I've had a series of unfortunate events occur to me the past few months that has made me think about the state of being poor and poverty in general. It's magnified by a similar series of unfortunate events happening to the people I know.
This post is not going to be an appeal for help (I don't ask for help) and this isn't even a criticism of capitalism or an endorsement of it or any other alternative socioeconomic system, but more or less a condensed reflection on socioeconomics in general. However, I'm going to try to condense this into a blog post more so than a lengthy essay that few of you would probably have time to read. (The full blown essay is coming whenever I launch my full personal website in January).
Capitalism is a very, very complex economic system. It's as fair as it is unfair, as rewarding as it is punishing, as galvanizing as it is heart wrenching. The successful capitalist formula is not rooted in the promise of growth and prosperity, but in the fact the system's success is based on the reality that is it not necessarily all inclusive. It's allure is in what is not guaranteed. If you remember the infamous speech given by Michael Douglas' character Gordon Gekko in 1987's Wall Street, his "Greed is good" sermon is fairly true: the bottom line premise about it is that success can be brought when you are motivated by wants and needs.
Being a finance major, I know enough about economics to know that markets work very well with little government interference: the market is nothing more than just a needs and wants matrix (or, as Adam Smith called it "the invisible hand"). Government policy generally interferes with that matrix -- sometimes beneficial, sometimes harmful. However, free market capitalism comes with a caveat -- that part that as my staunch libertarian friend calls the "mathematical outcome" of living with mediocre incomes due to either being consistently unlucky in the labor market, a myriad of preventable or unpreventable personal afflictions, or a nasty combination of both. This "outcome" results into turning to those that will be willing to provide them assistance, whether it would be friends, family, government programs, or what is increasingly becoming under greater scrutiny in major metropolitan areas such as Houston -- high-interest, short term loans.
Keeping that in mind, I want to mention briefly a opinion piece that was written recently by a director from the Texas Civil Rights Project that was posted in the Houston Chronicle. The column, which detailed a week long experiment that participants had to live on $31.50 a week for food -- which is roughly the per person allotment for the current food stamp program. Both James Harrington, the writer of the post, and those that left comments had a point -- $31.50 a week for food is hard, but it can be done if people as one put it, "knew how to shop". However, shopping for food is not an exact science and shopping methods may or may not be able to be replicated across all areas and all 50 states. Additionally some states tax groceries (i.e., Oklahoma), have varied nutritional needs, and so on.
My point? It's easy to say something can be done when you yourself is able to do it. Consequently, it's easy to say something can't be done when you feel that you can't do it. It's this dichotomy that is a component part of the age old debate between interventionist government programs and free market fundamentalism (and I don't mean that derisively).
But that's the reality of capitalism. Despite widely believed (more correctly, accepted) convictions of how successful capitalism has been, it also needs to be noted that successes do have consequences that can be perceived as positive and negative. If capitalism had no perceived negative consequences, then socialism would have never materialized. If capitalism had no perceived negative consequences, then many of the socioeconomic justice movements that have popped up over the past two centuries plus would have never occurred.
But as I said, capitalism's allure comes from the lack of the guarantee. It gives people hope. It gives people excitement. A lot of free market champions get turned on by it. However, as I mentioned before, capitalism's gifts of grace has come with many Trojan horses of despair. I will say this however -- to credit capitalism with "solving" many of the world's perceived problems is fair, yet not completely accurate; the same thing could be said with blaming capitalism for "creating" many of the world's problems is fair, but not completely accurate.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Casually Observing - Volume 1: Viral Videos, Cussing Toddlers, Social Norms and Environments
When I finally move my site, Casually Observing will be glorified blog category where I post short commentaries on the issues of the day. However, I do admit in this post I largely digressed from this planned model; hopefully, you will take the time to read it anyway.
Time for me to play amateur sociologist and social commentator again. You better line up your criticisms of this piece!
You have probably seen by now the infamous video of the cussing black toddler that was shot and later posted on Facebook by a known gang member in Omaha, where it was found by the Omaha Police Department, who later reposted it on their website. Not surprising, the fact that the toddler was cussed at by the three off screen adults and prodded to say vulgar things back as well as the OPD posting the video and saying that the video served as an example of the start of the "thug cycle" was met with widespread outrage.
