To paraphrase something Albert Einstein once said the definition of insanity is 'doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome'. This made me question how many things I do and expect a different outcome to emerge. More specifically it made me question the concept of democracy. Take voting - every four years we all go (well 60% roughly at the last election) to the polling station and cast our vote in the hope that this time we will make the right choice. During this time of civic 'duty' you often here people exclaiming the brilliance of democracy, and how this highlights the we the people have the power. Well this is what I believed for a long time.
Does voting actually change anything? I have to be honest I don't think it really does. Now I can hear the objections already - 'well if you don't like the current group of individuals calling themselves government then cast your vote for the opposition, and with a little prayer, luck etc you might, maybe, perhaps get your way. So, on the face of it if we have a choice between the current government and other political parties (namely conservative this time round) then obviously change can occur. Well again I used to agree, but now I am not so sure.
If you look at how Labour took the reigns of 'power' you will remember a country fed up with all the Tory 'spin' and 'sleeze'. Fast forward to the present day - what have we got now? An unelected prime minister with seemingly no intention of calling a democratic election anytime soon; politicians fiddling their allowances and themselves whilst watching erotic movies at the public's expense and allegations that our government have been complicit in torture. You see what I am realising more and more is that the choice, or ability to change anything politically, doesn't exist anymore, and perhaps it never did, at least not within the system of government we have had up until this point. Currently the choice is a choice between the lesser of two evils (red team or blue team).
Now I don't want to be a pessimist, so I will present a way in which I believe change can occur, and has occurred in the past. Civil disobedience - the true check and balance against government and the only way real political change has occurred. For example, the very emergence of democracy in England occurred because people disobeyed the King and women's' rights were won largely due to the suffragette movement who took direct action against the system of governance at the time. Another example would be the USA voting in their first black president, now hang on a sec this was achieved within the political system, wasn't it? Well true, but without the civil rights movement, which included product boycotts, sit-ins, non-violent and violent (which I don't like) protest; Obama may have not been able to vote let alone actually become president.
Civil disobedience, spurred by the concern of a few individuals is the only thing that can bring about real change. If after reading this post you still have the belief that we can have change this time if only we all voted the right people into government' then I would like to repeat 'doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome' is simply insane!
Wednesday 29 April 2009
Friday 24 April 2009
Bad news Brown / Socialism
The government released 'their' budget a few days ago. You may be thinking that I missed the boat on this and your probably right, but if I spent all my time immediately responding to bad news I wouldn't get much else done.
So, the government have got into quite a mess with the heavy borrowing to 'save the banks / economy', as though they or anyone else has a clue about saving the economy. The way to do this is apparently raiding the pensions of the most productive people in society and redistributing that 'taxed' money. This will have little effect on me or the vast majority of people in the UK, but I for one won't be feeling warm and fuzzy inside that now even the rich can't escape the huge tax burden placed on us by the government - yes the government, the banks don't have the power to borrow money on our 'behalf' and then tax us. We aren't dying from the disease we are dying from the cure.
This diktat from our masters will roll out across the country to little opposition. I mean they could have said 100% tax, £10 on the price of a pint of ale etc. So, I was thinking about 'lines in the sand', what would be your 'line in the sand'? I mean what would be the issue that made you think, hang on sec, I don't agree with that and I'm not going to obey? Examples, of 'lines in the sand' in the past have been 'Poll Tax', 'Peasants' Revolt' etc. I think its important to consider whether you believe a government could ever over burden the 'governed' through taxation, and what, if anything would you do?
I think what lies at the root of the current problems is that we don't allow anyone to succeed and fail, which is the opposite of capitalism. When the banks were having problems we stepped in, no doubt for good reasons, could we let the banks collapse taking with them all the money that people had deposited? Its a difficult decision, no doubt, but the government stepping in means that the banks haven't learned their lesson. They know now that any mistakes they make will not ultimately impact them but instead will punish all of us. Now even the car companies want money, claims being made that they are 'too big' to fail. Its amusing to me when on the news they talk about the 'British car industry' going through hard times, and that the government should step in. Pretty much every industry is suffering at the moment, and its basically the market trying to correct itself. For example, the car companies just made too many cars, they gambled there would be a demand and unfortunately there isn't. It was a gamble that went wrong, but that's capitalism. So, now we must pay out of our pocket to prop them up. I wonder if in the past the horse shoeing companies went to the government and asked for bailout money because 'ever since this darn thing the car came out we just haven't been selling many horse shoes'?
This is a story - not my own, very anecdotal I must admit, but highlights the mentality that we are encouraged to buy into in order to justify forced equality.
'An economics professor of a University said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little. The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.'
Now, there is a moral to this story. That moral is...well I could tell you, but you have a mind try to work it out...
So, the government have got into quite a mess with the heavy borrowing to 'save the banks / economy', as though they or anyone else has a clue about saving the economy. The way to do this is apparently raiding the pensions of the most productive people in society and redistributing that 'taxed' money. This will have little effect on me or the vast majority of people in the UK, but I for one won't be feeling warm and fuzzy inside that now even the rich can't escape the huge tax burden placed on us by the government - yes the government, the banks don't have the power to borrow money on our 'behalf' and then tax us. We aren't dying from the disease we are dying from the cure.
This diktat from our masters will roll out across the country to little opposition. I mean they could have said 100% tax, £10 on the price of a pint of ale etc. So, I was thinking about 'lines in the sand', what would be your 'line in the sand'? I mean what would be the issue that made you think, hang on sec, I don't agree with that and I'm not going to obey? Examples, of 'lines in the sand' in the past have been 'Poll Tax', 'Peasants' Revolt' etc. I think its important to consider whether you believe a government could ever over burden the 'governed' through taxation, and what, if anything would you do?
I think what lies at the root of the current problems is that we don't allow anyone to succeed and fail, which is the opposite of capitalism. When the banks were having problems we stepped in, no doubt for good reasons, could we let the banks collapse taking with them all the money that people had deposited? Its a difficult decision, no doubt, but the government stepping in means that the banks haven't learned their lesson. They know now that any mistakes they make will not ultimately impact them but instead will punish all of us. Now even the car companies want money, claims being made that they are 'too big' to fail. Its amusing to me when on the news they talk about the 'British car industry' going through hard times, and that the government should step in. Pretty much every industry is suffering at the moment, and its basically the market trying to correct itself. For example, the car companies just made too many cars, they gambled there would be a demand and unfortunately there isn't. It was a gamble that went wrong, but that's capitalism. So, now we must pay out of our pocket to prop them up. I wonder if in the past the horse shoeing companies went to the government and asked for bailout money because 'ever since this darn thing the car came out we just haven't been selling many horse shoes'?
This is a story - not my own, very anecdotal I must admit, but highlights the mentality that we are encouraged to buy into in order to justify forced equality.
'An economics professor of a University said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little. The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.'
Now, there is a moral to this story. That moral is...well I could tell you, but you have a mind try to work it out...
Wednesday 15 April 2009
Obama sucks!
There I said it.
Has the world gone mad? I know 8 years of George Bush has left the world jaded but really what's changed?
The rot of the new president's integrity has already started to set in. Not least highlighted by the recent revelation that CIA agents were carrying out torture, sorry utilising special interrogation techniques, on behalf of the United States Government. Obama has made a promise to his friends in high places that he will not prosecute the guilty parties. He has instead said that he will make such special interrogation techniques illegal. Well that's good news, oh wait wasn't torture already illegal under International law?
Don't get me wrong I wanted Obama to win. I was one of the people taken in by the tryst with history. However, I was under no illusion that the man of change was nothing more than another career politician.
It happens in all democratic political systems when we get bored of one team we vote the other one in, and it goes on and on like this. Where is the change in that?
Has the world gone mad? I know 8 years of George Bush has left the world jaded but really what's changed?
The rot of the new president's integrity has already started to set in. Not least highlighted by the recent revelation that CIA agents were carrying out torture, sorry utilising special interrogation techniques, on behalf of the United States Government. Obama has made a promise to his friends in high places that he will not prosecute the guilty parties. He has instead said that he will make such special interrogation techniques illegal. Well that's good news, oh wait wasn't torture already illegal under International law?
Don't get me wrong I wanted Obama to win. I was one of the people taken in by the tryst with history. However, I was under no illusion that the man of change was nothing more than another career politician.
It happens in all democratic political systems when we get bored of one team we vote the other one in, and it goes on and on like this. Where is the change in that?
Tuesday 14 April 2009
Ideas are not property
This concept, so elusively obvious, formed out of a lengthy and heated discussion I had with a friend of mine about intellectual property. To me the notion that ideas can be treated as property, i.e. the sole possession of the one whose brain it originated from simply doesn't work.
Property within nature is something tangible, for example, Items such as shoes can only be in use by a single person at any one time. If someone was to take my shoes I could not use them, and therefore I would be shoeless. Ideas on the other hand are not like shoes. If someone was to take my idea they can use it, but it does not prevent me from also using the idea. Neither of us possess the idea solely, yet we each posses the whole thing. Therefore, I rather like the metaphor of ideas being like fire, when my idea inspires another person the fire spreads it does not make mine diminish. In fact the idea burns more brightly (god that's beautiful I'm going to have to use that line more often).
