Conditions ripe for uprising across America

[JimC]

Seth

Suppressing insurrection and treasonous attempts to violently overthrow the U.S. government is a legitimate government duty and objective.

You could take out the "U.S." from that sentence, no? Saying that, any government action, anywhere, to suppress insurrection is legitimate, correct?

Yup, you could, if the government in question is a legitimate Constitutional Republic that respects the rights of the individual and the rule of law, and is not a socialist, communist or other despotic tyranny of either the left or right.

For the citizens of socialist, communist or other despotic tyrannies, insurrection is a civil right because it is the government that is illegitimate.

For example, sedition and insurrection against the government of the United States is illegitimate. However, insurrection against the government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, or Castro, or France for that matter, is legitimate, becasue those governments are despotic tyrannies.

that's what I thought.

Have to agree...

France?

Apparently, what is sauce for the goose is definitely not sauce for the gander...

However, there is a serious issue somewhere in the garbage. At one end of the scale, in normally functioning, reasonably democratic governments, change should come via the ballot box, often accompanied a variety of political movements, agitation, peaceful protests etc. A government in this context is being perfectly reasonable to supress violent, armed insurrection.
At some point in the scale, however, utterly tyrannical governments that provide absolutely no alternative mechanisms for change could be legitimate targets for armed citizen revolt. There are probably grey areas between, of course...

[sandinista]

Seth

Suppressing insurrection and treasonous attempts to violently overthrow the U.S. government is a legitimate government duty and objective.

You could take out the "U.S." from that sentence, no? Saying that, any government action, anywhere, to suppress insurrection is legitimate, correct?

Yup, you could, if the government in question is a legitimate Constitutional Republic that respects the rights of the individual and the rule of law, and is not a socialist, communist or other despotic tyranny of either the left or right.

For the citizens of socialist, communist or other despotic tyrannies, insurrection is a civil right because it is the government that is illegitimate.

For example, sedition and insurrection against the government of the United States is illegitimate. However, insurrection against the government of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, or Castro, or France for that matter, is legitimate, becasue those governments are despotic tyrannies.

that's what I thought.

Have to agree...

France?

Apparently, what is sauce for the goose is definitely not sauce for the gander...

However, there is a serious issue somewhere in the garbage. At one end of the scale, in normally functioning, reasonably democratic governments, change should come via the ballot box, often accompanied a variety of political movements, agitation, peaceful protests etc. A government in this context is being perfectly reasonable to supress violent, armed insurrection.
At some point in the scale, however, utterly tyrannical governments that provide absolutely no alternative mechanisms for change could be legitimate targets for armed citizen revolt. There are probably grey areas between, of course...

In most "democratic" government, change via the ballot is not going to happen. "Democracy" has been utterly bastardized and the ballot box is virtually meaningless except for perhaps local elections with very small, largely meaningless changes in insignificant policies. When you mention agitation, I would ask what you mean by that. "Peaceful protests" are ineffectual at best, as of late, virtually impossible due to police violence, intimidation, and infiltration. It also matters, a lot, how one defines a "tyrannical government", and "change" for that matter.

[JimC]

sandinista wrote:

In most "democratic" government, change via the ballot is not going to happen. "Democracy" has been utterly bastardized and the ballot box is virtually meaningless except for perhaps local elections with very small, largely meaningless changes in insignificant policies. When you mention agitation, I would ask what you mean by that. "Peaceful protests" are ineffectual at best, as of late, virtually impossible due to police violence, intimidation, and infiltration. It also matters, a lot, how one defines a "tyrannical government", and "change" for that matter.

1. Change can certainly occur via these means, it simply will not be the revolutionary transformation of society and economy that you define as the only worthwhile change. Trouble is, the overwhelming majority of people in western countries disagree with you...

2. Agitation includes many political acts, virtually any determined push for change short of violence. It could include mass strikes by a united union movement, for example.

3. I don't know where you get the idea that peaceful protests are made impossible by "police violence, intimidation, and infiltration" Both in Oz, and other places around the world, there have been plenty of mass, peaceful protests about a variety of issues. Some tyrannical Arab regimes have been particularly violent recently, it's true - they probably fit into my second category anyway... There has been police violence in other contexts, sometimes unjustified (in which case the police should be pursued in the courts and in the press), but sometimes in response to an anarchist minority within a peaceful protest starting to trash buildings and burn cars.

