Paul's Call To Abolish the TSA, One Year Later 353
A year ago today, we noted that Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky called for the abolition of the Transportation Security Administration. It's now nearly 12 years since the hijacked-plane terror attacks of 2001; the TSA was created barely two months later, and has been (with various rules, procedures, and equipment, all of it controversial for reasons of privacy, safety, and efficacy) a major presence ever since at American commercial airports. "The American people shouldn't be subjected to harassment, groping, and other public humiliation simply to board an airplane," wrote Paul last year, and in June of 2012, he followed up by introducing two bills on the topic; the first calling for a "bill of rights" for air travelers, the other for privatizing airport screening practices. Neither bill went far. Should they have? Libertarian-leaning Paul did not succeed in knocking back the TSA, never mind privatizing its functions (currently funded at nearly $8 billion annually), though some of the things called for in his bill of rights are manifest now at least in muted form. (Very young passengers, as well as elderly passengers, face less stringent security requirements, for instance, and TSA has ended its prohibition of certain items aboard planes.) Whether you're from the U.S. or not, what practical changes would you like to see implemented? What shouldn't be on the bill of rights for airplane passengers?
Bad for us = Good for gov't (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time some disaster hits the US, we're going to see a big growth in the size and reach of government. In fact, I believe there are many politicians who salivate at the thought of catastrophe so they can go cry about the children on camera and create a new 3-letter tumor on our already unconstitutional government.
Re:Bad for us = Good for gov't (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a saying in Washington "Never let a good disaster go to waste".
If people haven't already spoken out in outrage "Never let this happen again!" it's easy enought to get polling data to justify a new power grab.
Before 2001 nobody ever hear the US Govt use terms like "homeland". Now it's in everyday use. Homeland Security. I've always thought it sounded facist.
Re: (Score:3)
If you actually hear the quote in context [youtube.com] you'll realise Rahm Emanuel was primarily concerned with policy reform. He was pointing out how the 2009 financial crisis was proof that regulation needed to be fixed. In the same interview he also said "it's not an argument about big government versus small government, but about more effective government, so you actually are getting the bang for your buck that the taxpayers and all those who are putting money into it expect, whether that be in the area of educatio
Re:Bad for us = Good for gov't (Score:5, Insightful)
There's little that is as dangerous as "effective government". The more gridlock, the better, I always say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"I think you'd be happier with a government that was properly controlled and run by non-careerists. Lots of countries have highly effective and non-harmful governments."
I would not have so much trouble with careerists if they weren't also both elitist and corrupt. Get rid of those, and being a careerist isn't so bad.
Re: (Score:3)
He was pointing out how the 2009 financial crisis was proof that regulation needed to be fixed.
No, it sounds just as bad in context. It's not like he's going to admit that he exploits crises for political gain. And merely having a crisis doesn't mean there's a regulation that needs to be fixed.
so you actually are getting the bang for your buck that the taxpayers and all those who are putting money into it expect, whether that be in the area of education or healthcare."
That's a highly unrealistic expectation. The only way I've seen that happen is by not having the federal government handle the task in the first place.
But, hey, go ahead and take things out of context. I bet you can even make this look bad if you try hard enough.
That's an easy one. It's another example of meddlesome bureaucrats interfering with human choice and freedom. Freedom means the freedom to make bad choices. That
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bad for us = Good for gov't (Score:4, Insightful)
Homeland Security. I've always thought it sounded facist.
Yes of course it is. Sep 11th 2001 was the day america died. The fear that outsiders could actually harm you, something which hadn't happened for 60 years, got you all shitting your pants.
Your vaunted bill of rights was torn up, and you didn't bother using the 2nd amendment to ensure the rest of them remained. All it takes is the word "terror" and you have marshal law, the 4th amendment is thrown out.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad for us = Good for gov't (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually this was a very common term used by the Obama administration... Rahm Emanuel was the king of this.
When did the democratic party go from "power to the people" to "power to the establishment"? Seriously, they make the republicans looks like the best choice anymore.
Before you go sweeping this all onto the Democrats, why don't you count up how many times the Bush administration capitalized on various disasters. For that matter, you should read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" for a bigger perspective.
