Capitalism is probably one of the most misunderstood things in the world right now. Neither the right wings nor the left wings seem to understand what a free market is, what it looks like, or whether or not we live in one.
A free market is free, seems obvious right? So we should have neo-liberals of all types, especially economists, telling our government that we need to take out all regulations and reduce taxes as much as possible. Well the latter is more or less true, everyone hates taxes but the neo-liberals are really only concerned about commerce and corporate related taxes.
Rules and regulations... Completely different story. Rules and regulations restricting the key businesses from exploiting others need to go, but they love their protectionism. Bail-outs are a must, subsidiaries as well. The government needs to buy all of the crap military contractors sell, and lo and behold if another country stops buying your stuff we need to go to war. Pure capitalism would let these giant businesses fall under their own weight, and when they attempt to interfere with gov't policy, the capitalists would rise in outrage. We live in some sort of mixed economy oligarchy, the people in power are the ones who profit from oil, they profit from the destruction of ecosystems, and they actually profit from climate change. There is no way our current system, or what we call "capitalism", is going to help us mitigate climate change.
Would pure capitalism help? Actually, I think so. Having just read a condensed version of the Wealth of Nations, I have a pretty good grasp on what capitalism Should look like, or at least what Smith thought it should look like. A free market would be free of any gov't influence, even if there were food shortages or rampant inflation/deflation or stock market crashes. The free market takes care of itself, that's one of the most basic principles of capitalism. The free market will also always take care of peoples needs, because people know what they need and they buy it on... the free market! This means that pure capitalism would have educated smart labourers that know that climate change is a bad thing. They therefore naturally shift the market to greener/sustainable technologies and products. The big bad oil companies would have the greatest profit margins on their products, but the free market would dictate that no-one smart would buy them. At least, that's what I assume would happen.
Tuesday, 24 March 2015
Sunday, 22 March 2015
Is inequality a problem in our civilization? Why?
Inequality in democracy.
It's a paradox, democracy only works if people have equal power. They don't need to be equal in intellect or strength or skill in craft. Just in the power they have to make decisions, both for themselves and their society.
Inequality in capitalism.
Once again, a paradox. Adam smith's version of capitalism, which I am considering "true" capitalism, was designed so that the best products and services succeed through competitive markets. They succeed because people want them, and those people must be able to buy them. If all people do not have equal purchasing power the system breaks down, one person can manipulate a market and inflate the demand for products that aren't what the people need. This inflation skews the supply and demand curves and the businesses that create what the people actually need fail. The markets are flooded with less useful things and the system becomes inefficient as a whole.
Inequality in civilization.
Actually, this ones not too bad. I've been a tad unfair, inequality is necessary in any successful civilization, democratic or capitalist or fascist or communist. Civilizations need specialization. If everyone was capable of doing everything equally, there would be no need for collaboration or organization. Everyone would live on their own. That being said, the "natural" inequalities in skills that make our civilizations work is not what plagues our civilization today.
Fact: Civilizations require organization, that means natural born leaders lead. However, an inequality in power that lets inferior rulers lead breaks the system. This holds true in every organization you can think of, you wouldn't want sub-par doctors who are in it for the high salaries or inept police officers who just like the idea of having authority to protect your children. Even the basic labourers, the house builders and the burger flippers, should be the best at what they do, unless health and safety standards don't mean anything to you.
So the idea of an elite group that could use their wealth and power in manipulate every institution to serve their own interests should be scary right? Well, that is what we live in folks. They are aptly named the 1%, they hold 40% of the wealth in the world. They own the mass media, the lobbyists in our governments, they ensure their former employees hold public offices and that their corporations have more rights than a human being. If that isn't a problem... I don't know what is.
It's a paradox, democracy only works if people have equal power. They don't need to be equal in intellect or strength or skill in craft. Just in the power they have to make decisions, both for themselves and their society.
Inequality in capitalism.
Once again, a paradox. Adam smith's version of capitalism, which I am considering "true" capitalism, was designed so that the best products and services succeed through competitive markets. They succeed because people want them, and those people must be able to buy them. If all people do not have equal purchasing power the system breaks down, one person can manipulate a market and inflate the demand for products that aren't what the people need. This inflation skews the supply and demand curves and the businesses that create what the people actually need fail. The markets are flooded with less useful things and the system becomes inefficient as a whole.
Inequality in civilization.
Actually, this ones not too bad. I've been a tad unfair, inequality is necessary in any successful civilization, democratic or capitalist or fascist or communist. Civilizations need specialization. If everyone was capable of doing everything equally, there would be no need for collaboration or organization. Everyone would live on their own. That being said, the "natural" inequalities in skills that make our civilizations work is not what plagues our civilization today.
Fact: Civilizations require organization, that means natural born leaders lead. However, an inequality in power that lets inferior rulers lead breaks the system. This holds true in every organization you can think of, you wouldn't want sub-par doctors who are in it for the high salaries or inept police officers who just like the idea of having authority to protect your children. Even the basic labourers, the house builders and the burger flippers, should be the best at what they do, unless health and safety standards don't mean anything to you.
So the idea of an elite group that could use their wealth and power in manipulate every institution to serve their own interests should be scary right? Well, that is what we live in folks. They are aptly named the 1%, they hold 40% of the wealth in the world. They own the mass media, the lobbyists in our governments, they ensure their former employees hold public offices and that their corporations have more rights than a human being. If that isn't a problem... I don't know what is.
Is Peak Oil for real?
Is peak oil a thing... This is like asking is Gravity a thing...
Of course it's a thing. We use a lot of friking oil.
The earth is a finite source of oil.
It takes millions of years for oil to be created.
A two year old could tell you that we are eventually going to run out of oil. The real question should be when, and what happens when we do.
If you think about it, everything you consume and use daily uses oil. Even if you're a student, how did you get to class? Whats your laptop, notebook, pen, pencil, phone, even your textbook made of? How was the building you live in constructed? Oil, Oil, Oil. We get power from it, we use it mine and deforest, then we use it to transport, and finally to create all the crap we think we need. Not to mention everywhere in between.
So what happens if we run out? I have no idea. Would the world end? I think not, but it certainly wouldn't look the same. Every plastic would need to be recycled, we would run out of almost all of our synthetic organic compounds from toothpaste to the rubber in our tires. Finding a versatile compound to replace oil would be tough in itself, but we would need to also find one that we can exploit at the same level as we did with oil. Personally, I doubt we'll find this mystical replacement.
