Archive for May, 2010

Individual Sovereignty

Sunday, May 30th, 2010

Dear Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that is harder than it looks…

The Elite have to lower their power…

That is rarely done.

Relative Benefit, Relative Harm

Wednesday, May 26th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that government should explicitly take into account the relative benefit of a given action. Passing a law for example.

Take a man who is starving. He comes across putrid meat. Is the relative benefit of eating the meat such that he will be less starved after or will he be so sick that the harm from eating the meat will outweigh the benefit? Maybe sufficient cooking will render the meat safe. Perhaps not… [from Mohist doctrine]

The decision is important and as much information as possible must be gathered before it can be made. The human being will use intuition in this instance. Smell the meat and intuit if cooking it sufficiently will make it safe. A misstep in the decision making process and he could die…

Government makes decisions with as great a moment. But government never really weighs the benefit and harm. They only look at the projected benefit. But as we saw with our analogy, there is potential harm. To ignore the harm is to ensure catastrophe.

But that is the job of the party not in power… to point out the potential harm from pending legislation…. Some will argue. And they wouldn’t be far from wrong. But, politics makes strange bedfellows, is an apt saying. When the interests of politicians align…

So if we cannot rely on the opposition party to point out the potential harm in pending legislation what about the media? The media’s role is exactly to do this very thing. But unfortunately the media has become “unbiased“. They have replaced their true faces with a veneer of fairness. While it is not in human nature to be unbiased… they claim to be. An impossibility. Therefore… Foregoing their responsibility even as they pretend to uphold it.

The last two paragraphs have been minor causes of a full examination of the potential harm from not thoroughly examining pending legislation. They work as a unit, sometimes, and separately other times. This loosely coupled mechanism is like a capacitor in an electrical circuit.

A capacitor is like a tank. It can be empty or full. So if you put an empty tank in a fuel line as fuel flows to it’s destination it must fill the tank before it can move on. After the tank is full the flow of fuel can go on. If the flow is reversed the tank has a reserve of fuel before air is sucked in. It buffers the flow of fuel in our analogy. A capacitor does exactly this in an electrical circuit. And by doing so it acts as a buffer to electrical current. In the case of the opposition/media mechanism it acts to buffer the true cost/benefit examination from being done.

Without a relative benefit analysis being done… another example of normalizing deviancy, government necessarily lowers the lot of Man. Every time poorly thought out legislation takes effect the harm often outweighs the benefit. So government’s reaction is to pass more poorly thought out legislation that may, or probably does not, help.

Like a gambler. He wins the first few hands and is up. He continues and over time he looses all his money. Even though the house has a very slim margin of advantage.

Because people react emotionally. In gambling, the stock market and in politics… Meat anyone?

Calderon’s Hubris

Sunday, May 23rd, 2010

Dear Friends,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catastrophic Desisions

Thursday, May 20th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that government’s propensity to normalize deviancy threatens us all. Due to Government’s ability to deliver catastrophe on a society.

Normative deviancy is a sociological term that describes why some groups make catastrophically wrong decisions. It is a theory that takes into account the environment in which a decision is made. Basically, When a group of people are set up there is usually some thought put into keeping complexity low, keeping connections loose, ensuring rigorous debate, etc… but as time goes on small deviations become the norm. Then small deviations become larger then become the new norm. Until catastrophic failure of the group or decision-making process takes place. Catastrophic failure becomes inevitable.

The group could be the House of Representatives. Some of the deviations we see. (that have apparently become the norm) are, not reading bills before voting on them, protecting members that take bribes, reacting before sufficient facts are in, and putting a faction’s good over the good of society. These are not all the examples I can come up with but the list becomes tedious.

Not reading bills before voting. How could this ever go wrong? No potential for catastrophic failure of the decision making process there…

But seriously, lawmakers don’t even read ten page bills before voting. This has great potential to be used against an unwary congressman or congresswoman. People vote for a person because they believe that that person will make good decisions regarding government. How can a person make a decision about a bill they have not read?

When a lawmaker is so sloppy, about his job that they don’t read bills they are voting on, it says they don’t take their job seriously. When people see that the leaders in society don’t take their jobs seriously when their jobs are so important, lawmakers pay is over $174000 a year, with benefits better than anything in the private sector, so if a congressman has so little regard that he doesn’t even take the minimum effort in doing his job… why should we? Imagine the subconscious pernicious incentive this is to society… on top of the potential for abuse of the system.

