Free-Market Fundamentalism: My View

Now that Donald Trump is the 45th President of the United States of America and Kevin O’Leary is for sure competing for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, I think it’s time–well, past time–I made my thoughts about free-market fundamentalism known.

To bring the uninitiated up to speed, free-market fundamentalism posits that the market should be free to run itself, and make decisions. This, per se, is ludicrous: the market is a concept, and concepts cannot run themselves or make decisions. The truth is, people run the market, and make decisions based on what’s most likely to make money, ergo if the market tanks, it’s on the watch of the people running it. So this idea that the market knows best, and should thus be free to run itself and make decisions, is patently absurd–especially when we take into account all the times the market has gone south.

And the free market does tank every so often, especially if it’s unregulated, or laissez-faire (roughly translated from French, ‘leave it alone’ or ‘let it be.’)  The laissez-faire attitude towards business and economics protects no one, businesses or people. As George Bernard Shaw wrote in his treatise, The Thinking Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, “‘Let things be’ actually means ‘let things slide.'” And when the market has no rules as to how people run it, things do slide.

But free-market fundamentalism is helpful to leaders who don’t want to take responsibility for helping out the less fortunate, as they can adopt a ‘blame the victim’ mentality. You see, free-market fundamentalism proponents claim being poor is the result of character flaws on the part of those who are poor, while ignoring the issue of people who are rich who get rich by dishonest means–if those people don’t inherit their wealth. (This is not to say that people who are rich never get there by honest means, but let’s get real.)

Another problem with free-market fundamentalism is it helps create, and foster, a culture of entitlement, which is so entrenched in the psyches of those who live under the rules of free-market fundamentalism we confuse, and conflate, entitlement with freedom. And those who promote free-market fundamentalism encourage this, as it sustains itself by convincing people it’s OK for them to think only in terms of ‘me, me, me,’ regardless of the consequences to anybody else.

I guess the point I’m trying to make is all aspects of society–and that includes the market–need to be run by people who care as much about the human and environmental costs of their decisions as they do about the economy. The people running things need to make sure everyone gets their fair share–no more, no less–there is little negative environmental impact, and the economy runs smoothly. But none of that will ever happen under free-market fundamentalism.

Advertisements

Rewilding: Doing More Harm Than Good?

I haven’t heard much on this topic within the last couple of months, but I want to express my thoughts about it and get that out of the way, before I hear about it again. (Sigh–I really should stop showing up to the party so tardy.)

For those of you not (yet) in the know, rewilding is defined as an attempt to return the landscape to its original state–the one that existed before human intervention. At first blush, this doesn’t sound very problematic–who wouldn’t want to see more green space, or wildlife outside of zoos? But, like so much else, rewilding in practice does have its dark side.

The first–and most obvious–criticism of rewilding to make is the vast majority of people alive today wouldn’t last very long in a wilderness environment, simply because the advancements we have taken for granted for so long have made wilderness survival skills unnecessary. Only people living in remote, next-to-impossible-to-access areas of the world need to hunt, fish, and forage for food, create ways of disposing of waste, etc., whereas the vast majority of us in the First World have grocery stores, refrigerators, indoor plumbing, etc. Expanding on this subject, civilization has also rendered preventable diseases people would have died from in the wild, by way of medicine, and ever-evolving advances therein.

Also, rewilding, if taken too far, could potentially be anti-vegan; how would vegans get everything we need in a wilderness environment? Civilization, and science, have made veganism possible, as we can now get all the nutrients we need without harming other species of animals.

In short, advocates for rewilding may also be advocating for genocide, whether they realize it or not.

And even if rewilding advocates aren’t calling for civilized areas to be rewilded, there is a question of how far the rewilding is supposed to go. Are we to do away with agriculture? If so, this too falls under the category of unwittingly calling for genocide, as the vast majority of us won’t be able to live if we have to hunt, fish, or forage for our food. And not all of us have the skills to distinguish between edible plants and those which would harm us. I personally am fine with wanting to keep natural areas wild, and changing laws to, at the very least, keep so-called ‘sport’ and ‘trophy’ hunting to the barest possible minimum. But if rewilding advocates are calling for the end of civilization and even agriculture, we’ve got problems.

I’m not calling for progress for the sake of progress; as I’ve said in a previous post, the progress I’m for is the kind of progress that benefits humanity as a whole. And as much as I balk at the idea of unbridled progress and development–especially for their own sake and/or just to make someone a buck or two–I’ll be damned if I’m going to let a segment of fanatics turn back the clock to the days when people did nothing but try to survive, with most failing, especially when most of us don’t have the skills necessary to survive in an uncivilized environment. As Yvette D’Entremont, a.k.a. ‘The Science Babe,’ pointed out in this blog post, nature doesn’t give a fuck about any of us. And for those of you who think I’m misrepresenting the idea of rewilding, why don’t you be clearer and more specific about what rewilding is about, and what it’s supposed to accomplish?

Kevin O’Leary

So, Kevin O’Leary has decided to compete for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, and thus come at least one step closer to being voted Prime Minister of Canada. And the prospect of this scares the bejesus of me.

In a previous post, I mentioned O’Leary was quoted as saying it’s “fantastic” that a handful of the super-rich have the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the planet, as “it gives them (the poor) motivation to look up to the one percent.” The reality is, we aren’t looking up to the one percent; we’re grousing about their lack of any feeling of social responsibility, and unwillingness to share. Apparently, O’Leary has never heard of the concept of giving back to the community. Also, has it occurred to O’Leary that a lot of people who didn’t inherit their wealth came by it by–oh, how should I put this?–less-than-legitimate means? Oh, and just because it isn’t illegal doesn’t mean it isn’t immoral. But I’m guessing–in the minds of O’Leary and his ilk–the ends justify the means.

I’ll take this moment to predict that if O’Leary ever becomes Prime Minister of Canada, he’ll make it easier for the rich to get richer, and much more difficult for the poor to get ahead financially and in terms of opportunities open to them, and he won’t care if the rich give to the community. He’ll also make it easier for the rich to stay out of prison if they commit any crimes, while making it harder for the poor, and other marginalized folk, to get justice of any kind. In short, if Kevin O’Leary ever becomes Prime Minister of Canada, the rich will be further rewarded for being rich, while the poor will be further punished for being poor.

I understand Kevin O’Leary is only part of the problem, and is yet another result of a system that perpetuates kyriarchy. He is also part of a larger trend towards keeping kyriarchy in place, for the benefit of a few. Also, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s just being obtuse about the whole situation; unfortunately, that obtuseness has the potential to cost millions of people–and cost them dearly.

Natsukashii Revisited: Trump and Beyond

On January 20, 2017, Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States of America. Within twenty-four hours, people marched on Washington, D.C., and in cities all over the world, to announce to President Trump, and the world, that we stand for human rights, diversity, inclusion, and progress.

We must, however, realize that these issues go beyond Donald Trump.

Within the race to fill the leadership role of the Conservative Party of Canada are individuals like Kellie Leitch, who wants newcomers to Canada tested for ‘Canadian values’–which she has been quoted as claiming are conservative values, though not everyone in Canada is conservative. And Shark Tank judge Kevin O’Leary is now running; he has been quoted as saying he wants to, among other things, make unions illegal, saying, “Unions themselves are borne of evil.” He has also been quoted as saying it’s “fantastic” that a small percentage of people are wealthier than the poorest people, saying, “It gives them (the poor) motivation to look up to the one percent.” Very promising potential future leaders of Canada, indeed.

Trump, Leitch, and O’Leary are part of a recent trend towards leaders and political candidates wanting to turn the clock back to a time that never really existed, a time where everybody supposedly ‘knew their place.’ The presence of these folks, and others like them, is a reflection of the desire of a portion of the general population to live in a world without political correctness or left-leaning social justice, and the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States is a manifestation of the current attitude that ‘political correctness’ has gone too far and things need to go back to the way they supposedly were. In short, the people who willingly buy what the likes of President Trump, Leitch, and O’Leary are selling cling to, and benefit from, the status quo, even if it doesn’t work for everyone.

President Trump is also a manifestation, and a symbol, of a larger culture of entitlement, a culture which fosters, among other things, vitriol against left-leaning social-justice advocacy and activism and a desire to uphold the status quo simply because a small portion of the human population benefits from it. This culture of entitlement encourages kyriarchy–white supremacy, xenophobia, classism, patriarchy, jingoism, heteronormativity, cissexism, ableism, etc.–and bigotry.

I’m fully aware this problem goes beyond North America. All over the world, there are people who are afraid of change and will fight tooth and nail against it, because they think the status quo is better, or they think some period in the past was a better time, and the world needs to return to that time, even if it never existed in reality. President Trump, Leitch, and O’Leary cater to these people, and play on their fears to get votes and whatever else they want, and the election of Trump as the 45th President of the United States is very encouraging to them. However, if this trend of electing people with a serious case of natsukashii into positions of leadership continues, the world and all of its inhabitants will suffer.

Tempest in a Teapot?

As much as the latest backlash against social progress disheartens me, the actions and attitudes of people who champion social progress which actually hinder that progress disappoint me as much, if not more. Yes, people who champion social progress can hinder social progress, chiefly by spreading misinformation and acting in ways which alienate people, many of whom may be potential allies. I call such people–I’m thinking, right now, about extreme and/or misandrist feminists, the vegan police, scientifically illiterate vegans and environmentalists, anti-war activists who blame Islamist terrorist acts entirely on Western governments–social-justice dogmatists.

Yes, it’s infuriating that it’s 2016 and sexism, racism, speciesism, classism, heteronormativity, and other forms of prejudice and bigotry still exist. Yes, it’s maddening that people who engage in any form of bigotry use any number of excuses–for instance, religion, culture, peer pressure–to, well, excuse it, or those among their number deny the prejudice and bigotry happen, or exist, altogether. But condemning the folks who engage in prejudice and bigotry, and don’t respond well to being called out on it, is not a constructive response, or reaction. Nor is turning social justice, or a positive attitude towards social progress, into dogma.

I understand the frustration of social-justice dogmatists–of all types and stripes–but lashing out at people, condemning them for what they’re doing and/or not doing, and adopting a holier-than-thou attitude don’t solve anything; nor does it help to harbour attitudes of ‘us vs. them’ or ‘with us or against us’–we have to at least meet each other halfway. This doesn’t mean compromising our principles or accommodating dangerous ideas, but we have to at least try to understand those we don’t agree with.

Social-justice dogmatists mean well, and I believe they have the best of intentions, but their actions, and even some of their ideas, ultimately hurt their respective causes, mostly by acting holier-than-thou, alienating those who don’t agree with all of their ideas, and trying to silence those who disagree with them. Negative, hurtful actions and ideas negate the best of intentions.

The urge to make a difference is strong–and noble. Idealism is fine, but we must live in the real world. In this day and age, skepticism is important–especially if we want to actually make the world a better place for all of its inhabitants.

Backlash, Version…?

Within the last two or three years, I’ve noticed people fighting back against advances in rights for women, people of colour, poor people, veganism, and other progressions in society. The way I see it, these people fall into at least two groups: those with privilege–eg. the manosphere and so-called ‘race realists’–who don’t want to give it up, and thus want to uphold the status quo and even turn back the clock; and those who side with them because they don’t want to suffer the same sorts of abuse as feminists, vegans, or anyone else who champions social progress, of any kind. Either way, this anti-progress attitude aims to stop social progress, simply because a number of people with one form or another of privilege have decided they don’t want to share, or to treat people who aren’t exactly like them like they matter.

In this backlash, the term ‘social justice warrior’ is thrown around as a blanket insult towards anyone who indicates they care about the world we live in, and our fellow creatures of all species, sexes, sexual orientations, ethnicities, gender identities, creeds, and so on, as are the terms ‘white knight’ and ‘mangina,’ which alerts me to the manosphere’s need to make up its collective mind about how its members view non-manosphere males. (Also, those terms are misandrist, as they state men don’t really care about the world or anyone who isn’t exactly like them, and those who actually do aren’t really men. In short, these terms are products of biological determinism.)

I acknowledge that those who give themselves the labels ‘vegan,’ ‘feminist,’ ‘anti-imperialist,’ and other labels associated with social progress of any kind say stupid things, and take things too far, but those participating in the backlash against social progress who deal with these folks use the same brush to paint everyone else, including more rational people, who give themselves labels associated with any kind of social progress, simply because a few people with privilege have an ‘I don’t wanna share’ attitude. I realize it’s human nature to generalize, but it’s important to know when doing so can do damage, particularly in the area of poisoning the well. This goes for everyone, whatever label(s) we give ourselves.

