A couple of days ago I posted about how the "Free market" and the values on which it is based are opposed to the U.S. Constitution and the values on which it was based. I suggested that one has to choose which is more important: the selfish desire for money fundamental to the "free market" or the cooperative intent at the heart of Constitution.
In that discussion (and here) I have put "Free market" in quotes, because "free market" is a loaded term that is understood in many different ways by many different people. One common understanding is that for a market to be "free", we need to eliminate all regulations. As I have argued in the past, markets can't exist without regulation. If there are no regulations that keep people from cheating, lying, and stealing, then we don't really have a market at all. Certainly there is no version of free market theory that suggests that the best social outcomes will result from allowing one producer to undersell another by virtue of selling a toxic product. But without regulation, how do we know which product is the bad one? It is regulation that allows us to discover which firm packed salmonella-laced food.
So I want to stay away from the idea of "free markets" which has been so badly polluted.
And yesterday, I was also critiquing free market theory as an unrealistic fantasy. All of which might lead one to believe that I'm really hostile to the theory. But I'm not; I'm just hostile to out-and-out blindness to obvious issues.
What I want to write about today is how important the notion of competitive markets is in a democracy, and how, indeed, democracy itself is a form of competitive market.
Adam Smith's invisible hand operates, I have argued, because markets, when operating properly, use the supply/demand dynamic to set market prices that force efficient use of resources and encourage innovations that allow even more efficient use of resources. This is, I believe, not just a beautiful idea, but one that plays out well both theoretically and empirically.
Theoretically, I wish to note, also, how this idea of the efficiency of a competitive market is the same kind of efficiency that underlies the notion of a democracy: through the exchange of ideas, the polity is able to make the best possible decision; it is the competition of ideas that allows the best plans to be made.
One theoretical aspect that I won't go into here is the body of theory about the processes of design and planning that argue for the importance of incorporating diverse opinions (and I'll admit to bias here, since this is what I studied in graduate school and this is one of the basic premises of the book that I co-wrote with my mentor about the work of his mentor (The Universe of Design)).
The theoretical aspect that I will discuss here is that markets do a good job of disseminating information: this is a common notion in "free market" theory is almost all its forms. A diversity of options allows for consumers to choose, and the market then reflects the emergent wisdom of the multitude. Thus the market's diversity allows freedom of choice, and this freedom of choice allows the market to capture the diverse opinions of all people. In principle democracy should operate in a similar fashion: the interests of all people are considered when making a plan.
Empirically, I will note that the US economy was its strongest in a period that the Sherman Antitrust Act was strongly enforced (the 40s through the 70s).
I will also note the parallel with diversity of biological populations: diverse biological populations are much more stable; monocultures are much more liable to boom and disastrous bust.
In short, competitive markets--where buyers and sellers have a number of real options--allow for a diversity of opinions to be heard and tested and ultimately adopted in a way that suits the needs and desires of the many. In short, it is a system by which the allocation of resources is determined by the people for the people. When competition is eliminated--whether that is through a political totalitarian government, or through the consolidation of monopoly power in some market--then the emergent wisdom of the marketplace is eliminated, along with the corresponding freedom of choice.
Wouldn't it be great if the markets supported a diversity of opinions? Wouldn't it be great if democracy was reflecting the needs and interests of the majority of people?
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
Fantasy economics
I thought about calling this post "Santa Claus Economics" but choose the more general term.
If I said I was going to solve the nation's economic problems by harnessing the productive might of Santa Claus and his ability to determine good from bad, you'd try to lock me up.
But most people who answer to the rallying cry of "free market economics" basically are believing in something just as fantastic.
In a famous passage, Smith invoked the idea of "an invisible hand" leading the capitalist to an end that is good for both the individual and society. And invisible hand. No shit. But they don't lock you up for professing to believe in free market economics.
Smith did not actually mean that there would be an invisible hand, of course. Smith actually described a whole system of how goods are exchanged, how people behave, etc., all of which lead to the good social result. Smith's work describes the mechanism by which socially good ends are going to be achieved through the selfish agency of the actors.
This whole system that Smith describes is complex and depends on many different notions of how the world works.
Some of the premises on which Smith builds--I'm thinking specifically of the idea of the rational actor which underlies Smith's descriptions of the decision-making processes of people--have been shown to be false. Nobel-prize winning work by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky shows that people don't make rational decisions at least if we define rational in a classical sense of using Bayesian probabilistic reasoning and logic. But I don't want to go there now--I just want to note how the larger scheme of an economic theory is dependent on many different ideas, some of which are problematic.
The work as a whole describes a manner of functioning. Is is this operation of the market which is supposed to lead to optimal solutions--but the operation of the market to be optimal really needs to meet certain criteria.
