Category Archives: Purely Speculation

‘Purely Speculation’ is a series dedicated to facilitating conversation on key political issues. It’s an open forum for Brad OH Inc. contributors to voice their opinions on any matter associated with political direction–ranging from economic systems to globalization. Each article is meant to stand separately, and it’s the hope of everyone at Brad OH Inc. that these myriad opinions lead to some productive debate among the readers here at Brad OH Inc.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the articles of ‘Purely Speculation’ are not necessarily the views and opinions of Brad OH Inc.

On the Fear of Big Government

Posted on by
5

purelyspeculationLast week on Brad OH Inc., we explored the issue of government infringements into personal data. This is a serious concern to a great many people—and the striping away of civil liberties such as privacy is a trend which continues to show the detached relationship government has with its citizenry. With such gross violations becoming a regular trend, it’s no wonder we still toil under the outdated notion that ‘big government’ needs to be held in check.

But make no mistake about it people, this is no reason to hate big government; just bad government. In the 1980 presidential race against Jimmy Carter, it was the infernal idiot Ronald Reagan who promised to “get government off our backs” (Source). After taking office, Reagan followed through dutifully on his promise—shattering the government’s role in protecting families, citizens, and the environment. Business, of course, flourished.

This push by Reagan to reduce the size of government was founded on claims of a fictional ‘welfare queen’ getting rich off the tax dollars of the electorate, and the general claim—as off-putting now as it was then for a man seeking public office—that “Government is not a solution to our problem. Government is the problem” (Source).

This toxic line of thinking heralded in an era of anti-government dialogue which effectively allowed rights to shrink away as powers were handed off to the corporations. Social programs were cut, and people suffered. The fictional ‘welfare queens’ theorized by Reagan have been fully realized in the decades since, as corporations are given increasingly large portions of the communal pie: receiving corporate tax breaks, bailouts in place of bankruptcy, and taking eagerly the keys of governance from the discredited and disenfranchised democratic system.

Ever since then, people have been treating government like it’s a dirty word—perhaps because it so often acts like several of them. But fear of government is irrationally motivated, and exercised for all the wrong reasons. It serves only to allow government abuse of citizens. People must remember that proper governance is there to protect them, from exactly the sort of threats which corporate governance has become. We should not fear government; we should utilize and control it to our own empowerment.

Of course, the government has to remember this as well.

The very notion of democratic government is anchored firmly in the concept of representation for the people—and this includes all people, not merely the drivers of the economy. In this era of ever growing population and incredible scientific potential, the ‘free’ market has proven itself a failed notion. But let’s hope that from this mistake we’ve learned at least not to store the meat with the dogs for safe keeping.

It’s the government’s job to put these lessons into action: protecting and promoting the healthy growth of society. This is the primary and most fundamental function of any government which has a legitimate claim to authority, but the vilification of big government started with Reagan has led to a very different objective for government institutions.

By reducing government programs, the general citizenry has been left out of the conversation, while political control has been corralled into the realm of economic growth. The corporations which now run the economic and social systems are malignant automatons. For all the time humans have piddled away fearing robots or advanced and indignant AI’s, they miss that they have not only created such in the corporate human, but also given it the keys to the driver’s seat of our society.

If such a threat came from metal clad robots or from outer space, the entire world would be clamoring for government intervention. Instead, it is claimed to be ‘capitalist’ and a product of the ‘free’ market, and the electorate has bowed their heads in well-rehearsed reverence for their reckless and self-serving overlords.

The point cannot be stressed enough: it is the function of government–elected by and representative of the people—to reign in these brutes, to protect natural resources that rightly belong to all, and to ensure that whether or not commercial entities deign to send our jobs overseas (leaving all save the CEO’s destitute), the people of this and all other countries are provided for from the resulting bounty.

These are the needs of a society, and the job of the government. To fear such is the sole result of misinformed and malicious propaganda. What we have now is not a democratic government, and this needs to change. If we are to find our way out of these difficult times, it must be faith in government—true government—which is the light on our path. This is our salvation—for to fear all government is to leave ourselves alone in the dark, looking to the wolves for solace.

-Brad OH Inc.

The Global Scale

Posted on by
7

purelyspeculationYou may have noticed that here at Brad OH Inc., we tend to cover a lot of issues centering on the politics of the good old U.S. of A. Now, this shouldn’t be overly surprising, as we’re really only following the lead of the news world at large, but an interesting fact is that we are in fact based out of Canada. Now, undoubtedly we’ll eventually relocate to a more convenient tax haven—the Canary Islands perhaps (Source)—but until then we are firmly entrenched here in the great white north.

