Archive for the ‘philosophy’ Category

Free Speech, Free Markets and Free Exchange of Ideas

Monday, 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.


John Pepin

Small Businesses, the Engine of Economic Growth

Monday, 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.


John Pepin

The Evil Bourgeoisie

Thursday, 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…


John Pepin

The Party of the Ass

Monday, 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.


John Pepin

Government Simply Cannot Solve Problems

Thursday, 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.


John Pepin

Our Grand Children’s Very Bright Futures

Monday, 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.


John Pepin

Education as an Investment

Thursday, July 28th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, as education goes in a nation, so does that nation. If children are given an excellent education in a wealthy country, the likelihood of economic advancement becomes far more likely, while at the same time a poor education in a wealthy country, will grind that nation into poverty. The same holds true in a poor country, good education leads to better outcomes and poor education leads to poor outcomes. Taken in the aggregate, the more good outcomes for the individual, the better the national outcome. Children need to be able to read, write, do math, know history as well as understand economics. In most nations today, if not all, economic education is absent, and history is a means to vilify people rather than enlighten. Education is an investment in the future wealth of a nation.

Like any investment there are good investments and bad. One can invest in fake oil futures and loose her shirt, or invest in heavy manufacturing, and make money. Education is like that. Invest in bad education and the future wealth of that nation is destroyed, invest in good education and the future is so bright kids have to wear shades. We as a society have embraced the idea that education is an important investment, we spend huge amounts of money on it, yet we see the abilities of our kids diminish. To sharpen the point a bit more, if someone invests a thousand dollars in a scam, they will loose all the money, if they invest a billion dollars in that same scam, they will still loose the money. The amount of money invested does not effect the quality of the investment.

The quality of an investment is only dependent on the quality of the investment itself. There have been times in the US where education was not expensive at all yet the quality of education was excellent. Today we spend exponentially more and have outcomes that wouldn’t have been tolerated even a few generations ago. The quality of education has gone down while the cost has risen. Clearly we are investing in an education system that is under performing. Those who make money from the present system, shockingly, claim the answer is to spend more money on it, (them), citing the fallacy that more money improves the quality of an investment, which is patently untrue. The reality is we need to improve the quality of the investment, education, rather than spend more money.

Education over the last century has gone from the purview of local government, to national government, taking the decisions farther and farther from the people, putting them in the hands of unaccountable administrators, who make gobs of money regardless of the outcome of students. Obviously that is a recipe for disaster. Whenever people are unaccountable for the outcome of their actions, it is in human nature to become arrogant and have poor performance. Today we have education standard that are set by bureaucrats at the highest reaches of government, local schools must follow else loose access to the heaps of money the government takes from us to enforce their objectives. Good education is not one of them, political education apparently is.

Students should be taught economics and everyone graduation high school should have a basic understanding of a market system, money theory, the interaction of interest rates and inflation, and have a grasp on the various competing theories of economics, Keynesian, Marxist, Austrian school and Schumpeter’s boom bust theory as well. Such education would allow kids to understand the macro economic theme of various elections and the underlying economic theories of the various actors. Sadly, that is not the case today, in fact economics is not taught in high school at all, even home economics has been abandoned for political indoctrination. Children are being taught what to think rather than how to reason.

History should be taught in an over arching theme of humanity advancing in science, philosophy and culture, never in a political context. Industrial arts must be returned to our schools, for those children who have a talent for working with their hands, especially since it gives kids the ability to create what they dream. Basic philosophy, logic, epistemology, ethics and semantics should be covered in a good education system. These are some of the important courses that have been ignored so that other less important course can be taught, like how to put a condom on a cucumber, how to use Google, why homosexuality is good, atheism, etc… Our children are nothing more than lab rats to the hubris and egos of the education dictators. The results are children graduating school, unable to engage in the market system, angry at the history of their nations, incapable of controlling themselves, needing safe spaces so they don’t have to hear unpleasant truths, and cannot make change without a cash register doing it for them.

The government monopoly school system has shown itself to be an abject failure, in every way by every measure, more spending will not change that. That failure portends our children’s economic standard of living to be a failure as well. We need to get away from traditional school funding and bring in a voucher system, where parents can choose the education they want for their children, and allows use of the money government takes from them to do it. Let the free market improve the quality of education, rather than throw more money at a failed system, to maintain it’s failure, and our children’s mediocrity. Those education tzars who run the show today scream like scalded cats at the thought, adding their voices to the political elite, who benefit from a poorly educated people, to insure a voucher system never be tried. They argue… “a voucher system would destroy the public school system,” which if one thinks about it, is grounds enough to do it, if only people had sufficient education to reason it through.


John Pepin

Which is More Just, a Free Market or Socialism?

Monday, July 25th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, we can argue all day long whether a zebra’s stripes are black, or white, but at the end of the day we still haven’t answered whether a zebra is an equine or not. In the same way, progressives and free market proponents argue about whether profit is good or bad, but that misses the point, in reality everyone seeks profit, both the capitalist and the socialist, the real question is, whether profit should come from providing value to your fellow man or at his cost? Those who contend that profit is good, know their’s is a weak argument weighed on it’s inherent merit, so to change the subject is a way to seize a moral high ground they have no right to, and keep their real position from being known, let alone discussed on it’s merits. So we fight and wrestle, vilifying each other over such weighty questions as, “are a zebra’s stripes white or black?”

Progressives claim the market system is based on profit, and profit is greed, and greed is bad. Therefore, they further contest, the market system is bad. Both Marxists and capitalists seek profits however. Socialists seek profits as much as capitalists. The socialist however, as opposed to a capitalist, seeks profits for nothing. What do you think the public dole is? The dole is nothing more than a profit to the recipient. The dole however, is not based on providing for your fellow man or woman, it is based on one’s existence. If the dole is a form of profit, and we see that it so obviously is, they are condemned by their own argument, progressivism, socialism and communism are based on greed… and are therefore bad. But that is arguing on progressive’s terms.

The real question is, is it more just to get a profit for providing value or not? The socialist side stands that it is unjust to “force” people to provide value to another for profit. They contend it is more just if we provide profit to others free of charge. This is what we should be discussing, not whether profit itself is good or bad, that is as I have shown merely a diversion. To answer that question we must first answer what is justice. The modern interpretation, since the Enlightenment is… equal treatment. Even a child innately knows justice and demonstrate it when they say, “It’s not fair!” The justice of a child is not equal justice however, because a child lacks the ability to be objective, that is a learned trait. That is exactly the root of socialism however, the demand of a petulant dependent incompetent child, to get one’s needs met.

The free market’s means for getting profit is to meet a need of someone else. Providing value in and of itself, is a good of the first and second order. A good can be broken into two types, a good we do for it’s own sake; (the first order), and a good we do because it staves off a bad; (the second order). Brushing your teeth is a good of the second order in that we don’t do it for itself we do it to stave off tooth decay. Skiing is a good of the first order, for those who love to ski, since it is a good we do for itself. Providing value for profit is both types of good. That providing value for one’s profit is a good of the first order is embodied in the old saying… “Choose a job you love and you will never work a day.” Regardless of the value as career advice, that saying is true in that many people love their jobs and cannot see themselves doing anything else.

Providing value for profit is also a good of the second order, since the innate requirement to meet someone else needs to get one’s own bread incentivizes positive behavior as, courtesy, perspective, humility, sympathy and equal treatment. At it’s most basic level, the ancient tradition of the merchant, a merchant has to be able to see things from another’s perspective to provide what the customer wants and needs, she has to be courteous else risk the loss of sales and profit, he must be humble lest his supplier or customer go somewhere else, sympathy is a natural outcome of the ability to see from another’s perspective, and every incentive for a salesperson is to treat everyone equally, to maximize profits. As we can see, providing value is a good of both types.

Socialism on the other hand is not a good of either the first order nor the second. Human nature is not egalitarian, self sacrificing, or accepting of one’s “place.” Those attribute go against the demands of evolution. A species that self sacrifices is soon eliminated from the biosphere, eschewing saving up food is a sure path to starvation during times of want, and if not for the drive to get ahead of one’s competition one falls behind in that competition, in the case of a species, that species goes extinct. Human nature itself is damning of socialism. To be a good of the first order socialism would spontaneously happen, as did skiing, due to it’s being a good of the first order, as the free market has. That it has only happened under extreme pressure from the state, shows socialism is not a good we would do for it’s own sake.

Getting profit for nothing also falls far short of a good of the second order. Getting profit for nothing incentivizes people to be rude, uncaring, egoistic, and discriminating. The best historical reference for someone who gets profit for nothing is the aristocracy of feudal cultures. The aristocrat could be as rude to the peasants as he or she wanted, they had no comprehension of the life of the masses, aristocracy is nothing if not egoistic, their profit was inherent to their existence. Moreover, at court, those with political favor were above the law, while those without were below it’s protections, because that enhanced the aristocracy’s profit. These same attributes are created by incentive in those who receive the dole. Not to argue everyone who receives profit for nothing is bad, as it is the case that not everyone who provides value is good. The incentives however over time impel either good attributes in people or bad ones, the more the bad ones the easier it is follow the crowd and adopt bad behaviors.

