Kissinger, Pinochet, and America's unwillingness to learn.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

My dearest Squidly

You seem to have some severe distrust in the government; not that you (and I to be fair) don't have reasons for it, but that is where we are at odds with each other: I do not trust corporations or their mayor shareholders. I don't think that corporations care about anything that doesn't improve their bottom line, on the contrary I believe that if they can make money making burgers out of babies they will. Perhaps I am too cynic to believe that they can do good things (and some certainly do) but the measure of their good actions seems somewhat limited.

True, if business were completely common-sensical they would never push and sell drugs that kill a percentage of its users, or sell tires that blow on highly unstable SUVs, or use carcinogenic pieces/additives, etc, etc, etc. The more I learn about big companies the more outraged I am but, can I really stop using gas/petrol on my car? Or remove fiberglass/asbestos from the building I work, or...

The nature of man is to take advantage, that applies to the homeless that prefers the shelter and bad food to work, to the entrepreneur that finds a niche on the market, to the consumer that buys sale/clearance, to the food chain that uses partially hydrogenated oils because are cheaper. It is my opinion that some regulation must exist to prevent abuse, or the meantime I was talking about can costs hundreds of thousands of lives (usually in the long term) and/or the depletion of natural resources.

On a side note regarding charities, my mom has been working in one for the past 40 years. The work they have done for poor people is certainly amazing, but just a drop of water in an ocean of misery (american ghettos are quite small compared to its 3rd world counterparts). Just check Chattie's stats on charities, they just don't have the resources to do what needs to be done, nor all charities actually do something about poverty.

[Sibling Chatty]

OK, one chunk at a time:

I realize that unions don't have that much power right now, but if they did, they could take that place. Please explain to me why domestic labor and small business and such is not unionizable, because I can't see why not.

Domestic labor, the individual working in an individual's home, would have to be very closely watched, and the resulting infrastructure would be enormous AND a libertarian's nightmare. A majority of domestic labor NOW is unreported to the IRS or the INS, thus you have illegal aliens as well as others working for wages on which no taxes are paid. Unionization would result in a need for MUCH higher wage costs, as there would be witholding, Social Security and SS matching funds, and the cost of all the bookkeeping to do so.

Although the current system is illegal, it is ubuquitous, to the extent that even government officials and federal employees do it, with only those up for Cabinet level appointments in Democratic Cabinets having to worry about it. (Newt Gingrich, despite being a poisnous toad, has an unerring nose for sniffing out 'off the books' domestic labor and au pair situations. OF course, being a toad, he does this only for political purposes.)

Small businesses, REAL small businesses with one to five employees, would similarly be a logistics nightmare. To begin with, you'll be fighting the Republican instilled concept that ALL UNIONS ARE SOCIALISTIC AND COMMUNISTIC CONCEPTS!! Then you go to the basic idea that there are such varied jobs/duties/responsibilities that grouping together a union that would cover the three guys at the mechanic's shop, the two hairdressers and the shampoo girl at the hair salon, the delivery driver and the designer/salesclerk/phone person/cleaning lady at the flower shop, and the counter help and stork person down at the Hallmark store--you begin to see the problem?

Add to that the ability of these individual shop owners (small business) or individuals (domestic help) to hire people that are NOT in unions, and the entire structure falls apart. Unions are wonderful things, to the extent that they provide for the workers and don't bankrupt the company. But unionizing all workers would require something equivalent to a 'workers party' sounding organization, and there just is no way it's even feasible.

If it's a color blind system, then how are they to know these kids are minority?

"Hi, my name is Jamaal Mbuti, and I will be the valedictorian of my senior class at Booker T. Washington High School, as I have a 4.0 GPA in Honors classes. I am the recipient of the Sojourner Truth Scholarship presented each year by the Alumni Association, which will be $3,000 per semester in which I maintain an average of 3.2 or better. Inn addition, the Detroit Balck Minister's Association has extended to me a one-time grant of $5,000 to aid in my ability to visit the campuses of those schools to which I am accepted or conditionally accepted."

In addition, there are often other markers, including the (usual) inclusion of a photograph.

Supposedly, the markers that indicate race are removed before they're considered, but it's not possible to cover it all, and certain members know as well. Colleges are constantly changing things to make the process more colorblind, but there are still too many variables that can't be rigged for anonymity.

