Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Preeminent Philosopher Slavoj Žižek speaks @ #Occupy Wall Street




"We are called losers, but the true losers are down there on Wall Street. They were bailed out by billions of our [dollars]. We are called socialists, but here there is already socialism for the rich. They say we don’t respect private property, but in the 2008 financial crash, more hard-earned private property was destroyed than if we were here destroying it, night and day for weeks. We are called dreamers, but the true dreamers are those who think that things can go on the way they are. We are not dreamers; we are awakening from a dream that is turning into a nightmare. We are not destroying anything; we are only witnessing how the system is destroying itself. We all know the classic scene from cartoons: The cat reaches a precipice, but it goes on walking, not realizing that there is nothing beneath it.... Only when it looks down and notices it, it falls down. This is what we are doing here: We are telling the guys there on Wall Street, 'Hey, look down.' In April 2011 the Chinese government prohibited, in all TV, films, and novels, all stories that contained alternate realities or time-travel. This is a good sign for China; it means that people still dream about alternatives, so [they] have to prohibit this dreaming. Here we don’t need the prohibition because the ruling [class] has oppressed our capacity to dream. Look at the movies that we see all the time: It’s easy to imagine the end of the world, an asteroid destroying all life, and so on, but you cannot imagine the end of capitalism. So what are we doing here? Let me tell you a wonderful old joke from communist times:

A guy was sent from East Germany to work in Siberia. He knew his mail would be read by censors, so he told his friends, 'let’s establish a code,' if a letter is written in blue ink, it is true what I said, if it is written in red ink, it is false. After a month, his friends get a first letter; everything is in blue. It says, this letter, 'Everything is wonderful here. Stores are full of good food, movie theaters show films from the West, apartments are large and luxurious. The only thing you cannot buy is red ink.'

This is how we live. We have all the freedoms we want. But what we are missing is ‘red ink,’ the language to articulate our non-freedom. The way we are taught to speak about freedom, 'war on terror,' and so on, falsifies ‘freedom.’ And this is what you are doing here. You are giving us red ink.
Do us a favor. Don’t fall in love with yourself. We have a nice time here, but remember carnivals come cheap, what matters is the day after when we will have to return to normal lives. Will there be any changes then? I don’t want you to remember these days, you know like, 'oh we were young, it was beautiful.' Remember that our basic message is, 'We are allowed to think about alternatives. If the [system] is broken. We do not live in the best possible world.' But, there is a long road. There are truly difficult questions that confront us. We know what we do not want. But, what do we want? What social organization can replace Capitalism? What type of new leaders do we want? Remember, the problem is not corruption or greed; the problem is the system that forces us to be corrupt. Beware not only of the enemies, but also of false friends who are already working to dilute this problem. In the same way you get coffee without caffeine, beer without alcohol, ice-cream without fat, they will try to make this into a harmless moral protest: A decaffeinated process. But, the reason we are here is that we’ve had enough of a world where we recycle coke-cans to give a couple of dollars for charity or to buy a Starbucks cappuccino, where 1% goes to third-world starving children is enough to make us feel good. After outsourcing work and torture… we can see that for a long time, we allowed our political engagement also to outsourced. We want it back. We are not communists, if communism means the system that collapsed in 1990. Remember that today, those communists [were] the most efficient, ruthless capitalists. In China today, we have capitalism which is even more dynamic than your American capitalism, but it doesn’t need democracy, which means, when you politicize capitalism, don’t allow yourself to be blackmailed, because you are against democracy. The marriage between democracy and capitalism is over. The change is possible.
What do we consider today as possible? Just follow the media. On the one hand, in technology and sexuality, everything seems possible. You can travel to the moon, you can become immortal by biogenetics, you can have sex with animals or whatever, but look at the field of society and economy. There almost anything is considered impossible. You want to raise taxes a little for the rich, they tell you it’s impossible. We lose competitivity. You want more money for healthcare, they tell you it’s impossible, this means totalitarian state. Isn’t [there] something wrong in the world where you are promised to be immortal, but cannot spend a little more for healthcare. Maybe we want to set our priorities straight here."




Friday, February 26, 2010

Abortion bill in Utah sparks discussion on political representation

Utah Bill Criminalizes Miscarrage Cleveland Leader

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/13141

Last week, the Utah House and Senate passed a bill that would make it a crime for a woman to have a miscarriage, and would in most instances make induced abortion a crime. The bill still needs the signature...

Tim Wakeham: The problem lies in this false conundrum:

1) Fundamentalist religious factions represent a tiny minority of the overall population but weild some of the largest political and weatlh power due to their influence in the necessary arenas.

2) Despite having the rights, freedoms and numbers necessary to end or obstruct this dominance the disparate demographics that make up the rest of society are unwilling to oppose it whether it be from fear, apathy or a misguided respect for the nature of the fundamentalist's beliefs rather than their actual right to simple have beliefs.

Until the institutions which operate the country are actually representative of the population and people who empower it, there will continue to be this disgusting inequality and discrimination - the worst kind: the condoned and unprotested type.

§

February 25, 2010 at 12:50am - James Robert Foster II: The zealous fundies are a minority, but most people in the USA consider themselves to be Christian, despite that a majority of people don't belong to any congregation or even attend a church regularly. But, most people I talk to about it seem to want to defend it as something that no one should question or tamper with. and that is exploited by the fundies... to the max.

Nietzsche says something in 'Beyond Good & Evil' about how common people of Germany, "feel themselves already fully occupied" and don't bother with religion unless it's necessary, but that, "They are by no means enemies of religious customs; should certain circumstances... require their participation in such customs, they do what is required, as so many things are done--with a patient and unassuming seriousness, and without much curiosity or discomfort;--they live too much apart and outside to feel even the necessity for a FOR or AGAINST in such matters."