Given this consideration then, why do we tend to cover so many American issues? Well, the quickest answer is that American issues are world issues, plain and simple. The issue of Corporate Imperialism is a global one, and while many of the relevant stories are centered in America, it is in no way defined by national boundaries. In fact, many of the crucial concerns we have right now with global politics revolve around the obfuscating and intentional subversion of national boundaries.

American Imperialism is nothing new. Under the governing principle of ‘Manifest Destiny’, America has spent its entire existence working to expand its global influence (Source). Now this article is not about American Imperialism per say, but focusses instead on the ways in which the subversive corporate process tends to seize control of not only single governments, but entire global systems.

In ‘Democracy Incorporated’, Sheldon S. Wolin (Link) describes this process as one of ‘Inverted Totalitarianism’. As greater and greater leeway is made for corporations to expand, it becomes easier and easier for such exceptions to be made. The civil ruling in the case of Citizens United (Source) saw corporations legally defined as persons, and their use of money in politics was defined as protected under the freedom of speech amendment.

This allows for corporations to spend unlimited sums of money to fund lobbyists and special interest groups which can affect the political process—thereby ensuring the passing of further laws designed to benefit the corporations while damning the rest of us.

With the power allotted to them, corporations, both American based and otherwise—an especially tricky notion to even define given the ongoing ability for corporations to take advantage of ‘Corporate Inversion’ loopholes, changing the legal base of their operation in order to avoid paying taxes (Source)–can exploit overseas markets to take advantage of indecent foreign labour laws and low wages. This takes jobs out of local economies, while reinforcing a split world notion of what’s good for us is too good for them.

This issue is conflated by political embargoes on trade, such as that placed upon Cuba. Further, because of the global impact of corporate power, laws passed in American court rooms inevitably affect the rest of the world as well. Consider climate change for instance. Here, American courts can pass laws governing the environmental impact of the corporations operating within them, even though these laws ultimately affect the world as a whole. Another easy and timely example of this is the issue of net neutrality (Source).

Meanwhile, the power afforded to lobbyists and the open door between corporate firms and government positions, allows corporate pressures in Washington to go so far as to effect war time policy; destabilizing foreign governments in order to ‘crack open’ new markets.

Clearly then, while the basis of much of what we read in the news is centered in the U.S.A., the system is ubiquitous, and defies any conception of national boundaries.

Neither is this an issue to be solved by American politics. In the same way that the effects of this system have spread to the entirety of the globe like a contagion unchecked, so too is the solution beyond the voting power of the American electorate.

This is not an issue of one misguided leader or party, and therefore the solution will not come from the other misguided leader or party. It is not a calculated, intentional process made by a cartel of greedy and deeply informed plutocrats—although there has undoubtedly been plenty such deals made along the way.

The process leading us here was an understandable though unjustifiable series of small exceptions. It can be thought of as tantamount to favours between friends; ‘well I usually wouldn’t do this, but…’ is the mentality driving it. Politicians accept huge sums of money from their corporate lobbyists, and then pass bills to support them. Few of them, with the exception of the above mentioned Citizens United, have been terrible to the ‘man who sold the world’ extent, but their cumulative effect certainly is. The unnatural coupling of unchecked capitalist ambition with backdoor political deregulations has spawned a new and terrible sort of brute.

Corporate Imperialism is an infectious and wild beast, reared on its own legal momentum, and driven by the cumulative greed of all the snakes writhing at its rotten breast. The ceaseless need for expansion will continue to push the boundaries of what is legally excusable, all the while reinforcing the western world in their role as exploiters, and relegating all the rest to the forgotten underclass of the forgettable exploited.

This is not a political viewpoint or ideology, but an unintentional by-product of ongoing mistakes. It is self-perpetuating, growing cancer-like with utter disregard for consequences. It is the fetishization of money, and money acting with its own power to expand its reach. Greed is the engine behind this, and a system which allows greed to change its workings in favour of its own expansion that has allowed the situation to get to where it’s at.

This is why when I write about America, I’m not writing about the country as a singular problem, but rather the resulting corporate contagion that’s dominating global politics.

In conclusion, let it be known that the mission of Brad OH Inc. is in no way meant to be interpreted as Anti-American. No, we are anti-world at this point, and underlying all is the fundamental belief that greed and self-service shall not be the driving factors in globalization. Equality, decency, and the betterment of humanity are the platforms we are interested in, and if that rings as starry-eyed idealism to you, you might do well to put some serious consideration into the alternatives (Link).

The change that’s needed is not a new political party in America or elsewhere, it’s a global revolution.

-Brad OH Inc.

A Question of Police Responsibility

Posted on by
1

purelyspeculationIt seems a man can’t go online today without reading about another shameful clash between the police and the citizens they are sworn to protect. The over-the-top crackdowns on peaceful protests like Occupy Wall St. in New York City are just one example of the chilling trend facing today’s citizens. It’s a facet of daily living now for anyone paying attention—we’ve even covered the issue before in our Single Serving Story- ‘Of Pipers and Pigs’.

More and more each day, police are responding to peaceful demonstrations with violence, illegal detainments, and intimidation. It’s difficult to imagine reading about any political demonstration these days without just assuming the inevitable conclusion. People gather to express their opinions and values in a public forum; they may march, they may sit, there’s probably the occasionally song sang or pot banged. Then they come—the police roll in with automatic weapons and tactical response vehicles; cracking heads, illegally arresting innocent citizens, and pepper-spraying people at close range. The documented abuses of power seem to go on without end (Source).

But what is to be said of the men and women wearing the badges? Off duty, they walk those same streets, shop at those same stores, and are affected by those same issues. How is it that a badge, a uniform, and a gun can draw such a harsh distinction between ordinary people?

Clichés and disparaging stereotypes aside, I believe it’s fair to say that a significant proportion of police officers get into such a line of work because they care: about their communities, about the people in them, and about the general values and safety of the society they too occupy. After all, it wasn’t so long ago that we could all feel some hint of pride and protection when we looked upon one of the ‘boys in blue’.

But it isn’t blue anymore, is it?

On Aug. 9th, 2014, the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson led to significant protesting and calls for justice across the suburb of Ferguson, Missouri. The police response was heinous; men in camouflage, armed with all manner of deadly weapons and riding in tactical response vehicles swept through and terrorized the neighbourhood (Source). To an untrained eye, it would be impossible to tell if this was the response of a local police force or an invading army: and that’s a significant problem.

The increasingly militarized appearance of local police forces is the result in part of the dangerous and irresponsible ‘1033 Program’—part of the Disposition Services of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) (Source). The purpose of this program is to transfer surplus military hardware from the army to local law enforcement agencies. The result is that small law enforcement offices around the country are being supplied with military grade tools—technology designed to destabilize and control foreign militants is being deployed against the very citizens it was designed to protect.

Now, take a breath and clear your head. A rational thinker might interject here, insisting that this equipment would be held in reserve in case of a dire local threat—such as a terrorist strike, or perhaps the unsolicited landing of a foreign offence force in some small shit-town in mid-west America. But if we look closer at the agreement between the DLA and participatory states, we’ll find that one of the clauses agreed to is that the military equipment be put into use within one year, or returned (Source).

Clearly, this puts a dangerous expectation on the police officers in these communities. If the equipment has to be used within a year, the difficult job befalling them is finding a way to use it. This involves selecting a group of citizens to use this equipment on, as well as some excuse to do so. The result is that these tactical vehicles and dangerous weapons are showing up for duties of crowd control, warrant searches, and notably, against people of colour in 58% of cases.

Here, we see a growing divide between the general citizenry and the officers sworn to protect them. The ongoing process of militarization, and government pressures to use such alarming equipment against its people, serves to ramp this tension up to 11; and a veritable pressure cooker for impending disaster.

The quote has been going around for a while now, but that makes it no less fitting. The words of Commander William Adama, of Battlestar Galactica, echo the situation with prophetic accuracy:

“There’s a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.”    

-Commander William Adama, Battlestar Galactica.

Another key issue factoring into this divide is the skewed demographics of police forces. In order to serve effectively, a police force must be seen not only as representative of its district, but also as able to identify with the specific needs and values of its community. Sadly, this is seldom the case. In the example of Ferguson, 6% of police officers were African-American—and this in a community where 67% of the citizens are African-American (Source).

This separation between police and community is strengthened by the execution of overtly unfair laws, such as the Civil Forfeiture practice, which allows possessions to be seized from citizens and sold for the profit of the police force with no trial whatsoever (Source).

It’s a pretty dismal picture, but what exactly is the driving force behind these startling trends? Whether the militarization of police forces is motivated by the so-called ‘war on drugs’, as claimed at the onset of the program (Source), by the goal of counter-terrorism, or simply to continue lining the pockets of America’s Arms distributors (Link), who’s to say? The real question is, just what is to be done about it?

The police, in this strange position of paramilitary, anti-citizenry force, certainly make for an easy target—and that in spite of their camouflage. But a police force is an undeniably important facet of any functioning society, no matter how utopian the goals may be. If you imagine a world without cops as an equitable paradise of peace and prosperity, I fear you are not sufficiently acquainted with humanity.

One thing that’s clear is that something needs to change. If history is any indicator however, holding our breath for the government to enact legislation in favor of the people—and against corporate interests—will mean we won’t be long for this earth. So what can change then?

Ultimately, the duty falls upon the men and women wearing the badges. Upon taking such a position, these people are duty bound to serve the best interests of the citizenry in their jurisdiction. That duty has become increasingly difficult as the militarization effort continues, and police forces which fail to represent their district only obfuscate the problem further.

The egregious errors that have been made were strongly influenced by the current system, and while there certainly needs to be accountability on that front, I am more concerned with the personal responsibility of all who wear the uniform. When in the line of duty, there must be a sense of ethics operating beneath the badge—and a conscious consideration of whether the duties imposed on them are truly the sort of activity they signed up for.

We must count on the strength of character in these good men and women, and hope it proves sufficient to see them through in situations so inundated with uncertainty. The fact that this distinction must be made is a damning sign of the times, but we must now call upon all police officers to act with wisdom and empathy for those they protect; not simply because of their badge, but perhaps in spite of it.

-Brad OH Inc.

The Constitution is America’s Bible

Posted on by
4

purelyspeculationI’ve heard it said that the Constitution is America’s Bible. I have to admit it has a nice ring to it. Certainly, it can’t be argued that the founding document of the USA is held in high regard—revered even, in the same way that devout Christians look to the Bible.

Further, the constitution is often cited as an absolute, just like the Bible. “That’s my constitutional right…” you might hear someone declare, with the same self-righteous cadence one might declare that “it’s the word of God”. The speakers in both examples inevitably mean the same thing: There’s no use debating it.

I’ve come to suspect however that the colloquial turn of phrase doesn’t mean quite what I might’ve assumed. When people say that the Constitution is America’s Bible, they’re often referring to perceptions similar to those mentioned above. It may be that they see the Constitution as irrefutable, absolute, or beyond reproach. Further, there are some who use the phrase to expound on the Biblical inspirations for the Constitution (Source)—which serves of course only to solidify the former perception.

But those aren’t the sort of notions that brought the phrase to my mind the other day, and they’re certainly not the ideas that have followed from that initial reflection—terribly far from it in fact.

It’s not that I disagree with the comparison. To the contrary—the quote occurred to me quite independently, a natural extension of a concern I’ve been harbouring for a while, and which comes to light again and again whenever I read a news article in which the Constitution is invoked to cease all further debate.

The Constitution, it’s true, is America’s Bible—but not in the way they mean.

The Constitution, written in 1787 and ratified in 1788, lays out the fundamental principles of the USA as envisaged by the founding fathers—and is the de facto final source of relevance when it comes to all things Americana.

The Bible is similar. Of course, that depends on what we’re talking about exactly, but for the purposes of this article, any Holy Book will do really. If we’re talking about the Christian Bible, the New Testament was written around 2000 years ago, and the Old Testament approximately 3500 years ago. The Quran is estimated to be around 1358 years old. Still, much like the constitution, each serve their own role as the final word—the irrefutable truth in all related matters.

Absolutism is dangerous in even the most light-hearted issues, and especially so when the stakes involve the governing of a country or ruling of a faith. Countless wars have started on grounds justifiable, and even necessary, according to the laws of holy books, and no less so for those in the constitution.

But that’s not all they have in common. Whether 3500 years old like the Old Testament (also called the Pentateuch or the Torah), or a mere 226 years old like the constitution of America (successfully amended only 27 times—of which the first 10 compose the Bill of Rights, and were written only a year after the original document), these are, at best, historical documents.

When considering the merits of any historical document, and especially in evaluating its relevance for modern understanding, we must consider a number of key factors. Firstly, being historical documents, context is an important consideration when making any attempt to apply their instructions in a contemporary setting.

Meanings change, as do the circumstances which might at one time necessitate a law, and at others render it counterproductive. In the case of the Bible or other Holy Books, one key problem is translation. Over the long stretch of time it’s existed, countless translations have occurred to bring it to its current state. What depth of meaning might have been lost in these translations is hard to say—especially when weighed alongside the vastly different political and social environment of its original writing.

It’s a difficult knot to untie, but whether it’s a matter of translation or social context, there exists a slew of Biblical rules which we can surely agree fail to fit our expectations of divine leadership in the present age. The Bible forbids the crossbreeding of cattle, requires death to both partners in an adulterous relationship, suggests the burning of prostitutes and stoning of unchaste daughters, forbids the eating of pork, of mixing fabrics, and even calls for death to children who disrespect their parents. A harsh set of rules—but arguably conceived of and considered sensible in such entirely different times.

But times change, and so too should our reverence for works which are so inseparably tied to their own era.

The constitution is little different. In terms of language and context, one of the most obvious examples is the infamous second amendment. This key piece of the bill of rights (Ratified in 1791) protects the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms. Specifically, it’s intended as a protection of citizens against their government, in order to allow for the raising of a people’s militia. However that legislation is now 223 years old, and at the very least, the meaning of a word like ‘arms’ has changed along with the technology which it describes.

Currently, debate is waged constantly over the intentions and effective modern interpretations of this amendment, as school shootings and death by gunfire run rampant in the USA.

But these documents present another dangerous precedent unrelated to historical context or accidental mistranslation. When any creed is treated as absolute, it becomes an indefatigable trump card against any set of actions acting contrary to the interpreter’s agenda. The very nature of interpretation is malleable, and thus any issue may easily be shoe-horned into its speculated intentions. This is intentional misinterpretation, and is an especially prominent issue right now with the American Constitution.

The passing of Citizens United (Link), a case of constitutional law which used an intentionally flawed interpretation of the Constitution, ultimately made two incredibly damning determinations. Firstly, in the eyes of the law, a Corporation is considered to be interchangeable with a human being. Secondly, the spending of money in a political campaign is protected as a form of free speech (the protection of which is guaranteed by the first amendment to the Constitution).

This legislation has directly led to the seizure of the American Government by Corporate interest groups and labour unions, as they buy up politicians and usher through laws intended to benefit only their profit margins.

Once again we run into the confounding quagmire of interpretation. The Bible, for instance, fully encourages the owning of slaves—so long as they are from foreign nations (Leviticus 25:44). This is a point which is happily ignored by most religious practitioners. Yet if Wall St. and the Stock Exchange in general are meant to allow people to buy and sell shares in Corporations, and Corporations are legally defined as human beings, then Wall St. and the American Stock Exchange must be little more than a glorified slave market.

It’s a difficult circle to square, but considering that the Constitution begins with the famous preamble of “We the people…”, the fact that meaning and sense have all but left the building should come as no surprise to any observer of the current political scene. The document has been bastardized for agendas entirely removed from the interests of the people—one need look no further than the establishment of ‘Free Speech Zones’ (Link) for evidence of that.

Presently, we continue to look to holy books for advice: on family planning, attitudes towards love, and more. The constitution as well is the be-all-end-all source for issues which had no contextually-relevant counterpart in the time of its conception. Issues such as gun control in modern times, managing political dissent, the definition of marriage and more will not be solved by looking to the uninformed past, but rather by looking ahead, with the clairvoyance and empathy which can be garnered from hundreds of years of crucial experience.

Ultimately, whether you’re looking to one of the Holy Books for inspiration, or to the Constitution for guidance, it’s worth considering that you might be doing a fire-dance to fix your empty lighter. While there is undoubtedly great wisdom and sense to be had in both documents, at the end of the day, to live by laws set out for different times rather than relying on the common sense and decency inherent to us all is a misguided effort. Here at Brad OH Inc., we look forward to the day when such archaic attitudes are as outdated as the source material upon which they rely.

-Brad OH Inc.

The Religious Rights of Corporate America

Posted on by
1

purelyspeculation

Here at Brad OH Inc., we are firmly and indelibly entrenched in the minutiae of Corporate politics; or at least that’s what they’d have you believe. Given recent developments therefore, it would seem natural that we address the issue of Corporate Religion.

