In Which The Author Finally Shows That He Isn't Uber Super Crazy Stupid Liberal Anymore, Or Somethin
So, here's the latest installment of my political essays for me to work out these things in a coherent form in my head, written mainly because I just drank a Monster and my heart is racing like a pedophile in a preschool.
So, after the best discussion I've had in years with Liam looking at Jersey City in NYC, let's lay some things down.
- There can be too much democracy. I mean it. The current American political climate is too democratic, in a basest sense. More specifically, I mean what Madison called 'special interests' have a dominant position in the workings of our government. Our politicians, and this goes for other places besides the USA (the UN, soon to be the WTO, etc), are so damn responsive to public whims nowadays, due to the democratisation movement in the 60s and 70s that they have become more and more ineffective. I'm not saying openness is a bad thing. I'm saying knee jerk response to public opinion, opinion which is uninformed typically and the response to which typically gives a simple solution to a complex problem to be sorted out by future generations, is. Furthermore, this democratisation of politics could be called anti-democratic, in the sense that majority rule produces, instead of rule by the General Will (Rousseau FTW), rule by the varied and multiple special interests. Lobbies. Lobbies are the evil of our society, and I mean them all: Greenpeace, FCNL (or whatever that is), the Project for the New American Century, union labour, Christian groups, the Project to Not Have Pets' Ears Clipped, what the fuck ever. To be precise, we have given specific groups, with strong beliefs on specific subjects, the ability to coerce our politicians. What does it matter to you or I if a .01 dollar tax is levied on people who buy non-union labour products? We do not realistically lose out. On the other hand, Union Labour (this is an example) gains significantly. Times this situation by a few thousand lobbies, and each new law is filled with so many caveats addendums and what have you that it is utterly useless.
And the Supreme Court runs so well PRECISELY because it is undemocratic in a basic sense: experts are chosen (yes, due to ideology from their chosers. They're still fucking experts, you nor I nor Nader could not do better) due to their knowledge, not their charisma or ability to promise things to an electorate. And, by the by, these undemocratic bodies in our government (The Fed, also, falls under the definition of a 'undemocratic organisation' that runs very, very very well. Compare the Fed's record to that of California's state legislature) still have, as masters and governing bodies, democratically elected officials and organisations.
That was domestic. Internationally, societies that have democracy foisted upon them typically fail. Rather, societies that do not have a strong tradition of constitutionalism and rule of law, but are made to or adopt democracy typically fail. Japan had such a tradition. Iraq does not. Look to the Balkan states, or to the varied ex-Soviet republics (both examples had some tradition of constitutionalism): majority rule elected tyrants, racists, fascists... democratic rule created genocide. Africa speaks for itself on this. A nation MUST first respect law, protect its minorities, and have a functioning state before it can have democracy.
So, according to me, liberal (the addition of this word indicates a democracy where rule of law is strong. Not one in which rule of hippie-ness is strong) democracy is not the end all. It is not a virtue in itself. It is not even, perhaps, the best form of government. On the other hand, it is the best we have yet seen.
- Here's a break from EC and AC: the West has, in general, the best form of government on the planet. Also, the best form of economics. I, personally, prefer the European model (more respect to community oriented rights, more restraint of pure capitalistic impulses, more welfare state, more inter-governmental bodies. Hotter women.), but that's just a preference. Discussing the evils of the world with Liam, it seems clear to me that, compared to all the ages before us, the world is a better place. More peaceful (though we can kill more people at once). More prosperous (yes, there are areas of poverty. Poverty, by the way, measured against the West. But overall, and even in the poorest areas, the world is more prosperous). Less tyranny. Do we die at 20 from childhood diseases, or being eaten by a big fuckin' panther? No. That trumps all this bullshit we hear about hunter-gathering being the pure form of life. On the other hand, I can see no basic change in the condition of humanity, or rather, the moral/ethical/spiritual condition of humanity, in all our history. Now we just have 50 more years to ask questions. Which I regard as a plus. It is no accident, and not entirely due to post-colonialism, that the rest of the world is trying to copy the model of the West.
