Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
This quote is now in dispute; Franklin denied it, in a letter to David Hume, saying he only published a book that contained it. However, no matter who coined it - the sentiment is consistent with the Founders’ values.
Surveillance Cameras Win Broad Support
Crime-fighting beats privacy in public places: Americans, by nearly a 3-to-1 margin, support the increased use of surveillance cameras — a measure decried by some civil libertarians, but credited in London with helping to catch a variety of perpetrators since the early 1990s.
Given the chief arguments, pro and con — a way to help solve crimes vs. too much of a government intrusion on privacy — it isn’t close: 71 percent of Americans favor the increased use of surveillance cameras, while 25 percent oppose it.
It looks like Bush has conditioned a generation of “fraidy-cats”. Or is it just “technological progress” and I’m the “spinster peering under the bed”?
“Camera on every corner”: Protection? Or Invasion?
…The roving electronic eyes, which Chicago began installing four years ago and are now going up at the rate of 15 per week, are powerful enough to read vehicle license plates and even the ticket prices listed on a sign outside the Chicago Cubs’ Wrigley Field box office.
And they listen as well as look. Some of the cameras, which cost up to $30,000 apiece, are equipped with gunshot detectors that can alert police when bullets start flying. Eventually, they may even be able to sniff out biological or chemical agents in the event of a terrorist attack.
“I think it contributes to people’s sense of well-being,” said Lewin of the highly-visible cameras, many of which have blue flashing lights. “We can record video from the cameras and if something happens, we can go back and use the video as evidence in court.” […]
“The Brits have got something smart going in England,” Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, told ABC News earlier this summer. “I think it’s just common sense to do that [in the U.S.] much more widely.” […]
At the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York, a police helicopter’s night vision camera that was trained on protestors also recorded a couple’s intimate rendezvous on a terrace. That same year, a San Francisco cop used airport cameras to ogle female air travelers. And in 2006, New York’s police union sued the city for what it considered excessive monitoring during a contract dispute…
London has 4-million cameras; the UK has one camera for every 14 people!
- “Big Brother” plan for police to use new road cameras
- Watchdog warns over number plate snooping
- A fairy-tale for the surveillance age
They’ve been hidden in the belly of “teddy-bears”; in the “love-nest” of a Zimbabwean Archbishop critical of Mugabe; an armored-car heist featured a mini-cam in the belt-buckle of its architect. MySpace and Facebook have been criticized for allowing webcams and videos for “sexual-networking”. Cameras in cell-phones have caught both the good and the bad…
When both sides have the technology, whose rights trump whose? Do we give law-enforcement all the power and add penalties for using cameras for planning - just as we give the police the right to carry guns and penalize the felon for using a gun during the commission of a felony?
Big Brother is watching you! And for some reason, that doesn’t bother you? That may well be the scariest part: Americans crave security at any cost - even at the loss of the concept of “privacy”. But, hey, since Gord keeps a 24/7-eye on us, we should be used to it, huh? (Whew! I finally got my god-dig in!) “We don’t need no stinking privacy!”
Who will watch-dog the watchers?
Gack! I hate Joe Lieberman!
I’m not overly concerned with cameras in public places - I don’t really have an expectation of privacy under the sky. I’m much more disturbed by the email scanning, phone bugging, etc. Let me keep some privacy in my own home.
Generally speaking, this is all true… The reality is, the people who are pushing this utopian hellish ideology are the Socialists and far-left forces, especially in Europe. Look at the EU, not only is there no privacy, people have little to no real freedom of speech anymore, people can’t own guns, and the will of the people and democracy are being ripped to shreds by the EU and activist courts.
It’s a mess….
Robguy: You must be too young to have read 1984. Or you never saw the movie…
The door, once cracked open, is breached for good.
I have less problem with mandatory drug testing for critical jobs. But “passive” surveillance, to the tune of 4-million cameras in London alone, is what’s called a “slippery slope”.
The subjective “I’m not worried, since I don’t do anything wrong” is what they’re counting on. If you were approached by a Muslim asking for directions, you weren’t doing anything wrong but it may look like you were. Now are you worried?
Steven, all the more reason to stop it here! Now! While we still can.
As a commercial truck driver, I’m of two minds about the cameras on US interstates that surround large urban areas (Miami, Atlanta, etc.). They relay info about how well traffic is moving (or not, in the case of an accident or construction). Yes, I could use alternate roads - but do you really want my big-rig driving through your small-town? How about 200 big-rigs? 2,000? Convenience for whom?
Again, the cameras are a double-edged sword - and a toe in the door to a “surveilled society”…
There is only a matter of time before people are arrested and interrogated for a perceived crime. We do not have to stand by and let this shit happen. What part of this is not scary?
I don’t think we’ll be able to stop it. Unless laws are made to prevent private businesses from setting up cameras to protect their property, so-called “public” areas will inevitable be under surveillance as well.
I’m still kind of ambivalent about the whole thing. I mean businesses can already monitor your every move, except in bathrooms/dressing rooms, have been for many years. Why is it different if it’s in public?
It’s different because you are the public, and you are entitled to an opinion about the level of surveillance you want in public spaces.
I call attention to these stories:
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/755
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6383933.stm
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23405830-details/Mindless+yobs+pollute+emergency+water+supply/article.do
to illustrate the London isn’t seeing much crime prevention from it’s surveillance cameras.
London’s surveillance isn’t protecting anyone. Like current investigation technigues, it is only a tool to aid society in the capture of the guilty.
Cameras won’t stop terrorists, either. They’ll just give the police some before and after pictures so they can identify how the crime was committed.
I just think it’s cool that Franklin was corresponding with Hume–I’m curious to see the full letter.