4. Peaceful protest can cause change. It may be a slow process, but it can also be a part of a powerful momentum within society for change. I too can be cynical about some aspects of modern democracy, including the power wielded by money in moulding candidates and political parties. However, it does not always have to be like that.

[Coito ergo sum]

In most "democratic" government, change via the ballot is not going to happen. "Democracy" has been utterly bastardized and the ballot box is virtually meaningless except for perhaps local elections with very small, largely meaningless changes in insignificant policies. When you mention agitation, I would ask what you mean by that. "Peaceful protests" are ineffectual at best, as of late, virtually impossible due to police violence, intimidation, and infiltration. It also matters, a lot, how one defines a "tyrannical government", and "change" for that matter.

Well, if life is pretty good for most folks who vote, then you're not likely to have people vote for dramatic change. And, why would they? Change for change sake isn't necessarily good. It might be, but calling for "change" is among the single most retarded platitudes in politics. "We need change!" Such a load of steaming bullshit. No. You need A CERTAIN KIND of change. Not just any old change. What people really need is "improvement," not just "change."

And, of course in a society where people largely do fairly well - make money - raise a family - have some things to do with their discretionary time - are warm and fed, etc. In a society like that, you're not going to get the bulk of the population rising up to overthrow their relatively comfortable environment.

And, there are plenty of popular forces that oppose whatever "change" one group wants. Just because YOU want a certain change to happen doesn't mean your opinion is shared by most folks out there. And, frankly there is plenty of change in the offing that I can do without (although there is plenty of change that I'm in favor of).

[Seth]

In most "democratic" government, change via the ballot is not going to happen. "Democracy" has been utterly bastardized and the ballot box is virtually meaningless except for perhaps local elections with very small, largely meaningless changes in insignificant policies. When you mention agitation, I would ask what you mean by that. "Peaceful protests" are ineffectual at best, as of late, virtually impossible due to police violence, intimidation, and infiltration. It also matters, a lot, how one defines a "tyrannical government", and "change" for that matter.

Well, if life is pretty good for most folks who vote, then you're not likely to have people vote for dramatic change. And, why would they? Change for change sake isn't necessarily good. It might be, but calling for "change" is among the single most retarded platitudes in politics. "We need change!" Such a load of steaming bullshit. No. You need A CERTAIN KIND of change. Not just any old change. What people really need is "improvement," not just "change."

And, of course in a society where people largely do fairly well - make money - raise a family - have some things to do with their discretionary time - are warm and fed, etc. In a society like that, you're not going to get the bulk of the population rising up to overthrow their relatively comfortable environment.

And, there are plenty of popular forces that oppose whatever "change" one group wants. Just because YOU want a certain change to happen doesn't mean your opinion is shared by most folks out there. And, frankly there is plenty of change in the offing that I can do without (although there is plenty of change that I'm in favor of).

Yup, that nails it.

The problem we in the US face today is that a country weary of the Iraq war and fed up with George Bush's Progressive expansion of government bought the vague Obama propaganda of "Change" and "fundamental transformation" without critically examining what he meant by either term. Obama carefully kept his Marxist origins and affiliations quiet and gave no details during his campaign about what he intended to do in anything other than the vaguest, most platitudinous terms. And the Republicans melted down at the same instant and were unable to field a viable candidate to oppose him because they abandoned their core principles for Progressivism as well.

Obama did what Alexander Tytler warned us of more than two hundred years ago, he pandered to the dependent class and promised them largess from the public treasury.

That's what they wanted, which was to increase their comfort level, so they voted for him.

The majority did not vote for Obama BECAUSE he was a fire-breathing Marxist advocating revolutionary change in our entire political system. They voted for him because he promised them "Obama money," health care, and an end to the war. And many voted for him simply because he is black and didn't give a fuck what his policies were. He could have been Josef Stalin reincarnated and they still would have voted for him simply because he is black.

