The objectivist camp suffers another blow as parodied by this fine article by John Atcheson. Reprinted here for because a good objectivist smackdown is always welcome at DWR. Thanks to Ben Hoffman for bringing this article to my attention.
Atlas Mugged: The Ayn Rand Six Step
Imagine your landlord coming to you one day and saying, “It’s everyone for himself. We’re not going to supply heat or water or electricity any longer, and we’re not going to conduct repairs.”
Of course, you and the rest of the tenants wouldn’t stand for such a thing . You’d kick him out if you could and move out if you couldn’t.
But suppose, over the years, he cuts the part of the portion of your rent that goes to utilities and repair work. Year after year, he’d stop by and announce his cuts with great fanfare, telling you how much money you’ll save.
On each visit, as he handed out the meager savings, he’d rail about how the utilities were incompetent, and filled with lazy workers, and that repair and maintenance work was a rip-off perpetrated by equally lazy laborers.
“We’re gonna show them,” he’d say, “The market will take care of these bozos.”
Meanwhile, year after year, you pay a little less. Things might get a little ragged. The maintenance man might not show up every day; the fire alarms might stop working; the elevators get stuck more, there’s an occasional power outage, water’s a bit murky … but there’s those savings.
Unbeknownst to you, most of the money the landlord saves is going to upgrade the top floor where he and his cronies live, bringing in their own dependable power and clean water. But you don’t investigate much because … there’s those savings.
Every time you passed him in the hall, he’d give you his spiel. “Those repair guys are thieves,” he’d tell you, again and again. “And you might as well burn money as give it to the utilities,” he’d say with a sage nod of his head. “Just wait ‘til those market forces hit, that’ll show them.” But he’d begin to add a new verse to his rant. “And hey. What about those gays in 3G? Or the Mexicans in 2D? Disgrace how they double up like that …”
Then finally, one year, he announces he can no longer afford to supply heat, electricity or water, and he can’t be repairing anything that breaks any longer. “Just not enough money – besides, look what’s happening around here … throwing more money at those lazy good-for-nothings is no solution.”
Now imagine complaining to him about the frozen pipes, or your child’s pneumonia and him responding with: “Hey. It’s all about the market – if you want it, figure out a way to get it – the market will provide if you’re diligent. Look at the top floor. Besides, it’s all the fault of those Mexicans. Or those gays … or …”
Would you believe that crap? Would you put up with it?
Of course you wouldn’t.
Yet that is precisely the game the Republicans have been playing for years. Call it the Ayan Rand six step. Step one: discredit government. Step two, starve it. Step three, when the underfunded government can’t perform, stand back and say “I told you so.” Step four, create the myth of the individual uber-alles – the Marlboro man on steroids; Step five, if anyone gets wise, find a scapegoat and blame it on them – gays, immigrants, government workers; government working gay immigrants. Step six, when things get bad, divide and conquer – “if it wasn’t’ for them…
So now we are waiting for the magic market to deliver us from a crisis caused by the unconstrained market; we are loath to give the government a penny even though no one else is going to do the things it used to do and do well – the things that created the conditions for a broadly shared prosperity and an open, fair, and transparent market. Now, we are on the verge of shivering in the dark, as we point fingers to any of the various scapegoats the Republicans have created.
Now, their plutocratic bosses have free reign, and they’re gutting the building as we fight among ourselves.
The solution to bad government is good government, not no government.
The solution to envy and jealousy at public sector employees’ pension and benefits is not to strip theirs, but to get ours back.
Our strength comes not from how the strongest or luckiest among us exploit the rest, but from how we come together as a country to do that which we must do together. Indeed, we are great in proportion to how we treat the least fortunate among us, not the most.
The reason it feels like the United States is collapsing around our collective ankles is because it is – if we relinquish all responsibility to “the market” it will strip the walls, tear out the pipes and wires and raise the roof, selling our present and future to make a quick buck. That’s what markets are supposed to do.
And if we buy into some uber-individualist fairy tale about survival of the fittest, we’ll all be handing over a bigger share of our rapidly diminishing paychecks to the CEOs and CFOs of Goldman Sachs or Exxon and we’ll be SOL, as our biggest export will continue to be high wage jobs to China, India, Germany and other countries that haven’t bought into the Ayn Rand fantasy – or nightmare.
