WHY I BLAME THE SYSTEM
(and not people)

http://noimpactman.typepad.com/blog/2009/07/about-looking-for-someone-to-blame.html

I don't usually like to use other people words in explaining myself, but Mr. Beaven (pronounced Beh-vin, not Bee-vin) perfectly explains why I think the problem is not about merely changing the people at the top but changing the structure. I've been to business school; the mode of thinking that he speaks about is exactly the box we're forced into. In the business world, the corporate system forces you to think and analyze situations only by looking at how your actions benefit the corporation, for whom you are a representative agent. Whatever is good for the corporation is good for you, and you really are never forced to consider how your actions affect those who are involved with the corporations (other employees, customers, suppliers, local communities, etc.; these people are called "stakeholders", and becoming beholden to them as well is the subject of some recent economic thought, although it certainly hasn't been put widely into practice).

It's interesting because if you read about Bernie Madoff, all reports seem to indicate he was a great guy. Obviously, what he did is more of an obvious fraud than any "normal" corporation, but the idea is still the same: these "people" (as a corporation is legally considered a person) pursue their basic self-interst, i.e. making as much money as possible, regardless of who you harm in the process. The only difference is that in the Bernie Madoff case, the damages were direct, large, and human, whereas corporations are doing slow, long-term damage to the environment, and it's not as clear why it would be the corporation's fault.

People are taught by our system to think selfishly, and it's a hard philosophy to break through. It's harder to identify what you think and why, and when you make decisions over and over, taking into account the same factors over and over, those factors achieve a level of moral certitude.

I know this is all a bit rambling. The whole idea derives from a few conversations I have had with friends of mine. They've claimed, at various times, that it is the people, these "faceless executives" making millions and ripping off the PEOPLE, who must be stopped. I've always likened this to giving Tylenol for the brain tumor, or cutting our lung cancer without asking the person to stop smoking. These executives are products of a system that rewards them for self-interested actions. Corporations are programmed machines (I've often likened them to "spirits" or "ghosts", as they have no independent existence outside of the corporate charter on which they're written) whose sole goal and motivation is to make money. (I know I've said this before, but...) when you work for a corporation, and all your decisions are made in terms of that goal, you inherit that goal as a life philosophy of your own.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/24/adam-smith-corporations-markets-marketsp07-cx_mh_1025hodak.html

http://www.pcdf.org/corprule/betrayal.htm

I find it funny when free-marketists champion Adam Smith as their original hero, as he had a lot of nasty things to say about the corporation (called a joint-stock company in his time). It's funny to read the Forbes article above because they seem to think Adam Smith would be somewhat fond of today's corporate structure without at all addressing any of the complaints he makes about it. The problem is that, in essence, the purpose of the corporation is also its greatest fault. A corporation exists to make money and shield its investors from liability. It keeps investors at arms-length, only interested in how much money the corporation can make them.

In light of all this, and reflecting on our recent financial collapse, it becomes harder and harder to imagine a future where this sort of destruction does not occur without getting rid of the corporate structure. Any change that does not address this corporate programming and arms-length investors are only going to me technocratic solutions which do not really get at the fundamental cause of the problem.

WHAT IS SECURITY, REALLY?

CNN Article: Investigators Smuggle Bombs Parts into Federal Buildings

I seems like every time a study is done on our national security, in whatever areas we choose to do it in (be it at ports, on airplanes, and now, in federal buildings), we fail with flying colors. Not long after 9/11, I remember the Time article about national security, claiming that only something like 2% of the crates that pass through our ports actually get inspected. Ultimately, I think our at-the-door security is, and always will be, woefully inadequate to protect ourselves from another terrorist attack. That isn't to say we can't protect ourselves; I do believe diplomatic and intelligence efforts working together can do the bulk of the job. However, if a terrorist gets to the door with a bomb, and nothing has stopped him yet, people are going to die, and a guard with an X-ray machine isn't really going to be able to stop him as well as we'd like to think.

I'd like to use this article to make two points about our security: first, the at-the-door security (i.e. the guy running a porn site from his post - I'm not making this up, read the article!) is mostly designed to accomplish two things: to make white, middle-class Americans feel safe flying and otherwise going about their daily lives, and to make the administration (first Bush, continuing with Obama) look like they're trying to keep us safe. We don't see diplomatic efforts to get Pakistan to help us look for the Taliban; we don't see the spies in Arab countries getting intel on terrorist organizations, and those efforts don't score political points or make us feel better. Guards with machine guns do. There's no reason to have the national guard in Penn Station (or whoever; they carry fucking machine guns. Like, really?).

That being said, though, in combination with intel and diplomacy, as long as we continue to meddle in other countries' affairs (and we will, as long as there are vested interests who stand to benefit from that meddling, and as long as we have a system that allows them to get what they want), we are going to need at-the-door security to help guard against specific threats. If we get intel that a building is going to be bombed, we need people who are there who are going to be able to protect that building. Personally, I don't want that type of job contracted out to a private company; I want someone who who is beholden to the US Government, and by extension, the people the United States. I don't want someone who only answers to a private company, whose prime goal is to make money.

This may sound contradictory, and in a sense, it is. I don't think our security is or will be that good, but if anyone is going to do it, the government should, because if we're going to pay for protection, the free market isn't going to get you the best security, it's going to get you the cheapest.

"He also said security is 'budget-driven; it's not risk-driven.'"

Although it doesn't say so in the article, I would bet the primary reason for this is due the organization being a private contractor. There are plenty of stories from contractors in Iraq (which I don't think people realize, but that was essentially a privately-contracted war; read the The Shock Doctrine) using shoddy materials and bilking the government out of the cost of full-price goods. There was one story in the book where the company contracted to run the Baghdad airport using fork lifts that were already there, repainting them, and charging the government for the cost of brand new ones (this is from memory, so I could be wrong or slightly different; however, the idea is still the same).

The market should provide most goods and services, but there are plenty of instances where the government should be providing some of these things. This happens to be one of them.

Military and defense run for-profit is a most evil type of creature, as the expansion of war and death essentially becomes the programmed goal of that organization. The last thing we need is more of that.