Cowardice in Competition

Competition has long been a way for individuals and teams to determine who is the best at something. An honest contest, meaning no influence or interference, among the most able. Just being a competitor means already having overcome any number of previous challenges, and participation in this latest signifies a desire to meet the next one. Think of those who compete at the Olympics, a series of contests of athletic prowess by a world-wide selection of those at the very height of their sport. They have all worked audaciously hard in order to have a spot in the contest, and each seeks to outperform the others and their own previous best. There is courage in the attempt, in just showing up to practice or a local competition. Bravery in taking one's own skill to the very limits of one's individual ability. Finally, there is the need for other contestants. It does no good to be the best in a field of one; better having pride in achieving against the best in their chosen field. As much as highly competitive individuals are fighting the adversary of themself, there need to be close opponents to measure their performance against. Others who challenge them to do better, in a cycle of competitive encouragement. Even rivals in sport can appreciate how the other team raises the level of the shared game.

Once a competitor reaches the end of their training, conditioning, and prowess, there is nobility even in accepting those limitations. This can, admittedly, be difficult to gauge. There are often 'plateaus' in training and competing; areas of performance during which the limit seems to have been reached, but which can still be surpassed by some new adjustment. However, there is also temptation to augment what one can do through artificial means; to overcome the natural limitations we all have. Rather than accepting those limitations, some seek to win when they otherwise would not be able to. These can range from using proscribed methods or substances to sabotaging rivals, exerting undue influence on self or other. This approach is generally agreed to be undesirable. Whether one personally cares about cycling, skating, baseball, or other game is less the issue than is the general agreement of a fair competition. If that is not the basic understanding, then much of the excitement is lost. It would no longer be a contest of human spirit, but of money spent. It would be less interesting to observers as the rules would no longer be understandable, but become a constantly shifting morass of who can get away with what. Referee, umpire, and judge would become much different roles, akin to assassins for hire.

The point of all this discussion is to establish the simple truths of what is healthy competition. While you may not (as I do not) have a significant interest in sports, I do believe we all have an interest in the arena of business. This is because private enterprise has tremendous impacts on individual success and politics. Whether it is how much we are paid as a worker, the likelihood of our personal venture succeeding, how much influence we have in our government, or what gets built in our neighborhood, there are impacts. Some believe that a free market economy is essential to efficiency and innovation. Those individuals should already understand the points I will outline and agree that regulations are necessary to keeping the game fair, otherwise they are being disingenuous in their assertions. The focus on courage here is to give a human sense to the artificial, impersonal, and depressing environment of competition in business. Despite being comprised of humans, displacing human beings, despoiling human environs, and arising out of human desires and needs, business has become a game nearly exempted from human concerns. The re-introduction of humanity into business practices is long overdue, as exemplified by companies lying about impacts to boost their profits (tobacco and oil being well-known examples). Which brings us back to the title of this post.

Above, we listed some attributes of courageous competition. Now we can look at well-known business practices and determine whether they fit with these ideals. First, keep in mind that while these mostly happen in larger businesses, the temptations and opportunities exist even in the "minor leagues". One such is the purchasing of competitors, which has expanded into buying intellectual properties before they are even in the market. Another avenue is to determine for buyers what is popular, historically by paying beautiful and/or successful people to use them, and more recently by utilizing social media to make it appear that it is already popular. Beyond this are the "bot farms" and "trolls", spreading messages and disrupting free speech to further the agenda of industry. This is also tied to the rise of "influencers", an absurd extension of marketing that is designed to not seem like advertising. It most resembles a multi-level marketing scheme, where personal connection is exploited in order to access otherwise unreachable customers. A related tactic is to utilize psychological research to manipulate consumers, like some guerilla COINTELPRO marketing operation. From flooding an area with messages and signs (relying on "mere exposure" effect) to putting inflated items on "sale" (FOMO and "anchoring effect"). In this technological age, where everyone has an online presence, that personal information has been commodified. The term "surveillance capitalism" puts some context to Facebook, Google, and others; rather than providing services to users, platforms typically collect consumers' info to sell. Or when an established company moves into a new area, it can use the profits from its other stores to fund the new one; allowing it to undercut existing, local businesses and eliminate competition altogether. If the low prices were genuine, we might consider this as benefiting the consumers, but usually those prices are adjusted upward after the competition is gone. Additionally, "green-washing"campaigns which foist onto consumers the impacts of industry. People are recognizing the silliness of a fictitious "carbon footprint" and how it focuses on minor, end-user contributions and steers discussion away from large-scale producer liability. The most egregious, however, comes in the form of manipulating the playing field and the very rules of the game. Here, of course, we come to "lobbying", the way that companies and industries corrupt governmental processes in order to succeed. Exemptions leading to the aforementioned harms are provided by government bodies influenced by the industries who did not want to lose profits to necessary limitations and safeguards. This is in addition to utilizing huge amounts of capital to fight basic complaints and lawsuits against harmful industry practices. Then the appealing of any judgements against (again, mostly larger) businesses, delaying cleanup and/or compensation to communities and individuals. Worker safety, healthcare, adequate wages, environmental impacts, collective bargaining, and whistle-blower protections are all basic rights that have been degraded by industry lobbying. We are all less healthy and less safe because of the hubris and cowardice of corporations, some just think they can buy their way out of unsafe surroundings-or even leave the planet.

Now we come to the section to evaluate the two areas of competition. I leave it for you to contrast the idea of brave competitors to cowardly businessmen. Do these examples sound like valid tactics that competitors who are confident of their skills, aware of their limitations, and proud of their ability to compete on a level playing field would employ? At a baseline of competition in an open field of opponents, the best-prepared and best-suited would prevail. This is often the stated goal of "free market" proponents: just give businesses an honest chance to compete and let the best ones win. If that were truly the case, they would relish the challenge of strong competition. If they were courageous, and capitalism were the valid pursuit they claim, it would lead to real innovation and improvements for all, rather than solely benefiting the few.

Business Problems Require Business Solutions

It is ironic that many in business nowadays quote the aphorism "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail", and yet fail to apply it to business itself. If one only thinks about businesses, then every problem can look like something a business could fix.

It seems common knowledge nowadays that we tend to stay within a "zone of comfort" and that what one knows determines what is possible. Let us establish, first, what these mean in everyday life, and, second, how they relate to the topic at hand. The phrase "getting outside your comfort zone" is easily understood. This is about how it takes effort to break away from our typical pattern and feels risky, with the result of staying comfortable unless pushed out of that zone. We generally stick with a few standard skills or plans to overcome challenges, and struggle when those fail us. Next, what we think of as possible is dictated by the knowledge we have available. For instance, if I am ignorant of rechargeable batteries, then I will think they can only be replaced. It will not be possible for me to consider charging them again, because it is outside what I know. Therefore, it is easiest to stay inside of a comfort zone and be blind to information extraneous to one's usual activities. Our interests and education are additionally bound by the hard limit of time available each day. In the business world, there are many artificial skills necessary for success: laws and specialized regulations concerning each industry, best practices and tips from colleagues, as well as general workplace standards and culture. These things set the parameters for the business world, establishing what is possible and where people are comfortable operating. Finally, so much time is consumed by the functions of working that there is little opportunity for exploration. Being good at business and focusing on building one's skill in business naturally results in other areas of life not being as developed. Additionally, succeeding in business drives folks to stay within their successful areas, where they earn their status and self-esteem. Once this goes on for long enough, it may seem business should be the focus of everyone. Indeed, when the majority of socialization comes from the workplace, and even in off-work hours one is listening to business news and learning more about business through reading or schooling, then so much of life revolves around the activity it would be no wonder someone would think business is all-important.

