Which direction does time go? How do you know? The fact that we can't even answer such basic questions should tell us something about our ability to answer questions like, "What is the basis of thought?" The laws of physics and chemistry are merely observations about how objects interact at a very simple and basic level. That's about the only reason we can do so much math with physics, is because it's simple enough to be modeled with math. We are nowhere near that level of understanding with people, nor do we even understand everything about physics.
As far as your second sentence goes, I think that the concept of personal responsibility is derived from our own inherent instincts and intuitions about what is right and what is wrong. These are much to complex to be modeled precisely with our current set of tools. I think that using physics would be a terrible model for understanding how it works, but that's just my guess. Even if we had enough computing power to use physics to model the entire brain, it would be an impractical use of that computing power, to say the least.
As far as my opinion on this subject goes, I would ditch the physics and chemistry and go with your intuition (not ditch it altogether, but with respect to understanding people). Saying that something is based on physics and chemistry gives us no insight into which choice we should make. It can't even tell us what our favorite color is. As far as determining cause and effect, that's a concept that we can only say with confidence once we figure out the direction of time. Until then we shouldn't paralyze ourselves with metaphysics. I don't think that study of such things should be halted, but I think that if we want to live our lives with the full range of choices available to us, and to be able to make them practically and quickly, then we need to use a different set of tools to evaluate these choices for the time being.
Finally, when evaluating a theory, one needs to understand what a good theory does. Good theories should do one or more of these three: explain, predict, guide. Using junk science doesn't explain with much confidence. It doesn't really predict much. And, it's a horrible guide. So, you have more blood flowing to your amygdala, does that mean you've made the right political choice? It's not very useful. It's an interesting correlation, but elevating it to the level of theory is a mistake. Unless one wants to posit somethnig that will likely be proven false very quickly, and create more confusion than understanding.
Try to ask any honest nueroscientist how much they REALLY know about the human brain, how it works, etc. Most of them will tell you that we don't really understand much at all, nothing we can say with any real confidence. We are just beginning to understand the basic mechanics, and are nowhere near the point where we can say with any confidence what the above article is saying. This kind of article is pure junk science, a thin charade intended to promote an underlying stereotype, nothing more. What would the article say about "cowardly" leftists such as Martin Luther King, Ghandi, etc? How would "conservatives" react if they were faced with armed police in full riot gear, with tear gas, batons, rubber bullets, real bullets if needed, tanks backing them up, fenced in by barbed wire, with helicopters over head, etc., as the protestors next week in New York will be? Oh, that's right, they're the "courageous" ones with the riot gear.
Apparently freedom and democracy don't mean as much to us when a country is our "friend".
As far as not knowing geography, is any of this a surprise? We're probably one of, if not THE most elitist country in the world. That is the reason why our knowledge of geography and other cultures is so poor. It's certainly not due to lack of access to information. Who cares about those other backward cultures when you live in the greatest country in the world? It also makes it easy for our government to support guerilla armies that put baby's heads on sticks when people don't know, or even care to know, what is going on outside their country. Iran Contra, Abu Gharaib, what were those about? Oh, wait, nevermind, I'm supposed to remember that even though we may have made mistakes in the past due to our naivety, or our extreme generousity, that those events are in the past, and that we should forget them as quickly as possible so that we can move on to a new adventrue.
True, but one could say the same thing about capitalism. In fact, that's EXACTLY what market zealouts of the Ayn Rand camp will say, they say that any failings in capitalism are due to the fact that we never had it in the first place. Ok, fine, but if every attempt to implement a system, no matter what system we're talking about, results in oppression, can we say that it's desirable? While the USSR certainly wasn't the embodiment of socialism as Marx described, we can also just as easily say that Capitalism is not the embodiment of ideals that Adam Smith described. What this probably means is that neither system was planned well enough to cope with certain situations. In the case of Marxism, Marx didn't understand that there aren't just two classes, but three. There are: 1. Capitalists - including business owners 2. Working - factory workers, etc. 3. Coordinator Class - managers, CEO's, doctors, lawyers, politicians. They don't necessarily own much, but have a ton of power.
If you get rid of capitalists without figuring out a way to keep managers and intellectual elites from taking over, then you get "communism". This is exactly what happened over there.
We have problems in our own society too. And, it never ceases to amaze me how people try to put different labels on it, rather than admit that the problems are caused by capitalism. i.e. corporate socialism, corporate fascism, corporatism, etc. No, guys, it's just capitalism. What we have is a natural outgrowth of capitalism. And, if we start the experiement again, we are likely to get similar results.
There have in fact been efforts to improve our understanding of economics, and to design economies around principles that people from the left value. One such effort is Participatory Economics, or parecon for short, is designed to keep the coordinator class from taking over, and create society that is truly egalitarian. You can read more about it at www.parecon.org. This is a highly detailed economic vision built around the values of solidarity, equity, participatory self management (i.e. you manage yourself as much as psossible), and diversity. In order to attain these values, several norms are established. These social norms, which are to be sought after, are remuneration according to effort, decision making power assigned to those that are affected most by that decision, in so far as there are tasks those tasks should be distributed evenly among citizens so that everyone is equally empowered (i.e. here is no such job where all one does is manage, nor is there a job where all one does it dig ditches), and to the extent that there is decision making, people should be allowed to be self-managing.
Note that the above are just norms. You'll never meet them 100%, but by establishing them as social norms, you will give people a right to speak up when their rights are violated.
