Debating a Crypto Marxist

September 1st, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the way you can reliably tell when a progressive knows he or she has lost a debate, is when they call you a hater. Since progressives know debate is not to change the mind of the opposition, but the spectators, they cannot allow a libertarian to win any debate, so once their empty rhetoric has failed they go nuclear and slander the opponent, to delegitimize the libertarian’s argument. By libertarian, I mean anyone who believes in limited government, like a conservative, and so I use the inclusive term libertarian. Of course slander is an underhanded way to win an argument and is a transparent ploy to anyone who knows the rules of debate, but since most spectators know nothing of logical fallacies, that tactic has worked wonders for Marxists, socialists and progressives for over a century. So, when a progressive calls you a hater, racist, bigot, etc… you can rest assured you have won the debate, by facts and argument, but are still at risk of loosing it by a logical fallacy. That is why it is important to point out the logical fallacy instead of getting mad.

Politics is based on debate. People discussing the merits of this or that policy, position of program is the best way for a group to decide what is the right course of action. Without debate the democratic element of any government becomes impossible. An ignorant people cannot make reasoned decisions. The ancient Greeks had open and lively debates in the Pnyx. Smart as well as foolish decisions were decided there. The disaster of the attack on Sicily was decided there, as well as the fortunate history changing judgment, to support the Spartans at Thermopylae. Both were debated by the Athenians and voted on by them, based on the result of the debate, but in one debate we see calamity and the other a blessing on humanity. The difference was the debate.

The rules of debate as well as logical fallacies should be taught in every school on Earth. Sadly, that is in direct opposition to the power of the political elite, and so those important lessons are eschewed for politically correct knowledge, like how to put a condom on a cucumber. Teaching debate and logic would undermine the ability of those who favor arbitrary rule in any of it’s manifestations and names. The power of slander would be severely curtailed by such teaching and so only in private schools is debate and logic really taught. Even colleges and universities pervert the teaching of logic and debate, since they have long abandoned their fundamental purpose, to be open minded and forward the goal of reason. Debate a recent graduate of a university, and you will quickly realize the little person is an automaton, spewing rhetoric she has been programmed with. Once you win the debate you will be painted as a hater.

Of course slander is a logical fallacy… but why? If someone is really evil how can you agree with anything they say? Well, if Adolph Hitler came in soaking wet and tells you it is raining outside, does that mean it cannot be raining, since Hitler is evil? What if Stalin says the sky is blue, does that mean the sky is actually green? Of course it’s not. Bias on the other hand can undermine a debaters position. When Phillip Morris cited paid for “scientific research” proving smoking is good for you, that turned out to be patently untrue, it was an example of bias undermining a position. In a similar vein, when someone who stands to gain if people opt for their position, their argument should be given extra scrutiny. Like for example, a scientist who has millions of dollars of government money at risk, claims man made climate change is happening, especially when they try to shut down debate. It is only logical to view their argument with a bit more care. This is especially true when one side has made predictions based on their theories that have not proven accurate. The more inaccurate predictions the less credence we can give them.

If we want our children to live in a world that is prosperous, healthy, harmonious and safe, it is up to us to understand the rules of debate and the logical fallacies that make people reach a faulty conclusion. Steel yourself to the fat that whenever you debate a progressive they will not debate fairly or logically. All Marxists, even crypto Marxists like progressives, are ideologues, they care nothing for reality, only their political ideals. To them, and sadly, to most audiences as well, facts, historical examples and a finely crafted argument means nothing, emotion is paramount. So, to win a debate with any crypto Marxist you must point out, once they slander you, that their slander is proof they have lost the argument… and they know it. Then laugh heartily at them rather then get defensive. Make the progressive a laughing stock and you have won the debate. Use their logical fallacy against them and sooner or later they will drop that tactic. When you are called a hater, simply say, “How do you know a progressive has lost an argument? They call you a hater…”

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Is The Sky Really There?

