Archive for November, 2009

Governent and the Job Market

Sunday, November 29th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that if the government wanted to actually lower the unemployment rate in the US it would act as such.

Everything the government is doing will inevitably lead to a lower demand for labor. From the health care initiative to the cap and trade forced reductions in carbon output the government is aiming at reducing the demand for labor in the US.

Take Cap and Trade. It will produce a huge amount of new friction to doing business in the US. Costs will inevitably rise. Both of which erodes GDP growth. As GDP growth is curtailed by the higher cost of energy and the friction of regulation, the result is net loss of jobs.

More importantly the government is doing nothing to stimulate jobs. The bill entitled “Stimulus” was anything but. It’s focus was in government spending. Not on new job creation. Since the focus was on raising government spending to new levels… it was a resounding success. It never was focused on job creation so to say that it has failed in that respect is like saying the Medicare program failed in putting a man on the moon. It didn’t do what it was not designed to do. Government rhetoric aside.

Judging from the actions of the people in charge in the US they have as their goal to reduce the demand for labor in the US. A cynic might say that they are intentionally creating a dependant class. In place of the middle class. To do so, do away with the middling element, would result in a people that are dependant on the ruler. (Hard to see where that could go bad). But as I said, a cynic would believe such a thing.

So what could the government do if it really wanted to generate a demand for labor driving down the unemployment rate and raising the value of labor? What about; Targeted tax breaks to businesses that create jobs, announce a first time business startup tax break, change the regulation that funnels money from small business to ACRON, and cut taxes across the board for everyone.

Targeted tax breaks would lower the cost of labor. Lowering the cost of something of value gives people incentive to purchase that thing of value. If a job would be of marginal value to an employer and the imbedded cost of that laborer is lowered the metrics change. The marginally profitable job becomes quite profitable. Making it far more likely a position will be added to the payroll.

A first time business tax and regulation break would have more effect then it’s cost would indicate. Most businesses don’t make a profit for several years but the rhetoric would create a perception. The chief benefit would be that perception, that it is much easier to start a business, than it previously was. Many people who have good ideas are stymied by what they see as daunting regulation, taxes, and some simply fear the government. By removing, (even if only in the minds of individuals) this pernicious incentive, the number of startups would go up dramatically. After all, isn’t small startups that will generate the next Microsoft?

In a fit of stupidity the government changed the regulation of a law that had at it’s core to help fund small businesses through short term downturns. The banks and lending institutions that participated in the program were told that instead of lending to small businesses they could donate money to ACORN. The banks and lending institutions recognized their cost of doing business would go down and their political clout would rise if they donated money to ACORN instead of lending to small businesses. With all the paperwork and government regulatory costs associated with lending to business the cost calculation was easy. So ACORN’s nest has been padded at the cost to small business. (the engine of job creation). What doe’s this action say about the real objectives of the US government?

More importantly an across the board tax cut would put money into the hands of the people that produced it. If people are smart enough to earn the money they should be smart enough to spend it. But government is of another opinion… The fools would waste it on junk like food, clothing, housing, entertainment, paying down debt etc… the government can spend it on something much more valuable for the American people like, A specialized zoo enclosure for animals a zoo will never get, $500.00 hammers, bridges to nowhere, and other such enlightened projects.

But if more money is put into the hands of the people and less taken and spent by government the demand for labor would inevitably increase. More money in the hands of the people drives up demand for the things that require labor. Money in the hands of government is usually flushed down the toilet.

So… Rhetoric aside, what do the actions of the US government tell you?

Industrialists or Capitalists

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that we at the International Capitalist Party define “capitalist” differently than some other people. Our definition is; “A person who believes that the free market is the most just means to distribute the goods of society.” Not only that but; “And, acts on this belief by promoting perfect competition in every market.”

