Anti-lobbyist Lobby. A watchdog concept-

The purchase of politicians is part of the business of Washington D.C., and most other centers of power in the United States. "Contributions" through the lobbying industry seem to be the way of demonstrating membership in the "system." It is probably not far different in essence from the way business was done in Ancient Egypt or Babylon. Oh, some of the particulars are uniquely American, but in essence it is buying an ear. Purchasing influence.

Once a system is entrenched it is quite hard to root out. Revolutions are messy, and most don't really improve the situation. One of the most admirable aspects of our own system is the relatively bloodless changes of power. Unfortunately, our electoral system seems to offer only two flavors, and they are hard to tell apart. Is this vanilla or French vanilla? I can't tell, and it really just leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

So, I thinks a bit, does I. If you can't break down the system to overcome the system, why not mimic the system and undermine it? What I propose is a special lobby of sorts. For each professional lobbyist we field a shadow, an individual who will simply report where that lobbyist goes and with whom they meet. Then that information is made public.

This shadow lobbyist doesn't listen in, or do any spy work other than open shadowing. They follow the lobbyist to the big wig's office and just sit in the waiting room. Then they follow the lobbyist when they go out from there to meet another fat cat at a restaurant. Follow. Report. Follow. Report.

This could be a business opportunity for some enterprising American. Hey, if you are lucky the fat cats will buy you off. It could happen. It's a free country. It's even more free for those who have money, of course. If you are scrupulous you could provide a valuable service to Americans who are fed up with things as they are. If you aren't, at least you could make some money.

Just like real lobbyists.

Fear of Socialism-

When I was just a lad, ever so many years ago, I thought how wonderful it would all be if we worked together to create the things everyone needed and just gave them to each other. I am sure my vision was not particularly sophisticated, but I shared it with my father. "Oh, that would be Communism." he said.

I was shocked. I was old enough to know that Communists were evil, the enemy of all that was good. In those days sirens would blare each month to test the warning system that would tell us the evil Communists were raining nuclear fire down upon us and that it was time to duck, tuck and cover.

How could my idealistic (though simplistic) way of living together be associated with something as evil as Communism?

In the passing years I learned that seeming evil was not quite so evil as painted. I also learned that seeming good was not quite as advertised, as well. Yet terms like communism and socialism are still freighted with that burden of generalized evil. Much as capitalism seems to have a more positive spin, at least in many parts of this country.

Oh, I have seen real evil. I worked for twenty years in a jail. You can't work in an environment like that for so long without confronting evil. However, even in jail evil was not common. I have met in that time only a handful of people who were so fundamentally evil that they were as an embodiment of that nebulous term. Most inmates were either mentally ill or given to a bent toward misbehavior. Sometimes extreme misbehavior, but not essentially evil.

Generalized and great evils such as communism are actually more fabrication than fact. The communists expressed a real intent to undermine capitalist regimes and replace those regimes with communist orders. Of course, from the communist perspective the capitalists were painted as evil. Had any of the communist states held to an idealized communism such as I had imagined as a child, I would find them quite attractive and far from evil. Unfortunately, they have not. At least none of which I am aware.

Indeed, the great flaw of Communism, more specifically Marxist Communism, is that it requires an evolutionary step away from human selfishness. Recognizing that selfishness may not die an easy death, Marx admitted the likely necessity to compel people by force to adopt the communist ideals. Most of the regimes which have claimed communism as their doctrine of order have been rather stringent managers and little interested in individual rights and desires.

The great flaw of Capitalism is the very same thing. Selfish humans can and will acquire power with wealth, and unregulated capitalism does not promise much for those who lack the drive and opportunity to capitalize on such an open system. Indeed, it is to the benefit of those few who have the wealth and own the means of production to control and hold down the masses, to maintain a cheap labor pool.

I am not expert, but it appears to me that the great consumer market that marks the present era in much of the world is the consequence of a regulated capitalism. One of my former professors observed that modern communist states act more as a state capitalism than anything like true communism. As such they could participate in a consumer driven capitalist market and still maintain their delusions of being communist.

 I don't know if our current  great consumer market is a particularly good thing, but I do enjoy ready access to affordable technology and communication. My current life is pretty good, so whatever is happening seems to be working well enough from a subjective and self-interested perspective.

