Archive for January, 2010

Rights Of Kings

Sunday, January 31st, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that reverting to the rights of kings is not progress. Not matter what you call “king” or “rights” the sentence means the same thing. So if we substitute “king” for “proletariat” or “society” the intrinsic attribute are the same. The terms represent one person (in actuality) they allege a group but in fact only mean the person who represents the group. The Term “rights” can be replaced with “the needs of society” sustainability” or whatever catchphrase you want. The intrinsic attributes of the verb are the same. That the individual has no real rights not given him by his government.

Man in English is Man. Man in French is Homme. The two words sound different but mean the same thing. To say, that Man with red hair, is no different than to say, Set Homme avec cheveux rouge, though it may sound different. But a non francophone could be convinced it means anything. He knows no better.

The rights of kings goes back before biblical times. The Pharaoh rested his orders to have pyramids built for him on the rights of kings. The philosophy is paramount to a King’s right to war with his neighbors. Kill anyone under his reign at his whim. Seize anything he so chooses from anyone under his authority and enact any law the sovereign sees fit.

It can be argued that one of the first shots over the bow of the rights of kings, (since Roman times), came with Machiavelli’s Discourses On Livy. In which even the apologizer for the Borgas claims the best form of government is a stable republic. Harkening back to the Republican days of Rome. As another political philosopher once said, When Rome was one way [a republic] she suffered a continual line of victories and expansion. When she went the other way she suffered nothing but a long series of defeats and contraction. The name of king had been replaced with the title “Caesar,” and the Roman people pretended he wasn’t a king, like Tarquinius Superbus. Despite the fact that almost every “Caesar” was the equal of Tarquinius Superbus in villainy.

Even Saint Thomas Aquinas cleverly chastised kings when he said, “Now, as has been shown above, Monarchy, is the best government. If, Therefore, “it is the contrary of the best that is the worst,” it follows that tyranny is the worst kind of government.”

The Renaissance furtively questioned the rights of kings. But if the Renaissance questioned the Reformation put the rights of kings on trial. Luther wrote “The Law is not given for the Righteous but the unrighteous.” He argued that the righteous would act morally because it is in their nature. But the unrighteous wouldn’t even follow the law. So law is an expedient to try to hold some of the unrighteous to some level of moral behavior. Another Luther quote is, “If a Prince is not wiser than his jurists, and does not know more than is in the Law books, He will surely rule according to the saying in proverbs xxviii “A Prince that wanteth understanding will oppress many with injustice.”.” In doing so, actually questioning if God put the King on the throne, to rule as he wished.

The philosophical foundation to overturning the rights of kings really got moving under the philosophy of the right of resistance. Which was met with “Sovereignty and the Divine Right.” In which the specter of chaos or worse Ares, as the arbiter of human machinations if the King’s sovereignty was threatened, was raised. Hobbes and Spinoza worked the argument into the purely secular. This philosophy combined with the right of resistance set up the philosophical underpinnings of Constitutionalism.

The Enlightenment was all about overturning the “rights of Kings,” in all it’s manifestations. Constitutionalism was to hold government to some standard. One that all people under it’s sovereignty can know and understand. And that, if government acted extra constitutionally, the people would have the right to rise up and restore constitutional government.

To say, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Fidel weren’t Kings (Tyrants, dictators, representatives of the people, big brothers, even Demigods) is to deny reality, regardless of the word used to describe them.

But today, we have people who call themselves “Progressive,” and resolutely believe they are progressive. They hold at the center of their political Philosophy that the interests of society (the king) trump the interests of the individual. That Societal interests lie in more benign and enlightened government control (King‘s Sovereignty). That the problems we suffer in society can be solved by government’s sustained and focused intervention. That, lack of sufficient revenues, is the biggest problems government has. Some believe that sustainability should be our paramount goal… in everything. That if we have to break some eggs to achieve sustainability… oh well. They believe that the rights of society supersedes the rights of the individual.

So I ask you… How does the philosophy of the Progressive movement differ substantially, except in rhetoric, from the rights of Kings?

