The Golden Gate » Teloscientist

Teloscientist — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:31:40 +0000

Ron Paul \"You Can\'t Reinflate The Bubble!\"

What happens when you live on credit, pay your creditors with more credit, then run out of funds? Witness the downfall of the American Republic.

Funny, he has been predicting this financial collapse for the last 2 years – it was the central platform on which he ran for president in 2007! (closing our overseas operations to reduce the costs was a means to avoid it from happening). Yet, he is virtually unused by the media. He is a Churchill that will not be voted into power because 1) the threat cannot be coalesced into a iconic enemy to fight like the Nazi’s were, and 2) because his rhetoric can’t begin to compete with Obama. Sad. History will look back on him and the unsuccessful grassroots swell of his 2007-8 campaign as the symptom of American collapse.

How much evidence will it take for people to question the idea that the government can “steer/direct/grow” our economy and realize that the government unbalances it and creates the challenges it then “needs” to solve? What has it EVER done right in this sphere?

The talking heads on television, who admittedly do not understand _basic_ economics (supply/demand curves, marginal utility, credit vs. capital, or the relationship between money supply and inflation and its consequence), “inform” an uneducated public (who also don’t understand basic economics) about the politicians promises and the pundits positions as if they were reality – then take polls that the politicians and pundits use as evidence that they are right.

The only part missing from the equation we see/hear in the media is the one that actually matters – the REALITY of market forces, which, like water, eventually go around, overflow, or bust wide open the various obstacles the government puts it its way, causing black markets (organized crime) and destructive collapse, leading the government to “reposition/reform” the obstacles, to ratchet up the process problem one more time, until it can’t and the whole thing collapses. Result? The depression, the meltdown of the 1970′s, and now the meltdown of the 2000′s – which we have been inflating to the point of popping for the last 8 years. Now what? More of the same? You bet.

The greatest political accomplishment in human history – the codification of individual human rights as the foundation of a government – destroyed because of the politicians desire for power (personal and ideological – the road to hell is paved with good intentions) and rhetorical skill to manipulate the gullible American people through an ironic combination of riches (entitlement) and righteousness (envy). The government that robs Peter (the future, the rich), to pay Paul (the present and the so-called poor), will always have the support of Paul, until it collapses into chaos – then government becomes warlords, and the process repeats itself – UNTIL people stop the cycle and put freedom (and the consequent self-responsibility) first – i.e., the American Revolution. It is Paul who needs to step up, and he is too lazy, stupid (by choice), and immature to do so.

End Rant.

Libertarianism – A Realistic Response to the Reality of Realpolitik

Teloscientist — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:28:39 +0000

Tragic. The US government nationalizing and bailing out major financial institutions it helped to destoy...

I am a libertarian. To contrast this with Democrat and
Republican: we might say that the Republicans (at their core) want the
government to stay out of our financial lives, but control what we do in
our bedrooms (morality/religion). Democrats (at their core) want the
government out of our bedrooms, but control how we manage our financial
affairs (welfare/regulation/wealth redistribution). Libertarians want
the government out of our financial lives and out of our bedrooms.
Libertarians stand for the individual rights to life, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness according to our own conscience. They believe that
the purpose of government is to protect the freedom and rights of
citizens through a police force to protect us from the initiation of
force by other citizens, court system to protect us from fraud (enforce
contracts), and a military force to protect us from foreign invaders.

The libertarian stance on foreign aggression is: commerce with all
nations, alliances with none.  Libertarians not only want us out of
Iraq, they want us out of Japan! (and our other 800+ military bases
around the world!)  Let them hate us for our freedom and wealth, without
the military presence/force that forces that freedom and wealth down their
throats.

My reasons for being libertarian are simple. I believe that history has
demonstrated (in every time. and in every part of the globe) that the
more power you give to government, the more those who hold the power
will be corrupted by lobbyists (business, religious, bankers, racists,
populists, etc.).  As PJ O'Rourke put it, "When buying and selling are
controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are
legislators."  The more money and favors/regulations the government
controls, the more money and favors the lobbyists can afford to spend to
buy them, because (although it is somewhat of a gamble) the return on
investment for lobbying is typically 10 to 1. As a lobbyist, I can spend
$50 million dollars influencing various politicians in order to get a
$500 million dollar annual contract, and $1 billion to get $100 billion
contract. Smart business always follows the clearest incentives, and
competing for government largess is clearly incentived.
People/politicians are corruptible (especially through blackmail, which
money buys easily), and so governments become corrupt. The solution is
to reduce government power to reduce the scope and destructiveness of
its corruption and keep it maximally accountable to its core functions.
Hence, Libertarianism.