I’m a vegan, a feminist, I care about the environment, LGBTQ rights, and racial and ethnic equality, and I don’t care what anyone believes as long as it doesn’t negatively impact society. But I understand the importance of making sure one has one’s facts, and has them straight, before speaking, if one doesn’t want to make an ass of oneself. I understand misandry is a form of sexism and misanthropy is a form of speciesism (humans are animals–religious zealots and ‘spiritual’ types, get over it). No doubt there are others like me. Ergo, those who participate in the current backlash against social progress use the lunatic fringe of all social-progress movements to strawman, and poison the well against, the more rational among us–and we do exist.

Non- and anti-vegans, those who call themselves ‘men’s rights activists (MRAs),’ ‘race realists,’ etc., benefit from the status quo, and don’t want to see anything change as a result, apparently not realizing the status quo hurts them, too. I understand a lot of these folks operate out of ignorance, apparently having dealt only with the crackpots among those who disagree with them, and blind even to the ways they benefit from the status quo, never mind how it hurts them. The way I see it, only a tiny portion of the above entities want the status quo to stay as it is because of the ‘I don’t wanna share’ mindset. I’m guessing they can’t see how they themselves can benefit from social progress.

I know it shouldn’t shock me there are still people, in this day and age, who are afraid of change–of any kind. Afraid to let go of whatever privilege they have, perhaps because they don’t think they’re important without it. It doesn’t help there are those willing to deliberately misrepresent ideas, such as feminism, veganism, the struggle for racial and ethnic equality, and rights for LGBTQ folk and others who have never had a lot of power in society, and are willing to use the lunatic fringe of movements for social progress in their misrepresentations. I, for one, hope the numbers of the people afraid of change, and who actively fight against it, will peter out as time goes by, but all those of us who want change can do until then is educate people, and fight the status quo.

Jumping at Shadows: What to Do About Syrian Refugees?

As the French say, the more things change, the more they stay the same. That’s definitely true in 2016, except the only things that have changed are the names. In 2001, the name was Taliban, soon to be followed by the names al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah; now it’s the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or the Levant), or the Islamic State, or ISIS, or ISIL. And now the world has to deal with people fleeing Syria to get away from ISIS and the havoc it wreaks.

I’ll get this out of the way: I am not defending Islam, or Islamism. I’m making the case that we should make it easy for people fleeing dangerous situations to find a safe space, and to make those people feel safe and welcome where they go. I know that’s kind of difficult when we have blowhards like Donald Trump flinging verbal feces at everyone from the Middle East, Central Asia, and other nations ruled by sharia and other Islamic-inspired laws, playing on the fears of the general population, but let’s not assume that everyone from these areas has the same morals, values, and mores as ISIS, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood, or other Islamist or fundamentalist Muslim groups or cults, but, rather, just ordinary people who want nothing more than to live their lives. Just because people identify themselves as Muslims doesn’t mean they’re a threat, but if we treat them like they are, they could very well become one. Let’s face it: ISIS, and other groups like it, take advantage of people’s frustration and feelings of isolation and powerlessness, so laws and measures that make it practically impossible for self-identifying Muslims to start fresh and go about their lives breed potential recruits for groups like ISIS. In short, shunning refugees just because they happen to self-identify as Muslim is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Every developed nation screens newcomers, immigrants and refugees, regardless of ethnicity, nation of origin, or belief–or non-belief. We have laws on our books, and police and courts to enforce them. If anyone breaks the law, let the cops and the courts deal with it–it’s kinda-sorta their job, anyhow. Granted, this is not a perfect system–hell, it’s not even foolproof (but, then again, nothing is)–but these measures were put in place to keep society safe. And, let’s face it, with terrorists and criminals–regardless of birthplace, creed, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or any other circumstances–where there’s a will, they’ll find a way. But let’s not use this fact as an excuse to exclude anyone, regardless of ethnicity, creed, or any other circumstances.

I’ll be one of the last people to deny that religious fundamentalism–of any type or stripe–causes a lot of damage, and is a genuine threat. But, just as we don’t paint all Christians, Jews, or other religious folk with the same brush we use to paint their hard-line counterparts, let’s acknowledge that not all Muslims wish death to infidels or want to impose sharia worldwide. The current fear-mongering aimed at the Syrian refugees, and others like them, will just create a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is definitely one of those situations where cooler heads must prevail.