Ron Paul stands for a lot of things that I think are nutty, like his untried libertarian utopian ideas. Under normal circumstances, I would never consider urging my American neighbours to vote for a libertarian.

These are not normal circumstances.

The US has reached a point of political-economic crisis – you cannot separate the two – and as a result the responses are limited and non-ideal. In a crisis you must take decisive action or events may overwhelm you – they may anyway, as a crisis is by definition somewhere between bordering on chaos and all-out anarchy.

At this point, the urgent need is to neutralize the power of corporations and the rich over the US government or nothing else will matter. Yes, climate change, peak oil, the current depression, and so on are all serious crises. The sad fact is that they all exist to the extent they do largely because of corruption in the United States government.

Until this corruption is rooted out, there is little chance of serious action on climate, on oil dependency, or of the US and world economy recovering. If you disagree with me, please show me what President Obama has done that will make a real difference with these crises.

You can trade an Obama for a Romney/Gingrich/whoever and things will get worse faster, but either way the crises we face will not be addressed.

Ron Paul has some scary ideas and libertarianism is untried utopian lunacy, but because of the extent of the corruption in the US government, he’s the only candidate who has a chance of stopping the American slide – and they’re going to drag a lot of us with them – into a police-state plutarchy.

I don’t say this lightly; electing Ron Paul is potentially a dangerous step but far less dangerous than hoping for change from Obama or any of the other Republican candidates. Ron Paul is anti-empire, anti-police-state, and pro-Constitution, which Americans desperately need to remember matters before it’s too late.

Many people are upset about the mess and disruption caused by the Occupy protesters. Some counter by saying that the preservation of freedom and democracy is often messy and disruptive, and this is true enough.

The more immediate point is that the OWS protesters are saying the same thing, albeit less coherently, as many prominent economists and most religious leaders: Greed is a vice, not a virtue. We cannot build a stable, secure, prosperous economy or society on a foundation of greed and corruption. The longer we ignore this fact, the longer the recession will drag on, all-the-while the banksters and their cronies collect fat bonuses.

While the OWS protesters may be driven out, the problem remains: Our economy and even our society’s morality at the upper levels is founded on the vice of greed. (I speak primarily of the US economy; other countries have not elevated greed to such a high level and are thus more stable.)

Greed is not good. Taking greed as a primary virtue, as the ideology of libertarianism (think Ayn Rand) and the elites of the United States have done, means bad things will happen, and unfortunately not just to the greedy. If greed is a virtue, then selflessness clearly can not be, as it is in direct conflict. To be greedy means to be selfish, and greed knows no bounds; there is no ‘enough’ for a greedy man.

The greedy don’t want to contribute to society, they want to line their own pockets. They don’t necessarily want to steal from you and me for themselves, but ultimately they must to feed their greed. Greed, like all vices, is addictive; there is no satiation point, no enough. Like any addict, when the easy fix runs out, they must take from whoever and wherever they can.

Picture the heroin addict: perhaps at first he can support his habit from his income, but soon the need for a fix destroys his ability to work and he must rely on theft to feed his addiction. Late-stage addicts will lie to and steal from anyone – friends, family, gullible good Samaritans.

There is not much difference in this way between a drug addict and a money addict. Bernie Madoff ripped off those close to him even though he already had billions. Greedy bankers will – just about did – destroy the economy for their fix, even though many were fantastically rich already.

So while you may mock the OWS protesters, remember this: An economy built on greed will collapse, probably viciously. And while many of the greedy will escape with their billions to safer places, you and I will be stuck here in the smoking ruins of a once vibrant economy. If the Occupy Wall Street does not accomplish its goal of rooting out greed, our future is bleak indeed.

Lots of folks slamming the Greeks for being self-entitled, lazy, and so on for rioting over ‘austerity’ plans for their country. True, their country owes a mountain of debt. But why are the citizens of Greece paying the price for this while the banks are being bailed out (again)? Don’t banks have a responsibility to ascertain the ability of a borrower to repay? And if those banks make bad investments…why are others paying for it?

The usual argument is fear of economic collapse if the banks are allowed to fail, but that seems backwards. Rewarding incompetent or foolish investors harms the market. And how much truth is there to the bank failure fearmongering, anyway?