The American Constitution/experiment, was created by men whom, by todays
standards, are radical Libertarians, for the exact reasons stated above.
I believe that they created the most beautiful social contract in human
history, and I find it tragic that it is being increasingly ignored and
distorted. I am patriotic in this sense: I believe that the ideals and
values of life, liberty/freedom, protection of our right to use our
property according to our own conscience (as long as we are not
violating the identical rights of others) are worth cheering about and
if necessary, fighting to maintain.

Deepak on Palin and Obama – Arrogance You Can Believe In

Teloscientist — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 03:34:26 +0000

Some of you may have seen the post by Deepak Chopra about Sarah Palin, in which he psycho-eviscerates those who find value or some type of agreement with the positions she takes.

Upon reading it several times, I became progressively dismayed, although fascinated by the clarity with which it typifies “green/Boomeritis” arrogance, including the hypocrisy and self-refuting logic at its heart. This article examplifies a common stance taken by those whom I consider the most politically active people in my life. My opinion, which I offer reasons for below, is that it expresses a fundamentally dishonest and destructive perspective that is at the heart of much of the “transformational” community’s conversation about politics.

Specifically, it is built on a narrative that claims/implies that it is inclusive and integrative (2nd tier, in Spiral Dynamics terms) , but is deeply self-absorbed and parochial (1st tier), and hence blind to its blindness.

It is written as if it is the only rational perspective possible, as if Deepak (and by extension Obama, or the reverse) are so right that there is no need for conversation about the accuracy of their propositions and conclusions, only about how to deal with them. This marginalizes all the values of people they disagree with – the very thing that their stance accuses all other perspectives of.

Deepak (and those who agree with and write similar pieces) pretend as if the “ground” that he is standing on and writing from represents an “enlightened/superior/higher” perspective BECAUSE it includes more information than its competing perspectives (in this case, conservatives like Palin). However, he demonstrates no understanding of the people he is critiquing. In place of understanding, he creates a straw man that burns so easily they he feels the need to apologize for how cruel he must seem to destroy his opponent so utterly. It is as if his opponent is so obviously wrong he doesn’t even need to establish the verity of his points, all there is left to do talk about their consequences…

Examples: In almost every sentence, he speaks an an unquestionable authority, and with a tone that indicates that disagreement is a sign of the stupidity that he is decrying (and, as it is said, you can’t argue with a sneer):

- Impulses that are different than those He (Barack and Deepak) promotes are “their worst impulses.”
- BECAUSE He calls people to “higher impulses,” Palin’s responses and values (and others who disagree with Obama’s policies) can by DEFINITION be simplified to “anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of “the other” , and hence written off as unworthy of consideration or inclusion.
- “Small town values” become “a denial of America’s global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.” – (What the hell?)
- “Family values” become “anti social justice.” (Huh?)
- Patriotism becomes “a fallback from a failed war.” (I know my patriotism is sourced from this…)
- her political position, including all of the changes she wants to make becomes “I’m all right, Jack,” and “Why change? Everything’s OK as it is.” – (of course, to disagree with someone who wants a specific change is to be against change in general. I knew that…)

He says: “there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. ” Well, if it is so obvious, why can’t they see it? because they are stupid? because they are victims of patriarchal bourgeoisie values (which they are too stupid to go beyond)? How about because they believe that feminism is a postmodern movement that is nihilistic in nature, substance, and rhetoric, and proposes ideals that conservatives like Palin believe are destructive and soul-deadening to living, breathing people? Such a response is simply not a possible legitimate stance to take in this article. It does not exist as a possiblity in Deepak’s world.

This is the hypocrisy. Lack of understanding leads to projection of the enemy onto Palin – against which Deepak establishs his hero stature, which stature is supposedly integrated, compassionate, and wise. All bullshit.

AND, the intellectual elite of the country and the political left do not even question or challenge him. This article has been sent to me by 4 different people – more than any other political article yet this election cycle. All of them have included positive or self-congratulatory introductions to it. None have mentioned its utter arrogance. So, here I am…

Jason Alexander (the philosopher of capitalism, not the actor), used to chide me, saying “Remember, people get the government they deserve. If the people are unWholeSum, the government will be unWholeSum.” I have spent the last decade losing my will to try to prove him wrong. Welcome to election year 2008.

