21Ronin

Thinq #5, Rebuilding New Orleans?  Have we asked the necessary, difficult and complicated questions whether rebuilding in New Orleans is wise?  I know that there are a lot of people that will not agree with my position in this article.  From my understanding of the media, popular attitude toward the topic and fundraising efforts it is clear that people think that New Orleans should be rebuilt.  This entry of Thinq asks the question if this is wise, regardless of the consensus.  However, this article doesn’t question the amount of life, culture, history and soul that exists in New Orleans.   There is important history and culture that is unique to New Orleans and my position that it is not wise to rebuild New Orleans does not minimize the significance of the city.

Unpopular

Have you ever had a question that you thought that needed to be asked, but you know that nobody would want to entertain the possibility?  I have had this running around my head for some time and I think the question needs to be asked.  Should New Orleans be rebuilt?  When an alcoholic first hears that they have a problem, do you think that they can see how their decision to crack open a bottle of vodka again at 9:36 am is affecting their life?  I think this is a good metaphor for the decision to rebuild parts of New Orleans or not.

I know that my position on this is not popular.  I did not write this to provoke emotional reactions.  I also do not write this because I have no connection to this place or I don’t care.  My position is based on the fact that people need to ask difficult questions to see what the truth is.  Before I even provide reasons for why I don’t think that all of New Orleans should have been rebuilt, I want to start with this simple statement; I do not think that all of New Orleans should have been rebuilt.  The remainder of this article will explain why I think it could be a bad idea to rebuild.

Decision Making

In architectural school, we learn about design strategies that determine how buildings are built in different parts of the world.  Buildings/highways/damns/levees are designed to perform to specific weather conditions.  There are 10, 50 and 100 year weather events that determine how strong a concrete column should be for earthquakes or how much water should be retained by a levee, etc.  When you begin designing structures, you design to avoid failure.  You do this in order to make the structure perform appropriately, but not excessively.  Designers need to appropriately manage the cost of the structure and assure the integrity of the structure.  At first, this provokes fear.  It is scary to think of a structure failing, but designing for its failure can assure that a structure will never fail.  After a while it makes sense that these very important parts of our world are designed by people.  It is important to have the appropriate regulations to protect people from disasters like Hurricane Katrina though.  Also, let me say this; I would not want to be the person that made the decision to rebuild certain parts of New Orleans.

Geology and Truth

I know that the simple combination of these letters (geology) can make people suddenly fall asleep by reading them.  There are very simple ideas that will make you understand why I think that it is important to allow policy makers to entertain the possibility of not rebuilding areas in New Orleans.

New Orleans is located at the point where the Mississippi River meets the Gulf of Mexico.  There has been major flooding in the Mississippi River in the past 10 years and in states north of Louisiana, there are laws that will not allow buildings to be built below a certain number of feet above sea level to prevent flooding.  In New Orleans, the original city was built in a place that was naturally protected from flooding due to their simple location (and number of feet above sea level).  As the city grew and expanded, some of the new parishes or neighborhoods were built in areas that were more prone to flooding.  51% of New Orleans is at or above sea level.  However, it’s important to know that the average elevation is between 1 and 2 feet BELOW sea level.  Upton is 16 feet BELOW the river and other parts of eastern New Orleans are 10 feet BELOW sea level.

“Large portions of Orleans, St. Bernard, and Jefferson parishes are currently below sea level-and continue to sink.  New Orleans is built on thousands of feet of soft sand, silt, and clay.  Subsidence, or settling of the ground surface, occurs naturally due to the consolidation and oxidation of organic soils (called “marsh” in New Orleans) and local groundwater pumping.  In the past, flooding and deposition of sediments from the Mississippi River counterbalanced the natural subsidence, leaving southeast Louisiana at or above sea level.  However, due to major flood control structures being built upstream on the Mississippi River and levees being built around New Orleans, fresh layers of sediment are not replenishing the ground lost by subsidence” (report by the American Society of Civil Engineers)

I will summarize this quote by the organization that designs the highways, sewers and systems spanning across the United States.  Basically, certain neighborhood/parishes of New Orleans are below sea level and are still sinking.  These neighborhoods are on soft, wet land that cannot naturally maintain its position above sea level because of levees and other structures built north of New Orleans, along the Mississippi.  Okay, that may sound apocalyptic and pessimistic.  I will give you a second to think about that and move on.

Flood Control Act of 1965

What can be done about this?

While I think it is important to selectively build where it is safe based on elevation above sea level, there are measures that are already taken to protect New Orleans from flooding.  There are serious levees built to keep the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico out of New Orleans.  Hurricane Katrina flooded 80% of New Orleans by washing these levees away by simply pushing them above and below the levees at the same time.  Since these levees are conceptually a wall, a failure at one foot of the wall leads to failure along the wall.  Hurricane Katrina was one of those 100 year events that they taught us about in school.  The levees in New Orleans had never allowed a similar disaster to happen before Hurricane Katrina.  While that is encouraging and is a testament to the design of the levees, the only thing that the federal government can provide for encouragement is a number similar to the 100 year weather event that they give us in college.  Pumping water out of the city and building levees only prevent flooding for an undetermined amount of time.  Unfortunately, there can be no guarantee that similar disasters can be prevented in the future.

So, what can we do about this?  Hope?  Pray? Or make the tough decision that we will not allow a similar disaster to kill thousands of people the way Hurricane Katrina did.  Most houses in these suburban style  neighborhoods were built from wood studs, siding, roofs, etc.  They didn’t really stand a chance to resist flooding of this magnitude.  If they will not change the areas that can be occupied safely, they need to change the type of houses that can be built in these low areas.

Perception, Politics and the Media

Some people may point out the fact that since I write a blog, that I am considered part of the media.  While I would disagree, I don’t think that it’s important.  I am writing about this because I think that it is important for people to consider possibilities and pull themselves out of the brainwash of the 24 hour news and the propaganda that the Bush Administration was pushing at time.  It was like watching a stumbling drunk try to convince his friends that he was not drunk.

“What?  New Orleans is below sea level?  What sea?”

The architectural profession is not exempt from similar reactionary impulses as politicians.  There were many architectural competitions that challenged architects to help redesign New Orleans.  These competitions were part of an overwhelming consensus to rebuild New Orleans as fast as possible.  I remember seeing these competition briefs and thinking, “What would people think if I entered a design for this competition that did not build anything?” It could have been a political statement, but I honestly do not seek to make political statements like that.  My position on rebuilding New Orleans is not based on receiving individual recognition, being controversial or getting my point across.  I think it is an ethical question that I am not sure was even considered.

As a country, how much can we lose?

It is hard for me to realistically imagine how much was actually lost as a result of Hurricane Katrina.  There can be no dollar value placed on human life and so many people died.  In addition to the human life, the city really took a beating.  The huge price to rebuild New Orleans would be worth it if there was no possibility of this happening again in 10 years, but there is a possibility that it can happen again.  Since there can be no predictions to let us know when this could happen next, the world will literally have to sit and wait until it happens again.  Please do not misunderstand this to mean that I want it to happen.  I would never wish something like that on my worst enemy.  I think the worst part about Hurricane Katrina is the fact that it could happen again and it could be prevented by properly responding to the environment and the reality of the water around New Orleans.  In the mean time, the pain from Hurricane Katrina has left the mainstream media and the collective memory of the public has shifted from this televised tragedy.  Homes have been built. People have moved back.  Levees have been repaired and another summer will come with another hurricane season.

A Frustrating Cliff Hanger

The most frustrating part of knowing what happened in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina breached the levees in New Orleans is seeing the blinds being pulled again.  The fact that there can be no prevention of this type of disaster makes me boil because policy makers do not have the courage to actually pursue solutions based on reality.  What people wanted was for the damage to go away and rebuild what was destroyed.  So what happens?  We rebuild.

I think the most realistic and appropriate response would be to repair and rebuild the areas above a certain sea level and build new neighborhoods/parishes in areas based on elevation above sea level.  This would not be popular because the neighborhoods were predominantly African American neighborhoods and politically, this would not appear positive.  It takes a certain type of coward to give a person what they want because it makes them happy, even though it could kill them in the long run.  When a politician or policy maker has put themselves in the position to make these important decisions, they have to put the lives of the people that they are deciding for, in their own hands.  In the end, I feel that the consensus to rebuild, as a Band-Aid for a serious wound that required amputation, places even more people in harm’s way and protects the momentary vitality career of politicians.

I am African American and my survival instincts are strong.  If I felt that I was putting families in danger by convincing people to move to areas in New Orleans that were below the level of the sea, I couldn’t live with myself after they were swept away.  While many factors that locate neighborhoods are based on race, racism and gentrification, the decision to rebuild areas that are 16 feet below sea level is negligent and should not be a racial issue.  It’s about right or wrong.  I hope they are right, but I guess it is only a matter of time………..

Ronin

I heard about Ayn Rand the way that I usually hear about everything else: word of mouth.  I heard the name referenced in several discussions on and offline and they were always political.  I will begin by stating very clearly I HAVE NOT READ FOUTAINHEAD OR ATLAS SHRUGGED.   I have never really been interested in reading fiction.  In the case of Ayn Rand, I would like to read one or both of these books in order to be fully up to date and completely supported before I completely form my opinion.  But since Rand’s writing is fiction, it would be my interpretation and I would have to weed out her Objevtivist philosophy from the literature to discuss it in this entry anyway.  In this blog entry, I will focus on the philosophy of Ayn Rand and “The Collective” theory of Objectivism.  Also, I will list some of the political implications that are gaining popularity under the libertarian and republican parties.

The Objectivist Movement

The Objectivist Movement was conceived by several people that were inspired by Rand’s writings.  They urged her to extend her writings into a philosophy, comprehensive belief system to create a new political movement.  These people soon became known as “The Collective” and it consisted of Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, Leonard Peikoff, Alan Greenspan, Allan Blumenthal, Harry Kalberman, Elayne Kalberman, Joan Mitchell and Mary Ann Sures (Rukavina) and Ayn Rand.  Obviously, their name was a joke because the basis of the philosophy was that it is man’s individual destiny to pursue what satisfies his/her happiness.

I think the process of researching the Objectivists and Ayn Rand has shed light on some of the points of the theory.  First, I researched the term “Objectivist Theory’ on Wikipedia.  The theory was defined as follows:

“Objectivism holds that reality exists independent of consciousness; that individual persons are in direct contact with this reality through sensory perception; that human beings can gain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic; that the proper moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness or rational self-interest; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform man’s widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that he can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally.”

Additional points were inserted into the theory by whoever has access to a keyboard and mouse.  The theory on Wiki does not match Ayn Rand’s personal writings on Objectivism.  I wonder what Ayn Rand would say about tools like Wikipedia.  It is a document that is edited by an undetermined number of people and is supposed to be factual and used for reference. Anyone that logs onto the website can change the facts, details and content of the page.  It is more evident now, that if you are looking for what someone thinks, you have to go to the source directly.  The Ayn Rand Institute has Ayn’s writings on Objectivism on their website.

“My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.”

Ayn Rand Institute, www.aynrand.org

Deconstruction of the Theory

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. I agree completely.   Many things go un-noticed and misunderstood.   Many things are hidden, covert and still greatly affect people’s day to day life without knowing it.  I am an architect and my profession designs spaces and the interface of our civilized world (on several scales).  The reality of your surroundings is independent of your awareness of it.  Since reality is independent of conciousness (taken from the theory), interpretation of this reality does not influence or change this reality.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. I agree 100%.  It is pretty self-explanatory.  We experience the world around us and learn by using our senses.  We learn through our senses and survive on our knowledge.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.  I think there are really good points in this part of the theory.  I don’t think that people should be forced into sacrificing their own happiness.  I think this comes from her philosophical opposition to religion and communism.  Just about every religion requires some type of personal sacrifice.  In the business world, I think this point of the theory is more relevant than the spiritual world though.  In business, if you sacrifice yourself for the benefit of others, your own aspirations and goals will fall behind.  In the business world, if you let a supervisor, president or another employee put your goals to the backburner, you lose the ability to demand this respect down the road.  This does apply to everyday life as well, but I get the impression from Rand’s words that this is about the world of business.  I think the second part of this concept is a little more complicated though.  To say that the absolute highest moral purpose of a person’s life is to pursue their own happiness is a little self absorbed and self centered.  This is true unless individual happiness is included in helping other people.  While the objectivist theory concentrates on the individual, I think that it lacks social awareness and consideration for other people.  Some people are more attentive and careful of others.  I don’t think that Rand had any children, but this could be in response to the historic and stereotypical role of women of her time.  Regardless if she had children or not, to determine that it is the highest moral purpose for all people to pursue individual happiness is not for anyone to determine other than the individual, so it is curious that she would make this statement.  Some people may actually want to help other people.  This statement is also not very objective.  It is her opinion and while it may be said with the best intentions, it can not be objectively proven or observed through the senses or sciences.  Subjective is defined as “existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective )” and/or “relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.”  My summary of these two synonyms is: subjective information forms opinions or conclusions and objective information creates facts (easy way to remember).  Objective is defined as “not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion”.  Who in this world has no bias?  Her authoritarian statement leaves no room for interpretation or for an individual to make up their own mind.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.  I don’t know if there is enough computer memory in the world to store all of the text that I could write about this.  She comes to this conclusion and says that it is the ideal political-economic system that is consistent with the objectvist theory. Laissez-faire means “allowing industry to be free of government restriction, especially restrictions in the form of tariffs and government monopolies.”  It is French for “leave it alone”.  While this point is probably the most controversial point of the theory, it is clearly an opinion.  I guess when discussing philosophy or politics, the most sensitive areas hinge on these subjective statements.  I guess I should expect it, but in the end, it is just her opinion.  The libertarian party is utilizing Rand’s theories and is gaining political power in the US.  I will get into it more later on in this entry though.

My Interpretation of Objectivism

I know that politics can be very emotional.  My understanding of the objectivist theory is completely prefaced by my life until this very second.  But these political movements usually have more to do with policy differences than anything else.  I find it really interesting that the combination of Libertarian popularity, economic conditions in the US and the disintegration of the Republican Party are all playing into the shifting political landscape.

I can appreciate the desire to limit the government in the day to day life of people and business.  It doesn’t make sense to me that the government takes so much of my check two weeks.  And as I said before, I completely agree with specific parts of the objectivist theory.  But there are other parts that I disagree with.  Specifically, points 3 and 4 from the theory above.

First, I will expand on point number 3, which was: “Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”

Initially, I was surprised by the amount of courage it must take to define the meaning of life in one statement.  It is almost impressive.  As I said before, this is not an objective statement.  By simply looking at the antonym of objective (the root word of their theory, objectivism) you can see that this is an opinion or at at best a subjective statement.  So, for me, it weakens the strength of their overall theory.  If each person is to pursue their individual happiness, they must also be able to define their own meaning of happiness.  A proclamation like this only allows an individual to believe this version of happiness without freedom to decide for his or herself.  So for me to completely agree with this, each individual must be able to define what it is that makes them happy.  If a person decides that they want to help other people, sacrifice themselves for the benefit of others, then they should be allowed that opportunity.

While it sounds like the part of the decleration of independence that guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it sets a completely different tone.  The declaration of independence guarantees that right to everyone that is a citizen of the United States of America and that the government, individuals or organizations can’t infringe on that right.  The objectivist proclamation, on the other hand, only recognizes the individual. Understanding Rand’s opposition to religion and communism explains this point of the theory.  Many religions worship a figure that that lived for the benefit of others; a martyr.  Most religions depend on an act of selflessness to reinforce their rituals, rules, regulations and demand similar acts of selflessness in return and guilt reinforces the desire to follow the lead.  So, the root of this statement makes sense, but not all of it.

I can agree that my pursuit of happiness is partially based on what I accomplish on a professional level, however, there are other factors that determine my happiness and can only be determined by me.  These are my morals and the way that I treat other people.  Principles and morals are very important to me and it is one reason why I will debate until the sun rises if I feel strongly about something.  There are no morals in the world of the individual.  It is impossible to create a social system by only recognizing the individual.  Religion and government have nothing to do with an individual being careful, mindful or respectful of others.  So, in a way, it makes sense that government should not try to enforce laws that do not affect other people.  But, at the same time, there are some definite examples that contradict this as well.

I think the over reaction of the United States with respect to the Communist Revolution also plays a strong role in the acceptance of this theory.  Communism has seen its share of dictators.  Nowhere in communism, does it promote dictatorships.  As a theory, communism aims to treat every person with the exact same respect, rights and privliges as everyone else.  I don’t believe communist theories were properly implemented and they do not represent all interpretations of the theory.  The problem with communism has been that it allowed its leaders to abuse their power in a way that cannot be checked by anyone else.  Che Guevara is a figure that people should learn more about.  He definitely has a violent history but that is due to his involvement in leading a revolution in Cuba to overthrow the existing government.  Che was a medical doctor and studied medicine across South America.  While he was leading the military, he would not accept anything that made him more important than others.  He saw himself as a superior officer that recieved the same benefits as his soldiers.  The only token that he kept was a watch that he kept from the revolution.  His acceptance of something that was excessive was a symbol of the struggle that he believed in.  In the end, Che Guevara did not play a role in the ongoing relations of the Cuban government.  He was more a Maoist than a Stalinist and the politics in Cuba helped him decide to lead revolutions in nations across South America and Africa.  Considering the relationship of the United States and China versus the United States and Russia, I think he was on the right side of the theory.  Socialism is alive and well in Europe, but it has been adapted to fit the European lifestyle.  Universal health care and education are two areas where countries like Spain, France and the Netherlands show that these concepts can strengthen the health and minds of their citizens.  There was extreme paranoia in the politics, media and day to day life of someone being a communist.  When you know what communist theories are, it just sounds ridiculous to think that the desire to treat workers fairly and rid themselves of social hierarchy would be cause for demonizing a person or a country.  We still have our symbolic foot on Cuba’s neck because of our overwhelming reaction to Communism and our imperialistic desires.  I do not mean to minimize the threat that the Soviet Union posed to our country though.  The struggle between Russia and the US was over power and expanding alliances with other countries as a means of self defense.

The other point of the theory, that I find troubling, is point #4, which states:  The only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez faire capitalism.

Where do I start?  The pure “let it be” attitude toward capitalism can explain why some individuals cannot pursue their own hapiness in 2010 (even if it is only in their own minds).  Today more than ever, lobbyists and politicians have created an atmosphere in our federal government that is as close to this “pure laissez faire capitalism” as this country has ever seen.  Our military “protects our international interests” (oil), tax payers pay for the security of the banks and lobbyists have great influence on the passing of important laws/bills on a day to day basis.  The banks demand money from tax payers who they would otherwise reject for home or student loans 6 months prior.  Politicians are equally corrupt for allowing this to happen.  It could be intepreted that in a world where the individual is more important than the collective, slavery could be legal.  Ayn Rand specifically addresses this and it is clear that it is not what she intended, but the pure lassiez faire capitalist system requires the complete separation of government and business, but the complete separation of these two worlds is impossible.

Property taxes pay for schools.  Those who cannot afford to own a home cannot control the quality of their schools (financially; and money is power).  Therefore, schools in poor districts do not prepare students to succeed in the professional world or in college.  Colleges are increasingly expensive and if poor people decide to go to college, they will financially struggle with the loans if they can leap frog their previous exposure to school.  Education is the key to professional success in the pursuit of happiness.  While Rand’s objectivist ideal is for the individual, they do nothing to identify the inequalities that exist in the world.  Many tax payers already complain that they should not have to pay taxes for schools when because they send their children to private schools.  Paying taxes for schools is something that everyone can appreciate (to varying degrees).  But the desire to not contribute taxes to schools only exposes the inequality of school funding, the ever growing income gap between the poor and the desire to let the poor fend for themselves.  It is subtext for the republican attitude that everyone has to pull themselves up by their own boot straps.  Many successful people were born poor and/or rich.  Opportunity creates success and the poor have fewer opportunities to succeed.

The reason why I think that this point of Objectivist theory is so dangerous is because it doesn’t mention who prevents this free market from abusing or taking advantage of the public.  On one hand, Rand says “The only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez faire capitalism”.  And on the other hand, there are corporations that our country hires to train military and perform military operations overseas, i.e. Blackwater.  I’m not trying to say that the government is full of overachievers.  In my opinion, government regulations on business only limit extreme corruption, like mafia influence, corporate monopoly and fraud.  If you removed regulations, there is nothing preventing the mafia or other organized crime from running rampant.  I don’t doubt for a second that organized crime is still influential, but there are clear signs that it does not operate the way that it used to.  There needs to be regulating bodies that are held responsible for their decisions.  Private companies only worry about their bottom line.  This is evident by mass exporting jobs for cheaper wages, abusing natural resources in other countries and the role of lobbyists in the government.

I am sure some people will say that I have taken this to an extreme.  Ultimately, a law doesn’t stop people from committing crimes, but consistent enforcement deters others from committing these crimes.  An obvious example is Bernie Madoff.  He has been made an example what happens to people when a person puts his (in this case) own happiness above others.

The Libertarian Party

The Libertarian party is gaining popularity in this country.  On the surface there are really good points that I can agree within their platform.  There are other points that are slippery slopes or do not fully define the role of the government for a political reform platform.  The difference between Ayn Rand’s Objectivist theory and the Libertarian Party is that the Libertarian platform is current for the issues of our political times.

“A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.” (Libertarian Party Platform.  Item 2.0, Economic Liberty from www.jp.org/platform)

While some points of their theory may sound reasonable, for example;

“We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.” (Libertarian Party Platform, Item 1.2, Personal Privacy form www.jp.org/platform)

Given this point of the platform, who determines what infringes on an individual’s rights?  A person has the right (in their platform) to use drugs recreationally, but they say nothing to the affect that it may have on the children of the parents that exercise their right to recreationally use drugs.  So where do individual rights end and others rights begin?  Things are never this clear cut and this very idealistic approach to contemporary political problems does nothing to clarify the role of the government or to solve these problems.  Also, “Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes”….is not broad enough to cover the range of possibilities.  For example, the US government exploits natural resources of other countries on a day to day basis.  Importing and exporting goods determine foreign policy positions and how we will handle international policies.  Who protects the rights of other countries that do not follow the libertarian platform?  You can see my point.  Another example is the natural environment.  While they try to address this issue in point 2.2 of the platform (Environment), they claim that it is not the role of the government to intervene.  Why?  If the government is to protect individual rights, natural light, ventilation, etc should also be protected.  They claim that it should be left to the individual to create “social pressure”.  I think this is basically a way to dodge the important role of environmental protection and nature preserves (which are protected by law and are created by our government).  I wonder if in the libertarian platform, they believe that land should be protected by the government.  Based on their platform, it doesn’t exactly infringe on the rights of others.

“Silence is argument carried out by other means.” Che Guevara

My Perspective

I can see how certain drugs (marijuana, Psilocybin mushrooms and other non-addictive drugs) may be acceptable for being used for recreational use, there are other drugs that I think should still be illegal (crack, cocaine, heroin, crystal meth, etc).  Why?  Because it is psychologically and scientifically proven that marijuana is not physically addicting.  Other addictive drugs like cigarettes and alcohol can be purchased at any corner store or gas station, but a person will be arrested for having or using marijuana.  Also, the government should also remove itself from punishing people that have children, but are not married.  Tax benefits are given to married families and unmarried families are punished by not receiving these same benefits.

In the end, I can only say that a world where everything is based on individual rights, leaves little hope for the future.  While there is validity in some of the libertarian and objectivist concepts, many of their theories are dependent on the existence of the same government that they try to eliminate from day to day life.  Recreational drugs, abortion, environmentalism, religion and many other aspects of our life are left to the individual and it is rational to try to limit that.  I can appreciate and agree that the government interjects itself into our everyday life too often; but I don’t think that the proper reaction is to try to eliminate it completely.

Public funding should be given to public institutions and it should be illegal to provide public funding to private institutions.  Beyond the fact that this is how lobbyists and special interest groups affect policy decisions, it isn’t logical.  Public money should be put to public use, for the benefit of the public.  I don’t think that terms should be malleable.  It is much more straightforward than our government makes it.  They complicate the issue, because they benefit by its complexity.  When legal agreements are complicated, the media coverage dwindles and it fades out of the public eye.  They use the limited attention span of the American public against them and it has been working.

I came across these rankings and I thought it was really interesting with respect to the health care debate and how it relates to the objectivist theories and the libertarian platform.  This is the top health care systems ranked by country.

Health Care Systems by Country

1. France
2. Italy
3. San Marino
4. Andorra
5. Malta
6. Singapore
7. Spain
8. Oman
9. Austria
10. Japan
11. Norway
12. Portugal
13. Monaco
14. Greece
15. Iceland
16. Luxembourg
17. Netherlands
18. United Kindom
19. Ireland
20. Switzerland
21. Belgium
22. Colombia
23. Sweden
24. Cyprus
25. Germany
26. Saudi Arabia
27. United Arab Emirates
28. Israel
29. Morocco
30. Canada
31. Finland
32. Australia
33. Chile
34. Denmark
35. Dominica
36. Costa Rica
37. The United States of America

When you compare the USA to the rest of the world, you can see that we have fallen behind in many areas.  Education, health care, scientific research and technology are some of these areas that we have fallen behind.  You can not blame our slack on the social systems implemented by the government or the constant flow of immigrants into our country either.  Many other developed countries, like Spain and England, deal with similar immigration problems, but do not have the same problems.  If you look at the countries that have passed us, they have socialized health care, education, etc.  So, the argument that the government is doing too much does not hold water.  The fact that the countries that we trail also do not have similar debt only reinforces the fact that our lack of domestic attention is causing problems.  People just do not like to think that their money will be used for something that they do not believe in, even if that includes providing health care for your neighbors or education for the kids in your neighborhood.  If anything, our government hasn’t done enough.  I fully believe that socialist countries have the upper hand.  Privatized education, health care and military can very easily be to blame for the inequalities and our failing systems.  When money is donated privately, there is a vacuum effect because the public system falls instantly behind.  “The rich get richer, while the poor get poorer” is not just an expression.  It is the ugly truth about our system.  Also, it is not just an accident or the natural way of life.  It is designed this way so the rich stay rich, expand their wealth and prevent the masses from it.  There is a reason that 10% of the worlds population holds 85% of the worlds wealth; because they will pay so the bottom 90% of people don’t have access to it.  It is the same cycle that led to the communist theories and political revolutions faced almost 100 years ago.

While it is obvious that most Communist regimes of the past have not succeeded, other than the current global leader (China), the theories were based on repealing the staus quo that created unequal wealth distribution in Russia.  I don’t claim that Communism is the answer.  But, I believe that the libertarian and republican party in the United States are trying to take our country in the opposite direction (down).  I agree with Ayn Rand that every person should have the opportunity to pursue their own happiness, but not at the expense of everyone else.  I also believe that income should not determine a person’s ability to pursue their own happiness.  Our capitalist system favors those with money and whether the privileged want to believe it or not, not having access to proper education, health care and nutrition makes it more difficult for those without money to succeed.

“That old law about an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing.”, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Let me say, at the risk of seeming ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love.” Che Guevara

Ronin

Warning:  this may offend you if you are uncomfortable with the reality of history and its relationship to racial tensions today.  This is about Pedro Albizu Campos, Latin and American culture as well as the convenient cultural amnesia aka racism.

Moving to New York was a cultural shock and exactly what I needed.  I’m originally from Minneapolis and there, the cultures are like 1950′s TV: black and white.  My complexion meant that I was “black”.  That does not mean that I’m ashamed of my heritage or family.  I do not reject it either.  My dad is African American and Native American and my mom is a variety of European cultures (English, French, Swedish and German).  It is visibly obvious that I have black in me, so it would be kinda short bus of me to ignore that.  But that does not mean that I disregard the rest of the blood in my body either.  You may be thinking, “what does this have to do with Pedro Albizu Campos”?  Patience……

In New York, there are roughly a million Puerto Ricans, with a large concentration in NYC.  A lot of people assume that I am Dominican or Puerto Rican.  How do I know?  I know because people come up to me and start speaking Spanish or some people just flat out say it.  I have some experience with Hispanic cultures, but it’s not extensive.  To me, Puerto Ricans look like mixed people in the US.  Some people use the word, “mulatto”.  Once I learned the meaning of the word, I never used it again.  “Mulatto” means “mule” or a hybrid of a horse and donkey.  Mulattos were also slaves.  Since there were many rapes in slavery, mixed babies were common.  Also, since there was slavery throughout the Caribbean, Central and South America, the word mulatto would have also been used to refer to a slave that was mixed.  The Dominican Republic is 73% mixed race, Cuba 70%; Brazil 42.6%, Puerto Rico 11% and the list goes on.  Not all mixed people in South America are mixed with Spanish, native populations and black.  In Argentina, Colombia and Uruguay, there are very few.  There are many people mixed with Spanish, Portuguese, native cultures, Italian and German in these countries though. The statistics could show why people confuse me as being Latino or Spanish speaking, but I have never been mistaken for Columbian, Argentinean or being from Uruguay.  Obviously, it is natural to assume that a person is a specific nationality if you have not been exposed to people from many different countries or cultures.  But once you have been exposed, it becomes  harder to tell one from the other unless you speak to them.

The history of Puerto Rico is very similar to other countries in the Caribbean and South America.  Native Tainos were obliterated, forced from their homes and enslaved by Spaniards along with the millions of African slaves that survived the Middle Passage.  Unlike the US, Puerto Rican culture re-created itself with Spanish, African, Taino and now American influences.  Native North Americans were almost completely erased or fled for their lives and now live in micro cultures, isolated from the rest of the world.  This is where the US differs from Puerto Rico.  Black culture, in the US, rejects the influence of living amongst white, Asian and Latino cultures and partially explains why the US is the way it is.  Many black people (in the US) have the attitude that if you are not 100% black, then you are excluded from being considered “black”.  There is an expectation to act a certain way to be considered “black” and it is culturally shared by black, white, Asian and Latino alike.  I have decided to call it the ugly name that everyone avoids; Racism.  Its reinforced daily, widely accepted as reality and it only comes to a head in confrontation.  To “really” be black, you have to dress, talk, think and act a certain way.  I have never let anyone tell me how to be, so obviously, I reject it.

Latin America still has its deeply rooted racism too.  In Latin America, Spanish culture shaped the attitude toward darker skin or curly hair.  Negro or negra can be considered a slap in the face or a term of endearment, but it depends on who you talk to.  If you know someone or if you say it in a joking way, it’s acceptable.  It is very similar to “nigga” in the US.  The attitude toward being black, dark or having curly hair is where the problem lies.  Words can be changed, but the beliefs and the attitude are where Latin America is not too different from the US.  I know that some Latin parents will disown their children for having children with or dating a black/dark skinned person.  I also know of Italians in Long Island that would react the same way.  The part that surprises me about this is that there are so many more mixed race people in Central and Southern America as well as the Caribbean and the attitudes are not that different.  Things have changed and I think that they are still changing though.

Why do I respect Pedro Albizu Campos the way that I do?  He was educated at some of the best schools in the country that occupied his and he didn’t sell out, change his political opinions or his values.  He attended these highly respected schools in a time when the US was still segregated and unlike many select minorities, he did not forget about his own culture and revel in his acceptance into the mainstream culture.  Instead, he confronted it, challenged the status quo and he fought for Puerto Rico’s independence based on substantial and fundamental differences.

Campos was a great speaker which is why he was called “El Maestro” or “the master”.  He studied in the US: first at the University of Vermont and later at Harvard University.  While I’m not usually impressed by being Harvard educated, Campos is definitely a personal exception.  He served in the US military in WWII, voluntarily.  The US military still operated under its segregation laws, so Campos served in the black infantry of the army.  While it may seem like I am putting too much emphasis on race, I think it is an important factor in the relationship of the US and Puerto Rico.  Campos witnessed the discrimination and prejudice in the army and it shaped his understanding of his homelands new colonizing power.

Pedro Albizu Campos was the leader of the Nationalist movement in Puerto Rico which stood for independence and against cultural laws America used to force Puerto Ricans into American customs.  For example, the US tried to change the official language in Puerto Rico to English.  This is funny considering that there is no declared official language in the US.  But, the Nationalist Party boycotted elections as long as Puerto Rico was a territory of the United States, protested legislation that did not lead toward Puerto Rico becoming an independent country.  Puerto Rico, a small island in the Caribbean had been under the control of foreign hands since 1493.  It wanted what many other cultures had; autonomy and independence.  I think it is a natural desire for any group of people and it is also what makes people in the US proud (our earned independence from England).

Nationalist movements across the Americas naturally involved indigenous people, laborers and those under-represented.  Nationalist movements of Campos’ time were closely associated with Communism and socialism.  The Nationalist Party in Puerto Rico worked for independence from the US after being under Spanish control for roughly 400 years.  Campos was a revolutionary and the end of his life was tragic.  He ended spending many years in prison.  His first arrest was for the “seditious conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. Government in Puerto Rico”.  His arrest was challenged and the US courts tampered with the jury to convict Campos, which resulted in a 10 year (false) prison sentence.

Campos was arrested again in 1950 for revolts against the US that involved the Nationalist Party.  Shortly after, Campos was arrested again for an attack aimed at Harry Truman.  The attack was carried out by two Puerto Rican nationalists.  Campos didn’t go out without a fight.  There was a shootout with the police and Campos was sentenced to 80 years in prison.  While in prison, Campos suffered a stroke, was tortured and intentionally exposed to radiation as “experiments” by the US government.  While it sounds crazy, I know that the Cold War was an extremely intense time for espionage, interrogation and torture.  So, as crazy as radiation torture sounds, it happened.  Scientists from Puerto Rico were allowed to visit Campos and they could melt a film through a metal clip placed on Campos’ skin due to the amount of radiation in his body.

On January 15, 1994, President Bill Clinton formed the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE). Ruth Faden of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics chaired the first ever committee. This committee was created to investigate and report the use of human beings as test subjects in experiments involving the effects of ionizing radiation in federally funded research. The committee discovered the causes of the experiments, and reasons why the proper oversight did not exist, and made several recommendations to prevent future occurrences of similar events.

Even though the racial lines are much more blurred in Latin America, there are similar conditions to the US.  Lighter complexion and straight hair is still considered more beautiful and preferable than dark skin and curly hair.  Black people are considered to be inferior as well.  If you look beyond the superficial, financial and political power resides in the metropolitan centers where the people look more like Felipe Calderon (Mexico), Alvaro Colom (Guatemala), Ricardo Martinelli (Panama), Roberto Micheletti (Honduras), Alvaro Uribe Velez (Colombia), Michelle Bachelet (Chile), Tabare Vazquez (Uruguay) and less like Hugo Chavez and Pedro Albizu Campos.  If you look at their photos, the majority of political leaders do not represent the ethnic mixtures that vote them into office.  What is wrong with that?  Just because the elected representative doesn’t look like their voting population doesn’t mean that the policies favor one demographic more than the other, does it?  I think your answer will be determined by what your income is or what color you are.  Wealth and poverty are deeply intertwined into politics.  The majority of the wealthy have no interest in helping the poor.  Just look at the current health care “debate” in the US.  While our country falls behind (overall), other countries laugh at us and can see the political corruption the way we do with countries like Nigeria, Iraq or Afghanistan.

Who do you admire?  What does someone have to do to earn your respect?  Campos is important because he stood for the personal and cultural freedom being threatened by their new imperial landlords.  Hopeful politicians can talk a good game, but changing or improving the life of people without power is only measured through results, action and substantial progress.  Pedro Albizu Campos is a person that had strong beliefs and he didn’t only talk about them.  Like many revolutionaries, the decision to use or not use violence is always an issue.  My respect for Campos, Malcolm X, Che Guevara and Martin Luther King Jr has nothing to do with their stance on violence.  Their passion, motivation, struggle, life’s work, impact on the world and integrity are what makes me respect them.

Albizu Campos is a symbol of the as yet unfree but indomitable Latin America. Years and years of prison, almost unbearable pressures in jail, mental torture, solitude, total isolation from his people and his family, the insolence of the conqueror and its lackeys in the land of his birth — nothing broke his will. —Che Guevara, speech given to the United Nations General Assembly on December 11, 1964.

Ronin

Westchester, NY

I don’t know how some people are so bitter and angry.  I often write comments on an architectural blog, called Archinect.  I use the same screen name, 21Ronin for all of my posts, Twitter, etc.  There was this posting, in the discussions section of the blog, about a development in Westchester, NY.  The development was required to heavily market to minority groups.   So, I commented on it and this guy, metababble, starts ranting and raving about nothing important.  I  had to share this because it is one of those things that I think people need to be aware of.

I am passionate about certain things and urban development is one of them.  I have studied it and I always pay attention to what is going on in my profession, which is part of the development industry (architecture).  There is a long history of discrimination, intimidation  and political manipulation in our country and I call that out, in situations like this, because it is ignored too often; especially when it comes to poverty.

So if you have a second, take a look at the article and then take a look at the discussion.  You will see some of the ignorance that I have to deal with in this profession and in life in general.  I want to make a difference with my profession and understanding its downfalls provides me with an opportunity to make things better.

The article:

Westchester Board Approves a Housing-Integration Pact

Published: September 22, 2009

The discussion on Archinect.com

Exclusivity or Segregation?

In the end, I will never let anyone punk me.  So, I had to put this guy, metababble, in his place.  His place is the owner of his opinions, nothing more or less.  I am no God.  My opinion is no greater than anyone else.  Don’t get me wrong…..I am stubborn and I am the first to admit that.  All that I can say is that there are reasons based on my experiences that make me feel so strongly about these issues.  And these intense feelings are backed up by facts, research and observations of the world around me.

Ronin