Look at it this way:

Imagine all the banks that loaned money to Greece are allowed to suffer the consequences of their bad decisions and some even go bankrupt:

• The average Greek will still owe, and be expected to pay, his or her mortgage, credit card debts, car loans, etc.
• The average Greek small and large businesses will still owe, and be expected to pay, their various loans, accounts payable, etc.

Goldman Sachs, which orchestrated a financial sleight of hand that enabled Greece to hide its extravagant ways.

Also aiding Greece’s debt habit were some of Europe’s biggest banks. By 2004 it was widely known that Greece had cooked its books and that its financial condition was not nearly as sound as advertised. Still, major banks like France’s giant BNP Paribas and Germany’s Commerzbank bought billions worth of the ill-fated bonds.

In other words, Europe’s big banks and pension funds bought Greek debt, ignoring the risks, because it was profitable.

I make no claim to be an economic wizard…but then again, given how poorly most mainstream economists are doing, could I be much worse? That post was from 2009 and things have not improved. Seemingly obvious things are seemingly obscure to the average economics Ph.D. – in fact, one might say they are being wilfully blind.

There are three (3) blindingly obvious, common sense reasons why the U.S. would be very foolish to allow corporations to repatriate profits at a bargain basement tax rate. At least, they seem quite obvious to me, but if someone more knowledgeable than I would correct me, I’m all ears (and a fair bit of forehead these days, too).

[The idea is that U.S. corporations could bring home foreign profits and pay 8.5% - or less - versus the 35% they would normally pay.]

1. Last time, they just spent it on themselves. That is, the last time this was tried, corporations used the money to buy back their own shares and reward their CEOs with fat bonuses. There are lots of (extremely rich) people claiming “This time will be different, really,” but…fool me once and all that.
2. Corporations already have very large cash reserves and are not spending. And why would they, if there’s no demand for their product? Give them more, and why would they spend that?
3. It creates a perverse incentive to outsource jobs, because the tax rate on foreign profits would be so much lower than on U.S. profits. Allowing these corporations to ‘bring home’ the profits merely encourages them to send more jobs overseas.

This article resulted from an online suggestion that nonviolence was unlikely to be successful when those in power lack the capacity to feel shame and empathy.  A fair case could be made that there are plenty of dictators and far too many executives incapable of shame and empathy. Here’s what Hyperion1144 said, in a discussion about Martin Luther King Jrs views on rioting and in the context of the riots in the UK:

The problem with non-violent resistance is that your opponents must be capable of both shame and empathy.

The financial elite of this world have neither.

So, without rioting or non-violence, what is left?

In my view, this is quite an interesting point when it comes to how we fix the corruption that has infected the highest levels, from greedy CEOs to the crooked politicians they buy. If the people at the top truly have a different morality – perhaps due to their inability or unwillingness to feel certain human emotions – then how do we defend ourselves and restore civil society?

Because they don’t care if you die. They are indifferent to it, as long as their position is maintained. Given this, nonviolence could still work but would require most of us working together and still a lot of people would die. I say it would work because I believe there are not enough sociopathic individuals to run any sort of economy (i.e., they need us or no food, never mind yachts or butlers), and they would constantly be trying to steal each other’s stuff. They’re sociopaths.

At the same time, to defeat them nonviolently we would have to shut down the means of production. It’s a reverse John Galt: Let the Job Creators flip their own burgers, make their own cars, pick their own fruit, put out their own house fires. Clearly it would never work; they need people to willingly or otherwise do all these things for them.

If we’re no longer willing, then conscienceless people must force us by any means necessary – they’re not concerned about the morality of their means. So nonviolent protests of any sort – mass demonstrations, strikes, rallies – would be put down. Lots of people would be killed, unless they could hide.

At what point would these sociopaths stop? I’m sure many in Syria and Egypt are wondering the same thing. You might as well ask the greedy man, How much is enough?

Given this, how do we right the ship? Because sociopaths can’t stop themselves.

Much ado is being made of the rioting in England, and for good reason: it’s massively destructive and is scaring the bejeezus out of those of us who enjoy and understand the benefits of civilized, lawful society.

