Much of what we hear is about citizens' duties, the so-called common interest, improving efficiency, making systems work.
Yet nations are composed of people, and persons are human beings before being a citizen.
It's a basic human right to choose one's own values and, correspondingly, to live according to those values as long as they don't violate a just law (in causing concrete and illegitimate harm to others).
While selfishness may be distasteful (if, given this attitude, oddly prevalent), it's certainly an attitude that people can choose and should be able to choose, and in a sense it's important given that those who call for pulling together for the "common good" usually have bad motives, and even someone who calls for this for good reason sets a precedent for a more nefarious character to exploit the same sentiment later on for bad reasons.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Socialism, democracy and the Constitution
Many consider the charge that President Obama and the Congressional Democrats are moving the country in a socialist direction to be petty nonsense.
I'd define socialism as "government involvement with the economy with the goal of evening out wealth and well-being."
By this definition, Obama and many Congressional Democrats, as well as many Republicans do meet the qualifications to be described by the term, as seen in their conditional assistance to financial and auto companies, as well as Democratic attempts to force insurance companies to cover everyone or have the government run the health care system.
While capitalism can have failures that impact a lot of people, at least those people chose to be associated with the organization that failed. Tying up all of the economy together in communism would leave the whole national system at risk.
The government controlling people through communism or socialism is unsettling, but a mild form would be nearly as bad-the government providing health care without making health demands (which it shouldn't do) would just result in wasted money, as many people right now don't place a high value in health now (I'm not perfect myself), let alone with the financial burdens of ill health are removed. Guarantees to the people without demanding responsibility seems wasteful and unproductive; since the American people dislike waste and politicians love to control people, demands would likely be forthcoming ...
Some say that we can have socialistic programs without getting the bad side effects. But the Medicaid and Medicare systems are a major part of the budget and expected to grow, and form part of the justification for government-provided health care system. Who knows what universal health care might be used to justify next?
The funds for government-provided health care would likely come from the rich without benefitting them as much. The typical defense of taxes against the claim that it's robbery is that everyone pays and everyone receives benefits. But if the amount that some pay and others receive is too unequal, the defense seems unconvincing.
Some try to legitimize a move to socialism and unequal taxation & receiving of government simply by saying that it's the result of the democratic process. But democracies are not infallible, and, for instance, 60 people putting a burden on to 20 or 5 so that they can benefit isn't really decision-making by the people, but one faction gaining at the expense of a smaller one.
A far better system is limited democracy, that recognizes that people have rights, including to their own beliefs and property, regardless of what others think or want. Recognizing the dangers of democracy and putting safeguards to prevent them is important, as the First Amendment prevents Congress from establishing religion or prohibiting its free exercise, or abridging the freedom of speech or assembly. If Congress or the government was the represented people doing the public will, there'd be no reason to put limits to their power, but since majorities can be unjust, a limited democracy is necessary.
I'd define socialism as "government involvement with the economy with the goal of evening out wealth and well-being."
By this definition, Obama and many Congressional Democrats, as well as many Republicans do meet the qualifications to be described by the term, as seen in their conditional assistance to financial and auto companies, as well as Democratic attempts to force insurance companies to cover everyone or have the government run the health care system.
While capitalism can have failures that impact a lot of people, at least those people chose to be associated with the organization that failed. Tying up all of the economy together in communism would leave the whole national system at risk.
The government controlling people through communism or socialism is unsettling, but a mild form would be nearly as bad-the government providing health care without making health demands (which it shouldn't do) would just result in wasted money, as many people right now don't place a high value in health now (I'm not perfect myself), let alone with the financial burdens of ill health are removed. Guarantees to the people without demanding responsibility seems wasteful and unproductive; since the American people dislike waste and politicians love to control people, demands would likely be forthcoming ...
Some say that we can have socialistic programs without getting the bad side effects. But the Medicaid and Medicare systems are a major part of the budget and expected to grow, and form part of the justification for government-provided health care system. Who knows what universal health care might be used to justify next?
