Why Obama's Association with Bill Ayers should disqualify him from the Presidency
I've heard several people claim that it is unfair for John McCain and Sarah Palin to attack Barack Obama over his association with Bill Ayers. They say alternately that the association was not a close one, or that Bill Ayers is a perfectly respectable figure in Chicago politics who many people associated with
( Read more... )
If you don't have a better alternative, then all your verbiage amounts to meaningless griping -- a man saying "Damn, it's hot today!" while doing nothing to either change the weather or seek the shade. Logically, when presented with a number of choices, such as between political systems, one chooses the best of the AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES, one does not whine "I don't like any of these" and sulk. And if one does so, one would be a fool to expect others to mistake this sulk for a well-thought-out political position.
I have studied history, I am aware of many political systems which have existed or been proposed. Of these, the one which seems to have worked best now, and have the best chance of working well in the future, is liberal democracy with respect for the life, liberty and property of its citizens central to its constitution. Hence, I align myself with this system, and oppose myself to others in proportion to the degree with which they differ (so I oppose "social democracy" mildly and "totalitarian dictatorship" strongly).
This, I submit, is the behavior of a rational man, who must deal with reality rather than merely whine about its imperfections.
Reply
Logically, when presented with a number of choices, such as between political systems, one chooses the best of the AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES...
And who presents me with these choices, if not my fellow men - specifically, those who would rule over me? And why are they any more fit to impose their social arrangements onto me than I am to impose mine onto them? I refuse to make a choice between political systems because I choose to reject politics, i.e. institutionalized murder, robbery and fraud. If asked by a sadistic doctor to choose, out of myriad horrible diseases, the one with which I would like myself and others to be afflicted, I would likewise reject such a self-destructive choice, and choose to remain healthy instead.
...the one which seems to have worked best now, and have the best chance of working well in the future, is liberal democracy with respect for the life, liberty and property of its citizens central to its constitution.
If you believe, regardless of what the Constitution says, that the U.S. government, taken as a whole, has respect for the life, liberty and property of its subjects, then we must have a very different understanding of how such respect would manifest itself. Of course, there are and have been more vicious governments in the world. To this point, I say: give it time.
I suspect that you are simply impatient -- you want total change now.
Allow me put this in perspective. The American colonists seceded from the British empire over 200 years ago, mainly in protest of minor tariffs, and the warrantless searches and denial of habeas corpus by agents of the king that followed as measures of enforcement.
Today's U.S. government, properly considered, consumes well over half of the national income. It interferes in almost every aspect of economic life. It wages destructive, unnecessary wars and secretly meddles in the political affairs of other nations, thereby endangering its own subjects. And now, we have warrantless searches and the denial of habeas corpus, as well as torture made official policy. To wit, it is as bad as - and in many ways, far worse than - the British rule overthrown by the colonists. And getting worse. So, in the long run, very little of substance changes for the better.
Or, alternatively, it may be that most of the people are (reasonably, not perfectly) satisfied with life in a modern liberal democracy, and regard radical change as being more likely to make their own lives worse than better.
So, the fact that the major news media, which exchanges compliance for access to the power elite, and from which most people heretofore have derived their knowledge of current affairs, allows only a narrow range of views to be aired, has nothing to do with the popular acceptance of, or resignation to, the status quo? You don't really believe that, do you? Or what about the government-funded schools? Do we expect them to challenge the system that enriches the unionized, state-employed teachers and administrators? Isn't it unfair to expect me to change people's minds while I, along with everyone else, is being robbed to fund a massive, ongoing propaganda effort in favor of the current system? It's a bit rigged, don't you think?
So would your anarchy, even if it managed to avoid the likely fate of most anarchies -- disintegration in the war of all against all.
I never presented to you a proposal for "anarchy," whatever is meant by that. I believe in changing oneself, over whom one may legitimately exercise control. This begins with changing one's mind, after which will follow a change in behavior. It is one thing to accept things as they are. I do, and have no illusions about "changing the world." But it is another thing entirely to, uncoerced, defend, cheerlead and partake in the plunder and butchery of the evil and/or insane men who rule over us, and to propagate the mythology that legitimizes their immoral behavior. That, I won't do.
