DrEast
09-30-2008, 09:37 PM
Nobody has the right to be secure. Nobody. Secure in retirement, secure in person, secure in possessions... these are not inherent rights. The idea that anyone has a right to security flies in the face of all observable reality. Any person on earth could drop dead at any time, and there's nothing they can do about it. Any given segment of civilization could collapse and join the low-grade anarchy that forever festers in various parts of the world, sometimes subsiding and sometimes inflaming like a chronic disease. There. Is. No. Security. Not in this life.
And yet, people will discard all justice, mercy and freedom in the pursuit of it, in what must be the greatest act of pure folly ever conceived by mankind, and do so over and over again. Constantly, I see Statist apologists of the Paulson Plan pointing out that a freeze up of the credit markets could mean the death of 401(k)s, pension plans, mortgages and credit cards. They trumpet these things like they're God-given entitlements, the foundation of all of modern society and the only thing any person in their right mind could think of in a time like this. And these are the things the pundits are all smirking over, believing that a bailout is inevitable, Monday's defeat merely a very temporary setback.
401(k)s? Pension plans? Always a lie, always have been. They're examples of "buy-in", a method used to consolidate power over an individual by making that individual think they have a stake in the process that enslaves them. Voting is another example of this process. By giving people stock value instead of higher wages, corporations ensure their grip on the people. Then, when the deeply flawed system the corporations depend upon for their ever-increasing wealth and privilege starts to buckle, the corporate leaders can look to the stake held by their underlings and consolidate their position with a nod and a wink. From there, it's a hop, skip and a few thousand angry phone-calls from a bailout.
People point to failing banks and say, with an appropriate level of indignation, "let those who made foolish choices fall," and then the smirking pundits turn around and say, "if they do, your own livelihood is likely to go up in smoke, and you will miss out on the American Dream." The unspoken but desperately needed logical conclusion is this: The entire system that fuels the American Dream is likewise a foolish, foolish choice.
Who's more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him? The financial markets are the Keynesian fools, believing in ever-expanding credit to push economic activity higher and higher. The corporations are fools that follow in their wake, trusting their lies about the glories of credit. And those who buy in to the corporations through stock purchases, 401(k)s and the like are further fools, twice removed but all the more foolish for it.
They may not like to hear it, but that doesn't make it not true.
Put not your faith in your country, your leaders, your money, your news media, your stock brokers or your bankers. They will all lie to you with a smile and a firm handshake, and they'll all tell you to trust the others. Because, you see, at this point they're all the same people.
It's highly likely the House will be pressured into passing a bailout bill, and the sacrifices that will be made, of what little Constitutional protection we have left, of the last gasp of a free market, of any sense of justice or decency, will all be justified in the view of maintaining the people's completely nonexistent security. But me, I have to take a different view.
One commentator I was reading who was covering the political motivations of those who voted "no" made a brief side mention to those who were legitimately libertarian, free-market individuals. He said of them, "They are honest and principled, if insane. I wish them a happy depression."
Insane? By insane, I believe he had to mean, "opposed to a purely utilitarian ethic," as if the only sane position to take for any man was "the system must prevail, above all else; anything is permissible if it means the greatest good to the greatest number." But I, I must take a different view. It's a view even disparaged by libertarian philosophers, but it's the only one I can possibly accept: "Justice above all else, even to the end of the world."
Because if you don't have that, you don't have ANYthing.
So maybe the overwhelming cowardice, arrogance and avarice of our nation will lead us ever further down the path of authoritarianism. And who knows? From there, we may cycle around to freedom again, someday, in the time of my children's children. Or perhaps the world will end first. We do have nukes now.
Until then, I will look to achieve what justice I can in the short time we have on this earth, and look to the Ultimate Justice that will come when it ends. But it seems to me the greatest battle to be fought is the battle to convince people that they are not secure and never will be, no matter how much power and wealth they cede to those who rule over them; in fact, their security grows shakier and shakier the more they cede.
And yet, people will discard all justice, mercy and freedom in the pursuit of it, in what must be the greatest act of pure folly ever conceived by mankind, and do so over and over again. Constantly, I see Statist apologists of the Paulson Plan pointing out that a freeze up of the credit markets could mean the death of 401(k)s, pension plans, mortgages and credit cards. They trumpet these things like they're God-given entitlements, the foundation of all of modern society and the only thing any person in their right mind could think of in a time like this. And these are the things the pundits are all smirking over, believing that a bailout is inevitable, Monday's defeat merely a very temporary setback.
401(k)s? Pension plans? Always a lie, always have been. They're examples of "buy-in", a method used to consolidate power over an individual by making that individual think they have a stake in the process that enslaves them. Voting is another example of this process. By giving people stock value instead of higher wages, corporations ensure their grip on the people. Then, when the deeply flawed system the corporations depend upon for their ever-increasing wealth and privilege starts to buckle, the corporate leaders can look to the stake held by their underlings and consolidate their position with a nod and a wink. From there, it's a hop, skip and a few thousand angry phone-calls from a bailout.
People point to failing banks and say, with an appropriate level of indignation, "let those who made foolish choices fall," and then the smirking pundits turn around and say, "if they do, your own livelihood is likely to go up in smoke, and you will miss out on the American Dream." The unspoken but desperately needed logical conclusion is this: The entire system that fuels the American Dream is likewise a foolish, foolish choice.
Who's more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him? The financial markets are the Keynesian fools, believing in ever-expanding credit to push economic activity higher and higher. The corporations are fools that follow in their wake, trusting their lies about the glories of credit. And those who buy in to the corporations through stock purchases, 401(k)s and the like are further fools, twice removed but all the more foolish for it.
They may not like to hear it, but that doesn't make it not true.
Put not your faith in your country, your leaders, your money, your news media, your stock brokers or your bankers. They will all lie to you with a smile and a firm handshake, and they'll all tell you to trust the others. Because, you see, at this point they're all the same people.
It's highly likely the House will be pressured into passing a bailout bill, and the sacrifices that will be made, of what little Constitutional protection we have left, of the last gasp of a free market, of any sense of justice or decency, will all be justified in the view of maintaining the people's completely nonexistent security. But me, I have to take a different view.
One commentator I was reading who was covering the political motivations of those who voted "no" made a brief side mention to those who were legitimately libertarian, free-market individuals. He said of them, "They are honest and principled, if insane. I wish them a happy depression."
Insane? By insane, I believe he had to mean, "opposed to a purely utilitarian ethic," as if the only sane position to take for any man was "the system must prevail, above all else; anything is permissible if it means the greatest good to the greatest number." But I, I must take a different view. It's a view even disparaged by libertarian philosophers, but it's the only one I can possibly accept: "Justice above all else, even to the end of the world."
Because if you don't have that, you don't have ANYthing.
So maybe the overwhelming cowardice, arrogance and avarice of our nation will lead us ever further down the path of authoritarianism. And who knows? From there, we may cycle around to freedom again, someday, in the time of my children's children. Or perhaps the world will end first. We do have nukes now.
Until then, I will look to achieve what justice I can in the short time we have on this earth, and look to the Ultimate Justice that will come when it ends. But it seems to me the greatest battle to be fought is the battle to convince people that they are not secure and never will be, no matter how much power and wealth they cede to those who rule over them; in fact, their security grows shakier and shakier the more they cede.