Another problem I have with intellectual property is the myth that it fosters innovation. I'm sorry but you don't encourage creativity by preventing people using 'ideas'. I mean it would be a bit counter intuitive. I think people have the stereotypical vision in their mind of the inventor/scientist bloke who creates something wonderful in complete isolation. This is ridiculous as ideas are not formed in a vacuum. For precisely this reason it is quite possible for two individuals drawing on the same pool of knowledge but working independently to invent the same thing. An example of this would be Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both proposing similar theories of natural selection.
People who are in favour of intellectual property often use the ethical argument, saying that using some one's idea is 'theft' or 'piracy'. For reasons I mentioned earlier ideas cannot be stolen as the originator of the idea is still free to use the idea. So, I think the ethical argument is pretty much crap. I would go as far as saying that monopolisation of ideas is morally wrong. Take for example medicines that could possibly cure fatal diseases, would it be right for the government to grant a monopoly to a company who created the drug so that no other competitor could come in and compete with them. After all, without competition the drug company could charge as much as they wanted for the drug, and the very people who needed it would suffer.
I thought I would end with a list of things that would suffer if Intellectual property were enforced across the board. Keep in mind these were some one's ideas once too:
The car
The television
Penicillin
Toaster
PC
The printing press
The wheel
The Internet
Beer
I could go on people!
Property within nature is something tangible, for example, Items such as shoes can only be in use by a single person at any one time. If someone was to take my shoes I could not use them, and therefore I would be shoeless. Ideas on the other hand are not like shoes. If someone was to take my idea they can use it, but it does not prevent me from also using the idea. Neither of us possess the idea solely, yet we each posses the whole thing. Therefore, I rather like the metaphor of ideas being like fire, when my idea inspires another person the fire spreads it does not make mine diminish. In fact the idea burns more brightly (god that's beautiful I'm going to have to use that line more often).
Another problem I have with intellectual property is the myth that it fosters innovation. I'm sorry but you don't encourage creativity by preventing people using 'ideas'. I mean it would be a bit counter intuitive. I think people have the stereotypical vision in their mind of the inventor/scientist bloke who creates something wonderful in complete isolation. This is ridiculous as ideas are not formed in a vacuum. For precisely this reason it is quite possible for two individuals drawing on the same pool of knowledge but working independently to invent the same thing. An example of this would be Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace both proposing similar theories of natural selection.
People who are in favour of intellectual property often use the ethical argument, saying that using some one's idea is 'theft' or 'piracy'. For reasons I mentioned earlier ideas cannot be stolen as the originator of the idea is still free to use the idea. So, I think the ethical argument is pretty much crap. I would go as far as saying that monopolisation of ideas is morally wrong. Take for example medicines that could possibly cure fatal diseases, would it be right for the government to grant a monopoly to a company who created the drug so that no other competitor could come in and compete with them. After all, without competition the drug company could charge as much as they wanted for the drug, and the very people who needed it would suffer.
I thought I would end with a list of things that would suffer if Intellectual property were enforced across the board. Keep in mind these were some one's ideas once too:
The car
The television
Penicillin
Toaster
PC
The printing press
The wheel
The Internet
Beer
I could go on people!
Thursday 9 April 2009
Where to start?
Its been about two years now since I stumbled upon the principles of liberty. I would like to say it was chance but I'm sure I unknowingly played my part in discovering said philosophy. The problem with philosophy is that it gets you into trouble, just look at Socrates, sentenced to death! Now lets just clarify a few things I have never felt that my beliefs will get me into trouble, at least not to the point of violence, but people do look at me with disdain when they hear my thoughts on certain issues. I don't want to force my way of thinking on others. There is a line that I try not to cross, which I may be crossing now with this blog, but anyway. However, if your bring up a topic that I am passionate about I will throw in my opinion also. Strangely, more often than not my opinion conflicts with consensus. People find me opinionated, as though holding opinions is a detrimental character trait. I hate people who aren't opinionated. Hate is a strong word, but if there was a word stronger I would use that instead. How can someone go through life saying 'I don't care', 'I dunno know', 'Don't bother me'? This kind of apathy just annoys the hell out of me...argggh! I also believe that people who don't know me well probably think I'm argumentative. Believe me I try not to be. I try to use reasonable logical discussion but people don't respond favourably to this. If you challenge some one's world view they act like a cornered animal and just resort to personal attacks. I think the technical term to describe this is 'confirmation bias'. To some extent we all suffer from this, but some people just won't even listen. I read a quote by someone, probably dead now, who said that 'It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it'. Listening to the other person's opinion is definitely the key to communication and a more peaceful society.
I don't know what my intention was when I first started writing this blog entry, but I feel like its been fulfilled. So, I am going to end it here,,,no really.
I don't know what my intention was when I first started writing this blog entry, but I feel like its been fulfilled. So, I am going to end it here,,,no really.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
