy families, what commonly destroys families is the imposition to earn or starve. This is not a new phenomenon, aristocrats have ever forced the plebeians into a position of work or starve. And by work I mean labouring not for yourself or for the benefit of your family but primarily for the benefit of the landowner you are forced to work for after being dispossessed of your lands held in common (see the great enclosure of Britain centuries past, that was an excellent example of privatization at work). You can read about what the British experience was like in <i>The Great Transformation</i> by Karl Polanyi, or the American labour experience by reading Howard Zinn's <i>A People's History of the United States</i>. So if you still think that it is governments and collectivist action that destroys families we can talk again as to why you still think that. <br />
<br />
<i>Crime is not primarily because of inequality... Public housing projects cause crime much more than inequality.</i><br />
<br />
Does Cuba's massive inequality outrank the US? I find the claim dubious as I do not recall Cuba ranking high in the book <i>The Spirit Level</i> by Richard Wilkinson. Looking at Cuba’s Gini coefficient (which is an accepted measure of income inequality) it used to be at <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/10/us-cuba-reform-inequality-idUSN1033501920080410">.24 and then rose to .38</a> after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US ranks at .45 according to the <a href="http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html">CIA World Fact Book</a>. So while Cuba’s inequality has risen due to external circumstances it is not as high as the wealthiest nation on Earth. Seems to me like there is already much in the way of rational self-interest going on in the US. Let's look at you definition of what qualifies as a crook, getting the necessities of life from the black market from a common sense perspective does not make one a crook, it may be illegal, but it isn’t immoral or unethical.<br />
<br />
I feel you are making a couple of assumptions with your references to the USSR, the USSR does not represent my position. I, in fact, agree with most of your assessments of the USSR. Where I disagree is that it was not communism in any Marxist sense, it was barely socialism. It was state capitalism. Substitute the 1% with the <i>politburo</i> and substitute the profit motive with the production quota and you have a good mirror image of the growth economy of the US and of the USSR. To be clear, if you want to refute my position, you would be refuting ecological economics and a steady state economy. <br />
<br />
Your assertion that public housing projects is a greater cause of crime than inequality is an odd one. Let us examine it in greater detail. Who uses public housing? It would be the poor. Transplant all the poor out and put in middle class people and what would happen to crime? As long as they still had their net worth they'd be fine. Take it one step further, replace the poor with the rich, crime almost disappears. So it's not the place, it is level of wealth disparity. <br />
<br />
<i>This is much more than just cutting the military. That is really the only specific proposal you can suggest after all this reading and writing?<br />
</i><br />
From what I can see the US spends about 6$ on social spending (pretending that all the rest of the spending is social spending) for every 1$ on military spending. Is there waste and program overlap? Certainly. But I would rather spend twice as much helping people and the land base than spend 1 cent on <a href="http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2011/04/us_military_spending_vs_the_world.html">killing people</a>. <br />
<br />
As for what I could suggest, I have many suggestions, first would be to fix the economic model to include all costs, next would be to shift from a growth paradigm to a steady state removing the profit motive and debt based money, next would be to re-examine US foreign policy and stop the imperialist expansion, next would be to create jobs that help the land base, where there are more trees than the year before, more salmon swimming in the rivers than the year before, more biodiversity than the year before. This is true profit, this is true wealth, not pieces of paper, pieces of debtVasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-44705365845572044962012-09-04T13:42:00.000-07:002012-09-04T14:13:51.559-07:00Free To Choose Rebuttal<i>"I read the following review of Free To Choose by Vasper85 and wrote down the things I disagreed with."</i><br />
<br />
I would like to thank Keith for taking the time to <a href="http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?p=2978">read and respond</a>, as twitter debates are exceedingly restrictive.<br />
<br />
<i>"I wrote this as I read your review. I didn’t even actually read it all through first..."</i><br />
<br />
Your sentiment reflects mine exactly as I was reading through Milton's work. I did persevere and finish it. And I salute you that you did also.<br />
<br />
<i>"I tell you to read Free To Choose because the ideas are so complicated it takes a book..."</i><br />
<br />
I agree that some ideas are too complicated for twitter and no one is faulting you for telling me to read a book. For most that would be the end of the argument, for us it establishes a common ground to continue the conversation. <br />
<br />
I'm sure objectivists would disagree with that assessment as Ayn Rand's distaste for libertarians was well known. But to an outside observer the similarities are striking which bother me to some degree.<br />
<br />
<i>"You make a mistake in calling Milton Friedman an “opponent.” He is one of the greatest men of the 20th century..."</i><br />
<br />
I'm not keen on putting people on pedestals. Last I checked, MF was a man and therefore fallible like the rest of us. And some history, I discovered libertarianism through Ron Paul, like I suspect many of us did. I liked what he had to say, so I didn't arrive at my current view lightly. It took much reading and thinking. <br />
<br />
I'm also wary of flag waving words like "liberty" and "freedom". Hayek himself writes about the subtle twists of semantics that socialists apply to such words to make them mean not what one would think. This is a common trap so I generally ignore arguments that involve me being for or against such nebulous and ill-defined concepts. If you'd like to define what you mean by liberty and then perhaps we could compare it to Milton's definition. <br />
<br />
<i>"You say that greed is not a good way to run affairs. You are incorrect for two reasons:<br />
1. The free market can’t judge greed, nor any other motivation. Who even knows what are all the motivations someone has to buy or sell a pencil or make the chainsaw? The government surely can’t measure emotions, only dollars. If you care about greed, become a priest, not a politician."</i><br />
<br />
1a. I agree, the market can't judge motivation especially when it is so large and far flung. The players do not know each other. So one couldn't really know if the market (or the goods derived) are "free" either (by free I mean voluntary). So the question becomes, how can I truly enter into any transaction voluntarily if I do not possess the information necessary to make a decision? To put it another way, if there was some aspect of production that I, if I knew about it, would affect my buying decision? If this information was suppressed by price, how is it still voluntary?<br />
<br />
<i>"2. The point is to have government let people keep the fruits of their labor. Self-interest unleashes maximum potential in people."</i><br />
<br />
2a. To the first point, I can agree with that in so much as long as government treats all classes proportionately. To the second point typically the term "self-interest" is used synonymously with "greed" and "selfishness", perhaps a more enlightened view would be mastery, autonomy, purpose. Is it necessary to defend greed as a virtue to be a libertarian/objectivist?<br />
<br />
<i>"Page 2. I am sure Adam Smith knew of corporations, cartels and monopolies. His focus was on monopolies in government, but it is the same phenomenon as with corporations."</i><br />
<br />
2a. Corporate structure (corporations as people) didn't exist in his time, but I'll concede the others. Interesting that you acknowledge that monopolies of government are essentially the same problem as monopolies of commerce. <br />
<br />
<i>"I am finding disagreements with nearly every sentence. I’m not going to respond to every one."</i><br />
<br />
Nor would I expect you to. It took much work and time for me to put this together. There are specific things I want out of the ideology of libertarianism and it doesn't need or warrant a point by point redressing of my critique of Milton's work. Predominately what I want is a recognition that TNC's are just as dangerous to liberty (ones ability to conduct ones activities in a way that is not in conflict with his community values, freely) as governments are. And that we have a responsibility, both individual and communally. Whether you want to express that responsibility as directly helping your fellow man out when they fall on bad times or through taxes and a third party is mostly irrelevant, but to know that such a responsibility is not optional. That morality is not egoistic, but rather altruistic. Lastly I want an acknowledgement that there is a limit to economic growth.<br />
<br />
<i>"TNC are not equally as tyrannical as governments. Corporations get their money from people voluntarily..."</i><br />
<br />
That goes back to how you can transact voluntarily with an entity you do not know and whose supply chain you cannot discern. There is a fundamental information asymmetry that exists that is not overcome through price alone. And as for choice, as I said in the previous post, if the industry standard is larceny and fraud, no choice exists. To put it another way, realistically we have little option but to transact with the current system and the choices they offer us.<br />
<br />
And it leads to another question about force. If you force the government to relinquish the monopoly it has over force what is to prevent TNC's from picking up that monopoly directly? Libertarians, I get the sense, mostly feel that everyone will abide by the NAP. How do you enforce NAP? I feel that NAP is fully for the benefit of those that hold the power. I've also heard about hiring private security to enforce property rights, but it seems to me that it circles back to those with the money make the rules. Does NAP reconcile with hiring private security?<br />
<br />
<i>"Hayek would not have you go backwards. It was the free market that made America the world’s only superpower. With more freedom, harnessing everyone’s potential, comes faster progress."</i><br />
<br />
The "American System" included quite heavy use of tariffs to protect infant industries. In fact it was Germany's adoption of the American System that lead to the upset of the Balance of Powers strategy employed by Britain and France that lead to WWI. And after both WWI and WW2 America was the only major intact economy, so held a de facto monopoly on manufactured goods. <br />
<br />
Let's pretend that doesn't matter. <br />
<br />
I would ask for what end? Faster progress meaning more profits? At what point do you as a society deem it acceptable to address the fundamental inequalities that exist with this progress? Both Hayek and Milton recognize that these inequalities are inevitable in a free market but neither have a solution other than a vague assertion that we'll all tend to get richer over time. And we can all see who gets richer and who gets ground under the jackboot. <br />
<br />
Is it in fact impossible to harness everyone's potential and reduce inequality?<br />
<br />
Also does the libertarian ideology have any room to acknowledge a limit to economic growth?<br />
<br />
<i>"Page 10. Friedman’s analogy about the Soviet appliance you didn’t understand...."</i><br />
<br />
Perhaps I don't understand what happened in the USSR, that is certainly possible. I think that it is succinct to say that the Soviets lacked a good feedback mechanism (demand), they employed people to observe what people were buying/wearing and tried to gauge demand from that. And with the production quota, they were progressively using more material to construct products which in essence was attempting to emulate the economic growth represented by profit in a capitalistic system. This is my view was a mistake, as state capitalism without a price system will eventually fail quite spectacularly, this fact is well documented (re: economic calculation). What the soviet model was attempting to do was out-produce and out-grow the capitalist model (out-capitalize the capitalists) and it was doomed to fail because of allocation problems.<br />
<br />
<i>"Page 11. No one can make a pencil. The person who makes the chainsaw doesn’t also know how to harvest the rubber..."</i><br />
<br />
MF's analogy presupposes we need an industrial supply chain, which presupposes we need industrial civilization. These are unexamined givens in his analogy that we are to accept if we are to accept his premise. By adding and emphasizing the word "industrially" I was pointing out MF's premise and I do not accept that we require an industrial supply chain nor industrial civilization. <br />
<br />
<i>"Page 14. The consumer knows more than price. The competitors can buy each others products and learn from each..."</i><br />
<br />
Pg 14a That consumers (i.e. people) can know more than price if one possesses the materials, time and inclination to do so I am in complete agreement with. Being that consumers are price takers and live in an economic system where taking the best price confers a clear short term advantage, it is difficult, in the aggregate, to act in a manner that is advantageous to the environment and at the same time fulfill ones rational self-interest. <br />
<br />
For example, given that for a stretch of forest, to clear-cut it would give a total ROI of 15% for 10 years and to selectively harvest and replant would give an ROI of 10% over the same period and there is no repercussions (legally speaking) between either scenario in the treatment of the privately owned land, it behooves the CEO to choose the plan with the highest ROI given the time horizon and his fiduciary duty to his shareholders. After which his options are vested and he can cash out.<br />
<br />
From the production point of view, the cost to produce products from the timber when one does not have to internalize environmental costs is advantageous for the company and for the consumer in the short term. By the time it becomes apparent that this externalization of costs is leading to price distortion it is too late for that stretch of forest. <br />
<br />
<i>"Skipping a number of things I disagree with about advertising, Opec, military, whether he’s..."</i><br />
<br />
I think that the military question should not be avoided. In other libertarian literature I have read they make the argument that any military should consist of free men, to be gathered for defense only, yet throughout the book I never saw Milton make that argument once. I wonder why he would spend so much time attacking the apparent life support of the poor and so little time attacking the overwhelming waste of the military?<br />
<br />
"Okay I’ve now gone through and read the rest. I can say that you have a mix of missing the point, or sometimes arguing against a point he wasn’t making..."<br />
<br />
If I was in fact arguing against straw men, I do apologize, I do make the effort to try not to fall into that trap. I did realize upon looking back I made an egregious accusation that MF regarded poverty as a moral failing and that coloured my arguments. This is not a libertarian position, but rather an objectivist position. I've retracted that in my original post.<br />
<br />
