A Review of New Republic article:  The United States of Work

Most of these articles start out with “Income has remained stagnant since the 1970s.” But then never offer up an explanation. It’s not a coincidence. Nixon ended Bretton Woods 1971.

As far as college, the more aggressively you increase the demand for something, the more aggressively the price for that product is going to increase if the supply remains relatively stagnant. The U.S. government has began massively subsidizing and guaranteeing student loans for decades which has caused this massive price inflation. The Department of Education now relies on income from student loan debt, so the bubble will keep going. It is exactly like the housing bubble. “We just want everyone to have a good home/ education.”

The author seems to think that unions are the reason people don’t have to work 12-hours a day. As if people all the sudden didn’t want to do that. Or as if people all the sudden didn’t want to shove their children in coal mines. This would imply that the reason places like the Congo have so much child labor is because of a lack of child labor laws, or if they simply implemented a 40-hour work week, or $15 higher minimum wage, they would all be rich. Obviously, this would simply cause more desperation poverty. The reality is technological advances (almost exclusively created by free markets) are how overall work hours are decreased. This has been the case since the beginning of time.

Not long ago, the majority of households were able to live with only one income earner. Now with the combination of the excessive taxes, most notably the income tax, as well as inflation, dual income households are the majority.

“Unlike the state, these private governments are able to wield power with little oversight, because the executives and boards of directors that rule them are accountable to no one but themselves.” This is just laughable. The state is god. If you boycott the military, men with guns will come to your house and murder you. At this point, to claim that the government operates with any oversight just shows you were the author is coming from. It’s just Marxism. Meanwhile, the Uber CEO single-handled solved drinking and driving and yells at an employee and people boycott. If they don’t, they have the ability to.

“Yet because employment contracts create the illusion that workers and companies have arrived at a mutually satisfying agreement..” This is a logical imperative when people voluntarily interact. “I am doing this because I prefer to do it/ I believe it will be in my best interest. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t.” Any unfair advantage other than that is always caused by the state, and therefore that is the enemy. It’s not Apple and Samsung who will come to your house with guns if you don’t work for them.

These articles are always written by people who have little or no entrepreneurial experience. The reason for this is that when you go down that route, you realize you have no real control as business owner. The customer decides everything. Unless, of course, you partner with the state via regulations that prohibit competitors from entering the market, or you receive funding from tax dollars. Then, you are no longer to the customers demand and they are now your subjects.

“Lecturer of art history at the University of Melbourne. Author of Do What You Love. And Other Lies about Success and Happiness.”

The post A Review of: The United States of Work appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

Jared Diamond outlines in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel various possible determinants for civilizations growth in various parts of the world. A great variable brought up by Diamond is that geographic proximity is a determining factor in the success or failure of a civilization. Diamond uses geographical anthropology to show historical factors of animal and plant domestication along similar environmental conditions. Since societies who share commonality along latitude and on the same land mass more than likely to have similar crops, animals and seasonal living, they are more than likely going to have overlapping developments in their societal growth.

I personally agree with Diamond that geography has much to do with a society’s success or failure. The concept of which mammals and not only their availability but ability to be domesticated was very persuasive to me, with the major five being the cow, sheep, goat, pig and horse (Diamond, 1997, p. 159). These animals were not only utilized as beasts of burden, food sources, war instruments and other pure survival intents, but freed up humans from some basic hunter-gatherer endeavors which allowed for more innovation and specialization in other capital appropriations (these areas not addressed by Diamond very well).

Another great point was that “indigenous crops from different parts of the globe were not equally productive” (Diamond, 1997, p. 147). When looking at specific places like New Guinea, we can see that being absent of different crops can lead to protein deficiencies, while a society in the Fertile Crescent would have more species to choose from which provide a better nutritional base. Again, when the basics of survival are systemized due to these resources, than other human advancements can occur.

This leads us to the portion of Diamond’s arguments of population density. Diamond proposes that a societies population density is determined largely by it being based on a hunter gather society or a farming/”root based” society. I believe Diamond is on to something, and while he does point out the problem with disease in higher populated societies, apparently much of the world was and is willing to deal with the tradeoff of “crowd diseases” regardless of past historical events (Diamond, 1997, p. 205).