But when people, including many of the blacks who voted for him, found out what he REALLY had in mind, they voted in November to put a damper on his nefarious plans because in the end, we are NOT socialists, we DO believe in individual liberty, and for the most part we understand that you can't kill the goose that lays the golden egg and expect the economy to survive. As a nation, we prefer political and economic stability to ideology, and will vote to secure stability over ideology, whether that means voting to the left or the right. Obama promised stability, and failed to produce it, and instead produced more economic instability and long-term debt than any other national leader in the history of the world, and he did it in violation of the principles of fair and open government that we, as a nation, still hold dear. So, he's being slapped down and will never serve a second term as a result, if the Republicans can manage to put up even a marginally qualified and politically-center candidate.

[sandinista]

sandinista wrote:

In most "democratic" government, change via the ballot is not going to happen. "Democracy" has been utterly bastardized and the ballot box is virtually meaningless except for perhaps local elections with very small, largely meaningless changes in insignificant policies. When you mention agitation, I would ask what you mean by that. "Peaceful protests" are ineffectual at best, as of late, virtually impossible due to police violence, intimidation, and infiltration. It also matters, a lot, how one defines a "tyrannical government", and "change" for that matter.

1. Change can certainly occur via these means, it simply will not be the revolutionary transformation of society and economy that you define as the only worthwhile change. Trouble is, the overwhelming majority of people in western countries disagree with you...

Of course the majority in wealthy countries don't want to see a radical change, they are happy living in their materialist comfort. The problem with that is, their wealth and privilege comes at the expense of others. It's not a matter of "wanting" change, it's that a change needs to, and will, happen. It may take a radical shift to make that change happen (really high oil prices is one possibility) but it will happen. The "changes" which occur via the ballot are only surface/cosmetic changes. Reforms don't address the problems inherent in neo liberal capitalism. As long as permanent "growth" and profit are the main drivers of the economy we will continue to have mass amounts of poverty, hunger, inequality, and human exploitation around the planet, not to mention the attack on the environment.

sandinista wrote:

In most "democratic" government, change via the ballot is not going to happen. "Democracy" has been utterly bastardized and the ballot box is virtually meaningless except for perhaps local elections with very small, largely meaningless changes in insignificant policies. When you mention agitation, I would ask what you mean by that. "Peaceful protests" are ineffectual at best, as of late, virtually impossible due to police violence, intimidation, and infiltration. It also matters, a lot, how one defines a "tyrannical government", and "change" for that matter.

2. Agitation includes many political acts, virtually any determined push for change short of violence. It could include mass strikes by a united union movement, for example.

Again, I can only speak for canaduh, but mass strikes, very much like protests, are virtually illegal here. Any strike which causes serious problems for the ruling class will result in the strikers being "legislated" back to work.

sandinista wrote:

In most "democratic" government, change via the ballot is not going to happen. "Democracy" has been utterly bastardized and the ballot box is virtually meaningless except for perhaps local elections with very small, largely meaningless changes in insignificant policies. When you mention agitation, I would ask what you mean by that. "Peaceful protests" are ineffectual at best, as of late, virtually impossible due to police violence, intimidation, and infiltration. It also matters, a lot, how one defines a "tyrannical government", and "change" for that matter.

3. I don't know where you get the idea that peaceful protests are made impossible by "police violence, intimidation, and infiltration" Both in Oz, and other places around the world, there have been plenty of mass, peaceful protests about a variety of issues. Some tyrannical Arab regimes have been particularly violent recently, it's true - they probably fit into my second category anyway... There has been police violence in other contexts, sometimes unjustified (in which case the police should be pursued in the courts and in the press), but sometimes in response to an anarchist minority within a peaceful protest starting to trash buildings and burn cars.

I get the "idea' from experience. The last G20 protest in canaduh is a prime example. Again, I should preface with "in canaduh". I have never been to OZ and really don't know.

sandinista wrote:

In most "democratic" government, change via the ballot is not going to happen. "Democracy" has been utterly bastardized and the ballot box is virtually meaningless except for perhaps local elections with very small, largely meaningless changes in insignificant policies. When you mention agitation, I would ask what you mean by that. "Peaceful protests" are ineffectual at best, as of late, virtually impossible due to police violence, intimidation, and infiltration. It also matters, a lot, how one defines a "tyrannical government", and "change" for that matter.

4. Peaceful protest can cause change. It may be a slow process, but it can also be a part of a powerful momentum within society for change. I too can be cynical about some aspects of modern democracy, including the power wielded by money in moulding candidates and political parties. However, it does not always have to be like that.