So how about recycling everything? Reduce, reuse, recycle, fixes everything right? Ha, no. Many oil based products require insane amounts of energy to be recycled, its not economically viable for companies to start trying to recycle all of the oil based products that we have. Not to mention that reducing and reusing products will make our consumption-based economy go down the drain.
The solution we should all be working too is not IF peak oil is a "thing" or when it is coming. The solution we need to be working towards is becoming less oil dependent so that when peak oil comes, we are ready for it. There is no harm in reducing the millions of tons of pollutants we put in the air, or by innovating new technologies and switching our dependency to renewable energy sources. We need to open our eyes and look towards the future, instead of the profit margins of today.
Of course it's a thing. We use a lot of friking oil.
The earth is a finite source of oil.
It takes millions of years for oil to be created.
A two year old could tell you that we are eventually going to run out of oil. The real question should be when, and what happens when we do.
If you think about it, everything you consume and use daily uses oil. Even if you're a student, how did you get to class? Whats your laptop, notebook, pen, pencil, phone, even your textbook made of? How was the building you live in constructed? Oil, Oil, Oil. We get power from it, we use it mine and deforest, then we use it to transport, and finally to create all the crap we think we need. Not to mention everywhere in between.
So what happens if we run out? I have no idea. Would the world end? I think not, but it certainly wouldn't look the same. Every plastic would need to be recycled, we would run out of almost all of our synthetic organic compounds from toothpaste to the rubber in our tires. Finding a versatile compound to replace oil would be tough in itself, but we would need to also find one that we can exploit at the same level as we did with oil. Personally, I doubt we'll find this mystical replacement.
So how about recycling everything? Reduce, reuse, recycle, fixes everything right? Ha, no. Many oil based products require insane amounts of energy to be recycled, its not economically viable for companies to start trying to recycle all of the oil based products that we have. Not to mention that reducing and reusing products will make our consumption-based economy go down the drain.
The solution we should all be working too is not IF peak oil is a "thing" or when it is coming. The solution we need to be working towards is becoming less oil dependent so that when peak oil comes, we are ready for it. There is no harm in reducing the millions of tons of pollutants we put in the air, or by innovating new technologies and switching our dependency to renewable energy sources. We need to open our eyes and look towards the future, instead of the profit margins of today.
Saturday, 21 March 2015
Are the Greeks or the World (system) to blame for the Greek economic crisis? Why?
If a kid runs across a highway chasing a ball and gets hit by a car whose fault is it?
The Greek government had been running a deficit for decades, and the conversion to the use of the euro didn't help their economic situation. The loss of the ability to control their monetary policy as well as inefficient government spending and many other factors quickly lead to a failing economy. The IMF rushed in to save them because the euro needed to maintain it's value, but the IMF wasn't worried about the well-being of the Greek population. All they wanted was their government to cut spending while loaning them massive amounts of money to "stimulate the economy".
For starters, you can't stimulate an economy without increasing spending, so the strategy was flawed right off the bat. Then of course, IMF money always comes with fine print and large amounts of money were spent on buying useless goods from the countries that were lending the money in the first place.
So who is to blame for the Greek crisis? Everyone! The Greek government was failing in the first place; the corruption and blatant ignorance of well-proven Keynesian economic principles seems to be its downfall. Then the conversion to the Euro sealed its fate and the "rescue party" that was the IMF only instituted policies that allow key members and corporations to profit while the people freeze and starve.
Does any of this really matter though? No.
Who cares about the blame game, we know how to fix the crisis. Forgive some debts, and increase government spending in the right places. Greece would be a thriving economy in a matter of months. Our focus should be reinventing IMF and WB policies as well as taking preventative actions against countries that are on the same road as Greece.
It's a stupid question, the kid shouldn't have chased the ball and the driver should have been more alert. There are so many little nuances that the question shouldn't be who do we blame, it should be how do we make sure this doesn't happen again.
The Greek government had been running a deficit for decades, and the conversion to the use of the euro didn't help their economic situation. The loss of the ability to control their monetary policy as well as inefficient government spending and many other factors quickly lead to a failing economy. The IMF rushed in to save them because the euro needed to maintain it's value, but the IMF wasn't worried about the well-being of the Greek population. All they wanted was their government to cut spending while loaning them massive amounts of money to "stimulate the economy".
For starters, you can't stimulate an economy without increasing spending, so the strategy was flawed right off the bat. Then of course, IMF money always comes with fine print and large amounts of money were spent on buying useless goods from the countries that were lending the money in the first place.
So who is to blame for the Greek crisis? Everyone! The Greek government was failing in the first place; the corruption and blatant ignorance of well-proven Keynesian economic principles seems to be its downfall. Then the conversion to the Euro sealed its fate and the "rescue party" that was the IMF only instituted policies that allow key members and corporations to profit while the people freeze and starve.
Does any of this really matter though? No.
Who cares about the blame game, we know how to fix the crisis. Forgive some debts, and increase government spending in the right places. Greece would be a thriving economy in a matter of months. Our focus should be reinventing IMF and WB policies as well as taking preventative actions against countries that are on the same road as Greece.
In a perfect world, what would be the role of government?
(crowd chanting outside) "An Ar Chy! An Ar Chy! An Ar Chy! An Ar Chy!"
Friend (think stereotype of the general population): Dude whats with all the noise outside. Why do they want an Arch key?
Me: Are you serious... Anarchy... they are protesting the power structures not demanding a key.
-What? well what's anarchy? Are they protesting democracy! These commies just want to see the world burn
Oh come on, are you completely ignorant. A true anarchist would get rid of all government, institutions, and power structures. He would want absolute freedom to do whatever he wants, that is what most Americans think they want anyways.
-Oh, well yeah, that actually kind of sounds pretty awesome.
Yeah it sounds great doesn't it, no taxes, no rules, no regulations...
-Totally! I'm going to be an anarchist now!
I didn't finish...
-You don't need too, An Ar Chy!
Oh be quiet, you are so impressionable. Anarchy wouldn't just mean no taxes and no laws, it would mean no government at all. Do you like your health care? Or how about your firefighters? Or even the road you use to drive to work?