International Banking Regulation

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that to call for world regulation of banks, as Obama and Gordon Brown have, opens Pandora’s Box. Once the UN or other such governing agency gets it’s claws into the banking industry… the bribes, graft and kick backs will flow like a mighty river. A cataract capable of filling the wheels of civilization with debris.

Everyone knows that people are not good police of themselves. Else why spend the money on a judiciary or even traffic police. They would be completely redundant. But we do need police and we do need a judiciary. Mankind, as Carneades said, Imposed a set of laws and moors on itself out of necessity. Because people, being like animals, each seeking his or her own good, make true justice impossible. For a man to be truly just he must do damage to his own self interest…

So when taken to it’s logical conclusion if people in general are poor police of themselves…And the Elite are people. Then doesn’t it follow that the Elite, (Politicians who hold office and regulators), are poor police of themselves as well? But they have no real monitor. The fact that they effectively are not policed at all escapes most people.

Occasionally a politician is caught at some felony. There is a firestorm of media and then… the politician usually keeps his or her job. In fact, often they are given a raise and bonus. Tim Giethner, Charlie Rangel and taxes come to mind, this tax season. There are no negative consequences for politicians in the US who are caught doing something the average citizen would go to jail for. What are the incentives here?

Take it to a higher level… The UN. Totally un policed. No actual or proposed oversight. The Oil for food fiasco would have sent business men to jail for years and years. Not one corrupt UN executive or bureaucrat even lost their job.

Today bank coordination is done by the G 20 nations. But what do you think will happen if the utterly corrupt UN bureaucrats get the ability to regulate every bank in the world? Knowing that even if they are caught red handed in some criminal enterprise they won’t even loose their job? I’m thinking… Papa Smurf is wise enough to know the answer.

How would your company treat you if you were siphoning funds from a humanitarian effort of your companies into your own pockets. And in doing so you enabled a rival company to get information about your company. Most businesses would frown on this type of behavior. The UN has no problem. I wonder how many Oil For Foods are going on right now? And how many have gone on that we will never know about? This is an example of an agent not acting on behalf of the principle.

The answer to the principle agent dilemma, as it pertains to government, is the NUMA . The NUMA would set a group of Elite against the other group of Elite. As Madison said in the Federalist Papers, faction must be pitted against faction. He likened liberty to faction as air to fire. But he didn’t advocate removing liberty (air) to eradicate faction (fire). He advocated that to keep faction weak, keep them small and set them against each other. Like starting backfires. The NUMA is a vehicle to go there. To set the Elite in the NUMA against the Elite that make our law, regulate our industries, and police our behavior, would force all the Elite to follow the laws… as they are written.

Forcing the Elite to follow the laws as we are forced to do would be a great incentive for them to read some of what they are enacting. Perhaps if they read some of what they vote on they might not pass such foolish laws. Laws that they have no fear of being held to. Ignorance is no excuse under the law, (unless you write law, regulate law or adjudicate law).

Today, the more corrupt you prove yourself to be the more banks you get to regulate… a win win.

Recent Supreme Court Ruling About Corporate Political Spending

Sunday, January 24th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the way the unbiased media are playing the recent Supreme Court ruling, that the government cannot regulate anyone’s free speech, is despicable.

The first amendment reads as follows;

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The first Amendment to the US Constitution is all about, explicitly, denying the government the ability to regulate speech or religion. Especially political speech… “and to petition the Government”

I don’t see in this amendment anyplace that says that if enough people hate a group that the government then can regulate that group’s speech. My take is that the text regulates government… Not people or groups of people.

What is not prohibited from government by this amendment is that government can demand openness. Anyone who airs a political commercial should clearly state who is paying for and who made the commercial… Things take on a sour taste when they are done in the dark. But when things are done in the light of day they are much more sweet. Shining a light on what is now done in the dark can only improve the state of affairs.

Anyone who doesn’t think that the evil corporations didn’t affect elections, lawmaking and judicial appointments with their money, before this Supreme Court ruling, are innocents. They are innocent to politics and human nature. Where there is money and there is power that money will drawn to that power like water to low ground. If the overland rout is blocked it will go underground. Undermining society and societal structures.

This ruling should close the underground channels and place them in the top of the ground for us all to see. If we like what we see we will show our approval. If we are displeased we will show our disapproval. But the point is, it will be in front of our eyes for us to decide. We will be able to see the dealings.

