Category Archives: Wage Slavery

The city staff has proposed a Strategic Plan for Berkeley. The Plan occurs in the midst of severe crises besetting Berkeley, distracting from their resolution. It promotes the interests of the staff as a seemingly autonomous "organization" within city government, rather than an instrument of local democracy. Reducing the people to political consumers, and limiting them to non-participant input, it enlarges the structural chasm between the people and the government that is one of the sources of the present crises.

The odd thing about it is its appearance right in the middle of a number of crises besetting the city. These crises (concerning homelessness and affordable housing) have been the context for a change in City Council itself, and would seem to call for very focused administrative attention, rather than a diversion to a number of other long-term goals. It is as if (by analogy), while the Oroville Dam was coming apart under torrential rains, California engineers spent their time proposing different engineering principles for building dams. In the midst of crisis, that might be beside the point.

This is not a capricious analogy. Rent levels are so high in Berkeley that low income families, if they lose their lease or succumb to exorbitant rent increases, will be washed out of town. Homelessness is increasing precisely because fewer and fewer people can afford the rent. Whole neighborhoods are being displaced and dislocated. The African American population of Berkeley has dropped from 25% to 8%. Five homeless people have died of exposure during the autumn and winter of 2016. Four people have died from carbon monoxide poisoning in the area, possibly because of faulty (unmaintained) heaters. And there has been a forceful (police) repression of a homeless political movement, an intentional community demanding humane resolution of the entire homeless situation.

These crises and their attendant tragedies are not the result of government inefficiency. They result from governmental refusal to confront the impact of economic forces that, if left unchecked, will eventually destroy the economic infrastructure of low income neighborhoods. The implication of the Strategic Plan, that we dont have an idea of what were doing, is belied by the many neighborhood gatherings that have proposed real resolutions to the crises. So what is the real "strategy" here?

The pragmatic dimension of the plan is what one would expect. It enumerates governmental responsibilities such as city maintenance, preservation of infrastructure, community amenities, safety and health, and economic stability. These are listed as "goals," a category that includes efficiency, inclusivity and constituent participation.

And here, a red flag goes up. Why would the responsibilities that constitute the very purpose of government in the first place be listed as "goals"? What might that mean?

For instance, to list "inclusivity" as a goal admits there is an extant degree of exclusion. Does that refer to a prior deafness to neighborhood needs? Or is the Plan initiating a different kind of inclusivity? It offers no critique of any old exclusionism, nor the many forms it took.

One encounters an old form of exclusion in Council meetings. People would line up to speak for a minute without effect, and developers would call neighborhood meetings that were strictly pro forma. This new plan only gives people a webpage on which to have "input." Without dialogic engagement in policy-making, there is no real participation. Participation becomes an empty rhetorical term, as does "efficiency." A councilmember once said (last year), If fewer people would come to speak at these hearings, maybe we could get some work done.

The Plans "effectivity" is focused on who benefits from the achieved goals. In "effectively" accomplishing goals, the city seeks to become the provider of a product. "Benefit" signifies the successful operation of a service organization. But that in turn reduces those who benefit to the level of "consumers," rather than participants that is, the Plan implicitly equates "participation" with "consumption." Has government just become another corporate structure?

Real participation would involve people in policy-making, fostering togetherness in dialogues by which people discuss with each other what needs to be done, and from which policy would emerge. One does not create participation by exchanging an amorphous "inclusion" for a previous "exclusion." One includes by transforming a structure based on monologue into one based on dialogue.

The plan does not speak of dialogue, but rather of inclusion and input.

In her report to Council, the manager announced that webpage responses had already pointed to the issues of homelessness and affordable housing. But that only means they have been reduced to input. That which is destroying peoples lives gets reduced to "issues."

Born of hierarchy, the Plan neglects to include the democratizing of city processes (hearings, development, planning, police comportment, etc.) which should form a basis for resolving the citys crises. Instead, one detects a form of fetishist narcissism insofar as the Plan includes itself as one of its own goals.

The term is originally economic. It refers to corporate stocks, to securities representing ownership interests, and to funds that give owners a claim on profits or earnings. A shareholders claim to capital proceeds would seem to be fairly far afield from racial equality. But the term can also refer to a body of legal and procedural rules i.e. doctrines by which people are treated in an equitable manner. Thus, it can signify a certain freedom from bias, favoritism, or hierarchy. It implies that a person has a claim on a situation, and a claim on being respected, as well as on an ability or right to participate. In that sense, "equity" marks an antipole to exclusion, standing in opposition to inequality, by which it becomes a synonym for "equality."

But we have to be careful here. Equity does not refer to anyones claim on another individual. One can claim treatment equal to other individuals with respect to institutional operations (such as government or the court system). But that is not a claim on an individual. It is a claim on an institution with respect to others. In short, equity refers to a relation between individuals and institutions.

"Equality," however, is bigger than that. Equality is assumed in treating people equitably. It is ones social equality that is recognized when an institution does so. And it is equality that is suppressed when it doesnt. For instance, when the police racially profile people on the street, it marks a refusal to treat people equitably, and thus withholds recognition of equality. Equality becomes an issue when it is a question of an institution approaching an individual.

In short, equity and equality are not the same. Individuals can claim equity (that is, equitable treatment) when they approach institutions. When institutions approach individuals, they can either recognize their equality by treating them equitably or not. Where equity refers to what people can claim, equality refers to what people must defend in the way institutions approach them. Equity is relational and pragmatic, and equality is inherent and fundamental. They move in different ethical directions.

Against slavery, for instance (whether chattel or wage slavery or debt slavery or sex slavery), the desire for freedom expressed in running away or in organizing rebellion is an affirmation of equality against its withholding by the enslaving institution. The bond-laborer seeking freedom is not opting for equity in the institution but expressing equality with it in moving against it. Equity will reappear, perhaps, with the issue of reparations.

In council hearings, constituents come forth and offer input or commentary. They have equity insofar as they are granted equal time in which to speak, as a recognition of their equality with each other. But insofar as the institution (council hearings) only allows them to have a minute or two to speak, and deprives them of the ability to dialogue with councilmembers, they are denied equity with respect to it. They have no claim to have the council listen to them, or to take their concerns to heart. Insofar as this locks them out of the policy making process, it renders the councilmembers an elite.