-Hold on, all of that stuff can be privatized
Really? I mean I would sure hope that firefighters stop every fire not just the ones people pay for. Same with all of our current public services.
-Okay yeah, but that could be done by getting everyone to pay for it.
That doesn't really make sense, but okay fine. How about publicly protected resources? And how do you prevent people from committing crimes, or even punish them after they do.
-That's what the police are for!
The police, the army, the lawmakers are all parts of an institution, and you now don't stand for them.
-Okay so maybe institutions aren't that bad. But I still don't like paying taxes!
Of course you don't, but you like it when the government spends money to do all the things we've been talking about.
-Well yeah I guess, yeah I suppose they have to get the money from someone. But why does it have to be me! Why can't they tax those rich people!
How is that fair? If they just taxed everything the rich had, what would be the incentive to get rich? And why should the rich have to take care of you anyways?
-Well obviously you wouldn't tax Everything they had, but they have an obligation to take care of us! We should tax them just enough that they aren't stupidly rich.
What do you mean obligation?
-Well who do you think made them rich? We make them powerful with our hard earned cash, and then they go around just stealing more from us? They owe us everything!
So you've gone from far right to anarchism to far left in about 2 minutes flat... Well do you think it's the responsibility of the government to balance things out or do you think the people will do it themselves?
-Of course the government has to do something, those greedy corporations wouldn't give anyone dime. They need to tax them and enforce laws and regulations to stop them from ruining the environment and stealing my pension!
You are all over the place here...
-I guess what I'm saying is that anarchy would be nice, no rules and regulations would be great if people had a conscious, but here in this world the government needs to stop people from corrupting the system. However, they need to...
Friend (think stereotype of the general population): Dude whats with all the noise outside. Why do they want an Arch key?
Me: Are you serious... Anarchy... they are protesting the power structures not demanding a key.
-What? well what's anarchy? Are they protesting democracy! These commies just want to see the world burn
Oh come on, are you completely ignorant. A true anarchist would get rid of all government, institutions, and power structures. He would want absolute freedom to do whatever he wants, that is what most Americans think they want anyways.
-Oh, well yeah, that actually kind of sounds pretty awesome.
Yeah it sounds great doesn't it, no taxes, no rules, no regulations...
-Totally! I'm going to be an anarchist now!
I didn't finish...
-You don't need too, An Ar Chy!
Oh be quiet, you are so impressionable. Anarchy wouldn't just mean no taxes and no laws, it would mean no government at all. Do you like your health care? Or how about your firefighters? Or even the road you use to drive to work?
-Hold on, all of that stuff can be privatized
Really? I mean I would sure hope that firefighters stop every fire not just the ones people pay for. Same with all of our current public services.
-Okay yeah, but that could be done by getting everyone to pay for it.
That doesn't really make sense, but okay fine. How about publicly protected resources? And how do you prevent people from committing crimes, or even punish them after they do.
-That's what the police are for!
The police, the army, the lawmakers are all parts of an institution, and you now don't stand for them.
-Okay so maybe institutions aren't that bad. But I still don't like paying taxes!
Of course you don't, but you like it when the government spends money to do all the things we've been talking about.
-Well yeah I guess, yeah I suppose they have to get the money from someone. But why does it have to be me! Why can't they tax those rich people!
How is that fair? If they just taxed everything the rich had, what would be the incentive to get rich? And why should the rich have to take care of you anyways?
-Well obviously you wouldn't tax Everything they had, but they have an obligation to take care of us! We should tax them just enough that they aren't stupidly rich.
What do you mean obligation?
-Well who do you think made them rich? We make them powerful with our hard earned cash, and then they go around just stealing more from us? They owe us everything!
So you've gone from far right to anarchism to far left in about 2 minutes flat... Well do you think it's the responsibility of the government to balance things out or do you think the people will do it themselves?
-Of course the government has to do something, those greedy corporations wouldn't give anyone dime. They need to tax them and enforce laws and regulations to stop them from ruining the environment and stealing my pension!
You are all over the place here...
-I guess what I'm saying is that anarchy would be nice, no rules and regulations would be great if people had a conscious, but here in this world the government needs to stop people from corrupting the system. However, they need to...
Sunday, 15 March 2015
Is education a tool to help corporations? Should it be?
Is education a tool to help corporations? Yes.
Should it be? No.
Simple answers.
Our current education system is set up like a factory, but is this effective for the 21st century?
Absolutely not.
Watch Sir Ken Robinson and he'll elaborate on how our education system is a factory, we are put in the system in batches according to an irrelevant demographic (age).
We are then pushed through the system in levels, each supposed to make us slightly better at what we do. We are taught to value external rewards like grades to get us ready to receive paychecks. We are taught that discipline means success, and that questioning anything will means punishment. Refusing to conform to anything will either get you branded as a troublemaker by your teachers or a loser by our peers. School is a factory that pumps out obedient workers ready to do whatever job the next institution needs them to do.
What should our education system look like?
Well for starters, education needs to be personalized. Students should progress at the pace they do well at; they shouldn't be confined to an age group. Children who excel in something should be guided into an education program that centers around that thing. Grades shouldn't even exist, if you educate people right then you don't need an evaluation method to see who is better than the others. All of your pupils will be at the same level, or at the very least a level in which they can do the job they have adequately. Education should be free, it should be mandatory. Everyone in the world should have some basic foundation of knowledge, after that is accomplished people should then be free to pursue the knowledge that interests them. This only works, however, if society functions very efficiently. That would mean that people are free to pursue the things they love, but are required to do the things they are good at. No matter how much a neurosurgeon wants to paint, he must do his job saving peoples lives and paint in his free time.
Or at least, that's what I think.
Watch Sir Ken Robinson and he'll elaborate on how our education system is a factory, we are put in the system in batches according to an irrelevant demographic (age).
We are then pushed through the system in levels, each supposed to make us slightly better at what we do. We are taught to value external rewards like grades to get us ready to receive paychecks. We are taught that discipline means success, and that questioning anything will means punishment. Refusing to conform to anything will either get you branded as a troublemaker by your teachers or a loser by our peers. School is a factory that pumps out obedient workers ready to do whatever job the next institution needs them to do.
What should our education system look like?
