Israel’s Fear of Jewish Women Dating Arabs
Team of Pyschologists to "Rescue" Women
by Jonathan Cook / September 25th, 2009
A local authority in Israel has announced that it is establishing a special team of youth counselors and psychologists whose job it will be to identify young Jewish women who are dating Arab men and “rescue” them.
The move by the municipality of Petah Tikva, a city close to Tel Aviv, is the latest in a series of separate — and little discussed — initiatives from official bodies, rabbis, private organisations and groups of Israeli residents to try to prevent interracial dating and marriage.
In a related development, the Israeli media reported this month that residents of Pisgat Zeev, a large Jewish settlement in the midst of Palestinian neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem, had formed a vigilante-style patrol to stop Arab men from mixing with local Jewish girls.
Hostility to intimate relationships developing across Israel’s ethnic divide is shared by many Israeli Jews, who regard such behaviour as a threat to the state’s Jewishness. One of the few polls on the subject, in 2007, found that more than half of Israeli Jews believed intermarriage should be equated with “national treason”.
Since the state’s founding in 1948, analysts have noted, a series of legal and administrative measures have been taken by Israel to limit the possibilities of close links developing between Jewish and Arab citizens, the latter comprising a fifth of the population.
Largely segregated communities and separate education systems mean that there are few opportunities for young Arabs and Jews to become familiarised with each other. Even in the handful of “mixed cities”, Arab residents are usually confined to separate neighbourhoods.
In addition, civil marriage is banned in Israel, meaning that in the small number of cases where Jews and Arabs want to wed, they can do so only by leaving the country for a ceremony abroad. The marriage is recognised on the couple’s return.
Yuval Yonay, a sociologist at Haifa University, said the number of interracial marriages was “too small to be studied”. “Separation between Jews and Arabs is so ingrained in Israeli society, it is surprising that anyone manages to escape these central controls.”
The team in Petah Tikva, a Jewish city of 200,000 residents, was created in direct response to news that two Jewish girls, aged 17 and 19, were accompanying a group of young Arab men when they allegedly beat a Jewish man, Leonard Karp, to death last month on a Tel Aviv beach. The older girl was from Petah Tikva.
The girls’ involvement with the Arab youths has revived general concern that a once-firm taboo against interracial dating is beginning to erode among some young people.
In sentiments widely shared, Hezi Hakak, a spokesman for Petah Tikva municipality, said “Russian girls” — young Jewish women whose parents arrived in Israel over the past two decades, since the collapse of the former Soviet Union — were particularly vulnerable to the attention of Arab men.
Dr Yonay said Russian women were less closed to the idea of relationships with Arab men because they “did not undergo the religious and Zionist education” to which more established Israeli Jews were subject.
Mr Hakak said the municipality had created a hotline that parents and friends of the Jewish women could use to inform on them.
“We can’t tell the girls what to do but we can send a psychologist to their home to offer them and their parents advice,” he said.
Motti Zaft, the deputy mayor, told the Ynet website that the municipality was also cracking down on city homeowners who illegally subdivide apartments to rent them cheaply to single Arab men looking for work in the Tel Aviv area. He estimated that several hundred Arab men had moved into the city as a result.
Petah Tikva’s hostility to Arab men mixing with local Jewish women is shared by other communities.
In Pisgat Zeev, a settlement of 40,000 Jews, some 35 Jewish men are reported to belong to a patrol known as “Fire for Judaism” that tries to stop interracial dating.
One member, who identified himself as Moshe to the Jerusalem Post newspaper, said: “Our goal is to be in contact with these girls and try to explain to them the dangers of what they’re getting themselves into. In the last 10 years, 60 girls from Pisgat Zeev have gone into [Palestinian] villages [in the West Bank]. And most of them aren’t heard from after that.”
He denied that violence or threats were used against Arab men.
Last year, the municipality of Kiryat Gat, a town of 50,000 Jews in southern Israel, launched a programme in schools to warn Jewish girls of the dangers of dating local Bedouin men. The girls were shown a video titled Sleeping with the Enemy, which describes mixed couples as an “unnatural phenomenon”.
Haim Shalom, head of the municipality’s welfare department, is filmed saying: “The girls, in their innocence, go with the exploitative Arab.” A police representative also warns that the Bedouin men’s “goal is to take advantage of the girls. There is no element of love or an innocent friendly relationship here.”
In 2004, posters sprang up all over the northern town of Safed warning Jewish women that dating Arab men would lead to “beatings, hard drugs, prostitution and crime”.
Safed’s chief rabbi, Shmuel Eliyahu, told a local newspaper that the “seducing” of Jewish girls was “another form of war” by Arab men.
Both Kiryat Gat and Safed’s campaigns were supported by a religious organisation called Yad L’achim, which runs an anti-assimilation team publicly dedicated to “saving” Jewish women.
According to its website, the organisation receives more than 100 calls a month about Jewish women living with Arab men, both in Israel and the West Bank. It launches “military-like rescues [of the women] from hostile Arab villages” in co-ordination with the police and army.
“The Jewish soul is a precious, all-too-rare resource, and we are not prepared to give up on even a single one,” says the website.
Yad L’achim’s founder, Rabbi Shlomo Dov Lifschitz, is quoted on the site saying: “People must understand that Jewish-Arab marriages are part of the larger Israeli-Arab conflict. … They [Arab men] see it as their goal to marry them [Jewish women] and ensure that their childen aren’t raised as Jews. This is their revenge against the Jewish people. They feel that if they can’t defeat us in war, they can wipe us out this way.”
The degree of general opposition in Israel to interracial marriage was suggested by a government-backed television ad campaign earlier this month that urged Israeli Jews to inform on relatives abroad who were in danger of marrying a non-Jew. The ads were hastily withdrawn by surprised Israeli officials after many US Jews took offence.
In her book Birthing the Nation, Rhoda Kanaaneh, a Middle East scholar at New York University, points out that “politicians frequently attack ‘peace’ or ‘dialogue’ programs for promoting miscegenation” in fear that it will lead to Jewish assimilation.
She also notes that Israel’s adoption and surrogacy laws require that adoptive parents be of the same ethnic group as the biological mother.
Monday, September 28, 2009
The "Security Threat" Of Inter-Racial Love
From DissidentVoice.com:
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Parenthood And Gay Marriage
It is a tragedy, I feel, that people of a different sexual type are caught in a world which shows so little understanding for homosexuals.
-Emma Goldman
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
My Favorite Firefox Plugins
These are my most-used plugins for Mozilla Firefox:
How to do it: Click the drop-down button where you can choose the site you want to search and then go to Manage Search Engines. This is a good time to delete the ones you don't want. After you've done that, click the little blue underlined link Get more search engines...(here's the direct link if you don't like going through those steps) In the text field where it says search for add-ons type in the search engine you wish to add. I added Isohunt.com and Crackspider.net.
This is an add-on that will save you unmeasurable trouble. Basically, it is a collectivized login database where users share usernames and passwords that they have been forced to create to access content online. You can go to their website every time you want to find a login or you can just install this nifty little plugin. Once installed, just right click the login field of almost any website (be sure to fill in the CAPTCHA if there is one) and click Login with BugMeNot. Voila!
This plugin is pretty simple. Install it and you can right click and drag different combination of lines on your screen to do different commands. Be sure to add a visible line in the settings so you can see what you are doing. It's also fully customizable too. The ones I typically use the most are: Close Tab, New Tab, Zoom in, Zoom out (Except now I use Ctrl + and Ctrl - for zooming).
This plugin allows you to:
1. download multiples files (such as videos, mp3 or the extension of your choice) at once, in one click
2. increase your download speed immensely.
Just an IRC Client that is easy to use. Accessible through the Tools menu.Can be great if you wish to get in an argument with idiots over politics or to download books on Undernet's "#bookz" channel.
- Read it Later
This is a plugin that allows you to save a web page to read later, recall a web page that you have saved and remove a web page that you have read - all in one click.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Boss of factory occupiers tried to sell and move plant
You may have heard a while back about the workers at Republic Windows and Doors refusing to allow their plant to close for 3 days without concessions. They eventually won compensation for the plant closing.
Well now, the boss who wanted to close the plant actually wanted to illegally move it:
Well now, the boss who wanted to close the plant actually wanted to illegally move it:
Gillman allegedly diverted money from Republic and laundered stolen money through fraudulent bank accounts and shell companies. He alleged Gillman highjacked manufacturing equipment and concealed it in ten semi-trailers — transporting three of the semi-trailers to Red Oak, Iowa and hiding the remaining semi-trailers in a trailer park. He also allegedly removed business equipment, destroyed documents, created phony receivables and engaged in computer “hacking.”The factory has since reopened but only 15 people have been re-hired, thanks to the stimulus bill not being big enough.
3 Ways to download entire books online
Three ways to download books (including textbooks):
1. IRC channel #bookz on Undernet (Try Chatzilla, which runs with Firefox, which is an awesome Indian name, or something else as an IRC client, )
2. isohunt.com (need a torrent client? try utorrent, ported for mac and pc)
3. google.com use search commands like filetype:txt, filetype:doc, filetype:pdf, filetype:zip and filetype:rtf
1. IRC channel #bookz on Undernet (Try Chatzilla, which runs with Firefox, which is an awesome Indian name, or something else as an IRC client, )
2. isohunt.com (need a torrent client? try utorrent, ported for mac and pc)
3. google.com use search commands like filetype:txt, filetype:doc, filetype:pdf, filetype:zip and filetype:rtf
QWERTY < DVORAK < Colemak < QGMLWY
No, I'm not going to try all of those keyboard layouts. I'm going to switch over to Colemak and see where the 193% greater efficiency takes me. Yes QGMLWY is better, but I'm not going through the steps of reading command line after command line to run in Perl. Colemak is easy to install.
Self-censorhip to carry on?
Reading this article about the failure of journalism schools to teach people how to be real journalists, I got to a part where a man suggested a pretty common sense notion: that journalists should be unbiased and not let big corporations control what they say:
I proposed a new mission statement to my faculty colleagues in the School of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin. I argued that by stating bluntly the nature of the crises we face in today’s world and breaking with our longstanding subordination to the industry, we could offer an exciting alternative to students who don’t want to repeat the failures of our generation.But here's how people responded:
Some disagreed with my assessment of the crises we face, while others thought it politically ill-advised to criticize the industry and corporate power so directly.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Obama Breaks International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Ever heard of Bagram prison? It's Guantanamo Lite. First I'll tell you what the ICCPR says, and then how we're breaking it:
Take a look at what we're doing in Bagram. The Pentagon is about to assign
And about the right to not confess.
...everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:"legal council of his choosing" huh? "undue delay" huh?
...to communicate with counsel of his own choosing;
...To be tried without undue delay;
...to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it;
........ Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.
Take a look at what we're doing in Bagram. The Pentagon is about to assign
...military officials to each of the detainees to help to collect evidence and witnesses to support any case they may have to be freed.So no lawyers. Just military officers. Seems very just. Now let's see how "undue" their delay is.
And about the right to not confess.
According to the best available estimates, at least 600 prisoners are held at Bagram,.... where they have been held for up to seven years.
...a vast amount of the government’s supposed evidence consisted not of verifiable facts, but of "confessions" made by other prisoners – or by the prisoners themselves – under unknown circumstances.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
"Energetic" Apathy
Here are the six things we can do for the Honduran people (short of regime change):
1. Legally define the coup in Honduras as a military coup
2. Publicly condemn human right violations
3. Impose trade sanctions
4. Recall the American ambassador
5. Freeze the bank accounts of the coup leaders
6. Revoke the diplomatic and tourist visas of all the coup leaders
Have we done #1 yet? Nope. It is so simple, yet we have not done it, probably so that we can continue to supply humanitarian aid to the country. How we know it is getting in the right hands is beyond me.
#2 yet? Nope. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights doesn't count, even though it contains a U.S. citizen as a delegate. Who by the way condemned the human rights abuses:
The first:
#4. Nope
#5. Nope (see number 3)
#6. Somewhat. Only 16 people so far.
So far we've barely done one of these things. Some "energy" huh? And yet people think Obama is sympathetic to socialists.
1. Legally define the coup in Honduras as a military coup
2. Publicly condemn human right violations
3. Impose trade sanctions
4. Recall the American ambassador
5. Freeze the bank accounts of the coup leaders
6. Revoke the diplomatic and tourist visas of all the coup leaders
Have we done #1 yet? Nope. It is so simple, yet we have not done it, probably so that we can continue to supply humanitarian aid to the country. How we know it is getting in the right hands is beyond me.
#2 yet? Nope. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights doesn't count, even though it contains a U.S. citizen as a delegate. Who by the way condemned the human rights abuses:
#3. Of course we're not going to do this are you crazy? By the way, I wrote that sentence before I even Googled the facts. But I was right. Why do they say this? They make ridiculous claims.
“Since the events of June 28, the widespread practice of arbitrary detentions, the excessive use of force against protesters, and continued interference with freedom of expression in Honduras all contradict those responsibilities of the state.”
The first:
A letter from the State Department to Sen. Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, states that the U.S. "energetically" opposes Mr. Zelaya's June 28 ouster. But the letter also expresses the harshest criticism yet of Mr. Zelaya's own actions that preceded his removal from office, including trying to change Honduras's constitution to potentially stay in power.Seems like we're talking out of both sides of our mouth. On the one hand we oppose his ouster, but we also say that he had it coming, and continue to let the crooks who supported it trade illegitimately. Oh - and about changing the constitution, look it up, it was a non-binding resolution. And suppose it was binding: unless I missed the part in civics class where democracy is less important than a piece of paper written by elites, it still doesn't justify a coup. Oh - and let's see what else. Zelaya's own vice president was going to run for president, and Zelaya was not (he said he would if he could, but if the constitution was amended, it would go into affect after his presidency ended). Some way to stay in power!
"We energetically condemn the actions of June 28. We also recognize that President Zelaya's insistence on undertaking provocative actions contributed to the polarization of Honduran society and led to a confrontation that unleashed the events that led to his removal," Richard Verma, the assistant secretary for legislative affairs, said in the letter, reviewed Tuesday by The Wall Street Journal.
#4. Nope
#5. Nope (see number 3)
#6. Somewhat. Only 16 people so far.
So far we've barely done one of these things. Some "energy" huh? And yet people think Obama is sympathetic to socialists.
How to stream music and basically any audio through IM clients
Most people know that with a microphone and a program like AIM, MSN, Yahoo! Messenger, Skype or something else you can stream live from your microphone. But did you know that you can actually stream music over them too? I have used this to play beats I have made in FL Studio for my friends without having to go through the usually long process of exporting it to a file and then sending the file somewhere.
Here are the steps>
1. Open your IM software
2. initiate a "call" or "talk session"
3. Go to Start > Run > type in sndvol32.exe > "OK"
4. Go to Options > Properties
5. Click the radio button next to "Recording"
6. Under "Show the following volume controls" make sure that there is a check next to "Stereo Mix" or possibly "Wave Out Mix" Press "OK"
7. Under the slider of either "Stereo Mix" or "Wave Out Mix" select the check box. Close Record Control
8. Open your mp3 in an mp3 player or open whatever program you have that plays audio you wish to send.
That's it!
One word of warning!!! Don't - under any circumstances - try to record something through an audio recording software that plays back as it records, as you will get an enormous amount of feedback!!!
Here are the steps>
1. Open your IM software
2. initiate a "call" or "talk session"
3. Go to Start > Run > type in sndvol32.exe > "OK"
4. Go to Options > Properties
5. Click the radio button next to "Recording"
6. Under "Show the following volume controls" make sure that there is a check next to "Stereo Mix" or possibly "Wave Out Mix" Press "OK"
7. Under the slider of either "Stereo Mix" or "Wave Out Mix" select the check box. Close Record Control
8. Open your mp3 in an mp3 player or open whatever program you have that plays audio you wish to send.
That's it!
One word of warning!!! Don't - under any circumstances - try to record something through an audio recording software that plays back as it records, as you will get an enormous amount of feedback!!!
Do you think of yourself as a compassionate human being?
If you do, you have to read this report and find out just who is making your products (are they children?) under which conditions (involuntary?). I tried copying and pasting the text from the PDF into a spreadsheet but it wasn't formatted right.
Alan Dershowitz = Pharoah?
From a debate between him and Noam Chomsky:
I do not support the right of return, that is, the idea that 700,000 or now 4 million Palestinians can demographically destroy Israel.From the book of Exodus (Ch. 1, vers 8-14)
Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we. Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.
New Chomsky article on Latin America.. disses Obama's plan for US military bases in Colulmbia
Suppose that UNASUR, or China, or many others claimed the right to establish military bases in Mexico to implement their programs to eradicate tobacco in the US, by aerial fumigation in North Carolina and Kentucky, interdiction by sea and air forces, and dispatch of inspectors to the US to ensure it was eradicating this poison -- which is far more lethal than cocaine or heroin, incomparably more than cannabis. The toll of tobacco use, including "passive smokers" who are seriously affected though they do not use tobacco themselves, is truly fearsome, overwhelming the lethal effects of other dangerous substances.The rest.
Libertarian Capitalism vs. Libertarian Socialism
==================
Masebrock (6 days ago)
One of the underlying themes of the concept of "wage slavery" is the idea that some contracts are acceptable and others are "slavery", even if they are accepted on a voluntary basis. When Libertarian Socialists talk about eliminating "wage slavery", how do you suppose they want to go about doing such a thing? By assuming a position of authority to determine what voluntary contracts are "slavery" and what voluntary contracts are fair.
Chomsky is a supporter of taxation as well, like most LS
.==================
ZiggyZen (6 days ago)
By offering an option that isn't wage slavery, IE by directly controlling the means production by workers. Not the state, not some corporation, but the workers. He never said people couldn't still choose to work for a wage, just that most probably wouldn't want to when a better option presents itself.
.==================
Tuppington (1 day ago)
actually no law outlawing wage slavery would be needed. you just would have no law saying workers can't take over the means of production themselves.
.==================
Tuppington (1 day ago)
A group of workers enter the boss's office and tell him that they have just taken over the factory. "You can't", says the boss. "I own it"
"And how did you come to own it?" ask workers.
"It was left to me by my father", says the boss.
"How did he get it?" asks the worker.
"He got it from his father", says the boss.
"And he?" asks the worker.
"He fought for it", says the capitalist in a burst of familial pride.
"Well", say the workers, all together this time, "We'll fight you for it".
.==================
Masebrock (19 hours ago)
If the someone who runs a factory acquired it by violently taking it from someone else, it cannot be said to by owned by him. It is stolen property.
But it would be unjustifiable to assume that every factory was obtained through violent means. You cannot assume guilt.
.==================
Masebrock (19 hours ago)
A more likely response from the boss would be:
"'He BUILT it' , says the capitalist in a burst of familial pride."
.==================
Tuppington (19 hours ago)
1. If stolen property is not ownership then most of the U.S. is not legally owned by people.
2. The most likely case: "He had OTHERS build it for him!"
.==================
Masebrock (19 hours ago)
1. I agree. Do you think that stolen property IS ownership? But once again you can't just assume guilt...
2. If it was built by others, and he STOLE it, then he does not own it. If it was built by others under contract that he retains ownership of the building, then it is legitimately owned.
.==================
Tuppington (16 hours ago)
1. according to Karl Marx, stolen property is ownership.. but he put it the other way around... "property is theft"
2. libertarian socialists would say he doesn't legitimately own it unless the workers are paid for the full value of their work. as most people were not paid the full value, that is, the capital generated from their construction, then no he doesn't own it legitimately. a fair wage would be to pay someone a wage for their work and then give them stock and executive decisions
.==================
Masebrock (15 hours ago)
To say that failing to pay wages equal to the capital generated would negate ownership is ridiculous. Only force or fraud can negate ownership, not failing to make contracts that fit your standards of "fair".
People don't lose their rights because they fail to abide by your definition of "fair".
1. Do you really believe that might makes right? So if I posses the means to steal a resource, then I rightfully own the resource?
2. If the laborers were not paid the "full value" of their work as specified in the terms of the contract, then they would have a case. But there you go again assuming guilt. The "value" of their labor is whatever someone is willing to pay them, not the capital generated.
.==================
Tuppington (15 hours ago)
might doesn't make right. workers take *back* the means of production, they don't steal it. and why does might make right when the so-called owner of a factory uses his power to bend the contract in his favor?
if the planet were filled with only ugly people, would the best looking one be beautiful? no. value, like beauty, is absolute. from the so-called owner's point of view, the worker is only as valuable as the cost of his replacement. but from the universal point of view, value is production
.==================
Tuppington (14 hours ago)
failing to abide by my definition of fair would not make anyone lose their rights, since having power doesn't give you the right to steal. however, contracts written free from courts and regulations could force workers to forfeit rights.
by withholding from workers the true value of their work, a so-called owner is defrauding them and therefore forfeits his ownership by your definition.
"Originally, all things were common and undivided; they were the
property of all." - Hugo Grotius
.==================
Masebrock (14 hours ago)
A contract that uses force is not a legitimate one. Legitimate contracts must be voluntary accepted by both parties. I'm glad you've decided to not invalidate contracts because you don't deem them "fair'.
"Defraud" implies a falsehood. That would mean someone said one thing but acted another way. If in the contract it specified that the workers would not be paid equal to the amount of capital generated, it cannot be said to be fraudulent. "Unfair" does not equal fraudulent.
==================
Masebrock (14 hours ago)
Hugo Grotiius apparently has no clue how property is justified, or even where it comes from.
"workers take *back* the means of production, they don't steal it."
This implies that the means of production in question was originally owned by the workers. You don't know that. And even if you found a case where it was, it also implies that it was taken from them through force or fraud. And you don't know that either. So many assumptions...
==================
Masebrock (14 hours ago)
The boss has the right to make contracts by virtue of his right to be free from violence. So you don't think people don't should have the right to negotiate contracts? Just what sort of violent means do you suppose to use to keep people from making these contracts?
Value is not based on production. Proof: No matter how much time and energy someone spends making mud pies, they will still be worthless. And if someone stumbles across a diamond on the sidewalk, it is worth millions.
==================
Masebrock (9 hours ago)
Contracts are only de-legitimatized through force or fraud, not your personal definition of "fairness".
==================
Tuppington (1 hours ago)
i'm assuming you extend the right to be free from violence to the worker. yet the boss can use the threat of violence to get a job, such as a private security company who wishes to be hired to stop an invasion or one who exploits a starving man to keep him free from mother nature's wrath.
mud pies are not valuable to society. they still wouldn't be even if people paid money for them. and about diamonds, you are forgetting that nature is doing most of the work. it doesn't just magically appear.
==================
Masebrock (9 hours ago)
You got me: I should have specified that everyone (boss, worker) has the right to be free from the INITIATION of violence. I am not at all for pacifism. Private security companies stopping invasions if fine by me. I don't understand the starving man example though...who initiates the violence here, Mother Nature? I guess I also should have specified that I think non-human objects don't fit into any system of morality.
==================
Masebrock (9 hours ago)
Re mud pies: I was just going by your claim that value is based on production ;) So now what inherent characteristic of the object do you say value based on? We've already knocked production off the shelf...
Re property is theft: I'm talking about justified property, not "legal" property. "Legal" property is whatever the hell the government declares. Do you really want to follow that precedent of property though theft?
==================
Masebrock (9 hours ago)
"as soon as someone claims ownership of something he did not personally create he becomes a fraud."
You have some understanding of the labor theory of property, and that is good. But he would only be a fraud if he was claiming UNOWNED property that he didn't apply labor to. Once property has been claimed, you can exchange it and become the new owner, even though you didn't apply labor to it. Example: If I own a shirt, I can give it to my brother, and the shirt is then legitimately his.
==================
Tuppington (1 hour ago)
if all you are making is a mud pie then you really aren't producing anything. but i do stand corrected. what i meant to say is that the true value of your creation is the benefit it gives society at large. most people agree with this system, even if they don't know it. it is why we have high taxes on cigarettes.
marx would probably have a good laugh reading your sentence. it's like saying do you really want to follow that precedent of theft through theft?
==================
Tuppington (1 hour ago)
someone controlling a factory can be indirect violence, so its a good analogy. say the private security firm has extra guns but will not give you any, and decides that you are not worth saving. do you have the right to steal a gun to protect yourself? is it even really stealing? or say they bought a piece of land that gives good protection, and if you are anywhere else you will be killed. do they still own the land? why should taking a factory from a boss be any different?
==================
Tuppington (1 hours ago)
hunter-gatherers stole animals from their families.. yet they believed in repayment, albeit a very kooky kind involving animal and sometimes human sacrifice... anyway, we got an assload of trade secrets from Germany after WW2, most land in America was stolen from Indians. and then there's the stolen profit taken from the workers and given to the capitalist who did nothing but sit on his hindquarters handing out pieces of paper. so there's a precedent of people possessing property through theft.
==================
Tuppington (1 hours ago)
as soon as someone claims ownership of something he did not personally create he becomes a fraud. therefore the factory "owner" cannot make a legitimate contract under your own definition.
if a boss decides to use someones desperation (such as starving if he cannot find work) as a means to further his own selfish goals by haggling a lower wage he is taking advantage of the forces of nature, therefore de-legitimizing his contract. regulations would prohibit this.
Masebrock (6 days ago)
One of the underlying themes of the concept of "wage slavery" is the idea that some contracts are acceptable and others are "slavery", even if they are accepted on a voluntary basis. When Libertarian Socialists talk about eliminating "wage slavery", how do you suppose they want to go about doing such a thing? By assuming a position of authority to determine what voluntary contracts are "slavery" and what voluntary contracts are fair.
Chomsky is a supporter of taxation as well, like most LS
.==================
ZiggyZen (6 days ago)
By offering an option that isn't wage slavery, IE by directly controlling the means production by workers. Not the state, not some corporation, but the workers. He never said people couldn't still choose to work for a wage, just that most probably wouldn't want to when a better option presents itself.
.==================
Tuppington (1 day ago)
actually no law outlawing wage slavery would be needed. you just would have no law saying workers can't take over the means of production themselves.
.==================
Tuppington (1 day ago)
A group of workers enter the boss's office and tell him that they have just taken over the factory. "You can't", says the boss. "I own it"
"And how did you come to own it?" ask workers.
"It was left to me by my father", says the boss.
"How did he get it?" asks the worker.
"He got it from his father", says the boss.
"And he?" asks the worker.
"He fought for it", says the capitalist in a burst of familial pride.
"Well", say the workers, all together this time, "We'll fight you for it".
.==================
Masebrock (19 hours ago)
If the someone who runs a factory acquired it by violently taking it from someone else, it cannot be said to by owned by him. It is stolen property.
But it would be unjustifiable to assume that every factory was obtained through violent means. You cannot assume guilt.
.==================
Masebrock (19 hours ago)
A more likely response from the boss would be:
"'He BUILT it' , says the capitalist in a burst of familial pride."
.==================
Tuppington (19 hours ago)
1. If stolen property is not ownership then most of the U.S. is not legally owned by people.
2. The most likely case: "He had OTHERS build it for him!"
.==================
Masebrock (19 hours ago)
1. I agree. Do you think that stolen property IS ownership? But once again you can't just assume guilt...
2. If it was built by others, and he STOLE it, then he does not own it. If it was built by others under contract that he retains ownership of the building, then it is legitimately owned.
.==================
Tuppington (16 hours ago)
1. according to Karl Marx, stolen property is ownership.. but he put it the other way around... "property is theft"
2. libertarian socialists would say he doesn't legitimately own it unless the workers are paid for the full value of their work. as most people were not paid the full value, that is, the capital generated from their construction, then no he doesn't own it legitimately. a fair wage would be to pay someone a wage for their work and then give them stock and executive decisions
.==================
Masebrock (15 hours ago)
To say that failing to pay wages equal to the capital generated would negate ownership is ridiculous. Only force or fraud can negate ownership, not failing to make contracts that fit your standards of "fair".
People don't lose their rights because they fail to abide by your definition of "fair".
1. Do you really believe that might makes right? So if I posses the means to steal a resource, then I rightfully own the resource?
2. If the laborers were not paid the "full value" of their work as specified in the terms of the contract, then they would have a case. But there you go again assuming guilt. The "value" of their labor is whatever someone is willing to pay them, not the capital generated.
.==================
Tuppington (15 hours ago)
might doesn't make right. workers take *back* the means of production, they don't steal it. and why does might make right when the so-called owner of a factory uses his power to bend the contract in his favor?
if the planet were filled with only ugly people, would the best looking one be beautiful? no. value, like beauty, is absolute. from the so-called owner's point of view, the worker is only as valuable as the cost of his replacement. but from the universal point of view, value is production
.==================
Tuppington (14 hours ago)
failing to abide by my definition of fair would not make anyone lose their rights, since having power doesn't give you the right to steal. however, contracts written free from courts and regulations could force workers to forfeit rights.
by withholding from workers the true value of their work, a so-called owner is defrauding them and therefore forfeits his ownership by your definition.
"Originally, all things were common and undivided; they were the
property of all." - Hugo Grotius
.==================
Masebrock (14 hours ago)
A contract that uses force is not a legitimate one. Legitimate contracts must be voluntary accepted by both parties. I'm glad you've decided to not invalidate contracts because you don't deem them "fair'.
"Defraud" implies a falsehood. That would mean someone said one thing but acted another way. If in the contract it specified that the workers would not be paid equal to the amount of capital generated, it cannot be said to be fraudulent. "Unfair" does not equal fraudulent.
==================
Masebrock (14 hours ago)
Hugo Grotiius apparently has no clue how property is justified, or even where it comes from.
"workers take *back* the means of production, they don't steal it."
This implies that the means of production in question was originally owned by the workers. You don't know that. And even if you found a case where it was, it also implies that it was taken from them through force or fraud. And you don't know that either. So many assumptions...
==================
Masebrock (14 hours ago)
The boss has the right to make contracts by virtue of his right to be free from violence. So you don't think people don't should have the right to negotiate contracts? Just what sort of violent means do you suppose to use to keep people from making these contracts?
Value is not based on production. Proof: No matter how much time and energy someone spends making mud pies, they will still be worthless. And if someone stumbles across a diamond on the sidewalk, it is worth millions.
==================
Masebrock (9 hours ago)
Contracts are only de-legitimatized through force or fraud, not your personal definition of "fairness".
==================
Tuppington (1 hours ago)
i'm assuming you extend the right to be free from violence to the worker. yet the boss can use the threat of violence to get a job, such as a private security company who wishes to be hired to stop an invasion or one who exploits a starving man to keep him free from mother nature's wrath.
mud pies are not valuable to society. they still wouldn't be even if people paid money for them. and about diamonds, you are forgetting that nature is doing most of the work. it doesn't just magically appear.
==================
Masebrock (9 hours ago)
You got me: I should have specified that everyone (boss, worker) has the right to be free from the INITIATION of violence. I am not at all for pacifism. Private security companies stopping invasions if fine by me. I don't understand the starving man example though...who initiates the violence here, Mother Nature? I guess I also should have specified that I think non-human objects don't fit into any system of morality.
==================
Masebrock (9 hours ago)
Re mud pies: I was just going by your claim that value is based on production ;) So now what inherent characteristic of the object do you say value based on? We've already knocked production off the shelf...
Re property is theft: I'm talking about justified property, not "legal" property. "Legal" property is whatever the hell the government declares. Do you really want to follow that precedent of property though theft?
==================
Masebrock (9 hours ago)
"as soon as someone claims ownership of something he did not personally create he becomes a fraud."
You have some understanding of the labor theory of property, and that is good. But he would only be a fraud if he was claiming UNOWNED property that he didn't apply labor to. Once property has been claimed, you can exchange it and become the new owner, even though you didn't apply labor to it. Example: If I own a shirt, I can give it to my brother, and the shirt is then legitimately his.
==================
Tuppington (1 hour ago)
if all you are making is a mud pie then you really aren't producing anything. but i do stand corrected. what i meant to say is that the true value of your creation is the benefit it gives society at large. most people agree with this system, even if they don't know it. it is why we have high taxes on cigarettes.
marx would probably have a good laugh reading your sentence. it's like saying do you really want to follow that precedent of theft through theft?
==================
Tuppington (1 hour ago)
someone controlling a factory can be indirect violence, so its a good analogy. say the private security firm has extra guns but will not give you any, and decides that you are not worth saving. do you have the right to steal a gun to protect yourself? is it even really stealing? or say they bought a piece of land that gives good protection, and if you are anywhere else you will be killed. do they still own the land? why should taking a factory from a boss be any different?
==================
Tuppington (1 hours ago)
hunter-gatherers stole animals from their families.. yet they believed in repayment, albeit a very kooky kind involving animal and sometimes human sacrifice... anyway, we got an assload of trade secrets from Germany after WW2, most land in America was stolen from Indians. and then there's the stolen profit taken from the workers and given to the capitalist who did nothing but sit on his hindquarters handing out pieces of paper. so there's a precedent of people possessing property through theft.
==================
Tuppington (1 hours ago)
as soon as someone claims ownership of something he did not personally create he becomes a fraud. therefore the factory "owner" cannot make a legitimate contract under your own definition.
if a boss decides to use someones desperation (such as starving if he cannot find work) as a means to further his own selfish goals by haggling a lower wage he is taking advantage of the forces of nature, therefore de-legitimizing his contract. regulations would prohibit this.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
In Defense Of Full Employment
While it is usually the case that lower unemployment leads to higher inflation, it is not set in stone. Yes, countries without full employment are 10% more likely to have acceptable rates of inflation. But there still remain 24 countries that have had full employment in the last 5 years that have also had acceptable rates of inflation. In other words, there are 24 exceptions to the rule! That's a full 28% of countries that have had acceptable rates of inflation in the last 5 years! And what about the countries with unacceptable levels of inflation? What are their unemployment rates? 66% of them do not have full employment. In other words, a country with unacceptable inflation is twice as likely to not have full employment.
Here is a list of countries/provinces that have had full employment and acceptable rates of inflation in the last five years:, Macau, San Marino, Vanuatu, Hong Kong, Northern Mariana Islands, Japan, Norfolk Island, Singapore, Brunei, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Gibraltar, Norway, The Netherlands, Denmark, China, Monaco, British Virgin Islands, Taiwan, Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Lithuania, Palau, Australia, Bermuda, South Korea, Bhutan, Malaysia, New Zealand, United States, and Iceland.
Another large hole in the theory is that countries with full employment actually have lower inflation on average.
Average inflation rate of countries with unemployment below 5% (considered full employment): 4.52%
Average inflation rate of countries with unemployment above 5%: 5.34%
Sources:
http://www.phrasebase.com/english/countries/fin_inflation.php?variable=fin_inflation
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_une_rat-labor-unemployment-rate
Here is a list of countries/provinces that have had full employment and acceptable rates of inflation in the last five years:, Macau, San Marino, Vanuatu, Hong Kong, Northern Mariana Islands, Japan, Norfolk Island, Singapore, Brunei, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Gibraltar, Norway, The Netherlands, Denmark, China, Monaco, British Virgin Islands, Taiwan, Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Lithuania, Palau, Australia, Bermuda, South Korea, Bhutan, Malaysia, New Zealand, United States, and Iceland.
Another large hole in the theory is that countries with full employment actually have lower inflation on average.
Average inflation rate of countries with unemployment below 5% (considered full employment): 4.52%
Average inflation rate of countries with unemployment above 5%: 5.34%
Sources:
http://www.phrasebase.com/english/countries/fin_inflation.php?variable=fin_inflation
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_une_rat-labor-unemployment-rate
What this blog is for
This blog will be an experimental combination of news aggregation and original research (forbidden on Wikipedia), as well as links to stuff that appeals to my lowbrow sense of humor and possibly even original lowbrow humor. Expect great things, people!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)