These norms are accomplished by creating institutions known as balanced job complexes (BJC's). Workers and consumer councils will come up with lists of products to be made and distributed at some time during the year. Consumers will try, as much as possible and necessary, to figure out what they need. Things that can be estimated, will more than likely be planned in the same way they are in our current economy, with little necessary input from consumers. Other items, such as new technology, things that require a lot of resources, or have a huge impact on society, will allow everyone that is affected to participate in planning. The idea is to give people a voice and power over their working lives, not force them to participate in endless meetings. I should also point out that in capitalism there are tons of meetings, bueruecracy, and red tape. The difference is that us peons aren't invited to the meetings at SONY, where they get to decide what kind of technology we get. Parecon doesn't require one to participate in every decision, it just gives one the power to participate. The idea behind allowing people to participate is t
If you find a different source, let me know. I'm still questioning the originality of that quote. I'd hate to take credit for some else's quote. You can just reply here if you do.
Thanks for asking. I'm pretty sure that I'm not the first person to write something like that, but after doing a preliminary search on google, I can't find any references, which I found surprising. If you want, you can attribute it to my screen name, but feel free to use it however you wish, I'm not posting on slashdot for any kind of fame.
The reward is for those at the top of economic food chain, at least in capitalism. We've more than doubled our productivity since the 1960's. Are people working half as long? no. This is a byproduct of our economic system, if you don't like it, then you need to consider changing it.
BTW, I agree with you, it is a sham that no matter how much more productive we are, it just ends up leading to more abuse. Of course, being a better slave never made anyone free.
It's 36MB per second for 1x, if I remember correctly, and it is supposed to get quite a bit faster as the technology improves. It needs at least 19MB per second of bandwidth for HDTV.
I stand corrected. Thank you. You are right, our average security sucks, that was part of my point, which I didn't state very well. However, the security for the group (mainly priviledged middle class whites with computer access) that tends to read slashdot is excellent. This is the group that I am addressing. I should not have used the word "average American", I should have qualified it as "the average middle class white American", which is exactly the group that is most concerned about terrorism and safety.
Just FYI. One thing that you need to keep in mind is that in the cities it does suck (I know because I work in one), but for the white middle and upper class (that live out in suburban areas or in gated communities) it's pretty good. In fact, for people that are in these areas, it's so good it's boring. A lot of crime that you pointed out when you said "especially in the cities" is crime that is referred to as black on black by the experts. What they are referring to is crime that is commited by poor minorities and perpetrated against themselves. However, that is no big deal to most of the (mainly white) people living out in the suburbs. If you point out to them how bad our crime is, many of them will say,"That hasn't been my experience". Or they'll think the best solution is to lock them up, which is why we have the largest jail population in the world. Most of them are only concerned about their own security, which tends to be fairly good. The reason is just as a I stated, we are an inherently racist society. It never occurs to the (mainly white) voting population that the quickest way to excellent average safety (and better safety for themselves) is to look out for the least advantaged groups.
In the neighborhood I grew up in, there was no crime in the 18 years that I lived there, no burglaries, no assaults, murderns, nothing. However, if you go just 20 miles to downtown St. Louis, you can't walk 10 minutes without getting asked for change, or aggressively panhandled (where you will get followed for blocks), and the crime rate tends to be much higher. Cars that are parked in poorly lit areas tend to have their windows smashed out, and insurance is sky high. But that's not all, because this area tends to be well policed, the REALLY bad area is across the river, East St. Louis, where most buildings are closed, and the majority of open business revolves around strip clubs, bars, gambling, and a couple of factories. And, if you pay attention, you'll notice that the skin color of people tends to change as you go from rich areas to poor areas. But that's America, the richest country in the world.
My take on it is that all this talk of security is pretty ridiculous. You're average American belongs to the safest and least threatened group in the entire world. If we cared that much about security we would realize that the first step in creating real security is to provide it to those who need it the most, not those who need it the least. We could start at home, by providing security for those who are most threatened by violence on a daily basis, that is, the poor and the minorities. Ironcially, by focusing on increasing their security, we would in fact also be making the world safer for the most secure group, rich whites. Increasing security for the disadvantaged could involve a multi pronged approach: 1. Create a program of effective affirmative action that would truly provide equal opportunity, as a start, providing such basic things as shelter, healthcare, etc. 2. Eliminate racist drug laws that needlessly disciminate again the poor. 3. Eliminate racist police offices that are one of the biggest threats to the urban population.
Outside our borders, increasing security would involve a similar approach. 1. Work to raise the standard of living rather than handing over resources to corporations that are only interested in plundering. 2. Stop shooting and torturing people, which is one of the biggest threats to security of innocent Iraqi people. 3. Stop giving Israel carte blanch support to murder, round defenseless Palestineans up into concentration camps and bulldoze their homes. 4. Stop supporting corrupt, undemocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the 80's, etc.
But, we won't take these steps, our government doesn't take these steps because they realize that security isn't that big of an issue. In fact, the War in Iraq has the effect of increasing terrorism and decreasing security, not just for Americans, but also for the people of Iraq. On the other hand, the people of America won't take these steps because we're a bunch of racist cowards that think that we alone have the right to feel safe in our homes, but that black guy in the ghetto, well, he doesn't, and the Iraqi's in Abu Gharaib, well, they should have known better. It never occurs to us that increasing security of the poor might be the quickest way to create a safe and secure world for everyone. Nor does it occur to us that it is impossible to have perfect security. For some reason we believe that security is our birthright, and ours alone. I can't think of another group on this planet that has a greater expectation of perfect security than middle class Americans. It's a nice goal, but if we are truly interested in real freedom and equality, then we will realize that security can't be just a thing reserved for priveledged American whites.
I like the "cannablizing each other" idea. I think another, perhaps more useful anology, is that the Federal government is supposed to keep the results of "free trade" from happening inside the country. Without a strong Federal government, Corporations would pit one state against the other (as they have begun to do in the last 10-20 years) in a divide and conquer strategy, much as they are doing on the macro scale with "free trade" where they pit country against country for the best benefits. Reducing Federal government size is part of a grand strategy of reducing power structures to managable levels so that they can be bullied by big business.
