there is some interest now in the tobin tax among responsible persons, and howls of outrage at the idea from the nominally non-violent sociopaths who regard society as a game park.
it's an idea whose time has come? only the seedling of an idea.
a rational society aiming at justice for all would have no taxes at all. taxation is, after all, just looting made presentable by habit.
a democratic society should pay for public expenses by collecting from each resident an amount proportional to the benefit that person receives from society. this is easily done, in an age of electronic money: simply clip off of each transaction a percentage and direct that money to the treasury.
the value of the percentage should be adjusted at regular intervals to ensure users pay for infrastructure while it remains usable, to prevent inter-generational theft.
aside from being easy to collect, there are significant collateral advantages:
a great reduction in the cost of bookkeeping and legal expense for business,
removes the possibility of government officers relieving some of taxation in response to bribes, while also reducing the incentive to bribe for lack of result.
capital would flee, of course. but this can be controlled by a money tariff barrier.
some will think this is a 'tax' that is unfair, since it applies to all. they are in the habit of thinking some should pay, others not. i feel they should re-think their notion of 'unfair.'
it's not a tax, it is a fee for service: society provides the environment in which markets exist, the law, transport, and money itself. there is no reason why all should not support this service, whether buying a loaf of bread or a million-dollar yacht.
another way to look at it is this: tax relief is a grossly ineffective way of delivering welfare, or charity. worse, once you establish the principle that some should pay tax, others not, you get the world we have.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
haditha
america has added another badge of dishonor to a list of crimes as old as the nation. haditha is just the latest to be exposed, and won't be the last.
discussion of events reveals that, on a small scale, this action had something in common with mylai: no serious crime was committed because the people killed were 'unpeople.' in mylai the 'free-fire zone' policy was carried to its logical conclusion. in haditha it transpires that the area around an incident of attack on american soldiers becomes by that act a 'hostile area,' and the people there are 'unpeople.'
so the marines just did as they pleased. i am reminded of the rape of nanjing, except there will be no war crimes trials in america about american soldiers. there can't be, if any resistance to american incursion sets off a policy of mass-murder.
the marines of haditha are not quality people, and i hope that some of them are troubled by remorse until death. only some, as joining the marine corps suggests a yearning to do murder.
but worse than the marines are the government officers, particularly politicians, who train and license uniformed thugs to perform deeds in foreign lands that would get them hung in america, for now at least.
to the survivors of america's imperial aggressions i can offer no comfort. the marines can be tracked down and killed, but this kind of goon is in great supply in america, and replacements will enlist until the death rate is very much greater than any private vendetta can achieve.
this is why the 'terror' commandos are born, and flourish. they are not terrorists at all, they are an expression of rage at the state terrorism of the american imperium, a vehicle for the survivors of visits from the marine corps to strike back, however blindly.
it is easy to argue that the so-called terrorists are indiscriminate, and that many are ineffective. the rulers of america, and their sycophants, make much of the fact that the casualties of 9/11 were ordinary americans, not warriors. but hiring a killer is not a moral act, and if it is done in a legal environment, it attracts a legal penalty similar to that given the hired gun. america hires its killers, but is none the less complicit in their deeds.
haditha, as was mylai, is the natural consequence of american foreign policy, which nowadays is naked violent aggression. those marines should have hung, and so should george w bush.
discussion of events reveals that, on a small scale, this action had something in common with mylai: no serious crime was committed because the people killed were 'unpeople.' in mylai the 'free-fire zone' policy was carried to its logical conclusion. in haditha it transpires that the area around an incident of attack on american soldiers becomes by that act a 'hostile area,' and the people there are 'unpeople.'
so the marines just did as they pleased. i am reminded of the rape of nanjing, except there will be no war crimes trials in america about american soldiers. there can't be, if any resistance to american incursion sets off a policy of mass-murder.
the marines of haditha are not quality people, and i hope that some of them are troubled by remorse until death. only some, as joining the marine corps suggests a yearning to do murder.
but worse than the marines are the government officers, particularly politicians, who train and license uniformed thugs to perform deeds in foreign lands that would get them hung in america, for now at least.
to the survivors of america's imperial aggressions i can offer no comfort. the marines can be tracked down and killed, but this kind of goon is in great supply in america, and replacements will enlist until the death rate is very much greater than any private vendetta can achieve.
this is why the 'terror' commandos are born, and flourish. they are not terrorists at all, they are an expression of rage at the state terrorism of the american imperium, a vehicle for the survivors of visits from the marine corps to strike back, however blindly.
it is easy to argue that the so-called terrorists are indiscriminate, and that many are ineffective. the rulers of america, and their sycophants, make much of the fact that the casualties of 9/11 were ordinary americans, not warriors. but hiring a killer is not a moral act, and if it is done in a legal environment, it attracts a legal penalty similar to that given the hired gun. america hires its killers, but is none the less complicit in their deeds.
haditha, as was mylai, is the natural consequence of american foreign policy, which nowadays is naked violent aggression. those marines should have hung, and so should george w bush.