Most have the first part but not the second. Many people who are called capitalist are not capitalists at all… they are industrialists. Industrialists believe; “My good over the good of society.” It is manifest in their every action. With hubris and greed they seek to undermine free markets, create monopoly, (which is the opposite of perfect competition), and hold power without consequence. In short they are the modern incarnation of Galba. (Before he became emperor).

Capitalists think the means of production should be held by individuals. Especially in the hands of many individuals. We don’t believe that the means of production should be concentrated in the hands of a few elite whether or not they are industrialists, communists, progressives, or socialists. A true capitalist believes that the means of production in the hands of the many are the engine of creation.

When tools are widely distributed in society an innate seed is sown in society that grows the economy. When people have tools, lathes, welders, shapers and milling machines they can fabricate things that they think up. Most will be futile but a few will be promising and a few of those will turn into a real profitable enterprise. It takes a lot of people trialing and erring to get a few great products. We all know what happens when someone hits upon a winner… society wins.

Jobs are created building the invention on a larger scale. Money flows into the local economy from the new jobs and for plant upkeep and raw input. The roads are sometimes upgraded to meet the new demand. The list is endless. But it takes many trying for few to succeed. When no one has the ability to try no one succeeds. Economic growth is stunted.

Industrialists are too enamored by the monumental potential of mass production. Without doubt mass production has bettered the lives of everyone on the planet. Even cheap wind up radios are a boon where electricity is scarce and often non existent. The benefits of mass production are beyond question.

But it is not in giant industries that paradigm quaking ideas are produced. It is by individuals. The economy lives and dies by the small entrepreneur having and idea and starting a business. These small businesses in the US provide most of the jobs (and the ideas).

Industrialists seek to use government to warp the market giving them some advantage. Whether it is trade regulation or tax loop holes they are always conniving. Where a capitalist could be anyone who believes as the first paragraph states. We may scheme to get rich, but a true capitalist of the International Capitalist Party bent, will use just means to that end. Plying politicians with bribes to get a leg up are not just means.

So I can see how some people can mistakenly believe that capitalists are bad. They have confused a capitalist with an industrialist. Who in our minds are no different than a communist, progressive or socialist… they all connive to get power for unjust ends.

Oh… and also believe power concentrated in the hands of the few is good…

Legitimate Role of Government.

Sunday, November 22nd, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that redistribution of wealth is not a legitimate role of government.

It presupposes government has the right to the property of individuals. When government can legally take your property and mine it is no different than enslaving us. Property represents labor. That is how the vast majority of us get the money to buy our other property. When government has taken up the legal right to seize at their discretion, our property, they have in fact seized the time from our lives we gave in labor to purchase that property. So Taking property from a working person is tantamount to enslaving him or her for the time he or she put into acquiring said property.

The premise of redistribution is undermined by the nature of government. Money will not flow from those that have too much to those that have too little it will flow from those that are politically weak to those that are politically strong. That is undeniably the nature of government. As Bastiat said in his treatise on Law, people see government as a means to plunder the wealth of others and to protect their wealth. That is why politics are so factious.

Government is controlled by the politically strong and is only constrained by a constitution. The power of the Elite, that make up the politically strong , is inversely proportional to the power of the constitution that restrains them. If the constitution allows for the redistribution of wealth it gives the Elite, not only the power to tangentially enslave the nation but it will give them, a tool for the wielding of the masses to unambiguously nefarious ends.

In the past, when government acted the Robin Hood, it has always ended badly. Julius Caesar used the masses as a tool to destroy the Republic. He gave freely to the poor to buy their loyalty. As Machiavelli said, when faced with the choice of having the people or the aristocracy on his side the wise prince chooses the people to be on his side. The aristocracy are few and can be bribed the people are many and can fall like a scythe on the few. Many other times the ability to redistribute wealth has been used, by the would be tyrant to gain the trust of the people… before enslaving them.

The true role of government is to protect individual property. Why else have government? If not to protect our property from those would be Thrasymachus’s (unjust politically powerful people) that would seize our property. Which includes protecting us from foreign thieves of our property.