Current free market theories as they appear in political debate, however, don't include any of the discussion of the mechanism that has to operate; the debate is generally boiled down to "We need less regulation; regulation is what is destroying the market" as if, once all regulation were removed, the markets would somehow automatically lead to the optimal result. This is the fantasy. It's not as if some invisible hand is waiting for the regulators to say "OK, go do whatever you want now" before it then leads producers to the betterment of society. The invisible hand doesn't exist. If the market isn't functioning in the way that it is supposed to, then it won't lead to good results.
This is clear in Adam Smith's work.
The basic premise of Smith's social betterment is based on the idea that supply and demand will operate to force market prices to match what he called the "natural price"--which we might interpret as what things are really worth. This leads to an efficient allocation of resources, and is one of the underpinnings of what helps the market produce good outcomes. And then, in addition to efficient allocation, there is the possibility for innovation to lead to more efficient use of resources, and the innovator, by being able to produce more efficiently, will reap a profit by virtue of having a more efficient system. Thus, basically, the free market promotes the general good by leading to efficient allocation of resources and by encouraging innovation. This basic premise is, I believe, generally sound, even given problematic assumptions like the non-rationality of people. Or if not generally sound, at least pragmatically sound.
But it is a basic premise in Smith's work, as well, that there are many market conditions under which this efficient allocation of resources does not occur, and in which innovation is squelched. It is clear from Smith's work that one sort of condition that will lead to this inefficient market operation is concentration of power in the hands of a monopoly who can then set the price however it wishes, with no regard for the "natural price". This basic premise was generally accepted until recently. In the 1890s Republicans wrote the Sherman AntiTrust Act, which assumed--as did Smith--that competition was necessary to make the market work.
But in the last decade or two, at least in the political debate, the importance of competition has been completely ignored. The fantasy now is that if there is no regulation, then the market will naturally lead to the best solutions, even though in most markets there is a small number of very large firms that can essentially set the prices as they will to maximize their profits.
If one is going to believe in a theory like laissez-faire economics, then one should at least have some idea about how it works, otherwise you've got nothing but a fantasy. And other people can use that fantasy for their own gain.
In the unregulated markets of the US, what we have is a small number of firms making huge profits, but the efficient (and equitable) allocation of resources that would occur in competitive markets does not occur because the markets are not competitive, but rather are characterized by monopoly or oligopoly power. Thus things are not being sold for what Smith would have considered their "natural price"--for example the wages of laborers have not increased, even though the productivity of labor (which would determine the "natural price") has. And innovation is squelched, too (look at how US technology which was the unquestioned world leader 40 years ago no longer has nearly the same dominance).
The big firms, who are well-represented in the government, use the idea of the "free market" as a rallying cry (and a point of loyalty--because questioning the free market means you must be a marxist), all the while they are doing their best to keep the markets from ever being freed from the power of their firms.
Wouldn't it be great if people stopped believing in some fantastic invisible hand? Wouldn't it be great if people understood how markets work, so that they could see that currently markets aren't working that way?
If I said I was going to solve the nation's economic problems by harnessing the productive might of Santa Claus and his ability to determine good from bad, you'd try to lock me up.
But most people who answer to the rallying cry of "free market economics" basically are believing in something just as fantastic.
In a famous passage, Smith invoked the idea of "an invisible hand" leading the capitalist to an end that is good for both the individual and society. And invisible hand. No shit. But they don't lock you up for professing to believe in free market economics.
Smith did not actually mean that there would be an invisible hand, of course. Smith actually described a whole system of how goods are exchanged, how people behave, etc., all of which lead to the good social result. Smith's work describes the mechanism by which socially good ends are going to be achieved through the selfish agency of the actors.
This whole system that Smith describes is complex and depends on many different notions of how the world works.
Some of the premises on which Smith builds--I'm thinking specifically of the idea of the rational actor which underlies Smith's descriptions of the decision-making processes of people--have been shown to be false. Nobel-prize winning work by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky shows that people don't make rational decisions at least if we define rational in a classical sense of using Bayesian probabilistic reasoning and logic. But I don't want to go there now--I just want to note how the larger scheme of an economic theory is dependent on many different ideas, some of which are problematic.
The work as a whole describes a manner of functioning. Is is this operation of the market which is supposed to lead to optimal solutions--but the operation of the market to be optimal really needs to meet certain criteria.
Current free market theories as they appear in political debate, however, don't include any of the discussion of the mechanism that has to operate; the debate is generally boiled down to "We need less regulation; regulation is what is destroying the market" as if, once all regulation were removed, the markets would somehow automatically lead to the optimal result. This is the fantasy. It's not as if some invisible hand is waiting for the regulators to say "OK, go do whatever you want now" before it then leads producers to the betterment of society. The invisible hand doesn't exist. If the market isn't functioning in the way that it is supposed to, then it won't lead to good results.