(http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/nietzsche/1886/beyond-good-evil/ch03.htm)

Most Americans, especially in the south, probably feel like they should to be represented by a Christian, rather than the alternatives, and so they think they're getting accurate representation. An accurate representation would be someone say they are a Christian, but doesn't really adhere to a dogma. Unfortunately, some zealots get in there, more often in the south, it seems like, to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Tyranny of the majority is nothing new: Look what happened to African Americans, women, the homosexual communities, and of course religious (or non-religious) minorities. If the 'equalization of rights' trend continues, as I hope it will, then it's inevitable that the religious majority will continue to loose power. They really don't need it for anything, and power for its own sake is unjustified.

Education is crucial to combat that crap, and it's no wonder the religious lobby is trying to gain a foothold there as well. I fully support the idea that critical thinking should be taught in elementary schools.

The more people who sound the alarm and point out the illogical nature of laws like this, and the motivations behind them, the more of a chance we have of actually getting some secular representation for secular issues.

§

February 25, 2010 at 2:27am · James Fal: Holy crap you guys are well written! Nietzsche, isn't he some dead guy? Haha. Just kidding. Wow, this is deep thinking.

I have to mention though, on Tim's comment, couldn't you say the same about the fanatical factions on the "other" side?

They (call 'em what you will, secularists, atheists, religion-hating people, leftists, socialists, commies, etc) also represent a tiny minority of the overall population but seemingly have a big mouth and wield some of the largest political and wealth power due to their influence in the necessary arenas.... See More

Am I wrong?

Or are those all different groups who work together with similar goals? Hmmmm...

I do wholeheartedly agree that people should be allowed to simply have beliefs, even if they don't agree with mine. Isn't that what this country was founded on?

And remember, the smallest minority....you. Who's looking out for that minority?

I hope I didn't insult anyone, wasn't intentional.

§

February 25, 2010 at 8:26am James Robert Foster II: I think you could say there are observable instances of dogmatic atheists, comparably as zealous as some religious fundamentalists, but not that they posses equal political and financial leverage.

JFal: "They ... also represent a tiny minority of the overall population but ...wield some of the largest political and wealth power due to their influence in the necessary arenas

Am I wrong?"

Considering that they don't have any political representation on a national level, I wouldn't say they wield a large amount of political power. Some representatives might agree with them on some issues, but there are no openly atheist or agnostic legislators, justices, and as far as I know, there has never been a non-Christian president. They have groups that are attempt to influence political outcomes and lobby for or against certain legislation, but, as was the case with the 'Prop. 8' controversy, it seems the religious lobby has more financial leverage as well. Also, it depends on what specific area we are talking about. Secular interests might overwhelm religious interests in some areas, while the contrary may be true in others.

It would make for an interesting case study. I wouldn't be surprised if there are plenty out there, for certain controversial issues.

JFal: "People should be allowed to simply have beliefs, even if they don't agree with mine. Isn't that what this country was founded on?"

The Constitution clarifies the reason for its creation in its outset, "In Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

If certain beliefs are oppressive these principles, should they still be allowed to be expressed? The source of controversy here, concerning religion, is similar to one of the original criticisms of democratic theory, namely, that democracy allows for people to freely make decisions to do what is harmful to themselves and others, especially in areas where they are not knowledgeable enough or qualified to make important decisions. So we curb this by punishing people for do things like—the quintessential example—yell “FIRE” in a crowded movie theater, even though this is a restriction of their freedom.

JFal: "And remember, the smallest minority....you. Who's looking out for that minority?"

Rhetorically, this question wants the answer, ‘you’, but there might be others looking out for your well-being and livelihood, depending on the situation: Friends, family, co-workers, supervisors, business-partners, doctors, lawyers, police-officers, and also social welfare organizations, educational organizations, public service organizations, labor unions, watchdog groups, etc.

After all, if it weren’t for some of these types of organizations, we wouldn’t be afforded the liberties, much less the luxuries, into which we were born.

Also, I might come to the conclusion that I was not acting in my own best interests, or even had engaged in some activity that was detrimental to me. In many cases we might say it’s our right to do these things and defend that right, but, in others, we might appreciate someone intervening to stop us from making that bad decision. For example, I was free to choose to buy my first car, but I would have appreciated someone stopping me, even if I had made up my mind that no one could. In other words, I wouldn’t mind it being illegal for the car dealership to be prohibited from using unethical/misleading sales techniques and selling me a car for $7,000 over the sticker-price, at such a high-interest rate.

Some people criticize these things as restrictions on freedom, which they are. But, it’s not too difficult to determine that one freedom can result in the limitation of another, or maximizing one person’s freedom might mean reducing another’s. In the example I gave, the law would limit the freedom of the car company by denying their freedom from interference in the conduct of business, but also protect my freedom from predatory business practices. But, that’s all strictly from a negative view of liberty.

And while most of use of ‘Liberty’ and ‘Freedom’ in the United States has concerned negative liberty, there’s another approach that focuses on having the resources necessary for self-actualization—positive liberty.

Rousseau puts it this way: “The mere impulse to appetite is slavery, while obedience to law we prescribe to ourselves is liberty." And, much of the struggle of humanity, form the individual to the whole, imo, stems from this conflict between impulse/instinct, and an attempt to control it.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

As far as the abortion issue is concerned, what would be the motivation for criminalizing it?

Also, is freedom for its own sake a thing of value? Or does it need to be applied to an end to be worth anything?

§

James Fal: James, again, a very well thought out treatise. I have no time to add anything at this moment, possibly later this weekend. Cheers!

§

James Robert Foster II: Cheers to your health. And, may you never be party to an abortion in the state of Utah! But if you are, appeal it!