It is by this means that government promotes prosperity. When people are given the just use of property they have acquired by their own labor the lot of man is bettered. When people are comfortable in their possessions all people seek to acquire possessions. We put more energy into making than in protecting. Thus society is bettered. More and more is available for people to have better lives.

When we fear for that which we have got from our labor, the opposite is true, we put more energy into protecting our property than in building. The lot of man is lowered. Less is available to people to better their lives. Less and less is produced. The standard of living is reduced and reduced. It is all about incentives. Redistribution is nothing but perverse incentives. Incentives that put too much power in the hands of government.

Even a cursory look at history shows the folly of too much power in the hands of government. But the sirens keep up their song and the masses listen. Nation after nation is swept against the shoals of redistribution… I wonder if that last crunch was our economic keel snapping?

Maybe someday, people will have matured to the point they will simply laugh when the Elite are crying for redistribution, and will see them for who they are. When that happens, and it will happen, prosperity will be rampant. Until then we might have to swim for it!

Karzai and Afghanistan

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that if Hamid Karzai really wants what is best for Afghanistan he would announce that he will not run again and the rest of his term will be focused on cleaning up the Afghan government.

This would clean up his image so to speak. He would go from the guy who rigged an election to the guy who voluntarily renounced his power for the good of the nation. That would give him much more moral clout. Hamid Karzai would then be the first modern leader in Afghanistan to voluntarily step down.

The mere announcement would show that Karzai has at his heart the best interests of Afghanistan. One of the great political philosophers said, what makes a king, a king, is public opinion. If the people woke up one morning and forgot he was king, he would no longer be king and would in fact, he would be ridiculed for trying to push the point. So if public opinion is that Karzai has the best interests of Afghanistan at heart the job of ruling will be that much easier.

It would also give him moral standing to ask people to step down. Karzai could legitimately make the argument that a person was fine at the job, allowing them to save face, but need to step down to allow new ideas. Just like Karzai would be doing.

The announcement alone would focus the people of Afghanistan. Even though there was an election the people of Afghanistan never thought there would be substantive change. They knew the fix was in for Karzai. But the devil you know.. They fear the unknown more than the Karzai government’s corruption. If Karzai made a pledge to step down after his term is served , fear will focus the minds… of the people, the Elite, and the bureaucracy. Fear of who or what will come next.

It would establish a precedent. The next president would be under much pressure to step down after two terms in office… Like Karzai had done. This keeps churn in the top management of a country. Churn of officials keeps corruption to a minimum. (Barring a NUMA). It also helps minimize stagnation of ideas.

Even taken to the point of constitutional reform. Establishing a term limit for the President. Today the Afghans are debating limiting the powers of the President in Afghanistan. If instead, they limit the term of office and the access to the military, they will achieve the same ends with less turmoil.

History would treat Karzai better. Think about how history remembers… Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius. Cyrus is largely remembered for releasing the Jews. Cambyses is remembered in Herodotus as a blood thirsty drunk. Darius for being defeated by the Greeks at the battle of Marathon. (The other one for being defeated by Alexander). Who is remembered with the most warmth? Cyrus… for saving the Jews. Great men are remembered for their most humane acts or their least humane acts. The choice is the actors.

So it seems that it would benefit Karzai to announce he will step down, the country of Afghanistan would benefit, the people would benefit and the children of Afghanistan would benefit. To do so would be the classic win, win. Unless Karzai has different aims…

Who Should Lower Their Standard of Living?

Sunday, November 15th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that all the answers from the left are to lower our standard of living. You and I must lower our standard of living… voluntarily or if necessary…

Listen to the premise of every public service message from the communists, socialists and progressives. Walk more drive less, bring a bag to the store, buy organic, use more environmentally friendly power the list goes on and on. The underlying premise is that we live too well and must ratchet down our standard of living.