In the case of Free Trade, the WTO is the governing body, which conveniently enough, meets secretly and is run largely by business executives. There is no balancing force of democracy, which is the why the results of the trade agreements are so lopsided in favor of corporations. Since we need to maintain the illusion of democracy inside the US, a different approach is taken. A compromise between reducing the amount of real representation (instead most politicians are bought out by corporate sponsors) by the Federal government, combined with Anti-government sentiment (so that people will be happy when the Federal government's size is reduced) is used to keep democracy in check.
Thanks for the reply. Back when I was in school I had a much better attitude about it. Just don't get your expectations too high. It sounds to me like you have a realistic attitude about what the job will be like. It's basically as you described it, "I just like to have a clearly defined goal in mind, and make that vision a reality. Of course, I do have my opinions on the vision, but really, what it comes down to is that I like to just do the actual practical work." If that is how you operate, then programming will be a good career for you. If you are at all attached to how things are done, or like to have control to any degree whatsoever, it can be a bad situation. You pretty much have to let your desires take back seat to the customer, employer, etc., which is ok as long as you're getting paid enough.
I honestly believed that I would have more control over my work than I do. That was quite a disappointment when I got out in the real world. The other problem that I had when I got out of school, was that I didn't have an understanding of what it was that I liked about programming. I knew that I enjoyed programming, and I was confused at the fact that I wasn't enjoying my career as a programmer. I knew the pay and lack of opportunity for advancement had something to do with it. But, it finally dawned on me that the difference between programming in college vs at a corporation is control. Some people can handle giving up control, other's have a much harder time. It all comes down to motivation, programming is complex and diverse enough that people can enjoy it for different reasons.
I tend to be a bit of an iconoclast. I don't like ordering people around, but on the other hand, I don't like authority unless it's necessary (which a lot of it isn't). Because of that, I don't really fit in very well with the corporate structure, or hierarchical organizations in general. If you are into the MBTI, my personality type is INTP. You're is probably ISTJ from the sound of it, which actually works quite well in corporate environments, just stay aware that there are others who have a tough time with it. More than likely I'll end up leading, if only because I can't stand being a servant.
Do you make any distinction between work that you do at the beck and call of others, and work that you do for yourself? I ask this because I do make a BIG distinction. I enjoy programming quite a bit, but doing it as a job really reduces what I get out of it, that same goes for music, or any other creative endeavour. So, unlike you, getting paid just enough to eat isn't worth giving up the artistic freedom and control that I have over my work. Having control over my working life is worth more than that to me. It never ceases to amaze me how people make no distinction between programming that they do for themselves, and programming that they do because others tell them to do it.
I also think the reason that you don't make a distinction between programming for someone else, and programming for yourself, on your own time, is because society encourages you not to make a distinction between the two. I literally had a co-worker accuse me of not enjoying programming and not being cut out for it. He couldn't understand that for me, having control over my work is a big part of my enjoyment of it, and if I'm not getting paid enough to give up that control, then I'm miserable because I feel like I'm being ripped off. I don't want to give my work away to people who don't respect it enough to pay it for what it's worth. This of course is the trap that many programmers who desire control over their working lives are in. When they ask for just compensation for giving up that control, they get accused of "not enjoying" their work.
Finally, if you're a programmer, and you're a logical person, you should realize that it's a logical fallacy to place work you do for others and work you do for yourself in the same category. That's why you should get annoyed when someone tries to accuse you of not loving what you do when you complain about salary. You aren't getting paid to program, you are paid to give up control over what you program, and that is worth quite a bit in my opinion.
Thank you for the information. A quick glance at the table of contents reveals it to be a very interesting book. It seems like a good companion to Disciplined Minds, or vice versa. Disciplined Minds tends to cover graduate school and professional training, as well as how the professional class operates in the real world. So, it's a look at the graudate school system, and the conservative nature of the professional/managerial class. Anyway, thanks for the info, I'll be sure to check out the online books and let you know what I think.
is to "educate" (brainwash) students, not increase their intelligence.
While one can be educated and intelligent, education tends to stunt many areas of intellectual growth. Here are a few things that school does teach: 1. Endurance - The ability to tolerate tedious and boring environments, rote tasks, institutional structures, and rigid guidelines. 2. Assignable Curiosity - The ability to fall in line and become interested in whatever subject matter is being taught at the time. 3. Ideological Discipline - This requires an uncritical approval of institutional structures. Those that believe school is organized in an inefficient manner, or that it's a waste of time, tend not to do well. Those who embrace the institutional hierarchy respond very well. 4. Respond well to Fascism - Does the student embrace authority, even rather dim-witted authority figures? If yes, then we have a great student. 5. Elitism - Does the student believe that school is a measure of intelligence, and that therefore, the huge difference in grades is caused by the fact that there is a huge variety in intelligence? Does the student believe that the reason the majority don't make it through the educational system is because they are dumb sheep? If so, the student will do well. Or, instead does the student (rightly) believe that the true sheep are the ones that make it through the nightmare process of 20 years of schooling required to get a Phd? If this is the case, the student isn't likely to be able to tolerate the process. 6. Uncritical Thinking - The student must memorize whatever facts that are presented uncritically. The student must be uncritical in his or her service to the system. If the student goes to a poor school, then he or she must uncritically learn the skills that employers require. If the student goes to a wealthy school, then he or she must learn uncritically how to be a manger, doctor, lawyer, etc.
Of course a student at a poor school can go to a better school if he works much harder, but this requires that the student embrace the system even more so than his wealthier peers.
A good book to read about this is "Disciplined Minds" by Jeff Schmidt. It's an excellent critique of the educational system.