This article is even more painful for me because I have severe concerns about the conservative side of this issue as well. However, an enemy of my enemy is rarely my friend, just as two wrongs don’t make a right, and someone disagreeing with someone who is wrong is not thereby correct.

Sad times for the most beautiful political experiement/culture in history – the American Revolution of Self-Responsibility and Individual Rights.

McCarthyism lives: Global Warming, Gore, and Corporatism as the new Communism

Teloscientist — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 23:58:07 +0000

I recently saw “good night and good luck”, which re-awakened my interest in the cultural impacts of fascism and the ability of people with media power to smear people with inaccurate but effective half-truths, or out and out lies. To avoid dealing with the unfair social ostracism such smears create, many of the best and brightest quit the game, or go along with the party line in the hopes of keeping at least a few sane voices in the mix.

As I have watched the press and media around the global warming issue, it reminds me heavily of this “McCarthyism” style of debate. I am watching every climatologist I am aware of who questions Gore’s (and the IPCC) data or agenda being written off as spurious or even malicious. This time, instead of “communism” these previously well-respected climatologists are smeared with “corporatism.” They lose funding, get their articles rejected without review, and become fodder for the “conspiracy” theorists in the global warming camp.

Gore regularly smears (meaning asserts without proof or context) the more prominent anti-global warming climatologists with “ties to oil interests” and “their work has been discredited.” This public comment gets reprinted thousands of times. Meanwhile, the scientists themselves question how and where their work has been discredited. They offer systematic defense of their work which are not published by the journals that publish their status as discredited.

What about the funding that these people get, and the political power and fame? Are those, perhaps, motivations that equal the supposed “oil” ties of anti-global warming hysteria?Alvin Gouldner pointed out that in Marx’s system of capitalists, workers, and landlords, he left out the intellectuals. By leaving them out of the equation (he happened to be one, go figure), Marx’s system leaves room for them to dominate the system, which they did and have. When we add them back into the equation, we see that the leaders of the communist revolutions have all been intellectuals, and those in power after the revolution as well.

In the same way, I question whether we might want to add “alarmists” to the political/scientific equation around global warming. Why is it that people are so quick to jump on Gore’s bandwagon? Why do they so easily write off those scientists who claim that the data does not lead to a preponderance of evidence for HUMAN impact on global warming? Why do they listen intently to scientists whose speciality is not climate but ignore the climatologists that dare to question Gore’s Claims? Why are they so easily led by those who use clearly ambiguous scientific reports to mean certain “proof” of their position?

And what are the source documents that the politicians and pundits use to “prove” their case? Upon what basis do they claim “scientific consensus?”Several critics point out the variation between the substance of major reports and the “summary findings” that end up in the conclusions, showing that the DATA suggests major uncertainty, but the summaries suggest that the issue is decided. Here are a couple examples cited by Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact. Thus, although the conflicted state of the affair was accurately presented in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the infamous “summary for policy makers” reported ambiguously that “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” This sufficed as the smoking gun for Kyoto.

The next IPCC report again described the problems surrounding what has become known as the attribution issue: that is, to explain what mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. Some deployed the lassitude argument–e.g., we can’t think of an alternative–to support human attribution. But the “summary for policy makers” claimed in a manner largely unrelated to the actual text of the report that “In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief (15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It again enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the report was preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that “The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.” This was sufficient for CNN’s Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that the report represented a “unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man. There is no wiggle room.” Well, no.

I wonder if, in retrospect, if and when we discover that the human contribution to global warming is insignificant, or given in terms of millennia rather than decades, we will look back on the current “certainty” of public sentiment as yet another symptom of the same human desire that lead to the spread and horror of socialism and communism. Even more, I wonder if we we learn that historical lesson, or simply repeat it on whatever issue of the day promises the most powerful feelings of self-righteousness and distracts us from the existential issues of being a human being in an era of power and choice?

Liberal and Conservative – in the face of uncertainty…

Teloscientist — Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:56:56 +0000

The state of conservative vs. liberal politics on major networks seems to be made up of people on both sides, who really don’t understand what they are saying, but are unquestionably certain that they are right.