While the OPD claimed that the point of posting the video was to ignite discussion in the community, which may or may not be completely true, others saw it as police blatantly trying to degrade black parenting. It's universally agreed that the parenting of that child is pretty abhorrent. Ultimately, Omaha's children protective services ultimately removed the toddler and his siblings from the home, as more issues surfaced and it became obvious that the children's welfare came into question.
I could sit here and join the chorus of criticism, but I would probably not offer much beyond what has already been said. But I will make a point about what was actually seen: this was less about a "thug cycle" and more about a child's environment.
Whether it is the wealthier suburbs or the poorer parts of more urbanized areas (I'm no longer going to use the term "inner city" as a metonym for "poor areas" because that is no longer truly accurate if you consider the gentrification of the past two and a half decades), a child's environment shapes their upbringing and ultimately the direction that they go in their life. It's a pattern that repeats itself, considering that the parents' environment while they were growing up shaped their direction in life, including how they raise their children. The video was a prime example of that: whatever environment they grew up in shaped their adulthood, and in their adulthood, they found it appropriate to video themselves cussing at a child and coaxing the child to cuss back, and post it on Facebook as crude, minstrel-like entertainment.
Of course, this could be an instance of spur of the moment bad judgment, but most of the time it is not: this has probably happened many, many times before and they just now decided to catch it on video. As evidenced by the removal of the toddler and the other children in the house (including reports that the toddler was actually injured by shrapnel from gunfire), it was an all around poor environment.
This is well known among child psychologists, criminologists, and sociologists, however, in the general public, analysis and learning at least about cause and effects of the social environment are eschewed in favor of quick judgment, derision, and dismissal. And that's fine -- something like that video should be met with derision; but we don't really learn and appreciate why it's wrong until we actually look at why and what led to that even happening.
Am I trying to sound the alarm? Not exactly; I think it would be criminal of me to make this into a microcosm more than I already have; yet, I will say that environments almost act like a circuit when in conjunction with social norms. Social norms, are of course, are beliefs that govern society, at least in regards to acceptable and unacceptable conduct in that said society. More often than not, suburban areas, wealthier urban areas, and those with comfortable incomes, would often emphasize stability more so than survival (at least, what they consider to be "survival"), because the latter has already been achieved. Impoverished areas, crime-ridden areas, and lower-incomes will value survival more, considering survival is not perceived to be guaranteed. As such, the environments that fuel "stability-first" and "survival-first" personal worldviews will govern social norms, which will then continue to fuel that given environment.
Of course, the obvious question is what the fuck does social norms and social environments have to do with a kid that was cussing on a cellphone video that went viral?
The answer?
As I mentioned earlier, how a child is reared is going to be determined by an interchange of social norms and social environments. If a child is being raised in a climate that the environment and norms is geared towards survival, the outside observer that values stability above all is probably going to see a parenting style that will be looked at as either less than ideal or absolutely despicable. Believe it or not, it would be looked at the same vice versa; and is part of a greater explanation of why sometimes when populations from poorer areas move into more affluent areas, the survivalist-worldview cultivated in a less stable environment will follow them.
For the children's sake that was removed from the home, I hope that it will lead to a more stable home, either by way of the family doing what's necessary to improve the environment of which these kids were raised, or by way of the state placing them somewhere that they can be stable.
But of course, I'll save that part for another post.
Time for me to play amateur sociologist and social commentator again. You better line up your criticisms of this piece!
You have probably seen by now the infamous video of the cussing black toddler that was shot and later posted on Facebook by a known gang member in Omaha, where it was found by the Omaha Police Department, who later reposted it on their website. Not surprising, the fact that the toddler was cussed at by the three off screen adults and prodded to say vulgar things back as well as the OPD posting the video and saying that the video served as an example of the start of the "thug cycle" was met with widespread outrage.