Looking at my undergraduate book collection, I am struck by just how few books one is required to read in order to get a degree. I can fit them on a single shelf. Half are for core cirriculum requirements(a fancy word for remedial education) that most US colleges require, the other half are for my two degrees, a BS in Comp Sci and a BA in Music. Of that, about 10 are books directly related to computer science. That's it, just 10 books. I bought over twice that many CS books on my own during the same two year period that I majored in CS. Obviously, ten books isn't much, so the real learning is happening elsewhere. The things being taught are the 6 things I mentioned above, not the material in the books. This is why degrees are considered important despite the fact that most of the books and material don't come close to covering everything a student needs to know.
Japan's auto industry beat us precisely because they did NOT open their markets to US competition. Instead, they let their government subsidize their autos. We could learn something from that.
The difference between Bush and Kerry is small, however, there is a difference, and that is the constituents. As much as Kerry might want to ignore me, he has to pay more attention to me than Bush does (which is absolutely nothing), because more of the democratic base is from average Joe's, not the extremely rich. So, it's a slight difference, but it's there. I'm not the average American, I'm aware that NAFTA was voted in 99-0, however, Nader won't fix anything either.
As far as changing things goes, I doubt that any large changes will occur from working within the current system, it's too corrupt.
Wrong, the majority of profits are not handed back to workers, in fact, many stocks give no dividends back to stock holders at all. Only those who are rich enough to own a majority share get to dip into profits, many times through highly illegal or unethical means. Shareholders typically make money off growth. But, there's a catch, while free trade is highly profitable, it's NEGATIVE growth. If people lose their jobs, then eventually the value of a stock goes down, since the consumer base goes down as more jobs are eliminated.
Votes mean more than cash? You do know that Clinton started free trade, and that the decision for NAFTA was passed 99-0 in the senate? Ok, now we're talking about 99 to 0, who the hell am I supposed to vote for? Cash reigns supreme, and has essentially bought all of our candidates. That's "democracy".
I haven't seen Hunt's column. Eventually I'll get around to getting a subscription to the WSJ. However, there is one hidden fallacy that I can think of in your argument. And that is, you are assumnig that the same amount of people fit into the labor and capital categories. My dad was a store owner, that was eventually put out of business by Walmart, Kmart, and other "marts". He would have been classified under "capital". Today, all of those storem owners that were classified under "capital" don't exist, and instead, all of that capital income goes straight to the top of the Walmart food chain. That's just one example. So, there are fewer and fewer getting that 15%, while more and more scrape for the 55%. That's one possible fallacy. The other is that capital is spending less than ever, since many jobs are offshore, and at the same time, labor is spending more, due to things like the housing bubble, inflated car prices, etc. So, while expenses are getting cheaper for the rich, they are going up for the poor and middle class. This mechanism has resulted in a 15% transfer the nations total assets to the top 1% in the last 20 years. But, according to Hunt and his chart, it all looks great.
Ok, let's extend that to it's logical conclusion. The idea is that we convert something abundant into products, thus negating the need for workers, but at the same time, only someone rich enough to buy a factory can do this. So, lets say we got rid of all jobs and simply converted air into the products we needed. The problem is, that no one can afford the products because they no longer have jobs. So, they all starve. What's wrong with that?
Of course, it will probably never get that bad, but it's going in that direction. In fact, what I just described is similar to the 3rd world, where there are a bunch of rich people, and a lot of porr people who can't afford anything, and are unemployed.
Describe how this demonstrates "a complete disregard for individual rights"? Shouldn't people have a right to live? Oh, right, the factory owners saw to it that this right was lost during the industrial revolution. However, I think that having a right to live is more important than someone's right to do whatever they want with their property. Your right to do whatever you want with your factory should be tempered with other's rights. Just because we don't recognize those rights of workers doesn't mean that they don't exist.
It depends on how you describe an economy. Your definition of "economy" seems to be from the CEO's point of view and that is, the profits generated. However, if we come up with a sane view of the economy, and that is, how people are doing, then we realize that offshoring is insane from an economic viewpoint, since it is creating great wealth inequality and economic turmoil in both 1st world countries and the 3rd world countries that are being outsourced too. The development is highly unstable, and is causing a great amount of turmoil, all for a quick buck.
As far as the constitution goes, who cares? Was there a consitutional basis for ending slavery? or allowing women to vote? Actually, yes there is, it's called the ammendment process. But, it's beside the point. The founding father's of the US constitution based their belief in rights on the idea that a magical supreme being endowned us with those right. i.e. "that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights". What this means is that there is no rational or logical basis for rights. They are merely a social contract, to be ammended by the people as necessary.
As far as why one shouldn't demand cheaper products, you need to examine this rational on a case by case basis. If "cheaper" means that it's being produced by Chinese prison labor rather than by Americans then that's a pretty damn good reason if you ask me. Americans buy cheaper products because capitalism hides these crimes, not because they knowingly support prison labor, sweatshops, toxic waste, and other abominations.
Exactly! Commodities aren't supposed to complain. If I take my car across the country, does it complain that it had to move across the country with me? Of course not! Let's just treat people like commodities, that's a great idea, and as a commodities, he's not supposed to complain about what the market requires of him.
Right, not only that, but if you ever read any Chomsky, a lot of the countries that free marketeers describe as economic miracles and examples of the free market, actually got that way through highly protectionist measures. Think, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. All the countries in South America that actually follow US economic policies are a complete disaster.
can you explain what makes "rational" self interest more "rational" than something like "rational group interest"? Rand's philosophy is nothing more than a (horrible) value system presented in the guise of logic.
sponsored innovation, much in the same way that W hides behind the troops when he is criticized for the war in Iraq, or the CEO of Walmart hides behind his employees when Walmart is criticized (i.e. "I think our associates do an oustanding job." in response to the criticism that Walmart pays oppressively low wages to their employees).