Not really. Anyone could stand in a public park and take pictures all day long, you have no say about that. Now if they took a picture of you walking past a piece of trash on the ground and sent it to a paper with the headline “Litterer on the loose!” then that’s slander or libel or whatever, and you have legal recourse. It’s not the taking of the picture, it’s how its used…
Actually cameras COULD stop terrorists if the data were analyzed in time. But so could observation by an actual person in place of the camera. Problem is there aren’t enough people to do the observing, and their observations are inherently unreliable. Cameras don’t lie, but the interpretations can.
I’ll be considerably more worried when they have computers that can do the interpretation for the humans.
Maybe there should be a Reverse Big Brother to see how they like it.
I don’t think using computers for such is a bad thing, when they can actually do it. It’s when private companies sell their ideas which really don’t work that the problem occurs.
“Our facial recognition software is almost kinda sorta 75% accurate, except when it aint.”
What’s a “reverse big brother”? No one watching anyone? Or the populace watching the government? The latter is supposed to happen via elected officials, but ultimately the power corrupts.
Chris Hallq: here is the short Wiki-quote entry that I excerpted part of [in situ]:
Following it are many variants of the same sentiment.
The link in the article is to the research of scholar and shows the quote, and explores the reasons why the book wasn’t distributed until after Franklin’s death.
(Welcome to GifS-Home, Chris!)
Music can be tenacious! Earlier, after using “eye in the sky” to google an image…well…my mind’s “stylus” got stuck in a groove!
Let’s see if I can “give it away” to you and let my mind go on other things. From The Alan Parson’s Project, album “Eye in the Sky”, song chorus from “Eye in the Sky”:
Please take this off my hands! (To mix metaphors…
)
Revenant, I’ve read your writings, both here and on your blog. And of all the people who I supposed would be horrified by increasing surveillance, you were the last person I would have thought would find this even remotely acceptable or to be pragmatic about it. I’ve found your opinions and politics leaning away from my liberalism and toward strong libertarianism. At least, in past discussions…
How did you and I find ourselves at odds on this? My first guess was that we would be on the same page!
Government scares the bejesus out of me. Slipery slope indeed!
Well, Naomi, I don’t know that we are at odds. I’m certainly against abuse of such a system of surveillance, like the FBI watching who goes into a specific book store to help track what they’re reading. And mainly I don’t know that this sort of thing is happening (Hollywood aside).
My problem is that if you’re against something like this, then you must also be against an organized police force, which is just an extension of government and oppression, at least that’s the way a lot of people see them.
I’m not one of those who thinks anonymity means you have something to hide, necessarily. But I also don’t think ignorance is bliss. Like I said, I’m on the fence.
How do you feel about nanny-cams and such?
Here’s some discussion of “reverse Big Brother”, although I don’t think it’s described in exactly that way:
http://www.davidbrin.com/privacyarticles.html
Unfortunately, the mighty are on to this, and working hard to dismantle any system that would hold them accountable. All for the “greater good”, of course.
The insane amount of CCTV we accept in the UK (all over, not just London) is a massive bugbear of mine.
For years the public has been sold the crime prevention angle - yet this never materialised. Recent times have added in the “terrorism” angle, yet none of the CCTV has even slightly assisted. Despite the mass CCTV coverage people still have their cars stolen from covered areas and the police are unable to resolve the case.
Sadly, the widespread introduction of technology like this seems inevitable as the public become more and more afraid of anything which may undermine their nice lives. The problem is the guilty are able to circumvent the systems and the innocent end up being monitored more and more.
The erosion of our personal freedom’s begain
with The Harrison Tax Act of 1914.
In addition to the many previous attempts of
outlawing prostitution.
Once you lose the right of what you can do to
your’re own body.24/7 surveilance is inevitable.
I live north of Baltimore, and in the city, particularly high crime neighborhoods, they have these cameras mounted on the light posts on just about every street corner.
The cameras give a 360 degree view of where they are posted. They also have a very noticeable blue light emanating from underneath of them, so if you stand on say Greenmount and 23rd St., you can look down Greenmount at night and see the cameras all the way down the street to downtown. Kind of creepy.
It’s a waste of money because crime hasn’t gotten any better.
Y’all have got to stop posting and commenting on such addictive topics; I’ve got work to do and it’s getting harder and harder to tear myself away from GifS this afternoon!
More later *grumbles as reluctantly goes back to work*…
Excellent post. England has more surveillance cameras than anywhere else on the planet. And people are getting more and more conditioned to giving up thousand year old freedoms for imaginary freedom from fear.
Our government keeps introducing ever more totalitarian measures and people are barely opposing them.
The usual responses are either “It’s inevitable” or “If it can stop any more people getting injured by terrorists….”
The first is so blatantly false it hardly merits a diatribe about the difference between a political decision and the laws of the universe.
The second is out the other side of false. Far from preventing terrorist acts, it’s creating a constituency of disaffected Muslims for the mad mullahs. And turning the rest of us into craven sheep.
Enfant Terrible must have been watching “Zeitgeist”…
I also agree with steven 11:22am.The liberal
nanny state has been a disaster for personal
freedom.
Enfant Terrible, stop with the Frightwing buzzwords! Steven never used the words “nanny state”…but you sure did.
For every liberal program that failed, there have been ten conservative programs that failed. The difference is that the conservative ones are almost never for anyone BUT themselves!
I qualified the “never” with “almost” because we know about generalizations. However, a search will show that the GOP haven’t proposed or passed any legislation that benefitted the general public - just their narrow interests.