Peaceful protests, may have been able to cause cosmetic changes in the past, not so true anymore.

[Coito ergo sum]

If what you're selling, sandi, is that people in the US, Canada, and western Europe have to drop down to the level of third world countries in order to make it all equal, then you'll never get the majority of people behind your cause. Everyone is all for equality, but they're only for bringing others up to their same level.

Think about it - what you'll find in almost any discussion is that people get a bit solipsistiic about it. They point fingers at those they consider to be the wasters and the hoarders and the greedy folk among us. The rich are never "us" - it's always "them." Say to someone, though, "you'll have to give up your A/C and drive little shit-box car from now one, and only one car for a family, not two - and houses will have to be halved in size..." and you'll get a reaction as if that would be oh, so unreasonable.

In one sense I do agree with you sandi. We in the west ARE the rich. Much of the rest of the world doesn't have decent water, let alone decent transportation, food, huge houses and climate controlled interiors. Much of the rest of the world still doesn't have one flush toilet per family, let alone 3 or 4 like we have. Fuck, we in the west have perfectly clean water coming out of our faucets, and we still buy bottled water from the store because we need to think that the water has been filtered more.

What most Americans and Canadians mean, IMHO, when they say "we want equality around the world," is "we want everybody to live as good as us, but we're not cutting back in a meaningful way." Some folks will try to make cuts that save energy - that's easy - but, it's never done with any real sacrifice. Nobody is going to be uncomfortably hot in the summer in the US - the A/C will go on. We might buy a more energy efficient A/C unit, but that's the extent of it.

The west won't give up it's comfortable lifestyle for the sake of equality without a fight. The only way to get equality without fighting is to build up economies around the world so that those people also have the the same access to make money and buy things as people in the west, and they need to get an infrastructure that supports them with clean water, energy and sewerage systems.

[sandinista]

If what you're selling, sandi, is that people in the US, Canada, and western Europe have to drop down to the level of third world countries in order to make it all equal, then you'll never get the majority of people behind your cause. Everyone is all for equality, but they're only for bringing others up to their same level.

Think about it - what you'll find in almost any discussion is that people get a bit solipsistiic about it. They point fingers at those they consider to be the wasters and the hoarders and the greedy folk among us. The rich are never "us" - it's always "them." Say to someone, though, "you'll have to give up your A/C and drive little shit-box car from now one, and only one car for a family, not two - and houses will have to be halved in size..." and you'll get a reaction as if that would be oh, so unreasonable.

In one sense I do agree with you sandi. We in the west ARE the rich. Much of the rest of the world doesn't have decent water, let alone decent transportation, food, huge houses and climate controlled interiors. Much of the rest of the world still doesn't have one flush toilet per family, let alone 3 or 4 like we have. Fuck, we in the west have perfectly clean water coming out of our faucets, and we still buy bottled water from the store because we need to think that the water has been filtered more.

What most Americans and Canadians mean, IMHO, when they say "we want equality around the world," is "we want everybody to live as good as us, but we're not cutting back in a meaningful way." Some folks will try to make cuts that save energy - that's easy - but, it's never done with any real sacrifice. Nobody is going to be uncomfortably hot in the summer in the US - the A/C will go on. We might buy a more energy efficient A/C unit, but that's the extent of it.

The west won't give up it's comfortable lifestyle for the sake of equality without a fight. The only way to get equality without fighting is to build up economies around the world so that those people also have the the same access to make money and buy things as people in the west, and they need to get an infrastructure that supports them with clean water, energy and sewerage systems.

The simple fact is, the whole planet cannot live like the west. It simple will not and cannot happen. There are not enough resources to go around. I'm also not saying that people in the wealthy countries have to live at 3rd world standards, I'm saying that the excess is not reasonable, people live in pure excess, golf courses in deserts, 3 SUV's, 4 houses, etc...I'm not talking about taking away a janitors two bedroom house and car.

[Seth]

sandinista wrote:

In most "democratic" government, change via the ballot is not going to happen. "Democracy" has been utterly bastardized and the ballot box is virtually meaningless except for perhaps local elections with very small, largely meaningless changes in insignificant policies. When you mention agitation, I would ask what you mean by that. "Peaceful protests" are ineffectual at best, as of late, virtually impossible due to police violence, intimidation, and infiltration. It also matters, a lot, how one defines a "tyrannical government", and "change" for that matter.