MF primarily rails against government and unions and is pro-business in all of its forms. To be clear he makes no distinction between a market environment in which it is possible to know the actors and a global environment where business entities are artificial legal constructs with the same rights as people and it is nigh impossible to know actions behind their activities. This is problematic for me that MF does not apply his arguments equally between these entities and essentially gives these power-concentrating entities a pass. Again in other libertarian literature, they do address corporations, saying at the very least to remove the <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/libertarianism.html#B7">limited liability shielding protecting the shareholders.</a><br />
<br />
<i>"For example, having read through his book, can you not see how Social Security is a bad idea? Can you not see how vouchers for education for every child would be better? Can’t you see how big government leads to takeover by industry and corruption..." </i><br />
<br />
Social security: I don't see it as an either/or proposition. Since community ties have essentially been eroded, some means must be available to look after our most vulnerable members of society. Is Social Security the most ideal? That is beside the point. They need to be taken care of and I feel that ripping away the safety net is not conducive to helping the <a href="http://www.spectacle.org/0403/loo.html">poor and vulnerable escape destitution</a>.<br />
<br />
Vouchers for education would drive up the cost for the desirable schools putting them out of reach of the middle class and poor. The rich would no longer subsidize any education of the lower classes. So call a spade, a spade. If the rich don't want to pay for other peoples children, be honest about it, but let's not pretend that it is because this will better the education system. I don't deny there is a failing in free government schools but I am realistic enough to attribute some of the failing to deliberate cuts in education folksy fund increases in military spending and cuts in income taxes for the richest individuals and corporations. Does it not becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when you announce that education is failing the children, then cut the funding, then announce that education is failing the children more, then cut the funding some more...so on and so forth. Why are private schools looking so good in comparison? Because they have money and those that can afford to pay expect no less.<br />
<br />
Government is as good as the people who govern. Incentive for corruption stems from the private sector, transnational corporations. TNC's use govt as a tool to protect their business interests often by writing the legislation that gets passed. There is no accountability, politicians get in, serve a few terms, preside over favorable legislation, then exit to some cushy board of directors job. Which illustrates that you cannot be anti-govt without also being anti-corp. They are two-sides of the same coin. An interesting exercise would be to comb the media and see on which side the government acts against when it comes to protests and strikes. Invariably it is on the side of business. <br />
<br />
Another glaring example of the power that corporations hold over individuals is best illustrated by journalists Jan Wong's battle against Globe and Mail and Manulife. She was suffering from depression (clinically diagnosed) and both entities basically called her a liar and cut off her sick pay on a number of occasions. When she wrote a book about workplace depression years later Globe & Mail killed the deal with the publisher Double Day with a phone call to DD's lawyers (which also happened to be Jan Wong's lawyers as she paid for half of the costs). This was after the book was done and ready to go to copy writing. This is a chilling display of effects of corporations on free speech and the "free" market.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/shows/2012/09/02/jan-wong-quest-university-hour-3/">First 30 minutes, click on the "listen" button.</a> This is but one of numerous examples of abuses of corporate power and the scary thing is no one would of heard of any of this had Jan Wong not stuck to her guns and refused to sign "confidentiality" agreements. Most people would have, with the money that was on the line (DD tried to tie in her compensation with the agreement). Most people do not have the luxury to fight.<br />
<br />
Orphans: Perhaps that was unfair of me, but in the context of MF's examples he states that morality stops at the individual and that family should be cared for by those with familial bonds. The obvious blind-spot is those without family. That private religious charities should step into the gap puts one at the mercy of a religious institution and whomever funds the private charity. Say what you will about government charity it at least has the veneer of impartiality.<br />
<br />
Crime: It is primarily because of inequality, so in defending a system that admits that they would rather have "freedom and inequality" than "equality and slavery" (as quoted from MF's work and another false dichotomy) it illustrates a conflict of interest.<br />
<br />
<i>"You ask many good questions, but I assure you they have answers. You seem to have read a lot. I can only suggest that you keep reading and thinking."</i><br />
<br />
It is my intention to continue to do so.<br />
<br />
<i>"Your major focus is on income inequality, and we can argue more about that, but let’s look at the existing welfare state as a total disaster and repeal 90% of it. If a country goes bankrupt “helping the poor”, then it can no longer help the poor nor do anything else."</i><br />
<br />
If by repealing 90% of it includes repealing military spending perhaps that is a compromise I'd be willing to entertain and I believe that there are libertarian writings that support this view. But let it not be said that social programs are what is bankrupting the US. It is military spending (non-productive in the truest sense) and disproportional tax cuts for those that need it least. Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-53021288473022907082012-09-02T09:23:00.000-07:002012-09-04T13:43:24.095-07:00Road to SerfdomWhat follows are my notes/thoughts on Frederich Hayek's work "The Road to Serfdom". As I review libertarian/objectivist literature I find more and more what I object to is the binary thinking i.e. it is either <i>this</i> or <i>that</i>, no other options.<br />
<br />
Pg 72 Hayek makes the argument that the advancement came because of the freedom to pursue profits, basically to allow great inequality allowed for faster advancement, the fruits accumulating first to those that took the risks then to common society at large. Trickle down economics? And because of this wealth of advancement we inevitably reject the inequality. FH thinks this is wrong, I think this is society growing up. We don’t expect toddlers to progress to adolescents only to lapse back to being toddlers when they become teenagers. <br />
<br />
Pg 76 Libertarian/objectivist thought bandy about the word “freedom” quite a bit, but what of the second half, what of “responsibility”? Parents allow children greater and greater freedoms only because the demonstrate they can handle them responsibility. With great freedom comes great responsibility<br />
<br />
Pg 77 Individualism has been associated with egotism and selfishness, but what also of separateness? Man's separateness from nature, Man's separateness from his fellow man (of a different class)?<br />
<br />
Pg 77 Hayek confuses the "despotism of physical wants" by looking at it in capitalistic terms. He thinks it means power and affluence, but what it really means is sufficiency and knowing when it is enough. <br />
<br />
Pg 78 there needs to be no great increase in material wealth to have abundance, it merely requires a shift in thinking, from a progressive growth paradigm to a steady state economy. <br />
<br />
Pg 85 FH says the dispute is not about whether we want to choose the best way of intelligently planning or not, but rather what is the best method to do so. <br />
<br />
Pg 90 FH effectively polarizes the argument by saying that planned economies and decentralized economies are wholly incompatible, thus creating a double bind by eliminating any third option (as there is no other option but socialism and capitalism). <br />
<br />
Pg 99 FH makes the argument that their is nothing that planning can do that the free market couldn't do better and more efficiently. I’ve addressed the efficiency argument in my review of <a href="http://rantyrantrant.blogspot.ca/2012/09/free-to-choose-if-youre-rich.html">Milton Friedman’s work</a>. Free market capitalism holds the distinction of being efficient when it comes to liquidating mal-investments, this I will concede.<br />
<br />
Pg 102, To be fair, if you look at the aggregate of what people want, and take out manipulated wants, it isn't all that varied, nor is it infinite. <br />
<br />
Pg 127 The monopoly directed at the economic system, if that is what it turns out to be, is made up of and ultimately answerable to people. This monopoly that Hayek speaks of is no different than the TNC cartels that currently run things. <br />
<br />
Pg 128 Discrimination is quite handily enacted by money today. The only difference is you can't call on money to account for its discrimination. A person would be accountable. The act of “which by taking one, we deprive the other members of society", is this not force , however thinly disguised and indirect? There is no quantifiable difference between the monetary system pricing something out of your reach or some person telling you that this particular use of resources is not advisable. It is only offensive to libertarians sense of individuality and freedom to choose because it is a person or group of people (community) that stands in their way and not the divine “invisible hand”. This is a problem that has extended way back into history, we cannot tolerate being advised against something that runs contrary to our interests by those we perceive as a our equals, so our leaders and experts have to have that something special that sets them a head and shoulders above the rest of us. It used to be the divine right of kings, then it was knowledge and learning, today we settle on wealth. <br />
<br />
Hayek tries to slide the premise by use that socialism must be centralized and centralization must be done along dictatorial lines. There is no attempt to entertain that socialism could be decentralized with decision making power delegated out to the local level where those on the ground have the most knowledge of the region. Similar to hunter/gatherers, it was knowledge of the land that was valuable in the use of it, not the ownership. <br />
<br />
Hayek spells out the deviousness of the gilded cage, as long as we have the hope of escape we can tolerate the intolerable, and he is referring to the competitive system. Religion had a similar tool to get the masses to accept their role, it was called the afterlife, live a virtuous, uncomplaining life and when you die you will go to your reward. That is the road to serfdom. Why else does the media focus on the rags to riches stories? Why else do we have lotteries? We else to we deify the rich and famous? To fritter away our energies in the hope, the faintest of hopes, that one day we can be like them. This is enough for us to submit and allow the continued exploitation of our labour for the benefit of the upper class. <br />
<br />
Pg 129 Society expects you to make a contribution. Currently we spur that on by making it a requirement to earn money to eat. But this is no different than a more transparent process proposed by socialists. By your works shall ye be judged. There is little freedom of choice in today's occupations, you are limited by your level of education, your physical and cognitive talents and by who you know. <br />
<br />
Pg 132 What if, instead, we substituted the term "collaboration" for "central planning". That certainly has a more voluntary ring to it. <br />
<br />
Pg 135 Wow what planet is Hayek talking about? Of course there are means and ways to prevent a poor man from rising above his class. These are embedded in the matrix of society. It isn't to the upper classes advantage if there is no semblance of permanence of wealth, so the desire for restriction of who can become wealthy is great. So no nothing to prevent the "attempt", but lots to prevent the “success”. Hayek tries to slip another premise by you that if property isn't to be privately owned it must then be state owned, does not consider it can be commonly owned or that it needs to be (or can be) owned at all. <br />
<br />
Pg 138 Not necessarily, you'll do what you want to do and if you are good at it, you'll continue, if you aren't good at it you'll most likely bow out because of the embarrassment in front of your peers. For example, you want to be a dancer, and quite frankly you have two left feet, it takes a pretty thick skin to continue to dance when your peers are clearly better and no one wants to watch you. <br />
<br />
Pg 142 FH says education can create no new ethics nor create a common vision held by all, especially on moral issues. Education can grant perspective and more options in which to express oneself, more tools in the tool box. To restrict education would result in a world much similar to 1984, where words were routinely removed from the dictionary and history continually rewritten in simpler vocabulary, the idea being that if one does not have the word to express a seditious concept then one cannot think seditious thoughts. Indoctrination, to work, has to be simple and easy to digest, and is more successful upon injection into simple minds than critical minds.<br />
<br />
Pg 143 FH makes it appear that socialism started out like a cult. But spontaneous social action arises in response to imposition of free markets as per Karl Polanyi. <br />
<br />
Pg 151 Why is FH making his arguments like there is wages to be paid in centrally planned socialist society, why bother with wages when it is goods that people need? And he is saying that the only alternative to discipline by firing is discipline by corporal punishment? False dichotomy argument. <br />
<br />
Pg 153 I get the feeling that FH talks in terms of incomes and wages because he does not know how to talk in any other terms. A common refrain I hear from advocates of the price system is that there is no alternative but considering we got along quite well without it for most of our time as a species, albeit on a smaller more intimate scale, says there are alternatives and the price system for all of it flaws, is not the final end product. For which we should be relieved.<br />
<br />
Pg 156 You should do your duty in the field of your usefulness, these are not mutually exclusive. Also FH admits that some security must exists to preserve freedom, he frames this as security against privation, but as history shows us that it is security of one class against the others. Privation only enters into the equation when society is on the verge of revolution in which the plutocracy is forced to concede some of its wealth (arguably ill-gotten) to placate the masses.<br />
<br />
I guess this is a problem will a system of thought that only allows for purity of ideology. It tends to make you perceive things in terms of absolutes. FH makes all the same accusations of socialism that could equally apply to free market because it is the inevitable conclusion if one were to stick to pure ideals. He does admit that socialism proceeds from the base of "for the good of the whole" which of course depends on what is define as good and for which "whole". But in keeping with the duality FH then would expect "for the good of the individual" to radiate out and automatically be good for the whole. This is a non sequitur. <br />
<br />
