The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: How to think Page 2 of 22

Justice, Law and Norms

Last week I wrote an article on the indictment of Trump in New York. I argued that charging trump had broken an elite norm: there is no question Trump broke the law, but ex-Presidents don’t get charged with crimes and senior politicians rarely do, though as a couple commenters pointed out, there’s already been some erosion of that norm.

It’s important to understand that a norm is a cultural rule. It’s not a law, usually, it’s something you just do or don’t do because your social group requires it or forbids it. For elites, a norm is that elites don’t get charged with most crimes, especially non-violent ones, unless that crime harms other elites in large numbers. Every senior executive at a bank or brokerage broke fraud laws and the Rico statute (they conspired) in the run up to the 2008 election, for example, but who was charged? Bernie Madoff. Why? Because Madoff targeted other elites.

Likewise senior politicians regularly get away with breaking election fundraising rules and various other white collar crimes (like bribery). They don’t charge each other, because almost all of them do it. What they do is against the law, but it isn’t against elite norms.

We all know what laws are, but justice is different from law. A law can be unjust. Everything the Nazis did was legal by German law, as a friend of mine loves to point out.

Another principle of justice is that laws are applied equally. The same crimes that elites commit without being charged for are laws that are usually enforced against non-elites. This is not justice. Likewise fines that are fixed rather than relative to income or wealth or a combination of both are unjust—they hurt people with less money more than those with more money.

Bringing this back to Trump, he is being charged for crimes that while illegal do not violate the elite norm of elite impunity for crimes that are normal among elites. If elites wanted to maintain their norms, he should instead have been charged with treason or sedition, for the Jan 6th attempted insurrection, because that violates an elite norm.

Justice, norms and laws are three different thing and understanding the difference matters.


The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Know Thine Enemy

I want you to ask yourself this question: what makes someone your enemy? Really think about it for a bit before continuing. Have an answer.

An enemy is someone who is doing you you harm, or intends to do you harm. If they have the ability to do you harm, they will act on it.

Note what this definition does not include. It says nothing about hate or anger or emotional state. It does not matter why someone is or wants or intends to harm you, all that matters is that they do.

It does also not matter if you are collateral damage: if they don’t even know you personally exist. If they’re willing to harm you to get what they want, without caring one way or another about you, they’re your enemy.

If a political leader passes a law or regulation which takes away your health care or your house or your food or your life, it doesn’t matter that they weren’t thinking about you, specifically, when they made that decision. They deliberately harmed you, and they were OK with it. They certainly knew, if they thought about it all, that it would harm some people, and that wasn’t a problem for them.

When healthcare execs raise the prices of medicines like insulin or care, they know that means some people who need that medicine or care will do without, and they know some people will die. If they don’t need to make the decision “If we don’t do this, we’ll go bankrupt and no one will get care” then they’re good with a bunch of people suffering or dying. They are, therefore, those people’s enemies, and they are a potential enemy for anyone who might one day not be able to afford care.

Your greatest enemies, that is the people who are most likely to make decisions which harm you, are almost always your politicians and corporate leaders. These are also the people who could be your greatest allies, if they chose, as FDR did for most Americans (though he was an enemy of the rich, and both he and they understood that.)

If you are thinking about politics this is the most fundamental concept you need to understand and emotionally internalize. People with power are your greatest enemies or your greatest allies, and your job is to make them your allies. If they are your enemies, and almost all of them in the current world are, then you must treat them as an enemy, and never think of them as a friend or ally.

For about 50 years, politicians and private wealthy individuals have deliberately pursued policies which have impoverished you. If your income had increased at the same rate as productivity, you’d have about twice as much income. Think about that. The reason you don’t is they took all of that (and more) and made sure it went to people who were already rich.

People who intend to or do harm you are your enemies.

This means, by the way, that unless you are a Ukrainian, Putin is not much of an enemy to you. Your own politicians and rich people are almost always the greatest threat to you if you live in a developed country, and if you live in an undeveloped country it’s sometimes leaders of foreign nations, the IMF, foreign corporations and so on.

