Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 22, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates








Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Sorry Elizabeth, Wall Street Said No

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jul 19, 2011
AP / Pablo Martinez Monsivais

President Barack Obama shakes hands with Richard Cordray after announcing his nomination as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is at Elizabeth Warren’s right.

By Robert Scheer

So much for the meritocracy. Despite an elite education, effusive charm and brilliant wit, Barack Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, has ended up betraying his humble origins by abjectly serving the most rapacious variant of Wall Street greed. They both talk a good progressive game, but when push comes to shove—meaning when the banking lobby weighs in—big money talks and the best and the brightest fold.

The defining moment of Clinton’s capitulation was his destruction of Brooksley Born, the one member of his administration with the courage and prescience to warn him about the unregulated derivatives trading that ultimately led to the housing collapse. For Obama, it is his decision not to nominate Elizabeth Warren to run the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which she fought so hard to create.

Obama’s refusal to take the fight to Senate Republicans by nominating Warren should be taken as the vital measure of the man. This gutless decision comes after the president populated his administration with the very people who created the financial meltdown.

Robert Scheer recently discussed this column on Truthdig Radio.

The Harvard credential worked for the likes of economist Lawrence Summers, who carried water for Wall Street under both Clinton and Obama, but not for that university’s distinguished law professor Warren, an outspoken defender of consumer rights who dared represent the interests of the victims of the banking scams. It is a painful reminder that for Democrats as well as Republicans, governance is still all about serving the rich.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Both Democratic presidents had no difficulty appointing top bankers and their acolytes to all of the key economic positions in their administrations but drew the line at fully backing the rare member of their team who had a proven record of defending the public interest when it was being savaged. Consider the fawning treatment of former Goldman Sachs partner Gary Gensler by both Clinton and Obama. In the Clinton Treasury Department, it was Gensler working under both Robert Rubin and Summers who forcefully pushed for the radical deregulation of the financial industry that led to the biggest economic implosion since the Great Depression. 

As Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., put it in opposing Obama’s nomination of Gensler to be head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the position once held by Born: “Mr. Gensler worked with Sen. Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan to exempt credit default swaps from regulation, which led to the collapse of AIG and has resulted in the largest taxpayer bailout in U.S. history.” This bailout was engineered in cooperation with the Bush administration by Timothy Geithner, then head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, who was rewarded for his catering to Wall Street avarice by being named Obama’s treasury secretary.

With Geithner and Gensler now in charge of reregulating Wall Street as ordered by the Dodd-Frank law, it is no wonder that the lobbyists have been able to stall any significant progress in controlling the ever-threatening time bomb of the still unregulated $600 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market. It was after all Gensler who assured Congress back during the Clinton years that Brooksley Born was an alarmist and that the “OTC derivatives directly and indirectly support higher investment and growth in living standards in the United States and around the world.”

No wonder Gensler had no difficulty being confirmed by Senate Republicans and Democrats, who are basically united in giving Wall Street lobbyists the governance they paid for. Of course, the main culpability is with congressional Republicans, who are dead set against any meaningful consumer protection.

For that reason, they are likely to oppose the person Obama nominated instead of Warren, former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, who has acted forcefully to defend consumer interests. As David Lazarus, the knowledgeable business columnist for the Los Angeles Times, wrote, “President Obama shouldn’t have backed down” in the face of GOP opposition to Warren, because Republicans will probably also find Cordray unacceptable. The reason being that they don’t want a strong director for the consumer protection agency, or even the agency itself.

What remains to be seen is if Obama will play their game or finally take the gloves off. If we should have learned anything in the last decade of financial malfeasance by the banking industry, it is that consumers are in desperate need of protection. If Obama goes to battle for Cordray and he proves to be a strong director for the new agency, I will stand corrected, but the president’s abandonment of the brilliant and dedicated Warren is hardly an auspicious beginning.

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s new book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 27, 2011 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment

BR549 – “ We could revert back to thousands of micro-economies
but we now have the feds stuffing their feet in our doors to inhibit
backyard farms, raw milk, and water collection.”
  I agree with the
quintessence of what you say if not explicitly.  Not meaning to vex
you, BR549, as I do have a high regard for what you say, but if I may
ask, do you really think this is a possibility given the culture of
America?  Raw milk and water are easily polluted with bacteria and
filth that water purification plants and regulated milk production is
something I am quite happy with.  For I know my children, and I and
my entire family would have died early in our lives with out it. 
Because of the hard work, backyard farms would preclude many
would-be geniuses in the sciences, natural or social.  I personally
am content with human progress much as many on these forums
have a hatred for it.  There is a social psychology of hatred and it
stems from early childhood pathologies and dogmatic education. 
Humans will venture out into space in droves someday and it won’t
be because they were busy in a primitive level of existence on a back
yard farm milking their own cows, and pumping water.  There won’t
be many hot showers (or cold one’s as needed), oh horrors.

Paper money is not something that is easily gotten rid of since they are
representatives of precious metal and are considered promissory notes
redeemable on demand although not necessarily can be exchanged at
the banks for gold.  In 1964 the FRNs have not been backed by any
single specific asset, but are backed by all assets held in collateral by the
Federal Reserve, and by the power of the government to collect assets in
taxes. Today the notes are backed only by the “full faith and credit of the
U.S. government,” that is, the government’s ability to levy taxes to pay its
debts. 

It would be very difficult to change the mode of financial exchange,
except as time goes on, more and more financial exchanges are done
electronically and I can forsee a day when no paper money is used.  it
will all be electronic.  Heck I pay for groceries already using a Debit Card,
which is comparable to using cash but it is an all electronic transaction.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, July 27, 2011 at 11:01 am Link to this comment

“Wars and bailouts do not explain the “precarious” economic position the rest of the world is in.”

Yes, and interestingly, we still have an “X” sized world population which still needs a vast amount of food and basic items. We have a planet’s worth of people willing to work and the real estate necessary to make it happen, yet somehow, everyone is broke, as if the demand for all these basics had mysteriously disappeared. That is because we have all been sold a bill of goods about paper money by the banks.

We could revert back to thousands of micro-economies but we now have the feds stuffing their feet in our doors to inhibit backyard farms, raw milk, and water collection. It is the people and their natural resources that are of value; the paper money was always useless and only served as a means for the elites to control how efficiently they could parasitize their populations and keep themselves in power for contributing next to nothing to society.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 27, 2011 at 2:48 am Link to this comment

With nothing better to take aim at, the unrequited wannabe
nadewisou indian disapproves and stalks then bashes the Harpy She
wasichu like Republicans do of every move and every sound Obama
makes.  It must be peculiarly uncomfortable for a wannabe indian
warrior HasBeen to have to live with a lemon stuck up his unze.
Is it possible wannabe indian wants the Republican “alternative
reality?” 

If wannabe indian has forgotten, Harpy She will remind him…
Wichása na wí?ya? otóiyohi iglúhapi na iyéha?ya? wówazapi.
Tha?máhel slol’íc’iyapi na kichíwichowepi s’e kichíchuwapi kta hécha.

Report this

By TAO Walker, July 26, 2011 at 10:23 pm Link to this comment

Still, it’s all just so “much ado about” the-score in a zero-sum game.  While armies
of papered professional experts “crunch” the numbers, Life Herownself goes
Singing and Dancing along Her Way, which takes no account whatsoever of the
petty “self”-centric CONceits of the virtual subspecies homo
domesticus….including “the philosophy of action,” which is just more….

“Sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

HokaHey!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 26, 2011 at 8:27 pm Link to this comment

Sorry, I wrote the wrong url in my last post.  Try this one.
http://tinyurl.com/3h2d52r  This is the right
one for a very interesting timeline of the economic history of the
US.  I hope!  My apologies.  If you click 50 results at the bottom of
the page you will see an outline from 1866 to 2011.  Each year entry
can be expanded to be able to read more about what was going on
at that time.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 26, 2011 at 7:50 pm Link to this comment

”It must be a peculiarly tormenting kind of Hell to have to put-up
a broke-back ?spavined ‘donkey’ as your only acceptable ‘alternative’
to a raging rogue ?‘elephant.’ “

Ain’t it da trueff?  In the philosophy of action, we always do what we
think we have to do. 

Wars and bailouts do not explain the “precarious” economic position the
rest of the world is in. Unemployment is not caused by wars or bailouts,
nor is squat paychecks for those who do work.

Reasons for today’s bleak economic picture you’d have to go back to
Nixon’s economic problems when The Council of Economic Advisors
started issuing inflation alerts, which made jumps from 8.8% in 73 to
12.2% in 74.  That was quite a leap.  But then Nixon had to resign,
remember?  The Dow dropped 99 points Ford’s first week in office and
another 50 the week after Nixon’s pardon.  With twin babies at the time,
I remember all kinds of shortages like toilet paper! and food with bare
shelves on the grocery store shelves, and lines at the gas pump were a
totally new experience.  The economic plan Ford presented to Congress
was nearly laughed off Capitol Hill and would be denounced up the
wazoo by today’s ugly-dog Republicans. Here’s what Ford proposed: 
Putting a sealed cap of $300 billion on the federal budget. Then to suck
up excess purchasing power, he wanted a $5 billion surtax on
corporations (Oh my god! can you believe that?  Today’s Republicans
would have a brain hemorrhage) and on individuals in the higher income
brackets (WHAT? a Republican asked for that? Naw, that just can’t be! 
But it was!). The main focus of attention was called a “Whip Inflation
Now” plan. The acronym WIN was used and Ford said, “There is one point
on which all advisers have agreed: We must whip inflation right now.” 

In his flight of fancy, Ford thought inflation could be beaten by the
simultaneous efforts of little people to inhibit pressure on prices. He
advised volunteers in the WIN program to “take all you want but eat all
you take.”  He also asked that each family make a one-hour “trash
inventory” to find waste. Within little more than a week after he had
introduced the idea, 101,420 citizens announced themselves as recruits
by mailing WIN enlistment papers to the White House. By the end of the
year, that number had doubled. Some 12 million WIN buttons were
churned out.  In spit of all the good intentions, the program was soon
viewed as more of a PR gimmick than a serious assault against inflation. 
And the surcharge didn’t work.  Needless to say, during the Ford era,
Democrats gained 43 House seats, and won five Senate seats moving the
center of power from the White House that had been enjoyed by Nixon. 
Sigh… such is politics. 

Check out this tiny url http://tinyurl.com/3r48fue for a timeline of the
history of how the U.S. got into the “precarious” economic situation.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, July 26, 2011 at 4:00 pm Link to this comment

Lee,
Well, everyone kept saying that Soc Sec would never be touched, as if it was a sacred cow. Guess what? I wonder what the excuses will be next year when this sacred cow is discovered to have been propped up with sticks and straw.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 26, 2011 at 2:26 pm Link to this comment

Not incensed BR, more like desensitized,...  it could be said about Social Security is on the table the same reason the banks where, ... though swindled may not be the correct word but manipulated could be more accurate. Hence why SSI is on the table and why Obama is constantly speaking of entitlements being on the table. Yeah, not for cutting but tweaking!

If Obama keeps compromising away everything, evidently he could run for both parties!

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, July 26, 2011 at 1:30 pm Link to this comment

Sorry people, I have to disagree at least in part. I know there will be some of you out there who will be totally incensed that I speak sacrilege but the banking abuse was well on its way even before, and then furthered, as a result of the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act. This was not by chance.  Both Dems and Repubs all knew about the multi-billion dollar slush-fund/bottomless pit that came as a result of FEMA/DHS. It is still growing today, like a ravenous black hole depicted in a science fiction movie, with an alphabet soup of agencies all designed to keep everyone “safe”. (Right) Phil Graham, who had later jumped the senatorial ship to join UBS, was heading the financial ship right onto the rocks, but he couldn’t have done it without the earlier help from Clinton.

These guys scratch each other’s back repeatedly. Bush41 can’t quite squeeze NAFTA through, then Clinton obligingly finishes the job ..... and with a smile. Nader, LaRouche and Perot could see that freight coming a mile away, but the corporate run media couldn’t shove them off the stage fast enough. Clinton tests the waters with the illegal use of Depleted Uranium and Bush43 then dumps massive quantities of it all over Iraq and Afghanistan in total violation of the Geneva Convention. Clinton (Madeleine Albright) then alters the Paraquayan/US extradition Treaty to exclude crimes of military or political nature only to then have Bush’s daughter Jenna buy a 99,980 acre Paraguayan parcel over the largest subterranean aquifer in South America and stirring up a lot of anger among the Paraguayan population.

The “bailout” was the excuse given to the American people to divert attention away from the fact that the banks had swindled trillions of dollars out of various world economies and that our way of life, as we know it, would be ruined if we didn’t cave in and chip in. It was all a ruse, fed by the fear that our culture had become so dependent on paper money that we couldn’t possibly survive without the banks. And we took it; hook, line and sinker. Iceland had seen through the ruse, much to their credit.

