Authoritarianism, Bad Ideas, Business, Capitalism, Citizenship, Class War, Community, Democracy, Economic Crisis, Economics, Economy, Equality, Evolution, Fairness, Fascism, Free Market Capitalism, Freedom, Freedom and Liberty, Hunter/Gatherers, Idealism, Ideologies, Income, Intellectual Honesty, Intelligentsia, Justice, Labor, Liars Lies and Lying, Market Fundamentalism, Memes, Neocons, Neoliberals, Obligations to Society, Oppression, Plutocracy, Political and Social Alienation, Political Ideologies, Political Issues, Politician, Politicians and Scoundrels, Politics, Poverty, Quality of Life, Religious Ideologies, Socialism, Society, Taxes, Values, Work

Wealth Inequality vs. Freedom and Liberty

(About a 10 minute read)

One of the more interesting notions that most of us seem to accept at one or another point in our lives is the notion that freedom and equality are incompatible.

I have heard that notion advanced in this manner: Jones has many marketable talents, while Smith has few marketable talents.  Thus, if Jones is free to make as much money as he can, he will make more money than Smith.  So, for Jones and Smith to be financially equal, something must done to limit Jones’ earnings.  But anything you do to limit Jones’ earnings deprives Jones of his freedom. Consequently, you cannot have both freedom and equality at the same time.

There is great truth in that.

Yet, the notion becomes extraordinarily problematic when we think that’s all there is to it.   For if we were to attempt to secure our freedoms and liberties by such a simple-minded principle as the notion that they can best be secured via allowing the unrestricted accumulation of wealth, we would soon enough find ourselves enslaved.

The problem is — in a nutshell — that Jones, if he gets too much wealth relative to Smith, will inevitably possess the means to subjugate Smith.

Of course, that’s not a real problem, according to some folks, because Jones is a decent old boy and would never think for a moment to use his wealth to destroy Smith’s freedoms and liberties — not even when crushing Smith and his foolish freedoms and liberties would benefit Jones.

Yes, some good folks actually believe that! And in my experience, there’s not much you can say to such folks that will convince them to change their minds once the idea has got hold of them that the only real issue here is the sacred right of Jones to earn as much money as he can, and retain nearly every last dime of it.  “Taxation is theft”, you know.

Rationality is not, on the whole, one of the distinguishing characteristics of our noble species of  poo-flinging super-sized chimpanzees.  That seems to be the case because we happily neglected to evolve our big brains in order to better discern truths.  Instead, we apparently evolved them for other reasons, which I have written about here and here, among other places.  So, I am not writing this post for those folks who are firmly convinced that the bumper-sticker insight, “taxation is theft”, is the very last and wisest word on the matter of wealth inequality.  I am writing this post for those comparatively open-minded individuals who might be looking for some thoughts about wealth inequality to mull over before arriving at any (hopefully, tentative) conclusions about it.

I believe that, to really understand wealth inequality, one needs to remember that we spent roughly 97% of our time as a species on this planet evolving to live in relatively egalitarian communities.  Communities in which there was typically (with a few exceptions) comparatively little political, social, or economic difference between folks.  Everyone was more or less equally engaged in the struggle for food to survive, whether they were hunters (mostly men) or gatherers (mostly women).

Then, about 5,500 years ago some jerk got it into their head that it would be a very good idea if most everyone else would work to support their lazy butt while they spent their hours leisurely whiling away the time ruling over them.  And thus was born the complex society.

“Complex” because there was now a relatively complex division of labor in which, instead of two basic occupations (hunter or gatherer), there were now many occupations (king, priest, lord, judge, craftsman, merchant, farmer, etc).   Moreover, the wealth, and with it, the power in those societies was now concentrated at the top.

The way in which the minority retained their positions over the majority was back then mainly three-fold, just as it still is today.  First, through ideologies justifying the power, wealth, and status of the minority.  “After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridug. In Eridug, Alulim became king…”,  begins the ancient Sumerian king’s list.  Thus, from the very first, the masters were using ideologies to control the masses:  e.g. “kingship descends from  heaven”, and thus you should accept it as what the gods intend for you.

Second, through rallying the people to face a dire (usually external) threat.  It is mere human nature that we are most likely to surrender our freedoms and liberties in preference for slavishly following a leader when we feel threatened by a common enemy.  Indeed, an oppressive state — and not always just an oppressive one — needs a common enemy to unify the people under its boot.

When ideologies fail, then it is time to call upon the soldiers, of course.  Propaganda, a common enemy, and ultimately, force.  The three main pillars of government from the Sumerians to the current day.