Reply
Reality, of which your fellow men are a part, presents you with these choices. Reality creates the need for human organization to avoid, at a minimum, a confused scramble over resources without any way of registering property claims; and at a maximum, deliberate violence exercised to deprive others of their rights to life, liberty and property.
It is not just "those who would rule over you," but also those who would merely rob you to enrich themselves, or harm or kill you simply for the sheer joy of doing so. Given human nature, some sort of government is an unavoidable necessity.
And why are they any more fit to impose their social arrangements onto me than I am to impose mine onto them?
You are all equally fit. However, you are one: the entire rest of the human race is many. This, too, is part of reality.
If asked by a sadistic doctor to choose, out of myriad horrible diseases, the one with which I would like myself and others to be afflicted, I would likewise reject such a self-destructive choice, and choose to remain healthy instead.
Interestingly, the human body lives with numerous non-human organisms that dwell within it. Every one of these started as parasites: many have become harmless commensalists, and some have become symbionts useful or even vital to our own survival.
Government is not a disease, it is a necessity. Your only real choice is which government, and how it is to be chosen, composed and regulated. This is imposed not by malice, but by the nature of reality.
If you believe, regardless of what the Constitution says, that the U.S. government, taken as a whole, has respect for the life, liberty and property of its subjects, then we must have a very different understanding of how such respect would manifest itself.
It has the most respect for the life, liberty and property of its citizens (not "subjects") of any government which has ever actually been instituted. It is not perfect in this regard, but perfection is unattainable.
I actually agree with you that the US government has (over the last 200 years) in some respects fallen away from its original ideals. OTOH, it has in other respects approached them more closely.
In the long run, we will probably decline into some form of authoritarian dictatorship. But that is because authoritarian dictatorship is the default form of government.
So, the fact that the major news media, which exchanges compliance for access to the power elite, and from which most people heretofore have derived their knowledge of current affairs, allows only a narrow range of views to be aired, has nothing to do with the popular acceptance of, or resignation to, the status quo? You don't really believe that, do you?
No, I really believe that it is a cyclic system, with the media affecting the people and the people affecting the media. I know for certain that there is very little popular support for greatly changing the form of the US Government, and even less for abolishing it entirely.
That is the popular opinion. You may protest that it has been formed unfairly, and that people "really" want what you want, if they only knew it. But this begs the question as to why your opinion is to be taken as governing theirs.
You are coming close to expressing Dr. Horrible Anarchism, aka
"Anarchy/run by me"
which, as Joss Whedon fully understood when he wrote the lines, is a contradiction in terms.
Reply
It is certainly desirable to avoid the conditions you have described, but governments achieve no such result. On the contrary, they are the perpetrators of violence exercised to deprive others of their rights to life, liberty and property, and to a much greater extent than are the small-time criminals from whom they purport to protect us. They are the principle source of economic, and thus social, disorder.
As for the state's claims that it shields us from the predations of other, more vicious states, such claims hardly stand up to historical examination. The U.S. government has repeatedly, against the interests of its subjects (and I use that word deliberately), delivered them into the danger and wholesale slaughter of conflicts between foreign powers. This policy is not a result of the public will, as you seem to believe. For two examples, both Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt won the presidency on promises to keep the American people out of foreign wars, and both worked tirelessly, behind the scenes, to pull their country into such wars.
Did the American voter choose for the CIA to overthrow the political regimes of Iran (1953) and Chile (1973), to name but two examples of which few Americans are even aware; or for the same agency to meddle in the recent Ukranian elections? Do these activities help ensure the safety and well-being of the American people, or, to the contrary, do they engender hatred and hostility towards Americans among the affected foreign peoples? To ask this question is to answer it. So why does this go on and on?
The answer: Government does not exist to serve the interests of the governed. "Governed" is a euphemism for "ruled." Rulers regard those whom they rule as property. Property serves the interests of its owners, not the other way around.
(Continued in next post.)
