Why Libertarianism Doesn't Work

In high school and early college, I was a libertarian. You know, the government needs to stay out of our business and let the market work, etc. I think this is a common thing for rebellious political men...like I am sure Aaron Walker is a libertarian if you really pressed him.
Anyway, after a while I began to lose faith in human beings, at least politically, and now I am some kind of Green/Democrat/Independent. And I finally realized why. Because generally I do have faith in human kind, so it seemed inconsistent to have faith in them most of the time, except when it came to boycotting evil companies and what-not.
So here is my theory on why libertarianism can't work: In democracy, candidates are basically competing over who can solve the most problems. So in order to beat one another, candidates begin, over time, to step outside of the traditional government role, and start offering to step into areas like education (Department of Education), food safety (USDA), natural disasters (FEMA), workers rights, and health care (which we are seeing now). Basically, if there is any tragedy going on, governmental or not, candidates in the fierceness of competition decide to propose the government step in. So over time, the government becomes larger.
Once politicians began solving these problems, people became dependent. For example, instead of boycotting Wal-Mart, people just demanded that the government raise minimum wage. In the Earthquake in San Francisco in the early 1900s, the relief effort was completely led by private organizations. Yet in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the government was expected to help everyone out. And its not because people didn't want to help--it is just implied to people that nowadays the government is in charge of making sure people aren't starving, etc. Which is caused by the competition of democracy.
The only way to create a libertarian society would be to start over again with the premise that everyone thought about what they were supporting with there actions. This would be tough, and I am not sure if it would even be desired. What a hassle it would be to research everything you bought.
So, in sum, democracy naturally leads to more and more government control, or socialism. Wow...I am a Marxist.

(This doesn't mean that civil liberties have to go away though. That is separate from free-market business liberalism)

I could be fired for this.

originally this was about a three page long post.
But it was a whiny rant about my job.
So let me just sum it up:

Go read George Ritzer's "The McDonaldization of Society" and you will understand who I am. And it will change you too, if you give a damn.
I read it about 4 years ago, and it effects my life and worldview everyday.

Flags at Half-Mast

If there is something I generally believe, it is that doing something over and over again makes it become meaningless. When everything is 'amazing', hearing you say it doesn't mean anything. It goes the same for when everything 'sucks'.

And I'm not just talking about phrases. I swear that 90% of the time the Old Capitol building is flying at half mast. Listen: People die. And it is a sad event. But save flying the flag at half-mast for a world leader's asasination or something! Not when some guy who's wife used to work at the Java House in the IMU dies.
When I see the flag flying at half-mast, I think it should be the death of someone whom at least 40% of the community has heard of. That is my new rule. Go--petition the Board of Regents.

Nietszche

I should have known a man with 4 consecutive consonants in his name would be the root of all evil. I am about 50 pages into "The Will to Power", which would have been Nietszche's magnum opus, had he decided to piece together the scraps into some kind of coherent whole. But, he went nuts, so, well, shucks--we have to deal with what some editor did with a series of notebooks full of incoherent thoughts.

I will give him that I have only read a tenth of the book--so maybe I am being biased. But this guy sucks. I would blame Nietzsche for Nazi Germany--reading "The Will to Power" is like reading the Third Reich.
You see, Nietzsche thinks that 'morals' are a human invention to try to justify our 'weakness'. To Nietzsche, treating people fairly, giving them rights, assuming other people as equals, etc.--these are all signs of weakness. He is a radical social Darwinist--he says that we are going against nature by helping out those in need--the strong man would say to the weak 'perish!' and be done with them. I induce from this that emotions are pretty much worthless as well.
Forget that Darwin wouldn't endorse this, and that Nietzsche had no scientific backing. And listen--I'm ok with people holding radical views, I really am. But at least somehow justify them. Nietzsche treats everything as a fact. All of this is stated assertively, there are no arguments--not even weak ones.
I guess the only sense in which Nietzsche's ideas are 'dangerous' is to people who assume everything they read is true, because I find it hard to believe any intelligent person would buy into this.

But hey. Maybe I'm just missing something. I guess I'll keep reading.

The Omnivore's Dilemma

I am about halfway through this Michael Pollan book, which is more or less the culmination of my summer project of deciding what kind of diet is the most ethical. Its been a rough ride--I started off thinking vegetarian, then vegan, then vegetarian, then all organic, etc etc. There is so much information on the subject it sucks. I like making ethical decisions that involve complex information but yet a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer to engaging in a given act. But with food its just too hard. There are so many levels.
One dilemma I haven't been able to solve is the one raised by my conservative father--if organic and local food use so much less energy, why are they more expensive? Shouldn't the switch to organic and more sustainable farming happen through simple economics? When factory farming stops becoming profitable because of all the waste the market will change things for the better, won't it?
I don't have an adequate response to this, because I'm just not sure. By that time it may be too late. David Pimentel says that by the time this happens, our soil will be shot and he estimates that the Earth will only be able to permanently feed 2 billion people using conventional farming methods. Currently we have enough food for all 6 billion (though many don't get fed for other varying reasons). Pimentel says that even switching to organic we would only be able to feed about 5 billion permanently, but thats much better.
Will the market just switch as factory farming begins to fall apart? Yeah, probably. The question is whether or not this will be too late. And the answer to that question, I'm not sure of. If someone could convince me that basic economics will work it out, I probably would switch back to conventional food. Its much cheaper--and I'm not worried about the chemicals in my body, because if they do any harm I'm already screwed anyway.

That is the only objection I can't yet answer.

As of now, I think I have decided to allow myself some gray area, but try to make a slow process of switching over to organic, local, and whole foods. I'm going to try and slowly ween myself off of processed foods, and try to buy just the basics (eggs, butter, flour, vegetables, fruits, etc.). I discovered the Co-op in town is lovely enough to print on the sign of all the fresh produce where it comes from, so I can focus on buying produce that is from Iowa (as I found out in Pollan's book, 3/4 of organic produce comes from the San Joahin Valley in California)--local is probably the most important when it comes to reducing our carbon footprint, because transportation is huge when it comes to fossil fuel waste. Fertilizers are the other big one, and that is where organic comes from.
I've also decided I can eat grass-fed organic meat, because even though it takes 10 pounds of feed to make a pound of meat, we can't eat grass anyway, so why let it go to waste? This is awesome, I LOVE meat and its good to be back; unfortunately, for all practical purposes I am still a vegetarian, because grass-fed beef is expensive as hell.
If anyone else happens to be interested in where they can buy this kind of hippie crap, check out this for a great resource on finding locally grown food in your area, wherever that may be. Pollan makes it seem like the grass-fed farmer he spends a week with is one of like five left in the country, but this just isn't true. There are 8 sustainable farms within 20 miles of me.

And a final note--if, on the long shot, you are throwing a get together and happen to invite me, don't feel bad about serving good ol' corn fed conventional steak or what-have-you. Your moral decisions are your own, and I realize I am taking a leap of faith on this one. So feed me what you want, I will eat any free food.
I don't mind people coming to different conclusions about what they should eat. But I seriously encourage people thinking more about what they buy and where there money is going. In a capitalist society like ours, how we spend our money defines us--and this includes ethically. I once thought cheap was always best--but then I realized there are ways to help those in sweat-shops in Cambodia and lower your carbon footprint without being rich. All it takes is spending the money you DO have on things you DO need in an informed and ethical way.

And now, I step off of the soap box.

Oh wait. one more thing. Has Lieberman gone mad?

Why I don't read Tabloids

Why is it wrong to support tabloids by giving them time and money?
Because now our society's definition of news looks something like this.

Primaries, Third Parties, my Support goes to....

Well, we are through two Democratic debates and anyone who gives a shit probably knows at least a bit about the major candidates. But before I give my list from my favorites to least favorites, let me explain why I have decided this is important. Let's face it, after 8 years of Bush, and a war with very low approval ratings, it is very likely a Democrat will become President next. Of course, this might just be because I live in Iowa City, because in 2004 I thought there was not much of a way Bush could win again. Nevertheless, national polls are against Republicans right now, and most experts think the Democrats will continue to sweep elections until this unpopular war ends.
And that is why the Democratic primaries are so important to me, and why I feel endorsing a Candidate is important early this time around.

Secondly, before I get to the ratings, I want to reiterate my sentiment from last year that in local races everyone should support third parties on principle. Green, libertarian, whatever--a duopoly is not a good system. It isn't democracy. I read a good article about that here.
(If that link is weird, just go to desmoinesregister.com and search 'green party'.

Anyway, I have done a little research on the third party candidates, and I'm not too impressed with any of them. So here is my ranking of the current democratic candidates, from best to last. (By the way, of the Republicans, I like Guiliani, but in all truth, the republicans look pathetic. They continue to rely on fear mongering.)

1. John Edwards - I love this man. Charismatic, universal mandatory health-care (with an actual plan to back it up). What makes him stand out? I have never seen such a serious candidate come out and tell the truth: Taxes need to be raised. WOW. Balls.
2. Denis Kucinich - I love Denis. He was my guy at first. Nothing like a hippie politician. He really believes what he says, but he is too much of a peacenik even for me. I love peace; but a Department of Peace? C'mon dude.
3. Joe Biden - "We need to rid of regime change as a foreign policy." Thank you Joe. Secondly, on Darfur "We can sit here all day and talk. That is all anyone ever does about Darfur. We need to send in peace keeping U.S. troops now. While we are sitting here talking, 50,000 more people are dying." (These are both paraphrases.)
4. Bill Richardson - Honestly, I can't really stand the guy. But he has a ton of experience and has been nominated for the nobel peace prize 4 times...very pragmatic, but a question dodger.
5. Mike Gravel - Ok, he is a loose canon. I don't want him to be President. But I want him to continue to be at the debates to call people out on their shit. He called out the senators, along with Kucinich, on not ending the war (yes it is in their power, comment on this if you want to dispute it). And he called Hilary out on her 'balanced budget'--it was balanced because of money taken from social security.
6. Christopher Dodd
7. Barack Obama - You know, I like how Obama speaks. But he is a Democrat who wants to add to the Pentagon budget. What is that?
8. Hilary Clinton - I don't like her, I think she is a politician's politician. In the last debate all she did was point out how alike the democrats were in an effort to make her views ok. And also shifted all blame to Bush. She is running on the 'anything but another Bush' ticket. (See John Kerry).

So, not surprisingly, the popular (and more moderate) candidates are at the bottom. But surprisingly, for me at least, my favorite presidential candidate actually does have a chance of winning for once. I don't think anyone I've ever voted for on the national level has ever won. I didn't even vote for Loebsack! So, maybe, if Edwards can push forward, I can actually back a winner. He is in third in the polls now, but a lot of people think he won the debate on Sunday. Thats a good sign.

William James

William James, co-founder of American Pragmatism, taught me something wonderful last semester, so let me share. All of our beliefs rest on other beliefs. Those beliefs rest on further beliefs, etc., until we reach our foundational beliefs. These beliefs can vary widely, from 'There is an external world', to 'God exists', to modus ponens. But the fact is, these beliefs are foundationless--that is what makes them foundational. To the individual, they are seen as self-evident. But to someone who disagrees, it is impossible to argue with them. These beliefs are at the center of our belief-web, and as such are not accesible to alteration, without starting from scratch, which is most likely psychologically impossible.
But when you find yourself in an argument with someone and you reach a point at which foundational beliefs differ, just remember that theirs has as much grounding as yours; none. As long as a person's beliefs are consistent with one another, and as long as their inferences and deductions are not flawed, their system is as good as yours.
So I guess the lesson here is tolerance.
James says, and I agree, that any belief system which is self-consistent and explains all given evidence (sensible evidence, that is), it is as good a system as any.
So, sorry pretentious scientists, but a reflective and rational theist is on as good a ground as you are. I have to remind myself of this too, as I tend to take science's side on most matters. But unfortunately, unless you can point out an inconsistency, the creationist is perfectly ok to say God put dinosaur bones there as a test, or something like that.
Don't worry--when I first realized this I thought it meant all meaningful argument was impossible, until I realized that everyone's belief system (including my own) has so many logical inconsistencies that just working these inconsistencies out creates endless debate possibilities. For one fun example, how about the fact that most Christians believe in ghosts even though Christian theology doesn't allow such a thing.
I'm not trying to rip into Christians--scientists do the same kind of shit.

Just remember, be tolerant of anyone who uses good reasoning from their beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be.