Ode to Socrates

Born to his hated,

He held to highest standards that which he loved.

Socrates:

White-bearded, prime mover, poser of questions.

The beginning 

Is 

His words,

Though, they devised his death

As well.

Hemlock drinker, heaven seeker,

Corruptor, teacher, citizen speaker.

If Socrates is a man

And all men are mortal,

Then why persist

In killing him?

Questions we cannot answer;

Answers we already

Know,

Now educate Plato,

Now Aristotle,

Now little Johnny Doe.

Unanswerable and ineffable,

Read "common" and "received,"

Pages preserved, authors articulated,

Doubts dusted under doormats.

...And then one particular penitent soul

Enters Ivory door.

Postured downward, eyes posed low

He asks, "What's that?" 

and, "Was it there before?"

Ah! Come in young John!

Tell us where you've been.

We'll cover your tracks

And drink parsley tea!

You'll soon forget the troubles

You've seen.

Hail ye all,

Form of Philosopher,

King of Wisdom's love,

Golden liar,

Silver tounged,

Iron Age - Information Age

Succumbed.

TAXATION without REPRESENTATION

As a native Bostonian, I feel obligated to remind you how this great nation began.  Indeed the exact origins of the philosophical ideas supporting the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution date to the ancient Greeks, specifically the democracy in Athens.  However, there are events in our recent history that can be said to have inspired the break from Mother England and the incorporation of the former colonies.  One such event was the Boston Tea Party.  Before recalling the particulars of this infamous eve of insurrection, we must consider why it is that the Tea Party must be remembered.  I believe, as many historians have said, that history truly does repeat itself.  In fact, the political/economic climate leading up to the Boston Tea Party is identical, in form, to the current political/economic climate.  By re-examining the events of our history we may find more reason than general bewilderment to be outraged at the latest economic events.

In the late 1760's the British Parliament passed a series of laws that taxed the colonies in the New World on all imports.  Since the colonies only received imports via British shipments conducted by the East India Trading Company, all the taxes on these imports went directly to the crown.  As there were no representatives of the colonies participating in Parliament, these acts were passed without the consent of the colonists.  This is the origin of the famous slogan: "No taxation without representation."  The colonists printed these words, shouted them, and mailed them back to England.  They represent the sentiment that sparked the Boston Tea Party.

A prominent Bostonian, turned smuggler, by the name of John Hancock took 'no taxation without representation,' to heart.  In the early 1770's Hancock smuggled enough tea into Boston Harbor to put the East India Trading Co into the economic 'red.'  Parliament soon bailed them out by passing the TEA ACT.  This allowed the EITC to sell tea in Boston without paying the import tax to the crown, thereby undercutting even the smuggler's price.  When the colonists got wind of their government not only denying their input again, but helping the very corporate giant that was taking advantage of their under-represented position, the last straw had been drawn.

The camel's back broke on the eve of December 16, 1773.  Bostonians, rallying behind Hancock, John Adams, and Samuel Adams boarded the ships of the East India Trading Co and deposited the entirety of its stock of tea into the Boston Harbor.  The damages of the evening have been estimated at about 2 million dollars in 2007 USD.  Needless to say, this is a devastating loss to any company and a priceless victory for the activists.

Two hundred thirty-five years later, the former American colonists are under the thumb of yet another mega corporation.  In fact, we are at the whims of an industry that is currently represented by two companies about to merge.  To boot, the United States government is debating a bailout plan for these companies that have operated without regulation, a freedom given them without the approval of the American public.  The money for the bailout will come from taxpayers; this has been made clear by many government officials, including the President.  

Like the colonists at the whims of the East India Trading Co, Americans in 2008 were subject to the economic oppression by legitimized private corporations (lending institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, Bear Sterns, and others).  When lending institutions collapsed, as when tea smugglers put the EITC almost out of business, the government sided against the people.  Then, tariffs were removed. Now, debt is relieved. In both situations, tax payers were burdened and corporations benefitted.

The colonist response to 'taxation without representation' was to dump tea into Boston Harbor.  This action ultimately lead to the American Revolution and much bloodshed.  I'm not exactly sure what a modern analog to that would be.  Should we burn money? Dump stocks into Boston Harbor? Attack wall street? ...The pinstripes are coming... The pinstripes are coming!