Reply
You are making the rather huge assumption that, if governments did not exist, all we would have to deal with would be "small-time criminals." Absent governmental interference, there would be nothing to stop said "small-time criminals" from growing into bigger and bigger organizations, until they BECAME states.
Our states, especially in the Western world, have co-evolved with our cultures over extensive periods of time and become relatively symbiotic with their citizenries. The sort of nascent states which would be formed by expanding criminal gangs would in all probability be far more malign, as is demonstrable from the historical examples of situations in which state authority has broken down over wide areas.
You would not be merely worrying about getting mugged or burglarized. You would be worrying about a brigand band moving into your neighborhood, occupying your house and taking everything that you owned, for no better reason than because it could get away with it.
As for the state's claims that it shields us from the predations of other, more vicious states, such claims hardly stand up to historical examination.
[Anonymous then proceeds to talk about America in the World Wars and in the Third World].
First of all, "the state" is a more general class of entity than the United States of America. Your intense focus on the US is a good example of the "Only America Is Real" delusion.
Secondly, of course America has acted to protect its people from the predations of other states. In particular, it was doing so in both World Wars (especially WWII) and in the Cold War. The predatory states in those instances were Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union.
Do these activities help ensure the safety and well-being of the American people, or, to the contrary, do they engender hatred and hostility towards Americans among the affected foreign peoples? To ask this question is to answer it. So why does this go on and on?
Because "to ask this question" is not to "answer it." The US by overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953 helped keep the Soviets out of the Persian Gulf, which ensured cheap oil for the next two decades, which in turn fostered the growth of our economy. The US by overthrowing Allende in 1973 prevented the Soviets from gaining a foothold in South America, which helped us win the Cold War. You assume that these actions were done from a callous disregard of American interests; they were instead done from the desire to promote such interests.
The answer: Government does not exist to serve the interests of the governed. "Governed" is a euphemism for "ruled." Rulers regard those whom they rule as property. Property serves the interests of its owners, not the other way around.
Then why isn't anarchy breaking out almost everywhere? Clearly, most people don't agree with you.
Reply
You would suffer far worse under the rule of the Weathermen than you do under the modern US government.
Now, it's true that the Weathermen had no chance of succeeding. But again: incompetence is not innocence. Nor even its close cousin.
Reply
Government is no more a necessity than are its constituent activities: murder, robbery, fraud, kidnapping and enslavement. All of the above have long plagued the human experience, such is the nature of man, but few would argue that we "need" them.
Furthermore, your "choice" as to which government you have, and the particulars concerning it, is illusory at best. The chance of your vote influencing the outcome of an election is statistically somewhere between "getting struck by lightning," and zero. And even if "your" guy gets in, there's no telling what he'll do, campaign promises notwithstanding. Remember, even this so-called "choice" is between a few candidates vetted by an establishment to which you are nothing but a cash cow and potential cannon fodder. I suppose you can move to live somewhere else, so long as that is still allowed.
Luckily, the nature of reality is such that you do have a choice to free your mind even as your body is enslaved. You don't have to believe the government's fairy tales about itself. You don't have to be a cheerleader and apologist for your own fleecing. Instead of gazing upon your rulers in awe and admiration, you might feel contempt for them, or even pity. And you could stop worshiping the professional killers they hire to keep you in line, and whom they pay to do so with money stolen from you.
If it is too much for you to see things as they are, and to not be fooled by euphemistic labels and propaganda -- that is, if you can't change your own mind -- then yes, you should get used to the way things are, because you will have no reason to expect others to change their minds. And without a change of mind, nothing will change, because behavior follows thought. So long as people think this is the best they can do, it will be so.
Reply
Government is a necessity because anarchy is not an evolutionarily stable system. Do you understand what that means?
An "evolutionarily stable system" is one which can defend itself against those competitors likely to arise.
The problem with anarchy is that violent individuals will arise within it and organize to create, first, criminal organizations, which will develop into states. These states are likely to treat their subjects far worse than do modern Western liberal democracies, for the very good reason that modern Western liberal democracies treat their citizens far better than is the historical norm.
How would an anarchy prevent states from arising out of itself? If you can't answer this question, then you can't logically argue that government is unnecessary -- in fact, it is "necessary" for exactly the same reason that, say, the food chain or gravity are necessary. It springs from natural laws.
Furthermore, your "choice" as to which government you have, and the particulars concerning it, is illusory at best. The chance of your vote influencing the outcome of an election is statistically somewhere between "getting struck by lightning," and zero.
The choice is collective, but a collective is simply a number of individuals. If we fight for and protect liberal democracy, and succeed, we will be better off than if we fight for and protect totalitarian dictatorship, and succeed.
Remember, even this so-called "choice" is between a few candidates vetted by an establishment to which you are nothing but a cash cow and potential cannon fodder. I suppose you can move to live somewhere else, so long as that is still allowed.
Where is this "somewhere" else that you believe you could live under anarchy? Again, I detect "Only America Is Real" -- in fact, if you lived somewhere else, you'd be living under some other government -- and most states treat their people worse than does America.
If it is too much for you to see things as they are, and to not be fooled by euphemistic labels and propaganda -- that is, if you can't change your own mind -- then yes, you should get used to the way things are, because you will have no reason to expect others to change their minds. And without a change of mind, nothing will change, because behavior follows thought. So long as people think this is the best they can do, it will be so.
Suppose that you could wave a magic wand and get some ridiculously high percentage of the people -- say, 90% -- of the whole world to agree with you regarding the evils of all government. And they decided to do away with all government.
How could you prevent the 10% who were willing to form and enforce governments from simply taking over?
Reply
You have grasped that governments are an evil, that their power derives from force. But what is your alternative?
I see no alternative either. Since there is no visible alternative to government, I choose to support that form of government which is the least evil and oppressive -- liberal democracy.
As opposed to what, you might ask? As opposed to, say, totalitarian dictatorships of various political stripes. Or even "social democracy," which is democracy with less economic freedom.
I could choose to emigrate to a dictatorship or a less free democracy. I don't, in part because I like the system of government that we have in America better than those alternatives.
Your fantasy about "others changing their minds" is and must remain a pipe dream as long as you have failed to propose a viable alternative. Others changing their minds to "Gee, it would be nice if we had no government" accomplishes nothing good if the abolition of the liberal democracy under which you live now is simply to be the rise of warlordism and feudal dictatorships, as would almost certainly be the case.
If you have a specific system of anarchy in mind, argue for it. If not, stop complaining about the existence of government. Absent any alternative, it's like complaining about the existence of death. Tiresome, and does nothing to improve the quality of life.
Reply
If by "anarchy," you mean the absence of a single, final, monopolistic arbitrator in matters of justice, then you are describing the situation that currently prevails in the relations between states. Do you think a one-world government would be preferable to this inter-state anarchy?
You are right that if, in a given territory, the state suddenly disappeared, another criminal gang would eventually take its place. But, as you yourself have acknowledged, the current government of the United States will most likely devolve into an overtly authoritarian regime in due time. So, clearly, your favored system is no more sustainable than a condition of statelessness.
The reason I won't answer your call for a better system is because I disagree with the whole premise of the question. I have no more to solve the problem of states than you have to solve the problem of murder. That murder is in the nature of man, and cannot be eliminated from the world, does not make it good or worthy of support, even in a relative sense (i.e. murder one because you think it will save ten). To the extent that people recognize it as evil, and consequently will have nothing to do with it, the world is a better place.
I know, as surely as I can know anything, that we reap what we sow, that our ends are preexistent in the means that we choose. That is the iron law of the moral universe. The mythology of the state is that we "need" a little bit of evil to fight a bigger evil. In other words, a utilitarian argument. But such arguments are unprovable. Who is to say that a worse outcome would result from laying down our arms and welcoming the invading army, than from submitting to taxation and conscription by our rulers, and fighting the enemy to the death?
I'm not arguing for either choice, or even that these are the only choices available. Rather, the desirability of each outcome would depend on the circumstances and subjective valuations of each individual. So a utilitarian policy is impossible, except in the sense of serving the interests of one group at the expense of another.
As an individual, I choose not to pursue evil means, or to argue for them. That means no support for states, at all.
Reply
Leave a comment