Legalized Plunder with Frederic Bastiat

For theorist Frederic Bastiat, legalized plunder occurs when the law is perverted to accommodate certain groups. Bastiast asserts that self-preservation is a common goal of all men and a consequence of this is "to live and develop at the, when they can, at the expense of one another"(128). While man aims to seize any opportunity of success through his own faculties, the origin of plunder comes from man essentially looking for the easy way out and finding success through the exploit of another man's faculties.

Bastiat's theories on legalized plunder isn't too far off from describing current American politics. In this case, the first thing that comes to mind is big business tax breaks. Ben Hallman's article, "Boeing Got $7,250 In Tax Breaks For Every $1 It Spent Lobbying," describes the incredible efforts of one of America's biggest company to save money at the expense of US taxpayers. For Boeing, they knew there they held the upper hand as Hallman explains Seattle governor estimated 20,000 jobs and more than $20 billion would be lost economic activity if Boeing left and outsourced production jobs.

After impressive lobbying efforts Boeing was able to earn a $8.7 billion tax subsidy that will also keep production in the Seattle area. According to Hallman, this subsidy comes with a price that Seattle citizens will be paying as Washington has the fourth-highest sales tax rate in the US.

Boeing is an excellent example of what Bastiat feared - man's naked greed. "Labor being itself a pain, and man being naturally inclined to avoid pain, it follows, and history proves it, that wherever plunder is less burdensome than labor, it prevails; and neither religions nor morality can, in this case, prevent it form prevailing (128).

Using the masters tools to dismantle the masters house

Something that I never considered was the effect economics had on the LGBT community. As this article describes, capitalist society only serves to widen the gap between already divided groups. Racial, class, and sexual disparities only progress as access to capital is reserved for elevated individuals.  Professor Thomas Piketty’s book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century argues that, “there is nothing inevitable about the dominance of human capital over financial capital, and that there is inherent in the dynamics of capitalism a natural and destabilizing tendency toward inequality of income, wealth and opportunity.” For the LGBT community, even as legal equality is reached, there are still cultural and economic barriers to overcome.

Audre Lorde explains a similar situation in the equality of women. Where as heteronormative white women are slowly elevated in a capitalist dominant culture, the minority groups are left behind. Lorde explains the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. For her, upper class white women were reaching levels of equality in society while the unwanted were not considered to join in. These women were simply perpetuating the White Supremacist Capitalist Heteropatriarchy rather than breaching its values. Conferences were held with limited token representation from some minority groups while ultimately any efforts for women's rights was really only directed toward one category - able bodies upper middle class white women. 

Piketty's theory of economics can be applied to Lorde's critique showing that the White Supremacist Capitalist Heteropatriarchy (WSCH?) encourages a widening gap in the already wide gap of race, class, and sexuality. For the LGBT community, some already on the margins of the society, equality in law will not be enough. As Lorde says, you cannot dismantle the masters house with the masters tools. Our government lawmakers are the WSCH and it is this hierarchy that is perpetuating the issues people are fighting so hard to solve. 

Wealth Inequality in America, Perception vs Reality

Food for thought - increasing gap for Americans

World's Toughest Job - #worldstoughestjob - Official Video

Food for thought regarding Vandana Shiva's Living Economics & Bennholdt-Thomsen and Mies The Subsistence Perspective.

Living Economics, Vandana Shiva

The market economy has certainly taken its rightful throne as most important economy of the time. As Vandana Shiva explains in Living Economics, our society consists of three economies: market, nature, and sustenance. Initially life was cultivated only through nature and subsistence economies. Shiva explains that these economies are places of exchange, knowledge, and culture and when they are replaced by the market economy, emphases shifts to capital and faceless corporations are in control.

In light of upcoming Mother's Day, let's take a look at how this shift has effected motherhood in our society. Shiva as well as Bennholdt-Thomsen and Mies agree that neoliberalism has led to the housewifeization of woman's labor. What was once considered a feat of labor and an integral component to society, now the accepted view is that women have children out of love, they stay home and raise them out of love, and they provide food and a home out of love. This way of thinking contributes to putting subsistent and nature's economy on the back burner of life.

Nowadays any person is expected to join the market economy, take their place in society and find a well-paying job. There is no esteem attached to the work of a stay-at-home mom. Housewifeization developing alongside women fighting for equality in the workplace places women in the challenging position of navigating motherhood and careers. There is no longer value in raising children, rather a women must become a lawyer, a CEO, or a doctor AND a mother.