In other words, the corporate lobby that wants these patents is basically taking credit for innovation, much of which is payed for by the US government. They are using this as evidence that they deserve even more rights. There is no justification for giving corporations these kinds of rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Which direction does time go? How do you know? The fact that we can't even answer such basic questions should tell us something about our ability to answer questions like, "What is the basis of thought?" The laws of physics and chemistry are merely observations about how objects interact at a very simple and basic level. That's about the only reason we can do so much math with physics, is because it's simple enough to be modeled with math. We are nowhere near that level of understanding with people, nor do we even understand everything about physics.
As far as your second sentence goes, I think that the concept of personal responsibility is derived from our own inherent instincts and intuitions about what is right and what is wrong. These are much to complex to be modeled precisely with our current set of tools. I think that using physics would be a terrible model for understanding how it works, but that's just my guess. Even if we had enough computing power to use physics to model the entire brain, it would be an impractical use of that computing power, to say the least.
As far as my opinion on this subject goes, I would ditch the physics and chemistry and go with your intuition (not ditch it altogether, but with respect to understanding people). Saying that something is based on physics and chemistry gives us no insight into which choice we should make. It can't even tell us what our favorite color is. As far as determining cause and effect, that's a concept that we can only say with confidence once we figure out the direction of time. Until then we shouldn't paralyze ourselves with metaphysics. I don't think that study of such things should be halted, but I think that if we want to live our lives with the full range of choices available to us, and to be able to make them practically and quickly, then we need to use a different set of tools to evaluate these choices for the time being.
Finally, when evaluating a theory, one needs to understand what a good theory does. Good theories should do one or more of these three: explain, predict, guide. Using junk science doesn't explain with much confidence. It doesn't really predict much. And, it's a horrible guide. So, you have more blood flowing to your amygdala, does that mean you've made the right political choice? It's not very useful. It's an interesting correlation, but elevating it to the level of theory is a mistake. Unless one wants to posit somethnig that will likely be proven false very quickly, and create more confusion than understanding.
Try to ask any honest nueroscientist how much they REALLY know about the human brain, how it works, etc. Most of them will tell you that we don't really understand much at all, nothing we can say with any real confidence. We are just beginning to understand the basic mechanics, and are nowhere near the point where we can say with any confidence what the above article is saying. This kind of article is pure junk science, a thin charade intended to promote an underlying stereotype, nothing more. What would the article say about "cowardly" leftists such as Martin Luther King, Ghandi, etc? How would "conservatives" react if they were faced with armed police in full riot gear, with tear gas, batons, rubber bullets, real bullets if needed, tanks backing them up, fenced in by barbed wire, with helicopters over head, etc., as the protestors next week in New York will be? Oh, that's right, they're the "courageous" ones with the riot gear.
Apparently freedom and democracy don't mean as much to us when a country is our "friend".
As far as not knowing geography, is any of this a surprise? We're probably one of, if not THE most elitist country in the world. That is the reason why our knowledge of geography and other cultures is so poor. It's certainly not due to lack of access to information. Who cares about those other backward cultures when you live in the greatest country in the world? It also makes it easy for our government to support guerilla armies that put baby's heads on sticks when people don't know, or even care to know, what is going on outside their country. Iran Contra, Abu Gharaib, what were those about? Oh, wait, nevermind, I'm supposed to remember that even though we may have made mistakes in the past due to our naivety, or our extreme generousity, that those events are in the past, and that we should forget them as quickly as possible so that we can move on to a new adventrue.
True, but one could say the same thing about capitalism. In fact, that's EXACTLY what market zealouts of the Ayn Rand camp will say, they say that any failings in capitalism are due to the fact that we never had it in the first place. Ok, fine, but if every attempt to implement a system, no matter what system we're talking about, results in oppression, can we say that it's desirable? While the USSR certainly wasn't the embodiment of socialism as Marx described, we can also just as easily say that Capitalism is not the embodiment of ideals that Adam Smith described. What this probably means is that neither system was planned well enough to cope with certain situations. In the case of Marxism, Marx didn't understand that there aren't just two classes, but three. There are:
1. Capitalists - including business owners
2. Working - factory workers, etc.
3. Coordinator Class - managers, CEO's, doctors, lawyers, politicians. They don't necessarily own much, but have a ton of power.
If you get rid of capitalists without figuring out a way to keep managers and intellectual elites from taking over, then you get "communism". This is exactly what happened over there.
We have problems in our own society too. And, it never ceases to amaze me how people try to put different labels on it, rather than admit that the problems are caused by capitalism. i.e. corporate socialism, corporate fascism, corporatism, etc. No, guys, it's just capitalism. What we have is a natural outgrowth of capitalism. And, if we start the experiement again, we are likely to get similar results.
There have in fact been efforts to improve our understanding of economics, and to design economies around principles that people from the left value. One such effort is Participatory Economics, or parecon for short, is designed to keep the coordinator class from taking over, and create society that is truly egalitarian. You can read more about it at www.parecon.org. This is a highly detailed economic vision built around the values of solidarity, equity, participatory self management (i.e. you manage yourself as much as psossible), and diversity. In order to attain these values, several norms are established. These social norms, which are to be sought after, are remuneration according to effort, decision making power assigned to those that are affected most by that decision, in so far as there are tasks those tasks should be distributed evenly among citizens so that everyone is equally empowered (i.e. here is no such job where all one does is manage, nor is there a job where all one does it dig ditches), and to the extent that there is decision making, people should be allowed to be self-managing.
Note that the above are just norms. You'll never meet them 100%, but by establishing them as social norms, you will give people a right to speak up when their rights are violated.
