A Compromise
After reading all of the email that I received along with the comments, I am going to make a compromise. Every one of you raised good points about what to do with those whom I spoke about, so I have made an executive decision. I am going to remove last nights post, so as not to inflame the right. Unfortunately, your comments will go with them. But, I am not going to censor future comments, unless it gets out of hand. Hopefully they will stay hidden. After reading it again this morning, I perhaps invited too much. While it is a lot of work to have to approve comments, plus they don't get posted in a timely fashion, I will do so if it becomes necessary. So, bye bye post. Be patient, the truth as I see it is coming. Fair enough?
Cyclone
posted by cyclone @ 4:43 AM
35 comments
35 Comments:
I have been a pretty faithful reader for several months now...I usually check in once or twice a day, but even I am having trouble keeping up with the last few days...first we have the brouhaha over the email intercept episode (I can't comment on whether the emails are being intercepted or not, I don't know), but I DO know that nothing in that post is evidence of interception but is evidence that the mail servers run Unix or Linux operating systems.
If the NSA wants to intercept email or other electronic communications, they capture the "stream", they don't capture the email and then, when they are done, send it on its way. In other words,they just capture a copy of the post just like they are on the cc list, leaving other copies to wing their individual ways to their unique recipients.
This also includes the possibility that they capture the same email multiiple times if they are monitoring several people who are all in communication with each other. This lack of basic understanding of electronic communications made me rethink other information coming from Cyclone...not that I think the main thrust of his ideas are incorrect, but just a small nagging question hanging there about the veracity of what I'm reading.
Now we have posts being taken down, but the content referred to in subsequent posts, leaving readers with no context with which to judge. The Real Deal is kind of starting to show fraying around the edges of credibility when it needs it most.
These comments are intended as positive criticism in an effort to keep the Real Deal credible...I am less concerned about the Right being inflamed by comments on this blog than I am them using the blog's own words and deeds against it.
Everybody calm down and organize...or give it up.
Anonymous one has a good point. I am also a faithful reader having certain concerns about continueing to do so due to Cy's comments of the last few days. I want good political dialog, not paranoia. This drama is getting to be way over the top. Let's take a deep breath and calmn down and get back to some good discussion.
Anonymous 1,
I didn't get a chance to read last night's post. but I can tell you this! I've done a lot of checking and Cyclone is right! This country's going down the shitjack! Get ready for it! Think about all the government types that want that information kept quiet! Get the idea?
If you don't think the NSA is above all manner of nasty tricks you are delusional! I PERSONALLY know of three hackers who now work for the Government, and I don't think they are up there playing pacman! I live in a little hick town in the mountains of North Carolina! If I know of three, how many more do you think there are?
Sure the NSA uses stream capture, but they also use the old fashioned capture, read, and release method to get around the word verification safeguards used by sites like this one.
You seem to think that because the NSA uses stream capture, they use nothing else! That's like saying the Army uses M-16s so they use no other firearm!
If you don't think we all have something to fear, check out my blog "http://stoneyesrage.blogspot.com" Call me paranoid if you want, but maybee, just maybee we know something you don't!But if your door gets kicked down by some gestapo thugs with three letters on their backs, don't say we didn't warn you!!!
Hmmmm...
These 2 comments, 2nd one in particular sound kinda like the repugs reproach which goes something along the lines--"lets keep our voices down and we can all have a good old exchange of ideas and sort things out to everyones satisfaction.
Well I think the posibility of the crazies (repugs) wanting/expecting that result is so unlikely that anyone that would swollow that whole is in a very dangerous state of denial.
I think the truth of the situation is closer to some of the information which can be found in the following link:
http://www.nogw.com/shadow.html
A dictatorship is mere moments away and here we have people urging calm and reason or they say "shut the fuck up". Thats all bad advice folks, just plain bad advice!
I have always subscribed to the belief that panic is the worst enemy.
On one hand, I definitely think we should be concerned about monitoring. I know for a fact that it is going on. However I also have a damn good understanding on how email works, what causes email lag, and what bounceback messages look like.
Look at it this way, if we are being monitored, who cares? They are going to do it and there is nothing you or I can do about it. Just keep putting out the information that people need to know. Don't let paranoia or panic get the better of you.
Just do what you are doing. The best way to prepare for any situation is to have as much information as possible.