These factors shape human action in all geographic land masses and saying that “geographic determinism” is or is not what lead to a downfall/success of a society is an over simplification (Diamond, “Geographic Determinism”). I believe many of Diamonds detractors often use “geographic determinism” as a pejorative term against his work, because Diamond does at times have incongruent application of rationality to his theory. As an example, in Collapse, Diamond uses the examples of the Vikings setting up winter settlements on targeted coasts so they can begin raiding more efficiently the next season (Diamond, 2005, p. 184). This is a perfect example of human beings acting in contrast to geography through the technology the society has amassed. While geography may have played a part in the capital stocks (grain, animals, natural resources, etc) that helped shape a society, geography being the only factor which determines societal action is a theory left wanting.

Human beings innovating ways in which to survive or achieve goals is often overlooked by Diamond, even when he mentions them specifically. I feel this is because he is metaphorically holding a hammer and looking for nails when screws, hooks, wires, connectors, holes and plugs are also in the mix. Diamond is not looking at these as a possible variable to be incorporated into his “law” or overarching theory of societal growth/collapse because they cannot be so simply squeezed into “nice to measure” parameters as his scientific background. Diamond even writes how “purposeful experiments” cannot be carried out in the social sciences, even if he wishes this were not so (Diamond, 1997, p. 55).

The geography of a society provides a stimulus of individuals to action, provides the means of achieving that which those stimulus have provoked and can be a limiting factor in achieving those ends by restraining means. A society which can work together in order to take of basic survival of small groups can progress into larger societies though the accumulation of capital. This capital saving of individuals in the community is largely determined by the geographic limitations Diamond explores, but more often than not Diamond shows how even the worst off society (in terms of natural resources) finds innovative ways for survival. This innovation alone can in some ways be the evolutionary next step to the survival of the society, or its supposed “mastery” over another natural obstacle of man’s survival.

Diamond’s theories from both Guns, Germs and Steel as well as Collapse seem to me great starting points for investigation into the formation and fall of societies, but I would not be bold enough to say they are a complete treatment on the subjects as I believe that could be an intellectual fatal conceit of his proposed massive undertaking.

References
Diamond, J. M. (1997). Apples or Indians. In Guns, Germs, and Steel: The fates of human societies (p. 147). New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.

Diamond, J. (n.d.). Geographic Determinism. Retrieved September 25, 2016, from
http://www.jareddiamond.org/…/Geographic_determinism.htm

Diamond, J. M. (1997). Lethal Gift of Livestock. In Guns, Germs, and Steel: The fates of human societies (p. 204). New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.

Diamond, J. M. (1997). Up to the Starting Line. In Guns, Germs, and Steel: The fates of human societies (p. 55). New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.

Diamond, J. M. (1997). Zebras, Unhappy Marriages and the Anna Karenina Principle. In Guns, Germs, and Steel: The fates of human societies (p. 159). New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.

Diamond, J. M. (2005). The Viking Prelude and Fugues. In Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed (p. 184). New York: Viking.

The post My Take on Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond appeared first on Actual Anarchy.

So first, a little history, as this movie is a bit long in the erm, tooth. In 1994 Disney released their 32nd animated feature film to nearly universal acclaim. Drawing on influences from Disney Chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg’s personal life in politics, as well as Shakespeare’s King Lear, the film tells the story of a young lion named Simba who ultimately triumphs over his evil uncle Scar to become king of the pridelands. As critic Glenn M. so succinctly put it, “This is the greatest Disney film of all time and possibly the most greatest cultural achievement of the the 20th century.”

Oh what a time 1994 was. A simpler time, where you couldn’t just get propagandized through the internet, you either had to turn on your tv, or go out and pay money at a theater to get properly propagandized, dammit. The average cost of a gallon of gas in the U.S. was $1.09, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were murdered by some unknown assailant, Kurt Cobain joined the 27 club, the whitewater scandal began, ice skaters were hiring thugs to knee-cap other ice skaters, and the world was content. Oh, and The Lion King was the highest grossing film of the year.

And before you say it, yes, it is called the Lion KING, so any prospective viewer should expect a certain level of authoritarian worship and statist bed-wetting about freedom, but this movie, upon repeat viewing, is absolutely drenched with it. I mean, they actually soaked the bed on this one. This mattress is positively dripping.

The film stars Matthew Broderick as the son of James Earl Jones, who reprises his Coming to America role, except this time his character is animated, and named Mufasa.

The story begins with all the creatures that live in and around pride rock arriving to celebrate the birth of the spawn of their overlord; that is, Mufasa and Sarabi’s son, Simba. The Circle of Life starts playing, and all the creatures that lions hunt and eat come to worship the newborn carnivore, with none of the irony any sane person would expect. Because, oh right! It’s the circle of life! It’s only natural that there would be an artificial construct where one group would violently dominate and control everyone else. It’s only natural, like zebras and elephants worshiping lions. Because that’s a thing.

The next scene involves brownshirt Zazu, played by Rowan Atkinson, threatening the villain of the film, Scar, who is intelligent, but lacks the physicality to outright challenge his brother for the throne. It seems that Scar committed the crime of not attending the presentation of his nephew to the cattle, so in Zazu’s words, he “better have a good excuse,” for missing the ceremony. More threats ensue from all involved, and the scene ends with Zazu playfully suggesting that they murder the wayward lion, setting the stage for a family drama to play out for the next 80 minutes.

And oh, what a drama it is. When the king isn’t busy claiming ownership over everything the light touches, his son is singing about “brushing up on looking down,” presumably at the pathetic plebs he’s violently dominating (i.e., the normal people, sorry, animals, that refuse to use violence to get what they want in life). The song continues, as the narcissistic little hitler sings about wanting to be in the spotlight and the joy of having everyone forced to do whatever he tells them to do.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Scar (competently played by Jeremy Irons) is twirling his mustache, telling the hyenas of his plot to kill his brother and nephew, so that he can assume the throne. When the hyenas love the plan and say, “great idea! Who needs a king?” Scar admonishes and insults them, declaring that he will be king, and then promises that they will never go hungry again as long as he rules. Well, politicians have to make promises to their constituents to gain favor, don’t they? And of course, the hyenas all of a sudden love the idea of a king, so long as they’re the ones on the gravy train.

Then we’re treated to a scene where a literal army of hyenas go goose stepping past their oligarch, seemingly pulled shot for shot from propaganda films of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. Which begs the question, why not just stage a coup and take control? Well, because Scar craves legitimacy, as the lesser of the brothers he’s always longed for recognition and respect, and if he merely sics his horde upon the lions and kills them all, then he wouldn’t get to see them bowing and scraping before him as their “rightful” king.

Next we have a scene where Mufasa shows young Simba the vast kingdom he’ll one day inherit, displaying the insane hubris that grips all members of the ruling class, that one can simply declare ownership over an area that you haven’t mixed your labor with.

So Scar lures young Simba to the gorge where he has the hyenas unleash a stampede of wildebeest, which draws Mufasa out to rescue the boy, and ultimately to his demise as Scar throws him to his death under the stamping hooves. Young Simba survives thanks to the heroic effort of his father, but feels guilt at what happened, and is convinced by Scar that he was to blame, and flees in shame. Scar still sics the murderous hyenas on him, and Simba ends up in exile. He’s discovered by the comedy relief, Timon and Pumbaa, and the three live together until Simba grows to adulthood over the course of several years. He adopts the philosophy of Hakuna Matata, he eats bugs, and generally becomes a gypsy, with no rules, no responsibility, and no worries.

Meanwhile, Scar assumes the throne, and promises the rise of a new era where hyenas and lions cooperate (Ever the politician, Scar ends up having a populist message). But something has gone terribly wrong with Scar’s policies as king, as the food and water has run out. Has the dry season begun and Scar is simply too dense to move the pride to follow the prey? Unfortunately the film doesn’t explicitly say anything on this.

Now like I said at the start, in a movie called the Lion KING and I expect a certain amount of authoritarian worshiper bed-wetting about what anyone could possibly achieve without a ruler telling them what to do, but the next scene takes the cake.

Pumbaa is out looking for a meal, but he’s discovered by Nala, Simba’s childhood friend out on a hunt. A chase ensues that ends with Pumbaa being rescued by Simba as he engages the hungry lion. The two realize who they’re dealing with and introductions are made. What follows next is a song interlude featuring the most gratuitous fuck-me face ever seen in a Disney movie by Nala at Simba.

Then, Nala makes her case for Simba to return to Pride Rock and assume the role of king. She says that Scar let the hyenas take over the pridelands, and that everything is destroyed, there is no food, no water, and if SIMBA doesn’t do something soon, everyone will starve. Yes, if there is no proper ruler, these poor lions and hyenas will die because they have no idea how to survive without proper leadership.

When Simba balks at the notion of returning, Nala claims that he has a responsibility to return. What? What possible responsibility does he have to return to the pridelands and rule over everyone? Does he owe somebody something? Simply because he was born there it’s assumed that he somehow must live there forever? Or that he is responsible for the welfare of the creatures that chose to stay? This is more statist propaganda concerning honor and duty, and the idea that the rulers are actual servants to the people and not blood sucking leeches on the people’s productivity.

Nala is out searching for help, and finds it. because only Simba can help now. Because without a king, people don’t know how to hunt and live. I mean, if I didn’t have someone ordering me around, I’d have no idea how to even tie my shoes. Whatever would we do without our wise and all-knowing central planners?

Nala claims that Simba is their “only hope.” Ah yes, some well intentioned, misinformed central planner is the only hope for society. Excuse me while I nearly choke on my cheerios. Simba storms off in a huff, only to be found by Rafiki, who takes Simba to see a hallucination of his father in the sky, who convinces Simba that he IS the one true king, and it is his destiny to rule over others. How many rulers believe that they are god’s gift to the world? All of them? Only 99% of them? I for one would like to have a talk with these invisible sky spirits if in fact, they ARE sending these delusional idiots to lord over us.

So Simba returns to the pridelands, and he’s shocked to see the state they’re in. The landscape is dead, grey, and barren. Even the sky is grey and sunless. Again, what the hell kind of policies could create such a state of affairs? We’re talking lions here, people.

The finale begins with a scene between Simba’s mother, Sarabi, being summoned before Scar, who complains that the lionesses, who serve as the hunters, are not doing their job. Sarabi explains that the herds have moved on, and that they have no choice but to leave Pride Rock. Scar refuses (for some unknown reason), and Sarabi responds that he has sentenced them all to death. At this point, one wonders why the hell Sarabi and the rest of the lions don’t just leave. They are obviously getting nothing out of this ruler/ruled relationship. They are so trapped in the authority mindset, that they stay despite all reason and evidence to the contrary. They are willing to sacrifice their own lives in order to obey their “king.” Lunacy.

I will concede one point in Simba’s favor. Simba’s idea for Scar’s punishment for killing Mufasa consists of banishment, i.e., hard ostracism, in my opinion the most anarchic punishment there is, second only to pure ostracism (removing yourself from their company, i.e., “I don’t want to hang out with you anymore if you’re going to be a dick”). Things don’t turn out this way, and a slap fight ensues which ends with Scar falling into a pit of hyenas, who now hate him and proceed to tear him apart.

So the good guy wins? Are there any good guys? The movie sure wants us to think so. What do you think? Let me know in the comments.

When Simba wins, the land is dead and grey, but we fast forward at least 110 days to the birth of Simba and Nala’s son (the gestation period for a lion is 110 days), and the savannah has been reborn! The land is green and lush, and the herds have returned.
I can see two possible ways to interpret this.

1. As the scene with Sarabi states, Scar was simply too stubborn and incompetent to move the pride away from the pridelands and follow the migration of the herds during the dry season, which somehow lasts for 2-3 years in this movie (that’s how long it takes a lion to reach maturity). He wanted to prove to everyone that he was a better king than Mufasa, and staying at pride rock, despite all the reasons to leave, was somehow supposed to demonstrate that.

2. Simba’s brilliant leadership makes the grass grow. Either Simba makes the grass grow or all Scar had to do was hang on a few more months and the pridelands would have sprang back to life and he could have taken credit for it as an example of his fine leadership.

Is that what Mufasa did? It certainly isn’t what Simba did. Simba didn’t lead the lions after the migrating herds in their search for water. Simba stayed at pride rock just as Scar did, yet under Simba’s leadership the savannah sprang to life.

I’m really hung up on this point because it lies at the crux of the myth of government policy. The idea that we need the right central planning and everything will prosper. The idea that it’s a single government actor that is bad, and we just need to vote in the right one, and then everything will work out, is painfully wrong.

Worst of all, it’s a kids movie. Please, don’t show this splatt-tastic shit show to them until they possess the discernment tools to tell see this statist propaganda for what it is.

But, but, the Lion King is a classic! It’s beloved by audiences worldwide! Plus you USED to like it! What’s wrong with YOU? Look. We don’t have time to get into all that. Plus I don’t want to bore you with the details. Suffice to say, when I became an anarchist, I started looking at the world very differently than I did before, and it’s really hard for me to not see entertainment differently as well. And the whole point of this review is to alert any possibly concerned parents to the disturbing content in the film. That said, maybe enjoy your next viewing of this children’s classic? I certainly didn’t!

The post Disney’s The Lion King – A Review appeared first on Actual Anarchy.