1. Change can certainly occur via these means, it simply will not be the revolutionary transformation of society and economy that you define as the only worthwhile change. Trouble is, the overwhelming majority of people in western countries disagree with you...

Of course the majority in wealthy countries don't want to see a radical change, they are happy living in their materialist comfort.

Yeah? So? That's the earnest desire of every human being on the planet.

The problem with that is, their wealth and privilege comes at the expense of others.

How so?

It's not a matter of "wanting" change, it's that a change needs to, and will, happen.

I doubt it. Human nature wants peace and stability, not chaos and death.

It may take a radical shift to make that change happen (really high oil prices is one possibility) but it will happen.

Marxists have been saying this for a long time, but it still never works out for them.

The "changes" which occur via the ballot are only surface/cosmetic changes. Reforms don't address the problems inherent in neo liberal capitalism. As long as permanent "growth" and profit are the main drivers of the economy we will continue to have mass amounts of poverty, hunger, inequality, and human exploitation around the planet, not to mention the attack on the environment.

Ah, the "have not" argument. Here's a clue for you: there will always be hunger, inequality and human exploitation around the planet so long as there are human beings running things. The way that changes is when the people themselves decide that they want individual freedom and are willing to accept individual responsibility for their own actions and economic futures, rather than depending on somebody else to give it to them. When you surrender your well-being to someone else in return for subsistence living, that person is going to feel entitled to rule you and be compensated for providing you with a little temporary safety. That's the position that the people you refer to are in. They have surrendered their autonomy and their liberty to someone else in return for the illusion of safety and security. They will only prosper when they take responsibility for themselves, and insist on being free and on being able to enjoy the fruits of their labor without having them seized for redistribution to others.

Again, I can only speak for canaduh, but mass strikes, very much like protests, are virtually illegal here. Any strike which causes serious problems for the ruling class will result in the strikers being "legislated" back to work.

Imagine that. Government doing its job to promote and enforce economic stability in the face of economy-crippling Marxist revolutionary tactics. Good for Canada.

I get the "idea' from experience. The last G20 protest in canaduh is a prime example. Again, I should preface with "in canaduh". I have never been to OZ and really don't know.

Don't you mean the "G20 anarchist/Marxist riots?"

Peaceful protests, may have been able to cause cosmetic changes in the past, not so true anymore.

And now you understand why the rest of us find it necessary to arm ourselves against violent insurrectionists and to use force to suppress "G20 protests" which are actually programmed Marxist violence intended to foment overthrow of the government.

[Coito ergo sum]

The simple fact is, the whole planet cannot live like the west. It simple will not and cannot happen. There are not enough resources to go around. I'm also not saying that people in the wealthy countries have to live at 3rd world standards, I'm saying that the excess is not reasonable, people live in pure excess, golf courses in deserts, 3 SUV's, 4 houses, etc...I'm not talking about taking away a janitors two bedroom house and car.

Well, now we're talkin' !

I don't think, however, that you do a damn thing for the world as a whole by taking away the few bits that have 3 SUV's and 4 houses. The overwhelmingly vast majority of people have one house which they rent or finance - it's often much bigger than they need, though. I bet most of those teachers up in Wisconsin live in places that are far in excess of a two bedroom house, but they only have one house.

I think this may be one of our main sticking points, sandi. I don't think your numbers work. I don't think that just taking away golf courses in deserts, 2 of 3 SUV's from those who have more than one, and not allowing people to have more than one house is sufficient - even if shifted perfectly efficiently - to the rest of the world. Even assuming reducing our standard of living would have any effect of increasing someone in India's standard of living (which is another point entirely), there just is no way there could be any effect at all without a dramatic reduction in the common person's standard of living in the US and Canada. Our janitors live way better than the average person in India - miles better.

[Seth]

The simple fact is, the whole planet cannot live like the west. It simple will not and cannot happen. There are not enough resources to go around. I'm also not saying that people in the wealthy countries have to live at 3rd world standards, I'm saying that the excess is not reasonable, people live in pure excess, golf courses in deserts, 3 SUV's, 4 houses, etc...I'm not talking about taking away a janitors two bedroom house and car.