This is an email letter I rec'd from democratic congressman. Not really what I wanted to hear. He believes it can not pass.
Dear Ms (removed):
Thank you for contacting me about the job performance of President George W. Bush in regards to his authorization of a National Security Agency (NSA) secret domestic spying program on persons within the United States. I appreciate hearing from you.
First, I am equally outraged by the Bush Administration implementing this program possibly without the proper consent from Congress and also in possible violation of American citizens' right to privacy. I support a thorough, bipartisan investigation of this alarming policy. One way or another, we must get to the bottom of this situation and insist the president follows the law.
My foremost concern is that this policy appears to be in violation of existing law. We simply cannot allow the executive branch of our government, unchecked, to be the sole arbiter of the limits of its own power. We all deserve a president who follows the law, not a king who disobeys it. While I support efforts of the U.S. government in fighting terrorism, and acknowledge our involvement in a number of foreign conflicts, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, we cannot succumb to actions that infringe upon the constitutional rights of American citizens.
As Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
With the current makeup of Congress, it is obvious impeachment would not pass, so we should also consider the real impact of filing articles. It may come to that as our only option, but I think it important for us to demonstrate responsibility in the use of that constitutional process. To that end, I believe we must have comprehensive, probing hearings and then make the determination whether that is the right response. Our actions will win greater acceptance by the American people if we follow that route.
I support a full congressional investigation of this matter, as suggested by many members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. You will be pleased to know that I joined many of my colleagues in sending a letter to President Bush expressing our position that the administration's policy has violated the U.S. Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and was not authorized when Congress voted to support the September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. Our letter requests that the president release documents to Congress regarding the nature of this secret program. We need access to the legal opinions the administration used pertaining to the lawfulness of the surveillance program; the specific orders authorizing and reauthorizing this program; the number of U.S. persons that this surveillance was authorized for use on; the number of U.S. persons whose communications were intercepted; the total number of intercepted communications since the start of this surveillance program; the records of any member of the press whose communications have been intercepted; information about how the information intercepted has been stored and shared with other government agencies, and whether this information will be destroyed.
In addition, I have cosponsored H.RES.643, a resolution of inquiry which directs the Attorney General to submit to the House of Representatives all documents in his possession relating to warrantless electronic surveillance of telephone conversations and electronic communications of persons in the U.S. conducted by the National Security Agency. This type of resolution is unique because it is required that the full committee review a vote within 14 legislative days. If the committee fails to act within this time period, the bill can be brought before the entire House for a vote. This is one of the only legislative procedures available to Congress to get information from the executive branch.
I also joined my colleagues in sending to the Acting Inspector General at the Department of Defense, the Inspector General at the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Comptroller General calling for immediate investigations of reports that the Attorney General authorized the NSA to conduct the warrantless domestic spying program of persons inside the U.S. We cite a specific violation of Section 1802(a) of FISA, which permits the surveillance of communications without a court order only if the Attorney General can certify that either the communications are solely between foreign powers, or there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communications to which a U.S. person is a party. We find that the NSA has violated these prohibitions on at least 500 individuals within the U.S.
In response to our letter, the Inspector General wrote that the issue falls outside the jurisdiction of the Attorney General, and that the matter would fall instead under the jurisdiction of the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility. However, he is wrong and and we have told him so, demanding an investigation.
We have been down this road before, FISA was passed by Congress in 1978 in response to the Nixon Administration's policy of conducting surveillance on citizens participating in political groups, or suspected of having certain political persuasions. FISA prescribes procedures for requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power. This law helped create a framework for the use of electronic surveillance and other investigative methods to acquire foreign intelligence information, and requires a showing of probable cause to believe that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power before searches and surveillance can be conducted.
One of the provisions of FISA requires the Office of the Attorney General to submit an annual report to Congress disclosing information about applications made to the FISA Court, and the number of applications approved and modified by the Court. In both 2002 and 2004, the Court approved all applications submitted. In 2003, of the 1,727 applications made, all but three were approved. I have many questions as to why the Bush Administration chose to bypass the process set up by FISA, since past administrations have not encountered difficulty obtaining FISA warrants, and such warrants can be obtained up to 72 hours after the surveillance is collected.