Republicans the best choice? Those ARE the folks who gave us the TSA, in case your memory is conveniently lost.
Re:Bad for us = Good for gov't (Score:4, Insightful)
"Republicans the best choice? Those ARE the folks who gave us the TSA, in case your memory is conveniently lost."
... which was expanded and made worse by the Democrats.
Let's talk reality here. NEITHER of the "Big 2" parties have been our friends over the last few decades. And there ARE alternatives. If you don't like it, vote for something else. Like the Constitution, for a change.
Re:Bad for us = Good for gov't (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Fatherland" is antiquated and sexist. "Homeland" is the gender-neutral, politically-correct modern term.
Re: (Score:3)
"Homeland Security" does always make me think of "Geheim Staats Polizei".
Nothing in Government ever gets Abolished (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, come on, this is a government that still administers polygraph examinations for its employees, eight decades after the guy [wikipedia.org] who sold it to the government admitted he made the device up to support his other lifelong work, the Wonder Woman [wikipedia.org] comic book.
The TSA isn't going anywhere folks. Look all the fighting it took to force sequestration, and then take a step back and view it from a different perspective [youtube.com].
Re:Nothing in Government ever gets Abolished (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention the TSA now has mandate over much more then airport security. Wan't to work on a boat? Not as a U.S. Citizen, and not without much TSA paperwork. While I'm not going to say that the TSA grabbed this position, it was lumped onto them most likely by the Coast Guard who still has some involvement administering safety certifications.
The bureaucracy this country has put into so many fields is ridiculous and the TSA is simple another part of it. Someone commented below that Rand wanted to privatize the TSA and not abolish it. This would be fine, if they didn't end up in the same monopolistic situations that telecoms, radio, music, movie (face it many fronts, few faces) and defense has.
Re: (Score:2)
*note that a privatized TSA would have to have as many or more legal restrictions or protocols then standard mall security guards which still have conflicts with civilian constitutional interests.
His own strawman (Score:4, Interesting)
Rand Paul is the worst thing to happen to libertarians. Just as Communism became conflated with Stalinism, Libertarianism runs the risk of becoming known through the lens of Paulism, which is a horrible bastardization of their ideals. He opposes same sex marriage, opposes the right to choose and supports foreign intervention by the US military.
Please don't let him claim the libertarian mantle or hold him up as an embodiment of your ideals - he's more destructive to the libertarian movement than all the political opponents there are. His position on the TSA is one of populist convenience, not one of principle.
Re:His own strawman (Score:5, Insightful)
Your ideas are the worst thing to happen to civil discourse.
I do not have to agree with everything someone believes in order to agree with them on some things. So we should find the things we agree on and work to enact those changes.
I do not like the TSA, so when Paul says "let's shut that mother down," I say, "good idea, Rand-o! Lets do this shit!" And when Paul says, "drone strikes?! Blowin up Americans and shit? That ain't right!" I say, "I'd go further than not just blowing up Americans, and we should talk about not blowing up anybody, but it's a start. I'm with you on that!" But when he says "boooo gays!" or "abortions?! For legals? In hospitals and shit? Pssssh! Coat hangers and alleys for you!" I'd say, "naw, gotta disagree with you there buddy."
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. On different topics, you can fully agree, partially agree, or disagree with no contradiction and maybe actually get some stuff you agree on accomplished! Or you can wait until only representatives you agree with on every last issue get elected. Which won't happen. So in the meantime I'm still getting groped every flight.
Re:His own strawman (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not have to agree with everything someone believes in order to agree with them on some things.
Well stated. If only we could somehow move there as a nation we'd be a lot better off. Unfortunately we're stuck with the Bushism "If you're not with us, you're against us."
Re:His own strawman (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care about 'libertarianism.' I care about getting the TSA abolished. So when Rand says "let's abolish the TSA," he gets my support on that issue, and I will gladly write my representatives to tell them I'd like them to work with Paul on this topic.
That does not explicitly or implicitly express support or opposition to any of his other positions. As far as "voting for the package," it's too late for that. He's already been elected. After they've been elected, we absolutely do vote on issues separately (except in the all-too-frequent cases where irrelevant riders are attached to important bills).
