one of the most destructive ideas in the world today is the idea that traditional schooling (i'll define that later) is good. i don't mean just public schooling, but traditional schooling in general, be it public or private.
of course, public schooling is wrong on plenty of levels before you get to the main problem of schooling in general, namely the calculation problem constantly requiring that, no matter what, the system needs more funding despite continually declining results, but also it clearly violates the non-aggression principle both by forcing students to attend against their will and by forcing others to fund it.
even after you get past that, traditional schooling doesn't make sense.
when i say "traditional schooling", i mean putting a bunch of children together of the same age group and having a teacher teach them lessons about various subjects. it's what virtually everyone thinks of when the word "school" is uttered.
there are a lot of problems with it, most of them stemming from the false idea that people are all the same. they aren't. some are smart, some are not, some are athletic, some are artistic. some learn with their hands, some with their eyes or ears, some develop early, some develop late. considering the undeniable truth of that, it should seem absurd to pack a bunch of kids in a room together and attempt to teach them all the same things at the same level.
kids forced into classes together by the arbitrary category of "age" hurts those who develop early and those who develop late. all children are, more or less, in one of those two categories.those who develop early will held back by the lack of higher competition from other age groups and by the fact that they have to remain on a somewhat similar academic trajectory as the rest of their cohort. those who develop late will be hurt by being forced into an unnaturally competitive environment dominated by early developers. they will be constantly beaten by their peers, subjecting them to a confidence-crushing environment during a crucial part of their lives. even though they may have great potential, they may be hindered from fulfilling it because of depression or a general lack of confidence developed in an artificially competitive social environment.
learning is hard-wired into human beings through millenia of evolution. we are all the result of the fittest genes surviving and reproducing for millions of years. without being wired to learn, we wouldn't have come as far as we have as a species. for the vast majority of human evolution, there were no such things as classrooms and recess. humans are equipped to learn as individuals. we are designed to associate freely, where children will interact with others of their developmental peer group naturally, rather than by the arbitrary regimentation of age. early-developing 4-year-olds may associate naturally with late developing 6-year-olds and vice versa. placing children together with those outside of their developmental group hurts the progress of early-developers and demoralizes late-developers.
children develop not only at different rates, but also in different areas. children don't have to be forced to learn the things they are naturally attracted to, and in fact, forcing them to learn things they have no interest in may damage their appetite for learning as a whole. children are naturally insatiable when it comes to learning. they will naturally seek knowledge on virtually any subject, but, left to direct their own learning, they will develop most in the areas in which they have natural proclivities. these will vary for each child. it's counter-productive to attempt to change this natural direction.
most of the behavioral problems seen in children may be attributed to the institution of traditional schooling; depression and lack of confidence in late-developers and trouble-making by bored and unchallenged early-developers. bullying may have, at its core, the unnatural, forced association of traditional schooling to blame, where the weak are forced together with the strong with early-developing bullies growing to see late-developing victims as inferior, thus creating an incentive to attack and dehumanize them. the social delinquencies developed by both early and late-developers can have adverse effects on their lives throughout adulthood.
often, schooling is considered vital for socialization when, in fact, it is destructive to that end. schooling, as mentioned previously, creates an unnatural social environment not encountered anywhere else in human society. some may argue that they want their children to be able to relate to others of their age group on a social level, anecdotally citing home schooled children's seemingly awkward social behaviors. those people have the problem backwards. why is it important for children to be able to relate to others of such an arbitrary category as age-group? it's much more important for them the associate with those of their developmental level instead. the only reason that it might be important to get on well with those of one's own age group is because of schooling itself! it's circular reasoning that children should need to relate to others of their age-group because they're going to be forced together in school and that schooling is necessary to make that happen.
schooling is much more likely to inhibit social development for the reasons stated above. a reason home schooled children may relate better to adults (as is often cited) than to their cohort is because they are more correctly socialized and developed. it should be seen as a positive that children are able to relate to highly developed persons (adults) more readily than to lesser-developed persons. there's no logical reason that they should ever need to do associate otherwise. once children exit the schooling age, they will mix socially with others of various age-groups that more closely resemble themselves in interest and development anyway, which is what human beings are supposed to do, naturally.
eliminating the poor model of traditional schooling and replacing it with supportive parenting of self-directed learning and free social interaction can be a great step towards unlocking the potential of all children. age should not be seen as relevant to development or socialization of children at all, rather developmental level and common interest should be the social focus, as it will inevitably be the case throughout their adult lives.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Saturday, October 27, 2012
how to think like a politician, part 2: the war on terror
i maintain that, generally, the biggest political initiatives are seen when the interests of big, politically-connected corporations intersect the interests of government. those interests are, again generally, profits for the corporation and power for the government. of course, there is cross-over, but it's a good, general guideline.
politically-connected corporations fund political campaigns, getting politicians the power they crave, and, in return, politicians line those company's coffers, either directly or indirectly. some of the biggest funders of political campaigns are the corporations of the military-industrial complex (MIC): the companies who make money building and selling weapons systems to the government's military and big banks, who fund war. all of the u.s.'s various unnecessary wars have been great profit-makers for MIC and the big banks who fund them. they have also been great power-grabs for the government. war is the kind of big political initiative you can expect to see from a confluence of corporate/government interest. but a war every decade isn't much considering that the u.s. government can simply start a war whenever they want.