Well for starters, education needs to be personalized. Students should progress at the pace they do well at; they shouldn't be confined to an age group. Children who excel in something should be guided into an education program that centers around that thing. Grades shouldn't even exist, if you educate people right then you don't need an evaluation method to see who is better than the others. All of your pupils will be at the same level, or at the very least a level in which they can do the job they have adequately. Education should be free, it should be mandatory. Everyone in the world should have some basic foundation of knowledge, after that is accomplished people should then be free to pursue the knowledge that interests them. This only works, however, if society functions very efficiently. That would mean that people are free to pursue the things they love, but are required to do the things they are good at. No matter how much a neurosurgeon wants to paint, he must do his job saving peoples lives and paint in his free time.
Or at least, that's what I think.
Tuesday, 10 March 2015
Considering what the film shows us, what does globalization, our consumption, the banks (IMF and WB) and the corporations do to a country like Tanzania ?
Darwin's nightmare.
This film shatters the bubble that residents in the Global North, or "developed" countries, create for themselves. It reminds us that more then half the world doesn't worry about getting the newest Ipad, they worry about if they will have a next meal.
Who is to blame for the pathetic state of things? The very same people who forget that half the world is like this. It started with imperialism, a long complicated history of European invaders lead to corrupt systems of power and masses of poor uneducated people. Then the European presence is replaced with an imperative to "develop", the economy is the only thing that matters. While millions starve, food is exported out of the country so profits can be maintained. The banks funnel in money so that the economy will "rescue the country", but the profits go to western companies and the money is nowhere to be seen. Jobs are of the utmost importance, it's either find a job or join the military. Otherwise, you can't feed yourself, nor your children. Globalization ensures that industry is put before the welfare of the people, and the western hunger for profit puts guns in the hands of anyone who will buy them.
The volatile region was created by white men, and now it is continually fueled by it. Food is exported, guns are imported. The natural conclusion is war. We hear it all the time, this country is fighting that country, some other country is in the midst of a revolution or divided by a civil war. No one seems to bat an eye anymore. Whether it is the corporations that deceive us into thinking profits come before human life or we put blinders on ourselves, we need to wake up and realize the atrocities we are forcing people to live through and commit. Our taste for fish does not mean millions should starve, our need for profit shouldn't put a country on the streets, and our beliefs shouldn't hinder us from stopping millions of deaths.
Globalization is a disease, the corporations are actual viruses, and the banks are the pseudoscience that people seem to think will cure it. There is not a Global South country in the world that is not being taken advantage of by the Global North, the corporations exploit natural resources and destroy the natural way of life in too many ways too count. The banks swoop in and offer to fix everything, but only end up making way for more corporations to exploit faster. We are to blame. We are the problem, now we have to think of ways to be the solution.
This film shatters the bubble that residents in the Global North, or "developed" countries, create for themselves. It reminds us that more then half the world doesn't worry about getting the newest Ipad, they worry about if they will have a next meal.
Who is to blame for the pathetic state of things? The very same people who forget that half the world is like this. It started with imperialism, a long complicated history of European invaders lead to corrupt systems of power and masses of poor uneducated people. Then the European presence is replaced with an imperative to "develop", the economy is the only thing that matters. While millions starve, food is exported out of the country so profits can be maintained. The banks funnel in money so that the economy will "rescue the country", but the profits go to western companies and the money is nowhere to be seen. Jobs are of the utmost importance, it's either find a job or join the military. Otherwise, you can't feed yourself, nor your children. Globalization ensures that industry is put before the welfare of the people, and the western hunger for profit puts guns in the hands of anyone who will buy them.
The volatile region was created by white men, and now it is continually fueled by it. Food is exported, guns are imported. The natural conclusion is war. We hear it all the time, this country is fighting that country, some other country is in the midst of a revolution or divided by a civil war. No one seems to bat an eye anymore. Whether it is the corporations that deceive us into thinking profits come before human life or we put blinders on ourselves, we need to wake up and realize the atrocities we are forcing people to live through and commit. Our taste for fish does not mean millions should starve, our need for profit shouldn't put a country on the streets, and our beliefs shouldn't hinder us from stopping millions of deaths.
Globalization is a disease, the corporations are actual viruses, and the banks are the pseudoscience that people seem to think will cure it. There is not a Global South country in the world that is not being taken advantage of by the Global North, the corporations exploit natural resources and destroy the natural way of life in too many ways too count. The banks swoop in and offer to fix everything, but only end up making way for more corporations to exploit faster. We are to blame. We are the problem, now we have to think of ways to be the solution.
Monday, 9 March 2015
Is the FED an impartial stakeholder in our economic system? And who is it working for and why?
The federal reserve is by no means an impartial stakeholder in anything. Money for nothing clearly shows that the FED is vulnerable to public opinion and corporate influence just as every other hierarchical system is. Greenspan and Bernanke wanted nothing but to appease Wall Street. They chose to ignore simple economic facts and hid away their problems until the spilled over the edges and caused the 2008 crash. Then they funneled money back into a broken system to save it, breaking the main rule of neoliberalist and capitalist thinking "the markets will take care of themselves".
The FED works for Wall street. If it worked for the people, it would take care of the people. The FED should have raised interest rates and committed the people to saving money instead of creating another market bubble. The U.S. household and credit debts are at all time highs and the interest rates are still hovering near 0% convincing people to go out and borrow and spend to "stimulate the economy". A three year old can tell you that you shouldn't spend money you don't have. Hopefully, the next time the market crashes, which it surely will, the administrations will have a reality check. The federal reserves currently serve the whims of Wall street, they don't regulate the trillions of dollars in derivatives and they keep spending high, by keeping interest rates low, to keep money in the pockets of the 1%. The bailout was the cherry on top, the system proved to the world that it was broken and the FED came to the rescue by inserting trillions of dollars back into the pockets of the rich. Inflation continues to plague the average american, but at least the CEO's of AIG can walk away with hundreds of millions in bonuses.