However, there are problems in looking at the world through a business lens. One is simply that business remains an artificial pursuit. Spending so much time in this artificial environment, pursuing artificial demands to artificial ends, takes away the context and connection to what is real. People focused on business can lose connection and compassion for others. An example is distancing and downplaying impacts by referring to them as abstract concepts, such as when insurance companies describe amputating the wrong limb as a "medical misadventure". Another relates to areas of life which are counter to business practices. Frankly, medicine is one such area; medical decisions are not for financial gain or profitability. This is partly due to considerations about quality of life, as there are few objective measures to cover that. Additionally, an emergency is not the time to be considering money issues. Not just because it is such an emotional situation, but also that extraneous concerns can interfere with necessary treatment decision-making. Returning to the subject of a business mindset being problematic, we can recognize that business is a hierarchical practice. This means that it does not lead to egalitarian or democratic thinking, which is antithetical to much of our social and governmental aspirations. The tendencies of those in business to only consider certain viewpoints and respond more positively to higher-status individuals illustrates why. These are three of the most prominent examples, and should already demonstrate why it is important to recognize the limitations and dangers of this type of thinking.

The Future is Waiting, Part One: in the Throes of History

     With all the ‘debate’ (read: protests, vitriol, insurrection, conspiracy theories, disinformation, etc.) recently concerning equality, equity, representation, power, and democracy, I feel compelled to offer an alternative view that I hope is constructive. In writing this, my hope is to encourage a more productive discussion about the systems we live in. As a person who dislikes to argue trivialities, as someone who cares more for what or how something is than what it is called, I look to understand the fundamental aspects of humanity. The current issue we face, as a people and as a world, is the need for a fundamental shift away from a mode of thinking which is ancient—possibly prehistoric—in origin. While we absolutely enjoy a standard of living far in excess of anything possible before, with medicine, sanitation, literacy, and survival all measurably improved, I submit that life is fundamentally unchanged from those ancient times. In order to demonstrate my thesis I will require your forbearance, as I must start with a broad overview of history. These are all drawn from general knowledge available to most contemporary citizens, and designed to give us a common understanding from which to arrive at the conclusions of this essay. At this time I wish to acknowledge a couple truths, in the spirit of empowerment and consensus. I recognize that I am not the only, first, or even best person to write this; it is simply that I have my own way of understanding and expressing these ideas. Also, that my ability to speak to these matters is made possible by, as well as greatly enhanced by, numerous oppressed groups and individuals who have gone before me. Similarly, that I enjoy privilege accorded me that is not given to others, based on the very systems on which I offer criticism. Herewith, we enter the body of the text.
     For much of prehistory—that is the period before we have written records and rely upon speculation based on surviving artifacts—we suppose humans lived as tribal beings. These would be small bands, either nomadic or settled, with little need for governance; generally, we imagine tribal councils or a ‘chief’. Additionally, people often suppose a spiritual leader as a connection to the supernatural. In these tribes, social pressures would protect individuals within the group from each other within the established order. However, in the main, people assume that these tribes were hierarchical in that they had leaders. Once people began to band together, congregate, or converge into groups greater than 150, there became a need for more structured organization. Rather than risk living among strangers who might be killers and marauders, people would likely establish and accept laws—and then bureaucracy—in order to maintain their safety and stability. Sometime around 5000 years ago, Egypt began counting dynasties; we also have written laws from Mesopotamia dating around 4000 years ago. What we know of earliest recorded history is that there were already systems in place that ordered—and, likely, stratified—society. Some of the earliest pieces of writing we have discovered are tabulations of stock, indicating a mercantile system. From that period, we begin to see the characteristic and familiar structures of “civilized” societies. In every human civilization, there were the mass of people (those common to see, or “commoners”) going about their lives. Once agriculture became widespread, specialization followed; this meant people focused on particular trades: farmers, builders, millers, smiths, tanners, and on and on. All these commoners (be they Roman, Aztec, Persian, Celtic, Mongol, etc.) desired security and liberty. The ability to farm, build, mill, and trade without interference from bandits or bureaucrats; to be with family and continue the traditions of their ancestors. These common folk of societies, who were not thinking about conquering or ruling, concerned themselves with how to care for family and enjoy the time they had. Typically, commoners would be subject to a ruler. You will likely recognize the titles pharaoh, caliph, emperor, emir, shah, khan, shogun, or king; when we think of history, these have often been the focus—these individuals who “shaped the world”. We recognize these are non-democratic types of government; the notion that one individual would have total control over an entire nation may even seem “barbaric” to those in a modern, “democratic” nation. However, this system of monarchy was accepted (indeed, expected as the norm) in a wide number of cultures around the world throughout history. Not to exclude those still in existence, of course, however they be organized or labeled. It was oft-purported that these rulers had actually been ‘touched by god’ somehow, and were exceptional. This might nowadays be labeled a theocracy, where the ruler is supposed to be connected to their deity. The laws and structure of such a society would be based on the religion of that god, and thus automatic justification for any action of the government. This demonstrates most clearly how rulers were seen to be—in a fundamental way—different and separate from ‘regular people’. In other cases, the person in charge was ruler because they had the largest army or in some way established rule through military might. This may have been an ancient Roman general or Mongol leader, an African lord or Medieval duke. While it scarcely needs saying, I would be remiss in not including the colonizing forces of European countries here as well. For example, the United States started out as a colony of Britain, justified by both ‘divine right’ and military superiority over the native peoples.
     What, then, was life like that makes these civilizations non-democratic? First, rules came from the top, as mentioned above; also, that rulers were not beholden to the citizenry. Once the monarch made the decisions, those policies were sent out to regional and then local officers. In medieval Europe, the monarch could have barons, dukes, lords, and princes on down to locals such as burghers or sheriffs, these would be the “nobility” or “aristocracy”. The enforcement of royal edicts depended on each local magistrate (and the enforcers they would retain). Wealth and property would be concentrated in and collected by nobles, often with the understanding that ultimately it was owned by “the monarchy”. Conversely, all local decisions were backed up by the threat of force from higher-ranking nobles. If a mayor abused their position there was little recourse available to the citizenry. Officials would likely only be removed if they displeased their superiors, i.e. by embezzling monies those superior nobles wanted for themselves. Information and education were similarly restricted to the wealthy; at times, the only literate persons were those educated and beholden to the established religious order. Mistrust of outsiders or differences was common; therefore, most folks would have stuck to what and who they knew. This relates to the ability and desire to relocate, as most people would remain near their birthplace generation upon generation. For information on the larger world, locals would need to depend on news (or gossip) from travelers or merchants who visited other places. Often, there would also be rigid enforcement of roles; if not de jure caste, then title or trade were handed down from parent to child—similarly keeping people trapped at particular levels of society. Additionally, commoners would be subject to conscription into militia or other forced labor. This could be as punishment for infractions or due to the local magistrate’s desire for greater holdings (property). Fealty (a legal obligation to a lord) or loyalty to town, country, church, or cause could be invoked to bestir commoners to the rulers’ ends. Truly despotic rule meant citizens could not criticize publicly or privately, as doing so would result in fatal, and often public, retaliation. Likewise, meetings would be prohibited or subject to approval and restriction, so as to curtail expression of dissent or discontent in the more oppressive regimes. Finally, slavery has existed since time immemorial. Certainly never as organized and institutionalized as the Atlantic slave trade of the mid- to late-1000s. However, the forced use of another’s work for one’s own benefit has been used to the ends of those in power throughout history. Since we have established the limitations of the citizenry, what did freedom (the lives of the aristocracy) look like? In contrast to the harsh lives of commoners, the “nobles” were able to travel, learn, own, choose, participate in government, were treated with respect or deference, and lived in abundance; food, shelter, clothing, social acceptance and standing, self-improvement, and ability to care for others. If we use a psychological hierarchy of needs, it was only the “upper class” who had access to all the components. This illustrates quite clearly the difference and divide between the “have’s” and “have-not’s”, which is not only obviously non-democratic, but also unjust and immoral to modern sensibilities. These are the conditions which lead to the ‘revolutions’ of the 18th century, and our modern ideas about democracy. In a sense, it was a change purported to allow more of humanity to experience what previously had been reserved to the ‘nobility’.
     During the 1700’s (in a period now called the “[Age of] Enlightenment”) a number of political philosophers were writing and talking about government and what legitimacy it had, based on “natural laws” and a presumed “state of nature”. These discourses were, in turn, based on much earlier theories from more ancient civilizations’ philosophers. Written works like Leviathan, Common Sense, and The Social Contract are the results of these Enlightenment thinkers. In the Declaration of Independence, the justification for cutting ties with the British monarchy is almost wholly based on the king’s breaking of this “social contract” between ruler and ruled. It is important, therefore, to familiarize ourselves with these reasonings in order to understand how we have reached the state of today’s societies and governance thereof, which is presumed to be democratic. The essential part is that notion of “contract between ruler and ruled”: that there exists an implicit and/or explicit agreement that the ruler will protect the ruled and, in return, the ruled provide support and obedience to rule. This is considered necessary because the supposed alternative is an “anarchic state” where “each one is against every other” (this is the “state of nature” previously mentioned). The reasoning essentially becomes, “rule by a government is evil, but necessary when weighed against the alternative of bloody, murderous barbarism”. This disingenuous and self-serving argument rings hollow given adequate perspective and understanding of context. However, it is not important in this section to explore criticism of the construct, as we only need understand that this “social contract” has been used as the “justification” for government over the past 250 years. Contained in the theory is a kernel of new thinking: that rulers owe something to the ruled. Still not democracy (since they were not proposing citizens’ involvement in governance), just the notion that the monarch was not all-powerful and inerrant. This thinking then lead to the democratic revolutions in the Americas and Europe, as countries began overthrowing the established monarchies. These changes supposedly resulted in democracy. As if doing away with a figurehead was sufficient to eliminate non-democratic systems and thinking. Given that hundreds of years and numerous laws were required to bring persons of color and women into this “democratic system”, we can begin to see the shift was neither automatic nor immediate. This betrays the underlying truth to the history we’ve been exploring, and we will return to that topic in our last section. At this juncture, I also wish to clarify a fundamental aspect of all this discussion of democracy, which is the relationship between our subject and capitalism (said relationship deserving a separate discussion). While there is much linking of democracy and capitalism, it is a spurious and dangerous equivalence. Democracy is a system of governing a body of participants whereas capitalism is a set of economic precepts by which people conduct trade. In a democratic government the goal is the betterment of life for all citizens rather than just a few, and this is accomplished through a willingness of those same citizens to agree on laws and be governed by them. The economic model of capitalism, in contrast, is predicated upon competition between private holdings with the goal of extracting capital from customers in order to expand those holdings. Because of this fundamental difference, they are analogous to the water and electrical systems in your home: they are both important, but serve distinctly and incompatibly different purposes. Additionally, they cannot be linked and continue to function as intended. After all, you would not plug a cord into the toilet or run a water pipe into the junction box. At best, things just do not work; at worst, you burn down the house. In saying this, I wish to allow us to continue this essay without being further distracted by the conflation of democracy with capitalism.
     To complete this first section, I wish for readers to recognize that we are reviewing most societies over the course of thousands of years; it is, admittedly, difficult to picture much beyond the past hundred years. Additionally, the numbers of persons involved stagger the imagination. For context, the estimated total number of humans who have ever lived is 108 billion. With a current population estimate of 7.5 billion, that leaves over 100,000,000,000 persons having lived through the millennia under the historical conditions that we are considering. While the names and outward particulars may have differed, we are viewing these systems in order to understand their underpinnings—the structure that supports the structure we see. If there are any, the few exceptions serve to prove non-democracy as the general rule. Finally, it is not my conjecture that this is the natural or only form that societies can take.