One of my West Coast clients was an economist at the time. He was the first to clue me in about the CAFR, that bottomless derivatives Ponzi scheme pit that hid trillions of dollars of taxpayers’ overpayments so that municipalities, counties and states could continue to justify their existing budgets while illegally funding their “pet projects”. A while back, I read that Burbank, CA had got caught with their hand in the cookie jar over it, but then I think the whole Ponzi scandal broke loose and it became yesterday’s news. Saying that the approval of the bailout was near unanimous only suggests that there was more politics involved than financial integrity. Most of the economists I have read, knew this was a disaster from the word “go” and hardly a necessary option for our survival. Hell, look at the GM Bailout. All that was was a way for the US taxpayers to be hoodwinked into paying for GM’s relocation. It did nothing for the GM workers in this country. All it did was improve the GM stockholders’ bottom line. Interestingly, GM was heavily invested in by the CAFR. You do the math.

From 2000-2008 Bush pushed the Patriot button and robbed us blind. As long as we continued to have ecstatic Democrats, waving back and forth, en masse, chanting about Hope and Change, Washington will continue to have a green light to rob us blind again. Just as both Bushes had been draining the blood from the corpse, Obama was ready with the shovel. I am in no way sticking up for the Republicans, but the Democrats have far too much explaining to do.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 26, 2011 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment

Yes, of course the Debt Ceiling thing is theater.  However, the United States is in a precarious economic position, and the national debt is an apt symbol of it.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 26, 2011 at 10:04 am Link to this comment

Good review points JD, I believe it is important to keep these realities in front of us, lest we forget.

There seems so much flack out there and even here which would only purpose seems an atempt to remove ones focus from the abusive causes and effects you stated.
____________________________

Here on TD it would be nice, if only the continuous oneupsmanship would cease from these supposedly left leaning TD threads, though suggesting anything to the ego in its selflessness may be an impossibility for some compared to others.  Differentiating real compassion of posters seems a hard chore at times, especially from those I may wrongly suspect or whom I see as trolls!

The grandstanding of the self seems a real determent to the whole or using John Bests fuzzy concept, as he called it, ‘the common good’. 

So, in my awareness of being full of myself is clearly well known to me,... I would attempt give it up;...  but for those who know who they are, .....you first!

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, July 26, 2011 at 9:15 am Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, July 25 at 8:48 pm

“The primary reasons the United States is in a precarious economic position are its wars and its bailouts.”

****************************************************************

The current Legislative crisis concerning the Debt Ceiling is a manufactured crisis, a crisis created by Republicans with the intent of destroying the social safety net, which has been a right-wing goal for over 70 years. The deficit was caused by the wars, Republican tax policies, and the recession. The recession was a direct result of the deregulation of Wall Street Financial Institutions and Wall Street greed and nefarious activities.

The nearly unanimous opinion of economists is that, without the bailout, we would be in a far more precarious economic position than we are now. The TARP Legislation was signed into law by George W. Bush in October of 2008. The TARP Legislation would not have been necessary if not for Wall Street malfeasance. The bailout of the Auto Industry has proven to be a great benefit in terms strengthening our economy, and the bailout funds have been mostly repaid. The economy would be stronger if it had been stimulated more by government, but greater stimulation has been constantly obstructed by Republicans.

The U.S. Government, under the leadership of Republicans and George W. Bush, failed the American people and did great harm globally. Today, Democrats are attempting to correct the errors made by Republicans, and are being obstructed by Republicans on every issue.

Republican State Governments around the nation have been implementing policies and laws that eliminate jobs not create them, further exacerbating the recession and increasing the debt and deficit.

Grover Norquist is our nation’s version of California’s Howard Jarvis and if the current short term Legislation to solve the Debt Ceiling phony crisis put forth by Republicans is enacted into law, we will find ourselves in the same economic dire straights as California.

If the current Legislation put forth by Republicans passes the House and Senate, the President may have to sign it into law in order to avoid even greater negative consequences to our economy.

This struggle between Left and Right political perspectives has been endless and will continue in perpetuity, progress in social justice has occurred over the course of time, and it will continue, provided the Left does not disintegrate into counter productive chaos and dissension. If the Left disintegrates the current regress will continue and there will be no progress, quite the contrary.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 25, 2011 at 8:48 pm Link to this comment

The primary reasons the United States is in a precarious economic position are its wars and its bailouts.

Report this

By TAO Walker, July 25, 2011 at 7:44 pm Link to this comment

It seems worthwhile to wonder out-loud here just how eager “the (current)
Attorney General of the US Justice Department” (his"self” a much “tamper(ed)-
with….official”) is, to actually open-up that particularly messy (and altogether
“bi-partisan”) can-of-worms.  Probably not very, would be a pretty safe bet.

It must be a peculiarly tormenting kind of Hell to have to put-up a broke-back
spavined ‘donkey’ as your only acceptable ‘alternative’ to a raging rogue
‘elephant.’  Now that really is being stuck between a rock and a hard place….in
precisely the “Hobson’s Choice” meaning of the phrase.

Just exactly how (in that holier-than-thou Hell) DID Grover Norquist get all that
just-pretend “power,” anyhow?  Maybe theallamericanpeople being massively
“self”-medicated, and thus chronically semi-comatose-at-the-wheel, figures
into it somehow?

What say ye sophomoronic professors and sophistry-peddling amateur pundits
to that….“coming unglued”-wise, that is?

HokaHey!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 25, 2011 at 7:01 pm Link to this comment

What I find incredulous is that Grover Norquist, who is not an
elected representative of the United States either as a House
Representative or a Senator, yet has acquired the power to make
all the elected officials of the Republican party sign a binding
agreement to not agree to any form of tax revenue increase,
which in effect is one of the primary and grievous reasons the
US is in a catastrophic financial position.  How is it an unelected
person can wield such power with impunity able to affect the entire
Republican cadre of politicians?  It seems to me that some further
investigation by the Attorney General of the US Justice Department
is demanded and Norquist can join his colleague Abramoff in prison for
tampering with elected officials of the United States Government.  And
it also seems every Republican politician who signed that agreement has
acted outside the scope of their office to the detriment of the American
people also ought to be prosecuted.  Now that would be an earthshaking
cataclysm and historic event that every Republican politician is
prosecuted for crimes against the American people.  Yes I know, I dream
on.

It is imperative that Americans defeat the Republican factor in our
government.  The only quarter left unscathed by their unscrupulous
actions is the 1%ers.  Decry the Democrats but they are the only hope,
and yes it is the Deep Blue liberals’ responsibility to replace the existing
large, currently impotent crowd of Democrats that sit powerlessly in the
power of the legislature.  But the timing is not on our side to do that, so
reform is necessary.

Report this

By TAO Walker, July 25, 2011 at 6:45 pm Link to this comment

Meanwhile, neither “political perspective” sees fit to honor the “Black Hills”
treaty, as just one example.  Representatives of both “political perspectives”
CONspired first to destroy records, and then again to pay a penny on the dollar
for even the documented claims of Native beneficiaries defrauded by BIA
maladministration of land and mineral leases, as another recent ‘case.’

Anyhow, our People are so used to the “self”-serving put-downs invented by
“individual” subject/citizens of the wasichus’ faux “nation” trying vainly to
justify their own perfidy, we take no notice of it.  So the “difference” between
being ‘crushed’ by Republicans or ‘smothered’ by Democrats is one entirely
without any distinction, here in Indian Country.  To us surviving Turtle Island
Natives, they’re all just losing-their-grip, and increasingly desperate, armed
occupiers.

Of course, this Old Free Wild Human Being neither presumes nor pretends to
“speak” for any’one’ “self”-identifying as a “Native American” or “American
Indian.”

HokaHey!

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, July 25, 2011 at 4:49 pm Link to this comment

RE: TAO Walker, July 25 at 2:16 pm

Again your skill at sophistry is remarkable, but it is specious. How does one reply to sophistry, other than by simply identifying it at as such.

Our choice is not limited to the clichéd “Rock and a hard place.” Our choice is between a hard place and a softer place.

When you lay your head down tonight Tao Walker you can take comfort in the fact that one political perspective, the soft one, doesn’t consider Native Americans, “monkeys, troglodytes and morons.”

“The Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal is a United States political scandal relating to the work performed by political lobbyists Jack Abramoff, Ralph E. Reed, Jr., Grover Norquist and Michael Scanlon on Indian casino gambling interests for an estimated $85 million in fees. Abramoff and Scanlon grossly overbilled their clients, secretly splitting the multimillion-dollar profits. In one case, they secretly orchestrated lobbying against their own clients in order to force them to pay for lobbying services.”

emails now made public by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, which is investigating his activities, Abramoff repeatedly referred to Native Americans as “monkeys”, “troglodytes” and “morons.”[21]
“Abramoff once asked his co-conspirator Scanlon to meet a client, saying in an email, “I have to meet with the monkeys from the Choctaw tribal council.”
“About one tribal client (date unknown) Abramoff wrote to Scanlon,
“  ‘These mofos are the stupidest idiots in the land for sure.’”

“In another email message he wrote, ‘we need to get some money from those monkeys!!’”


“Jack Abramoff, former Republican “superlobbyist” and now a convicted and sentenced felon cooperating with federal prosecutors, is the central figure in a web of corruption within the U.S. Republican Party, which will likely be the most far-reaching Washington corruption scandal of recent decades. In January 2006, Abramoff reached a plea agreement with Federal prosecutors, in which he pled guilty to a number of felonies and agreed to cooperate with the authorities. It is likely that this cooperation will lead to prosecution of numerous Republican lawmakers, staffers, lobbyists, and operatives. Abramoff’s principal activity was the collection of tens of millions extorted from Indian tribal gambling operations. Much of the money was used to buy influence from Washington Republican figures, but a considerable amount was used for self-enrichment or personal pet projects.”

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, July 25, 2011 at 4:36 pm Link to this comment

RE: TAO Walker, July 25 at 2:16 pm (Cont.)


“Ralph Eugene Reed, Jr., (born June 24, 1961) is a conservative American political activist, best known as the first executive director of the Christian Coalition during the early 1990s. He sought the Republican nomination for the office of…”

“Reed spent much of his college career as a political activist, taking six years to earn his undergraduate degree. He started with the University of Georgia College Republicans, steadily rising to state and then national leadership. Reed spent much of his college career as a political activist, taking six years to earn his undergraduate degree. He started with the University of Georgia College Republicans, steadily rising to state and then national leadership.”

“Grover Glenn Norquist (born October 19, 1956) is president of a taxpayer advocacy group, Americans for Tax Reform. He has been described as ‘the driving force in pushing the Republican Party toward an ever-more rigid position of opposing any tax increase, of any kind, at any time.’”

“Michael Scanlon, AKA “Sean Scanlon”[1], is a former communications director for Rep. Tom DeLay, lobbyist, and public relations executive who has pleaded guilty to corruption charges related to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. He is currently assisting in the investigation of his former partners Abramoff, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed by separate state and federal grand jury investigations related to the defrauding of American Indian tribes and corruption of public officials. In addition to the allegation of dishonest dealing arising from the consulting contracts themselves, Abramoff and Scanlon are accused of illegally giving favors to senior Republicans Tom DeLay, Conrad Burns, John Doolittle and Bob Ney. In 2005 Scanlon pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe a member of Congress and other public officials. On February 11, 2011, he was sentenced to 20 months in federal prison and 300 hours of community service.”

Finally, let me point out that a “Rock” has many meanings.

“For a very long time, people have described as a rock something that gave them a sense of safety, a sure foundation. OED, s.v. rock”
‘1526 TINDALE Matt. xvi. 18, I saye..that thou arte Peter. And apon this roocke I wyll bylde my congregacion. 1535 COVERDALE Deut. xxxii. 37 Where are their goddes, their rocke wherin they trusted?’
Although very often the metaphor relates the support and sure foundation of Christ and the Christian religion, it is not always so: “1633 P. FLETCHER Purple Isl. XII. lii, Be thou my rock, though I poore changeling rove.”
To say “you’re my Rock of Gibraltar” is to use the biggest rock one can think of as a metaphor for the feeling of support and confidence that you give them.?”

Yes there is a “Rock” and a “Hard place” but your animus does not allow you to see the difference. We human beings are a diverse lot, we run the gamut from good to bad, from serial killers to saints, when it comes to politics, after all the dialectic and futile arguments are said and done, the difference between political perspectives is clear to see, to those willing to open their eyes.

Report this

By TAO Walker, July 25, 2011 at 2:16 pm Link to this comment

What appears to be, from the rarified air of the ivory tower, “....the Republican
obstructionist lock-step frozen consensus scripted agenda…..etc., etc.,” probably
looks, instead, to an “individual” lock-stepped Republican his/herown"self,” like
just “dancing with who brung ya,”....which is, after all, what they’re paid for….and
how they pay their own bills.  What some CONgenital theoreticians here keep
trying, vainly, to dance-around, however, is the indisputable fact that the same
“money”/“power”-mongering bunch also brung the Democrats.

So pray-tell us, professors and pundits, which of ‘em is “the rock,” and which “the
hard place”?

HokaHey!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 25, 2011 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment

‘Rule by a small but powerful special interest group, not representative of “We the people”’ is an accurate description of the U.S. ruling class and government since the country was founded.  In fact, it’s a pretty accurate description of any government and any ruling class.  So you’ve decided this is a threat?  And the plan is to install another small but powerful special interest group, only nicer?  Or reform the existing small but powerful special interest group?  Or what?

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 25, 2011 at 1:26 pm Link to this comment

By TAO Walker, July 25 at 11:33 am

““What if “We The People,” as such, is every-bit as infected (with whatever it is) as
is that “small but powerful special interest group”....a possibility certainly not to
be casually overlooked or dismissed….especially given the group’s own ultimate ‘origins’ in “We The People”? “”
———————————————————

You can leave out the “what if” without offending me, O’wise old savage. 

