Atlas Shrugged

As I have mentioned before - when I am weaving or spinning, I frequently have an audio book downloaded from the library onto my tablet. While the books that I chose are seldom noteworthy or sometimes even that interesting, it is nice to have someone read to me during the long winter afternoons. I can adjust the read back speed to one and a half times faster than normal and if, after the first thirty minutes,  the book is not interesting - I just delete it and go onto the next one. A week or so ago, on an weird impulse I downloaded Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, a book I last read perhaps 45 or so years ago.

I remember, after I finished reading it, feeling somewhat uncomfortable. Uncomfortable because while I was perhaps just evolving into the first beginnings of socialist thought, I was also firmly locked into a belief that people should take responsibility for their own actions and that we should not (at least automatically) assume that someone else would solve our problems. Rand, through the voices of John Galt and his compatriots  preached a philosophy that suggests that the capitalist should be rewarded for their expertise and that anyone who takes from the system is a "looter". It is a seductive bit of sophistry. It is seductive because it promises that if one works hard - one will get a head in the world. Rand paints the alternatives (socialist thought) as dangerous and will cause people to become almost mindless selfish beings. As an example she paints much of Europe as a wasteland of unproductive people who are dependent upon the USA for support.

But such operational philosophies have a fundamental flaw. When I first read Atlas Shrugged I could not reconcile that flaw with my upbringing and somewhat firmly entrenched beliefs that hard work will make things better. I was uncomfortable because there was a profound disconnect between my upbringing  and my newly emerging philosophical, sociological and economic thinking, a disconnect that I could not resolve. Quite simply, there is no room in Rand's world for the state to support people who have needs beyond their capacity to provide for.  While it is true that in Rand's  world the skilled get richer, there is no explanation what happens to the sick, the old or the infirm.

This time around, I didn't manage to finish it. The endless pages of rants as to how unfair the present system is to capitalists, how wrong it is to have any sort of system that tries to manage some sort of equality of access, and the absolute disaster that is socialist thought just became too tiresome (it is much harder to skip pages on an audio book). I suspect that the book could have been cut by a third, and still have been just as interesting. There however, were two things about the narrative that either I had missed the first time or just been to overwhelmed to recognize, and that this time surprised me. One was the amount of partially suppressed but articulated sexual violence. Specifically during both

Henry Rearden's and Dagny Taggart's (male and female protagonists) private thoughts there are frequent suggestions as to sexual domination , and subjection through physical force. I suppose that in 1957 when it was written, such thoughts were deemed to be acceptable.

The second thing that surprised me, and one that I should have seen the first time around was that the collapse of the economic system only happened because  John Galt and his compatriots knowing and actively worked to destroy the system.  It is in fact a very clear example of absolute selfishness where the rich and powerful are prepared to destroy a system so that they can recreate a world that fits their needs, a world according to their singular definition of what is right. Atlas Shrugged provides a blueprint for how to disrupt  our economic system. Quite simply - make it work so poorly and inefficient through underfunding that it falls apart. Make sure that aid packages are misdirected, make sure that the rich and powerful make all of the decision (and then criticize them when they take more than their share) and ensure that working people know that there is no hope. In fact, Ayn Rand's world looks very much like a world's collapse designed by neoliberals. Her promise of a new world is a false promise - one that cannot ever exists even in the most optimistic visions of utopia.

I am no longer uncomfortable about the book, there is no disconnect. While I still clearly believe that we are all responsible for doing what is right and for working and contributing as much as one can, none of those ideals are contrary to the fundamental belief that we can and must take care of everyone.

Knee-Jerk Reactions

The federal government has just announced plans to end peremptory challenges during the selection of a jury. It is easy to see why. It has been argued that if there had been some jury members who were Indigenous  during Stanley's  trial over the murder of Colten Boushie, then the outcome would have been different. It is a lovely argument and the government's plan may do something may end some of the angst amongst Indigenous people over the clearly discrimatory criminal justice system. It shouldn't.  The government is using faulty logic that at best will do nothing and at worst may make things worse.

There is no reason to believe that if somewhere around a third of Stanley's jury had identified themselves as being Indigenous that the outcome would have been different. If in fact the jury were as racist as seems to be implied, the jury just would never have come to a decision that they all could agree on. If all of the jury had identified themselves as Indigenous, then Stanley could have argued with some justification, that he was not tried by a jury of his peers. Furthermore there is no guarantee that the jurors selected at random would contain anyone self-identifying as Indigenous. It could be quite likely that trials where there defendant was Indigenous that all of the jury would be white and the defence counsel would have no way of trying to reshape the jury. It quite frankly feels as if someone is trying to fix a problem by addressing one example of that problem.