 

Edit October 2022: for excellent examination of historical information, see The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman times to the French Revolution, by Francis Fukuyama

Back to Branding Cattle

I recently learned about Edward Bernays and how he changed the way advertising is done. The basis for his work was that of his uncle, Sigmund Freud. In case you are unaware, here are a couple facts: Bernays instigated the field of 'public relations' (around the time of the first world war) and later wrote a book called The Engineering of Consent. Similar to how the weaponization of racism by the Republican Party in the mid-1960's represented a fundamental change in politics, so did the introduction of propaganda at home alter everyday life. Rather than advertising a product on its merits (or outright lying), Bernays used techniques to manipulate consumers in subtle and gross ways. Rather than a factual, rational basis for buying a product, the intent was to introduce an emotional, non-conscious desire for something (or what the object represented: freedom, power, etc.). A common example is hiring attractive women to smoke cigarettes in public so as to reduce social stigma in order to sell cigarettes to the other half of the population. It is commonplace for "celebrities" to endorse a product in order to lure customers, with the most recent version being social media "influencers". The very label is indicative of the crass nature of the field, and a blatant (if unheeded) warning to individuals about what they are consuming. In recent years, there has been much made of 'building brands', discussions of what a 'brand' means, and how 'branding' builds customer loyalty. This can be seen in advertising slogans and campaigns going back decades, telling us we are part of something when we make the choice to buy one product over another (sodas or cars). All of this is actually just refinements on the original use of psychological discoveries to lure consumers and keep them "loyal", which is to say "spending their money with us instead of elsewhere". This is the basic concept of advertising: to turn individuals into consumers (a commodity to be drained of capital).

 

Now we return to the subject hinted at above, since this all seems to me related to the idea of "race". This notion of "race" was initially used to differentiate groups of people based on appearance and eventually to justify slavery. The seductive excuse of 'superior' and 'inferior' races, for instance: ones which possessed inherent traits that determined whether they were capable of reason or not. For a quick explanation of this, I highly recommend this TED talk. To this day, the discussion of race bears the mark of this origin; just by using the term, we are framing our conversation around an imaginary, outmoded idea of differences which do not truly exist. While advertising and "race" may not seem immediately related, allow me to conjecture a link. Bernays' version of ads are about utilizing psychological understanding in order to manipulate consumers and drive behaviors. The explicit goal is to collect more money; the underlying goal is to trap consumers in a system whereby their primary drives are used to steer them into choices, in other words: to exert control. Can the same be said for the concept of "race", or its concomitant, racism? Whereas advertising is a relatively straightforward process, the weaponization of "race" seems less so. I will rely on former U.S. president Lyndon Johnson, who most clearly expressed it thus: "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." Again, while he is overtly speaking in terms of 'emptying pockets' of money, unpacking it reveals the real motive is power. He is speaking of the utilization of "race" as a means to drive citizens to give up their independence of thought, freedoms, and even rights in order to prevent some prophesied calamity due to an other "race". Again, this can be seen in history; one recognizable example would be the trope (at least in the U.S.) which sexualizes "black" men and creates a primal fear in "white" men about loss of status and potency. You likely know the name of Emmett Till, who is but one of many innocents who lost their life to this insidious lie. So there is no confusion: I am not excusing racism or racist behavior, only seeking to understand how it works; understanding something allows for change to that thing.