Protecting members that take bribes, sexually bother pages and aides, are ignorant of tax law, ship horses through the US mail calling it official business, cashing in postal vouchers for cash to buy drugs, drunk driving leaving the scene of the accident death resulting, the list is endless. With this caliber of people running our government how can we go wrong? Blackmail is only one of the potential problems that could lead to catastrophic decisions that could result.

Jumping to conclusions before all the relevant data is in. Some examples are when rep. John Murtha, (God rest his soul), Accused the US Marines of war crimes. The facts came out that the US Marines were innocent. But the damage had been done. The war effort had been undermined. President Obama even acknowledged that he didn’t know the facts then attacked a police officer. Again wrong. Over and over members of our government publicly make statements without sufficient knowledge to make them. Over and over they are proven wrong. How many of you have read of heard the story of the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf? Being wrong over and over undermines one’s credibility. When it is an elected member of the government it undermines the credibility of the government.

Putting the good of a faction of society over the good of all of society. This is not a new problem. Madison wrote about it in the Federalist Papers, #10. Faction is pernicious because it is necessary for the political process. But even as the power of faction impels political power it undermines that power by corrupting it. Often putting the good of a faction of society over the good of all society is in the political interest of a party. Like illegal immigration. Everyone knows in their heart what is right. (fix immigration law to reflect the need, seal the boarder to prevent more illegal immigration and enforce the law) But every one in the political process wants to game the system. They want to reap the political favor of a potentially large faction. So the interests of society are stepped on. The result is that human beings in the USA are treated as subhuman… to enhance the political power of the Elite that are courting them. No irony there.

The private sector goes to great lengths to prevent these types of things from occurring. Perhaps because the threat of jail is ever present in the private sector but is totally absent the government. That problem is answered by the NUMA… Perhaps because the private sector must succeed or fail. (Unless it is politically favored. Then the taxpayers will bail them out. Even as the lawmakers, in the back pockets of those firms, vilify them… I think I hear Braer Rabbit, “Please don’t throw me in that briar patch.”)

Another possibility is that the dross floats to the top.

Progressivism and Education

Sunday, May 16th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the way our children are taught has a great influence on them in their adult lives. Education is a means to not only teach children to read, write and do arithmetic but is a means to civilize them.

American schools today have taken a new path. They have eschewed teaching reading, writing, arithmetic and logic and have replaced them with progressive propaganda. Anti American adjectives like imperialism are often used to describe the USA. These are definitions taken directly from the Manifesto of the Communist Party and anti American Soviet handbooks. The schools teach homosexuality and the mechanics of it. They teach that God is dead. One of their favorite lessons today is that the American Constitution is a living breathing document. What do all these new evil societal myths have in common?

They serve to demean the children. They all serve to make children believe that simply the color of their skin determines if they are good or evil. This is not a very inclusive philosophy. But it has always been the philosophy of the progressives. Propaganda to the contrary aside…

I watched a show on PBS today, Need To Know. The show had a long segment about the Texas school board’s revue of new textbooks. The thrust of the piece was that a few members are wrong and bad by trying to force their conservative view of society on the whole country. Because Texas buys so many textbooks that the whole industry caters to their needs and wants. The news story never mentioned if California or New York have a similar effect on the textbook industry… At least that angle was never explored. I wonder… Would California drag the industry further to the right or the radical left… And if that had any bearing on the coverage of California’s effect on textbook slant.

Of course a hit piece on a conservative in the unbiased media is proof of their lack of bias. The show, Need To Know, also talked about the Texas Freedom Network, an organization that monitors the right’s effect on school curriculum. Amazingly this progressive organization agrees with the unbiased PBS and thinks America should be characterized as imperialist. PBS didn’t mention if there are any organizations that monitor the left… Why would there be?

The unbiased media today use evolution as a straw man argument. They constantly hammer that people of faith are bad because they deny evolution. They equate evolution deniers to holocaust deniers. The argument is used to as a means to disqualify any argument made by the right whether or not evolution is brought up. If I argue that The United States has liberated almost as many people in the twentieth century as the communists have murdered… The left argues that I deny evolution. The unbiased media agree. And the argument is changed to whether or not I believe in evolution. It has become a tool of the progressives to change the argument.