It is one thing for an entrepeneur to say “I think I can make a profit doing X, legally and ethically. Of course, I don’t know all the details, (both in the present and the future), but I am willing to risk the consequences of being wrong.” It is another for our politicians (with actual power) to say “We know that we are right and/or the other guys are wrong. Of course, we don’t know all the details (in the present nor the future), but we are willing to risk the consequences of being wrong.” When the entrpeneur says it, he risks only the capital, labor, health, and heartache he has created or voluntarily raised. When our politicians say it, they risk the captial, labor, health, and heartache of everyone. Not only should they be severly limited in what they can do, they should look into their own conscience to question whther or not they beleive strongly enough in what they are doing to endure the heartache and problems they often cause.

The ability to face the truth of the consequences of our actions without emotionally numbing ourselves is a prime quality for a truly beneficial political leader.

Bloggers, who have the power of influence, would do well to ask themselves the same question, so that they don’t regret having said something later.

The Cartoon Rebellions: Terrorism vs. The Founding Fathers

Teloscientist — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:56:15 +0000

Last July 4^th I wrote a piece defending our Founding Fathers against the accusation of being equivalent to Terrorists. In it, I pointed out that to call American Patriots terrorists was to sabotage the meaning of the word “terrorism.” It might be semantically possible, but it is spin doctoring at its worse.

Now, I would like to point out a similar dilution of language around what have been called “protests” by Muslim fanatics who are burning Italian embassies for Mohammed cartoons about that were published in Denmark. To call these acts “protests” is both to dignify them beyond their due, and to cast a pall on the
great tradition of social protest. These acts of vandalism and destruction are not organized attempts to raise the consciousness of a culture, but pointless and chaotic expressions of hate, fear, and frustration.

I can hear the liberal revisionists screaming at me even now – who am I to determine what is or is not a legitimate protest? Didn’t our Founding Fathers destroy property and kill to communicate their sense of injustice? Aren’t these protests the equivalent of our own revolutionary beginnings?

Perhaps I am old fashioned, but I suggest that rebelling against your government for political freedom is fundamentally different than mindless vandalism against innocents out of a desire to control the world. American Patriots were not rebelling against the British to force the British to believe their beliefs but fighting so that each person could have their own. They were not offering million dollar rewards to quell the speech of (murder) the cartoonists that dared to disagree with them, but fighting for the freedom of speech for all.

To highlight the difference between considered social protest to further the rights of all and mindless rioting against innocents to silence the rights of others, I suggest we spin the language to its limits and elevate these “protests” to the status of rebellion – The Cartoon Rebellions. It has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? Only these aren’t rebels without a cause, only rebels without a clue.

The Cartoon Rebellions – a world-wide swath of destruction so absurd that we would think it was a bad comic strip. Cartoons causing people to act like cartoons, while cartoon apologists strive to find politically correct ways to appease the rioters. An elaborate joke that would be hilarious if it were not so tragic, unbelievable if it were not so real.

Spin And Emotions: Selective Reporting, Distorted Perception, Irrational Actions

Teloscientist — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 01:34:45 +0000

December 16, 2005 – The art of life is making necessary conclusions from insufficient premises. – anonymous

I just came accross notes I took on a book I read in the mid 90′s by Richard Brodie who writes in a field called memetics called Virus Of The Mind (a fantastic, quick read), and it got me thinking.

The wide world we experience often differs dramatically from the world we actually live in. The “facts” on which we build our understanding of what is happening are “spun” by media savvy spin doctors from every pulpit, but even more by our emotional responses to the information we are given. If our actions are a function of our thinking and values, and our thinking and values are a function of the information we get, how can we protect ourselves from the spin of our conventional media providers (polititicain, priests, professors) and the independent bloggers in the seemingly more and more conventional blogsphere?

So, take a ride with me…

“(Insert your most recent annoying person) is a big fat idiot!”

These simple and fighting words make for confrontive and often invigorating conversation. But are they an example of the very behavior they are denouncing?

Yes, I agree with Mark Twain when he said that “A person may be intelligent, but people are stupid.” At the same time, as Ken Wilber puts it, “no one is stupid enought to be 100% wrong.” We all use our intelligence to build reasonable conclusions from incomplete information. When that information is partial, inaccurate, or distorted, the conclusions we build are likewise “screwed up.”