This is clear in Adam Smith's work.
The basic premise of Smith's social betterment is based on the idea that supply and demand will operate to force market prices to match what he called the "natural price"--which we might interpret as what things are really worth. This leads to an efficient allocation of resources, and is one of the underpinnings of what helps the market produce good outcomes. And then, in addition to efficient allocation, there is the possibility for innovation to lead to more efficient use of resources, and the innovator, by being able to produce more efficiently, will reap a profit by virtue of having a more efficient system. Thus, basically, the free market promotes the general good by leading to efficient allocation of resources and by encouraging innovation. This basic premise is, I believe, generally sound, even given problematic assumptions like the non-rationality of people. Or if not generally sound, at least pragmatically sound.
But it is a basic premise in Smith's work, as well, that there are many market conditions under which this efficient allocation of resources does not occur, and in which innovation is squelched. It is clear from Smith's work that one sort of condition that will lead to this inefficient market operation is concentration of power in the hands of a monopoly who can then set the price however it wishes, with no regard for the "natural price". This basic premise was generally accepted until recently. In the 1890s Republicans wrote the Sherman AntiTrust Act, which assumed--as did Smith--that competition was necessary to make the market work.
But in the last decade or two, at least in the political debate, the importance of competition has been completely ignored. The fantasy now is that if there is no regulation, then the market will naturally lead to the best solutions, even though in most markets there is a small number of very large firms that can essentially set the prices as they will to maximize their profits.
If one is going to believe in a theory like laissez-faire economics, then one should at least have some idea about how it works, otherwise you've got nothing but a fantasy. And other people can use that fantasy for their own gain.
In the unregulated markets of the US, what we have is a small number of firms making huge profits, but the efficient (and equitable) allocation of resources that would occur in competitive markets does not occur because the markets are not competitive, but rather are characterized by monopoly or oligopoly power. Thus things are not being sold for what Smith would have considered their "natural price"--for example the wages of laborers have not increased, even though the productivity of labor (which would determine the "natural price") has. And innovation is squelched, too (look at how US technology which was the unquestioned world leader 40 years ago no longer has nearly the same dominance).
The big firms, who are well-represented in the government, use the idea of the "free market" as a rallying cry (and a point of loyalty--because questioning the free market means you must be a marxist), all the while they are doing their best to keep the markets from ever being freed from the power of their firms.
Wouldn't it be great if people stopped believing in some fantastic invisible hand? Wouldn't it be great if people understood how markets work, so that they could see that currently markets aren't working that way?
The "free market" vs. the U.S. Constitution
Just the other day, a friend of mine posted the following comment on facebook:
It seems like even claiming that there is a problem with the "free market" will get you called a Marxist. In this post, I'm going in the opposite direction; in this post I'm going to suggest that standing up for the "free market" is un-American--specifically, it is opposed to the U.S. Constitution.
You may have noticed by now that I keep putting "free market" in quotes. The reason for this is because there is no such thing as a "free market"--rather there is a variety of economic theories which describe economic behavior, and these theories are not uniform in what they consider "free" for a market.
A couple of years ago I wrote a post in which I discuss the effect of classical "free market" theory on moral values (The Free Market and the Death of Compassion.), and I will take that as a starting point. In that post I quote John Maynard Keynes saying ""foul is useful and fair is not; avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods" and a longer passage from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations:
We can see in both of these quotes that the individual actor is called upon to act in his or her own personal interest, without attention to the needs of others or any sort of "public interest". In short: "free market" theories call for selfish behavior. Such behavior, however, is in stark contrast to the values set forth by the authors of the U.S. Constitution, as we can see just by looking at the preamble:
Let me emphasize those opening words: "We the People." This is a document about people working together. It is about people working together for the public good--not a bunch of people acting selfishly and trying to maximize their own gain. By this basic analysis, we can clearly see that the principles guiding the creation of the United States are principles of cooperation and of people working together for a larger shared public good. In the preamble, too, we can see hints (at least) that we should care for the welfare of all, not just individually.
In short: the basic principles behind the formation of the United States are principles of cooperation towards a greater social good. The principles behind "free markets" are selfish principles. These two value systems are in conflict, and--as the bible suggests--one can only serve one value system at a time:
So which is important to you? The "free market" or the U.S. Constitution? If you say that the "free market" is more important, then I call you out as being opposed to American values and being opposed to American democracy.
There's a mountain more that could be said on this subject, but I don't want to get too deep in here. Before closing, however, I will address one argument--it is claimed (by Adam Smith and those who follow) that the selfish aims of the individual actors will lead to the greatest social good, and therefore that by acting selfishly, one promotes the overall good of the society. There are several responses I could make to this, but one is that the values of the people in the society are part of the society and part of what makes a society good or bad. The good that Adam Smith predicted was limited to a prediction of wealth: the free market increases wealth. However, what if we measure the quality of a society in more complex terms--in terms of wealth and other factors? In that case, the increase in wealth predicted by Smith's theories might well be counterbalanced by a corresponding decrease in other factors that contribute to a good society.
