SHAKY GROUND
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—“ Declaration of Independence
In reality, few humans believe the aforementioned “truths” are “self-evident”. That we live in a place and time blessed with majorities who are even slightly committed to implementing these truths and protecting these rights, is an unusually fortunate circumstance. Just as we can view a peaceful natural landscape and ignore the blizzards, fires, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, volcanoes, earthquakes, and countless other natural disasters—not to mention scientific evidence of eventual planetary destruction—so we tend to see our current political system: democratic republic, with guaranteed rights and freedoms, as permanent. But bucolic natural scenes are threatened by unperceived natural forces. And our stable democracy is on very shaky ground. There is a difference: while we can, in some small ways, make preparations to lessen the damage done by nature’s extremes, humanity is powerless about what nature will do. Our social contract is entirely man-made.
History shows that concepts such as “created equal” and “unalienable rights” are recent additions to human consciousness. The Declaration of Independence was the first attempt to legalize these concepts, based on philosophical explorations by John Locke about a century before. Farther back, prophets and philosophers here and there broached the subjects, among others having to do with kindness, decency, and brotherhood. While the teachings of these highly advanced people have been influential over the long term, most human history is full of tales of cruel greed and lust for power.
Farmers and other producers of useful things have been robbed, beaten, and killed, their women raped, their children enslaved, by gangs with weapons. This gross economic system has been practiced in every corner of the earth where mankind has advanced beyond the Paleolithic state, to this very day. By whatever name: piracy, feudalism, capitalism, communism, and so forth, the basic methods are the same: organized armed robbery. Men formed larger societies than tribal unions to prevent their being robbed and subjugated. Larger societies learned quickly they could rob and subjugate their neighbours. And just as early, they certainly learnt to rob their own people, who also learnt to rob each other. Under the leadership of various dukes and kings, organizational piracy evolved into modern warfare, disguised as national interest. Still, the means and ends were the same as they had always been.
Despite the incessant carnage, humanity made material progress, and intellectual progress as well. In different times and places, some highly conscious men and women, aware of the terrors inherent in business as usual, would voice their misgivings, and their concepts of peaceful and productive alternatives. Sometimes their thoughts got written down, for others to think about later. But among the general human population, the way things had always been were the way they would always be. Just as the Roman throngs cheered wildly when Caesar paraded foreign royals in cages, so do women and children of present day pirates celebrate their men’s captives and booty. The idea that “this could happen to me” seems not to have penetrated too deeply into human consciousness. “Do unto others” apparently still means “do it to them first.”
Yet here in North America, we find ourselves living where “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” represent our national aspirations, if not our actual policies. Here these rights are still held to be the rationale for our nation’s existence. In Western Europe (where these rights were first recommended), and in a few countries elsewhere, the principles of our Declaration are practiced, or at least attempted. Humanity has made progress over ten or eleven generations. But as slavery, colonialism, and the decimation of indigenous populations prove, even in these fortunate places, the practice has been far from perfect. We dare take nothing for granted.
There are always wars gong on. Corporate control over our daily lives increases constantly. Many people lead hungry, sick, meaningless existences. Infrastructure crumbles as we watch. All these realities seriously detract from “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” There may be good explanations for all this. But it does prove that the “truths we hold self-evident” are not that true. It means that our nation is failing to uphold the very reason for its existence. Nazi thugs at Kristallnacht…Stalin’s goons sacking rural villages to find hidden sacks of grain…hoods hired to beat and shoot union strikers in the U.S.A.—to the victims, reasons mean little.
What we now deem atrocities were once daily facts of life. We live on a thin film of fertile dirt, ever moving, prone to wind, rain, heat, and freeze, regardless how beautiful it looks at a particular moment. So is our social system prone to all manner of attack, robbery, and brutality. If we do not want these things to happen, we are strongly advised to watch and work to prevent them. The progress we have made is not guaranteed. Our Creator may have endowed us with unalienable rights, but our fellows can, and do, take them away.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
#22--WAR AND PEACE TOGETHER
“The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of doublethink, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living.”
George Orwell, 1984
We “got” Osama BinLaden. Can we get out of Afghanistan now? There are teasing hints that we might, but we have been told of “light at the end of the tunnel” before. And as Libya proves, there is always another war. The military-industrial complex is indifferent to location—as long as it occurs elsewhere than the United States, lest Americans learn firsthand of war’s realities. It was a military operation that got BinLaden. And those heroes: smart, confident, competent, fit, hale and hardy, made it look easy. We forget the vain decade of slaughter and horror that preceded our moment of triumph. And just as the splendid Hollywood war on Grenada quickly neutralized our bad taste about Vietnam, we can once more believe that military operations will solve any problem. A state of war is so firmly embedded in our infrastructure, economy and national character that it cannot be removed without radical surgery. Eisenhower’s warnings about the military-industrial complex apparently went unheeded—at least by anyone in a position to make a difference: the ruling brains of the inner party. Despite Barack Obama’s sincerity about removing American troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, we will need to work to ensure the blessings of peace.
Another look at the foundations of the modern industrial state can be useful, though we risk exhuming Marxist thought from the memory hole. Human ingenuity toward increasing productivity while reducing workload seems boundless. Over time, the quantity of goods and services increases while the labour needed to produce them decreases. Supply always outpaces demand, demand signifying not want or need, but the ability of people to buy what is produced industrially. Since the Industrial Revolution hit its stride about a century ago, there have always been enough of the necessities, and many of the luxuries, to go around, and this is truer now than it was then. Society’s problem is to adequately distribute what is produced. As always happens, the supply of goods and services reaches a level that cannot be quickly consumed, causing those who control the supply to reduce production, which reduces workers. Since the unemployed consume less than those with jobs, the trend continues, until—actually we have never seen what would happen, because long before the inevitable conclusion, society ceases to extol the wonders of rugged individualism, and seeks instead some collective solutions.
Our race’s trials and errors over the last century have revealed some possible solutions to this ongoing difficulty of balancing production and consumption to the general benefit. The most logical solution would be to reduce work hours and increase wages, allowing more workers to buy what they produce. This method is enormously unpopular with those in control, however, because it reduces profits short-term, and in the long term people with more free time tend to become educated enough to question authority. Another solution is to find other work for people to do. Since humans are far more destructive of their environment than bears or feral hogs (and there are billions more of us), we can employ each other to maintain a livable environment. However, resistance to this solution reaches deep into human nature. We all have our preferences for public works. Schools, sewers, police, transport, energy…the list is endless. Not only can we argue over what is important, we can also disagree over what it should cost, and who pays. Besides, has the situation really reached problem stage yet? Couldn’t we put off any action until, say, next budget year?
Then there is war. As a public works project it is ideal. It blows up surplus production, employs many people (with the added bonus of high turnover) and holds out the tantalizing promise of a conclusive ending. Most importantly, in the mass communication age, it has an almost universal acceptance rate. We have no time for debate, and protests are easily ignored. If the leaders declare war, then to arms. In hindsight, some wars seem to have been fought under false pretenses. But dare we take the chance? Better to fight a wrong war than to not fight the right one.
Sticking with Orwell, in modern warfare only a small number of people actually fight (another result of industrialization), leaving the majority apparently unburdened. But we all do pay, starting by spending borrowed money. In the half-century since Eisenhower’s warning, how much progress and plenty might we be enjoying if we had not borrowed trillions of dollars for nearly uninterrupted war? Although most citizens of Oceania (and Eurasia and Eastasia too) do live better than the ones in Orwell’s horror story, many of us are far from comfortable, despite higher industrial productivity. And news headlines show virtually every government official claiming to be appalled at the public debt, to the point where paying it off requires drastic cuts in spending, throwing more of us into poverty. How much lower would the debt be if we had no wars? Most modern humans know about war’s horror and futility, and public figures everywhere deplore it, yet wars go on, a daily fact of life.
War is peace.
George Orwell, 1984
We “got” Osama BinLaden. Can we get out of Afghanistan now? There are teasing hints that we might, but we have been told of “light at the end of the tunnel” before. And as Libya proves, there is always another war. The military-industrial complex is indifferent to location—as long as it occurs elsewhere than the United States, lest Americans learn firsthand of war’s realities. It was a military operation that got BinLaden. And those heroes: smart, confident, competent, fit, hale and hardy, made it look easy. We forget the vain decade of slaughter and horror that preceded our moment of triumph. And just as the splendid Hollywood war on Grenada quickly neutralized our bad taste about Vietnam, we can once more believe that military operations will solve any problem. A state of war is so firmly embedded in our infrastructure, economy and national character that it cannot be removed without radical surgery. Eisenhower’s warnings about the military-industrial complex apparently went unheeded—at least by anyone in a position to make a difference: the ruling brains of the inner party. Despite Barack Obama’s sincerity about removing American troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, we will need to work to ensure the blessings of peace.
Another look at the foundations of the modern industrial state can be useful, though we risk exhuming Marxist thought from the memory hole. Human ingenuity toward increasing productivity while reducing workload seems boundless. Over time, the quantity of goods and services increases while the labour needed to produce them decreases. Supply always outpaces demand, demand signifying not want or need, but the ability of people to buy what is produced industrially. Since the Industrial Revolution hit its stride about a century ago, there have always been enough of the necessities, and many of the luxuries, to go around, and this is truer now than it was then. Society’s problem is to adequately distribute what is produced. As always happens, the supply of goods and services reaches a level that cannot be quickly consumed, causing those who control the supply to reduce production, which reduces workers. Since the unemployed consume less than those with jobs, the trend continues, until—actually we have never seen what would happen, because long before the inevitable conclusion, society ceases to extol the wonders of rugged individualism, and seeks instead some collective solutions.
Our race’s trials and errors over the last century have revealed some possible solutions to this ongoing difficulty of balancing production and consumption to the general benefit. The most logical solution would be to reduce work hours and increase wages, allowing more workers to buy what they produce. This method is enormously unpopular with those in control, however, because it reduces profits short-term, and in the long term people with more free time tend to become educated enough to question authority. Another solution is to find other work for people to do. Since humans are far more destructive of their environment than bears or feral hogs (and there are billions more of us), we can employ each other to maintain a livable environment. However, resistance to this solution reaches deep into human nature. We all have our preferences for public works. Schools, sewers, police, transport, energy…the list is endless. Not only can we argue over what is important, we can also disagree over what it should cost, and who pays. Besides, has the situation really reached problem stage yet? Couldn’t we put off any action until, say, next budget year?
Then there is war. As a public works project it is ideal. It blows up surplus production, employs many people (with the added bonus of high turnover) and holds out the tantalizing promise of a conclusive ending. Most importantly, in the mass communication age, it has an almost universal acceptance rate. We have no time for debate, and protests are easily ignored. If the leaders declare war, then to arms. In hindsight, some wars seem to have been fought under false pretenses. But dare we take the chance? Better to fight a wrong war than to not fight the right one.
Sticking with Orwell, in modern warfare only a small number of people actually fight (another result of industrialization), leaving the majority apparently unburdened. But we all do pay, starting by spending borrowed money. In the half-century since Eisenhower’s warning, how much progress and plenty might we be enjoying if we had not borrowed trillions of dollars for nearly uninterrupted war? Although most citizens of Oceania (and Eurasia and Eastasia too) do live better than the ones in Orwell’s horror story, many of us are far from comfortable, despite higher industrial productivity. And news headlines show virtually every government official claiming to be appalled at the public debt, to the point where paying it off requires drastic cuts in spending, throwing more of us into poverty. How much lower would the debt be if we had no wars? Most modern humans know about war’s horror and futility, and public figures everywhere deplore it, yet wars go on, a daily fact of life.
War is peace.
Friday, May 13, 2011
STATES' RIGHTS ORIGINAL INTENT
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” U.S. Constitution, Amendment IX
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Amendment X
I had the privilege of attending a rally honouring a doctor and her lawyer husband, who were about to surrender at the Federal Courthouse to begin serving five years each for distributing medical marijuana. Though distributing marijuana for medical purposes is legal under California law, federal laws make no distinction between medical marijuana and recreational marijuana…it’s illegal. Since our country is a union, the short and simple rule holds hat no state can violate federal law. Most of the time, simple rules are the easiest to follow, hence the best. This time, the simplicity is complicated by the fact that two good people, who have done no harm, are now doing hard time.
The law is not allowed to question whether any harm was done. Many of the participants at the rally claimed that marijuana had actually saved their lives. Still, federal law was broken, so those claims are of no consequence. If the citizens have problems with the law, the theory goes that they may tell their representatives to change the law. But Congress is not about to do that.
Therefore the good doctor and the good lawyer are in prison.
The Constitution was enacted, with its Bill of Rights, partly to assure that people who do no harm stay out of jail. We know that our institutions are human ones, like all others on earth, and that we’re not living a fairy tale. We’re not perfect. This excuse cannot be convincing to the good people who are in jail, however, nor does it hold for thoughtful citizens who are interested in seeing our system perform in reality the way it’s supposed to in theory. Amendment X has been scrutinized a lot lately, in respect to federal laws that have nothing to do with marijuana. Other people have issues with newly enacted federal laws. Can states opt out? We got the answer in 1865: no. But study of the ninth and tenth amendments reveal some of the founders’ attitudes that could be relevant today. Medical marijuana appears to be a justified use of States’ Rights.
We can, of course, make windy arguments about what is legal under the Bill of Rights. But the plain English of the ninth and tenth is quite straightforward, and it reveals nothing that allows the national government to restrict lifestyle choices. In fact, Nine and Ten, like One through Eight, severely restrict the national government’s ability to prohibit basic personal freedoms. Marijuana prohibition has been enacted under the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause. The federal government can regulate products traded between the states—including marijuana. But within a state, where is the federal authority to limit personal use of anything?
Number IX obviously expands the rights of the people beyond those few listed in the Bill of Rights. And number X clearly restricts federal powers to those listed. No matter how broadly we interpret Constitutional powers, there still is no foundation for federal criminalization of a product used strictly within a state. Amendments One through Eight list certain basic rights. But Nine and Ten assure us that those rights are not the only ones, and that the federal government cannot deny rights simply because the Constitution’s framers did not happen to mention them.
Historically, the issue of States’ Rights usually dealt with slavery, and after the Civil War, with segregation and racial discrimination. It has been decided in Congress, the courts, and general public opinion, that states do not have the power to withhold from their citizens any of the basic rights listed in the Constitution. The thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments made sure that these basic rights were guaranteed nationwide to everyone. Those rights not mentioned in the Constitution are left to the states, and if the states do not act upon them, individuals retain them.
Excepting the sixteenth (income tax) and the twenty-fifth (presidential succession) all the constitutional amendments enhance citizen power or basic rights. The founders knew they could not think of everything, so they provided for the growth of freedom in the future. A restrictive amendment, Number XVIII (prohibition) was repealed by Number XXI. Substitute “cannabis” for “intoxicating liquors” in these amendments, and the marijuana issue solves itself. And lest we forget, even during prohibition, doctors were allowed to prescribe medicinal alcohol. States are now free to make their own liquor laws.
The Supreme Court, in “Gonzales vs. Raich,” (2005) ruled that the Interstate Commerce clause grants power to the federal government to override the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and even contradict several of their own recent states’ rights cases, so that the Bush Justice Department could legally ride roughshod over sick people. The Obama administration has indicated it will ignore personal use in states where medical marijuana is legal, but profiteering will be prosecuted. The Supreme Court’s decision is obviously wrong, and it needs to reverse its own opinion. Or Congress needs to legislate for the reality that not only do states have the right to legalize marijuana, medically or otherwise, but that Americans generally favour decriminalization, by steadily increasing numbers.
Medical marijuana remains in chaotic limbo because no politician wants to be accused by his opponents of being “soft on drugs.” But everyone knows the War on Drugs has failed. Still, sick people are harassed and bullied, and a doctor and a lawyer, among others who have harmed nobody, must do hard time. A decent society, a free society, does not incarcerate people who cause no harm. We pride ourselves on being a society of “laws, not men.” But since men make laws, and men make mistakes, we must vigilantly find and repeal bad laws. If we cannot do that, we can no longer honestly call ourselves free.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Amendment X
I had the privilege of attending a rally honouring a doctor and her lawyer husband, who were about to surrender at the Federal Courthouse to begin serving five years each for distributing medical marijuana. Though distributing marijuana for medical purposes is legal under California law, federal laws make no distinction between medical marijuana and recreational marijuana…it’s illegal. Since our country is a union, the short and simple rule holds hat no state can violate federal law. Most of the time, simple rules are the easiest to follow, hence the best. This time, the simplicity is complicated by the fact that two good people, who have done no harm, are now doing hard time.
The law is not allowed to question whether any harm was done. Many of the participants at the rally claimed that marijuana had actually saved their lives. Still, federal law was broken, so those claims are of no consequence. If the citizens have problems with the law, the theory goes that they may tell their representatives to change the law. But Congress is not about to do that.
Therefore the good doctor and the good lawyer are in prison.
The Constitution was enacted, with its Bill of Rights, partly to assure that people who do no harm stay out of jail. We know that our institutions are human ones, like all others on earth, and that we’re not living a fairy tale. We’re not perfect. This excuse cannot be convincing to the good people who are in jail, however, nor does it hold for thoughtful citizens who are interested in seeing our system perform in reality the way it’s supposed to in theory. Amendment X has been scrutinized a lot lately, in respect to federal laws that have nothing to do with marijuana. Other people have issues with newly enacted federal laws. Can states opt out? We got the answer in 1865: no. But study of the ninth and tenth amendments reveal some of the founders’ attitudes that could be relevant today. Medical marijuana appears to be a justified use of States’ Rights.
We can, of course, make windy arguments about what is legal under the Bill of Rights. But the plain English of the ninth and tenth is quite straightforward, and it reveals nothing that allows the national government to restrict lifestyle choices. In fact, Nine and Ten, like One through Eight, severely restrict the national government’s ability to prohibit basic personal freedoms. Marijuana prohibition has been enacted under the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause. The federal government can regulate products traded between the states—including marijuana. But within a state, where is the federal authority to limit personal use of anything?
Number IX obviously expands the rights of the people beyond those few listed in the Bill of Rights. And number X clearly restricts federal powers to those listed. No matter how broadly we interpret Constitutional powers, there still is no foundation for federal criminalization of a product used strictly within a state. Amendments One through Eight list certain basic rights. But Nine and Ten assure us that those rights are not the only ones, and that the federal government cannot deny rights simply because the Constitution’s framers did not happen to mention them.
Historically, the issue of States’ Rights usually dealt with slavery, and after the Civil War, with segregation and racial discrimination. It has been decided in Congress, the courts, and general public opinion, that states do not have the power to withhold from their citizens any of the basic rights listed in the Constitution. The thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments made sure that these basic rights were guaranteed nationwide to everyone. Those rights not mentioned in the Constitution are left to the states, and if the states do not act upon them, individuals retain them.
Excepting the sixteenth (income tax) and the twenty-fifth (presidential succession) all the constitutional amendments enhance citizen power or basic rights. The founders knew they could not think of everything, so they provided for the growth of freedom in the future. A restrictive amendment, Number XVIII (prohibition) was repealed by Number XXI. Substitute “cannabis” for “intoxicating liquors” in these amendments, and the marijuana issue solves itself. And lest we forget, even during prohibition, doctors were allowed to prescribe medicinal alcohol. States are now free to make their own liquor laws.
The Supreme Court, in “Gonzales vs. Raich,” (2005) ruled that the Interstate Commerce clause grants power to the federal government to override the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and even contradict several of their own recent states’ rights cases, so that the Bush Justice Department could legally ride roughshod over sick people. The Obama administration has indicated it will ignore personal use in states where medical marijuana is legal, but profiteering will be prosecuted. The Supreme Court’s decision is obviously wrong, and it needs to reverse its own opinion. Or Congress needs to legislate for the reality that not only do states have the right to legalize marijuana, medically or otherwise, but that Americans generally favour decriminalization, by steadily increasing numbers.
Medical marijuana remains in chaotic limbo because no politician wants to be accused by his opponents of being “soft on drugs.” But everyone knows the War on Drugs has failed. Still, sick people are harassed and bullied, and a doctor and a lawyer, among others who have harmed nobody, must do hard time. A decent society, a free society, does not incarcerate people who cause no harm. We pride ourselves on being a society of “laws, not men.” But since men make laws, and men make mistakes, we must vigilantly find and repeal bad laws. If we cannot do that, we can no longer honestly call ourselves free.
Friday, May 6, 2011
MAMMON WORSHIP
“One thing about the current generation of conservatives: Getting mugged by reality hasn’t changed the way they look at the world.”
Katrina Vanden Heuvel
“So be it.”
John Boehner
Has capitalism become a religion? If so, is this a sign that, according to Eric Hoffer in THE TRUE BELIEVER, “its workability and advantages have ceased to be self-evident?” The gospel of free enterprise, put forth by Saints Ayn, Ronald and Milton, has attracted many true believers who seem to put free enterprise principles above the practical workings of economics. High priests Rush and Grover (and their countless minions), despite the enormous prosperity of a few and stagnation and impoverishment for everyone else, preach the doctrine that “government is the problem” with unquenched fire. The stronger the evidence that marketplace magic is not working very well for most of us, the more fervently do the faithful servants of Mammon cling to their belief in capitalism’s triumphant goodness. With their complete disdain of government in any form comes joyful reverence for avarice. According to these true believers, we are left with only six deadly sins, greed now being credited as the sole source of human progress, perhaps the single human virtue. Therefore, those who profit from their greed should be allowed to keep all their gains lest they be discouraged from getting more, which would throw all mankind into a new darkness. The leap of faith required to believe this dogma is a long one, but this presents no handicap to those who believe.
Some of Mammon’s faithful hold to the hardcore conviction that even a kind thought toward those less fortunate will stop progress dead in its tracks. Then there are those who feel rich people can share with others if they want to. But under no circumstances, no matter how great the need, should the wealthy be compelled, especially through taxes, to share the wealth, because after all taxes are for government, and government is always the problem. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he may. But if he does not, the poor must endure or die. Free people in a democracy are free to starve, but they are not allowed to use their democracy to provide for those in need, if those who possess a surfeit refuse to share.
This is a tough creed to swallow.
It is understood that need is a subjective emotion. Some people are aware that they need very little to be happy, but who are they to force their Thoeauvian simplicity on everyone else? Who is to say that material comforts and pleasures are not the just rewards of a job well done? But for one man to need many mansions, several yachts and planes, many cars, warehouses full of expensive clothes and jewels galore (not to mention pockets stuffed full of politicians) is a bit of a stretch, for most of us who do not have all that. And if the same rich man can look at millions who live in squalor, hunger and privation, and say these people have all they need, credibility fails completely.
The servants of greed are left with a religious conviction to stand on, a conviction holding that human greed, for all its resultant hardships, dislocations, warfare and suffering, is the only source of human progress. Obviously, we can understand why a mega-rich empire builder would spout such a creed. But why should anyone else believe it? The rest of us are expected by the adherents of this faith to endure any amount of hardship for the benefit of the few who have it all, believing that if we let their selfishness run rampant, some day all humanity will be materially better off. Again, this creed is tough to swallow.
In this capitalistic religion, there is no nirvana to look forward to. No heaven with its pearly gates and streets paved with gold, no celestial virgins waiting to reward us in afterlife for enduring this vale of tears. There is only faith in a better economic life for our descendants, someday, maybe. We must accept our poverty, disease, and injustice, live with our misery. . .and BELIEVE! If free enterprise depends on blind faith, then its practical advantages are no longer obvious. Under this creed, commonsense solutions to everyday problems are now sins. Unfettered greed has become the highest virtue. Adults ought to know better. Most of us do.
Historically, unbridled capitalism always concentrates too much wealth in the hands of too few people, and productivity always exceeds consumption. With consumers spending too little, surplus production backs up. Workers are fired and privation becomes widespread. Private charity is overwhelmed. Practical solutions to this problem include government spending on public works to increase employment so people will buy things again. Some wealth must be redistributed to maintain balanced prosperity and social stability, which benefits rich, poor, and those in-between. Free enterprise, constructively regulated and shared by all, is an effective tool for society’s improvement and human progress. But the people it serves must make it serve. Like fire, capitalism makes a bad master.
And greed is still not a virtue.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel
“So be it.”
John Boehner
Has capitalism become a religion? If so, is this a sign that, according to Eric Hoffer in THE TRUE BELIEVER, “its workability and advantages have ceased to be self-evident?” The gospel of free enterprise, put forth by Saints Ayn, Ronald and Milton, has attracted many true believers who seem to put free enterprise principles above the practical workings of economics. High priests Rush and Grover (and their countless minions), despite the enormous prosperity of a few and stagnation and impoverishment for everyone else, preach the doctrine that “government is the problem” with unquenched fire. The stronger the evidence that marketplace magic is not working very well for most of us, the more fervently do the faithful servants of Mammon cling to their belief in capitalism’s triumphant goodness. With their complete disdain of government in any form comes joyful reverence for avarice. According to these true believers, we are left with only six deadly sins, greed now being credited as the sole source of human progress, perhaps the single human virtue. Therefore, those who profit from their greed should be allowed to keep all their gains lest they be discouraged from getting more, which would throw all mankind into a new darkness. The leap of faith required to believe this dogma is a long one, but this presents no handicap to those who believe.
Some of Mammon’s faithful hold to the hardcore conviction that even a kind thought toward those less fortunate will stop progress dead in its tracks. Then there are those who feel rich people can share with others if they want to. But under no circumstances, no matter how great the need, should the wealthy be compelled, especially through taxes, to share the wealth, because after all taxes are for government, and government is always the problem. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he may. But if he does not, the poor must endure or die. Free people in a democracy are free to starve, but they are not allowed to use their democracy to provide for those in need, if those who possess a surfeit refuse to share.
This is a tough creed to swallow.
It is understood that need is a subjective emotion. Some people are aware that they need very little to be happy, but who are they to force their Thoeauvian simplicity on everyone else? Who is to say that material comforts and pleasures are not the just rewards of a job well done? But for one man to need many mansions, several yachts and planes, many cars, warehouses full of expensive clothes and jewels galore (not to mention pockets stuffed full of politicians) is a bit of a stretch, for most of us who do not have all that. And if the same rich man can look at millions who live in squalor, hunger and privation, and say these people have all they need, credibility fails completely.
The servants of greed are left with a religious conviction to stand on, a conviction holding that human greed, for all its resultant hardships, dislocations, warfare and suffering, is the only source of human progress. Obviously, we can understand why a mega-rich empire builder would spout such a creed. But why should anyone else believe it? The rest of us are expected by the adherents of this faith to endure any amount of hardship for the benefit of the few who have it all, believing that if we let their selfishness run rampant, some day all humanity will be materially better off. Again, this creed is tough to swallow.
In this capitalistic religion, there is no nirvana to look forward to. No heaven with its pearly gates and streets paved with gold, no celestial virgins waiting to reward us in afterlife for enduring this vale of tears. There is only faith in a better economic life for our descendants, someday, maybe. We must accept our poverty, disease, and injustice, live with our misery. . .and BELIEVE! If free enterprise depends on blind faith, then its practical advantages are no longer obvious. Under this creed, commonsense solutions to everyday problems are now sins. Unfettered greed has become the highest virtue. Adults ought to know better. Most of us do.
Historically, unbridled capitalism always concentrates too much wealth in the hands of too few people, and productivity always exceeds consumption. With consumers spending too little, surplus production backs up. Workers are fired and privation becomes widespread. Private charity is overwhelmed. Practical solutions to this problem include government spending on public works to increase employment so people will buy things again. Some wealth must be redistributed to maintain balanced prosperity and social stability, which benefits rich, poor, and those in-between. Free enterprise, constructively regulated and shared by all, is an effective tool for society’s improvement and human progress. But the people it serves must make it serve. Like fire, capitalism makes a bad master.
And greed is still not a virtue.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
COUP D'ETAT, U.S.A.
COUP D’ETAT, U.S.A.
“We are Wall Street: It’s our job to make money. Whether it’s a commodity, stock, bond, or some hypothetical piece of paper, it doesn’t matter. We would trade baseball cards if it were profitable….Go ahead and take us down, but you’re only going to hurt yourselves. What’s going to happen when we can’t find jobs on the Street anymore? Guess what: we’re going to take yours….We aren’t dinosaurs. We are smarter and more vicious than that, and we are going to survive.”
E-mail circulating on Wall Street, reported in FINANCIAL TIMES
Resembling sophisticated Huns or Vandals, the barons of industry and finance sneer about doing “God’s work” as they sit like Smaug the dragon atop mountains of plunder, and smugly acquire more at everyone else’s expense. Having grown accustomed to getting their way, all the way, under the last presidential administration, they have no intention of sharing or compromising now. Barack Obama, to any impartial observer, is not a socialist. He would be a “liberal Republican” by definition forty years ago, when there really were such things. He has tried vainly to compromise with current Republicans, who have moved far to the right of the canonized Ronald Reagan, and now prefer to obliterate the national government, rather than make any deals with Democrats. Centering in Wisconsin but extending nation-wide, the filthy rich are using the 2010 election to pull off a coup d’etat. This way they have no need to compromise. The servants of the corporate elite, egged on by the Tea Party, have staged their takeover in broad daylight, for everyone to see. Though not clever, it is bold, and it is happening, right now, in the good old land of liberty.
While the Tea Party Republicans ran for election promising more jobs, as soon as they took over they moved rapidly to shut down all opposition. Pausing only briefly to issue what corporate tax breaks they could (first things first, right?) they declared an emergency, which they claimed required drastic action to avoid total disaster. First on the list of hardship measures: to destroy public employee unions. Private company unions being already decimated, the attack would eliminate a major source of opposition to corporate supremacy. Then corporations, already given full citizenship by the Supreme Court, can use limitless funds to swamp any further opposition in a tsunami of propaganda. The servants of corporate oligarchy are then free to take advantage of whatever government machinery serves their purpose, and dismantle what might get in the way of profits. Of course, no one is forced to believe all that corporate “free speech”. But big business is awfully good at sales pitches. If it can spread its message without concerted, effective response from the opposition, there is no opposition. There will be no doubt about who rules. This is the goal of a coup.
Scott Walker did not take office in Wisconsin. He took control, CEO fashion. And typically, a CEO does not ask the underlings what they might think of policy. He tells them what he wants, and if he does not get it, he makes changes. This is the principle reason why, in a democracy, government cannot be run like a business. Walker, serving the corporate elite, has to trash the democracy. Furthermore, it is obvious that when people awaken to actually understand how adversely they will be affected by these Tea Party actions, Walker and his cronies will be sent packing. Hence the coup. If Walker can pull it off, his future in politics is rosy. If he is rebuffed, he will have proven himself a solid team player, and will prosper nonetheless.
The coup in Wisconsin has roused considerable organized opposition, from many who work for a living. This opposition has spread around the country, and many Americans who were content to live and let live have awakened to resist a real threat. A sense of worker solidarity has been revived, for the first time in quite a while, and it is being transmitted at electric speed, everywhere. If this solidarity can endure, it could be strong enough to turn back the coup—this time. But working people dare not succumb to complacency. The servants of greed will never stop attacking.
The coup in Wisconsin, and elsewhere, should leave no doubt that class warfare is ongoing, even though the working class did not start it. The corporate class will never stop seeking absolute power, and only consistent solidarity among the workers can prevent the upper class from having it. The ultra-rich will cooperate, will share, if they must, to the benefit of workers and the wealthy--all but those totally consumed by greed. But it is up to those of us not in that upper class to make them cooperate and share. The alternative, sadly, is some kind of servitude, with its accompanying penury. Eternal vigilance still being the price of liberty, we must keep watch for wherever our liberty is threatened. Sometimes the enemy is foreign. This time the threat is homegrown.
“We are Wall Street: It’s our job to make money. Whether it’s a commodity, stock, bond, or some hypothetical piece of paper, it doesn’t matter. We would trade baseball cards if it were profitable….Go ahead and take us down, but you’re only going to hurt yourselves. What’s going to happen when we can’t find jobs on the Street anymore? Guess what: we’re going to take yours….We aren’t dinosaurs. We are smarter and more vicious than that, and we are going to survive.”
E-mail circulating on Wall Street, reported in FINANCIAL TIMES
Resembling sophisticated Huns or Vandals, the barons of industry and finance sneer about doing “God’s work” as they sit like Smaug the dragon atop mountains of plunder, and smugly acquire more at everyone else’s expense. Having grown accustomed to getting their way, all the way, under the last presidential administration, they have no intention of sharing or compromising now. Barack Obama, to any impartial observer, is not a socialist. He would be a “liberal Republican” by definition forty years ago, when there really were such things. He has tried vainly to compromise with current Republicans, who have moved far to the right of the canonized Ronald Reagan, and now prefer to obliterate the national government, rather than make any deals with Democrats. Centering in Wisconsin but extending nation-wide, the filthy rich are using the 2010 election to pull off a coup d’etat. This way they have no need to compromise. The servants of the corporate elite, egged on by the Tea Party, have staged their takeover in broad daylight, for everyone to see. Though not clever, it is bold, and it is happening, right now, in the good old land of liberty.
While the Tea Party Republicans ran for election promising more jobs, as soon as they took over they moved rapidly to shut down all opposition. Pausing only briefly to issue what corporate tax breaks they could (first things first, right?) they declared an emergency, which they claimed required drastic action to avoid total disaster. First on the list of hardship measures: to destroy public employee unions. Private company unions being already decimated, the attack would eliminate a major source of opposition to corporate supremacy. Then corporations, already given full citizenship by the Supreme Court, can use limitless funds to swamp any further opposition in a tsunami of propaganda. The servants of corporate oligarchy are then free to take advantage of whatever government machinery serves their purpose, and dismantle what might get in the way of profits. Of course, no one is forced to believe all that corporate “free speech”. But big business is awfully good at sales pitches. If it can spread its message without concerted, effective response from the opposition, there is no opposition. There will be no doubt about who rules. This is the goal of a coup.
Scott Walker did not take office in Wisconsin. He took control, CEO fashion. And typically, a CEO does not ask the underlings what they might think of policy. He tells them what he wants, and if he does not get it, he makes changes. This is the principle reason why, in a democracy, government cannot be run like a business. Walker, serving the corporate elite, has to trash the democracy. Furthermore, it is obvious that when people awaken to actually understand how adversely they will be affected by these Tea Party actions, Walker and his cronies will be sent packing. Hence the coup. If Walker can pull it off, his future in politics is rosy. If he is rebuffed, he will have proven himself a solid team player, and will prosper nonetheless.
The coup in Wisconsin has roused considerable organized opposition, from many who work for a living. This opposition has spread around the country, and many Americans who were content to live and let live have awakened to resist a real threat. A sense of worker solidarity has been revived, for the first time in quite a while, and it is being transmitted at electric speed, everywhere. If this solidarity can endure, it could be strong enough to turn back the coup—this time. But working people dare not succumb to complacency. The servants of greed will never stop attacking.
The coup in Wisconsin, and elsewhere, should leave no doubt that class warfare is ongoing, even though the working class did not start it. The corporate class will never stop seeking absolute power, and only consistent solidarity among the workers can prevent the upper class from having it. The ultra-rich will cooperate, will share, if they must, to the benefit of workers and the wealthy--all but those totally consumed by greed. But it is up to those of us not in that upper class to make them cooperate and share. The alternative, sadly, is some kind of servitude, with its accompanying penury. Eternal vigilance still being the price of liberty, we must keep watch for wherever our liberty is threatened. Sometimes the enemy is foreign. This time the threat is homegrown.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
WIKILEAKS – ANY SURPRISES?
“Electric circuitry profoundly involves men with one another. Information pours upon us, instantaneously and continuously.”
Marshall McLuhan, THE MEDIUM IS THE MASSAGE
McLuhan made this prophetic statement back when most homes had a single black-and-white television (controlled by knobs!) and one corded telephone. Radios were becoming portable, but they were still bulky. Music was recorded onto large vinyl discs and played on a revolving machine, attached to a cord. Computers were slow, big things. Some forty years later, most people in America and Europe, and many people living elsewhere, carry in one pocket a telephone, radio, TV, record player, computer, still and movie camera, and game board. Imagination is challenged to speculate what our inter-connected world will be like forty years hence. But there can be no denying we are in the global village, and as in any small town, everyone knows everything about everyone.
Some high-tech wizards have smugly assured us that privacy is gone and we just have to adjust. They’re probably right. We are glutted with revelations about the amoral habits of celebrities, and an endless cavalcade of commoners seeks a bit of fame by doing the same things. Tasting the so-called forbidden fruits will earn grateful snickering from our fellow humans. Doing nothing is equally exposed. The only bright spot in all this sunlight is the fact there are so many of us that we need to encourage gossip if we want to get more than a little of it.
Why, then, is our government shocked—shocked! at the Wikileaks exposure of so-called official secrets? In the first place, with an estimated 2 1/2 million names on the security list, secrecy is practically unattainable. In the second, there were no surprises. Wikileaks revealed that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are unwinnable. If our government really believes nobody knew that, it is effective only at keeping secrets from itself.
As for the embarrassing little tidbits about State Department staffers engaging in some petty behaviour – anybody who has ever worked with other human beings already knew that. If these facts elicit any thought on the part of us rubes, it is more relief than shock, to know that our government employs human beings much like ourselves. Wikileaks made public an incredible amount of information of no use to an enemy or to us, which accounts for the lukewarm reactions of Hilary Clinton, Robert Gates, and President Obama. And it just might demonstrate a real strength of democratic societies, as we can shake off exposure to embarrassing information.
The government has options. One is to reduce the number of official secrets it classifies. The advantages of such reductions are obvious. It is easier to keep secret a few items and strategies that would truly harm the country if they fell into the wrong hands. Nobody wants that. And if embarrassing facts are routinely brought to light, which is expected in both democratic theory and in law, the government will probably operate in a less embarrassing fashion, which means more effectively. And we can all benefit by our government’s taking a hard look at just what gets classified.
Obviously, in recent decades our elected government has been on a mission, sometimes a frenzied one, to classify more and more of its doings. Now that it can no longer get away with, it might as well operate openly and honestly, as elected governments are supposed to do. As far as giving advantage to real or potential enemies, we remember they are in the global village too. The first of Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points: “Open covenants of peace openly arrived at,” could become reality, nearly a century later, as a response to the facts of life.
Governments (ours included) have one other option: to maintain secrecy through fear. Sadly, this option is behind the imprisonment of Bradley Manning, accused of leaking secrets to Julian Assange of Wikileaks. Assange will be tried in Sweden on unrelated rape charges. Should he be acquitted and extradited to the United States, he can afford lawyers who will assure him a fair trial. Manning, on the other hand, has been disappeared. The fate of the “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo and elsewhere is now being visited on an American citizen. He has had no “speedy and public trial”. No such thing is proposed for him. He lapses in solitary confinement, denied even the meager privileges granted to convicted criminals, and this, for all we know, is to be his fate. Manning’s absolutely un-constitutional punishment could serve as a terrifying example to future whistleblowers. If this situation endures, we will need to rewrite history, especially concerning which side won the Cold War.
Marshall McLuhan, THE MEDIUM IS THE MASSAGE
McLuhan made this prophetic statement back when most homes had a single black-and-white television (controlled by knobs!) and one corded telephone. Radios were becoming portable, but they were still bulky. Music was recorded onto large vinyl discs and played on a revolving machine, attached to a cord. Computers were slow, big things. Some forty years later, most people in America and Europe, and many people living elsewhere, carry in one pocket a telephone, radio, TV, record player, computer, still and movie camera, and game board. Imagination is challenged to speculate what our inter-connected world will be like forty years hence. But there can be no denying we are in the global village, and as in any small town, everyone knows everything about everyone.
Some high-tech wizards have smugly assured us that privacy is gone and we just have to adjust. They’re probably right. We are glutted with revelations about the amoral habits of celebrities, and an endless cavalcade of commoners seeks a bit of fame by doing the same things. Tasting the so-called forbidden fruits will earn grateful snickering from our fellow humans. Doing nothing is equally exposed. The only bright spot in all this sunlight is the fact there are so many of us that we need to encourage gossip if we want to get more than a little of it.
Why, then, is our government shocked—shocked! at the Wikileaks exposure of so-called official secrets? In the first place, with an estimated 2 1/2 million names on the security list, secrecy is practically unattainable. In the second, there were no surprises. Wikileaks revealed that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are unwinnable. If our government really believes nobody knew that, it is effective only at keeping secrets from itself.
As for the embarrassing little tidbits about State Department staffers engaging in some petty behaviour – anybody who has ever worked with other human beings already knew that. If these facts elicit any thought on the part of us rubes, it is more relief than shock, to know that our government employs human beings much like ourselves. Wikileaks made public an incredible amount of information of no use to an enemy or to us, which accounts for the lukewarm reactions of Hilary Clinton, Robert Gates, and President Obama. And it just might demonstrate a real strength of democratic societies, as we can shake off exposure to embarrassing information.
The government has options. One is to reduce the number of official secrets it classifies. The advantages of such reductions are obvious. It is easier to keep secret a few items and strategies that would truly harm the country if they fell into the wrong hands. Nobody wants that. And if embarrassing facts are routinely brought to light, which is expected in both democratic theory and in law, the government will probably operate in a less embarrassing fashion, which means more effectively. And we can all benefit by our government’s taking a hard look at just what gets classified.
Obviously, in recent decades our elected government has been on a mission, sometimes a frenzied one, to classify more and more of its doings. Now that it can no longer get away with, it might as well operate openly and honestly, as elected governments are supposed to do. As far as giving advantage to real or potential enemies, we remember they are in the global village too. The first of Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points: “Open covenants of peace openly arrived at,” could become reality, nearly a century later, as a response to the facts of life.
Governments (ours included) have one other option: to maintain secrecy through fear. Sadly, this option is behind the imprisonment of Bradley Manning, accused of leaking secrets to Julian Assange of Wikileaks. Assange will be tried in Sweden on unrelated rape charges. Should he be acquitted and extradited to the United States, he can afford lawyers who will assure him a fair trial. Manning, on the other hand, has been disappeared. The fate of the “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo and elsewhere is now being visited on an American citizen. He has had no “speedy and public trial”. No such thing is proposed for him. He lapses in solitary confinement, denied even the meager privileges granted to convicted criminals, and this, for all we know, is to be his fate. Manning’s absolutely un-constitutional punishment could serve as a terrifying example to future whistleblowers. If this situation endures, we will need to rewrite history, especially concerning which side won the Cold War.
Monday, March 14, 2011
DIVIDE AND CONQUER
DIVIDE AND CONQUER
Desperate times conjure desperate actions. Fear breeds anger, and people are tempted to do things that are hard to undo. In 2011, people who work for a living are at odds with each other. Government employees are under assault, forced by insolvent and indebted governments to work harder for less pay and reduced benefits. Meanwhile the political class would eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees. And some workers in the private sector appear eager to see that happen.
Give credit to the politicians and their wealthy backers who have managed to drive so huge a wedge between people who have the same wants, needs and aspirations, who would be so much healthier, wealthier, and wiser if they would help instead of fight each other. It has taken a long time and sustained pursuit to get some working people to despise others. But if there be a legitimate grievance against public employees, it needs to be brought into the light for close inspection.
True believers of the doctrine that government is the problem in all cases are far gone into delusion. People who feel all government workers are lazy parasites cannot be reached with logic. Those who can ignore dams, roads, schools, parks, sewers, military, police, firefighters, and all other successful government projects are, if not happy, at least satisfied with their intentional ignorance. But most private company workers understand the need for a social contract and appreciate the work public employees do, to promote the general welfare. They know most public employees, like most private employees, earn their pay. But as human beings we all tend to annoy each other in many different ways, and in hard times minor irritations can turn into nasty resentments, with resulting harsh retaliations.
In the first place, in recessions, when businesses cut back and employees lose jobs, government workers tend to keep theirs. With the jobs they keep their good pay, holidays, vacations, medical insurance and other perks. In long recessions the relative prosperity of government workers can be especially grating as tax revenues go down, and governments seek new sources of revenue to maintain services. The argument against raising taxes to support government workers can be very convincing, with the citizenry struggling to get by.
Still, a look at all sides of the situation brings up more questions. Do tough times reduce or eliminate the need for government services? We know that more people need the safety net in recessions. So we find ourselves demanding public employees to work harder for less. And while such demands appear unfair, we are reminded that life is unfair, and that many workers in the private sector have seen their wages reduced and their benefits decimated. Everyone must learn to get along with less.
Well…not quite everyone. The rich have prospered, some obscenely so. Yet many in the media and in elected office (most of them well-off) say the very idea of taxing wealth, even a little more, is unfair. And many workers agree. Yes, they hold, it would be nice if the rich would share some of their abundance with the less fortunate. Some rich folks do. But if they choose to keep, squander or destroy their wealth to the benefit of no one, that is their right, and it would be wrong for the rest of us to tax them to help the needy. However, strangling government, leaving those truly desperate to their fate, is quite fair, according to advocates for the rich in media, politics and our neighbourhoods. They accuse their opponents of envy, which renders any attempt to use excess wealth to jump-start the economy as unworthy of debate. Rich people have something others want: their money. We can’t have it, end of discussion. But interestingly, the same argument does not hold regarding government employees. They have living wages and benefits, and a collective bargaining system to improve their lot. All workers want these. But since private employees have lost theirs, it seems only right to take them away from public employees as well. Then we’ll all be equally poor and downtrodden—except the rich, who apparently live in a galaxy far away.
We are at moral loggerheads on this issue, and until we see the writing in the sky, we can argue morals and get nowhere. We can, however, look at what we want and how to get it. Collective bargaining allows workers a “living” instead of a “starving”. As unions are decimated, workers’ living standards have fallen. Politicians and newspersons tell workers in the private sector that they have lost their union rights and they’ll never get them back. Public employees still have their rights. Citizens are urged to take those rights away so we’ll all be equal.
If American workers are ready to believe that, we’re in for a long, dark night.
Desperate times conjure desperate actions. Fear breeds anger, and people are tempted to do things that are hard to undo. In 2011, people who work for a living are at odds with each other. Government employees are under assault, forced by insolvent and indebted governments to work harder for less pay and reduced benefits. Meanwhile the political class would eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees. And some workers in the private sector appear eager to see that happen.
Give credit to the politicians and their wealthy backers who have managed to drive so huge a wedge between people who have the same wants, needs and aspirations, who would be so much healthier, wealthier, and wiser if they would help instead of fight each other. It has taken a long time and sustained pursuit to get some working people to despise others. But if there be a legitimate grievance against public employees, it needs to be brought into the light for close inspection.
True believers of the doctrine that government is the problem in all cases are far gone into delusion. People who feel all government workers are lazy parasites cannot be reached with logic. Those who can ignore dams, roads, schools, parks, sewers, military, police, firefighters, and all other successful government projects are, if not happy, at least satisfied with their intentional ignorance. But most private company workers understand the need for a social contract and appreciate the work public employees do, to promote the general welfare. They know most public employees, like most private employees, earn their pay. But as human beings we all tend to annoy each other in many different ways, and in hard times minor irritations can turn into nasty resentments, with resulting harsh retaliations.
In the first place, in recessions, when businesses cut back and employees lose jobs, government workers tend to keep theirs. With the jobs they keep their good pay, holidays, vacations, medical insurance and other perks. In long recessions the relative prosperity of government workers can be especially grating as tax revenues go down, and governments seek new sources of revenue to maintain services. The argument against raising taxes to support government workers can be very convincing, with the citizenry struggling to get by.
Still, a look at all sides of the situation brings up more questions. Do tough times reduce or eliminate the need for government services? We know that more people need the safety net in recessions. So we find ourselves demanding public employees to work harder for less. And while such demands appear unfair, we are reminded that life is unfair, and that many workers in the private sector have seen their wages reduced and their benefits decimated. Everyone must learn to get along with less.
Well…not quite everyone. The rich have prospered, some obscenely so. Yet many in the media and in elected office (most of them well-off) say the very idea of taxing wealth, even a little more, is unfair. And many workers agree. Yes, they hold, it would be nice if the rich would share some of their abundance with the less fortunate. Some rich folks do. But if they choose to keep, squander or destroy their wealth to the benefit of no one, that is their right, and it would be wrong for the rest of us to tax them to help the needy. However, strangling government, leaving those truly desperate to their fate, is quite fair, according to advocates for the rich in media, politics and our neighbourhoods. They accuse their opponents of envy, which renders any attempt to use excess wealth to jump-start the economy as unworthy of debate. Rich people have something others want: their money. We can’t have it, end of discussion. But interestingly, the same argument does not hold regarding government employees. They have living wages and benefits, and a collective bargaining system to improve their lot. All workers want these. But since private employees have lost theirs, it seems only right to take them away from public employees as well. Then we’ll all be equally poor and downtrodden—except the rich, who apparently live in a galaxy far away.
We are at moral loggerheads on this issue, and until we see the writing in the sky, we can argue morals and get nowhere. We can, however, look at what we want and how to get it. Collective bargaining allows workers a “living” instead of a “starving”. As unions are decimated, workers’ living standards have fallen. Politicians and newspersons tell workers in the private sector that they have lost their union rights and they’ll never get them back. Public employees still have their rights. Citizens are urged to take those rights away so we’ll all be equal.
If American workers are ready to believe that, we’re in for a long, dark night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)