While the OPD claimed that the point of posting the video was to ignite discussion in the community, which may or may not be completely true, others saw it as police blatantly trying to degrade black parenting. It's universally agreed that the parenting of that child is pretty abhorrent. Ultimately, Omaha's children protective services ultimately removed the toddler and his siblings from the home, as more issues surfaced and it became obvious that the children's welfare came into question.
I could sit here and join the chorus of criticism, but I would probably not offer much beyond what has already been said. But I will make a point about what was actually seen: this was less about a "thug cycle" and more about a child's environment.
Whether it is the wealthier suburbs or the poorer parts of more urbanized areas (I'm no longer going to use the term "inner city" as a metonym for "poor areas" because that is no longer truly accurate if you consider the gentrification of the past two and a half decades), a child's environment shapes their upbringing and ultimately the direction that they go in their life. It's a pattern that repeats itself, considering that the parents' environment while they were growing up shaped their direction in life, including how they raise their children. The video was a prime example of that: whatever environment they grew up in shaped their adulthood, and in their adulthood, they found it appropriate to video themselves cussing at a child and coaxing the child to cuss back, and post it on Facebook as crude, minstrel-like entertainment.
Of course, this could be an instance of spur of the moment bad judgment, but most of the time it is not: this has probably happened many, many times before and they just now decided to catch it on video. As evidenced by the removal of the toddler and the other children in the house (including reports that the toddler was actually injured by shrapnel from gunfire), it was an all around poor environment.
This is well known among child psychologists, criminologists, and sociologists, however, in the general public, analysis and learning at least about cause and effects of the social environment are eschewed in favor of quick judgment, derision, and dismissal. And that's fine -- something like that video should be met with derision; but we don't really learn and appreciate why it's wrong until we actually look at why and what led to that even happening.
Am I trying to sound the alarm? Not exactly; I think it would be criminal of me to make this into a microcosm more than I already have; yet, I will say that environments almost act like a circuit when in conjunction with social norms. Social norms, are of course, are beliefs that govern society, at least in regards to acceptable and unacceptable conduct in that said society. More often than not, suburban areas, wealthier urban areas, and those with comfortable incomes, would often emphasize stability more so than survival (at least, what they consider to be "survival"), because the latter has already been achieved. Impoverished areas, crime-ridden areas, and lower-incomes will value survival more, considering survival is not perceived to be guaranteed. As such, the environments that fuel "stability-first" and "survival-first" personal worldviews will govern social norms, which will then continue to fuel that given environment.
Of course, the obvious question is what the fuck does social norms and social environments have to do with a kid that was cussing on a cellphone video that went viral?
The answer?
As I mentioned earlier, how a child is reared is going to be determined by an interchange of social norms and social environments. If a child is being raised in a climate that the environment and norms is geared towards survival, the outside observer that values stability above all is probably going to see a parenting style that will be looked at as either less than ideal or absolutely despicable. Believe it or not, it would be looked at the same vice versa; and is part of a greater explanation of why sometimes when populations from poorer areas move into more affluent areas, the survivalist-worldview cultivated in a less stable environment will follow them.
For the children's sake that was removed from the home, I hope that it will lead to a more stable home, either by way of the family doing what's necessary to improve the environment of which these kids were raised, or by way of the state placing them somewhere that they can be stable.
But of course, I'll save that part for another post.
Monday, September 2, 2013
On Labor Day
Across the various platforms I've been blogging on for the past few years, I never wrote on Labor Day. I was either too consumed with work, too consumed with school, or in this case both. However, I figured I would take time out from work (yes I am at work right now) to make a small post about Labor Day.
This won't be about Paul Krugman's latest lament about the American right or Eric Cantor's tweet insinuating that Labor Day is about business owners and not about the workers. What I will discuss is labor then and labor now.
Labor Day's genesis began in earnest with a proposal by either the Central Labor Union or the American Federation Labor (depending on your desired source). While 30 states had already begun to commemorate Labor Day by 1894, it was until that year when the US Congress made Labor Day a federal holiday -- a blatant political conciliatory move after the federal government under President Grover Cleveland intervened in the Pullman Strike.