Without speculating too much on what we ought to do in this situation, there are a few things we notice when comparing the economies of 1760 and 2008.  First, there is an undeniable connection between government and industry.  The two work in tandem and, we might go so far, cannot function without each other.  Clearly, the British government needed the East India Trading Co.  If it had not, there would not have been a TEA ACT.  Equally, the US government needs investment banks, as evidenced by the $700bn USD bailout plan.  The second thing that we notice in this comparison is that the un-incorporated (aka the people) lose when government and big business team up.  We can see this happening with the import taxes, first being paid by colonists and then removed to undercut colonist trade business.  The modern analog is to be found in the aproximate $3,000 dollars per person in the US, summing to the $700bn bailout fund. Thirdly, 'taxation without representation.' When we ask WHY the governments of 1760 and 2008 are able to conduct their actions against the interest of the people they exist to protect, the answer cannot be clearer: the people bearing the burden, have no voice in their government.

This is a distressing thought.  In the self-proclaimed greatest nation on earth, the head of the free world, the heart of democracy, the land of the free and the home of the brave, the people do not have a say in their government.  This is an hypothesis that we can each test by following the proper channels to support or oppose the bailout plan.  You can: protest, call your congressman, blog, give speeches, and so on, but you will not be invited, nor be allowed to watch, the closed door meetings of the mysterious men and women deciding our economic futures.  

Escalation and Infinity

Escalation and proliferation reside at the core of the military industrial complex.  Much of this has to due with the nature of capitalist economies.  Indeed, free market entities from candy shops to arms dealers all face the same imperative to expand or cease to exist.  But, where our imaginations are the limit for escalation in candy, total extinction of the human race is the limit for escalation in arms.  It would seem that we can find some argument here about why escalation in arms might lead us to never pick up a gun in the first place.  This is exactly what I will do here.

Arms escalation is exactly how Riff puts it to Tony in West Side Story, "If they bring bats, we'll bring chains. If they bring chains, we'll bring pipes. If they bring pipes, we'll bring zip guns..." Proliferation is a sort of keeping up with the Joneses: if your neighbors get guns, you get a gun. Together arms escalation and proliferation ensure that every nation is becoming or will become a player in the global competition for military superiority. Some often mistake escalation for sandbox jealousy, where one boy must demonstrate the superiority of his toys over those of his playmates.  While this Freudian complex may play some role in escalation, any country holding weapons presents a threat.  Even without weapons, and on a smaller scale, one person potentially poses a threat to his neighbor.  

Let's suppose there are no guns in the world.  You have just caught a delicious meal and have roasted it on the fire.  Your neighbors failed to catch anything and they are hungry.  One attacks with the intent to steal food, then the next, then the next.  What began with conceivably equal strength humans, without weapons, ended as a many-against-one attack. We have established here that even without the influence of escalation, humans potentially threaten each other.  Even if you had shared your meal, inevitably, there would not have been enough food for all.

Let's add some guns to the same scenario.  Now, before attacking, the first hungry neighbor must consider the strength of his firepower in comparison to yours.  He has a pistol, you have an AK-47.  Clearly, you poses the advantage.  His choices are: starve or get a bigger gun.  Now imagine this on a global scale.  Also, instead of fighting for necessary things like food, those with guns can take whatever they want.  Some describe this practice as Imperialism.  Here we have established that because humans potentially pose a threat to each other, any increase in the potential of that threat (say by the introduction of a gun) causes further increases in violence.  Now I would like to demonstrate that this is always the case and that the possession of weapons never ensures that your neighbors won't attack.

In a simple system, two humans with reason to fight will do so until one emerges in victory.  Whatever the advantage the victor had on his opponent (strength, speed, skill, etc), it was certainly a factor in winning.  I will exclude cases where one opponent dies spontaneously or some other extraneous circumstance decided the fight.  Now, if one opponent has a gun, no matter what the physical advantage of the other, the one with the gun will always win.  In fact, one opponent could be a world-class fighting champion and the other could be a parapalegic.  As long as the disabled fighter can operate the gun, he will triumph the clear majority of times.  There are two ways for the fighter without a gun to even stand a chance a winning.  1. he could get bullet proof armor or 2 he could get a gun, perhaps faster and more accurate than his opponent's.  Either option represents escalation, for to over come the armor or the better gun, the originally armed opponent will either need a better gun or stronger armor.  Once a option has been chosen by one opponent, escalation requires that the next opponent choose for himself or accept defeat.  Weapons always lead to escalation, but can they ever lead to peace?

Return to the scenario where only one opponent has a gun.  Also, let us suppose the fighters equal in physical capacity as well.   The fight begins and only two outcomes are possible: the unarmed fighter surrenders or dies.  If he dies the example is uninteresting, so let us suppose he surrenders.  Now the fighter with the gun can effectively control his unarmed former opponent.  This scenario is not peace in the harmonious sense we commonly assume, although there has not been any death yet.  This pseudo peaceful situation is more like a dictatorship than a harmonious co-existence.  Even though the armed dictator may give commands that the unarmed subject enjoys (such as "go on vacation"), by definition the dictator is deprivig his subject of personal freedom.  Some may argue that this in itself is equivalent to physical violence in the amount of harm it causes.  So, while there may indeed by a noticeable difference in the amount of people dying when just a small few have guns while others do not, such a situation is hardly what we can comfortably call peace.

For argument's sake, suppose our two fighters assume (incorrectly) that he who holds the most powerful weapon, creates peace and justice, yata yata yata... We replay our escalation scenario from above and realize that at some point the strength of the weapons themselves will not matter, instead how many weapons each fighter possesses will be the determining factor.  Additionally, there will come a point when not the quantity of weapons matters, but the willingness to use them.  When escalation reaches this stage one can see that the life expectancy for our fighters decreases rapidly.  Now imagine each fighter is a country and that there is a world of fighters, each trying to outdo the other.  How long until we get caught in the crossfire?

I have tried to demonstrate that before weapons humans of roughly equal physical capability pose a threat to each other.  This may not always be the case and the threat may not always lead to action being taken, but the potential to attack remains.  With the introduction of weapons comes the forces of escalation driving one to gain the advantage on the other.  By continuing on this path, we come to a point where the threat of violence must be demonstrated and escalation, here, requires bigger and bigger demonstrations until one or both opponents lose.  

The moral of the story is: don't use guns.  Swords are much cooler. 

why utilitarians are all dumb... brought to you in part by wheaties

as if just pointing at the military were not enough, here's an example...

an elite group of commandos has taken it upon themselves to eliminate all of the serial killers in america. the will not speculate on who might be a serial killer, the requirement to be a 'serial killer' is to have killed at least 2 people. this way the commandos feel justified in killing their targets, its certainly better to save two lives by killing one. of course, there are assuming a bit about the inductive properties of being a 'serial killer,' but thats not the real problem here...

these commandos are committed to their task and before long they have killed over 30 proven serial killers. they head down to the pub for a celebration. once there and once they've had a few pints, one commando realizes that in killing all the 'serial killers' each commando has become a 'serial killer' by definition. the commando promptly pulls out his gun and blows away two of his mates that are sitting closest. he turns to get a third when another commando blasts him, probably for killing the first two and not for the fact that they are all 'serial killers' now.

soon all but two commandos are dead and these two are holding guns to each others heads, screaming. one says, "you killed our mates!" the other says, "they were killing each other! anyways, you killed our mates as well." they pause and realize that they are the last two. slowly, they lower their guns. when they look around they remember how they started out, killing 'serial killers,' and at exactly the same moment they both realize how the pub massacre started. one says to the other, "brother, we're serial killers" the other opens his mouth to speak but the first blows him away.

as the last commando on a mission to kill serial killers and as the one commando to have killed the most people, he raises his weapon and caps himself. blam!

...in short you cannot be a utilitarian without killing yourself. well, you could, but you'd have to be a hypocrite as well.
 

rising food prices, shrinking responsibility

"welcome to the desert of the real." contrary to popular belief, this quote originates with a postmodern philosopher named Slajov Zizek and not with a digital Lawrence Fishburne.

 Interestingly enough, the two use the phrase in two quite different respects. Zizek makes reference to the intellectual climate and its lack of self understanding. Morpheus (The Matrix), on the other hand, refers to the duality of a barren planet and a blank simulation program. the reference is ironic, for a barren planet inspires despair and a blank program (at least in the context of the movie) inspires hope. i have here used the same phrase with the intent of referring to the state of morality in the modern world. people die and no one cares, children starve and people watch 'american idol,' bombs explode and people cheer. here we will investigate what the 'desert of the real' means in regards to morality.

Some of this might come as a shock, particularly: morality is fictitious.  This is not the same as 'morality is false,' or 'morality does not exist,' both of these interpretations would in fact be false.  What I mean by 'fictitious' can be resolved into the use of the word in literary circles.  Imagine that each group that would otherwise call themselves 'moral,' or 'righteous,' or some other such positive moral designation, is an author.  What they write is what they might otherwise call their set of beliefs or moral code.  