The communists, socialists and progressives argue that Americans and Europeans live too well and we should live on less. They never argue for more for the third world. They only argue for less. They claim the world could not bear the human race if we all enjoyed the standard of living of the modern US. That is of course sophistry.

Sophistry is intentionally using logic fallaciously and especially to misdirect. They argue, the plurality of scientists, believe in man made climate change. But they eschew argument. If their case were really so powerful they would gladly welcome argument. When we have the better argument we love to do battle. We are certain of victory and in doing so we show the masses the true course.

But when we know our arguments are weak we eschew argument in favor of character assassination, and claiming the science is settled and we need no longer discuss the point. (I’m sure the people who voted to put Socrates to death felt the same way). The matter was settled and need no longer be questioned. Nothing in science is ever settled perfectly. It is not possible. Even such basic theories as, what is a planet, are subject to revision.

Power is, was and always will be, a great motivator of men. Many men in history have claimed to be liberators when the opposite was true. They showed their intentions with their deeds. Their words were mere shadows used as a means to veil their true ends. In this way modern sophists like communists, socialists and progressives argue the rest of use must live on less. While they live on more and more.

The Nobel Laureate Al Gore is reported to spend thousands of dollars a month on electricity. (On a house he is not in most of the time). Yet you and I should walk to work? People in Africa should keep living in abject poverty? (But with free healthcare to keep them dependant). And most importantly we should lower our standard of living to suit the Elite?

Their actions belie their intentions. If they were indeed concerned, to nearly the extent they claim, about man made climate change they would act as they preach. (Owning a prius as part of a fleet is not acting as one preaches nor is paying oneself thousands of dollars as ‘green investment‘ to offset one‘s copious carbon usage). Actions don’t lie… people do.

So we are to be very concerned about how much we use from the planet. I should burn an extra few hours from my day to walk to work. My time is so cheap, to those that don’t live it, a few hours is nothing. Thy don’t feel a thing, on their private plane to Europe, when I am walking in below zero temperatures.

Like “no idling’ ordinances some cities are implementing. It is much more important that, a lawyer who sits in a heated and air conditioned office all day, not smell exhaust fumes as he or she walks to the bistro for lunch, than the worker who has to work in the heat of the summer and the bitter cold of the winter to get warm or cool off. The lawyers don’t feel a bit of the frost bite the worker gets so the lawyer doesn’t have to be inconvenienced.

The Elite all believe that if only we stupid ignorant fools simply did as we are told the world would become Eden. They believe it in their hearts. They believe we are like bratty children in not behaving. We insist on driving SUVs, (that should only be for the Elite), keep using shopping bags, and driving to work. Some of use are even hording money in the form of paying off debt.

What the Elite don’t recognize is that we are human beings. We all want better. For our children, our family, our friends, and ourselves. Everyone on Earth. We all want better… not worse. So wouldn’t it be better to work within the constraints of the attributes of human beings? More importantly treat us as such. As Kant said, we have free will and are thus efficient cause. As efficient cause we are an end in ourselves… Not a means for the Elite.

There have always been people that are willing to drink the coolaid but the rest of us see that the emperor has no clothes. When we mention it however, those that have invested to much in the emperors new look, feel they are beset upon. They must protect their honor and defend the tailor… Regardless of the facts. For if he is wrong they are wrong and are fools… That can never be.

Lawyers and Society

Wednesday, November 11th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that Lawyers are little more than parasites on the corpus Humana. The job of an attorney is to facilitate transactions between people to allow capitalistic enterprise to work. Attorneys have discovered however that if they throw roadblocks, loop holes, and sue whenever they can, they make far more money.

So Lawyers have eschewed their true function in society and have instead taken the path governed by greed. Not greed that is channeled to help the lot of man but greed that profoundly negatively affects the lot of man. As attorneys are complaining that big oil makes too much money… one year it was $30 billion dollars. That same year, lawyers made well over $100 billion, after tax. Lawyers complain that the health care system should be socialized using the single payer model but are in far more need of being reigned in than any doctor. Moreover Lawyers are fond of calling others greedy. (What else is the premise of the argument that “pay for services” cause doctors do too much testing)? When in fact they are the most greedy people on Earth! They feed their greed at the cost to mankind!