Much blame is being placed on the thugs doing the damage. Fair enough; the idiots are wrecking things that others spent their lives building. That said, the rest of us have to recognize that when people grow up as self-entitled prats with very little hope of achieving a better future (social mobility is quite low in England), well, they may ‘act out.’

Some commentators have complained that these thugs have “weak moral fibre,” or are otherwise fundamentally defective. They may well have weak moral fibre, but moral fibre is something you develop over time by doing things that require moral fibre, and by observing that being honest, hard-working, and contributing to society is valued. It is quite clear by the behaviour of those at the top that this is not how you get ahead in our society; the ethic of those in power is “If you can get away with it, it’s okay.”

These low-level thugs are simply showing the brutish, crude manifestation of the same behaviour their ‘betters’ have been exhibiting for years.

Here’s a decent description of why this is happening, courtesy of strongmince on Reddit:

The looting, attacks on property and police are an entirely predictable and to an extent justifiable reaction to decades of rising deprivation, poverty, unemployment, lack or very poorly maintained social housing, police brutality, racial profiling and shit schools in many deprived areas in London with variable amounts of “regeneration” (read gentrification) there to attempt to fix these problems. In general the governments attacks on the youth in England (abolishment of education maintenance allowance, absurd rise in tuition fees) and attacks on the working class (harsh austerity measures finishing off what Thatcher started including privitisation of large chunks of the public sector, continual erosion of any remaining labour movements, erosion of labour rights, casualisation of work, underemployment, unemployment, the near constant spectre of crisis, poorly defined class enemies who seem immune to any attack, huge rises in energy prices, increase in VAT etc…..) need to also be considered. All coupled together, a disaffected youth with little to no future prospects, brought up in poverty living in supposedly one of the most prosperous areas of western Europe were given an opportunity to air their rage with little to lose.

Putting innocent people in danger is a big fucking no-no in my book (sorry insurrectionists.. j/k), but what I’ve seen seems to corroborate with my friends and others accounts of events that these fuckers are a minority. This is not a homogenous group of people with one motive, its a mixture of motives, opportunities and emotions. Denouncing all as acting like one generic “criminal” ignores the very reasons that will cause this to flare up again. Stating that these kids are “politically unaware” is ridiculous when you consider the items in the list above are all fucking political, they exist and are real things being felt directly by human beings.

Anyway, living in an area thats been under attack tonight, I’ve been running around helping friends and family who have been stuck getting home from work, scared etc.. so apologies for any incoherence.

The Guardian has some good background, too. A key quote:

Those condemning the events of the past couple of nights in north London and elsewhere would do well to take a step back and consider the bigger picture: a country in which the richest 10% are now 100 times better off than the poorest, where consumerism predicated on personal debt has been pushed for years as the solution to a faltering economy, and where, according to the OECD, social mobility is worse than any other developed country.

The middle class is the foundation of economic and political stability. The extremes of rich and poor are both destabilizing, the former because their greed is limitless and the latter because they have no hope.

UPDATE:

Interesting the online response. Lots of people saying that the rioters are ‘yobs’ and essentially unredeemable. They don’t suggest a solution, but presumably it would be extermination or walling them off so they don’t harm the rest of us. I wonder if they feel the same about the bank CEOs who crashed the world economy in 2008? It would be easy to make the same argument that some of those banksters are irredeemable sociopaths.  In fact, as much damage as these ‘yobs’ are doing, the yobs running the world economy into the ground have done far more by many orders of magnitude.

The US ‘debt ceiling deal’ simply reinforces that, for sensible people, Obama is definitely not ‘the guy’ we hoped he would be. And never was. Way back when first elected, he appointed Steven Chu as his Energy Secretary, and one of the first things Chu said was that California was running out of water and agriculture there couldn’t last much longer – and the cities were in big trouble, too. He was muzzled after that. That was an ominous sign that Obama was not much more tolerant of truth than Bush II.

Since then, of course, Obama has greatly expanded the unconstitutional presidential powers that Bush II had no right taking in the first place, and it’s been one cave-in after another. In fact, it seems clear to me that Obama is not so much caving in to the radical right but seems…fine with much of what they propose. How else to describe all his pre-emptive capitulations?

