Government Sucks Day Party
Dan Clore
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
http://tinyurl.com/y8w9wp9
A Gathering of Eagles at Government Sucks Day
November 9, 10:03 AM
Libertarian News Examiner
by Garry Reed
A small band of libertarians gathered on the grounds of the Middlefaire
Renaissance Festival near Hillsboro, Texas, in near-perfect autumn
weather to launch the First Annual Government Sucks Day Rally.
Speakers for the day that began at 11:30 am and continued throughout the
day until dusk included notables on the national scene and local
libertarians alike.
Attendees included political activists, Libertarian Party candidates,
Ron Paul supporters, Ayn Rand admirers, anarchists, Texas secessionist
sympathizers and other free minds eager to exchange ideas and experiences.
Karen De Coster presented an overview of the recent takeover of the once
relatively free economy by the Bush and Obama administrations and
described America as "quickly morphing into a socialist corporate state."
Mary Ruwart, longtime Libertarian Party activist and writer, best known
for her books Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression and Short
Answers to the Tough Questions, urged all freedom lovers to become
active in whatever capacity best suited them. Her message was, "Find
your calling, then do it."
Texas Libertarian Party activists discussed organization and tactics
while candidates for office gave their stump speeches and fielded
questions from the audience.
R. Lee Wrights, who helped organize the event, exhorted everyone not to
shy away from the "anarchist" label. Explaining that anarchy doesn't
mean chaos ("cats sleeping with dogs") but simply means self-government,
Wrights declared, "Anarchy is not a four letter word. It's a
seven-letter word. So is freedom. So is liberty."
At the end of the day Kevin Tuma, cartoonist (Tuma's Toons) and writer
(Tuma's Voice), event organizer and the creator and owner of the
Middlefaire Renaissance Festival chaired, a free wheeling panel of
speakers that covered a wide range of freedom related topics.
At one point a participant complained that the Tea Party protests, which
were primarily libertarian events in the beginning, had been co-opted by
the Republican Party. One panelist responded that, considering how
virtually every political party in the country except the libertarians
wanted to control the levers of big government, it was unlikely that
anyone would co-opt an event called "Government Sucks."
Time ran out to pull off a planned comedy skit "with an effigy of Uncle
Sam" (but as one wit pointed out, "Too much planning and there goes your
anarchy") the evening ended with "a fire troupe pyrotechnic act" and a
bonfire after sundown.
While attendance was small for the inaugural event, an estimated fifty
souls can tell their grandchildren that they were there on Day One.
As event organizer and host kevin Tuma summed it up, "I personally think
a small renfaire imparts a sense of 'family' or community for an event
like this that a more antiseptic backdrop, like a city park, cannot match."
The comedy skit with the Uncle Sam effigy will be performed next year,
so start making your plans now.
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is
in charge on this island?
Professor: Why, no one.
Skipper: No one?
Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy!
-- _Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan"
Dänk 1010011010
> Karen De Coster presented an overview of the recent takeover of the once
> relatively free economy by the Bush and Obama administrations and
> described America as "quickly morphing into a socialist corporate state."
This is probably the best description I've heard for what is
occurring. Traditionally, capitalism is free enterprise and socialism
is government ownership of the means of production. What has occurred
in the USA is that private corporations have grown so large and
powerful that they now control the institutions of government, and are
able to appropriate public resources for their own use.
Capitalism involves the risk of failure along with the reward of
success. Competition encourages efficiency, and inefficient
enterprises go bankrupt and their investors lose everything. But
today it is impossible for a private corporation to fail, since its
inefficiency is rewarded with a government bailout. The socialist
step of nationalizing the private enterprise is not taken, however,
and it continues to operate as a private entity that receives public
subsidies.
This system is a monstrosity, and actually enjoys the support of anti-
socialists on the grounds that 'capitalism' is preferable to
socialism. But it isn't capitalist, it is actually socialist because
the corporations that own the means of production have actually become
the state.
I see two major factors in the creation of this socialist corporate
system: one is the American legal principle that holds that a
corporation is to be treated as a 'person' for legal purposes - giving
it the same First Amendment rights as individuals and corrupting the
electoral process, and the other is the failure to enforce anti-trust
laws which allowed corporations to grow 'too big to fail,' thus
ensuring public support for subsidies to save them.
Dan Clore
> On Nov 11, 12:33 am, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>> Karen De Coster presented an overview of the recent takeover of the
>> once relatively free economy by the Bush and Obama administrations
>> and described America as "quickly morphing into a socialist
>> corporate state."
>
> This is probably the best description I've heard for what is
> occurring. Traditionally, capitalism is free enterprise and
> socialism is government ownership of the means of production.
Not exactly:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4246.html
The rest is interesting.
--
Dan Clore
New book: _Weird Words: A Lovecraftian Lexicon_:
http://tinyurl.com/yd3bxkw
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
(Wait for the new edition: http://hplmythos.com/ )
Lord We�rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
> "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
>
> news:7mbiarF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > Jerry Okamura wrote:
> >> "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
> >>news:7m7imhF...@mid.individual.net...
> >>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
> >>>> "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
> >>>>news:7m65eeF...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
> >>>>>> "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:7m0j2qF...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>>> are like two peas in the same pod. The more freedom people
> >>>>>> have the more successful capitalism is. Socialism and
> >>>>>> freedom are like fire and ice. Socialism thrives when people
> >>>>>> are willing to give up their freedom for safety.
> >>>>> Only true if you re-define the terms, as I explain in the
> >>>>> column linked to above.
>
> >>>> Why would it be true if I redefined my terms?
> >>> Compare the traditional definitions with the later re-definitions,
> >>> as I explain them in my column.
>
> >> If I understood what you meant, I would not ask you the question
> >> would I?
>
> > Okay.
>
> > (1) Traditional definitions:
>
> > capitalism: ownership and control of the means of production by a class of
> > "capitalists" (in the traditional sense, the owners of capital, or means
> > of production used by workers other than the capitalists/owners
> > themselves) and an economic and political system that favors this.
>
> Don't know what a "tradional definition" means. My dictionary, which is my
> guide for definitions says, the economic system in which land, factories,
> railroads, etc. are privately owned and operated for profit.
>
> > socialism: ownership and control of the means of production by the workers
> > themselves, whether as individuals, cooperatives, collectives, communal
> > groups, or through the state, and an economic and political system that
> > favors this.
>
> Socialism - any of various theories or systems of the ownership and
> operation of the means of production and disribuiton by society or the
> community, rather than privat individuals.
>
> My take on this issue. If freedom is important, then you should support
> capitalism. If safety is important, then you should support socialism. But
> you cannot be free in a socialist society. People who want to be free don't
> what to depend on someone else to provide for what they need or want, they
> want to be free to do that on their own.
That's not particularly what we observe in capitalist
polities. Going to work for a boss, capitalist-style, is
precisely depending on someone else to provide what
one needs or wants, which in the case of economic
activity is capital, management, marketing, workplace
arrangement and governance, and so forth.
It is the _socialist_ model, ownership and control of
the means of production by the workers, which calls
for self-management as opposed to management by
an authority. Many people do prefer dependence
and submission to the burdens and risks of self-
management, of course, but let's not get mixed up
about what's going on.
Jerry Okamura
"*Anarcissie*" <anarc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:71ed2dce-1b56-44ca...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 16, 12:33 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
wrote:
> "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
>
> news:7mbiarF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > Jerry Okamura wrote:
> >> "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
> >>news:7m7imhF...@mid.individual.net...
> >>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
> >>>> "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
> >>>>news:7m65eeF...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
> >>>>>> "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:7m0j2qF...@mid.individual.net...
You "choose" to go to work for someone else. No one "forced" you to go to
work for someone else. In a free society, you have the choice to either
work for someone else, or not work for someone else. You are more free when
you don't depend on someone else to provide you with what you need or want,
but you do have that choice.
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:71ed2dce-1b56-44ca...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 16, 12:33 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
>
> >news:7mbiarF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > Jerry Okamura wrote:
> > >> "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
> > >>news:7m7imhF...@mid.individual.net...
> > >>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
> > >>>> "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
> > >>>>news:7m65eeF...@mid.individual.net...
> > >>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
> > >>>>>> "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
> > >>>>>>news:7m0j2qF...@mid.individual.net...
That's nice, but it has very little to do with what I
wrote. If you depend on another person or another
class of persons to provide you with a job, which is
the traditional model of capitalism, then you're
obviously dependent on that person or class. The
fact that the relationship may be nominally voluntary
doesn't mean it isn't a relationship of dependency,
and, in traditional capitalism, usually one of
passivity and submission.
> > It is the _socialist_ model, ownership and control of
> > the means of production by the workers, which calls
> > for self-management as opposed to management by
> > an authority. Many people do prefer dependence
> > and submission to the burdens and risks of self-
> > management, of course, but let's not get mixed up
> > about what's going on.
Again, I'm using the word _socialism_ here with
the meaning its inventors gave it.
Dan Clore
It's good that you put "choose" and "forced" in scare quotes. While it's
true that force might not be used to coerce an individual to work for a
particular employer in a capitalist society (though this is not
universally true), the monopolization of the means of production by the
capitalist class is not achieved entirely voluntarily, but largely by
means of the state. This monopolization of the means of production tends
to reduce or eliminate the element of free choice in choosing whether to
work for oneself or for others.
Anarcissie
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
> ...
> >> (1) Traditional definitions:
> >>
> >> capitalism: ownership and control of the means of production by a
> >> class of "capitalists" (in the traditional sense, the owners of
> >> capital, or means of production used by workers other than the
> >> capitalists/owners themselves) and an economic and political system
> >> that favors this.
> >
> > Don't know what a "tradional definition" means. My dictionary, which
> > is my guide for definitions says, the economic system in which land,
> > factories, railroads, etc. are privately owned and operated for
> > profit.
>
> By "traditional" definition, I mean a definition abstracted from the
> original and continuing use of the term. In the case of "capitalism",
> that means the sort of economic and political system that arose in the
> seventeenth and eighteenth century in countries like England, Germany,
> France, and the USA. The defining feature of this was that workers no
> longer owned their own means of production as independent craftsmen had
> in the past. Typical examples from the time include factories and
> sweatshops.
>
> The definition that you cite still shows some remnant of this
> traditional definition, as "privately" didn't originally just mean
> non-government, but referred to an elite rather than commoners.
>
> >> socialism: ownership and control of the means of production by the
> >> workers themselves, whether as individuals, cooperatives,
> >> collectives, communal groups, or through the state, and an economic
> >> and political system that favors this.
> >>
> > Socialism - any of various theories or systems of the ownership and
> > operation of the means of production and disribuiton by society or
> > the community, rather than privat individuals.
>
> This, again, is a later re-definition, though rather than fully
> re-defining the term it restricts it to one particular form of
> socialism. At least it doesn't say "state" instead of "community".
>
> The traditional meaning that I give refers to the "socialism" proposed
> by the original socialists (Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen), later
> socialists (Blanc, Marx, Engels, Morris, etc.), and is particularly
> crafted to include the anarchist wing of socialism (Proudhon, Bakunin,
> Kropotkin, etc.).
The redefinition of socialism as ownership or control
of the means of production by "society or the
community" is interesting in that omits the central
idea of the "traditional meaning" you give, that is,
self-management by the _workers_. Once this idea is
omitted, the general concept of socialism, having
become hollowed out, so to speak, can be attached to
notions like Lenin's "state capitalism", Hitler's
racial fascism, the Welfare state, or even the present
corporate control of the government. "Society or the
community" could be anything, but it is likely to mean
the state.
I have given this transition some thought. I used to
believe it was a diabolical plot by pro-capitalist
flacks to conceal or obscure socialist ideas, but
lately it has occurred to me that some people, given
their passions and beliefs, are incapable of taking in
the idea of collective self-management. For them, any
social relation seems to be weighted with domination
and submission. For such a person, the proposition of
socialism has to be a sham and almost certainly the
cover for either social incoherence or tyranny. It is
not possible for them to think in other terms.
This is odd, because even most heroic captains of
industry often enter into more or less equal
partnerships to further common purposes, just as humans
of every other kind do. But it may be those who
believe in the universality of domination and
submission have to see things otherwise.
Jerry Okamura
On Nov 17, 11:26 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
wrote:
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:71ed2dce-1b56-44ca...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 16, 12:33 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
>
> >news:7mbiarF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > Jerry Okamura wrote:
> > >> "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
> > >>news:7m7imhF...@mid.individual.net...
> > >>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
> > >>>> "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
> > >>>>news:7m65eeF...@mid.individual.net...
> > >>>>> Jerry Okamura wrote:
> > >>>>>> "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
> > >>>>>>news:7m0j2qF...@mid.individual.net...
It does not matter. When you work for someone else, you are not truly free.
In a capitlaist system, you most likely will work for a business, unless of
course you are working for the government. In a socialist system you most
likely will be working for the government. Either way you are dependent on
someone else.
> > It is the _socialist_ model, ownership and control of
> > the means of production by the workers, which calls
> > for self-management as opposed to management by
> > an authority. Many people do prefer dependence
> > and submission to the burdens and risks of self-
> > management, of course, but let's not get mixed up
> > about what's going on.
Again, I'm using the word _socialism_ here with
the meaning its inventors gave it.
Which means what?
Jerry Okamura
*Anarcissie*
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in messag> On Nov 17, 11:26 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com>
> > > You "choose" to go to work for someone else. No one "forced" you to go to
> > > work for someone else. In a free society, you have the choice to either
> > > work for someone else, or not work for someone else. You are more free
> > > when
> > > you don't depend on someone else to provide you with what you need or
> > > want,
> > > but you do have that choice.
>
> > That's nice, but it has very little to do with what I
> > wrote. If you depend on another person or another
> > class of persons to provide you with a job, which is
> > the traditional model of capitalism, then you're
> > obviously dependent on that person or class. The
> > fact that the relationship may be nominally voluntary
> > doesn't mean it isn't a relationship of dependency,
> > and, in traditional capitalism, usually one of
> > passivity and submission.
>
> > It does not matter. When you work for someone else, you are not truly free.
> > In a capitlaist system, you most likely will work for a business, unless of
> > course you are working for the government. In a socialist system you most
> > likely will be working for the government. Either way you are dependent on
> > someone else.
One can also be self-employed, or work in a partnership or
cooperative, in which case you will be working for yourself.
> > > It is the _socialist_ model, ownership and control of
> > > the means of production by the workers, which calls
> > > for self-management as opposed to management by
> > > an authority. Many people do prefer dependence
> > > and submission to the burdens and risks of self-
> > > management, of course, but let's not get mixed up
> > > about what's going on.
>
> > Again, I'm using the word _socialism_ here with
> > the meaning its inventors gave it.
>
> Which means what?
Ownership and control of the means of production
by the workers.
Dan Clore
Indeed.
Jerry Okamura
The person who is self-employed usually is self employed because they put a
higher value on their freedom.
> > > It is the _socialist_ model, ownership and control of
> > > the means of production by the workers, which calls
> > > for self-management as opposed to management by
> > > an authority. Many people do prefer dependence
> > > and submission to the burdens and risks of self-
> > > management, of course, but let's not get mixed up
> > > about what's going on.
>
> > Again, I'm using the word _socialism_ here with
> > the meaning its inventors gave it.
>
> Which means what?
Ownership and control of the means of production
by the workers.
If the workers want to be "owners" and in "control of the means of
production, all they need to do is own the business. Which of course means,
then they have to raise the money to start and operate that business. No
one is telling them they cannot do that, at least in the United States. But
when someone else risked their money to start the business, and are
successful, for the "workers" to then come in, after the business is
successful, and say they want to own the business, is simply not right. If
they want the rewards, then they should be also willing to take the risk.
*Anarcissie*
> "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> On Nov 18, 1:49 pm, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> > "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote in messag> On Nov 17, 11:26
> > > Which means what?
>
> > Ownership and control of the means of production
> > by the workers.
>
> If the workers want to be "owners" and in "control of the means of
> production, all they need to do is own the business. Which of course means,
> then they have to raise the money to start and operate that business. No
> one is telling them they cannot do that, at least in the United States. But
> when someone else risked their money to start the business, and are
> successful, for the "workers" to then come in, after the business is
> successful, and say they want to own the business, is simply not right. If
> they want the rewards, then they should be also willing to take the risk.
Sure. I've just been pointing out that capitalist
relations are relations of domination, submission
and dependence, not equality, freedom, autonomy
or individualism, which can be obtained only by
individual or group self-employment, that is,
socialism. (In its original meaning -- not the
meaning given to it by capitalist propaganda.)
Whether people want to escape from submission
and dependence, and how they do it, are other
questions. Apparently a lot of people don't.