The media are using the class envy argument. They are duplicit with Hollywood in vilifying corporations. Think about the villain in almost every adventure movie you have ever seen. Most are corporations. Some are power mad factions within a governmental structure but most are corporate heads. This impresses our subconscious that corporations are bad. The unbiased media are playing our emotions like a harmonica.

But what is a corporation? It is a group of people who have freely associated to do some business. They provide good paying jobs. Places to invest our capital for when we retire and they provide a heavy tax base to run government. They are not good or bad. They simply are. They inflict us with negative externalities and they bless us with positive externalities. Some are good and some are bad. But, unlike governments, corporations are subject to the market. (Unless government intervenes and warps the market by the use of underground money).

I believe that we are much smarter than the Elite explicitly give us credit. If we seem to be ignorant enough to let our politicians get away with too much it is because we are engaged in our own affairs. We are busy. We have to take time and resources away from productive labor for our personal good to keep up on political affairs. We would prefer that the Elite simply ran the nation so that we can run our own affairs. Unfortunately the Elite cannot be trusted. History, ancient through recent, proves this over and over.

So if we have access to the information we will make the right choices. People are cagy when they see their advantage and disadvantage. Corporations can only affect elections and such, aboveboard, if their arguments have merit. That is what the Elite are afraid of. The Elite always seek to limit debate. Close avenues of argument and vilify the other side. Because the Elite are arguing for the people to do damage to their own self interests. To have open debate about such a thing would allow the people to see the truth. No one hurts themselves. Not the poor, the middle element or the rich. We would stomp down the progressive plans in an instant if we could hear all side of the argument.

The Progressive Elite can never let that happen.

Are We as Social as Socrates Said?

Wednesday, January 20th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that we humans are a species that have developed the ability to individually specialize within the context of being very social. No other species has that ability. We alone choose our individual specialty then exercise it at our discretion. Giving us an immeasurable ability to adapt. In doing so we have virtually tamed nature.

Other species has some specialization. Ants for one. They have a queen and nurse ants, drones, marshal and workers. Ants have a strict social hierarchy. In these superficial qualities they appear to mimic our specialization albeit on a smaller scale. But when you look further into it the correlation breaks down.

Ants are born and are identified by their epigenetic settings. Settings that are placed in them when they are in the larval or pupae stage. Ants have no free will because they are programmed from birth. They are more like a little automaton or a cog than an individual. Scientists have studied ants for thousands of years and not one scientist has reported a single incidence of an ant acting as an individual.

And so ants have little ability to adapt to changing situations. They can move into new environments after they adapt genetically. But our ability to adapt within the context of an individual’s lifetime is extraordinarily quick. That is one of the advantageous of our individual specialization within the context of our sociality. We can take advantage of new and opening environments or situations more quickly than any other animal or plant. That we have actually left our home planet and landed individuals on our Moon is an ideal example of our ability to adapt.

When we are allowed to freely choose what we do… we are more efficient at it. When we are forced into a course of action that we feel is disadvantageous to us, we resent it, and work at some diminished capacity. People freely choose to do what they are good at. We all like to do things we are good at. When we like doing a thing we quickly improve our ability and we are far more efficient at the thing then someone who is resentful.

Look at our children. Children individualize fast. One child likes trucks another child might like guns. Children like, the toys they like, regardless of their parent’s wishes sometimes. These are the first inklings of a person’s individuality. Individuality that allows us to specialize to our mutual benefit.

That is why Socrates said we are the most social animal on the planet. We freely associate, we depend on one another and [the larger the society the greater the aggregate benefit do to the greater specialization}. Take a City State like Socrates home. In the City State there were basket weavers, shoe makers, cart makers, carpenters, house builders, tailors etc… The ability of the City State to make the goods it needed was limited by the population, proximity to resources, climate, etc… The City State needed to trade for goods it could not produce within it’s territory. This trade was and is the manifestation of the fact that the greater the number of people specializing the better of everyone will be. (Other City States had different specialties).

This truth is also born by the fact that the more people that are able to specialize the greater the aggregate benefit. Societies that underserve their populations have huge numbers of poor. The reason a person is poor is that their ability to specialize has been taken away or reduced.

