Post Anarchism - #OCCUPYWALLSTREET
America's Decline
“I personally think that we need a third party. I think we are caught in the middle of a corrupt duopoly that cannot get to the right answers anymore because of a lot of deeply embedded things that have happened to American politics. I think we need to blow this system wide open. I hope the Tea Party is just a precursor of something much bigger.”
“I have made a career out of making fun of all the decline warnings that have happened over the last 30 years, but nonetheless I am more pessimistic now than I ever have been before. In part because we have a government problem. As Tom says, we have a duopoly, two parties growing ever more rigid, ever more incapable of functioning. And secondly we have a middle age problem … Mancur Olson wrote a great book called The Rise and Decline of Nations, about how as nations become more middle-aged they become encrusted with arrangements and habits and things which slow them down. And I think that’s happening, certainly on a governmental level, the crony capitalism that is now the norm in Washington. And I think it’s happening economically, the decline in small business formation, the stagnation of middle-class wages. These are long-term, not cyclical, problems. So I’m much more pessimistic than I was, and see a potential at least for some absolute decline without some sort of gigantic shakeup of the political system in the way Tom envisions. I don’t see a third party there right now, but I hope so.”
THE RISE OF THE TRUECOST
PARTY OF AMERICA
Hey Charlie Rose, I still really enjoy the occasional wake-up moments you deliver like the ones above, but lately I’m feeling downright antsy sitting here night after night watching your TV talk show avoid the big questions. At a time when America is in economic, political and cultural free fall, where are the radical voices envisioning a new future? Where are the ecological economists, the outside thinkers, the voices from the far left and far right, the protest organizers, the anarchists, the downshifters and the indigenous sages? Where are Norman Finkelstein, Saul Newman, Manuel Castells? Damn it, Charlie, why can’t you break out of your New York echo chamber every now and again and give us the next Ivan Illich, Michel Foucault or Malcolm X?
64 comments on the article “America's Decline”
Displaying 41 - 50 of 64
Page 5 of 7
AnonymousAnonymous
Nothing will change as long as we got news shows like bill o'reilly or morning Joe if you want to destroy your tv after 10 minutes of listening to those clowns. There is hope.
AnonymousAnonymous
Nothing will change as long as we got news shows like bill o'reilly or morning Joe if you want to destroy your tv after 10 minutes of listening to those clowns. There is hope.
Another Anonymous
http://i55.tinypic.com/14uc9hz.jpg
Another Anonymous
http://i55.tinypic.com/14uc9hz.jpg
Anonymous
Ron Paul's vision of America and the actuality that would occur if that vision were to be put in place are two RADICALLY different things. Small government means no regulation. No regulation means raping of the environment, taking advantage of the poor, a sick and dying population, zero education for those who can't afford access, and so on and so on. I agree that the "vision" is beautiful. If we leave everybody to take care of themselves, they will choose what's right for their communities, but it doesn't take in to consideration that corporations don't have a motive outside of profit. They don't care about communities, and with no regulations to bind them from taking over those communities, they will destroy those communities in the name of that profit. You can't blame them for that, they are beholden to one rule only, and that is make more money for our shareholders. Small business doesn't stand a chance in an environment devoid of regulation that allows Multi-national corporations to exploit prices to drive competition out of business. Let's face it, if Wal-Mart can pay less for it's products, wages, transportation, electricity, AND taxes, your corner store, or hardware store, or grocery doesn't stand a chance. ESPECIALLY if your population is uneducated because it can't AFFORD to go to school and therefore sees cheap prices as the only thing that matters to taking care of their own, as Ron Paul's vision demands that they do. This is to say nothing of the racism and classism that would inherently be bread in a society that does not protect, as our Constitution requires us to do, the notion that all men are created equal (which I of course read to mean all americans in the parlance of our times).
