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.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Sustainability
This should be pretty obvious, but it seems it is not.
A few years back I read an article about the discovery of a monstrous fishery off the coast of Australia. Commercial fishing jumped on it, consuming until the fishery was imperiled. When questioned, they said they thought they really had found a sustainable fishery.
There is no such thing as a sustainable resource.
There are only sustainable practices.
I'm not sure why this should need explanation. Resources are finite; if they are not treated with care then they can be overused. Even wind energy isn't properly sustainable, though it is lauded as the future of sustainable energy.(check out Power Hungry by Robert Brice for more on the problems with wind energy). This is because, no matter how much energy we have, we will never have enough if we always crave more.
The only way to have a sustainable resource is to adapt our behavior to sustain that resource.
A few years back I read an article about the discovery of a monstrous fishery off the coast of Australia. Commercial fishing jumped on it, consuming until the fishery was imperiled. When questioned, they said they thought they really had found a sustainable fishery.
There is no such thing as a sustainable resource.
There are only sustainable practices.
I'm not sure why this should need explanation. Resources are finite; if they are not treated with care then they can be overused. Even wind energy isn't properly sustainable, though it is lauded as the future of sustainable energy.(check out Power Hungry by Robert Brice for more on the problems with wind energy). This is because, no matter how much energy we have, we will never have enough if we always crave more.
The only way to have a sustainable resource is to adapt our behavior to sustain that resource.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Home Food Libertarianism
Economic rules favor capital. It is in the hands of those who have the means of production. The impoverished, with little know-how in business start up, no capital to start the business, and likely bad credit, have little hope of pulling themselves up aside from working for their oppressors. Corporate interests will look at themselves proudly and say, "We are their benefactors, without us, the poor could not even exist as they do." Lies. They are oppressors, pure and simple.
Regulations favor the large; it needs not be argued. Those with capital can meet regulation standards, those without it cannot. To allow the impoverished to improve themselves, we must remove the reigns from home industry. Food and manufacturing on a very small scale should be allowed in the home, without the burdensome requirements of modern food quality laws. If their are health problems, people can complain about them, but it is horrendous to completely make illegal all home food preparation. For many people, this may be a way out of poverty, a way to make their own way, their own business. They cannot afford commercial kitchens for food preparation.
These laws are supposedly made for the public interest, for health reasons. Ridiculous. You might as well insist that every meal cooked be made in a commercial kitchen; elsewise, all parents should be arrested for endangering the health of their children.
Yes, large restaurants, corporate food magnates, etc. ought to have strict regulations, because these things are beyond human in scale and because their behavior warrants it (compare food born illness complaints in Austin between trailers (1%) and restaurants (16%)...or what about the now defunct due to regulation Good Flow Juice, never one known case of illness attributed to bad juice). But the house that makes tacos to sell from a cart? That is hardly the same thing. Don't you think if they had the ability they would do their preparing in a commercial kitchen, if only to avoid making a mess in their house? They are not trying to beat the system, they are trying to make their own way with their own business, and we are not letting them.
Now, this is an extreme; most places don't allow food to be made for public consumption in home, but I think its workable, personally. But let us not forget the added fees and regulations in general added to small businesses. They are small, if they are bad, they will fail; its the big things that never seem to die.
Regulations favor the large; it needs not be argued. Those with capital can meet regulation standards, those without it cannot. To allow the impoverished to improve themselves, we must remove the reigns from home industry. Food and manufacturing on a very small scale should be allowed in the home, without the burdensome requirements of modern food quality laws. If their are health problems, people can complain about them, but it is horrendous to completely make illegal all home food preparation. For many people, this may be a way out of poverty, a way to make their own way, their own business. They cannot afford commercial kitchens for food preparation.
These laws are supposedly made for the public interest, for health reasons. Ridiculous. You might as well insist that every meal cooked be made in a commercial kitchen; elsewise, all parents should be arrested for endangering the health of their children.
Yes, large restaurants, corporate food magnates, etc. ought to have strict regulations, because these things are beyond human in scale and because their behavior warrants it (compare food born illness complaints in Austin between trailers (1%) and restaurants (16%)...or what about the now defunct due to regulation Good Flow Juice, never one known case of illness attributed to bad juice). But the house that makes tacos to sell from a cart? That is hardly the same thing. Don't you think if they had the ability they would do their preparing in a commercial kitchen, if only to avoid making a mess in their house? They are not trying to beat the system, they are trying to make their own way with their own business, and we are not letting them.
Now, this is an extreme; most places don't allow food to be made for public consumption in home, but I think its workable, personally. But let us not forget the added fees and regulations in general added to small businesses. They are small, if they are bad, they will fail; its the big things that never seem to die.
Friday, June 11, 2010
This Week in Austin
I've spent about 12 hours this week in one sort of city related meeting or another. Do not be impressed, I'm not a council member or anything, just a citizen trying to take more part in local government. Turns out, they basically try to discourage you from that.
What does he mean? Well, the primary point of contention is the lack of contention. At most public meetings the citizens are allowed to get up and speak; at most of these there is a 3 minute time limit and they only allow a certain number of speakers. After all the public that they want to let speak has spoken, the council may ask questions, but usually they don't. Instead they go straight to a vote, and you never hear anything about why the points you made on the behalf of item X are good or bad or otherwise. They will vote against your position without giving any reasons whatsoever, as though your point of view does not exist. Even if the council members have disagreements, they will not discuss them there. Perhaps they have a forum where they do discuss such things, or perhaps they are actually prohibited from open debate in the council chambers (something I'll have to look into).
At the council meeting yesterday they gave 45 minutes; this is first come first served. The items I was interested in were #5 and #10 concerning the building of a new water plant and its transmission lines. The Mayor gave 45 minutes for public speaking, saying he would give no more since this was not a public hearing (was there a public hearing on this, I don't know). Now, at one point in time in Austin's history, there was no such limitation; as many people could come and speak as might wish to. I have no doubt this slowed things down tremendously, but who says democracy should be fast?
30 minutes were taken up by neighborhood association folk who basically said the same things over that time, leaving 15 minutes for an SOS member who had written a report the likely rate increases of water this would cause when there really was no demand from more water. In fact, we are well behind expected water expenditures this year because of rain and because of people's on conservation; thus, the water utility is not pulling in as much money as usual. His point was, then, that it would be foolish to spend a very large sum of money when we aren't even using up close to all the supply we currently have (they have broken up the project into bits, so its hard to say how much, but the items yesterday I think added up to somewhere between 60 and 100 million--I know those are disparate numbers, but they are in the tens of millions, and therefore, well, pretty big even on the low end).
The night before this, more presentations were given at the water/waste water commissioners hearing. The SOS presentations were actually pretty good with lots of information that the commissioners clearly had not heard before, and which the city staff present could in no way counter, though he insisted that data to support his position existed, it just was too much to bring before the panel. One member of the commission, a Ms. Faust, actually seemed to take the new information into consideration, including an apparent fact regarding the necessity of having a Fish and Wildlife inspection to receive a permit to build on a land with several endangered and/or threatened species. The inspection is slated to take at least 6 months. Faust suggested they postpone moving forward until the permit was received, as it seemed foolish to allocate resources (made through contractual obligations) when they could not be sure that they could even build on the land. But her motion did not even receive a second. No reasons were given as to why a second should not be given, once again leading me to believe that they might actually be forbidden to have open discussion or debate of issues. The other commissioners sat coldly by, and at the motion to recommend the project be approved by city council, three voted for, and one against, the others abstaining.
Likewise, at the city council meeting, council member Speldman and one other (whose name I will need to look up) asked questions, and they were 2 of the 3 of the dissenting opinion. Those who did not ask questions and did not give their opinion in any way shape or form voted for the project to proceed.
Frankly, after the presentations given by the public at the council meeting, this made some sense. Most of the speakers came off as NIMBY, and even Mr. Henson with his presentation on likely water rate increases (expected to rise 74% in the next 5 years by his calculations, to pay for the bonds needed to build this plant) did not seem as professional as the previous night. Some of the SOS folk gathered near the mic in quiet protest of not being allowed to speak. Among these were Bill Bunch who had given a very good presentation on the environmental dangers of building the plant in its suggested location as well as reasons why water use by Austin Water customers has not been going up (interesting to note, in San Antonio water use has been flat even after gaining 100,000 in population--if I recall correctly, there were a few figures like this, but 100,000 would be on the low end, it might have been 250,000).
The best protest site for this is here: http://savewatersavemoney.org/
Note: I am in no way affiliated with the above site, SOS, etc. I receive newsletters from SOS and regularly check my county and city websites.
What does he mean? Well, the primary point of contention is the lack of contention. At most public meetings the citizens are allowed to get up and speak; at most of these there is a 3 minute time limit and they only allow a certain number of speakers. After all the public that they want to let speak has spoken, the council may ask questions, but usually they don't. Instead they go straight to a vote, and you never hear anything about why the points you made on the behalf of item X are good or bad or otherwise. They will vote against your position without giving any reasons whatsoever, as though your point of view does not exist. Even if the council members have disagreements, they will not discuss them there. Perhaps they have a forum where they do discuss such things, or perhaps they are actually prohibited from open debate in the council chambers (something I'll have to look into).
At the council meeting yesterday they gave 45 minutes; this is first come first served. The items I was interested in were #5 and #10 concerning the building of a new water plant and its transmission lines. The Mayor gave 45 minutes for public speaking, saying he would give no more since this was not a public hearing (was there a public hearing on this, I don't know). Now, at one point in time in Austin's history, there was no such limitation; as many people could come and speak as might wish to. I have no doubt this slowed things down tremendously, but who says democracy should be fast?
30 minutes were taken up by neighborhood association folk who basically said the same things over that time, leaving 15 minutes for an SOS member who had written a report the likely rate increases of water this would cause when there really was no demand from more water. In fact, we are well behind expected water expenditures this year because of rain and because of people's on conservation; thus, the water utility is not pulling in as much money as usual. His point was, then, that it would be foolish to spend a very large sum of money when we aren't even using up close to all the supply we currently have (they have broken up the project into bits, so its hard to say how much, but the items yesterday I think added up to somewhere between 60 and 100 million--I know those are disparate numbers, but they are in the tens of millions, and therefore, well, pretty big even on the low end).
The night before this, more presentations were given at the water/waste water commissioners hearing. The SOS presentations were actually pretty good with lots of information that the commissioners clearly had not heard before, and which the city staff present could in no way counter, though he insisted that data to support his position existed, it just was too much to bring before the panel. One member of the commission, a Ms. Faust, actually seemed to take the new information into consideration, including an apparent fact regarding the necessity of having a Fish and Wildlife inspection to receive a permit to build on a land with several endangered and/or threatened species. The inspection is slated to take at least 6 months. Faust suggested they postpone moving forward until the permit was received, as it seemed foolish to allocate resources (made through contractual obligations) when they could not be sure that they could even build on the land. But her motion did not even receive a second. No reasons were given as to why a second should not be given, once again leading me to believe that they might actually be forbidden to have open discussion or debate of issues. The other commissioners sat coldly by, and at the motion to recommend the project be approved by city council, three voted for, and one against, the others abstaining.
Likewise, at the city council meeting, council member Speldman and one other (whose name I will need to look up) asked questions, and they were 2 of the 3 of the dissenting opinion. Those who did not ask questions and did not give their opinion in any way shape or form voted for the project to proceed.
Frankly, after the presentations given by the public at the council meeting, this made some sense. Most of the speakers came off as NIMBY, and even Mr. Henson with his presentation on likely water rate increases (expected to rise 74% in the next 5 years by his calculations, to pay for the bonds needed to build this plant) did not seem as professional as the previous night. Some of the SOS folk gathered near the mic in quiet protest of not being allowed to speak. Among these were Bill Bunch who had given a very good presentation on the environmental dangers of building the plant in its suggested location as well as reasons why water use by Austin Water customers has not been going up (interesting to note, in San Antonio water use has been flat even after gaining 100,000 in population--if I recall correctly, there were a few figures like this, but 100,000 would be on the low end, it might have been 250,000).
The best protest site for this is here: http://savewatersavemoney.org/
Note: I am in no way affiliated with the above site, SOS, etc. I receive newsletters from SOS and regularly check my county and city websites.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)