A friend emailed me to talk a little about anticapitalism and wealth. He was quite correct. Money DOES make the world go 'round. And I certainly am NOT against wealth. People work hard, they should not be limited in what they receive in return.
He made me think. This is not against work, or workers, or the fruits of anyone's labors. It is more about what happens when it is not the fruit of anyone's labors, but rather money simply making money and not being put to productive use.
A little story is probably useful. I was reading in Proudhon's book "What is Property" about Cicero's theory that the world is like a theatre. People may come in and acquire a seat. But only one, as they cannot occupy two or three seats at the same time. And when they leave, that seat is available for someone else. Nevermind for the moment that by appropriating the seat you are robbing the chance from anyone else. As they say man has an equal right to inequality. Pretend it is a REALLY big theatre.
What I want to focus on is that I really have no problem with the person who gets up early and works hard for the best seat getting the best seat. I have no problem with someone who saves a seat for his or her spouse or child. I have no issue even with someone who decides to quit their seat for a specific person to get it - even if it is in return for money.
Where I begin to wonder is when the theatre is owned by someone (as they usually are) and that person begins to raise the rates (as they usually do). Then they build another theatre for all the people who didn't get in. Then, more importantly, they erect barriers to anyone else building a theatre and, even better, sell everyone on going to the theatre even when they might want to, say stay home and read a book. The amounts of obscene money in this world make it possible to control people through advertising, laws, taxes, and even simple market forces. People are losing the free will to get a seat, or the ability to give up or even transfer their seat. The theatre is becoming a casino where the house always wins.
That of course is all metaphorical and to be useful, philosophy has to be put into practice. I do NOT advocate simply taxing hard workers more and giving it to less productive workers. I DO advocate making wealth work for the people. If someone has an obscene amount of money and it is not doing anything productive, we should find ways to encourage productive use. For instance, someone with billions in banks and other "passive" investments could easily afford to invest in a solar company in a poorer nation. That brings money to that nation, helps the world and should be a good investment.
I fully recognize the issue that such a project or investment must be vetted and must work out. I do not think that is an impediment. Instead, there should be new forms of business that allow for such benefits. There should be an encouragement of entrepreneurship. I am not speaking of encouragement from a government through small business programs designed to keep small businesses small. Rather, I see this occurring through people to people activity.
Take your seats, ladies and gentlemen. Let's see how this play goes.
Monday, February 18, 2013
OK, comrades...
I went to DC yesterday, as many of you probably did. There was a pretty big rally against the Keystone XL pipeline that brought out not only pipeline activists, but also climate change activists, ecosocialists, anticpitalists, anarchists and persons of every stripe and persuasion. The speaker were great. Bill McKibben almost sounded surprised that so many people showed up. People from indigineous tribes in Canada spoke about the impact of the line and the tar sands on their lives. The Senator from Rhode Island spoke, and many others.
But that is not really what I want to talk about.
I was surprised at the unspontaneity of it all. I mean, when we showed up, there were speakers and video monitors in the Mall. The streets were blocked off and police were everywhere. At one point people kept telling us to get back on the street because we didn't have a permit for the sidewalk.
It's a SIDEWALK people. You are SUPPOSED to walk on it. I am highly confused by the necessity of confining my free speech to the street.
When we got in front of the White House, there were the usual cast of characters standing against the fence. supposedly some were to be zip tied to the fence, but I saw none of that. One young woman told me that I shouldn't stand there unless I was "arrestable". I responded to here that I wasn't breaking any laws. She told me it was illegal to stand in front of the fence at the White House.
Now first of all, that is a silly law. Second of all, I had just been less than an hour before on the OTHER side of the White House standing at the fence taking a picture. Me and a bunch of other tourists. So maybe it's only illegal if you stand in front of the fence if you are a protester? Or maybe only if you don't have a "permit". Of course, I didn't have a permit before. Didn't even ask for one.