Monday, January 23, 2012
ww3 begins
the impositions of sanctions on iran are the initial steps of war. if iran does not wish to submit to penury and western domination, they will have to strike back.
for those who came in late, this is precisely how ww2 began, with oil sanctions on japan. they were forbidden from buying rather than selling, but the result is likely to be the same.
iran can block the strait of hormuz, at least for several months, and the resulting stress on the world economy will have catastrophic effects.
no one has said precisely why iran must not have nuclear weapons, when neighbors israel and pakistan do, but it's likely that it is the intent of the usa that israel will continue to dominate the middle east, for reasons which are never discussed publicly.
the lack of ethical base to american policy infects everything they do with corruption, and the use of unethical tools of foreign policy allows them to hope for domination of the middle east. but at the same time it foments resistance from the peoples there, and contempt from third parties. it is not clear that thuggery and subversion will have long-term success.
that is the consequence of allowing politicians to rule nations: they don't care about long-term success, they worry about the next election, and placating the rich donors that facilitate that election. humanity has got to evolve out of the submission to the alpha-male we learned on the plains of africa, or those alpha-males will kill us all.
for those who came in late, this is precisely how ww2 began, with oil sanctions on japan. they were forbidden from buying rather than selling, but the result is likely to be the same.
iran can block the strait of hormuz, at least for several months, and the resulting stress on the world economy will have catastrophic effects.
no one has said precisely why iran must not have nuclear weapons, when neighbors israel and pakistan do, but it's likely that it is the intent of the usa that israel will continue to dominate the middle east, for reasons which are never discussed publicly.
the lack of ethical base to american policy infects everything they do with corruption, and the use of unethical tools of foreign policy allows them to hope for domination of the middle east. but at the same time it foments resistance from the peoples there, and contempt from third parties. it is not clear that thuggery and subversion will have long-term success.
that is the consequence of allowing politicians to rule nations: they don't care about long-term success, they worry about the next election, and placating the rich donors that facilitate that election. humanity has got to evolve out of the submission to the alpha-male we learned on the plains of africa, or those alpha-males will kill us all.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
"kill obama."
'Assassinate Obama' column triggers secret service investigation
January 23, 2012 - 11:28AM
* Read later
Assassinating US President Barack Obama for refusing to wage war on Iran is an opinion Andrew Adler wishes he never published.
But that's exactly what the owner of the Atlanta Jewish Times did on January 13, and now he's facing a chorus of vocal opposition and a Secret Service investigation.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/assassinate-obama-column-triggers-secret-service-investigation-20120123-1qd1d.html#ixzz1kEkrivfU
the thing is, the israeli government is widely suspected of murdering people it thinks offer some risk to the continuing safety of israel. not, so far, american presidents. still, once you have put out 'kill' orders for scientists and politicians of various other countries, you establish the principle of diplomacy by assassination. why stop at american presidents?
risky, of course. but less than you may imagine. americans are used to violence, and many americans are willing to kill obama, many american politicians are in the pocket of israel. impossible to imagine? not even hard. after all, kennedy was terminated for much less than threatening israel.
January 23, 2012 - 11:28AM
* Read later
Assassinating US President Barack Obama for refusing to wage war on Iran is an opinion Andrew Adler wishes he never published.
But that's exactly what the owner of the Atlanta Jewish Times did on January 13, and now he's facing a chorus of vocal opposition and a Secret Service investigation.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/assassinate-obama-column-triggers-secret-service-investigation-20120123-1qd1d.html#ixzz1kEkrivfU
the thing is, the israeli government is widely suspected of murdering people it thinks offer some risk to the continuing safety of israel. not, so far, american presidents. still, once you have put out 'kill' orders for scientists and politicians of various other countries, you establish the principle of diplomacy by assassination. why stop at american presidents?
risky, of course. but less than you may imagine. americans are used to violence, and many americans are willing to kill obama, many american politicians are in the pocket of israel. impossible to imagine? not even hard. after all, kennedy was terminated for much less than threatening israel.
Monday, January 16, 2012
a 'hundred years war, a suppurating sore...'
"in an online Q&A after the final episode in the UK, its Jewish writer-director Peter Kosminsky said the 80 British veterans interviewed during research for The Promise had arrived in Palestine ''very pro-Jewish … but by the end of their stay had almost all shifted their allegiance and were feeling a great deal of sympathy for the Arabs''."
