A Problem of Mobiilty

Our ability to travel easily and freely about the country has created significant economic and ethical problems and will continue to do so. When a person or people are not attached to a place, either physically, economically or emotionally, they are less likely to consider the long term effects of their behavior on that place.

The most obvious modern example of this is California. Southern California, with its sprawling metroplexes, became a sucking vortex for tax money. Referenda after referenda to create more and more social programs while decreasing taxes put the government in a black hole of debt.

Once there, the government has few real options other than cutting the social programs and shrinking the size of government via layoffs and wage cuts. If they attempt to tax business or the wealthier citizens more, those groups will simply move away. Relocation is easily done for these groups, from this state, for while the working class is the root of the state's wealth (no wealth would accrue without them, despite what apologists for big business and our particular brand of capitalism would boast), the well to do and big business hold all the capital which has been created. Since they have made a temporary powerhouse out of their economy, their money is significantly inflated compared to other parts of the country. Thus, they can freely uproot themselves and move to greener pastures cheaply, ready to repeat the cycle once again, siphoning money from state and lower and middle class while engorging themselves like ticks.

Given our societal lack of ideals which decry this sort of behavior, we condone, if not promote it.

Suffice it to say, given California's seemingly unsolvable problems, the best option is the least likely to happen: Revolution. The state, as a whole, will do better without the elitist classes; taxes should be raised to inordinate levels, forcing the rich from their homes and businesses. Once this is done, it leaves a necessary political hole for the middle and lower class to fill, for while these classes have, in recent history, been very willing to work long hours for relatively meager pay, they have not been willing to truly take responsibility for the well being of their state. This must change; they must see their state as an extension of themselves and their business and cease to hide behind the dual, destructive aphoristic premises of our modern culture which say man has absolute right over his "property" while also saying everybody must be taken care of.

Another way, even less likely to happen, is for the rich to actually take the reigns of government directly, rather than indirectly, as now, and force us into a true, rather than de facto, oligarchy. If this were the case, then the wealthy would become directly attached to the place in which they lived, for all responsibility for debt accrued would legally rest with them. Thus, they could not simply pack their bags and leave the failing state; they would be forced to take a vested interest in the goings on of their state, for better or worse, because the state's fortunes would be their own, thus limiting even tyrannical rule to a generation or two. Since our working classes are already rather pathetically peasantish in their mind sets, this could work fairly seamlessly.

Considering oligarchy is closer to what we already have, one might wonder why it is even less likely than a sort of 'worker's revolution'. The reason is because, in our de facto oligarchy, the elite have the best of both worlds: complete control of the economy and government without being tied to the fortunes of said economy or government.

Of course, we know neither of these revolutions will take place, for the US still has land to exploit, and therefore no incentive toward revolution, particularly since our culture has become so weak in these regards, unwilling to sacrifice our own flesh, or even time and effort, since we have professionals to do this for us. What will happen is our somewhat workable system will end up chugging on, making worse and worse the inevitable decline and fall.

Rampant Communism, part 1

Let us understand that there is a difference between a "welfare state" and a "communist" or "socialist state."

Communism and socialism are systems in which there is little or no free market exchange, meaning the government (or community) controls prices and production, redistributing wealth as it sees fit. It is a "post-monetary" system of economics, in which a person gains wealth determined by their merit or simply by their labor/time output.

A welfare state, or welfare society, is one in which money is redistributed by the government (community) or in which services (like healthcare and education) are shared in kind, publicly. In a welfare state, the economy is not necessarily controlled by the government/community, unless it is also a communist state.

In this manner, any state with a public education system shares in a sort of welfare state. Likewise, the existence of libraries and public swimming pools, etc. can be considered as such. The important thing to realize is that making certain useful things publicly owned and run does not necessarily mean that the economy is moving toward socialism or communism, as there are still large portions of the economy which operate on free market principals.

In my next blog, I will speak more rhetorically of our propensity to label things communist or socialist and why we should narrow our definition while broadening our field for inclusion.

Elijah James is officially lame until he posts on this blog. Until the lameness ceases, this post will remain.

signed, dated, notarized.

Independence Day

Independence does not promise wealth. It does not promise ease or happiness. And yet the American ethos cries out this principal: Independence is sublime, transcendent, superior to any shoddy slavishness no matter how much material wealth is promised.

Is this how we see Independence today? I think it is not. Not fully. For even as we say "Government, keep out of our business. Government, do not make us dependent," we cry out to the corporate hegemony to make us more and more dependent on them for all our needs. We have put aside our aspirations of self governance. In fact, a dominant sect of modern conservatism would have us believe that the only role of government is to stave off self rule in favor of rule by money. Is it that we believe in social Darwinism, that the strong make themselves known through their control of money, and therefore are those fit to lead? Is it because we so hate arbitrary rule, that we hide behind the feigned impartiality of the market place (except in matters of sexuality) to decide for us what is right and what is wrong? We have tossed aside our political freedom, our right of self rule, in favor of a economic and liberal freedoms, to lighten the law upon ourselves, to allow a few individuals with money to make our decisions for us.

This is the way I would suggest we look at Independence. Independence is that part of us which with pride and courage says "I don't need you; I can do this on my own." An independent person cares not what others think and chooses to depend on them for as little as possible. The less he needs them, the less he is dependent. But an independent polity says the same thing; it says to its bigger brethren--the state, the nation, the world--"I do not need you; I can make it on my own," which of course means the citizens of that polity say, "We do not need external rule, but we do need each other." This is not to say that independence is necessarily haughty, or anti-social, or isolationist; it is merely not dependent on others (external others, for whatever group or body you wish to call independent) for what it needs. And it chooses independence over promises of wealth and security and externally imposed justice, for it could not call itself Independent otherwise.