Objectivist Lessons

This kind of shit makes me sick! People shouldn't have to deal with this kind of thing at all, suffering because of something that happens due to no fault of their own. It's first, second, and third hand experiences like this that drove me to become a Socialist, to understand the need for a leveled playing field to balance out the inequities emergent in all power structures.

Libertarians and other objectivists always argue against social safety nets by describing those that would be supported by them as lazy. We constantly hear comments like those by former presidential candidate Herman Cain that presume that there are jobs out there for people willing to work for them. If that's the truth then why is it that people who work to get a job and continue to work once in that job can lose that job due to no fault of their own? In an objectivist world aren't those the people who should be rewarded for their constant efforts?

The Truth is that for all their breast beating the objectivist philosophy was simply never designed to apply to anyone beyond ones self. They can say how people who work at it will be rewarded, but they neglect to mention that this is only if they can avoid the constant roadblocks thrown in their way by others seeking to secure their own positions first. In the objectivist view gains are privatized, trickling up to those who claim their right to glory over others due to their position in the hierarchy and the only socialism they know is how to spread their personal failures to those below them who were never at fault and who probably worked their asses off all the while.

Declarations and Independence

Looking at my Twitter and Facebook feeds today is making me ashamed to call myself a "Liberal". All I seem to see is people using the 4th of July as a launching point to to attack conservatives in one way or another or to just generally let our displeasure with the state of the union be known.

I know we're all groaning at the fair weather patriots and the conservative nut jobs who come out around holidays like the 4th of July and remind us that many of the people who proclaim their love of America the loudest also do so in ways that embarrass, disgust, or scare us the most. I know that our gut instinct is to distance ourselves from these people as much as possible so as not to be lumped in with them. I know that our ideal America is very different from theirs and when we hear them hoot, holler, and proselytize we naturally want to disassociate ourselves from them and their ideas. The fact of the matter however is that both sides love America, regardless of the gulf between our views and if there is one thing we can celebrate over everything else it's that we're allowed to have and express those views openly. I won't fault anyone for disagreeing with the views of non-liberals and doing so with as much cynicism and vitriol as they like, but the 4th of July isn't the problem and neither is the idea that is "America".

So before you post your next cynical screed or sarcastic comment on flag-waving, hot dogs, or some yokel's idea of what the 4th of July and America are all about, take a breath and think about what this day is really celebrating. 236 years ago a bunch of people got together and told one of the most powerful nations in the world to get shoved. They declared their independence and started off on the incredibly rocky road toward building a nation. It's a road we're still on today and while we may not always agree with the people we're on the road with and we may not always agree with where the road should take us, can't we all agree that the road itself is a good idea?

Link: Open the Future - Fears of Teratocracy

Open the Future - Fears of Teratocracy
"The real test of whether a society that uses a plebiscite to determine leadership is really a democracy is whether the losing party accepts the loss and the legitimacy of their opponent's victory. This is especially true for when the losing party previously held power. Do they give up power willingly, confident that they'll have a chance to regain power again in the next election? Or do they take up arms against the winners, refuse to relinquish power, and/or do everything they can to undermine the legitimacy of the opposition's rule?"

Interesting read

Opposition Research: Layoffs

Question for the opposition: why is it better (or at least ethical) to lay off thousands of low and mid level workers as opposed to having some few on the topmost levels retain their jobs but take temporary pay or bonus cuts?

It would seem to me that any action that takes money away from a large group of active consumers (minimum wage earners and those still within a low or middle income bracket) and thus out of the economic picture, does more harm than good. While on the flip side, taking money from those on top (who I may argue are usually more responsible for a companies short comings than hourly workers in these situations) will likely see little to no impact on the economy as a whole as doing so is not likely to put that upper echelon executive into such dire straights. Granted this may just be a "trickle-down" vs "trickle-up" economic theory debate, but why is Socialized failure acceptible, when Socializing everything else is demonized?

PS. I'm serious about this. Can any one give me a reasoned debate on this?

Posted from my iPhone @ Quack's

Right-Wing Extremists?

I just saw this bumper sticker:

"America was founded by right-wing extremists" ... Really? Adopting a system of government that seeks to dissolve power among the masses and provide equal representation vs a monarchy seems rather liberal to me, at least in the context of the era.
Sent from my iPhone

Disaster Area

CNN reports that over 200 million dollars have been contributed to aid Haiti. That's 200 million dollars, much of which likely came from small donations given by regular middle class folks. The compassion at work in something like this is almost staggering and too often unexpected in the cynicism of our everyday lives. Truth be told however, this kind of thing happens all the time. Disasters often bring out the best in those who are not actively experiencing them but who are presented with with facts in such a way that it stirs those ever present feelings of empathy and camaraderie towards others. Decent, hard-working people with not a lot to give, all giving a little and amounting to something big for the benefit of others. Why is it then, that when politicians advocate taxing the richest 1-5% of the population in order to fund services that would benefit the country at large, these same decent, hard-working people who are willing to donate to worthy causes and who are not even being targeted by these taxes, speak out so vehemently against it? Is it misinformation? Is it principle? Is it the discrepancy between taxation and donation? Maybe we should declare the United States a perpetual disaster area and wait for the donations to flood in. I'm not trying to belittle anyone's generosity in regards to the Haiti situation, but when the same people who are outraged over million and billionaires not pledging enough money towards the relief effort are also the people who tear out their hair and beat their chests at the idea of taxing those same million and billionaires, I can't help but be overwhelmed by the hypocrisy.