Archive for the ‘polictics of class envy’ Category

« Older Entries

Confucius On Government Corruption

Monday, September 6th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, how can the government hold me to my word when they publicly don’t hold our highest office holders to theirs?

Everyone knows the example of Clinton and Lewinski. Regardless of what was lied about the fact is there was a lie said under oath and it was publicly known. More importantly the negative consequences amounted to a slap on the wrist. So if the President of the United States can lie under oath and have no real consequences then why should other far less important people bend the truth to serve their self interest?

In Vermont a Judge was caught with 35 marijuana plants and 2LBS of processed marijuana. The judge served no jail time, paid no fine, instead got diversion. Less then a year later 2 college students were caught with 2LBS of processed marijuana and the book was thrown at them. The Prosecutor made the statement that an example would be made of them.

Tim Giethner who is in charge of US Treasury was caught not paying income taxes. To the tune of not reporting over 100K dollars. No negative consequences were deemed appropriate. He simply paid the back taxes. No other years were looked into. Charlie Rangel is accused of not reporting hundreds of thousands of dollars over decades. Lets sit back and see what negative consequences are levied against one of the most powerful men in the Congress.

Today the government is hiring thousands of IRS agents to look into your income tax records. They want to make sure you are not chiseling a few dollars here or there. If a discrepancy is found you will be punished, fined and punitive interest levied.

We can clearly see from these very few examples the tip of a much larger iceberg in society. That is the Elite need a peaceful society to enjoy their power in. But they themselves want to live as Thrasymachus claimed. They don’t want to live to the laws they seek to force the rest of society to live up to. So with this fundamental tension going on they must resort to ever more punitive measures to keep the populace in line.

Right out of Confucius. He pointed out this very problem 2500 years ago. But being Confucius he also pointed out the cause and the solution. Ancient Chinese Philosophers were all about causality and the chain of causality.

Confucius pointed out that Dukes and Barons in his day lived by rapine and averous. They lusted and fulfilled those lusts. Yet detested their very own actions when they saw them in others. As did Tonnies. They were and are hypocrites. But that hypocrisy is not lost on the population.

When the people see their leaders lusting after money, luxury and sex they naturally lust after these things themselves. But when all people behave as Dukes and Barons who have no respect for the persons, property or family of others societal advantages break down and society collapses. There is no longer a stable society for the Elite to enjoy their power and wealth.

So the Elite must resort to some means to keep the population virtuous. The answer is always in increasing punitive measures. In fact I believe there is a correlation to the level of punishment meted out in society for infractions to the level of corruption in the upper ranks of that society.

Confucius answer too this intractable problem was as elegant as it was simple. Eliminate the fundamental tension. That is to force the Dukes and Barons to be as virtuous as they need the population to be.

Simple, elegant and next to impossible to do…

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

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 »

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 »

Arizona Law and Illegal Immigration Law

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the stance of the Federal government as stated by Eric Holder is idiotic. To say that state authorities have no ability to arrest people found to be in violation of federal law opens a whole can of worms.

Is this a blanket statement? If it is then what about machine gun laws? They are federal. If a local law enforcement officer comes across a person brandishing a machine gun, that officer wouldn’t be allowed to even notify federal law enforcement about it… according to Holder. Let alone arrest him or her for it. Does this make sense to you?

If it is not a blanket statement then why the constitutional carve out for illegal immigrants? What legal basis could there be for it? So, if Mr. Holder claims that there is a carve out of federal law for illegal aliens, then is it because, there is a clear need for them in the US. One that is so important that it outweighs the mass of legal precedent. Legal precedent that is… all people are equal, under the law. Or has it changed to… all groups, are equal. There are some that are more equal then others. Illegal Aliens for example…

But if the administration is right, that local and State law enforcement cannot enforce Federal law, then I expect people will be getting out their printing presses and printing up $100 dollar bills. Only the FBI can enforce Federal law under the Holder leadership. A person could knowingly pass a printed counterfeit $20.00 bill and the Federal government would frown on a local police officer taking notice.

Slavery is another example. Does it make sense for local and State officials to turn a blind eye to a slavery ring operating in the US? Say…Trafficking in young girls? Under Holders assertion local and State police would be barred from reporting Human traffickers to federal authorities. To do so would make it less likely that people would report crime to the police. Using Holder’s logic.

What if Local police came across a treason plot that was about to be hatched? Holder would argue that it isn’t local police authority to intervene. If the government was overthrown and a communist regime set up, that then murdered twenty five million Americans, according to Eric Holder, that would be the price for liberty…. Or something. All to overturn a law Mr. Holder has not read.

No… Holder and the administrations want to use illegal immigration as a lever. A lever to use to move the American people to accept “comprehensive” reform. The law, as it is written, is “unsustainable.”

The definition of “comprehensive” is making all the illegal immigrants citizens… again. It had such a negative effect on illegal immigration the last few times it was tried it should definitely be tried again, and again, and again… Government loves to re-try things that have failed in the past. The bigger the failure the more it must try again.

The definition of “unsustainable” is anything the government wants to take over and control. If the government wants to take over and control health care they call it unsustainable. A word that, I am sure, has been thoroughly polled and tested… for it’s public palatability.

The real issue is that a faction of the American political Elite see an opportunity. They believe, if they make millions of poorly educated people who can’t speak English citizens, then the new citizens will reward that faction with their political support. It is not totally unfounded. Most of the poor and uneducated in South America vote reliably for communist governments. The faction of the American Elite that want to make them citizens agree with communist philosophy… they just call it progressivism. Their (illegal immigrants and the Elite’s) interests seem to be aligned.

Of course this would make a true underclass in the USA. Something the progressives have wanted for years. Real inequality… Not the ginned up, pretend variety they have been claiming is in the US. Real poverty, enforced by a language barrier and an education ceiling. Trapped in poverty and ignorance the Elite believe the Latinos will keep them in office forever…

Forever trapping the “undocumented workers” in poverty. Because to ever let them get up would undermine the power of the Elite… And if the power of the Elite is ever threatened… The Elite become dangerous even to their old allies.

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

Heroism or Villainy… Depends on your perspective.

Monday, June 21st, 2010

Dear Friends,

I read that Chuang Chou (the Taoist) once said;

“Not only so. There is a great awakening, and then we shall know that all this (present experience) is a great dream. Fools, However regard themselves as awake now-so personal is their knowledge. It may be as a prince or it may be as a herdsman, but so sure of themselves! Both the Master (Confucius) and you are dreaming; And when I describe you as dreaming I am also dreaming. And these words of mine are paradoxical: That is the name for them. And a myriad of generations will pass before we meet a sage who can explain this, and when we meet him it will be the evening of our little day.”

If we are dreaming then it means that there is a great purpose to our being here. When we awake from the dream we will be enlightened from our dream. Our dream (lives) have meaning.

What meaning and to what end. There are as many answers to that question as there are askers. But to ask and ponder is close to getting it right. Perhaps the meaning… is to question the meaning. To live the lives we wish and fulfill the prerequisites of the dream. Maybe if the dream’s goals are not fulfilled we must re-enter the dream and try again. (Isn’t that close to what Buddhist’s and Hindu’s believe?)

But I ask you… How does you dream affect the other dreamers? Does the logical outcome of your actions improve the experience of the other dreamers or diminish the experience? We all have an effect on the experience of the others whether we admit it or not.

Coriolanus (Caius Marcus) was a man who wanted the admiration of his fellows. But he disdained doing anything to bend to their needs. He was responsible almost single handedly for the taking of the Capital of Volscia, Corioli. Then turned the same day to attack the elite center of the Volscian relief Army. Smashed them and ran down, badly wounded, the survivors. He then refused any money, gold or booty from the ransacked city, except for a horse and clemency for a Volscian friend. That is where he got the surname “Coriolanus“.

He then ran for Consul… and lost. (Due to his arrogance). This turned him bitter. When he tried to get the People’s Tribunes ejected from the Senate during a time of famine… the people were incensed. They charged Coriolanus with usurpation. He answered the charges with such arrogance that the people were further ired and voted to exile Coriolanus. As a result he was ostracized from Rome fled to Volscia. From the head of a Volscian Army he rained ruin on Roman interests. After the war, he was murdered, by a partisan Volscian crowd, at a meeting to make account of his action’s, against the Romans, in the late war. His murderer’s then started a new war with Rome and died in it. A war in which Rome retook all the land Caius Marcius took from her… and avenged his murderer. The circle was complete. Plutarch compared the life of Coriolanus with Alcibiades.

Looking at this story from the perspective that we are all simply dreaming… We see that Coriolanus visited ruin on his brothers and sisters. Simply from a feeling of revenge. Although Coriolanus would have been livid were he treated the way he treated the Roman People he had no sense of irony that he should get revenge on people that he would have treated much harsher had he been in their position. He expected better treatment from others than he was willing to give.

His dream was short, violent, and he met a bad end. All because he held others to a different (Higher) standard than he held himself. (Except in war). He and many others paid the price for his nightmare.

There are many like him alive today. They only await the opportunity to avenge themselves on society for a slight that they give out daily… So personal is their knowledge…

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

Thousands of Years of History… Have we Learned Anything?

Thursday, June 10th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that when a nation pretends a crime was not committed by a leader because it would have to act… puts that nation in great peril.

If a powerful political leader was to commit a crime. Clearly and obviously… Like bribing another politician with a position in government for some favor. This is obviously not in the public good. Clearly it is (or should be) a violation of law. And it undermines the concept of meritocracy in government. Then that politician should be treated as the law requires.

To let that politician get away with some lame excuse like they are ignorant of the law or everyone does it is to guarantee that laws will be broken in the future with greater harm to the body politic.