The FED works for Wall street. If it worked for the people, it would take care of the people. The FED should have raised interest rates and committed the people to saving money instead of creating another market bubble. The U.S. household and credit debts are at all time highs and the interest rates are still hovering near 0% convincing people to go out and borrow and spend to "stimulate the economy". A three year old can tell you that you shouldn't spend money you don't have. Hopefully, the next time the market crashes, which it surely will, the administrations will have a reality check. The federal reserves currently serve the whims of Wall street, they don't regulate the trillions of dollars in derivatives and they keep spending high, by keeping interest rates low, to keep money in the pockets of the 1%. The bailout was the cherry on top, the system proved to the world that it was broken and the FED came to the rescue by inserting trillions of dollars back into the pockets of the rich. Inflation continues to plague the average american, but at least the CEO's of AIG can walk away with hundreds of millions in bonuses.
Is anarchism a viable option?
Anarchy refers to a society, entity, group of persons or single person without recognition of authority
Anarchy is a state of society without government or law
Anarchy is a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws
Anarchism is basically a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified. It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them. Their authority is not self-justifying. -Noam Chomsky
Everyone seems to assume anarchy is a bunch of punk teenagers running around with spray cans. In reality, anarchy is what we all strive for; a utopia where there is no need for rules because the people themselves know how to act. To believe anarchy works, you need to believe that people are rational. In fact, anarchy is a natural logical conclusion when you believe people are rational. Government, laws, hierarchies are all the result of people needing to be controlled, or wanting to control other people. When all people are rational, all people should be able to self govern and be self sufficient. They recognize the autonomy of others and respect it. In our world, however, people are not rational. They are vulnerable to manipulation and cannot recognize rationality even when its presented directly to them. Anarchy would work in a perfect society, and the pursuit of a society where anarchy would work is noble but foolish. People are born with inequalities, of both the body and of the mind. Some people will be innately superior, some people would be innately inferior. It is nature, biology, it is how natural selection has worked for millions of years. We can overcome our primitive instincts and not selectively breed, but we cannot resolve the simple dilemma of some people will need help from others. If the globe was 7 thousand strong we might not need organization and power structures, but the overwhelming scale of 7 billion, and rising, people calls for more efficient structures than "they will figure it out themselves". Healthcare, education, transportation infrastructure does not come about by leaving people to their own devices. Without large scale production, our world would not be efficient enough to feed and shelter itself. Anarchy places the power in the people, but I don't think the people could handle that power.
So as a system it's not viable. That does not, however, mean that everything about it is wrong. Chomsky's version of anarchy seems to challenge power structures instead of get rid of them entirely. Getting rid of the superfluous power structures and imbalances helps any society. Our society would be better off without the rich white man patriarchy, this can be proven ethically and economically. Chomsky is right to say unjustifiable systems are illegitimate because they serve no purpose to society. The critical analysis of all of our power structures is desperately needed. Chomsky makes references to the human race not being able to see it's own demise because of all the external influences and I think he is right in that. However, removing all power structures is not the answer.
Anarchy is a state of society without government or law
Anarchy is a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws
an·ar·chy a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
Anarchy is a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or their controlling systems
Anarchism is basically a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy. It seeks structures of hierarchy and domination in human life over the whole range, extending from, say, patriarchal families to, say, imperial systems, and it asks whether those systems are justified. It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them. Their authority is not self-justifying. -Noam Chomsky
Everyone seems to assume anarchy is a bunch of punk teenagers running around with spray cans. In reality, anarchy is what we all strive for; a utopia where there is no need for rules because the people themselves know how to act. To believe anarchy works, you need to believe that people are rational. In fact, anarchy is a natural logical conclusion when you believe people are rational. Government, laws, hierarchies are all the result of people needing to be controlled, or wanting to control other people. When all people are rational, all people should be able to self govern and be self sufficient. They recognize the autonomy of others and respect it. In our world, however, people are not rational. They are vulnerable to manipulation and cannot recognize rationality even when its presented directly to them. Anarchy would work in a perfect society, and the pursuit of a society where anarchy would work is noble but foolish. People are born with inequalities, of both the body and of the mind. Some people will be innately superior, some people would be innately inferior. It is nature, biology, it is how natural selection has worked for millions of years. We can overcome our primitive instincts and not selectively breed, but we cannot resolve the simple dilemma of some people will need help from others. If the globe was 7 thousand strong we might not need organization and power structures, but the overwhelming scale of 7 billion, and rising, people calls for more efficient structures than "they will figure it out themselves". Healthcare, education, transportation infrastructure does not come about by leaving people to their own devices. Without large scale production, our world would not be efficient enough to feed and shelter itself. Anarchy places the power in the people, but I don't think the people could handle that power.
So as a system it's not viable. That does not, however, mean that everything about it is wrong. Chomsky's version of anarchy seems to challenge power structures instead of get rid of them entirely. Getting rid of the superfluous power structures and imbalances helps any society. Our society would be better off without the rich white man patriarchy, this can be proven ethically and economically. Chomsky is right to say unjustifiable systems are illegitimate because they serve no purpose to society. The critical analysis of all of our power structures is desperately needed. Chomsky makes references to the human race not being able to see it's own demise because of all the external influences and I think he is right in that. However, removing all power structures is not the answer.
Thursday, 5 March 2015
What are Moore's main arguments against capitalism? Do you agree and why?
Me: You know what, your film is so full of crap
Moore: You're just another consumer blinded by the thought of the american dream
You know what? I'm a self-identifying commie and I still don't like your film.
-My film shows the evil of capitalism, it shows nothing but truths...
It doesn't show truths, you've cherrypicked quirks of our society and framed them in a terrible way. You don't show what capitalism is and show why socialism is a better alternative, all you do is manipulate people into thinking capitalism is evil. You are just as bad as the people you attack.
-That is completely unfair!
No it isn't, you are worth more than 50 million dollars. All you do is sit on your fat butt and make movies about how screwed up our society is and reap the benefits from showing them. That isn't even the point, you make absolutely no reference to how distorted our version of capitalism is. I could make an argument that we don't even live in a democratic or capitalist society but your main point is capitalism is evil and should be abolished.
-Untrue! I channel my money back into my movies to continue spreading awareness, and my film had an entire sequence devoted to plutonomy.
Do you even understand how capitalism is supposed to work? Or have you been too busy telling people that Jesus hates capitalism to do your research.
-Of course I understand capitalism, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The rich control and take advantage of the system...
You have no idea how capitalism is supposed to work, I mean look at this quote from you "Here's what I don't think works: An economic system that was founded in the 16th century and another that was founded in the 19th century. I'm tired of this discussion of capitalism and socialism; we live in the 21st century; we need an economic system that has democracy as its underpinnings and an ethical code."