Ultimately both Adam Smith (and following free market proponents) are putting forth a recipe for how to create a better society. So, too, were the framers of the U.S. Constitution. One of these recipes says (explicitly) that social interest and a sense of social responsibility are bad. The other puts a sense of social responsibility at its very heart.
So the next time someone tells you how great the "free market" is, just say "yeah, as long as you don't believe in the Constitution."
This post is long enough now, but really these issues are complex. The critique of "free markets" that I posted here is a critique of certain aspects of this complex economic theory. In the current political climate of the US, the complexity of real issues is swept under the table in favor of a sound-bite logic suitable for 30-second answers on televised debates and televised commercials. The real complexity of issues that needs to be addressed isn't: in this case, I want to point out that there is a huge gap between "free markets" as often propounded by the media and politicians, and the idea of a controlled non-market economy (which is often called Marxism, though that is not really what Marx was talking about). Just because I don't blithely accept any and all claims that the "free market" is the best social system, doesn't mean that I don't believe in the value of a market economy. Indeed, if the "free market" is defined properly, then I even agree with "free markets."
But wouldn't it be great if people actually cared about the Constitution, with its guarantees of political freedom, more than they cared about their own personal gain? Wouldn't it be great if people held the good of society--the general welfare--as a value to be honored instead of serving mammon?
"I'm not a marxist but I think that somebody needs to point out to all those who say that controlled economies don't work that, right now, the Chinese and their controlled economy are burying us."As it happens, I had been accused of being a marxist just a couple of days before that, because I had suggested that market power tends to end up in the hands of a few small firms.
It seems like even claiming that there is a problem with the "free market" will get you called a Marxist. In this post, I'm going in the opposite direction; in this post I'm going to suggest that standing up for the "free market" is un-American--specifically, it is opposed to the U.S. Constitution.
You may have noticed by now that I keep putting "free market" in quotes. The reason for this is because there is no such thing as a "free market"--rather there is a variety of economic theories which describe economic behavior, and these theories are not uniform in what they consider "free" for a market.
A couple of years ago I wrote a post in which I discuss the effect of classical "free market" theory on moral values (The Free Market and the Death of Compassion.), and I will take that as a starting point. In that post I quote John Maynard Keynes saying ""foul is useful and fair is not; avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods" and a longer passage from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations:
He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security ; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.
-- Wealth of Nations, Book IV, chapter II
We can see in both of these quotes that the individual actor is called upon to act in his or her own personal interest, without attention to the needs of others or any sort of "public interest". In short: "free market" theories call for selfish behavior. Such behavior, however, is in stark contrast to the values set forth by the authors of the U.S. Constitution, as we can see just by looking at the preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Let me emphasize those opening words: "We the People." This is a document about people working together. It is about people working together for the public good--not a bunch of people acting selfishly and trying to maximize their own gain. By this basic analysis, we can clearly see that the principles guiding the creation of the United States are principles of cooperation and of people working together for a larger shared public good. In the preamble, too, we can see hints (at least) that we should care for the welfare of all, not just individually.
In short: the basic principles behind the formation of the United States are principles of cooperation towards a greater social good. The principles behind "free markets" are selfish principles. These two value systems are in conflict, and--as the bible suggests--one can only serve one value system at a time:
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
-- Matthew 6:24
So which is important to you? The "free market" or the U.S. Constitution? If you say that the "free market" is more important, then I call you out as being opposed to American values and being opposed to American democracy.
There's a mountain more that could be said on this subject, but I don't want to get too deep in here. Before closing, however, I will address one argument--it is claimed (by Adam Smith and those who follow) that the selfish aims of the individual actors will lead to the greatest social good, and therefore that by acting selfishly, one promotes the overall good of the society. There are several responses I could make to this, but one is that the values of the people in the society are part of the society and part of what makes a society good or bad. The good that Adam Smith predicted was limited to a prediction of wealth: the free market increases wealth. However, what if we measure the quality of a society in more complex terms--in terms of wealth and other factors? In that case, the increase in wealth predicted by Smith's theories might well be counterbalanced by a corresponding decrease in other factors that contribute to a good society.
Ultimately both Adam Smith (and following free market proponents) are putting forth a recipe for how to create a better society. So, too, were the framers of the U.S. Constitution. One of these recipes says (explicitly) that social interest and a sense of social responsibility are bad. The other puts a sense of social responsibility at its very heart.
So the next time someone tells you how great the "free market" is, just say "yeah, as long as you don't believe in the Constitution."
