Happiness Is a Won Debate

I have to say that I'm quite happy with the results of our simulation - after all, the side my group argued DID win. As it well should have! It was a pleasant surprise that the views of my Sierra Club and of the AIAM were so sympatico - our arguments complemented each other well, and it was a very successful combination in the end.

Of course, part of the reason that it was nice to get help was that our Sierra Club chose a contrarian position. Jesse, my roommate, who's Sierra Club group was very much pro-tariff, repeatedly told me my group was steadfastly wrong. Perhaps he was correct in saying the Sierra Club would, in real life, would be against anything that could result in further globalization (like eliminating a tariff on foreign autos). However, we were able to build a cogent argument for eliminating that tariff, and we built it using a ton of research into the Sierra Club's stated positions regarding the United States, and we were able to clearly defend a position that left even our President a little jaw-dropped: "I never thought I would come in here and here the Sierra Club tell me cars are good," he said. That said, we convinced him of our unorthodox stance, and he backed our ideas: a win all around.

The most vital reason we won, though, was the incredible job my team did. It was uncanny how well we all worked together. There was no fighting, no arguing, no fretting over things getting done (or not). Everybody did their part with no complaints - and on time! It was a dream group. Whether it was Aubrey's research, or Rebecca's soothing voice, or Andrew's iMovie skills, or Christian's skillful discourse, everyone on Team Sierra Club nailed it. I'm very proud of us all, and really hope to work with these same people again in the future.

Reflection #7: Simulation

The simulation, although slightly hectic due to technical difficulties, went well and all groups seemed well informed, and prepared. The videos were impressive, and I was slightly worried that Gunperri misinterpreted one of the scenes in our video. Scott was portraying an angry autoworker, and we had asked him to curse in order to make a point that the situation was extremely frustrating for the average worker, like himself. We did edit the sound so that the word was muted, but because everyone seemed to think it was funny I was afraid that it might have given off the impression that we were trying to be funny when we actually trying to make a very serious point. Other than that, I was pleased with the way our group presented itself. My hope was that we would have the opportunity to debate with the other groups a little more, but we ran out of time pretty quickly. The “president” had some very interesting and thoughtful questions for each group, but unfortunately he ended up voting for the other side. Overall, I enjoyed working on this simulation and I hope that the major simulation goes just as well.

Trade Free and Right

Protectionism is bad. Period. Trade barriers increase tensions between nations and stifle economic growth.  Essentially, they are “nanny-laws” that baby domestic industry, by exempting them from international competition. When competition is eliminated in any facet of the marketplace, domestically or internationally, industry becomes inefficient and stagnant – a child of the State. Free trade ushers in prosperity. Trade barriers, on the other hand and in the opposite direction of their intended purpose, hurt a country and its citizens.

Abolition of tariffs by all nations would greatly benefit the global market. To allow the unbridled exchange of commodities and products would lower prices, increase industry efficiency, and lead to the betterment of mankind. How hard is it to understand that the Free Market is not evil, but instead the only rational system? Free trade, deregulation – the messengers of freedom and prosperity, what a beautiful thing.

Companies that support protectionism cannot compete, and therefore should not be propped up. Unions that support protectionism are essentially Marxist organizations and against all forms of American values. Free trade is innately American and the only means of effectively and cheaply protecting democracy abroad.

Reflection #6: Voices Under the Radar

This week has been the most interesting in regards to world politics, that I’ve had thus far. Our assignments touched on fascinating topics, such as the importance of culture, that are at times overlooked in the context of global politics. As PTJ mentioned in class, many people have the belief that since marginalized groups are smaller, and uneducated about policies, and worldly topics why would we study them? Shouldn’t we be studying the larger, powerful states?

This belief speaks directly towards the ideas and assumptions of state-centralism. If IR theories assume that states are unchanging, and that the actions of states only should be recognized, then yes, these marginalized people are dispensable. This can be justified by arguing that someone must always be at the bottom of the pyramid, so why try to change our system now? Also, social movements that do not directly affect the relationships between states themselves are similarly unimportant. However, this seems extremely naïve considering the countless examples of the power of the people causing serious problems for those who happened to be in charge, and serious changes to our global systems. Three examples of this are the revolution of Americans from the British, the Indians being led by Gandhi completely sans violence, and the more violent catalyst of indigenous rebellion by Che Guevara. These examples are relevant because the behaviors of these people are under the radar, and throughout history the suppressed have discovered various forms of rebellion that are still going on today. The difference is, the threats are growing increasingly dangerous and power struggles are more obvious. As demonstrated by the cyber-terrorism exhibit at the Spy Museum, these threats are less about traditional combat and more about the destruction of the things we depend on the most. If the state is supposedly more powerful, and significant than the people, then why are attacks shifting away from the military, and towards that which would cause chaos among the people?

State-centrism combined with our current global situation makes IR theories seem almost counter-productive. By not adapting to the times, we are being ignorant towards the future of our global systems. In fact, the state centric theory has a difficult time answering many questions about this future. Therefore not paying a sufficient amount of attention to these groups and movements is a crucial mistake, especially when the stakes are so high.

The Strength of the Powerless

My favorite part about Enloe’s “Margins, Silences and Bottom Rungs” was that it addressed the main issue I had with international relations theory. I understand that that these theories are merely different methods of seeing the international realm and attempts to understand international relations. However, its apathetic approach to the human situation started to make me question if international relations was the area on which I wanted to focus my education. Enloe’s article reminded me that these theories are not comprehensive and they thoroughly undermine the power that the “voiceless” have in society.

She argues that the main issue with international relations and the general way of understanding them is that there is too much focus on the powerful. As Professor Jackson noted while trying to keep the discussion going, “Shouldn’t we focus on the powerful? Isn’t that where everything happens?” I completely disagree with this. Enloe argues this to be a close-minded approach to politics because in the end, the “orthodox analysts of international politics [will be] caught by surprise” (189). The marginalized have much more power than one would expect because they have unique resources such as immense support amongst themselves and if they are given enough reason to, they have the potential for politically radical revolutions. Most of the best revolutions started this way.

Not only is the Zapatista movement in Chiapas, Mexico an excellent example to reference, but so is the French Revolution. Its immense historical significance further emphasizes the power of the marginalized. The official beginning of the French Revolution is (arguably) Bastille Day, where citizens of Paris stormed the prison in order to gather weapons. However in the countryside, the peasants were attacking the feudal system in which they were imprisoned, known as the “Great Fear,” in order to gain their independence from an oppressive practice. It is examples like these that demonstrate that the more a group is marginalized, the higher risk there is for an unstable nation. However, the powerful should not pay attention to the marginalized merely out of fear. They should do this because that allows a better understanding of the nation itself, and a stronger one in result.

Marginalized Margins.

            Discussions of marginalized people, the plight they face, and as to what solutions can be pursued to improve their lot, strike fearful chords in the ears of a proponent of a mathematically inclined laissez-faire capitalist. Altruists unfailing hurl insults at the free market system, and decry its institutions in the face of the poor, lying to them by claiming that their hardship is the result of capitalism. But, what alternative do the “humanitarians,” “leftists,” and “socialists” promote? Their plans almost always arrive back at something along the lines of centralized planning, excessive regulations, forced reallocation of resources, etc. In other words, the inevitable outcome of altruist principles: tyranny.

            I have one question for the Marxist lot. In what countries have seen the largest natural redistribution of wealth, the largest growth of social and economic equality, the fastest withdrawal from poverty and launch into prosperity and social harmony? This can only be seen in the very countries that have adopted free market-friendly policies. The exact system the Marxists attempt to defame is the only system that naturally leads to the things they support: prosperity, progression, and equality.

            Of course, there has ever been a truly laissez-faire market anywhere in the world. The closest seen was the “Gilded Age” in the United States. Where railroads were covered through the West, factories sprung up fervently in the East, and crops grew bountifully. If only people understood the production capacity that could be unleashed if regulations were removed, government ownership privatized, and the Invisible Hand were let to reign free.

… Allow me to enumerate in the logical, mathematical viewpoint.

            There is a field of study by the name of Game Theory. Game Theory allows mathematicians to calculate the probabilities of possible outcomes of certain scenarios. Based-on the study of these probabilities, the methods used to acquire them, and the attempted application of this practice to the natural world, essentially, mathematics can be used to predict human behavior, nature as a whole, the victor of in an armed conflict, market fluctuations, etc. Game Theorists, the most rational “understanders” of natural activity, have a general opinion of public policy favoring “Anarcho-Capitalism.” Anarcho-Capitalists understand that the global commodity market is at a fixed production capacity, meaning that there is a finite amount of resources. This “cap” of production capacity is determined by, of course, the natural capacity of the Earth, but more importantly by sovereign government regulations, international law, corruption, etc. Simply stated, if this cap is removed capacity will grow to meet the demand of the world population.

            Also, Game Theorists understand that the most efficient actor is rational self-interest. They understand that human are selfish, that even a seemingly selfless action is still a means of boosting the “Self.” So, if this unleashing of market power, by the removal of this figurative “cap” on production power is coupled with the naturally instilled selfish practices of humans and corporations – a scenario of legitimate free market anarchy, i.e. anarchy in the philosophical sense – the human condition will be optimized. In other words, the concepts deemed by moralists as sinful: greed, selfishness, ambition, will be the very ideals that pull those who have been pushed to the margins out of their horrid condition. Market deregulation in the realm of transnational capitalism is the only way to assist those of lesser fortune.

            Milton Friedman stated, “Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat scorned.” So, why rely on a decaying directorate for the solution to poverty, disenfranchisement, and inequality? Life begins with single decision to live. Prosperity begins with a single decision to be free. Let the market reign.

Salt and Margins

All the talk about marginalized people during class Wednesday made me think hard about oppressed minorities - not the Mayans in Mexico, whom I knew/know little about, but about the minorities I have studied: the Cherokees, the Algonquians, the Wampanoags. It also made me think about a different kind of Indian, those Indians who did not take up weapons but instead peacefully worked their way in from the margins: people who actually reside in India.

When a people are on the margins of society, they have a voice; it just is jumbled, confused, lacking a single coherent direction. The government can hear a rumble, but it is easy to ignore; there needs to be an instrument of the people, a trumpet, if you will, who can amplify and focus the message of the masses, choose certain symbols and phrases to hammer home, and turn a disgruntled populace into a force of destiny. One such counter-elite, and his campaign, was Mahatma Gandhi’s “Salt Satyagraha” – the Salt March. “Satyagraha” roughly means “truth-force”, and it was the non-violent resistance tactic that Gandhi chose during India’s independence movement. Gandhi’s vision of success through non-cooperation with a corrupt state culminated in his march, from March 12 to April 6 of 1930, in resistance of the Indian Salt Taxes. Since 1835, Imperial Britain had been imposing ever-harsher taxes on salt in colonial India. Tax rates were outrageously high on imported salt, but salt had to be imported, because it was illegal for Indians to sell or produce salt. This was particularly egregious because salt was abundant naturally at the coast. Salt, a necessity of life, was kept from the impoverished Indian multitudes by high fences at the coasts that prevented them from finding it, and by high Imperial taxes that kept them from buying it. Gandhi, therefore, selected wisely when he made the salt tax the primary issue of his first act of Satyagraha. Indian leaders were skeptical, thinking Gandhi should have picked a more salient bone to pick, like a land-revenue boycott (Gandhi, 2010). However, Gandhi the counter-elite had made a brilliant choice, because salt turned out to hold tremendous symbolic significance for the Indian people. Salt was something all Indians cherished and needed; it was something that washed up on their shores in large quantities; and yet what rightfully belonged to the Indian people had to be passed through a greedy, foreign middleman. Indian nationalism was inflamed in a way it had never been before. When Gandhi illegally took up a piece of salt from the coast, surrounded by media and proclaiming “With this, I am shaking the foundations of the British Empire,” he inspired Indians to take their subcontinent back. Millions of Indians began to illegally make and buy salt, openly rebelling against the British oppressors; over 50,000 were imprisoned (The 1930 Salt March, 2010). So passionate for their nationalistic cause were these Indians that they were willing to face British machine guns without violence on their own part. When India eventually gained its independence, it owed no small thanks to the efforts of Gandhi to remind Indians that their land belongs to them - and for reminding them that people on the margins do not have to dwell there.