Pg 169 FH launches into a lengthy diatribe entailing the freedoms you have to give up and the morals you must be prepared to break because in a collectivist society you can hold no ideals that are different from the collective. This implies that in an individualist society you can, and you can defend those ideals from the community. So what if the ideals you choose to hold and defend are anti-life? Ran Prieur says that any society in the face of having their neighbour arming up only has three choices, to run, to submit, to arm up and fight. So when an individual picks an aggressive ideal to drive their actions, like objectivism, they are arming up to take from their neighbors for themselves by way of wealth accumulation, redistribution as sure as it came from the top. <br />
<br />
Pg 178 Seems like that would be the wrong question to ask, do I serve my ideology that purportedly serves the collective, or do I serve my fellow man which by definition serves the collective. Servitude through ideology is similar to the way they routed the understanding of the bible through Latin-speaking priests, for the reasons of control and to sustain power. When you take out the middleman (ideology or religion) and seek to serve directly, it cannot be corrupted or perverted by outside forces. <br />
<br />
Pg 179 FH says an interesting thing that it is probably true that a great majority rarely think for themselves and seek that which is ready-made, which explains the droves that seize upon his works or similar individualistic works like Ayn Rand. <br />
<br />
Pg 184 Socialism is the crude application of scientific ideals to the problems of society. Sounds familiar, where have I heard this before?<br />
<br />
Pg 195 I read this and find myself partially agreeing, individualism and the environment are going to have to find a compromise with individuals sacrificing much. Efficiency is needed combined with no growth and decreased consumption. If libertarians do not understand this intuitively then they are in for a painful surprise. <br />
<br />
Pg 200 I agree with FH's view on war that it is senseless and devoid of purpose (other than to steal resources of course). <br />
<br />
Pg 203 Socialists of the day talked about "potential plenty" and talked about the inevitable slide into monopoly. The "best authorities" used to support the political tracts are of questionable scientific standing, while serious study into the same problems are conspicuously neglected as per Dr. C.H. Waddington in <i>The Scientific Attitude.</i> <br />
<br />
Do we not get the same baseless generalities when talking about the miracles of the “invisible hand” and how the free market is going to “lift all boats”?<br />
<br />
Pg 216 You don't build wealth out of thin air, it comes at the expense of something, such as the environment. Also not all wealth building is equal although it is regarded as such as both increases in GDP and money do not take into account what was the cause of the increase for example, military spending.<br />
<br />
Pg 217 Independence, self-reliance, willingness to back ones convictions against a superior, willingness to bear risks, willingness to voluntarily co-operate with ones neighbors. These are the supposed hallmarks of a individualistic society. FH says socialism is nothing but obedience and compulsion to do what society has deemed good. I would say that for any good socialist society to function you would need a healthy dose of voluntary co-operation, and among equals you do not have to back your convictions against a superior, but rather a peer, your willingness to bear a risk in so much as it does not exceed your communities willingness to bear risk. Collaboration and creativity substitute for rugged independence and self-reliance. No one is an island on their own.<br />
<br />
Pg 231 FH makes an interesting comment that we have not yet learned how to use state powers intelligently on a national scale. Does that imply the possibility that such powers could be used if used intelligently? He suggests that there must be a set of rules that lays out what a state can and cannot do and an authority to enforce such rules. As well he suggests that states should prevent other states from harming their neighbors which seems to run counter to the free market, rugged individualism he espouses.<br />
<br />
Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-87766658998799069322012-09-02T09:06:00.000-07:002012-09-04T12:49:23.664-07:00Free to Choose - If You're RichMy encounters with libertarians and objectivists lately boil down to "You have to read so and so's book and then you'll understand", with the implication that until I read it I cannot comment on the ideology/philosophy and they do not have to discuss it with me. A clever way to end an argument, but also fair enough, one should read the texts of your opponent. What they don't count on is that I'll actually read it AND detail out a critique on the book. <a href="http://rantyrantrant.blogspot.ca/2012/05/want-to-understand-read-books.html">I read fast and I read often.</a> <br />
<br />
I'll say straight away that I do not disagree with the entire libertarian position, but I disagree with enough of it (basically anyone who tells me that greed is a perfectly acceptable way to run their affairs. NEWS FLASH: it isn't). The following is notes I made on Milton's writings and the page numbers where he expressed the ideas that triggered my comments.<br />
<br />
One complaint about the way I have laid this out is that it may not be all that intuitive to those that do not have the book handy what I am commenting on. To which I would reply that a) I do make some effort to frame Milton's thoughts that I am responding to in my critique and b) this is for people that either have read the work or have a copy and c) this also is my way of saying I have read the work and done the work, so fully regurgitating Milton's work is not necessary nor is it desirable (as this is bloody long enough already). <br />
<br />
<b>Introduction</b><br />
<br />
Pg. 2 Refers to Adam Smith, no force no coercion. Adam had no idea about corporations, monopolies or cartels. For example, Section 34 of Rogers TOS, states that they have the right to charge a customer for 30 days of service or when service is cut off, <i>whichever is later</i>, which means by default you are paying for 30 days of service which you will not receive. If it is larceny is the industry standard you have no choice but to submit to which is thus an unequal bargain. <br />
<br />
Pg 2 Thomas Jefferson "We hold that...". Jefferson was a rich white slave owner. Rights in his view were qualified. Economic rights are still qualified. <br />
<br />
Pg 3 Economic and political power in the same hands is a recipe for tyranny. He is referring to centralize government but his argument equally applies to Transnational Corporations (TNC). <br />
<br />
Pg 4 It is ironic that Milton (MF) on the one hand preaches for a small weak government but on the other hand blames the government for weak policy that lead to the Depression. For a man that places such emphasis of personal responsibility and individuality to blame the government for people taking advantage of lax monetary policy is somewhat ludicrous. I'm not absolving the governments role, but blame must be properly apportioned. <br />
<br />
Pg 4 Hayek’s argument that the early success of political and economic freedom lead to the increasing intolerance of perceived evils of inequality and taking advances and prosperity for granted. That is one way of looking at it, the other way of looking at it is our species is maturing, attempting to find the meaning of the word “enough”. Hayek would have us go backwards.<br />
<br />
<b>Chapter 1: The Power of the Market</b><br />
<br />
Pg 10 Irony: Milton uses example of a soviet appliance breaking down and how long one would have to wait to get it fixed, this is no different than planned obsolescence in capitalism. Soviet system was better defined as state capitalism than communism. Instead of profit it had production quota’s. <br />
<br />
Soviet model not efficient: based on what metric? The West's? From a profit perspective the soviet model was not efficient. Soviet was a growth economy like capitalism, it needed better feedback mechanisms and would have made a better steady state economy. <br />
<br />
Pg 11 Correction: not a single person can make an <i>industrially</i> produced pencil. It has more to do with access to capital than actual know how. <br />
<br />
Pg 13 Prices disconnect ourselves from the product and its production. Milton says it himself when he says we have no way of knowing where the product comes from. This is necessary in an economy where the players do not know each other which is the environment of TNC and this allows for the players to get away with all sorts of shenanigans to make a profit. If all the end consumer knows is price, the actions taken to deliver that price become irrelevant in the decision.<br />
<br />
Pg 14 Prices: transmit information, they chose the least costly production method, they distribute the product (via income). Demand has no way of knowing it's impact on the environment as prices will be reasonable along most of the depletion curve. <br />
<br />
Pg 15 Then what is advertising if not clogging the “in” baskets? Advertisers have no way of knowing if someone is in position of acting on the information or not as they spam the ether with their message. Price might be a simple means of transmitting the information because of what it transmits is so narrow to the end user, but the information that makes up how the price is arrived at is lost in the act of translating it into dollars and cents.<br />
<br />
17 comments on OPEC but says that government interference is more important in price distortions than private. What about private interference in government?<br />
<br />
18 Makes the case that all price information assumes a social good. If the incentive increases (i.e. Price) does that mean it is socially good to fulfill that demand? What social good is fulfilled by products made for one disposable and destructive purpose, i.e. military?<br />
<br />
21 Human capital is more costly to maintain and replace than physical capital, so it is an incentive in any business to reduce the reliance on human capital. <br />
<br />
23 Price essentially determines the worth of a person. It might be fine if price encompassed all areas of life but the economy routinely does not assign value due to conceptual problems. Assumes that without price as an incentive no saving would be done, so what did we do before money, starve? Assumes no dangerous work would be done, the incentive without price becomes the true incentive, make the work safer. False binary choice offered the only alternative to free market is command economy. <br />
<br />
24 He makes a false analogy between everyone owning something and the state owning something. If everyone who lived in the housing had a hand in building it, the level of investment changes. <br />
<br />
33 MF blames the weakening of familial cohesion on government paternalism when in fact the reason why family is weakening is because of the culture of robust individualism brought on by an economic model predicated on continual growth, in short the richer we are the more we substitute money for relationships. <br />
<br />
<b>Chapter 2: The Tyranny of Controls</b><br />
<br />
40 Capital chases the lowest cost of labour. Every country has a poverty line. If, as MF previously argued, price is a reflection of cost and must be reflected in income, how does it make sense to undermine the means to earn income to gain a small cost advantage. People in general would be willing to pay more for products if they had a good paying job. Since people are price takers, they by default seek the best deal, to channel this behaviour, tariffs are needed to raise the cost of the imports above that of the domestics. <br />
<br />
41 The only reason imports and exports make sense is because of the valuation of oil. It is underwritten by mass quantities of cheap energy. In an energy scarce scenario, you produce everything you can locally and import those thing you are unable to produce. <br />
<br />
42 Surely he knows this argument is a farce. He should use another currency as an example. Any other currency but the US dollar. As the reserve currency of the world, there will always be a demand for it as long as oil is priced in dollars. The US doesn't have to manufacture anything as long as they maintain their dollar hegemony. <br />
<br />
44 So to destroy comparative advantage all we have to do is what exactly? Why is an American worker 1.5 times more productive. Not because he is American, but because of information asymmetry which is protected through proprietary law. If we shared out the knowledge and best business practices, the only comparative advantage that would remain is a willingness to accept low wages and geographically located resources. <br />
<br />
52 Britain version of free trade was mercantilism, essentially funneling goods from their colonies to the motherland while impoverishing the same colonies. The "collectivist" state of Hitler's Germany is more astutely framed as the reach of corporate power into the state, the very image of crony capitalism, which is defined, coincidentally, as fascist. Also consider why WWI started, not because some second-tier noble got assassinated but because of Germany's rise to power with the adoption of the American system of economics (which relied on infrastructure development and heavy use of tariff's). This threaten the balance of powers strategy that the English and the French had been employing for centuries. <br />
<br />
54 Blames monopolies and cartels on govt regulation/interference. Once again, the cart is before the horse. Govt is an intermediary. Emasculate govt and TNC's would do it directly.<br />
<br />
64. I would ask MF where the majority of the govt intervention goes on to benefit? The rich and the corporations. Follow the money and you'll find the root of the problem. I never see libertarians or objectivist protest that vigorously when the rich and too big to fail get bailed out, but talk about food stamps and holy fuck get out the pitchforks, we are going to a commie roast! <br />
<br />
66 MF does not acknowledge the imbalance of power between employer and employee. <br />
<br />
68 Portrayal of oil execs as victims is laughable. The oil cartel has the strongest lobby in the world, the have direct access to politicians which circumvents one person one vote. They effectively write oil legislation and in fact support regulation as it prevents new market entrants i.e. Porter's five forces. <br />
<br />
69 MF goes on to rail against unions and blames govt for their power. All rights and obligations are codified in law and MF has no concept of the history of the struggle labour had to go through to gain these rights. <br />
<br />
<b>Chapter 3: The Anatomy of Crisis</b> – No notes, basically the history and use of the Federal Reserve and it’s impact on the Depression.<br />
<br />
<b>Chapter 4: Cradle to Grave</b><br />
<br />
98 Does MF not see that his words also apply to corporations? Who do corporations represent if not the predominately rich?<br />
<br />
105 What is the point of the moral outrage? "people who would not lie to their children are lying to us...". Is useless rhetoric, meant to persuade by emotion not convince by way of reason. <br />
<br />
106 MF thinks moral responsibility ends at the individual. He uses the example of children helping their parents out of love, depending on the same familial bond that has been weakened by robust individualism that he blames on gov’t paternalism on pg 33. What of those that have not even a familial bond, i.e. orphans? In MF’s view, no one needs to take responsibility for them as moral responsibility is individual and by extension familial. Doing the right thing shouldn’t be portrayed as a choice, as it never is a legitimate choice. Should I feed these starving people or should I ignore them and let them starve, this is the choice that MF wants to legitimatize.<br />
<br />
107 Director's law. A middle class conspiracy against the rich.<br />
<br />
108 MF complains about welfare programs, let us talk about tax cuts for the rich and increase in non-productive military spending. You’ll find that almost every tax cut for the rich and increase in military spending was partially bankrolled by cuts to social spending. Additionally, MF can include income “in kind” when he finally stoops to working out the "conceptual" problems of imputed labour for housework, specifically women's housework (Counting For Nothing, Marilyn Waring). <br />