(To democratize the councils hearings would require shifting its meeting structure whenever a significantly large group of people showed up on an issue, opening the meeting to a form that would enable dialogue between the people and the council, rather than only monologic "input.")

When an institution withholds equity from persons, it is in effect imposing inequality on them. In other words, inequality is something that is done to people through social institutions (and those social institutions can include cultural structures, such as patriarchy or white supremacy).

Equality gives power to humans, to be assumed in the face of institutions, and equity gives power to institutions, against which humans can only make claims and applications. For a democracy, equality of personhood must be an assumption, not an issue. It does not need to be promoted or demonstrated, since it is already the foundation on which people make political decisions about their collective needs. To reduce democracy to a service organization is to reduce equality to equity.

When the Strategic Plan states that one of its goals is to promote and demonstrate racial and social equity, it is adopting an institutional perspective, that of granting equity. This "granting" then expresses another form of hierarchy, the assumption of the power to withhold equality that already characterizes city government. To foster racial equity, what is needed is the cessation of withholding of equity by institutions, an end to the creation of inequality.

Such reference does not appear in the Plan itself, but in the thinking of the staff, as a sense of identity. And this conforms with the staffs previously mentioned self-prioritization. The staffs goals and priorities initiate the Plans central values, to which the rest of the city is subordinated as "input." Overall, it betrays a recognition of boundaries, a status constituted by those borders, and a sense of identification with them. The identity of the organization constitutes a presence that lurks behind walls, a flaunted independence toward the practical work of political implementation, and thus a political distance between government and people.

This is not farfetched. After last November, with a new council elected, the city manager was entreated to stop the police raids on the homeless community as a temporary measure while the new council articulated a better policy. The manager refused, and the police continued their assaults, as a direct repression of this communitys political statement.

It was gratuitous repression. The manager and the police chief knew about executive discretion. They could have chosen to leave enforcement in abeyance for a while. In choosing not to, they expressed their organizational autonomy as a priority over both the council and the people.

The city staff may think of the plan in a problem solving manner, for which a service organization may be most efficient. But the political purpose of defending the people against dislocation and displacement, and against the miseries attendant upon gentrifying development, is not problem-solving. And the staff might euphemize the organizational distance between governance and the people as leadership. But it reduces leadership to an elitist rule-governed exclusion from democratic governance. To arrest the current corrosion of communities requires political will, and involvement of the communities themselves that are affected by that corrosion in making decisions in their own interest.

Go here to see the original:

New: Berkeley's New Ideology: A critique of the Strategic Plan - Berkeley Daily Planet

Source: Yes! Magazine

Fighting for fair labor practices is so integral to the American identity that the first labor disputes predate the Revolutionary War. Over time, work strikes have helped to end child labor, instituted the weekend, and brought about fair wages. But what remains largely ignored by the labor movement is the forced and rarely remunerated work that takes place in prisonsuntil now.

On September 9, an estimated 24,000 inmates began the first national prison strike to protest long-term isolation, inadequate health care, violent attacks, and what they argue is slave labor. Spearheaded by the Free Alabama Movement (FAM), a network of incarcerated human rights activists, the nationwide protest calls for an end to prison slavery.

Although the 13thAmendment abolished slavery, it exempted criminals. The Federal Bureau of Prisons requires that all physically competent inmates do jobs ranging from kitchen duties to working for corporations, but many of them receive no pay. In some states, prisoners who refuse to do their work are confined to their cell for a 24-hour period.

Whats more, prisoners are often not considered employees, and therefore are not protected by national labor laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, which enforces minimum wage.

This begs two questions: What are prisons for? And if cheap labor is part of the answer, then why arent labor unions involved?

The current situation is prisoners taking matters into their own hands by refusing to work or going on hunger strike. Just as other labor movements are initiated from the ground up, inmates throughout the country are banding together to draw light to the unjust conditions they face.

About 29 prisons nationwide are affected by the protest through work stoppages and preemptive lockdowns. It started three weeks ago on the 45th anniversary of the Attica Prison uprising, in which inmates seized control of the New York facility after an inmate was killed by guards at San Quentin State Prison in California. It is also the culmination of years of smaller hunger strikes and work stoppages throughout the country. Inmates learned about the protest through smuggled cell phones and literature disseminated by outside allies like the Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee (IWOC), a national group that acts as a liaison for prisoners to organize.

Demands vary from facility to facility.

In South Carolina, inmates are asking for fairer wages and more rehabilitative programs. In Alabama, prisoners have called for an outright abolishment of forced prison labor, and the correctional officers there are supportive. At Alabamas Holman prison, guards didnt arrive at their evening shift on Saturday in solidarity, according to the Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee.

Along with work stoppages, inmates have been petitioning legislators and filing lawsuits to seek fair wages, but no concessions have yet been made.

Pastor Kenneth Glasgow, FAM national representative, contends that inmates in Alabama are not receiving the education and rehabilitation needed to become productive members of society once released. The only thing that theyre being used for is to be warehoused, and to be used for free prison labor, he concludes.

Since the early 1990s, thousands of unionized jobs with the Communication Workers of America have been outsourced into prisons. Labor unions have traditionally abstained from supporting prisoners, and even now large ones have failed to endorse the strike. Overlooking prisoners isa detriment to labor unions, because jobs in the public sector have been removed from communities and put into prisons where workers are paid less than minimum wage, says Cole Dorsy, a formerly incarcerated IWOC organizer.

We hope to make a national discussion of the fact that if these jobs were offered in these communities that are heavily policed or considered high drug-trafficking areas at prevailing union wages, they wouldnt have crime in those areas, Dorsy argues. So we can see that the issue isnt really about rehabilitation or law and orderits about keeping 2.4 million people and growing inside of institutions so that they can be a surplus labor [force].

Moreover, the day-to-day operations of the correctional facilities, he says, depends on inmates, from preparing the food to cleaning and providing other maintenance services. The most striking line Dorsy says hes heard from prisoner organizers was their call for other prisoners to stop reproducing the institutions of our confinement.

The strike organizers encourage lawmakers and unions to take a deep look at prison labor and how it affects workers as a whole. Although prisoners own voices are often ignored in conversations about prison reform, FAMs Pastor Glasgow hopes that the protest will allow inmates to have a greater voice in their fate. He urges allies who wish to support the strike to visit local jails and register inmates to vote.