Every time a judge finds that a criminal who cuts his arm breaking into a person’s home is entitled to damages they create more demand for attorneys. Every time a judge finds a loophole in a solid contract they create a greater demand for lawyers. Every time a judge finds that I am liable for your action they create more of a demand for attorneys. Every time a legislative body requires more paperwork and regulations for business to work they drive the demand for attorneys. All of which drives up the cost of doing business and therefore slows business (job) growth.

The legal justice system in the US feeds the greed of today’s modern lawyer. An advocate they are… no more. Divorce lawyers keep former lovers at each others throats. Instead of giving up a $100.00 item lawyers will encourage their victims to pay them $1,000 to fight for it. All the while saying they are basically a plumber who charges by the hour.

What plumber could come into your home to fix a leak, break every faucet in your home, even ones that didn’t formerly leak, charge you five times his quote and act like you are a jerk? Lawyers would tear him to pieces. But they don’t have any oversight. They are self governed.

If self government is such a good idea for the Elite (lawyers) then why not for the rest of us? For a law to be valid it must be universally valid. If we cannot be trusted to self govern then how much more those that govern us?? Self government does not work because, as Hsun Ching said, “mankind’s congenital nature is evil.” in that we are self indulgent and our self indulgence is learned away.

Maybe before we destroy the health care industry in the US we should look into creating a single payer system for lawyers? Why should rich people be the only people who can afford to protect their property in a lawsuit? Why is it that only rich people should be able to use the legal justice system to drive their own personal agendas?

Like shutting down progress they don’t like. Road building has become exponentially more expensive since trust funders have their lawyers suing in environmental court. A road was ready to be constructed in Vermont a few years ago, the machinery was on site and initial construction had began, and some judge shut it down. He claimed an environmental study’s timeframe had elapsed (because of the incessant lawsuits that took years to wind through the courts) and the road project must be stopped. Tens of Millions of dollars was wasted…. But what the judge really meant was, “we lawyers haven’t sucked enough money from this project yet. So you must waste millions of dollars of taxpayer’s hard earned money so we can be further enriched!”

That is the definition of a leech if you ask me. Leeching off the labor of those that produce. The legal system in the US is as much friction to the right ordering of society as are all the criminal acts combined. They suck money from the system and waste it just like government. Together Lawyers and government provide a huge weight holding back the working man and woman in this country. But working people mean nothing to someone making $200.00 an hour to destroy people‘s lives.

So yes, I believe that lawyers in the twentieth century, an masse, have decided to go for the gold. Instead of helping society function they hinder it. Making more money even as they deserve less. But when your faction controls the presidency, the legislative bodies and the Supreme Court you have some clout! Madison be damned.


Sunday, November 8th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that to find the means to true happiness we have to rectify the term happiness. What is it to actually be happy? Some say happiness consists of material wealth but many who have great material wealth are on Prozac. Some argue those that have great power are happy. But we know this not to be true. No matter the power someone has it is never enough. Especially the more power over others an individual has the more unhappy they are. Others claim great physical ability is the path to happiness. But many if not most top athletes are on steroids to enhance their physical prowess and are simply running a treadmill.

It may simply be that some of us are programmed, by our epigenetic/genetics, to be happy or to be unhappy. Or it may be that our childhood is paramount. But surely there are some means to happiness even with the misfortune of being preprogrammed or raised to be unhappy.

Happiness is not a thing. It cannot be held or touched. But it can be felt. A better approximation is that it is more of an intrinsic state of being rather than a feeling. A way of reacting.