You know, “stupid, idiotic, clueless, dumb, hare-brained, Bush-like…”

Since we are all operating on incomplete and inaccurate information of one type or another, we all say “off the mark” or “stupid” things now and again. When we do, it is often helpful for people to get in our face and point out our glaring mistakes with an epithet or two (or 20…).

However, our stupidity cuts both ways. Not only do we say stupid things, but more often, we hear intelligent things stupidly. Sometimes, someone can say something that is “right on” but we distort it according to our stupidity and end up calling them an idiot. The people who see the intelligence of the person we are calling an idiot then experience us as an idiot, often expressing their observation in lengthy and clever ways – to the delight of the crowd who agrees with them, and inflaming further invective from others…

Who wins in this battle? : The very stupidity each person is denouncing.

In blogs, this is all good and fun – I mean, HELL, I “IS” one!

In politics, when we empower the idiots with legislation, guns, TRILLIONS, and public podiums, it is tragic.

Richard Brodie gives this example inVirus Of The Mind:

–

In 1992, 37,776 people were killed by guns in the United States. An other
40,982 were killed by automobiles. Yet a casual look at reporting would
verify that guns get much more coverage than cars, even though almost half
the gun deaths (18,169) were suicides. I’m not saying guns shouldn’t get
more coverage after all, this gun problem is new and growing, while the car
problem has been with us for decades. But people get a distorted picture of
the dangers involved.

Just doing a simple calculation, the chance of any one person dying in an
automobile accident in a given year in the U.S. are one in 6224; the chance
of dying in a gun incident other than suicide is less than half as likely:
one in 13,005. If you put yourself in a low-risk group by not being a
criminal or a police officer, the odds get considerably better. But what are
people more afraid of: guns or cars?

If you’re like most people, the answer is guns. and it’s likely because of
the distorted media coverage. This kind of disturted coverage leads to an
outcry from the populace, which often leads to politicians going
off–forgive the pun half-cocked with “solutions” to the problem.

Now let’s get a handle on what it really means to have a one-in-6500 or a
one in 13.000 chance of dying. lt’s as if you lived on an island in the
South Pacific with a population of 650. You make your living by swimmuing
around in the azure waters around your idyllic paradise and spearing fish
for dinner. Yum, yum. About once every 10 years. a stray shark happens by
and eats a swimmer. That’s a one in 6500 chance of any one person being
eaten by a shark. just the same as the odds of dying in an automobile
accident in the U.S. in 1992.

Also, about once every 20 years, two men get into an overheated argument
over a fish or a woman and one of them kills the other one with his spear.
That’s a one-in-13,000 chance of being killed in an argument, just the same
as the odds of being killed by someone else with a gun in the U.S. in 1992.
These are very sad events, and probably dinner table conversation for quite
a few days, but not the be-all and end-all of life. Fortunately, since you
live on an isolated island, these events come and go, and life goes on.

But now imagine there are 392,000 of these islands all linked by television
and INN (Island News Network). This brings the total population to about 254
million, similar to the U.S. today. Every night, INN reports on the goriest
of the 107 shark attacks and 54 spear deaths that day. Suddenly people’s
picture of the world is quite different. From a peaceful existence disrupted
only by a tragedy every few years, you go to a fear-ridden hell filled with
fear and terror.

Isn’t this interesting? Nothihg has changed except the addition of
television. Yet now it feels like you’re living in a dangerous world, not an
idyllic paradise. Same number of shark attacks; same number of spear deaths.
What happened?

Television news.

–

Thank Dick!

The question becomes: What is your “Television news?” What are the sources of information you use to get the “facts” on which to build your world, your opinions about who is or is not an idiot? Towards what emotions are they spun to inflame in you, and towards what purpose?

Intolerance breeds intolerance, and when communication breaks down, violence increases. When we cannot find enough common ground with our adversaries (political, military, or familial) to build negotiated solutions, our only alternative is to force them or be forced. And as Ayn Rand put it through the character of Francisco D’Anconia, “when force becomes the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket.”

Of course, to find common ground, to look for where people are right rather than self-righteously pointing out where they are wrong, requires energy, time, and patience.

Screw that, who was the idiot that wrote this anyway?

Mark Michael Lewis

http://LastingHappiness.com

Saboteurs of Language in The War On Terror

Teloscientist — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 09:10:22 +0000

“One person’s ‘terrorist’ is another persons ‘Freedom fighter.’” So submits Ray Taliaferro on KGO San Francisco radio early (1:15am) this July 4th morning.