August 29th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me,

Forget to look up and you will not see the sky,

Never see the sky and you can forget it is there,

Refuse to look up and you can believe it doesn’t exist.

We are on some level spiritual beings… Going abut our daily lives many of us are too busy to look up. Life is full of distractions, school, work, childcare, entertainment and politics, all combine to keep us too focused on the ground to look at the sky. When we allow that to happen, we are not spiritual, loosing that part of our existence. Everyone must look up, at that which is spiritual, reflective and eternal. In that way, many of us do not see those things, instead we drudge along, too busy to look up and see there is something more.

When we are too busy to look up at the spiritual it is all too easy to forget there is a spiritual realm. Sad really, because the spiritual gives us strength to pass through the trials of daily life, washing the grime from our souls. Forget to access that divine help, through prayer and reflection, and our lives become even more mired in the earthly. The daily grind is ever more grinding, keeping us all the more focused on the ground, rather than the sky.

Once a person has forgot the sky is even there, their lives and souls, that have become soiled with the dust of the corporeal world, cannot get clean. That dirt covers us to the point we grow used to it, like someone who has never washed, knows nothing of what it is to be clean. They begin to believe that is all there is. Once that happens, a person will only see the flower of hedonistic pleasure at their feet, and believe that as the highest greatest good… having forgot to look up and see there is something far more real and good.

Prayer and reflection are purifying. They clean the soul, relax the mind and expand our wisdom. People who never look up, can easily convince themselves they are far more wise than those with their heads in the clouds. Their wisdom is the wisdom of a cat, they know when opportunity comes, they know to sleep and enjoy hedonistic pleasure, but have cut themselves off from an entire universe of pleasure and source of true wisdom. They travel through life without ever engaging in that which is greater than themselves, and indeed begin to worship themselves, hedonistic pleasure and their own creations.

Those who have forgot the sky is there can be easily convinced to refuse to look up at all. They believe they have no need of anything greater, having become used to and comfortable with the filth and sweat, they never wash off. As they travel through life the odor of all the other people who are too busy to look up becomes sweet to them. Eventually, to look up at all would be an affront to their comfort. So an increasing number of people refuse to look up. Once that happens they start to believe the sky isn’t there. Of course, all they would have to do is look up to see that it is in fact there, but in their obstinacy, they refuse.

That is what I mean by,

Forget to look up and you will not see the sky,

Never see the sky and you can forget it is there,

Refuse to look up and you can believe it doesn’t exist.

So please, don’t forget to look up every now and then…

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Jobs, Wages and Government Intervention

August 25th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, take the most horrible, filthiest and degrading job that must be done, pay enough and people will climb over each other to do it for you. On the other hand, one could use the power of government to coerce someone to do it, for nothing. Clearly, the one is human hearted the other hard hearted, the first generous the second greedy, and to pay a wage befitting the job shows respect while using violence to coerce shows disrespect. I am amazed then, that those who follow the second philosophy are seen as more compassionate and humane, and those who follow the first are viewed as selfish and oppressive? Perhaps that warping of logic is a means to an end?

Since the first cave man hired another to help clean hides there has been a give and take relationship between employees and employers. Both seeking to get the most for the least. The employee wants the highest wages for the least work she can get and the employer wants the most work for the least pay. At various times both have exploited government power to force the other into a less desirable position. That strategy however depends on the political faction in power. Without government intercession the wage to labor rate would always eventually be fair. Not fair only to workers, or fair only to the bourgeois, but fair to everyone. Government cannot keep out of the relationship between labor and employer however.

Politician’s interests are harmed when there is a level playing field. The people, either as employer or employee, will not have need for the services of government when there is equilibrium, and as everyone who has grown up in a market system knows, where there are no customers there is no business. Fortunately for politicians, their predecessors have put in place a myriad of rules and regulations altering the balance of power. Those past intercessions have so warped the relationship for so long everyone has got used to it. All a politician need do is pander to one of the two factions and a steady flow of campaign revenue and political backing come with that choice. That is why illegal immigration is encouraged, it drives down wages for Americans, while at the same time labor unions get special laws passed to help their cause, to drive up wages. Both policies backed by both factions.

Marx wrote passionately about the alienation of work. That some jobs are terrible and so people shouldn’t be forced to do them by their ever gnawing stomachs. He called it unfair that people had to do work that alienated themselves from themselves or their higher selves. All sounding, of course, humane and compassionate. What Marx didn’t address however was the fact someone has to do those jobs that are alienating. Septic systems have to be maintained, barns need to be cleaned and dishes need to be done, there are far worse jobs that need doing as well, if no one does them they will not get done. The answer from communists is to force those who have no political favor to do those alienating jobs by use of violence. Which makes perfect sense to a sociopath or psychopath who seeks to appear to have empathy.

Were government to stay out of the relationship between labor and employer, the wage rate would settle to a fair rate, and working conditions would steadily improve. Dirty jobs would be paid at a rate sufficient to get people to do them, there would be more jobs due to lessening of the drag effect regulation has on job creation, which would drive up the cost of labor due to the removal of slack from the labor force, the cost of labor would be more in line with the strata of… difficulty, education required and supply/demand for each job. Why should a lawyer make one hundred times more than a sewer repairman? Especially when there is a glut of people wanting, able and educated sufficiently to be a lawyer, and there is a dearth of people sufficiently able, knowledgeable and willing to repair sewers? Government intervention in the employee employer relationship warps the wage rate, otherwise both political faction’s would suffer a loss in power, that’s what drives it. The same faction in control of the media sets the societal norm. They decide what is called tolerance, kind and compassionate and what is called intolerance, hate, bigotry and fascist, regardless of reality. That is why the tolerant are called intolerant, the intolerant called misunderstood, the fair called unfair, the violent called peaceful, victims called occupiers and the kind called haters, it serves the faction in control’s… interests.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Free Speech, Free Markets and Free Exchange of Ideas

August 22nd, 2016

 

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the old saying, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death to protect your right to say it,” shows a level of maturity that our society, at present, lacks. The very people that are the safeguards of free speech, university professors, have become it’s biggest threat. Today, someone who speaks a message that the political establishment doesn’t like, especially about limited government, constitutionalism, liberty, free markets, essentially if anyone openly supports the philosophy the United States was founded on, is slandered and the power of the political establishment is wielded against her. Far from being a society that values the free exchange of ideas, the progressive controlled education system instead indoctrinates and enforces a political agenda. A society that doesn’t value free exchange of ideas is doomed to stagnation and decay.

Even as most Sanders supporters would claim to be followers of the tradition, they prove by their actions, they stand against the free exchange of ideas. Trump supporters on the other hand are painted as uncaring, petty tyrants, yet by their actions they prove they are the opposite. The socialist and progressive element that supported Sanders, and now Clinton, turn out at Trump rallies and become violent, Trump supporters however, do not turn up at Clinton rallies and become violent. It is by violence that he most ardently anti free exchange of idea zealots show their true colors. How presumptuous is it, to presume to have any right to use violence, to force another not to speak?! Yet our media is full of news of protesters turned violent at Trump rallies but not at Clinton rallies. It follows then, that the protesters at Trump rallies are violent, and use violence to suppress the free exchange of ideas.

Progressives have controlled the education system for decades. Their near monopoly has been enhanced by the federalizing of education. As more money is paid from the federal government to school districts that money isn’t charity, it buys something, that something is a seat at the table. At every school board meeting there is a seat that is invisible, that is the federal government’s seat. While that seat appears to be silent, the money it sends and the threat of withholding that money speak far louder than any emotional parent only seeking the best education for his child. Today with the albatross of Common Core the federal government’s progressive agenda is manifest. Schools have dropped all pretense of educating children and have gleefully taken up the mantle of indoctrinating children to be good little automatons who vote right, think right, act right and speak right… it is so progressive.

People have become so inured to the undercurrent of hostility to actual free speech most of us don’t even notice it. We watched without so much as firing a synapse, when we learned the IRS was using it’s power to silence a political faction and collecting a political enemies list, so far have we moved from valuing free speech and become so used to usurpations of it. News that in any other decade would have been the end of a Presidency resulted in… nothing. Barely a whisper in the zeitgeist. Say something not politically correct and you come under shaming attacks, as if the morality of the political establishment has so much more validity even, than God’s, such hubris is the stock of politicians and villains. Today people censor themselves in ways we don’t even think about, not to be courteous, no, courtesy is frowned upon, to be thinking in line with what the political establishment demands of you, enforced by your friends, family and townspeople.

It does require a level of maturity to hear something we deeply disagree with though doesn’t it? A civilized man or woman will listen and control their emotional reaction, a barbarian will fly into a rage and become violent, betraying his savagery. That is a level of maturity people are not being trained to have. Our media, schools, culture and government all create an environment that is hostile to the free exchange of ideas. College students are so fragile they recoil from the very mention of liberty, so indoctrinated they actively demand the silencing of people who favor liberty, free exchange of ideas and free markets. To despise the philosophy behind the phrase, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death to protect your right to say it,” shows one to be uncivilized. Civilization however, requires civilized people, civilization crumbles into chaos if the citizens are replaced by barbarians. Replace the flour in a cake, with dirt, and you no longer have cake.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Small Businesses, the Engine of Economic Growth

August 15th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the barriers to starting a small business have never been higher, as evidenced by the dearth of small businesses that are starting up. This is critical because the economic potential of any economy is a factor of the number and quality of small businesses that start in a given time period. That is because small businesses are the engine of economic growth, both by being the font of innovation, which begins the Schumpeterian cycle of economic growth and as the biggest job creator there is. If the economic cycle is stopped real economic growth stops too. Economies cannot grow organically without innovation, big businesses are not innovative nor is government. Universities can help by advancing science, but if those advances cannot be implemented, the economy cannot get a boost from even the most amazing scientific advance. Without robust job growth wages stagnate and decline, lowering economic overall demand and demand for innovative products, as well as our standard of living. The trend bodes ill for our children’s economic well being.

The economic cycle as explained by Schumpeter is a three phase system… creation, implementation and destruction, Schumpeter’s creative destruction. First an entrepreneur comes up with an innovation, for a new product, an new way of organizing business or a new way of manufacturing. This innovation starts the upswing of the cycle. The new idea is implemented creating demand for labor, plant and capital to exploit it. As the idea is implemented the economy grows dramatically. Once the idea has been fully utilized, the old products and ways of organizing business become obsolete… and so go bankrupt. As they go bankrupt the economy goes into recession, lowering the cost of capital, plant and labor opening the way for a new entrepreneur to innovate starting the cycle again.

Small businesses create all new jobs. Clearly, those who innovate and those who work for innovators, by definition, have no experience. After all it is new. So, people who have little experience get pulled in to work at those new businesses, creating opportunities for new workers and laid off workers. The extra demand for labor drives up the cost of wages via the supply demand equation. Wages for everyone goes up driving up demand for everything… especially the new product, (if that is the source of the innovative part of the cycle). If older companies want to retain their best workers those older firms must provide competing wages. Ford famously said he wanted to pay his workers enough to buy one of his cars. To him, paying more in labor was a small price to pay when that investment paid such huge dividends, by driving up demand for his product. In other words he made less per unit but made more in the end because he sold many more units.

When the economic cycle of innovation, expansion and destruction is tripped up, an economy cannot expand organically and in fact shrinks in real terms. This stagnation can be covered up by money printing, government spending and Enron accounting but sooner or later the chickens must come home to roost. The largest and most destructive recessions and depressions have been a result of this in action. The Great Depression started as a recession, but morphed into a depression by Hoover and FDR’s policies, that short circuited small business creation. The Great Depression would have never ended if not for the death of FDR and his policies crushing small businesses in favor of corporations. Obama’s policies have all but stopped small business creation, resulting in the present depression, one that only in the history books to be written, will be named and recognized.

Think about it, with all the legal and bureaucratic red tape today throughout the West, would you start a small business? The legal cost alone, simply to get permission from the government to start a lemonade stand, is nearly insurmountable. Today the cost of capital is at an all time low even as the availability of capital to start a small business is dried up. Cheap money via the Federal Reserve’s printing press only goes to government and corporations. Government spends that money to artificially gin economic growth and corporations are using it to buy back stock, thereby enriching upper management at cost to shareholders, employees and customers. None of the “cheap” money is going to innovators. Meanwhile, plant and equipment is getting more expensive every day, raising the bar for starting a small business.

While stopping small business creation damages the interests of the people… it advances the interests of the elite. CEOs can pad their plentiful income by artificially boosting their stock price in the short term, by borrowing money and spending it to buy back their stock, corporations face less competition from innovators making the job of the new class much cushier, government cronies get huge political contributions to keep the gravy train running, and corporations get to lower their labor costs because of the drop in demand for labor. This lack of demand for labor or is exemplified by the dismal percentage of people still in the labor force. Crushing small business start ups is a win win for the elite and a loose loose for the rest of us. Of course, it is the elite that make policy and we that must live the effects of those policies, for better or worse. Now you know the whole story… the economic truth the elite will don’t want you hear.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The Evil Bourgeoisie

August 11th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, there is some misconception of what the term “owners of the means of production,” actually means. This is important because more often now than in the past, we find ourselves debating a Marxist, Keynesian or half wit, and we hear the term bourgeoisie and think Marxism, but don’t realize that the owners of the means of production is the definition of bourgeoisie, nor the true depth of the meaning of the means of production. If we don’t have Marxist terms, their definition and the magnitude of the ideas fixed fast in our heads, we are at disadvantage in debate, even though we have the empirical truth on our side. Remember, words have emotional undertones, they make you feel things, and Marxist words are often both a description and an insult, so knowing the insult and the emotion it is supposed to raise in the onlookers is power, because you never debate someone to change his or her views, you debate someone to change the views of the audience.

Bourgeoisie is an emotional term it packs a punch and it hits you in the gut. We are programmed to think, evil guys, whenever we hear that term. Those of us who are more indoctrinated have an even more visceral loathing for the bourgeoisie. “They are those evil people who run everything and have all the money and all the power,” might be what goes through your mind when you hear that term. Notice how it is so often used as a pejorative? “Filthy bourgeoisie…” Everything we are taught by the media, the government monopoly schools, our culture and society programs us to feel that way. After all, the bourgeoisie are the enemy, they stand in the way of perfection, harmony and changing human nature for the better.

The bourgeoisie or, the owners of the means of production, is an economic term created by Marx to describe all the people who own any tool whatsoever. If you have a table saw in your shed, you own the means of production, if you own stocks through your IRA or 401K, you are the owner of the means of production, if you own a machine shop, guess what, you are the owner of the means of production, but you know what, if you are the CEO of a publicly traded company, you are NOT the owner of the means of production, if you work in government in any of it’s manifestations, you are not an owner of the means of production, and if you are a lobbyist, lawyer, banker, doctor or journalist, you are not the owner of the means of production, (unless you have set of side tools in your basement or a well financed 401k). If you own a store or are a middleman, you are the petite bourgeoisie, the enablers.

Think of the implications. If jack has a wood shop that he sometimes uses, he is the owner of the means of production, in that he can produce a thing by way of the tools he owns. Even a hand chisel counts because it can produce goods. The means of production are not limited to auto factories and computer chip campuses, anything that can produce a thing is the means of production. The CEO of Ford Motor company, in the scope of his job is not the owner of the company, he is the caretaker of the company for the shareholders. The shareholders are the owners of the means of production in this case. Usually the CEO will be given stock in the form of an option to buy at below market price, as a way of creating emotional bond and give him a financial stake in the outcome of the company, but he is not the owner of Ford. The CEO is an agent of the owners who are the principles.

Have you ever wondered why those taxes that were supposed to hurt the rich bourgeoisie only seemed to hurt you? That is because the people you have thought of as bourgeoisie, are not the bourgeoisie but the new class, you are the bourgeoisie. Wealth today is far less dependent on producing things people need and want and more about manipulating… sifting money, slip and fall, managing someone else property, regulating everything and who your friends are, are far more important today. Ever thought it strange the richest of the rich favor the most socialist policies, policies that make it ever harder for the evil rich bourgeoisie and ever easier for the virtuous new class, that is because you are the evil bourgeoisie. When a billionaire tells you he is for damaging the rich… he is lying to you, to really do that he would have to damage his own self interest, and it is not in human nature, now or ever, to do that. Shortly after Obama was elected, the billionaire Warren Buffett complained it unfair that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary, so Obama fixed it, Obama raised the secretary’s taxes and gave Buffett a monopoly on oil traffic from Alberta to Texas. Now that’s redistribution! Remember, Warren Buffett runs Berkshire Hathaway, the shareholders own it…

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The Party of the Ass

August 8th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems odd to me, the party that has democracy in it’s name, always and everywhere take the side of forces opposing democracy and align themselves with autocrats, and gets away with it so handily, is one for a prodigy psychologist. That party doesn’t even hide the fact, other than protecting a few speeches to Wall ST, so why are people not fed up with the lies, saying one thing then doing another, conniving, corruption and even the undermining of our very sovereignty. The party that has an ass as it’s mascot, it would appear, has a different agenda than it purports, as observed by it’s actions and discounting it’s rhetoric. With the ongoing Wikileaks email deliveries, the party of the people’s conniving is exposed to the very people it is conniving against. Fortunately, with the advent of fully digitized vote counting soon, if not today, they need not soil democracy in the hands of the unwashed masses.

Why do they get away with it? Are people really that vapid? Perhaps, or perhaps not, there are other factors to consider. Like the overwhelming power of the media, coupled with government, protected by the legal system, in bed with banks and corporations, all engaged in an orgy of power. When such forces align under a single faction, as they have in this time and place, it is very hard to buck the “conventional wisdom.” Anyone who has the audacity to disagree with the oligarchy is vilified into submission, by the media, law, government, Wall ST and academia. Such political power this faction now wields allows them to take off the mask.

You see it with the flood of former republicans to the democrat party, you know, the party of the people. The much hated Koch brothers have gone to the ass party along with all their billionaire buddys. Everyone knows, no one is more concerned for the plight of the poor than a billionaire, or knows how to solve the problems of the poor, like a central banker living in undeserved opulence. As the people vote for one candidate, the vote is rigged for the other and the party of democracy openly colludes with the media, to rig the election, because, you know, democracy is far too important to leave to the stupid voters. Proof is released, and the bolshevik turned menshevik by vote fraud, stands on a stage and kisses the pantsuit’s derriere… proving he is either a sellout or very very afraid.

The positions taken by the party of the people would seem absurd… given their supposed favoring of the democratic element of our republic. Voter identification is attacked, with spurious claims it does the opposite of what it has been empirically proven to do, based on an emotional argument. We are told that people who have to have id to live in our society, don’t need them to vote, because getting an id is too difficult? If that is so, then why not outlaw ids altogether? If they are such a burden why not outlaw them, for food stamps, to drive, for heating assistance, social security, etc… because there would be fraud maybe? Fraud in those programs only steals our money, vote fraud steals our individual sovereignty, and destroys the democratic element of our republic.

The fleeing of republicans in name only to the party of the little guy, shows where their true allegiances were to begin with, and so is not a bad thing. Everything is more clear in the light. As more and more information about the conniving, of the party of the most transparent administration comes out, the truth will be ever harder to deny. Even zealots will have to allow a synapse or two to fire. The revolt of the people from the chains on our minds the elite have so carefully forged for us is underway. The elite let us know who they support, every time they refuse to report a story, blow a story out of proportion, criminally charge someone for exposing crime, and fail to charge someone for obvious felonies. We have a selection between the elite’s choice, someone proven to be corrupt, a liar, a conniver, and ambitious beyond measure, or the people’s choice, someone who claims to being corrupt, a liar, a conniver and ambitious beyond measure.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Government Simply Cannot Solve Problems

August 4th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, government in all it’s manifestations, subsidizes and encourages bad behavior, to the detriment of humanity. Not just modern government, although the welfare state has risen the body politic to levels not seen since Rome’s bread and circuses. The negative incentives government inflicts on mankind, in the name of compassion, have the cumulative effect of making worse that which they are supposed to alleviate. There are several reasons this is so. The mechanism of government funding, the inherent incentives of that funding process and the constituency that instantly crops up depends on it, all combine to give immortality to any government program set up to fix something. The very nature of government wielding power, ie, handing out money, lends itself to corruption, dependence and lack of ambition.

By mitigating the negative consequences of negative behavior, whether from compassion or a lust for power over the individual, government creates more negative behavior. If fathers are not needed, economically, to raise children, then children will not have fathers along with all the other negative consequences for those children, economic, social and cultural. The more government subsidizes a fatherless society the less fathers there will be, and the less people will feel they have a stake in society, leading to more crime, violent and otherwise, making more men unsuitable to be fathers in the first place. Government’s ham handed way of solving any problem always leads to a worsening of that problem.

Government always makes permanent anything it tries to fix. That is because the moment government announces it is going to fix a thing, that thing instantly has a constituency and permanent ever increasing funding supply, to feed those constituents/dependents, which insures it is in no one’s favor to actually solve the problem, too much money is at stake. The fundamental problem grows worse, while bureaucrats make up statistics showing some alleviation of the worst suffering, justifying more spending. The cycle goes on and on. Can you think of any problem the federal government has ever solved? Did prohibition stop alcoholism, does the war on drugs eliminate the scourge of drugs, did the Agricultural Agency solve the problems of small farms, did welfare lower the amount of people who are poor, does the Department of Energy done anything to lower our dependence of foreign oil and has the federal government’s usurping of our children’s education improved it or lowered the cost?

If someone is put in a cell wired to electrodes and offered two choices, one is a candy bar, the other is a cockroach, every time the subject reaches for the candy bar he gets a shock, but if they eat the cockroach they don’t, eventually, every subject will eat the roach… eschewing the candy bar, even flinching at the thought. Incentives work that way, they change our perceptions, rightly or wrongly, about what is good and what is bad. People can be convinced to always choose the wrong path, even when they know explicitly it is the wrong path, if the incentives are sufficient. Why work if welfare pays better? Why marry if there is more sex outside of marriage than inside? Why pay for your own children if the government will do it so you can have more children by more women? Those bad decisions, negative actions, normally would have a host of negative consequences, impelling us to make better choices, better for us, our society, our culture and our overall best interest… if not for government creating pernicious incentives.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Our Grand Children’s Very Bright Futures

August 1st, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, human history has been a tale of want and limited potential, but with the rapidly approaching zero unit cost of labor, combined with the burgeoning space industry, that old paradigm should change to a new paradigm of plenty and unlimited potential. The internet provides the interconnectivity of human minds that is the preexisting technology enabling the whole process. As long as government usurpation and corruption don’t derail the advance. It is hard to get your head around the idea, if there were robots that could do anything a human can do, autonomously and accurately, moreover, if those robots had the ability to reproduce themselves, in a factory say, the availability of labor would be unlimited, and therefore the per unit, per hour for example, cost of labor would be driven to zero. Combine that with access to space, where resources are literally unlimited, and the possibilities are unimaginable. Humanity would only be limited by the limits of our imaginations and the machinations of powerful people.

If the unit cost of labor is zero, even the poorest person can afford it, and therefore the production of that labor, because it costs zero dollars to pay for zero cost. The only thing that humans would have of value will be our imaginations, anything one could think up one could have built, and then offered to others, for a price, as hardware or designware. You might want a large structure but are too busy to oversee the robots yourself, so you hire a professional robot manager, to build the structure for you. The zero unit cost of labor would not only open up the sky to the imagination, it would provide far more opportunity to those who just want a 9 to 5, at higher relative pay with lower physical demands. Both of which lead to economic freedom, better health and longevity.

Markets will be disrupted and changed wholesale. Initially those who own farm land will have an advantage. The use of zero cost robots to do farm work will drastically lower farm’s cost of producing food as it increases the output per acre. The real advantage to farm land is the fact everyone needs food which will create a guaranteed market. The automobile market will change drastically however, if anyone could have robots build any car he or she wanted, rather than buy a prebuilt car, for tons of money, why wouldn’t they simply browse a catalog of cars, designed by anyone who had a penchant for it, and have whatever car the buyer chose, built. This doesn’t just apply to cars, but planes, yachts, space ships, orbital manufacturing facilities and toothbrushes. There will be upheaval in every market in every corner of the world, which is the single biggest true wealth creator, man has ever known.

Access to space and the utilization of the unlimited resources available there is the second half of the equation. The quantity of rare earth elements in Near Earth Asteroids is unimaginable. Rare earth minerals that make electronics operate better and more efficiently, allowing electric motors to have more power along with many other uses in the electronics and computer industries. Helium 3 is plentiful on the Moon and could support a clean fusion energy program on Earth. Helium 3 doesn’t produce the deadly neutron radiation that is the single biggest drawback to fusion after self sustainment. To gather these resources would require people go to the Moon to manage the robots that do the labor. People would have to manage the robots that mined the asteroids, and if the cost of labor is zero, robots could build a home on Mars for anyone who wanted to move there.

Robots, as we should be able to see after this article, are nothing more than an elaborate lever. Even if robots get to the point they will be able to manage a complex project themselves, there will always be a need for someone to direct what and where they build, lest humanity turn over too much to mechanization. People will need to oversee robots forever, most likely in ever larger and larger groups as the technology matures but, since each of our individual right to our property and it’s use must be maintained, there will always be a need for collaboration, in many ways, for example, by adjacent property owners of large complex projects that would adversely effect their use of their prexisting property, and it’s historic use. The need for people to oversee robots and the demand for their use by everyone will provide more than enough jobs, good paying jobs, to absorb the people who don’t want to create for a living.

With the lid blown off human creativity and drive things become possible that would otherwise be impossible. Economic growth would become a function like Moor’s Law, doubling every 2 years, only limited by the number of people and their imaginations. There will be no need of socialism when everyone can have everything they want, anytime they want, for almost no cost. With robots building sewers and clean water delivery systems, cleaning homes, and the increase in quality and quantity of output of a small home garden maintained by a robot, the human condition will be drastically improved. Imagine if government have caved to the buggy whip industry and stopped Ford from producing cars, deeming mass production to be killing jobs… A zero unit cost of labor would allow our children and their progeny for the foreseeable future to enjoy such unlimited lives, as long as we don’t destroy it for them with regulation, a lost war, cronyism and taxes, all of which would be made redundant by the zero unit cost of labor… if not stopped by them.

Sincerely,

John Pepin