To argue that the politician is ignorant of the law and thus cannot be held to it makes a mockery of law. If the person who writes the law and enacts the law cannot know it. And therefore cannot be held to it. How much more unfair is it to hold the average citizen to it? If the law is so complex and arcane that a lawgiver cannot know it then it is impossible for a citizen to know it. How then do you hold citizens to law they cannot know? Try playing a game where your opponent knows the rules but you don’t. Now don’t even hold them to the rules you know… how would that turn out?

To argue that everyone does it is to argue that everyone is corrupt. If that is the case society has profound problems. But no one who uses this argument, in government, ever gives examples. If they did then the other politicians would be prosecuted. Like a gang of drug dealers. If one is caught… would he get away with saying… “everyone does it.” If he did give examples, the drug enforcement unit will swoop down, and arrest them. But the first would still face prosecution. Why is it that we expect more from drug dealers than we do our leaders?

Some argue, “well, you have the vote.” Assuming the people in question actually have suffrage and it is fairly counted. So using an analogy, if a baseball player has a contract that expires every three years. He commits some crime in his first year. The team has the option, in three years, to fire him? Does that make sense to you? Again, in this case, we hold our leaders to a lower standard that we do someone who chases a ball around a field for a living.

When people in power misuse their power. We all suffer. But how much more egregious when a politician abuses his power in public? With no negative consequences?

So, given the profound negative impact of not holding our leaders to the law. Law that we are held to. Why do we withhold consequences from the actions of our leaders? Because we personally know our leaders. We may not actually have met them but we know them personally. We voted for them. We might have pounded pavement for them. We have sunk cost in them. So we have empathy for them…. Empathy that is not shared. For every act of mercy visited on a leader ten million acts of injustice are visited on the people.

Look at Tarquinius Superbus. Despite his arbitrary evils he was exiled not executed. In fact even in exile he visited evil on Rome. But still lived. The pattern has been repeated through history.

Shouldn’t we finally put a stop to it?

Or have we remained motionless in three thousand years… and are happy to remain?

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Law, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy | 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 »

The Congenital Nature of Government

Sunday, March 21st, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the congenital nature of government is evil. But before we can consider that government is evil we must first consider what definition of evil we will use.

In this instance we are not arguing that government is demonic. Or that it is controlled by some supernatural malevolent force. In this instance we are using secular definitions of evil only. The malevolent force is human.

Hsun Ching argued the congenital nature of Man is evil. His definition of evil was that evil is chiefly characterized by profound selfishness and self centeredness. He went on in his logic to claim the goodness in us is a learned trait. His definition will work quite well for our usage. In the case of the congenital nature of government we will define evil as pure self centeredness. Without regard to others.

How is government born? Almost every government that has ever come into existence has done so by violent means. Non violent revolutions are very infrequent and often are short lived before some strong man takes over… violently. People not used to liberty quickly vote it away for mere baubles.

Government is born of violence and government exists by violence. That creational violence is always followed by reprisals for past violence. Government uses violence so much we don’t even notice. Every police action is violent at it’s soul. Government sponsored violence. Violence done to the individual for some perceived societal good. Seldom are other enticements offered by government. Violence is the main tool in government’s tool box.

What if you or I refuse to pay taxes? If we are adamant about it we will have our homes assaulted in the middle of the night by armed government agents. Like in New Hampshire. Violent means will be used on our person to extract money for government to use to some other evil end. Committing violence on some people on the other side of the world.

Even when government seems to be benign… it is evil. Government will “help” this or that group that the Elite want to garner political favor. How does government do this? By violently taking the property of one and giving it to another.

If it is wrong for an individual to put a gun in my face and force me to give money or property… why is it good for government to do worse? One black dot being seen as black but many black dots seen as white. Are our collective eyesights that bad?

Those that advocate for total government, progressives, communists and socialists, always want a draft. They love the idea of coerced servitude to government in the form of military service. They decry a volunteer force. Because a general requirement for military service gives them colossal powers. Power to defer politically connected sons and daughters from service (to political ends). Power to threaten anyone with forcing their son or daughter into military service if they don’t do as ordered. There is no end to the mischief that can be done when the Elite have a general draft.

Moreover I never understood and still don’t, how a person can have a pitifully low opinion of his fellow man. Such that they believe that he should not be trusted with arms. His free speech should be limited by a fairness doctrine, his decisions should be made for him by government, and that he is so corrupt he cannot be trusted in any way without government oversight… can possibly believe that people in government can be trusted at all? How does that jibe? If all people are corrupt, stupid and menacing, how can you believe that people can be trusted with unlimited power in government? These people always protect the caprice of power. They defend corruption in government but decry it in the private sector.

Government holds others to a much higher standard then it does itself… in every way. Not only in outright corruption but in personal behavior as well. Politicians daily get away with personal conduct that would land you or I in jail. Running a prostitution ring from one’s apartment for example. Ignorance is no excuse under the law… unless you write that law.

What is more selfish than holding others to a much higher standard than oneself? Therefore, what, is more evil?

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

« Older Entries