It isn’t any more complicated than that. At the World Economic Forum at Davos, everyone gets a Covid test and all rooms have HEPA filters and UV light to destroy viruses. That’s how they treat themselves. Our societies could afford to do that for everyone, but our leaders, and the media they control pretend that Covid is “over”, while protecting themselves.

Your enemies. (Well unless you’re reading this and in the charmed circle, in which case they’re your allies. Just remember, in 50 years your class will be reviled and hated more than we revile and hate Hitler today.)


The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

 

Why The American Radical Right Is Powerful And The American Left Is Meaningless

Watching “left wing” reactions to the Speaker’s election in the US House was instructive. Too many people were appalled when I pointed out that the left, the “Squad” specifically, could have done the same thing to get concessions in 2024.

If you were appalled at the idea then you are not a member of the left in any useful way.

(That statement and this post will occasion another torrent of abuse in the comments for me to throw into spam, and laugh about. If you think that after 30 years online, most of it moderating comments, you can insult me in a way I haven’t heard before, you are a fool as well as a piece of human garbage.)

You have power in electoral politics when you can deliver or deny votes and money and get people elected or un-elected. That’s the bottom line.

Usually when a House member tries to vote in a way that the party leadership doesn’t like, they are threatened with the cut off of money or votes.

Right wing Republicans have power because they can deliver votes and money. Right wing Republicans who chose to get concessions in exchange for the votes in the House Speaker election (which is an entirely democratic thing to do an in line with what the founders intended) have their own, largely small money, donor networks. They don’t need the Republican money machine. Furthermore their voters expect them to act on their stated beliefs.

The difference with the Squad is instructive. They claim to have left wing beliefs, but won’t vote them when it matter. Either they are scared of the threats made by leadership, or they don’t really believe their beliefs, or they know their supporters don’t really believe and won’t hold them to account. If you won’t do something when you have the power to do it, you don’t really believe in it.

(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write next year. If you value my writing and want more of it, please consider donating.)

This, by the way, is why the Netroots movement failed. For a while we had influence and were a rising power in the Democratic power.

Why? Because we could raise money from sources Democrats couldn’t; we could deliver votes and we threatened incumbents with primaries.

The Netroots lost because Obama figured out how to bypass us to get the money and votes without us and our primary threat proved weak.

The radical right has succeeded to a large extent because the institutional Republican party has not been able to bypass them and their primary threat is real. They stand a good chance of winning many primary challenges and they will make an incumbent’s life miserable if crossed.

The voters are loyal to their beliefs and, while not perfect, do have an expectation that their representatives will represent those beliefs. You may laugh at them for supporting even Trump, say, but if so you’ve missed the point: Trump gave them what they wanted most, control of the Supreme Court and an end to Roe vs. Wade. Those of you old enough will remember when Bush Jr. was forced to back down on his preferred Supreme Court nominee because she was too moderate and nominate someone acceptable to the pro-life movement.

No political movement has power if its “supporters”” do not actually vote their beliefs; donate based on their beliefs; volunteer based on their beliefs and hold their elected and un-elected representatives responsible when they violate those beliefs. (This doesn’t mean you expect reps to be perfect, but on whatever matters most — say abortion for right wingers — you hold them accountable.)

If you can be peeled off because of appeals to lesser evildom or some-such, you make your movement weak and your beliefs are worthless. Without solidarity and accountability there can be no movement which matters.

I don’t agree with radical Republicans about almost anything (except that the world and America would better off if the US interfered a lot less in other counties business). They are, essentially, my ideological enemies, though so are mainstream Democrats and Republicans.

But they have power because they have solidarity and they expect and get results from their representatives. The American left refuses to use power when it has it, and its members just want performative leftism from the likes of AOC. They don’t want or expect results and they display little solidarity, and that why for over 50 years the left in the US (and the UK) has staggered from defeat to defeat.