But you ARE talking about "taking away" what YOU feel is "excess" that is not "reasonable" to you.

Well, here's a little warning: Those of us who worked hard to obtain that "excess" aren't going to allow you to take it away, and we'll use whatever force is required to prevent you from doing so, up to and including lethal force. You might want to take note of that.

Now, that being said, it is our "excess" that allows us to be generous and altruistic towards the less fortunate, which is why the citizens of the United States give more to poor and needy people in all parts of the world than any other nation on earth, and have for many decades.

You can ASK US for help, and we almost always help out of the goodness of our hearts and because we have disposable wealth we can dedicate to charity. But if you DEMAND it of us, as by right, and you try to TAKE IT from us, we will resist, just as we would resist any thief in the night trying to steal our property.

[sandinista]

The simple fact is, the whole planet cannot live like the west. It simple will not and cannot happen. There are not enough resources to go around. I'm also not saying that people in the wealthy countries have to live at 3rd world standards, I'm saying that the excess is not reasonable, people live in pure excess, golf courses in deserts, 3 SUV's, 4 houses, etc...I'm not talking about taking away a janitors two bedroom house and car.

Well, now we're talkin' !

I don't think, however, that you do a damn thing for the world as a whole by taking away the few bits that have 3 SUV's and 4 houses. The overwhelmingly vast majority of people have one house which they rent or finance - it's often much bigger than they need, though. I bet most of those teachers up in Wisconsin live in places that are far in excess of a two bedroom house, but they only have one house.

I think this may be one of our main sticking points, sandi. I don't think your numbers work. I don't think that just taking away golf courses in deserts, 2 of 3 SUV's from those who have more than one, and not allowing people to have more than one house is sufficient - even if shifted perfectly efficiently - to the rest of the world. Even assuming reducing our standard of living would have any effect of increasing someone in India's standard of living (which is another point entirely), there just is no way there could be any effect at all without a dramatic reduction in the common person's standard of living in the US and Canada. Our janitors live way better than the average person in India - miles better.

Coito, when I say golf courses, SUV's whathaveyou they are only examples. I am not saying "take those away and voila, equality."

[Coito ergo sum]

The simple fact is, the whole planet cannot live like the west. It simple will not and cannot happen. There are not enough resources to go around. I'm also not saying that people in the wealthy countries have to live at 3rd world standards, I'm saying that the excess is not reasonable, people live in pure excess, golf courses in deserts, 3 SUV's, 4 houses, etc...I'm not talking about taking away a janitors two bedroom house and car.

Well, now we're talkin' !

I don't think, however, that you do a damn thing for the world as a whole by taking away the few bits that have 3 SUV's and 4 houses. The overwhelmingly vast majority of people have one house which they rent or finance - it's often much bigger than they need, though. I bet most of those teachers up in Wisconsin live in places that are far in excess of a two bedroom house, but they only have one house.

I think this may be one of our main sticking points, sandi. I don't think your numbers work. I don't think that just taking away golf courses in deserts, 2 of 3 SUV's from those who have more than one, and not allowing people to have more than one house is sufficient - even if shifted perfectly efficiently - to the rest of the world. Even assuming reducing our standard of living would have any effect of increasing someone in India's standard of living (which is another point entirely), there just is no way there could be any effect at all without a dramatic reduction in the common person's standard of living in the US and Canada. Our janitors live way better than the average person in India - miles better.

Coito, when I say golf courses, SUV's whathaveyou they are only examples. I am not saying "take those away and voila, equality."

Yes, I know they are only examples. I suspect that there are plenty of other examples, and I expect that they are often of a kind that fewer people would consider them "excess."

What would you call Air Conditioning? People lived just fine without it, by and large, even in Florida and Texas - right up into the 80s. Then the A/C boom occurred - and now it's a necessity. Is it? Most of the rest of the world doesn't have it -- Africa - Asia - South America - all relatively devoid of air conditioning units. Will the west have to give up its A/C?