At first glance, we can understand how this change in perspective might transform how we understand someone who is fighting against one system to someone who is fighting for a new system. However, this DJ used the example of George Washington as the terrorist and called the Washington Monument our first national terrorist monument.

As it happens, I am a patriot when it comes to our founding fathers and the principles of individual liberty and freedom from government. In this sense, calling my homie a terrorist pissed me off. While George Washington may have had his failings, this blatant attempt to cast a pall on his reputation rubs me the wrong way.

However, in a much more important sense, that is irrelevant. What is much more important is a terrible misuse and twisting of the English language that has become almost common in this debate. Now, it is not for me to say the “right” way to define the word “terrorist.” The word can have several meanings, including one in which George Washington’s activities could be considered terrorism.

The critically important point is that this would not fit the way most of us use the word “terrorist.” When we call someone a terrorist, or define something as an act of terrorism, we mean to classify it as something horrid and unconscionable. It is an act specifically designed to create terror in the hearts of those who witness and hear about it. It is for this reason that “terrorism” is considered reprehensible.

If, on the other hand, we broaden the word “terrorism” to mean any act of violence done for political reasons, regardless of its nature, tone, or conformity to accepted practices of war, the word loses its reprehensible and pejorative tone. It ceases to be detestable and abhorrent behavior, and becomes a description of standard wartime practice.

Here is where the trick of language comes in. When the DJ labeles George Washington a “terrorist,” he wants to have it both ways. On the one hand, he wants to use the general, non-pejorative meaning of the word so that George Washington’s actions will fit under its purview. On the other hand, he wants to use the pejorative meaning of the word so thatGeorge Washington’s actions will be viewed as equally reprehensible to those who crashed airplanes into the two towers.

This is similar to Amnesty International’s likening of Guantánamo Bay to the gulags, are those who claim that George Bush’s policies are equally as destructive as Hitler’s. While there are certainly definitions through which we can equate them, if we use those definitions, they lose the pejorative and reprehensible meanings that are intended by the comparison.

This type of manipulation of language, while it makes for great rhetoric and against those who support the war on terror, leads to the disintegration of the public dialogue and any hope of building the types of consensus that would lead to the eventual peace they claim to be arguing for.

If we truly wish to forward the conversation either for the war on terror or against it, we must use language to communicate not obfuscate the truth. It is through precision in language and clarity in our concepts, judgments, and evaluations that the road to peace and global cooperation will be found. Those who deal in verbal slight of mouth around these issues, however clever they may think themselves to be, are part of the problem not the solution.

For purposes of clarity, I will not call them “terrorists” of language, but will point out that they are saboteurs of the fundamental building blocks of the civilization that allows them to their very freedom of speech. While we need not outlaw such verbal bandits, it is important that we recognize and name them for what they are: collaborators with chaos, architects of anarchy, destroyers of decency.

Mark Lewis
RationalSpirituality

More on Unions and “Fairness” (Black Friday)

Teloscientist — Thu, 30 Jun 2005 20:16:15 +0000

Our friend Brant had some responses to Rich’s original Black Friday Post. Here’s his response, and my response to his response:

Some quick counterpoints:

* Just because someone works for the gov’t (i.e. “the people”) doesn’t mean they don’t deserve to have good wages and benefits. If the gov’t (as with any other employer) doesn’t pony up fairly, then unified action is totally fair in response.

* Yes, it sucks to be inconvienced for a day (or week or whatever) as a commuter, but trying to raise a family (to say nothing of saving for retirement) on $50-60k in the bay area sucks more.

* $50k – 60k sounds like a whole lot of money for “entry level” people, but these are also QUALIFIED professionals, not entry-level college students. And as I said, it’s not easy to raise a family for that amount in the bay area. I don’t know many of my friends that would be fighting to get a fat $50-60k job. That truly is entry level. It’s not halfway bad if you’re young, single and don’t own a home. But get out of your 20′s, try to raise a family, buy a home, save for retirement, etc…It’s tough on gov’t wages.

* Conversatives often deride the huge salaries of gov’t workers. It’s a nice fiction — but the reality is different. You don’t often hear people of going into gov’t work “for the money”. No, it’s more often that you hear of people LEAVE gov’t work “for the money”…. Sure, gov’t jobs aren’t half-bad, but the gov’t should pay good, middle class wages (with bennies) for their jobs.

