Better things

Some political arguments are just horseshit. Based on lies and misrepresentations, designed to play to people’s fears and prejudices and bypass their critical thinking. Although a provocative lie will always move faster and have more momentum than the clarification, context, and nuance needed to dispell it, it is nonetheless fairly straightforward to make an argument against horseshit. We point out the lie or logical fallacy and we’re done.

What is harder to argue against is the far more common kind of political argument. The kind where the falsehood does not lie in the facts or logic used to construct it, but in the underlying assumptions upon which that logic rests. Quite often, that false assumption is that The Way Thing Are is natural, normal, inevitable, correct. It isn’t. I don’t have to tell you things are bad, everybody knows shit’s fucked.

Fucked for most of us anyway. Obviously some people benefit from the status quo. And it is in those people’s political interests to argue that changing things is not only a bad idea, but a practical impossibility. When confronted with ideas for progressive change, stuff that would improve the lives of 99% of people at the cost of some excess wealth from the 1%, they say “that’s unrealistic. naive. it’s a good idea on paper. of course it would be nice if we could help people.. if only the world worked that way”.

But, The Way The World Works is not fixed and immutable. Our political and economic systems, our laws and social norms. All of it is in constant flux, historically speaking, prone to sudden upheaval and reconfiguration. So, when we try to suggest ways that our System can be more generous, sharing, compassionate, the counterarguments can go two ways.

First, horseshit arguments:
That redistributing wealth to make our society more equitable will be detrimental for whatever reason.
E.g. raising taxes on large corporations will damage the economy and thus hurt the working class (who are the ones receiving the benefits from the increased social services that these taxes are funding).
Or, that some people may cheat the system and become unjustly enriched, and that’s why we shouldn’t try to help anyone. Or, that a disadvantaged person is always 100% at fault for their situation. So, fuck them I guess.

Second, status quo apologies:
That The System just isn’t capable of delivering better outcomes for poor people. We’d love to spend more money on welfare, public healthcare, education etc. but there’s only so much money in the budget! So sorry.
The implication here is the The Economy (i.e. the combined labour and resources of a country) does not have enough productive power to provide a comfortable and secure lifestyle for everyone. Where every person at least has their basic needs met. This has always been untrue. Humanity has always been productive enough to provide for all, our communities could not grow if we couldn’t generate a surplus. But, that’s a topic for another time.

Notice that the argument isn’t that social policies are wrong or will lead to bad outcomes. Instead these policies are naive and over ambitious. Their unachievability self evident by the fact that we aren’t going to try.

How then, do we construct a counterargument? That a better state of affairs is not only achievable, but that the people telling you it isn’t are lying for their own political or economic gain. We can call on historical examples or analyse and unpack the numbers and facts. But the technical, practical arguments for progressive ideas won’t hit home if people don’t believe that a better world is possible.

What we need to do is get our interlocutor thinking critically about the status quo. Get them thinking creatively, hopefully, trustingly. All modes of thought that The System actively discourages. This is possible but difficult, depending on the preconceptions of the individual. But there is another, harder but more worthwhile, way to change people’s minds without even speaking to them.

We can to show them what is possible by making it happen.

Instead of supplicating to the political class and asking for a fairer deal, let’s just start taking care of each other. Build communities with our neighbours, then organise within those communities to provide care and aid for everyone. Successful strategies will grow, spread, multiply, mutate.

Through argument by example we can show how these ideas are not only realistic, but commonsense. Then what is possible will no longer be dictated by the powerful, but by the many.

‘Better Things Are Possible’ is the most important and difficult argument to win. But every person we convince is someone who can work to make the better things happen.

Castle

An army of knights hold the gates

Archers volley from the walls, covered by crenelations

Warlocks spit fireballs and acid from the turrets

Witches release their familiars to harry the enemy’s ranks

The sorcerer draws power, thunderheads swirl above

The moment is nigh

Mantra – Power Of The Spoken

Entitled

“The most important thing that governments can do is ensure that the economy is growing.”

-The Right Honourable Christopher Pyne M.P. Federal member for Sturt and Minister for Education

Mr Pyne made this comment on tonight’s episode of QandA, a weekly panel discussion television program broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, a publicly owned and funded institution. I find watching QandA frustrating sometimes but I think it’s a great idea. The audience is given the floor to ask questions of politicians and public figures, which gives them a chance to defend their positions, or not as the case may be.