-Yeah, those are my brilliant words
Don't you realize democracy is over 2 thousand years old
-I... Uh...
Not to mention capitalism is an extension of democracy, the buyers control the markets by buying the products they want and need. Every consumer votes with his dollar, this was all ruined by the creation of big business and corporation. The creator of capitalism would hate our society just as much as you do. He would probably argue that monopolies and government bailouts break the system, so do all the aversions of the law and the mass manipulation that we call marketing.
-Yeah but capitalism still creates the very wealthy and the very poor!
I just explained this, capitalism works better when you pay your workers higher wages. It makes sure that consumers have enough money to continue regulating the market. When you have wealth inequalities the economy stagnates, sellers have no-one to sell to and the system breaks down
-So you're saying that everything I portrayed in my movie isn't supposed to be in real capitalism anyways?
Moore: You're just another consumer blinded by the thought of the american dream
You know what? I'm a self-identifying commie and I still don't like your film.
-My film shows the evil of capitalism, it shows nothing but truths...
It doesn't show truths, you've cherrypicked quirks of our society and framed them in a terrible way. You don't show what capitalism is and show why socialism is a better alternative, all you do is manipulate people into thinking capitalism is evil. You are just as bad as the people you attack.
-That is completely unfair!
No it isn't, you are worth more than 50 million dollars. All you do is sit on your fat butt and make movies about how screwed up our society is and reap the benefits from showing them. That isn't even the point, you make absolutely no reference to how distorted our version of capitalism is. I could make an argument that we don't even live in a democratic or capitalist society but your main point is capitalism is evil and should be abolished.
-Untrue! I channel my money back into my movies to continue spreading awareness, and my film had an entire sequence devoted to plutonomy.
Do you even understand how capitalism is supposed to work? Or have you been too busy telling people that Jesus hates capitalism to do your research.
-Of course I understand capitalism, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The rich control and take advantage of the system...
You have no idea how capitalism is supposed to work, I mean look at this quote from you "Here's what I don't think works: An economic system that was founded in the 16th century and another that was founded in the 19th century. I'm tired of this discussion of capitalism and socialism; we live in the 21st century; we need an economic system that has democracy as its underpinnings and an ethical code."
-Yeah, those are my brilliant words
Don't you realize democracy is over 2 thousand years old
-I... Uh...
Not to mention capitalism is an extension of democracy, the buyers control the markets by buying the products they want and need. Every consumer votes with his dollar, this was all ruined by the creation of big business and corporation. The creator of capitalism would hate our society just as much as you do. He would probably argue that monopolies and government bailouts break the system, so do all the aversions of the law and the mass manipulation that we call marketing.
-Yeah but capitalism still creates the very wealthy and the very poor!
I just explained this, capitalism works better when you pay your workers higher wages. It makes sure that consumers have enough money to continue regulating the market. When you have wealth inequalities the economy stagnates, sellers have no-one to sell to and the system breaks down
-So you're saying that everything I portrayed in my movie isn't supposed to be in real capitalism anyways?
Wednesday, 4 March 2015
Are humans dangerous and must they be controlled?
Me: So what did you think of that movie?
Friend: Engh, it wasn't bad I guess.
Well what didn't you like about it?
-I think that the controlled population was better, it seemed to make a society that was a lot more efficient.
Oh really, so you were okay with brainwashing entire populations? Actually never mind that, you think that we are all just primitive animals that need to be controlled?
-Wait a second, that's not what I said... but now that we're talking about it... Yeah I think humans are irrational.
Bold claim dude, you better have some great evidence for this
-I'll do one better, I'll prove it to you.
I'm all ears
-Well, let's first accept evolution...
How do you mean?
-You know, that we all evolved from common ancestors. So we are basically all monkeys
Dude, you definitely just butchered evolution but continue.
-Whatever, the point is that we all have primitive survival instincts right? When you push people to their limits they'll do anything to survive, superhuman strength, drink their own pee.
Let's say I was following your logic, what's your point if humans have survival instincts?
-No, its more than survival instincts, it's like basic programming. If you take away everything else, then all you have left is the primitive stuff.
Uhm, I'm still failing to see your point. How does this mean that people need to be controlled.
-Hold on, I'm getting to it. Do you accept that people have the primitive part of themselves?
Yeah sure, but let's hurry it up with the logic.
-Well what do those instincts tell you to do? They tell you to be the alpha human, seek out the best mates and obtain the most power in your social groups. They tell you to create the best environment for your children and have control of the resources.
A bit of a stretch, but okay I see your point and those are all good ambitions. You could say that they make up the basis of our society, you can live the perfect american dream if you work for it.
-Yeah you can live the american dream, but the best world you could live in a primitive sense is one without competition. People naturally tend to try and take control of the things they deem necessary.
Okay, now you're really stretching. Just because a guy needs bread doesn't mean he takes over the bread industry.
-But! He would be better off if he did right?
Well yes...
-Then people will naturally tend to take control of whatever they can, think about it. Why are wars fought? For control of resources or people.
Okay so the perfect human controls everything, is that what you're trying to say then?
-No, I am saying that the average human will always try to take power wherever he can. Left to their own devices, people will tend towards conflict as they try an take power over each other.
Well I have to disagree with you, we evolved to be social creatures. You could even say civilization came about as an evolutionary advantage. That makes your whole primitive instinct point moot.
-Does it? Or does it reinforce the fact that our primitive instincts need to be suppressed to make progress. Civilization was probably more likely the result of a said alpha human taking control of a population to serve his interests.
Okay we can back and forth about that all night, we're not going to figure out the origins of civilization. How about you address my original point, the ambition for a good life is what makes our society work.
-I already did, because it is not an ambition for a good life that people seek. That is what they attain by seeking power and independence from others. When people seek power they create conflict, their primitive instincts and thoughts may not show themselves in the day to day action but it is what drives them.
Okay, I'll accept your last point about the sub-conscious motivations but I have another word for conflict. It's called competition and that's what makes our market work.
-Conflict and competition are not the same thing...
But they are! When you say obtain power, in this world it means control over the market. That means developing new marketing strategies, better products, better production methods, and attempting to out-compete your competitors in the marketplace in general.
