0% unemployment. Utopia, dystopia or just common sense?

FDR once talked about the concept of full employment.
It is my firm belief that he isn't just correct, but such a thing is the ideal and the pragmatic solution.

There exists more than enough work for all people. With population growth simply creating greater demand, I do not foresee stagnation. Even if we discount all of the bullshit makework employees are forced to do to justify their jobs, essential services alone over burden just a few.

It has become something of established wisdom that the capitalist struggle is somehow mandatory, that this burden on the few to provide for the many is inevitable and so rewards greater wealth as a balance.
In reality?
It is simply a system that works fairly well and is an adequate improvement on the systems of privilege and service that came before.

Just for a second, imagine a world where everyone worked, but people had to commit less time to work.
Where every employer was "over staffed" and so their employees could choose when to work.
If people can think beyond "more work = more money = better life" it's fairly easy.
We don't need to discard the idea that more work should generate more income, but rather that a base income is afforded to all for their participation in society.
A 30 hour work week, 20 hour, 10 hour. There are 7+ billion of us, we do not need to fill most of our lives with work to generate the wealth needed to provide for all.

We know that there is MORE than enough food to feed everyone in the world. So much is wasted that this is just indisputable.
We know that there is MORE than enough shelter to house everyone. How many vacant lots and abandoned buildings are you aware of? John Locke once suggested that the system of capital worked because it reduced waste. People could trade what they could not use to gain value while providing another with something of value that would otherwise be worthless, spoiled.
In his view waste was immoral.
To me, the hoarding of unused property is just as big a waste and every bit as immoral.
If private owners were compelled to use their property or lose it, there would be far more affordable housing. (this isn't an unusual responsibility to include in ownership of assets. If intellectual property is not used & defended it is lost, for instance)

With the two absolute necessities accounted for this leaves fuelling our free time.
Leisure industries generate significant wealth.
From tourism to television, from sports to gaming, entertainment is absolutely a viable area for mass employment.
We can see a system for this already widely used and enjoyed: youtube.
Free, or cheap, entertainment is being made on mass by people that love to make it, that are (sometimes) able to live on the proceeds.
Imagine if everyone had the freedom to put their efforts into content creation, social interaction or public service (such as participation in the democratic process or political discourse)

If we can grant that food and shelter are manageable to make available to all, that simply leaves luxuries.
I do not see why a luxury market wouldn't thrive in a world with few work hours.
How could it not?

Sadly, this is inconceivable in the current world, but I think it is certainly within the bounds of reason to suggest it is possible, to suggest it is preferable, to suggest, perhaps, that it is superior.

Some thoughts on Libertarianism; schizophrenia for the embarassed conservative.

My major problem with libertarians (right wing, "fiscal conservatives") is the thinking that equality can be achieved by removing constraints. That somehow just letting everyone do as they please has the net result of greater liberty.
"it's the difference between equality of outcome and of opportunity!" I hear.
No. It's not.
This is conflating two VERY DIFFERENT conversations in order to avoid addressing the argument. Understandable, given the domination of the regressive left on the "equality issue," but declaring that everyone has all available opportunities by virtue of living within the same system is simply dishonest.

The idea that only personal liberty can ensure or enshrine equality (any definition of it, call it "fairness" if you like) is asinine. We ALL place limitations on individual freedom, the difference is only where the line is drawn.
This to me "bootstraps" thinking is the suggestion that "Darwinism" is a GREAT social strategy.
Survival of the fittest, right?
People will find their level, and to the winner goes the spoils.

Just... no!
Nature is fucking HORRIFYING.
Natural selection is just what happens, it's not a metric for moral and ethical living. It is CERTAINLY not what we should aim for as a society.
The superpower of our species, the things that has let us dominate a planet filled with animals that can individually out compete us, is cooperation. We rose above the limitations of "nature"
The sacrifice we make is to sign on to this unwritten social contract. We give up some of our personal freedom in order to benefit from the collective. I don't murder you and take your things, you don't murder me and take my things and now there are two of us to work together.

If somebody only has the "freedom" to do a thing that they have no conceivable method of ACTUALLY achieving, then they do not have that freedom.
Pretending they do is so faulty as to be utterly retarded.
There are no laws against you jumping to the moon, but you can not DO it. Such a freedom is utterly irrelevant.