<br />
110 MF has no idea what causes crime. He thinks it is from getting welfare handouts and subsidized housing. So getting rid of government is going to fix crime? Crime is primarily spurred on by poverty and inequality. <br />
<br />
122 Negative income tax. Why does this remind me of England's "solution" to poverty in the 1600's, the poor houses? MF seems to believe that people love being on welfare and that if we help them too much they will not bother to help themselves. This isn't true by and large. You'll find a few exceptions but the majority of people wish to be independent, self-sufficient, and feel like they are worth something. A negative income tax won't give them that, even welfare doesn't give them that. <br />
<br />
123. MF assumes that private charities will step in to fill the void. The common argument is that communities stepped in to help out before there were governments. This is true, but with the onslaught of ever increasing debt, work hours, two income families, communities have been reduced to neighbors with tall fences. Socialism by government stems from the fact that communities do not/cannot do it anymore. If you want communities/private charities to fill in the gap, then you must reinvest in communities again. Otherwise negative income tax schemes and offloading social concerns on localities smacks of rich people not wanting to pay for well-being of poor people thereby perpetuating the inequality gap.<br />
<br />
Additionally, if MF is such a big believer in social and economic Darwinism, why have the “superior” solutions of private charities not overtaken and out-competed the current model? For that matter why have free markets never materialized? <br />
<br />
124. He makes one think that it is a free choice how one chooses to fund their retirement. It is a free choice to those with money, does he think that a negative income tax will for someone who is impoverished for most of their life, cover their retirement? Perhaps MF thinks private charities will plug that gap too. Out of sight out of mind. And for an economy that is 3/4 driven by consumer activity, how much capital formation does he expect to take place in an already credit drenched, over extended society?<br />
<br />
125. Again radical welfare reform is no different than the rich aristocrats deciding that it was necessary to allow the poor to starve, because without hunger, how else do you expect the poor to work? Asinine. Give a person useful work, give them a sense of purpose, allow them to have some say in how the work is accomplished and that is all the motivation they need. <br />
<br />
<b>Chapter 5 – Created Equal</b><br />
<br />
128. Setting up a straw man with equality of outcome. No one expects income distribution to be equal for all players. If you work hard and/or are brilliant you should keep more. Where I take issue is when the rich who may or may not have even worked for their wealth think they can pay proportionately lower taxes than the middle and lower incomes. They are under the impression that they earned the wealth all by themselves when in fact they are wealthy partly because they are hardworking/smart/lucky but also because the environment in which they work is conducive to allowing you to make income. Which is paid for by everyone who can pay, <i>proportionately</i>. When I hear about billionaires who are leaving the country in which they earned their wealth because they do not want to pay their fair share, it strikes me as profoundly ungrateful. You make it and you pay it forward, if you don't the alternative is unrest. <br />
<br />
129. Thomas Jefferson = huge irony. <br />
<br />
131. Inequality with freedom is an oxymoron. The poor have no freedom in poverty, their every action limited by debt and lack of money. The rich seem to be more free physically, but as a minority they have to spend their lives using their wealth as leverage to insulate themselves from the masses. Ever fearful that those beneath will rise to take from those above. Hence we have authors like Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Frederich Hayek, Bastiat all justifying the inequality by calling it just and natural and condemning any notion of what is fair as collectivism. <br />
<br />
135. Fairness is proportionality. If a middle class person is expected to pay up to 40% of his income in taxes how are we to view a rich person paying an effective rate of 17% as fair or just? Basically MF says that if we don't allow the rich to keep almost all of their money then how else are we going to make the producers produce. At a certain point, vast amounts of money is pointless and more than a little obscene. A doctor make $250K to a couple million a year is just and fair. They provide a much needed service and should be paid commensurate with their experience. A hedge fund manager taking home 10's of millions as a bonus is unnecessary since they do not also assume the downside. The bonus is privatized but the loss is socialized. But in any case both the doctor and the hedge fund manager should pay a proportionate amount in taxes. <br />
<br />
136. Ludicrous. Find me someone who actual supports this position that those with talent should be encouraged less than those without? Common sense recognizes that everyone has different strengths, you emphasize the strengths and compensate for the weakness as best you can, no one suggests holding people back. Why else would we live in such a fiercely competitive society with such a fiercely competitive economic system?<br />
<br />
137. MF is leading into social Darwinism here. The desire for a society for less inequality doesn't arise because we want to compensate for the lack of nature's gifts, but because we want the security to live with dignity. MF should remember this feeling from his own poverty, but like most formerly poor he wishes to forget his own poverty and protect his new-found wealth. About Ali, what do you think he fought for before he climbed the ranks, about the pay of a dockworker. <br />
<br />
139. Rockefeller Foundation, founded as a PR stunt after shooting down union members. MF says there is no inconsistency between the free market and compassion. Perhaps he meant to say there is no intersection between the FM and compassion. One is performed outside of the other, there is no profit in compassion, that is a social decision we make is not a rational market decision. If (rich) D deciding what he will do for (poor) A worked so well, then why did it become necessary for B and C to decide for D? Could it be that D could not, for self-interest in maximization, make the right and just decision? When you espouse a philosophy that puts a premium on self-empowerment and bearing the consequences and fruits of ones own decisions, how do you possibly expect the charitable response of individuals to play out in a positive way? <br />
<br />
141 Rather than going on about equality of outcome, how about equality of dignity? As anyone who has had to live only by the sufferance of those better off, dignity is by far the most important virtue and the very least any civilized society should offer without question or judgement: food, drink, medicine, shelter. Something the rich of our society lack is humility, a very Christian virtue. When freedom takes on the shape of one individual buying their own private island while millions starve, this is without question an egregious form of violence. At the very heart of it, when an executive purchases their own private jet, they are saying that the millions of starving are worth nothing. How to rectify? Live reasonably, buy goodwill with your largesse. What is "reasonable" is what is proportional to your wealth. Are you worth a billion dollars, perhaps living on 10% of that is reasonable. And with the other 90% do good works. This is what it is like living in a siphon society as opposed to a funnel society. <br />
<br />
142 No one goes into public service to get rich. There are two types of people that go into public service, those that want to do good, and those that want a particular piece of legislation. Also there is no equivalence in the argument of wanting less inequality and wanting everyone to be equal, MF is attempting reductio ab absurdum, but it is in fact another straw man. Under no circumstances do I think a doctor should be paid as much as a waiter. I would be interested to see just which egalitarians are making this argument as MF refers to them, but not by any identifiable name, which makes me think, they do not in fact exist. Also if voluntary redistribution worked in a capitalistic, competitive society, we wouldn't need compulsory taxes to accomplish what must be done and make no mistake, historically speaking, some redistribution must happen to protect the wealth of the upper class. You see this with debt jubilee's, relaxing of debtor laws, granting of labour rights, granting of legal status. <br />
<br />
145 Crude criminality does not stem from a drive towards equality (even his equality of outcomes) is stems from deprivation. Poverty is the source of crime, reduce poverty you will reduce crime. <br />
<br />
146 Interesting MF uses the words "permitted" because indeed a free market must be permitted by law (<b>imposed</b>) to operate or else it would not exist on a grand scale. Polanyi illustrates this in <i>The Great Transformation</i>, free markets imposed by law, and the spontaneous social action that arose to stop it. <br />
<br />
147 So what MF is describing when describing Russia is not an egalitarian society, it is in fact no different from the gradients of poverty and wealth seen in any capitalist society with the exception of a significant middle class. <br />
<br />
148 Does not the accumulation of wealth and property require force as well? Force to earn it and force to keep it. And by its accumulation, does it not inflict violence on others so deprived to sustain such wealth?<br />
<br />
<b>Chapter 6 – What’s Wrong with our Schools</b><br />
<br />
153 The public school system was a reaction to increasing industrialization. Business's required that people have particular skills, but not a wide range i.e. critical thinking. They needed factory workers, not scholars. MF typically blames the gov't when in fact he should be pointing the finger at business. <br />
<br />
157 We have to tolerate some inefficiencies from an economic perspective, because a) markets do not internalize all costs into prices b) because some things that are important to our society are external to the market thus unimportant i.e. the environment. <br />
<br />
161. Quality of education is deteriorating because it matters less now to business whether kids graduate. The market for those skills has collapsed with outsourcing and automation. The kids that do go on to college and university are enough to satisfy the knowledge and service industries’ steadily shrinking market. <br />
<br />
168 Coons and Sugarman are right. For a man who denigrates the Govt so much MF seems quick to allow the Govt to subsidize the choices of the rich. The term economic segregation is clear enough, those that can already afford private schools will then use govt vouchers to drive up the price of the private schools keeping them out of reach for the poor. In essence, nothing changes for the poor except the rich no longer have to directly subsidize their education. <br />
<br />
169 Perhaps in America where social costs are frequently a target of politicians looking to make cuts to support tax cuts for the rich and increased military spending, but in other places in the world, socialized education works i.e. Canada. <br />
<br />
177 He characterizes state run colleges and universities as places where slackers go to party and drop out. He has no idea why students drop out, but considering most of the students come from a class that can't afford ivory tower tuition, I would hazard to guess money and opportunity are the main reasons for dropping out, a much more plausible reason than laziness, and partying.<br />
<br />
179 The invisible hand or the invisible fist? MF makes the argument that education should be primarily available to those with the private incentive to get it i.e. money. I would make the argument that education should be primarily available to those with the interest and the ability. Money should not enter the picture. Since we both agree that education serves both the public and private interest, money should not be the bottleneck that bars the way. His argument that those that go only because it is subsidized do not value it as much if they paid and could pay full cost. He uses the word “willing” and misses the word "able". That is like saying a starving man will not value a subsidized apple because he cannot pay the full cost. Best way to keep the lower classes in their place is to put education out of their reach. What does MF feel about libraries I wonder? Probably don't trouble him much because a library cannot confer a piece of paper that says you know something. <br />
<br />
184 In quoting the U of C study he makes it seem like the rich and middle class are having a joke at the expense of the poor. If the poor are not receiving proportional benefit from the subsidy then how by raising the costs of education will it make it more accessible? There are currently private institutions but not one of them is cheaper than the subsidized state run schools. Also let's address the reasons why the poor may not be taking advantage of the subsidy. They may be ill-prepared from a life of deprivation or more likely they are working three jobs to makes ends meet and have not the time or money to avail themselves. Pay or borrow for higher fees. Hmmm trillion dollar student debt bubble? MF hates it when regulations hold someone back but seems to have no problem with money being the gatekeeper. Sure let investor's invest directly in the student by buying a share in future earnings. That has no possibility whatsoever of being abused. <i>/sarc</i>. It is slavery by another name. <br />
<br />
<b>Chapter 7 – Who Protects the Consumer?</b><br />
<br />
191 Shout out to EF Schumacher. I do agree that regulation has gotten out of hand. For every regulation/law proposed, 2 should be repealed. <br />
<br />
192. How does MF explain planned obsolescence? Government made products tend to be made to last so as not to have to pay for more of the same. It usually involves higher upfront costs, but they last longer. An unfortunate example that comes to mind is the AK-47. <br />
<br />
197-199 All I see here are businesses that couldn't accept the free market and tried to circumvent it at ever turn. They found that government is the perfect tool. <br />
<br />
215 He blames consumers for pollution not producers. This is not a chicken-egg argument. Beyond our necessities for life, food, drink, shelter, all wants are manipulated by producers advertising their product. How could a consumer want an iPad if none had ever been produced? He is correct that the cost for cleaner air and water must be born by the consumer which leads to another problem inherent in our economic system: inequality. When the gap is so great the amount the majority would have to pay exceeds their ability to sustain themselves. For example pollution primarily driven by China and the US affect the climate in Africa, how are the Africans to pay to offset the effects of pollution when they cannot feed themselves? The rich routinely make decisions with "their" wealth that have real implications for the rest of us. If Director's law is an issue then does not a proportional graduated tax address this? If most regulations benefit the rich and middle class and they pay the greater portion of the taxes proportionately, then what exactly is your beef?<br />
<br />
217 Cheapest way to keep down effluent is illegal dumping. You only pay if you get caught. <br />
<br />
218 Comparing horseshit to automobile exhaust. I realize this book is somewhat dated, but I can't help but say horseshit never contributed to climate change. <br />