Obama started with health care, which was a huge and, to me anyway, obvious blunder. In the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression, after the Clintons failed with their health care initiative, Obama goes with health care instead of jobs. The ultimate bill ended up being virtually identical to one proposed by Republicans some years earlier.

He should have started with jobs and cleaning up Wall Street and lobbying in general, but instead appointed half of Goldman Sachs as his financial advisors. It’s no surprise the US in in big fiscal shit now; he didn’t plunge the toilet first. He should have started with energy independence, which would have put people back to work and spent taxpayer dollars on green energy projects that reduced US dependence on foreign oil.

Definitely things are coming to a head. This latest US debt ceiling deal just punts the problem down the road a few months. I think we’re going to see a realignment of world power as companies and countries try to decouple themselves from the US, which is now more clearly than ever headed toward fiscal disaster. It probably won’t be immediate, and a lot of countries are much more heavily tied to the US than they would like to be, but you can see it coming when the ratings agencies are seriously threatening to downgrade the US credit rating. There must be enormous pressure on them NOT to do so, but they’re talking openly about it as if the US were Greece. And it has actually been happening, as companies relocate head offices and assets overseas, as are the rich.

The crises are coming so thick and fast that there is no time to deal with one before the next hits, from the Murdoch scandals to the US debt issue, from climate change to  oil depletion, from middle eastern uprisings to continuing recession in the US. The problems are systemic, and I can’t see a change until people in the developed countries take serious action against the powers-that-be. The super-rich have forgotten, don’t realise, or most likely don’t care that the middle class is the foundation of a stable society. At some point, enough Americans will be reduced to poverty with no hope of returning to the middle class, and when people lose hope, leaders lose their heads.

There are two options open to clean up the ‘leader of the free world’: nonviolent protest on the scale of the Civil Rights movement, or…. The super-rich are doing everything they can to destroy any possibility of nonviolent systemic change; they have corrupted the political process through lobbying, they have corrupted the media via Fox News, they have corrupted the public discourse via libertarian/extremist right-wing ‘think tanks’ like the Heritage Foundation and and other lying trash, and they have worked very hard to ensure that alternate loci of power – like unions – are destroyed. No matter what you think of unions, point me to a country with a high standard of living that does not also have a high degree of unionisation – they are few. Especially in the absence of a strong and honest government, unions are a necessary counterbalance to global corporations.

No conspiracy theory is required, although quite obviously scum like the Koch brothers and Murdoch are doing their best to control things. All it requires is many people voting or otherwise putting their short-term self-interest before that of everyone else and you get where the US is now.

I see no possibility of change until a serious crisis comes, and unfortunately that means much worse than the current recession. And when crisis hits and the old ways of organization are questioned and assaulted, the leaders who rise up will determine whether we end up with a better democracy, a more stable society, and a sustainable way of living – or whether things get exponentially worse.

We are nearing a tipping point, I believe, but it is impossible to predict what will be the trigger. It may seem to be something minor, but that’s only because we studiously ignored all the straw previously piled on the camel’s back.

That should be enough, but the pro-nukers are just not going away. Why should it be enough of a dismissal? Well, if Japan can’t be trusted to safely do nuclear, who the hell can?

Think about it: One of the most technologically advanced countries in the world had a nuclear disaster. If a serious accident like that could happen in Japan, it could happen anywhere. In fact, it already did.*

So why won’t the pro-nukers accept that nuclear power is dangerous and we can’t handle it safely? This seems to be a common progression in discussions with pro-nukers, or as I am coming to think of them, dumbasses:

ME: Because Fukushima, that’s why.

Pro-nuker: It was a perfect storm: an earthquake and a tsunami.

ME: Which you’re saying will never happen again, ever? In earthquake and tsunami-prone Japan? You know, the country that invented the word tsunami?

DA: The design of the reactor was inadequate. Newer models would not have these problems.

~Note the change of argument? DA couldn’t answer so abandoned that argument, though not the belief; he’ll continue to throw it out in future discussions. The problem is that DA holds to nuclear power like a Holy Grail, and he (almost always men) simply ignores contrary evidence.