The funds for government-provided health care would likely come from the rich without benefitting them as much. The typical defense of taxes against the claim that it's robbery is that everyone pays and everyone receives benefits. But if the amount that some pay and others receive is too unequal, the defense seems unconvincing.
Some try to legitimize a move to socialism and unequal taxation & receiving of government simply by saying that it's the result of the democratic process. But democracies are not infallible, and, for instance, 60 people putting a burden on to 20 or 5 so that they can benefit isn't really decision-making by the people, but one faction gaining at the expense of a smaller one.
A far better system is limited democracy, that recognizes that people have rights, including to their own beliefs and property, regardless of what others think or want. Recognizing the dangers of democracy and putting safeguards to prevent them is important, as the First Amendment prevents Congress from establishing religion or prohibiting its free exercise, or abridging the freedom of speech or assembly. If Congress or the government was the represented people doing the public will, there'd be no reason to put limits to their power, but since majorities can be unjust, a limited democracy is necessary.
Friday, May 22, 2009
When so-called feminism is counter to equality
Some proof to my idea that this situation can occur. From Rachel Lehmann-Haupt's recent Newsweek article "Why I Froze My Eggs"
Dr. Eleanora Porcu said that women shouldn't accept a "mentality of efficiency" but rather having "demonstrated that we are able to do everything like men," "we have to do the second revolution, which is not to become dependent on a technology that involves surgical intervention. We have to be free to be pregnant when we are fertile and young."
From Lehmann-Haupt-"companies and society need to better adapt to the needs of working mothers."
So it seems that the "second revolution" would be towards unequal, special treatment, with those who choose not to have children having to pay the price to accommodate those who do.
Dr. Eleanora Porcu said that women shouldn't accept a "mentality of efficiency" but rather having "demonstrated that we are able to do everything like men," "we have to do the second revolution, which is not to become dependent on a technology that involves surgical intervention. We have to be free to be pregnant when we are fertile and young."
From Lehmann-Haupt-"companies and society need to better adapt to the needs of working mothers."
So it seems that the "second revolution" would be towards unequal, special treatment, with those who choose not to have children having to pay the price to accommodate those who do.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Katy Perry and precursors
In Katy Perry's "You're So Gay," she complains about a boyfriend who feels unhappy & likes complaining songs that ask for realness and asks him to be more real.
Also hypocritical is how in "Hot 'n Cold" she complains that a guy is indecisive while in "I Kissed a Girl" she did it just to try and liked it but doesn't want to have any of the consequences of her boyfriend finding out. Looks like she thinks girls shouldn't be too real with their romantic partners.
While these inconsistencies are annoying, it's worthwhile to look at precedents.
Her message and attitude reminds me of Keira Knightley and Avril Lavigne.
More specifically,
-Her experimentation in IKaG does seem to follow Paul McCartney's (in "Yesterday") lament that "Yesterday Love was such an easy game to play" in "Yesterday"
-Her claim of objectivity "You're wrong when its right" in HnC can be compared to The Beatles' demand for a one-way stand-down in "We Can Work It Out"
As more people hear this sort of thinking applied to men, they may realize it's bad generally (or, conversely, that impulsiveness is good for everyone). But I think most fans don't consider the attitudes bad.
Quality of art isn't synonymous with message, but the latter should be considered. The mean-spirited and self-contradictory nature of the song sink YSG, the repetitivity and simplicity sink IKaG (especially coupled with how much it sounds like a knockoff of Gary Glitter's "Rock and Roll"), while the beats make HnC somewhat entertaining, but it's been overplayed (as have some songs from other artists). Perhaps if YSG was played to a similar extent, there'd be more realization of the down-putting aspects of the singer.
Also hypocritical is how in "Hot 'n Cold" she complains that a guy is indecisive while in "I Kissed a Girl" she did it just to try and liked it but doesn't want to have any of the consequences of her boyfriend finding out. Looks like she thinks girls shouldn't be too real with their romantic partners.
While these inconsistencies are annoying, it's worthwhile to look at precedents.
Her message and attitude reminds me of Keira Knightley and Avril Lavigne.
More specifically,
-Her experimentation in IKaG does seem to follow Paul McCartney's (in "Yesterday") lament that "Yesterday Love was such an easy game to play" in "Yesterday"
-Her claim of objectivity "You're wrong when its right" in HnC can be compared to The Beatles' demand for a one-way stand-down in "We Can Work It Out"
As more people hear this sort of thinking applied to men, they may realize it's bad generally (or, conversely, that impulsiveness is good for everyone). But I think most fans don't consider the attitudes bad.
Quality of art isn't synonymous with message, but the latter should be considered. The mean-spirited and self-contradictory nature of the song sink YSG, the repetitivity and simplicity sink IKaG (especially coupled with how much it sounds like a knockoff of Gary Glitter's "Rock and Roll"), while the beats make HnC somewhat entertaining, but it's been overplayed (as have some songs from other artists). Perhaps if YSG was played to a similar extent, there'd be more realization of the down-putting aspects of the singer.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Defining feminism
The best definition of feminism is the belief that men and women should have equal rights in society.
Some issues, however, might be claimed to be feminist although they go beyond the aforementioned goal, and this can cause confusion and resentment.
Paid maternity leave may advance the interests of some women, and some men if paternity leave is available, but at the expense of those men and women who aren't parents; indeed, there seems to be injustice in having employers pay for time off. There also is injustice in allowing women but not men to decide not to become parents (there is talk of childrens' rights being higher than those of male parents' but abortion and adoption both establish parental choice as higher), or in having understanding for violent solutions to problems solely when it is performed by women. All of these seem to set women (mothers in the first instance) as higher and deserving of better treatment than others. Another problematic case is the acceptance of a future draft for men but not women, which sends the message that the lives and wills of men are not as important.
As such, these issues go against the issue of equality and such goals as being able to vote, hold property, have autonomy over oneself and not be discriminated against. and should be labeled as preferentialism. While they may call themselves feminists, those goals are not equality.
Others claim to be feminists even though they oppose autonomy on the behalf of the individual because their ideal of femininity is different and, they believe, higher than the behavior that exists in the present. This denigrates the individual as subservient to a particular ideology, rejecting the right of the person to choose his or her own way.
Equality is worth supporting, while preference breeds resentment, and spreads further injustice and inconsideration.
Some issues, however, might be claimed to be feminist although they go beyond the aforementioned goal, and this can cause confusion and resentment.
Paid maternity leave may advance the interests of some women, and some men if paternity leave is available, but at the expense of those men and women who aren't parents; indeed, there seems to be injustice in having employers pay for time off. There also is injustice in allowing women but not men to decide not to become parents (there is talk of childrens' rights being higher than those of male parents' but abortion and adoption both establish parental choice as higher), or in having understanding for violent solutions to problems solely when it is performed by women. All of these seem to set women (mothers in the first instance) as higher and deserving of better treatment than others. Another problematic case is the acceptance of a future draft for men but not women, which sends the message that the lives and wills of men are not as important.
As such, these issues go against the issue of equality and such goals as being able to vote, hold property, have autonomy over oneself and not be discriminated against. and should be labeled as preferentialism. While they may call themselves feminists, those goals are not equality.
Others claim to be feminists even though they oppose autonomy on the behalf of the individual because their ideal of femininity is different and, they believe, higher than the behavior that exists in the present. This denigrates the individual as subservient to a particular ideology, rejecting the right of the person to choose his or her own way.
Equality is worth supporting, while preference breeds resentment, and spreads further injustice and inconsideration.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Judging entertainment
In his 1999 special "Never Scared," Chris Rock claimed that "if your daughter is a stripper," you've failed as a parent, that his "only job in life is to keep [his daughter] off the pole."
Rock's own method of entertainment, however, relies on edgy material to gain and stimulate an audience, just as strippers do.
He might allege that his type of entertainment is acceptable because it has intellectual content and offers messages. But not all comics do that, let alone all workers. Work is essentially the satisfying of wants and demands, and especially in the entertainment field it can bring happiness to many. There are far worse values and ends that people could come to.
In the same special Rock also said, "I'm not getting down on strippers. Somebody's got to do it. Somebody has to do the job that they do - entertaining married men. You're wife will do you, but she won't entertain you".
So the customers' motivations are OK, therefore the profession as a whole is fine, just not the individual workers? Because if you consider the father a failure and end result to be such a terrible failure, then you also look down on the particular workers.
Rock's contradictory attitudes seem to come from having contempt for males' desires (which he only accepts as he thinks they're also inevitable), or a belief that his child is different from all the other ones. This sort of bias can lead to having unrealistic expectations for the child or teaching him or her a version of morality that you don't actually agree with. Regardless, bias and hypocrisy do lead to arrogance, believing that you and your circle are superior and everyone else does not deserve full respect or consideration.
Of course, Rock could have been speaking primarily in jest. His attitude still reflects and spreads contempt for people who work to please a demand.
Another man who takes serious issues and devalues them for his betterment is Stephen Colbert. He recently spoofed the outrage over bonus payments to AIG executives (real news sources have also focused on Charles Grassley's remark as a way to discredit the angry sentiment). Some things deserve anger. My father said that Colbert and Jon Stewart are just comedy, but when they mock, criticize and devalue passion without having any alternatives of their own, they hurt democracy, sending the message that we should just do what the leaders say, or at least leave the decision-making to other people behind closed doors (trying to engage the citizenry, now that's terrible!); sadly, some people don't look beyond those shows.
An article on Stewart's impact
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201474.html
In 2004 Stewart criticized Crossfire as partisan; this accusation is usually issued because the speaker wants his goals (which he or she thinks are the right, sensible ones) to pass without troublesome opposition.
Rock's own method of entertainment, however, relies on edgy material to gain and stimulate an audience, just as strippers do.
He might allege that his type of entertainment is acceptable because it has intellectual content and offers messages. But not all comics do that, let alone all workers. Work is essentially the satisfying of wants and demands, and especially in the entertainment field it can bring happiness to many. There are far worse values and ends that people could come to.
In the same special Rock also said, "I'm not getting down on strippers. Somebody's got to do it. Somebody has to do the job that they do - entertaining married men. You're wife will do you, but she won't entertain you".
So the customers' motivations are OK, therefore the profession as a whole is fine, just not the individual workers? Because if you consider the father a failure and end result to be such a terrible failure, then you also look down on the particular workers.
Rock's contradictory attitudes seem to come from having contempt for males' desires (which he only accepts as he thinks they're also inevitable), or a belief that his child is different from all the other ones. This sort of bias can lead to having unrealistic expectations for the child or teaching him or her a version of morality that you don't actually agree with. Regardless, bias and hypocrisy do lead to arrogance, believing that you and your circle are superior and everyone else does not deserve full respect or consideration.
Of course, Rock could have been speaking primarily in jest. His attitude still reflects and spreads contempt for people who work to please a demand.
Another man who takes serious issues and devalues them for his betterment is Stephen Colbert. He recently spoofed the outrage over bonus payments to AIG executives (real news sources have also focused on Charles Grassley's remark as a way to discredit the angry sentiment). Some things deserve anger. My father said that Colbert and Jon Stewart are just comedy, but when they mock, criticize and devalue passion without having any alternatives of their own, they hurt democracy, sending the message that we should just do what the leaders say, or at least leave the decision-making to other people behind closed doors (trying to engage the citizenry, now that's terrible!); sadly, some people don't look beyond those shows.
An article on Stewart's impact
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201474.html
In 2004 Stewart criticized Crossfire as partisan; this accusation is usually issued because the speaker wants his goals (which he or she thinks are the right, sensible ones) to pass without troublesome opposition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)