1. Modern America - Corporate Quasi Fascism

    People are like, way too comfortable nowadays letting corporate mechanisms couple with government. ~

    There is definitely a strong trend of opinion that makes it seem rational and ok to many of this opinion (and subsequently the many of their followers and their subjects) to let the rich and big companies basically buy laws. This idea that if you “achieve” through this crazy unstructured racially and gender biased meritocracy then you have shown that you are more capable of making social decisions and are deserving of social or political privilege over others (others being the person with this opinion as well as the many who disagree or have never considered such a concept thoroughly or at all).

    The problem with letting “meritocracies” control courts and have a high influence over the laws that get created (as it might appear we are seeing happening / currently proposed in the TPP agreement) is that they will make decisions to cut human costs or environmental costs, even drastically in many circumstances, in order to achieve the goals of those at the top of the “meritocracy” decision structure, their bottom lines.

    One of the reasons the authority to make cuts in human and environmental costs is not truly representative of the will of the people the cuts affect, is because the “meritocracy” that exists is not necessarily, and hasn’t been in current history, democratic.

    The decision making structures of most corporate entities are not democratic. The decisions are controlled by those at top who mostly have skills unrelated to social sciences, and have no accountability to the people outside their corporation who aren’t directly affected by their corporation’s services.

    In the context of trade agreements, international decision making structures mostly consistent of the corporate representatives to lawmakers take precedence over the decisions made by (possibly, and typically more so than corporate entities) democratic decision making processes of the individual individual sovereignties involved in the agreement. 

  2. Yeah the white privilege thing is bullshyt, but seriously I don’t think anybody should have to go to jail for anything, unless they are really considered to be uncontrollably threatening to the safety of others.
    Obviously jailing people for drunk driving isn’t really working, just as many laws that are intended to deter people from committing dangerous acts don’t really work.
    Definitely revoking drunk drivers’ licenses is a solution. 
    But beyond that I think a better solution is to make cars and roads safer. Too many people driving nowadays as a luxury and not only is it dangerous it is destroying the environment.
    I think we should be generally more tolerant of drug use, and, speaking as an engineer, I think we can afford to be more technologically tolerant of it by engineering fail safe systems instead of relying of state sanctioned violence to solve problems.

  3. 23:50 14th Jan 2014

    Notes: 98

    Reblogged from copsoffcampuses



    Make no mistake: to threaten someone with a stick is the ultimate anti-intellectual gesture. And if one thing has become clear in recent months, this is the first—really the only—impulse of the current government when faced with challenges to their vision for higher…

  4. "The easiest way to explain anarchism is to say that it is a political movement that aims to bring about a genuinely free society - that is, one where humans only enter those kinds of relations with one another that would not have to be enforced by the constant threat of violence. History has shown that vast inequalities of wealth, institutions like slavery, debt peonage or wage labour, can only exist if backed up by armies, prisons, and police. Anarchists wish to see human relations that would not have to be backed up by armies, prisons and police. Anarchism envisions a society based on equality and solidarity, which could exist solely on the free consent of participants."

  5. corporate political power structures

    They force us to recognize their wealth and authority as having a certain value

    by exploiting governmentally enforced power structures having to do with property

    by hording all the wealth and distributing it in such a way as to force recognized value through them in the form of wealth exchange or monetary exchange

    and can then trade that to amplify their messages

    The weight of property is heavier than the weight of recognition

  6. oh yeah I just remembered why I thought writing about the concept of ownership was important today, because I though it was relevant to current events with the government shutdown and the controversial question about who gets the right to choose and who gets penalized for the decisions in defacto system that requires we leverage the existing business structures to organize medical insurance coverage.

    I can sympathize with religious business owners may not want to pay for insurance that could be used to facilitate an abortion, like as if they are providing or performing the abortion, what they consider an act of murder punishable by their god. 

    The real controversy over this I think lies in the concept of ownership.

    Do the heads of the company that which must provide insurance as dictated by the commanding government, presumably in an effort to facilitate more robust and reliable health care for the human hive it is supposed present and assist, own the company that is the entity that incurs the burden of this mode of operation? Do these people who are at the head of these companies own the wealth that is actually being attributed to the insurance that must facilitate the operation? Do they own some part of the insurance hey are buying? Certainly we know that not ALL the insurance company and its operations could be owned by them as a result of this kind of transaction, for that is not customary in these times. 

    Is the transaction of paying for insurance somehow transferring ownership of the abortion itself to the head of the company or any member of the company or its customers or contributors? 

    Is it the government who owns the abortion? Is it only the representatives who voted for this policy to be enacted the owners of the abortion? They are the ones who are dictating that abortion facilitating insurance be so at the expense of the common business structure known as the employer.

    Does the person getting the abortion even own any part of the transaction in some circumstances or any circumstances?

    Does the world own the abortion? Does nature?

    Does ownership really exist in nature or is it merely a human construct? Does it exist only in the presence of humans? Does it exist in the presence of aliens, meaning that exists only in the presence of those that use it or conceive of it?

    If ownership doesn’t exist in nature, but is an imaginary idea, then can we ever say that nature owns the abortion?

    Is exploiting the structure or the business even necessary in this circumstance?

    Don’t make me do somethin’ I don’t wanna do! I’m sure that’s what a lot of Christian and otherwise company owners are thinking right now, for whatever reason they’ve used to justify that conviction, even if it be greed or it just be their emotions.

    Would it be better, or even possible, for the government to provide a different solution to the problem that not all are able to take advantage of a health care system due to wealth inequality that has arisen from history and our present organizational and economic structure, whether it was intended to be that way or not. 

    To clarify the seriousness of the problem of inequality in access to the healthcare system in place now, one may need the “safety net” style of support to overcome the burden of their families, who have claimed ownership over them, until the age of 18, or whatever. Further, one needs to be working, coupled with one or more of these business structures, or somehow independently acquiring monetary wealth. The former wealth acquisition scheme, consisting of coupling with privately owned business being the most feasible acquisition scheme in most cases due to the need to increase the value of one’s work with infrastructure for most practical skills.

    Do the businesses take ownership of part of the lives somehow when the worker has to couple with them? Who gets to decide that, and why? I the case that having ownership of something implies a situation in which the owner is disadvantaged, does the owner get to define how the relationship forms? Does the worker get any part in the decision of who gets to own anything, or must they just comply?

    Does the worker own their work when coupled with the business? Is it not the work of the worker in coordination with the business that generates the wealth the worker and the business have set out to acquire?

    Because it is easier for the business to replace the workers, and thus the worker has very little negotiating leverage, does that give the business ownership over the rules of how the coupling must be formed between the worker and the business, and how ownership of the insurance policy gets defined?

    Is it practical or even feasible for the government to provide a health service in which it is declared and agreed upon by all business owners that the service will own the abortions it facilitates? Does this require some alternate mechanism of transferal of funds to facilitate the service?

    Can we not provide any service to those whose prospects of health care are in effect being owned by independent factions, without somehow extracting the wealth from the independent factions who have claimed ownership of so much wealth that it may be impossible to provide access to health care for those who can’t accumulate wealth independently?

    Do we just have to continue to live with the fact that not all people will have equal access to healthcare, even though the health care system is prepared to facilitate this access?

    Could we provide that service based only on the contributions of those who personally submit to a tax, or only those who make donations to private organizations?

    Should everybody stop using insurance provided by their company and get their own? Can poor people do that? Can the average worker do that? Is analyzing the wealth of the average worker meaningful in this discussion?

  7. 22:42

    Notes: 278108

    Reblogged from infinitelyregressive

    (Source: sari-berry)

  8. 22:42

    Notes: 1043

    Reblogged from fuckyeahfluiddynamics


    Hydraulic jumps occur when a fast-moving fluid enters a region of slow-moving fluid and transfers its kinetic energy into potential energy by increasing its elevation.  For a steady falling jet, this usually causes the formation of a circular hydraulic jump—that distinctive ring you see in the bottom of your kitchen sink. But circles aren’t the only shape a hydraulic jump can take, particularly in more viscous fluids than water. In these fluids, surface tension instabilities can break the symmetry of the hydraulic jump, leading to an array of polygonal and clover-like shapes. (Photo credits: J. W. M. Bush et al.)

  9. 22:30

    Notes: 1

    The Concept of Ownership

    We need new concepts to be formed within our language and well defined.

    How about the concept of bullshit.

    I wrote to my friend the other day that we should replace the government in times of bullshit, because I favored what I would call slow anarchy or simultaneous anarchism.

    It sounds funny but we all have a concept in our minds about what that means. There is no solid description to exactly what that means, but maybe our language isn’t capable of describing it without resorting to new words, words with definite relationships and connotations, and cultural history.

    the concept of ownership, as I have mentioned before in this blog, is one that I feel is overused in the situations we find ourselves frequently.

    Like the implications of altering a brick wall to convey a political message, the implications of creating a parallel government in the geographic midst of an other one, the implications of conducting business inside of someone else’s bank without asking their permission, the implications of labeling products owned by a company or store in a store on your block.

    Fluid concepts.

    The circumstances surrounding these actions are actually extremely complex yet we morph the concept of ownership to satisfy the desires of those who wish to own in strategically built settings. 

    Thus we can say the concept of ownership is fluid, and manipulated to produce desired results fitted to specific circumstances.

    The circumstances we see this concept most fitted to (manually) are those which we are bound by nature to incur.

  10. 00:44 12th Jul 2013

    Notes: 27646

    Reblogged from generic1






    (Source: goodetogo)