These norms are accomplished by creating institutions known as balanced job complexes (BJC's). Workers and consumer councils will come up with lists of products to be made and distributed at some time during the year. Consumers will try, as much as possible and necessary, to figure out what they need. Things that can be estimated, will more than likely be planned in the same way they are in our current economy, with little necessary input from consumers. Other items, such as new technology, things that require a lot of resources, or have a huge impact on society, will allow everyone that is affected to participate in planning. The idea is to give people a voice and power over their working lives, not force them to participate in endless meetings. I should also point out that in capitalism there are tons of meetings, bueruecracy, and red tape. The difference is that us peons aren't invited to the meetings at SONY, where they get to decide what kind of technology we get. Parecon doesn't require one to participate in every decision, it just gives one the power to participate. The idea behind allowing people to participate is t
If you find a different source, let me know. I'm still questioning the originality of that quote. I'd hate to take credit for some else's quote. You can just reply here if you do.
Thanks for asking. I'm pretty sure that I'm not the first person to write something like that, but after doing a preliminary search on google, I can't find any references, which I found surprising. If you want, you can attribute it to my screen name, but feel free to use it however you wish, I'm not posting on slashdot for any kind of fame.
The reward is for those at the top of economic food chain, at least in capitalism. We've more than doubled our productivity since the 1960's. Are people working half as long? no. This is a byproduct of our economic system, if you don't like it, then you need to consider changing it.
BTW, I agree with you, it is a sham that no matter how much more productive we are, it just ends up leading to more abuse. Of course, being a better slave never made anyone free.
sorry about that 36 Mbps and 19 Mbps for the two numbers mentioned above, repsectively.
It's 36MB per second for 1x, if I remember correctly, and it is supposed to get quite a bit faster as the technology improves. It needs at least 19MB per second of bandwidth for HDTV.
I stand corrected. Thank you. You are right, our average security sucks, that was part of my point, which I didn't state very well. However, the security for the group (mainly priviledged middle class whites with computer access) that tends to read slashdot is excellent. This is the group that I am addressing. I should not have used the word "average American", I should have qualified it as "the average middle class white American", which is exactly the group that is most concerned about terrorism and safety.
Just FYI. One thing that you need to keep in mind is that in the cities it does suck (I know because I work in one), but for the white middle and upper class (that live out in suburban areas or in gated communities) it's pretty good. In fact, for people that are in these areas, it's so good it's boring. A lot of crime that you pointed out when you said "especially in the cities" is crime that is referred to as black on black by the experts. What they are referring to is crime that is commited by poor minorities and perpetrated against themselves. However, that is no big deal to most of the (mainly white) people living out in the suburbs. If you point out to them how bad our crime is, many of them will say,"That hasn't been my experience". Or they'll think the best solution is to lock them up, which is why we have the largest jail population in the world. Most of them are only concerned about their own security, which tends to be fairly good. The reason is just as a I stated, we are an inherently racist society. It never occurs to the (mainly white) voting population that the quickest way to excellent average safety (and better safety for themselves) is to look out for the least advantaged groups.
In the neighborhood I grew up in, there was no crime in the 18 years that I lived there, no burglaries, no assaults, murderns, nothing. However, if you go just 20 miles to downtown St. Louis, you can't walk 10 minutes without getting asked for change, or aggressively panhandled (where you will get followed for blocks), and the crime rate tends to be much higher. Cars that are parked in poorly lit areas tend to have their windows smashed out, and insurance is sky high. But that's not all, because this area tends to be well policed, the REALLY bad area is across the river, East St. Louis, where most buildings are closed, and the majority of open business revolves around strip clubs, bars, gambling, and a couple of factories. And, if you pay attention, you'll notice that the skin color of people tends to change as you go from rich areas to poor areas. But that's America, the richest country in the world.
My take on it is that all this talk of security is pretty ridiculous. You're average American belongs to the safest and least threatened group in the entire world. If we cared that much about security we would realize that the first step in creating real security is to provide it to those who need it the most, not those who need it the least. We could start at home, by providing security for those who are most threatened by violence on a daily basis, that is, the poor and the minorities. Ironcially, by focusing on increasing their security, we would in fact also be making the world safer for the most secure group, rich whites. Increasing security for the disadvantaged could involve a multi pronged approach:
1. Create a program of effective affirmative action that would truly provide equal opportunity, as a start, providing such basic things as shelter, healthcare, etc.
2. Eliminate racist drug laws that needlessly disciminate again the poor.
3. Eliminate racist police offices that are one of the biggest threats to the urban population.
Outside our borders, increasing security would involve a similar approach.
1. Work to raise the standard of living rather than handing over resources to corporations that are only interested in plundering.
2. Stop shooting and torturing people, which is one of the biggest threats to security of innocent Iraqi people.
3. Stop giving Israel carte blanch support to murder, round defenseless Palestineans up into concentration camps and bulldoze their homes.
4. Stop supporting corrupt, undemocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the 80's, etc.
But, we won't take these steps, our government doesn't take these steps because they realize that security isn't that big of an issue. In fact, the War in Iraq has the effect of increasing terrorism and decreasing security, not just for Americans, but also for the people of Iraq. On the other hand, the people of America won't take these steps because we're a bunch of racist cowards that think that we alone have the right to feel safe in our homes, but that black guy in the ghetto, well, he doesn't, and the Iraqi's in Abu Gharaib, well, they should have known better. It never occurs to us that increasing security of the poor might be the quickest way to create a safe and secure world for everyone. Nor does it occur to us that it is impossible to have perfect security. For some reason we believe that security is our birthright, and ours alone. I can't think of another group on this planet that has a greater expectation of perfect security than middle class Americans. It's a nice goal, but if we are truly interested in real freedom and equality, then we will realize that security can't be just a thing reserved for priveledged American whites.
I like the "cannablizing each other" idea. I think another, perhaps more useful anology, is that the Federal government is supposed to keep the results of "free trade" from happening inside the country. Without a strong Federal government, Corporations would pit one state against the other (as they have begun to do in the last 10-20 years) in a divide and conquer strategy, much as they are doing on the macro scale with "free trade" where they pit country against country for the best benefits. Reducing Federal government size is part of a grand strategy of reducing power structures to managable levels so that they can be bullied by big business.