 

To resume this exploration of how "race" is used to control individuals, we must understand that while the idea is to place some group "superior" to another, neither is free as long as the structure of "race" exists. Just as the above trope illustrates, any supposed "superiority" must be jealously and closely guarded. This means that the "superior" group is trapped in a fight (with an imaginary foe, played out with real persons) and cannot have an unguarded moment, lest some sign of the falsity of their narrative be found out. After all, what would it mean for Johnson's "lowest white man" if they were just the same as that "best colored man"? Because we are looking at this through a (non-professional) psychological lens, we can recognize that these motivations can play out without conscious thought or direction. In fact, the strategy of racism, and subsequent control of racists, does not require any particular cohesion. Just inculcate a fear and hatred of some group, and let those motivators work on people; the results are stunningly predictable. This is terrible enough, but-as mentioned above-what is worse is that no one is free of this system as long as the concept of "race" holds sway. The greater risk is that a construct becomes an overwhelming force within society-something one can either work for, or against, but cannot ignore or escape.

Humans First!

I have been hearing an expression which reveals a sentiment I take exception to. I also recognize that I am behind the times on this, as a little research turns up equivalent terms from 2014. What I refer to is the new sense and way of speaking of pets as a 'parent-child' relationship. Expressions such as "dog [mom/dad]", "pet parent", and "fur baby" indicate the level of care such individuals evidently feel for their pets. Some even lavish attention and expense on their pets that seem like Christmas came early. As a parent, the idea that a person chooses to devote their attention to another species is not entirely my issue. I think having compassion, and even agape love, for animals of all species is noble. I care about the extinction of animal species and the mistreatment of domesticated animals. I believe it is a privilege to own an animal, and that includes the responsibility to care for that animal. I have owned a variety of pets in my life, and would enjoy the opportunity to again.

The reason I find this important enough to talk about is that it betrays a variety of problematic attitudes. Initially, I resented the implication that my status as parent was not as valuable or respectable because it was on par with owning a creature. I do realize that no one was making that explicit statement, and one engages in equivocation to draw the parallel. Still, the wording is a choice and it is one that expresses an equivalence where there is none. At best, it is great marketing disguised as a positive change for the animals. However, I find that it covers at least a couple truths. First, we steal baby animals from their actual parents for our own purposes, after breeding the animals for profit. Second, all these animals are the products of human manipulation; they are genetically modified organisms. We literally created everything about these pets: appearance, demeanor, and purpose. There is at least one breed of dog that cannot reproduce without humans. Finally, there are the startling number of animals who are killed each year as surplus.

These facts betray the weight of responsibility we have to these creatures, and how different having a pet is from children. As much as we owe pets for their companionship and service, our first duty is to ourselves. This is the only thing that makes the current treatment of animals minimally acceptable. Ultimately, no matter how loving one is towards a pet, a human life always takes precedence. If a human baby and a pet are both in peril, the human life must be saved. This is not an opinion. If we reach a point where we no longer consider every human life as eminently valuable, our species begins to lose our chance to survive. Consider that we evolved and continue to exist on this planet because of the fundamental rule that we continue to want to live. No matter what the cosmos throws at us as a species, we persist. I begin to think this attitude reveals a flaw in some folks that do not believe we deserve to continue as a species. At any rate, I think this simple exploration demonstrates how nonsensical the trend is. So everyone can stop using those terms now.

Why There Is No "Right to Privacy"

A right to privacy is explicitly stated under Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation.” The Israeli Supreme Court Privacy Protection Act of 1981, Section 2 uses words like "harass" and "embarrass". These subjective terms illustrate the transient and variable nature of the discussion and concept of "privacy", as explicated in the following point:

"Another characteristic of the right to privacy which contributes to the difficulty in defining it is the fact the right to privacy is subjective in nature, culturally dependant, and is derived from the expectations of the society in a certain period of time. Therefore, privacy has been given different meanings over the years, being influenced by political, social and economic changes and by technological developments."[sic]. Yael Onn et.al., Privacy in the Digital Environment (Haifa Center of Law & Technology, Niva Elkin-Koren, Michael Birnhack, eds., 2005).

In the United States, there exists an explicit right to security in person and possessions, as laid out in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of this nation. It allows for legal search and seizure, meaning the outlined right is limited and readily circumvented through legal channels. This is why police are required to obtain a warrant to search a person or place: it supersedes the U.S. Constitutional right in cases where a judge finds the need. Thereby citizens only have as much security as allowed by laws that are interpreted by judges.

However, I am not an attorney and this not legal advice; I am merely outlining a few points briefly.


I propose that what is actually being discussed, at least in public discourse, is not privacy. Leaving that aside for the moment, it seems there are a number of different terms or ideas brought up in this discussion: privacy, secrecy, and security. Each of these may sound very similar, or even synonymous. If they all mean about the same thing, then what is the difference and why is there such argument over this topic? To reach those answers, we'll take a look at each concept shortly.

First, the much-lauded 'privacy'. When your someone read your diary, you probably screamed something about "invasion of privacy". This example indicates that there are certain parts of my life that are public, and others are not. Aside from being the opposite of private, what is public? It means "open to all" or "accessible to any individual." Public spaces are open and available to anyone who wants to be there. This is different from 'private property', where one needs to obtain permission to enter. This is analogous to 'public and private lives or information', where only certain parts are open to anyone. Essentially, we can define privacy as "the ability to choose what becomes known to whom".

Next, the idea of secrecy. This is information kept from the knowledge of others, or of certain people. This is getting a bit deeper, as secret has a connotation of confiding and/or trust. This seems a more personal choice, as many things are public by default or by law. A secret is something private that even those closest to me may not know; in a way, another layer of privacy.

Then, we come to security. This holds the other terms, in a sense. To be secure is to be safe; in this case, safe from the possibility of having privacy or secrecy taken away. This can be thought of as freedom from worry or threat of a breach in privacy. In this, we have the heart of the public discussion: individuals are worried (their security is threatened) that information about them that they considered confidential (private) is being given to others they did not agree to (sharing what was supposed to be secret).

In no way are these venues (social media, for example) clearly and solely defined as public or private. One may utilize "privacy settings" to declare one's preferences, but that only applies to the information one deliberately supplies, such as pictures and words. Behind the scenes, these platforms are collecting information on users that is not widely acknowledged: searches, purchases, connections to other users, demographics, etc. This is all used to 'target ads', meaning if I bought baby stuff recently that I may see more of those types of items; this is why Amazon.com seems so convenient, because it will suggest things that go with what I've already purchased and - even more broadly - what other people with similar 'profiles' have bought. None of this is entirely new, as TV (and before that, radio) was seen as a means for companies to advertise/sell their products to audiences. Certainly, television is a medium for ads and sellers pay money for advertising time during TV programs; many websites contain ads in a similar fashion, and both use those "ad revenues" to pay for keeping the TV station or website going. What is new is the ability to target ads even more specifically, based on the information collected by these websites. In addition, one has no control over how all that information gets collected, used, or distributed.