Furthermore, I do not find the September 18, 2001 authorization for use of military force passed by Congress to include any sort of authorization for warrantless domestic spying. You may be interested to know that in a recent review by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Bush Administration's claims that its warrantless activities were sanctioned by this authorization for military force, CRS found that it is doubtful that the president can claim that the authorization passed by Congress grants him the broad powers that he has claimed exist. This report defers to FISA, being the latest congressional legislation addressing domestic surveillance.
I believe that Congress can protect our national security interests, while at the same time protecting civil liberties. You can count on me to continue fighting to protect the constitutional rights of my constituents and my fellow Americans.
Please continue to contact me about the issues that concern you, as I both need and welcome your thoughts and ideas. As a service to my constituents, I maintain a website which contains valuable resources and information on Congressional activities. Please feel free to visit the website at http://www.house.gov/inslee for information on recent issues and to learn more about the services my office provides.
I encourage you to contact me via email, telephone, or fax, because security measures are causing House offices to experience delays in receiving postal mail. My email address is: Jay.Inslee@mail.house.gov. Please be sure to include your full name and address, including your zip code, in your message.
Very truly yours,
JAY INSLEE
Member of Congress
JRI/ch
Confirmation # 2020667
Anonymous 2
If you don't want to read this blog, nobodiy's holding a gun on you! Sure! Believe the Repigs! Go have your quiet little discusion! People like Cyclone and me don't have that option! We se the cracks in the damn and we're screaming about it it the tops of our lungs! That pisses the Government off because it's in their best interests to keep you in the dark! Sure we're worried about Big Brother! If you knew what we know you would be too! WATCH THE FUCKING NEWS FOR CHRIST SAKE!!!!! Can't you see which way this wing nut is heading! He's scared shitless! He's a delusional paranoid with visions of godhood! THIS DOESN"T SCARE YOU????
SHIT!!! I thought I was fearless!!
anonymous 1,
I have never claimed to be an expert in the technical area. In fact, if you have truly been a reader for "several months" you should know that. So, thanks for the education on the way email works. It doesn't really change my view on intercepts, however. Paranoid me, I guess. As for the small nagging question about the veracity of what you are reading, you know that's interesting. Since I don't have all the answers, and nothing is cut in stone, especially with a psychopath leading the parade, I always have a small nagging question about what I'm thinking as well, before and after I write it. That's what makes it all so interesting as our country goes down the toilet, no one really knows exactly what's happening, do they? It's always interesting from my vantage point to see what hits home with whom. It often surprises me. Thanks for your comment,
Cyclone
Anonymous 2,
Hey, everybody has a bad few days, including Cyclone. But, if you feel the need to move on, feel free, if the drama is too much. But, just so you'll know, if this drama is too much for you, you will have a real difficult time in the New America that is soon to come. By the way, you write a whole lot like anonymous 1. Are you guys like brothers or something? Regards,
Cyclone
Stoney,
Do they really do email both ways? I don't know much about this technical stuff, but I know a guy who used to intercept them just for fun. He didn't say anything about a "stream," but that was a while ago. Probably didn't have them then. Whatever.
Cyclone
anonymous 3,
Kinda struck me the same way. Somethings just a little off here, I can't quite figure it out.
Cyclone
Bone,
After my pissed off moment the other day, I quickly came to my senses. Especially when I saw what Al wrote about hoping that they are monitoring. Makes sense, so I don't care about it. I would like to think that they would have better things to do than bother me, but it's the government you know. Yep, info is what is needed. Especially now. Thanks,
Cyclone
efsaturn,
Thanks for the letter. It's really not as bad as I would have expected. Looks like they are at least going to push something. Anything but let it die is better than what I expected.
Cyclone
Morpheus,
Whack a mole. Never thought of it like that. I guess some days you are the whacker and some days you are the mole. Guess which one I am today? Thanks,
Cyclone
Ok, I feel compelled to jump in on this one.
I don't see much future for two sets of people screaming across a gap at each other. To do this assumes an erronous suposition, namely that the other side is 100% wrong and we are 100% right. I assert that no ideology is 100% anything.
Right now, this site heavily favors the more progressive or liberal view of reality. Insisting this is the only way to look at things is arrogance. The conservative political philosophy has become a perversion of what it originally stood for. And, so has the liberal. Every liberal/progressive piece of legislation that has been enacted to better the social system has become perverted, just as has the conservative agenda. The ideas of both sides of this fence have become perverted and corrupted.