ME: So you’re guaranteeing that these new designs will never have a dangerous radioactive release? Never, ever, ever? Ever?

DA: No, they can’t. Decent maintenance, proper siting – not close to the coast, for example, and Bob’s your uncle. Never a problem.

ME: Never.

DA: Well, statistically, of course, something could happen, but the possibility is remote.

ME: How remote?

DA: Not worth worrying about.

ME: I’m worried. What’s my risk.

DA: Infitesimal. It’s not even measurable.

ME: So, for example, Pakistan, which has nuclear power plants – let’s say Al-Qaeda launches a terrorist assault on one, packs it with fertilizer and blows it to smithereens, steals all the fuel and waste and runs off with it – there’s no risk to anyone from the nuclear part of that? I’m not saying count the people killed in the battle or the explosion, just people endangered from the nuclear material.

DA: Well, that’s a ridiculous scenario.

ME: Have you been following the news on Pakistan?

DA: Well, okay, it’s possible, but that’s in Pakistan and that has nothing to do with developed countries. Politically unstable countries shouldn’t have nuclear energy or weapons.

ME: But they do, dumbass, because people like you seem to think that nuclear energy is the bomb. So to speak.

DA: I don’t agree with selling nuclear technology to politically unstable countries.

ME: [sigh] You do realise that Pakistan was fairly stable when we sold them the nukes? Political situations change. Terrorists and wars happen. And you do agree that such a terrorist action, followed by what they could do now that they have all this extremely dangerous material – could potentially expose millions of people to dangerous, probably toxic levels of radiation?

DA: Look, it’s far-fetched, and it doesn’t really affect us.

ME: Al-Qaeda having radioactive material doesn’t potentially affect “us”?

DA: It’s too late now, anyway. There are plenty of stable countries that can use the new technology safely.

ME: And how long must those countries remain politically stable, free from the danger of terrorist attacks, and safe from wars? Doesn’t the waste remain radioactive for rather a long time? Like, longer than all of human civilization has been around so far?

DA: It’s safe if stored safely. Yucca mountain…

ME: So you can guarantee that all developed countries that have or will have nuclear power will remain politically stable, free of wars or serious internal problems, for the next 10,000+ years.

DA: Well, of course nobody can guarantee that. That’s a ridiculous requirement.

ME: Why?

Responses vary at this point, but most of them come down to either:

• I don’t want to think about that (there’s wilful ignorance kicking in to protect the belief system), or
• I don’t really care about the people who will live here in the future. It’s their problem – we told them it was radioactive. It’s their responsibility to keep the nation and its toxic waste secure, not our responsibility to not produce it in the first place.

And that latter argument, frankly, is pretty damn selfish and a damn poor justification.

So the next time some pro-nuker zealot tries to proselytize the infallible need for nuclear energy, tell him no, because you’re not thoughtful enough or not mature enough to be making those kinds of decisions. Or just say, “Because Fukushima, that’s why.”

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

* Did you forget about Three Mile Island?

Still not convinced? Need more data? Nuclear delusions: Why nuclear power is not a solution to our energy challenge is an excellent, concise critique of nuclear power.

The world oil supply is running down and we have no ready substitutes.

Climate change is happening now – stronger storms, more devastating wildfires, rising sea levels, diseases spreading – the list goes on, and there is every indication that it will continue to worsen.

The US economy, upon which the world economy still depends, is unstable due to corruption at the top, from most Congressmen to presidential advisors all being former bank executives.

Our leaders are not moving quickly enough to protect the economy in general, never mind your or my livelihoods in particular. Some of our leaders are actually doing things to worsen the situation, such as denying the very existence of climate change or ignoring the ever-rising price of oil.

We are facing “interesting times.” The turbulence has begun, and it’s buffeting us from all directions. Have you ever had the experience of going for a walk and, no matter which direction you were going, the wind always seemed to be in your face? That’s what the future is going to feel like for many people.

I could (and have) proposed large-scale responses to the situation, which frankly at this point need to be a WWII-scale mobilization to re-industrialize and re-do our living arrangements to drastically cut oil dependence immediately and, long-term, eliminate pollution of all kinds by moving to a ‘restorative economy.’

But we’re not going to do that in the foreseeable future, are we? Or anything even remotely close. If you take your family’s security seriously, then you will do what you can to buffer yourself against the coming storms. The best way I have seen to do that is Transition Initiative, and you should seriously consider joining (or starting) one in your area.

TI is a completely grassroots, apolitical initiative, and this is what they do:

Transition Network helps communities deal with climate change and shrinking supplies of cheap energy (peak oil). This process, which we call Transition, aims to create stronger, happier communities.

That’s how we’re going to get through this; by working together in local communities. As the Transition Network site puts it well:

What we are convinced of is this:

• • if we wait for the governments, it’ll be too little, too late
  • if we act as individuals, it’ll be too little
  • but if we act as communities, it might just be enough, just in time.

Your level of involvement can be minimal or massive; the choice is yours. Here are some things that local TIs do:

• Teach people how to grow a garden, save seeds, preserve foods
• Educate people by showing documentaries about peak oil, climate change, solutions, and more
• Host online and IRL forums to discuss and learn
• Show people how to insulate their homes or build a solar greenhouse

Like it or not, the world is changing. You can adapt, or not.

The NDP just won a historic number of seats and, had vote splits gone differently, could have formed the government. One reason the NDP wasn’t a runaway winner is because many Canadians don’t see the NDP as ‘leadership material.’ That is, they’re useful in opposition, but you could never trust them with the levers of power.

The NDP needs to change that perception by showing leadership now. Don’t passively wait for the Harper Government to present a throne speech to which you can respond, or legislation which you can decry. Present some of  your own ideas now; you need to show Canadians that they should have put you in power.

Reform the Senate

Stephen Harper was elected years ago on a promise to reform the Senate. Since then, all he has done is stuff it with partisan hacks. So, call him on it. The NDP favours abolition of the Senate, but would certainly support Senate reform. Harper has a majority and no more excuses not to attempt Senate reform. Excuses or not, you can’t count on him to do and certainly not to do it right.

The NDP should propose Senate reform now, and call out Stephen Harper to respond. Propose sensible reforms that are widely acceptable, and if Harper uses any of your proposal he concedes that the NDP has leadership potential.

Make it something like this:

The numbers in red are Senate Seats.

This balances the regions while giving more populous provinces more seats:

• Atlantic Canada: 8 seats
• Central Canada: 8 seats
• Prairie Canada: 8 seats
• BC: 4 seats
• Northern Territories: 3 seats

To these provincially elected seats, add 4 more for First Nations (however they want to put people on the Senate) and 3 more for scientists put forward by the scientific community.

That’s 38, which is plenty and will save us money over the current arrangement. The Senate should not match population the way Parliament does; two bodies full of partisan hacks doing the same thing is one reason the NDP would like to abolish the current Senate. Instead, we need to balance the power of population with the power of the region.*

Structure elections as some form of proportional representation or run-off, so we start to move away from this divided, us-versus-them, vote-splitting nonsense.

And finally, make the term in the Senate much longer than Parliament, because you need these people thinking in terms of generations: what is best for Canada and our great-grandchildren. Senate terms should be at least 10 years and better 15-20 (capped at age 75 or senility, whichever comes first).

The NDP needs to show leadership: Why are they the better party to lead Canada? One way is by proposing Senate reform and thereby putting Harper on the hook to fulfil a promise he made a long time ago.

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

* Balancing the Power of Population with the Power of the Regions

At various times in Canada’s history, more populous – and therefore better politically represented – regions have imposed their will on lesser populated areas. Trudeau’s National Energy Program (NEP) was one such example, in which the people with the oil – Albertans – had to accept a lower-than-world price to effectively subsidize Ontario and Quebec.

This is not fair and it is also damaging to the country. Requiring Alberta to take a lower price meant less revenue for Alberta, and less foreign income for Canada. It also meant that Canadians used more oil because it was cheaper, and therefore today we are less efficient and we have less oil remaining to sell.

In order to prevent a “tyranny of the majority” in which more populous areas take advantage of less populous ones, we need to give some power to people who represent regions. This balances the power of population with the power of the regions, as in the proposal.