This post is long enough now, but really these issues are complex. The critique of "free markets" that I posted here is a critique of certain aspects of this complex economic theory. In the current political climate of the US, the complexity of real issues is swept under the table in favor of a sound-bite logic suitable for 30-second answers on televised debates and televised commercials. The real complexity of issues that needs to be addressed isn't: in this case, I want to point out that there is a huge gap between "free markets" as often propounded by the media and politicians, and the idea of a controlled non-market economy (which is often called Marxism, though that is not really what Marx was talking about). Just because I don't blithely accept any and all claims that the "free market" is the best social system, doesn't mean that I don't believe in the value of a market economy. Indeed, if the "free market" is defined properly, then I even agree with "free markets."
But wouldn't it be great if people actually cared about the Constitution, with its guarantees of political freedom, more than they cared about their own personal gain? Wouldn't it be great if people held the good of society--the general welfare--as a value to be honored instead of serving mammon?
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Speech is Action
A lot of people I know often say "Well, I don't like what government is doing, but what can I do about it?"
My recent answer has been: talk about it. Talk about it a lot.
A natural response to that is: "What good will that do? Talk isn't enough."
I'm not sure about that. I think that talk may be enough. At least if there is enough talk. Of course talking constantly takes a lot of effort. Which may be evidence that talking really is taking action.
On the societal level, the discourse is largely dominated by those voices that are heard the loudest: the mass media. The mass media and the government, despite common claims to the contrary, are working together very often. And their voice is contrary to the voice of the people in many places and times.
I am thinking specifically of the coverage of the recent NDAA 2012 that was passed in early December by both houses of the U.S. Congress, with its inclusion of a provision that allows for indefinite detention without trial of those suspected of being terrorists or aiding terrorists. But the point is more general, too: there are many points on which the media is basically a shill for government policies worth opposing.
How do we oppose these loud voices in the media? We have to talk. And talk more. And talk some more. This takes effort. Personally, I know that I don't talk as much as I could. But if each of us were to talk about important issues often, then there is potential for the discourse to shift.
The voices of the real people need to be heard, not the voices of the media. And this takes effort.
If we are opposed to the NDAA of 2012--and who is in favor of indefinite detention without trial? (that's a rhetorical question, of course)--then we each need to raise our individual voice to combat the silence that pervades the mainstream media. Each of us needs to work at the conversation that is necessary to have a government "by the people, for the people, and of the people."
If all of us were talking with each other, then the discourse need not be dominated by the mass media. But this would require everybody talking. A true grassroots movement.
And this is what is needed, if we wish to oppose policies that allow the government to lock people up without trial.
Do you believe that the government should be able to lock people up indefinitely without trial? If so, I'd like to hear why. If not, then I'd love for you to take action--take action by talking about it. A lot.
Yes, I know that this can be annoying. I know that people don't want to hear the constant discussion of things unpleasant. But isn't it important to sometimes talk about things unpleasant? If a friend was an alcoholic in denial, wouldn't it still be good to talk about the thing that they don't want to talk about? This is no different: we need to talk about this for our own good, even if it is unpleasant.
If every single person who is opposed to indefinite detention without trial were to call the White House, and their Senators and their Representative, that would change policy. Every single person--they couldn't deny that. Even though they can deny the thousands who do call, because those thousands are a small number compared to the millions of voters who aren't talking about the problems with the NDAA, and who will let it pass--along with their civil liberties--without noticing or acting.
Wouldn't it be great if everyone in the U.S. woke up and said: "I don't believe in indefinite detention without trial (a principle codified in the 5th and 6th amendments of the U.S. Constitution)"? Wouldn't it be great if everyone woke up and said: "I don't believe in torture (a principle codified in the 8th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.)?
My recent answer has been: talk about it. Talk about it a lot.
A natural response to that is: "What good will that do? Talk isn't enough."
I'm not sure about that. I think that talk may be enough. At least if there is enough talk. Of course talking constantly takes a lot of effort. Which may be evidence that talking really is taking action.
On the societal level, the discourse is largely dominated by those voices that are heard the loudest: the mass media. The mass media and the government, despite common claims to the contrary, are working together very often. And their voice is contrary to the voice of the people in many places and times.
I am thinking specifically of the coverage of the recent NDAA 2012 that was passed in early December by both houses of the U.S. Congress, with its inclusion of a provision that allows for indefinite detention without trial of those suspected of being terrorists or aiding terrorists. But the point is more general, too: there are many points on which the media is basically a shill for government policies worth opposing.
How do we oppose these loud voices in the media? We have to talk. And talk more. And talk some more. This takes effort. Personally, I know that I don't talk as much as I could. But if each of us were to talk about important issues often, then there is potential for the discourse to shift.
The voices of the real people need to be heard, not the voices of the media. And this takes effort.
If we are opposed to the NDAA of 2012--and who is in favor of indefinite detention without trial? (that's a rhetorical question, of course)--then we each need to raise our individual voice to combat the silence that pervades the mainstream media. Each of us needs to work at the conversation that is necessary to have a government "by the people, for the people, and of the people."
If all of us were talking with each other, then the discourse need not be dominated by the mass media. But this would require everybody talking. A true grassroots movement.
And this is what is needed, if we wish to oppose policies that allow the government to lock people up without trial.
Do you believe that the government should be able to lock people up indefinitely without trial? If so, I'd like to hear why. If not, then I'd love for you to take action--take action by talking about it. A lot.
Yes, I know that this can be annoying. I know that people don't want to hear the constant discussion of things unpleasant. But isn't it important to sometimes talk about things unpleasant? If a friend was an alcoholic in denial, wouldn't it still be good to talk about the thing that they don't want to talk about? This is no different: we need to talk about this for our own good, even if it is unpleasant.
If every single person who is opposed to indefinite detention without trial were to call the White House, and their Senators and their Representative, that would change policy. Every single person--they couldn't deny that. Even though they can deny the thousands who do call, because those thousands are a small number compared to the millions of voters who aren't talking about the problems with the NDAA, and who will let it pass--along with their civil liberties--without noticing or acting.
Wouldn't it be great if everyone in the U.S. woke up and said: "I don't believe in indefinite detention without trial (a principle codified in the 5th and 6th amendments of the U.S. Constitution)"? Wouldn't it be great if everyone woke up and said: "I don't believe in torture (a principle codified in the 8th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.)?
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Talk, talk, talk.
What actions can we take to lead to massive political change in the face of a system that is rapidly dismantling the basic rights that were codified in the U.S. Constitution?
Talk is one of the most powerful tools that we have. Talk is not "just talk." It may be true that talk is cheap, as people often say, but talk is also powerful: when we say that the pen is mightier than the sword, we are not really talking about the pen itself, so much as we are talking about the power of words. Words have great power. We have to put them into action.
One of the big problems that the world faces is that the conversations of the world are dominated by the voices of the major corporations that own the big mass media outlets. These media are not telling a story that is designed to help people--or at least not the vast majority of people.
No one person has the voice alone to change the debate and to shift focus onto stories that really matter, or to shift the tone of the stories being told. But if we all are telling the real stories, then, maybe, we could change the debate.
Once upon a time--not so long ago--the U.S. made a claim to having a good human rights record, and if history didn't bear that out, at least there was a legal code that could support that claim. And that legal code was a support for moving towards a nation with greater liberty and justice for all.
Then we got the George W. Bush administration, and we got laws justifying warrant-less wiretapping, and memos justifying the use of torture, and now we've got the NDAA of 2012 which allows for the indefinite detention without trial of anyone the military wants.
These are not things that any U.S. citizen who believes in the U.S. Constitution should accept. The Constitution, flawed though it is, is a foundation for government that is worthy of respect. It sets forth rights that are worth defending.
The elected officials of the nation swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. They are not doing a good job, and now is the time to talk about that.
Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, right-wing, left-wing: who wants the government to be able to lock people up with no trial? Is that a free nation? Each of us can act to defend the constitution just by talking about it. Of course we have to talk about it a lot to spread the word, but it shouldn't be a polarizing conversation. Political conversation is often difficult because of conflicting opinions. But this should be one political conversation with almost no disagreement:
"Should we preserve the right to a speedy, public trial, as guaranteed in the Constitution?"
Now is the time and the action that we each can take is to talk. Each of us talking alone is not that big a deal, but like the old ad said: "If you tell two friends, and they tell two friends, etc...."
If everyone talked about how cool the 6th amendment of the Constitution is (the right to a public, speedy trial), our combined voices would be loud enough to drown out the corporate media that would love the right to throw anyone they want into jail.
Talk may be cheap, but it's also powerful. If everyone does it, it's loud. Wouldn't it be great if everyone stood up against the continued erosion of our legal rights?
Talk is one of the most powerful tools that we have. Talk is not "just talk." It may be true that talk is cheap, as people often say, but talk is also powerful: when we say that the pen is mightier than the sword, we are not really talking about the pen itself, so much as we are talking about the power of words. Words have great power. We have to put them into action.
One of the big problems that the world faces is that the conversations of the world are dominated by the voices of the major corporations that own the big mass media outlets. These media are not telling a story that is designed to help people--or at least not the vast majority of people.
No one person has the voice alone to change the debate and to shift focus onto stories that really matter, or to shift the tone of the stories being told. But if we all are telling the real stories, then, maybe, we could change the debate.
Once upon a time--not so long ago--the U.S. made a claim to having a good human rights record, and if history didn't bear that out, at least there was a legal code that could support that claim. And that legal code was a support for moving towards a nation with greater liberty and justice for all.
Then we got the George W. Bush administration, and we got laws justifying warrant-less wiretapping, and memos justifying the use of torture, and now we've got the NDAA of 2012 which allows for the indefinite detention without trial of anyone the military wants.
These are not things that any U.S. citizen who believes in the U.S. Constitution should accept. The Constitution, flawed though it is, is a foundation for government that is worthy of respect. It sets forth rights that are worth defending.
The elected officials of the nation swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. They are not doing a good job, and now is the time to talk about that.
Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, right-wing, left-wing: who wants the government to be able to lock people up with no trial? Is that a free nation? Each of us can act to defend the constitution just by talking about it. Of course we have to talk about it a lot to spread the word, but it shouldn't be a polarizing conversation. Political conversation is often difficult because of conflicting opinions. But this should be one political conversation with almost no disagreement:
"Should we preserve the right to a speedy, public trial, as guaranteed in the Constitution?"
Now is the time and the action that we each can take is to talk. Each of us talking alone is not that big a deal, but like the old ad said: "If you tell two friends, and they tell two friends, etc...."
If everyone talked about how cool the 6th amendment of the Constitution is (the right to a public, speedy trial), our combined voices would be loud enough to drown out the corporate media that would love the right to throw anyone they want into jail.
Talk may be cheap, but it's also powerful. If everyone does it, it's loud. Wouldn't it be great if everyone stood up against the continued erosion of our legal rights?
Friday, December 16, 2011
Common Ground for the Tea Party and the Occupy movement
The recent passage of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 by both houses of congress represents on on-going erosion of the very principles on which the U.S. prides itself.
The act allows the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial, which is a clear violation of the constitution's 6th amendment.
Now the Tea Party typically mocks the Occupy movement, but here, it seems to me, the two groups should find some common ground.
The Tea Party has been very vocal in defense of the 2nd Amendment; Tea Party demonstrations are known for the open display of firearms.
The Tea Party is known to call for less government. Surely laws that allow the government to hold people without trial are not a movement in the direction of less government.
Wouldn't it be great if all the people of the United States were to see that preserving the U.S. Constitution is better than allowing the government to slide into totalitarianism?
The act allows the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial, which is a clear violation of the constitution's 6th amendment.
Now the Tea Party typically mocks the Occupy movement, but here, it seems to me, the two groups should find some common ground.
The Tea Party has been very vocal in defense of the 2nd Amendment; Tea Party demonstrations are known for the open display of firearms.
The Tea Party is known to call for less government. Surely laws that allow the government to hold people without trial are not a movement in the direction of less government.
Wouldn't it be great if all the people of the United States were to see that preserving the U.S. Constitution is better than allowing the government to slide into totalitarianism?
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
The Basic Operation of Democracy
Recently a friend of mine, in responding to a recent news item, said "OK, now I'm angry, but what do I DO about it?"
I suggested "educate people." My friend responded something to the effect of "But just hitting share on Facebook isn't really doing anything."
There is truth in thinking that hitting share on Facebook isn't enough. But sharing something on Facebook isn't necessarily trivially unimportant, either.
The fundamental principle of democracy is that the people of the state--the citizens--are the one who make decisions. Ultimately, the democracy is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people," as Lincoln said it in the Gettysburg address. It is the public who should decide in a functioning democracy--at least in one that lives up to the principles set forth by the founders of the United States.
And for people to make good choices regarding government, education is crucial. As James Madison said: ""A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to Farce or Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives." Or as John Adams said: "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right...and a desire to know."
It is the debate among ideas that is so crucial that right to dissent is written in to the Constitution's First Amendment.
At present, we find ourselves in a place and time where the stories that surround us are filled with misinformation or outright lies. In that context education is even more important.
And in the U.S. we live in a place and time where the fundamental laws and principles of the nation--the very principles of which Americans are so proud--the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as a whole--are being ruthlessly and systematically eroded by the government.
We have seen many many images of police violence against protesters in the Occupy movement. Whether or not one supports the Occupy movement, it is clearly a violation of civil liberties to beat peaceful protesters. Neither the right wing, nor the left wants to give the government the right to beat people for gathering peacefully.
The people who have fallen victim to the police violence at Occupy protests include those who form the backbone of our society. Victims have included war veterans, lawyers, retired policemen, journalists, professors, students, and many others. Where are our civil liberties if law abiding citizens are beaten and pepper-sprayed for exercising their first amendment rights?
Meanwhile, the government moves apace to reduce our liberties further: currently in debate for congress is legislation that would give "this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world." This would be merely an additional erosion of our rights against search and seizure, which are already compromised.
These stories need to be circulated. The people of the U.S., Republicans and Democrats alike, should be concerned at the erosion of their civil liberties. These stories, however, are not covered (or not covered accurately) by the mass media. How many of your friends are talking about the legislation that would allow the military to arrest and imprison them indefinitely, without charges, without trial, without recourse?
And thus the significance of sharing on Facebook. It's one way to get the story out there. Many million citizens of the U.S. are on Facebook, if every one of them shared the story about how these military powers of detention are being considered by our elected representatives, that would shift the debate.
There's no question that other things need to be done too: vote; contact your elected representatives; make choices with your money that support small businesses rather than the corporations whose agenda is closely related to the erosion of civil liberties. There are many ways to make your voice heard. Exercise as many as you can. Because that's how democracy should work. If you don't think that the police should be able to beat retired policemen, retired judges, celebrated poets, and others, who are peacefully protesting, then you need to get your voice out wherever and however you can. You need to convince your friends that what has happened to the Occupy movement is not the right way to deal with dissent, and that it represents a fundamental violation of liberties that sets a precedent for the same violation of liberties to occur again and again.
There are actions that make no difference when they only happen rarely, but that quickly have massive impact when repeated enough. It's not one piece of litter that makes a city dirty; it's thousands of people all dropping one piece of litter. It's not one car that fills a city with smog, but put millions on the road, and suddenly you got the skies of LA. Your one Facebook share won't rock the world, but if you're part of millions who share the same thing, then maybe it will.
Wouldn't it be great if the people of the U.S. knew about the erosion of their constitutionally guaranteed rights?
I suggested "educate people." My friend responded something to the effect of "But just hitting share on Facebook isn't really doing anything."
There is truth in thinking that hitting share on Facebook isn't enough. But sharing something on Facebook isn't necessarily trivially unimportant, either.
The fundamental principle of democracy is that the people of the state--the citizens--are the one who make decisions. Ultimately, the democracy is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people," as Lincoln said it in the Gettysburg address. It is the public who should decide in a functioning democracy--at least in one that lives up to the principles set forth by the founders of the United States.
And for people to make good choices regarding government, education is crucial. As James Madison said: ""A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to Farce or Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives." Or as John Adams said: "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right...and a desire to know."
It is the debate among ideas that is so crucial that right to dissent is written in to the Constitution's First Amendment.
At present, we find ourselves in a place and time where the stories that surround us are filled with misinformation or outright lies. In that context education is even more important.
And in the U.S. we live in a place and time where the fundamental laws and principles of the nation--the very principles of which Americans are so proud--the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as a whole--are being ruthlessly and systematically eroded by the government.
We have seen many many images of police violence against protesters in the Occupy movement. Whether or not one supports the Occupy movement, it is clearly a violation of civil liberties to beat peaceful protesters. Neither the right wing, nor the left wants to give the government the right to beat people for gathering peacefully.
The people who have fallen victim to the police violence at Occupy protests include those who form the backbone of our society. Victims have included war veterans, lawyers, retired policemen, journalists, professors, students, and many others. Where are our civil liberties if law abiding citizens are beaten and pepper-sprayed for exercising their first amendment rights?
Meanwhile, the government moves apace to reduce our liberties further: currently in debate for congress is legislation that would give "this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world." This would be merely an additional erosion of our rights against search and seizure, which are already compromised.
These stories need to be circulated. The people of the U.S., Republicans and Democrats alike, should be concerned at the erosion of their civil liberties. These stories, however, are not covered (or not covered accurately) by the mass media. How many of your friends are talking about the legislation that would allow the military to arrest and imprison them indefinitely, without charges, without trial, without recourse?
And thus the significance of sharing on Facebook. It's one way to get the story out there. Many million citizens of the U.S. are on Facebook, if every one of them shared the story about how these military powers of detention are being considered by our elected representatives, that would shift the debate.
There's no question that other things need to be done too: vote; contact your elected representatives; make choices with your money that support small businesses rather than the corporations whose agenda is closely related to the erosion of civil liberties. There are many ways to make your voice heard. Exercise as many as you can. Because that's how democracy should work. If you don't think that the police should be able to beat retired policemen, retired judges, celebrated poets, and others, who are peacefully protesting, then you need to get your voice out wherever and however you can. You need to convince your friends that what has happened to the Occupy movement is not the right way to deal with dissent, and that it represents a fundamental violation of liberties that sets a precedent for the same violation of liberties to occur again and again.
There are actions that make no difference when they only happen rarely, but that quickly have massive impact when repeated enough. It's not one piece of litter that makes a city dirty; it's thousands of people all dropping one piece of litter. It's not one car that fills a city with smog, but put millions on the road, and suddenly you got the skies of LA. Your one Facebook share won't rock the world, but if you're part of millions who share the same thing, then maybe it will.
Wouldn't it be great if the people of the U.S. knew about the erosion of their constitutionally guaranteed rights?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
