Costa Rica Guy

Sanders is a Step in the Right Direction

April 17, 2016 by costaricaguy 1 Comment

To keep doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

It’s also the reason why the system of oligarchy, or rule by the rich, has grown such deeps roots in American society.

Today the nation, the world, is faced with grave problems that cannot be dismissed. And, as a matter of fact, neither ISIS, nor immigration, are in the top three.

Economic inequality has grown to monstrous proportions in our country and in the world at large. In our country the richest singly family owns more wealth than the bottom 40% of all Americans. In the world, the richest 62 people own more wealth than 50% of all people on planet earth. Let me put that another way, 62 people own more of the earth’s resources than 3.5 billion!

Now, some might say, so what?

Well, if you don’t think that all that concentrated wealth carries with it concentrated power, then you’re just not being honest with yourself.

It does matter. And it is creating an unsustainable situation in our country and throughout our planet.

It is creating a dangerously unstable situation.

The reality is that the conflicts throughout the world might just have more to do with inequality than with anything else, including religion. The disaffected are looking for answers and the siren song of violent reaction, whether sounded by Trump or by ISIS, can be very alluring.

But thinking people know that violence is not the answer.

Right?

The capacity for influence that all that concentrated wealth carries cannot be lightly dismissed. It has become quite acceptable to the American populace that only the most wealthy among us share the privilege of leading us in government. And it’s become perfectly acceptable to many that only those with access to billions from wealthy contributors (or from their own pocket books) should be capable of successfully running a campaign for national office, like president, congressman, or senator.

But that access comes at a price…and that price is oligarchy.

Government does not work for the people.

Government works for the rich. If that’s not the case, then why can’t it take action that the people want?

Do the people want health care as a right, not a privilege? Should we not live in a situation in the richest country on earth, where the prospect of a health crisis does not also lead to the inevitability of a personal financial meltdown? The citizens of virtually every other developed country on this planet have that…but not here, not in the U.S.

Why?

Because those in power don’t want it, either because they fear they’d have to shoulder the lion’s share of the burden of paying for it, or because they know it will hit them where it hurts the most…their beloved bottom lines. The wealthy have a vested interest in keeping health care costs soaring and making sure the populace keeps paying the price for it.

Do the people want their kids to have the chance to get a start in life with a college degree without the added burden of crushing debt? Debt that they may be paying back for the rest of their lives? Is it not reasonable to expect that the wealthiest nation on earth could provide that benefit to its youth in the same way that most other developed countries provide theirs? Of course, but those in power don’t want that.

Why?

Well, because either they fear they’d have to shoulder the lion’s share of the burden of paying for it, or because they know it will hit them where it hurts the most…their beloved bottom lines. The wealthy have a vested interest in keeping education costs soaring and making sure the populace keeps paying the price for it.

Global warming is a scientific fact. If you’re reading this and don’t believe that, the only thing I can suggest is…do a little unbiased research. The scientific evidence is overwhelming…along the lines of gravity, or evolution.

Not only is it a scientific fact, but it’s a very real and current threat to humanity. The negative effect of global warming on our planet and our lives is not some distant danger…it is a present danger. They are taking place throughout our planet now, from disappearing species that some are calling the sixth mass extinction of life on planet earth, to the melting polar icecaps and rising sea levels.

So, why can’t we seem to get our collective act together and do something about it? Because those in power don’t want that.

Why?

Because either they fear they’d have to shoulder the lion’s share of the burden of paying for it, or because they know it will hit them where it hurts the most…their beloved bottom lines. The wealthy have a vested interest in ignoring climate change and making sure the populace keeps doing the same.

Make no mistake about it, the reason the government doesn’t work for the people is because it works for the wealthy.

And we keep voting for that reality.

We keep voting for oligarchy.

We are facilitating the problem.

It is madness to think that someone who finances his or her campaign with donations from the 1%, will then take office and govern for the 99%. Tweet it out!

Ain’t gonna happen.

But, wait, a solution has arrived on this event horizon, just in time for us not to go careening over the edge into the black hole…

His name is Bernie Sanders.

Now, am I saying that Bernie Sanders is the answer? That he will be the proverbial magic wand whose waiving will vanquish all the grave problems we face?

