Posts tagged politics
“ The speech deserves the attention it has brought. Whether or not it makes Germany change (or accelerate) course remains to be seen. But the historic moment is clear: to see a Polish foreign minister addressing a Berlin audience as a political heavyweight, with serious ideas and serious demands, is a huge change from the days when Poland was seen as a difficult and needy recipient of Western largesse.”
“ The population of the United States is more than 300 million and it includes some of the best and brightest that the human species has to offer, probably more so than any other country in the world. There is surely something wrong with a system for choosing a leader when, given a pool of such talent and a process that occupies more than a year and consumes billions of dollars, what rises to the top of the heap is George W Bush. Or when the likes of Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin can be mentioned as even remote possibilities.”
Attention Governor Perry: Evolution is a fact - On Faith - The Washington Post
When people ask me why I don’t see myself ever moving back to America, usually I say something like I prefer the European lifestyle - living centrally in an apartment, not having to drive, having seasons, living in a place with a lively city center, bars that never close (no 2 am cutoff here!) and a slower drinking pace, a culture that’s not as focused on materialism and keeping-up-with the-Jonesitis, better news sources, affordable health care and university, and in general, more freedom. But actually, most of those things can be found in some American cities (though they’re all certainly much more expensive to live in), and when taken on their own might not justify my decision to stay here. It’s my goto answer, though, because the truth is much harder to explain over a beer.
The truth goes something like this: in all of the places I’ve lived in, all of the places I’ve travelled to (and statistically, that’s a lot), America is the only place where I’ve experienced such blatant anti-intellectualism (and this coming from someone who spent part of their childhood in communist Poland). Sure, Europe has its share of idiots, extremists and radical parties, but for the most part, the democratic process works here because most people want the best person for the job of leading the country. They might disagree on the specifics of how to do this, but leaders are not selected because of their lack of credentials. Ignorance is not a qualification, it is a problem to be addressed with education before one can pursue a significant office. There is no mainstream pride in ignorance like there is in much of American society.
As someone who loves learning, who is constantly striving to gain knowledge and decrease ignorance, I can’t imagine living in a society whose views are so antithetical to my own. Sadly, I don’t see this changing in my lifetime; if anything, it’s gotten worse in recent memory.
Anyway, Dawkins’ article is quite insightful and worth reading.
***
EDIT: Right after posting this, I found two articles on this topic, also worth reading: Republicans Against Science and The increasingly antiscience Republican candidates (the latter by one of my favorite people on the Internets, Bad Astronomer Phil Plait).
A Conservative Tumblog: savingink: ... First of all, way to rip off Ms. Rand. But more...
…Fuck No Liberals:A solution to the problem of teabagging
This argument comes courtesy of Fuck No Liberals:
First of all, way to rip off Ms. Rand.
But more importantly, let’s consider the underlying problem with this premise. It is a fair assumption that these two men live in a Western country - most likely the United States, given the author’s nationality. Assumption two is that both of these men are over the age of 18 - i.e., legally they’re adults. So while they may have had no choice as to which country they were born in, by remaining in that country as adults, they have entered into a social contract.
This contract states that by accepting the status of citizen and all of the privileges that come with it, such as education for their children, roads to drive on, the right to own property, police and fire protection, etc., they will in turn support this state financially, through paying taxes, as well as physically, in the case of a draft during a war.
Of course, if you don’t agree with such a contract, there are two solutions: work within the state’s system by running for office and try to change things, or leave. In fact, I would be absolutely thrilled if all of the teabaggers complaining about every aspect of the state they live in would get up and leave and found their own country on an island somewhere. I imagine they would think they were making Galt’s Gulch (well the handful or so with the ability to read a 1000-page book, anyway), but in reality, I don’t think they’d last a week before they missed their McDonald’s and their Wal-Marts and their FOX News.
How’s that for a rebuttal?
That was asinine when Rousseau said it, it’s asinine now. You don’t enter into a contract simply because you happen to be somewhere. There are no terms made, no offers given, no acceptance granted, no consideration exchanged. The “social contract” theory is a poor disguise for gang mentality dictatorship; ie “You’re on my turf, you have to do what I say.”
It’s nonsense. Frankly, I’m surprised to see someone who still buys into that crap.
This contract states that by accepting the status of citizen and all of the privileges that come with it, such as education for your children, roads to drive on, the right to own property, police and fire protection, etc.