I don't much like most Republicans either, Chatty, but I think you're demonizing them too much. I don't think they necessarily want to keep the people under their thumb, except maybe the neo-cons. Classic republicanism, and libertarians want people to be free to do as they will, essentially, and education is part of that. Scholarships are the prefered source of money, is all. I'm getting ready for college myself, and although I'll be applying for grants and such as well, I'd much rather get most of it from scholarships.

Where are the classic Republicans?? When will they get the Neo-Cons underr control? They CAN'T.  Don't forget, I know Tom DeLay personally. I know his spiel, his 'people' and his goals. They do not want that many educated people, or that many well-to-do people. The concept is NOT to extend education or stability to the masses, only to enough people to provide what they want/need.

And before I go on, I think I nee to add this little bit: I dislike the government, but trust people enough to help their fellow man, and you like the government, and I don't know how you feel about people.

Well, dear, if you think I trust THIS government, you've lost your blessed little mind. The government is SUPPOSED to represent the people. THAT is the function of government. To represent the people and do their will. People will only help their "fellow man" as far as their pocketbook extends, and it will NOT extend as far as the Libertarians expect it to.

I care much more about people than to expect them to be "cared for" like the faith based groups cared for Katrina victims. The Red Cross is a SCAM. They take in BILLIONS, they use most of it on administration, and they SEND A BILL for every donut and cup of coffee they serve. There's your "people" helping.

Want it on an individual helping individual basis? Get you a good education and a good job, honey, because there's NOT going to be enought "help" to go around. People with my illness could break your system at a moment's notice. My shot last Wednesday cost $13,995. The one that I get in 3 and a half week may be even more. My octreoscan that I NEED, but can't have until Medicare agrees to cover one will cost $85,000.
Who is going to cover that for me? I SHOULD be having an octreoscan at least every other year, preferably TWICE a year. People that are advanced in this illness that get proper care can cost up to THREE MILLION dollars a year, and that's with no surgeries.

Hey, will this 'kindness of strangers' plan provide enough that people on disability will have money for both food and shelter? Warm clothing for the winter? Read the links I gave you. This isn't a viable alternative. It's a complete impossibility. The same people that don't want their money going to ____ sure as hell aren't going to help the most needful as much as they need.

Understand, to look at me, I don't look ill. First meeting, if i'm having a good day, people never suspect that there's a problem at all. Thus, the 'kindness of strancers' plan would require me to PROVE my disability and need every time I had a need that some kind soul or small group would fill.

I would have been dead 7 years ago, at a minimum.

Much like the perpetual motion machine, the charity based support of those in need is a dream. It would be nice if it could work, but it's not going to in this universe.

I trust some individuals. Some individuals do not deserve trust. You'll find that out as you grow older. To "trust people" is to assume that they're all as willing to me honest, as kind, or as helpful as you are. That's a lovely sentiment, and it and a walk through most downtown/crowded areas will get your pocket picked, at a minimum.

I must reiterate the value of charities, especially ones that are audited every year. I really do think they would be of great value and assistance if they were properly run and donated to. Libertarians don't want people to be neglected, they just don't trust the government to do it properly or efficiently.
Please don't paint the entire Libertarian party as greedy. I'm not, personally, and I give when I can, even if it's only a little. We know that the majority of our policies will never be adpoted. Welfare will continue, drugs will probably never be legalized, isolationism is not going to happen. But we think that some our policies would be of assistance, is all.

Ah, anually audited charities. Audited by??? Responsible to???

The entire Libertarian party isn't greedy. The part that isn't IS naive, however, and unwilling to accept the simple factual information as presented in the link I gave you (and 20 more like it). If you don't trust the government, work to clean up the government, not to switch it to some fantasy world where all of a sudden the Noble Human will Do Right. Ayn Rand couldn't live up to her own hype, so I doubt that the rest of the Libertarian Party can either.

Welfare can't end without massive deprivation and death. There are enough undersheltered and malnourished people right now, ending the only thing that keeps them alive and expecting them to live on what, IN FINAL ANALYSIS, is handouts that can be withdrawn at any monet, is inhumane. The legalization of drugs? Fool's Paradise. Assuming that there won't be massive medical problems to deal with for the first 10 to 18 months is naieve to the max, and the further societal fallout would be devastating. Decriminalization is one thing, legalization is quite another.

Isolationism's been tried. There has to be a balance. Just as the Bushian Imperialism is a huge mistake, so would be isolationism. The US does not exist in a vacuum. To pretend it does is ludicrous at the least, and dangerous at the middle.

Libertarians are so "all over the map" that you can't pin down a Libertarian position without going against the sacred cows of some other part of your group. There are Libertarians that would scream their heads off at the mention of the word 'union' and call that position communism. Organized charities, that needed auditing?? And actually auditing them?? Oh, you horrid Socialist!!

I prefer to try to assess what can be addressed and work toward that.

I've been doing volunteer work and working on the boards of a number of charities for years. I know very well how they work, and what has to be done to motivate donations. Anyone who has ever done this to any extent would laugh out loud at the idea of 'charitible' anything replacing a government program. The government programs need to be better run, more responsive, and not so bloated with the expectations of every Congressperson that can get the support of enough people to meddle.

As to your step-father being on disability, tell me, does he have only SS disability, or does he also have private disability insurance? Ah, yes, and he has a working spouse. Ask him what he'd do if he'd had to spend down everything he owned on medical bills BEFORE he could get a diagnosis, and then got the munificient sum of less that $700 a month to live on? No assets, remember, they're all gone before you get help. No car worth more that $2,000, no real estate at all. What then? And WHO at what 'private charity' is going to assume that support for the rest of his life? Does he trust them to pay his medical bills as they arise? Provide his medications? Durable medical goods?

Sorry, human nature doesn't work that way. The assumption is that you get sick, then you get well, and grab those bootstraps and pull on up!! Chronic illness isn't a charitable thing. Treated as if it were so, it's a quick death sentance. It's been tried before. Great way to die, painfully and quickly.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Anon, you are absolutely right. I'm a totaly cynic when it comes to the government, and I don't trust that obese, power hungry, wallet-draining mad house as far as I can throw it.
I can understand your point of view as well, though.  There's no easy answer to this issue,  I suppose.

Chatty:
I see what you mean when I comes to that type of employment, I suppose. They have to get together somehow, though. A loose confederation?

That dissent-within-the-party thing you pointed out is probably why we'll never be anything more then a fringe group.

I forgot about that sort of name.

I don't know where the majority of classic republicans have gone. Pat Buchannan is the only one that comes to mind off hand, actually. And there's too few of them left to control the neo-con element of the republican coalition.

I'm not really how to handle a problem of the magnitude of yours, and those who have similarily large ones.

Charities, one would think, would audit themselves or find someone to do it cheapily. Or perhaps they just ought to have public reconds of where the money goes.

I should have made it clear that I did NOT mean the Simian Shurb that currently resides in the White House. Ugh. I meant government on general to assist the poor.

I was just putting those out as examples of things that won't happen, but...
We've debated welfare already, and my posistion hasn't changed, though the practical one has. What would be the cause of said health problems? Isolationism is kind of what we prefer,-ish, since we're suspcious of all things international.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Isolationism is kind of what we prefer,-ish, since we're suspcious of all things international.

Related side note: I still don't understand how the US manages to be isolationist and interventionist at the same time, is it some sort of schizophrenia?

[Sibling Chatty]

It's paternalistic schitzoid behaviour.

I have a feeling that a LOT of the Libertarians would accept more open interactions with other nations, if we could control the overwhelming attitude of so many people that the US us both the Big Daddy AND the Bully Policeman of the world.

There's the assumption on the part of so many chauvanistic Americans that it's our DUTY to tell the rest of the world what to do and how to do it. It's not. And the sooner we learn that, the better. Unfortunately, the Neo-Con Pax Americana is difficult to fight, especially with the power that they've ammassed. Here's hoping the new Congress can moderate the effects.

The US government IS out of control. There must be a better sense of what the American people WANT, instead of what the governmental Ruling Elite wants. (In unofficial polling, most people oppose the amount of money being wasted in Iraq. However, given the option of ending that and putting the money toward aid to Darfur, anyone familiar with the situation there agreed that that would be a "justifiable" use of the funds. It has been proposed that for less that 1/3 of what the US has averaged in any year in Iraq, the starvation in Darfur could be not only ended with immediate aid, but most of the rebuilding toward self sufficiency could be done.

We, the people, need to regain control. That the individual "isms" won't agree to work together for the common good allows the self-perpetuating military-industrial complex to continue to feed on us all.

[ivor]

Why does the UN do nothing about Darfur?  Are they only capable of criticism?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

The UN is willing to do as much as its members are willing to do. Even if there is consensus that something must be done, some members have to come forward voluntarily to do the job; its the way the UN was created and not a fault of the general secretary or the people working in the different committees.

In my opinion the UN needs some teeth, and army of its own, it could be voluntary but under the command of the general secretary and authorized by the security council, it would do mostly peace keeping and act in cases of (suspected) genocide.

But guess what: the permanent members of the security council including the US among them would never allow such thing. Nor will they voluntarily relinquish their veto power.

If the UN doesn't work* the US has a heavy 1/5th of the blame.
---
*Even with all the problems the UN has been able to help in several situations.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Many science fiction authors have written about a stronger UN.  Notably, Keith Laumer "The Monitors", JE Pournelle and Larry Niven in the CoDominium series, Robert Heinlein's "Solution Unsatisfactory" and other titles.  I've literally read hundreds of stories with a strong UN or other World Government as a background-theme.

One of the most common threads is either humans' culture progresses beyond tribalism, to world-centric, or else it has it handed to them by force, and a severely diminished national government's powers.

Obviously, a maturation of human culture is a more desirable goal.  But anything that reduces or eliminates tribal-mentality is a good thing, I think.

We really need to get beyond "my backyard" thinking - because if you only think about your own backyard, you also allow for "put it over there" for anything you don't like.

But in a global-thinking model, there is no over there.

____________________________

I agree: the current UN has some very good foundational ideas, but it has no teeth - deliberately so, I think.  When it was founded, the US really was afraid of USSR-world domination.  And the USSR (rightfully so, I think) was afraid of US-world domination.  Neither world-power really trusted the other, so the UN was crippled at the outset.

But, it was a major step forward over the League of Nations.  Or NATO, or Soviet Bloc or other regional power-structures.

It may be that military-based organizations are never going to work, and it will take a gradual incorporation of pocket-books to bring about a world-culture.   Like NAFTA, the European Union and other economic unions.

I just deplore economy-based "solutions" as they almost always are based on the pyramid-scheme:  at the bottom are the severely-poor worker-bees.  At the top are the power-grabbers and money-hoarders.  In between are the rest - who work as hard as the bottom-bees, but have little or no real say about much of anything.  Loads of illusionary "say" about ephemeral nonsense (who CARES who wins survivor or american idol? in 20 years--- who gives a crap?)

But, these seem to be the most effective with human beings in general, I think.

I just hope we won't end up with OCCP-type corporations running things world-wide. (yet ANOTHER vision of the future that SciFi authors have written countless stories about ...)

[Swatopluk]

Even if the UN could hire an army, it lacks the revenue to pay for it. A certain member e.g. is notoriously late in paying its membership fee and almost always tries to put conditions on paying it.
I doubt anything will change for the good in the forseeable future (even without active attempts to undermine the very concept of internationalism).
And let's be honest, even the bloated Pentagon budget would not suffice to put an end to all the major bad things happening on this tiny globe due to human malevolence alone (not counting the results of ignorance, incompetence etc.)
And nobody has even an idea how to reduce the human population numbers to 1850 levels in a humane way fast enough and keep it there (and that should be our main goal).

[ivor]

Well the US should pay it's fair share, sit down and shut up then. 

[Swatopluk]

I don't say they should shut up, just stop the bullying (and reduce the hypocrisy to the normal level of the others).

[beagle]

I gave these issues a lot of thought last night and will be writing a proper post after christmas about it.

In the interim have a merry workers holiday!

Fair enough Goat, but if I find out you weren't standing to attention for the Queen's Speech there'll be trouble. There are limits, even for Marxists, and you wouldn't want me telling Sibling Chatty you were a republican. She might create a new goatskin rug before she spots the small 'r'.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Well the US should pay it's fair share, sit down and shut up then. 

I don't say they should shut up, just stop the bullying (and reduce the hypocrisy to the normal level of the others).

Actually, until the US does pay it's share (which I don't think it has since Clinton) it should be one of the UN rules that it must keep it's cotton-pickin' hands/mouth out of UN affairs.

Moreover, I'd'a set up the UN in the first place:  you don't pay your share, you don't get to vote on UN resolutions/actions at all.  Pay up or don't bother to show up.

Now that would be some teeth worth having.