Someone’s ability to specialize can be taken away many ways. No access to education, some form of ism, a societal myth that they cannot get ahead, etc. Alternatively someone can give up their ability to specialize by favoring leisure to productive labor. An example would be an addiction… to whatever.

By this definition, a society that has a lot of poor people, has some block to the people’s ability to self specialize. Using this metric poverty is simply the manifestation of a societies keeping people from reaching their potential. The greater the restriction the greater the societal poverty.

So, If we seek to eliminate poverty we must first seek to eliminate impediments to people’s reaching their potentials. Subsidizing poverty only incentivises and perpetuates it. But there again poverty is a means to power for the Elite… It is not in the Elite’s interest for us to know that our real strength lies in our ability to individually specialize within the context of being very social. They are empowered by poverty.

But it’s poverty that is the wage of forswearing our fellow man.

Economists and Weathermen

Sunday, January 17th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me there are only a few jobs where you can always be wrong and never have to defend it. One is weather man and the other is economist. Although, of the two, weathermen are far more accurate in their predictions.

Economists are always astounded that they are wrong. No matter what the numbers come out. Like the latest unemployment figures. The “consensus” among economists was that the American economy would add around 4,000 jobs. In fact the economy shed over 80,000 jobs.

More to the point, during the Bush years and after the attacks on America on 911, economists under estimated the real economic numbers over and over. In hindsight we can see that real economic output as measured in GDP never actually declined during the Bush years. The US only saw real GDP growth go down in the year 2009. The year Obama took office and three years after the democrats took control of the House of Representatives. Since the new administration took office economists have over expected economic growth, over and over.

In this chart compiled from Bea.gov data we can see that even in the “recession” of 2001 real GDP grew.

chart 2

Note; 2010 figures are projected by economists.

We also have the ability to go back and see what economists were saying in the 2001 to 2008 period. Some stories can be read here  and here  and here.

Everyone wants to make a difference. Economists are no different. Under a command and control economy economists are gods. They have great say in people‘s lives, what we do for a living, where we live, how we live and even if we live (eugenics and population control). Economists have a vested interest in creating a command and control economy. This doesn’t necessarily mean they cannot be trusted… but it does mean that anything an economist says must be considered carefully.

The United States is well down the road to reestablishing a 1930’s style command and control economy. The progressive playbook rules the day as it did in the 1930’s. With such ideas as price controls the Roosevelt administration effectively castrated any economic growth before it could get started. The Obama administration seems to believe the same theories. They have nationalized the inefficient US car industry in all but name. They have effectively taken over CITI Corp. The government has nationalized (according to Barney Frank) Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac.

This trend is very concerning because it portends much lower annual GDP growth for years to come. Lower GDP growth lowers the standard of living of everyone. But that is the price the Elite are willing, for us, to pay. They couldn’t care less about the standard of living in the US. Only if it threatens their power. Then the Elite will care. But not until.

Command and control is on the ascendancy in the US. Read and listen to the words of prominent Obama appointees. Of course the Elite like the ideas of John Maynard Keynes. He told them government spending is good. One thing the Elite love to do is tax and spend. If revenues are low it is a matter of too low a tax rate. If a temporary surplus should appear, it would be irresponsible to cut taxes, instead we should spend the money on ongoing programs that have no future funding and will make people dependant on government… (programs that will still have to be funded when the surplus runs out). The Elite can out argue Gorgias (The Sophist) till he is blue in the face. (And ashamed of his legacy).

The Elite like to echo the new catch phrase “capitalism is dead.” More a wish than reality. That is like saying gravity is dead or fire has ceased burning. Capitalism is a force of nature. It can be harnessed for good or it can be toyed with at one’s peril. Fire has been harnessed to improve the lives of everyone on the planet. But fire is dangerous. We safely use fire because we know it’s nature and we work within the framework of it’s attributes. We don’t try to enclose fire in paper because we know paper is ineffective at stopping fire. We use wings when we want to fly because we know it is futile to jump from a cliff expecting to fly. But we still think we can control the economy like electrons in a IC. Economists can be empirically proven wrong at every turn, yet they still love the idea, of a command and control economy.