- Nature is not the world we should look to in order to develop our morality. It is, in fact, what we should look to to gain our opinion on what 'evil' is. Yes, fuck you, I said it. Nature, by nature (I made a funny) is competitive, brutal, nasty, and cruel. Monkeys of both genders slaughter the infants of other parents. Male chimps kill offspring of females that do not have the male's genes. Orca whales torture some seals before killing them. Birds cull their children according to who is a burden on the resource load. Our genes give one certain imperative: reproduce. Defend your offspring by whatever means necessary. Be nasty to outsiders, outside of a close gene pool. Cheat the system when you can. Yes, within nature there is beauty. But it is accidental beauty: the glory of a well organised battlefield. Our genes impell us towards purely selfish desires, and this is precisely what we must, MUST, combat in ourselves to perhaps... perhaps... reach beyond our animal heritage and be worthy of the appellation 'sentient'. Greenpeace and environmentalists are full of shit on this issue. Nature shows on the Discovery Channel are propaganda, designed solely to show us the good, the beautiful, and the interestingly cruel. Darwinism, at least as he concieved it, is not the end-all of our current biological thought. Some of what we have discovered in the last fifty years points us to worse than his 'survival of the fittest' ideas. We are animals, but animals that have a chance to get out of this cycle. I intend to make the attempt.
- Environmentalism as practiced today is, typically, hypocritical. 'Save the Planet' means 'Save the Planet So We Can Live On It Later And Not Die Of Heat'. Greenpeace (wow, I'm really fucking these guys tonight) seems to want us to think that the Earth is some thinking organism, or sentient being, and that saving it is an end in itself. A moral imperative. What they really mean, of course, and this is not illogical or unreasonable, is that sustainable living should be practiced so we can live at the same standard of living we now enjoy later on. Fuck the planet as itself, SAVE THE FUCKING HUMANS. This final point, I agree with. Let's save the fucking humans. But please, please, can we drop this bullshit of the blue wonderful earth singing us to sleep every night. You're never going to get fat Texan oil execs to believe that shit, never going to make ANY headway with that. But a more "Save the Planet So You Don't Fry Like The Pig You Are, Fucker" approach might work.
-Fuck Hezbollah. The fact that they kidnapped Israelis, KNOWING what would happen (holy shit, they were given proof of the effects of kidnapping Israeli soldiers in Palestine) to civilians, indicates that they don't give a shit about the people in Lebanon they have a responsibility to protect and care for. They are illegitimate power hungry fuckers. Yes, Lebanon has a right to defend itself, like every nation in the world (although I dunno if nation-state is a term I would apply to Lebanon right now. Its like three nations within one state). So does Israel. And I think Israel, unlike the Hezbollah controllers of southern Lebanon, do care for their people, and I know they are a legitimate government. Fuck them.
My problem with the left today, and I keep repeating myself on this, is that we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot. It's been said of Palestinians that they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. We never miss an opportunity to sound like whiny, rich, white, hypocritical cowards. Go us.
So, after the best discussion I've had in years with Liam looking at Jersey City in NYC, let's lay some things down.
- There can be too much democracy. I mean it. The current American political climate is too democratic, in a basest sense. More specifically, I mean what Madison called 'special interests' have a dominant position in the workings of our government. Our politicians, and this goes for other places besides the USA (the UN, soon to be the WTO, etc), are so damn responsive to public whims nowadays, due to the democratisation movement in the 60s and 70s that they have become more and more ineffective. I'm not saying openness is a bad thing. I'm saying knee jerk response to public opinion, opinion which is uninformed typically and the response to which typically gives a simple solution to a complex problem to be sorted out by future generations, is. Furthermore, this democratisation of politics could be called anti-democratic, in the sense that majority rule produces, instead of rule by the General Will (Rousseau FTW), rule by the varied and multiple special interests. Lobbies. Lobbies are the evil of our society, and I mean them all: Greenpeace, FCNL (or whatever that is), the Project for the New American Century, union labour, Christian groups, the Project to Not Have Pets' Ears Clipped, what the fuck ever. To be precise, we have given specific groups, with strong beliefs on specific subjects, the ability to coerce our politicians. What does it matter to you or I if a .01 dollar tax is levied on people who buy non-union labour products? We do not realistically lose out. On the other hand, Union Labour (this is an example) gains significantly. Times this situation by a few thousand lobbies, and each new law is filled with so many caveats addendums and what have you that it is utterly useless.
And the Supreme Court runs so well PRECISELY because it is undemocratic in a basic sense: experts are chosen (yes, due to ideology from their chosers. They're still fucking experts, you nor I nor Nader could not do better) due to their knowledge, not their charisma or ability to promise things to an electorate. And, by the by, these undemocratic bodies in our government (The Fed, also, falls under the definition of a 'undemocratic organisation' that runs very, very very well. Compare the Fed's record to that of California's state legislature) still have, as masters and governing bodies, democratically elected officials and organisations.
That was domestic. Internationally, societies that have democracy foisted upon them typically fail. Rather, societies that do not have a strong tradition of constitutionalism and rule of law, but are made to or adopt democracy typically fail. Japan had such a tradition. Iraq does not. Look to the Balkan states, or to the varied ex-Soviet republics (both examples had some tradition of constitutionalism): majority rule elected tyrants, racists, fascists... democratic rule created genocide. Africa speaks for itself on this. A nation MUST first respect law, protect its minorities, and have a functioning state before it can have democracy.
So, according to me, liberal (the addition of this word indicates a democracy where rule of law is strong. Not one in which rule of hippie-ness is strong) democracy is not the end all. It is not a virtue in itself. It is not even, perhaps, the best form of government. On the other hand, it is the best we have yet seen.
- Here's a break from EC and AC: the West has, in general, the best form of government on the planet. Also, the best form of economics. I, personally, prefer the European model (more respect to community oriented rights, more restraint of pure capitalistic impulses, more welfare state, more inter-governmental bodies. Hotter women.), but that's just a preference. Discussing the evils of the world with Liam, it seems clear to me that, compared to all the ages before us, the world is a better place. More peaceful (though we can kill more people at once). More prosperous (yes, there are areas of poverty. Poverty, by the way, measured against the West. But overall, and even in the poorest areas, the world is more prosperous). Less tyranny. Do we die at 20 from childhood diseases, or being eaten by a big fuckin' panther? No. That trumps all this bullshit we hear about hunter-gathering being the pure form of life. On the other hand, I can see no basic change in the condition of humanity, or rather, the moral/ethical/spiritual condition of humanity, in all our history. Now we just have 50 more years to ask questions. Which I regard as a plus. It is no accident, and not entirely due to post-colonialism, that the rest of the world is trying to copy the model of the West.
- Nature is not the world we should look to in order to develop our morality. It is, in fact, what we should look to to gain our opinion on what 'evil' is. Yes, fuck you, I said it. Nature, by nature (I made a funny) is competitive, brutal, nasty, and cruel. Monkeys of both genders slaughter the infants of other parents. Male chimps kill offspring of females that do not have the male's genes. Orca whales torture some seals before killing them. Birds cull their children according to who is a burden on the resource load. Our genes give one certain imperative: reproduce. Defend your offspring by whatever means necessary. Be nasty to outsiders, outside of a close gene pool. Cheat the system when you can. Yes, within nature there is beauty. But it is accidental beauty: the glory of a well organised battlefield. Our genes impell us towards purely selfish desires, and this is precisely what we must, MUST, combat in ourselves to perhaps... perhaps... reach beyond our animal heritage and be worthy of the appellation 'sentient'. Greenpeace and environmentalists are full of shit on this issue. Nature shows on the Discovery Channel are propaganda, designed solely to show us the good, the beautiful, and the interestingly cruel. Darwinism, at least as he concieved it, is not the end-all of our current biological thought. Some of what we have discovered in the last fifty years points us to worse than his 'survival of the fittest' ideas. We are animals, but animals that have a chance to get out of this cycle. I intend to make the attempt.
- Environmentalism as practiced today is, typically, hypocritical. 'Save the Planet' means 'Save the Planet So We Can Live On It Later And Not Die Of Heat'. Greenpeace (wow, I'm really fucking these guys tonight) seems to want us to think that the Earth is some thinking organism, or sentient being, and that saving it is an end in itself. A moral imperative. What they really mean, of course, and this is not illogical or unreasonable, is that sustainable living should be practiced so we can live at the same standard of living we now enjoy later on. Fuck the planet as itself, SAVE THE FUCKING HUMANS. This final point, I agree with. Let's save the fucking humans. But please, please, can we drop this bullshit of the blue wonderful earth singing us to sleep every night. You're never going to get fat Texan oil execs to believe that shit, never going to make ANY headway with that. But a more "Save the Planet So You Don't Fry Like The Pig You Are, Fucker" approach might work.
-Fuck Hezbollah. The fact that they kidnapped Israelis, KNOWING what would happen (holy shit, they were given proof of the effects of kidnapping Israeli soldiers in Palestine) to civilians, indicates that they don't give a shit about the people in Lebanon they have a responsibility to protect and care for. They are illegitimate power hungry fuckers. Yes, Lebanon has a right to defend itself, like every nation in the world (although I dunno if nation-state is a term I would apply to Lebanon right now. Its like three nations within one state). So does Israel. And I think Israel, unlike the Hezbollah controllers of southern Lebanon, do care for their people, and I know they are a legitimate government. Fuck them.
My problem with the left today, and I keep repeating myself on this, is that we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot. It's been said of Palestinians that they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. We never miss an opportunity to sound like whiny, rich, white, hypocritical cowards. Go us.