“We the people” are absolutely infected with (whatever it is)... as is that “small but powerful special interest group”

That’s why nothing ever gets better by applying the “all that is known” medicine which is poured
liberally from the medicine bottle of intellectually constrained intellectuals. 

All you can do is hope to minimize the effects of the (whatever it is) which inflicts “we the people” and all our special interest groups.

One sovereign individual has no more power than that which one sovereign individual can unilaterally muster.  He would be most certainly capable of his individual measure of ‘Violence’.  ‘Violence’ factor of one. 

Put two of those soveriegn individuals together, and you have the start of exponential ‘Violence’.  One plus One may equal a ‘Violence’ factor of five. 

Put ten of these sovereign individuals together and you have the start of ‘a special interest group’  Ten times one may equate to a ‘Violence’ factor of one thousand.

Limit ‘Violence’ by limiting large centralized systems which have amassed near infinite ‘Violence’ factors. 

Of course since this idea does not exist in the box of intellectually constrained intellectualism, known personally as the box of “all that is known”,  it is therefore impossible for it to exist or even to think about.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, July 25, 2011 at 12:15 pm Link to this comment

RE: Shenonymous, July 25 at 10:15 am

“The real threat is the Republican obstructionist lock-step frozen consensus scripted agenda
that throws immovable roadblocks, politically legal but nevertheless
would decimate the American Public and this condition will last until the
American People are motivated to kick the bastards out.  Think what you
want, I think only the Democrats have the power to do that.”

****************************************************************

Clear and concise; nothing abstract by you at all here; you have sated my belief better than I did.

The “Real Threat” is, according to my distinction, rule by a small but powerful special interest group, not representative of “We the people.”

The above statement by me is to abstract, and does not clearly identify the threat. Putting it most simply, the Rich have taken over our government and the Republican Party functions as the representatives of the Rich. Where we disagree is that I don’t believe the Democrats have the power necessary because the Left, traditionally the Democratic Party base, is fragmented, and has become impotent because of that fragmentation. The Left needs to join with Democrats in solidarity in order to reverse the takeover of our government by the rich, and yes, it is class warfare, and yes, “We the People” are in danger of losing the war, “We the people” need to counter attack, but many on the Left are malingerers, or mutineers, refusing to take their place in the ranks.

Once again I’ve become abstract with my military metaphors of war. Sorry!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 25, 2011 at 11:54 am Link to this comment

It depends what you mean by ‘The Left’.  The historical usage referred to those who desired peace, freedom and equality, if not in absolute terms than at least more than they had.  Today, not many people desire more peace, freedom and equality than the ruling class presently offers them, so I would say the Left is small to the point of being insignificant in regard to mainstream politics—the one or two or three per cent who voted for Nader or McKinney, the aging Marxist professors, the anarchist punk rockers, hippies still in the woods, and so on.  And they are certainly divided.  The majority seem satisfied or at least resigned to the present mix of war/peace, freedom/authority-security, equality/inequality.  Given the way the Democratic Party used and then destroyed the anti-war movement, I’d say they’re coherent and well under control, if rather depressed.  No one even thinks of threatening capitalism.  So I’d call them the Middle, not the Left, liberal in abstract ideals, conservative in material practice, obedient to the system but not very lively in comparison to the circus acts of their rightist competitors.

Report this

By TAO Walker, July 25, 2011 at 11:33 am Link to this comment

Well, that’s a little spooky….“JDmysticDJ” responding to this Indian’s invitation
before it’s even ‘posted.’  So now maybe we’ll see some constructive
“progressive” recommendations for at-least neutralizing “the (now-exposed) 
real threat,”  of “rule by a small but powerful special interest group.”  Since their
number is not great, singling them out for ‘treatment’ of some sort shouldn’t
present that big a challenge….especially here in “the information age,” where
even the deepest “cover” is supposedly penetrable.

Of course, this wannabe ruling elite has been doing its “civilized” ‘thing’ for over
ten thousand years now….and that’s just during this current excrescence of the
“civilization” disease.  “We The People” have, presumably, been trying to come-
up with constructive actions to eliminate this “real threat” for nearly as
long….occasionally even managing to get-rid-of a few of the more foolishly
ostentatious among their two-legged tormentors….like in the French
“revolution.”  Yet here “we” all are, still (and again) facing yet another
particularly virulent outbreak of the same damned thing.

Maybe, after-all, this apparently ineradicable “small but powerful special
interest group” is not “the real threat” Friend “JDmysticDJ” has designated it as,
below.  Maybe there’s something much more pervasive and insidious ‘at-work’
in his world-o’-hurt….something of which the “money”/“power”-mongers, for
all their dirty dealings, are mere symptoms, and no better-off (in any genuinely
Organic sense) than is any “individual” making-up that massive random
collection of them he calls “We The People.”

What if “We The People,” as such, is every-bit as infected (with whatever it is) as
is that “small but powerful special interest group”....a possibility certainly not to
be casually overlooked or dismissed….especially given the group’s own
ultimate ‘origins’ in “We The People”?  What remedial “action” might
“progressives” (or anybody ‘else’ suffering the same affliction) come-up with in
that ‘case’? 

Given the too-often-left-out (of all their calculations) amplifying and
accelerating effects of all this ideological/institutional/technological ‘machinery’
running today, on the pace and intensity of whatever-in-hell is going-on here,
the above questions seem, at-least to an Old Savage looking-on from Indian
Country, neither ‘idle’ nor merely ‘rhetorical.’  Because if this “small but
powerful special interest group” turns-out NOT to be “the real threat,” then
squandering what little of their precious attention is left to “We The People,” on
yet another “combat”-ive run at ‘em, might well waste entirely what would’ve
been much better ‘spent,’ finally, on getting at the REAL “real threat.” 

To do that, though, to neutralize the retro-viral “SELF” (thereby arresting and
reversing the degenerative effects of its “civilization” disease process on The
Whole Living Arrangement of our Mother Earth) our tame Sisters and Brothers
must get-over their own too-precious “self”....which seems to be how come
going-after some ‘other’ is such a much-more-seductively-attractive (even if
completely non-viable) ‘option’ for so many of ‘em.  Who was it said “the
trouble” wasn’t in their “stars,” but in their “selves.”?

Better Walk This Way, Hermanas y Hermanos, instead….and don’t dawdle!

HokaHey!

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 25, 2011 at 11:33 am Link to this comment

By Leefeller, July 25 at 7:01 am

“the ability to conjure up ideas and claim to use them or believe in them appears very much like religion,  belief in such blindness seems only a figment of the imagination. (in my view not very imaginative)!

If something does not exist and I do not know of its existence, why am I supposed to believe it exits?”
————————————————————

Say again?  That is some pretty convoluted logic right there, IMO.

I conjured up an idea how to keep the fox out of henhouse last week, and I used it, and it worked.  I did not lose one chicken last week.  Had nothing to do with any religion.

When we think about problems, the intention is to come up with a plan to solve the problem.  That is one of the best uses of thinking - problem solving.

The overwhelming problem I see here, and elsewhere, is the thinking of many is confined to that which exists inside of their little box, as was said much earlier in this thread.  You really need to think outside of your little box to solve persistent problems.  Think of what could exist, but may not already exist. 

To say “it does not exist, because you do not ‘believe’ it exists, so why are you supposed to believe it exists?”  is extremely self-centered at best.

What Leefeller is failing to comprehend is that my personal solution to the fox eating the chickens, does exist, whether he ‘believes’ it exists or not.

Experience is not collective.  I can know of something which you do not. 

I repeat, I can know of something which you do not.

One more time,  I can know of something which you do not.

—————-

JDMystic starts off with an extreme fallacy in a recent post equationg Anarchy to chaos.  That is like equating ice cream with melting.  Ice cream certainly can melt, but not all ice cream is melted.

Some of you really need to broaden your horizons.  The tunnel vision that you exhibt, especially for so-called progressives, is astouding.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 25, 2011 at 10:15 am Link to this comment

Not caring if you are bored with any meaningless reply I might make,
I will make a reply that is not full of intellectual abstractions, but if it
turns out that some of them are, since most written thoughts are
abstractions, though maybe not intellectual, so be it.

As an intellectual abstraction, you are making a categorical mistake
to think that “The Left” is a unified whole then criticizing it because
it is not homogenously unified. I will not go into the classical fallacies
you are committing because I’m afraid it would be too intellectually
abstract for you. The Left is everything left of the center line between
the Democrats and the Republicans on the political spectrum. The Left
Side is broad.  I hope that is not too abstract a fact.  On that Left Side are
liberals of every stripe, stinking as some would say, and I reside squarely
among them as I call myself a liberal, a Deep Blue Democrat liberal, but I
would not say I was a Hard Leftist.  There are many among the Left of
every stripe who are actively working and working fiercely to counteract
the impotence of the Washington, DC Democrats.  The real threat is the
Republican obstructionist lock-step frozen consensus scripted agenda
that throws immovable roadblocks, politically legal but nevertheless
would decimate the American Public and this condition will last until the
American People are motivated to kick the bastards out.  Think what you
want, I think only the Democrats have the power to do that.

Report this

By TAO Walker, July 25, 2011 at 9:25 am Link to this comment

Here’s an excellent chance for “JDmysticDJ” to define for us, explicitly, just
exactly what is “the real threat that confronts ‘We The People’.”  That might be a
worthwhile first step toward “....com(ing) up with a constructive course of action
to combat” it….provided, of course, it turns out to be a “threat” that will actually
yield to “combat.”

Otherwise….we’re right back to square-one….where most are still just arguing
hotly about the actual nature of “the real threat”.  So ‘what to do about it’
remains entirely CONtingent upon what it looks like from any particular point-
of-view.

From here in Indian Country it has always looked, and still looks like the
“civilization” disease process….but most here would know already that this Old
Savage was going to say that.

HokaHey!

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, July 25, 2011 at 9:19 am Link to this comment

By Shenonymous, July 25 at 5:17 am

“‘The Left is currently governed by Anarchy, divided and impotent.’ 
You can elaborate on this statement can’t you?  Please do as you are not making any distinctions at all.”

*********************************************************************

I think my comment speaks for itself, devoid of abstractions, and intellectualisms, but just to please, I’ll make distinctions:

Anarchy: “chaotic situation”

Divided, I think, indicates a separation, or in this case, a lack of unity.

I’ll give this definition of “impotent” as a distinction:

Impotent: “powerless: without the strength or power to do anything effective or helpful.”

Allow me to make further distinctions beyond those asked by you.

“Bullshite” has been used here on this thread previously; its meaning should be clear. As I attempted to convey earlier my mother used the word “Bullshite” as an instantaneous self censorship when she became extremely irate.

Progress: A movement towards a specific goal.

“Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action. Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies.”

“A constructive course of action” would be the opposite of destructive course of action.

The “Real Threat” is, according to my distinction, rule by a small but powerful special interest group, not representative of “We the people.”

“We the People” is by my distinction, we the people in our entirety, rule by a consensus of we the people, is a further distinction I’ll make.

There is, according to my analysis, no consensus on the Left, which creates a “chaotic situation” which is an obstacle to “constructive action.”

If you would like to offer abstract intellectualisms in response to these distinctions made by me, “Please do;” chances are very good that they will bore me in their meaninglessness, but at least I will have returned your cordial invitation.

Tao…? Nah!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 25, 2011 at 8:09 am Link to this comment

It is better to know what you meant rather than trying to guess.
They were glaringly missing.  Oh well… it is all clear now.  I’d put
artists in the barrel too.  Camus was such an artist!  And a political
critic as well who made up a lot of really high-minded stuff.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 25, 2011 at 7:57 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, July 24 at 10:36 pm:

‘... JFYI: Like anyone who holds strong
convictions about anything, anarchists also tend to stay anarchists, and
will make up stuff to preserve their beliefs when their beliefs are
threatened. Those who have a high psychological investment in their
beliefs, regardless of whether they are liberals or conservatives,
libertarians or anarchists, more easily become fervent and zealous in
their beliefs when confronted with evidence to the contrary or that their
belief is flawed, even going so far as to try to convert others to their
challenged beliefs, so says sociologist Leon Festinger in “When Prophecy Fails.” ...’

Yes, when I said ‘everyone’ I meant to include actual anarchists, pretend-anarchists, and even sociologists.  That’s why I used the word.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 25, 2011 at 7:22 am Link to this comment

Is that Anthony Werner, in the photo above, as Mr Ex Ray Vision,....  staring through Elizabeth Warrens jacket?...  Which is it,  Fantasy or friction, I believe, there for it is!

Report this

By TAO Walker, July 25, 2011 at 7:07 am Link to this comment

This Old Indian has always been “unglued”....as in; not stuck inside the
smothering CONfines of the virtual world-o’-hurt cum “global” gulag, from
which issue the malCONtent mutterings and panicky shrieks of inmates and
wardens alike, here in the terminal throes their pent-up agony.  If Elizabeth
Warren, for example, is even half as smart as some here “HOPE!” she is, she’ll
know she’s just dodged a bullet, and she’ll get entirely out of the cross-fire
kill-zone.  In other words, she too will “come unglued,” and she won’t be roped
back into “self"enTRAPment by the “self”-serving cries, of those still stuck
there, for yet another victim to be “self”-sacrificed on the already too-bloody
altar of the wannabe parasitical retro-viral tormenting ‘entity’...the idolized
“SELF” whose process IS the “civilization” disease.