In the case of Free Trade, the WTO is the governing body, which conveniently enough, meets secretly and is run largely by business executives. There is no balancing force of democracy, which is the why the results of the trade agreements are so lopsided in favor of corporations. Since we need to maintain the illusion of democracy inside the US, a different approach is taken. A compromise between reducing the amount of real representation (instead most politicians are bought out by corporate sponsors) by the Federal government, combined with Anti-government sentiment (so that people will be happy when the Federal government's size is reduced) is used to keep democracy in check.
Thanks for the reply. Back when I was in school I had a much better attitude about it. Just don't get your expectations too high. It sounds to me like you have a realistic attitude about what the job will be like. It's basically as you described it, "I just like to have a clearly defined goal in mind, and make that vision a reality. Of course, I do have my opinions on the vision, but really, what it comes down to is that I like to just do the actual practical work." If that is how you operate, then programming will be a good career for you. If you are at all attached to how things are done, or like to have control to any degree whatsoever, it can be a bad situation. You pretty much have to let your desires take back seat to the customer, employer, etc., which is ok as long as you're getting paid enough.
I honestly believed that I would have more control over my work than I do. That was quite a disappointment when I got out in the real world. The other problem that I had when I got out of school, was that I didn't have an understanding of what it was that I liked about programming. I knew that I enjoyed programming, and I was confused at the fact that I wasn't enjoying my career as a programmer. I knew the pay and lack of opportunity for advancement had something to do with it. But, it finally dawned on me that the difference between programming in college vs at a corporation is control. Some people can handle giving up control, other's have a much harder time. It all comes down to motivation, programming is complex and diverse enough that people can enjoy it for different reasons.
I tend to be a bit of an iconoclast. I don't like ordering people around, but on the other hand, I don't like authority unless it's necessary (which a lot of it isn't). Because of that, I don't really fit in very well with the corporate structure, or hierarchical organizations in general. If you are into the MBTI, my personality type is INTP. You're is probably ISTJ from the sound of it, which actually works quite well in corporate environments, just stay aware that there are others who have a tough time with it. More than likely I'll end up leading, if only because I can't stand being a servant.
Do you make any distinction between work that you do at the beck and call of others, and work that you do for yourself? I ask this because I do make a BIG distinction. I enjoy programming quite a bit, but doing it as a job really reduces what I get out of it, that same goes for music, or any other creative endeavour. So, unlike you, getting paid just enough to eat isn't worth giving up the artistic freedom and control that I have over my work. Having control over my working life is worth more than that to me. It never ceases to amaze me how people make no distinction between programming that they do for themselves, and programming that they do because others tell them to do it.
I also think the reason that you don't make a distinction between programming for someone else, and programming for yourself, on your own time, is because society encourages you not to make a distinction between the two. I literally had a co-worker accuse me of not enjoying programming and not being cut out for it. He couldn't understand that for me, having control over my work is a big part of my enjoyment of it, and if I'm not getting paid enough to give up that control, then I'm miserable because I feel like I'm being ripped off. I don't want to give my work away to people who don't respect it enough to pay it for what it's worth. This of course is the trap that many programmers who desire control over their working lives are in. When they ask for just compensation for giving up that control, they get accused of "not enjoying" their work.
Finally, if you're a programmer, and you're a logical person, you should realize that it's a logical fallacy to place work you do for others and work you do for yourself in the same category. That's why you should get annoyed when someone tries to accuse you of not loving what you do when you complain about salary. You aren't getting paid to program, you are paid to give up control over what you program, and that is worth quite a bit in my opinion.
Thank you for the information. A quick glance at the table of contents reveals it to be a very interesting book. It seems like a good companion to Disciplined Minds, or vice versa. Disciplined Minds tends to cover graduate school and professional training, as well as how the professional class operates in the real world. So, it's a look at the graudate school system, and the conservative nature of the professional/managerial class. Anyway, thanks for the info, I'll be sure to check out the online books and let you know what I think.
is to "educate" (brainwash) students, not increase their intelligence.
While one can be educated and intelligent, education tends to stunt many areas of intellectual growth. Here are a few things that school does teach:
1. Endurance - The ability to tolerate tedious and boring environments, rote tasks, institutional structures, and rigid guidelines.
2. Assignable Curiosity - The ability to fall in line and become interested in whatever subject matter is being taught at the time.
3. Ideological Discipline - This requires an uncritical approval of institutional structures. Those that believe school is organized in an inefficient manner, or that it's a waste of time, tend not to do well. Those who embrace the institutional hierarchy respond very well.
4. Respond well to Fascism - Does the student embrace authority, even rather dim-witted authority figures? If yes, then we have a great student.
5. Elitism - Does the student believe that school is a measure of intelligence, and that therefore, the huge difference in grades is caused by the fact that there is a huge variety in intelligence? Does the student believe that the reason the majority don't make it through the educational system is because they are dumb sheep? If so, the student will do well. Or, instead does the student (rightly) believe that the true sheep are the ones that make it through the nightmare process of 20 years of schooling required to get a Phd? If this is the case, the student isn't likely to be able to tolerate the process.
6. Uncritical Thinking - The student must memorize whatever facts that are presented uncritically. The student must be uncritical in his or her service to the system. If the student goes to a poor school, then he or she must uncritically learn the skills that employers require. If the student goes to a wealthy school, then he or she must learn uncritically how to be a manger, doctor, lawyer, etc.
Of course a student at a poor school can go to a better school if he works much harder, but this requires that the student embrace the system even more so than his wealthier peers.
A good book to read about this is "Disciplined Minds" by Jeff Schmidt. It's an excellent critique of the educational system.