No, I am not and I do not believe that.

But, I do believe this…he’s the best chance we’ve got at this point in time.

His election does not guarantee success. It does not guarantee that the people will get what they want.

But he does increase that probability.

Bernie Sanders does not guarantee success.

But…Bernie Sanders is a step in the right direction.

On Ayn Rand and Neoliberalism

March 29, 2016 by costaricaguy 8 Comments

Lately I’ve been delving a bit deeper into the underpinnings of this neoliberal philosophy that so dominates american politics and government these days.

Neoliberalism is a political philosophy that supports extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.

As an economic theory, neoliberalism is the product of economists like Frederick Hayek in Europe and Milton Friedman in the U.S. However, its philosophical underpinnings, or the manner in which it has taken deep root in the American psyche, appears to be at least partly due to one person in particular, a lady named Ayn Rand.

You may know of her. She wrote two widely popular books, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. She also is the originator of a philosophy called objectivism.

Here’s part of the definition of objectivism from Wikipedia…

Objectivism’s states that the proper moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness (rational self-interest) and that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism.

Rand’s philosophy of objectivism is rooted in the idea that reality and consciousness are separate things. Reality is something we perceive through our consciousness, but not something created by consciousness.

Rand eschewed altruism stemming from a sense of duty, or moral obligation. She believed altruism was only proper if the provider received something valuable to him or herself in return. And that the state should never be in the business of enforcing altruism, or taking away the property of an individual so as to enhance the “greater good.”

Rand saw as her arch enemy the 18th century German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. Kant believed that perpetual peace could be secured through universal democracy and international cooperation. He did believe that each individual is possessed of a duty owed towards others, expressed by Kant in the categorial imperative…

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

To better understand how the categorical imperative functions as a logical argument, let’s take suicide, for instance. A single, depressed, person might believe that suicide is justified whenever there is a risk of future suffering, but once that idea is run through the rigorous test of the categorical imperative, the error of that logic becomes clear. If adopted as a universal law, the idea of suicide being so justified would spell the end of humanity, as everyone would have to commit it!

Kant believed that the duty implied in the categorical imperative, what many have likened to the “golden rule”, supplies the impetus for moral action apart from any need to turn towards religion.

Both Rand and Kant believed religion to be unnecessary as a guide for human action. However, Rand’s philosophy is a market-based one in which self-interest is the individual’s guide and in which any sense of duty is eschewed.

I believe that Rand’s philosophy of separation is a dangerous one. In fact, I believe it is at least partly to blame for many of the problems we face today.

For starters, her philosophy defies what science now tells us, especially the science of quantum physics. We actually do play a part in the creation of the reality we perceive. In fact, reality responds to our perception of it. This has been shown in the experiment by which particles, the building blocks of all nature, appear as waves in the moment they are measured, or observed. In other words, our perception actually changes the basic nature of reality.

The reality of manmade climate change had yet to become a global issue by the time Rand passed away in the early 80’s.

However, let’s take Rand’s ideas and apply them to the case of the global warming problem. Yes, in doing so, we do have to admit that it is a problem. If you are one of those who still wants to defy science and say that it is not…perhaps you might want to skip further reading and continue on with your Randian neoliberal nonsense…

Rand of course would say that the “oilman” has every right, in fact, the moral obligation, in the pursuit of self-interest, to drill and pump as much of that substance from the ground as humanly possible. And that government should not have a damn thing to say or do about it.

However, now that science has told us, unequivocally, that doing so threatens the very planet we live on, is it still morally repugnant for government to step in and apply some regulation to this endeavor?

If so, then we’re all doomed.

If you take Rand’s objectivism and run it through the categorical imperative you quickly see the flaw in her logic. If every individual, separate and apart from any notion of duty to any other, pursues his or her self-interest to the utmost, then the world must ultimately run out of resources. We can see this in the sheer fact that if the entire world consumed at the same rate as the U.S.A., we would need 3 more earth’s worth of resources to sustain it!

The fact is that no government has ever been instituted on a level playing field. When the constitution was first adopted, only those who owned property were given the right to vote.

There will always be some who have advantages over others…in terms of genetics, property, relationships, etc., etc. Those advantages create power imbalances.

According to Rand the government should be unable to do anything to help level the playing field. In that scenario, those power imbalances grow to monstrous proportions. That is exactly what we are seeing take place today in america, where one family owns as much wealth as the bottom 40% of all americans, as well as in the fact that our government seems to operate exclusively at the behest of the most powerful economically.

I believe the truth is that we do owe a duty to one another. That duty springs from the fact that we are all in this thing, or boat, or whatever metaphor you choose, together.

I like to call that a duty for impact.

That what I do does have an impact on others. And once you think of it in terms of the categorical imperative, you can quickly see the full extent of those impacts.

If I choose to act in a universally harmful way, yet not directly harmful to any other particular person, by, say, disregarding the environment, the impact becomes clear if you consider what would happen if everyone acted the same way.

The bottom line, we cannot act in ways that promote self-interest, or national interest, but that are destructive of the very things that connect us…our humanity and the one planet we have to live on!

It’s time we let go of Ayn Rand and neoliberalism and recognize our duty and connection to our fellow humans.

It’s time we started paying attention to our impact.

On the Pursuit of Property

March 25, 2016 by costaricaguy 1 Comment

Wouldn’t you tend to agree that there’s a general sense “out there” that something’s wrong?

People are angry…fed up…but can’t seem to reach a cogent consensus about what…

Some are mad at too much government…

Others at too little.

We’ve been through times like these, you know. During the 1920’s happiness was equated with the pursuit of property. Some people pursued wealth and became quite good at acquiring massive amounts of it…

The specter of massive inequality is not a phenomenon confined to this day and age. Back then it was just as unequal as today, perhaps even more-so.

Then came the great crash and the great depression. The pursuit of wealth was converted into the pursuit of just a meal and a roof.

So, the government stepped in…in the form of a “new deal.” People were put to work rebuilding our nation. Meals and roofs became less scarce commodities. Regulations were put in place to put the brakes on greed.

And this worked fairly well for the masses over the ensuing 4 decades, albeit with the usual cyclical ups and downs. But no crashes. And, guess what else? The U.S. was not such a society of inequality, as it was before and as it is again now!

Nevertheless, the hard-core property pursuers were discontent. For them the inalienable right of happiness is, in fact, property. Only if allowed to pursuit it and then given the unfettered right to retain it, protected against the will of the masses, could the true virtue of our great constitution be realized.

They found their champion, their knight in shining armour, their western sheriff who would ride into town and blow away the bureaucrats…

His name was Ronald…Ronald Reagan.

Reagan was given a mandate to reverse the new deal and he did it with patriotic fervor. And the propertied loved him for it. They lauded him as their saviour and king…the messiah who had come down from the Hollywood Hills to save them…

and restore their precious and coveted right to the pursuit of property in its fullest and grandest extent.

And that’s the way it’s pretty much been ever since. It shouldn’t really come as a great surprise that inequality has reared its head once again. And it shouldn’t have come at a great surprise that our economy crashed in 2008, again.

So, back to the issue at hand…the anger of the masses…

What really should be the focal point of all this anger?

Is government really the problem?

Why yes…yes it is. But, it’s also the solution, well one of them…

A government who rigs the rules for the propertied will tend to be mistrusted by the un-propertied

What’s ironic is, that mistrust has been of great benefit to the propertied. They’ve used it, exploited it, fomented more anger with it…and have drilled the mantra for less government into the consciousness of a large portion of the un-propertied class.

On the other hand, perhaps two things really need to change here…

First, the idea that government can do no good. It can and it has. Just take an objective view of history. No, don’t take my word for it…do your own research.

Government can make things better for the un-propertied. Those efforts may come at some expense to the propertied. But, I can assure you, it won’t put that big a dent in their glamorous lifestyles.

Second, the idea that happiness should be equated to the pursuit of property, or even its successful attainment.

We did not come forth from the womb with property in tow and we won’t go forth to the pearly gates with it either.

Granted, it is a necessary “evil” in the world we live in. And it can be fun. Property imparts power and power is sexy.

We want more power over our own lives, as well as over the lives of others. The unfettered right to private property ownership can grant us that power.

But do the power enhancing “properties” of wealth make unfettered private property ownership a god-given and inalienable “right?”

Is it a “right” for one family in the U.S. to own as much property (wealth) as the bottom 40% of all americans? And to control the largest corporation, that pays wages to its employees so low so as to keep them in an impoverished state?

The idea of the unfettered right to private property as being ingrained in our constitution leads us exactly there. And the idea of property being at the root of happiness motivates many to go there…

It motivates greed.

The point I’m making is perhaps we should change our ideas about what government’s role is in protecting and preserving the right to private property…

and also change our ideas about the efficacy of basing the entirety of our conscious lives on the pursuit of property…

perhaps…

What do you think?

Bernie Sanders is a Revolutionary Misfit

March 6, 2016 by costaricaguy Leave a Comment

If you’ve paid any attention to this blog recently, you might’ve noticed my support for this guy named Bernie Sanders…

But does Bernie really qualify as a “revolutionary misfit”?

Let’s examine that question thoughtfully…

A revolutionary misfit is guided by the principles of impact mindfulness, namely…

He or she will prioritize impact over self-interest…
He or she will embrace the concept of the “Big US” – that we are all in this together…
Lastly, he or she will seek to remove “impact blinders.”

Let’s examine each principle to determine once and for all if Bernie is a revolutionary misfit.

1. Does Bernie prioritize Impact over Interest?

More than anything else, the campaign of Bernie Sanders is a campaign against greed. Greed is the antithesis of impact over interest. The current neoliberal political and governing philosophy, that actually prevails on the right and the left, the so-called “establishment, is a greed promoting one. And the result has been dangerous levels of inequality that are now erupting in one of the most momentous anti-establishment presidential elections in my lifetime spanning 5.5 decades.

If you notice carefully, the anti-establishment candidates are gaining ground, while the establishment ones, like Bush and Rubio, are being thrown under the bus!

I believe Clinton will ultimately meet with the same fate. I just hope that happens during the nomination process and not in the general election.

Back to the point, Bernie has a pretty darn good plan for fixing the inequality problem. Just check out his site to get the particulars.

And, more than anything else, it has to do with reigning in greed.

Here’s what Bernie recently had to say on the issue of greed…

So, yes I believe Bernie passes the test for impact over interest with flying colors.

2. Does Bernie embrace the concept of the Big US?

It seems that much is always made of the religious leanings of our presidential candidates. We make it a big deal about knowing whether or not they believe in god and which god they actually do believe in.

Bernie has been a tad evasive on this issue. He is Jewish by birth, but doesn’t seem to adhere to that, or any other, religious dogma, or faith.

However, he did say this…

Well, you can’t get much closer than that to this fundamental principle for revolutionary misfits.

And, after all, Bernie has battled his entire political life for racial, sexual and economic equality.

3. Does Bernie Sanders seek to eliminate Impact Blinders?

Bernie’s candidacy is remarkable on many levels. The fact that he has raised a lot of money, on an equal level with the establishment, and he has done so, not with Super PACs, or large donors, but with some 4 million individual contributions averaging $27 apiece, is a revolutionary political feat in itself.

But, even more than that, he has risen to national prominence despite having labeled himself as a “democratic socialist!”

How can it be that someone willing to even label himself in such a “derogatory” manner could win the hearts and minds of a vast swath of the electorate?

Perhaps because Bernie doesn’t deal in labels, but in solving problems. And he believes that the way other countries have solved problems, such as providing health care and affordable education to all their citizens, can also be implemented in the richest nation on earth, despite the “socialist” label that the neoliberal establishment wants to place on such solutions.

Labels, as I have written before, are the most insidious of impact blinders and Bernie couldn’t give a hoot about them.

Bernie is removing impact blinders faster than you can say “feel the Bern” and that is a good thing for America. We can do better and we will do better when we stop pigeonholing efforts out of this irrational fear of labels, especially that one that begins with the letter “S!”

If case you haven’t noticed, this is perhaps the most important presidential election of our lifetimes…

Why?…

Because we have a chance of changing the way things are done in america. We can either change them in a good and progressive way, or we can change them in a destructive way that leads us down a very dark path.

But one thing’s for sure, things are going to change with this election…

“Status-quo-ism” will not rule the day this time…

I strongly believe that if we want to see change in a positive direction, we’d better get behind that revolutionary misfit named Bernie Sanders…

Because, truthfully, he’s the only one in this race that has any will to implement real and positive change.

With all that said, I wholeheartedly dub Bernie Sanders a very honorary Revolutionary Misfit!

Saving Capitalism from Itself

February 21, 2016 by costaricaguy Leave a Comment

I am observing this presidential election, the 14th that has taken place in the span of my lifetime, with rapt amazement.

I’ve never seen anything like it. On the right you’ve got a guy who says he wants to “make America great again.” Of course, the implication of that slogan is that America is no longer great. I would tend to disagree with that premise. Perhaps you would as well?

On the left you’ve got a guy in Bernie Sanders, a self-described “democratic socialist”, who wants to make America great for everyone, not just a handful of billionaires and large corporations, as he likes to often repeat.

Truth is that America’s still a great place for many people, not just the billionaires and large corporations. Although, it’s perhaps a degree or two greater for those guys.

If you are one who has it great in America, well then, thank America for that. Your chances of achieving the same results elsewhere are somewhat less.

Yes, the American system in many ways paves the way for greatness…that has been it’s hallmark for a couple centuries…you know, the land of opportunity.

The problem is that for a growing number of people, perhaps folks that you don’t come into contact in any meaningful way during your day-to-day existence, America has become something different. For them, it no longer seems to be that land of opportunity.

That’s simply a fact. The question is, why?

What happened?

On the one side, the argument goes that we need to create an environment that allows folks to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. And the best way to do that is to make things easier for so-called “job creators.” Thing is, that idea has become code talk for “tax cuts for the rich” and massive deregulation for large businesses. If we do that, the argument goes, things will just automatically get better for everyone…a rising tide lifts all ships.

That’s an interesting view of capitalism that almost suggests a rigging of the system. And that’s exactly what we’ve gotten from it. I like to call it “capitalism run amok.”

I read a line from a comment on Facebook yesterday that made me pause and think. The line read that the campaign of Bernie Sanders is all about “saving capitalism from itself.”

I find that to be a very profound thought.

You see, Sanders doesn’t want to do away with capitalism. Quite the contrary, he wants to make it work for everyone, because right now it’s just not.

Here’s the thing, facts show that the economy does best when there’s a thriving middle class, since they are the ones doing the large majority of the buying that bolsters the balance sheets of businesses of all shapes and sizes.

But the middle class is not thriving. In fact, it is shrinking. If that continues unabated America could end up looking like one of the many countries throughout the globe in which there are two classes…the haves and the have-nots. That poses grave problems for both of those disparate groups. The have-nots suffer because they simply have not and barely can scrape up enough to just survive. The haves suffer because they no longer have anyone who can afford to buy the stuff they’re selling.

So, along comes Bernie with his populist ideals about how to make the middle class thrive again. That can only happen by stemming the massive tide of wealth that’s flowing to the top. All that wealth is not trickling down…not even by a slow drip. It’s being hoarded and passed on to future generations of haves.

And that, my friends, is an unsustainable situation.

Bernie’s policy ideas are often criticized, even, surprisingly, by middle class folk, as being about giving away “free stuff.” The idea being that no one deserves a free lunch. But that misses the point. Bernie doesn’t want to give away free stuff. After all, his programs are very much paid for…primarily by the ones who are sucking up the entire income and wealth of our nation…and then demanding less taxes and more deregulation in return!

No, Bernie simply wants to give the middle class, and those who are striving to move up to it, a better chance at the American dream. A better chance by not having to worry about whether they can afford to go to a doctor when sick. A better chance by not having to get an economic start in life at a young age burdened by tremendous student loan debt. A better chance by allowing a woman to have a baby and stay home with her child and not having to worry about going back to work asap to pay the bills. A better chance by taking action that will hopefully curtail at least some of the devastating effects that virtually all scientists agree are going to by wrought upon us by climate change.

The problem with America these days is not about immigration. Immigration is what made America great to begin with. It’s not about making our military larger. Heck, we already spend more on the military than the next seven nations of the world combined!

The problem is that the American dream has become a dwindling hope for far too many Americans.

Nevertheless, the hope for a better future is still alive. That’s what is right about America. Americans never stop hoping. And Americans are not afraid to fight hard to make that hope a reality.

The campaign of Bernie Sanders is inspiring hope and that is what’s drawing multitudes, especially young people, to his side. This man could become our next president. He could actually have a chance to make Americans great again by saving capitalism from itself.

The fact that he’s gotten this far shows me in many ways what is truly right about America.

Justice Antonin Scalia – On Staying Grounded

February 14, 2016 by costaricaguy Leave a Comment

Yesterday the nation received sad news. Antonin Scalia, the conservative justice of the Supreme Court, who served our country for some 30 years in that capacity, died in his sleep.

Many things could be said about Justice Scalia. As a law student, who at that time leaned towards a very conservative worldview, I relished in the opinions, especially the dissenting ones, of this colorful justice.

Justice Scalia always stayed grounded in the idea that the constitution should be interpreted according to the plain meaning of the text, just as the founders intended those words to mean at the time they were written. That expansive interpretations that give rise to extra-constitutional rights, such as that of abortion, or gay marriage, were outside of the purview of the court and should be left up to the democratic process.

That’s a compelling argument to make and those who tried to argue against it with Justice Scalia were usually not very successful. That’s because he was grounded and many times his detractors were not.

My worldview has since shifted dramatically from those law school days. I no longer believe that the text of the constitution was intended by the founders to be “suspended in time” and that the only interpretation that can be legitimately given to the words contained therein are the very same ones that the founders themselves would have given to those words.

Yes words do mean things, but often what they mean today is far different from what they meant yesterday. For instance, the word gun, or arm, back in the day of the founders meant, exclusively, the musket, since that was the only available firearm at that point in history. Now, of course, it means a whole lot more…doesn’t it?

Would it be correct to interpret the constitution in such a way as to say that the founders meant for the word firearm to encompass all the weapons available on the market today, or only the musket?

Do you catch my drift?

You see, interpreting the constitution in the way Justice Scalia always proposed can lead to severe societal problems. Under his interpretation the constitution would never protect a women’s right to choose, or a homosexual’s right to marry. In addition to such restrictive results, there is also the problem of an expansive interpretation of the word “speech” to allow corporations to exercise it by injecting huge sums of money into political campaigns and thereby undermine the very democracy that Scalia so cherished.

I do admire, however, Justice Scalia’s “groundedness.” It’s good to be grounded. I just believe it’s better to be grounded in a way that has the best potential for positive impact on people and planet. And Justice Scalia’s version of being grounded often did not produce that result. He would say, well, that’s not his fault. He was appointed to uphold “the meaning” that the constitution actually has, not the one he might prefer it to have.

I too like to think of myself as being grounded. Grounded in the idea that what’s most important is not some rigid adherence to text, but a rigid adherence to an idea, or, even better, ideal. And that ideal is that were are all in this together and each of us has a responsibility to manage our impacts for the betterment of people and of planet. This ideal for impact mindfulness can cut across many aspects of one’s existence, including, of course, one’s political views.

We currently have a fellow running for President who tends to hold fast to a similar ideal. His name is Bernie Sanders. I am sure that, like myself, he would hold Justice Scalia’s intellect in great regard, while at the same time vehemently disagreeing with him.

How could it be that the constitution, the foundational document that defines our basic rights as citizens, should be interpreted in such a way as to deny basic rights, or as to undermine the very democracy that it gives rise to?

Could the founders really have intended such a result?

The conservative viewpoint seems to be, all too often, that what is correct is to rigidly adhere to ideology, whether it flows from the text of an historic document or ancient book, or the ideas behind a particular ism, even when such rigid adherence no longer serves people and planet.

Yes, it saddens me to hear of the passing of Justice Scalia. However, it does not sadden me to think that perhaps society has a chance to move beyond ideologies that no longer serve us.

Staying grounded is a good thing and Justice Scalia was a shining example of that. But I believe it’s best to be grounded in what’s really good for all of us, especially where the constitution is concerned.

1. Does Bernie prioritize Impact over Interest?

2. Does Bernie embrace the concept of the Big US?

3. Does Bernie Sanders seek to eliminate Impact Blinders?

Connect with RM