MIC corps and big banks are not going to pay for political campaigns if they can't make money doing it. politicians aren't going to push for huge military budgets and war-making if they aren't going to have their campaigns funded. so, in the 1950s, after stumbling upon the gold-mine of soviet communism, a great innovation in war-making appeared: the sustainable, permanent war. the rising soviet union was the perfect enemy for a new war. the problem was that shooting wars weary a country's people and resources while the threat of an evil and capable enemy was just as good at scaring people as actual flying bullets. all governments really need to do is scare their citizens in order to justify huge military budgets.
the cold war was born. power-grabbing politicians were happy, MIC corporations were happy (the big banks were a much smaller part of the cold war, but they had become more focused on the easier money of the fractional reserve system) and on the other side of the world, things were working out just as well for the soviets. brilliant! problem solved!
unfortunately for all parties involved, no one understood economics well enough to realize that communism was doomed from the start. the sustainable, permanent war was not as sustainable as was previously believed.
so, when the soviet union collapsed in 1991, the party was over. but there was too much power and money to be had in the idea of the sustainable, permanent war.
enter: the war on terror.
the war on terror has brilliantly solved all of the problems of the cold war. it scares citizens, it allows for huge military budgets, and it gives governments the excuses necessary to grab power, but it improves on the original cold war in key ways: 1) it is well-known and has been well-known for decades that intervention in the affairs of foreign countries who lack the wherewithal to stage a shooting war against a superpower inevitably results in terror attacks. so, the more foreign intervention there is, the more terror attacks one can expect, thus creating an endless cycle of permanent, sustainable war. 2) where the big banks may have been lost in the cold war, they are replaced by big oil companies in the war on terror, who have great interest in the oil resources of the middle east. 3) war tends to hurt economies as resources are wasted. thanks to the domination of john maynard keynes' economic theories, when the economy wanes, he says, it is best to print money through the fractional reserve banking system. this brings the big banks back into the fold.
so the war on terror provides a truly permanent, sustainable war, is a boon for the MIC as well as big oil and the big banks (all three of the big campaign financiers - a huge win) and provides the best known way for government to extend its power both at home and imperially. the system has worked very well despite the lack of recent terror attacks. it appears that the above-named political establishment assumed that there would be more attacks (a reasonable assumption) because of the "slips" heard occasionally in the media from politicians (like hillary clinton or newt gingrich) lamenting the lack of attacks or opining that there should be a new attack, or that it would be a net positive to stage an attack.
regardless, the war on terror has been a brilliant ploy that has made good money for politically established corporations in all three of the biggest campaign-funding sectors as well as an unprecedented enabler of government power-grabbing.
it is great example of how to think like a politician.
politically-connected corporations fund political campaigns, getting politicians the power they crave, and, in return, politicians line those company's coffers, either directly or indirectly. some of the biggest funders of political campaigns are the corporations of the military-industrial complex (MIC): the companies who make money building and selling weapons systems to the government's military and big banks, who fund war. all of the u.s.'s various unnecessary wars have been great profit-makers for MIC and the big banks who fund them. they have also been great power-grabs for the government. war is the kind of big political initiative you can expect to see from a confluence of corporate/government interest. but a war every decade isn't much considering that the u.s. government can simply start a war whenever they want.
MIC corps and big banks are not going to pay for political campaigns if they can't make money doing it. politicians aren't going to push for huge military budgets and war-making if they aren't going to have their campaigns funded. so, in the 1950s, after stumbling upon the gold-mine of soviet communism, a great innovation in war-making appeared: the sustainable, permanent war. the rising soviet union was the perfect enemy for a new war. the problem was that shooting wars weary a country's people and resources while the threat of an evil and capable enemy was just as good at scaring people as actual flying bullets. all governments really need to do is scare their citizens in order to justify huge military budgets.
the cold war was born. power-grabbing politicians were happy, MIC corporations were happy (the big banks were a much smaller part of the cold war, but they had become more focused on the easier money of the fractional reserve system) and on the other side of the world, things were working out just as well for the soviets. brilliant! problem solved!
unfortunately for all parties involved, no one understood economics well enough to realize that communism was doomed from the start. the sustainable, permanent war was not as sustainable as was previously believed.
so, when the soviet union collapsed in 1991, the party was over. but there was too much power and money to be had in the idea of the sustainable, permanent war.
enter: the war on terror.
the war on terror has brilliantly solved all of the problems of the cold war. it scares citizens, it allows for huge military budgets, and it gives governments the excuses necessary to grab power, but it improves on the original cold war in key ways: 1) it is well-known and has been well-known for decades that intervention in the affairs of foreign countries who lack the wherewithal to stage a shooting war against a superpower inevitably results in terror attacks. so, the more foreign intervention there is, the more terror attacks one can expect, thus creating an endless cycle of permanent, sustainable war. 2) where the big banks may have been lost in the cold war, they are replaced by big oil companies in the war on terror, who have great interest in the oil resources of the middle east. 3) war tends to hurt economies as resources are wasted. thanks to the domination of john maynard keynes' economic theories, when the economy wanes, he says, it is best to print money through the fractional reserve banking system. this brings the big banks back into the fold.