What this indicates to me is that the present-day talk about "privacy" is really a confrontation about ownership. If companies can collect information about me and then sell that data, it is just about who has a right to ownership and ability to sell information about 'me'.  Are those interests, preferences, and purchase histories my property (as they are inherently a part of me), or do they belong to the owners of websites I use to engage my interests? What we need is not necessarily a "right to privacy" as much as definition of personal information ownership. Once that is established, since ownership of personal property (even intellectual property) is clearly and legally laid out, we can settle the debate over "privacy" in this instance.

Follow up: Controlling the Workers

In a previous post (Capitalism as Favoritism,15Mar09), I mentioned the concept of business owners wanting "a workforce they can control." I am sure I could have been more clear, and since I want everyone to understand what I mean, that's what I intend to do here. Some may cringe at the mention of "Marxism (historical materialism)" or "Socialism", but I am interested here in analysing a problem of Capitalism and certainly relevant concepts and definitions can be found in both the former "-isms".

The idea is that those who own land and/or businesses (bourgeois: those who own the means of production) want to control those who do the work and/or buy the products (proletariat: workers/consumers). Not that bourgeois want to make the decisions for others, just keep workers less prone to demand better than they are getting. There are a number of ways to go about this, e.g. distraction, political correctness, creating division, etc. The idea being to collect as much power, prestige, and/or wealth as possible, using others to achieve this end.

This hasn't changed much in at least three thousand years. I would go all the way back in time through the Westward Expansion, Industrial Revolution, Colonization and Imperialism, Middle Ages, Renaissance and feudalism, Enlightenment, Dark Ages, the Fall and Rise of the Roman Empire, even to Egypt and Mesopotamia. I am not as familiar with "Eastern" cultures in India, China, or elsewhere, but I imagine many of the same conditions and drives exist in humans worldwide. This is not to say that a majority of citizens subscribe to the notion of ownership and control throughout history and in every culture, just that there are usually greedy, selfish individuals whose desires drive them to overpower others in their pursuits.

In the end, both the desire to gain and maintain power and control as well as the path to getting it has not changed much. This involves gathering a bunch of others together in support of your goals, generally by appealing to their self-preservation. This could mean threats, promises of reward, or just a notion of simplicity. What I mean by this last bit is that not everyone wants to be a big-shot; for many,  it's enough to be told what to do and let someone else worry about long-term issues.

Occupy Your Democracy

Okay, granted I'm a late arrival in commenting on the movement, but I've been an armchair cheerleader this whole time. I support all those out there, in various countries around the world, who are taking their time and energy to stand or sit against the 1%.  I am also writing to urge everyone to not lose focus or energy around this issue.  Real changes can only be realised if we keep pushing, even after they say we've won or that they can't give any more.  I look back at indentured servitude, slavery, serfdom, rule by divine mandate, physical or financial force and wonder what could arise from a real change in our system. Can we eliminate the inequality? Is it possible that we might only take back some of the ground we've lost in the past 30 years?  Either way, it would be better than leaving it in the same hands that have limited and controlled us all this time.

My suggestion in this case is that we "act as if" instead.  Rather than only getting those things that we are allowed by the "powers that be", we should create our own system and act it out.  If your business requires that you cover piercings and tattoos or wear a uniform, don't.  The 99% reaches down to management, it reaches down at least to the upper offices and echelons of large companies.  Don't fire those under you for stupid rules that even you don't agree with.  Take back your time.  Be more human and allow yourself to enjoy life free from the oppressive tyranny of work, work, work.  As long as the majority can agree on these things, we can implement the changes we desire!

Consent of the Governed

I brought up this topic in my post "Capitalism as Favoritism" of 15Mar09.  The idea here being that laws only have as much effect and last only as long as they are adhered to by those being governed.  This is not to say that laws cannot or will not be enforced by the sword or gun because it is certain that they oftentimes have been.  We have seen throughout history where an oligarchical group keeps power by terrorizing the farmers, workers, whatever majority there is.  However, even in the face of brutal repression by those using overt force there is a choice.  It is this choice, the consent, that we are concerned with. These citizens stand up, most often individually at first, and demand change.  Call it revolt, revolution, or reform-however it is characterized it signals the end of draconian rule by an elite class.  I wish that were the end of the story, but it is not so.  It is at this point that the governed consent to a law, series of laws, or entire government which become the new standard. Recognize that even now, after so many of these uprisings, there is still oppression and unfair rule by the elite.  How, if there have been so many examples of these circumstances being imposed and overcome, is this still the case?  How could it be that after overthrowing each dictatorship another springs up in its place?  My supposition is that no real change has taken place and that the reform is simply a "changing of the guard", if you will.  When the majority finally resist their government and succeed in changing the situation, they simply end up with a new elite class who hold the same interests: holding onto their power and status. My feeling is that the majority of people do not want to have the responsibility of wielding power or of adjudication.  I think most people enjoy living a simple life of work, family, and leisure and that it is actually abnormal to desire domination and strife.  I further suggest that it is this aspect which creates the systemic problem of a "ruling elite". Because it is only those few individuals who want to control and contend while others just want to get along and enjoy life.  It automatically creates a divide between those ambitious few and the rest. I think it can be addressed and changed, but in most cases up to now it is ignored so the problem persists.

Getting back to the point, I suggest simply that it is up to the majority to decide things, not the elite. When enough of the citizenry stop following a law or rule, it ceases to have any power.  Furthermore, without the majority following it means that the minority has no power.  "Leaders" are actually quite unimportant, as life and even government goes on without them; it is the masses of citizens which are vital to nations and to everyday operations.

Legal Insanity

The legal system we refer to as one of "justice" is actually about retribution. It deals not with making things "right"; it deals only with making people pay, either in money or time. If something were broken, justice would require fixing it or replacing it.  When an item is taken, justice would say to put it back.  If someone is injured, justice demands they be taken care of and healed.  None of these remedies are as complicated or as superficial as the solutions suggested and implemented by our modern version of righting wrongs.  What good is done by building resentment and decreasing the ability to work and/or be productive? How does locking people away from family and friends effect a positive change as a result of the "crime"?  Some wrong has already been done, so how does another wrong make anything better?  There is no benefit to imprisoning citizens and it is not a solution.  At best, it could be said that the prison system, as it should be called, is a temporary fix to a larger problem.  This stop-gap measure should have been abolished years ago and not allowed to continue-and expand to grievous extent-into the 21st Century.  Locking up a small number of truly dangerous individuals for as short a period as possible is the only humane manner to address this problem.  In other, somewhat more civilised countries, it is done that way; even murderers are only kept locked away for a relatively short period.  Further, during their incarceration, they are actually rehabilitated and healed so that they will not re-offend.  The issue goes beyond "bad people" as some would say, and even beyond simple monetary poverty.  This is at heart a problem which stems from our neurotic notions of complete individual responsibility, which has expanded to such an extent that a person is deemed to be of diminished worth if they recognise they need help and ask for it.  We all acknowledge that no one actually "pulls themselves up by their own bootstraps", because even the staunchest believer in individualism drives in a car designed and built by others.  Even these rugged, die-hard foes of community will drink water drilled, purified, and piped to them by others.  No one person-and this includes all of history-does all the things needed to stay alive all on their own and lives within and contributes to a society.  It takes a small band, if not an actual village, to stay alive in the simplest sense of the word.  Some may be wondering what this has to do with law and justice.  It is only in the overpopulated, overcrowded situation that we are currently experiencing in which this could even be contemplated.  At any other time in history, we would value the lives of each individual enough that no one would ever be locked away.  In any other manner of living but this one we would acknowledge our failings as a society to those who suffer and are not given the basic necessities and opportunity to contribute to their community.  It is precisely because we have lost the idea of belonging together, of supporting each other, and of working together.  Only under these conditions could it be acceptable to make different, to "other", people who are truly just like ourselves.  It is only because we treat "them" as competition and as opponents to be beaten that we can justify this sort of behaviour.  If we were to admit that those who are in prisons, jails, detention centers, and labour camps are there solely because we could not accept responsibility for our society, things would be radically different.  We would no longer be able to shun and expel those who made mistakes.  We would have to see that they only did so because we are weak and selfish.  Overwhelmingly, crimes are monetary in nature: theft, mugging, even embezzling.  Next in line are "crimes of passion", spontaneous reactions to a perceived attack on a person's emotional well-being (most often a disrupted intimate relationship).  Addressing these things would be simple, but revolutionary, because they come from disregarding the innate value of each human.  Prisons are just another symptom of the same condition, and until it is treated all these problems will persist.  It is shameful that rather than stand up to our own failings we lock away "criminals".

Citizens United against..."Citizens United"

The title refers to the SCOTUS decision in the case "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission", which made substantial changes to recent election reforms and granted 1st Amendment protections to non-living, non-citizen entities.  As I said in a previous post (Control and Power of 20May05) the difference between an actual person and a corporation is vital...or, if you would like a quip, vitality. The very reason we have to deal with this is absurd but the effects are anything but a laughing matter.  I suggest you read up and pay attention to this and its effects; to see this happening is quite amazing, though-it is quite rare to witness such a blatant grab for power in the U.S.A.

Why I Am as Valuable as You

I would like to examine the worth of a human from a purely scientific viewpoint, from which everything is measured and judged by empirical (based on observation of fact) evidence. Therefore, at it's most basic, we have a strong reason to allow everyone to be themselves and support their needs so that they live well. Every human is deserving of respect, each equal to the other, because we all carry the preservation of our kind within ourselves. Any one human can be the answer to a problem facing all and the continuation of humankind. From a recessive gene to a novel invention, some breakthrough or innovation that comes from an unlikely source, we know that these things happen. No one knows which traits will be adaptive, what will be needed to survive in the future, or when we may be called on to answer such a problem. The more diversity we have available, the more likely we will be able to continue as a species and persevere in the face of catastrophe. Instead of trying to limit our differences, or wanting to determine what "kind" of person is acceptable or desirable, we should focus on how all live and the elevation of each to their potential so that we are capable of answering any such crises of survival. Our solutions will otherwise prove insufficient and we will fail as a whole species to make any necessary adaptation, what we think of as the hallmark of humanity. On the other hand, there can be no survival without resources: space, food, clean water, the basic necessities. If there are an unsustainable number of humans alive, that does not allow for a solution or meeting the needs of those who are already alive. We cannot demand that others suffer or give up what they need so that there can be more people, or more of a certain group of people. When we cannot provide for those already alive we are not fulfilling the first promise: to allow all to reach their potential. When people do not have their needs met, they cannot be expected to think beyond how to meet their needs. That does not allow for invention or innovation, nor encourage higher-order thinking that is needed for overcoming larger problems. We need to be able to provide for all to preserve all, that is basic and obvious (although I am stating it here, so that we are sure to be clear and on the same wavelength). So, it seems we need a balance-which is not much of a surprise, as so much of life is balance. We need to maintain our diversity while keeping the overall population at a level that does not overwhelm the resources available.

Join the Club

There seems to be a pervasive attitude, an opinion, that influences many cultures and religions worldwide. I am referring to the belief in the defect of human-ness, the idea that we need to prove ourselves worthy of something. Instead of accepting each other as humans, to believe in the natural worth of anyone, we are taught to suspect and question everyone's worth-even our own. What does that say about us, about our beliefs and opinions regarding ourselves as a species? We somehow think that there is no universal right to some very basic things, we are actually willing to deny another human's right to exist. We cannot accept that everyone, by dint of being human, are owed these things: health, education, food, shelter (not an exhaustive list). What is it we have to prove, and to whom? How can we know, and when will we ever be sure? Why is this, why is being human not enough? I would love to hear your comments and answers, as ever.

Actions Speak...Loud and Clear

There is an idea that has intrigued me for a long time: "what you pretend to be is what you are in the end." On the surface, it's simple: we can claim to be nice all we want, but it is our acts and choices which will determine whether or not we are nice and seen as so. I mean that even though we may think we are perceived as nice, attractive, and intelligent people and think of ourselves as nice, attractive, and intelligent-and we all want to believe that, right?-it may not be true. This is beside all the petty gossip, misunderstandings, and jealousy we all have to face from day to day, just because that is the culture. What I refer to is simply what happens as we go about our daily lives, make mistakes, talk to new individuals, and such. As we make our choices as to how we act and react, we are demonstrating whether we have those positive attributes we would like or instead have negative ones. Further, it also means that when we try to be something we are not, if one does strive to be different than before, that habit becomes the truth. On another level, though, this same idea holds true when a company or organisation does something different than what they claim. If one is supposedly helping a country with economic rebuilding and it is in actuality undermining that goal, what does it matter what is said? The results-such as people dying, pollution, and excessive debt-are what we need to pay attention to. This isn't about Utilitarianism or some overarching system of thinking and organising humanity and its actions. I am not advocating for something beyond simple truth and openness here, the scale and importance of these issues are too great for anything less. I think those two things would go a long way towards a solution for either personal or organisational problems of this nature. I understand it is always in the best interests of a group to promote the idea that the group is doing well and doing what is beneficial for everyone. So it is no surprise that most groups do just that, but it is important whether or not that claim is true both inside and outside the group.

Also it is true that many will wonder why things are so messed up now. This is a process and has been happening around us the whole time. To 'check out' as we have and allow these groups to do whatever they want because they'll tell us nice things is irresponsible. People need to stop being sold to, to stop passively accepting the messages that these companies and conglomerations are foisting on us. The constant barrage and commercial harassment of citizens is unacceptable and absurd. Our actions are definite and easily observed: we have been lazy, become complaisant, accepted the continual replacement of freedom with flashy distractions, and been complicit in the ending of democracy through murder, illegal and continual limitation of human rights, and lies. We are as much to blame as the companies who spill the oil, use slave labor, invade countries through trade agreements, or whatever else they cook up. No matter what we tell ourselves and would like to believe, that is the truth. We need to actively seek solutions instead of passively allowing these problems to continue. It is our responsibility, both in the way things have become, and also to come up with a solution. This is a good thing because if it were left up to those who are directly responsible, there would be no change. We can stop allowing it, take back the direction of our lives and country, and make the necessary changes.

Food v. Sex

It is a fascinating subject, people's attitudes about normal bodily functions. For example, what if we were to have a stigma attached to eating such as we have for sex? Eating, like sex, is something that maintains the species (on an individual basis rather than as a whole), is nearly universal, and has dysfunctions attached, so I think there is an equivalence between them. If eating were considered strictly a private, intimate, and even taboo subject, what would people have to do? Would people have much the same reactions to witnessing a person eating as they do now to sexual behaviour? Imagine what it would mean.

People currently take classes on how and what to eat, nutrition classes that help them understand better what their bodies need and how to take care of them-but even the preparation of food would be risque in this scenario. Children would have to be taught that they don't put things in their mouth in public, that they shouldn't even put their finger in their mouth as it could remind someone of the act of eating. People would have isolated rooms for the act of eating. Accidentally walking into the eating room when someone was in there EATING would be embarrassing and could be made scary or traumatizing. All these things over a simple, natural activity we all engage in and require for various reasons, as well as one we should enjoy.

Yet we instead have this taboo around sex, and how has this improved our society and condition as a race? It is unfortunate that we have such a problem with the subject, even to the point of causing dysfunction.

The education children receive currently in "sex ed", if that is even the term for it anymore, as it has generally been "no-sex" education in this country. The government has gone so far as to deny funding for people who actually want to put some education about sex in there. Maybe teaching them the things they need to know, even though their parents are afraid of it is not such a bad thing. Maybe a universal minimum education should include some direction on how to take care of and understand our own bodies. We all need to know how to protect ourselves from many things, and take care of ourselves in many ways, yet this vital area is completely ignored. Many of the same people who limit sexual learning want to teach children all about guns and war, a much more perverse thing, and one which does actually have a demonstrable negative and lasting psychic impact. Just ask the millions dead and suffering from physical and psychological wounds because of it. The only way people suffer from sex is if it's forced, manipulative, or just unsafe in some way. Which is the same with all activities, even eating.

The Law of the People, or Law of the Out-Land-ish

It is an interesting fact that law is not developed in a vacuum, that it is dependent upon the vagaries of popular opinion and cultural context. This is important to remember because we are often told that Law is impartial and Justice is absolute. How can this be if our courts can be swayed by the outcry of the populace? When judges are answerable to the citizenry? Could we possibly claim judicial impartiality when the judges have to bring their own perspective and viewpoint to the bench?

We are in fact blind in thinking that Justice ever could or even should be blinkered. What good is law that does not see the human face of those it would judge? How can it be "Just" to convict a person of a capital offense regardless of circumstance? What about age? Will we kill our own children for their innocent mistakes with the same laws that murder adult citizens who have premeditated a murder? Why is it I can only list that one capital offense? Why is rape or perjury not punishable by death? This makes no sense, to have judges to arbit punishment while at the same time taking away any differentiation they can make. There is no judgement involved in applying an algorithm: X crime = Y punishment. There is no justice in not differentiating between passionate and premeditated, youth and adult, cruel and competent.

Public Education v Private Profit

The purpose of universal public education is to allow all citizens (indeed, all humans if it were truly "universal") the methods and ability-not the opportunity-the ability to obtain and understand information. The idea being that these fully-educated, informed people can then agree on some Truth, which in turn drives the society further along the road of civilization. To begin, there has to be a basis for the consumption of information, a common pool of knowledge to work from. If the underpinnings of this information are not presented then the information has no value, no substance. If you don't know why 2 - 3 = -1, then you won't understand the charge of electrons and you'll have no hope of knowing how important phospholipids are. Further, if we don't all know the same information, it would be as though we did not speak the same language. Which, in effect, really happens: we are at odds-with one talking about this thing, while the other may be saying something completely different-all because we "understand" the subject differently. I use quotation marks around this word because it is outside of simple point-of-view, where we interpret the information in our own way. I refer to actually disagreeing on what the facts are, to each having access to different and/or incomplete information, whereby we can hardly be said to know or understand what we are talking about. Language is something to be discussed at a later time, but some of the same concepts do apply here. Thirdly, and this is vital: not to limit what can be known, but to allow the free-flow of conversation and ideas between individuals. Concurrently, I have to say that as with language and words, in knowing there are no such thing as "bad" facts. There should be no cap or constraint on what we learn or are exposed to, even. There should be neither censorship nor secrecy where public knowledge is concerned. The keeping of information from the populace by its government is wrong, this is self-evident as every time the knowledge is released however-many years later, it would have resulted in a better outcome had the full story been known. If people would have been informed about certain decisions made by the U.S. government with regard to the "Cuban Missile Crisis" and Bay of Pigs fiasco, for example. While ignorance is certainly comfortable for some, it is never blissful, and what you do not know can certainly hurt, and even kill you. Next, we are not allowed to learn or know, it is a necessity that we get information, indeed it is a right, just the same as Life and Liberty. Knowledge is part of the "Pursuit of Happiness" (or "Property", as Hobbes would have it), for how can one be happy unless the concept is understood or one can truly understand how to go about being happy? Again, that means we have to get access to all available knowledge; we need the tools, those concepts, to learn about every subject so we can understand our world and ourselves to the fullest. While it is sad that people no longer appreciate knowledge for its own sake as they once did, this attitude is actually a side effect to information being so readily available. This does not, however, change the nature of information, whereas its treatment by governments, corporations, and institutions does alter the makeup of information. If it is ignored by individuals, knowledge is still there, like a book just waiting to be opened; if these agencies want to ignore it, however, they can delete, change the appearance of, or limit access to data. This means that even if the population cries out for it, we may not get the facts, instead we are allowed only limited glimpses, if any at all. This is justified by different means: calling them state or trade secrets, or military or tactical intelligence, labeling the data as dangerous and potentially harmful, claiming it is "of no interest" or beyond the "lay-persons'" understanding, distraction or misdirection, and any number of others. Instead interest in (certain kinds of) knowledge is drummed up by advertising and packaging it in some guise that is appealing within the system of capitalism. So we are told that knowledge is, in essence, a safeguard against being fooled or taken advantage of. Incidentally, this is just another indication of how important it really is, to say that it can keep you safer, don't you think? Information becomes a tool, a shield, a theft deterrent, an investment in self-protection. In closing, I would say knowledge is perverted when it becomes a commodity, it is made to look like another petty thing to be bought and sold. It never is however; rather, information is something to be shared not hoarded, free and not constrained, open to all and any but never kept for one alone. And why is this? Why am I writing all of this, telling you that it is important? Why have I devoted so much space herein to the subject? Because this is for the betterment of the entire society, and indeed, the world. As each individual is improved, all of us-as a whole species, more than the sum of its parts-are better off. This is the function of educating our children, of creating a "school system": to encourage that expansion of knowledge and not force people to endure retracing and reiterating fallacies that are already known, but to create a populace which can build upon what is known and factual, and then dive into the unknown.

Guns and Freedom

In the U.S., there is a guarantee of the “Right to bear arms” meaning that people are free to own handguns, rifles, etc. Supposedly this means that they are able to, and will, fight back against anyone who tries to take their freedoms. This argument goes all the way back to the founding of the country, when they declared that they were no longer subject to another nation’s rule. To ensure their independence they allowed that persons would have redress and ability to counteract any tyranny imposed on them. The government would be composed of citizens who could speak out against the governing body instead of being ruled by it, would have access to legal counsel if accused of a crime instead of being held without cause, and would have arms to defend against the attack of outside forces. The firearm became protection against not just robbers or bears, but a symbol of security from domination and taking a stand against oppression. The problem with symbols is that their time passes and sometimes people don’t realize it. How much use is a gun against a corporation who comes into your community and destroys it not by killing or burning, but by taking away the economic underpinnings? A corporation that you and your neighbors support, by the way, when you buy the goods made by that entity or its subsidiary! What good will rifles do against the decision of management to ‘downsize’ your division? Would you march into the corporate offices and demand that you have your job back or you’ll kill them all? Today’s problems are not the same as those we faced as a people 150, or even 50, years ago. Today a person’s best and greatest weapon is the mind (which it always has been, even though it may not be recognized as such). If our brains are empty, we can’t know our enemy; if we are ignorant to the facts, we cannot make effective decisions. Worst of all, feeling helpless, or dependent upon someone else, we may point our weapons at the wrong target. This naïveté can only lead to abuse, the situation is ripe for a new kind of control to be put in place. As long as this new form of tyranny doesn’t place any limit on our owning firearms, it will be accepted by those who consider guns sacred. I am not suggesting here that we do away with them, just that we recognize their uses and limitations. Not every problem can or should be answered with gunfire.

Control and Power

Having no time to think about what is happening or why leaves one without the ability to recognize when things are out-of-kilter. Everything seems to be as it should, yet one has no way to judge since the entire basis of understanding the world that one uses is skewed-there is no other frame of reference. Being immersed in a situation can make it impossible to really understand the situation itself. There are many examples of flawed thinking being accepted, my favorite being the "flat-earth" theory that most people and cultures ascribed to until the 'Middle Ages', whereas we now know (believe) the Earth is spherical. Some tribes believed that a person with an image of another (such as a photograph or doll) allowed the image-holder to exert their will over the person in the image; if one grew up in that culture, one would think that is true. All these beliefs limit what a person can accomplish, after all it is impossible to sail around the world if it is shaped like a platter rather than a globe. Similarly, there can be no rebellion against the person who has power over you, whatever manner you were raised to believe it is exerted through: by having your image, maybe that children must obey their parents in all things, or that one must do whatever is necessary to win. Yet, just like the world we live on being a sphere and not a disk, the fact remains that the individual retains control even when they think someone else is in control of them. Whatever the method, it is used to hold one back from realizing that fundamental truth: that each individual has the power over themselves, no one else. Even in the most rigorously controlled environment we know of, and here I speak of the military, where every action is directed by a 'superior' and it is understood that 'subordinates' are compelled to follow 'orders'. Simultaneously the 'subordinate' is responsible for determining the validity and/or moral correctness of those orders and is expected to disregard any that are improper. The power of those who control is exercised through the simple, regular folks that do as they are told, the people who delude themselves with "I'm just doing my job", and those who are so busy "making a living" that they have no time for a real life. It is a subtle form of control that insinuates itself into one's thinking. The goal of the system is that one not be given the ability to understand one's subservience...to be kept in ignorance of the very fact of one's enslavement. These controllers know that if we no longer follow nor allow ourselves to be their pawns, their control will cease and they will no longer have their power. We suffer to support them, not the other way around; the overbearing parent who constantly reminds the child that (s)he has, "sacrificed so much so that you can have everything!", the worker who is paid nearly nothing for laboring and tolerates the abuse of a boss who berates him/her, "you better be grateful, if you don't there are ten others who will take your place!", and the regular citizen who is dying from pollution yet is told, "we can't make the polluters stop or clean up their mess, they have so many other responsibilities." Which is the greater inconvenience: one less unique individual (a father/mother/son/daughter/sister/brother/etc., a person with real positive impact on others' lives) or one less business entity (which cannot produce its wares without killing actual people)? Even I can recognize the contributions of corporations, but I still don't think their existence entitles them to destroy the lives of others-they aren't even alive. Realize that the company doesn't provide and care for the workers' family, the worker does. Without the corporation, the worker does survive, but without the workers, the corporation is no more. Who has the real power here? You should know the answer here: the complaining parents' child, the slave-driving company's worker, the suffering citizen, and the lowest-ranking member of the military-because they all do. Buying into it and excusing it "because it can't change, it has to be this way" is inexcusable; denying ones' own power to serve those who cause your suffering isn't noble or righteous, it is stupid and ridiculous. This is not to blame individuals nor-especially not-true victims, what I discuss here only applies in everyday life, not that one special situation where an individuals' power is taken away by force, such as a rape or tornado. Even then the person is not powerless, even if they cannot stop the events from happening-generally they still retain their mental powers. Being able to think is the greatest power one has and it is the most constant. Which brings me back to my original point, which is: having that mental capacity subverted from the beginning to allow control by others can be the most insidious form of manipulation. Any situation or series of events which is designed to keep one from thinking about what goes on is suspect and should be regarded warily. Not that you'll necessarily be able to tell when that is.

Legal Fiction

No law ever freed anyone, only enslaved them. There is no way to pass legislation allowing people to do things-they already have all their abilities, their "natural rights" as they have been called. All a law can do is tell people what they are not allowed to do. That's why in the Constitution of the U.S. it says, "Congress shall make no law..." at the beginning of the enumeration of rights; that's why, "those rights not numbered herein are reserved to the individual citizens." Every time a law is passed, it adds to the list one more thing that people are not allowed to do. The argument is that new laws cover ground not foreseen by those who originally composed the laws, that times have changed and they are needed to protect us against new problems. However, passing a law to prevent something every time an abuse is perceived leads to abuse. Take "speeding", for example: no doubt a two-ton object hurtling out of control through a heavily populated area is dangerous, but does it require a law to say it shouldn't happen? No, nor will that law stop it from occurring-only proper training and a conscientious operator can avoid it. So, one may ask, what makes more sense than a law? Well, the answer is just what I said before: the only thing that can actually stop a collision or prevent a vehicle going out of control is the operator. The person "behind the wheel" is solely and totally responsible for what happens, so our best hope of preventing all these deaths and maimings each year is to ensure those operators are well-trained, conscientious, and as fully-prepared as possible. No law can do that, only adequate training and caring (or, if that word scares you, you can say 'aware') individuals can. We especially don't need a law that allows municipalities to collect unapproved, extra 'taxes' through catching "speeding motorists" and fining them for 'breaking a law'. No matter how adamantly the government denies this charge, that is what these "fines" are. Any time one pays a fine, it provides operating expenses for that governing body, which is exactly what taxes are for. We should not be subjected to taxes in disguise, just as taxing us twice on the same thing has historically been a provocation to action. If a government requires more money to accomplish those things we need it to do, then let it come out and state that. Hiding behind the ridiculous argument that these "fines" are a deterrent, and are only meant to stop these "dangerous individuals" is an insult. They do not accomplish this stated goal, people who drive in an unsafe manner do so because they have a basic disregard for others and themselves and making them pay a little money will not change their minds about it. We need to recognize these fallacies for what they are and act to stop them from starting and/or spreading, to realize our rights, understand what really protects us, get together with others who feel similarly, and move to protect ourselves from further oppression and end those practices that currently hold us down.