Human cultures ebb and flow, and exist in a state of flux. Many Communist states take away freedoms to insure stability and security. Capitalist states, or more correctly market driven states, seem to allow more freedoms, but still gravitate toward levels of regulation that constrict individual freedoms to such a degree that some citizens consider it excessive.

Increased security requires the sacrifice of freedoms. The exercise of freedom requires the acceptance of some degree of insecurity. I have seen no model or example of any social order that allows for the increase of both. I am not convinced that any ideal social order can be brought into being by humans. The ebb and flow and continual flux is the only thing that can be expected as a constant.

Should we fear socialism? I can't see why. I do not see it as a tenable system, if taken to excess. The state just cannot find sufficient resources to simply "take care" of every human need. However, I don't see anything to fear in this. An unregulated capitalism offers little more freedom to the working class individual, since those acquiring capital can use that capital to gather more, and possessing most of the resources means denying them to the rest of the people.

Indeed, fearing socialism or capitalism or anything else with a label sets you up for being manipulated by people who will sling those labels just to fire up your fears. More often than not, they will offer their position as the solution. Pursue your own interests no matter who is in power, whether Socialist, Capitalist, or Lobotomist.

Fear is a terrible foundation for your life. Do not choose fear, even if there are Socialists nearby. They rarely bite, and generally just want to meet your needs. Most often, with somebody else's money.

I Sell You Fish!

Years ago I had a friend and co-worker who was from England. He was an older gentleman, a working class fellow with working class values. He would, from time to time, relate stories from his past.

This is one of them.

The Second World War was raging as he came of age. Barely of age. He joined the British Navy at the age of seventeen, and spent some time in the North Sea and the English Channel. He was engaged in the D-Day assault, and support work after that significant day.

During one of those support cruises his ship was taking on supplies off of the coast of France. A French fisherman was selling his catch to the English liberators.

One sailor quipped, "I bet you are glad to see us."

The fisherman continued to unload his catch. As he did so, he said "When the Germans were here I sold them fish. Now you are here. I sell you fish!"

I could visualize this practical man who drew his living from the sea. Before the German occupation of France he sold his fish to the French. With the German occupation he sold his fish to the Germans. With the liberation he sold his fish to the English.

His life probably did not change much over the course of the war. His life was well ordered, though probably far from easy. He knew how to fish. Fish provided food, and procured the other things he needed in his simple life. He may have been contemplative, a deep thinker as well as deep fisher.

By his answer I would think he was probably not.

I certainly find appealing the idea of a life unaffected by the social and political winds. I just don't see our country falling to an outside foe. We still have too much power for that. I do see the possibility of us falling to economic changes, and some inward upheaval which will redefine the United States of America as something else.

Could I ride out such a shift? Could I sell my "fish" to whomever comes seeking them?

In thinking about this, I realize how bound I am to the existing way of life. I have vesture in a government pension, one for which I have worked and upon which my later life shall largely depend. I am not yet old but I am far from young. To be compelled by world events to start over is a rather unpleasant and overwhelming prospect.

It is unlikely that I shall ever be tested in this. Thinking about it, however, does emphasize just how dependent I am on the system as it is. I may long for change in that system, but I can no longer comfortably harbor thoughts of radical change.

Thinking about this old story, one I heard years ago, has compelled me to think a bit more about myself.

Perhaps I need to go fishing.

China-

I am not a China scholar. However, with the advancement of China in the world economy I began watching a bit more closely. I read a history of China, to get background, perhaps a decade ago. At that time I made a prediction based on the long tradition in China of holding the merchant class in low esteem. I predicted a slow development into the world economy because of that prejudice.

I was wrong. China today is where I expected them to be in about thirty more years. They are advancing fast. I have not been surprised by the "communist" Chinese government embracing a form of capitalism and developing a stronger economy as a result. The Russian "communists" had a state capitalism that brought them rapidly into the world economy. The Chinese have done the same.

No, the real impediment I expected was the ancient prejudice toward the merchant class. I really don't know how the dynamics are working at the individual level, but China is a real economic force and moving fast.