To say that the conservative manifestation we see today is representative of thoughtful and honest conservative thinking is nonsense. I admit that I am rabidly antogonistic to the thinking and policies that I see going on today, but at the same time the liberals have thoroughly brought destruction down on our society by their policies also.
I will end this with GET REAL!!
Murph:
From my point of view, I find your comments, most often, to be right on the money.
To simplify what you have just said (correct me if I am wrong) is that the system of governance that once worked is now broken.
I say for proof of that you only need observe how wilful and out of control bushco has been and is.
Existing checks and balances were obviously not sufficient to rein in the neocons maniacal drive for secrecy, iron fisted control, thievery and the list goes on.
Hey efsaturn,
Can I post this letter? I would like to do so while I am finishing my current post. If it's okay, please email me at
cyclone@cyclonesrealdeal.com
Tell me what your letter to the Congressman said, so I can set it up. If not, that's okay too. Thanks,
Cyclone
Anonymous, in reply.
Lol, sounds silly.
You partially read me right. The system is broken for sure, no checks and ballances left. However, you seem to miss the macro point. The system was flawed from the beginning. Keep in mind, it was instituted for a different type of society, pre eindustrial and primairly agricultural, and a whole lot less people to squabble among themselves, and oftentimes fairly autonomous communities. Not that way anymore.
Bush made the statement that the Constitution was just a damned piece of paper. He is right (although disagreeably so). That document only has real meaning when the people have a consensus about it. Seeminly, we now do not. Not only that, but all the checks and ballances that it tried to impose took for granted that it was an informed and literate society that adhered to it. Seemingly, also no longer the case. Plus, a consensus democracy does not have a good track record in history anyway. In fact, no governmental system in the long run works well, too many avenues for corruption and manipulation. After all, all of these systems over history are set up by the elite with their own agenda.
My question to this site and others is what are we going to do about it? It appears to me we need another way of governing a society. I have some suggestions but know that few people will take them seriously because they are contradictory to long held cherished belief systems that are filled with holes and misconceptions. We need to have some thinking 'outside of the box'and some alternatives that will work better, but we are going to have to drop many of the models that we currently pay homage to.
What ya think?
Murph:
You ask "What do ya think?"
I say drop the models like hot shit!!! A major overhaul is the only way.
And please, lay out your ideas.
I have not seen anyone else pick up the yoke and offer a damn thing which may help--really!!! Not for the long haul.
Cyclone,
For every security measure they have five to six ways to get around them! That's the way the system was set up from the begining!
One of those hackers I was talking about stole $.11 from every bank account in America in 1987!! And he did it with an old "Comodore" (remember those?) from a place smaller than Saluda!
He works for the Government of the United States now. He's based New Zealand! That's where the mainframe is for all the dirty ops! The courts can't do anything about it because the US has no legal treaties with New Zealand!
Anonymous,
Ok, here it comes at ya. There have been ideas around, and much wrote on the subject. A bit hard to find because the elite don't like the ideas, takes away their power. One of the best novels of a writers conception is an old SF book called "The Probability Broach"
First you have to establish what it is you want to end up with, then figure out how to get there. Me, I want, maximum liberty that stops at the end of your nose, so to speak, and the same for every other person. I want no more laws about consensual crime, I want the borders protected from invasion, I want our bill of rights to be the law of the land and where the government cannot intrude. period. No more of this 'there aughta be a law' crap.
Now, an examination of the effects of this. There would be no more air and water polution, can't mess with my life, remember. Can't stay in business by lying to the public, no more government created or private monoplies. No more minutia laws that try and define every action and movement a person does. You simply cannot mess with a person or their property. Obviously, a very limited governement.
How to get this state. Everyone would have to be responsible. Have to be a thinking, ethical/moral person with integrity. You are called to account immediately if you mess with another person, and by the citizenry, not the courts or lawyers. You would largely be responsible for your own safety and the consequences of your decisions. Now here is the capper. This is called a rational anarchy. First offered by that name by the Post French revolution thinkers. Has some flaws, but overall, I think would be a saner society.
There are some other alternatives out ther and I am sure more could be thought of. I am interested in what other alternatives can be found.
Anyway, this is one way to look at it, if you want freedom anyhow, and not what we have in the name of freedom that isn't.