And here’s where your “social contract” theory comes completely and obviously apart. The soverign had no business presuming their subjects wanted these things. And if they did, that doesn’t mean that the soverign was entitled to a monopoly on them.
Think about it this way: Suppose I unilaterally decided that you wanted… no, needed a goat. So I took my goat and I chained him up to your fence post. And then I knocked on your door and said, “Hey, you owe me for this goat. Pay up.” And you’re not allowed to refuse to pay me. If you do that, I get to throw you in federal prison. And hey, maybe you actually did want a goat - but who said you wanted it from me? Maybe you wanted to shop around a bit for them, instead of being forced - by someone else - to pay for their goat?
It doesn’t matter whether you wanted it. It doesn’t matter if you asked for it. You got it, and now you owe for it. If you don’t like it, move somewhere where someone hasn’t tied a goat to your fence.
Social contract theory. It’s retarded. It’s a fun and wild thought experiment for philosophy 101 students, but it doesn’t actually make any sense.
Actually, there are terms made: they are called “laws”. No one asks you whether you would like to follow the laws of a country, and yet, if you were to take that gun and actually rob your neighbor’s house, you would be punished if you were caught and convicted. If you were to have no laws, you would live in a state of anarchy, which is impossible to maintain (not to mention counterproductive to progress) with a large population. Think of a society without a social contract as social anarchy.
As for the goat argument:
The soverign had no business presuming their subjects wanted these things. And if they did, that doesn’t mean that the soverign was entitled to a monopoly on them.
This I agree with, but it doesn’t apply because we are speaking of a democracy, not a dictatorship. Yes, if a dictator tried to stick me with a goat I didn’t ask for, that would be morally wrong. But a democracy works (present state of American Congress notwithstanding) because I, as an individual, have a say in what the government can or cannot give me. When you go vote Republican, you are stating that you want the government to give you fewer things; but just because your vote doesn’t match the majority in that election, doesn’t mean that you have the right to disobey the laws that are passed.
Again, if you don’t like the system, you can work within it to change the laws - to convince public officials that goat A is better than goat B, or that actually, cows have been proven to be far more efficient resources. Or you can GTFO.
The goat argument - just as your initial argument about your “friend” - simplifies a complex, multi-faceted problem into a black-or-white dichotomy. I hate to burst your little privileged bubble, but the real world doesn’t work that way.
A solution to the problem of teabagging
This argument comes courtesy of Fuck No Liberals:
My friend came to me earlier today. He’s 31. He’s got a wife who was laid off from work back in October and hasn’t been able to find a job (despite considerable effort), and two kids under the age of ten. He has a modest home in an OK neighborhood that is mortgaged. Their full-size sedan is in the 40th of a 60-month financing plan. He has a job that pays $35K/year. Apparently, he is in financial straits.
He came to me today, rather despondent, telling me how tough things have been lately. The country is in a recession, his wife can’t find a job, the kids have medical and educational needs, his paycheck just isn’t cutting it and he’s afraid of defaulting on his mortgage and/or having his car repossessed. He asked me for help.
I looked at him for a moment, saying nothing. Then, I got up, went into my room, opened my safe, and picked up an item. Returning to my living room, I handed it to him.
He looked at it in surprise, not knowing what to do or say at that particular moment.
In his hands was my Beretta 92.
I told him flatly, “If you and your family are in need, take this and go find someone who has more than they need, and take it from them by force. Point this at them and demand that which you need to survive.”
He looked shocked, and handed the gun back to me. ”Are you crazy? I can’t do that!” He said, “It’s wrong! I’m asking you for help, and you’re telling me to go rob someone at gunpoint?”
“You’re not going to do it?” I asked. “Why not? Aren’t you concerned about your family’s welfare?”
“Because it’s insane! It’s wrong!” he cried.
“Would you prefer that I send the gun to the guy you voted in as President? He’ll do it for you,” I replied. ”But,” I continued, “does that make it any less insane, or any less wrong? Is the taking of another’s rightful property by force, for the benefit of your need, OK so long as it’s someone in a position of elected authority doing the taking?”
He stared at me, blankly, his jaw open in disbelief.
I stared back, waiting for a rebuttal.
First of all, way to rip off Ms. Rand.