This may not be as hard to swallow as it seems. Indeed we have all come across another individual (representing a shared history with a specific group) or group of persons who have differing beliefs from our own.  Some worship God, others Allah, still others do not worship but cultivate god from within.  Superficially there may not be a world of difference between these denominations.  Most religions teach kindness as a way of approaching others.  Yet most religions also teach the absolute truth of their own doctrine above all others.  Here I'm using religion for its convenient composite of a moral code.  I do not wish to address the metaphysical beliefs held by these groups.  Please bear in mind that one need not be religious or belong to a particular religion to be moral.  Again, this is a clear example that is fairly uncontroversial.  Moreover the duality of the doctrines of kindness and supremacy is a feature shared by most moral groups and individuals.  This duality is 'the real' of morality and it necessarily results in 'the desert.'

Keeping in mind the fictional status of morality, in general and for specific groups, we should understand 'the desert' in the empty-but-potential-laden sense used by Morpheus.  We can create morality whenever we chose, like authors writing novels.  It would simply be untrue to say that the moral climate is barren like an actual desert.  What we see looks more like a rainforest than a desert.  But still it is the fundamental nature of each moral code to have within it the duality, described above as 'the real.'  If there are any doubts here, simply ask yourself: why do I believe what I believe? The answer should come in the form of 'because my beliefs are correct.'  Even if our beliefs include the possibility that other moral codes may be simultaneously correct, this in itself is a moral code that we ultimately believe to be correct.

Now, we can inquire into the causal factors that may have contributed to us having the set of beliefs about right and wrong that we have, but note that this is merely an appeal to some external authority regarding the validity of our beliefs.  We need not do this when we act in ways we might consider as 'good' or 'right.'  Indeed our particular set of beliefs gains its truth status simply by our believing in it.  If we do not believe or come to not believe in some moral code then that code is false for us or our group.  This should accurately describe the supremacy side of the fundamental duality in every moral code.

The supremacy is reinforced by the doctrine of kindness.  Remember, that which is considered 'kind' and that which is considered 'unkind' are described by the code itself.  What we have here is a circular argument. My set of morals is the one true set of morals. To which we can ask, why? Because it tells people to treat others with 'kindness.'  To this we can ask, why is that idea of 'kindness' the way people should be treated? The response here is that this way of 'kindness' is the one true way of kindness, by which we have completed the circle.

In general we can find two ways of supporting such a circular line of reasoning.  The first is simply to assert that the argument is true.  This can be done by force, the threat of force, limiting of other options, or simply by choosing to believe.  When we reflect on these options we find that choosing to believe the circular argument of any moral code is the only way that a code can originate.  When a code is enforced the first person to do so must have at some time, perhaps unconsciously, decided to believe that X is the way people should live because it is the one true way for people to live.  This is exactly how we can find ourselves in a world full of morality but lacking any real responsibility.

In the earlier parts of the twentieth century, some wealthy nations came to the realization that not everyone on the planet lived as well as they did and so began a campaign to help the unfortunate of third-world countries like Africa and India.  This movement took the form of a mass effort to convert indigenous people to the one true way of living.  Obviously, since the subjects of this conversion already believed that the way they lived was the one true way of living little headway was made.  Now the effort has shifted from converting people to the one true way of living to convincing people that the one true way to live, at a minimum, includes tolerance and respect for others with differing beliefs.  However one notes very little difference between these efforts.

...and life goes on.  The moral (pun intended) of this tale is that when morality is a creative project, it cannot but be a project limited to the group of people one interacts with in high-frequency.  In the age of the Internet, the people we interact with need not be our neighbors or fellow citizens.  Nevertheless, the collaborative project of writing a morality is functionally the same: a group of people adopts a particular code, or premise of a code, that best suits the desires that weigh more than being objectively 'good' (if such a thing can even be defined). This is why Oxfam will never make a difference.  People will help or donate to the point where their particular doctrine of kindness is satisfied and then continue about their business.  A moral code would not be a good thing to have if it prevented you from doing the things you want to do.

We can still author beliefs that embrace all of the high moral values of a culture far better than the collective efforts of humanity, but this code will never become a reality until its relevance is universal and its functionality accommodates the varying wishes and desire of the disparate people of planet Earth.