Tonight, a few words on politics, economic models, and power distribution. Who knows, I might even throw in another small dose of inflammatory trolling for good measure. But rest assured, the good old Bitscape is back, for the time being at least.

(If this trend of ramblings based on the results of the recent poll continues, we might even have another long-belated wedding chapter epic coming out soon. But don't hold your breath just yet. This stuff requires psychological energy, and work these days has been doing everything it can to drain me dry. Nevertheless, I persist...)

I'd like to discuss a little bit about the evolution of my political outlook over the years, relating it to the United States, the world, as well as first-hand experiences of my own, and how all these various factors have influenced my thinking.

Historically, I have considered myself to have a strongly libertarian philosophy with regard to politics. To me, it seems simple common sense that all people be allowed maximum possible freedom in how they conduct their lives. So long as no one impinges upon the rights of others, there is no reason for government or any other entity to forcefully interfere in the affairs of citizens.

The source of this fairly basic idea comes from several prominent influences in my life. Firstly, both of my parents also consider themselves to have libertarian ideals, and they made sure to indoctrinate me early on in life. (Interestingly, this is an area in which I never rebeled against them, perhaps because it stood the test of reason for me.)

I was also taught to believe that these are the highest founding principles on which my country is based. Though the United States may have strayed drastically from the notion of freedom on which it was created, the founding documents are laden with the idea that individuals have the right to create their own destiny. We've all (hopefully) read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc. This is basic.

So it was that I found myself appalled at the notion of the government conducting a "war on drugs", outlawing behaviors which do no direct harm to others, and levying taxes that are not only ridiculously high, but also hopelessly cumbersome and complex to calculate.

"If only all my idiot neighbors would vote some libertarians into office, we could fix all this nonsense, and evolve into a nation where all people are truly free!" This was my thinking for much of my teenage and early adult life.

But alas, the libertarian party was small, largely unknown, never got much press, and so it had little hope of realistically winning any major elections. Recognizing this, I thought it might be better to get something than nothing.

In the early 90s, I put a certain measure of hope in the republican party's ability and willingness to at least fix some things, if not all. This was influenced in no small part by the words of Rush Limbaugh, heard daily over the airwaves. I voted in my first election in '94, and cheered with renewed hope as the republicans won congress, forever dooming any possibility that the specter of Clinton's monsterous health care plan would ever threaten us again.

They were going to lower taxes. They were going to deregulate the media. They were going to open up previously concealed congressional documents and meetings to the public. They were going to repeal national speed limits. That was just a small but delightful piece of a much larger plan to restore the rights and freedoms of the people. Newt Gingrich was a hero.

Of course, I was in some disappointments. The biggest one came in the form of a slap in the face to all Internet users. On February 8, 1996, President Clinton signed into law the now-infamous piece of history known as the Communications Decency Act, which would have prohibited the online transmission or posting of anything "offensive" if someone under 18 might read it. The Clinton signed it, but he couldn't have done so had it not been passed by a congress where republicans had an easy majority.

On that historic day, when Clinton signed the bill, I listened to all 3 hours of the Rush Limbaugh program, hoping he might make some mention of this travesty. Would he "hold their feet to the fire" as he had promised, or would he defend the republicans on some silly technicality? (I couldn't believe that a man like Rush would ever agree with such a thing, but if he did, I wanted to hear why.) Since it was Clinton who had signed it into law, maybe he could also use it as an opportunity to throw a few jabs at the president for not exercising the line item veto, or something.

3 hours of Rush, and not a word about it was spoken. So much for defending our freedoms.

In November of 96, I voted party-line libertarian. None of them won.

For several years after that, my political beliefs remained more or less unchanged. Big government = Bad. Deregulation = Good. Lower taxes = Good. That was that.

Though I can't pinpoint the exact moment, somewhere along the line, I saw that my "minimize government in all ways on all fronts" vision had been limited and simplistic. Time spent at my my cube job in dot-com-hyped corporate America showed me another vision, and I wasn't entirely pleased with the implications.

Though I enjoyed my job, I didn't like certain aspects of the way things were run. Egalitarion veneers aside, it was all structured in a top-down manner. Decisions were handed down from on high, and everyone had to follow them, whether we liked them or not -- whether they made sense or not.

This was a place where many people spent the majority of their waking hours, yet most ultimately had little or no control over the course of things. This was the embodyment of big bad bureaucracy-laden government in all its insanity, but with one little difference: The leaders were not elected by the people they governed.

That is not to say they weren't wise in many ways, or that they weren't deserving of such positions. There are many ways other than direct voting to select competent administrators and directors. Still, it nagged me. We, the people, had no control whatsoever.

Of course, there is an obvious rebuttal: If you don't like it, you can always quit and go somewhere else. I will answer this momentarily. Although ultimately, that is what I personally ended up doing, even if it wasn't officially recorded that way.

Gradually, as I wasted my days away in a cubicle, a revelation of sorts took place. If government is deregulated and scaled back to the degree I have advocated, these people (and others like them) will not only control the workplace. They will control everything.

Maybe it's not necessarily even a question of "who" controls things as "what". What are the guiding principles that are followed by the governing body of any organization?

Regardless of what their mission statements may say, every corporation follows one and only one principle: What will make the most money for the company? Every other consideration is secondary. Ideas like privacy, environmental protection, and freedom are frequently nothing more than obstacles to increased revenue. The preferred way around these obstacles is to hire lawyers to find loopholes in the law.

The smaller the government gets, the bigger those loopholes become. (There are also many well-known cases where goverment actively aids corporate corruption by passing laws favorable to the big conglomerates. *cough*DMCA*cough* That's another tangent to delve into at some point.)

I could go on all night comparing various facets of corporate power vs government power, how they collude, and when they conflict. In fact, I almost have.

Since it's past my bedtime, I'll try to briefly explain why I have tentatively come to the conclusion that a (gasp) socialist democracy might almost be preferable to a capitalist oligarchy.

Both methods, in their ideal form, give the populace some form of collective power. A socialist democracy, in which all the resources are controlled by the government, gives people power through the vote. Don't like the way things are being run? Elect new leaders. (Protracted cynicism aside, this, in theory, should provide a good incentive for leaders to act in the interests of their populace.)

The free market gives power to the people in the form of "voting with your dollars". Again, in theory, the best companies will survive because they will have to cater to the interests of the people whose financial support they rely upon. Therefore, the public wins.

However, the free market system only serves interests of the populace as long as there is a relatively even distribution of currency. (Note that I didn't say "completely equal", but "relatively even". Total equality is an impossibility.) If there is a gross imbalance of wealth (i.e. 1% of people accumulate 95% of the assets), things don't work so well.

If dollars are votes (as they are in a predominately capitalistic society), then the people who have 95% of the money effectively have 95% of the votes. By what measure would that be a just system?

That is the very system many of us find ourselves in. Not only are our workplaces owned by the corporations (and by extension, the stockholders), but unless you happen to be one of those lucky enough to own a home with the mortgage paid off, so are our residences. So are our sources of food.

Now I'll go back to a point I promised to address. If you don't like your job, quit and go somewhere else? Where else is there to go? Another corporation, run with equally amoral indifference, whose sole imperative is to grab as much money as it can, and in so doing exacerbate the imbalance of wealth mentioned above.

Is it really that bad? Perhaps not now. But the trend, unless stopped, points that direction. There are still some businesses owned by individuals who are not answerable to Wall Street. They have not all been driven off the market or bought out. Yet.

So it is that I see as the most practical solution a phrase whose utterance I was once taught to loathe. Redistribution of wealth by the government. It is the only peaceful way I see to stop the imbalance from worsening until it devolves into a virtual feudalism, where the serfs live and serve on land administered by the division manager.

To wrap up, a quote by a very wise man.

... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.
--Thomas Jefferson (in a letter to James Madison), 1785
(Taken from here)

I think that will conclude my discourse for tonight. Have something to disagree with, add, or discuss? I wish I had my yanthor.net-esque threaded discussion system up and running, but alas, it is currently only in the early planning stages. So I guess we can make do with Content Solutions, Content Collective, or your own web venue, should you be sophisticated enough to run one. (And who doesn't these days?)

I'm going to bed momentarily. Peace.