Changing the subject is a underhanded way to keep an opponent in a debate off his feet. It is the job of a good moderator to keep arguers on point. But unfortunately with the media being so unbiased only the right is kept on point the left is given free reign to move the debate as they see fit.

What is the inevitable outcome of this? The lowering of debate. Which leads to keeping the people in the dark. Which leads to the lowering of the quality of decisions made by the American people. (Exemplified in the last election). Which leads to the lowering of the lot of the American people. Which leads to the lowering of the lot of all Mankind. Because, in this World, we are all economically connected .

As long as the progressives control, the media, education and both political parties, our fortunes will continue to go down. Only until we have a media that is actually unbiased instead of pretending to be unbiased will the cancer that is progressivism be exposed by the light…

Only foul things grow in the dark… Progressivism withers in the light…


Thursday, May 13th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that most people are pragmatists. We have to be. To lack pragmatism is to ensure future insanity. Because when you live in an insane world you must either be pragmatic about it or go crazy.

Since most people are pragmatic we seek to get along in the world with as little interference as possible. As Thrasymachus said. Most people do not want to impose on others. But they are afraid of being imposed upon. That is why most people like the idea of justice… So by his measure most people are good. There are others who are bad. (I.e. They want to impose their will on others).

We are pragmatic in many ways. We add up the costs and benefits to most things we engage in. This is a form of pragmatism. We sometimes don’t fight the good fight because we have determined that it would result in diminishing returns.

To be the avatar of pragmatism one would have to be immune to all the pitfalls that await all of us. Like the sunk cost effect, group think, etc… We all vary in our pragmatism. (Or maybe we vary in our assessment of the cost benefit to a certain action).

Pragmatism breeds happiness. People who are pragmatic give up their anger quickly. They are less prone to hopelessness. These are the antithesis to pragmatism. Because to be angry has a very high cost both in health and relationships. The payoff is not as distinct. So pragmatism says, stop that which give us diminishing returns. To be angry for too long has such diminishing returns that the pragmatist eschews it. Hopelessness is the same. To be hopeless has great cost with no benefit. So why do it?

But pragmatism has costs as well. For example, take a good person living among those who are bad. Machiavelli says that a good man must necessarily come to ruin among so many that are bad. To be pragmatic in such a situation is to become bad enough to fit in. Mencius talked about this very thing.

Mencius said that the “Jen” man (gentleman, lord, Brahman, enlightened man, etc…) strikes the golden mean. When the jen man lives among many that are bad he doesn’t go to the extreme of bad. He seeks the middle ground in that bad land. When the jen man finds himself living among saints, again he looks to the mean of the society that he lives in. Mencius said that Mo Ti would run himself into the ground to help anyone. While Sang Yang wouldn’t pull a loose thread from his cloak although it save humanity. They went too far, claimed Mencius. Aristotle was curiously similar in his philosophy of the mean.

Pragmatic people do the same. Seek the mean in the society they live in. Pragmatic people look at their leaders today (and historically), and see people who make law to benefit their friends, making tax law and don’t pay taxes, regulating banks to make bad loans to people they know cannot pay back the loans then blaming the banks for the failures, have illegal aliens for maids, nannies, gardeners to save money but claim to be hard on illegal immigration, To name a very few examples. A pragmatists may not like what he or she sees. We may not want to emulate the behavior. But pragmatism, Machiavelli, Mencius, and Aristotle all say in unison, “follow the mean.” when the rulers are this corrupt society must be corrupt. Like virtue, corruption flows down from the leaders to the led.

Unfortunately the culture that we find ourselves in is a wretched as it can be. Corruption is endemic in the Elite in government, industry, entertainment and in society. They have been so corrupt for so long it has moved deeply into our society. Political corruption oozes out of government and onto everything government touches. Like a child, the grubbier the hands, the more they want to touch. They even have the gall to call evil good and good evil. Simply by changing the language, abortion becomes choice, freedom of religion becomes separation of church and state, freedom of speech is now too much information, the list goes on and on. I am sure you can think of quite a few I have left out… if you try.

This all adds up to an insane society.