<br />
220 I would be interested in MF take on the DEA. I have often thought about the conflict of interest of prosecuting the war on drugs which has essentially grown from a budget of 100 million in 1973 to 20 billion dollars plus today. <br />
<br />
222 Private enterprise will never mobilize capital for a profit loss scenario. They cannot. And there are many situations in which governments need to mobilize capital in scenarios in which their can be no profit. <br />
<br />
224 Edward Bernays would heartily disagree. We are profoundly influenced by advertising and by others. If we were not then why did MF bother to write this book? It is advertising, some would say propaganda, but it influences none-the-less. <br />
<br />
225 MF solution to monopolies is not legislation, it is opening up to international trade. Now I have an unfair advantage because I have the weight of future (his future, my past) events on my side, but how did he not think that same scenario that lead to national monopolies would not also lead to international monopolies/cartels? Introducing the Transnational Corporation. <br />
<br />
227 I agree with his alcohol/drug policy. <br />
<br />
<b>Chapter 8 – Who Protects the Worker?</b><br />
<br />
228 MF is being deceitful. True, officially recognized unions were few and far between, but union-like behaviour, strikes, work slow downs, protests, petitions existed for a long time and in great numbers. It was workers banding together that won better working conditions long before the govt gave them legal status (indeed the gov’t often sided with the owners). Any other view on this is ahistorical. <br />
<br />
229 It was workers willing to stand up to government and capitalists that won the rights and enhanced the working conditions of all workers whether they were in unions or not. <br />
<br />
231 Designating the Hippocratic Oath as a precursor to the first union. Paranoid? Just like we wouldn't let just anyone call himself a doctor today, they wouldn't back in ancient Greece. We require competence in our doctors. <br />
<br />
232 Apparently the high wage earners in MF's world are those that are part of unions and those that are part of govt. Who are the highest paid workers in the world? CEO's of private companies. <br />
<br />
234 <b>Note:</b> I am more than 2/3 of the way through and I do not believe I have heard MF once address military spending. He only attacks social spending. In fact, except for a brief swipe at GI benefits, he goes out of his way to exclude the military from his numbers. <br />
<br />
In his argument against unions (union employ fewer people at higher wages forcing people to seek work elsewhere, their numbers bidding down non-union jobs) exposes the same flaw with international trade. Labour, a commodity, gets traded like anything else. Capital chases the lowest cost of labour. Hence access to greater pools of labour (i.e. displaced Mexican corn farmers) drives down the cost of labour. Another thing MF misses or doesn't address is that we need less labour overall due to innovations in technology and energy use. This, combined with access to global labour pools, drives down wages. Unions make up a small portion if anything. <br />
<br />
MF says that all raises come from the productivity dividend. It used to, now it goes primarily to SH and management. Any raises that do come now, mostly come from inflation. <br />
<br />
Raises in excess of productivity would come from other workers. I can agree with that as it explains the increasing pay gap between management and front-line workers. <br />
<br />
235 We all wear the consumer hat at sometime. But in this economic system we must wear the worker hat first before we consume. So giving people high wages, as long as prices are affordable to those wages is no loss. High wages requires that the productivity dividend is shared out more fairly and not hoarded by owners and management. <br />
<br />
MF says unions and governments are in cahoots. Laughable. And completely ahistorical. I suggest Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States for a real picture of the governments relationship with unions. <br />
<br />
236 Again he complains of the violence used by unions to enforce their demands. MF is either ignorant of history or being willfully deceptive. The violence perpetrated against workers by both owners and govt far exceeded anything workers have done. Any violence would have been in reaction to injustices inflicted upon them. MF perhaps is affected by the hierarchy of force. Any violence that travels down the hierarchy from the upper class to the lower class is acceptable, routine and often invisible. Any violence traveling up the hierarchy is shocking and very visible. Any violence traveling in the wrong direction is dealt with harshly and immediately.<br />
<br />
237 I address the minimum wage argument of Jacob Spinney and others in prior post <a href="http://rantyrantrant.blogspot.ca/2012/05/in-defense-of-minimum-wage.html">here</a>. They are MF's arguments verbatim. <br />
<br />
243 MF takes umbrage at the idea that anyone's salary or pension should be linked to the cost of living. What is the alternative that it should be linked to the price of malnutrition? Anywhere there is inflation wages should be adjusted to compensate to preserve purchasing power. I suspect that the outrage is because to link wages to inflation removes the ability of capitalists to give “raises” that are funded by an increase in the money supply and not from the productivity dividend.<br />
<br />
Also just how common was workmen's comp in the private sector, before it was legislated? <br />
<br />
246 MF assumes that there is equal power between employers and employees. How could that possible be the case when one sells commodities and one is a commodity? If the supply of labour is greater than the number of jobs and in a global context it always will be, then the employer has more power. MF also assumes that the employee is more mobile than the employer, this is no longer the case when a TNC can move its headquarters through filing some paperwork across international borders, in one day. Lastly, it is a requirement that one works to live, people need money more than employers need people. <br />
<br />
247 MF reinforces that the free market and competition lead to growth which provides the excess needs for raises. But historically we know that markets don't always grow, of course MF would maintain that there has never been a true free market, the “No True Scotsman” argument. But his free market experiment got played out again and again through Jeffrey Sachs use of "shock therapy" in places like Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, Poland, Russia. It turn out to be pretty good for the rich, not so good for everyone else. And there was nothing voluntary about it. Most packages were created in secret and rushed through voting and had to be enforced <i>forcibly</i>. <br />
<br />
<b>Chapter 9 – The Cure for Inflation</b><br />
<br />
254 So far I am mostly in agreement with MF's analysis of inflation. He seems to put the blame squarely at the govt feet, but recall, in the US the Federal Reserve makes monetary policy and the Federal Reserve, despite it's name, is a private institution that <i>happens</i> to have a monopoly on the creation of US currency. <br />
<br />
268 The product and placement paid for by printed money matters. To take MF's example of workers building a road where none was before. If the road was built in the middle of nowhere and of little use, inflation will most definitely result. If the road was built to connect a town that up till that point had to pay to fly products in, then the cost of transport will dramatically fall, driving down costs and more than offsetting any inflation and everyone is better off. <br />
<br />
283 I wonder if MF thinks centralize spending for the military is socialist?<br />
<br />
<b>Chapter 10 – The Tide is Turning</b><br />
<br />
286 Maybe that is the problem, we can no longer have parties of principle but rather expediency and compromise. What are we expediting and with whom are we compromising?<br />
<br />
291. Isn't he also describing how the free market works. Do not products work cross-purposes to each other? MF has no problem with waste as long as it is voluntary and in the confines of the free market, because he does not castigate all the legions of free market capitalists that have lost their shirt starting a business that failed. How many start-ups succeed? Something like 10%. <br />
<br />
<b>Thought:</b> could the free market solve an impending meteor strike?<br />
<br />
305 If price is speech then why is it so garbled?<br />
<br />
309 For a word he uses so often did he define what "freedom" means? <br />
Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-65402342502412519932012-07-27T10:27:00.000-07:002012-07-27T10:33:42.750-07:00Economics is BackwardsOur economic thought is backwards. For hundreds of years we’ve developed and advanced a method of thought that, in the aggregate, results in overshoot, overpopulation, overthrow.<br />
<br />
How could such fundamental errors have occurred? Easy, when formulating a hypothesis as to how the world works, the context of the history is extremely important. The environment on which the modelling is performed is not static, thus the model should not be static either.<br />
<br />
The context is the cultural/social milieu, and the period, a time when the riches of the new world have been virtually untouched. You can make egregious errors in concepts and logic without suffering from the impact of that error as it is not apparent and will not be apparent for hundreds of years. It seems like the system works until it doesn’t. What is then is prescribed is more of the same, because that is, after all, what has worked in the past.<br />
<br />
So what was the error? The classical economic system has as its foundation, labour, land, and capital. With me so far? The neoclassical economic system is structured thus; labour and capital with land as a subset of capital.<br />
<br />
See the problem? No? The economy is presented as a closed system that encompasses land. Mill, Smith, and Malthus thought of land as a pile of free resources. Henry Hazlitt confirms the same thinking in his book Economics in One Lesson. Yet for a closed, encompassing system, economics requires a concept of “externalities”, actions and events that happen outside the system.<br />
<br />
Where does these externalities and resource come from if not from the environment? If the economy collapsed as a system, what would be left? Not labour, not capital, nothing but land. If the environment collapses what would be left? Nothing. Without the environment (land) you cannot have an economy, thus it is the economy that is a subsystem of the environment, not the other way around. The environment doesn’t need labour, capital or the economy. <br />
<br />
We had it backwards.<br />Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-84380938070868763062012-07-21T13:58:00.002-07:002012-07-21T14:00:22.974-07:00Objective vs Subjective Value or Why Genocide is Never a Good IdeaUpdate: Divine Femitheist has abandoned her blog as she has realized the error of her <a href="http://thefemitheist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/farewell.html">ways</a>. I'm going to keep this up as no doubt some other internet denizen will come along advocating Utopia, as long as the right group of people die. And I put some thought into writing this so I am going to post it, dammit!<br />
<br />
<a href="http://thefemitheist.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/allow-me-to-introduce-myself.html">Divine Femitheist</a> (there after referred to as DFT) makes an argument that life intrinsically has no objective value at all other than what has been assigned to it by humans. Which is to say there is no such thing as objective value at all, as define as a concept/reality that is true regardless of an individuals cognitive ability/subjective leanings. Ergo, she says men are worth nothing, then men are worth nothing and the removal of half the human species doesn't really mean anything in the grand scheme of things. <br />
<br />
Derrick Jensen makes a good case for objective truths; I have a hammer, it is objectively true that to avoid getting hit on the thumb by that hammer is a good thing that is independent of a cognitive view. <br />
<br />
Clean drinking water and clean air are more objective values that are independent of subjective views. How exactly? We can say that clean air and clean water don't matter to us, and indeed we do when we intentionally or unintentionally pollute these sources of life, but the objective fact is, dirty air and dirty water kill us, it is irrespective of whether our actions are in line with preserving life.<br />
<br />
On the subject of genocide, every tyrant in history has made the claim that their cause is just, noble, right and necessary. Regardless of this claim it has always turned out the same way, a horror-show. I would ask how DFT’s version of genocide will be any different than any other genocide perpetrated in history? How is her status any different than any other tyrant in history?<br />
<br />
If she could get us to agree to her view, if it was remotely palatable, then we’d be piling on this new(old) ideology. As soon as you say some people have to die, especially group X, then this is no longer persuasion, this is force and it never ends well for group X.<br />
<br />
DFT seems to be reasonably intelligent, she writes well, if a tad bit zealous, but her youth shows. She sees the world in black and white, thus her binary thinking taints her choice of solutions. To follow her nihilistic ideology to its inevitable conclusion an even better solution would be to eliminate human beings altogether, wipe the slate clean and start over. As it is her advocation of gendercide, eugenics, restrictions of rights for particular identifiable groups, and establishing a second class citizenry is nothing new, just revolting.<br />Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-39709818112763793642012-07-21T13:36:00.000-07:002012-07-21T13:42:59.842-07:00Western Civilization: Only as Crazy as its MemesI’ve been reading many books by Derrick Jensen lately and listening to the <a href="http://www.extraenvironmentalist.com/">Extraenvironmentalist</a> podcast and it has lead me to a strange synthesis of ideas that those of us who are part of the dominant culture (i.e. Western Civilization) are, in fact, insane and just do not recognize it as such.<br />
<br />
Not insane, you say? Then how else do we explain, climate change, debt bubbles, wars of aggression, peak oil, famine, poverty, inequality, Ayn Rand, libertarianism, species extinction, deforestation, fishery collapse, pollution, overpopulation?<br />
<br />
We are crazy and I can trace the root of it. It starts with the bible where in God gives us dominion over the earth and everything on it. With that carte blanche he also told us to go be fruitful and multiply. It can’t be said we didn’t listen, we really took both instructions to heart. I am positive though, the end result is not what the big G had in mind. I’m sure when he gave us dominion it was in a more stewardship type role, like a parent would say to an older sibling “Your mom and I are going out for awhile. Don’t burn the house down while we are gone.”<br />
<br />
Where it really got ugly for us we can lay at the feet of one Rene Descartes, when he made his famous statement <i>cogito ergo sum</i>, I think, therefore I am. It was through this reductionist concept (meme) that lead to the adoption of the mechanistic view of nature, that one can figure out natural systems in isolation, by isolating it’s component parts. Descartes and his students were famous for their vivisections, downplaying the obvious distress of their animal patients as nothing but mechanical reflexes. <br />
<br />