(There’s some conflation in this article between Republican groups, that’s unavoidable. But basically the bleeding edge, wherever it is, has been winning internal Republican party battles for about 50 years. The left edge has been losing those battles and that’s why America has become an authoritarian dumpster fire with soaring inequality which is in possible terminal collapse.)

We’ll talk a little more about real belief and the use of power soon.

 

Donate or Subscribe To My 2022 Fundraiser

Imagine A World Where Violence Or Need Are Impossible

There are two main types of coercion in the world.

The first is violence. If you don’t do what someone else wants, they will do something physical to you.

So, imagine if that was impossible. Imagine that if you chose no physical object could affect you. Bullets don’t work, fists don’t work, no one can grab you or put you in handcuffs, and that’s true of everyone.

What would change about society if this were true? What would change about how individuals act?

The second is need. What if you didn’t need to eat or drink and you cold and heat didn’t bother you or harm you and you didn’t get sick? You might still want shelter or a home or objects like books or computers, and objects like cosmetics would exist, but not medicine. But you would need nothing.

(This is half the conception of a pagan God: they can be harmed, even killed, but they don’t need anything. Except they can also, usually, create what they need without other Gods or people.)

Banquet of the Gods by Jacques de Gheyn II

What would you be like, and what would the world be like if you; if people, didn’t need anything?

These are serious questions. Think about them.

Now, question 3 is what if both of these things were true?

These questions matter because they tell you what you put up with because of need and fear. They tell you what other people; what society does that it couldn’t do if people weren’t, in effect, vulnerable.


(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing and want more of it, please consider donating. Alas, I’m neither God nor Beast.)


It’s also important to do them separately. The first is about violence, in effect, and that’s not the same as the human need for cooperation, which is much (but not all) of what the second question is about.

This is what what Donne was getting at with “no man is an island.” It is also what is related to Aristotle’s observation “But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god…”

There are things I want to say about these questions, but I’m not going to do so in this article. Instead I want you to think about them. Think about them in general and in particular: think about what you would and wouldn’t do in these three cases.

 

Mini Electronic Vacations

All right, this off-topic and not the sort of thing I usually write, but may be of use to some people.

Oddly despite being “very online” I’m sort of a luddite about certain things. I didn’t have a smart phone till 2015 (and at the time had no cell phone). A friend gave me my first one, and my second is a very nice hand-me down Pixel 4 from another friend.

As a rule I don’t take my phone with me when I go out. I get by on cards. Of course, sometimes I need my phone or a laptop, especially when traveling, but otherwise, they’re not on me.

I do this because I want periods when I’m not online, and not available to anyone. In particular, I often hang out at coffee shops and unless I have specific work I want to do, I don’t take any electronic devices with me except my e-reader. I often pack some paper books and a writing pad, and that’s it. I take notes on paper, and keep the notebooks.

I find this relaxing. It’s nice to not be online and it’s easiest if the device isn’t even with me: if it is, I may think “I should check…” and get sucked in. It’s simply a matter of making a habit unavailable. There’s rarely anything in my life so urgent it can’t wait a few hours.

Of course, I’m in my 50s. I grew up before cell phones. I remember before answering machines, even, and when pagers were rare and only truly essential, 24 hour on-call workers carried them.

I’m used to being out of touch. In a sense, I’m used to being alone. You can be very alone, even when surrounded by people in a big city, if you want to be, and I often do.

The studies are clear: social media is bad for you, and the more you do the worse it is. Being constantly connected, I’m almost certain, is likewise bad for you. You need space, you need time with your own feelings and thoughts when they’re not being jerked around. And if you want to think well, you need time to think alone as well in addition to time to think with other people.

This is, I guess, more of the sort of article written in lifestyle magazines and sections “how I spent 1 week unplugged” and whatnot, but I really do believe it’s healthy and if you can do it, you’ll find, once you get over the twitchy need to constantly check your phone or watch videos, or whatever you do, that it’s relaxing. It’s also a necessity for any sort of deep thinking.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

How To Think Clearly About Political and Social Issues

One of the most useful things you were probably made to do in school is argue for points of view you disagree with. Make the choice case if you are pro-life, make the pro-life case if you’re anti-abortion.