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/sbs-fields-complaints-over-series-set-in-israel-20120116-1q37z.html#ixzz1jf0eGvYt
'exodus' was a great movie, and wonderful propaganda, from the western point of view. but it was written to cover up the invasion of palestine by european jews. this was a grand collusion, to wipe out the guilt of europe, and america, while conveniently transforming the european 'jewish problem' into the palestinian jewish problem.
it would be hard to find, in all history, a greater moral vacuum than the 'blindness' of the west in dealing with the jews and arabs of palestine.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/sbs-fields-complaints-over-series-set-in-israel-20120116-1q37z.html#ixzz1jf0eGvYt
'exodus' was a great movie, and wonderful propaganda, from the western point of view. but it was written to cover up the invasion of palestine by european jews. this was a grand collusion, to wipe out the guilt of europe, and america, while conveniently transforming the european 'jewish problem' into the palestinian jewish problem.
it would be hard to find, in all history, a greater moral vacuum than the 'blindness' of the west in dealing with the jews and arabs of palestine.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
capitalism doesn't work
you can see it not working. you can see it in the millions unemployed, losing their houses, uninsured, dropping out of education.
the apologists will answer, that there is a temporary glitch, service will return to normal soon.
not good enough.
when one link of an anchor chain fails, and the ship is lost, we don't say, "only one link failed, most of the chain is perfect." when a car works just fine for 100 yards, but then stops until it cools off, you don't say "it works most of the time."
aside from periodic failure, the system doesn't even pretend to work for everone. imagine throwing people into the garbage can, because they are 'unneeded.' america is a nation that views its people as a commodity, to be bought and sold, and thrown away, as required.
an economic system that can't even pretend to work all the time for all the people is no system at all, it's a label for an economic free-fire zone.
the fall-back position for the apologists of capitalism is that it is the best system available. best for what? best for who?
it's not best for the nation, because the lost production and skills can never be replaced, they are a permanent scar on the economy. it may be best for the '1%' to destroy any savings in the lower classes, as it makes them humble and pliable, but it's not best for the 99%.
and there are other, better systems, without even getting into total socialism. many nations in europe achieve better results in the 'civilization indices' by simply injecting some worker control into production and commerce.
this can't be done in america because the sacred constitution flash-froze american society in the legal attitudes and customs of georgian britain. capitalism doesn't work, because it was never meant to. it was just a label applied to a bandit society ruled by looters and exploiters, the 'cosa nostra' of anglophone nations.
the apologists will answer, that there is a temporary glitch, service will return to normal soon.
not good enough.
when one link of an anchor chain fails, and the ship is lost, we don't say, "only one link failed, most of the chain is perfect." when a car works just fine for 100 yards, but then stops until it cools off, you don't say "it works most of the time."
aside from periodic failure, the system doesn't even pretend to work for everone. imagine throwing people into the garbage can, because they are 'unneeded.' america is a nation that views its people as a commodity, to be bought and sold, and thrown away, as required.
an economic system that can't even pretend to work all the time for all the people is no system at all, it's a label for an economic free-fire zone.
the fall-back position for the apologists of capitalism is that it is the best system available. best for what? best for who?
it's not best for the nation, because the lost production and skills can never be replaced, they are a permanent scar on the economy. it may be best for the '1%' to destroy any savings in the lower classes, as it makes them humble and pliable, but it's not best for the 99%.
and there are other, better systems, without even getting into total socialism. many nations in europe achieve better results in the 'civilization indices' by simply injecting some worker control into production and commerce.
this can't be done in america because the sacred constitution flash-froze american society in the legal attitudes and customs of georgian britain. capitalism doesn't work, because it was never meant to. it was just a label applied to a bandit society ruled by looters and exploiters, the 'cosa nostra' of anglophone nations.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
not-voting, as an act of citizenship
i often suggest (demand/plea) that people stop voting for politicians, and i occasionally get the reply that this would result in only the wrong people voting- those who oppose democracy. quite true. if there were not more to it.
nonetheless, you must stop voting, if you are to stop america from sliding into tyranny*. further into tyranny, actually. you were half-way there when the constitution was established. the american people never assented to the imposition of the constitution. it was imposed by the various state governments. only rhode island put the question directly to the people, and the people rejected it. the united states of america, from its first day, was the counter-revolution of the rich against the revolution of 1776.
since then, finding themselves within its confines and yearning to improve their lives by whatever means are at hand, the electorate began voting for the lesser of two evils. this process of voting has a significance much greater than you may imagine: it transfers power from your hand to the winner of the election. by that act you transform yourself from an equal and active member of political society into a passive watcher, from 'citizen' to 'civilian.' office-holders have no right to power from birth, and not yet from direction of military power. their right to power is only in your assent expressed in voting. but by voting, you consent to your own subjugation. the system is unfair from the beginning, even when it works as it imports to. but it doesn't actually work that well:
the winner of the election becomes the wielder of the power of many, and is thereby corrupted: people shower him with bribes in search of favors, and he dispenses favors in search of more votes, and bribes.