With this said, affirmative action or government programs to try to ensure equality of opportunity MAY NOT be the best solution.
They certainly are not in all instances.

The pretence that there would be anything resembling equality without ANY intervention is delusional to the point of insanity. Might makes right. We can either choose to make that "might" accountable to the greater community, or make the community accountable to a mighty individual.
Discarding a system of accountability because it is not perfect and subject to corruption is not a solution.
This thinking stems from the mistaken belief that capitalism is equipped with a morality, that it can self govern and self correct.
That was NEVER an argument made by the original economists, and it is an issue that is run from in terror by economic conservatives who rush instead to blame all ills on "the state."

In order to ensure the greatest liberty to the most people you can not simply declare that everyone has access to the same opportunities because there are no laws AGAINST them taking the opportunities.
That is a silly statement, but it is one taken without thought by many conservatives.

To me, this "negative liberty" mindset is just a demand for the authority of wealth.
If you're rich, do as you please; if you're poor, do as you're told.
It *literally* does work like that, historically and wherever there is no social accountability.

Rich people are free to spend their resources as they please, poor people are NOT allowed to spend their resources. If they spend resources on things their employers do not agree with, the Pinkerton's may come along to break some skulls.
Poor people used their resources, ie: their time and bodies, to lobby for things they wanted.
According to the "individual liberty" crowd this is evil statism, apparently.
I've yet to hear a libertarian that supports Unions, but I've also yet to hear a libertarian suggest that wealth should be restricted in its uses, even when it comes to lobbying.
A clear double standard that places wealth above other resources. You can spend wealth to do whatever you want, but if you DARE use your time, effort or voice in an attempt to "purchase" something you desire... well. That's evil! But only when poor people do it.

Speaking of wealth as a tool for political influence;
It is ALWAYS the state at fault, never the "capitalist" bribing them.
Crony capitalism is apparently socialism these days, because who gives a fuck about what words mean? Socialism just means government wasting money, right? If it's giving that money to private institutions against the very nature and definition of socialism? Doesn't matter, still socialism!

I mean, libertarians can perfectly understand the flaws inherent in communist thinking.
Perhaps they generalise too much given that humans practice "communism" on the small scale almost universally, but as a political philosophy I tend to agree with "conservative" criticism.
The idea that we're all unique individuals that can pull ourselves up by the bootstraps is every bit as flawed and ignorant of human nature though. Communism may be too idealistic as a societal practice, but to dismiss it as evil is just... dishonest. Evil is done in the NAME of the ideology. A lesson we should all learn from and apply broadly to all ideology.

When will libertarians examine their own principles in the same light? They identify communism as too idealistic, utopian and unreasonable but rarely do I see any self awareness when identical ideas about "volunteerism" are proposed.
Lets just deregulate, right?
Humans will ALWAYS do the responsible thing! And if they don't, somehow it will all self correct because that's a reasonable argument! The markets will fix it!

The double standards and inconsistencies gall me constantly.
If a person receives help from the government it is evil. It oppresses everyone because tax is theft, people should EARN their own damn money! Getting money you don't earn (even if it's so you can eat) is immoral, it makes you lazy and is actually unfair because it traps people in poverty!
If a person receives help from their parents it is TOTALLY fair! It's an even playing field because everyone has parents! They EARNED that inheritance, and the golden standard; "it was already taxed once!"
Can nobody else see the hypocrisy?

I personally choose a more nuanced approach.
I don't think the regressives are correct in attacking the wealthy because of "privilege" (though I share a lot of the fire, as a socialist) and I don't think "fiscal conservatives" are correct in their contempt for the poor, nor their idea that "charity does it better"
If charity "did it better" then Africa would not have faced starvation in a generation (it has had billions in charitable aid) and we wouldn't constantly hear of mismanagement, corruption and incompetence.