Politicians are trainable, and react to incentives just like anybody else. When a politician says something you like, cheer. When he says something you don't like, boo. Do this often enough and they'll learn to do the things that earn them treats instead of swats with a rolled-up newspaper. But if you just keep smacking him no matter what he does (or still cheering him on even when he wets on the carpet), he'll never learn.
Coincidentally, Paul needs some corrective action right now. A few months back he did a really good job with that filibuster about drone strikes on US soil. Good boy, Rand, good boy! But, a week or two ago, he came out and said he'd have no problem with a drone killing the Boston bombers, or a 'robber running out of a store with a sack of money and a gun.' Boo, Rand, boo! No, that's bad Rand! In this house we respect due process, and the right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers before you get a missile shot at your face. But, if you can see what you did wrong there and learn from your mistake, we might scratch you behind your ears again.
Re: (Score:3)
Politicians are trainable, and react to incentives just like anybody else. When a politician says something you like, cheer. When he says something you don't like, boo. Do this often enough and they'll learn to do the things that earn them treats instead of swats with a rolled-up newspaper. But if you just keep smacking him no matter what he does (or still cheering him on even when he wets on the carpet), he'll never learn
Except for some rare cases, they're hearing mostly-equal cheers and boos about everything they do. And it's still only a percent or two of their constituency. You have a stunningly naive view of politics.
This is why it's more important to vote for people who you think will make good decisions than if you like the stuff they've done (or said they'd do). I'd never vote for Paul, despite happening to agree with a lot of what he says and does, because I have no confidence that he actually evaluates the argument
Re: (Score:2)
opposes the right to choose
Opposes the "right to choose".... what? Anything? Is he somehow against free will? Please elaborate on this for those not involved with your particular special interest.
No call made to abolish (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No call made to abolish (Score:5, Insightful)
iirc he made a call to abolish the tsa and privatize airport security...like how it was before the tsa.
consider this though: if it were privatized, and their employees did something that violated your rights, you would have some realistic hope of legal recourse.
Re: (Score:2)
consider this though: if it were privatized, and their employees did something that violated your rights, you would have some realistic hope of legal recourse.
Or they'd get indemnified and become unsueable, before operating. Please, corporations don't give a flying crap about protecting your rights either, they are predatory animals looking to siphon maximum cash from you.
Re:No call made to abolish (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No call made to abolish (Score:4, Insightful)
. Privatizing it would just remove all accountability
No. Assuming the privatization meant that the airlines would once again be responsible for their own security, the airlines would either compete on maximum invasiveness (anal cavity searches for all), maximum privacy (likely pre-2001 screening to meet their insurance carriers' requirements), maximum security (say, pressure-testing luggage and allowing small arms aboard), or some hybrid that people liked. The airlines would be directly accountable to their passengers and those passengers would provide their feedback by way of ticket purchases and relative pricing. The exception might be remote areas where one carrier has a monopoly at a local airport and there is no actual choice in commercial aviation.
Re:No call made to abolish (Score:5, Insightful)
The airlines would be directly accountable to their passengers and those passengers would provide their feedback by way of ticket purchases and relative pricing.
Not to mention that pissing off a TSA agent is bound to send you to jail or get you on a no-fly list. However, if I pissed of a private security guard, the best they could do is maybe bar me from that particular airport.
Re: (Score:2)
But every groper's salary is money that could be better spent on CEO bonuses. So they'd charge you extra *and* fire the gropers. And eventually competion would drive prices back down to pre-groper levels.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No call made to abolish (Score:5, Insightful)
How would returning airport security to private hands remove accountability? It would do just the opposite.
Notice how mall cops don't hassle anybody? Except maybe kids skateboarding in the parking lot? And why? Because if a mall cop stops you for no good reason and demands to search your bags or something, you call the management. The manager comes out, reprimands the mall cop for harassing the customers, apologizes profusely to you, Sir, and gives you a gift certificate to the food court.
When a government cop hassles you and you demand to speak to his superior, expect to get tased, beaten and charged with assaulting an officer.
I would much rather have private security personnel working for the airports and airlines than government officials. The rent-a-cops at least have an economic incentive to not treat you like shit. The government cops have no incentive to give a fuck, and so they don't.
Re: (Score:2)
How about... (Score:5, Informative)
I would like to keep my shoes on and be able to take a 2L through the checkpoint.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, oddly enough, the line works even better when used against those arguing in favor of a police state.
Re:How about... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Just remember that this is the actual defense is that people use if you are talking about stopping it."
Who gives a damn? Because you know they're completely full of sh*t. So why in hell should you care what their argument is?
TSA hasn't made America safer. If anything, it's done the opposite by weakening our Constitutional rights... and getting people used to it. TSA all by itself is extremely dangerous to America.
Change the name of the TSA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless we quit being so sensitive about profiling, and admit certain groups are more prone to terrorism, and monitor them more closely, we are going to be more prone to harassing a lot of innocent people.
I'd rather not have selective harassment, either. How about we just stop being so paranoid and keep cockpit doors secured?
Re: (Score:3)
"Since it isn't politically correct to profile, and it's nearly impossible to kill a government agency, my vote is to change the name of the TSA to the Transportation Groping agency."
They profile all the time. Hell, half their job is profiling. The problem is that they don't profile over the right things... precisely because it's not "politically correct". So they profile other things. Things they know are worthless.
The phrase "security theater" is no joke. It's all a big act, at your expense. And it isn't entertaining. Or even funny.
Why do we even need screening anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do we even need screening anymore? No one will ever be allowed into the cockpit again, even if they start murdering passengers. Bomb sniffers are still useful, but at this point, an attack on a football stadium during a game would be far more detrimental, both in terms of casualties and psychologically.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, what self-respecting suicide nut wouldn't want to go for a football stadium rather than blowing a plane out of the sky just as it approaches or takes off from a busy airport.
Re:Why do we even need screening anymore? (Score:5, Informative)
Why do we even need screening anymore?
Did you miss that TSA costs $8B? That $8B goes to politically-connected friends of politicians who funnel some of it back into campaigns to buy votes and perpetuate their power.
I know, that's not a propagandist answer.
Re:Why do we even need screening anymore? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not the military at all, in fact the Government is downsizing the military and increasing the scope, power, and budgets for people not the Military. The 5 branches of Service are trained to protect the USA from all enemies both foreign and domestic . Obviously this means that if DHS started shooting people, the US Military forces should fight against them.
In addition to boosting agencies not subject to posse comitatus, more and more domestic work is being funneled to private mercenary companies like "Craft" aka Blackwater. This should cause great amounts of concern to all Citizens. In fact, a rather disturbing fact is that Craft was all over Boston during the Marathon while allegedly two lone wolves planted and detonated bombs.
Re: Why do we even need screening anymore? (Score:2)
nonsense question (Score:5, Insightful)
What shouldn't be on the bill of rights for airplane passengers?
- nonsense question.
There shouldn't even be such a legal document as 'bill of rights', because it is completely misunderstood probably by all to mean that those are your rights and nothing else. Not true, the government has no authority to limit any of your rights, by default you have all of your rights intact.
Government can strip you of your rights temporarily or permanently depending on whether the Constitution authorises that power to government for certain situations (like taxing your transactions, it's loss of a right, but at least it's Constitutional).
Saying that there should be an "airplane passenger bill of rights" is like saying that there should be a "bill of rights for blacks" or "bill of rights for gays" or "bill of rights for women" or "bill of rights for employees", none of it makes any sense, you have all of your rights regardless of your group and association, you shouldn't lose your rights for reasons that are outside of the power authorised to the government by the Constitution, yet here we are.
Re: (Score:2)
are you for real?
Seriously? That's the level of your reading comprehension?
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you so racist against tongues, and the cheeks into which they are put?
don't privatize the police (Score:2)
Even my most radically conservative friend who wants to turn all highways and streets into private toll roads, wants government severely reduced in scope and have what's left of the government's budget be balanced no matter what, and believes that Climate Disruption is not caused by man, balked at the notion of privatizing the police.
Re: (Score:2)
what was his reasoning? Most places that have private police forces have been some of the safest places there are.
Re:don't privatize the police (Score:4, Insightful)
Also the wealthiest. Coincidence?
Re: (Score:2)
In a word, corruption. Favoritism and graft. He was wary of those possibilities. Perhaps his fears were increased by having been ticketed a few times for traffic violations when there was some doubt that he did anything wrong.
Governments also suffer from corruption, of course, but at least in democracies they are formally accountable to the people. An example of the kind of abuse private policing routinely leads to are those red light cameras. Local governments have been too negligent, permissive, a
The anti-TouriSm Agency (Score:2)
Re:The anti-TouriSm Agency (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of the stuff discouraging tourism isn't from the TSA, but from other agencies under the Department of Homeland Security. For example, Customs and Border Patrol are the ones who run the ridiculous entry process, where non-U.S.-nationals typically have to wait in a line for 1-2 hours before they can be interrogated about their visit and eventually make it out of the airport. And the Office of Biometric Identity Management (formerly US-VISIT), another agency, requires all non-nationals to be biometrically recorded upon entry. And that's only for people in the visa-waiver program: if you're not from a visa-waiver country, there's a whole other set of hassles and delays [state.gov] to get a tourist visa. This process operates poorly enough that a number of academic conferences have started avoiding the U.S., because the delay is so long that speakers from countries like China and Egypt can't get a visa in time to attend and present their paper.
There's a term for this: Security Theater (Score:4, Interesting)
Can we crowd-source activism? (Score:3)
With the total inability of government to do anything that benefits the people, I often wonder if it's possible to crowd-source activism.
Suppose we had a web site where people could register discontent with selected issues. Something like "Fix It Or Else.com".
In the manner of We The People [google.com], people could find or create petitions which demand actions from politicians on specific issues, and promise to vote against the incumbent if the issues are not resolved.
For example, you could petition your senators to abolish the TSA, and if that doesn't happen you promise to vote against them at the next election. Similar for other issues - end the war on drugs, legalize gay marriage, increase NASA's budget, and so on.
Many elections are decided by a thin margin - a couple of thousand votes is usually enough to swing the election. Frequently a couple of hundred will do. You wouldn't have to give up the belief that your party is better than the other party; just resolve to punish them for inaction this one time.
Would this have an effect? Could crowd-sourcing bring accountability to the rulers of government?
Some details:
.) Issues would be addressed to specific politicians. Petitions could be addressed to the president, your senators, your governor, and so on - depending on the scope of the issue.
.) If a petition reaches a registration goal, a copy is sent to the addressed people.
.) Six weeks before the election, the system invites petition registrants to vote whether the issue was resolved
.) One week before the election, the system sends the voting results back. You would get an E-mail "95% of respondents feel this issue was not addressed, and will be voting against Senator Jack Johnson at the upcoming election".
.) The system will close petition registrations some months before the election (at the party convention?) to prevent paid shills from swaying the results.
Re: (Score:3)
1) you need to crowdsource lobbyist money, not votes. Politicians respond better to hard money right now than nebulous unverifiable voting threats in the future.
2) people have to get over the "all or nothing" mindset. Just look at the comments on slashdot. You've got people who hate the TSA, but won't voice support for Paul's efforts to abolish/change it because they disagree with other positions Paul holds about gay marriage or abortion that have nothing to do with the TSA.
Never mind the petty stuff (Score:2)
Just give the whole thing to Bruce Schneier and stand back.
prison in my own country (Score:4, Insightful)
Passengers know no one can save them (Score:5, Insightful)
Foolishness (Score:2)
People think that by abolishing a government agency that they will get rid of the functionality. It's as foolish as thinking that you'll stop having to pay income tax if you get rid of the IRS. Getting rid of the agency that is doing dumb things won't change the dumb things, it will simply change who is doing them. Stop going after the people doing the dumb things and start going after the dumb things themselves...
Paul's Mostly Ineffectual (Score:2)
Just set off a Bomb and you get a bigger budget. (Score:3)
So don't expect the bombs to stop anytime soon.
Boston is just the start, whether or not who you believe is responsible one thing is for sure, its bigger money and bigger payouts to the banks in the future because they are using each crisis to destroy the constitution and prepare for the economic collapse of the dollar.