Another side effect of Descartes work was the primacy put upon thinking, upon intelligence. It became the primary way we distinguished our species from any other, intelligence being seen as conferring some sort of special status on us, separating us from animals, and from nature. This was the start of the slippery slope, for if intelligence was what made us human, then what could be inferred about some humans that appeared less intelligent then others? That they were perhaps less human? <br />
<br />
Intelligence became the justification of the supremacy of western culture in comparison to all others, for when western nations came into contact with indigenous people’s invariably the intelligence of the natives was deemed inferior compared to their own. Based on what measuring stick may you ask? Well the measuring stick of western culture of course! For example, an immediate black mark for an indigenous culture was not knowing who Jesus was. Silly right? No, this was a means use to measure the worthiness of a culture, and if you didn’t know who Jesus was, well your culture didn’t quite measure up. And commonly what happened to indigenous people who didn’t measure up was they were enslaved or wiped out, sometimes both in proper chronological sequence (after all you can’t enslave a wiped out people).<br />
<br />
So here is where the strange synthesis comes in, I was listening to a podcast with <a href="http://www.extraenvironmentalist.com/episode-15-1-brotherhood-of-the-screaming-abyss-part-i/">Dennis McKenna</a> talk about his deceased brother about indigenous use of hallucinogens in rituals and another podcast with <a href="http://www.extraenvironmentalist.com/episode-35-ecology-alcohol/">Stephen Buhner</a> where he says that most living beings like to get drunk or high (even apparently, and most fascinatingly, apple trees). I wondered about western civilizations hostility to native rituals and drug use in general, not all drug use (the dominant culture loves drugs that enhance productivity and those that numb our reactions), but drugs that specifically make us stop and marvel at the wonder of creation. It is my contention that these types of drugs act as a pressure release valve, rejuvenating our perspective and re-engaging ourselves with our fellow human beings and nature. Preventing access to these is like preventing a person from drifting into REM sleep. The sleep they do have is not sustaining and eventually it leads to ugly consequences. I think it can be argued we are seeing the results of these ugly consequences in world events.<br />
<br />
So thank you Rene Descartes for imprinting on our memory DNA the blueprint for racism, classism, and other lesser prejudices. And thank you Big G for not being a better lawyer, less wiggle room in the language from the start could have save a heap of trouble a couple of thousands years on.<br />Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-1617281964957896152012-06-25T13:22:00.001-07:002012-06-25T13:22:31.214-07:00Robert Newman's - The History of Oil.Entertaining and informative.<br />
<br />
<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-8957268309327954402&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-31492508372087903192012-06-22T14:17:00.002-07:002012-06-25T13:27:27.004-07:00Premise Against CivilizationFrom Derrick Jensen:<br />
<br />
<b>Premise One:</b> Civilization is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization.<br />
<br />
<b>Premise Two:</b> Traditional communities do not often voluntarily give up or sell the resources on which their communities are based until their communities have been destroyed. They also do not willingly allow their landbases to be damaged so that other resources—gold, oil, and so on—can be extracted. It follows that those who want the resources will do what they can to destroy traditional communities.<br />
<br />
<b>Premise Three:</b> Our way of living—industrial civilization—is based on, requires, and would collapse very quickly without persistent and widespread violence.<br />
<br />
<b>Premise Four:</b> Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.<br />
<br />
<b>Premise Five:</b> The property of those higher on the hierarchy is more valuable than the lives of those below. It is acceptable for those above to increase the amount of property they control—in everyday language, to make money—by destroying or taking the lives of those below. This is called production. If those below damage the property of those above, those above may kill or otherwise destroy the lives of those below. This is called justice.<br />
<br />
<b>Premise Six:</b> Civilization is not redeemable. This culture will not undergo any sort of voluntary transformation to a sane and sustainable way of living. If we do not put a halt to it, civilization will continue to immiserate the vast majority of humans and to degrade the planet until it (civilization, and probably the planet) collapses. The effects of this degradation will continue to harm humans and nonhumans for a very long time.<br />
<br />
<b>Premise Seven:</b> The longer we wait for civilization to crash—or the longer we wait before we ourselves bring it down—the messier will be the crash, and the worse things will be for those humans and nonhumans who live during it, and for those who come after.<br />
<br />
<b>Premise Eight:</b> The needs of the natural world are more important than the needs of the economic system.<br />
<br />
Another way to put premise Eight: Any economic or social system that does not benefit the natural communities on which it is based is unsustainable, immoral, and stupid. Sustainability, morality, and intelligence (as well as justice) requires the dismantling of any such economic or social system, or at the very least disallowing it from damaging your landbase.<br />
<br />
<b>Premise Nine:</b> Although there will clearly some day be far fewer humans than there are at present, there are many ways this reduction in population could occur (or be achieved, depending on the passivity or activity with which we choose to approach this transformation). Some of these ways would be characterized by extreme violence and privation: nuclear armageddon, for example, would reduce both population and consumption, yet do so horrifically; the same would be true for a continuation of overshoot, followed by crash. Other ways could be characterized by less violence. Given the current levels of violence by this culture against both humans and the natural world, however, it’s not possible to speak of reductions in population and consumption that do not involve violence and privation, not because the reductions themselves would necessarily involve violence, but because violence and privation have become the default. Yet some ways of reducing population and consumption, while still violent, would consist of decreasing the current levels of violence required, and caused by, the (often forced) movement of resources from the poor to the rich, and would of course be marked by a reduction in current violence against the natural world. Personally and collectively we may be able to both reduce the amount and soften the character of violence that occurs during this ongoing and perhaps longterm shift. Or we may not. But this much is certain: if we do not approach it actively—if we do not talk about our predicament and what we are going to do about it—the violence will almost undoubtedly be far more severe, the privation more extreme.<br />
<br />
<b>Premise Ten:</b> The culture as a whole and most of its members are insane. The culture is driven by a death urge, an urge to destroy life.<br />
<br />
<b>Premise Eleven:</b> From the beginning, this culture—civilization—has been a culture of occupation.<br />
<br />
<b>Premise Twelve:</b> There are no rich people in the world, and there are no poor people. There are just people. The rich may have lots of pieces of green paper that many pretend are worth something—or their presumed riches may be even more abstract: numbers on hard drives at banks—and the poor may not. These “rich” claim they own land, and the “poor” are often denied the right to make that same claim. A primary purpose of the police is to enforce the delusions of those with lots of pieces of green paper. Those without the green papers generally buy into these delusions almost as quickly and completely as those with. These delusions carry with them extreme consequences in the real world.<br />
<br />
<b>Premise Thirteen:</b> Those in power rule by force, and the sooner we break ourselves of illusions to the contrary, the sooner we can at least begin to make reasonable decisions about whether, when, and how we are going to resist.<br />
<br />
<b>Premise Fourteen:</b> From birth on—and probably from conception, but I’m not sure how I’d make the case—we are individually and collectively enculturated to hate life, hate the natural world, hate the wild, hate wild animals, hate women, hate children, hate our bodies, hate and fear our emotions, hate ourselves. If we did not hate the world, we could not allow it to be destroyed before our eyes. If we did not hate ourselves, we could not allow our homes—and our bodies—to be poisoned.<br />
<br />
<b>Premise Fifteen:</b> Love does not imply pacifism.<br />
<br />
<b>Premise Sixteen:</b> The material world is primary. This does not mean that the spirit does not exist, nor that the material world is all there is. It means that spirit mixes with flesh. It means also that real world actions have real world consequences. It means we cannot rely on Jesus, Santa Claus, the Great Mother, or even the Easter Bunny to get us out of this mess. It means this mess really is a mess, and not just the movement of God’s eyebrows. It means we have to face this mess ourselves. It means that for the time we are here on Earth—whether or not we end up somewhere else after we die, and whether we are condemned or privileged to live here—the Earth is the point. It is primary. It is our home. It is everything. It is silly to think or act or be as though this world is not real and primary. It is silly and pathetic to not live our lives as though our lives are real.<br />
<br />
<b>Premise Seventeen:</b> It is a mistake (or more likely, denial) to base our decisions on whether actions arising from these will or won’t frighten fence-sitters, or the mass of Americans.<br />
<br />
<b>Premise Eighteen:</b> Our current sense of self is no more sustainable than our current use of energy or technology.<br />
<br />
<b>Premise Nineteen:</b> The culture’s problem lies above all in the belief that controlling and abusing the natural world is justifiable.<br />
<br />
<b>Premise Twenty:</b> Within this culture, economics—not community well-being, not morals, not ethics, not justice, not life itself—drives social decisions.<br />
<br />
Modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are determined primarily (and often exclusively) on the basis of whether these decisions will increase the monetary fortunes of the decision-makers and those they serve.<br />
<br />
Re-modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are determined primarily (and often exclusively) on the basis of whether these decisions will increase the power of the decision-makers and those they serve.<br />
<br />
Re-modification of Premise Twenty: Social decisions are founded primarily (and often exclusively) on the almost entirely unexamined belief that the decision-makers and those they serve are entitled to magnify their power and/or financial fortunes at the expense of those below.<br />
<br />
Re-modification of Premise Twenty: If you dig to the heart of it—if there were any heart left—you would find that social decisions are determined primarily on the basis of how well these decisions serve the ends of controlling or destroying wild nature.<br />
<br />
Endgame vol. 1, pages IX-XIIVasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-71397635292785365532012-06-16T09:24:00.002-07:002012-06-16T09:24:51.325-07:00MoreMore Community<br />
More Mom and Pop Shops<br />
More Wealth<br />
More Friends<br />
More Close Knit Families<br />
More Slow Food<br />
More Love<br />
More Leisure<br />
More Knowledge<br />
More Music<br />
More Forest Gardens<br />
More Art<br />
More Biodiversity<br />
More Clean Air<br />
More Clean Water<br />
More Local Food<br />
More Awareness<br />
More Common Sense<br />
More Wisdom<br />
More Quality<br />
More Contentment<br />
More Patience<br />
More Sauntering<br />
More Right<br />
<b>More for Less</b><br />
Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-20357303538030068742012-06-14T21:21:00.000-07:002012-06-14T21:21:58.686-07:00LessLess Consumption<br />
Less Labour<br />
Less Money<br />
Less Debt<br />
Less Large Far-Flung Families<br />
Less Military Spending<br />
Less War<br />
Less Competition<br />
Less Advertising<br />
Less Government<br />
Less Corporations<br />
Less Regulation<br />
Less Production<br />
Less Pollution<br />
Less Factory Farming<br />
Less Fast Food<br />
Less Growth<br />
Less Ignorance<br />
Less Driving<br />
Less Energy<br />
Less Wrong<br />
Less Carbon Emissions<br />
Less Speed<br />
Less Quantity<br />
<b>Less is More</b>Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-80864884756905534632012-05-31T15:46:00.002-07:002012-05-31T15:46:43.271-07:00Rogers Mobility: A Study in Terrible Customer Service.My family and recently moved, prompted by my acceptance of employment, to an area that was outside Roger's service area. <br />
<br />
My wife needs her cell phone to be reliable as she is with the kids so she began to look at alternatives. It turns out our area is serviced by both Telus and Bell. The problem is both my wife and I are in a three year contract. Hefty cancellation fees and all of that. <br />
<br />
"Don't worry about that", says Chris our cable guy. "People get let out of their contracts all the time when they move here."<br />
<br />
I did some research and it turns out to be true. Frustration of contract it is called. No service, no need to keep to the terms of the contract as it has been breached. Rogers cannot stipulate that you cannot move out of the service area (otherwise who would sign such a thing and it would no doubt get struck down in court). <br />
<br />
So we were set, my wife was going to get the ball rolling so she could port her number and her phone over to Telus. <br />
<br />
After spending over 2 hours on the phone with 3 different individuals, including an "iPhone Specialist" they finally conceded that we didn't have service at our address and grudgingly agreed to waive the cancellation fee (which they didn't have a choice in the matter). And in their magnanimous magnificence gave my wife leave to port her number to Telus and closed her account. Of course we didn't realize at the time that the poison dagger had already been stuck in our backs. <br />
<br />
My wife took her phone to our local Telus dealer and he ported her number over into a Telus Sim card. The phone didn't work. He swapped it with another Sim but by that time my wife had to leave with two squirrelly kids and a non-functioning phone. He managed to tell her before she was out the door that it probably needed to be unlocked. <br />
<br />
It turns out that it is impossible to unlock the latest iOS. I tried, I jailbroke it, but could not unlock it, the most talented hackers in the world still have not cracked it. Jane called Rogers and asked them if they could unlock it. They told her that they couldn’t do anything for her without an account. She asked them why didn’t they tell her before they terminated her account (after all she was on the phone with them for 2 hours), one guy says that they are not obligated to say anything about it, another guy said that maybe it was not clear to the initial three individuals what she intended to do with the phone. It was made clear to them from the beginning, she was going to port her number to the telus network and not sign another contract. Even if she didn’t make it clear that she was going to use the iphone, why would Rogers assume that she was going to junk it? A perfectly usable phone? In the end, they said that they could unlock her phone for a fee if she got a pay as you go account AND waited 30 days. So my wife is going to be without an emergency phone for 30 days while looking after two small children. Not on my watch, buster!<br />