That’s why we need government. Because our freedom and welfare are indeed in danger – but not from government; rather from those who point fingers at government in hopes that you won’t notice they’re robbing you blind, in the name of a mutant form of free-market economics that’s really only existed on the pages of a second rate polemic masquerading as a novel.
24 comments
September 8, 2011 at 8:45 am
sapeterson
Ayn Rand spent the last few years of her life living on social selcurity. Nuff said.
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Vern R. Kaine
I agree with some of his points, but not his conclusions. The analogy is ridiculously flawed to anyone not riding the “Perpetual Victimhood” train yet again.
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 4:09 pm
renetascian
I do agree that absolute objectivism fails ridiculously, but so does the reverse. I of all people can understand the dangers of martyr behavior. For years I sacrificed my needs for the need of others until that life had so far depleted me that I felt dead inside. So I revised, becoming necessarily selfish enough to take care of my own needs realizing that when I fail, those I help, care about, and with whom I am interdependent with also suffer. Any smart person will realize that if you let yourself be fleeced endlessly that eventually you will lose that selfless virtue by the nature that your resources aren’t unlimited. But hair grows back, while self worth is somewhat harder to redeem. As Ayn Rand even mentioned herself, “There is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self-interest in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interest; not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value; not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level.”
However, while altruism can be self-destructive if exercised without restraint to excess, I’d also argue that self-interest can also should include knowledge about how the outside world effects your reality. Giving money to a bum on the corner is likely more selfish than not giving him money, because the act can be one of complacency, petty feelings of guilt not of altruism. I think people should contribute to society, order, and moral code because it is in their best interest that their environment be stable, orderly and morally grounded, rather than chaotic, and morally absent. This realization should also effect the manner in which you do exercise altruistic behavior. For example, giving the bum money doesn’t solve the bums issue, rather it is prolonging his suffering. However, working for change, using your resources and intellect to figure out how to improve your communities infrastructure by bringing in businesses, customers, and other social structures to stabilize the community will likely provide great long term benefits for all, not just the bums. The economic fleecing of America and the world is in some small part due to the shortsightedness, greed, and philosophical disinterest in the needs of the whole as a benefit for the many.
I once saw this saying on a TV show, “Humans are greedy, therefore they are human.” If humans were not at least a little bit self interested we’d have died off by now. This is an important characteristic to acknowledge because ignorance to it can lead both to self-destructive selflessness, as well as selfishness. Human beings evolved to have compassion and empathy as both a selfish, and selfless mechanism contributing to our survival through mutually assured self-preservation. Its this same instinct that drives us to band together with those like us, and develop group defense mentalities once we are bonded with a group or mate. Some of our behaviors are mutually beneficial, but others are parasitic or predatory. Unlike Corporate America, parasitic organisms in nature develop balance through natural selection so that they by nature don’t feed off an organism to the point it kills them. If a parasite kills its victim it becomes a predator. Parasites instinctively develop a mechanism that allows them to feed without killing their host, which is in their best interest. Unless those being fleeced wise up to the nature of the parasites, the parasites will continue to feed until they destabilize the very system on which we depend, and that is in no ones best interest. It’s time for people to be invested in that which is in all of our best interests, rather than hoping someone else will “fix the pipes for them”. “In a totalitarian society freedom is priceless, and in an individualistic society freedom is worthless.” – Reneta Scian Absolutes corrupt absolutely.
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 5:35 pm
The Arbourist
Or to those who have embraced the dominant market wisdom paradigm.
I sense that dismissive air about ya Vern :) I’m okay with that, I expect it actually, as holding a dissident viewpoint always comes with fair amount of sneer from those who embrace the current paradigm.
I’m guessing you run into a fair amount of people on the “perpetual victimhood’ train, perhaps analysis from their point of view might serve an edifying function?
Nice to see you around Vern, it seems you’ve been busy as of late. :)
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 5:38 pm
The Arbourist
What I also find funny is how that many glibertains embrace her as some sort of deity/prophet, but are not aware how virulently atheist she was. It is like how some read their magic books, only picking the ‘good stuff’ that servers their particular interest at the time. :)
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 5:39 pm
The Arbourist
Human beings evolved to have compassion and empathy as both a selfish, and selfless mechanism contributing to our survival through mutually assured self-preservation.
Good point :)
LikeLike
September 8, 2011 at 7:01 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“Or to those who have embraced the dominant market wisdom paradigm”
Agreed. :)
I do think the analogy is flawed, but that doesn’t mean I was expecting perfection from it in the first place. I think Atcheson’s point was that we’re being largely duped, to which I agree.