What I expected to be a real issue for a repressive government has been the Internet. Though they try to contain the exchange of information and opinion, I expect the Chinese to fail. This article indicates that the erosion is progressing. It will be interesting to see what develops as more and more Chinese acquire ready access to information.

For other nations, such as our own, I see a progression toward reduced freedom. This will be the result of two factors. The first is population growth. Freedom necessarily diminishes with crowding. It is simply not possible to allow unrestrained freedom on an individual level when people are confined to small spaces.

The second factor is the nature of regulatory bodies such as governments. Regulators regulate, and they will naturally move toward greater regulation of societies. Mature and aging governments become choked with regulations due to this trend. Increased regulation will necessarily diminish individual freedom. Hence, as governments mature freedom naturally declines.

These last two are matters for another discussion. My point is that China is becoming progressively more interesting. This particular movement might be repressed, but it cannot now be done quietly. The world of the Internet is aware, and watching.

The American Waffle Party-

I truly do like the ideals of the Libertarian Party. However, it is true that they are not likely to get a high level representative elected. The two party system is deeply established and any other parties seem to draw suspicion on the part of the public.

The Libertarians have been inclined to compromise the more radical ideals in order to be a viable party. That may be necessary, but it is the radical change in government that I long for.

This last election I was compelled to vote for Obama. I do not care for the Democratic Party for the most part. I do not care for the Republican Party, either. Neither has demonstrated any real competence in managing the country. My vote for Obama was a vote for change. The Bush administration has taken us in a direction I do not support. Perhaps Obama will change direction.

This brings us to my proposition for a new Party. The Waffle Party. Members of the Waffle Party do not put forth candidates. There is no particular Waffle Campaign.

What do Wafflers do? They vote the incumbent out, each and every position in each and every election. Don't let them sit long enough to do anything.

Perhaps not much will get done under the influence of the Waffle Party, but at least nobody will be in power long enough to create a particularly large mess. Cleaning up after the incumbent will become the singular task of anyone elected.

So, vote the incumbent out. Waffle for a better America.

Ivy League Leftists and Neo-Cons-

I have been poking about a bit, trying to get a more solid grip on the lovely title "Ivy League Leftist." Mostly because I had heard the term used as a pejorative aimed at Obama. Because he was of the Democratic Party (left of center) and graduated from Ivy League schools (perceived as the home of left-leaning educators) the term was applied to get reactions from those hearing it who perceived themselves as conservatives.

Essentially, an inflammatory term intended to manipulate emotions, evoking generally negative feelings and applying them to an object (Obama, in this case) to make that object less attractive.

The term Neo-Con (new conservative) was intended for use like that. Somehow it was embraced, and some web sites use the title proudly.

Generally I have perceived the left-leaning of the Democrats and the right-leaning of the Republicans as only a few degrees from center. Of course, this requires some kind of political continuum in which to view the objects under consideration. I can't see this as a line, necessarily. Indeed, I can't ever seem to find a visual to use that really applies in any meaningful way.

These parties have to come together with common goals, but are not as homogeneous as portrayed. As a Libertarian I learned that there are Libertarian elements within each of these parties. They are "working from within." That's great, for those who are Libertarian and can live with the significant compromises necessary to live in those environments.

I am glad they are there.

I know there are some pretty radical leftists wandering around in the Democratic party. I am not so sure of the Republicans, though the degree to which some of them list to the left might make it seem so. Ultimately, they are bodies in which compromises are generated in the form of policies and political goals. They each comprise a spectrum, and they both face the same challenges that face the nation.

Often I see them as two flavors of vanilla ice cream. Not the same, yet not all that different.

Neither one seems bent on loading us all into a hand-basket and sending us on a journey. For the most part, they express good intentions. They will probably fail at most of what they do, and that failure might be the best thing for us all. They have been largely failing for over two hundred years, and from my perspective things are not that bad.

Here's to another four years of muddling on.

Interesting Times-

I will forewarn you, readers. I am going to address partisan politics. I have seen some people get upset on other blogs when that happened. However, if you are reading something with the title Philosophy on Purpose you ought to expect politics to come up from time to time.