MelissaHellmann wrote this article for YES! Magazine.Melissa is a YES! reporting fellow and graduate of U.C. Berkeleys Graduate School of Journalism. She has written for the Associated Press, TIME, The Christian Science Monitor, NPR, Time Out, and SF Weekly. Follow her on Twitter@M_Hellmann.

The Death of the Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution: Book Review

Link:

National Prison Strike Exposes Need for Labor Rights Behind Bars - Toward Freedom

Electrek

Tesla warns that 'thousands' of Model 3 reservations holders will go outside of Connecticut to buy without direct sales Electrek So we stop the GOP in Congress. themodfather 18 hours ago. "Jobs" are an arbitrary construct, another word for "wage slavery". That goes for the whole modern post-state-capitalist economy. It's amazing that people are so braindead they cannot grasp ... and more »

Read more from the original source:

Tesla warns that 'thousands' of Model 3 reservations holders will go outside of Connecticut to buy without direct sales - Electrek

Welcome to 2017, here our President is a misogynisticandxenophobic, pathological liar, and our state representatives openly endorse slavery. What fun! Washington State Rep. Matt Manweller, whohas been largely outspoken against raising the minimum wage, recently stated that he would be fine with a $0 minimum wage. When confronted by a voter who explained such wages were eliminated by the Civil War, Manweller said, add that to the list of mistakes made during the Civil War. Does this mean he believes the freeing of slaves was a mistake made by our nation during the Civil War?

This story was brought to light by Working Washington who has put out the call to ask Washington State Rep. Manweller what exactly he meant in his email with a local voter.Working Washington is a statewide workers organization that fights to raise wages, improve labor standards, and change the conversation about wealth, inequality, and the value of work, according to their website.

We reached out to Working Washington and a representative of the organization had this to say: Washington voted overwhelmingly in November to raise the minimum wage because its good for workers, good for communities, and good for the economy. We need to move forward to advance labor standards to ensure prosperity for all not turn back the clock to rehash the emancipation proclamation.

Washington State Rep. Manweller has been a huge opponent of raising the minimum wage in Washington State. His Twitter is literally filled with claims that higher minimum wage is dangerous for children, employment, and the economy.

The federal minimum wage was introduced in 1938 during the Great Depression under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was initially set at $0.25 per hour and has been increased by Congress 22 times, most recently in 2009 when it went from $6.55 to $7.25 an hour. Currently, twenty-nine states, plus Washington DC, have a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage. Approximately 2,561,000 workers (or 3.3% of the hourly paid working population) earn the federal minimum wage or below.

Proponents of a higher minimum wage state that the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is too low for anyone to live on stating that a higher minimum wage will help create jobs and grow the economy. They also say that the declining value of the minimum wage is one of the primary causes of wage inequality between low- and middle-income workers. It is believed that a majority of Americans, including a slim majority of self-described conservatives, support increasing the minimum wage.

Opponents say that many businesses cannot afford to pay their workers more, and will be forced to close, lay off workers, or reduce hiring. They say increases in pay have been shown to make it more difficult for low-skilled workers with little or no work experience to find jobs or become upwardly mobile. They believe raising the minimum wage at the federal level does not take into account regional cost-of-living variations where raising the minimum wage could hurt low-income communities in particular.

Read more:

Washington State Rep Endorsed Slavery When Confronted by Voter - The Pacific Tribune

For many months, the city of Minneapolis has been working on a plan to raise the minimum wage for all employees, including tipped employees. Advocates and some council members are eyeing a city-wide minimum set at $15 an hour, a level some detractors say is unsustainable.

That includes many restaurant owners, who insist the hike would be catastrophic, and might just force them out of business.

An off-record source says he ran the numbers for his three small food businesses, hypothetically hiking everyones hourly wage up to $15, and the difference in labor costs approached half a million dollars annually. He said this number didnt account for the inevitable price increases of ingredients and restaurant services he relies on -- as those businesses will be trying to cover their own labor cost increases.

He added that between wages and gratuity, his tipped employees already make between $17 and $20 an hour, and says the city ought to leave them alone.Operators like him are pleading with the city to offer a tip credit where tipped employees will earn a lower rate of pay than the across-the-board $15 minimum for other employees.

But Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges, for one, isnt having it. She says based on her own research, tip credits -- or tip penalties, as she calls them -- are bad for workers, and especially bad for women.

In a lengthy statement Hodges released earlier this week, she says the notion that all tipped employees in Minneapolis are working in high-end restaurants and bars and are making far more than $15 an hour is false. She cited a federal Bureau of Labor Statistics study showing that from 2012 to 2015, the average wage for restaurant servers in the Twin Cities metro came to not much more than $10 an hour, including tips. Only 10 percent of restaurant servers in our region averaged $15 or more an hour with tips.

Moreover, Hodges said, women make up two-thirds of tipped workers. Women who are tipped workers are "three times as likely to live in poverty" as others, she said, and "twice as likely to receive food stamps." And, she added, research clearly shows "the more women are forced to rely on tips for income, the more likely they are to be sexually harassed."

Ladies, remember the creepy guy (or guys?) who needed all that extra attention so that hed feel good about leaving that extra tip? Yeah, studies show thats a real thing.

Finally, she added that states with one fair wage for all (including Maine, Michigan, and Missouri) are producing faster job growth, higher sales, and higher tips than the 43 states that have had a tip penalty.

The minimum wage hike is expected to pass, and soon. But Hodges says that it should be done in such a way, and in a timely enough fashion, that businesses can thrive while they absorb it... without also taking away workers' livelihoods

Read Hodges' full statement below.