I don’t agree with Mr Pyne on a lot of things, but especially not this statement, which seems to be the catch cry of his party. The party currently in government represents the conservative side of Australian politics and is ironically named the “Liberal Party” and has for years acted in coalition with the smaller National Party (and yes, by that they do mean nationalism).

Throughout my short life I have seen institutions that were once public goods sold to private owners, usually as a publicly traded company. Apart from the short term gain of whatever revenue would go into the public coffers by selling these assets, the rationale behind these decisions seems to be that allowing private (profit driven) administration and competition into markets that provide what I would consider essential services (utilities, communications, healthcare, education, infrastructure) will somehow magically create better outcomes for everyone. I understand the economic argument behind this view, but I don’t agree with it. Mostly because I have seen these services deteriorate in quality of service, redundancy implicit in competing entities, and lack of provision to underprivileged or geographically isolated citizens.

Given that these measures have mostly been taken by Mr Pyne’s party, under the leadership of their beloved John Howard the last time they were in office, It seems to me somewhat paradoxical that now they see it as their role to intervene in the economy and keep it growing. How? you might ask. By drastically reducing government spending and thus provision of services… okay. I won’t even get into the perils of the whole “Infinite Growth” paradigm. Suffice to say I find it a little insulting to be told in a frankly patronising way by my government that I need to help shoulder the burden and pull my weight because of the Dire Economic Circumstances we find ourself in by working harder, paying more, and earning less. Especially when I have only ever existed in my environment in a way that I felt was honest and reasonable. I have benefited from services provided by the government, but I pay my income tax every fortnight, it seemed like a pretty fair deal to me.

Isn’t that what governments are for? To protect and provide for their people, the people who are infact the nation itself and contribute to making the government as an organisation possible. If this is a Democracy and the people do rule themselves, I find it so very hard to understand why we are making ourself suffer for the benefit of the economic heavyweights who are supposedly responsible for keeping our economy moving forward, but would surely abandon Australia in a day if they could no longer make money here.

But maybe I’m just an entitled little brat who needs a clip about the ear and a reality check. Maybe I’ve been living in a socialist paradise for so long that I don’t know the meaning of hard work and self reliance, despite my minimum wage manual labour job.

What do you think? Your country may have more or less publicly owned institutions, more or less provided to you as a benefit of being a citizen. I’m sure you make do in whatever circumstances you find yourself. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are ideal.

Intro to Demarchy

If you noticed my previous post you will know that I’ve started reading a book on political philosophy. This makes three books I currently have on the go right now. Luckily one is a fiction novel and the other is a short story book so they all fill specific niches in my spare time. I have been interested in political philosophy and alternative politics for some time now but this is the first time I’ve picked up a whole book on the subject. That is unless you count Atlas Shrugged which was like part fiction novel, part 1000 page manifesto. The book in question is called Is Democracy Possible?: The alternative to electoral politics. By John Burnheim. Though I have just started (and I consume books slowly enough when I’m reading them one at a time) I know Burnheim to be a proponent of a system known as Demarchy , short for democratic anarchy.
I first stumbled onto this idea in the fictional works of Alastair Reynolds. In Reynolds’ Revelation Space universe there is an offshoot of human civilization who live under demarchy. The citizens of Yellowstone all have (or had, depending which book you read) a constant almost subconscious connection to a vast communication network analogous to the modern internet. They use this to instantly vote on any decision that needs to be made by and for the society as a whole. There is no leadership or government whatsoever.
Burnheim’s proposal as I understand it, is that when a decision needs to be made a “citizen jury” would be selected at random from the community and given a chance to deliberate and hopefully reach a consensus. They would pass a ruling and the legislation would be changed or executive action taken. This may be preferable to the mass electronic voting system even though it is less inclusive. It allows views to be justified and explained, for compromises to be proposed. Brute voting could lead to a majority oppressing a minority whereas there’s a good chance that the minority will at least be represented on the jury and given a chance to state their case.
Its an intriguing idea which I will enjoy thinking about. I may write about my conclusions when I finish the book, but I’m not sure when that will be.

Thanks for reading
-Scott