Morpheus,
Thanks for the come back and suggestion. I hope you haven't forgotten that we have, and have had more than a 2 party system, it's just that the dominant 2 prevent traction by any other through money principally, and the electorite being enamored with the money and power.
The parlimentary system, from my perspective, is maybe, just a bit better than what we have, but that is open to the same corruption too. It is still being governed by the elite.
First of all, those doing the governing should not be allowed to make it a career choice. Those that do are constantly reminding us that continuety and experience are important. Well, what we got is at least partially the result of the population buying into that myth. Continuety and experience are mostly a means of cronyism, favoritism, and a means of hedging around the ethical values involved. The population simply does not realize that money and power is not a necessary component to intelligence or any other of the admireable traits of human behavior. It often has more to do with who you can get away with screwing and have them like it.
Another component in all this that I did not mention formerly is the idea of competition. When ever you set up a society that has that as a main component, it is going to be inefficient. There is ample evidance to show that cooporation is much more inovative and efficient. As far as I know, every industrial country, and many who are not so industrialized, run on competition. It is a way of dividing the energy of the population and keeping them subdued.
Like I have stated, we need to change the pardgim we are operating under, and that will take some doing. We must get out of the box in thinking that has literally been imposed upon us.
Murph:
Have you, or others, fleshed out this concept?
It sounds simple but maybe what appears to me as simplistic has been dealt with effectively.
For instance; you say "Everyone would have to be responsible. Have to be a thinking, ethical/moral person with integrity." But this will never be the case even if education could bring all those up to speed that are educatable and want to be educated in a fashion required to make em function effectively in this new society.
You have outside this educated group the crowd that is contrary and will not participate no matter what, which is about 20-30 % of the pop. Also you have those people that for physical and mental limitations cannot participate, another 10-20 % of the pop. Granted overlap of these 2 groups exists, would exist. Lets say for discussions sake that 25% of the population would be outside the perimiters you describe with the attributes required to make this system work. Thats a lot of people. How does the system cope/deal with these people? To say nothing of the criminal element. Which will always be there, as well. As I said, maybe these concerns have already been thought through--I'd like to hear more.
I have travelled around the world some and the country that has the best system of government that I am aware of is Norway--mind it is miniscule in pop comparitively but it could be ramped up to work--however it is just about the reverse of your simpified plan. Except for two very important ingedients--the population there are involved to a much greater degree then here in North America, coperation is a key feature of their society as well.
Anonymous,
I just came back on line and caught your post. Thought I would dive into it before suppertime.
As in all political concepts, fleshing it out is the tough part. The devil is in the details.
Keep in mind what I am trying for here, noticebly an exchange of ideas get some thinking going that doesn't depend on the norm of the day. Doesn't necessairly mean that what I come up with is either cut in stone or what I think is possible.
One of the characteristics of failed societies is the sheer complexity and the top heavy bureaucracy that accompanies it. So, I am going to advocate much simpler stuff to begin with.
Now, I am assuming a couple of things. 1. That a rather severe and cataclysmic disintegration is coming. 2. This will be accompanyed by a very substantial die off. 3. Speculation as to what the characteristic personalities and intelligence will be like of those that are left.
The proposition that I made for an anarchistic society depends on several things. Mostly, the quality of those comprising it. The inept, those unable to make decisions concerning survival, probably those physically unable, and some other characteristics simply aren't going to be around, at least in any kind of percentages you mentioned. You are talking about conversion of the present society. I am not. I know with certainty that is not possible. If we were going to talk about conversion, it would have different strategy and outcomes. Lets take an example. I don't know if you are aware of it or not, but there is a very different attitude about society generally between those that live in less populated areas, (and most distinctly the north west)and those that live in the mid west and high population density areas. The west was primairly populated with dissadents wanting out of their present circumstances. The descendants of those pioneers retain a lot of that sentiment. I have quite a few examples of this but ask that for now, take it on second hand observation that it is true. I conclude from this that generally, when a population has a live and let live attitude, and don't mess with me, this kind of society of cooperative anarchy could thrive.
Another thing you mentioned is education. I am quite unsure what you mean by that term. My experience is that a formal education has nothing to do with either cooperation and thoughtfull consideration on how to live. Some of the most thoughtfull, compassionate, cooperative and ethically sound people I have met didn't make it through high school.
You mentioned the 20% or so of people who are contrary. Well, in anything other than a survival society, these people can exist. Read diaries of the early settlers going west. You either cooperated or went on your own. These were the trappers and mountain men and even sometimes families. Strangely enough, most of them got along with the native population pretty good.
You mention the criminal element. Unless they band together, they simply won't last long. If they do band together in roving gangs doing the pillage and plunder thing, I would expect them to be in the minority and rather quickly eliminated if they survived the lack of food and shelter. There is going to be a limited amount of resources to plunder.
I fully admit if this collapse comes, there will be chaos. When the dust clears, what then? We will probably end up with a vastly smaller population, scattered around some. How are they going to organize to insure survival and to insure this won't be an issue in their future?
As I mentioned at the beginning, I am interested in what other ideas can be brought foward concerning this scenerio. And, I think we need to be aware of the devil's advocate and see what we can come up with that just might work.
Thanks again for you blurb. Need more contributions to this I think. At least you are showing that you are attending to the mental process, thinking is hard work, that's why it's so unpopular.
Murph:
Ya know--I think such a discussion as we are having can/could be of some use. I dont have any pat answers for sure but maybe a germ of an idea will happen with someone as a result of the dicussion and will amount to something--someday.
And as I was reading down through your last comment somewhere past the half way point I began thinking--I wonder why no one else has jumped in? A couple of sentences later you offer that you think others should join the conversation. Maybe us old goats (you mentioned your age the other day--I am 2 years behind you, only)
are the ones who think of such things. Or maybe they all think we are nuts!
In any event when I mentioned education earlier I meant it in the broadest sense, which would be required to develop people with the attributes that such a society would require, to work well.
murph and anon:
I followed your conversation and am keen to discuss further.
I am a little more optimistic than you about the possibility of a transition into a sane society. I think that with four major modifications our country can become free and prosperous again in a very short period of time.
1. Abolish our privately owned,for-profit, fractional reserve banking system and establish in its place a public (or coalition of private), non-profit, 100% reserve, interest free banking system.
The currency would remain a national fiat note - not backed by gold, so that we're not controlled by the same greedy individuals who currently hoard all the gold.
It would be issued by each community according to its needs but coordinated at the state and federal levels, to maintain stability and maximize efficient growth so we can compete at a global level. A fixed foreign exchange rate would be established in order to maximize stability in global markets (no more speculating money changers).
Begin issuing INTEREST-FREE loans immediately to launch massive long-range public infrastructure projects to create jobs and update our cities.
2) Abolish patents and copyrights. No more government granted monopolies. They have been a curse on our nation and are behind constantly high prices despite incredible techonological advances.
With these two changes alone the country would be remarkably transformed and small businesses would thrive once again.
3) Dismantle the current private monopolies of public services, i.e., mass transit, energy, communications, media, and transform them into non-profit corporations - without interest bearing bonds (launched by interest-free government loans) They could pay them back in no time.
4) Abolish lobbying and implement radical campaign finance reform such that no candidate has to grant special interests favors to raise money. Each gets equal airtime on the media. No ads, just debate the issues. This is not entertainment.
That's a brief outline of my ideas. Visit my site for background on my beef with our corrupt monetary system and the abomination that they describe as an IP regime.
Hey cyclone, what's the big stink about monitoring and censorship? I got paranoid the other day, and was going to take down comments that are very stupid and offensive, but decided that people can tell what's stupid and what's not.
It's better to air misguided reasoning and let it be refuted with reason, than to silence it and force the outcasts to talk to themselves at their own isolated site unopposed by reason.
Stay determined, cyclone. We're in this together.
I'm not all that old (I'll be 38 in March) and I think about this stuff all the time.
Far as I can tell, the starting point is this: economics is a sub-discipline of ecology.
Someone mentioned using fiat currency and not gold- (or presumably some other asset) backed currency. This will not work. In nature, population is controlled by the scarcest resource available. An asset-backed currency performs the same function in society. Fiat currency is like pumping nitrogen-fertilizer runoff into the ocean to cause an algae bloom. Human economic activity goes berzerk for a while, then crashes, taking the entire ecosystem/economy down with it.
Gold works because it ties economic activity directly to the planet. Gold is a finite, earth-based money supply that reflects the finite nature of our world into economics, and keeps things like population growth and economic growth in check.
Personally, I am very concerned that most post-collapse economic discussions focus on how great it will be to be rid of capitalism, and hail equal distribution of locally-permacultured food and other goods. This will not work -- economies are naturally inclined to equilibrium, just like ecosystems, because they operate based on the same principles. Planned economies will inevitably fail for the same reasons the Biodome experiments failed. Equilibrium cannot be manufactured because no one can possibly anticipate every last variable. It must come about on its own.
A society that seeks to attain economic equilibrium, based on an earth-based currency, will find itself becoming sustainable with minimal planning, laws, control of individual rights, etc. As far as I can tell, this is the only thing that can work for the long haul.
BTW -- Cyclone, I appreciate your decision to take down your "bring 'em on" post. I think you saved yourself, and your commenting throngs, much unnecessary aggravation. I'd buy you a beer if I could :)
grswave,
Admirable suggestions for changing the government structure. Undoubtedly, if they had been implimented a long time ago, the present situation might have been altered to some degree. I notice that your suggestions are mostly concerned with monetary reform and the role of finances in the government. You did not mention the corrupt and unrealistic capitalistic system that follows the precept of unlimited expansion depending on cheap labor and unlimited resources. You further fail to talk about the corporate structure and it's attendant power in national and international affairs. I do not disagree with the nature of your suggestions but am left with the question if this is the extent of them.
Importantly, you do not address how you would prevent this system from being corrupted over time, just as what has happened.
You see, you evidently do not ackowledge the historical observation that no government has yet to prove itself immune to greed, manipulation, added accumulation of power, and corruption all the way through it's structure.
You also do not seem to realize that the probabability of there being time to change this government before it becomes a moot point is not likely to occur. We have facing us as a nation two rather glaring events staring at us. 1.The gradual and irreversable loss of cheap petroleum energy, for which we have, at this time, no technological way of substituting for it. 2. The complete financial collapse of this economy, and the probability of it happening in other countries very soon after.
Another factor that you have not addressed is the resistance to these changes, not only by the power structure but also by the citizens who will start to find that entitlements are also not going to be there with the changes. Around 150 years ago you might have had a chance against the power structure, but frankly sir, not today, at least not peacefully. I also doubt you could possibly get elected to congress anyone who advocated such changes.
I have over the years heard and read of various schemes to reform the government in some significant way. Most were too late and totally unachievable. Remember the socialist movement in the early 1900's? There were an overabundance of these schemes in the 70's. I avidedly studied all I came across and there were many sincere and knowledgable people trying to get them implimented. The more forceful ones that attracted attention were slandered and laughed at and discounted to the point of dissapearance.
If you think back on historical documents, reforms to better a society, in the form of the common person, hardly ever occur without a revolution. Do you really believe that it could happen here without a revolution? I really doubt it. We are living in occupied territory quite frankly. And unless you are willing to take on a really long term peaceful fight, it just ain't gonna happen and we have not the time.
I really do admire your suggestions and personally wish to thank you for presenting them They could be incorporated into small regional societies and maybe the central government when it disentigrates past the point of no return. I, at least, will probably not live to witness these events.
Morpheus and Paula,
Good posts. It appears that we have a start on attempts to find some workable solutions to the crisis coming at us. Personally, I wish to thank those contributing.
Paula, I also think about this stuff almost constantly. I am older (and retired) and probably have too much time on my hands and dwell on it rather full time, especially during the winter. I am glad there is a forum that is wiling to take on some of these concepts. Once again perhaps, showing that cooperation accomplishes more than competition.
Cyclone, any way to add a spell checker to the site? Lol It is embarrasing to be so poor at a common skill. sigh.
Paula, another point. I agree with you that fiat money has some severe problems. Not having a background in finance and economics, it is difficult for me to rationalize how and why on these issues. I am not sure, from your post, where you are slotting the system of capitalism into this. For me, the inherant disadvantages of this system make it unworkable in the long run and forces inefficiency of use of resources availble. As in all system constructs, most often those that advocate one or another either have an agenda to fulfill or an ego to stroke by it's implimentation. Neither circumstance is conducive to an equitable society.
By the way, I am still struggling with your suggestion on the use of a gold standard. An area I am noticeably weak in. However, I agree that a currency should be based on a relatively scarce commodity of some sort and precious metal works well, as will any scarce non perishable item. At least it will work as long as people value it.