Recently, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that employers may opt out of the Affordable Health Care Act’s (AHCA) provision of comprehensive birth control coverage based on grounds of religious freedom. The decision came as a result of the Supreme Court’s claim that ‘American families do not give up their constitutional right to religious freedom just because they open a family business.’ (Source)

The first point to clarify is that of Religious Freedom. Religious Freedom is an absolute necessity for any decent society, this I feel goes virtually without saying. The fundamental right to Religious Freedom is essential to allowing citizens of a diverse yet ultimately secular society to practice their faith in their own way without persecution.

Another core right in this society of ours is that to own and operate a business. In a society allegedly driven by free market enterprise and initiative, all citizens must have equal opportunity to join and function in the market place freely.

However, I believe that this issue represents a conflation of these two rights, and ultimately results in significant sacrifices to individual freedoms.

Religious freedom is fundamentally an individual right. Any citizen must be allowed to practice whatever faith they see fit, so long as in so doing they are not breaking any other laws, including bringing harm to other citizens.

However, the concept that a business too has the ability to practice religion is a deeply flawed notion, and serves moreover to allow the imposition of one person’s faith onto another; namely, that of the employer onto the employee.

In this particular case, businesses such as Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties are being given explicit permission to deny to their employees important health care provisions as a result of the owner’s religion. This strikes me not as an example of religious freedom being protected for the owners of these businesses, but rather an example of their religious values being legally imposed on their employees, much to their detriment.

Let’s examine the initial quote. The court claimed, as noted above, that ‘American families do not give up their constitutional right to religious freedom just because they open a family business’. I believe this to be true beyond debate. No law could or should be passed requiring business owners in America to have abortions, or eat pork, or to do anything else which violates their personal liberties. However, that’s not what’s happening here.

Rather, the ruling dictates that anyone working for them must conform to their particular religious beliefs—if you work for hobby lobby, your right to have contraceptives and other forms of birth control covered by the AHCA are forfeit. The natural extension would be for these businesses to say that no employee will be allowed to eat pork in their private lives. An absurdity to be sure—but healthcare and family planning choices are certainly just as much an aspect of private life as are dietary decisions.

Now, the business owners would claim that making them pay for these provisions is a violation of their individual right to Religious Freedom—not so. While they are free to practice their religion in any way they choose (within the confines of the law), they must be expected to operate their business in a way that respects all given laws of the nation they operate in—and healthcare can be no exception. By ruling otherwise, the Supreme Court is disrespecting the right to Religious Freedom for all employees, while falsely claiming the moral victory of defending it for the owners.

Now, I would be remiss if I didn’t clarify one important aspect of the equation at this point. In a respectable move, Congress assures that women affected by this ruling will be subsidized by the government rather than their employers. While that is a commendable step by the government, it is still skirting the issue, and opens the door for myriad other violations of personal freedoms grounded under such trite and non-consequential claims as Religious Freedom.

This approach opens a veritable Pandora’s Box. Inevitably challenges to Corporate Religious Freedom such as do-not-resuscitate orders and vaccine coverage will ultimately be laid on the government as well; another example of Corporations bastardizing the legal structure of our society to save costs, and allowing the government to foot the bill.

It comes down to a key issue we’ve covered before here at Brad OH Inc., namely the concept of Corporations being treated as people. It’s a dangerous and foolhardy idea to be sure, and it leads invariably to socially damning decisions such as these. When a business or Corporation is viewed as being fundamentally equal to an individual human being, the rights of the individual will unequivocally be trampled underfoot. That’s what’s happened here, and that’s what will continue to happen until this absurd notion is dismissed as the mad miscarriage of social justice that it is.

-Brad OH Inc.

On the Concept of Society

Posted on by
5

purelyspeculation

I often hear it said that society is in rough shape. Loss of public faith in government, failing standards of education, a quickly vanishing middle class…it can hardly be denied that times are turbulent.

Of course, there are two sides to every coin, and for everyone bemoaning the ever increasing corporate dominion over society, there are others waving the flags of liberty and personal responsibility—claiming those who do without have only themselves to blame. They’ll tell you that the soaring corporate profit margins are a true testament to the success of the free market and inevitable payoff of personal initiative. The rest? Just rabble-rousers—lazy people clamoring for more than they deserve.

It’s a complex issue, to be sure. It seems that everyone agrees there are problems with modern society, but no one can quite agree on what those problems are. As for myself, I don’t recall ever hearing it said that the true wealth of a nation is measured in corporate dividends—but that’s just me.

To focus the issue, I’ve always been of the point of view that the first step in a debate—the only step if meaningful progress is to be made—is to define our terms.

A society, in simplest terms, is a collection of people. This collection may be organized in a number of ways, based on such grounds as spiritual belief, cultural, political, or scientific concerns.

This doesn’t help a lot, but it gives us a good place to start. At the least, we know what a society is made of: People. Now, what exactly is a person?

Notwithstanding the clear albeit dubious exception of ‘Corporate Personhood’ (Source), there is a clear and undeniable case to be made that humans, at the root of it, are nothing more than animals.

A single person, at any rate, cannot be anything more than a shuffling, confused and naked creature without dependence on his peers. Unless a man (or woman) can be dropped naked and alone into a natural environment and survive, he cannot claim to be wholly independent. This at least is beyond refute.

In order for humanity to achieve anything beyond the most base of animal lives, there is a clear need for people to work together, to build on the knowledge of previous generations and combine their efforts into a greater whole; a society.

Consider it in terms of the basic things we own and take for granted. What would it take for a single, unsupported human being to make themselves even the simplest of modern homes?

Well, they would at any rate need to chop down a significant number of trees—a gargantuan task, considering they would have only the biggest, sharpest rocks they could find to accomplish the task. The metal in the house? Good luck mining for that.

For a more practical example, refer to this interesting site breaking down the international efforts in the creation of a single I-Pod: (Link).

The important take-away here is that everything we benefit from as a society is the direct result of that society itself; the cumulative effort of countless people over thousands of years, slowly building towards the smorgasbord of goods we all benefit from today. There’s no question—people need each other.

The reverse is true as well of course; a society needs its people.

Because humanity as a whole is an organism which must work together perforce, it is certainly unreasonable to exclude some, or design any society to favor some while excluding others. If this is done, then we cannot blame the lone, cast aside people who lash out and act in animal-like ways. For by facilitating their isolation, we have ourselves reduced them to this state.

If we wish to avoid this unpleasant turn of events, then society must be designed in a way to include all people in meaningful relationships and allow them to engage in mutual, non-zero sum exchanges (Link).

And yet this is where we find ourselves; in a world where the pay-cheques of the few are inherently valued over the welfare, even the basic human rights, of the many.

This unfortunate situation is illustrated at the moment nowhere as clearly as in Detroit, where the bankruptcy of the city by ineffective governance has led to the potential cut-off of public water supplies for upwards of 150,000 people (Source).

It’s convenient to claim these people should simply pay their bills if they want water, but the situation is far more nuanced than all that. The poverty of the people is the partial result of a litany of complex changes in the city, including the moving of former jobs out of the country—an effort by corporations to take advantage of lower overseas pay grades and increase their own profits, leaving countless formerly contributing citizens out of work.

The issue is further muddled by the consideration of society outlined above: the owners of the water companies certainly did not build their facilities alone, nor do they have any defensible rights to the natural and public sources of water that are the Great Lakes.

The pumps, purification plants, and pipelines are the results of the cumulative efforts of countless generations of people—many of whom are now being denied access to that very water.

Human beings which are naturally and inevitably a part of a society are now being excluded, or pressured to buy their way in. In a situation such as this, it is natural and even ethically justified for these isolated people to take in any way possible that which they have been denied.

And this is happening, sort of. All over the city, groups such as the ‘Detroit Water Brigade’ are working collectively to defend (and at times actively protect) their communal rights to safe drinking water in spite of the protests of officials.

Stockpiling of water, collection of rainwater, distribution hubs and countless other methods of support are being offered to the maligned citizens of Detroit as people pull together to survive these austere times.

Of course, this trend isn’t limited to Detroit. All over the world, we are seeing an increase in social movements as people come together to subvert the actions of corporate plutocrats, slowly raising awareness while taking direct action to protect their basic human rights.

This brings us back around to our initial quandary—the one about society. Society is by definition a series of interconnections and mutual help. It is imperative therefore that society fight to maintain individual liberties regarding independence, while also learning to consider itself as a whole. It must gain a form of self-awareness if it is to survive, just as men once did in ancestral times.

And we are seeing this. The Detroit Water Brigade, Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Sandy, and myriad community gardening programs are just some examples of the valiant efforts which are ongoing. With all these examples in evidence, maybe society is not in such bad shape after all. It seems to thrive in fact, in defiance of a corporate state which would endeavour to suppress it.

In the end, it may be the corporate idealists who are left out. But it’s assuring to know that society in its truest sense is doing just fine… You’ve just got to know where to look for it.

Note: As part of the society discussed in today’s article, it’s important to help out in any way you’re able. To help in Detroit, visit the homepage of the Detroit Water Brigade: http://detroitwaterbrigade.org/

-Brad OH Inc.

The Misled Goal of Job Creation

Posted on by
2

purelyspeculation

In this troublesome economic climate, people often wonder what can be done to keep the majority of citizens gainfully employed. The most common solution bandied about is the creation of jobs, but I’m not convinced this is the correct answer. As a matter of fact, I’m not even convinced it’s the right question.

Creating jobs is an unsavory and archaic notion for any true politician of the people. The implication buried within the notion of job creation is that there is a scarcity of work, and therefore an abundance of people struggling to get by—desperate for any job that might put even a few extra dollars in their painfully neglected wallets.

This shift towards job shortage is not a new trend; there have been myriad elements contributing to job reduction for centuries. From assembly lines to industrialization, technological changes in society have always had a significant impact on the need for labour. On the other front, remaining jobs are continually outsourced to countries unable to protect the rights of their workers, allowing corporate profits to skyrocket while jobs previously available to our citizens are doled out to foreign workers for a pittance of pay.

With the impending shifts inherent to burgeoning fields like 3D-Printing and nanotechnology, the number of jobs is only poised to shrink even further, leaving more and more people out of work and desperate for money.

In this scenario, we must view labour as a societal need and resource both. Living wages however, must be taken as a right. Thus, there exists a clear need to balance the two intelligently.

The creation of low-paying jobs, capable of keeping people occupied while failing to supply a living wage is a deeply flawed solution. The notion that one must toil in obscure and needless positions just to get by is counter-intuitive in a society poised to benefit unilaterally from our continued advancement.

Make no mistake about it; the high functioning state of societies output at present is due to the cumulative effect of human progress, not the ingenuity of a few thousand people at present. The corporate executives currently pulling the strings have benefited from being in the right place at the right time just as much as business savvy or vision.

Still, history has shown us that the trend is to consider ‘job creation’ an invaluable resource mercifully allotted by these high level executives. This perspective is entirely wrong—the resources we must now be focusing on, finally, are our human ones.

So if job creation isn’t the answer, what is? Well, once again, we must consider if we’re asking the right question. The initial quandary was how to keep the majority of citizens gainfully employed—but I don’t think this is the right goal.

If we as a society have reached a point where we don’t have a need for everyone to be working, then forcing it is illogical and unnecessary.

With profits booming, and CEO’s taking home ever-increasing bonuses, perhaps the solution instead is to ensure that every available job is sufficient for a person to support themselves and their family.

It’s not a difficult idea, but the implications are further reaching than may be apparent.

A significant increase to minimum wage would allow for more stay-at-home parents—an investment in our future the worth of which is beyond measure. Further, with increased pay, the working class would have significantly more money to pump into the economy, which would only benefit the businesses.

Therefore, the result of increased wages would be two-fold. First, the number of jobs necessary to keep society fed would be decreased by as much as half, while the function of society (Raising healthy, well-adjusted children to carry it on) would be served all the better. Secondly, the economy itself would boom with the injection of blue-collar spending dollars, creating more robust business opportunities.

Now, I can already hear the incensed chattering of right-wing loons and business moguls, decrying how this would slice into their profit margin and collapse the free market.

While the economy has struggled and stagnated for the majority, corporate profits have been doing just fine, and high level executives continue to line their pockets with the fat of the land (Source).

The concept of protecting profits is a misnomer, and while these executives would like you to believe that increasing minimum wage would castrate their ability to function as a business entity, in truth the only thing being hurt would be the paycheques of the top 1%–a notion I am entirely comfortable with.

So there we have it. Rather than the ubiquitously heralded goal of creating jobs, the real solution may be to fix wages. By doing so, we could again create a society where kids have parents to come home to, where people aren’t forced to work 60 hours weeks just to rent a basement flat, and where the greed of the few does not necessitate the squalor of the many.

It’s really not such a bad idea, if you think about it.

-Brad OH Inc.