The most viable long term solution must be to increase the size and makeup of the jury pool. All citizens need to be better educated into their responsibilities to participate in juries. It is far too easy to "get out" of jury duty. Employers and other institutions need to be encouraged to create process by which people are encouraged and supported to participate.

When I was doing my graduate degree, I was selected to be in a jury pool. I was excited. l have spent a fair amount of time in courts supporting people and I wanted to be part of the process. But none of my professors were particularly interested in looking at ways that I could participate and still complete my assignments. I then called up the appropriate office - told them I was too busy with my school work and they said fine. I was struck off the list. It should have been harder for me to absolve myself of my responsibilities. Creating excuses to get out of jury duty, like stretching the rules about paying income tax, should not be a national pastime.

Communities that have historically felt disenfranchised from our legal system may need special training/assistance to more effectively participate in the process. It would be well worth our tax dollars to provide that assistance. While it may be appropriate to limit peremptory challenges, we should perhaps ensure first that the jury pools are representative of the general population.

There is a long list of indicators that our legal system does not treat all people the same. Many of them are well researched and understood. Fixing one little problem is only window dressing designed to appease some of the public. We should not be fooled into believing that the problem is solved.

To Protest or Not to Protest - That is the question.

Last week Elizabeth May leader of and the only sitting member of Canada's Green party got arrested while protesting at the gate of the Kinder-Morgan tank farm in Burnaby, B.C. (much less noticed was the arrest of NDP member of Parliament - Kennedy Stewart). A piece of me wants to clap my hands in almost an excited way that at least someone who has some sort of status is prepared to do something to draw attention to the issue. But there is an almost larger part of me that wants to yell out - so what!
 
My lack of excitement for their act of civil disobedience  has nothing to do with their cause or the fact that their concerns are reasonable for any rational, forward thinking, grandparent-thinking-about-their -grandchildren type of person - it is because it is such an inadequate response. In fact to call the miniscule protest at the Morgan-Kinder site a civil disobedience fees like a profound exaggeration. I think much of my discomfort at the protests over the pipelines is the fact that the protesters suggest that they are acting on behalf of all First Nations and other British Columbians while very small numbers of people are actually showing up and protesting. I suspect that those protesters and the hundreds of people who pass comments on their Twitter and Facebook pages have little or no understanding of the amount of energy required to actively engage in any sort of civil disobedience.

If one were to look at some at examples of effective civil disobediences that have occurred on this continent  - two conditions become apparent. One was that a large percentage of the affected citizens were involved and secondly that the protests lasted not just for a few hours or a weekend - but for weeks and weeks - if not months. For example if one looks at the Montgomery bus boycott - it lasted for 13 months and during that times no (or at least very few) African Americans used city buses.  In March of 2011, in the province of Quebec a handful of students staged a protest over the announce hikes in university tuition. A year or so later there were student lead protests for night after night - some of which were attended by 200,000 people.

A march or a protest of a few thousands or even a hundred thousand but that last but for a few hours does not impact the bureaucrats, the politicians or the corporate elites. It is no more effective at stopping anything than are a few mosquito bites. A number of years ago, during the Mike Harris days in Ontario, the public service unions orchestrated a series of rotating day long, city wide strikes. For a day the downtown core of Toronto was shut down. There were thousands of workers taking the day off from work - supposedly in protest over some significant cuts to budgets and services. It was a lovely day - nice weather, great people to talk to; it was fun walking down the middle of major streets with no concerns about traffic etc. Everything was closed down - there were no civil servants visible nor were there any corporate offices that seemed open. The next day we all went back to work, Harris ignored that and other similar protest and continued with the cuts. A short while later the union announced that there would be no more large strikes.

If the actions of such people as Elizabeth May are to have any effect, there must be a continuous, planned, and focused strategy developed and carried out. As tempting (and as lazy) as it is to believe that Facebook and Twitter are all that is required to (1) get people out and (2) to maintain a long term, sustainable agenda of civil disobedience - it will never work. People need to commit the time and energy not just into getting to the demonstration but into keeping it fresh and vital for weeks if not months.

So good on Elizabeth May and  Kennedy Stewart for having the courage to make a point - it is just too bad that their energies may have been wasted

.