My only sneering is if people read something like that and then do nothing. To those who want to sit back and just blame, blame, blame (right or left), they are the intended recipients.
I’m not an objectivist, however I do like parts about Rand’s philosophy that deal with individuality over false (or forced) charity. I enjoy the John Galt speech, but on the other hand I think Rand’s philosophy (or followers) would have a hard time rationalizing why seat belts, for instance, need to be legislated. I believe there’s a certain portion of charity that needs to be as well for the same reasons.
“it seems you’ve been busy.
Yep, quite, but figured you’d enjoy the break anyways. :)
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 8:30 am
Alan Scott
” So now we are waiting for the magic market to deliver us from a crisis caused by the unconstrained market; we are loath to give the government a penny ”
The really funny thing about this, is that after Obama over spent by $4 trillion, the author of this piece most likely wrote the denying penny line with a straight face .
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 11:31 am
The Arbourist
If balancing a nations economic books was like balancing your own chequebook, you might have an argument there. What the author in the post is describing is how, through unsustainably low levels of taxation, the government is starved of funds needed to operate, and then goes into debt as a result.
Whatever Obama spent is not really important. What is important is the result. Did he get universal health care instated in the US, no. Did he help the people of the US with spending during the recession, no, it went to the financial sector and corporate coffers. So was the spending worth it? Well it certainly was if you were part of the upper class, the rest of society, not so much.
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 2:35 pm
renetascian
Well said. Corporate executives get the biggest pay raise of the modern industrial era, while the retirement pensions of lower and middle class citizens were lamb-chopped to foot the bill. I am sure in retirement I will die happy knowing my contribution bought a bunch of rich assholes a new yacht, most likely as a reward for sinking the pensions of 50,000 people who invested in them with the trust of a retirement. I am of coarse being facetious.
The private sector (.gov jobs) and corporate America were the only ones who prospered in this climate. I could be a part of that, going back to work for the government doing what I used to, and be paid well for it. However, something about the arrangement feels like selling my soul to the devil (proverbially only, since I believe in no such thing). Furthermore, such employers use their employees like half of capital hill politicians use 2000 dollar hookers paid for with taxpayer dollars.
What government work taught me, is that my blood, sweat and tears are are a stock rapidly degrading in value. Besides I could hardly serve that cause being I have lost faith that American Politicians really care about the little people. They wanted to give me “stimulants” (Provigil) via prescription to “improve my performance” which I would have needed “depressants” to allow me to sleep at night because I was a shift worker, regardless of the dangers to my health. I think it is quite telling that American Progress is stretching the workforce so thin that they need to push drugs on their employees to accomplish it.
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Vern R. Kaine
What the author in the post is describing is how, through unsustainably low levels of taxation, the government is starved of funds needed to operate, and then goes into debt as a result.
The theory may be correct, but I don’t believe it’s accurate. Atcheson suggests that the true cause of our problems is more a lack of Patriotism on behalf of citizens and less a lack of Responsibility on behalf of the government. I think it’s mostly the other way around.
This government isn’t “starved”, it’s grown fat on severe debt and it wants to get fatter and more in debt while still not looking after its own “house”. There’s billions still in waste and trillions being sat on in cash that it refuses to go after because of its gluttony.
If you’ll indulge a fair bit of typing here, imagine an overweight parent you support financially who gets enough to stuff themselves full first and then pay the heat, rent, etc.second. Your money to support them gets cut back, but they still want more.
Even if you could afford to give them more, how hesitant would you be to do so? Instead, you would perhaps try and suggest they cut back a little on their intake, likely citing their health as the main reason. It falls on deaf ears, however – their response is simply that they’ve “Gotta eat!” and they continue to do so at their discretion. (At the same time they run around telling everyone how cruel you are for trying to starve them, hoping those people will now pressure you.)
Now imagine in this case your parent has demanded large sums of money from you three times in the past 3 years. Each time you’ve given it quickly and more/less without question, but you’ve seen nothing as a result. Worse, you now are seeing them get fatter and their health get worse.
This fourth time they know you’ll put up a fight, so now they bring out the loyalty (“Patriot”) appeals. “Don’t you love me?” “You owe me!” “We’re family!” They even pull out the “if you don’t give me more money, I’ll die!” card. “Besides,” they tell you, “you don’t need that money anyways – I see you’ve got more than enough.”