Happiness must be something intrinsic. To be otherwise (extrinsic) lets open the door to the problem of poor old Job. (Who, even in his great misfortune, thanked god for a spec of moldy bread). So if happiness is intrinsic it should run across (extrinsic) groups. We see that it does. There are wealthy people who can be classified as happy and some that are not happy. Some athletes are happy and some are not. An unknown number of powerful people are happy and some are unhappy. But most importantly we see that some very poor people are happy while some are not. So some people in all these groups are happy and some are unhappy.

Being an intrinsic attribute we can say that happiness must involve some level of contentment with our lot in life. This was a tenet of Confucius. That people be content in their position. But many people are happy who have a great deal of drive. They are content now but seek glory later. So contentment cannot be the only sub definition of happiness. There must be more. Contentment in one’s lot being one of several.

What are the other attributes of those that are happy? Happy people react to outside stimulus much differently than unhappy people. If a generally happy person meets another’s eye and the other frowns the generally happy person, won’t take the frown personally, and won’t think about it again. But an unhappy person will most assuredly take the frown as a personal insult. Regardless if the frown was an insult or not, clearly the better reaction (for the benefit of the reactor), is to forget the incident. But to hold on to the insult, perceived or not does the holder a disservice, it makes them unhappy. So another attribute of happiness is the ability to forget a minor insult. Happy people don’t hold on to things that disserve them. When a generally happy person meets with misfortune he or she doesn’t hold onto the misfortune long. They release it and move on. They know to hold onto that which does us a disservice leads to unhappiness… Inevitably.

Another attribute of happy people is that they are kind to others. They know that to be kind to others does us a service in that, our self esteem is raised, our karma is elevated, our ability to help others is also enhanced. Every time we chose to help another it is more likely that we will do so again. As we sow the seeds of kindness we must not seek to reap. Else the kindness we bestow comes with strings and becomes a mere capitalistic exercise. Kindness must be done for no reason but for itself. It is an intrinsic good. A duty that builds us far more than it helps someone else.

So happiness is an intrinsic way of feeling about the world, requires foundational contentment, contains within it a way of reacting to outside stimulus, (that doesn’t hurt us more than the actual misfortune), and has a basic kindness to it. I am sure that there are other more deep and profound attributes of happiness that I have left out in my muddled thinking, but, I believe that these are the fundamental attributes of happiness. Ones that we can all achieve if we want, endeavor, and persevere to.

Republicans Repurposed

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that if the American Republican party wants to know why they are no longer in power in Washington they need look no further than Diedre Scozzafava. The republican Elite chose her to run in a very conservative district. She is, as has been proven by history, far to the left of the constituents in the area. So much so that the people felt they must make a stand. So they put up Doug Hoffman as an independent.

It would be like an extremely liberal community having a very conservative democrat and a conservative republican running. Regardless of their vote they would be sending a conservative to congress from a liberal community. The congressman or woman wouldn’t reflect the views of their constituents. In this case liberals would certainly put up another candidate to run against the two conservatives… as would be their right.

So in the end the republican Elite chose, that the people of a conservative district, must have a socialist (democrat) or a progressive (republican). This reflects the purpose of the republican Elite. If they had at their core values smaller government, less intrusive regulation, lower taxes or even conservative family values, they would have chosen someone who more accurately reflected the people of the district and theirs. They didn’t.

Further proof of the point is that, after Diedre Scozzafava backed out of the race, she backed the democrat! (I wonder how many of the republican Elite do too). I recall Newt Gingrich backed Diedre Scozzafava. Do you think he still agrees with her point of view now? There are even rumors in upstate New York that she was going to change her affiliation to democrat.

We know the leaders of the American democratic party are communists, progressives, and socialists. Now we have further proof that the American republican party is led by the same type of people. (At least people who have the same aim). So why vote for a wannabe democrat? Why not vote for the real thing? If both parties of a dual party republic, like the US, are headed by exactly the same people, what is the difference from China? Single party rule.

But the Leftists in the unbiased media declaim that republicans should stand for anything. (Goaded by the republican elite). They circle hawkishly over conservative lawmakers while turning a blind eye to their friends minor infractions, like, trading postal vouchers for money to buy drugs with, lawmakers caught taking bribes, tax evasion, DUI death resulting, sex with pages, and on and on. If you look at who has the get out of jail free cards in our society you will see who the real Elite are.

Republicans (who should stand for nothing) must accept all points of view under their tent else they are a small tent party. This sophistry is promulgated constantly in the unbiased media. Of course the democrat party is never called to include. People who are right to life are prevented from giving speeches in the democratic convention. People that disagree with any plank of the democrat platform are shouted down.

Is it a good idea to take advice from those that want to see you dead? Sane people argue no. So why does the republican Elite agree with the unbiased media that they need to include people that disagree with every plank of the republican party? Like Diedre Scozzafava… Because they share the same goals!

Popcorn; If I say I like popcorn yet act like I don’t… The actions of the republican Elite show they don’t have the best interests of the USA and the World in mind…. Regardless of their talk. They don’t want to divest the National government of power. They want to increase the power and role of government in the lives of the people… just like the democrats. So, given these two choices, how do the American people vote? For the (Communist, Progressive, Socialist) candidate or the (Communist, Progressive, Socialist) candidate? Is it any wonder that the American people are frustrated at their government?

Israeli Palestinian Differences

Sunday, November 1st, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that Jewish settlement of the West Bank is a tractable problem… If both sides want long term peace.

The Jews and the Palestinians could exchange land. Land that is largely settled by Israelis in the west bank for a substantial land bridge along the Egyptian border connecting Gaza and the West Bank. Exchange equal land in the West Bank for land along the border. (Including land that has been ipso facto taken by the Israeli “wall.“ Were the two side to come to this agreement it would benefit them both.

The Palestinians would have a continual piece of land to hold sovereignty over. One that they can control politically as well as culturally. Palestinians (with the financial help of the Israeli state) could settle the new Palestinian land. Trade with Egypt should flourish.

Israel could shorten their boarders with potentially hostile neighbors drastically. A shorter border is easier to protect. Having a continuous Palestinian state would free up a great deal of military investments for use in more productive endeavors.

If the Palestinians have a shot at making a real Palestinian state. Not one that is utterly dependant on a hostile neighbor. They will work hard and make a good life for their children and their children’s children. I am certain that the Palestinian people will make good choices in their own governance once they are depressurized.

Today the Palestinian people are under the yoke of two tyrannies. One is the Israeli state. The other is their own hatred of the Israelis. It makes them allow rockets to be fired from their children’s playgrounds at other people‘s children‘s playgrounds. It makes them vote for a party they know will eventually oppress them. But they hope it will save them from the corrupt one they feel they were saddled with. Depressurize the Palestinian people and we may all be surprised at the refinement the Palestinians possess.

But Israel must work to make this happen. It won’t be easy… I don’t believe that the Israeli state will give up any land no matter if they are getting land in the West Bank. They feel it is their birthright… as do the Palestinians. But the hardest nut to crack will be getting the settlers that already occupy land on the future Palestinian West Bank to evacuate or be subject to the Palestinian authority.

I can see the horror in the faces of people in the world over at reading this. But there was a guy named William James who had a theory of philosophy… Pragmatism. Pragmatism is the basic philosophy of Capitalists and of the American people. If we all know something cannot work, namely a fractured Palestinian state, then why spend energy on it?

To continue to polish the turd doesn‘t make it any better. If it cannot work and has been proven not to work… try something new. The “plan for peace“ was rejected by Yassier Arafat in Washington DC when Bill Clinton even leveraged an agreement for part of Jerusalem to be capital of the Palestinian State. He knew that Palestine must be contiguous. The two parts must connect. Break that egg and the world might have a settlement of the Israeli Palestinian differences… Peace.