-So the world revolves around money? Money is just a stepping stone to power. The president of the United States doesn't need to worry about his market because he doesn't have one. That same president can go to war over whatever he wants.
Yeah, but what is he going to go to war over? Historically it has been to protect freedom. Freedom is about choice, and people choose to live in a capitalist society where they can chase their dreams and attain what they want.
-You have just indirectly proved my point. When you let people do what they want, they fight for power. Be it money, be it the hearts of the people, be it the control of resources.
Okay fine, they fight. Whats the big deal? It's natural selection on a huge scale, the better system and the better group of people will survive whereas the inferior will fade into history.
-Yes you are right, the better system will win. The system where the people are controlled will win.
What are you talking about? Have you taken a history class? The dictators, tyrants and monarchs are overthrown, democracy always wins eventually.
-That's because the ruler didn't have complete control over the ruled. Those societies weren't set up right.
You're unbelievable, well how would you set up the perfect society genius?
-First of all, there wouldn't be one ruler. There would be a ruling class would be made up of people that are fit to rule.
Oh? So a whole bunch of dictators bickering among themselves trying to attain power is better than just one?
-Yes, I mean no. They wouldn't be dictators, they would be the best-fit rulers. These are the people that are smarter than their instincts. They are the elite of our society.
Gotcha... Right... So you're just saying that we should become this elitist aristocracy with a privileged ruling class. That's also been tried, and it failed because people are smarter than you are making them out to be.
-No they are not. I mean they are smart, but the average citizen isn't capable of ruling. You have to accept that one.
Fine
-This "aristocracy" wouldn't be about a privileged ruling class. In fact, there would be no classes. I imagine a planned government and economy. You know "to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability". Everyone not equipped to rule would be micromanaged to do what they do best, it would be the most efficient society on the planet!
Okay buddy, did you see what happened to the U.S.S.R. and how China is trending towards freer economies and markets?
-True, but they had their downsides. We won't go into those right now. Try to think past those, imagine a perfect society where every single person did what they best at.
Okay, fine. Let's play it your way. These people are the same ones grasping at power right? What's holding this society together? Wouldn't this society rip itself apart?
-No, because these people are being controlled. My point wasn't that people trend to that society, my point is that this perfect society is only attainable by suppressing peoples desires. You need a docile population to create this efficient society.
So perfection is absolute control?
Friend: Engh, it wasn't bad I guess.
Well what didn't you like about it?
-I think that the controlled population was better, it seemed to make a society that was a lot more efficient.
Oh really, so you were okay with brainwashing entire populations? Actually never mind that, you think that we are all just primitive animals that need to be controlled?
-Wait a second, that's not what I said... but now that we're talking about it... Yeah I think humans are irrational.
Bold claim dude, you better have some great evidence for this
-I'll do one better, I'll prove it to you.
I'm all ears
-Well, let's first accept evolution...
How do you mean?
-You know, that we all evolved from common ancestors. So we are basically all monkeys
Dude, you definitely just butchered evolution but continue.
-Whatever, the point is that we all have primitive survival instincts right? When you push people to their limits they'll do anything to survive, superhuman strength, drink their own pee.
Let's say I was following your logic, what's your point if humans have survival instincts?
-No, its more than survival instincts, it's like basic programming. If you take away everything else, then all you have left is the primitive stuff.
Uhm, I'm still failing to see your point. How does this mean that people need to be controlled.
-Hold on, I'm getting to it. Do you accept that people have the primitive part of themselves?
Yeah sure, but let's hurry it up with the logic.
-Well what do those instincts tell you to do? They tell you to be the alpha human, seek out the best mates and obtain the most power in your social groups. They tell you to create the best environment for your children and have control of the resources.
A bit of a stretch, but okay I see your point and those are all good ambitions. You could say that they make up the basis of our society, you can live the perfect american dream if you work for it.
-Yeah you can live the american dream, but the best world you could live in a primitive sense is one without competition. People naturally tend to try and take control of the things they deem necessary.
Okay, now you're really stretching. Just because a guy needs bread doesn't mean he takes over the bread industry.
-But! He would be better off if he did right?
Well yes...
-Then people will naturally tend to take control of whatever they can, think about it. Why are wars fought? For control of resources or people.
Okay so the perfect human controls everything, is that what you're trying to say then?
-No, I am saying that the average human will always try to take power wherever he can. Left to their own devices, people will tend towards conflict as they try an take power over each other.
Well I have to disagree with you, we evolved to be social creatures. You could even say civilization came about as an evolutionary advantage. That makes your whole primitive instinct point moot.
-Does it? Or does it reinforce the fact that our primitive instincts need to be suppressed to make progress. Civilization was probably more likely the result of a said alpha human taking control of a population to serve his interests.
Okay we can back and forth about that all night, we're not going to figure out the origins of civilization. How about you address my original point, the ambition for a good life is what makes our society work.
-I already did, because it is not an ambition for a good life that people seek. That is what they attain by seeking power and independence from others. When people seek power they create conflict, their primitive instincts and thoughts may not show themselves in the day to day action but it is what drives them.
Okay, I'll accept your last point about the sub-conscious motivations but I have another word for conflict. It's called competition and that's what makes our market work.
-Conflict and competition are not the same thing...
But they are! When you say obtain power, in this world it means control over the market. That means developing new marketing strategies, better products, better production methods, and attempting to out-compete your competitors in the marketplace in general.
-So the world revolves around money? Money is just a stepping stone to power. The president of the United States doesn't need to worry about his market because he doesn't have one. That same president can go to war over whatever he wants.
Yeah, but what is he going to go to war over? Historically it has been to protect freedom. Freedom is about choice, and people choose to live in a capitalist society where they can chase their dreams and attain what they want.
-You have just indirectly proved my point. When you let people do what they want, they fight for power. Be it money, be it the hearts of the people, be it the control of resources.
Okay fine, they fight. Whats the big deal? It's natural selection on a huge scale, the better system and the better group of people will survive whereas the inferior will fade into history.
-Yes you are right, the better system will win. The system where the people are controlled will win.
What are you talking about? Have you taken a history class? The dictators, tyrants and monarchs are overthrown, democracy always wins eventually.
-That's because the ruler didn't have complete control over the ruled. Those societies weren't set up right.