When asking this time, do they come to you with a diet, or a plan for their health? ANYTHING to show some new sense of responsibility? No. In fact they’re telling you to be more patriotic, and for you to tighten your belt so that giving them more money won’t have such an impact!
Applying this to real life, right now the government is asking those making $250k or more to be “patriotic” in order to feed its face while it continues itself to be more and more irresponsible with its health. Like an obese, unhealthy individual, they continue to make the emotional appeals offering little to no responsibility in return..
They demanded TARP via patriotism first and responsibility later (“Save our country!”, “This could be the end of America!”), and look what happened. They did the same with the Affordable Care Act, and the Stimulus Package as well. (“If you’re a Patriot you’ll pass this right now without question.”) They did the same with the Patriot Act and Iraq war before, and they’re trying to do the same thing now with this so-called “Jobs Plan”.
So I ask: why are those of use who earn $250k or more called “Unpatriotic” when they’re being irresponsible? Why are we expected to almost literally flush our money down the toilet a THIRD TIME just so that the lower and middle class can feel happy?
By “feel happy” I mean that the government will tell you something’s happening when nothing actually is. See TARP re: financial reform and small business lending (lack of), and see the last Stimulus Package re: employment as well.
We’re asking for more responsibility and we’re being met with more accusations of being unpatriotic, uncaring, greedy, racist, etc. etc. etc.) when in fact I think we prove the exact opposite time and time again.
I agree that there are some in this country who are indeed unpatriotic. They deliberately lied to the American public, demanded handouts without accountability, and would sooner turn their passport in and expatriate themselves than pay another dime to anybody – but that’s not the bulk of people opposing this administration’s policies right now. Simply put, we continue to have a government that keeps spending money and demanding more of it out of patriotism (just like the last one) without offering anything tangible in terms of increased responsibility. Anyone notice that this government STILL hasn’t produced a budget?
Worse, when we focus on the “Patriotism” argument, be it labelled a “fair share” argument, “class warfare” argument, “socialism vs. capitalism” argument, or whatever, it lets the government get away with not being responsible. And why does the government like that? Because then it gets to spend on its pals and cronies, and not on us. That’s why the government loves to see us get so caught up in this. Just keep playing the patriot card on us, and we’ll keep letting them be irresponsible. I don’t think it’s an accident that this latest spending proposal has been pushed back to the anniversary of 9/11, or that we got told of a “credible threat” the day of it, either. Anyways…
Atcheson’s story was 3 parts Patriotism and zero parts Responsibility, which is why I think it does more harm than good to praise it as though it was “Schindler’s List”.
“So was the spending worth it? Well it certainly was if you were part of the upper class, the rest of society, not so much.”
And we may be about to do it all again.
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Vern R. Kaine
A brave move to leave what was surely a “safe and secure” job. What keeps you busy now, if I may ask?
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 4:46 pm
renetascian
Education, activism, self-improvement, philosophy, and just a general racket of really and thoroughly challenging any previously coveted concepts in my life to insure they are worth the praise and credulity I give them. To remove the sacrosanct principles that could injure my ability to reason. Much like many things, my life has hit a major turning point in which I am both self-empowered, and enabled to redefine myself… It’s that life altering pivot point many people experience where their way of thinking shifts as they grow older and hopefully wiser. My move was less about bravery, and more about principle. If someone offered me 20 million dollars to have sex with some famous person which I don’t care for one way or another, I’d turn them down on principle alone because my body is not for sale. The principle is that my life is priceless, and the government would sell it for pennies on the dollar. Would you take a 100,000/year job if it crippled you for life?
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Although not to the same degree, I deal with that “100,000 question” a lot with people in my day-to-day. My answer is “No”, as well but I deal with many who don’t have as easy of an answer to that question for a number of reasons. I admire you for making your choice and wish you all the best with your journey.
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 7:28 pm
The Arbourist
I perused your post on the same article Vern. Err… I’ll get to that at your place later :)
Anyhow. I’m having a problem understanding how you set up your first point.
The theory may be correct, but I don’t believe it’s accurate. Atcheson suggests that the true cause of our problems is more a lack of Patriotism on behalf of citizens and less a lack of Responsibility on behalf of the government . I think it’s mostly the other way around.
I’m not seeing where he says this. Like not even a little bit after rereading Atcheson’s article several times. What your purport he says also happens to be one of the pillars you base several of your arguments on.
So, I need clarification on how Patriotism and Responsibility figure into the article, otherwise what you’re doing is creating a weaker version of the argument to bash the shit out off and saying how Atcheson is wrong. The problem is that you’re arguing against the constructed (by you) weaker argument, but it is not Atcheson’s argument in the first place.
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 8:14 pm
The Arbourist
Atcheson summarizes his argument :
Step one: discredit government.
Step two, starve it.
Step three, when the underfunded government can’t perform, stand back and say “I told you so.”
Step four, create the myth of the individual uber-alles – the Marlboro man on steroids;
Step five, if anyone gets wise, find a scapegoat and blame it on them – gays, immigrants, government workers; government working gay immigrants.
Step six, when things get bad, divide and conquer – “if it wasn’t’ for them…
Now, using what Atcheson is saying, put forth your ideas. For instance:
This government isn’t “starved”, it’s grown fat on severe debt and it wants to get fatter and more in debt while still not looking after its own “house”.
One could also say that the difference between revenue and expenditure is not equal. There are two solutions to this easy theoretical construct if the case is that expenditures are outpacing revenue.
1. Raise taxes and therefore raise government revenue.
2. Cut spending and there lower government costs.
What Atcheson is actually saying is that taxes are really low in the United States. Relative to the rest of the world they are. Why is it so difficult to establish a reasonable level of taxation in the US, well the answer lies in step 1 and 2.
For example:
Step 1 – Discredit Government – OMG! Universal Healthcare is the DEATHPANEZ with GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS deciding whether you live or die!!!
Essentially create enough furor and disinformation to make the plebeians think that Universal HealthCare is a bad bad thing; death panels, socialism…nay communism, whatever it takes to scare people away from the fact that Universal Health Care is of a great benefit to the people of almost every society that has it as a feature. UHC is also more efficient in terms of results and costs versus the private system currently in place in the United states.
The UHC model is not such a hot benefit to private medical firms and private medical insurance companies, who may not have fact on their side, but rather, loads of money and the political connections to insure that the system that benefits them be the system of choice. If you can cloak it in terms of the “free-market” and “choice” all so much the better.
Step 2 – Starve the government – Ignore historical fact is a big part of this one. The US has been most prosperous for all of society when the rich were taxed at rates above 50%. 90% after the first 3 million in the 1950’s. The idea of progressive taxation is to encourage people to reinvest their money back into the country to not only keep it away from the damn guv’ment but continue to build a prosperous society for all. But taxes have steadily declined and thus the ability to adequately fund programs that benefits all Americans were also degraded.
Let me stop here and acknowledge that yes there is government waste and inefficiently, but on a sector by sector analysis of what the government does do, it does more efficiently and cost effectively and at a great benefit to the people of the country than most privately run organizations.
So, back to the step 2 original point that now because the government cannot maintain the level of service expected it is so much easier to point out how ineffective they are becoming. Well, no kidding, it is like expect the three legged horse to win the race.
I think our real argument is going to be what the correct level of taxation should be when it comes to running a just society.
LikeLike
September 11, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Vern R. Kaine
As you know, my gift here is rarely simplification (although sometimes it does happen!) but I’ll try and approach it a different way…
The strategy Atcheson argues that the “fat cats” in the penthouse use against the tenants is the same propaganda strategy that government uses, corporations use, the left or the right uses, or anyone seeking power uses. Unions do the same thing, and to an extent we all do it here so I think his steps by themselves are moot and don’t present any sort of “a ha” moment whatsoever.
As to his point, he says “starve government and it is sure to underperform.” This is the “three-legged horse” argument you present, and you’re right, but consider that it goes the other way as well. How many businesses are crippled because of labor laws or business regulations? How many states are crippled because of the power shift going more towards the Feds than the individual states?
Overall, Atcheson appears to present the all-too-familiar image of the fat-cats up in the penthouse living large while the peasants suffer. He argues that they feed us this line that the government can’t do anything, and therefore we should instead trust them to “save us”. He says this is not only wrong, but it’s also disingenuous because it’s actually the fat cats who are making sure that the government can’t do squat.
Sure, but so what? Now that these “six steps” are laid out and we’re now so enlightened. do you really think that the tenants’ behaviors would change, or peoples’ behavior would change out here? I don’t, because I think Atcheson’s analogy in this respect is accurate – the general public are too stupid, too shortsighted, and too self-destructive to know or do any better even if the power were once again back in their hands.
This is why I don’t like the analogy. It’s tragic flaw lies in its insinuation that the real power lies with those in the Penthouse when it really lies with the tenants if they’d just wise up and see past their own noses.
And why won’t they? Because if they accept the truth that they do in fact have this power, with it comes responsibility that the general public both doesn’t want, and can’t handle. So to me, regardless of if there’s 5 steps, 10 steps, or even 12 steps to what the fat cats in the Penthouse are doing, his story ultimately gives people the right stay stupid and absolve themselves of responsibility that should really be theirs.
“…but on a sector by sector analysis of what the government does do, it does more efficiently and cost effectively and at a great benefit to the people of the country than most privately run organizations.”
Hmmm, like government-run airlines, schools, post offices, liquor stores, and automotive companies? What exactly are you calling “efficiency”, and what data are you referring to for that conclusion?
LikeLike
September 11, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“I think our real argument is going to be what the correct level of taxation should be when it comes to running a just society.”
This is what I’m trying to get at with my “patriotism vs. responsibility” comment. People on the far left are asking for more taxes basically out of sheer patriotism (Biden even stated so himself) and not showing really any responsibility behind it (and again, I easily concede that Bush was no better or different during his terms). Conversely, people like the tea partiers are demanding a “crash diet” of responsibility from the government.
It’s a stalemate that I don’t think anything but another crisis can solve, and unfortunately we’re wasting the crises currently bestowed upon us.
LikeLike
September 11, 2011 at 4:39 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“So, I need clarification on how Patriotism and Responsibility figure into the article”
I’m going outward a few orbits, but basically the way I see his article is that he’s saying that if the Penthouse-dwellers were more “patriotic” – i.e. they contributed to the greater good of their home and community as a whole, then everyone would be better off. Guys like Moore and Biden echo this when Moore longs for the days of 90% taxation and Biden says it’s the “patriotic” thing to do.
I disagree that the problem lies with the Penthouse-dwellers “patriotism” and instead the weight and reliance should be on the tenants being more “responsible”. If so, I believe they could not only 1) improve the short-term living conditions of the building as a whole, and 2) set the stage for improved long-term conditions, but also 3) prevent the situation from getting worse or coming back again in the future.
To me, Atcheson’s insinuated solution only results in 1 of those 3 benefits – “improve the short-term living conditions”, which is the most short-sighted/short-lived of the three.
LikeLike
September 13, 2011 at 7:57 pm
The Arbourist
o you really think that the tenants’ behaviors would change, or peoples’ behavior would change out here? I don’t,
I would like to think that if presented with the facts of the situation (i.e. the destruction of the common good for private interests) the public would react and take the power back.
the general public are too stupid, too shortsighted, and too self-destructive to know or do any better even if the power were once again back in their hands.
And people on the left are elitist…*g*. Anyhow, once people are free of the cognitive distortions that are fed to them, they would find their sense of responsibility and community. I think you may be too hard on the American public considering all the bullshite they have to fight through just to get an accurate depiction of what is happening news wise, it is even more of a struggle to inform oneself of foreign policy and what other people in other countries are thinking.
Here is the rub, to become informed and responsible requires almost an supererogatory dedication to finding out how the world works. If, while working 8 – 14 hours a day, supporting a family, taking the second shift etc, how does one find the time to get educated on the issues and make responsible decisions about political questions. This is just another barrier created by the the ruling elite to make it harder for the individual citizen to become knowledgeable in the affairs of the nation because feeding your family always takes precedence over becoming informed politically.
So, perhaps we should not dump so hard on the average joe as he is the target of several programs specifically designed to make him unconscious to the political peril he faces.
It’s tragic flaw lies in its insinuation that the real power lies with those in the Penthouse when it really lies with the tenants if they’d just wise up and see past their own noses.
So you are advocating for a proletarian revolution, more power to you comrade. :) But I would argue that the way society is structured at the moment, the people in the penthouse are running the show right now, and to boot insinuating the noxious system that is enriching them and exploiting everyone else into the mainstream, where poor people start arguing against redistributive policies that would directly benefit them. It’s a mind job for sure, but when it is the dominant paradigm its called ‘common sense’, even when it is the furthest thing from it.
LikeLike
September 13, 2011 at 8:08 pm
The Arbourist
If thePenthouse-dwellers were more “patriotic” – i.e. they contributed to the greater good of their home and community as a whole, then everyone would be better off.
I think you are looking for the word altruistic. It fits better than patriotic. But to a limited extent I think the author is arguing for a return to more altruistic regime of taxation and regulation, because the deregulation, dehumanizing, demoralizing era marked by Regan Presidency needs to be reversed. As far back as the Brenton-Woods agreement might be a good place to start. The financial sector is completely out of control at the moment, they play with securities and other ‘financial instruments’ and produce no real goods or services only money and profit that eventually amounts to the poor and middle classes transferring their money to the wealthy. The lack of regulation is fantastic for the investor classes, but is driving inequality in the the US to feudal proportions.
To me, Atcheson’s insinuated solution only results in 1 of those 3 benefits – “improve the short-term living conditions”,
I would think that addressing the taxation deficit would address the medium and long term solutions as well. But taxation is just one aspect of the multifaceted problem. The money in the political system also needs to be addressed. Public financing of candidates and similar electoral reform. Concomitantly, corporate ‘personhood’ needs to be revoked or severely overhauled with the rights of people as opposed to monied interests taking precedent.
LikeLike
September 14, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“Concomitantly, corporate ‘personhood’ needs to be revoked or severely overhauled with the rights of people as opposed to monied interests taking precedent.”
Concomawhat? ;) If corporate personhood needs to be revoked then so does union personhood as well for the same reasons.
I would like to think that if presented with the facts of the situation (i.e. the destruction of the common good for private interests) the public would react and take the power back.”
One would hope, but it doesn’t happen – perhaps for the reasons you mention later on, or perhaps for the reasons I mention. Either way, the fact that remains in either case that the general public cares more to follow than to lead.
This is just another barrier created by the the ruling elite to make it harder for the individual citizen to become knowledgeable in the affairs of the nation because feeding your family always takes precedence over becoming informed politically.
The elite wants people to be helpless – I’ve spoken on this before and I think we’re in agreement there. To your other comment about keeping the “serfs” (my word) preoccupied with work and all other things, I largely agree with that as well.
If people were truly that busy working, though, there wouldn’t be any movie theaters, trash magazines, tables and chairs in Starbucks, and dishes feeding a thousand channels to our tv’s. Take a stroll through West Ed at 2pm on a Wednesday and see how “rushed” people are there! Time is the great equalizer – everyone has 24hrs in their day so to me it comes down to priorities.
The elite ruling class is to me an indistinguishable mix of corporate elite and government elite. To have a President talking to congress about jobs and people paying their “fair share” when his guest of honor is not only a job and IP exporter, but taking full advantage of the tax loopholes as well as the country’s “Jobs Czar” tells me there’s lots rotten in Denmakr. I’d say the same if it was Bush with Tony Hayward in Immelt’s place, too. Things were rotten then and they’re worse now.
Back to the general public, though, I think it’s simple. Third world countries are now first-world educated, and first-world competitive. The world’s no longer going to give a free pass for someone who simply “works hard” or stays at a company 40 years. People are going to have to “think hard” and be far more educated to be competitive, so if they’re not making time now to get educated, they’d better because nobody’s going to hand that time to them on a silver platter.
The world’s become more competitive, not less, and if loyalty and entitlement are taking precedent in someone over competitiveness and agility in terms of traits that they value, they can kiss any sort of good life goodbye because their fellow peers are going to either eat them for lunch or leave them behind.
LikeLike
September 14, 2011 at 5:20 pm
renetascian
Society doesn’t have to tax it’s work force until it has no free-time to lobby for social change; just make it time consuming enough to find information that the offset with fatigue from workload, and total work hours makes it virtually impossible to make headway. Revealing corruption is a full time job or an agency, not the job of the layman worker who is concerned about what corporate interests are being represented at the top. The problem is so deep, and so well hidden that no Jack, Joe or Tom is going to use their free-time outside of work to reveal corporate corruption. Free time is not an indication that someone has the left over mental, and emotional capacity to engage in such activities. Movie theaters, and Starbucks and the like exist because after being mentally, emotionally and financially depleted down to little more than pocket change much else is difficult.
Modern conveniences aren’t proof we have free time and energy, but is the illusion that we do. Ever notice how empty our recreational places usually are. A room that seats 60 will seldom see more than 25. Furthermore, it’s nearly impossible to get a man to understand something his paycheck depends on him not understanding. The problem is that corporations have so much capital power, that the only way to fight a corporation is with another corporation, agency of fiscally fortified asset. Fire with Fire. However, sheer mass can overtake this giant. If enough people complain about the lack of transparency, if enough people lobby for change, then it can occur; which is exactly why to most motivated to change (lower and middle classes) are hit so hard. But you have to realize this is a serious infrastructural problem, not a minor fix here and there. We aren’t talking about progressivistic changes to the “essential ecology” of our system, we are talking about revolution.
Our system as it is, is fundamentally flawed. Any system that stands on capital alone is doomed to failure. Money is worthless without infrastructure, and the past 10 years in Canada and the US has seen the greatest change in this balance from infrastructure to pure capital. The focus went starkly away from job creation, market placement, advancement, and when into shell games of making money for the sake of money using money itself. If we don’t “fix” the holes in our capitalistic hierarchy we are going to all be sitting on a street corner begging for cash while the suits and politicians splash mud all over us in their 3 million dollar Lamborghini’s. It’s that simple. Many have gotten so used to the mundane routines that they can’t see what is going on around them. Essentially, they live in a fog facilitated by those who don’t want you looking around.
Society is already pushing the work force much harder, for much less pay… Remember, you don’t have to give someone excessive hours of work to deprive his/her most basic needs. All you have to do is effect his sleep, well-being, and overall total resources verses the demands of surviving in a society in order to “keep him down”. The Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need can emphasize just how easy it is to tax a person unto oblivion, to reduce their ability to question the nature of their existence. If you bust your ass 45 hours a week, and can barely make your rent, this has a profoundly negative impact on your environment. I have seen the cost of housing go up but 300%, electricity by 400%, water and food by at least 200% in just my adult life, and that’s not even including gas, car, or insurance, and I am 31. When first started on my own a gallon of milk was $1.78, and now in most places it’s <$3.87 – 4.50.
Our cost living has been increasing by a rate greater than our wages, while corporations executives are receiving the record breaking profits and wage increases of the century. In fact when you calculate the increase in cost of living as a line graph with a second line representing the lower and middle class wages for the same 20 year retroactive time frame I am sure you will see the wage increase line cross and fall under the cost of living increase lines. In fact I'd even postulate that it started that route in the late 80s, early 90s, and crosses over sometime in 2001 – 2003. Mind you I am speculating and not everything has seen dramatic an increased in price, but the basic necessities have seen the greatest increase in price. Those companies are the laundry list that haven't been seeing profit losses. I wonder, why is that?
Losing 100 dollars means nothing to a man who makes 100,000/mo, and sleep loss to a man who makes 600/mo.
LikeLike
September 15, 2011 at 12:29 am
Vern R. Kaine
Revealing corruption is a full time job or an agency,”
Would be nice if the press helped out a little, too. ;)
Society is already pushing the work force much harder, for much less pay… Remember, you don’t have to give someone excessive hours of work to deprive his/her most basic needs.
I don’t necessarily disagree, however I do think it’s a 50/50 argument. In general, do you blame the corporation that rewards those who put in more effort, or do you blame the worker who wants the job more than the person beside him does and therefore works harder?
“Free time is not an indication that someone has the left over mental, and emotional capacity to engage in such activities. Movie theaters, and Starbucks and the like exist because after being mentally, emotionally and financially depleted down to little more than pocket change much else is difficult….Modern conveniences aren’t proof we have free time and energy, but is the illusion that we do.
I believe we create (or buy into) that illusion voluntarily as it’s supposedly safer, appearing to have far less risk, and seems far less difficult to maintain.
The fact is, though, that’s the most guaranteed way to go broke safely. If we rent out our time and skills to others, we’ll always get the shorter end of the stick and be squeezed for all we can produce. We then give ourselves these “rewards” for our work (such as those modern conveniences you speak of), to supposedly offset that stress.
That’s a mismatch, however. The reward for hard work shouldn’t be a number of escapes from reality where the only result can be a person returning to the same hard work again but this time with fewer resources.
Instead, the reward should be insights into ways to work smarter rather than harder where one’s resources (or resourcefulness) experiences increase rather than decrease. Most people, though, take the escapes; the escapes become the goal rather than the personal improvement. As a result, these people become not only predictable, but puppets, convinced that their potential is far less than what it truly is (which is the other illusion).
LikeLike