so the war on terror provides a truly permanent, sustainable war, is a boon for the MIC as well as big oil and the big banks (all three of the big campaign financiers - a huge win) and provides the best known way for government to extend its power both at home and imperially. the system has worked very well despite the lack of recent terror attacks. it appears that the above-named political establishment assumed that there would be more attacks (a reasonable assumption) because of the "slips" heard occasionally in the media from politicians (like hillary clinton or newt gingrich) lamenting the lack of attacks or opining that there should be a new attack, or that it would be a net positive to stage an attack.
regardless, the war on terror has been a brilliant ploy that has made good money for politically established corporations in all three of the biggest campaign-funding sectors as well as an unprecedented enabler of government power-grabbing.
it is great example of how to think like a politician.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Never Forget
last week, for the 11th year in a row, i was bombarded by the incessant plea to "never forget" september 11th, 2001.
i don't get it. only a moron could ever forget about it and who cares what they remember? but what's the point of remembering an event that most people don't understand, anyway? most americans don't have the slightest clue why the attacks happened. it's like asking 3-year-olds to Never Forget particle physics.
beyond that, why september 11th? you'd think it would be because people want to remember the innocent civilians that were killed that day in order to honor them. i don't think that's true, though. if that were true, you'd see those same people making a much bigger fuss about march 30th, 2003, when the united states military invaded a seemingly random country - iraq. that invasion resulted in the deaths of at least 100,000 innocent civilians. that's a heck of a lot bigger tragedy than the 3000 lost on september 11th.
in my opinion, the focus on 9.11 is much more a response to the conditioning of americans by the news media to a pro-government emotional nationalism. that's why you often see pictures of the world trade center wrapped in the u.s. government's flag, accompanied by the baffling praise of "the heroes" fighting for "our freedom" in various foreign countries.
there is such a warped absurdity about it. i don't need to explain that the military doesn't fight for anyone's freedom. as you saw in the link above, the attacks were caused by decades of brutally violent military and covert interventions in the middle east. so, to praise the acceleration of the policies that caused the attacks in the first place is akin to saying, "Never Forget" to hope and pray that more of these attacks happen. it's sick.
the fact is that the attacks of september 11th had nothing to do with you, unless you were involved in planning or executing them, or you were a casualty in them, or you lost loved ones or even knew people killed. that eliminates 99+% of all people, everywhere. so, for all of those others who are intent on remembering that date, but no other one, mind your own business. what's that? it "affects us all" because we're all american? you know what "american" means, don't you? it means that, over the years, politicians have drawn lines on a map, imaginary lines they call "borders" and have decreed that all people who happen to live inside those borders are subject to their whim. "american" is the label placed upon those who are subject to the brutal depredations of the u.s. government (the same one whose brutalities precipitated the 9.11 attacks) - and nothing more. americans are not more important than iraqis or afghanis, or any other people. we're all just people.
if you're one of those Never Forgetters, you're really just a heartless nationalist who takes advantage of great tragedy in order to worship your governmental masters.
seriously, seek help for your mental disorder.
i don't get it. only a moron could ever forget about it and who cares what they remember? but what's the point of remembering an event that most people don't understand, anyway? most americans don't have the slightest clue why the attacks happened. it's like asking 3-year-olds to Never Forget particle physics.
beyond that, why september 11th? you'd think it would be because people want to remember the innocent civilians that were killed that day in order to honor them. i don't think that's true, though. if that were true, you'd see those same people making a much bigger fuss about march 30th, 2003, when the united states military invaded a seemingly random country - iraq. that invasion resulted in the deaths of at least 100,000 innocent civilians. that's a heck of a lot bigger tragedy than the 3000 lost on september 11th.
in my opinion, the focus on 9.11 is much more a response to the conditioning of americans by the news media to a pro-government emotional nationalism. that's why you often see pictures of the world trade center wrapped in the u.s. government's flag, accompanied by the baffling praise of "the heroes" fighting for "our freedom" in various foreign countries.
there is such a warped absurdity about it. i don't need to explain that the military doesn't fight for anyone's freedom. as you saw in the link above, the attacks were caused by decades of brutally violent military and covert interventions in the middle east. so, to praise the acceleration of the policies that caused the attacks in the first place is akin to saying, "Never Forget" to hope and pray that more of these attacks happen. it's sick.
the fact is that the attacks of september 11th had nothing to do with you, unless you were involved in planning or executing them, or you were a casualty in them, or you lost loved ones or even knew people killed. that eliminates 99+% of all people, everywhere. so, for all of those others who are intent on remembering that date, but no other one, mind your own business. what's that? it "affects us all" because we're all american? you know what "american" means, don't you? it means that, over the years, politicians have drawn lines on a map, imaginary lines they call "borders" and have decreed that all people who happen to live inside those borders are subject to their whim. "american" is the label placed upon those who are subject to the brutal depredations of the u.s. government (the same one whose brutalities precipitated the 9.11 attacks) - and nothing more. americans are not more important than iraqis or afghanis, or any other people. we're all just people.
if you're one of those Never Forgetters, you're really just a heartless nationalist who takes advantage of great tragedy in order to worship your governmental masters.
seriously, seek help for your mental disorder.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
how politics works
election year! yay! just kidding. yeah, it sucks to have the same old crap rammed down your throat every time you turn on the idiot box, but that's where we are, so i figured i'd enlighten the masses on how the political establishment actually works to dupe people into supporting an agenda that slowly crushes them.
the basis of it is misdirection. like pynchon said, "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers". there's a brilliant and complex strategy involved here. the media and the school system lay the groundwork:
the public school system indoctrinates and does some education on the side. in school they teach, with a professional subtlety, that government is good and necessary - don't even question it. for the few who are able to step back and objectively analyze that idea, it's obviously absurd. but, the system is really good at what it does, so very few will ever ask the right questions. teachers teach what they were taught, from a flawed perspective, to naive students who are forced to attend.
from there, the media take over. they frame debate in all sorts of false dichotomies, focusing your attention on divisive issues, issues created by government, and tell you to choose how the government should fix them. of course, they don't mention that government is never going to fix the issues that were created specifically to divide people, thereby weakening and blinding the populace to their own shearing. you can't focus on government if you're focused on each other; taught that your fellow citizen is the problem and the state is the answer. an absolutely perfect strategy for anyone desiring power over a group of people.
now that you're fully wrong, it's time to play the political game!
one thing you need to be aware of is that, since nixon severed the dollar's final flimsy ties to gold in 1972, cutting the leash completely on government spending, republican administrations have, on average, increased the rate of spending by almost double that of democratic administrations (of course, that's not the whole story, but i'm not trying to write a book here). i focus on rates of spending because virtually every president in history has presided over a greater budget than the guy before him, so that's not really useful for analysis.
yeah, that surprises you, but that's part of the whole scam.
government grows. that's one of the most eternal axioms of politics. and with that growth in government comes growth in problems as, more and more, society in disrupted by coercion. as problems increase, the greater the call for a growth in government to solve the problems caused by a growth in government. see? that's the media and public schooling working their magic. this election is no different.
with obama, republicans are outraged at the massive amount he's spending, as are many people. that's what the media focuses on more than anything. the truth? obama's administration is presiding over the slowest rate of spending since as far back as i care to go (i went back to truman before i gave up). but the media has you focused on the wrong question. no one thinks to ask if obama's actually spending more, they just imply that he is and everyone accepts it. what's the answer? electing a republican. a republican, who, if history is any guide, will spend much more than the democrat.
after the republican is in office, the media shifts its focus away from spending, but, inevitably, as government grows at an even faster rate under the republican, problems get worse. people get upset and the media tells them that the solution is a democrat.
establishment, 1 - citizens, 0
now the focus shifts again to spending. even though the democrat spends at a slower rate, government grows, causing more problems, people get upset, can't remember what it was like to have a republican in office and are directed by the media to vote for a republican to reign in the spending, ironically.
establishment, 2 - citizens, 0
repeat, ad infinitum.
where does the spending go? to the politically connected. war profiteers, big ag, bio-pharma, big banks, etc. take a look at the donors for the two presidential candidates. looks pretty similar, eh? there's a reason for that. the political establishment that controls american politics has a great scam going. they fleece the plebeians for trillions of dollars per year, all with a tacit consent.
shocked by this? gonna vote for the libertarian candidate? good luck! they leave no rocks unturned. even the LP has been infiltrated by the establishment and they have fielded fully owned establishment candidates for the last two elections. take-over of a major party? good luck, again! maybe you missed the hack job the RNC did on ron paul, marginalizing him at at every turn and then, despite that, when it became apparent that he was still a threat, they simply changed the rules to ensure his supporters would be disenfranchised.
government is a HUGE pit of money and power for the elite and there's no way they're going let anyone screw that up. no way.
so now you know.
now, go vote, suckers!
the basis of it is misdirection. like pynchon said, "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers". there's a brilliant and complex strategy involved here. the media and the school system lay the groundwork:
the public school system indoctrinates and does some education on the side. in school they teach, with a professional subtlety, that government is good and necessary - don't even question it. for the few who are able to step back and objectively analyze that idea, it's obviously absurd. but, the system is really good at what it does, so very few will ever ask the right questions. teachers teach what they were taught, from a flawed perspective, to naive students who are forced to attend.
from there, the media take over. they frame debate in all sorts of false dichotomies, focusing your attention on divisive issues, issues created by government, and tell you to choose how the government should fix them. of course, they don't mention that government is never going to fix the issues that were created specifically to divide people, thereby weakening and blinding the populace to their own shearing. you can't focus on government if you're focused on each other; taught that your fellow citizen is the problem and the state is the answer. an absolutely perfect strategy for anyone desiring power over a group of people.
now that you're fully wrong, it's time to play the political game!
one thing you need to be aware of is that, since nixon severed the dollar's final flimsy ties to gold in 1972, cutting the leash completely on government spending, republican administrations have, on average, increased the rate of spending by almost double that of democratic administrations (of course, that's not the whole story, but i'm not trying to write a book here). i focus on rates of spending because virtually every president in history has presided over a greater budget than the guy before him, so that's not really useful for analysis.
yeah, that surprises you, but that's part of the whole scam.
government grows. that's one of the most eternal axioms of politics. and with that growth in government comes growth in problems as, more and more, society in disrupted by coercion. as problems increase, the greater the call for a growth in government to solve the problems caused by a growth in government. see? that's the media and public schooling working their magic. this election is no different.
with obama, republicans are outraged at the massive amount he's spending, as are many people. that's what the media focuses on more than anything. the truth? obama's administration is presiding over the slowest rate of spending since as far back as i care to go (i went back to truman before i gave up). but the media has you focused on the wrong question. no one thinks to ask if obama's actually spending more, they just imply that he is and everyone accepts it. what's the answer? electing a republican. a republican, who, if history is any guide, will spend much more than the democrat.
after the republican is in office, the media shifts its focus away from spending, but, inevitably, as government grows at an even faster rate under the republican, problems get worse. people get upset and the media tells them that the solution is a democrat.
establishment, 1 - citizens, 0
now the focus shifts again to spending. even though the democrat spends at a slower rate, government grows, causing more problems, people get upset, can't remember what it was like to have a republican in office and are directed by the media to vote for a republican to reign in the spending, ironically.
establishment, 2 - citizens, 0
repeat, ad infinitum.
where does the spending go? to the politically connected. war profiteers, big ag, bio-pharma, big banks, etc. take a look at the donors for the two presidential candidates. looks pretty similar, eh? there's a reason for that. the political establishment that controls american politics has a great scam going. they fleece the plebeians for trillions of dollars per year, all with a tacit consent.
shocked by this? gonna vote for the libertarian candidate? good luck! they leave no rocks unturned. even the LP has been infiltrated by the establishment and they have fielded fully owned establishment candidates for the last two elections. take-over of a major party? good luck, again! maybe you missed the hack job the RNC did on ron paul, marginalizing him at at every turn and then, despite that, when it became apparent that he was still a threat, they simply changed the rules to ensure his supporters would be disenfranchised.
government is a HUGE pit of money and power for the elite and there's no way they're going let anyone screw that up. no way.
so now you know.
now, go vote, suckers!
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
justice and bin laden
a friend sent me an email about a video on a merchant's website using a parodied, celebratory version of osama bin laden's death as a marketing tool. outside of such a thing being in bad taste, there's nothing wrong with that, but what is striking to me is the mentality behind it.
the gist of the video was "ding-dong the witch is dead! buy our product!". it's been a pretty common theme for most folks, let's be honest. "yay! that bad guy who killed all those people is dead! oh, sweet justice!", might sum up the collective sentiment. but that logic is so wrongheaded and naive that it's hard to know where to start. i like lists, so i'll take that approach:
1) according to the FBI's wanted poster, bin laden hasn't even been officially charged with doing anything relating to the 9/11 attacks. let that soak in - HE HAS NOT EVEN BEEN CHARGED.
2) bin laden has repeatedly denied responsibility for the attacks. there are many sources who say he has claimed responsibility for the attacks, but the key is that there's no way to tell, conclusively, whether he did or didn't have anything to do with them.
3) so, there's a guy who hasn't been accused of anything (though his involvement was heavily implied by certain parties) who has denied responsibility for the crimes in question, who was hunted down and executed, without trial. people celebrate this. i can only assume, since people aren't hypocrites (sarcasm), that this is the way they think they should be treated. those who celebrate bin laden's death must believe that they, themselves, should be punished for crimes that anyone implies that they may have committed, without the chance to defend themselves. somehow, i think this one of those things that only applies to "other" people.
4) how does anyone know if the events in question (bin laden's murder) actually took place? did anyone see it happen? did they know bin laden and see his body afterward and identify that he was, in fact, dead? no? so, all we have to go on is the word of proven liars and manipulators? sorry, but that doesn't pass muster for me. how do i know bin laden's dead? because liars told me so!
5) doesn't it bother anyone that the president has hit squads running around killing people upon his decree? anyone remember stalin, mao, hitler, pol pot, etc? oh, right, this is 'murica! no president would issue orders to kill innocent american political opponents. it can't happen here - right?
6) but let's assume bin laden is guilty. the government killing him is unjust for those actually injured in the attacks he's blamed for. isn't he supposedly rich? why not, at least, force him to make restitution to the injured parties? by the hit squad going out and terminating him, it insures that those with an actual claim against him will never be compensated. nice "justice" you got there.
7) again, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that bin laden is guilty of the crimes he's been accused of. would those who celebrate his death equally celebrate the deaths of george w. bush and barack obama, who have openly and publicly engaged in the planning and execution of operations resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians in orders of magnitude greater than bin laden ever has, if the governments of iraq, afghanistan, pakistan or yemen hunted them down in washington d.c. and killed them with a hit squad? if not, why not? is it about killing innocent civilians or is it about something else?
if you are one of the people who celebrated bin laden's murder, you have to ask yourself exactly what it is that you're celebrating and why.
the vast majority of people simply don't know what justice means. the public education system has done its duty, churning out compliant, unthinking drones who cheer the depredations of government on command. good job, most-people, you once again confirm your unquestioned love for evil.
the gist of the video was "ding-dong the witch is dead! buy our product!". it's been a pretty common theme for most folks, let's be honest. "yay! that bad guy who killed all those people is dead! oh, sweet justice!", might sum up the collective sentiment. but that logic is so wrongheaded and naive that it's hard to know where to start. i like lists, so i'll take that approach:
1) according to the FBI's wanted poster, bin laden hasn't even been officially charged with doing anything relating to the 9/11 attacks. let that soak in - HE HAS NOT EVEN BEEN CHARGED.
2) bin laden has repeatedly denied responsibility for the attacks. there are many sources who say he has claimed responsibility for the attacks, but the key is that there's no way to tell, conclusively, whether he did or didn't have anything to do with them.
3) so, there's a guy who hasn't been accused of anything (though his involvement was heavily implied by certain parties) who has denied responsibility for the crimes in question, who was hunted down and executed, without trial. people celebrate this. i can only assume, since people aren't hypocrites (sarcasm), that this is the way they think they should be treated. those who celebrate bin laden's death must believe that they, themselves, should be punished for crimes that anyone implies that they may have committed, without the chance to defend themselves. somehow, i think this one of those things that only applies to "other" people.
4) how does anyone know if the events in question (bin laden's murder) actually took place? did anyone see it happen? did they know bin laden and see his body afterward and identify that he was, in fact, dead? no? so, all we have to go on is the word of proven liars and manipulators? sorry, but that doesn't pass muster for me. how do i know bin laden's dead? because liars told me so!
5) doesn't it bother anyone that the president has hit squads running around killing people upon his decree? anyone remember stalin, mao, hitler, pol pot, etc? oh, right, this is 'murica! no president would issue orders to kill innocent american political opponents. it can't happen here - right?
6) but let's assume bin laden is guilty. the government killing him is unjust for those actually injured in the attacks he's blamed for. isn't he supposedly rich? why not, at least, force him to make restitution to the injured parties? by the hit squad going out and terminating him, it insures that those with an actual claim against him will never be compensated. nice "justice" you got there.
7) again, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that bin laden is guilty of the crimes he's been accused of. would those who celebrate his death equally celebrate the deaths of george w. bush and barack obama, who have openly and publicly engaged in the planning and execution of operations resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians in orders of magnitude greater than bin laden ever has, if the governments of iraq, afghanistan, pakistan or yemen hunted them down in washington d.c. and killed them with a hit squad? if not, why not? is it about killing innocent civilians or is it about something else?
if you are one of the people who celebrated bin laden's murder, you have to ask yourself exactly what it is that you're celebrating and why.
the vast majority of people simply don't know what justice means. the public education system has done its duty, churning out compliant, unthinking drones who cheer the depredations of government on command. good job, most-people, you once again confirm your unquestioned love for evil.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
the problem(s) with minarchists
as is the nature of being an anarchist in the freedom movement, i have many minarchist friends. for those who don't know what these terms mean, an anarchist (an=no, archos=rulers) is one who advocates the abolition of government and a minarchist (min=small, archos=rulers) is one who advocates a government, but a small and weak government. though i certainly appreciate minarchists more than outright statists, there are some problems that i think minarchists should consider that make the minarchist position untenable.
as with all issues, there are two aspects: the moral and the practical. the moral is always the easiest to deal with, so i'll start with that. inherent in any "archism" that isn't anarchism, is the rule of some over others - by force. so, by definition, minarchists advocate an institution in which some people use violence to rule over the innocent as well as the criminal. they advocate the initiation of force to keep others out of certain markets like defense, justice, and police. some may even advocate more than that, but if so, that begins to strain even the minarchist label.
it should be fairly obvious that no one, including a minarchist, has the right to participate in any markets, while excluding others by force, nor does anyone, including a minarchist, have the right to force others to participate in a market that they have monopolized with their minimal state via such nefarious schemes as taxation (the forced taking of the property of others, aka; theft). even if elected, how can an electorate, each member of which has no right to rule over others, confer to the minarchist such a right? they can't. no one has any such right. such a right does not exist. therefore, the actions of the minimal state must be undertaken illegitimately.
generally, minarchists use the argument that a government is necessary for an orderly society and that certain markets must be monopolized by the state to achieve that. this is a practical argument, not a moral one. the morality of rule over others is still as clear regardless of practicality. the problem is that minarchists are, in this way, no different than totalitarians. they advocate the violent rule over others in order to achieve some goal. the difference is in degree, not in kind. totalitarians have the same philosophy, only with a wider scope.
now for the practical problems with minarchism. in advocating a state monopoly in certain markets, like "national" defense, justice or police, minarchists, wittingly or unwittingly, advocate socialism. socialism is an economic "system" in which government holds titled control over the means of production. in other words, the government holds a legal monopoly over a certain market or markets. it has been shown, both in theory and in practice, that socialism can't work for the good of society. the reason is that a coercive monopoly (a monopoly that insulates itself from competition by force) has no market input by which to determine demand for its goods or services, the correct resources and amount of resources to use for the goods or services, or the type of production to employ for those goods and services. there is no access to the pricing that markets provide (through competition) in order to calculate these things. a socialist system is, by its nature, excluded from the information necessary to make prudent decisions. This is widely known as "the calculation problem".
to minarchists: i know that the migration away from statism is a tough one and it takes time. you are on the right track! of course, it is my desire to help to bring you full circle and gently point out the reasons why government, of any size, is morally and practically wrong. luckily, i've also written briefly on how markets are more likely to succeed where governments inevitably fail, here, here, here and here.
take the leap to anarchism, minarchists (and everyone else)! we are here waiting to soften your landing.
as with all issues, there are two aspects: the moral and the practical. the moral is always the easiest to deal with, so i'll start with that. inherent in any "archism" that isn't anarchism, is the rule of some over others - by force. so, by definition, minarchists advocate an institution in which some people use violence to rule over the innocent as well as the criminal. they advocate the initiation of force to keep others out of certain markets like defense, justice, and police. some may even advocate more than that, but if so, that begins to strain even the minarchist label.
it should be fairly obvious that no one, including a minarchist, has the right to participate in any markets, while excluding others by force, nor does anyone, including a minarchist, have the right to force others to participate in a market that they have monopolized with their minimal state via such nefarious schemes as taxation (the forced taking of the property of others, aka; theft). even if elected, how can an electorate, each member of which has no right to rule over others, confer to the minarchist such a right? they can't. no one has any such right. such a right does not exist. therefore, the actions of the minimal state must be undertaken illegitimately.
generally, minarchists use the argument that a government is necessary for an orderly society and that certain markets must be monopolized by the state to achieve that. this is a practical argument, not a moral one. the morality of rule over others is still as clear regardless of practicality. the problem is that minarchists are, in this way, no different than totalitarians. they advocate the violent rule over others in order to achieve some goal. the difference is in degree, not in kind. totalitarians have the same philosophy, only with a wider scope.
now for the practical problems with minarchism. in advocating a state monopoly in certain markets, like "national" defense, justice or police, minarchists, wittingly or unwittingly, advocate socialism. socialism is an economic "system" in which government holds titled control over the means of production. in other words, the government holds a legal monopoly over a certain market or markets. it has been shown, both in theory and in practice, that socialism can't work for the good of society. the reason is that a coercive monopoly (a monopoly that insulates itself from competition by force) has no market input by which to determine demand for its goods or services, the correct resources and amount of resources to use for the goods or services, or the type of production to employ for those goods and services. there is no access to the pricing that markets provide (through competition) in order to calculate these things. a socialist system is, by its nature, excluded from the information necessary to make prudent decisions. This is widely known as "the calculation problem".
to minarchists: i know that the migration away from statism is a tough one and it takes time. you are on the right track! of course, it is my desire to help to bring you full circle and gently point out the reasons why government, of any size, is morally and practically wrong. luckily, i've also written briefly on how markets are more likely to succeed where governments inevitably fail, here, here, here and here.
take the leap to anarchism, minarchists (and everyone else)! we are here waiting to soften your landing.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Anarchy! What it is and What it isn't
First things first: anarchy is not chaos. In fact, the philosophy, which has many quite different factions, is based on the moral and practical goal of greater social order through voluntary interaction rather than through force. Anarchy is the natural social order achieved through the consensual interactions of individuals.
Anarchy is derived from the Greek word "anarkhos" , meaning "no ruler". Those who advocate anarchy are called anarchists. There are many different types, based on their idea of what type of socio-economic system they prefer to engage in with others, including anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-communists, anarcho-primitivists, etc. A quick read on Wikipedia can sum up the differences. What's important to know about anarchists is that they all reject the notion that people can be owned by and, consequently, ruled by, other people. They do not believe that anyone has a right to the person or property of others, precluding the idea that some (governments) may use force against others (citizens) in order to bend those others to their will.
The anarchist's greatest enemy, therefore, is government. Governments are those groups of people claiming for themselves the right to rule over others by force. The anarchist believes that people are born with equal rights and such rule is imposition against those rights. Anarchists advocate the abolition of government in favor of the spontaneous order of natural human society and consider it naive to believe that if people cannot be trusted with their own power as individuals, that they somehow can be trusted with the centralized power of government.
Typically, people are woefully miseducated on the ideas of human nature, society and economy, making them fear the idea of a voluntary society, even though the alternative, government, has proven to be a whimsical, utopian idea based on a theory, socialism, that has been discredited by economics and has proven to be a disaster in practice. For this reason, it is assumed that voluntary society cannot exist. Herein lies the biggest stumbling block to the philosophy: reversing the years of misinformation and replacing them with more factual, logical understanding.
The assumption for most is that government must exist to stop bad people from doing bad things. Anarchism disagrees. It should be clear that, not only does government fail in this, but it acts a vehicle for bad people to do really bad things like war, genocide, slavery, etc. Anarchists understand that security is a service that is subject to supply and demand, like any other. Therefore, it cannot be supplied effectively, efficiently or in a manner consistent with the desires of the customer by a coercive monopolist like government. All people desire to be secure in their person and property to a far greater degree than they desire the person or property of others as a general rule. Entrepreneurs realize this and will always offer such security in a competitive environment, consistent with the desires of its customers. If the customer is a syndicalist, they are free to procure security from a syndicate. If they are communists, they can choose to procure security from the commune. If they are capitalists, they are free to procure security from a company. All these entities are truly held accountable for abuse by their competitors or ideological alternatives. Governments are not.