Before I start a fire in my home I make sure the fire will be contained in a device capable of it. My couch is not sufficient to contain a warming fire.

An economist might disagree however… Fire extinguishers can be used quite effectively to keep a fire under control and using extinguishers in this way creates a demand for them… and sofas.

Conscription or volunteer?

Wednesday, January 13th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the question of which system is most just, a volunteer army or a conscripted one is best answered by first asking what is an army for? To seek to find the answer to the first question without asking the second is like deciding what an airplane should be made of before you design it and determine the material attributes needed for it’s parts. Putting the cart before the horse.

Nations and countries have standing armies to protect themselves from other nations and countries. At one time it was city states but now it is nations and countries. A standing army is a drain on the resources of a country however. That drain must be tallied against the present and future need.

History shows us that city states, empires, and nations have fared best when they have had a professional standing army that is well trained, well disciplined and most of all well motivated. These traits are most likely to be found in a volunteer not a draftee.

Future need can only be guessed at with nothing but uncertainty. The Allies never envisioned the Wermacht outflanking the Marginot Line. The Romans never imagined the Huns would be so effective against their legions and the Arabs never believed Moshe Sharon’s offensive would be so devastating. Present need is manifestly obvious but is no indicator of future need.

Now the question of how on Earth are we to protect ourselves from such evils? The answer to that question can be found in history. The motivation of an army can never be underestimated. The history of Bonaparte (as related by Von Clausewitz) tells us all we need to know about motivation. Bonaparte always fought multiple armies with his one. The battle of Austerlitz is but one example. He got the upper hand by using weather, terrain, massed artillery and esprit de corps. Regardless that Napoleon was an aggressor his tactics are enlightening. Motivation like Bonaparte’s army had is only to be had in a volunteer army.

History also shows us that members of the army were the Elite in many cultures. All culture that practiced slavery were of this group. Even Roman armies were considered the upper class and was a path to being a citizen for non Romans. For Romans honorable service to Rome sometimes led to becoming a patriarch. It is only a recent phenomenon that the army is seen as a career path for lower classes. Basically, since the rise of nationalism, has the lower class been the cannon fodder of a nation.

History again teaches us something here. Nations that had professional standing armies of volunteers faired better in combat against conscripts every time. One of the reason’s the US has so few casualties in the war on terror is the professional nature of the army. Conscripted armies have always been shown (empirically) to suffer much higher casualty rates. High casualty rates lower the efficiency of an army. As General Patton said. “No one ever won a war by dieing for his country… he won the war by getting the poor bastard on the other side to die for his country.”

Conscription is always rife with deferments. During the Vietnam War the youths of the day would say, “I’m not a Senator’s son.” meaning they would be subject to the draft where a Senator’s son would not. That undermines any argument that conscription is more just. If the ends we seek are a just way to populate the military rather than defending the nation.

Conscription also denies the fundamental fact that people are ends in themselves. To force a person to fight for his country and possibly die while another is deferred is fundamentally unjust. Because to do so treats a person as a tool for the Elite to use. Conscription is only “Just” if it is absolutely universal (which it can never be).

Conscription also fosters political interference in the army. Political appointments are always a bad idea. History shows us that without uncertainty. Armies (to be efficient) must be meritocracies. They can be no other way. To do so would be to relive the Italian Campaign in the Balkans during WWII.

So if we want an army that is cost efficient, efficient on the battlefield, is able to adapt to new problems and is motivated to get the job done the answer is an all volunteer army. If we want to use the defense of the nation as a social laboratory then conscription is the answer.

But… that path leads to extinction…

We Spent the Money But They Didn’t Come…

Sunday, January 10th, 2010

Dear friends,

It seems to me that One reason the stimulus is working so poorly is that it was hastily crafted and inadequately thought out.

The stories about the abuses, fraud, and outright idiocy about the $787 billion dollar stimulus package are everywhere… except the big four unbiased outlets, i.e., CNN, CBS, NBC incarnates, and ABC.

