Throwing Myself Into the Debate of Ideas

I have been keeping quiet about the happenings in the world lately and I feel guilty. I see what is happening (Occupy Wall Street, in particular) and I don't think the story ends well. I feel powerless. But we all have a responsibility to join the intellectual debate. All I can do is say what I see and how I see it. I know only, like, 3 people read this but it's the biggest forum I have to carry out my responsibility.

This following is what finally cracked me:

Watch this:

PROTECT IP Act Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on ">Vimeo.

Now, read this.

Both of these were posted on facebook today by my nephew's old girlfriend. She is brilliant! Truly. I love her. She is amazing, just like Jake. But the two posts are contradictory... Perfectly exemplary of the illogic I see in the OWS protests.

On one hand is the video promoting the kill of the Protect IP bill. I agree. It should be killed. (Intellectual property is one thing my perspective has evolved on. But I still need help with that...more on that some other time.)

Points of interest in the video are:

"...won't stop piracy but WILL introduce vast potential for censorship abuse..."

"...even if you trust the US government to not abuse their power to censor the net...other countries will copy our laws..."

(That second one is particularly laughable. You know, because power doesn't corrupt Americans...wtf?!)


And now to the article about vegetable pizza, points of interest being:

"...This sort of makes it sound like local school districts would be serving heirloom tomatoes and quinoa if the federal government just got out of the way. At any rate, I'd recommend that you remember this the next time you hear someone say that the government should get out of the business of "picking winners and losers." (Winner: salt! Loser: fighting obesity!)"

"In addition to this, the move to classify pizza as a vegetable gained traction because of popular, reality-transforming political philosophies on the role of government."


Is it just me?

No! It is contradictory. It seems impossible that both of these were posted by the same really smart person as, I'm assuming, representing her view. Unless she posted them to show her two totally different views.

DO YOU WANT THE STATE TO HAVE MORE ARBITRARY POWER OR NOT?

Okay, this is going to be difficult to articulate. Deep breath aaaand, here we go...

It is clear we have a revolution on our hands. Anyone else stay awake through their history lessons?

What kind or revolution, you ask?

Gee, I dunno. Let's redirect to the OWS website, shall we?

Hmmm, where have I seen that clenched-fist imagery before? Hmmm, looks familiar but I can't quite... wait... wait a second...

Maybe the slogans in bold will give us more clues.

The revolution continues worldwide!

The only solution is world revolution!

Blah, blah, blah, social justice, blah, blah, blah.

I get the funny feeling this isn't a revolution calling for the repair of our original constitution, rather, the destruction of anything resembling it. And worldwide, too! Oh, goody!

I see the sings the OWS people are carrying.
A lot of the complaints are valid. Wall Street is corrupt. Bankers did have a role in trashing the economy. Laws are bought by corporations through lobbyists, etc. Congress is corrupt and obsolete. My vote is an illusion.

So, the people are ticked. We've established that. So, how do they want to fix it? Generally, they're calling for more power to be given to government so they can take from the rich and give it to them. That really sums it up.

Here's how the illogical thought process goes...

Bankers and corporations are evil. They steal my money and buy my legislators. They have too much power and are corrupt. I want to give more power to the State so they can fix it and make the game fair. (The first 3 sentences are accurate. The conclusion drawn in sentence 4 is illogical.)

This logic operates under the premise that power doesn't corrupt individuals if they are standing underneath the government umbrella.

Power corrupts. People abuse it. Period.

Shouldn't we be trying to take power away from everyone? Especially from the hands of government?

I think people get confused because the complaints are valid. Our current form of capitalism and government is corrupt. People recognize that and then errantly draw the conclusion that capitalism must not be working and we must need the opposite...socialism. When really, that will be just more of the same. We need a libertarian revolution. We need to get back to what the country was founded as... before laws could be bought. Which, trust me, they've been being bought for, oh... almost right out of the gates... like for 150 years now. We need true capitalism, not crony. And NOT socialism.

_____________________

It was just after that philosophy class at DSC we all took together that I sank deep into my objectivist phase.

This was when I had no car so I would walk to that weird little book store on main street to browse. There are all those weird upstairs rooms with places to read that made me feel like I was on The Neverending Story. Plus, the big guy... and the smell... and the mystery of how he got in/out or if he just went in thin and started eating... it all just added to the mysterious experience.

I picked up this book lots of times but always put it back in favor of something else. (You see, my Ayn Rand phase was concurrent with my Richard Bach phase.)

So one day Janna comes down from Salt Lake with her boyfriend Mike. (This was the very first time I met him.) We were all going to Havasupai the next day and they were looking to kill time when I suggested they peruse the stinky book store. They go. They come home. I say, "What did you get?" Mike says, "This." And briefly flashed the book I'd considered and held in my hands for months. (I knew we would be great friends then.)

And ten years later, I borrowed it from him and finally read it.

And you should, too. It gave me a perfect understanding of what unadulterated capitalism would look like and that we do not have it! (But were meant to.) Not even close. We are slip slidin' to socialism and have been nearly since the beginning. (We should believe her. Soviet Union?!)

OWS... Capitalism is corrupt. We must need socialism, right? WRONG! We need real capitalism. A libertarian revolution. No special deals for special people. No lobbyists. No Federal Reserve. No welfare. No minimum wage. (most gasp in horror when I suggest that one.) No subsidies. No incentives. Flat tax. Looser borders. (You don't need to gasp again...remember... no welfare.) No war machine. Legalize drugs.

But, Alana. Don't we need more regulations? Especially in banking because what those bankers did wasn't even illegal and it ruined us?

Make all the laws you want, regulate to the hilt. And guess what? People will always find a way to cheat. Don't chain finance's ankles to a ball because its fingers will still be doing dirty things.

___________________________

And suddenly, folks, I have no idea what I was talking about.

___________________________

The right way to do this would be to bite off a little at a time, writing one concise post a day with an obvious beginning, middle, end, and point. But, alas, I find that impossible. I know I'll wake up tomorrow and think what in. the. sam. hell. was that?


We had a classic Jacobsen dinner at my house tonight. I didn't throw any rolls at anyone's face this time but we didn't talk about the weather, either. We always laugh that we're all so opinionated. And my family loooooves a heated debate. It gets loud. We raise the roof.

I was trying especially hard to get Mike to admit the general tone of OWS is a socialist revolution. It is textbook class warfare. Most people down there (as in any movement of the masses) don't know what the heck is going on. All they know is they are ticked and it has something to do with the corrupt machine. But they had all better decide how they want to fix it. And I demand it be logical.

There are people with real power and real money that use masses for their ends. And if your premises and solutions are not clearly defined, you will only be a pawn in the hand of someone that DOES HAVE a clearly defined goal. (Nothing sinister. Just global socialism.)

I don't think this will end well. And I'm pretty much powerless. All I can do is throw myself into the debate of ideas. It's my responsibility to do so.

1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.

2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.

3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

-Ayn Rand.

Nicole, did you read that book I gave you yet?

From the vison of Charles D. Evans:

Thou beholdest a change. Confidence is lost. Wealth is arrayed against labor, labor against wealth, yet the land abounds with plenty for food and raiment, and silver and gold are in abundance. Thou seest also that letters written by a Jew (Bernanke?) have wrought great confusion in the finances of the nation which, together with the policy of many wealthy ones, has produced distress and do presage further sorrow.

Factions now sprang up as if by magic: capital had entrenched itself against labor throughout the land; labor was organized against capital. The voice of the wise sought to tranquilize these two powerful forces in vain. Excited multitudes ran wildly about; strikes increased; lawlessness sought the place of regular government.