Here in the United States we live out the nightmare of border economy conflict on a daily basis. The cries of "states rights" echo vapidly throughout our national dialogue; often spoken with less understanding than when thought. The meaningless trilling of these persons, of whom I (and most people, I would hope) hold little respect, is more of a commentary on the listlessness of their intellectual striving. Over the years I had come to understand the 'states rights' argument as a stall tactic for persons of little minds and even smaller vision to evade confronting both the moral economic difficulties of our national social structure and but 'put off till tomorrow' these difficult trials of the American experience. However, I have now come to understand the 'states rights' argument is an economic ploy to allow some states to allow for exploitive purposes that are meant to but benefit those of 'high standing' in our socio-economic stratum.
'Right to work' here, in American, means to us 'a right to work for less' whereby the state enforces low living standards; through low minimum wage and social programs. This is, as they justify, an attempt to 'woo' corporate migration to their state; thereby giving a supposed economic 'boon' to the residence. The argument is simple 'lower taxes+lower regulations+lower wages=more jobs/employment opportunity' now, putting aside the childishness of this overly simplified view; which is a difficult thing to do. One is left with a very peculiar intuition, that of 'employment for employment's sake' as a man who lived most of his early life in the south, a place infamous for its low standard of living, I can tell you with certitude that not every job is equal and not all pay is equitable.
If we look at the poverty in the south, which is undeniable, we can conclude that this system of thinking is not beneficial to those who live under said regime. Just driving around often takes you to places of economic desolation and societal despair; persons living together in family groups or poor neighborhoods, often getting by on cheap food and sports entertainment to pass the time and ignore, as best they can, the hardships of poverty. Now, many times, in these places these people are not unemployed; they have jobs, usually more than one. The reality is that no pressure is placed upon the employer to raise wages because, remember the 'wooing' of corporate migration, should the state allow any form of pressure to face the corporate structure, the corporate state will up and leave (or threaten to do so) and place the populace in an even worse place than when they weren't there; but not by much I'd argue. And so the state spends considerate recourses, or should I say doesn't, to keep these entities in the state. As a former government employee of a southern state I can say that my wages were either minimum wage or a few dollars higher; both unlivable. Thereby, by paying the people who work for the government a low wage, it takes the state out of the 'competitor market' for wages and allows full exploitation by the corporate state; they also pay about the same in wages.
This means that the only answer for those poor employees of the south is for either A. federal assistance and federal laws to raise wages to boost market participation, or B. union and worker coop organizations placing pressure upon the corporate state from within the market itself, or of course C. a combination of both. However, many southern 'right to work' states have done as much as they can to decimate unions, and most certainly would stifle and hamstring worker coop movements; thus leaving the federal government the last man standing in the fight for individual economic autonomy. Of course, our good friends in the south, are doing everything they can to spread the gospel of 'Libertarianism' wherever their wretched tongs may speak; the anti-government ideology of our dear friend Ayn Rand, the slinger of screeds not worth reading. Of course it has its roots in that of 'classical liberalism' which emigrated from Europe to the United States under new names, but this would take an eternity to document here; and this isn't the main crux of the argument anyway.
The main thing to state is that because of the 'states rights' argument, that allowance of the borders of states to determine the economic status of our fellow humans within the United States, has granted pockets of poverty that would boggle the mind of many a shore bound city dweller on the coast of our nation; in relative comfort. We are allowing the rape and pillage of our fellows for the 'comfort' of the corporate state. This 'run to lower ground/race to the bottom' economic system is decimating our national/intellectual/creative infrastructure and leaving us poorer, not only physically, but competitively.
When the 'states rights' claim is made, what they are really espousing is a form of state sovereignty, this is the idea that 'we can do what we want within our state, without being forced to do anything by outward forces' more like a 'freedom of choice' argument. However, I've noticed a flaw, the state actually isn't 'free' if in fact they are 'reliant' on the corporate state for income, ie. taxes, and thereby are forced to 'create' a 'healthy business climate' in order to attract the attention of the business community to settle in their state. In effect, their 'rights' are dictated by the desires of corporate interest, they dictate what living conditions are 'reasonable' based on their own personal comfort; low taxes, low wages, low regulations, ect. This in and of itself should be considered a form of blackmail "do what we want or suffer the economic consequences" thereby insuring that the corporate state has total manipulative control; not only over the citizenry, but over the state itself.
However, due to this blackmail, really it's a form of negotiation with economic terrorists, the state guts its infrastructure through tax cuts; the schools are weakened, the roads and highways go unpaved, the public employees wages stagnate and shrink, and the deficit explodes as poverty increases and the reliance on the social safety-net increases the burden of said poverty, not on the corporate entity which promised employment and jobs, on the state; who will later go, hand out, to the federal government in desperate need of aid for a situation that their own stupid state rulers created through 'creating a better business climate' and thereby crushed their own economy. This speaks nothing of the repeal of regulations, all the way from ecological regulation (which keeps water and air clean), right down to banking and insurance regulation (that keeps predatory behavior in check), along with medical regulations (granting protection from malfeasance, malpractice, extortion and bad drug practices). All of these things 'make a better business climate' but do not necessarily make a better economy or a better society.
This problem is only compounded by one other colossal problem 'free trade' which makes this 'corporate state runs to the lowest common denominator' behavior even worse. It makes this destructive behavior global in scale; thusly guaranteeing a free flow of exploitation throughout the world, free of consequences and the fear of prosecution, as the United Nations is seemingly hogtied to enact any form of corporate prosecution. This is a nightmare scenario, free wandering all powerful corporate entities meandering about like locusts; devouring all desired resources until exhaustion and then moving on to another land to decimate; and yet it is the precise model we have built. This time, however, there is no federal government with even the slightest chance of regulatory power; or is there?
I believe it is time for this, humanity has been moving towards this since the first family merged with another family, of whom they had no relation, for protection and cooperation. I do not see 'globalization' ending, I cannot see it stopping because we have been trending in this direction since the dawn of cooperation. So, I propose making the United Nations a world governing body. One who implements a global living wage, tied to global inflation, I propose that we develop a global minimum income, and a global system of central planning for an effort to create a solid global infrastructure. There is a way to end 'borders' but not definitively so, in an effort to transition to a global society. We already see a thin film of an over-culture developing across the internet, with societies slowly but surly developing exposure (both good and bad) to other cultures and beginning a slight transition towards cultural assimilation.
Yes, there can be concerns about cultural assimilation, but not all assimilation is bad, if we were able to develop, say international unions, we would be able to create international pressure on the corporate state, the same could be said of international worker coops and a global living wage. None of these things even mentioning the ideas of global universal education/healthcare/income and so forth. I know that the nay sayers and visionless hacks would crow "how could we afford such a thing?!" but I care little for their uncreative approaches to what clearly is an inevitable event; barring of course our global extinction due to climate change. We need to do this, we need to (so long as we allow capitalism to exist) apply the choke chain around their neck and tell them to "Heel!!!" or face the consequence of the corporate death penalty. This is an entirely unacceptable means of conducting our societal and global affairs. We cannot continue to allow the bands of marauding corporate institutions to gallop across our world, trampling the human masses underfoot, unchecked and unaccountable. Yes, I know that what I propose is no utopic vision, we all cringe at the idea of our President being just but a lowly parliamentary figure in the halls of the UN, but let us remember, at this moment, because of our borders, we are being taken advantage of by institutions who have no loyalty and who will leave us high and dry just to find a lower paying nation. It's time for a global floor on wages, and it's time for unions without borders, it's time once again for The Internationale to ring out across the world in song. We need a united world, we need economic accountability and autonomy, this would be but a small step in a broader fight; the fight for dignity, equality, freedom and justice never ends. I propose a binding United Nations; a one world government.
No comments:
Post a Comment