Fictitious zip codes are turning up with that have received billions of dollars. One here for example;

There is a more fundamental reason the stimulus didn’t and will not work and that is, that government didn’t earn the money it gave away. Government will take the money, and the interest, at gun point, from us our children and our grand children. Even if the money had all been spent, as it supposedly should have, it would have a negative effect on the overall economy. Government is pulling future economic growth to the present and trying to have it today. But the interest is never factored in. No matter what if the money is not invested properly it will be exhausted by cost of the loan. But the point of a stimulus is to keep demand up until the private sector steps in to pick up the slack.

But if the private sector is denuded of capital it can never step back in. A sufficiently high stimulus will necessarily demand a very high tax burden from the people and business. Because government never earns money it can only takes it from the people and business. So as the private sector is deprived of capital by ever more punitive taxation it must lower it’s payroll and investment in infrastructure. This necessarily lowers demand for labor and wages. Making it ever more difficult for the private sector to step back in.

As demand is driven more and more by government supply will align itself to the demand. Suppliers will gear their business to government demands and requirements. Further diminishing the private sector’s ability to react to market opportunities. Demand shapes supply.

So now we have, if not outright corruption, incompetence in the writing and execution of the stimulus. Costing us and future taxpayers tens of billions of dollars… with interest. A stimulus that is fundamentally flawed in it’s very concept. Making the whole exercise a theater of the absurd. In an honest and sane world spot lights would be shining on government’s folly.

The biggest thing the administration has going for it is the slavish media. There are reports that some in the media are taking orders directly from the White House… while on the air. In fact NPR has editorialists calling for the unbiased media to toss out all semblance of fairness. The administration has at least that ace in it’s back pocket, to redirect anger about the results of it‘s policies, away from itself.

Empirically however… The economy is still shedding jobs. (But at a reduced rate…) economic figures are all over the board. The brains behind the curtains are trying to make people think they know what is going on but they are as clueless to it… as a coal miner to the weather. Otherwise, they know we are sliding into a depression, and want to hide the fact from the people. The currency markets are a good sign that no one knows what is happening to the economy. The dollar will slide to a decade low then back to a high. The Yen / Australian dollar ratio is diminishing in value and brainiacs are struggling to find something efficient to replace it. What about us?

We are still in the lurch. The government has thrown almost three trillion dollars down a rabbit hole. Money that we people have yet to earn. Government’s spending has indebted the citizens of the US to the world for generations. Government policies have dried up loans for small business. They ordered banks to channele to ACORN instead of SBA loans. All this proving… elections matter. Hopefully the American people will be a little more wise about who they put into office in the future.

Unfortunately it’s too late. WE are in a depression… of the government’s making.

Depression Judo

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that depression is in large part a physiologic /psychological symptom of emotional distress. Mostly in the form of frustration.

I have read that depression is related to suppressed anger or anger turned inward. I agree to a point but I think this definition falls short. I would follow the causal chain from frustration to anger. (Which fosters anger and is therefore before anger in the causal line). Anger being the result of frustration.

I was shopping the other day and I heard a mother chastise her, 15 year old or so son, loudly in public. He was mortified at the public humiliation. In anger he slammed a freezer door shut. Which brought an immediate rebuke from his mother. I could see the frustration on his face and in his every move. He had all he could do to contain himself. But had no outlet for his frustration.

It is impossible to squeeze a balloon with your hands. Try it. It is impossible. There will always be a bulge that will appear between your fingers. Sometimes appearing where you least expect it. No matter how you try there will always be a point at which the balloon’s air forms a bulge instead of being compressed. It is impossible to form perfect containment so that the fabric of the balloon will give…

The kid in the store was compressing his ego balloon. No matter how strong the fabric of his balloon it must at some point give. Where the bulge will manifest itself no one knows. It may manifest itself as depression, acting out, drugs, etc… there are no end to the negative ways that held in frustration can reveal itself.

Sports and physical exercise are positive ways to vent frustration. They also foster team building in youth. Unfortunately athletics is such that only some percentage of youths shine at them. Video games are a new phenomenon and can help alleviate frustration. They also help with hand eye coordination as well as practicing the ability to wholly focus on one task. But there are some youths that find games to be a waste of time.

There is one way that is rarely used in our society today… Hard work with a reward. There is not one youth that cannot work hard at something. Hard work is a great vent for frustration. It also fosters a strong work ethic. The most important part of the fix however is the reward.