In your heyoka world, tame Sisters and Brothers, “wrong” is right….so The Way
out of it really is to get-(not “into,” but)-over your “self,” and…..

Walk this Way!

HokaHey!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 25, 2011 at 7:01 am Link to this comment

Yeah! JB, could you expand it a bit! Sorry JD, I was thinking of Jim Beam!

Noticed Dave did not write my whole sentence and stopped contently before leaving out Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny? Of course Dave number one and number 2 would ask this because Christian 96 isn’t here!

Simply put, from what I have heard, Anarchy exists only in the mind of anarchists, right even with solipsists and Republicans, the ability to conjure up ideas and claim to use them or believe in them appears very much like religion,  belief in such blindness seems only a figment of the imagination. (in my view not very imaginative)!

If something does not exist and I do not know of its existence, why am I supposed to believe it exits? Especially on someone else s say so? Far as I see it, Anarcassie, could say she is god, Santa Clause or the Easter Bunney or as she stated an anarchist, it is all the same to me!

The difference may be, when I fantasize, I am aware of it and do not attempt to instill my fantasies or my pet tall tails on others with forced or demandedd accepted by others.

I also believe in the separation of fantasies and state, where it seems I may be one of a growing minority, of course I may be fantasizing about that, to top it off, I really do not give a rats ass if anyone believes it or not, for I am a solipsist and you do not exist Dave, so I am really writing to myself!

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, July 25, 2011 at 6:46 am Link to this comment

Re: entropy2, July 24 at 10:25 am
“There is no single giant rulebook that will ever be created that could cover the individual needs of 7 billion humans, let alone 300 million Americans. There is no single power that can enforce justice for the same.”

I concur with Dave. Great point, entropy2, especially that last sentence.

————————————————

One analogy I used with my clients for years was that of a number of forest dwelling tribes living around the base of an immense mountain. At some point, a member of each tribe gets this call to explore the mountain. Each one hacks his way through the jungle, up through the mountainous terrain and forest, aware of only his own individual journey and only that one path he is creating.

Then one day, each one reaches the tree line, above which the vegetation doesn’t grow. They turn around and see that the forest they had been so abundantly living in had also been hiding from them how vast the land was and that there was so much life outside what they had been aware of. Each one looks left, then right, and to their amazement, they can see members from the other tribes off in the distance, emerging from their own separate paths toward the top of the very same mountain. The further up the mountain they go, the more they can see how limited their view had been from the forest floor. In looking back toward the mountain, the more they realize that each of them had all been on the same journey.

We could interpret this that if any one of the tribesmen had sought to bring with them the territorial conventions of the forest floor and try to claim the mountain for his own tribe, he would have learned nothing from his experience, while the others would have realized that the further up they went, the less those conventions applied.

So to apply that to your statement about enforcing justice, wouldn’t that be to enforcing the old conventions? As long as we continue to act as though we live on the forest floor, any pursuit we make will only keep us in that forest and myopic, and all that we can’t see is yet one more thing to be fearful of. I would suggest that for those who can hold that vision above the tree line, much more is possible. There is one single power and we all know what (who, it) is, and the only only justice is that which we must make for our forest-dwelling selves, while we choose to be stuck below the tree line.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 25, 2011 at 5:17 am Link to this comment

The Left is currently governed by Anarchy, divided and impotent.” 
You can elaborate on this statement can’t you?  Please do as
you are not making any distinctions at all.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, July 25, 2011 at 4:48 am Link to this comment

Lets hope “Progressive thinkers” will be able to see their way through all this “Bullshite” and come up with a constructive course of action to combat the very real threat that confronts “We the People.”

The Left is currently governed by Anarchy, divided and impotent.

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 25, 2011 at 3:57 am Link to this comment

“Your “idea” is certainly not new.
Nor has it worked in larger societies. Ever.”

Of course it isn’t new.  It has been tried in larger societies continously, especially since the computer age has made it actually possible. 

“What you are doing with your lengthy, immediate repetitions in this column is very obvious to some of us.”

It’s obvious to me also.  I am bored sick waiting for my wife to come in on a plane.  I have figured out long ago that the best way to stay awake against your will is to rile up the liberals.  What you do is tell them you are going to get rid of their precious government, and they go absolutely bonkers. 

Of course you probably thought I was a part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to take over the government by getting rid of it.

It would be in my benefit to feed that thought right now, but instead, I think I’ll go over and talk to the lady working in the Starbucks booth.  She looks kinda lonely.  And coffe can keep me awake as well.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, July 25, 2011 at 2:41 am Link to this comment

“You can’t see it, which is not surprising.  It is very far outside of
the box.
Be sure to realize that I am not attempting to convet anyone or advance
some new system for practical use.”  DaveZx3

I fear you have your and my positions switched.
Your repetitions indicate that you are locked inside your idea box.

Your “idea” is certainly not new.
Nor has it worked in larger societies. Ever.
What you are doing with your lengthy, immediate repetitions in this
column is very obvious to some of us.

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 25, 2011 at 2:25 am Link to this comment

drbhelthi, July 25 at 2:06 am

You can’t see it, which is not surprising.  It is very far outside of the box. 

Be sure to realize that I am not attempting to convet anyone or advance some new system for practical use. 

It is more of an effort to define my own politics and to fully understand the true source of systemic violence which everyone complains about on these pages, but have never had any impact on, whatsoever. 

There can be no doubt that dispersion of power would reduce corruption.  That cannot be denied, in my opinion.

That is the principle behind term limits.  Imagine if the term limit of a president was 1 month.  How much corruption could he ever be capable of?  How about one day?  Who would the lobbyists lobby?

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 25, 2011 at 2:08 am Link to this comment

By Leefeller, July 25 at 12:57 am Link to this comment

We seem to be under the spell of Fascism, not Anarchy,  I suspect Anarchy,... especially after all I have been hearing about it here on TD,  sounds like the concept of god.

—————————————————————-

I guess you would have to elaborate on what you mean by the above. 

Fascism is a form of violence, which anarchy would eliminate. 

God would be the concept of a theocracy, but anarchy is the concept of individual freedom.  If one chose to worship God, that would be a personal decision, not having any capacity to violate your neighbor’s desire to worship NFL football.

You would have to elaborate what you mean.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, July 25, 2011 at 2:06 am Link to this comment

“The idea of it is that it minimizes the chance of a
small group to amass enough power to corrupt the
system. ”

Right.
Nice idea.
Reality has not operated this way, historically.
Nor will it.

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 25, 2011 at 1:57 am Link to this comment

By drbhelthi, July 25 at 12:36 am

The idea of it is that it minimizes the chance of a small group to amass enough power to corrupt the system. 

There is, in reality, little division amongst the population with regards to the really important issues.  The only thing that allows the special interests to corrupt the process is that they have access to a correspondingly small number of powerful people to lobby and collude with.

If this power was spread amongst the whole population, the corruption or “buying” of the system would become extremely difficult.  It is hard to comprehend in practice, and would take me quite a long dissertation to write, it, so you will have to use your imagination as to how a mass of citizens would, as individual sovereign citizens, direct the bureaucracy without allowing the introduction of corruption and violence, as the current system does. 

All governmental functions remain, but power is not concentrated amongst a few.  ie: could be seen as constant and thorough oversight by the citizens, or absolute transparency, mostly made possible by the technology of the computer age. 

Years ago, you had to send a small number of representatives to Washington mostly for logistical purposes.  Today, the logistics of it is not a question.  A consistently revolving committee of hundreds of citizens linked up electronically, could assume the function of one elected representative, theoretically.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 25, 2011 at 12:57 am Link to this comment

We seem to be under the spell of Fascism, not Anarchy,  I suspect Anarchy,... especially after all I have been hearing about it here on TD,  sounds like the concept of god, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, one may believe in any of them if it makes them feel complete.

By the way, there are may different types of fascism, the Nazi’s were obviously the most well known, Pol Pot not so well known.

Maybe the guy in Norway was a right wing Anarchist, which means they can exist on both sides of the political spectrometry.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, July 25, 2011 at 12:36 am Link to this comment

Nice theory.

When the laws are illegally made by WWII NAZI-types, the remainder of the equation is also invalid.

WWII NAZI-types are pleased when the citizenry they are suppressing behave passively.

It makes genocide much easier.

Report this

By S. Lee, July 25, 2011 at 12:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is really tragic to me;  like the health care debacle.  Where we lost even a
weak public option.  Starting out from the stand-point of opening Medicare to
the whole country, i.e. a single payer system like Canada or France.  Now
Elizabeth Warren.

What is it with these politicians?  What did they truly want, in their heart of
hearts, when they set out on the road to Oz?  From their more humble origins?

They’re certainly rich enough now.  You can only be reelected twice, before you
retire as a president, and Obama has even risked that reelection, by his own
account, by his sell-out to the health insurance industry, Big Oil, the military
industrial complex .. (though he’ll probably be reelected because the
Republicans are o bad)

But I mean ..

It’s not like he or his family will ever want for anything. 

So what is it, that makes them tick?  What is it that someone like him or Bill
Clinton really wants?

Or are people like Obama and Bill Clinton just mentally weak - transformed by
power into something they unconsciously and always (really) desired?

Why is it so hard for them to stay loyal to their roots and “do the rIgHt ThInG”?

Are they afraid of being killed by the oil companies?  If they were, I would think
they never would have run for the presidency to begin with.

So what did they ever want, to begin with?  Since they’re not standing up for
anything?

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 25, 2011 at 12:04 am Link to this comment

By entropy2, July 24 at 10:25 am

“Keep the faith. Instead of viewing the world as left and right, red and blue, socialist and libertarian, open your mind to different ways and your heart to different perspectives.”

“There is no single giant rulebook that will ever be created that could cover the individual needs of 7 billion humans, let alone 300 million Americans. There is no single power that can enforce justice for the same.”
—————————————————-

Thanks for reinforcing the above points.  It has been ideas such as these, which have been banging around in my head for quite some time now, and reshaping my ideas of the healthy state.  At this point, I cannot tell you how committed I am to this simple equation:

LAW plus FREEDOM without VIOLENCE equals ANARCHY

I don’t have to dwell on all the inaccurate connotations of the word occupying the position on the right side of the above equation.  I don’t have to investigate all the hundreds, if not thousands of variations of anarchy, including the philosophies of Proudhon, himself.

Instead, I would rather dwell on the words on the left side of the equation:  ‘Law plus Fredom without Violence.’

Is there anyone who would deny that this is the state which all men aspire to?  (other than the oppressors, of course)  I would say that no man would deny that they would love to live in a state which would feature freedom and law but exclude the potential for the constant violating of its citizens.

Very clear to me is the fact that the collusion of industry and big government is the source of the overwhelming majority of the violations of the citizenry.  It is this collusion which is the Violence factor of the equation. 

For freedom to thrive, something must be done regarding the Violence factor of that equation, violence being, as discussed earlier, the collusion of industry and government.  The industriousness of the people could never be suppressed in a free society, so the answer has to be in regard to ‘government’.  Government, somehow is the problem.  Reinforcement for this is the idea that government can enact law, industry cannot, except through the corruption of government. 

When you evaluate ‘government’ as a factor, the only thing which really sticks out like a sore thumb is the power that government wields.  The power of government is the problem.  The government proceeds as though they have power over the people, rather than they are the expression of the will of the people. 

Government is not the seat of sovereignty, but sovereignty instead resides within each and every individual citizen.  Government only exists to facilitate administration of certain functions under the will of the people.  That is what the founders had in mind, which is power in the hands of the people.  The sovereignty of individuals.

The democratic vote could put an element of power in the hands of the people, but it doesn’t, because it is controlled by the government themselves.  So, I wrote earlier that democracy is an illusion.  The power is not in the hands of the people. 

The answer to the constant violation of the citizenry is the abolishing of government.  The textbook definition of Anarchy.  But because we do not wish to abolish law and order along with government, we keep all of government (to a degree) and abolish only the power that makes government offensive.  But not really abolish the power, but transfer it to those who are constitutionally required to be in possession of it, the people.

In this, we have a type of anarchy, maybe only for lack of a better name, but as valid as all the rest of the varieties. 

I am sorry to constantly regurgitate this same basic idea over and over.  I do it mostly to clarify it in my own mind.  But I am committed to it.  I am going to consider myself an Anarchist.  I even understand the details of the transfer of power to the people.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, July 24, 2011 at 10:59 pm Link to this comment

“I wrote a note saying ‘What about the unborn baby Iranians?’ and stuck
it under the windshield wiper (after carefully looking around to make
sure there weren’t any you-know-whats in view). The next time I saw the
van, the bumper had fallen off, so I don’t know what the answer was.” 
Anarcissie

Good for you !