By the time that happens, they will be ready to deal with all of you peons reading this that don't like the fact the banks took all your money and you don't like it.
This is just all a ruse. A diversion from the real fact of the matter which is not the fact that we invaded the middle east because they "hate our freedom and liberties"...funny I don't see the Taliban or Al CIAeda passing NDAA legislation.
No, the people who hate our freedom and liberties are the people who you elect to office and above all, that den of vipers called the Federal Reserve.
They, are the ones who hate our freedom and liberties. They are the ones who signed the papers for the NDA acts via proxy of their crony puppets they allow you to pick from and idiots elect.
TSA is a crony federal reserve funded operation, and if they want you to pay more, they have nothing to prove except perhaps setting off another "terrorist act" to get an even bigger budget passed.
Most people have no idea how the money system works in the United States, and in all of its satellite states in Europe.
This entire mischief is all about money, and has nothing to do with keeping you safe.
It is disgusting and it is going to all end very very badly.
-Hack
Aeschylus: only through suffering do we learn
Re:Rand Paul just flipflopped on use of drones in (Score:4, Insightful)
Ironically how would armed drones have been sane to use in a busy metropolitan city to catch TWO people on foot. Maybe if they had hijacked a passenger less bus or vehicle and were on a stretch of the interstate by themselves, but then your still blowing up civil infrastructure for something a good o'le fashioned barricade would have made much more sense for.
Drones are a military technology for war fighting with limited use in the civil arena. The problems were having as a nation is conflating terrorism with military action.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ironically how would armed drones have been sane to use in a busy metropolitan city to catch TWO people on foot. Maybe if they had hijacked a passenger less bus or vehicle and were on a stretch of the interstate by themselves, but then your still blowing up civil infrastructure for something a good o'le fashioned barricade would have made much more sense for.
Drones are a military technology for war fighting with limited use in the civil arena. The problems were having as a nation is conflating terrorism with military action.
Boston proved the when the chips are down, americans are a bunch of pussies.
Imagine what would happen if you didn't have a second amendment and a population who love their guns
"Please declare marshal law and put heavilly armed soldiers and tanks on the streets, I'm scared of a couple of guys on the run, please come into my house, don't mind the 4th amendment"
Oh wait.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed an important word "armed". Which is the real deep issue. Before police helicopters use to barred from having arms. There's an entire movie done up about it from the 80's (Blue Thunder). I don't have a clue honestly what the legislation is, I wager in some jurisdictions we have armed police aircraft now.
I don't think the majority of people had an issue with the occasional "warrent" required or response to emergency use of survielance. Nor do I really.
Were most people (and me) get bothered is when
Re: (Score:2)
*surveillance, stupid dictionary thinking I meant subservience.
Re:why not ban capitalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
In a world where people aren't encouraged from a young age to compete, but instead to cooperate, you'll have neither the warmongers who encourage relaliatory action, nor the sort of petty dictators who staff the TSA.
Wow, that just substitutes the past 9000 years of history for pop psychology that wouldn't survive a 101-level course. Since I can't say it better:
Re:why not ban capitalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats a beautiful sentiment, but is it really true? =)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not even close.
Success in capitalism is directly correlated with a distinct lack of morals, self-centeredness, sociopathic behavior, and of course inherited dynastic wealth. None of those serve anybody. Yes, there are edge case examples of successful people who don't exhibit these traits, but for the most part successful capitalists do exhibit them, and the most successful ones manage to hide that fact from a lot of people.
Now, if you want to tell me you can get relatively wealthy running your own busines
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People like you forget that the same man who wrote _The Wealth of Nations_ also wrote _The Theory of Moral Sentiments_.
Re:why not ban capitalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, and before the creation and repeatedly increased power of the Corporation to shield people from the consequences of their actions, when businesses were primarily local affairs, and communities were close-knit enough to be a strong motivator to most people, that theory held reasonably well. In the modern world though we've drifted into a situation where psychopathic behaviour is encouraged and rewarded within large corporations, especially within the financial sector. Andthe massive increase in population and ease of transportation has degraded community to the point where it tends to be restricted to your co-workers and chosen social network rather than being heavily determined by geography. The result being that you get groups of people who are encouraged to ever more psycopathic behaviour and are surrounded primarily by others who are likewise encouraged, resulting in something of a social echo-chamber effect that tends to spiral out of control.
This perception is backed by many psychology experiments that show, among other things, that ethics tend to be heavily dependent on peer pressure - if an aparent member of your social group blatantly cheats and gets away with it, you become far more likely to do the same.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that is a fine description of events, except you've left out any conception of religion, morality, and the golden rule.
Believe it or not, religion and related ethics are the major counterbalance to the "naked greed" that would seem to be the driving force of capitalism. We shall see what ethos derives from the current era, if any.. :P
Re: (Score:3)
I'll be frank:
1) Are you in fact right? Could there be a reason why the world at large rejects your views?
2) Are you presenting your ideas in an attractive way? Maybe ask some of these people to provide you with some feedback?
3) Is this more about you than the world? Maybe get some counselling before this "world versus me" mentality becomes intractable.
4) Learn to be less bothered by the mundane and the things out of your control.
You really want to be careful to avoid this "Mr. Nice Guy" thing. The mention
Re: why not ban capitalism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: why not ban capitalism? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The wealthy donate to museums and cultural causes that have acquired the same tax exempt status as humanitarian aid causes. They're also the only ones benefiting from their own causes. They also donate less as a percentage of income than the poor. [msn.com] That on top of being able to exploit capital gains tax rates to pay a lower percentage of income on taxes than the middle and working classes.
Millions is peanuts. As middle class wage earners, you'll "contribute" that in mandatory taxes, some of which may actu
Re: why not ban capitalism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually I was questioning the quote and not dictating a particular political policy or cultural methodology or social dogma. I rather like the idea of Star Trek, but we can't try that out until we can beam people we dislike to far away places and give them whatever tools they need to create their planet of tropes.
I think in many cases capitalism has been benificial, but by a means in itself I question it. Because on one hand you have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes [wikipedia.org] . And then you have Bell... *cough* vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Meucci [wikipedia.org]
Innovation isn't even consistently rewarded by capitalism. No matter how much stock you may want to put into a free market. There are lots of historical events that can point this out.
Why is it we are still so reliant on oil. When there are a myriad different ways to produce energy now? Because we have an oil industry. And its that simple.
Re: why not ban capitalism? (Score:4, Informative)
I disagree. To some degree yes. But I believe oil and coal have a lot of protection while other clean technologies. Thorium salt reactors, solar arrays, desentralized solar, etc... are being stifled by the very same economy that could be using them. And all because of this excuse that without the oil companies modern civilization would collapse.
No you wouldn't be able to run your AC 24/7 and keep your house exactly at 70 degree's cheaply. But there are alternatives and they WILL become just as cheap once we kick off our old dependence on what were using now.
I've seen a myriad of hydrogen fuel cells that work, mostly at universities and parks. Sears developed cheap batteries for stuff like cell phones years ago but didn't market them... the list goes on and on.
Hydro-electric power is underdeveloped because of the fear of "geoengineering" and while I agree that it can be disastrous and greatly change the environment. I think more Hoover damns would be better then supporting the strip mining of the Appalachians. Yeah they toss some soil back into a hill shape and replant tree's but in the meantime it wrecks the environment there just as bad.
Were colonizing Alberta Canada and by we I mean INTERNATIONAL oil companies that we all support, every one of us to go about our lives, and destroying the homeland of many native Americans who are waging a guerrilla war this very moment. Yet there are alternatives that we could bring down in cost if we did the GOVERNMENT group thing and subsized the technology and rolled it out like we did the railroads. I'll tell ya what, you want to keep the same monopolies in place so the "social fucking order" doesn't get disturbed fine. But lets do this we don't have any damn excuses to keep using OBSOLETE tech here.... we are not fighting cylons.
Re: (Score:3)
To be more specific there will always be plenty of technological solutions to power generation. We'll see them come into play once oil is no longer a cheap and easy alternative. The oil industry inhibits the actual development of these solutions because, your hospital doesn't need to run a hydrogen fuel cell for its MRI machine yet.
As a species were far from becoming powerless for a long long time yet. A vast majority might have to go without in the next century though if we don't start making a transition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Best most concise answer =)
Re:why not ban capitalism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Capitalism certainly does do that - I'm guessing you're well fed, with a roof over your head, sitting in front of a computer with internet access, wearing decent clothes, perhaps in good health with decent dental care, maybe glasses... all things provided to you by capitalists through a mutual exchange that both parties found satisfactory.
You're also most likey employed (or will be) by a capitalist.
Gordon Gecko said it in Wall Street... yes, fictional, but a good point- "Greed is good." No, I don't particu
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
LOL. Seriously. If your believe that you are quite mad or seriously gullible.
Bush caused two wars and conquered, the Halliburton Corporation, owned by him and Chaney, made 50 billion with this wars.
The Banks are serving no one except themselves and when they royally fucked up, society was needed to save them.
No one can nowadays become really wealthy by "serving your fellow man". Do nurses get rich? Or police officers? Or the sanitation worker? No. never. The only getting rich (I mean rich) are either alread
Re: (Score:3)
At least what I know from my father, who was a POW during WWII, the US resembled the requested state to quite some degree back then.
Anecdotal evidence is that the American guards in his prisoner camp (Roswell, 14 miles SE of Roswell, New Mexico) were replaced by German officers due to the fact that things were too loosely handled.
I also was very impressed by the stories that conveyed that people left their keys in their cars without
Re: why not ban capitalism? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of indigenous peoples in the Americas, Africa, Polynesia, and Australia had extremely uncompetitive cultures, although the notion of banning all competition is silly and probably impossible outside of Harrison Bergeron [wikipedia.org]. They survived because it allowed them to maximize the utilization of their resources. Flourishing (developing an advanced society), on the other hand, is a result of competition amongst inventors, reformers, and their proxies, although it doesn't need to be nearly as savage as it is i
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since someone else already responded to the second sentence, decisively, I'll do the first sentence:
In a world where people aren't encouraged from a young age to compete, but instead to cooperate, you'll have neither the warmongers who encourage relaliatory action, nor the sort of petty dictators who staff the TSA.
I'm not a libertarian, nor GOP, nor male. I can tell you this, though: It is contrary to human nature not to be competitive. Some competition, starting from a young age, is good! It increases self-esteem, pride in family, school and country. Yes, cooperation is necessary too, e.g. a group of people aligned to achieve a common goal, which (usually) can be accomplished only through competition with those whos
Re: (Score:3)
It is contrary to human nature not to be competitive.
I'd modify that to "It is contrary to human nature not to be playful." Play is simultaneously competitive and cooperative. Importantly, "winning" in play isn't "for keeps" --- "I'm stronger and faster than you" doesn't translate into "you're my slave bitch for life," or accumulation and leveraging of power over others. In fact, when participants in play are badly mismatched in raw ability, the stronger will typically voluntarily and spontaneously hobble themselves --- not by stopping trying, but in some man
Re: (Score:3)
I think that competitiveness is one of those things that you have to take on an individual basis. The conflict comes when you have a very competitive few exploiting a mostly uncompetitive majority. When everyone is being competitive this works out fine and the equation balances itself. The loosers loose, but loose less badly because they made an effort to compete, and usually in a cooperative enough way to not get completely stomped.
The rules are U.S. society are increasingly becoming anticompetitive though
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i don't trust the aim of even the highest trained police officers
Cops are notoriously bad shots. It's one reason why you're far more likely to be accidentally shot by a cop than by a 'gun-toting hero' civilian.
I still don't think that handing passengers a pistol with their boarding pass as they check in would be a good idea. Though maybe if it only had one bullet...
Re: (Score:2)
In the face of opposition from airline employees, the TSA backed off allowing any new items onto plans - no hockey sticks, no knives, no change whatsoever.
Things like this make wonder if we really deserve everything we got with TSA. I mean, people actually protested against this change, and I believe cited the recent Boston tragedy (which was a bombing in the open street with very few knives or hockey sticks involved, mind you). Some people are just crazy...