My take? The government has an OBLIGATION to provide some services to its citizens. This is none negotiable.
Universal education WORKS.
Without it you would not be sitting in a modern western nation.
You'd be sitting in a slum.
What, you don't oppose universal ("free") education? Well, then you're a communist!
What, it's an exception? Then why must we talk in absolutes all the damn time!
If libertarians make SOME exceptions for state run utilities (police, military, emergency services, education, public service) then why pretend these things are INHERENTLY evil?
I never seem to get an answer to that. Just excuses as to why it doesn't count and having a different line drawn as to what services the government should provide suddenly turns you from a free thinking libertarian into a statist monster akin to Stalin, Mao and Hitler.
I'm sorry, I think a public option for healthcare works. I'm sad that makes me into Satan-Hitler.

And if you seriously do not agree with government as a concept?
Move to Somalia. Stop making excuses. Go to somewhere without a state to interfere with your life, for better or worse. Stop being a parasite. If you enjoy the benefits of a civil society so much, quit trying to destroy it or demonise those that don't share your ideology.

Racism: the uniquely American problem

I find the subject of racism very difficult to discuss within an American context.
In the UK things can get heated, misconceptions can be made and misunderstanding can drive mutual hate. Even so it can still be discussed sensibly between most individuals. I've shared my opinions openly and candidly with people from all over Europe from varying backgrounds.
I once discussed this most sensitive of subjects with two Caribbean matriarchs when we were stuck in a weeks long course. (awesome ladies, I think even I'd have put on weight if I worked with them regularly, all the sweets I got offered :P)
The only time I'm called a racist is online by "activist" types, though I genuinely think most racists aren't evil and can be reformed. (a controversial opinion, it seems)

America seems an entirely different story.
They spend money with slave owners on.
They are protected by a constitution which LITERALLY described black slaves as less than a full human, written by slave owners, in a nation built on slavery.
They even learn about how awesome those slave owners were in school and celebrate these men regularly.

This is why when I hear "confederates were evil racists" from Americans it is almost comical.
It's an easy argument.
"People in the past did shitty stuff based on false morality"
History just isn't that cut and dry.

The example I prefer to use is General Lee.
He was widely celebrated during and after the civil war and publicly denounced racism, racist crimes and encouraged the inclusion of Black Americans in public life. I'd say that qualifies him as a moral man... of his time. Imperfect, subject to the whims, laws and attitudes of his culture and ruled by a moral system we find misguided if not outright evil.
Yet in the modern world he's often tarnished by the outright hateful racism shown by Jubal Early and some other confederates.

Racism in the "north" is likewise lessened or dismissed. Whitewashed from history in favour of this self congratulatory "mission accomplished" posturing even by the best of Americans.
People need to put things into historical context.
Not all slave owners were evil people, many sincerely believes they were custodians of a "lesser race."
It's daft, misguided and racist, but not hateful.
I'm with the esteemed Morgan Freeman when he suggests racism won't get better until we stop talking about race so much. When "the sins of the father" are taken off the table maybe we can achieve something constructive.

To make a point with a tangent; my nation (England) is directly responsible for the end of the historical slave trade.
Without the embargoes on Africa carried out by the royal navy, without the blood and treasure of the Empire spilled on the principle that all men should be free, slavery would still be as ubiquitous now as it was then. (though slavery does remain a global problem, it is now in the shadows, for better or worse as some choose to turn a blind eye)

You will not hear this invoked to lend moral authority to the British though.
Instead we are taught our history warts and all.
We learn the positives with the negatives, we learn NUANCE.

We ended the global slave trade, but it was not done for altruism alone.
The document used to justify employing the Royal Navy this way was written by men desperate to preserve the rights of the privileged from the excesses of the King. It entered the British Zeitgeist as a personal ideal.
All men are free.
That individualism propelled us far as a nation and as a culture.

Another reason was political expedience. Our rival nations were profiting greatly from the slave trade.
By placing an embargo on Africa we were undermining the economic competition.

I'm sure there was also a great deal of arrogance and colonial thinking involved too. The Brits (the aristocrats at least) of the time saw themselves as superior. It was their responsibility to interfere and better other people.

So, any attempt to cast the British role in ending the transatlantic slave trade as romantic would be a lie based on a grain of truth,
It is certainly something to be proud of, but only a fool with delude himself with a beautiful untruth.

This ability seems sadly lacking from American education, even amongst scholars.
I think this is part of what fuels the identity politics of the nation, which is everybody's business because it seems to be a major export.
America's racism is unique to America, but it doesn't seem to be staying that way.