Anonymous
Ron Paul's vision of America and the actuality that would occur if that vision were to be put in place are two RADICALLY different things. Small government means no regulation. No regulation means raping of the environment, taking advantage of the poor, a sick and dying population, zero education for those who can't afford access, and so on and so on. I agree that the "vision" is beautiful. If we leave everybody to take care of themselves, they will choose what's right for their communities, but it doesn't take in to consideration that corporations don't have a motive outside of profit. They don't care about communities, and with no regulations to bind them from taking over those communities, they will destroy those communities in the name of that profit. You can't blame them for that, they are beholden to one rule only, and that is make more money for our shareholders. Small business doesn't stand a chance in an environment devoid of regulation that allows Multi-national corporations to exploit prices to drive competition out of business. Let's face it, if Wal-Mart can pay less for it's products, wages, transportation, electricity, AND taxes, your corner store, or hardware store, or grocery doesn't stand a chance. ESPECIALLY if your population is uneducated because it can't AFFORD to go to school and therefore sees cheap prices as the only thing that matters to taking care of their own, as Ron Paul's vision demands that they do. This is to say nothing of the racism and classism that would inherently be bread in a society that does not protect, as our Constitution requires us to do, the notion that all men are created equal (which I of course read to mean all americans in the parlance of our times).
Anonymous
Ron Paul doesn't advocate *no* regulation - just a different kind. He has discussed it several times in relation to environmental impact. Please do your homework, because when you are uninformed about your first point, it kills the credibility of the rest of your post.
Corporations are not single, gargantuan entities. Nor are corporations and communities antithetical. They are made of people; people who voluntarily participate as workers, buyers, and sellers. They only function so long as people participate (or if the government feeds them), and they don't function if people don't participate.
If a corporation makes a good or service cheaper, that doesn't mean that the alternatives become less affordable. They stay the same price, and whether you go for the corporation or the corner store is your own personal choice, not one that the corporation takes away. The government might, but the corporation doesn't.
No two men are equal. We are all different, with different upbringings, motivations, thoughts, experiences, skill sets, and abilities. The Constitution does NOT guarantee that we are all equal; rather, that we have equal RIGHTS. In fact, to guarantee equality would necessitate the violation of everyone's rights, save the lowest common denominator of humanity. This insistence on equality is one of the great failings of socialism: too often the lowest won't be lifted up, therefore the highest must be cut down.
The constitution is not meant to guarantee equality, but to guarantee certain freedoms. That includes the freedom to segregate yourself from others for whatever reason you so desire, so long as you don't violate the rights of others. That means you can separate yourself from the corporations you hate so much - you can refuse to deal with them, gather with like-minded people, and create a community of your own that may serve as a model for others to follow.
Of course, you won't do that. You just want the government to regulate the things at which you've decided to direct blame. You see problems, but become frustrated when other people aren't doing things to solve them; things that you could be doing yourself, but you don't do them either. Stop whining and do them - the only thing you should be asking of the government is to get the hell out of your way.
Anonymous
Ron Paul doesn't advocate *no* regulation - just a different kind. He has discussed it several times in relation to environmental impact. Please do your homework, because when you are uninformed about your first point, it kills the credibility of the rest of your post.
Corporations are not single, gargantuan entities. Nor are corporations and communities antithetical. They are made of people; people who voluntarily participate as workers, buyers, and sellers. They only function so long as people participate (or if the government feeds them), and they don't function if people don't participate.
If a corporation makes a good or service cheaper, that doesn't mean that the alternatives become less affordable. They stay the same price, and whether you go for the corporation or the corner store is your own personal choice, not one that the corporation takes away. The government might, but the corporation doesn't.
No two men are equal. We are all different, with different upbringings, motivations, thoughts, experiences, skill sets, and abilities. The Constitution does NOT guarantee that we are all equal; rather, that we have equal RIGHTS. In fact, to guarantee equality would necessitate the violation of everyone's rights, save the lowest common denominator of humanity. This insistence on equality is one of the great failings of socialism: too often the lowest won't be lifted up, therefore the highest must be cut down.
The constitution is not meant to guarantee equality, but to guarantee certain freedoms. That includes the freedom to segregate yourself from others for whatever reason you so desire, so long as you don't violate the rights of others. That means you can separate yourself from the corporations you hate so much - you can refuse to deal with them, gather with like-minded people, and create a community of your own that may serve as a model for others to follow.
Of course, you won't do that. You just want the government to regulate the things at which you've decided to direct blame. You see problems, but become frustrated when other people aren't doing things to solve them; things that you could be doing yourself, but you don't do them either. Stop whining and do them - the only thing you should be asking of the government is to get the hell out of your way.
Anonymous
Practice what you preach: do your homework.
To underestimate the extent to which corporations are involved in our lives as you do is a grave misunderstanding of our society. We do not 'voluntarily' participate. Choosing is a luxury that requires wealth. For example, the food industry is run and regulated by corporate interests that chemically modify all of our foods. If you want to eat healthy or organic, you need money - and a good amount of it. People in poverty cannot afford to pay for quality of food, clothing, etc. They buy the cheapest - which is what the corporations produce. Our participation in corporate America is far from a voluntary act. It has become a necessity simply because corporations have privatized and trademarked all of our basic needs (next up is "the sun tax"). Corporate think tanks have ceaselessly sought out ways in which they can create a market utterly and helplessly dependent on their products, which is precisely what has been done - particularly to food and to health care, among other basic needs.
Several of the major corporations governing our lives (and government) have committed various crimes against both people and the environment. Accordingly, these corporations should be given more than a slap on the wrist fine for infringing on the rights of others. If corporations want to view themselves as people, then they ought to be subject to the same laws other citizens abide by. Therefore, if they commit monstrous acts knowingly, they can be sentenced to a life apart from society, possibly even sentenced to death. But it seems you would rather have them unregulated, despite the paradoxical nature of such an entity.
You've made the solution appear far too simple. You see, the very concept of law is premised on the idea that freedom comes with responsibility. If one assumes a stance of radical freedom that negatively affects the freedoms of another, one is subject to the mandates of law. Corporate regulation is akin to what laws are in society. They serve to protect the freedoms and rights of people. If we want to continue viewing corporations as people, the corporations must be willing to follow the laws of society, whether you want to call them regulations, unnecessary oversight, or laws. We, as individuals, are also subject to regulations: we cannot pollute the environment or harm others. Would you want to deregulate law completely? Sure, in an ideal liberalist or socialist utopia that is a romantic notion, but would you really want that, today?
Anonymous
Practice what you preach: do your homework.
To underestimate the extent to which corporations are involved in our lives as you do is a grave misunderstanding of our society. We do not 'voluntarily' participate. Choosing is a luxury that requires wealth. For example, the food industry is run and regulated by corporate interests that chemically modify all of our foods. If you want to eat healthy or organic, you need money - and a good amount of it. People in poverty cannot afford to pay for quality of food, clothing, etc. They buy the cheapest - which is what the corporations produce. Our participation in corporate America is far from a voluntary act. It has become a necessity simply because corporations have privatized and trademarked all of our basic needs (next up is "the sun tax"). Corporate think tanks have ceaselessly sought out ways in which they can create a market utterly and helplessly dependent on their products, which is precisely what has been done - particularly to food and to health care, among other basic needs.
Several of the major corporations governing our lives (and government) have committed various crimes against both people and the environment. Accordingly, these corporations should be given more than a slap on the wrist fine for infringing on the rights of others. If corporations want to view themselves as people, then they ought to be subject to the same laws other citizens abide by. Therefore, if they commit monstrous acts knowingly, they can be sentenced to a life apart from society, possibly even sentenced to death. But it seems you would rather have them unregulated, despite the paradoxical nature of such an entity.
You've made the solution appear far too simple. You see, the very concept of law is premised on the idea that freedom comes with responsibility. If one assumes a stance of radical freedom that negatively affects the freedoms of another, one is subject to the mandates of law. Corporate regulation is akin to what laws are in society. They serve to protect the freedoms and rights of people. If we want to continue viewing corporations as people, the corporations must be willing to follow the laws of society, whether you want to call them regulations, unnecessary oversight, or laws. We, as individuals, are also subject to regulations: we cannot pollute the environment or harm others. Would you want to deregulate law completely? Sure, in an ideal liberalist or socialist utopia that is a romantic notion, but would you really want that, today?
Pages
Add a new comment