*to Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Saturday, 12 February 2011

I don't know which is more disturbing.

Is it that there is no more 'rule of law' and a class-war from above, or that almost nobody sees it?

However, if it were possible for we wealth and status obsessed chimpanzees not to screw up every revolution in history, the result would look like:
- equal rule of law for all, requiring a public-only legal profession
- equal access to education, requiring a public-only educational system
- equal access to health care, requiring a public-only medical profession
- full internalization of 'externalities' to individuals and corporations
- punitive taxation on anyone earning twice the average; and ameliorative grants to those earning less than half
- estate tax, beyond the average value of a house to each beneficiary who does not yet own one
- start taxing religious institutions and wealthy political parties
- transparency in governments and organizations
- robust free speech laws which do not protect bigoted incitement, such as Fox 'News'
- better identification, and quarantine of, psychopathic 'A-type' personalities who lead societies into perversion

Achieve that and begin to wonder how to make democracy work.  You can call it 'socialism' if you'd prefer not to think at all, but anything less entrenches our simian elitism, which history has shown never has anything to do with worth, and everything to do with parasitism.  You give everyone, especially children, fully equal opportunity and you don't squander the talents of your majority, much less squander their lives.


  1. If this post in jest please ignore the following (My irony, BS, and serious meters are all returning internally inconsistent results).

    - don't see why the only source for lawyers should be the government (if that's what you mean by public-only). Same for education.

    - equal access to health care does not require the whole sale conversion of all doctors and hospitals into government employees and organizations.

    But because with enough money medical science can keep someone alive more or less indefinitely. It does however require the creation of a metric to determine who is unfit to continue living given their current state. At the moment society has punted on that issue and I don't see society dealing with that any time soon.

    - free speech law. I would bet significant monies that there is no possible way to frame a law to achieve your goal. A large part of the problem will come down to who gets decide which speech is or is not bigoted incitement, as this is a subjective measure not an objective one. Much like the line between art and obscene.

  2. Well, your opinions are worth consideration, though I am uncertain how much offence I'll trouble myself to take to "(My irony, BS, and serious meters are all returning internally inconsistent results)".

    My opinions are informed by a Canadian, not an American point of view. Though a country with imperfect public institutions, I am far more secure in the middle class here than my peers to the south of our border. Take that as you like.

  3. On offense was meant with the "(My irony, BS, and serious meters are all returning internally inconsistent results)" comment. I was trying indicate that I was having trouble in determining the intended tone of the post, and that statement was the best my brain could come up with at the time. My apologies.