what, then, to do? voting cements in place the corruption of society, not-voting allows the 'wrong' people to dominate society.
well, no, it doesn't: not-voting comes in two forms. the common form is the act of the private person, the manifestation of 'hell with politics, it's fixed.' it is common, because voting is nearly useless- it is not connected to getting any particular result beyond putting a particular face in a seat of power. any reasonable person might well shrug the shoulders and say "hell with it!"
but there is another kind of 'not-voting.' public and organized not-voting by a group of people who are united in pursuit of a common goal is much more effective in getting a result than voting for a face. it is voting for a citizen initiative in a society that does not have citizen initiative.
a focused not-voting campaign is vastly more productive than shaking a fist in a street demo. 100,000 people shaking their fist on the street feels good, and looks good on the 6 o'clock news, but if you are not committed to the violent over-throw of the government, then they will wait you out, and turn you into a tourist attraction while you're there. if you want to modify a politician's behavior without shooting, nothing approaches being regularly and frequently presented with a list of 100,000 voters saying in concert: "no mas!" notice, by the way, that initial 'public and organized.' that is the distinguishing mark of political not-voting, and both parts are necessary. (see my post 'democracy, and revolution' for more on this.)
that is the hard part: americans have little experience with any kind of political action beyond assenting to a face to rule over them. it's very easy to raise a demo, brief, emotionally fulfilling, but telling them to send a form email on the first of the month and keep on doing it, in the face of silence, requires a certain amount of character.
but remember gandhi's observation: "first, they ignore you,,,, and then you win." better yet, sending simultaneous emails on the first of the month to interested parties is easy and free: even fast-food, immediate gratification americans may be able to do it.
my estimation is, that a citizen is not a citizen without citizen initiative, anymore than a carpenter is a carpenter without a hammer. that should be the first goal of anyone hoping to reform a society.
*i use tyranny here in its modern sense.
nonetheless, you must stop voting, if you are to stop america from sliding into tyranny*. further into tyranny, actually. you were half-way there when the constitution was established. the american people never assented to the imposition of the constitution. it was imposed by the various state governments. only rhode island put the question directly to the people, and the people rejected it. the united states of america, from its first day, was the counter-revolution of the rich against the revolution of 1776.
since then, finding themselves within its confines and yearning to improve their lives by whatever means are at hand, the electorate began voting for the lesser of two evils. this process of voting has a significance much greater than you may imagine: it transfers power from your hand to the winner of the election. by that act you transform yourself from an equal and active member of political society into a passive watcher, from 'citizen' to 'civilian.' office-holders have no right to power from birth, and not yet from direction of military power. their right to power is only in your assent expressed in voting. but by voting, you consent to your own subjugation. the system is unfair from the beginning, even when it works as it imports to. but it doesn't actually work that well:
the winner of the election becomes the wielder of the power of many, and is thereby corrupted: people shower him with bribes in search of favors, and he dispenses favors in search of more votes, and bribes.
what, then, to do? voting cements in place the corruption of society, not-voting allows the 'wrong' people to dominate society.
well, no, it doesn't: not-voting comes in two forms. the common form is the act of the private person, the manifestation of 'hell with politics, it's fixed.' it is common, because voting is nearly useless- it is not connected to getting any particular result beyond putting a particular face in a seat of power. any reasonable person might well shrug the shoulders and say "hell with it!"
but there is another kind of 'not-voting.' public and organized not-voting by a group of people who are united in pursuit of a common goal is much more effective in getting a result than voting for a face. it is voting for a citizen initiative in a society that does not have citizen initiative.
a focused not-voting campaign is vastly more productive than shaking a fist in a street demo. 100,000 people shaking their fist on the street feels good, and looks good on the 6 o'clock news, but if you are not committed to the violent over-throw of the government, then they will wait you out, and turn you into a tourist attraction while you're there. if you want to modify a politician's behavior without shooting, nothing approaches being regularly and frequently presented with a list of 100,000 voters saying in concert: "no mas!" notice, by the way, that initial 'public and organized.' that is the distinguishing mark of political not-voting, and both parts are necessary. (see my post 'democracy, and revolution' for more on this.)
that is the hard part: americans have little experience with any kind of political action beyond assenting to a face to rule over them. it's very easy to raise a demo, brief, emotionally fulfilling, but telling them to send a form email on the first of the month and keep on doing it, in the face of silence, requires a certain amount of character.
but remember gandhi's observation: "first, they ignore you,,,, and then you win." better yet, sending simultaneous emails on the first of the month to interested parties is easy and free: even fast-food, immediate gratification americans may be able to do it.
my estimation is, that a citizen is not a citizen without citizen initiative, anymore than a carpenter is a carpenter without a hammer. that should be the first goal of anyone hoping to reform a society.
*i use tyranny here in its modern sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)