Come right out and tell us you’re a conservative and/or republican, or at least libertarian (although if you’re a liberal libertarian, you’ll only be the third one I’ve ever conversed with). Don’t hide behind veiled and vague barbs. Show us who and what you really are.
For all we know, you’re not even really a genuine atheist…
It seems to me that unless every “crime-catching” camera mounted anywhere is monitored all the time by unbiased, highly-trained technicians, then it is basically useless in the prevention of crime (hence the unchanging rates in neighborhoods that have them). If no one’s watching that particular street corner where the old lady is going to get mugged, she’s still going to get mugged, and if no one’s watching during the mugging, then nothing happens until the mugging gets reported - just like in areas with no cameras.
As for their usefulness in solving crime, you might even argue that if the criminals know about the cameras - or even the possibility of there being cameras - they could take steps ahead of time to avoid or make identification difficult, or even sabotage them. Photo/videographic evidence would thus be most useful in solving unpremeditated impulse crime; aside from that, all law enforcement has is a huge pile of ever-mounting, indiscriminately-gathered information.
Notice I approached this issue from a practical point of view as opposed to an ethical privacy-vs.-security viewpoint; it’s because I’m actually conflicted over it. I’m leaning toward those who oppose this type of surveillance because of how much it could be abused in a totalitarian state - which the US and UK seem to be fast becoming. I still think, though, that the sheer unwieldiness of the concept is its main detraction; if it can’t effectively and noticeably prevent crime, or solve premeditated crime, then what good is it? Add its slippery-slope-ness in respect to potential privacy violation, and it just doesn’t seem that great an idea.
(Aside) I love the Alan Parsons Project, and I love “Eye in the Sky!”
“Enfant Terrible, stop with the Frightwing buzzwords! Steven never used the words “nanny state”…but you sure did.
For every liberal program that failed, there have been ten conservative programs that failed. The difference is that the conservative ones are almost never for anyone BUT themselves!
I qualified the “never” with “almost” because we know about generalizations. However, a search will show that the GOP haven’t proposed or passed any legislation that benefitted the general public - just their narrow interests.
Come right out and tell us you’re a conservative and/or republican, or at least libertarian (although if you’re a liberal libertarian, you’ll only be the third one I’ve ever conversed with). Don’t hide behind veiled and vague barbs. Show us who and what you really are.
For all we know, you’re not even really a genuine atheist…”
Well, I would agree that the “nanny state has been a disaster for the Euros and could get to that point here. The reality is, no system works better than capitalism for helping the poor and society as a whole. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, or Repuiblican programs like Farm Subsidies or Corporate Welfare damage a society and help to wreck an economy. The freer the market, the freer the people. Now, though I am a “conservative”, with a slightly libertarian bent, I still don’t have any sort of religious non-sense beliefs. The thing with Europe is, though they are athiestic, they have replaced religion with a new dogma of utopian, PC, multicultural, socialism, which ultimately, combined with very low birth rates and dying population, will lead to the creation of a Muslim Europe. The best path for a nation to take is similar to that of Ayn Rand, secular, capitalistic, and with a strong emphasis on the individual and his freedom.
BTW Ron Paul in ‘08…
Steven (and Enfant “the Brat” Terrible by default), whenever you guys start shit like that, I want to forget how mild and easy-going I am!
Talk about utopian dreams! You speak of unfettered markets and free market economies as if they were be-all and end-all. Dream on! We recognize that you hate taxes and hate that your taxes are helping others - because your fucking charity is legendary!
Corporations are corrupt; they are run for profits. And only profit! The products and services are for sale. There is no heart and there sure as hell are no ethics. The only rule they have is to make the most money from the least effort and fuck the world. Since the Golden Age of Industry (1880-1927), when pollution choked everyone to death - at least those who weren’t worked to death - and the water was fouled. When children were sent to work at age ten - for sixteen hours a day, six and seven days a week!
When unconscionable greed ran the Stock Market into the ground. When debt caused suicides and starvation. When Prohibition provided some income, because the rest of the country was flat broke. When banks and savings banks closed down, unable to give the money to the people who trusted that they could take it out when they wanted.
Yeah, that Golden Age!
The country was saved by WWII but it’s recovery was started by programs like WPA and CCC. And Social Security. Not only did the elderly stop dying of starvation, they were given a little dignity along with their small stipend. Laws were passed to prevent exploitation of children and so that they could get free education beyond the 8th grade.
Oh, yeah, those terrible programs and policies from Nanny Franklin D! REA and TVA. Ouch! US Highway system. Dang it! FDIC. Just awful!
You’re right - it’s all been a terrible waste of money…
Oops! Sorry I brought it up.
Yeah, I could predict Ron Paul is your current hero. What? Isn’t that credit-card charlatan running again? You know, the one with the French name…Borden LaToya or something…
Or any number of others who hate taxes and hate other people but love guns. Oh, yeah, don’t you guys love teh gun! Look up “John Bootie ‘08″. He’s running for president, too. He’s right of Sam Brownback. AND he thinks everybody should be forced to carry a gun! That’s how we’ll fix crime!
Oh, Linden LaRouche. Sorry I dissed your god…
No, I never said that working standards laws, or all taxes, or highways were a bad idea. But the reality is, the difference between now and the early 19th century is TECHNOLOGY. That’s why people live longer, that’s why people have better jobs that don’t require such hard labor. Even back in those days, conditions were much better than the rest of the world. Then how did technology come about??? Innovation through corporate competition and free markets, not the government nannying us!!! None of FDR’s program’s did much of anything except get us into debt. Social Secuirty is basically government managed ripoff retirement that takes 12% of your money away every year and gives it to other people. In fact, it works much like a pyramid scheme. The fact is, markets fix almost everything. Just go to China if you need proof!!! The bottom line: There is no perfect system and there is no free lunch, there will always be poor people, but the system that will make things the best is captalism, the system with the most choice and freedom involved. Then again, the government is not there to make all people equal, just to protect our rights and to protect us from each other. Those who stray from this end up like the string of communist and socialist failures. Success should be something that is looked up to and emulated, not hated. You’ll never be what you hate. Those governments who want perfect really end up in the ditch. As Barry Goldwater said: “Those who try their hardest to impose their version of heaven on earth on the rest of us, always end up creating the closest thing to hell on earth.” Government doesn’t work!!!