I don't have a lot of time, just want to make a couple quick points. Morpheus comments that it might be worthwhile to focus on the micro level. My feeling is, the entire system in which we live right now is about to crash and burn, and it will be gone forever after that. There won't be any macro level 15 years from now, there will only be individual communities, so any macro-level plan will need to be down-scalable to the community level to be of practical use.
Murph wonders about capitalism... to me, there can be no freedom without the freedom to earn a living. Entrepreneurialism plays the same role in an economy that adaptation plays in an ecosystem, and without it, the ecosystem can never reach homeostasis.
That being said, the one thing that should be done away with under any circumstance is interest-bearing debt. Money comes into existence because banks loan it into existence. If the banks lend out $X number of dollars, but expect $X + 6.00% in return, that ensures that some people will get f*cked because the only way to pay it all back is to take some money from someone else. Getting f*cked is built right into the system, and it needs to be un-built.
Money and trade are not the culprits. It's how these are organized that create problems, and in our current system, they are organized to ensure some people starve. A gold-backed currency, coupled with strict laws against usury (against all interest-bearing debt for that matter), can go a long way in making sure everybody profits from the fruits of his or her own labor. Even under the Roman Empire, slaves could work their way out of slavery if they wanted to, and they often did -- for us, there is little anyone can do to work themselves to a higher socioeconomic level, despite propaganda to the contrary. People like to think the reason for this is money itself, when on closer inspection, it's not the money but the way it is organized to work that causes these problems.
Paula,
Good post. I want to address the Capitalism concept. You don't have to have a Capitalistic system to make a living. In fact, when I tried to find a working definition of Capitalism in the Britanica, I couldn't find one. Ot's of talk about it, but no definition, at least that I could find. The best I could find was in Webster's dictionary. Private ownership and free market were the key words.
On the face of it, I have no problem with the system, and I sure don't advocate a socialistic state owned economy. (My natural distrust of governments) What concerns me is the abuse of the system, as in the abuses of all constructed systems. What I am trying to investigate is if there is a system that is not open to abuse, or that can be assured that there will not be abuses over time. In my view, the problem with Capitalism is the concept of competition for the markets that already exist or are created. This has led to the monster we live under today. I want to find a way around it.
Any suggestions?
Hi Murph, again, I have only a moment but wanted to reply quick...
As I see it, I don't think competition per se is the culprit. I think it is the lack of transparency that creates those problems. Who can compete without all the information? I take my cue from nature... in any ecosystem, competition is part of the deal. But so are many other things... cooperation, coopetition, parasitism, symbiology. In nature information is automatic, but because we humans can abstract things, we have to make sure the abstracted info is openly available to anyone... no more "trade secrets," no more patents, no more copyrights... it all has to be available to everyone, just as it is in nature.
I haven't been able to find a decent definition of capitalism, either. To my thinking, "free market economics" and "capitalism" are distinct. I see capitalism as a layer of incomprehensible nonsense sucking the life (and wealth!) out of actual economic activity, which is based on what the earth can produce, not what some pencil-pusher in a glass skyscraper can dream up to pretend he's created something of value.
Rockpicker,
stoney13@hotmail.com
Paula, et al,
You know, I think that almost any system can work or not work depending on the underlying values of the citizenry. If most people are honest, and accept the "inalienable rights" of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (and all the good things), then any system would work - capitalism, socialism, communism, or whatever. But, if the majority are greedy bastards who lie and steal and think only of power, hierarchy, and materialism, then no matter what system is in place it will be sabbotaged beyond recognition.
Perhaps we should be concentrating as well on the perspective that the American Indians took. When they thought of themselves, it was in relation to the earth and all living things. When plans were made, it was taking into consideration the previous 3 generations (all their hopes and fears) and the present generation, and the 3 to come. They didn't own the earth. They thought of themselves as belonging to the Earth. Seeing all living things as family, gives a lot more grace or forgiveness to any system to which it would be applied.
If our American culture could incorporate the core beliefs of the native people of this land as their own, then I would have a lot more faith in whatever we come up with after the shit hits the fan. I would have to be better than what we have had.
And, Franz, concerning Cyclone: lol, it's the weekend! And Playoff Sunday! The guy deserves a break!
Paula:
Is the information in this link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_systems
and the many links contained therein more less describing the interconnectivness that you refer to in a couple of your posts?
Post a Comment
<< Home