So it seems the current fad is to "occupy" something. Yes it's a fad though some aspects may trend and thats when it can be potentially dangerous. The best definition of occupation = the principal business of one's life which would mostly involve constructive works. Unfortunately the pre-occupation of the occupy fad is "the act or process of taking possession of a place or area" or seizure.
Acts of civil disobedience have been long understood to be a method of making a point. It is also usually far down the list of things to do to first make your point. In the past however the risk of doing so was well understood, be civil disobedient for the sake of a point be prepared to pay for the indiscretion.
Unfortunately the crowds occupying various places most notably Wall Street seem ignorant of this fact. The entitlement mentality has seeped so deep that when arrested for violating public safety, they see it as persecution. Protesters have long obeyed rules about how far from a place one may assemble to avoid interfering with free and unobstructed passage of the public. When they choose to violate these laws such as blocking an entrance they are summarily arrested and are usually proud of this in some fanatical way seems to them a badge of distinction rather than a violation of others rights.
The fact that these occupiers have little understanding of why they are there other than some vague and unsubstantiated claims about greed and corporations being inherently evil or the mistaken idea that it may help them get a free lunch is where the potential for danger lays.
Mobs with little common and cohesive goals do little to provoke change. Many who show up for such things may get frustrated with the lack of progress or just be there for the party atmosphere. Some seeing what they perceive correctly as an ineffectual action may start seeking other ways to make a point that include violent actions. They may be prompted by rhetoric from charismatic "leaders" or simply following in the historical footsteps of Marxists and terrorists through modern history.
Events such as these occupations are catalysts for the thinking of those who who feel disenfranchised by society. Not because they are actually disenfranchised, marginalized or in any way prevented from succeeding by society but because they have tried absolutely nothing and are all out of ideas except dogma and doctrine they have been taught or brainwashed themselves into believing.
Such peoples will thrive in the primordial soup of revolution such gatherings become. There are many examples, the French Revolution where violence was encouraged from the outset, The Boston Massacre, Boston Tea Party and Union Activism. Kent State & Monterey where initial ideas were a party and entertainment that turned ugly and promoted a setting for violence because those taking part felt not only encouraged but sanctioned to do so.
So too may the next Timothy Mcveigh like home grown terrorists be being groomed within the crowds and mobs of Occupy Wall Street or any street or town where a lack of clear intent or understanding can foster such mentalities to seek violence, either for change or for violence sake.
To be clear I am not saying that such assemblies are wrong, in fact its one of our best tools to enact change. But such acts only enact change if the desired changes are clearly understood and articulated to both leadership and the crowds themselves.
A clear unambiguous message makes a point, a large mob of rabble being whipped up to be angry over some vague assertions they have been somehow been wronged by the society because of their own failings will gain no constructive change but may be a hell of an excuse to party and in some way generate radicals who will feel justified in destruction for a cause they have no real idea about.
Is the Occupy fad wrong? Yes definitely its just a reaction to circumstances people brought on themselves but refuse to take responsibility for looking for a scapegoat in the easy target and supposed manifestation of greed and author of all wrongs they name as "Wall Street".
If the Occupy fad trends to be more self sustaining the resulting anarchy will hearken back to the mindless 60's which in reality spawned more issues like drug abuse, poorer educational systems and a a whole generation incapable of understanding how to be financially responsible who in turn created a generation of slackers unwilling to labor for their own benefit who feel some sense of entitlement to a handout.
Such is the current state of a good portion of the populous, easy prey to socialist ideals and dreams of bread and circus. Unfortunately as history has shown, bread and circus quickly become labor camps and reeducation centers where many enter and few emerge.
The most bloody repressive and failed systems and states in modern history started with clueless mobs led to their own death and enslavement by those whose gaol was personal power in the guise of social reforms.
The best thing for the Occupiers to do would be to learn from the past, figure out what if any real grievances there are and address them in the correct format, the voting booth.
In so occupying their minds with facts and reality rather than emotional rhetoric their asses may yet be saved from themselves.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Ideals over employment
I can't blame the American people for electing Obama, after all he is a charismatic speech maker who told them exactly what they wanted to hear. His election is in one way a great victory for America in that it shows the great maturity we obtained over the past 60 years or so. On the other hand we have also elected possibly the worst leader to be holding the office in this kind of environment since Jimmy Carter. If people were more aware of the comng economic crisis and his inability to cope with it they may have made a better decisision. We didnt so we will have to live with the results. Its been my observation that pure politicians like Mr. Obama rarely have much personal insight or creative ability to attack issues. Lincoln & Reagan had it I'll even give FDR some credit though his ideas were faulted. Many others I am sure would have been worse leaders under these circumstances but we have been lucky so far that only a few have had to cope with issues of such enormity.
There is a certain common sense that those who go into acadamia and politics seem to lack or lose. I see it somewhat like people who understood how embarassing parents can be get blinded to that behavior when they become parents themselves. In a time when fixing the economy and repairing unemployment should be the primary focus and when personal prejudice regarding business and individual freedoms need to take a back seat to embracing our economic system and encouraging investment, this administration seems hell bent on making social changes that at best will make a bad situation worse.
People develop tunnel vision when they are put in a position to make change. This is not restricted to polititions, those in business and even the afore mentioned parents can get blinded by their desire to make a difference. Its hard to understand the damage you may be causing from the center and it is only afterwards that the true effect is understood. Thats when the spinning really starts and deniability sets in.
Lets hope the healthcare nonsense ends quickly and Mr. Obama gets some sense about the priority of jobs and developing opportunities for business. Better leaders than him have embraced supply side and tax breaks in order to repair situations their ideals caused. JFK, Reagan and even Bill Clinton capitulated to the need to lower taxes and encourage investment they put their country ahead of their idealogical rhetoric.
There is a certain common sense that those who go into acadamia and politics seem to lack or lose. I see it somewhat like people who understood how embarassing parents can be get blinded to that behavior when they become parents themselves. In a time when fixing the economy and repairing unemployment should be the primary focus and when personal prejudice regarding business and individual freedoms need to take a back seat to embracing our economic system and encouraging investment, this administration seems hell bent on making social changes that at best will make a bad situation worse.
People develop tunnel vision when they are put in a position to make change. This is not restricted to polititions, those in business and even the afore mentioned parents can get blinded by their desire to make a difference. Its hard to understand the damage you may be causing from the center and it is only afterwards that the true effect is understood. Thats when the spinning really starts and deniability sets in.
Lets hope the healthcare nonsense ends quickly and Mr. Obama gets some sense about the priority of jobs and developing opportunities for business. Better leaders than him have embraced supply side and tax breaks in order to repair situations their ideals caused. JFK, Reagan and even Bill Clinton capitulated to the need to lower taxes and encourage investment they put their country ahead of their idealogical rhetoric.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Mr. Obama goes to Wall St.
The President went to NY. I say NY rather than Wall Street because his intent was NOT to recognize the street as it deserves to be recognized.
Mr. Obama's visit was to threaten, warn and insult American business and add emphasis by snubbing the traditional walk through the NYSE. It is hard to give him the benefit of the doubt that he does not hate capitalism and American business. His administration so far seems to be an endless continuation of the campaign filled with endless populist speeches. It would be good to see this President spend some time in the oval office actually working on how to generate jobs.
It seems in his best interest to have unemployment high as it creates an excuse to develop social programs that grow government and add layers of socialism and taxes to government.
Mr. Obama's visit was to threaten, warn and insult American business and add emphasis by snubbing the traditional walk through the NYSE. It is hard to give him the benefit of the doubt that he does not hate capitalism and American business. His administration so far seems to be an endless continuation of the campaign filled with endless populist speeches. It would be good to see this President spend some time in the oval office actually working on how to generate jobs.
It seems in his best interest to have unemployment high as it creates an excuse to develop social programs that grow government and add layers of socialism and taxes to government.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Socialism*: 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
I have included the above definition because it is always good to understand the topic of discussion. The definition of socialism as given by Merriam-Webster while correctly presenting the concept does not reveal the inherent malevolence of the idea or more importantly the ideal. Since the purpose of this discussion is to point out socialisms flaws it will be good to understand the difference between it and other political systems and ideas.
Socialism is one of those ideas that on the surface seems positive towards quality of life and appears benevolent in its goals. However, like many ideas that initially sound good, once the reality of the concept is truly grasped in its totality there are inherent problems with establishing and maintaining that reality.
Many have been cultured to see Socialism as some benign method of providing aid to those in need. Many stanch socialists would readily tell you this is indeed their prime motivation and no doubt be sincere in their belief, yet they are incorrect despite their intent. Socialism is not a viable method or system, it is merely an ideal who’s tenets are impossible to implement as a unified and organized form of governance.
To be fair, this is marginally true of most forms of governance from democracy to dictatorships. No form of political rule yet conceived is perfect in its execution. The goal is not perfection but stability and consistency in the application of law to support individual freedoms and rights. In totalitarian systems, the support of individual freedoms would be minimal in the extreme and are usually contrived or only found in the lip service used to present a false face to the world where needed. In a Democracy the level of individual freedoms and rights of individuals can vary depending on the form of democratic rule and the strength of the rule of law. Generally the greater the scope of individual rights and freedoms the greater the economic benefit and quality of life. Quality always comes at a greater cost and greater freedoms and rights require a constant and consistent review through a system of checks and balances. In the United States this is performed by the three branches of government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial. While it can be argued the American system provides the most freedom to the individual, few would make the case it is the perfect system. This is actually by design as the American system is an admitted experiment, meant to be capable of change and growth. While the original concepts persist, their definitions and interpretations are under constant attack and defense, and herein lays both the greatest weakness and strength of our system.
There are many variants and flavors of democracy employed across the globe, I will not go into each, nor their differences except to point out that most use a parliamentary system, and many attempt to incorporate socialism into their mix. Suffice to say that while the United States is still a relatively young nation compared with the rest of the world, it has the distinction of having the oldest continuously operating successful government and constitution in the world. While the growth of democracy in the world is welcome, the forms it takes do not always provide the greatest level of individual rights or freedoms. In some cases and locations, centuries of culture may make it very difficult for the population to grasp the concept of individuality never mind live in a free society.
Socialism is not a political system of government, neither for that matter is democracy. Democracy is a “manner” of governance which favors social equality and individual freedom, the form of Democracy taken determines the level of individual rights the society has. Likewise socialism is a concept as defined above and how it is applied is arbitrary and dependant on the level of control those in power wish to exert on the populace. Once enabled though that level generally moves in the direction of total control rather than lesser.
When comparing Communism, who’s history has exposed that political systems requirement for totalitarian oppression and penchant for mass murder in order to achieve control over the population, a constitutional republic such as that in the United States is as close to utopia as has been so far envisioned. So far being the operative term. I do not differentiate Communism from Socialism just as I would not differentiate one dictatorship from another or one armed robber from another. One despot is the same as another or whatever system they allege to be ruling under.
*http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
I have included the above definition because it is always good to understand the topic of discussion. The definition of socialism as given by Merriam-Webster while correctly presenting the concept does not reveal the inherent malevolence of the idea or more importantly the ideal. Since the purpose of this discussion is to point out socialisms flaws it will be good to understand the difference between it and other political systems and ideas.
Socialism is one of those ideas that on the surface seems positive towards quality of life and appears benevolent in its goals. However, like many ideas that initially sound good, once the reality of the concept is truly grasped in its totality there are inherent problems with establishing and maintaining that reality.
Many have been cultured to see Socialism as some benign method of providing aid to those in need. Many stanch socialists would readily tell you this is indeed their prime motivation and no doubt be sincere in their belief, yet they are incorrect despite their intent. Socialism is not a viable method or system, it is merely an ideal who’s tenets are impossible to implement as a unified and organized form of governance.
To be fair, this is marginally true of most forms of governance from democracy to dictatorships. No form of political rule yet conceived is perfect in its execution. The goal is not perfection but stability and consistency in the application of law to support individual freedoms and rights. In totalitarian systems, the support of individual freedoms would be minimal in the extreme and are usually contrived or only found in the lip service used to present a false face to the world where needed. In a Democracy the level of individual freedoms and rights of individuals can vary depending on the form of democratic rule and the strength of the rule of law. Generally the greater the scope of individual rights and freedoms the greater the economic benefit and quality of life. Quality always comes at a greater cost and greater freedoms and rights require a constant and consistent review through a system of checks and balances. In the United States this is performed by the three branches of government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial. While it can be argued the American system provides the most freedom to the individual, few would make the case it is the perfect system. This is actually by design as the American system is an admitted experiment, meant to be capable of change and growth. While the original concepts persist, their definitions and interpretations are under constant attack and defense, and herein lays both the greatest weakness and strength of our system.
There are many variants and flavors of democracy employed across the globe, I will not go into each, nor their differences except to point out that most use a parliamentary system, and many attempt to incorporate socialism into their mix. Suffice to say that while the United States is still a relatively young nation compared with the rest of the world, it has the distinction of having the oldest continuously operating successful government and constitution in the world. While the growth of democracy in the world is welcome, the forms it takes do not always provide the greatest level of individual rights or freedoms. In some cases and locations, centuries of culture may make it very difficult for the population to grasp the concept of individuality never mind live in a free society.
Socialism is not a political system of government, neither for that matter is democracy. Democracy is a “manner” of governance which favors social equality and individual freedom, the form of Democracy taken determines the level of individual rights the society has. Likewise socialism is a concept as defined above and how it is applied is arbitrary and dependant on the level of control those in power wish to exert on the populace. Once enabled though that level generally moves in the direction of total control rather than lesser.
When comparing Communism, who’s history has exposed that political systems requirement for totalitarian oppression and penchant for mass murder in order to achieve control over the population, a constitutional republic such as that in the United States is as close to utopia as has been so far envisioned. So far being the operative term. I do not differentiate Communism from Socialism just as I would not differentiate one dictatorship from another or one armed robber from another. One despot is the same as another or whatever system they allege to be ruling under.
*http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Saturday, September 5, 2009
America is at yet another crossroads. This is not unusual as the pace of change in the world has continued to accelerate and they are bound to pop up more frequently as we built more roads and bridges crisscrossing our expanding culture. They also appear as we endeavor to coexist in a complex world where the roads can be both ancient and in bad repair or newly paved yet the rules of the road are foreign and untenable.
This is not a new through-way, we approached this crossroad a nearly a century ago following the first great war of the twentieth century who’s anniversary is not too distant. At that time we failed to negotiate the turn and were left in the ditch for a long time before we could extract ourselves and some of the damage from the decisions made in that era yet lingers. As we approach this crossroad yet again, it is hoped that the lessons of the past will help in negotiating a safer passage this trip.
Many today speak of the “new” global economy, yet this is not a new phenomena. At the turn of the last century global commerce existed on a wide scale and trade was a growing affair between the powerful nations and empires of the day. This was changed by the events of the First World War and its aftermath. The economic and political decisions made in the global economic downturn that followed the war led to worldwide depression, enabled the growth of totalitarianism in the form of Communist regimes and opened the door for socialist policy that setback individual freedoms and global markets for decades.
We are at the same crossroads today under very similar conditions. At this point in history we are breathing a sigh of relief as we seem to have dodged the bullet of another Depression and it seems as if Capitalism and Democracy have been setting strong deep roots across the world. Yet the constant watchwords heard daily from political and economic leaders are “green shoots” and “not out of the woods yet” with “less worse” thrown in to add to the uncertainty. There may yet be more woods to traverse or we may hit open ground any time, this time can be very different or very similar but we need to be aware that decisions are waiting.
80 years ago the passive decisions made and steps not taken, led to a decade of ruin, today with lessons learned, decisive action is helping gain some control over the downturn. The global situation however is not totally dependent on stabilized economic conditions. In a time when we should be concentrating on maintaining our economic place in the world our attention is being turned inward and toward less significant issues made to seem looming large through rhetoric and misplaced priorities. While isolationism is not even a buzzword in the modern lexicon, we may achieve the same results from disregarding the growth of the world economy and delaying decisions while debating over internal issues.
Our governments reaction to the causes of the recession is not to take on realistic issues but to address it from an idealistic position. Rather than address the critical issues of unemployment, trade and foreign competition, we are mired in a Donnybrook over health-care and the impossible task of eliminating risk. While health care is an admittedly real issue that needs addressing, its priority in the current state falls much farther down the list than repairing the financial system and reducing unemployment, while the concept of eliminating the risk of economic downturns through regulation of financial markets is pure fantasy. Both these issues are merely the modern pretext to institute deeper levels of socialism into the system.
I do not mean this to be a harsh accusation but rather an indictment of the mindset and worldview of the current administration and congress. Ideological fervor and an eagerness to seem to make progress on the promise of change are obscuring the greater priority of the economy over party ideals and campaign promises. While I have no doubt most members of the administration and congress do not self identify as socialists, they are never the less pursuing a socialist agenda rather than and over the immediate needs of the nation.
I’d like to make sure I am clear on what I see as the difference between social programs and socialism. While I am a financial conservative who believes in free market capitalism as the best economic system, I do not see all social programs as being incompatible with or detrimental to the republic. While many social programs can have commonalities with socialist goals, this does not mean they are not beneficial to a society regardless the form of government. Being beneficial to the society does not immediately mean something is socialist or wrong, what counts is whether the program reduces individual rights and freedoms..
Many of my conservative friends do not understand how I can understand and agree with their objections to socialized medicine yet see something such as Social Security as an acceptable and valuable program. This is because they are dogmatically fixated on seeing anything government operated as being potentially contrary and a danger to free markets and individual freedoms. Such a narrow view is actually in opposition to a truly capitalist viewpoint, since flexibility and an understanding of the value proposition are critical components of capitalism. Yet while I have many criticisms of the Social Security system as it currently exists and would more than likely have objected to its original creation, I do not see why it can not be a well designed and operated public benefit rather than an entitlement. I am sure I will elaborate on this in the future.
Here lays the rub, while socialism is inherently destructive regardless the benevolent intent, so too would pure capitalism be unsustainable. Down deep I truly believe capitalism and free markets are the perfect system. Yet reality also tells me that in order for Capitalism to work perfectly, every single person in the world or yet to be born would need to accept this truth as I do, live by it and be scrupulously honest, not a very likely scenario.
The same issue is true of Socialism. For any socialist based system to succeed, every member of society would have to willingly surrender their individuality to the will of the state. Since self-determining individuals tend to be more ubiquitous than altruistic automatons again, not a very likely scenario.
Like most things in life, we go through cycles and generations begin to forget the lessons learned by decades of misery and despair caused by the emergence of socialist and communist systems and begin to think maybe a utopia where everyone’s needs are met is yet possible.
Those who’s wishful thinking gives hope for such a utopia do not have to embrace socialism to be catalyst in its reemergence. They merely have to believe that some loss of individual freedom is a small and necessary price to pay to create what they see as a more equitable system. The problem with this slippery slope is each slice of liberty becomes easier to sacrifice to the common good by those who would be benevolent dictators.
We are in an age where the economic situation can allow socialist dogma to seem palatable, even workable, the dangers of this acceptance can loose us our status as a world leader leaving us floundering for direction while the rest of the world moves forward to embrace freedom, capitalism and prosperity.
This is not a new through-way, we approached this crossroad a nearly a century ago following the first great war of the twentieth century who’s anniversary is not too distant. At that time we failed to negotiate the turn and were left in the ditch for a long time before we could extract ourselves and some of the damage from the decisions made in that era yet lingers. As we approach this crossroad yet again, it is hoped that the lessons of the past will help in negotiating a safer passage this trip.
Many today speak of the “new” global economy, yet this is not a new phenomena. At the turn of the last century global commerce existed on a wide scale and trade was a growing affair between the powerful nations and empires of the day. This was changed by the events of the First World War and its aftermath. The economic and political decisions made in the global economic downturn that followed the war led to worldwide depression, enabled the growth of totalitarianism in the form of Communist regimes and opened the door for socialist policy that setback individual freedoms and global markets for decades.