As we continue to debate raising the minimum wage in Minneapolis, and as the City continues to hold listening sessions on the topic across the city, several of which I have attended, I was lucky to listen to a talk today at the Carlson School at the University of Minnesota by the dynamic Saru Jayaraman of the Restaurant Opportunities Center. Her talk left me more persuaded than ever that if the City Council continues forward with an ordinance to raise the minimum wage in Minneapolis, any new minimum wage must continue to be one fair wage. That is, it must not contain a tip penalty that will leave tipped workers falling behind and subject to sexual harassment, nor must it be an unworkable compromise that will expose businesses to new costs and liability, and tipped workers to greater insecurity. Any minimum wage ordinance must also be phased in over a period long enough that our businesses, including restaurants and other sectors that rely on tipped workers, will not be harmed and can continue to thrive while they absorb it. There is ample evidence that a tip penalty is harmful and yet, a minimum-wage proposal that includes a tip penalty is making the rounds of the Minneapolis City Council. A tip penalty, if passed by the City Council, would harm the work were doing in Minneapolis to actually close the income gap between low-wage and other workers and grow an economy that includes everyone. Contrary to some popular perceptions, wages for tipped workers in the restaurant sector are in fact low: so low that nationally, 46 percent of tipped workers rely on federal public benefits. Tipped workers are almost twice as likely to live in poverty than other workers. The stereotype that in Minneapolis, tipped workers all work in high-end bars and fine-dining restaurants and thus make far more than $15 an hour is also false: on the contrary, a federal Bureau of Labor Statistics study that covered the years 201215 showed that in our metro area, the average wage for restaurant servers came to not much more than $10 an hour, including tips. Only 10 percent of restaurant servers in our region averaged $15 or more an hour with tips. Its already the case that the average hourly wage for servers in our region is only a little more than half the average hourly wage for all workers. If we in Minneapolis roll back the existing one fair wage, that gap will widen, not close. In my view, it is not only economically wrong, it is morally wrong: we should not be deciding which workers and which kinds of work are more worthy of raises than others. A tip penalty would also especially penalize women, who make up two-thirds of tipped workers: women who are tipped workers are three times as likely to live in poverty as other workers and twice as likely to receive food stamps. Worse, research clearly shows that the more that women are forced to rely on tips for income, the more likely they are to be sexually harassed. Think about it. I simply cannot countenance a scheme that would actually keep tipped women workers at a lower wage and continue to subject them to sexual harassment. It is unconscionable to me. Some have floated the idea of a compromise tip penalty in Minneapolis that would for the first time create a sub-minimum wage for tipped workers, but require an employer to cover the difference between the sub-minimum wage plus tips and everyone elses minimum wage if the former is smaller than the latter. This compromise would be a logistical nightmare for Minneapolis businesses, as it would add new layers of cost, complexity, and liability to doing business, and would be extremely difficult to comply with. (Indeed, a study by the U.S. Department of Labor of states with a tip penalty found an 84-percent rate of noncompliance with this practice.) Moreover, it would create a perverse incentive for unprincipled businesses to eliminate higher-paid minimum-wage positions and transfer the work to lower-paid, sub-minimum-wage positions, leaving tipped workers even more vulnerable and overworked. This compromise is still a tip penalty. Even if this compromise tip penalty could be shown to work, a tip penalty would still leave behind women who, once again, would not be earning a fair wage for their work, and who would continue to be subject to sexual harassment because they rely on tips just to make ends meet. I find that outcome offensive. Finally, one of the most important arguments against passing a tip penalty in Minneapolis is that it would do violence to our states proud tradition of having one fair wage for all workers, one of only eight states to do so. It would be harmful enough to women and low-income workers in Minneapolis to pass a tip penalty just in our city for the first time. If Republicans in the Legislature were to follow suit by passing a tip penalty statewide on the logic that progressive Minneapolis did it first, it would be devastating to tipped workers in other part of Minnesota most especially women who earn even less than their counterparts in Minneapolis. It is critically important to all Minnesotans that we in Minneapolis maintain our states proud tradition of one wage. We in Minneapolis owe it to low-wage workers across our state, especially women, not to set this bad precedent. At the federal level, our Senators Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar, and Congressman Keith Ellison, are setting a great example by supporting a bill to raise the national minimum wage, phase out the shockingly low federal sub-minimum wage of $2.13 per hour for tipped workers, and transition gradually to one higher, fair national wage for everyone, in every sector and every state. Amy, Al, and Keith have the right idea. It is not widely known that tipping as an institution is rooted in the history of slavery. The notion of tipping is not native to America, but was imported from Europe just as slaves were emancipated. At that time, restaurants and railroads insisted that the now-former slaves who were working in those industries were not worthy of earning a wage, and should subsist on the kindness of customers tips alone. In Europe where tipping began, it was a sign of gratitude for good service; but from the moment tipping came to America, it has been treated as a substitute for a decent, fair, and equitable wage. Now, a movement is gaining steam across the country to redeem this history and join states like Minnesota that have refused to legalize paying some low-wage workers less. Just last November, the people of Maine voted to eliminate their tiered wage, and Michigan and Missouri are currently considering doing the same thing. The reasons are both moral and economic: restaurants and tipped workers in the seven states, including Minnesota, that have had one fair wage for many years are producing faster job growth, higher sales, and higher tips than the 43 remaining states that have had a tip penalty. Moreover, in this time of acute labor shortages, restaurants around the country are voluntarily moving to pay one fair wage because they recognize that it slashes employee turnover and increases sales. If we go forward in Minneapolis with a higher, city-only minimum wage, we owe it to low-income and female workers not only in Minneapolis, but across Minnesota, to enact a wage that is one fair wage with a long enough runway that our workers and businesses can continue to thrive, with no one left behind. As Saru Jayaraman concluded earlier today, It would be a tragedy if Minnesota regresses while other states are going forward. I agree.

Go here to see the original:

Mayor Betsy Hodges says tip credits are bad for women - City Pages

AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

What Chaos? The Trump Steam Roller has it Under Control AmmoLand Shooting Sports News The "wage slavery" movement was based on the Josie Wales: The prosecutor and the so called Judge need their asses kicked. Paul Anderson Ed.D.: For the serious competition shooter: I would recommend that you contact both: Hart and Shillen barrel ...

See more here:

What Chaos? The Trump Steam Roller has it Under Control - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Ive learned a few things along this journey called life. Following are in no order the 31 thoughts about life after three decades breath.

#1 Consistency matters.

Today, we have access to more information than we can handle. On one hand, this luxury can provide convenience. However, it can also send us into paralyzation.Since we can learn how to do pretty much anything with a click of a blue link, we get overwhelmed. The result is that we end up doing nothing.

This cuts us off from the lifeblood of incremental progress consistency. With so much info at our disposal, its creepily easy to consume without action.

Consistency matters, we need to act like it.

#2 Happiness isnt a place we arrive.

The pursuit of happiness seems to be a chase run by many. But lets pretend for second that we get there then what?

We set up outposts that temporarily serve as happiness destinations the new car, the promotion, the house, the fancy but the novelty of these collections or achievements soon wear off.Unless intervened, this cycle will run its course till our last breath. Im not one to tell you how to live, but for me, I have to believe there is another way.

I think happiness is cultivated daily by the way we think and act instead of something we arrive at via accolades and achievements.

#3 We are all artists.

Growing up as kids, we all made stuff.But as we entered the walls of academia and soon thereafter sampled wage slavery, our spirit to create things slowly disappeared like the receding ocean tide.

Our crayons get replaced with scantrons. Our imaginations are dulled with deadlines. Our aims become linear.The book we dream of writing never gets written. The car never gets restored. The garden never gets tended.

You walk by an art boutique and always think, I believe my work can be in there, but you instead youre suffocated by the life others have defined for you keeping you from working on your stuff.

Were all artists whether you get paid for your art is another story.

#4 The ability to focus on demanding tasks is priceless.

Our ability to focus on important tasks is becoming more valuable and more rare at the same time. A lot of my work on this blog is aimed at this very concept.

Over the last few years, Ive had to teach myself how to focus as a writer. However, the principles of focus expand beyond the medium of writing. In any vocation, your ability to focus is appreciating in value. Learn how to do it and youll not only be more valuable but youll get your work done in less time too.

Sounds like a win-win right?

#5 You cultivate passion.

Following your passion assumes it already exists it doesnt.

#6 Everyone doesnt have to like you.

This is far easier said than done (at least for me). But, this doesnt mean you make enemies intentionally. Just be unapologetically you and youll have enough of them.

#7 Sometimes you gotta walk through the storm.

While in Miami Beach, I walked out from the gym to a sudden thunderstorm. On my way there, it wasnt raining. When I got out the neighborhood was flooded the water was up to my knees.At first, I had a mild panic come over me. I thought what about my Nike fly knits or iphone?

I wasnt going to take an Uber to go 0.8 miles.

So, after looking straight into the flood zone in pouring rain acting like I could outrun or outwit the storm, I decided to walk nearly a mile in knee-high water (my fly knits are fine and my phone still works).

Sometimes, you gotta walk through the storm in life. Inconvenient? Yes. Uncomfortable? Probably? Life-threatening? Rarely.

#8 Doing hard things is good for us.

The hack nation has claimed its real estate in our lives today. Im all for doing less for the same result. However, this doesnt mean that we dont challenge ourselves with difficult tasks, projects or dreams.

Do you tell stories about the times you accomplished things that didnt require you to stretch or persevere?

Probably not.

Everyone should attempt to get a boat over a mountain at least once in their lifetime.

#9 We all worship something.

The only malleability is found in the choice of what we worship.

#10 Time management is a joke.

Managing time implies we control it. But you and I both know thats impossible. Whether were tirelessly working to finish the project or were binging on Bloodline over the weekend, time takes its course.

We can only manage energy.

#11 Staying in the game is undervalued.

Because life is a test of endurance. There will be times when the academic advice or kosher recommendations will not provide enough horsepower to keep your head above water.During these times do what you must in order to stay in the game. Its something like a lion who is surrounded by a pack of hyenas.

The lion is going to do what it needs to do to survive.

#12 Youre one fifthof the equation.

If youve read any type of self-edification book, blog or resource, youve heard this saying:

You become the average of the 5 people you surround yourself with.

Theres some validity in the statement to be sure. However, you cant forget that youre one fifthof that equation.Part of being able to surround yourself with people that add value to your life is your capacity to add to theirs.

Reading books is the most practical way to invest in yourself so that you can at the very least bring a substantive conversation to the table.

#13 You (and me) dont have to be Instagram famous to have influence.

I really like Instagram (and Facebook and Twitter for that matter) but I find myself getting caught up in the wrong metrics at times. Follower count, retweets and likes cloud my vision and I get off track. I lose sight of the influence I can or could have and worry over metrics that I have little control over.

Its a constant fight for me: Keeping my energy channeled towards creating my best work to influence the people right in front of me instead of looking past them and concerning myself with potential influence.

The irony is that when Im focused on the right stuff, my influence goes deeper. When I get caught up with the wrong metric my influence seems to be shallow, fabricated, and non-penetrating.

Maybe you can relate?

The reality is that you and I both have influence and our lives matter right where we lie. In fact, we probably have more influence on others than we think. Always remember that.

#14 Getting comfortable in the waiting room makes our lives easier.

You can do everything right to get to the doctors office on time, but if they ask you to wait you have no choice but to do that wait.

Life wears a similar coat.

Sometimes well do everything right and yet, our desired timing and reality dont match. The default response is akin to a child who is toldno.But this invisible skill, the ability to wait patiently is painfully overlooked.

If you find a way to wait, the doctor will eventually see you.

#15 Goals are overrated.

Behaviors and systems are way better.

#16 You arent the logo.

Advertisements have come a long way. We often dont even notice that we are being exposed to them. The swoosh on your shoes. The apple on your laptop. The letters on your sweatshirt.

After a while, the family of logos you support becomes your communitya place where you identify. For some, the logos become their identity.

The reality is that you dont need shoes with a swoosh to be a better basketball player. You dont need a recycled shopping bag to buy healthier groceries. You dont need the little red badge on your jeans to dress well.

But what if you had a life of no logos?

Youd have to brand yourself from scratch. Write your own story per se.

Logos arent malicious. But they can invade your well-being and consume the real estate that is yours brand YOU. Youre great how you are, even without the logos.

#17 Value experiences over stuff.

The value of an experience transcends a momentary shot of satisfaction thatstuffcan provide.

For my 32ndbirthday, Charlie (my wife) planned a dinner at The Bazaar a tapas style restaurant located in the SLS Hotel in Miami Beach, FL.

The meal was incredible.But the story and experience is something well never forget.

The place is admittedly a little bougie, so we got dressed up. After we got suited and booted, we took an Uber to the restaurant.The driver had some trouble finding the place and ended up dropping us off at the back of the restaurant. Meaning we had to walk about 100 yards to get to the front. This normally wouldnt have been a big deal. However, on the night of January the 28th, 2017, it was a slight hiccup.

Within 20 seconds of getting out of the car, a downpour of rain blasted us so hard that by the time we ran up to the entrance, we looked like drowned rats.Completely soaked, we walked up to the front desk while the whole place gazed at us with empathy.

The night didnt start off the way we had planned but it ended up being a great night. And, we have story that well never forget.

Experiences carry their value long after they are over.

#18 Embedding intermittent recovery is crucial.

Athletes do this well.

Everyone else seems to be searching for the magic pill that allows them to run through walls 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Building rest into your plan on a daily, weekly and monthly basis allows you to do better work more consistently.

Rest is the ironic ingredient to doing more.

#19 Habits make your life.

I like what Gretchen Rubin says:

What you do everyday is more important than what you do once in a while.

#20 Walking is good.

Long walks are painfully undervalued. Friedrich Nietzsche has an opinion about walking that I agree with:

All truly great thoughts are conceived by walking.

#21 Health needs to be a part of the success equation.

Over the next 10 to 20 years were going to see the largest shift in knowledge and responsibility. The baby boomers will be passing the baton to the millennials.Our health is the vehicle that will allow us to take this journey. Without it, we show up emotionally flatlined.

I dont know about you, but I dont want the next generation of leaders to be operating in a constant state of brain fog and fatigue.

Without your health everything else suffers. This is more than six pack abs this is the quality of your career, relationships, spirituality and everyone else around.

Were depending on you to be healthy we expect you to thrive so you can put your best foot forward and contribute in a way that matters to you.

#22 Be mindful of your settlements.

A settlement is a resolution between disputing parties about a legal case that is agreed upon typically before court action begins.

In other words, you settled for less because you didnt think you could win the case.

We do this in life too.

We have friction between where we are now and where we would like to be. When it feels to difficult or overwhelming, we settle for the easier route.The dangerous part about this situation is that it happens internally. Usually, only you know if youve settled or not. So you can pretend, and nobody will ever know.

In what areas have you settled, but deep down know you shouldnt have done so? The good news is that unlike a legal cases, you can go back and undo your settlements with your personal aims.

#23 Doing less allows you to do more.

Instead of going wide, aim to go deep. This can be applied in your work, art, relationships and edification.

#24 Behavior and environment design offers an advantage.

Distraction isnt the problem.

View original post here:

31 Life Lessons After 30 Years - The Good Men Project (blog)

This commentary was issued by the Congress of Progressive Filipino Canadians (CPFC) on February 13. It was originally published on the website of the Ontario-based Magkaisa Centre and on the website of the Philippine Women Centre of BC (which is a member organization of the CPFC).

We are in a crucial moment in history, and to understand how we can advance our organizing efforts as progressive Filipino Canadians, there is a need for a proper analysis of current social, economic, and political developments around the world. Much is happening in the global picture that impacts our national work within Canada, and it is within the global context that we must place our particular realities and immediate struggles. In 2016, we saw the horrendous record-breaking climb of greenhouse gas emission levels, the displacement and deaths of countless war refugees, and the rabid rise of anti-intellectualism, state impunity, fascism, and fascist tendencies. But we have also witnessed the many forms of people's resistance being waged throughout the world.

In Canada, the Liberal governments promises are crumbling, thus exposing the neoliberal agenda that had been brewing and implemented all along. The implications of fascist America is glaring, with Islamophobic attacks, spurts of neo-Nazi propaganda, and hate crimes surfacing all over Canada. From where we stand, our work in community organizing and building revolutionary consciousness and practice to fight the direct impacts of all these attacks is more necessary than ever.

Since the Liberal Government took power over a year ago, they have made promises to counter Conservative right-wing policies and legislation under the guise of working with communities to consult on issues: from missing and murdered indigenous women, the environment, to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP). Yet their action and policies prove contrary to these humanitarian consultative initiatives, with the approval of pipelines and the hollow lip service and token treatment of the struggles of First Nations and Indigenous communities. Recommendations to the TFWP are steering towards the further privatization of the agricultural and healthcare sectors. For the working class in Canada, this means the continued exploitation of our labour locked to wage slavery, and further insecurity and instability for local and transnational workers alike.

While the election of Trump represents the rise of fascism in the U.S., the overwhelming majority of the white working class chose to abandon the racialized facets of the working class in order to support a racist, homophobic, patriarchal, xenophobic, and Islamophobic presidential candidate in exchange for empty promises of jobs and industry. On the other hand, the ongoing resistance of the Sioux Nation, and by extension all indigenous people on Turtle Island, in halting the construction of the North Dakota Access Pipeline, and the great show of support and solidarity during the Womens March to Washington all over the world are living proof that resistance is not futile. With the reversal of the halting order and the reckless gutting of democratic institutions, we need to remain vigilant and refuse the clawbacks of our hard-won victories.

The death of past revolutionary leaders, most notably Fidel Castro, signifies the passing of a generation of revolutionaries but also signals the ever-growing need to continue developing the next line of revolutionary leaders to help build the path towards socialism. Defining our task at hand and moving forward requires placing ourselves within this context. The current rise to power of far-right regimes around the world, vis--vis sparse but significant victories in the efforts of the Left to decolonize and overturn the viciousness of the profit motive, comes at a time when every opportunity to carry on the revolutionary struggle must be propelled to full potential.

The socio-economic and political accomplishments of the Cuban people under the leadership of the Communist Party are nothing short of remarkable. Despite its lack of resources and the U.S. embargo, the Cuban people were successful in establishing a healthcare system that is truly universal. It has also trained tens of thousands of doctors, and maintains some of the most advanced dermatology departments in the world. Furthermore, Cuba was also able to establish highly effective educational and youth programs, with illiteracy being nearly eradicated and national boxing and performing arts programs that produced world-class athletes and artists. The deployment of Cuban military personnel and medical professionals to Palestine and South Africa to aid in anti-apartheid efforts, as well as Castros open support for the Black Panthers and revolutionary struggles across Latin America, are a testament of the Partys commitment to genuine internationalist solidarity. In fact, it is clear that this commitment continues on with the recent deployment of Cuban-trained doctors to aid in the indigenous resistance at Standing Rock. Cuba's contributions in upholding the ideals of communism and building socialism continue to inspire revolutionary cultures across the globe to resist and combat imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, racism, patriarchy, homophobia, and all forms of oppression in the name of achieving a classless and truly liberated society.

Despite the overwhelmingly dismal human and environmental catastrophes caused by neoliberal global capitalism and imperialist war and plunder, now is the most hopeful and opportune moment to engage in the various struggles our societies are faced with today. People are growing more critical and are seeking sustainable and long-lasting alternatives to the unconscionable and unjustifiable mass destruction of entire ecological systems and the violent and deadly repression of millions of people borne out of the current world order. Now is the time to build the future, not to be swayed by the moment. Now is the time to create a lasting legacy and put an end to the domination and destructiveness of the capitalist system.

To challenge apathy and erroneous ideas regarding social activism and political organization, we must acknowledge the strength and the victories of the Cuban people, of the indigenous resistance on Turtle Island, of the Black Lives Matter movement, the Palestine solidarity movement, and all progressive struggles past and presently being fought for in Canada and throughout the world. As history has shown, the masses lead the indispensable role of bringing about social transformation and revolutionary change. In the spirit of resistance and peoples solidarity, we the Congress of Progressive Filipino Canadians will continue to espouse revolutionary culture and practice to help build and strengthen the socialist movement in Canada.

Expose and oppose the neoliberal agenda of global capitalism! Down with imperialist war and plunder! Onwards with the struggle for socialism! Long-live international solidarity!

Read the original:

Congress of Progressive Filipino Canadians against fascism: Continuing the culture of resistance - Straight.com

Trumps America, wrote a leading African American journalist, Charles Blow in the New York Times, January 30, is not America: not todays or tomorrows, but yesterdays.

Trumps America is brutal, perverse, regressive, insular and afraid. There is no hope in it; there is no light in it. It is a vast expanse of darkness and desolation.

There is a lot of disgust toward Trump and his white nationalist strategist Steve Bannon, former executive chairman of Breitbart News, a leading promoter of conspiracy theories and white supremacists.

However, those liberals attempting to label Trump a puppet of Russian President Vladimir Putin are seeking the easy way out, rather than address their own failures or the decline of unions and working-class political influence.

The fact is the Republican Party is now under Trumps control. The official leaders, including House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, are on board with Trumps America.

They agree that wielding power, especially white power, is how to Make America Great Again. African Americans, Mexicans and Muslims especially, Trump says, make America weak. Many white working people accept this myth.

During the struggle against the white supremacist Apartheid regime in South Africa, the leading anti-apartheid force, the African National Congress (ANC), coined the phrase: make the country ungovernable. The ANC rejected apartheid rule as illegitimate, since it excluded the clear majority of the population from basic rights.

That strategy inside and outside the country worked. Especially with the rise of Black South African workers organising and a powerful mass democratic movement, Apartheids central ally, Washington and especially then-president Ronald Reagan, could not prevent the Black majority from winning political rights.

Fighting back

Since Trumps Electoral College victory, there have been unprecedented protests by a wide cross-section of the country. They include the largest marches ever in Washington, DC and other cities. More than 3 million people marched under the banner National March for Womens Lives.

Native Americans have led the anti-pipeline protests at Standing Rock Reservation, immigration rights activists are defending the undocumented and the Movement for Black Lives (a broad coalition of more than 50 groups, including Black Lives Matter, formed last year) is stepping up resistance to police violence.

Trump is the bombastic figurehead for the ruling super-rich. However, if his bizarre behaviour, inflammatory rhetoric and policies begin to hurt their interests because the majority sees Trumps presidency as illegitimate, it could affect domestic stability and international alliances.

A weathervane historically is the Black population. Resistance by African Americans, as slaves and then as second-class citizens, has stimulated others to fight back. The two greatest struggles in US history were the movements for abolition of slavery and to end Jim Crow segregation last century.

The vanguard role of African Americans in these and other struggles has shaped the country.

My African Americans

Trumps view of Blacks fits his vision of how to make America great again, a view in which social progress has made the country a disaster. He refers to his Black supporters as My African Americans, a condescending comment reflecting his view that Blacks are lesser to himself and other whites.

At the same time, he seeks to use more police terror to put down Black resistance to racism. He has already targeted the largely Black south side of Chicago, speaking of sending more federal forces to the city.

Trump met with Black supporters on the first day of Black History Month. He praised the greatness of African American anti-slavery fighter Frederick Douglass, referring to the 19th century freedom fighter as someone who has done amazing things and is being recognised more and more, I notice as though he were still alive.

He holds the same view of all non-whites. For the first time since Reagan, there is not a single Latino in his cabinet, even though they are the largest minority in the country.

A statement by the White House on National Holocaust Day failed to mention that Jews were targeted by Hitler for extermination. His spokesman said it was by design because other groups were also murdered by the Nazis. But it reflects the anti-Semitism of the alt-right white supremacists.

Racism is about power, as Malcolm X and many radical Black nationalists and militants explained in the 1960s. The Trump administrations agenda is about returning to a pre-civil rights era.

Blacks women especially will likely be in the vanguard of the new resistance. Black women voted most strongly against Trump, gave the largest No vote to Trump, initiated the Movement for Black Lives and were key leaders of the January 21 March for Womens Lives.

Racist history

The historical context is important to grasp why African Americans have historically played a vanguard role in struggles to better society.

After the American War of Independence, a clause in the constitution gave Southern slave states extra votes in the Electoral College by increasing their voting power by adding slaves to the total (three fifths per person). This helped keep the slave states, who feared domination by Northern states, in the union.

Once slavery was abolished, its original purpose should have made it obsolete. But the rulers saw value in preventing citizens from directly electing the president, the most powerful branch of the state.

After the Civil War the issue was: should the freed slaves get the vote? Radical Republicans supported it, but Democrats, including in the North, were against full equality.

For his part, Abraham Lincoln opposed slavery but sought to appease slave holders with compensation.

It took a long time for presidents to open the door of the White House to African Americans. President Teddy Roosevelt (1901-09) was the first president to invite an African American to a White House dinner Booker T. Washington in 1901, shortly after his inauguration. The outcry led him never to do that again.

Franklin D Roosevelt (1933-45) never invited an African American to the White House for meetings or official events. FDRs base included the racist southern DixieCrats; it is noteworthy that his New Deal policies effectively left many African Americans out as he refused to challenge racist laws.

After the 1936 Berlin Olympics, white US athletes were invited to see and meet Roosevelt. No such invitation was made to the African American athletes, such as Jesse Owens who had won four gold medals. Owens commented: The president didn't even send me a telegram.

Roosevelt also refused to support an anti-lynching bill for the same reason.

Immigration and African Americans

African Americans are, for the most part, not descendants of immigrants. That phrase that the US is a nation of immigrants misses the reality of deep institutional racism and white supremacy.

Barack Obama was an unexpected break from this racist past. Even whites who voted for him hoped that the issue of race and racism would be consigned to historys dust bin. Instead, racism increased in the Obama era. Obamas actual policies were mainstream Democratic and Republican. He did little for African Americans directly.

However, with the rise of Obama, hardcore white supremacists saw the US as a white country undermined by the other. Obamas colour-blind approach to racism did not mollify them.

For a brief period of 10 to 15 years after the end of the Civil War in 1865 (known as the Reconstruction), former slaves won some real freedom and could vote. Many were elected to office.

But a violent counterrevolution arose to end these rights (a period during which the Klu Klux Klan rose as a white supremacist terrorist group). Slavery as a system never returned as it was less efficient and profitable than wage slavery.

Blacks were not paid equal wages. Many white workers falsely believed their situation was better thanks to the super-exploitation of African-American labour.

It took 100 years for Blacks to win back the vote in the post-slavery South. Now, more than 50 years after the vote was won, it is being suppressed again and civil rights are under attack.

Resistance is key

The mass protests show that African Americans, many women and others know that the electoral system is not the solution to institutional discrimination. Trump and his white nationalist advisers seek to use executive orders, the Congress and Supreme Court to impose a new presidential dictatorship, but the public is not ready to give in.

A majority oppose racist and anti-immigrant policies, but sentiment alone cannot stop the right. The ruling class knows that its control of the state depends on public acceptance of the system.

Unjust laws and orders by Trump and his backers must be met by civil disobedience the active, public, conspicuous breech of the law to bring about a change in law or public policy. The civil rights movement in the 1950s and 60s deliberately broke segregation laws to force federal action and fundamental change.

The authoritarian president will always blame those he fears as the enemy. He hits the fake media first, then all critics. The battle to defeat Trumps regime will require the same determination as that of earlier generations.

The goal of opponents should be to make the Trump presidency ungovernable. In such a struggle, revolutionary change is possible.

[Malik Miah is an editor of Against the Current. A longer version will appear in the March/April edition of ATC.]

Read the original post:

To make Trump's America ungovernable, African American struggles are key - Green Left Weekly

I hope to explain what libertarian capitalism is, and what anarcho-capitalism is. Government has two main aspects extent and purpose. Extent how much violence-power it wields can be gauged by how much a government taxes, spends, incarcerates, and so on. Anarchists, by definition, reject all government violence-power in principle, preferring voluntary cooperation.

Anarchists believe that all the good things that government currently produces, such as courts, police, roads, and education, can be done better and more morally by voluntary society the market. Anarcho-capitalists believe that private property (by entitlement, not decree) is generally the best way to solve the scarcity problem peacefully. This belief makes us capitalist. We favor out-competing government, not violent revolution, and work on projects such as private education (online learning) private money (crypto currency,) private courts, and private police firms. (Would citizens of Ferguson choose a belligerent all-white police patrol in a freed market with competing companies?)

Libertarian capitalists want an economy based on free markets and private property. Free markets, to us, mean no government intervention whatsoever no subsidies, cartelizing regulations, or licensure. We make a clear distinction between market capitalists and crony capitalists. Like our libertarian socialist cohorts, we strongly oppose corporatism, which is collusion between government and favored crony firms. If government is involved, it is not libertarian capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalists are the radicals we want no compulsory government whatsoever. More centrist libertarian capitalists are called minarchists since they want a minimal State limited to courts, police, and national defense. Redistribution and social engineering are not valid functions of government.

Libertarians see mainstream media as offering a false dichotomy between statist socialism and statist capitalism. Free market solutions are off their radar. To mainstream media, a treaty creating a trade cartel is a free trade agreement! Similarly, we are offered the choice between nationalized medicine and fascist medicine, with no mention of the free market alternative. Libertarians want people to consider voluntary alternatives to the government gun.

Some libertarian capitalist positions:

1) Anti-war and anti-imperialist. We oppose military intervention in foreign countries. Minarchists want a defense-only military, or no standing army at all. Anarcho-capitalists would rely for defense on insurance firms, guerrilla warfare, militias, and the lack of incentive to attack peaceful trading partners. Free markets create an automatic constituency for peace.

2) We are against neo-liberalism and other efforts of governments to control, regulate, or capture international trade. Trade should be voluntary, not enforced by governments. We oppose the corporatocracy; States should not be loan sharks to developing nations.

3) We are against corporatism. We think large corporations would mostly disappear in a freed market, lacking the government subsidies that give them advantages and create barriers for competition.

4) Employment is incidental to capitalism. It is fine so long as it is voluntary. We look forward to a time when everyone is an individual entrepreneur, cooperating with other producers as equal traders. (Here we disagree with libertarian socialists. We think employment is okay but sub-optimal; they think it is evil wage slavery.)

5) Anarcho-capitalists want voluntary society to prevail, and take over all (legitimate) functions that the state now does. Anarcho-socialists, our counterparts, concur.

Libertarianism, in essence, is about moving humanity away from the coercive rule of authorities, and toward a society where all activities are voluntary. Libertarian capitalists predict that, in a stateless society, many/most people will opt for some type of private property. Libertarian socialists think that many/most people will opt for some type of collective property. In a stateless society these wouldnt conflict; there is ample scope for experimentation in freedom.

Most libertarians hold a non-aggression ethic that one should not initiate force (violence) against others. Libertarians (as such) are not pacifists; we believe in self-defense, but the initiation of force is criminal. Most people agree with this non-aggression presumption in their personal lives, but statists give government a free pass. E.g. People who would never demand money from their neighbor at gunpoint, think nothing of voting for their government to do just that. Government, to statists, is above human morality. Libertarians, in contrast, hold everyone to the same moral standard.

Abel is a libertarian socialist, so he shares my belief in limited government. When he speaks against capitalism, keep in mind that he defines capitalism as only the statist type, corporatism. In past discussions he didnt address libertarian capitalism at all. But listen to him! Libertarian socialists have a very good critique of statist capitalism. Libertarian capitalists agree with his analysis of capitalism perverted by government. We hate Pinochet and fascism, too. The kind of capitalism libertarian capitalists favor is no-government free market capitalism the separation of economics and State.

See the original post here:

Point/Counterpoint: On Liberal Capitalism - The Free Weekly