imaginary oxymoron

The thing is that no market is free. All transactions are conditioned by who has power at the table. Therefore, all markets, being places where transactions take place are subject to those with power; further, the market as a collective entity is conditioned by larger systems of power which govern the collection of transaction sub-systems.

Further, the phrase ‘free market’ is just marketing. (Marketing being its own propaganda system, of power over information.) What people ask for when they ask for a ‘free market’ is a market which is subject only to those within their own tribe, and further that it’s their tribe or the highway. What they mean by ‘free market’ is ‘my market’ and ‘not your market’. Advocates of a ‘free market’ are actually seeking a market with specific conditions. Thus it’s not just an oxymoron, but is actually, quite simply, a lie.

The notion ‘free market’ is an imaginary oxymoron.

To approach the notion of a ‘free market’ is also an imaginary journey to somewhere other than where the proponents really wish to go. If one were to approach the free market, one would not have taxes, sure. One would also not have government subsidies to businesses within the industrial-military-prison-security complex, a leviathan to which quite a few ‘free market’ proponent have sold their souls.

There’s plenty of murk still. Because although the loss of the industrial-military-prison-security complex and corporate welfare looks pretty good to me; one would also, of course, not have bank bailouts and no social security and no ‘New Deal’. And, maybe other stuff that we may or may not agree on, but that advocates of a ‘free market’ would probably like to keep, such as corporate indemnity and corporate person-hood and patents and copyright and the legal system and the stock market. All gone.

There’s a lot of everything for everyone lose. I think there’s things we could agree on being sorely missed, such as that one would not have the highway and freeway system. One would also not have the Internet. And so much more.

An environment without conditions would simply be closer to a jungle of violence. The only time that a market would form is as an expression of someone’s power over a thing they wanted to exchange, and the relative window of powerlessness of someone seeking that thing to not simply take it away without an exchange they could afford; as part of a transaction other than violence.

When people advocate for a ‘free market’ what they mean is they want a ‘power market’ where they are the hegemon in power, or, at the very least, where they are protected by a power friendly to them in a hegemony. And, that just means they want, not to change the system; but, quite obviously to simply change who’s in power.

So, to those seeking a ‘free market’, “I say to you againe, doe not call up Any that you can not put downe” [see] which is to say, it’s not what you really want. You’re selling and being sold a bill of goods. Don’t believe the hype. Caveat Emptor.

even if

Even if the symptom of Global Warming, or as I prefer Global Climate Chaos, were not caused by humans; it seems obvious that the goal of maintaining the window of conditions that are suitable to human and other-than-human life on the planet would be good to pursue. This is sustained, ongoing terra-forming of a sort.

Even if Global Warming, or Global Climate Chaos, were not true, though I think it rationally obvious; I would much rather subsidize the industry and ingenuity of those working toward that solution than to spend one dollar more in subsidizing the transnational industrial-military-prison-security complex. If I have to support the response to some imaginary problem, I’d prefer the imaginary problem solving that results in life and health than death and illness. (You know, this also goes for a preferring a stimulus package, even if of uncertain or imaginary efficaciousness, that sends money towards a decade of ignored infrastructure and services than one aimed at subsidizing bank bonuses and rewarding speculation.)

Even if some deadly poison’s effect were cyclical, one might not want to wait for the second cycle to seek an antidote. And, this is especially true when it’s not a poison but a plague, that with each cycle becomes increasingly vicious to the point of uncontrolled outbreak. The window of human sustaining environmental conditions is like a spinning top which having wobbled and fallen leaves no one left to spin it up again.

Even if those left behind after the plagues experienced a windfall of wealth and property, it should not be the goal of the theoretically insulated to induce more plagues. Creative destruction in ecology is even more painful than in the economy. The masque of the red death may not be so kind, for some odd and Lovecraftian value of kind, this time.


Power that is neither used nor delegated is a kidney stone that will be painful until either dissolved or passed.

Below the belt

Given that I’m dealing with a breakup, all these spam about penile enhancement is like being hit repeatedly below the belt. Talk about hitting a guy when he’s down …


Following on the march of POTUS and VPOTUS into conversations, no doubt from West Wing being on the air, and as a contender against SCOTUS, comes SECDEF. It seems to me, all of a sudden, everyone is useing SECDEF or Sec. Def. when referring to the Secretary of Defense. With Rumsfeld’s resignation and Gates as nominee, there’s quite a lot of opportunity to use this in conversation. Will it stick? And, doesn’t this kind of conversational use remind you of double-speak or Starship Troopers? On the other hand, could this be from all those people texting on their phones, and merely a parallel development from text-speak?

Anti-Globalization is not anti-globalization

Anti-Globalization movement is to supporters of Globalization what anti-federalists were to the federalists. Which is a s much to say that things are not what they seem.

The anti-Globalization movement is one which is a populist opposition to supporters of Globalization. This is much the same as the anti-federalists were a populist opposition to the federalists. Both the anti-Globalization movement and the anti-federalists consist of a broad, and fractious coalition of interests that align against the narrow economic interests of their opposition.

However, the anti-federalists were actually federalists; the federalists actually nationalists. Further, the anti-Globalization movement is a global and globalization movement; the supporters of Globalization are actually supporters of an elite capitalist concentration of wealth.

If it were not for the loose coalition grouped under the term “anti-federalists” we would not have a Bill of Rights. It is likely that the anti-Globalization movement will have a similar place in history.

Today, I realized, as I turned on the TV and found myself seeing a fight on Jerry Springer, that while fights on that show have me in a state of despair for humanity; I don’t seem to have the same reaction to hockey that breaks out at during a fight at the ice rink.

When someone says that something is near the table, I tend not to think to look near the couch. And, when someone says to look in the green box, I tend not to think they mean the clear plastic box with the blue top. It’s a strange thing to have to implement a complex grid or spiral search pattern in one’s own home in order to find something.