In a way, the one major change has been that the government today is largely a front for the real masters — the wealthy corporations and individuals that so many politicians are beholden to, the economic mega-elites.

It should be noted that by “wealthy individuals”, I am not referring to the folks with a few million dollars, but to the folks with hundreds or (especially) billions of dollars.  The average millionaire, in my experience, is not much of a threat to the rights, freedoms, and liberties of others and, in fact, is often enough a defender of those rights.  Call him or her a “local elite” because they are so often focused economically, socially, and politically on the communities they live and work in.  And it seems their ties to those communities generally result in their being net benefactors to them.  But perhaps most importantly, they simply do not have the resources to compete politically with the billionaire class in order to buy the government.  That, at least, is my impression.

No, by “wealthy individuals” I mean the folks who have the resources to be genuine contenders to hold the reins of  power in this — or any — country.  In the most recent national election, the Koch brothers dumped nearly a billion dollars into buying politicians from the level of “mere” state legislators all the way up to the national Congress and Senate.  And they weren’t the only economic mega-elites in the game.

We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.  — Justice Louis D. Brandeis of the U.S. Supreme Court

The problem, of course, isn’t wealth itself, but the concentration of wealth in the hands of a relatively few people.  Over time, the concentration has a natural tendency to worsen.  That is, the wealth ends up in fewer and fewer hands.  Since power follows upon riches closer than a hungry dog follows a butcher, political power, as well, tends over time to end up in fewer and fewer hands.  There seems to be a natural tendency to progress from democracy to oligarchy, and then to dictatorship.

During the same recent forty year or so period in American history when huge tax cuts  for the wealthiest individuals and corporations allowed the billionaire class to explode in size, incomes for the middle class all but became stagnant, while the poor actually lost ground.  There’s no polite way of saying this: “Trickle down economics” is an ideology of oppression used to fool people into believing that cutting taxes on the wealthy will increase job growth.

The average American today arguably works harder, struggles more financially, and has fewer back up resources for a rainy day than his or her parents and grandparents had.  As it turns out, you can’t concentrate almost all the wealth in the hands of a relatively few economic mega-elites without hurting someone.  But who would have thought that?  After all, didn’t the ideologists inform us we’d all be better off cutting taxes on the wealthy?

A comprehensive study has found that the average American now has little or no influence on their legislators, and which bills get passed into law.  Those who determine both the content and success of legislation are the economic mega-elites of America, the billionaires and the large corporations.

Strong, responsible unions are essential to industrial fair play. Without them the labor bargain is wholly one-sided. The parties to the labor contract must be nearly equal in strength if justice is to be worked out, and this means that the workers must be organized and that their organizations must be recognized by employers as a condition precedent to industrial peace.  Louis D. Brandeis

But, of course, we do not wish to believe Brandeis today because the trusty ideologists have also told us unions are a net evil.  Got to trust those boys and girls!  It’s just not true that so very many of them are employed by billionaire funded think tanks and institutions.

Now, the rarest complex societies in history have been those in which most people were more or less free.  But those rare, relatively free societies have also tended at the same time to be more egalitarian.

Tocqueville, for instance, noticed that white males living in the America of the 1830s were both freer and more equal than white males living in either the England or France of the same period.  They were also, according to him, better off economically.  Again, both male and female citizens of the Roman Republic seem to have been both freer and more equal than their counterparts living under the dictatorships of  the Roman Empire.

So the notion that freedom and equality are incompatible, while perhaps seeming to have some inexorable reason and logic on its side, does not always pan out in practice.  Apparently, sometimes quite the opposite has been the case.

About 2000 years ago, Plutarch observed, “An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.”  It will be interesting to see whether America has the political will to save its republic.

Authoritarianism, Bad Ideas, Conservative, Democracy, Fascism, Freedom, Freedom and Liberty, Internet, Law, Neocons, News and Current Events, Oppression, Politicians and Scoundrels, Politics, Quotes, Society

New Bill Would Abolish Internet Privacy

Say you were the U.S. government and you wanted a record of every moment that every American was on the internet: every search, every transaction, every click. Of every American. And just for laughs, you also wanted every credit card number and bank account number an American used on the internet.

What would you call such a law?

* The No More Internet Privacy bill
* The 1984 Really Is Here Big Brother bill
* The Trust Your Government With Your Privacy bill

No, those wouldn’t be very attractive with voters, would they. So instead, the House Judiciary Committee has just passed the Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011.

The bill would require your ISP to maintain a record of your internet activity for a year. Not because you’ve done anything wrong, but because you might. If that strikes you as, well, exactly the kind of government reasoning that made the Soviet Union such a successful and stress-free place, you’re right.

And if you’re wondering what that has to do with protecting children, get in line.

From “National Security? Protecting Kids? Porn Takes the Rap Again“, posted on Sexual Intelligence, by Dr. Marty Klein.  The full article is very much worth reading.

I cannot prove it, but I would not be surprised if the so-called “Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act” originated in a concern on the part of our leaders that the internet could be used to promote a rebellion against them.

Authoritarianism, Bad Ideas, Class War, Cultural Traits, Culture, Dominionism, Equality, Fascism, Freedom, Freedom and Liberty, Ideologies, Memes, Neocons, Political Ideologies, Politician, Politicians and Scoundrels, Politics, Society, Wisdom

The Incompetence of Elite Classes

An argument made against democracy is that the people are incompetent to govern themselves.  That may be true.  But history shows the same is most likely true of the elites.

The Soviet Union certainly wasn’t a well run country.  Nor was Mussolini’s Italy — it was a lie the trains ran on time.  It took the Third Reich’s elites about ten years to reduce their nation to rubble.  And we’ve just been offered evidence that government by elite Wall Street insiders does not work all that well in the US.

One could go on and on: Elites down through history seem to be no wiser than anyone else when it comes to government.  The notion that a privileged class is better at governing a people than the people themselves does not seem to have rational support.

Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Idealism, Ideologies, Intellectual Honesty, International Relations, Liars Lies and Lying, Neocons, Politicians and Scoundrels, Politics, Television, Village Idiots, Violence, War

Those Who Will Not Learn From History Are Doomed To Repeat It

As I understand it, we had no choice but to destroy the Iraqi nation and decimate its people because Saddam hated us for our freedoms. Also, Saddam would have had weapons of mass destruction if only he had had weapons of mass destruction. And last, Saddam would have been in league with Al Qaeda if only he had not feared and hated Al Qaeda as much as he did.

For those three very good reasons, and possibly for other just as good reasons — reasons that are so really really good only a heavy Fox viewer is actually qualified to say just how truly good they are — we understandably invaded Iraq, murdered over 200,000 of its civilians, left 4 million people chronically homeless, and allowed the looting of a nation. I’d say we done some good in the world.

Pride time! That is, it’s plain we Americans done some good. Good? Hell, it was like Normandy all over again! So now it’s time for us to sit on our couches, dig our hands deep into our chips bag, lift up our eyes in bovine thankfulness to God for the Fox News Network, and then allow ourselves to be possessed by the thought that we Americans are, of all the world’s peoples, the one that is truly “exceptional“.

— Overheard in a Bar

Authoritarianism, Bad Ideas, Dominionism, Fascism, Fundamentalism, Ideologies, Neocons, Oppression, Politics, Quotes, Violence, War

John Sterman on the Consequences of Fundamentalism

“Fundamentalism, whether religious or secular, whether the unquestioning belief in an all-powerful deity, the all-powerful state or the all-powerful free market, breeds persecution, hatred and war.”

John Sterman (page 526 .pdf)

International Relations, Neocons, News and Current Events, People, Politicians and Scoundrels, Politics, Quotes, Sean Hannity

Might it be Possible that Sean Hannity is a Buffoon?

“Why isn’t Iraq paying us back with oil and paying every American family and their soldiers that lost loved ones or have injured soldiers. And why didn’t they pay for their own liberation?”

“You know we have every right to go in there and frankly take all their oil and make them pay for the liberation….

Sean Hannity

Hey Sean!  I know you’ll never stumble across this blog — but just in case: How about we negotiate a deal with the Iraqis — They pay us some sum for each and everyone of our military personnel killed while in their country, and then we pay them exactly the same sum for each and everyone of their noncombatant citizens our forces killed while invading and occupying their country.  Would you call that a “Fair and Balanced” deal?

Come on!  Be a sport!  Let’s do it!

Honesty, Liars Lies and Lying, Neocons, News and Current Events, Politicians and Scoundrels, Politics, Quotes, Values

“Dishonesty Doesn’t Go Away Simply Because You Put A Black Robe On It.”

“Dishonesty doesn’t go away simply because you put a black robe on it.”

— Mike Papatino, speaking on The Ed Show (January 24, 2011) regarding Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ failure to report his wife’s income for 13 years.

Authoritarianism, Citizenship, Democracy, Fascism, Freedom and Liberty, Neocons, Politics, War

The US Government’s Pattern When Lying

Whenever the U.S. Government wants to demonize a person or group in order to justify attacks on them, it follows the same playbook:  it manufactures falsehoods about them, baselessly warns that they pose Grave Dangers and are severely harming our National Security, peppers all that with personality smears to render the targeted individuals repellent on a personal level, and feeds it all to the establishment American media, which then dutifully amplifies and mindlessly disseminates it all.

Glenn Greenwald

It seems to me Greenwald has outlined the pattern of attack very well.  As Greenwald points out, this is the pattern the Government has used in everything from the run up to the Iraq War to its recent attacks on Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

I think it could benefit nearly everyone to make a study of the above pattern in the hope that we will thereby be less likely to fall for the BS when it comes down.  Understanding how the Government is likely to lie to us might even be considered one of the duties of any good citizen.  As the Founders of the Republic anticipated, American freedoms and liberties must constantly be defended against the corruption of the American Government.  No one can do that for us.  We must do it for ourselves.

Neocons, News and Current Events, Politics, Village Idiots, War

About Bombing Iran

As you most likely know by now, Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, and Nicolas Sarkozy announced yesterday that Iran harbored a secret uranium enrichment plant — a plant that would relatively soon be operational and capable of producing weapons grade uranium.

That news has outraged America’s neoconservatives — who are responding to it by demanding the US or Israel bomb Iran.

Actually, I have not yet checked out the neoconservative response to the news.  I am merely guessing their response to the news is to demand that Iran be bombed. But I think that’s a pretty safe guess, don’t you?  Few things are more certain than the fact America’s neoconservatives will demand at every opportunity to bomb Iran.  They have been demanding it for years.  Why would they stop now?

Gary Sick has written an interesting article that reviews the lousy record of those who have for decades been predicting we will need to bomb Iran.  Sick then goes on to analyze why the problem of an Iranian nuclear weapon might be solvable through diplomacy and negotiation.  For instance:

The world may have more time and more bargaining leverage than is generally supposed. Iran has proceeded very slowly with its nuclear program. If Iran had proceeded at the same speed as Pakistan (which had far fewer resources than Iran), it would have had a bomb test and a deliverable nuclear weapon more than decade ago. Iran has chosen to remain in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and to accept International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections, over the objections of its own hardliners—the only proto-nuclear state to have done so. Iran has repeatedly and formally declared at the highest levels that the production, storage or use of a nuclear weapon was contrary to Islam and not in Iran’s national interest—most recently earlier this week by Supreme Leader Khamenei.

If the problem of an Iranian nuclear weapon can be solved through diplomacy and negotiation, then perhaps the problem can be solved permanently.   Bombing, however, is merely temporary solution.  Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates said Friday that “the reality is that there is no military option that does anything more than buy time — the estimates are three years or so.”

There seem to be some sound reasons, then, why diplomacy and negotiation should be our first recourse in dealing with Iran.  Of course, this is 21st Century America, and “sound reason” isn’t always the operating system favored by our leaders.  The temptation to play the tough guy with other people’s lives and bomb the hell out of the Iranians will appeal to every chicken hawk in Washington.  Neoconservative chicken hawks are nothing if not predictable.

Allies, Barack Obama, Neocons, People, Politics

An Unholy Alliance in Politics

Neoconservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh appears to be teaming up with President Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and his friends.  It seems they have found a common interest: Both of them benefit from inflicting grievous damage on the Republican Party.

It’s fairly straightforward how Rahm and his friends benefit.  Any damage done to the Republicans might well translate into votes for the Democrats.  But it’s a bit more devious how Rush benefits.  Nevertheless, neoconservative pundit David Frum has done an excellent job explaining it:

On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of “responsibility,” and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.

And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as “losers.” With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence – exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we’re cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush’s every rancorous word – we’ll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.

Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined.

But will it work?  Will Rush and Rahm get what each one wants?

Maybe the best way to approach those questions is to look into what moved the Democrats to cook up the idea of crowning Rush.

Conservative blogger Jonathan Martin of Politico has done an exceptional job laying out the story of how the Democrats came up with their “Limbaugh Plan”.  Like many other great schemes, it began almost by accident.

According to Martin, James Carville and Stanely Greenberg happened to ask some voters about Rush in an October 2008 poll.   When the results came in, they were astonished to discover how deeply unpopular Rush was with younger folks.  Carville is quoted as saying (with some amazement), “His positives for voters under 40 was 11 percent.”  Martin goes on:

Paul Begala, a close friend of Carville, Greenberg and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, said they found Limbaugh’s overall ratings were even lower than the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s controversial former pastor, and William Ayers, the domestic terrorist and Chicago resident who Republicans sought to tie to Obama during the campaign.

Then came what Begala called “the tripwire.”

“I hope he fails,” Limbaugh said of Obama on his show four days before the president was sworn in. It was a time when Obama’s approval ratings were soaring, but more than that, polls showed even people who didn’t vote for him badly wanted him to succeed, coming to office at a time of economic meltdown.

After that events took off and within a few weeks the Democrats had shaped a strategy — backed by Rahm — of painting Rush as the de facto leader and face of the Republican Party.

The strange thing is, Rush cooperated.  But why wouldn’t he?  Rush is the first to admit he’s an egotist and the Democratic attack gives him — as David Frum pointed out — a chance to avoid being marginalized and to become even more important in national politics than he already is.

Of course, this unholy alliance is not good for Republicans.  If the Democrats and Rush get their way, the Republican Party will shed all the moderate and younger voters who are alienated by Rush Limbaugh.  Publicly, Rush has said he is pleased the Democrats are “elevating” him because that means he can reach more people with his message.  But it’s difficult to believe he privately believes it’s that simple.  Rush is already a household name and his views are well known.  Folks who are not familiar with him are probably apolitical to begin with and not likely to become curious about his politics.

So there you have, near as I can put it together, one of the strangest alliances I’ve yet to see in domestic politics.   Whether and how long it continues is anyone’s guess.

Authoritarianism, Fascism, Freedom, Neocons, Politics, War

Was the US a Secret Dictatorship from Late 2001 to Late 2008?

Very recently, Glenn Greenwald posted an extraordinary article on his Salon blog that strongly suggests the US was a secret dictatorship from late 2001 to late 2008.  Here is a three paragraph except from Greenwald’s article:

Yesterday, the Obama administration, to its credit, took steps towards fulfilling an important promise by disclosing — in response to a long-standing, hard-fought ACLU lawsuit for disclosure — multiple DOJ documents that contained Bush administration decrees with regard to government power (these are the documents that formed what, literally, was the regime of secret laws under which we were ruled for the last eight years). Unlike the NYT front page which Digby examined yesterday, even a quick review of these newly disclosed documents leaves no doubt about their historical significance. They are the grotesque blueprint for what the U.S. Government became, laid out so starkly that even the David Broders of the world could recognize their extremism.

Let’s just look at one of those documents (.pdf) — entitled “Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the U.S.” It was sent to (and requested by) Defense Department General Counsel William J. Haynes and authored by Assistant Attorney General John Yoo and DOJ Special Counsel Robert Delahunty. But it’s not a “Yoo memo.” Rather, it was the official and formal position of the U.S. Government — at least of the omnipotent Executive Branch — from the time it was issued until just several months George Bush before left office (October, 2008), when OLC Chief Stephen Bradbury abruptly issued a memo withdrawing, denouncing and repudiating both its reasoning and conclusions.

The essence of this document was to declare that George Bush had the authority (a) to deploy the U.S. military inside the U.S., (b) directed at foreign nationals and U.S. citizens alike; (c) unconstrained by any Constitutional limits, including those of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. It was nothing less than an explicit decree that, when it comes to Presidential power, the Bill of Rights was suspended, even on U.S. soil and as applied to U.S. citizens. And it wasn’t only a decree that existed in theory; this secret proclamation that the Fourth Amendment was inapplicable to what the document calls “domestic military operations” was, among other things, the basis on which Bush ordered the NSA, an arm of the U.S. military, to turn inwards and begin spying — in secret and with no oversight — on the electronic communications (telephone calls and emails) of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

I strongly encourage you to read Greenwald’s article whatever your political views.  It will take you less than ten minutes.  The article can be found here.

Barack Obama, Economic Crisis, Neocons, People, Politics

The Republican War on Obama?

According to Andrew Sullivan and a few others, it would seem the Republicans have decided to wage war on President Obama.  If that is indeed the case, then the stakes are pretty high.

In the first place, the stakes are high because a successful Obama Administration could realign the electorate for years to come — much as both FDR and Ronald Reagan accomplished.   Perhaps the Republicans are calculating they either must make Obama fail or themselves be reduced to a minority party for years or decades.

In the second place, the stakes are high because making Obama fail means in practice prolonging the recession so that more people will be put out of work, more people will loose their homes and assets, and more people will be plunged into misery.

Consequently, if Sullivan and others are right, the Republicans intend to further wreck the country — along with a good chunk of the world — for their own political gain.