While reading this post last night about the bond market, I couldn’t help but notice the graphic linked halfway down. It’s a graph mapping the correlation between recessions and some other economic stuff. What caught my eye though is that according to the chart, every single recession in the last half a century has occurred under a Republican.

Now obviously Democrats do things to contribute to recessions too, I just think it’s funny that somehow Republicans are seen as more financially responsible given what the chart indicates.

Footnotes

1. The book is out of print but available used on Amazon if you’re willing to shell out a couple hundred bucks. I have a copy of the book though if anyone would like to buy it off me for a bit less than Amazon. Maybe there’s someone out there who speaks Italian and could try translating it in to English.

2. I apologize in advance that some of the pictures suck, my camera is awful.

3. I am currently trying to get the Letter Spirit program working again but don’t have much experience with Scheme. If anyone out there is interested in helping me ressurect this, I’d be very grateful for the help.

4. A role is a collection of parts or “quanta” whose collective activations most closely correlate to something that might be called “left bowl” or “ascender”.

The following is a transcript of a conversation between Noam Chomsky and a Zmag forum user. It discusses some of the similarities and differences between the two schools of libertarian thought which have been discussed on this blog before. (Chomsky is in bold).

Hello Mr. Chomsky.
I’m assuming you know who Ron Paul is.
And I’m also assuming you have a general idea about his positions.

Here my summary of Mr. Paul’s positions:
- He values property rights, and contracts between people (defended by law enforcement and courts).

Under all circumstances? Suppose someone facing starvation accepts a contract with General Electric that requires him to work 12 hours a day locked into a factory with no health-safety regulations, no security, no benefits, etc. And the person accepts it because the alternative is that his children will starve. Fortunately, that form of savagery was overcome by democratic politics long ago. Should all of those victories for poor and working people be dismantled, as we enter into a period of private tyranny (with contracts defended by law enforcement)? Not my cup of tea.

- He wants to take away the unfair advantage corporations have (via the dismantling of big government)

“Dismantling of big government” sounds like a nice phrase. What does it mean? Does it mean that corporations go out of existence, because there will no longer be any guarantee of limited liability? Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of the governing system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public (corporations are unaccountable, apart from generally weak regulatory apparatus)? Does it mean that the economy should collapse, because basic R&D is typically publicly funded — like what we’re now using, computers and the internet? Should we eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental regulation,….? Does it mean that we should be ruled by private tyrannies with no accountability to the general public, while all democratic forms are tossed out the window? Quite a few questions arise.

- He defends workers right to organize (so long as owners have the right to argue against it).

Rights that are enforced by state police power, as you’ve already mentioned.

There are huge differences between workers and owners. Owners can fire and intimidate workers, not conversely. just for starters. Putting them on a par is effectively supporting the rule of owners over workers, with the support of state power — itself largely under owner control, given concentration of resources.

- He proposes staying out of the foreign affairs of other nations (unless his home is directly attacked, and must respond to defend it).

He is proposing a form of ultranationalism, in which we are concerned solely with our preserving our own wealth and extraordinary advantages, getting out of the UN, rejecting any international prosecution of US criminals (for aggressive war, for example), etc. Apart from being next to meaningless, the idea is morally unacceptable, in my view.

 

I really can’t find differences between your positions and his.

There’s a lot more. Take Social Security. If he means what he says literally, then widows, orphans, the disabled who didn’t themselves pay into Social Security should not benefit (or of course those awful illegal aliens). His claims about SS being “broken” are just false. He also wants to dismantle it, by undermining the social bonds on which it is based — the real meaning of offering younger workers other options, instead of having them pay for those who are retired, on the basis of a communal decision based on the principle that we should have concern for others in need. He wants people to be able to run around freely with assault rifles, on the basis of a distorted reading of the Second Amendment (and while we’re at it, why not abolish the whole raft of constitutional provisions and amendments, since they were all enacted in ways he opposes?).

 

 

So I have these questions:

1) Can you please tell me the differences between your schools of “Libertarianism”?

There are a few similarities here and there, but his form of libertarianism would be a nightmare, in my opinion — on the dubious assumption that it could even survive for more than a brief period without imploding.

2) Can you please tell me what role “private property” and “ownership” have in your school of “Libertarianism”?

That would have to be worked out by free communities, and of course it is impossible to respond to what I would prefer in abstraction from circumstances, which make a great deal of difference, obviously.

 

3) Would you support Ron Paul, if he was the Republican presidential candidate…and Hilary Clinton was his Democratic opponent?

No.

Testing the new mozilla based browser with blog capability.

My money is on Chomsky, but it’d be fun to see nonetheless.

I had a problem. In order to get the grades I needed to get in to grad school it was imperative that I get an A- average for the semester. Unfortunately, I also work on the Internet and like many webmasters I find the information on Digg to be invaluable in terms of staying competitive. Without staying up until 6 am every night reading every interesting post on Digg for the day, I had to develop a system that would let me balance my need to stay competitive with my need to get good grades. So here is what I’ve come up with; you may or may not find this a useful approach but it seems to be working so far.

1. Create 4 text files: Urgent_Work_Related.txt, Casual_Work_Related.txt, Urgent_News.txt, Casual_News.txt

2. Create 2 folders for videos: Shorts, Longs

At the end of each day, go through Digg and copy and paste each link in to its appropriate text file. Videos can be immediately downloaded for downtime watching later on (keepvid.com etc…). Casual links are only to be read at the end of the semester. Don’t worry about the pages going down, if they do, you can always search for the link on Digg (url only) and find a mirror in the comments. Urgent links are going to have to be gauged on your perception of their urgency, there’s no formula for that.
Using this system, you should be able to grab the headlines you need, stay reasonably well-informed, and only spend 15 minutes a day on Digg. Good luck!

10. Marijuana Decriminalization. A 2007 poll conducted by Zogby International indicates that a slight majority of Americans favour the abolishment of criminal penalties for minor marijuana offenses: “Forty-nine percent of respondents, including 57 percent of men, said they would support “a law in Congress that would eliminate federal penalties for the personal use of marijuana by adults and allow states to adopt their own policies on marijuana.” Only 48 percent of those polled said they oppose such a law; three percent were undecided. The poll has a margin of error of ±3 percentage points.” ¹ Growing numbers are also in favour of outright legalization with 41% agreeing that “the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol: it should regulate it, control it, tax it and only make it illegal for children.” ²

9. Universal Health Care. Various polls ^{1 2} find that Americans want significant changes to the current medical system, including guaranteed government coverage even if it means paying more: “Americans across party lines willing to make some sacrifice to insure that every American has access to health insurance. Sixty percent, including 62 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans, said they would be willing to pay more in taxes. Half said they would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more.”

8. Stricter Campaign Finance Laws. A large majority (66%) of Americans support an increasing of regulations on how politicians obtain and spend money. ¹ Regarding the 2000 election: “Nearly three-fourths of the voters participating in the survey said Texas Gov. George W. Bush’s $70 million fund-raising tally is ‘excessive and a sign of what’s wrong with politics today.” Similarly, 40 percent said Bush is the presumptive nominee because of “the amount of money he raised.’” ²