Write the Palestinian case or the Israeli case, whichever you oppose.

Make the best case you can that Russia was right to invade, or the best case you can that Russia was wrong. Make the case that NATO was responsible, then make the case it had nothing to do with it. Make the case Ukraine is Nazi-infested, make the case it isn’t.

Honestly making the best argument you can for the other side is a very useful exercise. I rarely write such articles any more, but I still do it informally quite often and I couldn’t write what I do if I hadn’t been trained this way.

To really make this work, though, you have to be able to empathize: to feel what people feel. David Ben-Gurion once said that if were Palestinian he would be in the violent resistance. That was a man who wasn’t so caught up in his own world that it blinded him.

And don’t rush to disagree with the case you’re making. Make it first. FEEL the case. Get self-righteous.

It’s not hard to feel self-righteous about being pro-life for example, to feel you’re a paladin for justice and anyone opposing you is evil.

But it’s also easy, as a Russian, to see the Russian invasion of Ukraine as justified and feel righteous about it. If you can’t do it, you don’t really get the argument.

The same can be done for the Ukrainian side (somewhat easier, if you’re a westerner.)

Because some arguments are illogical, you always have to be able to feel. There is no question Israelis took Palestinian land and are still taking it, so you have to feel what makes them think that’s good.

Same with understanding our genocide of natives in N. America.

Or, for that matter, truly understanding the emotions behind the Holocaust (which, remember was not just Jews.)

If you’re authoritarian (most Americans are, most Westerners even) you need to learn how to feel in egalitarian modes.

If you’re egalitarian, you need to learn to think in authoritarian mode (Authority is GOOD, it makes you feel safe and loved and taken care of.)

One problem with all this is that doing this engages the disgust emotion, or even contempt (contempt is the most dangerous emotion to other people, it gives license for violence.) I can’t count the number of times I’ve explained a position I don’t agree with and people have hated me.

This is especially so when you start dealing with questions of “evil”. Why are people cruel? Well, a lot of it is that pushing people around and hurting them engages the feeling of having power, and feeling powerful is enjoyable. To understand this you have to feel it.

But you’ve now felt the emotional drive-train of a certain type of evil, and others will hate or despise you for it (especially if they get a flicker), then deny it.

If you truly want to understand the world and other people, you have to be willing to engage your emotions.

It actually takes bravery, because you will feel things you really don’t want to.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

 

 

 

Failures of Democracy & the Original Intellectual Fascist

Bertrand Russel once called Plato the original intellectual fascist (in “A History of Western Philosophy,” which is well worth reading.)

In The Republic, Plato tries to come up with the ideal form of government and decides on a caste system, where children are educated, and then, based on their character and aptitude are divided into workers, enforcers, and rulers. The rulers are to be those who are philosophers by nature and training — those who love wisdom and are uninterested in wealth.

It’s easy to sneer at Plato, but there’s a reason why Whitehead’s line that “All of Western philosophy is but a footnote to Plato” has a lot of truth to it.

And one has to remember the context: Athenian democracy, the most famous in the Grecian world (and the most famous in Western history) had failed and been defeated by Sparta, after a reign of abuses which turned its allies against it. Entire cities were destroyed, with men killed and women and children sold into slavery. The most glorious city in their world, conquered and occupied.

Plato was never a democrat, and he hated Athenian democracy for killing his teacher Socrates, but he was looking at a real problem: those who became leaders in democracy were very often unsuited to rule. Pericles was great, aye, but he led Athens into a war it lost.

There are really two problems: the selection of leaders, and how they are treated. Lord Acton said that “power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Tends is important; it doesn’t happen to everyone, but it happens to most. When you’re powerful, you don’t have to care about other people without power, and over time, most people tend not to.

Further, powerful people spend time with other powerful people as equals or near equals and, in time, they become their own faction, and look after their own interests and not those of people without power.

The story of “crusading politician goes to the capital and gets corrupted” is ancient. A cliche. It’s a cliche because it happens most of the time; there are exceptions, but they are exceptions.

So, for any and all societies, the question is: How should we select leaders?

As I’ve said before, there can be no question that all societies on Earth have failed the leadership selection test (with the possible honorable exception of tiny, powerless Bhutan). We have failed because we knew of climate change and ecological collapse and we did nothing; indeed, we put our collective foot, hard, on the accelerator.

There’s an argument that this is just how humans are. There have been multiple collapses in history, including ecological, and we never seem to do anything to stop them.

But there’s another argument that we can find a better way.

Leadership and followership are related. I had this first brought home to me when I was in elementary school. From the third grade to halfway through sixth grade, I was in a class where the boys had two leaders. They were best friends, and they were friendly, inclusive of everyone, and tolerated no bullying. It wasn’t that they stopped it, though on a couple occasions did I see them step in, it was that their example was so much the opposite that it just didn’t happen.

Then, halfway through sixth grade, I went to another school and the leader of the boys was himself a bully, and bullying was rife.

Throughout my life, I’ve seen how groups and organizations become like the people who run them. Leadership is incredibly powerful, just by example, even before any “power” is used.

So the most important question in improving human society and groups is improving how we select and treat leaders, and by this measure, representative democracy has rather obviously failed.

This is noted often by conservative neo-reactionaries, but such folks are misguided at best. The eras of nobles or aristocrats (two different things), or of kings, were not better — they were often awful. The rise of agricultural kingships lead to cruelty of a type and scale hard for us now to imagine, and that continued throughout their history. One common punishment in Tudor England was opening someone’s stomach, pulling out their intestines and burning them while the person was alive; crowds would gather, treat this as entertainment and have a party while it was going on.

The answer to democracy’s failures isn’t some foolish nostalgia for a time which was worse; we need to find something genuinely new, or we will keep stumbling from catastrophe to catastrophe, and at some point said catastrophe will wipe us out.

So I suggest to readers to consider the question, which Plato tried to answer, of how to select, train, and treat rulers — and I would add that they should act in the best interests of all, especially including those they don’t know, both who are alive at the same time the leaders are, and those who will be alive after they are dead.

This is the human problem. If we can’t solve it, we can’t have good societies — save by chance and for brief periods.

DONATE OR SUBSCRIBE

The Superpower of Admitting the Obvious

It really is weird to have the “superpower” of being able to see the obvious.

Obviously, Iraq did not have WMD. Obviously, neither the Iraq nor Afghan occupations would succeed.

Obviously, letting Covid rip will cause a mass disabling event which will severely damage our societies.

Obviously China does not regard the US, in specific as a friend, as for 12 years the US has publicly stated, over and over again, that China is Enemy .

Obviously, Russia would not let Sevastapol be taken away from them.

Obviously, Russia would not let Ukraine join NATO.

Obviously, offshoring our industrial base to China would make them stronger and us weaker.

Obviously, immiserating our working class would make them hate the liberal order and vote against it when possible (Brexit/Trump, etc.).

Obviously, China has food and energy problems, and obviously, having Russia as a friend helps China fix those problems.

Obviously, China cannot trust the West for supplies, as the West has sanctioned China.

Obviously, the West hates China’s government and wants it replaced, and obviously, the Chinese government doesn’t like this and prefers Russia, which does not want to overthrow their government.

Obviously, Putin must win his war, or he will lose power and be killed.

Obviously, bailing out the rich in 2008 led to a sclerotic economy which cannot fix problems because central banks made a rule that incompetent rich people will be allowed to stay incompetent.

Obviously, not charging rich people with the crimes they committed which caused the financial crisis, but hitting them with fines which cost less than what they made would make them commit more and more crimes.

Obviously, if the rich control government (as per the Princeton Oligarchy study and common sense), and if Covid makes them much richer faster, the government will not seriously try to control Covid.

Obviously, if logistics and supply chain issues make the people who run the logistics and supply chain richer, they will not, themselves, try to solve the supply chain problems.

Obviously, the Ukrainian government’s statements about the war can be trusted just as much, or rather, just as little, as the Russian government’s statements.

Obviously, Democrats are going to lose the mid-terms, and Joe Biden will be (even more of) a lame duck.

Obviously, Biden doesn’t really mind Manchin spiking his program, or he would have gone after Manchin’s coal business or his daughter’s Epi-pen crimes.

Obviously, it will be to China’s huge, long-term advantage that they didn’t let Long Covid disable a huge percentage of their population.

Obviously, in ten years or so, almost everyone will admit that letting Covid rip was a mistake, just like most Iraq war boosters now admit they were wrong about Iraq.

Obviously, Israel is an apartheid state.

Obviously, most American, British, and Canadian politicians are terrified of the Israeli lobby and unwilling to cross it.

Obviously, the US is one of the most corrupt societies in the world, it’s just that US corruption is either legal — or if illegal, not prosecuted.

Obviously, Canada’s rich benefit from sanctions against Russia, because they sell the same things.

Obviously, having oligopolies control most of the US economy has led to inflation being much more than it would have been otherwise.

Obviously, Western central banks have spent 40 years crushing ordinary people’s wages relative to inflation.

Obviously, ex-Federal reserve governors, treasury secretaries, and most Presidents are rewarded for their services after they leave office with huge post-facto bribes, and obviously, they know they will be.

Obviously, Sinema & Manchin are being paid well to spike progressive policies.

Obviously, most European nations are American vassal states.

Obviously, giving in to American demands to reject Huawei 5G networks convinced China that European states are not trustworthy trade partners.

Obviously, Biden, who was a key driver of the bankruptcy bill which made it nearly impossible to discharge student loans in bankruptcy, was not going to cancel student loan debt.

Obviously, China does not want to accept world rules made when it was its weakest.

Obviously, India is trending dangerously authoritarian, and is in danger of eventually engaging in ethnic cleansing.

Obviously, climate change is now past the point of no return, because we clearly won’t do anything to stop it until it is too late. (Sorry, just obvious.)

Obviously, most Western elites don’t care if people they don’t know in their own societies die or are impoverished.

Obviously, our massive “shock therapy” looting of Russia in the 90s was going to lead to a strong man taking over. (I expected military, turned out to be secret police.)

Obviously, drowning the government in a bathtub would create vast corruption among private contractors and lead to an inability to handle crises like Covid which require state capacity (if we wanted to, which mostly we don’t — see above).

Obviously, Bangladesh will be one of the first non-island states to be destroyed by climate change.

Obviously, making the rich even richer will never lead to improvements for the middle and working classes, as opposed to controlling the wealth and power of the rich.

Obviously, massively inequal societies turn into oligarchies of some sort, even if they are nominally democratic.

Obviously, repeatedly invading other countries in violation of international law would make international law weaker, and make countries not inside the blessed Western circle cynical about Western law and leadership.

Obviously, sanctions never cause regime change and only hurt ordinary people (this is the record for sections, 100 percent of the time).

Obviously, Venezuela and Iran will never trust the US or the West.

Obviously, China doing most of the world’s development would make developing countries prefer them to the US.

Obviously, the Chinese would be mistrustful of Western nations and Japan for humiliating them for a century.

Obviously, many Indians prefer Russia to the US and Europe, because Russia has been a reliable ally to them since their independence, when no Western nation has.

Obviously, the invasion of Ukraine is not a worse war crime than the invasion of Iraq.

Obviously, if Putin should be tried for war crimes so should George W. Bush (and many others who never will be).

Obviously, getting the Saudis to spread their noxious form of Islam and to arm guerillas against the Soviets has blown back horribly and has caused mass devastation far beyond Afghanistan.

Obviously, centrists agree with right-wingers on most issues, because they never roll back what right-wingers do while in power.

Obviously, centrists hate left-wingers much more than they hate fascists.

Page 2 of 22

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén