Today I called my senator, here's what I said.

I'm calling to urge my senator to stop this healthcare travesty. We need real reform, not more compromise. I know that it's people like myself who end up dying and suffering over proposals like this one. For too long, necessary steps have been blocked by the vested interests who have grown rich off the labor of common, hard-working folks. At the same time these same individuals continuously promise us more than they ever deliver: in workplace safety, in food safety, in living wages, affordable housing-any housing!-yes, healthcare, or automobile safety, and on and on. More compromise in this case means more illness, more unnecessary pain and anguish, more death for people like myself. Our only offense is that we are forced by this system to work more than is needed to get less than is deserved. How can you honestly tell someone with two or three jobs that we don't deserve to have healthcare? That we are unworthy, just because we weren't born with a certain skin color or the "right background"? This, as with so many other things in our country, is a problem we are too long in finding an ethical, decent solution for. Instead we are forced to listen to more talk and excuses about "economic interests", about how "businesses can't survive", or "it's unfair to insurance companies". These entities are not alive, they don't matter when measured against the death of a mother or father whose disease was not treated in time, of one more child who goes hungry to pay the insurance, or one more brother or sister who slides into poverty under mounting medical bills. It's time to stop this insane practice of "we can't", it's time to say not only "we should", or even, "we can". It's time to say, "we will."

Public Education v. Private Interests

There is a move by a fairly large group in the U.S. to privatise primary and secondary education, thereby making the ability to pay requisite for an adequate education.  This attack on public education follows on the heels of privitising other governmental functions such as the military, retirement, and utilities, all with consequences we have experienced.  The established order of the public education system is to provide this basic and necessary service to children without regard for ability to pay.  This has been our choice because being adequately educated is intrinsic to the ability of citizens to participate in a democracy.  It is untenable and undesirable for all to privatise this system and I include those trying to enact it.  Firstly, the promise of compulsory universal public education is to better not solely the individuals, but rather society at large by improving each participant's interactions and ability to contribute.  The goal being that as each member is elevated, we raise the collective society that much more: the sum is greater than its parts.  Secondly, having a minimum level of education  increases the satisfaction, self-worth, and capability of each citizen.  When people are educated they are (and feel) better prepared to discuss ideas and have opinions rather than trusting someone else's argument or spouting nonsense based in ignorance. It is a basic drive, as a social species, to relate to others and it should be rewarding and uniting to do so. Third, the argument that private education is better than public is nonsense.  The differences between the two are largely cosmetic and the "improvement" seen in private schools would be mirrored in public schools if some small changes were made there. Public schools are overwhelmed by the sheer number of students, often who have been unsupported at home and in the community.  Many of these children model behaviour which is counterproductive to their own needs and disruptive in the school environment. If corrections were made in these areas, public schools could be as "successful" as the private ones.  The secret motive behind the push to privatise is to further separate individuals and communities and this is the opposite of what we need.  Integrating with others and establishing cooperation are key components in overcoming many of the problems in society today.  If we begin to separate people more strongly into classes even earlier we will only strengthen the attitudes behind and problems with declining advancement.  I believe there are a few who are cognisant of these factors and are counting on these effects.  It is to the capitalistic benefit of the few to be able to easily manipulate and control the majority.  It is not, however, an improvement to their personal, spiritual, relational, or integral well-being.  For these reasons, I would stand with those who oppose all "voucher programs" and any such thing which undermines the promise of education for and improvement of all.  This means that "private schools" may want to watch their backs, I might have a post about them later.

Choice and Consequence

Capitalism is not a system that allows people to exercise free will, even though it is supposedly based on choice. We are told that we are free, that because we can pay for what we want and because the capitalist system provides so many options, that we have real choices.  However, all the choices boil down to the same one: pay or die.  If you can't afford food, you starve; if you don't have the cash for health care, you'll get or stay sick; when you need a vacation, you'd better have plenty of cash.  The problems of capitalism are ameliorated by factors like insurance, subsidies, and donations, but these are not solutions.  Also, the illusion of choice is exposed by having only those select "approved" choices. In this I mean not that we should be able to break laws or do without them altogether, those are collective decisions and necessary for societal well being.  I mean simply that true innovation and free thought is stifled.  We are caught up in the system and have to work within its confines.  This is due to spending so much energy just to meet our "cash needs" (food, clothing, shelter, recreation) there isn't much left over for exploration.  There is only funding for research that "those in charge" allow for, and they only want to pay for things that will get them more money and power. If we want to do something, we have to get their permission and support.  If we want to operate outside of their purview, we still have to work inside the system and have those same  "choices".  It is a self-fulfilling, self-perpetuating cycle whereby the more one plays the game, the more the game controls the player.

Owned!

Capitalism is predicated on the idea of ownership; that something, indeed everything, can be owned. Ownership indicates the ability to control. This means that if you own something, you determine what is done with it. This applies to a tool, an animal (even another human animal), territory, and-in recent times-an idea or words. Without this control things are subject to discussion, we have to agree with others about what happens, and be able to trust others. This is seemingly intolerable to many people, possibly from fear one may not get everything one wants. Leaving aside how great an insecurity with the world this concept reveals, let's examine what it means for us in a more concrete manner.

First we have to accept that we are able to own/control things outside of our individual selves. We then set about making sure that everyone knows we control these things, that no one else controls them, and that we can get control of other things in exchange for those we already control. This is the essence of capitalism, the bare-bones explanation. With all that activity, it seems like we ought to have something to show for it; that at the end of titling, registering, trademarking, copyrighting, and suing over rights to something, we must have a sense of accomplishment and fulfillment. Look at those who do own, then those who own more, and then see how relaxed and fulfilled the majority of these people are. Ownership, in truth, leads to anxiety and insecurity; it means the constant worry about what is owned being taken from us. In the words of Chuck Palahniuk, "The things you own end up owning you."

Volunteers Needed, Inquire Within.

The funny thing is that volunteers often do better work, are more dedicated, and are willing to work harder even though they know they will receive absolutely no monetary compensation for their efforts. When there is an emergency, disaster, or just a need for many hands, volunteers are there. When great change is required, volunteers step up; all social movements have been driven by people that do not get paid. That means the most important events in our history from ending slavery to overthrowing dictatorial governments were all instigated and carried through by volunteers. This gives lie to the belief that extrinsic, monetary rewards are the best way to motivate people and improve results. Take that, capitalist model.

Capitalism as Favoritism

What I would like to point out this time is a basic and prominent flaw with this system. Simply put: the ability of those with money to do what those without cannot. When money represents the ability to make desirable things happen, then those who have little or no money are left out. This is not just about being able to afford a sumptuous dinner of natural, contaminant-free foods, although that is an example. This applies to everything from transportation and housing to hair and body care. One obvious example that many can relate to is speeding tickets. I use these because they are things which most citizens agree are unfair. What I mean by this is that these tickets represent an informal tax, a fee to circumvent inconvenient laws (I mentioned this in my post "Legal Fiction" of 19Mar05). There could be valid reasons behind speed limits, certainly, but the only real check on dangerous behaviour and which leads to actual safety is self-regulation. Psychologists might refer to this as an internal rather than external locus of control, but it means that an individual is in charge of herself. Getting back to this discussion: when one breaks a law and the penalty is financial in nature, that is unfair. There is no motivation for actual, long-term changes in the offending behaviour, there is only the fear of being caught and having to pay more money. This means that those who have little money are more effected and those with more money do not experience the fear or supposed change in behaviour which the fine is supposed to instill. This also holds for being imprisoned, since it has monetary repercussions, as well. There is the immediate effect of not working while in prison, but the further difficulty of having a criminal record which will limit job prospects in the future. Even more unfair, since most people with money are able to get a great attorney, they get to keep themselves out of prison or pay a fine (can I simply call it an inconvenience fee yet?) in lieu of jail time.  What does this mean to you?  Are you entitled, in the dominant class, and without worry or care for this situation?  Do you feel this is the way things ought to be?  While you may consider yourself above the law, you may wish to reconsider that position.  The only way that laws have any power is by consent and when they are imposed on people there is only one outcome.  I don't mean to expand on that now, as it is a topic for another post.

Working Hard, or Hardly Working?

There is a vast divide between those who do the work and those who profit off work done by others. While obvious, it has been this way for so long that it seems natural or inevitable, neither of which is true. To clarify and begin again: we live in one of two ways, either we work for a living or we make others work for us. Some people may not see this as a problem, some may not agree with my description, and some may say that there is no viable alternative. I hope to demonstrate to these people what I mean and disabuse them of any illusions.

The problem inherent in this system is the differentiation between these two groups. Why are there two groups, why should there exist this inequality? When did one group become one way and the other not? Who decided which people belonged in each group? I say it is a problem because every differentiation between people is artificial. Throughout history every time one group has claimed supremacy over or distinction from another, it has been for self-advancement either great or small. I want to address the aspect of these groups, which is another problem with the system. This is not the difference between "types of work", but between work and ownership. Many are made to toil so the few can leisure, or at least be immune to working. The origin is force-subtle or gross-it is one person or group claiming and enforcing the right to get others to do what they want. This has taken different forms: outright physical intimidation and brutality, spiritual claims either about the nature of life (and thus behaviour while alive) or the right to rule, and-our concern here-economic force. The question then becomes: is a system with these attributes one which is desirable or moral?

Is This Thing Working?

This will be the first in a series of posts about capitalism; something which is on everyone's mind, no doubt. I mean that with everything that has happened recently in the U.S. economy and elsewhere, there are few more pressing issues in the minds of most. There isn't a grand outline although I do have a few ideas and, of course, they have been bumping around in my head for a while, so I'm hoping for something akin to coherence.

The question asked of any system or device is whether or not it works, the same must hold true for capitalism. We must remember first what capitalism is and is not. It is simply an economic system; that is, a way for everyone to make a living and have what they need. It is not the basis for freedom, does not create equality and harmony, nor does it act as a creative force-those are all the responsibility and province of humanity itself. When something has been around for as long as something like capitalism has, it's like water for fish-you simply stop recognising its existence. The problem with that analogy is that fish need water; they have adapted to that environment and cannot live outside of it. Can the same be said of humans and capitalism? Hardly. At best, we can say that it fills the need to be able to produce and distribute goods and services at a barely-tolerable, minimally-acceptable level. I describe it in this way because by its own standards, there are gross inadequacies and rampant misallocation. The claim capitalists make about this system is that it will produce goods at levels people need without outside intervention. They claim that surplus will be minimised and efficiency maximised. The problems with these claims are widespread and obvious when looked for. One may not recognise these as it is common practice to blame such problems on individuals, "human nature", and artificial manipulation of the economy. It becomes clear that the system itself results in these conditions, so I don't feel the need to repeat the arguments from others here. This means that shortages and concentration of goods are inherent, stemming from the guidelines of capitalism. Thus, returning to our original question, we must conclude that it is not effective for those who cannot get what they need within this system.