Starcraft Legacy of the void ending. SPOILER.

So, yes. This is a spoiler warning. The game came out months ago the franchise is niche and enthusiasts that would care already know, but there it is :P

So, the end of SC2. Tying up loose ends, giving us a climax for the conflict.
Honestly, I have mixed feelings.
The game is solid. Each expansion has had an enjoyable campaign, well worth the price even discounting the multiplayer.
The best of the three remains Wing of Liberty, which was somewhat inferior to the original and Brood War, but the series has not been without merit.

While I feel too much was added to the Protoss to flesh them out, I cant really fault Blizzard. They are addicted to retcon, but that's not always a bad thing.

The Tal'Darim as a third faction with an entirely different culture was a bit of a miss for me (I preferred the inferences of them as religious zealots within the wider Protoss society, rather than Dark Templar MKII)
Alarak was probably the best addition to the cast though. I just wish that moral ambiguity and the reality of Protoss being both noble and savage, tolerant yet xenophobic, peaceful yet absolutely deadly had been preserved.

Much of the "new" diversity of the race felt shoehorned in, rather than built from the existing lore, and that is a missed opportunity.
It did however allow the devs to explore some cool themes with Fenix and the nature of sentience or the exploration of Protoss heritage, the Khala and even themes of racism through the preservers with Rohana.

I even found the end satisfying.
Redemption, sacrifice and yet room for growth of the story.
Many people were unhappy with it, and not entirely without cause. It was all too convenient, the ending too happy and the consequences for the series primary antagonist (Kerrigan) nil, with the reunion at the end after her ascension.
Personally my own interpretation was a little more bittersweet.

Kerrigan ascended into what amounts to godhood, the sector is at peace and the factions are separated.

The Brood still lives though, and with a new, decidedly less empathetic Queen.
The zerg are likely not to remain united either. The Overmind and Kerrigan could not dominate the swarm completely. What hope another? Add in the other Zerg characters and we have a recipe for some mayhem.

The Terran are united under a new, improved Emperor. I personally want to see that treated with some optimism.
That said, Koprulu is hardly a tame place and the survivor's of the war are likely the most tough, independent sons of bitches possible.
The UED is also out there, and what could such an empire have accomplished while the Terran we know from the Dominion have been so isolated.
So much to explore.

And the Protoss themselves?
The end of the Khala, the new beginning as a unified race and the awakening of the purifiers, a machine intelligence.
Blizzard added so much that the campaign really only introduced these elements.
With so much possible tension I cant help but to think how many stories could be told.

So while loose ends were tied perhaps too quickly and too neatly, I don't think the doors are closed on building the franchise further.

The one element that caused the most argument though was Jim's final sequence.
In the bar on Mar Sara once more, throwing down his badge and disappearing. Presumably with Kerrigan.
Personally, my interpretation is probably a little too bitter for most, though not without hope.

Kerrigan's ascension left Jim in a world he didn't belong.
A bad man that has done bad things being given a chance to build a new, better world from the ashes. Just as he'd told Horner, this just isn't his fight.
So, after decades of fighting what had he left? He fought the law as a criminal. Fought the criminals as the law. Fought the government as a rebel. Fought the Zerg as a saviour. Fought the Dominion as a traitor.
He fought for love, for revenge and for redemption, and he saved the world.
But he lost Kerrigan.
What's a man to do?

Kerrigan is a Godess, and Raynor has nothing left to live for.
So yup. The vision at the end and the disappearance of Jim?
I think he killed himself to join the woman he loved.

Does death mean the end though, or would it just be a new beginning?
Bitter sweet, dear reader.
Bitter sweet and a question humans have asked for the lifetime of civilisation and will continue to ask as there can be no answer.

Was Raynor's vision the dream of a dying man as he faded into the abyss? Was it just hope manifest only in the mind?
Or has he finally joined the woman he loved, hated, forgave and redeemed?
A worthy ending. Whatever its imperfections.

Socialist rant

The constant hypocrisy, double standards and disingenuous arguments I see surround economic and political discussion are astounding.
Good people discard nuance in favour of rhetoric and discussion in favour of what amounts to chanting obscenities to the opponents at a professional sporting arena.