Shiva urges that a balance must be found within these three economies and I would have to agree. Especially in the case of women who are navigating their place in the world. Nature's economy needs respect and sustenance economy needs protection or else the market economy will continue to quell the two and we will be left rebuilding the world.

Here are two posts from BuzzFeed that 1) are funny, and 2) help illustrate how much our moms matter.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/maytag/reasons-why-moms-are-our-unsung-heroes
http://www.buzzfeed.com/adamdavis/moms-are-geniuses

Foucault on Punishment

Michael Foucault's essays highlight the paradigm shift in society from public spectacle to trial intensive coverage. Foucault explains that previously people used to come out in the streets to witness gruesome public executions. The legal process was not as thorough as it is now and led to impulsive and dramatic exchanges of "justice" where people were drawn and quartered or tarred and feathered.

The beginning of the 1800s led to a change where codes were drawn up featuring moral and political justification regarding punishment. Now, punishment remains the most hidden part of the penal process (Foucault 198). Foucault describes the consequences of this shift, "as a result, justice no longer takes public responsibility for the violence that is bound up with its practice" (198). Instead it is the trial and conviction that marks the guilty. 

Recently, public outrage has surrounded the botched execution of Oklahoma prisoner Clayton Lockett. Lockett was a repeat offender convicted of rape and murder who was up for execution. Upon his execution a new strain of lethal drugs were used leaving Lockett "muttering and straining against his restraints before dying of a heart attack 15 minutes later"(Pearce 2014). LA Times article describes both sides of reactions to the botched execution - some who believed Lockett deserved versus those who critique the capital punishment system. President Barack Obama subsequently ordered an investigation into capital punishment proceedings as described The Guardian. Barack asked the Attorney General to investigate implementation of death penalty programs, racial bias, and exonerations of death row prisoners. 

On the other hand, many Americans are not necessarily outraged at Lockett's botched execution, rather they are upset people are sympathizing with Lockett who many believe is a particularly cruel and heinous person who was never apologetic toward his crimes. Some user comments declare Lockett did not suffer enough compared to the suffering of his victims. Although cases of capital punishments occur at a consistent rate in the US with little public care, Lockett's case has reminded people of the moral issues surrounding the death penalty.

Whether it is punishment of the body or the soul, people expect adequate sentencing for heinous crimes committed. Foucault describes the balance and ultimate shift of punishing body to soul but it seems that society is still struggling to find a satisfactory way to punish both morally and justifiably. We continue to use lethal injection yet find that it is not necessarily just or humane where as some people believe lethal injection should be much more painful.

The Subsistence Perspective

Bennholdt-Thomsen and Mies are researchers who look closely at the inter-workings of small villages across the world. The focus is primarily on village commons versus the global commons. A section from their book, The Subsistence Perspective, reflects on the adverse effects globalization has and how our society needs to reinvent the commons. Written in the 1990's, the work has relevance today in our increasing global economy.

Internet access and giant media outlets leave everyone connected. A global consciousness has developed among some groups making me wonder whether or not Bennhold-Thomsen and Mies would be surprised. Global Language Monitor has named "sustainability" the third most popular buzz word in 2013 and notes it has been rising every year. If you take a look at the International Institute for Sustainable Development timeline of sustainable movements, you will notice the 2000's produced more sustainable movements than ever before.

Is our world suddenly becoming more moral and appreciative of "Mother Earth" or is this a desperate response in an attempt to reverse the damage that's already been done? Bennholdt-Thomsen and Mies argue that the only solution is the reinvent the commons. We must decentralize the government, eliminate private property, and localize and regionalize. Compared to Bennholdt-Thomsen and Mies' ideas, this sustainability movement is a publicity stunt. Can we make change if we are moving deeper and deeper into a global village?

Personally I think no, we cannot. While I think reinventing the commons seems impossible, Bennholdt-Thomsen and Mies make a convincing point in the idea of "not in my backyard". We have reached a point where we are desensitized to what true cultivation requires and the amount of waste that it produces. We are so used to putting our garbage in bags and watching them get shipped away to some far land. While we may think we're "conscientious", we are probably only 1% of the way there.

An ideal world there needs to be a shift in reinventing the commons in some way that works with the technological society we live in. Regardless some big change needs to take place and having "sustainable" as this year's buzzword isn't going to do it.