There is a concept that has been floating around for a while now called Manufacturing Consent. It was put forward by Noam Chomski and Edward Herman. I think the idea has merit in some regards but I have some doubts in general.
Yes I think the mass media is consensual part of the propaganda machine of the left. On the other hand, when they report on what the right is saying, and when the right report on the left, it interrupts the propaganda. It works if you can pick apart the other sides arguments, but it's much harder for he left to pull apart the arguments made on the right, although the not the party line republicans. There is no doubt that their intent is to push the agenda of one side or the other. They lie constantly to create the illusion that their chosen agenda is what everyone should want.
What I really see happening is the manufacturing of conflict between the left and right. I think the reason is fairly simple, if we're fighting with each other we're not looking at the manipulations of the power elite. Hence the growing divide between right and left. The left has for a long time viewed capitalism with incredulity. In the last 30 years, I think a lot of that incredulity is the result of being told we live in a capitalist system, when in fact, since 1913 (or earlier) we've lived in a Crony Capitalist system - entirely NOT the same thing.
Many of the wars that we get involved in make no sense and I believe we are led into them by the same people who use crony capitalism, who seek to destroy the free market, who seek the new world order. I suspect move of the people in mass media don't even know their helping the cause that's destroying them. This manufactured conflict is I think, it's non an uncommon occurrence. We see it in Race baiters like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, and Barack Obama, men who try to turn every occurrence of black and white interaction into a racial conflict. We see it in journalist and government support for terrorist, Hamas in Palestine, and Al-Queda in Syria and Lebanon. I think it even happens on F*ceB00k - huh, yeah I got the idea from reading a an article link from Maggie's Farm concerning "Likes"
Progressives going for the Nanny State, Republicans going for the Corporate State, both supporting wars that amount to colonial aggression under the guise of spreading democracy. Democracy is Mob Rule - why do so many people think that's a good thing? Look at the riots in Ferguson if you think Mob Rule is a good thing - there's your mob. It's were all mobs go eventually. Without a culture that promotes morals based on a sound philosophy, you end up with situational ethics, which is an oxymoron if I've ever heard one - right up there with Corporate Ethics.
When they start telling you to hate someone for what they say or believe - it's time to start looking to your own beliefs - do they stand up to logic, are they formed from a first level philosophy? If you look at the base of the Libertarian philosophy - despite all the differences, the basics are pretty much the same:
Individuals own them selves and the production of their efforts.
Coercion is immoral.
Individuals have the right to own property.
Self Defense is a Duty to self and third parties where Coercion is used.
Some would simplify and say, The Non-Agression Principle, and Property Ownership, and I'm okay with that because they lead to self defense, and one can assume self ownership.
If you can't get to where they say everyone should be, from that starting place - or what ever starting place you decided is true, then maybe you should examine their agenda before you join the revolution.
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philosophy. Show all posts
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Friday, August 22, 2014
Cosmos again
I've been watching Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey
I've always like Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Smart guy, articulate, seems to have a sense of humor. I was a little annoyed that he demoted Pluto but he was right. I really enjoyed the original Cosmos. The new one is also very good, flashy, but solid and informative. I've been a bit surprised to see Mr Tyson's opinions on religion not come pouring out unlike another special he did, where he fairly constantly referred to all religions as ignorant superstitions. Yeah I know that's the standard opinion of virtually every atheist I've ever met. Those of us who don't care for organized religion and don't like to be preached at by the church, don't much like to be preached at by the other side either. (I suppose I could be misjudging him on this but it's sure the feeling I got from his other show - The Inexplicable Universe.
One thing I found a little irritating was the time spent on global warming -slightly dates the show doesn't it? It's climate change this week. It was expressed much as the alarmists would have it, fate accompli, the Science is Settled™. This global warming episode was preceded by an episode that pointed out a number of scientists who were ridiculed by the "in" crowd, like the fellow who first postulated plate tectonics. It was followed by this, from the last episode:
Only a few centuries ago, a mere second in cosmic time, we knew nothing of where or when we were. Oblivious to the rest of the cosmos, we inhabited a kind of prison, a tiny universe bounded by a nutshell.
How did we escape from the prison? It was the work of generations of searchers who took five simple rules to heart.
(1) Question authority. No idea is true just because someone says so, including me.Does that sound anything at all like Climate Science? You know the Science is Settled™, shut your mouths or we'll send you to re-education camps, or GitMo or some other very unpleasant place. No? Do you suppose it's because it's not Science? Maybe because it's the religious dogma of the leftist ideology?
(2) Think for yourself. Question yourself. Don't believe anything just because you want to. Believing something doesn't make it so.
(3) Test ideas by the evidence gained from observation and experiment. If a favorite idea fails a well-designed test, it's wrong. Get over it.
(4) Follow the evidence wherever it leads. If you have no evidence, reserve judgment.
And perhaps the most important rule of all...
(5) Remember: you could be wrong. Even the best scientists have been wrong about some things. Newton, Einstein, and every other great scientist in history -- they all made mistakes. Of course they did. They were human.
- What happens when you question them? They tell you to shut up. (Rule 1 - FAIL)
- What happens when you try to do your own analysis? They try to shut you down by hiding the data (Rule 2 FAIL)
- What happens when you compare evidence to theory? They Deny your results - Our Models Tell Us! The evidence must be wrong! (Rule 3 FAIL)
- What happens when you ask them to follow the evidence - Prevarication, Obfuscation, Dogma (Rule 4 FAIL)
- What happens when you bring up rule 5? Outrage - DENIER! Off with their heads! (Rule 5 FAIL)
Must not be Science.
Related: Why there is no Science in Climate Science
Thursday, August 7, 2014
A little too much truth
I gave up giving to charity years ago. Too many are corrupt, most of the one's that aren't are inefficient, if they're efficient, they rarely do the things I think need to be done.
Besides the government sticks a gun to my head every year to collect for charity so why should I volunteer more.
If these people are right (and I believe they are) then all that money destined to help the third world, is causing harm, not helping. I've talked about creating dependance before here. I view emergency response aid differently - obviously (well to rational person it would be obvious).
Apparently I'm not alone in thinking AID generally does more harm than good. PovertyInc.org seems to agree. Corporations seem to be the big gainers when it comes to foreign aid. That and foreign dictators.
Want some proof - take a look at the micro-loans to women program I've seen a lot of stories about significant successes here. Why - small business makes jobs, small business makes economic growth. Not big business, not governments, not involuntary charity, not the narcissistic kids going abroad to "help".
Besides the government sticks a gun to my head every year to collect for charity so why should I volunteer more.
If these people are right (and I believe they are) then all that money destined to help the third world, is causing harm, not helping. I've talked about creating dependance before here. I view emergency response aid differently - obviously (well to rational person it would be obvious).
Apparently I'm not alone in thinking AID generally does more harm than good. PovertyInc.org seems to agree. Corporations seem to be the big gainers when it comes to foreign aid. That and foreign dictators.
Want some proof - take a look at the micro-loans to women program I've seen a lot of stories about significant successes here. Why - small business makes jobs, small business makes economic growth. Not big business, not governments, not involuntary charity, not the narcissistic kids going abroad to "help".
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Open Borders
From a libertarian viewpoint I'd like to have open borders - the problem is, I don't live in a libertarian nation. For open borders to work, we'd need a few things we currently lack, and we'd have to get rid of a few things we have.
First we'd have to do away with all the welfare and other entitlement programs. As people entered the country they'd need to sign a contract, they'd have five years to learn basic english, file their taxes (of which there would be fewer - for everyone), and not get into trouble. Not getting into trouble would be easer because we'd get rid of a significant number of laws and regulations. So, no driving under the influence, no contract violations, no criminal convictions. End of the five years - you get to take the test for citizenship. If you pass then you get a green card, and you can now vote. I don't much care where you came from, although I'd be fairly watchful of folks from countries that are known to support terrorists.
We'd need to have open borders and open trade in a lot of other countries too - if we're the only one, then we're going to have a problem. We're going to have a huge crime problem as long as there's a minimum wage because there will be a huge unemployment problem, and starving people tend to resort to crime when no other option exists. If everyone had open borders then people would be able to move freely (although perhaps not cheaply) to where ever the jobs were. - Yeah we'll we know that's not going to happen. Did you know that even cheerful little New Zealand has MUCH stricter immigration rules than we do? Yep. I can't immigrate to New Zealand if I wanted to, even with two degrees, and no criminal record. Tool old, yeah age discrimination (and for a very logical reason). Now if I win the lottery, I might pull it off - and I might add to my education to fit one of their strongly desired skills, but even then I might be too old. Why? National healthcare, the last thing they need is a bunch of retired folks coming down and plugging up their healthcare system, having never paid into it.
If you have children - they do not become citizens until you do, or until they can pass the test by themselves. Then again I wouldn't let children of existing citizens vote until they could pass the test either. If you can't read english (or brail), then you're not going to qualify for citizen - sorry. Yeah, I know that seem harsh and possibly somthing-ist. Here's the thing, we got into the trouble we have because we let a lot of stupid people vote.
You'll notice that I don't mention education in there? That's because if you want that you'll need to pay for it. (I'm already getting a headache from the whiners...) The idea a "free education" is a myth. We're simply spreading the cost of it across a lot of people. You're kids, will be eligible for vouchers once you pass the exam and get your citizenship. How's that for incentive? I'm not convinced we should even have "free" education - although there is a significant argument for the pro side. Even though I don't have kids, I can see how I benefit from their education (well not the ones they're getting now, but the kind they used to get) that I don't find the tax burden unreasonable, although I'm fairly certain that anyone over the age of 65 has paid enough and should be exempt (no I'm not 65 yet , or even 60).
The point here is that my desire to see the borders locked up has more to do with economics than race, more to do with politics than race.
First we'd have to do away with all the welfare and other entitlement programs. As people entered the country they'd need to sign a contract, they'd have five years to learn basic english, file their taxes (of which there would be fewer - for everyone), and not get into trouble. Not getting into trouble would be easer because we'd get rid of a significant number of laws and regulations. So, no driving under the influence, no contract violations, no criminal convictions. End of the five years - you get to take the test for citizenship. If you pass then you get a green card, and you can now vote. I don't much care where you came from, although I'd be fairly watchful of folks from countries that are known to support terrorists.
We'd need to have open borders and open trade in a lot of other countries too - if we're the only one, then we're going to have a problem. We're going to have a huge crime problem as long as there's a minimum wage because there will be a huge unemployment problem, and starving people tend to resort to crime when no other option exists. If everyone had open borders then people would be able to move freely (although perhaps not cheaply) to where ever the jobs were. - Yeah we'll we know that's not going to happen. Did you know that even cheerful little New Zealand has MUCH stricter immigration rules than we do? Yep. I can't immigrate to New Zealand if I wanted to, even with two degrees, and no criminal record. Tool old, yeah age discrimination (and for a very logical reason). Now if I win the lottery, I might pull it off - and I might add to my education to fit one of their strongly desired skills, but even then I might be too old. Why? National healthcare, the last thing they need is a bunch of retired folks coming down and plugging up their healthcare system, having never paid into it.
If you have children - they do not become citizens until you do, or until they can pass the test by themselves. Then again I wouldn't let children of existing citizens vote until they could pass the test either. If you can't read english (or brail), then you're not going to qualify for citizen - sorry. Yeah, I know that seem harsh and possibly somthing-ist. Here's the thing, we got into the trouble we have because we let a lot of stupid people vote.
You'll notice that I don't mention education in there? That's because if you want that you'll need to pay for it. (I'm already getting a headache from the whiners...) The idea a "free education" is a myth. We're simply spreading the cost of it across a lot of people. You're kids, will be eligible for vouchers once you pass the exam and get your citizenship. How's that for incentive? I'm not convinced we should even have "free" education - although there is a significant argument for the pro side. Even though I don't have kids, I can see how I benefit from their education (well not the ones they're getting now, but the kind they used to get) that I don't find the tax burden unreasonable, although I'm fairly certain that anyone over the age of 65 has paid enough and should be exempt (no I'm not 65 yet , or even 60).
The point here is that my desire to see the borders locked up has more to do with economics than race, more to do with politics than race.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
What's the difference between a progressive and an adolescent
The adolescent is looking forward to growing up and doing things on their own. The progressive still wants their nanny.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Dumb or Dumber
We're going to get one or the other. Why? Well there's just not enough of us to elect Ron Paul (R) or Gary Johnson (L). The GOP lackeys are going to Vote for who ever the RNC tells them to vote for - that'll be Mitt. And the progressives will vote for BO. Either way we'll get what they deserve for a government - possibly what we deserve for not beating the GOP into submission 30 years ago and turning them into the Small Government Party. I suspect we failed not so much from a lack of trying (although there was a fair amount of that) but lack of foresight as to just how screwed up the GOP would become. In my case it was an absolute refusal to vote anything but Libertarian - knowing full well I wasn't going to win - but I could sleep at night knowing I hadn't sold out to the GOP.
Would Ron be better? Yeah, not ideal but better - except he'd get little or no support from the GOP congress. Which means he could fix Communist Czar problem that BO created. He'll probably put us in to seclusion mode for foreign policy - in the short run, as long as we keep up HumInt funding that might not be tragic. But congress is unlikely to do the rational stuff we want to see until his second term - after we've ousted the idiots that didn't get the message the first time around. Gary Johnson would be my first pick but he'd be even less effective than Ron Paul for everything but Regulatory appointments (Very important), Supreme Court appointments (Critical), Foreign Policy (serious). Getting congress to behave - Nah, since neither one is the official candidate for the BIG and BIGGER government parties, congress (except the TP'ers) will be as uncooperative as possible.
Now Borepatch makes an interesting argument for voting for the unrestrained reign ofNational Democratic Socialist/Communist/NWO terror that Obama supporters seem to want (of course they're not going to much like what they get but they're convinced they want it and there's no changing their minds).
I understand the logic - I really do, I'm just not sure we'll recover from what an unrestrained BO will do to us - we may not get another election without a fight (literally a fight as in with weapons). Maybe I'm over reacting - maybe he'll just really screw things up so bad that the TEA Party gets a huge boost - which means a lot more congress-critters get the boot. I don't think the Tea Party trusts Mitt anymore than I do, and they really do want smaller government, controlled spending, and lower taxes so I don't think they'll give up.
I absolutely agree that Mitt, if elected, will sway in which ever breeze seems most likely to blow him into a second term. The trick then is to make sure that breeze is fairly strong - dumping every incumbent and putting in a TP'er or Libertarian candidate. My preference would be any libertarian - and I don't agree with a lot of them but they all want a Small (tiny, damn near non-existant government) which is what I want. What's the difference between a TP'er and Libertarian - TP'er are still a little to ... Not Democrats rather than even Libertarian Light. Still a little too willing to give the GOP the benefit of the doubt. If I think a TP'er has a shot where a Libertarian wouldn't I'd go for the TP'er.
It will either be BO or MR, both are worst choice, but at least we have a small chance of steering the Mittwit as he sees what we do to congress bit by bit. Right Now - I just don't know. Either go all in with Borepatch, or hope you draw to that inside straight. It's either completely screwed or completely screwed only slower. Me I'm going to vote my conscience, if that means doing a write-in for Gary Johnson - I'm OK with that.
Would Ron be better? Yeah, not ideal but better - except he'd get little or no support from the GOP congress. Which means he could fix Communist Czar problem that BO created. He'll probably put us in to seclusion mode for foreign policy - in the short run, as long as we keep up HumInt funding that might not be tragic. But congress is unlikely to do the rational stuff we want to see until his second term - after we've ousted the idiots that didn't get the message the first time around. Gary Johnson would be my first pick but he'd be even less effective than Ron Paul for everything but Regulatory appointments (Very important), Supreme Court appointments (Critical), Foreign Policy (serious). Getting congress to behave - Nah, since neither one is the official candidate for the BIG and BIGGER government parties, congress (except the TP'ers) will be as uncooperative as possible.
Now Borepatch makes an interesting argument for voting for the unrestrained reign of
I understand the logic - I really do, I'm just not sure we'll recover from what an unrestrained BO will do to us - we may not get another election without a fight (literally a fight as in with weapons). Maybe I'm over reacting - maybe he'll just really screw things up so bad that the TEA Party gets a huge boost - which means a lot more congress-critters get the boot. I don't think the Tea Party trusts Mitt anymore than I do, and they really do want smaller government, controlled spending, and lower taxes so I don't think they'll give up.
I absolutely agree that Mitt, if elected, will sway in which ever breeze seems most likely to blow him into a second term. The trick then is to make sure that breeze is fairly strong - dumping every incumbent and putting in a TP'er or Libertarian candidate. My preference would be any libertarian - and I don't agree with a lot of them but they all want a Small (tiny, damn near non-existant government) which is what I want. What's the difference between a TP'er and Libertarian - TP'er are still a little to ... Not Democrats rather than even Libertarian Light. Still a little too willing to give the GOP the benefit of the doubt. If I think a TP'er has a shot where a Libertarian wouldn't I'd go for the TP'er.
It will either be BO or MR, both are worst choice, but at least we have a small chance of steering the Mittwit as he sees what we do to congress bit by bit. Right Now - I just don't know. Either go all in with Borepatch, or hope you draw to that inside straight. It's either completely screwed or completely screwed only slower. Me I'm going to vote my conscience, if that means doing a write-in for Gary Johnson - I'm OK with that.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Occupy Confusion
This feels a little bit like putting my foot in my mouth - since I'm going to say some things that I might regret later. Oh well.
I keep thinking about the Occupy movement, trying to understand the message, the goal, the idea. I'm not a lot closer to getting it than I was when it started. - Actually, I understood the concept behind Occupy Wall Street just fine - it was the execution that was completely wrong. Since then it's gotten more confused and even less effective in delivering a message - well except perhaps - Lynch the 1%!
So far the Message seems to be:
Corporations are not People
Something about immigration
National Heath Care is broken
Rich people should pay more taxes
Greed is the root of all evil, therefore you should give us what we want because it's not fair for you to have it when we don't.
I just want to destroy stuff because.
Any sales trainer or marketing person will tell you, keep your message clear and simple. Apparently there are no marketing or sales people involved in the occupy movement. If there are other messages they're so lost in the noise I'm not seeing them.
So let's take a look at these messages one at a time.
Corporations are not People - True, they are a legal fiction that management hide behind so they can blame their actions on the Share Holders. I have more than a few problems with the legal fiction of the corporation. I understand the need to sell shares to capitalize, and the benefit to investing, that's the good side of a corporation. The bad side is the way they get used. The company builds a product they know is faulty, but they do it anyway because the potential profits outweigh the potential costs of lawsuits, and there is no personal liability - so why not. Small corporations operate in a fraudulent manner, file bankruptcy, fold up, and start over with a new name and the same criminal practices.
I much prefer the Limited Liability Partnership. At least in this case the major players are actually subject to the consequences of their actions.
If you look at companies like Exon, or JPMorgan, or BofA you can see the dark side of the corporation and they are far from the only examples. In the case of BofA it's so extreme I'm sort of surprised the asshats are still alive.
Something about immigration This has gotten way too emotional - if they are illegal - send them home. If they're not - then treat them as if they were citizens of the U.S.A. It's not that hard. Sure there are lots of ramifications. If you send the illegals home, it will have an impact of prices. If you don't send them home, you basically saying - It's OK to exploit them as cheap labor. If your saying make them all citizens, I'd ask who the hell is going to pay for it? And if you say - the government I'm going to smack you upside the head with a 2x4. California tried that - they're bankrupt.
National Heath Care is broken
Yep. Broken pretty much everywhere it's been tried, with the possible exception of Denmark, maybe Sweden - but I say that out of a profound ignorance, it might be just as bad there as say in England where it's going broke, and it takes months to have critical issues treated.
I have no idea how to fix this. Perhaps if our expectations weren't quite so high... A good portion of the problem lies with our legal system - which is broken beyond repair. Part of it is the sense of entitlement. I've yet to hear any solution that I think has a chance in hell of working.
- Well actually I have some vague notions that I need to think on - they probably won't work, but...
Rich people should pay more taxes
I think I'd like to revise this. How about a corporate business tax on salaries and bonuses (including stock or stock options) in excess of say, $500,000 a year. - Say a 1000% tax, be kind of hard to sell that $10,000,000 bonus to the shareholders wouldn't it :). If you own the company, or it's a limited partnership, no extra tax - because it's YOUR company, not the shareholders. (yeah that's my anti corporate economy thing showing itself - but I really do think the thing that ruins the free market is government intervention and creating a legal fiction like the corporation is definitely interference.)
Greed is the root of all evil, therefore you should give us what we want because it's not fair for you to have it when we don't.
Blah Blah Blah - you want it - go work for it. Greed is a basic part of human nature - yeah it can be controlled, and if you believe in enlightened self interest, you probably do control it to a major extent. But that does not entitle anyone to the fruits of your labor. We had a word for people who's labor was exploited for the benefit of others - I think it was Slave.
I just want to destroy stuff because.
Classify them as looters and shoot them on sight. (Too harsh?)
Yes, I think the economy sucks, yes I think members of the 1% profited from creating the situation that made it possible. Yes I think the 1% profited again from their influence in government. No I don't think the changes made have been very effective, why would you expect them to be? It's not in the governments best interest to piss off their biggest donors - getting reelected (the only real concern of elected officials), is mostly a money thing, voters opinions are much to fickle and easy to change with sufficient funds.
So, one of the reasons I don't like the Occupy movement is the lack of a clear message, it seems to be a case of mass whining with no articulation. The other reason I don't like it is how they behave when they get together - it's the kind of thing I'd expect to see from a similarly sized group of baboons.
I think a more effective approach would be to focus on one company at a time, and have everyone purchase as many shares as possible - then go VOTE at the shareholders meetings. Vote for ethical behavior, reasonable salaries, Elect a board of directors with a conscience - then move on to the next company - sooner or later they'd get the idea. (Yeah I know, takes too long, too much dedication to principle, a clear goal.....)
- Posted from the pad
I keep thinking about the Occupy movement, trying to understand the message, the goal, the idea. I'm not a lot closer to getting it than I was when it started. - Actually, I understood the concept behind Occupy Wall Street just fine - it was the execution that was completely wrong. Since then it's gotten more confused and even less effective in delivering a message - well except perhaps - Lynch the 1%!
So far the Message seems to be:
Corporations are not People
Something about immigration
National Heath Care is broken
Rich people should pay more taxes
Greed is the root of all evil, therefore you should give us what we want because it's not fair for you to have it when we don't.
I just want to destroy stuff because.
Any sales trainer or marketing person will tell you, keep your message clear and simple. Apparently there are no marketing or sales people involved in the occupy movement. If there are other messages they're so lost in the noise I'm not seeing them.
So let's take a look at these messages one at a time.
Corporations are not People - True, they are a legal fiction that management hide behind so they can blame their actions on the Share Holders. I have more than a few problems with the legal fiction of the corporation. I understand the need to sell shares to capitalize, and the benefit to investing, that's the good side of a corporation. The bad side is the way they get used. The company builds a product they know is faulty, but they do it anyway because the potential profits outweigh the potential costs of lawsuits, and there is no personal liability - so why not. Small corporations operate in a fraudulent manner, file bankruptcy, fold up, and start over with a new name and the same criminal practices.
I much prefer the Limited Liability Partnership. At least in this case the major players are actually subject to the consequences of their actions.
If you look at companies like Exon, or JPMorgan, or BofA you can see the dark side of the corporation and they are far from the only examples. In the case of BofA it's so extreme I'm sort of surprised the asshats are still alive.
Something about immigration This has gotten way too emotional - if they are illegal - send them home. If they're not - then treat them as if they were citizens of the U.S.A. It's not that hard. Sure there are lots of ramifications. If you send the illegals home, it will have an impact of prices. If you don't send them home, you basically saying - It's OK to exploit them as cheap labor. If your saying make them all citizens, I'd ask who the hell is going to pay for it? And if you say - the government I'm going to smack you upside the head with a 2x4. California tried that - they're bankrupt.
National Heath Care is broken
Yep. Broken pretty much everywhere it's been tried, with the possible exception of Denmark, maybe Sweden - but I say that out of a profound ignorance, it might be just as bad there as say in England where it's going broke, and it takes months to have critical issues treated.
I have no idea how to fix this. Perhaps if our expectations weren't quite so high... A good portion of the problem lies with our legal system - which is broken beyond repair. Part of it is the sense of entitlement. I've yet to hear any solution that I think has a chance in hell of working.
- Well actually I have some vague notions that I need to think on - they probably won't work, but...
Rich people should pay more taxes
I think I'd like to revise this. How about a corporate business tax on salaries and bonuses (including stock or stock options) in excess of say, $500,000 a year. - Say a 1000% tax, be kind of hard to sell that $10,000,000 bonus to the shareholders wouldn't it :). If you own the company, or it's a limited partnership, no extra tax - because it's YOUR company, not the shareholders. (yeah that's my anti corporate economy thing showing itself - but I really do think the thing that ruins the free market is government intervention and creating a legal fiction like the corporation is definitely interference.)
Greed is the root of all evil, therefore you should give us what we want because it's not fair for you to have it when we don't.
Blah Blah Blah - you want it - go work for it. Greed is a basic part of human nature - yeah it can be controlled, and if you believe in enlightened self interest, you probably do control it to a major extent. But that does not entitle anyone to the fruits of your labor. We had a word for people who's labor was exploited for the benefit of others - I think it was Slave.
I just want to destroy stuff because.
Classify them as looters and shoot them on sight. (Too harsh?)
Yes, I think the economy sucks, yes I think members of the 1% profited from creating the situation that made it possible. Yes I think the 1% profited again from their influence in government. No I don't think the changes made have been very effective, why would you expect them to be? It's not in the governments best interest to piss off their biggest donors - getting reelected (the only real concern of elected officials), is mostly a money thing, voters opinions are much to fickle and easy to change with sufficient funds.
So, one of the reasons I don't like the Occupy movement is the lack of a clear message, it seems to be a case of mass whining with no articulation. The other reason I don't like it is how they behave when they get together - it's the kind of thing I'd expect to see from a similarly sized group of baboons.
I think a more effective approach would be to focus on one company at a time, and have everyone purchase as many shares as possible - then go VOTE at the shareholders meetings. Vote for ethical behavior, reasonable salaries, Elect a board of directors with a conscience - then move on to the next company - sooner or later they'd get the idea. (Yeah I know, takes too long, too much dedication to principle, a clear goal.....)
- Posted from the pad
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
I'm confused
The "demonstration" in Seattle is reported to have a group of black clad anarchist - which seems to be a fairly standard tactic for these demonstrations - same thing happened back in 99 WTO conference.
So here's where I'm confused, The Occupy movement seems to want bigger government - you know to put the screws to that greedy 1% And yet they have Anarchists? WTF? These people aren't looking to have a form of government that has no monopoly on the use of force, or ability to apply force - they're looking for the Government to coerce the wealthy in to giving up their wealth (at least that's my take on it).
Is it the media that's getting this wrong? Apparently it's happened in Cleveland - a plot to blow up a bridge, again Anarchists and Anti-business - which I guess in this case means National Socialist rather than anarchits? I think they use the term unadvisedly - perhaps they should stick with criminal. It's sort of like Terrorist - at this point Terrorist really doesn't mean anything because it means pretty much anyone for any reason that someone else doesn't approve of.
My definition of Terrorist? A person or group with a shared ideology, involved in or plotting violence against civilian targets for the purpose of causing harm and fear, with the idea that this will somehow prove beneficial to the terrorist in the long run. So maybe these kids in Cleveland could be classified as terrorists but it would require that they have some goal other than just blowing shit up. I doubt any of them are bright enough to have a long range goal.
Part of the problem is the Left seems to like to appropriate words and change the meanings - For example if this were the late 1800's and into the mid 1900's I'd be a Liberal - and a liberal would be a progressive (see they grabbed progressive because it sounds good, and used it for their own agenda). Go read The Road to Surfdom by F.A. Hayek He was there and explains it better than I do.
So here's where I'm confused, The Occupy movement seems to want bigger government - you know to put the screws to that greedy 1% And yet they have Anarchists? WTF? These people aren't looking to have a form of government that has no monopoly on the use of force, or ability to apply force - they're looking for the Government to coerce the wealthy in to giving up their wealth (at least that's my take on it).
Is it the media that's getting this wrong? Apparently it's happened in Cleveland - a plot to blow up a bridge, again Anarchists and Anti-business - which I guess in this case means National Socialist rather than anarchits? I think they use the term unadvisedly - perhaps they should stick with criminal. It's sort of like Terrorist - at this point Terrorist really doesn't mean anything because it means pretty much anyone for any reason that someone else doesn't approve of.
My definition of Terrorist? A person or group with a shared ideology, involved in or plotting violence against civilian targets for the purpose of causing harm and fear, with the idea that this will somehow prove beneficial to the terrorist in the long run. So maybe these kids in Cleveland could be classified as terrorists but it would require that they have some goal other than just blowing shit up. I doubt any of them are bright enough to have a long range goal.
Part of the problem is the Left seems to like to appropriate words and change the meanings - For example if this were the late 1800's and into the mid 1900's I'd be a Liberal - and a liberal would be a progressive (see they grabbed progressive because it sounds good, and used it for their own agenda). Go read The Road to Surfdom by F.A. Hayek He was there and explains it better than I do.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Why not a Libertarian?
There's a pretty good discussion over at Sebastians about why we don't see a good Libertarian running.
Part of the problem is that the Libertarians spend too much time worrying about just how rigidly the doctrine should be followed (and which version of it for that matter). So they don't want to vote for someone who's only 80% - which leaves them stuck with someone who's generally between 0% and 40% of what they want.
The other problem, as I see it, is that by nature, libertarians don't feel the need to tell others how to run their lives. Since government has become a tool for doing exactly that - it's sort of repulsive to even thinking about participating - even if the goal is to make it stop (or at least reduce the onslaught).
I was waxing poetic at the gun shop the other day and one of the fellows said he'd vote for me if I ran - now I don't for a minute think I'm really qualified to run, but then I don't think any of the other bozo's are either. Anyway my immediate reactions was "No way, you couldn't pay me enough to do that job." It has sense occurred to me that perhaps that reaction is fairly common amongst the choir. I've all but given up calling myself a Libertarian, I used to think of myself as a conservative but I'm not - at least by todays definition (as loose as that is).
So I'm thinking what I really am is a Contitutionalist
Part of the problem is that the Libertarians spend too much time worrying about just how rigidly the doctrine should be followed (and which version of it for that matter). So they don't want to vote for someone who's only 80% - which leaves them stuck with someone who's generally between 0% and 40% of what they want.
The other problem, as I see it, is that by nature, libertarians don't feel the need to tell others how to run their lives. Since government has become a tool for doing exactly that - it's sort of repulsive to even thinking about participating - even if the goal is to make it stop (or at least reduce the onslaught).
I was waxing poetic at the gun shop the other day and one of the fellows said he'd vote for me if I ran - now I don't for a minute think I'm really qualified to run, but then I don't think any of the other bozo's are either. Anyway my immediate reactions was "No way, you couldn't pay me enough to do that job." It has sense occurred to me that perhaps that reaction is fairly common amongst the choir. I've all but given up calling myself a Libertarian, I used to think of myself as a conservative but I'm not - at least by todays definition (as loose as that is).
So I'm thinking what I really am is a Contitutionalist
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Foreign Aid
I can't seem to find the spot in the constitution that says - tax the people and give the money to foreign governments. Maybe because that wasn't part of the plan? (Of course I could have just missed it).
I think given the right conditions, foreign aid fits nicely into the framework of Enlightened Self Interest (ESI). Getting other countries to the point where they can feed them selves is good for us. Exporting food leads to things like GMO's and non-sustainable monoculture farming. We should be striving to get beyond that (forward into the past) and grow food where it will be eaten for the most part. I've got no issue with import and export of luxury crops but the basics like fruits, vegetables, and grains have to be covered locally. Getting foreign countries (third world) clean water, sanitation, and medical helps us. One of the biggest threats we face is disease - superbugs and pandemic, doing things that reduce the likelihood of that happing, or being able to contain it at the source would be very beneficial. Given that, the list of types of aid I'd like to see us involved in are geared toward making the world healthier, smarter, more sustainable, and more stable.
What I'd like to do with foreign aid is this:
Give aid to countries with the clear understanding that there are strings attached - and be really specific about what those are. For example, If we give you money, or arms, or food, or well - anything, then we get X amount of real estate for our use. It's ours, it's not on loan to us, you don't get to tell us to go home - you have ceded that real estate to the U.S.A. to be used as we see fit. If that's not agreeable - that's OK we'll keep our money, you keep your property, have a nice day. Oh and since the world is so massively overpopulated - we only give aid to countries that establish and maintain a strict zero-population-growth system. For over crowded countries like India, if they manage to get a voluntary negative growth rate, I'm all in favor up giving them a bonus.
All other foreign aid should be NGO. I'm all in favor of NGO aid. There's one general rule and only certain types of aid are allowed. Note - missionary work of a religious nature is not considered foreign aid - it's considered missionary work and as such is outside the scope of government regulation. Attempting to use missionaries to do other than teach religion, reading, writing, arithmetic, and the english language is stepping into the NGO role and will be treated as such.
THE RULE: You may not create an external dependency - anything you do has to be sustainable within the culture and economy. If they can't sustain it when the aid disappears, you haven't given them AID, you've made it worse.
1. Clean Water - Wells, filtration systems, irrigation.
2. Hygiene - Septic systems, sewer treatment, etc
3. Medical - Clinics, supplies, personelle, training.
4. Food - Seeds for native crops or any crops currently being grown. Any other seed must be cleared by council of botanists (or what ever) from universities of not less that 15 countries including any adjacent to the country in question - the goal is to avoid introducing invasive species that will adversely affect the existing ecology. Training, Labor. NO GMO seeds, NO fertilizers, No pesticides. Farm equipment only if the economy currently supports the ability to manufacture.
5. Education - Teaching basics reading, writing, math, music, history, economics, the sciences - physics, chemistry, etc. Vocational skills. Teacher training. No religion, keep it separate and with the missions.
5. Power - any power source must include ability to produce their own parts and maintain any established system, on their own, with their own existing raw materials. If they can't build it when you leave with out importing - you can't use it. Types of power allowed
Wind, GeoThermal, Solar Steam, Hydroelectric. No fossile fuel systems.
I'd want to think this through some more, there are I think issues having to do with corruption that need to be addressed, as well as security.
But that's the general outline.
I think given the right conditions, foreign aid fits nicely into the framework of Enlightened Self Interest (ESI). Getting other countries to the point where they can feed them selves is good for us. Exporting food leads to things like GMO's and non-sustainable monoculture farming. We should be striving to get beyond that (forward into the past) and grow food where it will be eaten for the most part. I've got no issue with import and export of luxury crops but the basics like fruits, vegetables, and grains have to be covered locally. Getting foreign countries (third world) clean water, sanitation, and medical helps us. One of the biggest threats we face is disease - superbugs and pandemic, doing things that reduce the likelihood of that happing, or being able to contain it at the source would be very beneficial. Given that, the list of types of aid I'd like to see us involved in are geared toward making the world healthier, smarter, more sustainable, and more stable.