I visited Repicheep just a bit ago. I had not been there in weeks. I added his blog to my list of Following so I don't neglect a place I enjoy visiting. Repicheep expressed some strong support for McCain for President. Good arguments. Considering all that I have read and know, people who vote knowledgeably for McCain are not making a bad choice.

I am not voting for McCain. I shall vote for Obama, hoping that his victory shall put the brakes on and change the course of this country. I shall vote for him only once. I shall hope to see him out of office after four years.

I do not want "more of the same." Heinous and criminal things have taken place in the course of the Bush administration. He failed to take the nation in a viable direction, even when 9/11 gave him the potential to make great strides. No, he laid the foundation for a potential economic disaster through short-sightedness and bowing to the wealthy.

He did right going into Afghanistan. An open assault by a known enemy is an affront that must be answered by force. How it has been managed since then I do not support, but the initial response was right and good.

Manipulating that 9/11 event into justification for an entirely separate protracted war with no defined parameters for victory was criminal. Diminishing the freedoms of Americans in the name of "security" was criminal. Lying constantly and deceiving the American people was criminal. That he did so in a misguided belief that this was all good for America is tragic.

I do believe that Bush holds this course because he truly believes it to be the right course for America. I also believe he is fundamentally wrong.

McCain has sufficiently expressed his support for that course to convince me that his tenure as President would just get us in deeper. There is no victory in Iraq. No matter what we do that nation will fall into squabbling factions once we leave. Any unity they seemingly had in the past has been held by force. They will play along to get us out, then fall on one another to see who is strongest.

On to the Ivy League Left. Obama is the one left standing, but Hillary Clinton is also such a creature. I need to study these people, for I don't fully grasp what makes them tick. I understand Leftists. I have met screaming Communists, and evangelistic Communists. I have known many Socialists. They often have high ideals, and most are well-meaning people. They were all working-class people. How the Ivy League went Left I do not fully understand.

The problem I have is not with the ideals, but with the fundamental error of believing that the government is the best medium for bringing them into being. People should feed, clothe and care for themselves as much as possible, in an environment of freedom. They should not need nor desire to have the government do it. They should not be compelled to have the government do it.

Why vote for Obama, then? To begin dismantling the machine Bush and those he truly represents have been creating. Fascism may be to harsh for the direction they have been heading, but I have not seen an expansion of freedom and opportunity for the common American resulting from the present course.

It has long been my belief that the greatest strength of our system of government has been the ability to keep any one group from having power long enough to really mess things up. If nothing else, we have the option of throwing out the incumbents and altering course. Our system seems to allow this with the least fuss and bloodshed, relative to the many systems functioning today.

I long for less government and more freedom. I would love to vote Libertarian once again this year, but the need for change is too great for making statements or gestures with my vote.

This election I vote for Obama, in order to dethrone Bush. Even if his name is McCain, I would not have Bush for another four years.

Changing boxes-

We need categories in order to think about things. Things need names, and they need a "box" to show their association with other things. I say "things" even though ideas are also objects of thought. It is a simpler way to think about thinking, and ideas as objects is not an unreasonable concept.

So we put things (and ideas) into boxes. A particular thing might fit into quite a number of boxes, each box lending an element of understanding regarding that particular thing.

Political and economic ideas fit into boxes. Sometimes we confuse the box for the thing, and I think our understanding becomes muddled as a result.

As a Christian I adopted some ways of thinking that were different from my native thoughts. I adjusted my old ways based on the authority of the Christian teachings to which I had chosen to submit myself. Sometimes I adopted the American Christian cultural biases along with the more objective Christian truths. I rarely did so intentionally.

It was by virtue of this that I became a Republican for quite a number of years. Many conservative Christians with which I associated tied the Republican agenda closely to the fundamental truths of the Christian faith. I early on found flaws in this thinking, and never was fully able to embrace the Republican Party as a result.

Strangely enough, I was associated with the Christian Left at one time. I have always had sympathy for the idea of an ideal communism. It is efficient and fair, and I like that. However, any examples of Communism I have ever seen have been far from efficient or fair, and often were worse in their corrupt forms than other models being acted out throughout the world.

The association was never official, nor was it really mine. Others made the association based on my expression of the belief that the hungry should be fed, and that all people should be clothed and sheltered. I think that these are good things, and right. However, I am not Left enough to adopt the belief that government is the proper medium to provide them.

Indeed, I have never had a strong trust in government. I recognize the need of regulatory bodies to keep people from injuring each other and taking unfair advantage of those who are somehow weak. I do not necessarily believe that the government is the medium through which all people should receive all good things.

Governments tend to become corrupt, either from self-seeking people taking control of them or from age and ossification. They are not really the ideal medium for compassion. They serve well in regulating and enforcing, but generosity is not an inherent characteristic of such bureaucracies. It seems that those bodies that seek to be all to their people demand much in the way of reduced rights and freedoms in exchange.

Over time I have come to the conclusion that a minimal government is best. Let it be charged with whatever regulations and enforcements are necessary to keep people from injuring one another and some means to protect the weak from oppression. A nominal regulation in guiding people in settling conflicts seems necessary, but it should be quite carefully managed.

I believe that optimal freedom for individuals is best for all. It allows even the Christian freedom to live as they chose, and to share their beliefs freely. The Christian beliefs would have to compete in an unregulated marketplace of ideas, of course. I don't see that as problematic. In a truly open marketplace ideas that are strong would thrive.

The compassionate would be free to exercise compassion, unhindered by needless regulation or the compulsion to support some inefficient bureaucracy. Those who are less compassionate would not have their resources stolen by a system engineered to enforce compassion.

So I believe. Unfortunately, my former associates the Republicans (not without compromised assistance from the Democrats) have embroiled my country in a fruitless war. This election I will be supporting the Democrats in choice of leaders, though I do so with trepidation. I am convinced that the war must end and have a slightly greater hope in the Democrats doing so than the Republicans.

That being said, I am not jumping into their box for more than the act of voting. I see the Democrats as inclined toward creating that benevolent and intrusive government I despise. Republicans have proved intrusive without the benevolence, except for a soft heart for the wealthy. I would cast them all aside for greater freedom and less government.

Though I think in boxes, like everyone else, I recognize that life is not so neatly packaged. I am open to changing boxes, either to gain a new perspective or to bring about some desirable result.

The boxes are a tool for thinking, and should liberate thought. When they serve to confine and control, it is time to change boxes.

Carbon footprint-

I actually awoke this morning thinking about carbon footprints. What my dream must have been I do not know. The idea was in my head upon waking, and I immediately began writing about it in that very same head.

On the matter of my blog compulsion I wrote a quick blog this morning on blogoholism. That, however, is something else.

Carbon footprint. A really good idea. A way to quantify something that is otherwise rather nebulous. It is a term that paints a picture in the head of the reader.

Already I see changes. Some have come over my lifetime. I still recall the “Don’t be a litterbug” jingles and advertisements of my youth. I remember observing the visible change as the amount of debris along highways diminished in my growing up years. It stuck, at least with me. I would have to make an effort to cast trash on the ground. I WON’T be a litterbug!

I have long believed that changes in cultures come about largely due to economics. Granted, the litterbug campaign was a successful political ploy to alter the culture. However, many government manipulations fail or go astray. No, change will be driven by money.

The cost of gasoline is going up, and will not come down. This is due to other parts of the world finally advancing into modern economies. The demand is up, but the supply is limited. Add the complication of the politics of use of resources and the situation insures higher gas prices.

For nearly a hundred years our culture has grown and been fed (literally and figuratively) on fossil fuels. Now that will change.

Yuppies going green won’t really change it. Composting systems in up-scale New York apartments won’t do anything in itself. People converting fuel burning cars into electric cars, doubling the expense (or more) of the vehicle won’t do anything in itself. However, they will drive changes in technology and the availability of that technology by spending money on green things.

As these new “green things” become more common, the price will drop and they will be integrated into our way of life.

Our big, sloppy carbon footprints will eventually become smaller and cleaner. Will it be enough, soon enough? I don’t know. I do know that the potential for profit will drive people to innovate. When the cost of doing nothing becomes great enough, even the least motivated members of planet Earth will get moving.

You will be able to track them by the ever shrinking carbon footprints they leave behind.