Constructive thoughts can be very effective.
Occasionally.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 24, 2011 at 10:36 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie, July 24 6:22 pm, Everyone does have a set of beliefs
acquired in early childhood but they do change over time as one
accumulates experiences of people and the world.  Conjecture
about what psychology says about preconditioned responses to
anything is conventional.  As we get older our beliefs tend to
firm up emotionally and we believe what we want to believe, we
see what we want to see, we hear what we want to hear…  What
happens is that whatever is our experience we select evidence that
fits our beliefs and ignore any evidence that does not.  It is called
Confirmation Bias.  Conversions in beliefs happen when some cognitive
dissonance happens that makes it too uncomfortable to hold conflicting
beliefs at the same time.  This can happen at any time, there is no
appointed schedule for it to occur.  JFYI: Like anyone who holds strong
convictions about anything, anarchists also tend to stay anarchists, and
will make up stuff to preserve their beliefs when their beliefs are
threatened. Those who have a high psychological investment in their
beliefs, regardless of whether they are liberals or conservatives,
libertarians or anarchists, more easily become fervent and zealous in
their beliefs when confronted with evidence to the contrary or that their
belief is flawed, even going so far as to try to convert others to their
challenged beliefs, so says sociologist Leon Festinger in “When Prophecy
Fails.” Or, on the negative side, they will resort to violence to vindicate
or protect their beliefs.  There seems to be a deep psychological need to
think that the things believed are the truth.  Thought disharmony
happens when facts clash with one’s system of beliefs. 

Looks like Wrong Way Walker is coming unglued.  Yeowie Kazowie

Dao na

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 24, 2011 at 9:27 pm Link to this comment

How about ‘Don’t blame me—I voted for Satan!’

However, I must now recite my favorite bumper sticker story, which you have probably already heard, but bears repeating ad infinitum:

Once upon a time I saw a rusty van flying the Stars’n'Bars.  It had two bumper stickers.  The one on the left read ‘BOMB IRAN’ and the one on the right read ‘SAVE UNBORN BABIES’.

I wrote a note saying ‘What about the unborn baby Iranians?’ and stuck it under the windshield wiper (after carefully looking around to make sure there weren’t any you-know-whats in view).

The next time I saw the van, the bumper had fallen off, so I don’t know what the answer was.

Report this

By TAO Walker, July 24, 2011 at 8:08 pm Link to this comment

SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Comes again the never-
answered mating-call (which is the same as the forever-unrequited-love ‘song’
and the “self"pitying death-chant) of the….well, we know now exactly which
myth-illogical creature “She” is.

Walk this Way!

HokaHey!

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, July 24, 2011 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller, July 24 at 7:24 pm Link to this comment
“You know BR, having an essay on a bumper sticker is so flicking annoying, especially when I am driving my dump truck sitting up a lot higher, I always want to run over those damn slow Honda Prissy cars,  so now it seems I will have a reason!
Anyway my favorite bumper sticker is short and sweet, it (not Short and Sweet, though I like that too)  says; ...“Who gives a Damn about Apathy!” you could make it a bit longer and change “Apathy to Anarchy”!”

Lee - I have to agree with you on that one, but from what I’ve seen, most of the Prius owners are still doing jack rabbit starts and racing on the freeway. Somehow they think they’re off the hook because they bought a “green” car that requires a HAZMAT cleanup crew after a rollover. Anyway, that’s the only bumper sticker length some of those sanctimonious Prius drivers can understand at the 70+ mph they are driving. I confess, I have a pickup and I do about 50-55. I’ve gotten into this on TD before, about the aerodynamics and gas utilization thing, but I don’t think people were up for that discussion.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 24, 2011 at 7:24 pm Link to this comment

You know BR, having an essay on a bumper sticker is so flicking annoying, especially when I am driving my dump truck sitting up a lot higher, I always want to run over those damn slow Honda Prissy cars,  so now it seems I will have a reason!
Anyway my favorite bumper sticker is short and sweet, it (not Short and Sweet, though I like that too)  says; ...“Who gives a Damn about Apathy!” you could make it a bit longer and change “Apathy to Anarchy”!

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, July 24, 2011 at 7:01 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie, July 24 at 2:55 pm
“The sort of anarchy which anarchists usually promote or talk about is not an absence of rules but an absence of rulers, of a social institution of permanent, organized coercive power and a class system, that is, a government.”

That’s a keeper. Perhaps even a good bumper sticker:
“Anarchy is not an absence of rules, but an absence of rulers.” Even in this truncated version, it still makes the point clear.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 24, 2011 at 6:22 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, July 24 at 5:30 pm:

‘... ”Many people seem to maintain a quasi-religious conviction that human beings cannot live without rulers.”  What is a quasi-religious conviction?  A conviction resembling a religious belief? Really?  And is this simply a personal observation, or do you have something concrete on which you base this accusation? ...’

It’s not really an accusation.  Everyone has some set of pre-rational, fundamental beliefs, usually those taken it at a very early age, about the nature of the world, especially of human relationships.  Very occasionally, these may get discarded or modified in time because of some experience, or because of thinking about them (less likely).  The change, if it occurs, often seems to be a ‘conversion experience’, after which everything looks different.  (Not just about politics or the gods; sometimes about one’s relations to one’s relatives, neighbors, career, and so forth.)  I’ve read any number of anecdotes along these lines, and might say I’ve had such experiences myself.

I think that kind of thing has been studied quite a bit by psychologists and sociologists.  It’s been long noticed that if you give people an article to read and then ask them about it, those who agree with the framework of the article will remember it much better than those who don’t.  Hence liberals tend to stay liberal and conservatives to stay conservative and believers to keep the faith and skeptics to find the faith full of holes, and so on.  Indeed, when people find the framework of their beliefs threatened, they will often just make stuff up to preserve it.

Surely this is not news to anyone here.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 24, 2011 at 5:30 pm Link to this comment

”I wasn’t suggesting that we now become hunter-gatherers. “ 
I’m certainly glad of that!  I’ve looked at an “abundance” of
information on the subject and unlike you, I’ve provided names
of anthropologists who give evidence of hierarchical settlements
of early humans even the hunter/gatherers, up to and including
the 20th c., given that you only speak in generalities.  I could
give an impressive bibliography but it certainly doesn’t seem
necessary in the context of this forum.  I won’t disagree that for
the most part primitive man were non-hierarchical in social structure. 
But you also must admit that “natural” state did not last long once a
certain level of consciousness evolved when humans understood the life-
enhancing effects of agriculture.  The human race changed dramatically. 
If primitive man were anarchistic, I gave reasons why, but you did not
even consider there might be “natural” unintentional reasons. Perhaps
you only stop at the notion of their “anarchistic” condition because it
looks like it supports your position?  It was not because they consciously
abhorred authority.  They didn’t even give it a thought.  And yes, that is
a conjecture since we have no way of knowing what they thought.  But
there is no evidence they intentionally lived that way.  It was simply and
purely the way their primitive lives had evolved.  I suggest this is the
same pattern of independence that DaveZx3 experienced.  The kind of
anarchy to which I am referring is where humans deliberately decided to
have an anarchistic society (hardly the kind of rational decision a chile of
4 or 5 could make!).  Those are the kind that has nil historical evidence. 
If you could provide evidence of a primitive society that intentionally
lived anarchistically, that would indubitably support your claim.  One
person does not own surprise.  I am surprised you are taking such a
sophomoric attitude on the subject.  If you are interested in presenting
facts, try to do so without presenting an attitude on behalf of anarchy,
you know, objectively.  All the facts, not just ones you like.

”Many people seem to maintain a quasi-religious conviction that
human beings cannot live without rulers.”
  What is a quasi-religious
conviction?  A conviction resembling a religious belief?  Really?  And is
this simply a personal observation, or do you have something concrete
on which you base this accusation?  It would seem throughout history
most societies had some sort of authority structure whether in the form
of chieftan, monarchy or democratic government to express the widest
diversity, and there are probably uncountable variations on a theme in
between.  But to say it is “quasi-religious,” is abandoning rationality. It
would seem that it was a natural progression of human collectivization
starting from clan chieftans who most certainly fought for leadership, to
the victor goes the blah blah blah… you know…the clan.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 24, 2011 at 2:55 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller—The sort of anarchy which anarchists usually promote or talk about is not an absence of rules but an absence of rulers, of a social institution of permanent, organized coercive power and a class system, that is, a government.  Presumably any set of human beings will have to evolve or consciously agree on a set of rules so they can get along with one another and their environment.  That’s a different thing.

entropy2—Many people seem to maintain a quasi-religious conviction that human beings cannot live without rulers, in spite of any evidence to the contrary.  I suppose this is part of the ideology of the state, which most of us are soaked in from birth.  For such people, it seems that the idea of a social order without rulers, authorities, and coercive institutions causes deep anxiety and must be warded off.  I don’t find much point in trying to argue with them, because that kind of deep intuition or training isn’t susceptible to argument.  But I do try to set the facts out now and then.  Waste of time, I suppose.

Report this
entropy2's avatar

By entropy2, July 24, 2011 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment

@Anarcissie -  In one way, it really doesn’t matter if there have been no “purely” anarchistic societies before now. NEVER before in the history of humanity have we had the capacity to connect and coordinate on an individual basis with any person(s) in the world who we choose.

We don’t have to degenerate into primitivism to shed our attachment to hierarchies. We simply don’t need them anymore…and we have the power to leave them behind. It’s only brainwashing and fear that keeps us slaves.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 24, 2011 at 1:54 pm Link to this comment

Even the Aborigines had dualism within their society a culture which had rules,... if they were Anarchists maybe Anarcissie can enlighten me.

Even the bear who shits in the woods has rules, though they may be closer to what Anarchism is, maybe it has to do with hibernation?

Gophers are very territorial like snakes, except during mating, maybe we are getting closer to ground hog day?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 24, 2011 at 1:42 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous—I wasn’t suggesting that we now become hunter-gatherers.  I was responding to your statement, ‘I suggest there was never a time in human history where anarchy was the condition of human life.’  Anthropology says you’re almost certainly wrong.  Given the abundance of material on the subject, I’m shocked to see such a declaration coming from one of the literate subset of the Truthdig commentariat.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 24, 2011 at 11:47 am Link to this comment

And lo the sour egotist Wrong Way Walker speaks again,

Dao na!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 24, 2011 at 11:44 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie - ” Many anthropologists disagree with you on that,
with regard to our hunter-gatherer ancestors.  Groups of humans
living successfully in the wild without rulers or governmental
institutions have not only been observed in historical time, but
even as recently as the 20th century.“
  And many go beyond that. 
We are now in the 21st century.  Do they still exist?  Who are they? 
Where do they autonomously hunt and gather without some
governmental supervision?  And if they do, can they be said to be
consciously evolved human beings? 

Is that what you propose, a return to a primitive protean lifestyle of
hunter/gathering?  The forager societies (hunter/gatherers) were more
or less non-hierarchically structured mainly because of their mobility,
but there were groups that did have clan leaders and a social structure.
18th century Blackstone wrote about the character of hunter/gatherer
societies and corroborated by 20th century anthropologists Nolan and
the Lenskis in 1995.  While it is certainly true foragers were generally
non-hierarchical and egalitarian, this was undoubtedly due to their
nomad existence and not being able to store surplus food.  Their
consciousness had not evolved sufficiently to figure that out.  But
when they did, and the food sources were more plentiful they naturally
formed more sedentary lifestyles, and agriculture developed, which led
to “organized” hierarchical societies needing rules (as in governments).
Present day hunter/gatherers Haida in British Columbia and others of
the Pacific Northwest evolved hierarchical social formations because they
had such abundance of food that mobility was less necessary.  According
to Lenski, in Human Societies: An Introduction to Macrosociology,
“Human groups begin as hunter/gatherers, move toward pastoralism
and/or horticulturalism, develop toward an agrarian society, and
ultimately end up undergoing a period of industrialization (with the
potential for developing a service industry following industrialization).”

Many anthropologists assume that foragers who have been described by
ethnographers of foraging societies lived in marginal or unproductive
habitats.  This is because agricultural societies, by virtue of their larger
populations and greater military strength, sometimes displaced foragers
from the more productive habitats, eliminate them altogether, or
incorporate them into their own societies.  Those groups that had
considerably higher population densities resulted in different social
organizations.  Larger groups in small territories most likely favored
greater territorial defense, even warfare.  Anthropologist Bigelow thinks
domination by agrarian societies accounts for the general peaceful
nature of foragers and also accounts for their egalitarianism.

Such a meager few, almost non-existent, hunter/gatherer societies
lasted into our modern century, which says that way of life was really
unsustainable.  When it was propitious for humans to collectivize into
organized societies, which further evolved governments, they did so.

Report this

By TAO Walker, July 24, 2011 at 11:40 am Link to this comment

Well, whaddaya know?!  It turns out the sort of (until-now-not-exactly-‘speci’fied)
‘anony’thing “She” is, is….well, the very Harpy of “happiness” herown"self.”

Let the (“creator”-endowed and inalienably “right”-reckless and -feckless) 
“pursuit” of her-highhorsness commence.

HokaHey!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 24, 2011 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

Well…both guys were buff.  At your age, are you in such good shape? 
By the sounds of it, no.  The electronic age is The Instant Age and
nothing is sacrosanct anymore.  Even Her Magisties.  I can see where
an anarchist would need pants with three legs,  their phallic-centric
minds make it a requirement to go out in public, and the t-shirts with
no head hole is really a good idea, since they shun any authority (so
ostensibly they have no apparent head, thus rendering a head hole
superfluous, did I get that right? But then their heads are invisible
anyway), and your picture, it will depend on how photogenic you are. 
Now to whom exactly are you going to market your idiosyncratic t-
shirts?  Not to other anarchists, for they would not give a shit what you
do, right?  And to try to sell to non-anarchists probably won’t get you a
dime, for they don’t give a shit either.  You will be left with a shitload of
t-shirts, which you will have to wear til your last breath!  But we do love
your irascible self-indulgence.  When you come back from taking your
dog out to pee and defecate, who I’m sure will be much more relieved,
let’s hope you do the same.  For you are quite full of it, as old are you
are.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 24, 2011 at 10:42 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, July 24 at 8:10 am:

‘... You may think you have an anarchist’s soul, I suggest there was never a time in human history where anarchy was the condition of human life. ...’

Many anthropologists disagree with you on that, with regard to our hunter-gatherer ancestors.  Groups of humans living successfully in the wild without rulers or governmental institutions have not only been observed in historical time, but even as recently as the 20th century.  (Maybe even the 21st—I’m probably not fully current with anthro-lit.)

Actually, I find your statement rather surprising, since it is not ignorant but fully contrafactual, something like a religious belief which is maintained in the teeth of contrary evidence.

Report this
entropy2's avatar

By entropy2, July 24, 2011 at 10:25 am Link to this comment

@DaveZx3—First - re: my profile pic…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proudhon

wink

There’s so much despair on these boards. People who consider themselves as “left,” that is, supporting human rights, equality, justice, etc., have, in large part, put their faith in government to solve our problems. In contrast to this hope, we are constantly faced with the reality of the state acting as the iron fist of the economic elite.

We watch election after election go by, local through national, wherein the issues confronting the working class are brushed aside or, at best, treated with bandaids. The real issues of power, responsibility and accountability are never truly addressed.

All the while, we hand our lives over to the corporate state, and they rent it back to us, bit by bit, skimming our dreams, our integrity and our passion off for themselves. We continue to hope that more power in the right hands will somehow create justice and abundance -  and we continue to be disappointed.

In answer to this, the statists on this board can only prescribe more submission and obedience to authority. They are owned and utterly dependent, and they can’t imagine any other way of living.

Keep the faith. Instead of viewing the world as left and right, red and blue, socialist and libertarian, open your mind to different ways and your heart to different perspectives.

Unlike any point in history, we have the tools right here in front of us to connect with like-hearted people, to amplify our skills and to combine our resources for our mutual benefit and create intentional communities based on trust, responsibility and interdependence.

There is no single giant rulebook that will ever be created that could cover the individual needs of 7 billion humans, let alone 300 million Americans. There is no single power that can enforce justice for the same.

We are society…we need to take responsibility for it.

Here’s a few sites…not all anark, but all with the same inclination.

http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com/

http://c4ss.org/

http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/index.html

http://transitionnetwork.org/

http://distributistreview.com/mag/

http://www.ourfutureplanet.org/

http://www.pnar.org/index.html

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 24, 2011 at 10:17 am Link to this comment

What kind of pictures do you prefer?  Lee or Weiner?
See how easy it is to become a cultural icon?

I am going to get there myself someday.  I have a line of “anarchy” clothes I am working on.  You know, pants with three legs, t-shirts with no head hole, etc.  And my picture is going to be on each and every one of them.

I am going to become rich and famous, so much so, that people will be taking contracts out on my life.

Well, I just find that when you get as old as I am, you always have to maintain some type of dream, just to keep yourself going. 

So, with your permission, O’Queen, I am going to sign off for the day.  My beagle is howling to go out.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 24, 2011 at 9:32 am Link to this comment

Please, DaveZx3, don’t blame your errant foot on me!  You really
made my day!  A laugh is a laugh is a laugh.  I’ve always recognized
you had a streak of humor.  I do appreciate it though that you have
joined the small cadre who recognizes my royalty.  You forgot to
mention my herd of high horses!  I never take credit alone.  Do I feel
superior?  You bet your ass I do!  I do see however you are easily
intimidated that even choice words can make you cringe.  But even
at 4 or 5 a child would hardly know if he were an anarchist since it
could only be resentment that drives the animus and not
precociousness in retrospect!  And your poor mom could only use
madness as the instrument of intimidation.  It is a wonder she lasted
until you were 9!  I would bet, though, your mom didn’t have the word
anarchy in her vocaabulary but did know what “little bastards” were.  Do
send pictures, so we can laugh all over again.  Am I that much unlike
your mom?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 24, 2011 at 9:07 am Link to this comment

Dave, going to kick the Bagel?... Thought is was a goose, er!....no a duck!

What Duck?

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 24, 2011 at 8:28 am Link to this comment

The queen of literalness strikes again.  And I get a half page lecture on how I could not possibly have been an anarchist at the age of two.

It is really quite embarassing for me to have to acknowledge that you are probably right, O’Queen.  I think I only looked like an anarchist.  I probably didn’t truly convert till about 4 or 5.  I was the first of four brothers, and as I now recall it, anarchy started to dominate in the family when I was about five.  It grew and grew, and by the time I was 9, I remember my mother saying she was ready for the asylum. 

So, I hope that makes you feel just so superior, that you got me to admit all this.  I am going to print out your last post and tear it up just to get even.  And then I am going to go down stairs and kick the beagle around for a few minutes.  Then I am going to going the fridge and get some food and spill it all over the floor and my shirt. 

I have to admit, now that I have found anarchy, I feel so…uh…so sexy!!  I’m going back upstairs and take some pictures of myself.  Do you want me to send you one?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 24, 2011 at 8:24 am Link to this comment

Bull Shit is cheap, even if you don’t own a bull!

Now an expert in bull shit may be another story. For they specialize in bull shit derivatives,... just like Wall Street dabbles in all kinds of speculations, figuring someone will always buy their bull shit!

Guess, the plan for Bull shit, is always to raise the price?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 24, 2011 at 8:10 am Link to this comment

So now you say you weren’t born an anarchist but became one at
2-years old?  Unbelievable! As if the word tantrum did not describe
2-year olds who don’t get their way!  Their freedom!  That is a fool’s
statement and is not really to know the conditions under which you
were born and then were bound to continued to live until the legal
age of 18! Excuse me for the exclamation points but it is incredulous
that a grown man could have such mushy thinking.  Listen here
DaveZ3x, when you are born, the first hand of authority is the doctor,
midwife, nurse, taxidriver, whoever it is that delivers you, who led you
out of the birth canal.  You may pitch a fit but the facts are the facts. 
Then dear mamma controls your every move and… movements.  Kick
and scream much as you want, you will be slapped to hell and back until
you do what you are told.  Then you are under the control of the family
until the law, also a hand of authority, and a really big hand it is, says
you are of age to be independent.  Then and only then may you “be” an
anarchist regardless of how anarchistic you are in your mind until then! 
And none of that has anything to do with an oppressive, coercive state,
because the legal age is what mature adults agreed was acceptable and
which is often unwritten in many societies.  And now as an adult, you
bitch and moan how you’ve been an anarcchist all your life?  OMG Yes,
oh my god, since you claim to be a religious man and what more
controlling an institution is there than religion?  Ohhhh pooor anarchists
who must live in a world of controllers of some sort!  Forced to do this,
coerced to do that!  And every time you meet a traffic light you curse
Adam and Eve!  Unless, of course, you can find some remote island to
crawl to where like Carusoe you can then in your near solitude find some
unanarchistic slave named Friday, or a Wilson the basketball, to do your
bidding.  The ambiguous word anarchist has such a “charming ring’ to it,
just the sound of it is a seduction.  Just say it!  A n a r c h y!  Anarchy! 
Let the phonemes roll around your mouth! And Popeye would say, “I am
an ANARCHIST!” and the bells toll somberly in a world where the notion
of freedom (or decentralization of power) is really just a…. ah, er, uh….
figment. 

You may think you have an anarchist’s soul, I suggest there was never a
time in human history where anarchy was the condition of human life. 
The idea of decentralization of power was never in existence, not in the
cave, not on the hunt, not in the gathering, and most obviously, not
when societies first began to form.  And, in spite of all the dreaming of
absolute freedom, it never will be.  While it should be a matter of just
sitting down, or standing or crawling, and logically think it through,
without dressing up the premises, to see reality is to see that while the
the “idea” of anarchy is real, it itself as a way of life is a chimera, in the
real sense of the word chimera (which means some horribly unrealistic
monster).

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 24, 2011 at 7:34 am Link to this comment

I guess I should have been more careful before saying I have been an anarchist all my life.  Actually, I would say it started about the age of two.  I was born a George Wallace democrat, but got over that quickly, thank God. 

For a considerable amount of time I was apolitical, interested mostly in girls.  I started thinking about politics again after getting married and having a couple of kids.  I thought about it, but that’s about all. 

Most of my life has been spent thinking of politicians as a complete waste of good oxygen.  My bumper sticker said, “don’t vote, it only encourages politicians” 

When I saw the quote by Emma Goodman, “If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal”  I knew she was my kind of person.

My parents were democrats back when democrats were actually for the little guy.  But I didn’t like the idea that the Southern ones were so racist.  There were a couple of blacks kids on my high school football team, and I liked them, as did we all. 

I always told people I was an independent after that, because I didn’t like republicans and I didn’t like democrats.  I started to have a major, major hatred for democrats as they started to become more intellectually elite and moved further left.  I didn’t like republicans, but I absolutely hated communists.

So, now I will claim that I have been an anarchist since the age of two.  There really is a good case for it.  I looked at my pictures at that age, and I looked just like entropy2, without the beard. 

I am not going to get concerned about the Kant thing.  I like a lot of things he had to say, but my distaste for the elitist attitudes of those who tightly control the box of all known things, and especially the dead ones, over rides any desire I might have to embrace him.  I only need him temporarily for those simple words of his:

“Law plus Freedom without Violence is Anarchy” 

The more I think on those words, the more they ring true to me.  I start to see the whole big picture of where violence (of the major variety) originates from. 

It originates from the marriage of industry and government.  Once those two cozy up, freedom erodes and violence erupts, plain and simple.  And since anarchy takes away government, (at least the power of government), and spreads it widely amongst the people, industry has no easy target to cozy up to and their activities become much easier to control by the masses. 

I think that if one were to see this phenomenon more clearly, it might help to think of violence, less as a hammering on each others heads, (not that this is not a reality) but as a case of the masses being totally violated in every way shape and form.  The list would include: Abused, ignored, locked up, marginalized, robbed, poisoned, over-regulated, deceived, lied to, killed, spied on, used as guinea pigs, sent to fight useless wars, and depopulated.  I would continue, but I got tired all of a sudden. 

Since I have noticed that no matter what party is in power, these activities do not significantly change, (with the excuse always being that the other party is keeping us from doing anything)  I have no other choice than to totally denounce our two-party system, and say that all the people who plot to elect their special candidates must be accomplices to this massive violence, or just plain stupid, or maybe both.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 24, 2011 at 2:44 am Link to this comment

So now finding oneself to have been an anarchist since birth, LOL,
Kant is also now commandeered for its justification.  Mamma Mia! 
Poor Kant was so ambiguous so as (soas) to be torn apart by the
most dissimilar of mind.  I truly wonder what Kant would have thought
of that? And what he would have thought of current civilization.  Or
should we call it current savagization?  It is sinking faster away from
civility than a glacier moves.

Report this

By TAO Walker, July 23, 2011 at 10:27 pm Link to this comment

If “JDmysticDJ” were to have the misfortune to find a tumor growing somewhere
about his birthday-suit, and if he had it looked-at by a physician, and if after
running some tests the doctor told him the tumor was “malignant,” would the
M.D. (in the view of “JDmysticDJ”) be ‘guilty’ of having an “animus” toward the
tumor for simply calling it what it is?  Would he declare that “there is no
alternative” to the tumor, and demand that treatment be focused exclusively
upon somehow turning the thing from “malignant” to “benign”? 

Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt here, and figure (despite plenty of
evidence to the CONtrary in his supercilious comments below about his very
own “TAO Walker” effigy) that he would see neither the diagnostician as having
such an “animus” in those circumstances, nor the tumor as something to which
“....there is no alternative.”  It seems like a genuinely friendly thing to do,after
all.

Let’s say, on-the-other-hand, and just for the heck of it, that “JDmysticDJ” not
only belonged-to but was a hard-core member of a weird cult that for some
‘reason’ actually worshipped cancer as its ‘god.’  Chances are he would then
react to any characterization of his idol as a disease (by a Person not caught-up
in the bizarre CONceits of his cult), as if that statement of plain biological
Natural Fact were instead….well, some kind of of “animus”-driven blasphemy,
maybe.  Chances are, too, that he would, after the chronic fashion of true-
believers in all times and places, feel that same “animus” would just have to be
directed also at his own too-precious “self.” 

“JDmysticDJ” is a “self”-CONfessed worshipper in the cult of the “civilization”
disease….worse luck for him.  There are clinical terms for the sort of delusional
state such fixations are symptomatic-of.  When those include fantasies of both
‘persecution’ and ‘grandeur,’ as revealed here in the entirely imaginary “animus”
(toward both his “self” and the disease process he IDentifies so strongly with)
which he invests in his “TAO Walker” effigy….well, one of those clinical terms is
“paranoia.”

His completely unfounded assertion that anybody at-all (never-mind an Old
Savage who has never proposed anything of the kind….on this cyberspace-
based virtual ‘forum’ or anywhere else) would or even could “dictate” the
composition of a Natural Organic Form that must occur naturally and
spontaneously within The Whole Living Arrangement of our Mother Earth, or not
at all, is….well, an utter absurdity.  This is why “JDmysticDJ” has to hang it on a
make-believe CONstruct of his own CONtrivance, something existing nowhere
but in his own “individual” cell in the “global” gulag that is the virtual world-o’-
hurt….since there’s absolutely nothing here in the real Living World that will
support it.

His Old Friend here is being pushed (by the CONtinuing ‘blizzard’ of badly bent
words blowing from “JDmysticDJ” hisown"self”) toward having to take them as
the malignant ‘product’ of an “animus”-driven ‘case’ of discursive dishonesty.

HokaHey!

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 23, 2011 at 8:15 pm Link to this comment

I have been an anarchist all my life.  I just never realized it.  I might never realize it fully, because I know nothing of anarchy, obviously.  I only used the word as a convenience to an argument, thinking that it was so generic that no one would really notice or care.  It was Kant’s ideas of the societal states which drove me here.

But now that I have noticed, I am starting to care.  I suppose now I will have to do some (shudder, shudder)study so as not to sound so ignorant on the subject and to be able to give a name to the specific type of anarchist I consider myself to be, if it turns out that I am to be one at all. 

I’ll start of with an adherence to the idea of Kant that a societal state consisting of law and freedom without violence is a state of anarchy.  That is my ideal state, so I will work to figure out how he could have come up with such an idea and what the word anarchy meant to him.

I am also going to stick initially with the assumption that anarchy to me will probably end up being life as we know it minus the specific components or structures of government, which enble government to collude with industry for the purposes of violating the masses.

Insisting on law and freedom and no violence means the common thoughts of anarchy as some lawless, dog-eat-dog society, is not what I am thinking of. 

In fact, I am probably going to end up right in line with Entropy2’s statement that,  “One of the fundamental bases of anarchism is non-hierarchical, distributed power. This means we are against concentration of power either in government OR in the economy (or, as we have now, in an unholy alliance between the two). It is individual and local values making the rules, not rules dictated from the top down by technocrats and bureaucrats in order to best the serve plutocrats’ values.”

I think that just about sums it up for me.  “Non-hierarchical, distributed power”  I don’t need to abolish government, I just want to take the power of government and distribute it to the people.  This may have been a very hard thing to conceive of 200 years ago, but in the computer age, it’s not inconceivable. 

That is what Kant must have been refering to with his “lack of violence” anarchy.  Power which is very widely distributed is much harder to corrupt than power that is invested in a few.  Since corruption is the start of violence, violence of the catastrophic variety at least, can be minimized or even eliminated by a wide distibution of power.

I think the founders attempted to warn us of the mistake of allowing a powerful central government, but it happened anyway.  Now it is time to reverse it.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 23, 2011 at 7:54 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous—I would say the central problem anarchists try to engage is the state, the presence in communities of an institution based on violence, or more accurately, coercive force—Gewalt in Weber’s German.  In modern industrial societies the state has become enormously powerful; even in the low-tax USA most people who have jobs work four months out of the year for the government, and it’s highly debatable whether they get their money’s worth back.  States are obviously violent—that poster child of liberal democracy, the U.S., is now involved militarily in half a dozen countries and has the Drug War, The War On Some Terror, the prison-industrial complex, and unfettered lawyering and real estate development at home.  But that’s just my view.  Needless to say, No True Anarchists would want to impose their views on me nor I on them.  I’ve already given you the URL of the Wikipedia article, right?

Anarchism is not like Marxism—well, actually, it is, in the sense that there are about as many versions of Marxism as there are people who have ever heard the word.  I should probably give up mentioning it.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 23, 2011 at 7:06 pm Link to this comment

I was clarifying that it was not clear.  I thought that was clear.
Oh well.  I’ve no need to make anything up it can be whatever
would-be anarchists want it to be along the no violence to
violence spectrum.  It is a to be or not to be kind of question.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 23, 2011 at 7:01 pm Link to this comment

Anthropologists say primitive man promoted himself in a society of dualism which may support a reasonable argument in the concept of the two party system?  Accordingly it is called ‘moiety”. From anthropologists not apologists, we learn cave men divide themselves into two groups, the idea being in division there is the spark to impart life into oneself. 

Lets face it, if there were not any Tea Bags or Republicans out there, ...I would be bored to death, hence possibly even cease to exist.

To fulfill my quest of prosperity and impart a bit of interest in my life, I must certainly be required to marry a Republican possibly upping the ante and seek as my bride an evangelical Republican, this would be like frosting on the cake with the bonus addition unconscious stupidity being in the mix.

After all; survival as in the need to exist, requires an inflated feeling of self worth, pomposity and cavalier horsemanship.

Report this
entropy2's avatar

By entropy2, July 23, 2011 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment

@Anarcissie

It’s the compound opinion of many millions of people, many of whom have no idea what they’re talking about

Agreed…I, too, probably know less about anarchism than I think I do. But when did that ever stop me?

I think that there is a great amout of confusion and misinformation about the basic principles of anarchism. There is a popular notion that anarchists believe in a dog-eat-dog, no-rules, primitive society. Likewise there is the assertion that anarchists want to immediately “shut-down” government and let the sh** fly where it may. Another widespread belief is that anarchists advocate violence.

All these assertions are false.

There is absolute anarchism, but most anarchists are not absolutists.

However, there are common threads.

One of the fundamental bases of anarchism is non-hierarchical, distributed power. This means we are against concentration of power either in government OR in the economy (or, as we have now, in an unholy alliance between the two). It is individual and local values making the rules, not rules dictated from the top down by technocrats and bureaucrats in order to best the serve plutocrats’ values.

Distributed power is the power of a farmer to sell raw milk from his pastured cows to a friend and neighbor without the FDA kicking his door down.

“Mopping up the raw-milk mob”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/13/mopping-up-the-raw-milk-mob/?page=all#pagebreak

It’s the power of you or me to set up a small scale business at home without the fees, licenses, and regulations meant for mega-sized corporations.

In fact, when one sees how government power has always been twisted to serve the economic elite (even in purportedly “democratic” societies), the concentration of power is, in itself, a danger to freedom. And we feel it is exceedingly naive to hope that the “right leaders”—honest, smart, non-sociopathic—can be found, convinced to run for office and are able to win, and that, with power in their hands, they can resist abusing that power (even if it’s, by their definition, “for our own good”).

If you are a liberal, fed up with the corporate state, take the time to look at classic anarchism and some of its modern cousins: mutualism, left-libertarianism, agorism, distributism, etc. For nostalgia fans, look also at the leftist movements of the 60s. You’ll find an equivalent mistrust and aversion to big business and big government. You may find that the word “free market” are not curse words and that individualism, common purpose and interdependence are NOT exclusive of each other.

IMO, the struggle of this century isn’t left vs. right, it’s big vs. small, coercive vs. free, exploitive vs. interdependent.

In any case, it’s nice to see a wider discussion of anarchism on this and other sites.

Report this

By ardee, July 23, 2011 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ, July 23 at 9:19 am

Bullshite soas to = Bullshite SO AS TO

Sheesh, fella. Anything to read your own words I guess….I look, I leap, I speak as I believe.

WSorry if you dont care for my words or my thoughts. Sorry if you are so anal too.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 23, 2011 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymous, July 23 at 11:14 am:

‘I wouldn’t exactly say I am hung up on anarchy.  I was clarifying the meaning of the concept.  It is too muddled. ...’

You can’t clarify it because it isn’t clear.  It’s the compound opinion of many millions of people, many of whom have no idea what they’re talking about (as you can see from this discussion).

I think you should feel as free to make something up as everyone else does.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 23, 2011 at 1:45 pm Link to this comment

Something about the conservative mind (using the word mind loosely here.) amazes me,... I see the same degree of unyielding thought and degree of absoluteness which embellishes the way banks and credit card companies offer contracts and products to consumers .  I see one way contracts offered by the money changers very much like the one way Republicans offer (demand) think (or told to think) for all others to accept their deal or else. .... As stated by the previous village idiot, ‘You are with us or you are against us’!

Elizabeth Warren, may have been a bit of undesired competition to Obama in the charisma department?

Hell,... with Senator….  Make my day, a Dream ticket,  Elizabeth Warren for Vice President with Bernie Sanders for President….. Damn, here is a cause I could get sucked into and become one of those mindless fanatics I keep hearing about, I will even wear one of those Wonder Women Outfits!

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, July 23, 2011 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment

By TAO Walker, July 23 at 11:38

Given my assertions about Tao Walker’s motives and clearly demonstrated proclivities, and the truths which I chose not to fully expose, I can understand Tao Walkers animus towards me, but I can not agree with his animus towards civilization. Civilization is far from perfect, constantly in need of improvement, and slow to improve, but there is no alternative to civilization.

Tao Walker advocates a mutual community where he dictates what that community will be, which is something short of mutual, don’t you think?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 23, 2011 at 12:56 pm Link to this comment

Reading Axelrod, I think his explanation of “What accounts for the
robust success of basic reciprocity (T-f-T) is its combination of being
nice, retaliatory, forgiving and clear. Seems its niceness prevents it
from getting into unnecessary trouble.  Its retaliation discourages
the other side from persisting whenever abandonment is tried. Its
forgiveness helps restore mutual cooperation. And its clarity makes it
intelligible to the other player, thereby eliciting long-term cooperation,”
has its faults, but it is not actually well refuted by those in the field of
game theory. 

If one had the time, it would seem most propitious to adopt a mixed
strategy.  Most ordinary people don’t have such temporal luxury.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 23, 2011 at 12:40 pm Link to this comment

How can what was said in the last two paragraphs be fitted back
into the topic of Elizabeth Warren or the side issue of anarchism? 
It seems that the T-f-T strategy would be demonstrably effective
against Republican stronghold and that one way to do that is to get
her elected to Congress.  Our effort to help her would be a case of
community collaboration.  If anarchism were to flower anywhere it also
seems that one way for it to be a stable system is for the members of
the society to pre-agree to a T-f-T basis of relations.  *(T-f-T For
some reason TD does not allow it to be spelled out).

Report this

By realveive, July 23, 2011 at 12:25 pm Link to this comment

Every day I add to my regrets for having helped vote Obama into office.  With McCain/Palin running (or ruining) the show I wouldn’t have felt betrayed.  Disappointed yes but not betrayed.  This Obama guy has turned out to be a smooth talking gutless weasel.  Perhaps that’s what today’s America deserves.  RIP USA

Report this

By TAO Walker, July 23, 2011 at 11:38 am Link to this comment

Once again “JDmysticDJ” has to invent a “TAO Walker” effigy, and impute to it
attitudes, beliefs, utterances, and postures never once adopted here (or
anywhere) by Yours Truly.  He dos this, apparently, so as to “justify,” at-least in
his own muddled ‘mind,’ yet another gratuitous virtual ‘assault’ against
bogeymen who actually exist nowhere except also in his own fevered brain.

This Indian has said here, often, that “civilization” is a disease process.  In the
very long experience of of it, among us surviving Free Wild Peoples, it is only
the seriously “self”-deluded who “self”-indulge so obsessively in all the
sophomoronic psycho-emotional “morality-play” clap-trap, about a mere
disease, that characterizes so much of the domesticate reaction to the already-
grave-but-rapidly-worsening condition their CONdition is in.  Only those
desperately drowning, in the terminal stage ‘rip-tide’ of the disease-generating
“SELF” they idolize, would ‘curse’ those who are offering a cure for it….a Way
out of their “self”-inflicted predicament actually accessible to ‘each’ and to all of
them….a Way not subject whatsoever to the “self”-serving dictates of those
utter fools who seek their own “self”-salvation in the destruction of everybody
and everything ‘else’....a Way “government,” as such, can neither effect nor
affect, which does indeed render it, by definition, irrelevant in these
circumstances.

It looks like this “self”-proclaimed (but false-seeming) “friend” is lapsing
deeper into his disease-induced, fever dream delusions.  It looks like he is
desperate for some kind of ‘foil’ that will distract attention from the folly of his
own position….in the face of events and circumstances that are overwhelming
his perhaps otherwise decent sensibilities.  He might look, though, to the “log
in his own eye,” before he presumes to prescribe for what he thinks is the
“speck of dust” in this Person’s.

He might have the good grace to acknowledge that his essentially context-free
“community” solution to ‘the problem’ is essentially what this Old Savage has
been proposing to our tame Sisters and Brothers all-along….with the added
benefit, however, of placing that ORGANic Form into The Whole Living
Arrangement of our Mother Earth….and not letting it drift directionless, as
“human”-ists tend to do, in the sickeningly “self”-referential “vacuum” of DEAD
END homo centrism.  This Free Wild Human Being is indeed “pleased” to help in
that Way, too. 

What, after all, are true friends for?

HokaHey!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 23, 2011 at 11:14 am Link to this comment

I wouldn’t exactly say I am hung up on anarchy.  I was clarifying
the meaning of the concept.  It is too muddled.  And I don’t get
hung up on Kant’s vision of the world, nor Hobbes.  Both theists
and atheists attempt to manacle Kant as supporting their zones
of thought.  It could be because he was self-contradictory.  It
seems Kant did not deal the topology of the actual world but
remains in subjectivity, since there were, and still are not any, no
actual anarchic existent structures in the world that have existed
long enough to make any coherent and applicable assessment. We
are bound to have only an intuitive grasp of reality if we are to stay
with Kant’s categories.