<br />
So I decided to take a crack at them. Corporations invariably bend to my will. Well, most of the time.<br />
<br />
I spent about an hour and at the end, I had to walk away. I first talked to technical and as soon as it became apparent that I was calling on my wife’s behalf they stuffed me with customer relations. William, in broken English, said that there was nothing he could do unless we opened a pay as you go account and wait 30 days for activation (unlocking). I asked him if my wife had the wherewithal to ask for the unlocking on March 6th if she would have had to wait 30 days. He said no. I asked him how he expected someone to port a number to TELUS when no one outside of Rogers can unlock the phone. He said she should’ve asked and that they are not obliged to say anything that would help somebody switch to a competitor. I asked to speak to his supervisor, he refused, repeatedly. I explained that if I can’t get it resolved then I at least need to speak to a manager to let them know that Rogers has a serious operational problem, he still refused. I hung up. I called a local Apple dealer, who gave me a bunch of good info (like always ask for an interaction ID at the beginning of a conversation, that way if they stonewall you and refuse to help, you can call back, get someone else and tell them the interaction ID). I did phone back and managed to speak to a manager. She was equally unhelpful, but at least I was able to illustrate the problem Roger’s has with customer service. She did mention she was surprised that Rogers waived the cancellation fee. I said that was as it should be because it is a frustration of contract.<br />
<br />
I got a lot of “well we don’t know what was said.” First, I call bullshit because they record all conversations (thus the interaction ID) and second, I don’t care, it is obvious to anyone that Roger’s screwed up and I am a customer and I need some resolution. It appears to an outside observer that as soon as you stop paying money, all regard for that customer goes out the window.<br />
<br />
I said to my wife “I am angry still. Someone is going to pay.”<br />
<br />
I wrote a letter to the Office of the president and surprisingly I got a call back from Tim. We chatted and I explained the situation and he basically said that Roger’s SOP was not unusual compared with industry standard. I asked him what was required technically speaking to unlock the phone and he said that the tech would provide a code and you would punch it in the phone. So unlocking the phone didn’t require a 30 day wait, this was purely an operational issue. He made it sound like he did us such a great favour to waive the 500$ and I said to point to the clause that says we are responsible if we move out of the service area. Of course there is none, hence waiving our fee, but they torpedo your phone in exchange.<br />
<br />
Tim wasn’t going to budge so I said that I felt that my wife was treated unfairly and this definitely impacts our choice of provider in the future (I was still a customer at that point). Tim said he was sorry to hear that, I said so am I.<br />
<br />
My wife gets her next bill and lo and behold they had slapped a 30$ cancellation fee on top of her regular charges. She calls and Rogers tells her that it is for not giving 30 days notice before she exited her contract. She pays it before I get a chance to let Roger’s have it.<br />
<br />
The last insult to injury was the next billing cycle, they charge her another 25$ admin fee for a returned payment, our credit card had expired and been re-issued in the interim that all this was happening and they were trying to charge her card multiple times to clear the bill. Rather than get in contact with her, they just kept running the defunct number through in the month of March. When she called to clear her last bill (beginning of April,the one with the 30$ cancellation fee on it) 2 days later they billed her for 25$. She ended up paying it as she did not want to argue with Rogers anymore. I, on the other hand, was up for it as our joint card also paid for my account and they ran the defunct number an equal number of times against my account, but they did NOT charge me an admin fee. Is Rogers being a total dick to former customers? You bet. <br />
<br />
I opened a Roger’s pay as you go account, set it up myself and saved the set-up fee’s, put a minimum of 10$ down and waited 30 days. After the time was up I paid my unlocking fee and unlocked my wife’s phone.<br />
<br />
The unlocking process was alittle bit different than was described by Tim, I talked to technical and they took the IMEI number and released it, which means it was sent to Apple’s own servers and when I hooked it up to iTunes next a message popped up saying that the phone had been successfully unlocked.<br />
<br />
I promptly turned around and called Rogers back and told them that service was non-existent and I wanted out of my contract. After waiting a few days, (they sent out a survey team you see), I called them back and asked them what was up. I talked to technical who agreed that my area was a low service area, so I asked them what they were going to do about it and she told me that they were planning a new tower in 2012. <br />
<br />
“When in 2012?” I asked <br />
<br />
She didn’t know the exact date. <br />
<br />
“What am I going to do in the meantime?” I asked.<br />
<br />
She didn’t know, she couldn’t exactly force a signal through.<br />
<br />
“Well I can’t exactly wait for a tower to be put up either, I want out of my contract.”<br />
<br />
She put me through to Customer service. <br />
<br />
Note: with each person you talk to, you have to retell your story. <br />
<br />
Customer Service put me back to technical because she needed some information from the survey. I had initially thought she would just call technical herself and get the information, but no she transferred me. So I told technical that Customer Service needed the survey details, so this time the lady in Technical actually put me on hold and called Customer Service and explained to them what was going on. Then she brought me into the call, where Customer service transferred me to Customer Retention where I articulated that there is no service and I want my contract terminated where upon they transferred me to yet another person in god knows what department (perhaps it was the Sandpaper-on-Genitals Dept, I had lost track at that point) where the gentleman kindly instructed me to transfer my phone to another provider in the area and that they will waive the cancellation fee. I got the reference number for the cancellation and asked them about the 30$ cancellation fee for not giving 30 days notice, he assured me that such a fee does not exist.<br />
<br />
So now I wait for my 30 days and I’ll reuse my pay as you go account to unlock my phone as well.<br />
<br />
Cost to me over and above services rendered: $125<br />
<br />
Cost to Rogers for being a total Penis: $500 and any future contracts/service<br />Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-60370446376173361952012-05-30T11:47:00.001-07:002013-10-04T11:22:23.907-07:00Want to Understand? Read Books!The following is an incomplete list of books I've read in the last couple of years that have coloured my thinking and in my estimation, lent a certain understanding of the world in which we live. I feel it should give people a certain sense of where I am coming from when I talk/write, although I'll add that I have sometimes read books from this list just to get a sense of where someone else is coming from.<br />
<br />
As I read more, I'll update the list.<br />
<br />
As always you can make suggestions for books I should read in the comments.<br />
<br />
<b>The Great Transformation – Karl Polanyi<br />
</b><b>The Cancer Stage of Capitalism – John McMurtry<br />
</b><b>Limits to Growth: 30 Year Update – Donella Meadows, Jorgen Randers, Dennis Meadows<br />
</b>Fleeing Vesuvius – Edited by Richard Douthwaite<br />
<b>Being Wrong – Kathryn Schulz<br />
</b>Carbon Shift – Thomas Homer-Dixon<br />
The Upside of Down – Thomas Homer-Dixon<br />
The Party’s Over – Richard Heinberg<br />
Power Down – Richard Heinberg<br />
Collapse –Jared Diamond<br />
The Mountain People – Colin Turnbull<br />
The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One – William K. Black<br />
Web of Debt – Ellen Brown<br />
Tyranny of Words – Stuart Chase<br />
Economic in One Lesson – Henry Hazlitt<br />
Future Tense – Gwynne Dyer<br />
Climate Wars – Gwynne Dyer<br />
The Story of Stuff – Annie Leonard<br />
Violence – James Gilligan<br />
The Singularity is Near – Ray Kurzweil<br />
Confessions of an Economic Hitman – John Perkins<br />
The Secret History of the American Empire – John Perkins<br />
The End of Work – Jermey Rifkin<br />
<b>The Spirit Level – Richard Wilkinson<br />
</b><b>A People’s History of the United States – Howard Zinn<br />
</b>The Gift – Marcel Mauss<br />
The Shock Doctrine – Naomi Klein<br />
Manufacturing Consent – Noam Chomsky<br />
The Host and The Parasite – Greg Felton<br />
Denialism – Michael Spector<br />
The Long Emergency – James Howard Kunstler<br />
The Grand Chessboard – Zbigniew Brzezinski<br />
Fast Food Nation – Eric Schlosser<br />
The End of America – Naomi Wolf<br />
Give Me Liberty – Naomi Wolf<br />
Sustainability and the Civil Commons – Jennifer Sumner<br />
Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller – Jeff Rubin<br />
Reinventing Collapse – Dmitry Orlov<br />
The Pursuit of Happiness – David G. Myers<br />
In the Age of Spiritual Machines – Ray Kurzweil<br />
The End of Growth – Richard Heinberg<br />
The End of Nature – Bill McKibben<br />
Eaarth – Bill McKibben<br />
The Ingenuity Gap – Thomas Homer-Dixon<br />
<b>A Language Older than Words – Derrick Jensen<br />
</b>Seeing Like a State – James C. Scott<br />
The Collapse of Complex Societies – Joseph Tainter<br />
End Game – Derrick Jensen<br />
Small is Beautiful – E.F. Schumacher<br />
Your Money or Your Life – Vicki Robins and Joe Dominguez<br />
Deep Economy – Bill McKibben<br />
Peak Everything – Richard Heinberg<br />
Plenitude – Juliet Schor<br />
Heat – George Monbiot <br />
Ecological Economics and the Ecology of Economics – Herman Daly<br />
Cool It – Bjorn Lomborg<br />
End of Poverty – Jeffery D Sachs<br />
As the World Burns: 50 Simple Things you can do to stay in Denial<br />
– Derrick Jensen and Stephanie Miller<br />
Death of the Liberal Class - Chris Hedges<br />
American Fascists - Chris Hedges<br />
Days of Destruction, Days of Rage - Chris Hedges<br />
<b>What's the Worst that Could Happen - Greg Craven</b><br />
Poisoned for Pennies - Frank Ackerman<br />
Prefabulous & Almost off the Grid - Sheri Koones<br />
The End of Growth - Jeff Rubin<br />
Wrong - David H. Freedman<br />
The Value of Nothing - Raj Patel<br />
The Vegetarian Myth - Lierre Keith<br />
Listening to Grasshoppers - Arundhati Roy<br />
The Next American Civil War- Lee Harris<br />
$20 per Gallon - Christopher Steiner<br />
Water Conciousness - Various<br />
<b>Overshoot - William Catton</b><br />
Bottleneck - William Catton<br />
Unity of Law - Henry Charles Carey<br />
Free to Choose - Milton Friedman<br />
Road To Serfdom - Friedrich Hayek<br />
The Economics and Ethics of Private Property – Hans-Hermann Hoppe<br />
The Economics of Needs and Limits – Frank Rotering<br />
Atlas Shrugged – Ayn Rand<br />
The Culture of Make Believe – Derrick Jensen<br />
Shoveling Fuel For a Runaway Train – Brian Czech<br />
Counting For Nothing- Marilyn Waring<br />
Don't Sleep, There are Snakes - Daniel Everett<br />
End Game Vol 2: Resistance – Derrick Jensen<br />
Crossing the Rubicon – Michael Ruppert <br />
<b>Economics Unmasked – Manfred Max-Neef<br />
</b>Global Warming for Dummies – Elizabeth May <br />
Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet – Mark Lynas <br />
Why We Disagree on Climate Change – Mike Hulme<br />
Confronting Collapse - Michael C. Ruppert<br />
<b>Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations – Dave Montgomery<br />
</b>Guns, Germs and Steel - Jared Diamond<br />
The Enemy Of Nature – Joel Kovel<br />
<b>The Crash Course – Chris Martenson<br />
</b>No Contest: The Case Against Competition – Alfie Kohn<br />
<b>Walking Away From Empire – Guy McPherson </b><br />
Prosperity Without Growth – Tim Jackson<br />
<br />
Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-27711056048670762792012-05-19T17:23:00.000-07:002012-05-19T17:23:19.899-07:00Our G8 Leaders Cannot Solve Our ProblemsIndeed, our G8 (pronounced <i>"great"</i>) leaders cannot even recognize what the problem is.<br />
<br />
I read an article today on Yahoo entitled "<a href="http://ca.news.yahoo.com/g8-leaders-back-greece-euro-zone-call-growth-165236277--business.html?_esi=0&bcmt_s=e">G8 leaders back Greece in euro zone, call growth 'imperative'</a>".<br />
<br />
This is a bit of problem as I enumerated in the following comment on the article:<br />
<br />
<i>"Our G8 leaders don't get it. Growth is done. The easy oil is gone. All this unrest you are seeing in the world is the result of us hitting hard limits. Politicians and economists just don't get it."</i><br />
<br />
Brief and to the point. Definitely not my usual style.<br />
<br />
The first cogent reply was from Joe S. from Kansas City, United States where he wrote:<br />
<br />
<i>"Growth is not done... we just need to allow individuals to pursue their dream, but of course with some and limited oversight. If governments got out of the way, we'll have growth within months.<br />
<br />
Consider the attack by Obama and democrats on the coal and oil industry. They killed the Keystone pipeline and his type of people are regulating the coal industry to death.<br />
<br />
The socialists want businesses under their control and that is why they pursue an unsustainable "green" energy that requires subsidies.<br />
<br />
That is why growth appears to be done.... socialistic concepts.<br />
<br />
Ronald Reanan(sic) quote:<br />
If it moves, tax it.<br />
If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving,<br />
subsidize it'"</i><br />
<br />
Sigh. Perhaps it is not just politicians and economists that don't get it.<br />
<br />
Joe, I agree that this is a problem of ideology, but the ideological problem is not republican vs. democrat, free-market vs. socialist. Deficit spending will not solve this problem because creating additional financial claims on a limited pool of resources isn't going to fix anything. Cutting regulation and taxes to stimulate business isn't going to do anything because of resource limits, you can't grow what you don't have.<br />
<br />
An aside though, funny how you should mention that Obama and the democrats are attacking the fossil fuel industry, by trying to regulate it. Perhaps the best way is for the Obama administration to cut all subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and let them compete on their own merits, just like in a true free market? Of course the Republicans would rail against that. And you are back to status quo, pinning the hopes of your economy on a non-renewable fuel source.<br />
<br />
The economy runs on energy, without access to ever increasing energy you have cannot have a growing economy. And unfortunately due to a flaw in the foundation of classical and subsequent neo-classical economic thought our global economy must grow or die.<br />
<br />
What is that flaw? From the times of Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, and John Stuart Mill, economics as a system, consisted of land, labour and capital. Neoclassical economics subsumed land into capital, treating land as a subsystem of capital. The error, one that has been made worse from the transition of classical to neoclassical economics is that land is first a subsystem of economics, then a subsystem of capital. <br />
<br />
<b>All along we have had it exactly backwards.</b> <br />
<br />
<b>The Economy is a subsystem of the Environment (land). <br />
</b><br />
<br />