As a socialist, the focus of my anger is often the "fiscal conservative" with a fetish for free markets. The idea that free markets are able to self govern and are the only path to liberty.
What they fail to appreciate or admit is that capitalism infringes on "personal rights" constantly...
I don't *get* how proponents of capitalism can be so obtuse to it's perils.
It's always some excuse as to how the state is at fault, or that some kinds of capitalism don't count because "real capitalism" is altruistic and everyone is filled with love, sunshine and rainbows.

Socialism is not about dictating to or limiting people, any more than capitalism is about stealing. It happens within those "systems" and it happens independently of them too.
Its foundation, the CORE PRINCIPLE from which all others stem is that a worker should share in the fruits of his labour.
Early socialists dealt with capitalism that: used slaves, used child labour, had shit working conditions with low pay, no breaks/holidays/pensions. The working class also could not vote, did not have much access to education, could be imprisoned and forced to work for accruing debt etc etc etc.

Socialism was a reaction to inequity that not even the most fact immune anarcho capitalist could describe such circumstances as "empowering" or "freedom"
Socialists and the wider left won MANY of these battles. They were not granted by benevolent capitalists/aristocrats. They were fought and paid for, often with blood.
Now we have gained those victories, it does not erase how the rights were gained or remove the danger posed to individual rights by those with power. Power is not something limited to the state.
Capitalism is not evil, it is not good. It is just an economic tool. One of surpassing utility not through a higher power or moral imperitive, but because SOME form of accountability it built into the system.
Accountability is what allows capitalism to function so well, but the form of accountability means that "success" for a private business may not always be in the public interest.

What socialists realised and most socialists believe today is that some things do not benefit from the profit motive. Some things do not benefit from "capitalism" or free markets.
In fact, even none socialists know this shit. Want to privatise the courts? The police? The fire service?
Things don't go well when that happens.
Socialists just draw a different line in the sand.

Healthcare, welfare, education, utilities, infrastructure, emergency services, military and the courts should be publicly operated. Accountable to the public.
How is this bad?
How is it totalitarian?
You might disagree, but disagree on merit, not on some strawman built from whole cloth.
Propose an alternative, justify it and do not pretend that the state is some evil perpetrated on innocent citizens.

Socialists aren't coming to take your income. They don't want to limit your personal freedom or make everyone earn the same. They simply propose that capitalism does not need to be the solution to every problem and maybe, just maybe, there are better alternatives.
Not every problem is a nail, so stop trying to solve every problem with the same hammer just because the hammer is pretty awesome.
Collectivist, cooperative or public run institutions already operate within the capitalist system just fine, they aren't inherently evil any more than a privately owned and run company is inherently evil.
It's all about how we make people with power, either wealth or legislative, accountable for the consequences of their actions.
You do not have to abandon capitalism to embrace some form of socialism, as any politically literate European can tell you. Socialism is alive and well in Europe, but the biggest influence on policy even in the "socialist dystopias" like Sweden and Denmark are still corporations.

Rant end.

Why the social justice "left" is not "extreme left wing"

Social justice is somewhat rampant on the left.
Now, this isn't explicitly bad. It's just an opinion man.
The problem comes with advocacy for "social justice" because empty virtue signalling and attacking anyone that doesn't agree hard enough.

Now, it's not so much that "the left" isn't "at fault" with this, it's that this just HAPPENS to be dominant on the left.
I see so many right wingers that will happily eat the asshole out of people on the right that are INDISTINGUISHABLE from SJW in tactics, conduct and sometimes even goals (differing only in justification) and still somehow think they're superior because they aren't "on the left" (which is the only metric that can make people "wrong" in a shocking irony of DOING EXACTLY WHAT SJW DO towards anyone on the right)
This culture war is largely a civil war on the left, with sympathetic people from the right standing with "us" in solidarity and other (dogmatic) right wingers just joyous that their "enemies" are getting a beating.

I will maintain that "fauxgressives" that are considered "far left" atm (even by many liberals/lefties fighting them) are nothing of the kind.
They are people with set values and dogma that are willing to coopt left wing politics for their own ends.

You get feminists decrying the white male patriarchy claiming "capitalism" is evil, but their big solution is just to have more people at the top of that pyramid own vaginas. Everyone knows that all of the social, economic and systemic problems that the left has largely been attempting to counter are caused by the penis!
Marx MUST have written that, considering how often his name is invoked by everyone...