The Industrial Revolution brought a new degree of social and economic issues (which is always going to be a reality with any economic system) that arose from increased urbanization and a desire by business owners to produce as much as they can by any means necessary, workers well-being be damned. Unsurprisingly, laborers began to mobilize against poor working conditions through strikes and/or unionization, which employers sought to do anything and everything to avert. Here in the States, it lead to three of the more infamous incidents of labor violence in the late 19th century -- the Homestead Strike, the Haymarket Riot, and the Pullman Strike.
Labor unions reached their peak membership in the 1950s, but reports of corruption, stricter union laws, the shift to a service economy, the shift from production to finance being the benchmark of corporate economic success, and increased globalization have all contributed, in some form another, to a decline in union membership that has persisted since 1960. While nearly a third of public sector employees are members of unions, less than ten percent of workers in the private sector are members of a union. Furthermore, these days, only half of Americans support organized labor.
However, despite the changes over time, contemporary employees and employers should be grateful for the changes ushered in by the labor movement. Employees can be grateful for vastly improved working conditions, from reasonable hours to benefits; employers can be grateful to advocates of the labor movement because it forced them to innovate and become more efficient at production. Whether that innovation actually benefits workers is left to the eye of the beholder -- we can certainly argue either way.
I know that I have rambled, but I wanted to shove history into this post because it is far too important, especially when thought in conjunction with the issues faced today: a shrinking world where the labor pool has no borders, slowing the growth of wages and earnings in the hotly competitive secondary and tertiary sectors of the global economy; the aforementioned shift from production to financial positioning and capital structure that creates a new round of agency concerns and conflicts between management, stockholders, bondholders, and employees; and increased automation that continues to, little by little, erode the position of everyday workers that have a lot of their tasks being replaced by electronic processes. Not to mention, Labor Day is emerging as the latest holiday that shifted from mere observance to yet another major retail holiday -- me currently being here at the dealership is an example of it.
But here's the bottom line: labor back then is not too different than labor now, because as long as this is a predominantly capitalist system, little will change. Business owners and managers will always seek to meet and exceed purported benchmarks and indeed, it is often the white collar and blue collar workers that are the most affected by its consequences, whether it is being forced to work more or less hours, taking on more responsibilities, or unfortunately losing their jobs. However, it is these workers that make our world function and it is not just limited to employees of companies; this includes managers, mom and pop shops, and the self-employed.
Labor day shouldn't be about a narrative about "the worker versus the man", it should be about positive collaboration and cooperation between workers and employers, businesses and suppliers, and businesses and customers that make for a better business. (Redundant, yes, but I would imagine you'd get my point.)
This won't be about Paul Krugman's latest lament about the American right or Eric Cantor's tweet insinuating that Labor Day is about business owners and not about the workers. What I will discuss is labor then and labor now.
Labor Day's genesis began in earnest with a proposal by either the Central Labor Union or the American Federation Labor (depending on your desired source). While 30 states had already begun to commemorate Labor Day by 1894, it was until that year when the US Congress made Labor Day a federal holiday -- a blatant political conciliatory move after the federal government under President Grover Cleveland intervened in the Pullman Strike.
The Industrial Revolution brought a new degree of social and economic issues (which is always going to be a reality with any economic system) that arose from increased urbanization and a desire by business owners to produce as much as they can by any means necessary, workers well-being be damned. Unsurprisingly, laborers began to mobilize against poor working conditions through strikes and/or unionization, which employers sought to do anything and everything to avert. Here in the States, it lead to three of the more infamous incidents of labor violence in the late 19th century -- the Homestead Strike, the Haymarket Riot, and the Pullman Strike.
Labor unions reached their peak membership in the 1950s, but reports of corruption, stricter union laws, the shift to a service economy, the shift from production to finance being the benchmark of corporate economic success, and increased globalization have all contributed, in some form another, to a decline in union membership that has persisted since 1960. While nearly a third of public sector employees are members of unions, less than ten percent of workers in the private sector are members of a union. Furthermore, these days, only half of Americans support organized labor.
However, despite the changes over time, contemporary employees and employers should be grateful for the changes ushered in by the labor movement. Employees can be grateful for vastly improved working conditions, from reasonable hours to benefits; employers can be grateful to advocates of the labor movement because it forced them to innovate and become more efficient at production. Whether that innovation actually benefits workers is left to the eye of the beholder -- we can certainly argue either way.
I know that I have rambled, but I wanted to shove history into this post because it is far too important, especially when thought in conjunction with the issues faced today: a shrinking world where the labor pool has no borders, slowing the growth of wages and earnings in the hotly competitive secondary and tertiary sectors of the global economy; the aforementioned shift from production to financial positioning and capital structure that creates a new round of agency concerns and conflicts between management, stockholders, bondholders, and employees; and increased automation that continues to, little by little, erode the position of everyday workers that have a lot of their tasks being replaced by electronic processes. Not to mention, Labor Day is emerging as the latest holiday that shifted from mere observance to yet another major retail holiday -- me currently being here at the dealership is an example of it.
But here's the bottom line: labor back then is not too different than labor now, because as long as this is a predominantly capitalist system, little will change. Business owners and managers will always seek to meet and exceed purported benchmarks and indeed, it is often the white collar and blue collar workers that are the most affected by its consequences, whether it is being forced to work more or less hours, taking on more responsibilities, or unfortunately losing their jobs. However, it is these workers that make our world function and it is not just limited to employees of companies; this includes managers, mom and pop shops, and the self-employed.
Labor day shouldn't be about a narrative about "the worker versus the man", it should be about positive collaboration and cooperation between workers and employers, businesses and suppliers, and businesses and customers that make for a better business. (Redundant, yes, but I would imagine you'd get my point.)
Monday, June 10, 2013
The NSA Leak: A Lesson In Human Nature, Opportunistic Behavior, and Altruism's Levee
Almost overnight, Edward Snowden went from being a former NSA computer technician to civil libertarian demigod. Snowden, identified (with permission) by the UK newspaper The Guardian and The Washington Post as the informant that leaked information to the newspaper about the National Security Agency's surveillance programs of collecting records from phone and Internet companies, has been predominantly lauded for his actions. Snowden's actions are a prime lesson in human nature, the reality that we are all opportunists, and altruism's levees can and will always be subject to a breach.
The Guardian's Simon Jenkins in his praise of Snowden that "[t]he US and Britain today are as invulnerable to military conquest as ever in history" and writes that the Western counter-terrorism crusade has developed into a machine that undermines freedom by its relentless use of fear and paranoia. He's right, and this has been proven throughout history. When entities, countries rather, reach that proverbial zenith of power, they will attempt anything and everything to maintain the status quo that has entrenched itself with that assumed power. While we may be astonished at the means at which the United States is willing to do it, and by no means I am endorsing these tactics, it should really come as no surprise. The feeling of control is the antidote against paranoia, and this is true from government to our own personal lives. It's almost like a vicious cycle -- accumulate power and wealth, celebrate the success and benefits of it, become paranoid of it ending, then in response to that paranoia, attempt to alleviate it by trying to accumulate more power and wealth: all for it to repeat again. In a way, it's one seriously fucked up self-fulfilling prophecy.
My personal feelings on the War on Terror? This is not a conspiracy theory, this is just absolute, rock bottom truth: it's more than just a counter terrorism program, it's about doing anything and everything to maintain the United States' position in the scope of world politics. Campaigns to achieve and then maintain positioning is nothing new -- the European powers did it, ancient Asian empires did it, Hitler did it, Hirohito did it, and the United States is doing it as well. However, what has galvanized the public these days is the latest chapter of the information revolution -- leaks, or more specifically, how well we can acquire information that nobody would have really thought it would have been possible to acquire. In the end though, it is a testament to the fact that as human beings, we're opportunistic. As new discoveries are made in regards to how we can secure an advantage over one another, covert programs, whistleblowing leaks, and finding more ways to deepen how well we retain and hide information creates an even more complicated Rubik's cube. This isn't a battle of "good vs. evil", it has been, still is, and always will be a battle between who's more effective than who at achieving whatever desired goal is, whether it is emotional, mental, or ideological.
When it comes to supporting those in power, there's expectation among us that the clear majority of the decisions that are made by the powers that be would have a wide ranging affect would never breach the levee of altruism. Snowden too gambled on the same thing, noting in his interview with The Guardian that he wanted to go public before, but held out hope that the then-incoming Obama administration would shift the NSA's aggressive tactics. However, the Obama administration has kept many of the Bush-era surveillance policies to his dismay, and now to the dismay of many. However, altruism's levees become subject to higher stakes -- it's either weakened or strengthened, and whatever way it leads, the response is to mobilize and establish control, through covert or public means.
In short, when I look at the NSA leak, I go beyond the relationship between the government and the governed. It's another exercise in the complexities of humanity, as we forge ahead in our epoch of existence, one new discovery at a time. So while I will continue spectate the the inane justification for this program by administration officials and the romanticized stand of solidarity and support of Snowden by many, I am ultimately going to wait to see the next great example of what lengths we're going to be willing to take as humanity to assume control of whatever we desire to frame into each of our worldviews.
The Guardian's Simon Jenkins in his praise of Snowden that "[t]he US and Britain today are as invulnerable to military conquest as ever in history" and writes that the Western counter-terrorism crusade has developed into a machine that undermines freedom by its relentless use of fear and paranoia. He's right, and this has been proven throughout history. When entities, countries rather, reach that proverbial zenith of power, they will attempt anything and everything to maintain the status quo that has entrenched itself with that assumed power. While we may be astonished at the means at which the United States is willing to do it, and by no means I am endorsing these tactics, it should really come as no surprise. The feeling of control is the antidote against paranoia, and this is true from government to our own personal lives. It's almost like a vicious cycle -- accumulate power and wealth, celebrate the success and benefits of it, become paranoid of it ending, then in response to that paranoia, attempt to alleviate it by trying to accumulate more power and wealth: all for it to repeat again. In a way, it's one seriously fucked up self-fulfilling prophecy.
My personal feelings on the War on Terror? This is not a conspiracy theory, this is just absolute, rock bottom truth: it's more than just a counter terrorism program, it's about doing anything and everything to maintain the United States' position in the scope of world politics. Campaigns to achieve and then maintain positioning is nothing new -- the European powers did it, ancient Asian empires did it, Hitler did it, Hirohito did it, and the United States is doing it as well. However, what has galvanized the public these days is the latest chapter of the information revolution -- leaks, or more specifically, how well we can acquire information that nobody would have really thought it would have been possible to acquire. In the end though, it is a testament to the fact that as human beings, we're opportunistic. As new discoveries are made in regards to how we can secure an advantage over one another, covert programs, whistleblowing leaks, and finding more ways to deepen how well we retain and hide information creates an even more complicated Rubik's cube. This isn't a battle of "good vs. evil", it has been, still is, and always will be a battle between who's more effective than who at achieving whatever desired goal is, whether it is emotional, mental, or ideological.
When it comes to supporting those in power, there's expectation among us that the clear majority of the decisions that are made by the powers that be would have a wide ranging affect would never breach the levee of altruism. Snowden too gambled on the same thing, noting in his interview with The Guardian that he wanted to go public before, but held out hope that the then-incoming Obama administration would shift the NSA's aggressive tactics. However, the Obama administration has kept many of the Bush-era surveillance policies to his dismay, and now to the dismay of many. However, altruism's levees become subject to higher stakes -- it's either weakened or strengthened, and whatever way it leads, the response is to mobilize and establish control, through covert or public means.
In short, when I look at the NSA leak, I go beyond the relationship between the government and the governed. It's another exercise in the complexities of humanity, as we forge ahead in our epoch of existence, one new discovery at a time. So while I will continue spectate the the inane justification for this program by administration officials and the romanticized stand of solidarity and support of Snowden by many, I am ultimately going to wait to see the next great example of what lengths we're going to be willing to take as humanity to assume control of whatever we desire to frame into each of our worldviews.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Trying to attach a political label on me? Don't waste your time
I took a look at my past posts and I more or less ran the gauntlet -- progressivism, libertarianism, liberalism, conservatism, socialism, you name it, I probably wrote a blog post that would make you think there's actually an ideological school that I follow.
I've come to realize that there's no ideology that's absolutely right; there's no ideology that everybody should adhere to; and there's no ideology that's immune from endless ridicule. The truth is humanity from all corners engage in a chess game where the moves made only have personal psychological attachment and thus individual value. Personally, I'm more fascinated in the strategy where people make their decisions -- basically, I'm looking at people from a perspective that is loosely rooted in game theory.
I could sit here and preach free market fundamentalism all day long, but the vaunted free market is populated by people like myself, who have little difference from myself, and not worth it's purported pedestal. Not every thing can be regressed to an average submission of market forces (or in other words, not everything is going to submit to "market forces and behaviors"). Conversely, I can equally advocate for endless government interventionist economic policy and also realize that anybody can turn a disadvantage into an advantage if they seize the opportunity to do so (see, "Fractional Reserve Banking"). As long as there are new discoveries being made, there will be new avenues found for people to capitalize on opportunities that present itself at the behest or the chagrin of others. It is absolutely foolish to believe that governments can act as a "cure-all".
I could buy into conspiracy theories -- the truthers, the birthers, the New World Order, the Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group -- yet, I see that they're game theory exercises. The "plausible explanations" that come from the target of suspicion are exercises as well, just with the intent of a different outcome (comfort and control versus revelation and revolution). In truth, what I see, is two sides firing at each other in a blindfolded attempt to make a zero-sum game out of a game that is far from being zero-sum -- not even close, in my opinion. Remember: questions lead to discoveries; discoveries lead to challenges; and challenges lead to questions and whole cycle repeats itself.
I can sit here and advocate for liberty, but what liberty? The positive liberty that aims to where everybody has a fair shot in a given society or the negative liberty that advocates for freedom from coercion? Either way, strict advocacy for either will be undermined by the fact that human wants and needs are complicated, in no way, shape, or form can be reconciled to a basic set of given principles, and the unavoidable fact that advocacy of either requires a massive gamble on altruism that has yet to truly manifest itself into a bet that is safe enough to ensure that a given interpretation of liberty is the solution to the social Rubik's cube. Altruism is not an end in itself (and I hate that I use that term so much); effectiveness is key.
What about pushing for anarchy? Totalitarianism? Communism? Theocracy? Social forms of conduct (rather than me calling them political ideologies) that mainly try to paint itself as the zenith, but only illustrate themselves as an end in itself, will indeed find it's end in itself (there I go again using that phrase). It's blatant redundancy to make a point: if a political system creates dead ends then it will forced to change or ultimately destroy itself. India and China learned this as both countries embraced private enterprise in the 1980s and 1990s. The Civil War and the Great Depression arguably ended any chance of the United States returning back to a small national government when population growth, new social awareness, and the Industrial Revolution spurred convoluted issues that crumbled the small government model. It's why the USSR ended up falling on its face as it's communist model was unable to properly address new challenges and issues that arose from the impending post-industrial revolution.
What about a society built around time-honored, "traditional" values? Sounds cute until individual desire and thus hypocrisy comes into play. What about a society that is build solely on altruism? I think I mentioned this before as an unwise bet to make, but I think it's cute too until individual desire and hypocrisy comes into play. Romantic political grandstanding is cute too, until the realization that politicians win elections (as a side note, that's probably why Rand Paul will ultimately have a much more successful, effective, and memorable career than his daddy). We can dream of an ideology and philosophy becoming a global world view, but there has to be effectiveness (there's that word again) on implementation and maintenance, which includes the ability to anticipate and solve problems in damn near perfect omnipotence.
In the end though, I cannot help but to be fascinated. The hedges. The bets. The push and pull and manipulation and benevolence and malevolence and everything in between. In truth, at least for myself, I'm more interested in developing a strategy that allows me to mitigate through life rather than taking sides. However, I'll always err for human rights.
Well then, I guess even I had to take a side somewhere.
And if you have an open mind, you'd get my riddle with that.
I've come to realize that there's no ideology that's absolutely right; there's no ideology that everybody should adhere to; and there's no ideology that's immune from endless ridicule. The truth is humanity from all corners engage in a chess game where the moves made only have personal psychological attachment and thus individual value. Personally, I'm more fascinated in the strategy where people make their decisions -- basically, I'm looking at people from a perspective that is loosely rooted in game theory.
I could sit here and preach free market fundamentalism all day long, but the vaunted free market is populated by people like myself, who have little difference from myself, and not worth it's purported pedestal. Not every thing can be regressed to an average submission of market forces (or in other words, not everything is going to submit to "market forces and behaviors"). Conversely, I can equally advocate for endless government interventionist economic policy and also realize that anybody can turn a disadvantage into an advantage if they seize the opportunity to do so (see, "Fractional Reserve Banking"). As long as there are new discoveries being made, there will be new avenues found for people to capitalize on opportunities that present itself at the behest or the chagrin of others. It is absolutely foolish to believe that governments can act as a "cure-all".
I could buy into conspiracy theories -- the truthers, the birthers, the New World Order, the Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group -- yet, I see that they're game theory exercises. The "plausible explanations" that come from the target of suspicion are exercises as well, just with the intent of a different outcome (comfort and control versus revelation and revolution). In truth, what I see, is two sides firing at each other in a blindfolded attempt to make a zero-sum game out of a game that is far from being zero-sum -- not even close, in my opinion. Remember: questions lead to discoveries; discoveries lead to challenges; and challenges lead to questions and whole cycle repeats itself.
I can sit here and advocate for liberty, but what liberty? The positive liberty that aims to where everybody has a fair shot in a given society or the negative liberty that advocates for freedom from coercion? Either way, strict advocacy for either will be undermined by the fact that human wants and needs are complicated, in no way, shape, or form can be reconciled to a basic set of given principles, and the unavoidable fact that advocacy of either requires a massive gamble on altruism that has yet to truly manifest itself into a bet that is safe enough to ensure that a given interpretation of liberty is the solution to the social Rubik's cube. Altruism is not an end in itself (and I hate that I use that term so much); effectiveness is key.
What about pushing for anarchy? Totalitarianism? Communism? Theocracy? Social forms of conduct (rather than me calling them political ideologies) that mainly try to paint itself as the zenith, but only illustrate themselves as an end in itself, will indeed find it's end in itself (there I go again using that phrase). It's blatant redundancy to make a point: if a political system creates dead ends then it will forced to change or ultimately destroy itself. India and China learned this as both countries embraced private enterprise in the 1980s and 1990s. The Civil War and the Great Depression arguably ended any chance of the United States returning back to a small national government when population growth, new social awareness, and the Industrial Revolution spurred convoluted issues that crumbled the small government model. It's why the USSR ended up falling on its face as it's communist model was unable to properly address new challenges and issues that arose from the impending post-industrial revolution.
What about a society built around time-honored, "traditional" values? Sounds cute until individual desire and thus hypocrisy comes into play. What about a society that is build solely on altruism? I think I mentioned this before as an unwise bet to make, but I think it's cute too until individual desire and hypocrisy comes into play. Romantic political grandstanding is cute too, until the realization that politicians win elections (as a side note, that's probably why Rand Paul will ultimately have a much more successful, effective, and memorable career than his daddy). We can dream of an ideology and philosophy becoming a global world view, but there has to be effectiveness (there's that word again) on implementation and maintenance, which includes the ability to anticipate and solve problems in damn near perfect omnipotence.
In the end though, I cannot help but to be fascinated. The hedges. The bets. The push and pull and manipulation and benevolence and malevolence and everything in between. In truth, at least for myself, I'm more interested in developing a strategy that allows me to mitigate through life rather than taking sides. However, I'll always err for human rights.
Well then, I guess even I had to take a side somewhere.
And if you have an open mind, you'd get my riddle with that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)