Looking at my undergraduate book collection, I am struck by just how few books one is required to read in order to get a degree. I can fit them on a single shelf. Half are for core cirriculum requirements(a fancy word for remedial education) that most US colleges require, the other half are for my two degrees, a BS in Comp Sci and a BA in Music. Of that, about 10 are books directly related to computer science. That's it, just 10 books. I bought over twice that many CS books on my own during the same two year period that I majored in CS. Obviously, ten books isn't much, so the real learning is happening elsewhere. The things being taught are the 6 things I mentioned above, not the material in the books. This is why degrees are considered important despite the fact that most of the books and material don't come close to covering everything a student needs to know.
Japan's auto industry beat us precisely because they did NOT open their markets to US competition. Instead, they let their government subsidize their autos. We could learn something from that.
The difference between Bush and Kerry is small, however, there is a difference, and that is the constituents. As much as Kerry might want to ignore me, he has to pay more attention to me than Bush does (which is absolutely nothing), because more of the democratic base is from average Joe's, not the extremely rich. So, it's a slight difference, but it's there. I'm not the average American, I'm aware that NAFTA was voted in 99-0, however, Nader won't fix anything either.
As far as changing things goes, I doubt that any large changes will occur from working within the current system, it's too corrupt.
Wrong, the majority of profits are not handed back to workers, in fact, many stocks give no dividends back to stock holders at all. Only those who are rich enough to own a majority share get to dip into profits, many times through highly illegal or unethical means. Shareholders typically make money off growth. But, there's a catch, while free trade is highly profitable, it's NEGATIVE growth. If people lose their jobs, then eventually the value of a stock goes down, since the consumer base goes down as more jobs are eliminated.
Votes mean more than cash? You do know that Clinton started free trade, and that the decision for NAFTA was passed 99-0 in the senate? Ok, now we're talking about 99 to 0, who the hell am I supposed to vote for? Cash reigns supreme, and has essentially bought all of our candidates. That's "democracy".
I haven't seen Hunt's column. Eventually I'll get around to getting a subscription to the WSJ. However, there is one hidden fallacy that I can think of in your argument. And that is, you are assumnig that the same amount of people fit into the labor and capital categories. My dad was a store owner, that was eventually put out of business by Walmart, Kmart, and other "marts". He would have been classified under "capital". Today, all of those storem owners that were classified under "capital" don't exist, and instead, all of that capital income goes straight to the top of the Walmart food chain. That's just one example. So, there are fewer and fewer getting that 15%, while more and more scrape for the 55%. That's one possible fallacy. The other is that capital is spending less than ever, since many jobs are offshore, and at the same time, labor is spending more, due to things like the housing bubble, inflated car prices, etc. So, while expenses are getting cheaper for the rich, they are going up for the poor and middle class. This mechanism has resulted in a 15% transfer the nations total assets to the top 1% in the last 20 years. But, according to Hunt and his chart, it all looks great.
Ok, let's extend that to it's logical conclusion. The idea is that we convert something abundant into products, thus negating the need for workers, but at the same time, only someone rich enough to buy a factory can do this. So, lets say we got rid of all jobs and simply converted air into the products we needed. The problem is, that no one can afford the products because they no longer have jobs. So, they all starve. What's wrong with that?
Of course, it will probably never get that bad, but it's going in that direction. In fact, what I just described is similar to the 3rd world, where there are a bunch of rich people, and a lot of porr people who can't afford anything, and are unemployed.
Describe how this demonstrates "a complete disregard for individual rights"? Shouldn't people have a right to live? Oh, right, the factory owners saw to it that this right was lost during the industrial revolution. However, I think that having a right to live is more important than someone's right to do whatever they want with their property. Your right to do whatever you want with your factory should be tempered with other's rights. Just because we don't recognize those rights of workers doesn't mean that they don't exist.
It depends on how you describe an economy. Your definition of "economy" seems to be from the CEO's point of view and that is, the profits generated. However, if we come up with a sane view of the economy, and that is, how people are doing, then we realize that offshoring is insane from an economic viewpoint, since it is creating great wealth inequality and economic turmoil in both 1st world countries and the 3rd world countries that are being outsourced too. The development is highly unstable, and is causing a great amount of turmoil, all for a quick buck.
As far as the constitution goes, who cares? Was there a consitutional basis for ending slavery? or allowing women to vote? Actually, yes there is, it's called the ammendment process. But, it's beside the point. The founding father's of the US constitution based their belief in rights on the idea that a magical supreme being endowned us with those right. i.e. "that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights". What this means is that there is no rational or logical basis for rights. They are merely a social contract, to be ammended by the people as necessary.
As far as why one shouldn't demand cheaper products, you need to examine this rational on a case by case basis. If "cheaper" means that it's being produced by Chinese prison labor rather than by Americans then that's a pretty damn good reason if you ask me. Americans buy cheaper products because capitalism hides these crimes, not because they knowingly support prison labor, sweatshops, toxic waste, and other abominations.
Exactly! Commodities aren't supposed to complain. If I take my car across the country, does it complain that it had to move across the country with me? Of course not! Let's just treat people like commodities, that's a great idea, and as a commodities, he's not supposed to complain about what the market requires of him.
Right, not only that, but if you ever read any Chomsky, a lot of the countries that free marketeers describe as economic miracles and examples of the free market, actually got that way through highly protectionist measures. Think, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. All the countries in South America that actually follow US economic policies are a complete disaster.
can you explain what makes "rational" self interest more "rational" than something like "rational group interest"? Rand's philosophy is nothing more than a (horrible) value system presented in the guise of logic.
sponsored innovation, much in the same way that W hides behind the troops when he is criticized for the war in Iraq, or the CEO of Walmart hides behind his employees when Walmart is criticized (i.e. "I think our associates do an oustanding job." in response to the criticism that Walmart pays oppressively low wages to their employees).
In other words, the corporate lobby that wants these patents is basically taking credit for innovation, much of which is payed for by the US government. They are using this as evidence that they deserve even more rights. There is no justification for giving corporations these kinds of rights.