Taken on their own ground, that profit is bad, socialism condemns itself in it’s own words, moreover, when we consider the real argument between free market advocates and socialism’s adherents, which is more just… to get profit for nothing or for providing value, the answer becomes obvious. Providing value for others is a good of both the first and second order. The market forces equal treatment by the ever present threat of bankruptcy, plus, as a good of the second order it incentivizes people, over time, to treat each other equally, which both meet the fundamental definition of justice. Meanwhile, socialism is not a good of either type, creating conditions for unequal treatment of people along with a host of negative behaviors, showing socialism to be unjust. That socialist have obtained the moral high ground and advanced their position as far as they have, is because we have been accepting their premise and contending on their ground, arguing to the head of a pin, what color zebra stripes are, to answer the question of is that zebra an equine or not.


John Pepin

The Immoral Deciding What is Moral…

Thursday, July 21st, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, we live at a time where degenerates, liars and connivers have such undeserved moral superiority, they have the hubris and audacity to tell the rest of us what to think, how to act and who to vote for. Our society has moved so far from truth and reality it has become a house of cards in a gale. Those who dismiss all that is good have seized the education system, using it to inculcate our children into their twisted hateful destructive philosophy, teaching them theirs is true morality and God’s laws are immoral. How many children graduating from high school today dismiss out of hand traditional values and moors for progressive “values.” I bet far more than you or I would be comfortable with. The results can only be terrible for future generations.

Today common sense is considered hate by those who control what we see, hear and learn. They tell us that belief in God’s laws, like thou shall not kill, is outdated because unborn babies can be killed at any time for any reason. They protest that if we disagree with them, we hate, even as they vomit the most vitriolic rhetoric, calling Christians and Jews hate mongers for believing in our faith. The commandment thou shall honor thy father and mother is undermined every day in our media with fathers being attacked as stupid, lazy and drunk. Thou shall not steal is now old fashioned, in that the State is allowed to steal whatever and however much they want, to fund anti Christian and antisemitic policies and rhetoric, like feces covered pictures of the Virgin Mary, funding anti Semitic groups and piss Christ. We are convinced that Thou shall not covet they neighbor’s wife is crazy by every critically acclaimed television show, book and movie while television shows that honor family values have been eradicated from the air. In every way, every day true morality is destroyed by degenerates who impose their perverted values on us by law, regulation and political correctness.

Listen to the hypocrisy and rhetoric of progressives. They hardly ever complete a paragraph where they don’t say this or that is unconscionable. In fact Bernie Sanders cannot get through a sentence without saying it. Profit is unconscionable unless it is stolen from those who produce. They deplore cigarettes yet glorify drug use, they hate the police yet are up armoring the police and militarizing them as fast as they can. Guns are vilified, and the right to keep and bear weapons of self defense is under constant attack, yet powerful progressives always have personal armed guards. White people are called to admit innate racism and atone for slavery, that was banished with an ocean of American blood, yet call those who favor slavery and have sex slaves today as peaceful. Every time there is a mass shooting the first people blamed are liberty loving people until the real perpetrator, almost always a progressive is found to be the villain, yet their captured media call themselves unbiased. Morals like teaching your children to be self sufficient, work hard and be courteous, are under attack by those who think people should be dependent on government, lazy and rude, like progressives.

One has to wonder at how such a state of affairs came to be but the result is all too obvious. To be so certain in one’s morality that, the least moral feel an obligation to force everyone else to follow their perverted morality, whatever it is today, is diabolical. While progressives claim Christians impose morality on the rest of us… that is nothing but sophistry. While a christian might tell someone they are sinning, no true Christian would impose fines or jail to someone for homosexuality, producing blasphemous pictures or adultery, but Christians will help sinners when the consequences of their sins become manifest. In fact, Christianity teaches everyone is able to get to heaven, all that is required is a belief in Jesus Christ. Sins can be forgiven. Progressives believe that before they can go to heaven, they must force everyone to follow their morals, as Barack Obama said, Salvation is collective, as opposed to Christ who said salvation is personal. Anyone who teaches salvation depends on forcing another to submit, worships Lucifer rather than God. Perhaps that is why our world is going to hell…


John Pepin