So, Steven; you responded to Naomi:
“Now, though I am a “conservative”, with a slightly libertarian bent, I still don’t have any sort of religious non-sense beliefs.”
[Asking Naomi’s indulgence, here?…umm…What’s that Naomi?…did you perhaps say…
“And for your Penance, ChuckA: say three “Our Farters” and One “Heil Murray!”
(and, alas, ChuckA dutifully repeats the prescription…ending with: “Who’s Murray?”)
OK, back to the point…
Foist: That still doesn’t tell us whether you’re an atheist, Steven. For all WE know you DO believe in a gord; but of course, YOUR’S would be a sensible belief. Like Naomi…I’m just wondering!
Next:
Let’s see; regarding your “conservative/slightly libertarian bent” AND, evidently, being a Pro (Repiglican) Ron Paul promoter…
Erm…Let’s take Ron Paul:
Aside from his originally being against the Iraq War…
and his mix of traditional Conservative…and typical Libertarian stances…Let’s see…
Pardon another little joking exercise of putting words in his imaginary mouth…
Low taxes, small government…In other words:
“Don’t bother us rich guys…why the fuck, on this somewhat primitive, predatory and highly competitive animal planet, should we care in the least about you poorer and/or elderly humans? Just keep doin’ all those necessary low wage sweaty and dirty ass jobs…and don’t expect any help from the government in your old age. Highways, Shmyways…They’ll all be up for sale soon, especially to NON-Americans! Yeah…WTF!
And of course…I get a totally separate from the masses, lifetime pension just for being, even a HALF-assed Senator. You poor assholes. perhaps, just drew the short straw in the luck of the genetic draw, Roit? If you don’t make enough money to invest in the oh-so-rock-solid stock market, or save enough for your old age…should I care?”
As to his Pro Free Market, Free Trade notions…Let’s see; in short:
“Fuck all the decent, well paying American Jobs, with full benefits. Yeah, screw the Middle Class” [And fuck Lou Dobbs in the ass, as well?]
“Whoa!” (and Kitty Pilgrim?)
As to (No) Universal National Health Care:
“Hey…I’m a doctor…”NO PROBLEMO!”…I got PLENTY of money to give to the, for profit, middle man Insurance profiteers and greedy drug companies…What!…
You don’t?…tough shit!…butt PULE-E-E-Z-E!…don’t come anywhere near me with any of your untreated diseases, psychological problems, and/or long term genetic maladies!
And you old people…stay away from my lawn with your electric wheel chairs! I’m a card carrying NRA member, you know(???)”
OY VEY!
Actually Steven…my kidding is not really meant to be so much ’stabbing’ you personally…I may be totally off the mark regarding your actual take on those improvised criticisms. They’re just some of my personal, old Liberal attitudes towards Conservative and Libertarian ideas in general.
Hey!…Some of my best friends (I lie!) are Libertarian style Conservatives.
One being…of all people…my older sister…OUCH!
For anyone interested in more about Ron Paul:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
My last tour in Germany my family and I lived in Nurnburg, we had an apartment in the Zerzabelshof section of town. We lived on the (American) third floor, and on the ground floor was a shoe store. My oldest son had to catch the bus for school right out front at a quarter to seven every morning. The man who owned the shoe store was a very nice man didn’t speak English, and my oldest son spoke little German, but I went down with him one day and Herr Waller asked (through me) what was going on in school. My son replied that today was Government Day. Herr Waller answered, “When I was a youngster, EVERY day was government da. All. Day. Long.”
People tend to forget that Cardinal Richelieu (the real one, father of the French navy and secret service) said at one point that he could take the most patriotic Frenchman anyone could find, talk to him, and within six sentences have enough to hang him for treason.
I don’t think all the political polemic really helps anyone. Extremes at all sides are bad things; such as forcing everyone to carry guns and wanting to take all guns away; removing all surveillance cameras and wanting more surveillance; Removing all government assistance programs and adding more.
Moderation is almost always the best course to take. Help the people who need it most, but don’t force something on people who don’t need it. But for the people you’re helping there has to be a limit, otherwise there is abuse. Enforce the gun laws we already have instead of enacting more which won’t be enforced.
As for guns, I’m a living example of the lack of enforcement. Back before the so-called “assault weapons ban” I legally bought a firearm that was later banned for sale. What was SUPPOSED to happen was the BATF was supposed to contact me and give me the option of surrendering the weapon, or applying for a Class III license in order to keep it. I would have been more than happy to apply for the license, which would have meant I would have been more closely monitored in the future. But no one contacted me. More than 10 years later, still nothing. Eventually the ban expired and wasn’t renewed. What was the point of the ban if it wasn’t going to be enforced?
I’m against unfettered access to firearms, but the fact is, anyone with a half-decent machine shop in their garage can mass-produce automatic weapons.
Well no, it’s not so “us rich guys” can keep their money. It’s so everyone can keep their money. If you were to eliminate the programs that I am talking about, you wouldn’t need
1. Federal Income Tax
2. FICA Tax
That would mean that your average household would get a 35% pay raise!!!
That would work much better than our current attempts at redistribution. Plus, it would increase social mobility, and eliminate a lot of poverty due to job creation. AND it would give people more money to donate to private charity, thus helping the poor.
On healthcare, well for starters, Medicare and Medicaid combine to raise healthcare costs for all of us due to the price fixing, which causes inflation.
PLUS There is no such thing as free healthcare. In countries with universal care, not only does the quality go down, but the taxes are enormous. There’s a reason that only ONE country in the EU has gas prices at under $5 a gallon… Somebody always has to pay for it… AND in Euro countries, unemployment is very high, and the economies, due to goverment interference, are fairly stagnant… They are much more vulnerable to an aging and dying population than one that is a free market…
At the end of the day, the market and competititon does best.
If they DON’T have these cameras how will YouTube get its fantastic videos of fights, robberies, and horrific traffic accidents?
If I’ve learned anything during the Bush administration it is this: any power bestowed on the type of people who pursue positions of power leads to the desire for more power and inevitable abuse. Sure, it’s a clunky sentence but no one saw me type it.
The biggest problem with a strictly capitalistic society is that eventually big business rules the country. I am a small business owner and the Wal-marts of the world are slowly but surely destroying small businesses everywhere. The poor are not benefiting from this bullshit, only the stockholders are. Poor people can’t afford stocks! Education is the only avenue for the poor to get ahead and the price for that is skyrocketing. The generous support of the government and many other nonprofit organizations help many poor people go to college and get their degrees. So don’t give me that party rhetoric about capitalism being the answer. By itself, capitalism solves few if any of societies problems. In fact, it creates as many problems as it solves.
Typical health care excuses. The free market of medicine is why the costs are so high for drugs. If those assholes were not paying so much in advertising for their happy hard dick pills then everyone could afford their medication. Should these dipshits work together society would be better off. There are more drugs available for ADHD and weight loss then there are for heart disease or cancer.
naomi i have only one response THE OLD GIT!
I would like to clarify one thing. I’m not a socialist or communist or any -ist. Capitalism works fine to provide us with all the toys and neat shit we desire. However, it is useless when it comes to the overall welfare of society.
Let’s take a vote. How many of you would rather drive a fancy car than give your reduced taxes to the poor?
Chaoswes:
To some extent I agree with you, I’m not saying that I’m against anti-trust laws, or that I’m a friend of big business. However, with out enormous taxes, rediculous regulation and lawsuits, small businesses like yours would have a much better chance. AND because of the low taxes, consumers would have a hell of a lot more money to spend.
Where we do disagree is on big business success. The thing is, when a big corporation profits, so do the rest of us. Millions of average people work for corporations and benefit when they are successful. Also, stockholders make more profit.
Where the small businesses come in is that they provide competition for the big companies and thus drive down prices and make products better.
Ultimately, all of the big government programs don’t help poor people anyways. All of the socialistic Euro countries still have much poverty and unemployment despite the welfare state, in fact Sweden and Norway have actually seen increases in poverty and unemployment as they have gotten more socialized…
I confess myself to be very anbivilent about this national surveillance. When I joined the army I always wondered why they called you a “private” because privacy was the only thing you had less of than money.
You really learn to appreciate it when it is denied you. Officially, we didn’t DESREVE it. Would only abuse it if we had it, and it was a “privilege” that came with how high up the tree you managed to climb.
I have been spared a great deal of trouble and expense by the fact that a traffic control camera taped the entire incident of my being run over last year. That and the fact that the first responding officer also gave me a breathalizer and entered it in the official report. I have never attempted to recover any damages from her, but she has taken me to court three times over the difficulties this incident caused her. Each time, because of this tape and the breathalizer I’ve come away clean. Each time the justice involved told me they would have found against me, probably because of my social standing and the people I had as witnesses.
As an aside, it was intersting that when the police arrived at the incident, her first words were, “I’m a christian woman, and…”
The last time we came out of the chamber, she told someone, “A christian just can’t be heard in these courts…”
On the whole, though, I think I’d rather do without the surveillence.
Steven, I do agree that big government programs don’t work either. In some cases they promote laziness. Indeed neither system works. There has to be middle ground that could be effective.
I must disagree with your competition assertion. Big businesses can and often do buy out the manufacturers of the products that they sell. They can then in turn sell for much much less then the small business can. That is not competition it is slaughter.
naomi who am i? read my comment from febuary 27
2007 condi rice 1:01pm.
comment 17
I agree with those who advocate middle ground and moderation between the two extremes of capitalism and socialism. There should be as much individual freedom as possible, with a basic safety net should people suffer catastrophic circumstances such as a permanent physical disability.
Um - I got nothing else…
Eve:
To some extent I agree with you, I don’t really advocate “pure capitalism”, like without consumer protection laws, some safety standards, anti-trust laws, etc. BUT I really wouldn’t call capitalism in general an extreme. In fact I would say that what we have now, which is a more than 2 trillion dollar a year entitlement system, is more than a basic safety net. I would just say that any welfare, or a safety net for that matter, should be done, as the Founders advised us, at the state level…
I think that this article sort of sums up Europe:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1234
^ I’ll be the first to admit this is an area I’m pretty ignorant in, so like I said before, my idea of balance, moderation, and middle ground is really all I’ve got…
Eve
Then again, you must have quite a bit of knowledge when it comes to anything else political, like your post: “Wrestling with the Hydra”
The “small gummint” neocons are in bed with BigBizness and have fucked up this country! And, in case you hadn’t noticed, I. AM. PISSED. So don’t expect me to accept and respect your Econ.101 theories as anything more than neocon propaganda.
America is sick and won’t get better by keepin’on with the same fucked-up policies that got us into this mess. Pollution. Outsourcing that is screwing the middle-class, once Reagan began to break the backs of the unions - the ONLY group that had the balls to dispute the hubris of BigBiz. Everybody else wanted to get into bed with BigBiz and get screwed for the money. There isn’t an orifice on the body politic that BigBiz hasn’t stuck its Big Dick into. If dollars were leaking back out, there might be something in the deal. But there’s nothing. BigBiz gets the satisfaction - we get the wet spot!
WHY does it not bother you that you can’t be in the top 1%? Or even the top 5%? My needs are modest and I don’t aspire to private jets and second homes. I want decent, affordable healthcare for everyone more than I want a Lexus or Benz. But as long as “profit” is involved, there is no incentive to change. The premiums go up, the deductibles go up and more and more people can’t afford to have it taken from their paycheck. Is this not a criminal act?
It is, because one of the first things that happens when your doctor says you need surgery is it’s denied. Then comes the second and third opinions. Then another denial. If you can hang on long enough, and be persistent enough, they’ll relent.
Start a new job? Been treated in the last year? Oops! Pre-existing condition. Not covered for at least the next 18 months! Too bad…
Need a prescription? Can you afford the new co-pays? Many are 50% of the “retail” price! And if your Rx costs $300 retail? And it’s chronic, meaning long term use? Well, let’s do the fucking math! $300 X 0.5 = $150 X 12 = $1,800 per year. Oops! You need three Rx’s? Ouch! Turn the thermostat down. Eat macaroni and cheese. Give the pet away. Turn off every light but the one. Oh, no, your spouse needs meds, too? Well, one of you needs to die…
Mind you, I’m not there now, never have been and hope never to be in that boat. But my “heart” is still in good enough shape to see how it happens to many people.
And my last job, before becoming a truck driver, was a welfare caseworker. I had clients who used the system as it was designed. (Single Mom, two kids, husband leaves. She goes on AFDC/Food stamps and enrolls in junior college. Gets her AssocDegree and applies to universities. Gets a full scholarship to Brown and she’s off to better things.) And I had clients who were third-generation. If I’d had all clients like Mom#1, I might still be doing it. If I’d had all clients like Mom#2, I wouldn’t last one week at it. But my caseload was full of families in between those two extremes…
Now here are the questions that nobody asks, but they illustrate where the real problem is: How much money is enough? How rich do you have to be before you stop striving for more and more and more? If, after a time, money becomes just markers in a global Monopoly game, when do you realize what a fucking capitalist-pig you are?
ET: I visited your comment #17. All I found is you are down on “wooo”, may or may not like Sam Harris and you like to take “trips”.
As to TOG, you’re being cryptic again. Since “reading minds” is more “wooo”, you’ll have to explain what TOG has to do with this discussion, except that I do know he hates the surveillance cameras as much as I do.
Naomi
I’m not a capitalistic “pig” In fact I’m quite the opposite. I’m a very modest person and I’m actually a really big tightwad. I just think that capitalism helps everyone.
Your plan of entitlements and big government doesn’t make the poor rich, it actually does quite the opposite by squeezing the middle and working class. A rich person can afford to take the tax burden, but a middle class person can’t. Let me give you an example:
Average person makes about 40,000 dollars a year.
They pay
$6557.50 in income tax - 16% of income
and
$6000 in FICA tax - 15% of income
So that person’s real income, after just FEDERAL TAXES has a real income of only $27,500. Then add on state taxes and you aren’t left with much.
If that person were able to keep all of that money he would be able to save the FICA portion of his taxes for retirement, and after 40 years or so, this would be about $250,000, and if invested properly this could be millions. The rest of his income tax could be used to pay for health insurance and for general expenses.
Think, a 31% pay raise for every American!
This would be much better than a broken social security system which actually none of us own any stake in, or the rip-off Medicare system which raises prices… I’d say it’s a good deal…
Yes, yes, yes, I’ve seen that rationale before. But usually from Grover Norquist’s “Jeez, I REALLY hate taxes” group.
The reality is far different. And with your plan, stockbrokers make out like a bandit. Most people don;t have a clue about how to invest and with your rhetoric to give them false courage, they think they can become rich. You’d need much more money than they will have to “play” with.
We’ve lost the knack of saving in this country. Some of that is the result of short-sighted corporatists’ urges to “spend!spned!spend!”, “pleeze buy my shiny, pretty things!”. And I admit to being a gadget-slut myself, until recently.
We aren’t any better teaching this generation about money and saving than we’ve ever been since WWII. Prosperity is a lure, but without the knowledge and discipline of how to get there and with the errors of “acquisition for acquisition’s sake”, we’re spinning our wheels. And the mudhole is getting deeper and more slippery.
It hasn’t been all that long ago (some 80 years!) since our less-than-wealthy populace envied a rich upper-class that, too, flaunted their wealth in newspapers and magazines. In fact, despite the “circuit-breakers” built into the stock exchanges, we’re still stumbling toward collapse. Only this time, a forward thinker, another visionary won’t save us. China and the Saudis own us. And when we go down, we’ll take much of the world with us.
As for your claims on SS and MediCare, you’re spouting Norquistisms again. Stop it!
And I wasn’t saying you personally are a “selfish capitalist pig”. My questions stand. Answer them, please:
Answer for the CEOs of Exxon, FoxNewsCorp, Berkshire-Hathaway, Microsoft, Time-Warner, Morgan-Stanley/Goldman-Sachs/Bear-Stearns (or whatever their name is today). Answer for the hedge-fund owners building their palaces in Connecticut.
I don’t see them as capitalist pigs, I see them for what they are, successful people. I don’t hate them for their wealth, most of them worked their asses off for it… The other thing is, without these people, where would the rest of us be? I’ve seen plenty of rich men give poor men jobs, but I’ve never seen a poor man give a rich man a job.
Then again, this debate really is not about the mega rich, this is about what is the best system for running an economy and what benefits the common man the most. Although a few get very rich off it, capitalism is the best system all around. The poor in our country are far better off than their counterparts in other socialized countries, Christ, go to Cuba, the “worker’s paradise”
Equality in society is not the point, in reality there will ALWAYS BE POOR PEOPLE! But the system that helps the average worker the most and improves the quality of life the most is capitalism. The proof is in the pudding, capitalism made this country great, and continues to elecate the quality of life in Japan, China, and around the world.
Oh, this is rich! Steven sends us to a Brussels’ blog which makes the point
WTF? Norway is a major oil-rich country?
Well, I googled “oil + reserves” and at infoplease.com I find that of the 20 oil-rich countries, representing 95% of the oil in the world(!), Norway is only 18th (7.7billion barrels proven), just above Azerbaijan (7.0) and India (5.8). The three totaled represent just 1.6% of the world’s proven reserves.
At that point, I abandoned the blog post. Someone deliberately misquoting something so easily disproved isn’t worth my time…
Steve, try again, please.
That wasn’t really the point of the article, but in any case it said that Norway was the 3rd largest EXPORTER of oil, not the one with the 3rd largest reserves…
http://www.norway.org/News/archive/1996/199601oil.htm
This article is from 1996, but it pegs Norway as #2 in the world….
Fine, I concede that point. But a quick scan of Wikipedia’s entry for Norway’s economy shows an extremely stable and viable democracy, with growth, controlled spending, and prudent measures to avoid inflationary boom/bust cycles. The population is amazingly well-educated, not over-worked, and very healthy. Their CEOs do not earn up to 400-times their workers, who enjoy extremely high wages, even by European standards.
Have you been to Norway? If you haven’t, then you and I are fighting with the weapons at our disposal, to show the other that our view of government’s role in our lives is either “too much” (you) or “not vigilant enough” (me). You spout Norquistisms and produce blogs that agree with you. And I proffer sources that show current models of success.
I see the “cowboy” mentality in the loners of commerce, working FOR themselves and AGAINST everybody else. I see disregard for the rest of the population. I see them hating their workers, that they have to pay them a decent wage and not work them to death. I see not one iota of respect for the noble ideals of
I see short-sightedness, greed, bloat, corruption and a general decadence of character. Ebeneezer Scrooge, Uriah Heep and Simon Legree.
What do you see? And please produce more balanced sources. Or quit wasting my time.
Actually, I have been to Norway, and you’re right, it’s a beautiful country. But that was true far before socialism hit. I just don’t see a real bright future for Europe in general, due to the fact that many EU countries will be majority Muslim within a handful of generations, at least Norway has kept itself out of the EU… But that’s a different matter.
In the case of the US, I would argue that the Founders were very staunch capitalists who would be appalled with the current welfare state. Just look at the Constitution, Article I Section 8 Clauses 1-18. Nowhere on the list of specific powers given to the Federal Government does it say ANYTHING about social welfare programs, medical insurance, or farm subsidies for that matter.
They were also huge defenders of private property and property rights… A theme central to captitalism.
The free market ultimately makes men free, it’s the only system in the world which allows men to become rich by serving their fellow men.
The government doesn’t really do much of anything well, it creates a mess out of almost everything it does. But besides, if you ask me, the only legitimate functions of a government are to protect private property, protect our rights, and protect us from each other. In some ways it almost is immoral to take the hard-earned money of one man, and give it to another. This puts me much in the same camp as an Ayn Rand.
The government isn’t their to control our lives, or to try to make people “equal”, as was the central theme to Communism. The income disparity between people is a healthy thing, it spawns innovation, competition, and ultimately a successful society. It’s what built THIS society.
Socialism makes a society imbalanced, as is demonstrated in the article, which says That the average person in Swedem who goes to college for 3 years earns only 5 PERCENT MORE THAN someone who NEVER WENT TO COLLEGE! Why go to college???
But the real challenge is this, name one country which has substantially increased the quality of life through introducing a welfare state?
I can name at least three which have skyrocketed when they adopted capitalism:
1. China
2. India
3. South Korea
When these countries welcomed the free market and US corporations, the people ultimately became much wealthier.
BTW, that article I put up from the Brussels Journal is really a good article, definitely worth finishing.
I see people with connections and money to begin with. The only industry that has proven to allow the average Joe the potential for success is technology. Other than that, name one CEO that started out poor and now lives in a giant fucking house. Wake up!!! These assholes don’t care about you, Steven, or me or anyone else but themselves. I’m all for working hard and “making it” but come on. No one deserves to make the asinine money these shitheads are making. Name one person who actually deserves 40 million dollars a year.
Top 100 Executives by Total Compensation
Damnit. Let me try that link again.
Top 100 Executives by Compensation
Trust me, I know that they don’t give a damn about me or most other people, but that’s part of life. I don’t hate CEO’s for making obscenely large amounts of money, they earned it. And many of them give a lot of it away, look at Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
The thing is though, this isn’t really a debate about the mega-rich. This is a debate about the common man. I would say that the common man would do much better in a low-tax society, one where he controls his own finances. As I proposed before, a 31% pay raise for your AVERAGE American.
Besides, America was built on freedom and not wealth redistribution, no matter how hard you try people will never all live at a great standard of living, poverty is a fact of life. But the best way to control it is through the free market, which gives everyone a real shot, not at a CEO position, but at a decent job.
I know I keep bringing this up, but look at the Chinese example. They went from Communism to capitalism and within 20 years they have become a booming, sprawling, modern nation.
Socialism doesn’t solve poverty, all it does is put a big burden on the tax payer, in the end the Free market makes men prosperous.
Steven, I am not rejecting capitalism entirely. My primary concerns are two fold.
1. The rulers of these companies make way too much money. Lets close that gap. Nobody needs to make that much money unless they actually invent something useful. No, I don’t think sports figures should be making the stupid amounts they are either.
2. Making money off of peoples misery is just plain fucking wrong. Letting people die because they can’t afford heath care is fucked up and wrong. How much money do these companies spend on advertising? I would hope that my doctor knows more than me about what drug is best for my condition.
The problem is that most of the mega-rich don’t give away their money. I truly admire Bill Gates for his philanthropy and wish more would follow his example.
Chaoswes
OK, so I guess our disagreement isn’t as big as I thought.
First of all, on healthcare, hospitals are required by federal law to provide emergency care to anybody who comes to them, so really, that doesn’t happen very often. My opposition to universal healthcare is not that, but to government-run health care and just the sheer cost of a universal care package. With a 9 trillion dollar deficit, we can’t afford it!
Although my ideas on the economy have very little to do with lowering taxes on the obscenely rich, but as a policy in general.
The thing is though, realistically, very few people make the amount of money that you’re talking about, so it isn’t as much of a big deal. Really, regardless of how much you make, if we (the government) would just learn some fiscal responsability, no one would have to pay individual federal taxes.
My personal Ramen…and bravo (or brava?) to you, Naomi! I completely agree with you!
How the fuck old are you, Steven?…if I may be so bold…
You ’sound’ to me, like someone who HASN’T quite left a rather comfortable family nest…i.e…you’ve never really been out much on your own; with absolutely no family safety net to rely on. A bit of an Ivory tower type, perhaps?
I realize I’m guessing; but…
You were sort of wistfully fantasizing about the 19th Century earlier in this Post. A Century when there was unfettered, “no brakes” American Capitalism…in other words: no taxes, no automobiles, no paved roads, no (widespread) electricity, rather elementary Science, no anesthesia, aspirin as a late comer…slavery, child labor, no Unions, certainly no real modern Health Care to speak of…zama, zama.
Your statistical quotes like:
“Average person makes about 40,000 dollars a year.”
What does that REALLY mean for many who make a lot less? Anyone can quote statistics; and the ones that do that the most, are usually those with no ACTUAL life experience of having been poor. Yeah…like those who claim to be “Compassionate Conservatives”.
TRUE compassion only comes from ACTUAL EXPERIENCE, not semantic tongue wagging.
This country is being led predominantly by people who, in many cases, NEVER in their entire life had to even ponder how they were going to afford food, or pay their rent or…a health care premium. Our illustrious “Chimpy” is a prime example.
Born to wealth; as was his dad, George H. W., who was so out of touch with the ‘real’ world, that he was unfamiliar and amazed as President, when encountering a ‘Super Market’ checkout scanner! Talk about ‘Ivory Tower’ lives!
I’m 67 years old, with a college degree…and have never made 40K in my entire life. Partly, of course, because of career choices and various circumstances; so I can’t really complain.
[I remember things like, back in the 1960s, after college, when money was really ’short’, subsisting for a time on peanut butter and oat meal! Not bad, actually!]
I’ve always worked (mostly as a musician); was never on Welfare; but lived most of my life, paycheck to paycheck.
[Yeah…I know…so what!]
Until the 1980s, I could always afford to have some kind of health care. Even most PART TIME jobs I had, before and during the 1960s and well into the ’70s, usually offered affordable Blue Cross/ Blue Shield or whateva.
My parents were somewhat low income, but managed OK; even living through the Great Depression. I’m a big admirer of FDR for many reasons; not the least of which, of course, IS the setting up of the Social Security ’safety net’, which has certainly saved the lives of many non-rich people in this country.
If any of you guys checked out the linked talks (in one of my comments) by Helen Caldicott , an Australian medical doctor…you’d hear a good argument for society VALUING & COMMITTING ITSELF to investment in ALL the people’s welfare; namely with investing IN Social Security, National Health Care, even a ‘Free’ College Education.
Of course, as she notes, Americans love to arrogantly brag that: “Were the greatest country in the World”…
Oh really?…based on what?…Just ’cause we say so???
Australians, by her account, care much more about PEOPLE…not the manufacturing, selling, stockpiling, poluting…and USING every fucking, stupid weapon that questionably higher evolved man has ever invented and produced…INCLUDING, of course, every WMD imaginable!
I realize my opinion doesn’t mean much here (or anywhere); but if there wasn’t Social Security and Medicaid, I most probably wouldn’t be here to type this stupid comment.
Of course, when you…Steven…if you even read this little bit of MY bullshit; and all the rest of us GifSters are eventually dead…certainly in another 100 years…assuming the world is still inhabited by human animals…we’ll all be totally forgotten, and NOBODY will give a fuck, anyway.
[And Marcy?…am I being a misanthropist by saying that?]
Oh…one more item, Steven…
[Regarding your actual belief or non-belief in a god? Are you an atheist, or not?]
Being an atheist, I’m very suspicious of people who automatically bring phrases into their verbal usage like: “god forbid…my thoughts and prayers are with you…Gord willing…Thank gord…zama, zama.
I’m referring to your:
“Christ, go to Cuba, the “worker’s paradise”
Equality in society is not the point, in reality there will ALWAYS BE POOR PEOPLE!”
Ummm…
CHRIST?̷