What are the difficult examples? That's what I'm trying to get at. It's easy to say "we need to get rid of excess" -- and then everyone goes, "oh, yeah sure, we can get behind that because, well, excess is, well....excessive." But, then start listing examples...."golf courses in deserts!" Oh, yes, for sure - most folks will say - heck yeah - no need for those (most of them never golf there anyway). Bring t closer to home, though. Make something that "I" have to give up, and not just "them" - not just "those excessive people..." -- bring it to people's doorstep and wait for the, "wait -what? You want to take away what? But, I 'need' that!"

[Atheist-Lite]

Daily Kos is ship stirring...handing out free gnus with every issue or something...

[sandinista]

The simple fact is, the whole planet cannot live like the west. It simple will not and cannot happen. There are not enough resources to go around. I'm also not saying that people in the wealthy countries have to live at 3rd world standards, I'm saying that the excess is not reasonable, people live in pure excess, golf courses in deserts, 3 SUV's, 4 houses, etc...I'm not talking about taking away a janitors two bedroom house and car.

Well, now we're talkin' !

I don't think, however, that you do a damn thing for the world as a whole by taking away the few bits that have 3 SUV's and 4 houses. The overwhelmingly vast majority of people have one house which they rent or finance - it's often much bigger than they need, though. I bet most of those teachers up in Wisconsin live in places that are far in excess of a two bedroom house, but they only have one house.

I think this may be one of our main sticking points, sandi. I don't think your numbers work. I don't think that just taking away golf courses in deserts, 2 of 3 SUV's from those who have more than one, and not allowing people to have more than one house is sufficient - even if shifted perfectly efficiently - to the rest of the world. Even assuming reducing our standard of living would have any effect of increasing someone in India's standard of living (which is another point entirely), there just is no way there could be any effect at all without a dramatic reduction in the common person's standard of living in the US and Canada. Our janitors live way better than the average person in India - miles better.

Coito, when I say golf courses, SUV's whathaveyou they are only examples. I am not saying "take those away and voila, equality."

Yes, I know they are only examples. I suspect that there are plenty of other examples, and I expect that they are often of a kind that fewer people would consider them "excess."

What would you call Air Conditioning? People lived just fine without it, by and large, even in Florida and Texas - right up into the 80s. Then the A/C boom occurred - and now it's a necessity. Is it? Most of the rest of the world doesn't have it -- Africa - Asia - South America - all relatively devoid of air conditioning units. Will the west have to give up its A/C?

What are the difficult examples? That's what I'm trying to get at. It's easy to say "we need to get rid of excess" -- and then everyone goes, "oh, yeah sure, we can get behind that because, well, excess is, well....excessive." But, then start listing examples...."golf courses in deserts!" Oh, yes, for sure - most folks will say - heck yeah - no need for those (most of them never golf there anyway). Bring t closer to home, though. Make something that "I" have to give up, and not just "them" - not just "those excessive people..." -- bring it to people's doorstep and wait for the, "wait -what? You want to take away what? But, I 'need' that!"

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1227-06.htm

The super rich, the less than 1 percent of the population who own the lion's share of the nation's wealth, go uncounted in most income distribution reports. Even those who purport to study the question regularly overlook the very wealthiest among us. For instance, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, relying on the latest U.S. Census Bureau data, released a report in December 1997 showing that in the last two decades "incomes of the richest fifth increased by 30 percent or nearly $27,000 after adjusting for inflation." The average income of the top 20 percent was $117,500, or almost 13 times larger than the $9,250 average income of the poorest 20 percent.

But where are the super rich? An average of $117,500 is an upper-middle income, not at all representative of a rich cohort, let alone a super rich one. All such reports about income distribution are based on U.S. Census Bureau surveys that regularly leave Big Money out of the picture. A few phone calls to the Census Bureau in Washington D.C. revealed that for years the bureau never interviewed anyone who had an income higher than $300,000. Or if interviewed, they were never recorded as above the "reportable upper limit" of $300,000, the top figure allowed by the bureau's computer program. In 1994, the bureau lifted the upper limit to $1 million. This still excludes the very richest who own the lion's share of the wealth, the hundreds of billionaires and thousands of multimillionaires who make many times more than $1 million a year. The super rich simply have been computerized out of the picture.

When asked why this procedure was used, an official said that the Census Bureau's computers could not handle higher amounts. A most improbable excuse, since once the bureau decided to raise the upper limit from $300,000 to $1 million it did so without any difficulty, and it could do so again. Another reason the official gave was "confidentiality." Given place coordinates, someone with a very high income might be identified. Furthermore, he said, high-income respondents usually understate their investment returns by about 40 to 50 percent. Finally, the official argued that since the super rich are so few, they are not likely to show up in a national sample.