We are at the same crossroads today under very similar conditions. At this point in history we are breathing a sigh of relief as we seem to have dodged the bullet of another Depression and it seems as if Capitalism and Democracy have been setting strong deep roots across the world. Yet the constant watchwords heard daily from political and economic leaders are “green shoots” and “not out of the woods yet” with “less worse” thrown in to add to the uncertainty. There may yet be more woods to traverse or we may hit open ground any time, this time can be very different or very similar but we need to be aware that decisions are waiting.
80 years ago the passive decisions made and steps not taken, led to a decade of ruin, today with lessons learned, decisive action is helping gain some control over the downturn. The global situation however is not totally dependent on stabilized economic conditions. In a time when we should be concentrating on maintaining our economic place in the world our attention is being turned inward and toward less significant issues made to seem looming large through rhetoric and misplaced priorities. While isolationism is not even a buzzword in the modern lexicon, we may achieve the same results from disregarding the growth of the world economy and delaying decisions while debating over internal issues.
Our governments reaction to the causes of the recession is not to take on realistic issues but to address it from an idealistic position. Rather than address the critical issues of unemployment, trade and foreign competition, we are mired in a Donnybrook over health-care and the impossible task of eliminating risk. While health care is an admittedly real issue that needs addressing, its priority in the current state falls much farther down the list than repairing the financial system and reducing unemployment, while the concept of eliminating the risk of economic downturns through regulation of financial markets is pure fantasy. Both these issues are merely the modern pretext to institute deeper levels of socialism into the system.
I do not mean this to be a harsh accusation but rather an indictment of the mindset and worldview of the current administration and congress. Ideological fervor and an eagerness to seem to make progress on the promise of change are obscuring the greater priority of the economy over party ideals and campaign promises. While I have no doubt most members of the administration and congress do not self identify as socialists, they are never the less pursuing a socialist agenda rather than and over the immediate needs of the nation.
I’d like to make sure I am clear on what I see as the difference between social programs and socialism. While I am a financial conservative who believes in free market capitalism as the best economic system, I do not see all social programs as being incompatible with or detrimental to the republic. While many social programs can have commonalities with socialist goals, this does not mean they are not beneficial to a society regardless the form of government. Being beneficial to the society does not immediately mean something is socialist or wrong, what counts is whether the program reduces individual rights and freedoms..
Many of my conservative friends do not understand how I can understand and agree with their objections to socialized medicine yet see something such as Social Security as an acceptable and valuable program. This is because they are dogmatically fixated on seeing anything government operated as being potentially contrary and a danger to free markets and individual freedoms. Such a narrow view is actually in opposition to a truly capitalist viewpoint, since flexibility and an understanding of the value proposition are critical components of capitalism. Yet while I have many criticisms of the Social Security system as it currently exists and would more than likely have objected to its original creation, I do not see why it can not be a well designed and operated public benefit rather than an entitlement. I am sure I will elaborate on this in the future.
Here lays the rub, while socialism is inherently destructive regardless the benevolent intent, so too would pure capitalism be unsustainable. Down deep I truly believe capitalism and free markets are the perfect system. Yet reality also tells me that in order for Capitalism to work perfectly, every single person in the world or yet to be born would need to accept this truth as I do, live by it and be scrupulously honest, not a very likely scenario.
The same issue is true of Socialism. For any socialist based system to succeed, every member of society would have to willingly surrender their individuality to the will of the state. Since self-determining individuals tend to be more ubiquitous than altruistic automatons again, not a very likely scenario.
Like most things in life, we go through cycles and generations begin to forget the lessons learned by decades of misery and despair caused by the emergence of socialist and communist systems and begin to think maybe a utopia where everyone’s needs are met is yet possible.
Those who’s wishful thinking gives hope for such a utopia do not have to embrace socialism to be catalyst in its reemergence. They merely have to believe that some loss of individual freedom is a small and necessary price to pay to create what they see as a more equitable system. The problem with this slippery slope is each slice of liberty becomes easier to sacrifice to the common good by those who would be benevolent dictators.
We are in an age where the economic situation can allow socialist dogma to seem palatable, even workable, the dangers of this acceptance can loose us our status as a world leader leaving us floundering for direction while the rest of the world moves forward to embrace freedom, capitalism and prosperity.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)