How does this apply to the International Capitalist Party? Pragmatism is the cornerstone of our philosophy. Pragmatic in our view of humanity, pragmatic in our opinions about how to best effect positive change in the human condition, but, not pragmatic in our goal. To be pragmatic about a political goal is, not to fall into the status quo, it is to set a new status quo. Progressives, communists and socialists are pragmatic in their goal, total government, but not in their assessments of people… Unless most people do want to live under a tyranny, in poverty, with no voice or ability to change the situation…

The Three Attributes to Being Human

Thursday, May 6th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, that there are three parts to a human being, Physical, Mental and Spiritual. These three attributes make up a human being. A brute animal, as far as we know, has no spirituality. A brute animal has physical and mental attributes though. So we can say that one of the things that differentiates humans from animals is human spirituality.

We all know on some level that when one part is ignored it becomes wasted. Lack of exercise makes muscles weak. Lack of mental exercise makes one dumb and a lack of religion makes a person susceptible to all sorts of negative ideas. Like moon worship or some other foolish idea. Out of the very human need for spirituality comes a worship of the created instead of the Creator.

These three attributes make up the person. Weakness in any lowering the sum total of the person. We all know someone who ignores one or more of these important attributes. And by this we see what the consequences are.

But as we have said above it is spirituality that separates human beings from the brute animals. So if that is the case we can also say that spirituality is, if not the most important of the three, at least no lesser then any of the others. If being human is the goal.

A person could theoretically evolve into a brain in a glass case. Only thinking great thoughts. But would this be a human end? Of course not. Another could devolve into a beast to rival the strength Hercules. But to regress to the beasts is not a human end either. What about spirituality? What if a person developed his or her spirituality to the point that they became a spirit. They would be an angel.

Which of the three outcomes seems to you to be the best for the actor? We can apply William James philosophy of pragmatism to glean the correct answer.

So why is it that spirituality is the most ignored? Our churches in many cases are full. We (Americans) have traditionally been a strongly religious people. But we seem to be moving the way of Europe. In Europe the most exquisite churches in the world are empty on Sunday morning. I wonder how many Europeans pray daily? I hope many but I fear there are few. Americans seem to be following the European example in more than just economics.

Part of the problem is that States have established State religions. Uniformly in the West the State religion is atheism. The Progressives in the USA have argued for generations, “separation of church and State.” They cannot abide the traditional, “freedom of religion.” Because if they can change the societal myth just enough they can legally codify atheism as the State religion.

Popular culture demeans Religion. Today it is popular, when asked, to claim to be spiritual but not religious. To say that is like saying “I eat… but not food.” It fails logically. But it sounds smart. All popular culture is, is foolishness that sounds smart… but if you think about it…

Of course the Communist Manifesto claims that religion is the opium of the people. Communists, and progressives more than socialists want people to revert to beasts. Beasts are easily herded, bridled and made into beasts of burden for their masters. Remove religion and you have removed that which separates us from the animals. Lowering us to the status of animal. What rights does a guinea pig have?

Probably the most insidious trouble that comes from lack of following an established religion is the threat of some mind bender like Jim Jones. The people who followed Jim Jones and drank the coolaid were people who disavowed established religion and followed a false prophet. There have been many false prophets and there will be many more. They seek to channel good intentions into bad actions. That is the surest way to spot a false prophet.

All these problems and potential problems as well as many more come from lack of religion. It is no more enlightened to be anti religious than it is enlightened to be anti science. Enlightenment involves looking at the world as it is… not as we want it to be.

Flawed Societal Myths

Sunday, May 2nd, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that there are no flawed people, there are only flawed societal myths, (philosophies or ethos).

Take any group of impoverished people. There is no deficiency in the people themselves. This has been proven by the fact that many impoverished people have been enriched when they change their philosophies. China for example. The people can be very industrious but languish under an unproductive ethos. Without a proper societal myth any people will falter.

The most destructive ethos a people can have is the mantle of victim hood. No matter the quality of the individual he or she is at a loss if their philosophy tells them that they are nothing but victims. It fosters inaction. Why act if you are only a victim? It fosters anger. Why be happy if you are a victim? It has absolutely no redeeming effects on a people but to make them slaves to their victim hood.