But by designating the (decapitated) top 20 percent of the entire nation as the "richest" quintile, the Census Bureau is including millions of people who make as little as $70,000. If you make over $100,000, you are in the top 4 percent. Now $100,000 is a tidy sum indeed, but it's not super rich--as in Mellon, Morgan, or Murdock. The difference between Michael Eisner, Disney CEO who pocketed $565 million in 1996, and the individuals who average $9,250 is not 13 to 1--the reported spread between highest and lowest quintiles--but over 61,000 to 1.

Speaking of CEOs, much attention has been given to the top corporate managers who rake in tens of millions of dollars annually in salaries and perks. But little is said about the tens of billions that these same corporations distribute to the top investor class each year, again that invisible fraction of 1 percent of the population. Media publicity that focuses exclusively on a handful of greedy top executives conveniently avoids any exposure of the super rich as a class. In fact, reining in the CEOs who cut into the corporate take would well serve the big shareholder's interests.

Two studies that do their best to muddy our understanding of wealth, conducted respectively by the Rand Corporation and the Brookings Institution and widely reported in the major media, found that individuals typically become rich not from inheritance but by maintaining their health and working hard. Most of their savings comes from their earnings and has nothing to do with inherited family wealth, the researchers would have us believe. In typical social-science fashion, they prefigured their findings by limiting the scope of their data. Both studies failed to note that achieving a high income is itself in large part due to inherited advantages. Those coming from upper-strata households have a far better opportunity to maintain their health and develop their performance, attend superior schools, and achieve the advanced professional training, contacts, and influence needed to land the higher paying positions.

More importantly, both the Rand and Brookings studies fail to include the super rich, those who sit on immense and largely inherited fortunes. Instead, the investigators concentrate on upper-middle-class professionals and managers, most of whom earn in the $100,000 to $300,000 range--which indicates that the researchers have no idea how rich the very rich really are.

When pressed on this point, they explain that there is a shortage of data on the very rich. Being such a tiny percentage, "they're an extremely difficult part of the population to survey," pleads Rand economist James P. Smith, offering the same excuse given by the Census Bureau officials. That Smith finds the super rich difficult to survey should not cause us to overlook the fact that their existence refutes his findings about self-earned wealth. He seems to admit as much when he says, "This [study] shouldn't be taken as a statement that the Rockefellers didn't give to their kids and the Kennedys didn't give to their kids." (New York Times, July 7, 1995) Indeed, most of the really big money is inherited--and by a portion of the population that is so minuscule as to be judged statistically inaccessible.

The higher one goes up the income scale, the greater the rate of capital accumulation. Economist Paul Krugman notes that not only have the top 20 percent grown more affluent compared with everyone below, the top 5 percent have grown richer compared with the next 15 percent. The top one percent have become richer compared with the next 4 percent. And the top 0.25 percent have grown richer than the next 0.75 percent. That top 0.25 owns more wealth than the other 99� percent combined. It has been estimated that if children's play blocks represented $1000 each, over 98 percent of us would have incomes represented by piles of blocks that went not more than a few yards off the ground, while the top one percent would stack many times higher than the Eiffel Tower.

Marx's prediction about the growing gap between rich and poor still haunts the land--and the entire planet. The growing concentration of wealth creates still more poverty. As some few get ever richer, more people fall deeper into destitution, finding it increasingly difficult to emerge from it. The same pattern holds throughout much of the world. For years now, as the wealth of the few has been growing, the number of poor has been increasing at a faster rate than the earth's population. A rising tide sinks many boats.

To grasp the true extent of wealth and income inequality in the United States, we should stop treating the "top quintile"--the upper-middle class--as the "richest" cohort in the country. But to do that, we need to look beyond the Census Bureau's cooked statistics. We need to catch sight of that tiny, stratospheric apex that owns most of the world.

Michael Parenti is a noted author and political commentator. Among his widely read books are "The Terrorism Trap," "Democracy For the Few," "History as Mystery," and "Against Empire." His most recent forthcoming book is "The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome."