Freedom of speech is not just the ability to say what you believe without political correctness or coercion but also to stand there and hear someone else shout at the top of their lungs that which you would adamantly oppose.
Freedom means to accept that there are some things beyond your control. That you can't stop every madman, that you can't stop every terrorist, and that you MUST stand up against those who would exchange your freedom for security from these threats.
Freedom requires that corporations be allowed to be just as charitable as people and just as corrupt as people. Society has a broad range of people and you can expect nothing less from other free institutions. There will be great corporations as well as ones that want to rip you off. There will be strong supportive unions who understand market forces and work to better their workers as well as the company they work for and there will be power hungry unions who care more about imposing their will on their workers, the company they work for but all persons as well. There will be strong freedom loving institutions as well as those who call for the end of every freedom we cherish. Having this spectrum is brought about by freedom. Desiring something other than this spectrum is actually supporting tyranny.
Freedom requires a sense of personal responsibility. As long as people believe they "deserve" something they haven't worked for and didn't earn simply because they are less well off than someone else, or because they were oppressed in the past or because they didn't have the same opportunities as someone else, there is no freedom. People will always think this way, it is called covetousness, but we make a mistake when we choose to say the role of government is to take money from one person and give it to another. This is nothing more than coercion or the government compelling you to do something. Freedom requires the act of giving or helping to be a voluntary one. Without the ability to choose what happens with your money, you can't choose which people you want to help. Nobody can help everybody, but we can all choose to do our part. Freedom is also accepting the reality that some will choose to do nothing. This is called greed and selfishness and it isn't illegal. It may be immoral and sinful, but that's only if you subscribe to a belief system that would call it that.
Freedom is recognizing that people have the right to be stupid! It recognizes that people will discriminate against other people. It means you fight with your last breath to point out these wrongs, but accept with your mind that you can't force people to fit into a mold and no matter how much legislation or government coercion you use, there will always be discrimination.
Benjamin Franklin said "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Modern America is closer to losing freedom than we've ever been. We've chosen to live with airport security and allow common rights violations by the TSA to secure freedom from terrorists. We've chosen to allow the continuation of the Patriot Act which targets specific populations and groups just to make ourselves feel better. We've chosen to expand the role of government beyond foreign and interstate commerce to allow it to control intrastate commerce in the name of what is right and just and to prevent discrimination and the use of substances we know are harmful. We've chosen to ignore the idea of personal responsibility and instead required the government to regulate behavior by coerced giving, coerced education and coerced speech (political correctness). We've chosen to slowly give up the very thing we claim to hold most dear. Our FREEDOM!
Monday, October 24, 2011
Friday, October 21, 2011
A Classical Liberals Response to the Occupy Wall Street, Zucotti Park General Assembly statement of solidarity
This was recently issued by a group of Occupy Wall Street (OWS) people and printed in several news sources as well as read by Keith Olbermann. At any rate, I print the full text without comment and then you will find my comments listed below it:
It is hard to know where to start. This document purports to be a representation of what the protestors believe and want. If this is true, it is clear they are very dangerous, not because of what they believe, but because of their lack of knowledge. I will print the entire text again, but this time I will include my comments. Hopefully, once I've explained things as I see them, you, the reader, will at least have a better understanding of the lack of cohesion these people represent. Let me be clear. As long as they remain peaceful, I am not opposed to this protest movement. I dislike their tactics (blocking traffic, blocking workplaces, etc.), but I support their right to free speech and freedom to peaceably assemble. However, every time I hear one of them in an interview or read one of these "official" statements, I become more and more convinced that these people don't have a clue of what constitutes reality. Here we go!
First of all, these people do NOT represent me. They claim to be the 99%. This 99% number isn't even a real number. It is based on a political claim that 99% of the world's weath is held by 1% of the population. This is an untrue reality which actual numbers don't support. However, their claim that there are a bunch of wealthy people who have way more than they need is an accurate one, even if it is petulant. Then, they are claiming a mass injustice, yet lack any citations in their document or real explanations to back up the claim. They make several claims below which I'll deal with individually.
Great! They "feel" wronged, so let's all go take over a park in New York to express our feelings. I'm fine with this as an emotional response to how they feel. You can't argue with people's feelings. However, feelings have nothing to do with reality. Time and again, research has shown that strong feelings actually hinder our ability to make rational decisions. Just because someone "feels wronged" by a corporation doesn't actually mean they were. Just saying.
This sounds wonderful. In fact, it sounds like someone might actually be reading Jefferson, or perhaps just paraphrasing him, or worse yet, getting dangerously close to plagiarizing him. Nonetheless, I can, in principle, agree with everything stated here. However, we then move on to this:
What the heck is "true democracy" to these people? After all, in a real democratic system, a corporation has as much right to seek representation of their goals as an individual does. This is not giving "personhood" to a corporation, but rather expressing the reality that a corporation employs many people, anywhere from 1-however many the largest corporations employ and that the interests of those people and the company that employs them often overlap and are intertwined. A corporation's voice, along with the people's voice who work for it and even along with the union's voice can have much greater impact than just the employees voice alone. Union's often get it wrong when they go after the corrupt corporations (not saying there aren't some) but instead should work with those corporations for the best interests of the people who work there. Finally, the idea that corporations seek to extract wealth from people is ridiculous on its face. This statement assumes we don't have free will, that somehow, magically, corporations can get us to choose to buy their products when we otherwise would not do so. A smart person who knows their preferences and is smart with their money would never fall victim to corporate advertising. Who's to blame for you spending too much on a product? The corporation? No...it's YOU!
The idea that corporations run the government isn't new and this fallacy persists regardless of reality, so I won't challenge it here. What I will say is this. If this statement is true and corporations run our government, who do we have to blame? After all, while corporations do have powerful lobbyists, so do unions, charities, other countries, and many other groups. But who put the politicians in power? We did! Our votes did! If you have a problem with corporate influence on government, vote for people who want to get the lobbyists out of government, don't go down and block traffic in New York City.
Peaceably assembled, sort of. They've been arrested on multiple occasions for disturbing the peace, blocking traffic and other such misdemeanors. Whatever happened to actually assembling, but not blocking traffic. Yes, it is their right to assemble, and I will support that, but our individual rights only exist up to the point where they effect the rights of others. Therefore, if you, in your assembly, are blocking the traffic and preventing me from getting to work, you are violating my right to pursue happiness and therefore, you are wrong. So, stay in the park and out of the streets. If you must march, get a permit like the rest of us so they can properly close the streets for your march. Now, keep in mind that when the word "they" is used below, this group of protestors is talking about corporations. Not politicians, not governments, not states...just corporations. That places all of this into context.
Ridiculous on its face. You can't quote a couple of outlying cases that are being properly prosecuted as the norm. The norm is that the banks are following the foreclosure laws set in place by the various states and the federal government. You have a problem with those laws, take it up with your legislature or Congressman, but don't blame the corporations for following a law you don't like!
Taken bailouts? YES! With impunity? Really? I'm opposed to the bank bailouts, the bailouts of AIG, the auto company bailouts, etc. I don't like them, but impunity means exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss. You really think this? After all, I refuse to purchase a car made by GM or Chrysler as long as a single share is held by the federal government and as long as a single dollar remains unpaid. I've also started moving out of bailed out banks and into ones that didn't take any money. Rather than blocking traffic and dirtying up the parks, why don't you do the talking with your pocketbook! These companies are not operating with impunity. Besides, even if they were, you blame them for taking money given to them by the government? Who is to blame for that? Obama, Bush, McCain, Reid, Pelosi? ALL of them said we needed to do this to "save" our economy. Why aren't you blaming them?
Whatever. While I don't want to minimize real discrimination that actually takes place, corporate America is better at combating this in the modern age than anyone and any country in all of history. So, while I agree this can still be improved, it hardly rises to the level implied in this statement.
Okay, so who got sick from Listeria poisoning. Seriously? This is a demand of these people? Corporations don't intentionally poison their food and they try to avoid doing it by accident. After all, when they do end up with this and we discover the source, that source more often than not goes out of business because nobody will buy their product anymore. They have a good point here regarding farm monopolization and the harm that has been done to small farmers over the years, but this has been aided and abetted by government as well, so don't just blame the companies. Also, this point is lost because of the idiocy of the opening statement.
Can the PETA members please stand up! Really? So, these protestors are all vegetarian or rather, vegan? Certainly not. One persons torture is another persons lunch here. Yes, I've seen Food Inc. and people have asked me, "doesn't this bother you?" No. As long as the food is safe to eat that is what is important to me. Otherwise, we are all going to have to start growing our own chickens because we won't be able to afford meat of any kind if these people get their way.
And this is why the United States has the best working conditions and some of the best pay in the world. Not only that, but in the history of the world. Hard to take people seriously when they stare into the face of history and are proven false.
Held students hostage? A human right? We have a human right to pursue happiness. If an education constitutes the method we choose to pursue that happiness, that is an opportunity we have the right to pursue. It is not, in and of itself, a right though. These people really believe that education is a right? What kind of education? I have the right to read voraciously and learn as much as I can, but do I have the right to attend an ivy league school and study under a particular teacher? NO! To suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest. As for holding students hostage, the government instituted student loan programs to help people go to college who otherwise couldn't afford it. So fine, let's do away with that and see how many people can go. A co-worker of mine recently stated "none of us is as dumb as all of us". This demand fits his statement well.
Okay, they may have gotten this one right. Sure. But this is about economics, pure and simple. If you form a union and that union negotiates certain things for you, are you surprised that the company opens their new plant in a third world country where they have no such contracts? You haven't lost your job (or maybe you have), but the company can continue to operate. What sense does it make to require concessions from a company that eventually put it out of business. Yes, that has happened and yes, I know many companies are experiencing record profits right now. But those profits are used to help the company grow during good economic times and used to keep the company afloat during hard economic times. If you take away all of the profit, the company might not weather the storm and certainly won't expand. Without expansion, there is no jobs growth. Therefore, I'm guessing all these out of work occupy protestors don't actually want corporate expansion and job growth in our economy? Of course that's not true, but it is what they're calling for.
