[PLUG] PLUG meeting

[Jeme A Brelin]

On 9 Dec 2002, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-12-07 at 14:53, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> > To say that capitalists are greedy is a truism.  As one philosopher put
> > it, "Asking a capitalist to be less greedy is exactly the same as asking a
> > totalitarian system to be less brutal.  The question isn't "how do we make 
> > private power less greedy and brutal?"  But "how do we get rid of it?""
> 
> Not all capitalists are greedy, that is why I made a distinction
> between them and Greed-Capitalists.

Capitalists are those who exploit the labor of others for profit.  They
believe that the value of an item is the greatest price at which a buyer
can be found.  That's greedy.

I would argue that the value of an item is the lowest price at which you
would be able to part with it.  That's not greedy.

> What I am trying to convey (my nomenclature re classes of
> "capitalists" may well be in need of revision) is that just because
> you sell a product for profit does not mean you are an evil greedy
> daddy war bucks who doesn't care about the welfare of his labor, or
> the health of the global ecosystem.

Mercantilism isn't the same as capitalism.  Trade is not necessarily
capitalism.

If a worker or collection of workers buy materials with their own funds,
manipulates those materials into other goods, sells those goods at market,
then redistributes the proceeds to those whose labor produced the goods
and brought them to market, that's not capitalism and there was no profit
(just as you do not say that your paycheck is "profit", but wages).  
Profits are the proceeds remaining AFTER the costs of production INCLUDING
LABOR have been paid.  The man holding profits is the man holding money
that was not the result of labor.  Profits are the result of withholding
funds from those who worked for them.

A capitalist is greedy because a capitalist wants profits (i.e. to take
what others have worked for).

> Just becuase the newly deprecated legacy product you sell presently is
> no longer viewed as acceptable does not mean you are behind the
> times...

No?  That confuses me.

> well, they sell oil because that's all there is right now.  That can
> change, but not overnight.  It's not an easy problem to solve, you
> know.  There are many many engineering and logistics problems involved
> that are way beyond the comprehension of your average tree hugging
> pedestrian.

I think everyone reading this is intelligent enough to know that there are
all kind of practical concerns that prevent us from dropping fossil fuels
tomorrow.

> I suppose that not all totalitarian systems need be brutal either.

A totalitarian regime takes power from people and wields it against them.  
There is nothing more brutal.

> Nor all facist regimes evil.

Fascism is evil (regardless of ideology) because it strips people of their
individual freedom.

I had this discussion with a dear friend just Saturday night (after
watching Revolution OS at the Clinton, actually, but I don't think those
two things are related).  I think I've come to believe that evil is the
result of inequity of power in all cases.  Evil is everything that the
powerful do to the powerless (short of returning their power).  Good is
anything that promotes equitable power relationships.

The interesting conundrum (and the one that has bothered philosophers
since the beginning of human reason, I would imagine) is how to stop evil
actions without being evil.  The only rational answer is to ignore evil
and encourage goodness.  The result will hopefully be a restoration of
acceptable power relationships.

> Would a benevolent pot smoking dictator or a totally libertarian free
> for all anarchy please all of the people?

A civil anarchy would please everyone but those who would like to wield
power over others.

> There has to be law, order, and coordination of efforts, but there's a
> limit to what a government can (not should) practically regulate.

I'd disagree that there _has to be_ law.  I think order is a side-effect
of the coordination of efforts that is natural in humanity.

To me, government (as an organization) exists only as the agency of the
people.  It is not the role of government to regulate, but to be
regulated.  It is the responsibility of people to regulate themselves.

> We don't place all power in a king or dictator because we know that
> some men are not responsible given power.  Even our president is bound
> by law.

For the eleventy-billionth time on this list, I'll go ahead and quote the
principle author of the Constitution of the United States of America in
one of his statements to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia:

  "The purpose of government is to protect the opulent minority from the
majority."

The result of the system this man put in place (which guarantees political
rights, but had to be amended by Jefferson to ensure civil rights and
totally ignores economic rights) is a State whose primary purpose is to
transfer public funds to private power.  This is the exact opposite of the
ideals of the Enlightenment in which the United States was conceived; to
empower every person and remove the inequities that have shackled the
majority since the beginning of civilization.

I'll finish this bit with the words of Thomas Jefferson himself:

"The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs nor a
favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them."

"We should oppose a single and splendid government founded on banking
institutions and monied in corporations."

It's sad that the most enlightened of the founders still appears radical
two hundred years later.

> > > And to take that target on their backs seriously enough to keep an eye
> > > on who might in reality be an enemy of freedom and liberty.
> > 
> > I highly recommend everyone hear read this page:
> > <URL: http://www.darpa.mil/iao/ >
> > 
> > Tell me this isn't the most aggressive and straightforward fascist agenda
> > you've ever read.  (Have you ever read a self-published fascist
> > agenda?  HINT:  They sound just like that page.)
> 
> I don't read fascism into that page, Jeme.

You don't need to read fascism into it, it's there on the page staring
back at you.

Again, read something written by self-proclaimed fascists and you'll
recognize the similarities.

The idea behind all of this is that "we" are universally threatened by
amorphous, undefinable demons whose agenda and motives are totally
unspecified.  The entire purpose of this agency is to strike down dissent
within the United States itself.  The enemy is unspecified because the
enemy is whoever they want it to be at the moment.

> Wanting to find ways to protect your homeland and children is not
> fascist any more than being a strict parent is, perhaps.

I'm sure that's exactly what the Germans and Italians told themselves in
the 1930s.  "We are only protecting our homeland."

> I have nothing to hide, and am not really paranoid enough... paranoid
> enough... to believe that "homeland security" or "DARPA" is our worst
> nightmare. If they see this thread, I doubt they are going to freak
> out and send a black helicopter unless they need Linux consultants.  
> (Hello to all my friends in domestic surveilance!  Cheap rates!  
> Student labor!)

Whether or not one has something to hide, one must respect those who do.

Remember the words of Martin Niemoeller, a Protestant minister in Nazi
Germany,

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said
nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social
Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a
trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I
did little.

Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me."

> > > Why do freedom and clean air seem so intimately related in my rurally
> > > nurtured mentality?
> > 
> > Because your concept of freedom includes not just your own personal
> > freedom but ensuring the freedom of others.  This is the difference
> > between, for example, Free Software and the merely "open
> > source".  Ensuring the freedom of others is a broad and limiting concept
> > and it includes ensuring the same rights and privileges you have are
> > carried to future generations for all time.  Leaving your progeny with
> > befouled air and impure water and tained soil is to deprive them of the
> > simple things that you obviously took for granted.
> 
> Hmmm.  What do I owe you?  I think that seems right enough.

You don't owe me anything, brother.

But I would appreciate your hand in protecting me (and my children and my
neighbors) against the dread threat to my civil liberties y'all call
"Homeland Security".

> > When GM was found guilty of conpsiring to destroy Chicago's public transit
> > system, the judge fined them $5000 for the damage done because, in his
> > opinion, "the damage is done now".
> 
> Ok, so there was a greed capitalist attempting to create a more
> lucrative market for harmful product.  The least they could do is
> develop zero emissions vehicles FIRST.  Then hire a bunch of drivers
> so we can still read on the way to work or school.

The least the judge SHOULD have done was require GM to restore the system
it destroyed and give it to the people of Chicago.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org