But more importantly, let’s consider the underlying problem with this premise. It is a fair assumption that these two men live in a Western country - most likely the United States, given the author’s nationality. Assumption two is that both of these men are over the age of 18 - i.e., legally they’re adults. So while they may have had no choice as to which country they were born in, by remaining in that country as adults, they have entered into a social contract.
This contract states that by accepting the status of citizen and all of the privileges that come with it, such as education for their children, roads to drive on, the right to own property, police and fire protection, etc., they will in turn support this state financially, through paying taxes, as well as physically, in the case of a draft during a war.
Of course, if you don’t agree with such a contract, there are two solutions: work within the state’s system by running for office and try to change things, or leave. In fact, I would be absolutely thrilled if all of the teabaggers complaining about every aspect of the state they live in would get up and leave and found their own country on an island somewhere. I imagine they would think they were making Galt’s Gulch (well the handful or so with the ability to read a 1000-page book, anyway), but in reality, I don’t think they’d last a week before they missed their McDonald’s and their Wal-Marts and their FOX News.
How’s that for a rebuttal?
“ You know American workers are in bad shape when a low-paying, no-benefits job is considered a sweet deal. Their situation isn’t likely to improve soon; some economists predict it will be years, not months, before employees regain any semblance of bargaining power.”
The Disposable Worker - BusinessWeek
This is definitely worth reading in full. Basically, temp jobs will become the norm, loyalty is disappearing and the average worker is getting increasingly screwed, and will continue to do so for the next decade or so at least.
What the article doesn’t mention is that there is one way to drastically improve this situation: pass health care. And not the stripped-down version Congress is still incapable of passing, but a version that completely divorces health care from employment, so workers can choose jobs based on the jobs themselves, not their benefits or, increasingly, lack thereof. A more European system, if you will.
Case in point (from the same article):
For a glimpse of where things might be headed in the U.S., look at Europe, which makes a lot more use of temporary and part-time workers than U.S. employers do. […] One big difference: Most European countries cover temps and part-timers with government health insurance and require that they receive wages and benefits comparable to those for permanent employees doing similar work.
Barring all of the criticisms of the health care plan in its various incarnations, it’s hard to believe that anyone would be against the idea of divorcing health care from employment. Health insurance was never a part of any employment “package” until the early 20th century, and the concept didn’t really take off until after WWII, when employers were using any gimmick they could to get the best workers.
Now, it’s not so much a benefit as a yoke, forcing employees to take or remain at jobs they would otherwise leave, and crippling the economy in the process. The reason private, non-employer insurance is so expensive is because those who can’t afford it either seek out jobs with health plans or go without, leaving a smaller pool without much bargaining power purchasing private insurance.
Divorce health care from employment: that’s the first step of health care reform. Everything else can be up for debate.
the free agent paradox
It’s all too often that, in the name of orderliness and simplicity, a dichotomy is established when the matter at hand is far more complicated. Such, I believe, is the case in the age-old classification of human beings into leaders and followers.
At least one more category is necessary, and this one I’ll dub “free agents”. A free agent is neither a leader nor a follower. They work best on their own, keeping to their own schedules and habits, and completing tasks at their own pace and with their own modus operandi.
However, problems arise when free agents are forced into the leader/follower polarity. Free agents do not follow commands well. They will do assigned tasks, as long as they’re allowed to complete them in their own manner. But if they’re forced into a rigid structure, they naturally rebel, sensing that their perceived way of doing things is the only correct way, whether this feeling actually corresponds with reality or not.
Just the same, free agents do not make good leaders. Leaders often mistake a free agent’s independence and hard work as a sign of their desire for a leadership position, and free agents themselves often fall into this trap because that’s what others have come to expect of them. But free agents have no desire to hold power; inherently, they’re rather be left to their own devices, and having to rule over others is a distraction from their actual goals.
When leaders and followers congregate, a natural order is immediately established: the followers follow the leader (or occasionally leaders). However, when several free agents are in a situation where they must work together, a completely different pattern emerges: that of collaboration amongst equals.
So what system of government would be more reflective of this situation? A democracy - the best we’ve managed to come up with so far - by nature is composed of leaders and followers, with no place in its framework for free agents. Could this system be altered to include free agents in the most productive way, or would an altogether new system have to be established?
And, perhaps most of all, why do thoughts like this come to me in the shower after a cold, mostly sleepless night?