The corporations made the courts grant them personhood? That's priceless! I'm so glad they could point out this overlooked piece of history! Oh wait, it isn't overlooked because it is a flat out lie.
They do spend millions of dollars on legal teams, not only to get out of paying what they owe but also to avoid having to pay the plethora of frivolous lawsuits that exist. Hmm...
Okay, these seems like it is going to go well because companies are collecting information about us and selling it, so there is some truth there, but then they go and ruin it with this clearly untrue statement about using the military and police to prevent freedom of the press. Maybe in China and Saudi Arabia that is true, but it isn't true of corporations, it isn't true in America and it isn't true of corporate interests in China and Saudi Arabia. Where freedom of the press is prevented there is political tyranny and no freedom. So, they clearly can't distinguish the difference between political realities and economic forces. How sad.
Deliberately declined? What do these people think, that we are living in the 19th century? The Consumer Products Safety Commission exists for a reason people. The federal oversight exists for a reason. There are recalls made and carried out on a regular basis. You might be able to claim they put out a dangerous product. You may even claim they knowingly put out a dangerous product even though there is no evidence to support that. However, you can't claim they deliberately decline to recall. That is simply untrue.
They certainly influence economic policy, but they don't determine it. That is, at best, a gross generalization of reality. As to whether or not the economic policies of companies are catastrophic failures would be a matter of opinion.
Okay, up until a 2010 decision by the Supreme Court, corporations were severely limited on what they could donate to political campaigns and banned outright to donate directly to candidates for federal office. There hasn't really been an election since this Supreme Court decision, so what the heck are these people talking about? You see a lot about how such and such organization donated to a certain candidate, but that is usually an employee of that corporation donating to a candidate, not the company itself. This all gets lumped together in these so called open sites giving us information that is not entirely accurate. This demand seems to stem from nothing more than an untrue perception that corporations give a lot of money to individual candidates. That's simply not true. The ban on corporate giving to individual candidates seeking federal office is still in place. Do these people not even care to know the law?
This statement shows a severe lack of understanding of how the market works. For decades now, the federal government and many state governments have actually been giving incentives to companies and individuals for making or purchasing alternative energy products. If a company could figure out a way to make money on these products, they'd do it. The idea that they'd intentionally keep something off the market is ludicrous and paranoid. There are no consumers. There is no demand. That's why these products don't exist. Not because of some conspiracy amongst companies to keep them off the market. As for dependence on foreign oil, the two issues aren't even the same. We could be independent of foreign oil in a year if our Congress just had the will to stand up to the environmental lobby and say we would build more nuclear power plants, build more refineries and drill wherever we could. This won't happen. Not because of corporations, who'd love to do all three of those things, but because our government won't allow it.
You know what? They have a point here. They do in fact try to prevent generic drugs from entering the market and this is entirely profit driven. A drug company has been granted the right by the government to profit exclusively from their drug until their patent expires. Patents are good for 20 years. So, the company can make a huge profit, but only for 20 years. After that, generic drugs are made and the price drops to a point where it is no longer very profitable. Of course a company wants to extend this as much as possible. However, we can't just remove this system entirely. It was set up, by the government not corporations, with the intent of encouraging drug research. Without this patent system, we'd probably all still be using aspirin for pain and penacillin for antibiotics. It is this patent system that has encouraged drug research and creation over the years. Sure, we'd still have some new drugs, but I submit there'd be far fewer than there are. Of course, some might argue that'd be a good thing too?
They've purposely covered up a lot of things in the pursuit of profit. We've found yet more common ground. However, unlike these people, I'm not deluded enough to think they always get away with it. Exxon certainly didn't get away with what happened in Alaska and BP certainly didn't get away with what happened in the Gulf of Mexico either. Enron and MCI certainly kept faulty books to promote profit. Can anyone argue either of them got away with it? These people are having to pay reparations to customers and suffer in market share because of public perception. Not to mention that many of them are actually in jail! They are hardly covering all this up. I'm not naive enough to think this never goes on...of course it does. I'm also not naive enough to think that sometimes they get away with it. Sure they do, but they don't always get away with it and the more we catch, the more will be discouraged from doing it in the future.
Corporations have control of the media? Well, that's one of the few true statements they've made so far. Yet, I suspect they are aiming this criticism not at the media in general, but at FoxNews specifically, also known as NewsCorp. Based on their other "demands", that's just how they roll. They probably aren't criticizing Disney (ABC), GE (NBC), Time Warner (Turner Broadcasting or CNN) or Viacom (CBS). I could be wrong, maybe they think ALL of these companies are secretly trying to instill fear and misinformation in the people. Hmm...if that's the case, maybe they have a point.
I'm not even sure what to say here. This sounds like a paranoid rant and certainly needs a citation to back it up. What the heck are they talking about? Murdering prisoners by contract killing. Really? As for perpetuating colonialism, they'd get a lot more interest from me if I could stop laughing enough from the statement of perpetuating colonialism at home. Can someone please explain to me how one would do that? Let's all form colonies within our own borders!!!! In the end, this is just a paranoid rant with a stupid statement mixed in for good measure.
Last I checked, governments and tyrants were responsible for the perpetuation of weapons of mass destruction, not corporations. Also, governments and tyrants are directly responsible for torture and murder, but I have yet to see credible evidence of a corporation doing this. The mafia maybe. Drug cartels certainly. But actual corporations? Nope...wrong again.
Yes, we agree, and I'm asserting mine by pointing out your lack of education!
Again! We agree, I call it the Constitution of the United States. What do "they" call it?
So, they want to work with Tea Partiers who support our Republic? Oh wait, no...they said "direct democracy" which actually means doing away with republicanism in favor of one man one vote. Alrighty then. So they are in effect, advocating the elimination of our representational government? Really? Think I read too much into that statement? Think again. After all, look at their closing statement!
They've formed a general assembly? That's a government folks. This group has basically stated they no longer consider our government legitimate. Think I've read too much into it again? Look at this. They've created their own government, called for direct democracy over representational republicanism, declared the corporations corrupt, and stated the corporations are the government. These people don't want change or reform. They want revolution!
Statement of Solidarity, Occupy Wall Street, Zucotti Park
By NYC General Assembly, Occupy Wall Street
As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together.
We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.
As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.
We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.
We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.
They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
They have profited off of the torture, confinement,and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay andsafer working conditions.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
They have sold our privacy as a commodity.They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.
They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.
They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.
To the people of the world, we, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.
Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.
To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal. Join us and make your voices heard!
The statement issued from Zuccotti Park, by the General Assembly, at Occupy Wall Street.
It is hard to know where to start. This document purports to be a representation of what the protestors believe and want. If this is true, it is clear they are very dangerous, not because of what they believe, but because of their lack of knowledge. I will print the entire text again, but this time I will include my comments. Hopefully, once I've explained things as I see them, you, the reader, will at least have a better understanding of the lack of cohesion these people represent. Let me be clear. As long as they remain peaceful, I am not opposed to this protest movement. I dislike their tactics (blocking traffic, blocking workplaces, etc.), but I support their right to free speech and freedom to peaceably assemble. However, every time I hear one of them in an interview or read one of these "official" statements, I become more and more convinced that these people don't have a clue of what constitutes reality. Here we go!
As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together.
First of all, these people do NOT represent me. They claim to be the 99%. This 99% number isn't even a real number. It is based on a political claim that 99% of the world's weath is held by 1% of the population. This is an untrue reality which actual numbers don't support. However, their claim that there are a bunch of wealthy people who have way more than they need is an accurate one, even if it is petulant. Then, they are claiming a mass injustice, yet lack any citations in their document or real explanations to back up the claim. They make several claims below which I'll deal with individually.
We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.
Great! They "feel" wronged, so let's all go take over a park in New York to express our feelings. I'm fine with this as an emotional response to how they feel. You can't argue with people's feelings. However, feelings have nothing to do with reality. Time and again, research has shown that strong feelings actually hinder our ability to make rational decisions. Just because someone "feels wronged" by a corporation doesn't actually mean they were. Just saying.
As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people,
This sounds wonderful. In fact, it sounds like someone might actually be reading Jefferson, or perhaps just paraphrasing him, or worse yet, getting dangerously close to plagiarizing him. Nonetheless, I can, in principle, agree with everything stated here. However, we then move on to this:
but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.
What the heck is "true democracy" to these people? After all, in a real democratic system, a corporation has as much right to seek representation of their goals as an individual does. This is not giving "personhood" to a corporation, but rather expressing the reality that a corporation employs many people, anywhere from 1-however many the largest corporations employ and that the interests of those people and the company that employs them often overlap and are intertwined. A corporation's voice, along with the people's voice who work for it and even along with the union's voice can have much greater impact than just the employees voice alone. Union's often get it wrong when they go after the corrupt corporations (not saying there aren't some) but instead should work with those corporations for the best interests of the people who work there. Finally, the idea that corporations seek to extract wealth from people is ridiculous on its face. This statement assumes we don't have free will, that somehow, magically, corporations can get us to choose to buy their products when we otherwise would not do so. A smart person who knows their preferences and is smart with their money would never fall victim to corporate advertising. Who's to blame for you spending too much on a product? The corporation? No...it's YOU!
We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.
The idea that corporations run the government isn't new and this fallacy persists regardless of reality, so I won't challenge it here. What I will say is this. If this statement is true and corporations run our government, who do we have to blame? After all, while corporations do have powerful lobbyists, so do unions, charities, other countries, and many other groups. But who put the politicians in power? We did! Our votes did! If you have a problem with corporate influence on government, vote for people who want to get the lobbyists out of government, don't go down and block traffic in New York City.
We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.
Peaceably assembled, sort of. They've been arrested on multiple occasions for disturbing the peace, blocking traffic and other such misdemeanors. Whatever happened to actually assembling, but not blocking traffic. Yes, it is their right to assemble, and I will support that, but our individual rights only exist up to the point where they effect the rights of others. Therefore, if you, in your assembly, are blocking the traffic and preventing me from getting to work, you are violating my right to pursue happiness and therefore, you are wrong. So, stay in the park and out of the streets. If you must march, get a permit like the rest of us so they can properly close the streets for your march. Now, keep in mind that when the word "they" is used below, this group of protestors is talking about corporations. Not politicians, not governments, not states...just corporations. That places all of this into context.
They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
Ridiculous on its face. You can't quote a couple of outlying cases that are being properly prosecuted as the norm. The norm is that the banks are following the foreclosure laws set in place by the various states and the federal government. You have a problem with those laws, take it up with your legislature or Congressman, but don't blame the corporations for following a law you don't like!
They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
Taken bailouts? YES! With impunity? Really? I'm opposed to the bank bailouts, the bailouts of AIG, the auto company bailouts, etc. I don't like them, but impunity means exemption or freedom from punishment, harm, or loss. You really think this? After all, I refuse to purchase a car made by GM or Chrysler as long as a single share is held by the federal government and as long as a single dollar remains unpaid. I've also started moving out of bailed out banks and into ones that didn't take any money. Rather than blocking traffic and dirtying up the parks, why don't you do the talking with your pocketbook! These companies are not operating with impunity. Besides, even if they were, you blame them for taking money given to them by the government? Who is to blame for that? Obama, Bush, McCain, Reid, Pelosi? ALL of them said we needed to do this to "save" our economy. Why aren't you blaming them?
They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
Whatever. While I don't want to minimize real discrimination that actually takes place, corporate America is better at combating this in the modern age than anyone and any country in all of history. So, while I agree this can still be improved, it hardly rises to the level implied in this statement.
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
Okay, so who got sick from Listeria poisoning. Seriously? This is a demand of these people? Corporations don't intentionally poison their food and they try to avoid doing it by accident. After all, when they do end up with this and we discover the source, that source more often than not goes out of business because nobody will buy their product anymore. They have a good point here regarding farm monopolization and the harm that has been done to small farmers over the years, but this has been aided and abetted by government as well, so don't just blame the companies. Also, this point is lost because of the idiocy of the opening statement.
They have profited off of the torture, confinement,and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
Can the PETA members please stand up! Really? So, these protestors are all vegetarian or rather, vegan? Certainly not. One persons torture is another persons lunch here. Yes, I've seen Food Inc. and people have asked me, "doesn't this bother you?" No. As long as the food is safe to eat that is what is important to me. Otherwise, we are all going to have to start growing our own chickens because we won't be able to afford meat of any kind if these people get their way.
They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
And this is why the United States has the best working conditions and some of the best pay in the world. Not only that, but in the history of the world. Hard to take people seriously when they stare into the face of history and are proven false.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
Held students hostage? A human right? We have a human right to pursue happiness. If an education constitutes the method we choose to pursue that happiness, that is an opportunity we have the right to pursue. It is not, in and of itself, a right though. These people really believe that education is a right? What kind of education? I have the right to read voraciously and learn as much as I can, but do I have the right to attend an ivy league school and study under a particular teacher? NO! To suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest. As for holding students hostage, the government instituted student loan programs to help people go to college who otherwise couldn't afford it. So fine, let's do away with that and see how many people can go. A co-worker of mine recently stated "none of us is as dumb as all of us". This demand fits his statement well.
They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
Okay, they may have gotten this one right. Sure. But this is about economics, pure and simple. If you form a union and that union negotiates certain things for you, are you surprised that the company opens their new plant in a third world country where they have no such contracts? You haven't lost your job (or maybe you have), but the company can continue to operate. What sense does it make to require concessions from a company that eventually put it out of business. Yes, that has happened and yes, I know many companies are experiencing record profits right now. But those profits are used to help the company grow during good economic times and used to keep the company afloat during hard economic times. If you take away all of the profit, the company might not weather the storm and certainly won't expand. Without expansion, there is no jobs growth. Therefore, I'm guessing all these out of work occupy protestors don't actually want corporate expansion and job growth in our economy? Of course that's not true, but it is what they're calling for.
They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
The corporations made the courts grant them personhood? That's priceless! I'm so glad they could point out this overlooked piece of history! Oh wait, it isn't overlooked because it is a flat out lie.
They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
They do spend millions of dollars on legal teams, not only to get out of paying what they owe but also to avoid having to pay the plethora of frivolous lawsuits that exist. Hmm...
They have sold our privacy as a commodity. They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.
Okay, these seems like it is going to go well because companies are collecting information about us and selling it, so there is some truth there, but then they go and ruin it with this clearly untrue statement about using the military and police to prevent freedom of the press. Maybe in China and Saudi Arabia that is true, but it isn't true of corporations, it isn't true in America and it isn't true of corporate interests in China and Saudi Arabia. Where freedom of the press is prevented there is political tyranny and no freedom. So, they clearly can't distinguish the difference between political realities and economic forces. How sad.
They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
Deliberately declined? What do these people think, that we are living in the 19th century? The Consumer Products Safety Commission exists for a reason people. The federal oversight exists for a reason. There are recalls made and carried out on a regular basis. You might be able to claim they put out a dangerous product. You may even claim they knowingly put out a dangerous product even though there is no evidence to support that. However, you can't claim they deliberately decline to recall. That is simply untrue.
They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
They certainly influence economic policy, but they don't determine it. That is, at best, a gross generalization of reality. As to whether or not the economic policies of companies are catastrophic failures would be a matter of opinion.
They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
Okay, up until a 2010 decision by the Supreme Court, corporations were severely limited on what they could donate to political campaigns and banned outright to donate directly to candidates for federal office. There hasn't really been an election since this Supreme Court decision, so what the heck are these people talking about? You see a lot about how such and such organization donated to a certain candidate, but that is usually an employee of that corporation donating to a candidate, not the company itself. This all gets lumped together in these so called open sites giving us information that is not entirely accurate. This demand seems to stem from nothing more than an untrue perception that corporations give a lot of money to individual candidates. That's simply not true. The ban on corporate giving to individual candidates seeking federal office is still in place. Do these people not even care to know the law?
They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
This statement shows a severe lack of understanding of how the market works. For decades now, the federal government and many state governments have actually been giving incentives to companies and individuals for making or purchasing alternative energy products. If a company could figure out a way to make money on these products, they'd do it. The idea that they'd intentionally keep something off the market is ludicrous and paranoid. There are no consumers. There is no demand. That's why these products don't exist. Not because of some conspiracy amongst companies to keep them off the market. As for dependence on foreign oil, the two issues aren't even the same. We could be independent of foreign oil in a year if our Congress just had the will to stand up to the environmental lobby and say we would build more nuclear power plants, build more refineries and drill wherever we could. This won't happen. Not because of corporations, who'd love to do all three of those things, but because our government won't allow it.
They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
You know what? They have a point here. They do in fact try to prevent generic drugs from entering the market and this is entirely profit driven. A drug company has been granted the right by the government to profit exclusively from their drug until their patent expires. Patents are good for 20 years. So, the company can make a huge profit, but only for 20 years. After that, generic drugs are made and the price drops to a point where it is no longer very profitable. Of course a company wants to extend this as much as possible. However, we can't just remove this system entirely. It was set up, by the government not corporations, with the intent of encouraging drug research. Without this patent system, we'd probably all still be using aspirin for pain and penacillin for antibiotics. It is this patent system that has encouraged drug research and creation over the years. Sure, we'd still have some new drugs, but I submit there'd be far fewer than there are. Of course, some might argue that'd be a good thing too?
They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
They've purposely covered up a lot of things in the pursuit of profit. We've found yet more common ground. However, unlike these people, I'm not deluded enough to think they always get away with it. Exxon certainly didn't get away with what happened in Alaska and BP certainly didn't get away with what happened in the Gulf of Mexico either. Enron and MCI certainly kept faulty books to promote profit. Can anyone argue either of them got away with it? These people are having to pay reparations to customers and suffer in market share because of public perception. Not to mention that many of them are actually in jail! They are hardly covering all this up. I'm not naive enough to think this never goes on...of course it does. I'm also not naive enough to think that sometimes they get away with it. Sure they do, but they don't always get away with it and the more we catch, the more will be discouraged from doing it in the future.
They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
Corporations have control of the media? Well, that's one of the few true statements they've made so far. Yet, I suspect they are aiming this criticism not at the media in general, but at FoxNews specifically, also known as NewsCorp. Based on their other "demands", that's just how they roll. They probably aren't criticizing Disney (ABC), GE (NBC), Time Warner (Turner Broadcasting or CNN) or Viacom (CBS). I could be wrong, maybe they think ALL of these companies are secretly trying to instill fear and misinformation in the people. Hmm...if that's the case, maybe they have a point.
They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.
I'm not even sure what to say here. This sounds like a paranoid rant and certainly needs a citation to back it up. What the heck are they talking about? Murdering prisoners by contract killing. Really? As for perpetuating colonialism, they'd get a lot more interest from me if I could stop laughing enough from the statement of perpetuating colonialism at home. Can someone please explain to me how one would do that? Let's all form colonies within our own borders!!!! In the end, this is just a paranoid rant with a stupid statement mixed in for good measure.
They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.
Last I checked, governments and tyrants were responsible for the perpetuation of weapons of mass destruction, not corporations. Also, governments and tyrants are directly responsible for torture and murder, but I have yet to see credible evidence of a corporation doing this. The mafia maybe. Drug cartels certainly. But actual corporations? Nope...wrong again.
To the people of the world, we, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.
Yes, we agree, and I'm asserting mine by pointing out your lack of education!
Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.
Again! We agree, I call it the Constitution of the United States. What do "they" call it?
To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal. Join us and make your voices heard!
So, they want to work with Tea Partiers who support our Republic? Oh wait, no...they said "direct democracy" which actually means doing away with republicanism in favor of one man one vote. Alrighty then. So they are in effect, advocating the elimination of our representational government? Really? Think I read too much into that statement? Think again. After all, look at their closing statement!
The statement issued from Zuccotti Park, by the General Assembly, at Occupy Wall Street.
They've formed a general assembly? That's a government folks. This group has basically stated they no longer consider our government legitimate. Think I've read too much into it again? Look at this. They've created their own government, called for direct democracy over representational republicanism, declared the corporations corrupt, and stated the corporations are the government. These people don't want change or reform. They want revolution!
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
What to do about federal social programs?
So, I was having a conversation with a friend about whether or not the governmnet should be involved in social programs. My position was that it is not the proper role of the federal government, that we should rely first on family, then on our local church/synagogue/whatever, then on charity and finally on local and state assistance. I did not include the federal government because I sincerely believe this is not their role. Her reply to me was heartfelt, so I will try and respond to it as best I can. It is quoted below:
This is a very good question and it comes from the heart.
First, let me state that this friend actually followed the road I pointed out as the preferable one. Family, church, then government assistance. She stated again that "Only by several safety nets (church, family AND government) did I survive." It is fortunate that her family and church were able to help out and I'm glad there was assistance available to her from other resources as well. My argument has never been that welfare should not exist, but instead that it should not be a part of the federal government. Instead, it should be enacted by each state individually to assist their citizens as they see fit because to do so at the federal level is unconstitutional, even if we ignore that fact for our own convenience. Also, I argue that charity is much better at performing this function than government ever could be. In 2008 (I use these numbers because I wanted to use numbers for the same year and these are the ones I found first), Americans, who are a very generouse people compared to other countries in the world, gave 307.5 billion dollars to charities. That same year, the federal government spent 354 billion dollars on welfare programs. The Cato Institute did a study several years ago and determined that 70 percent of the money was spent on bureaucratic overhead. In contrast to that, the average overhead by charities in about 16 percent according to a Forbes study. This pretty much proves that charities are significantly more effective than the government. This of course doesn't even consider the additional bureaucratic hardship the government imposes or the fact that government ends up wasting a lot of their money on people who don't really need it because they are required by law to treat all comers equitably regardless of circumstances. It is all about numbers rather than actual hardship. Finally, I argue that welfare should be a leg up and not a hand out. She used it as a leg up to help her get through a difficult time. I commend her for her strength.
This next part might come off as heartless, but I assure you it isn't intended that way. I completely understand that she was distressed by the additional hardship her situation placed on her family/parents. This is a logical reaction. Nobody ever wants to cause pain/trouble/heartache/etc. for those they love. However, I submit that this is exactly what family is for. We may not want to burden our families and we may not enjoy the emotional state this causes, but it is exactly what we must do. Isn't it great that we have family to lean on in times of trouble? I realize that not everyone has this, but this is and should be our first line of defense in hard times.
Next, I want to point out a statement I read in a book once. The summary was this: that if we want to end poverty in America, we should focus our efforts on single mothers. If we took care of the single mothers in our society, we'd almost eliminate poverty in the U.S. It was an interesting book, the title of which I can't remember right now, that pointed out a lot of the problems with government assistance and advocated that charitable organizations were much better. However, I submit, based on these findings, that we should focus our efforts on the plight of single mothers in this country. How exactly to do this, I don't have an answer for.
On a slightly different note, we've (as a country) tried a lot of different things that have worked or failed to various degrees, but it seems to be the mentality in our government that even if a program is an utter failure, we can't get rid of it and start from scratch or see if the various states can do a better job because somehow we'd be hurting X(fill in the blank for whatever group the politicians want support from) where x can range from children to single women to the poor and on and on. Social programs aren't about helping the poor but instead about figuring out which group will vote for me if I give them money. Social programs are about buying elections. It is just a more civilized way of doing it than driving down the street handing out money.
My contention that the states should be allowed to set up their own programs (or not to set up one) is that the states could do a better job. How can politicians know in Washington, DC what is best for someone down on their luck in Seattle and decide to take money from someone in Virginia to solve the problem they can't even properly define? It is best that people in Washington State figure out ways to help those down on their luck in Washington State. One of the great things about the form of government our founders established is that it allowed and expected that the various states would prove to be an incubator of ideas. If one state tried something and it failed, the other states were unlikely to copy it, but if a state tried something and had massive success, then other states were likely to try something similar. By relying on the federal government for the last 80 years, we've moved away from this model and killed the opportunity for social innovation that should exist and created a system of one size fits all that generally fits hardly anyone.
At this point, I think I've addressed the points my friend was earnestly concerned about. However, I will agree that family alone can be insufficient, that churches aren't doing as much as they could, that we need more charities working harder, etc. However, all these things are better at helping people than the federal government has shown itself to be and I will continue to support elimination of federal programs and the creation of state programs. Of course, we have to ween people off federal programs. We can't expect anyone to start taking care of themselves when they've become reliant on these programs.
What do you propose in place of those programs? Everyone says the church should do it. But it's not satisfying that need either. I would LOVE it if none of these programs were necessary, because it would mean that people were doing right and good by each other and truly looking out for and loving their neighbors.
Civilization will never ever work that way. There will always be greed and ugliness, and stomping on the meek... So what do we do with those who truly are "down on their luck".
I was so against these programs until I needed them. When I was suddenly thrust onto my own 2+ years ago, when my marriage ended, I had been at home for 8 yrs, raising and schooling my children. I had skills that i had, thankfully, kept up and even grown during that time. But I had no job and no place to live.
During the worst economy in years, i was competing with everyone for a job. I could not even get seasonal work at Barnes and Nobles! I applied any and everywhere. Dumbed myself down. Built myself up. Short of getting on a pole or corner, I did everything I could. I am grateful my parents were willing to take me and my 4 kids in for the time that they did. But that created an additional burden on them. My (your former ;) ) church helped by getting the kids school supplies and clothes that year (which still makes me want to cry to think about) but I still had no money for my car payment and insurances. I think being in that situation was one of the biggest catalysts for starting my journey. My ex and I had been totally broke at a couple of points in our marriage due to his poor money management and decisions and control that I had no say in.
I wonder if, you would see these programs differently in my shoes? It's so easy to sit back and say someone will take care of it all. But it doesn't work that way.
At least not in my case...
This is a very good question and it comes from the heart.
First, let me state that this friend actually followed the road I pointed out as the preferable one. Family, church, then government assistance. She stated again that "Only by several safety nets (church, family AND government) did I survive." It is fortunate that her family and church were able to help out and I'm glad there was assistance available to her from other resources as well. My argument has never been that welfare should not exist, but instead that it should not be a part of the federal government. Instead, it should be enacted by each state individually to assist their citizens as they see fit because to do so at the federal level is unconstitutional, even if we ignore that fact for our own convenience. Also, I argue that charity is much better at performing this function than government ever could be. In 2008 (I use these numbers because I wanted to use numbers for the same year and these are the ones I found first), Americans, who are a very generouse people compared to other countries in the world, gave 307.5 billion dollars to charities. That same year, the federal government spent 354 billion dollars on welfare programs. The Cato Institute did a study several years ago and determined that 70 percent of the money was spent on bureaucratic overhead. In contrast to that, the average overhead by charities in about 16 percent according to a Forbes study. This pretty much proves that charities are significantly more effective than the government. This of course doesn't even consider the additional bureaucratic hardship the government imposes or the fact that government ends up wasting a lot of their money on people who don't really need it because they are required by law to treat all comers equitably regardless of circumstances. It is all about numbers rather than actual hardship. Finally, I argue that welfare should be a leg up and not a hand out. She used it as a leg up to help her get through a difficult time. I commend her for her strength.
This next part might come off as heartless, but I assure you it isn't intended that way. I completely understand that she was distressed by the additional hardship her situation placed on her family/parents. This is a logical reaction. Nobody ever wants to cause pain/trouble/heartache/etc. for those they love. However, I submit that this is exactly what family is for. We may not want to burden our families and we may not enjoy the emotional state this causes, but it is exactly what we must do. Isn't it great that we have family to lean on in times of trouble? I realize that not everyone has this, but this is and should be our first line of defense in hard times.
Next, I want to point out a statement I read in a book once. The summary was this: that if we want to end poverty in America, we should focus our efforts on single mothers. If we took care of the single mothers in our society, we'd almost eliminate poverty in the U.S. It was an interesting book, the title of which I can't remember right now, that pointed out a lot of the problems with government assistance and advocated that charitable organizations were much better. However, I submit, based on these findings, that we should focus our efforts on the plight of single mothers in this country. How exactly to do this, I don't have an answer for.
On a slightly different note, we've (as a country) tried a lot of different things that have worked or failed to various degrees, but it seems to be the mentality in our government that even if a program is an utter failure, we can't get rid of it and start from scratch or see if the various states can do a better job because somehow we'd be hurting X(fill in the blank for whatever group the politicians want support from) where x can range from children to single women to the poor and on and on. Social programs aren't about helping the poor but instead about figuring out which group will vote for me if I give them money. Social programs are about buying elections. It is just a more civilized way of doing it than driving down the street handing out money.
My contention that the states should be allowed to set up their own programs (or not to set up one) is that the states could do a better job. How can politicians know in Washington, DC what is best for someone down on their luck in Seattle and decide to take money from someone in Virginia to solve the problem they can't even properly define? It is best that people in Washington State figure out ways to help those down on their luck in Washington State. One of the great things about the form of government our founders established is that it allowed and expected that the various states would prove to be an incubator of ideas. If one state tried something and it failed, the other states were unlikely to copy it, but if a state tried something and had massive success, then other states were likely to try something similar. By relying on the federal government for the last 80 years, we've moved away from this model and killed the opportunity for social innovation that should exist and created a system of one size fits all that generally fits hardly anyone.
At this point, I think I've addressed the points my friend was earnestly concerned about. However, I will agree that family alone can be insufficient, that churches aren't doing as much as they could, that we need more charities working harder, etc. However, all these things are better at helping people than the federal government has shown itself to be and I will continue to support elimination of federal programs and the creation of state programs. Of course, we have to ween people off federal programs. We can't expect anyone to start taking care of themselves when they've become reliant on these programs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)