Without environment, which provides all externalities, you can have no economy. Thus laws governing environment (physics) take precedence over rules governing economics. And that law is the second law of thermodynamics. The easy oil that fueled economic growth is nearly gone and I say again that the unrest you are seeing, riots, political uncertainty, debt crisis, housing crisis, unemployment, food crisis, climate change, repeal of freedoms, all stems from the energy crisis.<br />
<br />
This might have been something that could have been dealt with 30 years ago, but now it is far too late. So while those in the US continue to treat politics like a team sport, the really important decision do not get made, indeed the really important issues do not get discussed.<br />
<br />Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-19299478044168978512012-05-16T13:17:00.000-07:002012-05-16T13:50:00.110-07:00The Giant's Footprint (aka Where is Salby’s Peer Reviewed Article?)A gentleman commented on my blog the other day pointing me to another article written by our <a href="http://islandstrust.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/climate-challenge-anyone/">resident climate skeptic Eric Booth</a> issuing a challenge to all those that subscribe to climate change driven by CO2. It was a talk given by <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YrI03ts--9I">Professor Murry Salby</a>. <br />
<br />
I figured it must be pretty good stuff seeing as when I did a search on his name there were blogs titled:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/05/the-emily-litella-moment-for-climate-science-and-co2/">“An Emily Litella moment for climate science and CO2”<br />
</a> <a href="http://antigreen.blogspot.ca/2011/08/this-guy-sounds-dangerously-rational-he.html">“Greenie Watch”<br />
</a> <a href="http://www.politicalforum.com/environment-conservation/200766-continues-unravel.html">"It continues to unravel"<br />
</a> <a href="http://www.utterpower.com/september-14th-al-gore-my-favorite-whore/">“Al Gore, My Favourite Whore”</a> <br />
<a href="http://theclimatescum.blogspot.ca/2011/08/salby-demolishes-agw-theory.html">“The Climate Scum: Salby Demolishes AGW Theory”<br />
</a> <a href="http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/178854-another-nail-in-the-coffin.html">“Another Nail in the Coffin”<br />
</a> <a href="http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/282-science-and-technology/59930533">“Prof. Murry Salby falsifies Anthropogenic Global Warming”<br />
</a><br />
and my personal favourite:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.turn180.ie/?p=530">"The Climate Change Debate Should be Declared Over!"</a> <br />
<br />
It is interesting to note how many of these blog posts spread out like wild-fire in the first week of August, telling the exact same story with very little analysis or original commentary.<br />
<br />
So I went to search for the peer reviewed paper but I ran into a problem, I couldn't find it. Most of these blogs were dated around Aug 2011, most likely soon after the talk was given and some of them talked about a paper being submitted for review. The <a href="http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=134149">latest blog </a>dated April of this year said 6 months until it was to be published.<br />
<br />
All this celebration and it hadn't even been reviewed yet. <br />
<br />
Please, by all means, if you know where <a href="http://envsci.mq.edu.au/staff/ms/pubs.html">Salby’s article </a>has been published in a peer-reviewed publication, throw me a link and I’ll change this posts title.<br />
<br />
In the meantime there has been a rebuttal. A few actually.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-Confused-About-The-Carbon-Cycle.html">http://www.skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-Confused-About-The-Carbon-Cycle.html<br />
</a><br />
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/unforced-variations-aug-2011/">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/unforced-variations-aug-2011/</a> from about comment 37 on. Pay special attention to comment 81 as to why no one in the “warmist” camp is getting all hot and bothered by Salby’s talk.<br />
<br />
And of course Professor’s Salby’s co-worker Professor Colin Prentice had something to say as well, just scroll down to the bottom of the page:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.climatefutures.mq.edu.au/eventsandnews/commentary/">http://www.climatefutures.mq.edu.au/eventsandnews/commentary/<br />
</a><br />
Notice the blurb under the link (emphasis mine):<br />
“This article is in response to a recent talks delivered at the IUGG and Sydney Institute by Professor Murry Salby. <b>As Professor Salby has not yet provided any data (published or unpublished) to support the ideas presented</b>, this piece is a response to the verbal content of his talk only.”<br />
<br />
Me, I'll wait for a peer-reviewed journal like the Journal of Climate (or some other peer-reviewed source) to publish the paper and then get excited about the prospect of an underdog scientist defeating the establishment scientists. <br />
<br />
I am reminded though that this is one scientist with one paper (that has not been reviewed yet), so I fall back on Michael Shermer's ten famous rules for unearthing bullshit:<br />
<br />
Drumroll please.<br />
<br />
1. How reliable is the source of the claim? <br />
2. Does the source make similar claims? <br />
3. Have the claims been verified by somebody else? <br />
4. Does this fit with the way the world works? <br />
5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim? <br />
6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point? <br />
7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science? <br />
8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence? <br />
9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory? <br />
10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim? <br />Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-66907957611000998182012-05-02T21:50:00.001-07:002012-05-02T22:12:01.689-07:00In Defense of Minimum WageThe following was a video posted by a Craiglist dignitary whom we've nicknamed Slavery Boy (based on his admission that voluntary slavery was preferable to minimum wage).<br />
<br />
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0c2vmFGbtk&sns=em<br />
<br />
My critique:<br />
<br />
<br />
The premise is that minimum wage laws are in fact causing job destruction. In the simple model employed by the narrator of the video, he does appear to mathematically demonstrate the subsequent reduction in the consumer and producer surplus with the establishment of a minimum floor. <br />
<br />
Of course with all simple models, invariably what happens is it leaves something out so it is not actually modeling reality at all, but rather it is modeling wishful thinking. <br />
<br />
Minimum wage laws are indeed a tool that redistributes the wage pie in a way that is advantageous for the worker. The narrator would like us to think that to do so we must rob Peter to pay Paul, i.e. to prevent some from working so others can work for more money. The model conveniently omits increases in productivity achieved by better business practice and innovations in technology, what I like to refer to as the "productivity dividend".<br />
<br />
The natural consequence of increases productivity is one can produce more products for the same amount of input. Or conversely, generate the same amount of product, with less input. <br />
<br />
Input consists of raw materials, energy and labour. Thus if productivity outstrips the business's capacity to sell it all, the logical conclusion to benefit from the productivity dividend is to downsize your workforce and redistribute the savings. In the aggregate, employer's demand for labour over time is shrinking. <br />
<br />
Historically the redistributed savings would end up with upper management and the shareholders, with the workers receiving very little as their jobs are increasingly tenuous over time placing additional downward pressure on wages due to increasing productivity. <br />
<br />
In Summary:<br />
<br />
1. The reduction of hours will proceed at pace, irrespective of minimum wage laws. <br />
<br />
2. Minimum wage laws are a way to force businesses to redistribute some of the productivity gains to the workers and fight the downward pressure on wages that is devaluing labour in absence of union protections.<br />Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11381043.post-39205525760663397042012-04-06T13:20:00.015-07:002012-04-06T14:58:14.866-07:00A Review of Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.I would like to start off by saying that Henry Hazlitt does a great job in breaking down economic myths like parity-pricing and within the context of economics I agree with a majority of what he says. I have a few issues however and will address them in this essay. <br /><br />In Chapter 4 pg 31, he begins by stating that "everything we get, outside the free gifts of nature, must in some way be paid for". There is no such thing as free gifts, period. Everything has a cost, some of which cannot be valued accurately in monetary terms. <br /><br />Economies are a subsystem of the environment, without environment there is no economy. Economies only put costs on labour, energy and material. Energy and material derive their economic costs from private property enclosures. Somebody owns the land from whence the raw materials come, hence a negotiated price come with the allowance to use the resource. Materials that do not have an owner, like water or air, tend to be used and misused ie. Pollution because their is no "cost" associated with them. <br /><br />This is a regular tragedy of the commons, which on the face of it lends a certain strength to the argument that all property should be enclosed, even water and air. By assigning an owner, thereby assigning a cost, it will make those who use the resource and pollute it think twice as it hits their bottom line. Perhaps this would even work if you have faith that the price system could communicate the real value of air and water, but seeing the history of the cost of oil, massively undervalued, I don't. <br /><br />In Chapter 3, page 26 Hazlitt distinguishes the difference between <span style="font-style:italic;">need</span> and <span style="font-style:italic;">demand</span>. Need is essentially mirrors demand to the extent that it has purchasing power backing it up. Excess need (in excess of purchasing power) is irrelevant to the economy. Hazlitt has a real problem with the government intervening to prevent excess need from going unfulfilled which I would agree to in the case of subsidizing oil companies when in fact they are raking in record profits, but some sort of intervention is required for those of our citizens who have insufficient purchasing power to feed themselves. It is a basic requirement for the foundation of good communities to take care of it's most vulnerable members. <br /><br />He chides us for reviling profits and to a certain extent I agree that profits are ok. However it is the system that makes maximum profits mandatory by law (CEO fiduciary duty to the shareholder first and foremost) and the relatively short time horizons combined with a vested interest in options to buy shares in the company that makes an honest CEO a rarity. <br /><br />If given the choice between logging a tract of forest sustainably in perpetuity for a ROI of 10% per year or logging the forest to its destruction in 10 years for an ROI of 15% per year, the CEO, conscience aside, would be hard pressed to pick the former option as the BoD would be moved to remind the CEO of his mandate, profit maximization for his shareholders. And with a ten year time horizon his options will likely end up "in the money" and retire very wealthy. <br /><br />He accuses labour unions of suppressing wages and even goes so far as to say that unions and minimum wage laws have nothing to do with the advancement of salary over time. Mr. Hazlitt needs to read more history, some of which he lived through. In Howard Zinn's "A People's History" he lays out the awful and violent battles between workers and owners. If the owners of capital had their way, workers would steadily have their pay cheques whittled away as the profits rose. Workers had no choice but to fight back. <br /><br />Also minimum wage laws establishes a floor and a measuring stick that raises the bar for everyone. Minimum wage laws force businesses to do what Henry Ford did willingly in the beginning of the 1900's, double his workers wages. He, and soon other CEO's, recognized that workers that were not paid well could not absorb all the excess inventory brought about by mechanized production. Mr. Hazlitt seems to recognize that wealth is not tied to money nor just production, but the rate of production per man hour of labour. What Henry Ford did and what business's refuse to do now is share out what I like to call the "productivity dividend". Technological development has proceeded apace to the point at which for some industries it no longer makes sense to assign variable costs based on man hours of labor and some have switched to assigning variable costs based on machine hours instead. <br /><br />This is why businesses refuse to share out the productivity dividend anymore, or do so very grudgingly, because people are becoming increasingly irrelevant in production thus unions are losing their bargaining power as they lose people. Back in the 1800's it was not unusual for unions to go on strike and field hundreds of thousands of strikers. Today it would be a surprising event to see tens of thousands. With the increasing popularity of temporary workers, full time or part time employment with all of the onerous costs to business (pesky things like medical coverage, vacations, dental, sick leave, etc) is becoming a thing of the past. <br /><br />Still on the subject of labour, Hazlitt doesn't acknowledge the huge power differential between labour and capital in the favor of capital that is only getting worse as technological means of replacing labour, either directly through automation, or indirectly through outsourcing, increases. Unions are the last bastion of the worker and it is fading fast. <br /><br />Hazlitt talks disparagingly of alternative economies and production-for-use. He seems to think that the price system is so miraculous and efficient and no group of men or governments could possibly plan it better. But he fails to mention the fact that a high percentage of start-ups and investors fail. Eventually a small percentage will find a winning combination, but the carnage of private capital to get there is substantial. One thing that capitalism has done to compensate for this, is it is really, really good at liquidating mal-investments, when allowed to do so. <br /><br />Additionally he thinks that the price system and therefore money is the only way to communicate the publics demand to industry and the industries supply to the public. For example, you could just as easily have the public communicate their demand directly through POS systems, the problem of what to allocate to which industries will be enormously simplified when you stop, as a culture, trying to sell your neighbors useless crap or junk that is designed for the dump. <br /><br />Reserve allocations for the basics, food, water, clothing, shelter, transportation, and medical care, produced on demand, any excess left over to be allocated on a first come first served basis, which is not quantitatively different from being deprived of a purchase due to lack of purchasing power. The focus should be putting as many services and goods under the auspices of the civil commons as possible. If you don't like the "first come first served" system, everything else can be dealt with via barter or monetary exchange. <br /><br />Lastly Hazlitt doesn't recognize, even after his 30 year update, that it is not government calling the shots, transnational corporations that pay lip service to the idea of the free market and capitalism write legislation which gives big business all the protection from competition it needs and thus protects their profits. Vasper85http://www.blogger.com/profile/06722712573528709421noreply@blogger.com0