There must be an obvious, valuable reward that is scaled and tied to performance. That will be the carrot that entices youths to work hard. Lets face it, no one is born wanting to work hard, it is an acquired taste. If we teach our youths to work hard for a suitable reward we will soon have adults that work hard and expect a proper reward for their labors. Every economist sees the truth in a productive workforce raising the standard of living in a society. A strong work ethic in a society makes a productive workforce possible.

Government is in a special position to destroy the work ethic of our youth. Every time government tries to foster something governments action rots it from the inside. Government cannot be efficient (pragmatic) or set incentives. The incentives, with all government programs, are to play the system. Youths are not ignorant of this fact. Only liberals are.

A youth that gets a government fostered job will do as little as he or she can (playing the system). Government is nothing but red tape (making the system easy to play). Dots that need to be dotted and t‘s that need to be crossed, forms in triplicate, a signature from the highest level, all to provide a box on a check board for someone to check. If the system is shown to be flawed… Government being government will simply hire another person with another check board to check off that the person in front of him checked his board. (Because government, in it’s arrogance and hubris, cannot understand that a system it set up can be fatally flawed).

Regardless of how frustration is handled it must be handled. Else the problems we as a society have with violent crime will continue. Violent crime that could have been stemmed and reworked into a strong work ethic if the right measures had been taken at the right time. Measures that would not only help society but more to the point… the person.

Christmas Attack

Sunday, January 3rd, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that one thing about the Christmas terror attack on the US homeland is the stark way it illustrates the difference in the debate from the Bush administration. After September 11, 2001 until November 5, 2009, the citizens of the US suffered no terror attacks on American Soil. Now, on Christmas, we have a second, a near miss. It was only a near miss due to the grace of God. In stopping the explosives from going off.

But the debate I hear on ABC News is about a Republican’s campaign tactics. Fox News had some small debate about whether the tactics the Bush administration used to keep US citizens safe was more effective than those the Obama administration’s to date. That comes close but misses the mark.

We have two different policies;

The Bush policy was to use every method possible to stop any and all terrorist attacks on American Soil from happening. If the World community didn’t like it… OH well. While engaged in keeping the American people safe we will go after every threat to the American people no matter where it is. Eventually the terrorists will see the futility of their action’s and will die or be captured.

The Obama policy to date has been. We will put on a nice face to the world, so that, it will disarm those that seek to radicalize the masses by telling them that America is evil. With the radicals disarmed we will then round up the radicals. Then the threat will be eliminated once and for all. Pragmatically with this strategy we cannot protect all the people all the time.

The real debate is now framed as which strategy do you believe in? The premise of both are different. The one is based on the notion that not one person is an acceptable loss, the other that, to loose few to save the many is noble.

That my friends it seems to me should be the real debate. Instead, like a husband and wife who don’t want to discuss the real issue, our unbiased media dance around the subject. Needling and wheedling to distraction. Never quite getting on the same page. Until we argue the same argument we will never come to a logical conclusion.

Both arguments have merit. But We need to look into the premises of the two a little deeper to see which one is the more Human Hearted principle.

As we have been arguing for many blogs and BBS postings, we agree with Kant and believe that the individual must be considered to be… an and in and of himself. This is the fundamental yardstick that we put to every question at the International Capitalist Party.

Lets take an extreme example of when society must reason this principle. Lets say one person has an incurable virulent airborne illness. Further this person is the only one with it and the illness will die with this individual. Is it societies right, to execute this person, to protect itself from this disease that could potentially kill millions of other people?

To do so would invalidate that society’s moral power. The Human Hearted way would be to isolate the person, keep them comfortable as possible, while trying to procure a cure. To do so would be in both the person’s best interest and society’s. Because to eliminate the person and burning the body denies society’s ability to ascertain the cause of the disease and the cure. Incase such a disease should get into the general population in the future. The human hearted principle is the best for the individual, society and mankind‘s physical as well as moral health.

So to apply this principle to our situation would be to say that people are not expendable. Expediency is never the Human Hearted way. Think about your own life…

When has the easy way been the best way… Long term?