What I'd like to do with foreign aid is this:
Give aid to countries with the clear understanding that there are strings attached - and be really specific about what those are. For example, If we give you money, or arms, or food, or well - anything, then we get X amount of real estate for our use. It's ours, it's not on loan to us, you don't get to tell us to go home - you have ceded that real estate to the U.S.A. to be used as we see fit. If that's not agreeable - that's OK we'll keep our money, you keep your property, have a nice day. Oh and since the world is so massively overpopulated - we only give aid to countries that establish and maintain a strict zero-population-growth system. For over crowded countries like India, if they manage to get a voluntary negative growth rate, I'm all in favor up giving them a bonus.
All other foreign aid should be NGO. I'm all in favor of NGO aid. There's one general rule and only certain types of aid are allowed. Note - missionary work of a religious nature is not considered foreign aid - it's considered missionary work and as such is outside the scope of government regulation. Attempting to use missionaries to do other than teach religion, reading, writing, arithmetic, and the english language is stepping into the NGO role and will be treated as such.
THE RULE: You may not create an external dependency - anything you do has to be sustainable within the culture and economy. If they can't sustain it when the aid disappears, you haven't given them AID, you've made it worse.
1. Clean Water - Wells, filtration systems, irrigation.
2. Hygiene - Septic systems, sewer treatment, etc
3. Medical - Clinics, supplies, personelle, training.
4. Food - Seeds for native crops or any crops currently being grown. Any other seed must be cleared by council of botanists (or what ever) from universities of not less that 15 countries including any adjacent to the country in question - the goal is to avoid introducing invasive species that will adversely affect the existing ecology. Training, Labor. NO GMO seeds, NO fertilizers, No pesticides. Farm equipment only if the economy currently supports the ability to manufacture.
5. Education - Teaching basics reading, writing, math, music, history, economics, the sciences - physics, chemistry, etc. Vocational skills. Teacher training. No religion, keep it separate and with the missions.
5. Power - any power source must include ability to produce their own parts and maintain any established system, on their own, with their own existing raw materials. If they can't build it when you leave with out importing - you can't use it. Types of power allowed
Wind, GeoThermal, Solar Steam, Hydroelectric. No fossile fuel systems.
I'd want to think this through some more, there are I think issues having to do with corruption that need to be addressed, as well as security.
But that's the general outline.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Enlightened Self Interest
What's the difference between Self Interest and Enlightened Self Interest
OK, this is a bit metaphysical but I need some definitions - don't care if you think I'm wrong as long as you understand that when I say X - someone can translate that to Y if that's what they call it. Claiming that my X isn't really X and there for wrong is semantic bullshit, and I'm not interested in that.
For starters, self interest implies a self, and existance - so a bit more than I think therefore I am. More like - I exist, there for so do all physical objects - the world is not a figment of my imagination - neither are you, which should make you happy. If I die, you don't go with me, at least that the way I'm playing it. Goes along nicely with the Objectivism - Existance Exists - I exist, you, the world, all the physical stuff I interact with - it exists. Seems pretty simple, until you realize how may man years have been spent trying to decide if perhaps we don't really exist - waist of time, if we don't it's all irrelevant and thinking about it is irrelevant which makes all those arguments irrelevant - So There!
It also implies that I have an interest in myself - call it self preservation, or a need for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - same thing. Seriously. With out Liberty and the ability to pursue happiness, self preservation is rather pointless.
Right - so I exist, you exist, the world exists and we'd like to have Liberty and be able to pursue our own happiness. If that's the case, then what I do affects you - perhaps not directly but since I interact with the world, and you are of the world, my actions affect you, your actions affect me - we are connected simply by existing. Huh We are all connected - no touchy feely required, it's just part of that whole existence thing.
What's the difference between self interest and enlightened self interest - I think it's mostly the acceptance of that connection. I don't necessarily need to worry about being compensated directly. If make the world better for you, I'm most likely making it better for me too.
OK, this is a bit metaphysical but I need some definitions - don't care if you think I'm wrong as long as you understand that when I say X - someone can translate that to Y if that's what they call it. Claiming that my X isn't really X and there for wrong is semantic bullshit, and I'm not interested in that.
For starters, self interest implies a self, and existance - so a bit more than I think therefore I am. More like - I exist, there for so do all physical objects - the world is not a figment of my imagination - neither are you, which should make you happy. If I die, you don't go with me, at least that the way I'm playing it. Goes along nicely with the Objectivism - Existance Exists - I exist, you, the world, all the physical stuff I interact with - it exists. Seems pretty simple, until you realize how may man years have been spent trying to decide if perhaps we don't really exist - waist of time, if we don't it's all irrelevant and thinking about it is irrelevant which makes all those arguments irrelevant - So There!
It also implies that I have an interest in myself - call it self preservation, or a need for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - same thing. Seriously. With out Liberty and the ability to pursue happiness, self preservation is rather pointless.
Right - so I exist, you exist, the world exists and we'd like to have Liberty and be able to pursue our own happiness. If that's the case, then what I do affects you - perhaps not directly but since I interact with the world, and you are of the world, my actions affect you, your actions affect me - we are connected simply by existing. Huh We are all connected - no touchy feely required, it's just part of that whole existence thing.
What's the difference between self interest and enlightened self interest - I think it's mostly the acceptance of that connection. I don't necessarily need to worry about being compensated directly. If make the world better for you, I'm most likely making it better for me too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)