The way to tell a true anarchist from a fake is that the true anarchist is never willing to initiate force against the person or property of others. He will never support government, nor will he require others to participate in his preferred ideology. The anarchist is not a lazy busybody willing to employ government to force his ideas on others. He relies, like every decent person should, on persuasion and, upon the failure to persuade, tolerance. All anarchists are libertarians, all anarchists are market anarchists. Ideology follows after those categories. All are libertarians because they must accept the non-aggression principle. All are market anarchists because they cannot seek their preferred socio-economic situation without market freedom.
Of course, there is much more to anarchism than the simple exposition above. Here are some links that get into the nuts and bolts:
basics of libertarianism 1
basics of libertarianism 2
government monopoly
contradictions of government 1
contradictions of government 2
contradictions of government 3
the anarchist solution 1
the anarchist solution 2
the anarchist solution 3
the anarchist solution 4
the anarchist solution 5
what are rights?
the failure of democracy
the constitution experiment
"Either the State for ever, crushing individual and local life, taking over in all fields of human activity, bringing with it its wars and its domestic struggles for power, its palace revolutions which only replace one tyrant by another, and inevitably at the end of this development there is ... death! Or the destruction of States, and new life starting again in thousands of centers on the principle of the lively initiative of the individual and groups and that of free agreement.
The choice lies with you!" - Peter Kropotkin
Anarchy is derived from the Greek word "anarkhos" , meaning "no ruler". Those who advocate anarchy are called anarchists. There are many different types, based on their idea of what type of socio-economic system they prefer to engage in with others, including anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-communists, anarcho-primitivists, etc. A quick read on Wikipedia can sum up the differences. What's important to know about anarchists is that they all reject the notion that people can be owned by and, consequently, ruled by, other people. They do not believe that anyone has a right to the person or property of others, precluding the idea that some (governments) may use force against others (citizens) in order to bend those others to their will.
The anarchist's greatest enemy, therefore, is government. Governments are those groups of people claiming for themselves the right to rule over others by force. The anarchist believes that people are born with equal rights and such rule is imposition against those rights. Anarchists advocate the abolition of government in favor of the spontaneous order of natural human society and consider it naive to believe that if people cannot be trusted with their own power as individuals, that they somehow can be trusted with the centralized power of government.
Typically, people are woefully miseducated on the ideas of human nature, society and economy, making them fear the idea of a voluntary society, even though the alternative, government, has proven to be a whimsical, utopian idea based on a theory, socialism, that has been discredited by economics and has proven to be a disaster in practice. For this reason, it is assumed that voluntary society cannot exist. Herein lies the biggest stumbling block to the philosophy: reversing the years of misinformation and replacing them with more factual, logical understanding.
The assumption for most is that government must exist to stop bad people from doing bad things. Anarchism disagrees. It should be clear that, not only does government fail in this, but it acts a vehicle for bad people to do really bad things like war, genocide, slavery, etc. Anarchists understand that security is a service that is subject to supply and demand, like any other. Therefore, it cannot be supplied effectively, efficiently or in a manner consistent with the desires of the customer by a coercive monopolist like government. All people desire to be secure in their person and property to a far greater degree than they desire the person or property of others as a general rule. Entrepreneurs realize this and will always offer such security in a competitive environment, consistent with the desires of its customers. If the customer is a syndicalist, they are free to procure security from a syndicate. If they are communists, they can choose to procure security from the commune. If they are capitalists, they are free to procure security from a company. All these entities are truly held accountable for abuse by their competitors or ideological alternatives. Governments are not.
The way to tell a true anarchist from a fake is that the true anarchist is never willing to initiate force against the person or property of others. He will never support government, nor will he require others to participate in his preferred ideology. The anarchist is not a lazy busybody willing to employ government to force his ideas on others. He relies, like every decent person should, on persuasion and, upon the failure to persuade, tolerance. All anarchists are libertarians, all anarchists are market anarchists. Ideology follows after those categories. All are libertarians because they must accept the non-aggression principle. All are market anarchists because they cannot seek their preferred socio-economic situation without market freedom.
Of course, there is much more to anarchism than the simple exposition above. Here are some links that get into the nuts and bolts:
basics of libertarianism 1
basics of libertarianism 2
government monopoly
contradictions of government 1
contradictions of government 2
contradictions of government 3
the anarchist solution 1
the anarchist solution 2
the anarchist solution 3
the anarchist solution 4
the anarchist solution 5
what are rights?
the failure of democracy
the constitution experiment
"Either the State for ever, crushing individual and local life, taking over in all fields of human activity, bringing with it its wars and its domestic struggles for power, its palace revolutions which only replace one tyrant by another, and inevitably at the end of this development there is ... death! Or the destruction of States, and new life starting again in thousands of centers on the principle of the lively initiative of the individual and groups and that of free agreement.
The choice lies with you!" - Peter Kropotkin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)