We must infer an objective world to make sense of perceptions of
an external world, then believe our inferences.  But we can prove the
error of our perceptions and therefore are liable to mistaken identity
of the external world.  But because we could be mistaken, that does
not necessarily leads to a solipsistic view of reality.  Kant’s empirical
principle that all knowledge begins with experience with the added
view of a priori understanding, understanding before experience, and
the human mind does not start out as a blank slate was really an attempt
to avoid solipsism.  He does not, however, really escape it as his
transcendentalism is subjectivist and idealistically so by his admittance
that things in themselves are not knowable.  If we were to accept Kant,
we would have to give up our world of science. I prefer Bertrand Russell’s
logical explanations of everything.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, July 23, 2011 at 9:57 am Link to this comment

By Anarcissie, July 23 at 7:44 am

“JDmysticDJ—perhaps you should interview the ‘anarchists’ in The Iceman Cometh to find out what their Default Positions are.”

*****************************************************************

As I recall, the default position of the Anarchist in question was a retreat into negativity, cynicism, and alcohol, which might be the expected default position of Anarchists.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, July 23, 2011 at 9:19 am Link to this comment

RE: ardee, July 23 at 6:33 am


“I wonder at the attempted change of topic from
the thrust of the article. But then I understand that the purpose of all the sudden spirituality has an underlying cause.

By all means ,oh lover of the Democratic Party, distract us with bullshite soas to keep folks from the kernel of truth displayed. Obama thinks the Geithners and Immelts belong in his administration while the Warrens have no place therein.”

****************************************************************

President Obama appoints Elizabeth Warren: Consumer Financial Protection, 9/17/2010

“President Obama appoints Elizabeth Warren to establish and lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

This is the boldest step Obama’s taken so far to rein in the big Wall Street banks. And it’s a major victory for grassroots progressives who rallied for Warren…”

From Politico, 7/18/2011

“’Richard Cordray has spent his career advocating for middle-class families, from his tenure as Ohio’s attorney general, to his most recent role as heading up the enforcement division at the [Bureau] and looking out for ordinary people in our financial system,’ Obama said in a statement.

In the newspaper report, Elizabeth Warren endorsed Cordray’s nomination, even though she was not ultimately nominated to lead the agency that she has been credited with proposing.

A person familiar with Warren’s thinking said that she very much wanted the job, but acknowledged that she would not be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.”

As usual, there is too much “Bullshite” here about what is actually occurring in the Halls of Government.

Incidentally, what is “Bullshite soas”? I understand the meaning of “Bullshite” because my mother used to say it occasionally, when she was extremely irate, but the meaning of “Bullshite soas” escapes me. It seems to me that you are in the habit of leaping before you look.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, July 23, 2011 at 7:44 am Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ—perhaps you should interview the ‘anarchists’ in The Iceman Cometh to find out what their Default Positions are.

Shenonymous—questions as to the possible viability of large non-coercive communities or institutions can’t be answered from history, it is true, but you might want to look at Axelrod on self-organizing systems.  I don’t think there is any provable upper limit to the complexity of such systems, one of which (for example) is the human body.

In general, becoming open to the concerns and theories of anarchism seems to require a kind of conversion experience, which I’m not going to attempt to inspire in any of you here.

ardee—I imagine topic drift occurs because the participants have said all they had to say about the original subject and have become interested in peripheral material.  Libertarians might question whether, and to what degree, the government should be in the business of protecting consumers from commercial fraud, since its effort is likely to be diverted or corrupted by the very enterprises it seeks to regulate.  They would probably disagree with each other as well as with proggies about it.  But there aren’t any libertarians here, so there’s no one to hit the ball back over the net.  Hence we’re being invited to depress ourselves with Eugene O’Neill, etc.

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 23, 2011 at 7:23 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous,

You are correct to say, if you did say it, that there is no such thing as some grand monolithic theory of anarchy.  It is useless to even utter the word anarchy for all the meanings it has had over the years. 

I only use it because of Kant’s list of societal states.  It was he who named a system of Law plus Freedom minus Violence as Anarchy.  I grabbed on to that, because no other alternatives were acceptable.
The fundamental characteristics of any societal state I would want to live in would have to encompass LAW plus FREEDOM without VIOLENCE.

It took me quite a while to see where Kant was coming from, and it took that verse from Ecclesiastes to complete the puzzle.  That shows the origins of levela of violence which have the capacity to destroy civilizations.  It is that level of violence which is being discussed. 

Kant insists the basis for state has to be freedom.  He knows that freedom cannot exist without law, and then he recognizes, as did the Boston Individualistic Anarchists that “state monopoly capitalism prevented labor from being fully rewarded.”  But that the system of “employer and employed, buying and selling, banking, and all the other essential institutions of Commercialism, centred upon private property, are in themselves good, BUT ARE RENDERED VICIOUS MERELY BY THE INTERFERENCE OF THE STATE.”

Do not get hung up on the word anarchy.  The idea is to disable the structure which allows the state to collude with industry for the purposes of violating the masses. 

I have to go out, so cannot finish my train of thought nor comment on the great analogy of BR549.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, July 23, 2011 at 6:44 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie

If you haven’t already, let me suggest you take in the play by Eugene O’Neil, “The Iceman Cometh.” I found the film version of that play to be very heady and enlightening with it’s contemplations of intellectual, philosophical, and political thought. The film starred Robert Ryan, Lee Marvin, and a young dude Jeff Bridges.

For what it’s worth, Robert Ryan won an Academy Award for his performance in the “The Iceman Cometh,” Perhaps his best role. He portrayed a former Anarchist, a pipe dreamer who had lost his pipe dream.

Report this

By ardee, July 23, 2011 at 6:33 am Link to this comment

I wonder at the attempted change of topic from
the thrust of the article. But then I understand that the purpose of all the sudden spirituality has an underlying cause.

By all means ,oh lover of the Democratic Party, distract us with bullshite soas to keep folks from the kernel of truth displayed. Obama thinks the Geithners and Immelts belong in his administration while the Warrens have no place therein.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 23, 2011 at 6:19 am Link to this comment

Let’s hope I am something else, as I imagine myself to be!  To be
completely pessimistic promises only a jump off a bridge.  While I
am cynical due to the utter selfishness displayed by members of our
society, I am optimistic and hopeful when I see people like Warren
who when in the political limelight actually act altruistic and actually
are altruistic. There are a few others beginning to blossom.  And I
see that a multitude express their utter hope in this woman warrior
because they themselves feel so impotent and are conditioned to
exist in a blended society where utter selfishness of a few appears
to be not a crime against humanity intermixed with those throngs who
are at the mercy of the selfish.  It will take more discussion.  Saying one
is a liberal is no longer a stigma!  And while I do fervently believe in the
power of the individual I also just as passionately believe we are social
beings responsible to and for each other.  It is the instinct of the survival
of the species because that is what we are, a species.  I will stay serene,
so that I may see more clearly.  In the Upanishads, it is called mind poise. 
But let us not forget that serenity does not preclude passion.  (To make
you laugh, passion and serenity are paired in the Jedi Code five-line
mantra!)

Are the anarchists right?  Do we need less government, or for them, no
government?  For 310 million people where small collectives really are
not possible let alone thinkable!  But even if we did break up into small
anarchistic groups, we would still have to have means to cooperate with
the other anarchistic groups.  That is the way of the primitive savage
clans of millions of years ago.  Surely these millions of intervening
evolving years have meant something?  That we can say that humans
have progressed from the barbaric stage?  It is just too fashionable to
say we haven’t.  I do not see any evidence that anarchistic structure of
groups of people have ever worked in any lasting way. 

Essentially and definitively anarchy means an absence of law. 
Conceptually, without a doubt anarchy has been a most misunderstood
system of human interaction, but in actuality, it is because it is such an
ambiguous term that several politically philosophical definitions are
attached to it, and in some cases the perspectives are in opposition,
putting the taint of contradiction onto it.  So before expressing a
preference for anarchy, one might describe just what kind of anarchy
being promoted. 

It is understood that all adherents to anarchism must declare a complete
opposition to all authority for all economic, political social interaction as
definitive of anarchic ideology.  And it is said that in an ideal world,
ordered anarchy is non-violent.  What exactly, no…what precisely, is
meant that it is non-violent?  The colossal hindrance to this idea is the
existence of the real world.  In a purely logical sense, an anti-
authoritarian world is what normal human beings naturally want.  We
love our freedom.  But humans have in their nature certain vices that will
not allow for a consensus based lawless collective. 

But there are irreconcilable differences in ideology, values and tactical
social constructions among the anarchistic varieties. Furthermore,
conceptions about how an anarchist society might work vary widely,
most conspicuously with respect to economics. There are also extremely
important disagreements about how an anarchic society might be
brought about, with some anarchists being committed to a strategy of
nonviolence, while others advocate terrible violence. 

The question that cannot be escaped is if anarchy is ideal why has it
consistently failed either to be the base system of social interaction of
the collective of a huge number of individuals, or if it succeeded with
smaller collectives, it did not comparatively last very long

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, July 23, 2011 at 6:13 am Link to this comment

Tao Walker my friend.

Each new controversy pleases you, doesn’t it my friend?!

Each new crisis pleases you, doesn’t it my friend?!

Each new diatribe against our government pleases you, doesn’t it my friend?!

Each new assertion that civilization is failing pleases you, doesn’t it my friend?!

Each new opportunity to criticize civilization, pleases you doesn’t it my friend?!

You’re circling like a bird of prey waiting to strike, aren’t you my friend?!

You are hoping for the destruction of civilization, and a return to the laws of carnal nature, aren’t you my friend?!

You’re animus is very vindictive, isn’t it my friend?!

I’ll spare you the gory details of Native American culture pre/post European contact, doing so would be inflammatory and counter to my core beliefs, but suffice it to say those details were gory indeed, and current realities are also discouraging. Developing a strong sense of mutual community seems to me to be the best course of action.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, July 23, 2011 at 5:47 am Link to this comment

Dave,
Think of our bodies as a biodivergent democracy, the governance of the lesser evolved trillions of bacteria of which is done by the less populous but more highly evolved “human” cells. It is the human cells which, when working properly, keep a tight control on the “environmental” conditions such that the human cells and keep everyone working toward a common goal. The elitists think that this provides reasoning enough that THEY should be in charge and that THEY consider themselves more evolved. But they forgot one small detail; we are the same species as they are and no human cells have any more right to any position than any other. ANd when members of the same species take on the behaviors that they have, it would be considered sociopathy. But, back to my analogy .....

When the level of governance has been poorly exercised, favoring one group of cells and ignoring the needs of the rest, that is when disease states appear, or for a nicely apt analogy I thought a Candida infection would be appropriate. They feed on sugar, challenge our immune system, and then, when we have a chronic state of hypervigilance (as after 9/11), the bodies resources are wasted in putting out brush fires while the Candida rascals hide themselves behind protein encapsulations resembling cellulose, which is a lesser menace in our system than the host of other issues being addressed at the time. So, these critters hide in the background, protected by this shell, getting stronger every day while the body’s defenses are diverted elsewhere. At such point when they mature and break out from their protective shell, their presence is overwhelming on the normal population.

Million upon millions of these parasitic little devils, all line up for a free lunch program, feeding on the easy stuff like sugar (i.e. tax dollars) and keep the body consumed in chasing all these perceived attackers while it promotes only it’s own kind.

So, we could more accurately view these elitist banker globalists as just a nasty oozing candida infection in the crotch. That seems to sum up my feelings on the issue.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, July 23, 2011 at 5:31 am Link to this comment

By Shenonymous, July 22 at 5:47 pm

Elizabeth Warren has been a burr in the saddle of a high riding Wall Street, but she has been steeped in the culture of Wall Street for quite some time now. I have the highest hopes for Elizabeth Warren, but I had hopes for Obama too. I’m sorry if I’m being too negative; I’m wondering about Elizabeth’s expertise in Foreign Policy.

Drifting away from topic again, clearly you have “a lot of education” in the field of philosophy, and you are clearly not a Republican, a libertarian, or a moron, you’re something else aren’t you.

Stay serene!

Report this

By DaveZx3, July 23, 2011 at 1:21 am Link to this comment

Anarchy is Law plus Freedom minus Violence. 

Anarchy does not create a vacuum.  Anarchy, which contains Law and Freedom does not infer the loss of anything. 

It is only the conversion of representative driven ‘power of government’ to direct driven ‘power of people’. 

The power of government is abolished, not the functions of government.

Anarchy, as I conceive it, is direct democracy without the capacity to violate the minority.

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, July 23, 2011 at 12:58 am Link to this comment

“What will come to replace the “vacuum” left by the disappearance of
“government,” is really unimaginable to the terror-stricken inmates of
the “global” gulag who’ve never know anything else their entire half-
lives.”  TAO Walker

Rather than a vacuum, historical records define simply a change in
atmospheric pressure, and of a very temporary nature. Take Egypt for a
recent example. The egyptian military was waiting in the wings to take
over - if not party to the “uprising.” And where had the leadership of
the egyptian military received their leadership training?

If the Gadhafy entourage is murdered off by NATO and CIA/MOSSAD
agents & operatives, guess who will jump into leadership positions?

Report this

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook