Archive for the ‘Societal Myth’ Category

« Older Entries

What Metric to measure the Moralality of an Economic System?

Thursday, August 19th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the statement “I find it morally wrong that some people have so much while others have so little.” is comparative. It compares that which the speaker knows nothing to that which the speaker knows little. And so, it says more about the speaker than it does society.

Because how can anyone actually know the heart and the true worth of another? Is the person the speaker has in mind about to go bankrupt. Is a terrible accident about to happen to a loved one of the person with too much. Or is the person with too little actually a miser?

Groups are ever more slippery. Because statistics are so poorly done. They are wielded like scientific certainty when there is increasing evidence, (scientific evidence) that statistics are misleading at best. If they are done right they can be informative but they are so rarely done with the proper scientific scrutiny that most are useless. Since groups must be compared statistically the comparison is ever more flawed.

The assumption is that material wealth is the paramount attribute. All others are tangential to it. And so a large difference between the top ten percent and the bottom ten percent is seen as a metric on the moral value of society. But if that is so then they must believe that a society with perpetual want is preferable to one where obesity is a constant threat to the impoverished.

The Desiderata says, “If you compare yourself to others, you may become bitter or vain, for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. “ How much worse comparing others to others?

If a metric to apply the morality of a system is needed then take the lowest segment and compare their lot with the aggregate world standard of living. If the impoverished in a society live at or above the average standard of living in the world then we can say, empirically, that society is moral.

On the other hand if the average standard of living in a society is lower than the world average then we can say that this society is less moral. There is some roadblock to that societies effective use of the market system.

In both cases we look at the fruits of a given economic policy not the intentions. If the results are a high standard of living for the lowest 10 percent then the difference between the lowest and the highest is irrelevant. If the intent is simply to make the economic outcome equal for all players then the only workable means is to lower everyone’s.

I cannot ski that well. It is too late for me to learn to ski at more than a remedial level. If skiing were economic outcome then the socialists, progressives and communists would have to break the legs of those that ski well. So I would n’t feel inferior to them. Because it is impossible to raise me to their level so it is only possible to lower them to mine. But there are people who cannot ski at all…

But, like most things romantic anti capitalists say, it sounds great until you actually think about it. Then it sounds pretty silly.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Societal Myth, economy, philosophy, polictics of class envy | No Comments »

Human Heartedness and Government

Wednesday, August 4th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that to hold another person to a higher standard of personal conduct than one holds himself is not human hearted. To be “not human hearted” in this way, historically, qualifies a person to hold public office.

For all of human history people in power have never been held to a standard of personal conduct that is close to the demands placed on the people. The ancient Greeks with the temporary ostracism, and Romans with the Censors made gestures in the direction of holding powerful people to standards. But those two systems were flawed in that they still hadn’t solved the problem of power of personality or cults of personality.

The ancient Greeks ostracism was a direct attack at charismatic power. If an aristocrat would get too powerful the people would call a vote. They would write yea or nay on a piece of pottery or ostrakon
and count the vote. If the ayes had it the person was sent away for a few years to let his partisans cool and his charismatic power to wane. His possessions were kept safe as were his family and slaves. When he returned he could participate in public life again. This practice visited any number of catastrophes on Athens. From Pericles (with the misshaped head) to Alcibiades the ostracism was a wash.

The Romans had the Censors. Powerful aristocrats that had draconian powers to look into the personal dealings of other aristocrats. Unfortunately with no effective public oversight the Censors used their offices to garner bribes and indulgences from the powerful people they were supposed to regulate. An early form of regulatory capture. Both pernicious and both inevitable if the conditions are right. Human nature being what it is.

Human nature is unchangeable. When faced with the choice of; Let someone burn you with a cigarette and they will give a million dollars, to charity the charity of your choice, for each hour of torture. No one would submit to it. Unless they were sadomasochistic. Despite the obvious societal good from the windfall to charity…. But give another that choice over someone else and the perspective is widened considerably. They would have no problem with this Faustian bargain. The fact that they feel no pain when the cigarette is applied is irrelevant. Or so they will say. It is universal and it is human nature.

To decry human nature is foolish as it is to decry gravity. Without it we could not exist as we are. The wise lawgiver looks human nature in the eye and works with it. Doesn’t try to change it in others while waxing his own.

That has been the problem with governments through the ages. The Elite try to force others to live as the Elite wish and the Elite live as they wish too. This sets up a fundamental tension in human governments. That tension is the underlying energy source for class struggle.

The ancient Chinese had it close. Despite their arguments and the internecine squabbles of the States the Chinese philosophers in classic times had it by the tail. That their governments ignored the good teachings and embraced the bad is just a function of human nature….

Perhaps, if some nation at some time held their leaders to the same standards they hold the people to, this fundamental tension would be relived. So maybe, to be not human hearted should disqualify a person from public office.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Group Politics, Law, Mercy, Societal Myth, philosophy, polictics of class envy | No Comments »

Markets as Ecology

Sunday, August 1st, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the ultimate example of capitalism is nature. Does the flower address the bee’s charity? No… the flower addresses the bee’s self interest. In that way the bee gets a need met and the flower gets a need met. A basic capitalist exchange.

Nature is filled with other examples of capitalist exchanges throughout. From ants protecting a fig tree to people planting cucumbers that is the way the ecosystem has grown. One species of fauna eating a species of flora and thus spreads the seeds of it’s preferred food. Small Wins adding up to a great win for the ecosystem.

There are examples of fraud in the natural world, (corpse flowers and pitcher plants are a few) as there are examples of monopoly (miles of forest… all one aspen tree, duplicated over and over, monopolizing the habitat). The environment around us is rife with examples of the market economy complete with division of labor. (Our little self interested bee handle’s the pollinating segment of the tomato production process).

On a meta scale plants produce sugars and oxygen, and animals use those sugars and oxygen to produce locomotion to move plant‘s seeds and pollen. On a personal scale soy produces oil, sheep-wool, dogs-protection, apple trees-apples… the list is endless. The division of labor in nature is there for anyone to see… if they only open their eyes and look. Marx pointed out that capitalism (the market system) is dynamic. As is nature.

The term capitalist and markets are human words created to explain a phenomenon. There is nothing unnatural at all about exchanging one thing for another or specializing in a job. That is what separated cats from dogs millions of years ago. There is something unnatural about demanding charity from individuals in the form of slavery to government. Benign or otherwise.

I have never heard a complaint about how the flower exploit’s the bee‘s labor. In fact if someone did complain that the flowers were exploiting the bee’s labor and getting rich doing it I suspect people would give the argument the weight it deserves…. None. When we look at a phenomenon from a distance we have perspective. We can see the big picture. But an attribute of perspective is that the closer we get to something the less of it we can see. Like the story of the three blind men describing an elephant.

I can imagine a bee flying into a hive. Tired and frazzled. Birds tried to eat her all day. The flowers were picked over. Her wings are tired and her stinger is sore. She lands with a paltry amount of pollen and nectar for the receivers. They complain she must be slacking off to have so little nectar… It would be easy to convince her that the flowers were exploiting her labor. Then further to convince her the flowers need to be controlled and many would have to be killed in the revolution. In the long term… Would it be in the bee’s best interest to follow, and kill many of the flowers? Does it make a diffrence if the flowers trying to convince the worker bee that other flowers care nothing and do nothing to help the bee cope with, Verona mite, tracheal mite or even the dreaded colony collapse disease?

Today most people know what would happen if we allowed an open river of effluent to run down our streets. We also know what would happen if vermin lived too close to us… Black Plague. Or some other deadly disease. By not taking care to have a full waste cycle we open opportunities for the smallest players in the ecological market to exploit the niche. They will step in and use the nutrients available to them with devastating results for other larger players in the ecological market.

Government policies that restrict supply or demand for a service or thing forces inefficiency into the system. This drives capital into the streets so to speak. This inefficiency is like effluent running down the streets. The wasted capital (effluent) becomes a source of funding (nutrients) for the underground economy. Government policies directly incentivize the underground economy. With the negative externalities that all underground economies have.

Ironically in some countries people are more virtuous to each other in underground economies than they are in the open markets. Because in the underground economies participants are held to their actions. If someone lies or cheats, if they are not executed, they will be ostracized. In the open market they are protected by government policies. Unenlightened policies that are tantamount to flushing effluent into the open streets.

But as with Tracheal mites, it is better to keep the hive free, than to use menthol to control them.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Group Politics, Law, Societal Myth, economy, philosophy | No Comments »

Sustainability

Thursday, July 15th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the Progressive Elite want to force the people of the world to reset our way living. They believe that we must move out of our large homes that require us to have cars and move into high density apartments. Within walking distance to amenities. In that way, even if we are too stupid to do it ourselves, we can just be pushed to it. How do I know this… they are saying it on WSJR today, Sunday July 11, 2010.

By using government to drive up costs for energy, housing, transportation, etc… forces people to move closer together… to cut down on those costs. Taxing carbon is one way to artificially force up the cost of energy. Regulating the economy of cars (CAFE standards) is a way to drive up the cost of basic transportation. Government policies that create high unemployment rates drive people to accept dependence on government. There are many ways government can force society to this “more sustainable” way of living. The key is enough government power and the right people in charge.

The American Constitution forbids such power in the hands of our elected leaders… but today the Constitution is a “living breathing document.” If five people on the Supreme court agree… Voila, the Constitution is re-interpreted. The barn wall probably needed repainted again. The people in charge are critical…

People who are willing to move society away from independence and comfort to discomfort and dependence. People who, if it is needed, would eliminate those that would stand in the way of the revolution (fundamental change). People who have no squeamish qualms about the means. A cabal with only the goal in sight. The progressive Elite.

The progressive Elite constantly remind us that it is not possible for everyone on the planet to live as Americans do… Comfortably. Lower class Americans live better than middle class Europeans. Europeans know it and are resentful. But are not willing to give up dependence on the State. They are willing to give up personal independence and personal comfort for the support of the State. For them it is a good trade. But when they see the positive effects of the other side of the equation they are resentful.

Resentment is a tool to the progressive Elite. They make people resent the wealth of the capitalist. But keep the people ignorant of the avarice of government in both money and power. “After all comrade, would you deny a pig a place for his head?” People who are resentful are in a fog. Overwhelming emotions have that effect on us. People in a fog are easy to herd and then marshal into an army.

Like the Brown Shirts. They were resentful of the wealth of the Jews. (Wealth the Jews earned from being Capitalists).The National Socialist Party turned that resentment into hate and used the hate to herd the whole of Germany into one camp. Then the faction that controlled the camp marshaled the Germen people into a killing machine that visited great sorrow on humanity. Hate and resentment are bread and butter to progressives, communists and socialists.

But today capitalists are called racists, haters, bigots and everything that is an anathema to a capitalist. The progressive Elite tell us we should hate the greedy racist capitalist. While to be a true capitalist is to be the exact opposite of a bigot. Bigotry is bad for business. Bigotry is a luxury that is reserved for progressives, socialists and communists. When you sell a guy a sofa you don’t care about the color of his face… only the color of his money. The market system is the greatest eliminator of racism there has ever been.

The progressive Elite like to use bigotry to “fight” bigotry. After all, isn’t “affirmative action” a form of State sponsored bigotry? The means taints the ends. The progressive Elite don’t care if it does. The ends are so glittering. They are certain they are right… “So personal is their knowledge.“

Isn’t that the definition of a zealot though? Someone who looks at the end and disregards the means. The means being subservient to the end. And the end is total power… Thrasymachus would applaud.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Group Politics, Mercy, Societal Myth, philosophy, polictics of class envy | No Comments »

Societal Structure

Sunday, July 11th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that government is one third of a structure that we live our lives in. (The other two being tradition and modernity). The form of government determines the real and potential standard of living of the people that live under it. Historically the more oppressive – the lower the potential. But no matter the form it has great influence on the structure.

That is one of the reasons I am so amazed by anarchists. They seek to destroy the structure. No matter it’s form. Never thinking for a moment, regardless how effectively they destroy the structure, that another will quickly rise to replace it. Most probably in the form of a tyranny (as a reaction to the chaos). Setting them back in their goal of total liberty.

The reason the structure will rise so rapidly is that, as Socrates said through Plato, we are social by our nature. It is our sociability that provide us the goods we need. In his day the division of labor was simple. There was a {warrior (and farming) division and a religious class}- Citizens, and a slave class. Slavery kept labor costs vary low. Very low labor cost meant little division of labor. That kept innovation low and prices for commodities high. But although there was a simple division of labor the benefit of society was an improved standard of living. Socrates and his fellows didn’t have the philosophical framework to understand that an economy is not a zero sum game. But they did recognize the value of our social natures. They didn’t realize that economies are dynamic. Like living organisms. They thrive when watered, aired and fed. They dry up and shrivel when they are not properly cared for. Economies rise and fall with innovation. To the ancient philosophers economies were static.

Adam Smith’s book “The Wealth Of Nations” was an innovation in the way people thought about markets and trade. Of course he didn’t produce his work in a vacuum. But he articulated his ideas well enough to start a new area of scientific enquiry.

This book, The Wealth of Nations, hints at an underlying law in human societal structure. One of the great energy sources of all human societal structure is our want to get ahead. (Greed). Every one wants better. When the governmental structure was such that it quashed this part of human nature. It was, and always will be, to protect the power of the Elite. The Elite always want a structure that ensures them their “rightful” power.

The irony of the ancient societal myth is never mentioned in anything I have read. That is, To be a citizen one must have means. But to want means is to have avarice. (And that) The labors of society rightfully belong to the Aristocracy. Anything they allow the peasants to keep is magnanimous (big in the soul). The producers of those goods had no right to the products of their labors. For them to want to keep their own products was greedy. But to want what one did not produce or help to produce was not.

Just like the rhetoric coming from the socialists, progressives and communists. The products of a person’s labor rightfully belong to the Elite. For those that labor to want a share is for producers to be greedy. If the State needs the funds, to buy votes for the ruling faction, it is the States right.

Communists, socialists and progressives want to bind society their leadership. They know, (if not explicitly), that to do that they must bring back the structure that was lost by embracing markets. Markets are natural levelers of men. As buyers you and I don’t care about the seller’s race, creed, ethnicity, tattoos, etc… all you care about is the price and the quality of a good or service. [ala Hume and Voltair] That is why the Statist Elite want to get off the market system. Markets have lowered sovereignty too low. (As far as they are concerned). Far be it… from wanting “Progress,” in truth they want an Retreat. They want to move humanity back to a time when the Elite were kings and the people were slaves. They long to move us back to that halcyon time.

The trick is to make the people believe that Elite are on their side. Just as Julius Caesar did to destroy the Republic and create the Empire. He took Roman societal structure back from republican rule to the arbitrary rule of tyrants. He made the people love him by giving out money, forcing the forgiving of debts and enacting some much needed reform. (No one is totally evil or totally good). In doing so he earned the absolute and blind following of the Roman people. He then used that following to make himself emperor. Fundamentally changing Roman societal structure. Today, history is repeating itself and, our historians are silent.

It all boils down to one fact… What kind of structure do you want your children and their children living in?

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Mercy, Societal Myth, philosophy | No Comments »

Get the Economy Growing Again

Sunday, July 4th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that if the US government really wanted to get the economy moving again there is a well charted course. The problem is, the government does not like that course. It believes that if only it goes the way it wants, eventually it will prevail, regardless of the cost.

Cut taxes, rescind the health care law, stop all pending legislation to cap carbon, Lower regulation, cut spending, resume drilling, streamline the permitting process and sponsor public service messages promoting starting a business.

Cutting taxes should be a no brainier. The economy responds every time it has ever been done. In all of history there is no example where lowering taxes did not positively effect the macro economy.

If the government announced tomorrow that the health care law was abolished… the S&P 500 would gain 500 points in a week. The giant specter of uncertainty in the markets about how this legislation will effect the cost of labor will be lifted. Uncertainty in markets cool those markets. Raising volatility and lowering expectations.

Everyone who owns a business (if they are sane) know that if the cost of energy goes up dramatically their imbedded cost of doing business will also rise. They will have to raise their prices. The rise in energy prices causing the rise in consumer cost. They are inextricably entwined. If the government intentionally drives up the cost of energy through some power grab legislation the macro economy will suffer. Overnight inflation in the cost of energy will shock the economy. The reverberations will echo throughout the world economy. The impact will be spread out over a long time span. (So the people can better enjoy it).

Regulation is nothing but friction to an economy. It is selectively enforced and written with an eye to benefit the politically connected at the cost to the politically naïve. Regulation has become the epitome of Bastiat’s perversion of Law. Moreover regulation is seldom well written. This round of regulation was written by lobbyists outside the Capital grounds, (So the comings and goings could be kept secret). It is massive and fraught with carve outs for the Elite’s friends. (Wait and see).

It will do nothing to stop another fiasco but will drive up the costs to the financial sector. Remember, while the banking system was melting down, the regulators at the SEC were looking at porn. Porn that cannot be blocked from their computers due to their civil rights… or something. So this regulation will result in more government regulators. Who, I assume, will continue the great tradition of looking at porn instead of doing their jobs. Win win. If we suffer another melt down the government will simply create more friction for the economy and hire on some more people to look at porn.

Cutting spending, seems at first blush, to be counter intuitive. After all didn’t John Maynard Keynes claim that government spending drives up aggregate demand and thus keeps the economy going while private sector spending is at a nadir. He did but he was wrong.

Government demand is fundamentally different from private sector demand. In many ways. In marketing, in payment and where the money comes from. I have written many blogs on the subject. To go into it here would be redundant.

The drilling ban is a knee jerk response to a catastrophe. This catastrophe is a very rare occurrence and will drive a deeper understanding of how to deal with future catastrophes like this in the future. But in the meantime to stop all Gulf drilling is foolish. It will serve no purpose except as propaganda for the Administration. The economy of the Gulf region is negatively impacted. At a time when the US macro economy is in peril and the region’s economy is already damaged by the spill’s impact to the fishing and tourist economy. In this light this drilling moratorium is utterly stupid.

A good metric to use to determine if the legal costs have gotten out of control in a society is to compare the legal cost of a road project to it’s engineering costs. If the legal cost outweighs the engineering cost the legal system is set up for the benefit of the legal system not for the benefit of society. In this case regulation should be streamlined to lower the legal costs of doing business.

Today we are bombarded with public service messages. Keep off drugs, feed the pig, save a life don’t drink and drive, etc… The list is endless. What about public service messages that espouse the benefits of starting a business. Holding business owners as heroes in society.

Is it possible that these ideas could have a positive impact on economic growth?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Law, Societal Myth, economy, media | No Comments »

Afghanistan and Choices

Sunday, June 27th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that at this point in Afghanistan the United States as a nation has to ask itself one question; Is the USA a nation, that when it is attacked, goes and knocks over the anthill. Or a nation that knocks over the anthill, then rebuilds it, so the ants never need attack it again?

History sorts out the good from the bad. Even though the victors write history… Time edits it. History will reflect the stomach of those that live today. No one looks back at destroyers with ennui. No, they look back with horror. We all love builders. Those that rebuild that which they have had to destroy… But better.

In 1700BC there was a people in India called the Harappan. They had indoor toilets and well built cities. All their cities were laid out the same. Streets at given widths depending on the usage. With a writing system that has never been figured out. The only examples of which are stone obelisks and tombs.

The Harappan people disappeared around 1500BC. They didn’t seem to have fallen to conquerors. There is a lack of archeological evidence. There has been some archeological evidence that they were fleeing from something. There is speculation a natural disaster wiped them out. But their disappearance is a mystery.

No matter the cause the cities abandoned by the Harappan were then inhabited by others. Barbarians by their standards. The new inhabitants then had access to all the accoutrements of the Harappan people. But never came close to emulating the Harappan level of technology. (Or standard of living).

The new people had access to the things of the Harappan but didn’t have the philosophy of the Harappan. Therefore they could only diminish in standard of living once the philosophy was disengaged from the technology. The point being that the philosophy is more important than the stuff of a civilization.

By not only rebuilding the stuff of Afghanistan America should instill some new philosophies there. Like ethical government service. Government corruption being utterly corrosive of liberty. The corruption in the government of Afghanistan is epic. According to reports from Afghanistan.

If the philosophy of ethical government service is all the Americans instill in the people it will have been a resounding victory. Ethical government service would lead to all goods coming to the people of Afghanistan. No amount of charity can give to them what this philosophy has to offer.

Rebuilding roads is good. Building schools for the Taliban to blow up may be helpful. But rebuild the people’s confidence in their government and you have won a victory. One that will destroy the Taliban with more alacrity than unbridled violence ever could. But to have an impact on one’s allies and one’s foes one must appear to be iron willed in the endeavor. They are putting their lives on the line.

I heard John McCain say something presidential for the first time today. He said “no one follows a half hearted trumpet.” That is an excellent point. Had Patrick Henry said Give me liberty or give me a warm bed. It wouldn’t have had the oomph. The colonials wouldn’t have followed him… If Winston Churchill had said “Aw…Jerry’s not so bad lets just go have a pint.” …we might have had to live under a socialist government.

No amount of stuff, violence or talk can give to the people of Afghanistan what one little change in their ethos can… Peace, Prosperity and true Piety.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Mercy, Societal Myth, economy, philosophy | No Comments »

You Are What You Think

Sunday, June 6th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that you are what you think. The more a person dwells on a single subject the more their minds form to that subject. The mind being very plastic.

So when the German people in the 1920’s and 1930’s were inculcated that all their problems were the fault of the Jews and Gypsies… they dwelt on the subject. It was in the air all the time in that era and place. The German societal myth warped. Bringing about the conditions where the Gypsies were wiped out with no one left to remember them. Far worse than the Armenians or Jews. The Gypsies were annihilated.

This doesn’t mean that the German people were bad… The philosophy they followed was bad. Because they thought, to the exclusion of other things, on race.

Good intentions can be turned to bad results this way. When a person dwells on some injustice, to the exclusion of other things, it warps their minds. Their mind folds into compliance with the notion. It takes away their sense of magnitude and relativity. You and I feel that what we dwell on has more import than it actually may have. The simple act of thinking about a subject can make the subject more important to us than it really is.

So a person who is obsessed with the injustice to a group eventually gives this injustice godhood. It consumes them and they eventually can think of nothing else without extreme effort. What impact on their lives do you think this has?

When you feel this strongly about an injustice, even though it may have happened long ago, it is easy to believe that injustice must be met with injustice. Do to the former perpetrator that which he did. Even though the perpetrator may be long dead. If this is the case… find a suitable group to mete your injustice on. There is never a lack of suitable people to mete out injustice to. Look around the world.

Why do the Jews mete out injustice to the Palestinians? Why do the Palestinians mete out injustice to the Jews? Why did and do the Hutu’s mete out injustice to the Tutsi’s? And Vice versa? The pattern is repeated around the World in many forms and in many ways. The single common factor is that a group of people dwell on some injustice. This leads them to meet injustice with injustice.

So when we think about an injustice, A highly emotional thought, we tend to dwell on it. The more we dwell… Therefore it is in our best interest to try to keep balance. To meet injustice with injustice is to immortalize injustice.

Does anyone think that the annihilation of the Gypsies led to less injustice in the world? What about the Hutu’s annihilation of the Tutsi’s’? No it has only led to further injustice. Cambyses son of Cyrus the Great moved whole nations of people in forced migrations. To satisfy his sense of justice. Did this result in less injustice in the World? No it didn’t. And it never will.

Chuang Chuo the doctor of the Tao said;

“A Penumbra asked a Shadow, saying, “There are times When you are moving, times when you are at rest: times when you sit down, times when you stand up. Why do you not work out one method and stick to it?” The Shadow said, “Am I dependent on something else for being what I am? (if so) is the something else on which I am dependent… itself dependent on something else for being what it is?”

One cause leading to another in an endless stream of injustices. The only way to stop the results are to interrupt the causes… To meet injustice with injustice is never righteous.

If you dwell, on racism, you become a racist… What is the Cause in that sentence?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Group Politics, Mercy, Societal Myth, philosophy | No Comments »

Individual Sovereignty

Sunday, May 30th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the magnitude of the concept of individual sovereignty is very underappreciated. This is a relatively new philosophy. It was codified into law under the US Constitution only two hundred years ago. One of the reasons most philosophies trend tyrannical is that they place sovereignty at a higher level.

Philosophies that espouse Groupism place sovereignty at the group level. They are more concerned with the group, (race, sexual preference, class, etc…). They sample, categorize and place a person in the appropriate group. Then treat them as such. Groups are easy to handle conceptually. But, when the concepts that are envisioned by the groupist are implemented, they always result in the lowering of all of society. Be it economically, politically, or religiously.

Because when sovereignty is raised back to a level higher than the individual… the individual resents it. And, moreover, is right to do so. It is the individual that feels the bite of cold in the weather. Pain is individually sovereign. The motivation to it should be as well.

An unbiased observer would look at the state of affairs on our planet and come to the conclusion that, not only human beings are given individual sovereignty but, the beasts in the fields and forests do as well. If this is true, that even the beasts in the fields and forests have individual sovereignty… and there is a God, then it is the observed will of God that we have individual sovereignty.

Witness that every time sovereignty is moved from the individual to the group, King, President for life, city state, nation, etc… it is done so by violence or the implicit threat of violence. The violence is couched in the most pleasing terms. The greater good and all that. Even as, for the greater good, a group of human beings are exterminated… Under the aegis of anti racism.

What is the font of the American economic growth machine? Some argue that it is the diversity of the American people. But averaged growth by decade has been fairly steady from it’s inception. Even when diversity was very low… Hessians and British… Making diversity’s impact on economic growth less definite.

Some argue the American political system. They wouldn’t be far from wrong. But they would still miss the target. It isn’t the system itself but the societal myth that the system’s birth set up. Namely that sovereignty is at the individual level… Think for a moment what kind of incentives this sets up in a society that adopts it.

If you, as an individual, believe that you will be able to keep what you earn. It is a positive incentive to earn. If you believe that your real property is safe from seizure it is an incentive to own real property. If you believe that your business will not be shaken down it is an incentive to own a business… The list of positive incentives is endless. Positive incentives that work on the individual level to improve the lives of everyone.

What about societal debt some might argue. Doesn’t everyone owe a societal debt due to our social nature? The groupist likes to trip us up here. This line of argument is rife with opportunities to change the subject. Never arguing one subject to conclusion. They seek to lure the individualist’s bulldozer into their groupist swamp of argument alteration..

There is a good response however. We make up our societal debt by being productive. Beyond that society can ask nothing. If we choose to give to this or that it is our choice… we are sovereign. Our success is societies success. As long as a person or corporation is not actively holding people down, (monopoly, negative externalities, wages and hiring is based on merit, etc…) their success should be cheered. Because it is societies success. In fact societies that have individual sovereignty have higher rates of alms giving than societies that have sovereignty at a higher level. Universally.

There is a belief that groups have wisdom. Markets have been set up to predict everything from North Korea’s next violent outburst to who will win the Super Bowl. By tapping into the wisdom of large unbiased groups motivated to be right. (The motivation is supplied by a monetary payout if the individual is correct). Leads to strikingly accurate predictions.

This is from the individual acting on his or her own behalf. The individual motivated to make the correct decision, in the aggregate, are correct more often than not. This holds true solving for many factors.

But when the group of sovereign individual decision makers is turned into a single person, or smaller group, (sovereignty is moved to a higher level), the likely hood of a good decision is lowered. Especially when you make the incentives, for the deciding group or person… pernicious.

When a society taps into this vast resource of potential it is setting up a structure that is geared to win. One where the nap of the fur is up. Not down. All it need do is build the concept of individual sovereignty into their society and governmental structure.

But that is harder than it looks…

The Elite have to lower their power…

That is rarely done.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Group Politics, Law, Mercy, Societal Myth, economy, philosophy, polictics of class envy | No Comments »

Calderon’s Hubris

Sunday, May 23rd, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that Felipe Calderon should be deeply embarrassed. To be the head of a government that has done such a poor job that people want to leave in droves. Fleeing the violence, poverty and government corruption. A human hearted man would be ashamed…

But Calderon is not. He is unabashed. In fact, he even has the gall to go to the nation that is feeding, clothing, housing and otherwise providing for his citizens, and chastising it. Chastising it for not being friendly enough. This guy is the stereotypical hypocrite.

The laws against illegal immigration in Mexico are draconian. The laws regarding legal immigration are draconian as well. Add to this the utter corruption in the Mexican police force. Immigrants cannot receive welfare in Mexico. Especially illegal immigrants. Immigrants in Mexico have to have outside income or be employed by the Mexican state. They are not allowed to have jobs in Mexico.

The US media have been rife with stories about older people going into Mexico to buy prescription drugs. (That were prescribed to them). After the pharmacist sells the US citizen the drugs the pharmacist then calls the police. The police intercept the old folks. Arrest them. Then ransom them back to their children.

The total lack of opportunity in Mexico is directly related to the utterly corrupt and (fortunately less) socialistically inclined government. One example of the foolishness is that the Mexican government has nationalized all it’s oil. The Government run extraction company is extraordinarily inefficient. The ready access to oil money funds more corruption in the Mexican government.

Had the Mexican government went the capitalist route a (possibly Mexican) company would lease the land from the government to extract the oil. The company would be held responsible for environmental problems. The company would be responsible for cleaning up after the oil has been extracted and the company would be responsible to keep the infrastructure up to date. Another advantage of the capitalistic approach would have been better and more thorough geological research. More importantly… less money would be underground to contribute to governmental corruption.

The violence in Mexico is the result of the utter corruption in the Mexican government. Even as Calderon pointed his finger at the US for problems his government has created he disregarded the three fingers pointing back at him.

Put it this way… If the easy access to weapons in the US leads to violence in it’s neighbors… why is Canada so quiet? If keeping drugs illegal creates violence in neighboring countries… Why is Canada so quiet? Huge amounts of Marijuana come into the US from Canada.

So is the problem really somewhere else Mr. Caldron? Or is it closer to home?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in International Power, Mercy, Societal Myth, economy, media, philosophy, polictics of class envy | No Comments »

« Older Entries