Every time an actual left winger with some credentials in left wing politics comes along, they are not judged on policy, but on identity.
When these so called "left wing extremists" are saying quite openly that the only right choice for the left is to vote for a woman regardless of her politics, I simply can not credit such arguments. I cant accept that this is an honest argument from "the extreme left"
They're certainly on "the left" in as much as they're against tradcon values.

Personally, I lay the blame at liberalism, not "leftism"
What happened was the parties all drifted towards centrist liberalism, with focus on personal liberty and capitalism, which left little room for parties to distinguish themselves.
The right has its identity politics baked in.
Religion, family values, nationalism (both rational and racist) and class.

The left embraced "social liberalism" (which is not necessary in the wider context of liberalism) and the overton window took over. Pushing the accepted thinking into retarded places in an effort for candidates to "out do" each other in competition to be the most pure.

We have milk toast centrists happy to concede to right wing demands on all manner of social policy that fiercely contend over identity politics. Why? Because such a focus does not actually require ANYTHING to function. It's ambiguous nonsense that "sounds good" to certain audiences.

Meanwhile, the ACTUAL left wing candidates have long histories of being on the correct side of issues ALL ALONG.
Not through political expedience or to prove how progressive they are, but simply through rational application of the values of their own political philosophy.

We've seen time and again in recent years.
The "left wing establishment" favours liberal, centrist (or even outright conservative) candidates based on identity politics and empty virtue signalling.
Bernie Sanders is too white, too male and too old. He's unelectable, because the democratic base is split on him. Just ignore that unaffiliated that overwhelmingly seem to support him...
Corbyn is unelectable! He's far left! If labour don't elect a female leader they're sexist!

Can anyone actually argue that such thinking fits into the ideals that those in left wing parties profess?

The hypocrisy of social justice.

The recent Breitbart article on Sarah Butts has shown in stark relief how little the social justice world cares about justice, social or otherwise. It shows how little they care even about their own crusades (which are simply a self righteous excuse to attack other people)

For years the social justice hate mob has attacked people on zero grounds (from Tim Hunt joking to an appreciative audience of female peers, to Matt Taylor's shirt, to various politicians, CEOs and public figures holding beliefs in the past that are no longer popular)

This self same movement declares we must listen and believe.
We must condemn those accused by any woman that feels she's been wronged in any way, even if the allegations are false or vindictive.

This hate mob does not even argue against these charges of malicious conduct.
They CELEBRATE them as necessary "collateral damage." As evidence that their ideology has power.
They measure their influence in the damage they are able to inflict to innocent and guilty alike.

The victim (fake or genuine, accused or accuser) does not matter. Only media attention on their political hot button.

I think any claims they are on the side of justice are now officially over.

The only necessity to be "guiltless" is to be aligned with them.
The only thing that can make one guilty is to disagree.
If you disagree, but are otherwise faultless, then you bear the guilt of others, real or imagined.

To any fellow left wing bleeding heart that stumbled upon this I'd ask one thing.
Do not take for granted who the enemy is and who the friend.
The history of the left is littered by the betrayal of leaders, substituting their authority and their agenda for the cause they were supposed to champion.
Do not allow history to repeat by allowing that Trojan horse through your walls.
Beware those who claim to support the values you hold dear, but display them so rarely. Hold them accountable for their deeds, just as you would an avowed enemy.

This sickness on the left (laughable, considering the agenda they push. Corporatism in lipstick) must be expunged.
It serves no purpose except to hand victory to the political right.
When people are driven away from idealism by identity politics, when divisiveness is promoted as a cure for social ills, the status quo wins.
Institutions are by nature conservative (they must be to function) when you allow these hypocritical bigots to dominate the discourse and fix the agenda, there can be no challenge mounted against the nature of the system.

Do not be fooled by calls that telling the truth is harassment, or that disagreement is abusive.
I personally wish to see all those who hold these hypocritical and tribalistic attitudes burn to the ground, and the earth salted.
When such extreme, immoral behaviour can be excused and dismissed without pause while others are condemned for no action they have taken, my reason abandons me for the passionate rage I feel against injustice.