It will suck if BART strikes (I carpool every day work — can’t iimagine the traffic!), but painting the unions as the problem is simplistic.

Brant,

One more counterpoint, for good measure.

The moral value/justice of your post hinges on the concept “fair.”

However, the meat of your post has to do with “lifestyle.”

If the jobs at BART were paid equivalent to jobs that require equal skill in the private sector, they would not start at 50-60k. It is ONLY because they are government jobs, with unions, that they pay so WELL. YOUR friends might not be clamoring for 50-60k jobs, but take away the union bullshit/requirements, and BART would be able to get tons of equally qualified applicants willing to work for less (not your friends).

Is it “fair” to have the BART passengers and other commuters PAY (it will cost them money and time) so that BART employees can inflate their ALREADY above market level wages beyond what they already are, leading to higher taxes and higher fees to ride BART?

Fair? To whom?

Remember, every time we privilege some group with legistlation (i.e., guns/physical force), we must marginalize another. When we give over 13.5 billion dollars in subsidies to farmers (in 2003 alone, not counting the 3 billion in “emergency relief”), we 1) take that 13.5 billion dollars from other people/parts of the economy, and 2) raise the prices of food for EVERYONE. Yes, the farmers who received the subsidies and price-fixing are benefited – no doubt. I’m sure there are those who feel that this is “fair” because they “should/deserve to” make a “good” living. Shit, I think they should be rich! I think everybody “should.” Wouldn’t that be nice?

However, reality does not recognize our “shoulds.” It operates on principles that completely ignore our personal opinions. When we manipulate prices/wages in one area it has profound effects on EVERYONE. When we unbalance one part of the equation, other parts must rebalance themselves. If we add to one part of the equation, we must subtract from another. (Imagine saving 13 billion dollars in taxes and having lower food costs…whom would benefit from this?)

Most importantly, when we do this through government activity/legislation, we are doing it with force. All laws/regulations, no matter how “good” their intention, are implemented at the point of a gun.

Is that use of force “fair” to the part of the equation that is unbalanced? Is that fair to the people who have the skills and desire but don’t want to deal the union bullshit? Is it fair to the consumers who would prefer to purchase the products/services that get eliminated through such unbalancing?

For example, my father decided to retire last week because California just passed a law that you MUST be part of the electrical workers union to be recognized as legitimate. So, to keep his jobs and stay competetitive/alive in the market, he joined. In the first couple months of being part of the union, he has been forced to deal with so much union “padding” and “pressure,” that he no longer feels like the boss of his own company (which he has owned for 30 years). When it came down to it, he felt his best choice was to simply quit and close his business.

Society has just lost a master electrician (my father was respected and revered as extraordinary at what he does – I mean did), and my father has lost the ability to perform his art according to his conscience.

Of course, the union electricians and shops (ALL of whom were “grandfathered” into the deal) have essentially eliminated their competition through the new law. Also, they have seniority over all the people who have just been forced to join the union. They get the best jobs, the best promotions, and benefits. The new members even pay dues to support the existing members increasing “bennies.” Ain’t that just sweet? And, of course, we all know that unions are known for their ethical and exemplary political/fiscal activities… HAH!

The union lobby just FUCKED all the non-union electricians is the ass with a BIG, ROUGH a government-issued dildo with no lube, and the government bent them over at the point of a gun to either take it or quit.

Is the increase in the already inflated lifestyle of union electricians at the cost of men like my father “fair?”

Again, if we make our personal “shoulds” the basis of “fair,” whoever has sufficient political power to unbalance the equation gets to determine what we “should” do and what is thereby “fair.” I prefer letting “reality/each person’s choices/the market” balance the equation, rather than corrupt bureaucrats and lobbyists. If the BART employees really wanted “fair,” they would dissolve the union and open themselves to competition. Of course, they wouldn’t do that, because they know that thousands of people would jump at the chance to do their jobs for less money. WHY? you figure it out.

Last, I want to be clear that I support people’s right to organize. I do not support government support of that organization. Union’s can justly picket, but they cannot violate/abridge the rights of any other members of society who disagree with them, ESPECIALLY “scabs.” If the unions can garner public support through reason, they are valid. If they revert to physical force and intimidation, they become part of the problem, not the cure. If they enlist a government to do the force/intimidation for them, that does not change the immorality, injustice, and ugliness of the issue.

(teloscientist is an occasional contributor to The Golden Gate. You can see more from him here.)