7. Equal Aid to Palestinians and Israelis. Increasingly dissatisfied with the mid-east peace process, Americans want more results for their high levels of aid money to Israel. “in polling conducted 2002-2003, majorities supported the US withholding or reducing its aid to Israel and the Palestinians, as a means of pressure to influence their behavior”. ¹ Americans also favour increasing the levels of aid to the Palestinians contingent on acceptance of a negotiated peace proposal: “Asked in a May 2003 PIPA poll “if the Palestinians come to terms with Israel in a peace agreement, do you think the US should equalize the amount of aid it gives to Israel and to the Palestinians,” 67% indicated they would support an equalizing aid to Palestine.” and “In the same 2003 PIPA poll with a different sample, respondents were told how much aid is currently given to Palestine, and were then asked to provide their own assessment of how much aid should be given if Palestine were to make peace with Israel. The median response was to increase aid to $1 billion, more than 14 times the $70 million provided at the time. The average response indicated a willingness to increase aid to $2.37 billion (somewhat lower than the amount indicated for Israel).” The terms of peace are overwhelmingly accepted by the Palestinian population: “A total of 72.1% of Palestinians support the Taba or Oslo B Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.” ²

6. Reducing Military Spending. When Americans were asked in a 2005 poll how they would structure the Federal budget, the answers could hardly have been more clear: “Defense spending received the deepest cut, being cut on average 31 percent — equivalent to $133.8 billion — with 65 percent of respondents cutting.” This does not indicate an unwillingness to support the troops however: “respondents particularly preserved spending for troops, including for salaries (82%), the overall number of military personnel (61%), and development of new equipment for infantry and Marines (64%). Spending relevant to fighting terrorism was also preserved, such as for intelligence (62%), troops for special operations (58%), and advanced communications systems (69%). Also preserved was spending on capabilities for conducting peacekeeping (58%), fighting insurgents or guerrillas (56%), and work on new types of high-technology missiles and bombs (55%).” ¹

5. Increased Social Spending. The same poll showing American’s interest in cutting defense spending also pointed to areas where spending would increase of people had control over the economy: “The largest increases were for social spending. Spending on human capital was especially popular including education which was increased $26.8 billion (39%) and job training and employment which was up $19 billion or a remarkable 263%. Medical research was upped on average $15.5 billion (53%). Veterans benefits were raised 40 percent or $12.5 billion and housing went up 31 percent or $9.3 billion. In most cases clear majorities favored increases (education 57%, job training 67%, medical research 57%, veteran’s benefits 63%), though only 43 percent of respondents favored increases for housing.” ¹

4. Acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol. By a wide majority Americans agree that the United States should participate in the Kyoto protocol: “In June 2005, PIPA simply asked “based on what you know, do you think the U.S. should or should not participate in the Kyoto agreement to reduce global warming.” A strong majority of 73% favored participation. This was up a bit from September 2004, when only 65% favored it. Only 16% in June 2005 and September 2004 opposed participation.” ^{1 2}

3. A Diplomatic Solution with Iran. Only 20% ¹ - 40% ² of Americans support a military strike against Iran to destroy its nuclear facilities. Diplomatic action backed by sanctions is supported by about 60% of Americans: “This ABC News/Washington Post poll finds sanctions the preferred option across the political spectrum”.

2. Pulling Troops out of Iraq. Both the American citizenry and armed forces support a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq: “Most Americans support the U.S. House provision setting a timetable that calls for most U.S. troops to be out of Iraq by September 2008, said a survey released on Wednesday. According to the CBS News poll, 59 percent of those surveyed favored the provision while 37 percent opposed it.” ¹ Perhaps even more telling is the strong opposition to the war from within the army itself: “An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.” ²

1. The Impeachment of George W. Bush. Majorities of Americans think that George Bush should be impeached for one of two possible crimes: unauthorized wire-tapping of the public and/or misleading the people in to a war with Iraq. On the matter of wire-tapping: “The poll found that 52% agreed with the statement: “If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment.” 43% disagreed, and 6% said they didn’t know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 2.9% margin of error.” ¹ On the issue of Iraq: “The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement: “If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him.” 44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn’t know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.” ²

Runner Up.

Jurisdiction to the International Criminal Court. “Americans are at least twice as likely to agree as to disagree that the United States should participate in the International Criminal Court (53%-22%)” ¹

jordan [at] introspections.org

Licensed under Creative Commons

editors note: Since writing this article Dennis Kucinich has emerged as a force of his own. Please read this article in the context of Ron Paul being the lone honest politician at the time to make a break on the Internet. In addition, Chomsky has contributed his own opinions on Ron Paul.

Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky

Having been a long time libertarian, it’s been interesting to observe the rise in popularity of Congressman Ron Paul on the Internet. I first discovered him about a year ago when I read a transcript of a speech he gave to Congress on monetary policy. It was startling to see such honesty, especially from a Texas Republican; it was truly the last place I expected to find it. His withering critique of the petro-dollar represented a kind of understanding that American politics usually holds in contempt; and indeed that is the status of Ron Paul to the Washington elite, contemptible. His success on the Internet and his appeal to a wide audience bring up a number of important issues and offer an important possibility of dialogue in a highly divided nation.

Untangle yourself for the moment from political prejudices and think about this statement; the libertarian left and the libertarian right are in most cases indistinguishable. Consider this quote from the distinguished social libertarian, Noam Chomsky:

“I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality which is rare.” ~ Noam Chomsky, in an interview entitled “Noam Chomsky on Anarchism,” December 1996

We have all grown up with immensely distorted views of “Left” and “Right”. Anyone who favours state medical is branded a Communist and anyone who favours a weakened central bureaucracy is labeled a dangerous Libertarian. No need to listen to the actual arguments, this extremely superficial distinction is all that is required. At least that’s what we’ve been taught to think. The truth is that anyone who has taken the time to classify their political position as “libertarian” has done so out of a shared belief in maximizing human freedom.

The Ultimate Wedge Issue: Private Property

The libertarian left and right have been easily divided by their differing views on private property. Those on the right believe that social libertarians just want to steal all their property, while those on the left are fond of saying that property itself is theft. The reality of course is much more subtle. While there are reactionaries in both camps, a moderate synthesis between the two is achievable and would certainly help promote reasoned debate, ultimately undercutting the reactionaries. If we boil the arguments down to their most important features:

left) Private structures of control can be as bad or worse than state structures.

right) The freedom of the individual to create and produce must be the central focus of a political system.

That’s it. This is the wedge issue that divides the left and right. Kind of ridiculous isn’t it? What is needed is a serious debate of these issues. A real debate. Not the kind you see on CNN or FOX; One that can clear the air on why there are really differences of opinion on global warming, gun control, Medicare, “free” trade and environmental regulation. People need to hear this stuff when it is not suffocated inside a bag of patriotic posturing. I want to see Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky make time in their busy schedules to create dialogue between two marginalized forces. Why these two men? Ron Paul is on the verge of making a breakthrough by appealing directly to people through the Internet. The mainstream press is having a hell of a time suppressing his popularity and with continued support he could become a serious challenger for the presidency. His appeal extends deep in to the left, but to really make inroads with this constituency he is going to have to negotiate with the “arguably the most important intellectual alive”[1].

To put it mildly, this would not be like debating Rudy Giuliani. Noam Chomsky has had an iron grip on the most prestigious philosophy chair in the world for 40 years for very good reason. His knowledge of political systems and human nature has seen intellectuals like Richard Perle, Alan Dershowitz, Michele Foucalt and BF Skinner humiliated in their exposed ignorance. Whether people on the left have even heard of him, his influence guides them because he guides the opinion leaders. This is not a negligible number of people. His approval could directly or indirectly give Ron Paul considerable support. There is common ground between Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky, such that if the left and right can put aside their differences momentarily and engage in reasoned dialogue we have a brief chance to accomplish what was once thought impossible: democracy.

[1] Robinson, Paul (February 25, 1979). The Chomsky Problem; Chomsky. New York Times: “Judged in terms of the power, range, novelty and influence of his thought, Noam Chomsky is arguably the most important intellectual alive today. He is also a disturbingly divided intellectual.”

jordan [at] introspections.org

Licensed under Creative Commons