No, I didn't climb the fence. I wouldn't climb my neighbors fence either. Give them some privacy, OK? But to think I would be "warned" against standing still and maybe taking a picture and then, if I didn't follow instructions I would be "arrestable"? Simply unbelievable.
I actually waited around for awhile to be warned so I could argue with the folks. Unfortunately, it became quite boring waiting. Which brings me to my next point.
If you DO perform civil disobedience, and no one cares, does it really matter? The police seemed amused. The protest organizers seemed more interested in separating themselves from the civil disobedience crowd than "owning" the acts. Perhaps the old style civil disobedience has less impact when a city becomes used to it. Perhaps it becomes old hat. I do not presume to pass upon the use of such techniques. I have seen them get great press and help move causes forward.
But I like to be in front of the curve, or maybe even learn from the past. A bus boycott had a great impact on civil rights. The bus company wanted riders. They needed the business. We live in a country where money talks. You don't want a pipeline, perhaps we need to boycott oil. Sounds good, but we all rode busses to the rally.
Perhaps we really need to realize the Front Line is NOT in Washington D.C. It truly is everywhere. Everywhere we meet, everywhere we live. As some of my friends said, "Enough talk....more action." Critics quite rightly point out the environmental and political movements that hypocritically use the same tools of the establishment. Of course, that is what we know, that is somewhat effective, but it is also largely a simple matter of being coopted. Capitalism has no conscience and one sale is as good as another. If you really want to change the world, imagine what you want it to be....and make it that.
But that is not really what I want to talk about.
I was surprised at the unspontaneity of it all. I mean, when we showed up, there were speakers and video monitors in the Mall. The streets were blocked off and police were everywhere. At one point people kept telling us to get back on the street because we didn't have a permit for the sidewalk.
It's a SIDEWALK people. You are SUPPOSED to walk on it. I am highly confused by the necessity of confining my free speech to the street.
When we got in front of the White House, there were the usual cast of characters standing against the fence. supposedly some were to be zip tied to the fence, but I saw none of that. One young woman told me that I shouldn't stand there unless I was "arrestable". I responded to here that I wasn't breaking any laws. She told me it was illegal to stand in front of the fence at the White House.
Now first of all, that is a silly law. Second of all, I had just been less than an hour before on the OTHER side of the White House standing at the fence taking a picture. Me and a bunch of other tourists. So maybe it's only illegal if you stand in front of the fence if you are a protester? Or maybe only if you don't have a "permit". Of course, I didn't have a permit before. Didn't even ask for one.
No, I didn't climb the fence. I wouldn't climb my neighbors fence either. Give them some privacy, OK? But to think I would be "warned" against standing still and maybe taking a picture and then, if I didn't follow instructions I would be "arrestable"? Simply unbelievable.
I actually waited around for awhile to be warned so I could argue with the folks. Unfortunately, it became quite boring waiting. Which brings me to my next point.
If you DO perform civil disobedience, and no one cares, does it really matter? The police seemed amused. The protest organizers seemed more interested in separating themselves from the civil disobedience crowd than "owning" the acts. Perhaps the old style civil disobedience has less impact when a city becomes used to it. Perhaps it becomes old hat. I do not presume to pass upon the use of such techniques. I have seen them get great press and help move causes forward.
But I like to be in front of the curve, or maybe even learn from the past. A bus boycott had a great impact on civil rights. The bus company wanted riders. They needed the business. We live in a country where money talks. You don't want a pipeline, perhaps we need to boycott oil. Sounds good, but we all rode busses to the rally.
Perhaps we really need to realize the Front Line is NOT in Washington D.C. It truly is everywhere. Everywhere we meet, everywhere we live. As some of my friends said, "Enough talk....more action." Critics quite rightly point out the environmental and political movements that hypocritically use the same tools of the establishment. Of course, that is what we know, that is somewhat effective, but it is also largely a simple matter of being coopted. Capitalism has no conscience and one sale is as good as another. If you really want to change the world, imagine what you want it to be....and make it that.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
It's been awhile....
Since I posted, that is. I have two excuses. One I have been sick. Of course, that is scant excuse, because I have been sick for nearly a year and two months with Lyme Disease and still posted. In a greater sense we are all sick with life and dying from the moment we are born. But I mean that I actually was sick, in the sense I had sinusitis (or a reasonable facsimile) and couldn't bear to look at any more computer screens.
Second, I have been reading. What a shock! I have been trying to work on a treatise about the nature of property. Sort of a little "hobby" of mine. So I have been reading various textbooks, case law, and a little book by Proudhon called "What is Property?" Some of you may have heard of it. It is, unfortunately, not something you sit and read on a sunny afternoon, but something you read a page or two at a time and then try to assimilate.
So what have I learned? That there most assuredly is some sort of personal property. My clothes, my house, etc. These are - more or less - inviolate. We as a society simply frown upon people ripping other people's clothes off. No matter how outlandish they are. And given the way many people would look without clothes, I can support this.But I have also learned that just because I possess something cannot be a basis on which I own it. Otherwise, I would simply need to steal something to appropriate it. Otherwise, I could own a person. Last check, society still frowned on owning people. In fact, in some circumstances we frown on "renting" people, owning some animals, owning some substances, etc.
So it seems there must be some other basis for this property thing. Of course, I am now exploring with Proudhon the idea that labor creates property. Put in a more modern word, you own what you create. Again, to some extent this is obviously true. I have created this blog, I have created the thoughts, I "own" this. I guess I could take ads and "sell" space, or try to copyright it as intellectual property. I have done none of this. But by the same token, what right have I to sell space on the web? I created the blog, but not the web. I did not create the computer on which I write. These ideas are mine, but they are spawned by what I have read. Nothing exists in a vacuum. So if everthing and everyone contributed to this blog - this so-called property - then everyone owns a little piece of it. And if everyone owns it, then NO ONE owns it.
So I am trying to work my way through these heady ideas. Maybe I will get somewhere. Maybe not. I do not pretend I have an answer. Just as importantly, I think what I just said hits upon a truth. There simply are different types of property with different qualities. A tautology that can be quite helpful. You see, the real question is not whether there is or is not property. Obviously there is some sort of property. Rather the question is what type of property is, or should it be?
Second, I have been reading. What a shock! I have been trying to work on a treatise about the nature of property. Sort of a little "hobby" of mine. So I have been reading various textbooks, case law, and a little book by Proudhon called "What is Property?" Some of you may have heard of it. It is, unfortunately, not something you sit and read on a sunny afternoon, but something you read a page or two at a time and then try to assimilate.
So what have I learned? That there most assuredly is some sort of personal property. My clothes, my house, etc. These are - more or less - inviolate. We as a society simply frown upon people ripping other people's clothes off. No matter how outlandish they are. And given the way many people would look without clothes, I can support this.But I have also learned that just because I possess something cannot be a basis on which I own it. Otherwise, I would simply need to steal something to appropriate it. Otherwise, I could own a person. Last check, society still frowned on owning people. In fact, in some circumstances we frown on "renting" people, owning some animals, owning some substances, etc.
So it seems there must be some other basis for this property thing. Of course, I am now exploring with Proudhon the idea that labor creates property. Put in a more modern word, you own what you create. Again, to some extent this is obviously true. I have created this blog, I have created the thoughts, I "own" this. I guess I could take ads and "sell" space, or try to copyright it as intellectual property. I have done none of this. But by the same token, what right have I to sell space on the web? I created the blog, but not the web. I did not create the computer on which I write. These ideas are mine, but they are spawned by what I have read. Nothing exists in a vacuum. So if everthing and everyone contributed to this blog - this so-called property - then everyone owns a little piece of it. And if everyone owns it, then NO ONE owns it.
So I am trying to work my way through these heady ideas. Maybe I will get somewhere. Maybe not. I do not pretend I have an answer. Just as importantly, I think what I just said hits upon a truth. There simply are different types of property with different qualities. A tautology that can be quite helpful. You see, the real question is not whether there is or is not property. Obviously there is some sort of property. Rather the question is what type of property is, or should it be?
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Nothing for $2.00.....Part III. ...
So today I approached total strangers and offered them $2.00.
The first fellow looked at me and said, "I don't need it." Now that was a noble reason and I could certainly appreciate it. I responded he should give it to someone else, then. He looked at me quizzically and asked why. I just said I was redistributing my wealth. He then said something to the effect that in that case, he could help me. And he took it!
The next person was the person behind the counter at the bookstore where Iwas buying a book. The counter also sold coffee and tea and desserts, etc. There was a tip jar on the counter. My intent had been to pick out a patron, but there were quite a few people there during the day and people were in groups. I could not decide how to pick one person out of a group. I may be crazy, but I am not rich and my "wealth" that I am "redistributing" does have some meaning even if it is only $2.00 a crack.
So when the young lady behind the counter remembered I didn't like bags and mentioned seeing me in there before, I asked her if I could give her $2.00.
She asked what she had to do for it.
Now, what in the world WOULD she do for $2.00, I wonder? I mean, its only TWO DOLLARS.
Anyway, I told her "Nothing. I am buying nothing from you for $2.00." She and her co-worker laughed and said sure and she took the money. As I walked away she called after me to have a really great day.
And I did.
So what did I learn from this experience? It seems people don't trust people. Even for $2.00 they think you want something (and apparently something of value). I also learned that your closest friends seem to feel the most distrust or guilt for taking the money. Complete strangers get over their fear quickly when they learn you really mean it.
However, the thing that bothers me is that none of these people truly did "need" the money. I think I would like to try and find someone who did need it, or otherwise anonymously give the money to someone and see that reaction. I will give this experiment some thought.
Watch out for Part IV.
The first fellow looked at me and said, "I don't need it." Now that was a noble reason and I could certainly appreciate it. I responded he should give it to someone else, then. He looked at me quizzically and asked why. I just said I was redistributing my wealth. He then said something to the effect that in that case, he could help me. And he took it!
The next person was the person behind the counter at the bookstore where Iwas buying a book. The counter also sold coffee and tea and desserts, etc. There was a tip jar on the counter. My intent had been to pick out a patron, but there were quite a few people there during the day and people were in groups. I could not decide how to pick one person out of a group. I may be crazy, but I am not rich and my "wealth" that I am "redistributing" does have some meaning even if it is only $2.00 a crack.
So when the young lady behind the counter remembered I didn't like bags and mentioned seeing me in there before, I asked her if I could give her $2.00.
She asked what she had to do for it.
Now, what in the world WOULD she do for $2.00, I wonder? I mean, its only TWO DOLLARS.
Anyway, I told her "Nothing. I am buying nothing from you for $2.00." She and her co-worker laughed and said sure and she took the money. As I walked away she called after me to have a really great day.
And I did.
So what did I learn from this experience? It seems people don't trust people. Even for $2.00 they think you want something (and apparently something of value). I also learned that your closest friends seem to feel the most distrust or guilt for taking the money. Complete strangers get over their fear quickly when they learn you really mean it.
However, the thing that bothers me is that none of these people truly did "need" the money. I think I would like to try and find someone who did need it, or otherwise anonymously give the money to someone and see that reaction. I will give this experiment some thought.
Watch out for Part IV.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Nothing for $2.00, PART ii...
Yesterday I posted about trying to get people to give away money. Nothing for $2.00m I said. So today I put philosophy in action. I walked around and handed people $2.00.
When they asked what it was for, I told them "Nothing. I just bought nothing from you for $2.00." Most of them argued with me. I told them if it bothered them, they should give it to someone else, or give one of the dollars to someone else.
Every time $2.00 ended up on my desk later in the day. Now, what's up with that?
I read somewhere tonight that the world's 100 top billionaires had enough money in interest and earnings alone to end poverty several times over. What I wonder is, would anyone let them? We seem willing to take from the government, but not from our fellow man. That's just messed up.
So tomorrow, I am going to pick someone NOT at work at random and pay them $2.00 for nothing. Let's see what happens then.
In the meantime, if anyone is reading this, give it a try and let me know your experiences.
When they asked what it was for, I told them "Nothing. I just bought nothing from you for $2.00." Most of them argued with me. I told them if it bothered them, they should give it to someone else, or give one of the dollars to someone else.
Every time $2.00 ended up on my desk later in the day. Now, what's up with that?
I read somewhere tonight that the world's 100 top billionaires had enough money in interest and earnings alone to end poverty several times over. What I wonder is, would anyone let them? We seem willing to take from the government, but not from our fellow man. That's just messed up.
So tomorrow, I am going to pick someone NOT at work at random and pay them $2.00 for nothing. Let's see what happens then.
In the meantime, if anyone is reading this, give it a try and let me know your experiences.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Nothing for $2.00...
I just read that 5% of the wealthiest people in the US make 37% of the purchases. Now we can look at that as a horrible thing. We can dwell upon the unfairness of it all. We can rail against the establishment. And, of course, there is a moral duty to do that.
However, there is another response. One which is totally logical and can help effect the same end. I am reminded of being at a concert for an "alternative" band. In the parking lot a large number of people were hawking "wares". At the very same time someone was walking around making fun of the obviously capitalistic actions of the sellers who could have cared less about the alternative message of the band.
This person kept calling "Nothing for $2.00!"
Nothing for $2.00! The best price for nothing you will ever get. If you have $2.00 you best get nothing now. In fact, you should buy nothing for all your friends. Just go out, find someone and buy nothing from them for $2.00.
Now I am being facetious, but I am also suggesting there is truth in all this. If 5% of the people have the wealth, then we damn well know where we need to get our money from. It's like John Dillinger robbing banks because that's where the money is. Not suggesting we rob anyone, but there is nothing wrong with making a good deal.
What parts people from their money? All kinds of things. Coercion from the state, physical needs for food or drink and the desire for entertainment. Sometimes, people even part with their money to assuage guilt.
The problem is not parting people from something when they have an excess. The problem is convincing them they want to be parted. The movement to simplicity, anticapitalism (where most of the rich got rich in the first place) or - god forbid - helping the poor, simply are not "happy" things that make people want to part with or give away money.
But nothing. Nothing but a random act of kindness. A random act that only costs $2.00! Heck, it could be a movement.
Everyone should try it, and no less so those that can afford to do so. Does each person who gets $2.00 "deserve" it? No, but every person who gives it deserves the "nothing" they get in return.
However, there is another response. One which is totally logical and can help effect the same end. I am reminded of being at a concert for an "alternative" band. In the parking lot a large number of people were hawking "wares". At the very same time someone was walking around making fun of the obviously capitalistic actions of the sellers who could have cared less about the alternative message of the band.
This person kept calling "Nothing for $2.00!"
Nothing for $2.00! The best price for nothing you will ever get. If you have $2.00 you best get nothing now. In fact, you should buy nothing for all your friends. Just go out, find someone and buy nothing from them for $2.00.
Now I am being facetious, but I am also suggesting there is truth in all this. If 5% of the people have the wealth, then we damn well know where we need to get our money from. It's like John Dillinger robbing banks because that's where the money is. Not suggesting we rob anyone, but there is nothing wrong with making a good deal.
What parts people from their money? All kinds of things. Coercion from the state, physical needs for food or drink and the desire for entertainment. Sometimes, people even part with their money to assuage guilt.
The problem is not parting people from something when they have an excess. The problem is convincing them they want to be parted. The movement to simplicity, anticapitalism (where most of the rich got rich in the first place) or - god forbid - helping the poor, simply are not "happy" things that make people want to part with or give away money.
But nothing. Nothing but a random act of kindness. A random act that only costs $2.00! Heck, it could be a movement.
Everyone should try it, and no less so those that can afford to do so. Does each person who gets $2.00 "deserve" it? No, but every person who gives it deserves the "nothing" they get in return.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)