You're unbelievable, well how would you set up the perfect society genius?
-First of all, there wouldn't be one ruler. There would be a ruling class would be made up of people that are fit to rule.
Oh? So a whole bunch of dictators bickering among themselves trying to attain power is better than just one?
-Yes, I mean no. They wouldn't be dictators, they would be the best-fit rulers. These are the people that are smarter than their instincts. They are the elite of our society.
Gotcha... Right... So you're just saying that we should become this elitist aristocracy with a privileged ruling class. That's also been tried, and it failed because people are smarter than you are making them out to be.
-No they are not. I mean they are smart, but the average citizen isn't capable of ruling. You have to accept that one.
Fine
-This "aristocracy" wouldn't be about a privileged ruling class. In fact, there would be no classes. I imagine a planned government and economy. You know "to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability". Everyone not equipped to rule would be micromanaged to do what they do best, it would be the most efficient society on the planet!
Okay buddy, did you see what happened to the U.S.S.R. and how China is trending towards freer economies and markets?
-True, but they had their downsides. We won't go into those right now. Try to think past those, imagine a perfect society where every single person did what they best at.
Okay, fine. Let's play it your way. These people are the same ones grasping at power right? What's holding this society together? Wouldn't this society rip itself apart?
-No, because these people are being controlled. My point wasn't that people trend to that society, my point is that this perfect society is only attainable by suppressing peoples desires. You need a docile population to create this efficient society.
So perfection is absolute control?
Tuesday, 3 March 2015
Considering your values and beliefs, how would you define well-being? Try to discuss the reasons and/or beliefs behind your definition.
Me: Dude, this study question is killing me.
-Hypothetical Friend (I swear he's not imaginary): Well, throw it at me. I can probably help.
This crazy tutor of mine wants me to define well-being...
-That's not too bad at all, that's actually kind of easy...
Oh really now, care to explain?
-Well, well-being could be considered all the benefits a person has.
Woah, woah, woah. There's already so many things wrong with that. How would you define benefit? Is it something that makes a person emotionally happy... or maybe physically healthy... or spiritually fulfilled...?
-Okay, I see your point. How about, just for convenience's sake, we say all of the above. Well-being is the accumulation of all the benefits.
That still leaves a problem though... What about things that take away from one and contribute to another?
-Elaborate.
Well take for example getting really drunk and having a good time, yeah like last night, that harms your body physically, I mean I still have a headache, but it was a great time.
-Huh, uhm, well you got me there bud... Okay, let's try again. Well-being is a state where the overall benefits outweigh the cons.
I immediately see a problem with how you can quantify one benefit to outweigh one con, how would you measure one over another? Is happiness worth more than health or is it the other way around?
-You can't be serious, why are you asking me?
This is your definition dude! How do you measure benefit?
-I guess you could measure it in the stuff you buy right?
Oh so money is happiness then...
-That's not what I said! Health could be measured in the money you spend on maintaining it couldn't it?
Oh so you're saying that someone who can't pay for their healthcare is healthier than the millionaire who pays for peak physical condition?
-No. Okay so maybe it wouldn't work in this world, but in theory it would!
Alright fine, let's just assume the world is perfect... big assumption but fine... You're still saying you can measure happiness in material wealth.
-Well can you not? You need certain things to survive, that could be the baseline. Everything past that must make you more emotionally happy, otherwise why would you buy it?
Dude, you have to be kidding. So the enlightened Buddhist monk is less fulfilled than the wall street billionaire who lies and cheats his way to the top?
-We were talking about emotional happiness... Not personal fulfillment
Aren't they very closely connected? You cannot have one without the other, and there is no way you can measure fulfillment with money.
-Yeah, you're right. I guess well-being is more than money
Well don't be too hard on yourself, you brought up a good point. Money makes a big difference in your quality of life, and that naturally makes a difference in your well-being. You simply forgot the things in life that aren't quantifiable. Happiness, emotional health, personal satisfaction and fulfillment all play a role in the individual's well being.
-Hypothetical Friend (I swear he's not imaginary): Well, throw it at me. I can probably help.
This crazy tutor of mine wants me to define well-being...
-That's not too bad at all, that's actually kind of easy...
Oh really now, care to explain?
-Well, well-being could be considered all the benefits a person has.
Woah, woah, woah. There's already so many things wrong with that. How would you define benefit? Is it something that makes a person emotionally happy... or maybe physically healthy... or spiritually fulfilled...?
-Okay, I see your point. How about, just for convenience's sake, we say all of the above. Well-being is the accumulation of all the benefits.
That still leaves a problem though... What about things that take away from one and contribute to another?
-Elaborate.
Well take for example getting really drunk and having a good time, yeah like last night, that harms your body physically, I mean I still have a headache, but it was a great time.
-Huh, uhm, well you got me there bud... Okay, let's try again. Well-being is a state where the overall benefits outweigh the cons.
I immediately see a problem with how you can quantify one benefit to outweigh one con, how would you measure one over another? Is happiness worth more than health or is it the other way around?
-You can't be serious, why are you asking me?
This is your definition dude! How do you measure benefit?
-I guess you could measure it in the stuff you buy right?
Oh so money is happiness then...
-That's not what I said! Health could be measured in the money you spend on maintaining it couldn't it?
Oh so you're saying that someone who can't pay for their healthcare is healthier than the millionaire who pays for peak physical condition?
-No. Okay so maybe it wouldn't work in this world, but in theory it would!
Alright fine, let's just assume the world is perfect... big assumption but fine... You're still saying you can measure happiness in material wealth.
-Well can you not? You need certain things to survive, that could be the baseline. Everything past that must make you more emotionally happy, otherwise why would you buy it?
Dude, you have to be kidding. So the enlightened Buddhist monk is less fulfilled than the wall street billionaire who lies and cheats his way to the top?
-We were talking about emotional happiness... Not personal fulfillment
Aren't they very closely connected? You cannot have one without the other, and there is no way you can measure fulfillment with money.
-Yeah, you're right. I guess well-being is more than money
Well don't be too hard on yourself, you brought up a good point. Money makes a big difference in your quality of life, and that naturally makes a difference in your well-being. You simply forgot the things in life that aren't quantifiable. Happiness, emotional health, personal satisfaction and fulfillment all play a role in the individual's well being.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)