You can judge the ethos of a people by their prosperity. Not the people themselves but the ethos they live under. If they live under a negative ethos then they will live in poverty. Unless some external source of income temporarily disrupts the natural course of their lives. Like oil income for example. If a people cannot sustain themselves it is a sure sign that they labor under a societal myth that makes this so.

Look at the places people have flourished and the places people have floundered. The arctic is an extreme example. The Inuit and Eskimo people have thrived under the most inhospitable conditions the Planet has to offer. Temperature extremes and lack of easily accessible food. No shelter and high winds. Wind chills of over one hundred degrees below zero! No other people on Earth have, not only lived under such hostile conditions, but have thrived doing it!

Another example is Africa. The availability of growing season is unparalleled on the planet. Wild game, nuts and berries abound. There is no end to the opportunities in Africa for an enterprising people. But there is absolute poverty there… as well as no innovation. The problem is the ethos… not the people.

Examples abound of people that have risen in prosperity when they followed one societal myth but have fallen into poverty when the societal myth was destroyed. Rome is but the most obvious example. Ancient China is another example. Many times before and after the warring states period China went from prosperity to poverty then back to prosperity. Confucius explained this as, when people follow the philosophies of the sage kings, Yao, Shun and Yu. What Confucius basically said is that the philosophy of a people determines their prosperity.

So we can rest on the fact that if the same people have been both, impoverished and enriched, it is more dependent on their ethos then the people. To argue otherwise would require a advocate the likes of Daniel Webster.

Thomas Jefferson said in his book, Notes on the Sate of Virginia, that it takes a temperate climate it foster innovation. His argument went like this. If people have it too easy they will not innovate, it is redundant. If people have it too hard they do not have the time to innovate. They must spend every moment surviving. It is only where people have difficulties to force innovation and the time to think about and do innovation. If this is the case maybe innovation in societal myths is best at temperate climates as well.

Now lets examine the societal Myths that foster poverty and hopelessness. As we said before victim hood is one destructive philosophy. Another is decadency. It presaged the fall of every great civilization on Earth to date. Another is dependency of the State. Every time this has been tried it has resulted in the corrosion of societal cohesiveness. Another that has had bad ends is treating barbarians as equals. This has lowered many great civilizations. Groupism is a philosophy that results in the splintering of societies into angry factions. There are many more lessons that we can take from history about good and bad societal myths. The overriding point is that societal myths that reduce people’s reliance on themselves has always had bad results. While those philosophies that have greater reliance in individual actions have had good outcomes in the past.

With this as obvious as I can make it in such a small space, why is it so important for our elected leaders to change our societal myths from the productive ones to the unproductive ones?

Why do you think?

Elections in the Netherlands

Sunday, May 2nd, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, that with elections coming up in the Netherlands in June, it would be wise for the people to look at all options. Libertarian ideas like the International Capitalist Party especially.

The socialists and communists call themselves center left and anyone else far right. With control of the media and mass entertainment the Elite has quite a lot of control of trends in thought. The Elite always use their power to enhance their power. They do not want any populist movement to get under way. Especially a movement that espouses liberty and freedom from government intrusion.

Government intrusion is what socialists, communists and progressives do best. They intrude into yours and my lives. They look deeply into our ways of living and if they are displeased… They pass a law. Forbidding or taxing to penalize to stop our displeasing behavior.

I am not surprised that anyone in Europe who wants to install some sane control on immigration is vilified as a hater. They must hate or else they would let unlimited immigration. This is only an underhanded way of stopping debate. Debate over a very important subject.

Like the guy who cajoles another guy into putting a gun in his mouth and pulling the trigger. “Go ahead, we have all done it, you want to fit in don’t you? There is only a one in six chance the gun will go off. Go ahead, it will be the thrill of your life.” Yea, go ahead. Does that seem smart to you? Where is the upside to the bet? There is none. The payoff is proof that you are stupid or the bill is death. Where is the payoff?

With Greece poised to collapse financially, the Euro Dollar is poised to take a large hit, then the entire Euro zone’s economies are imperiled. The default of Greece would certainly bring one of the other piigs nations into the spotlight. The pattern has already shown itself in the collapse of Bear Stearns… If They fall like dominos the Euro Dollar as a store of value will be destroyed. At least for awhile. This puts every nation that participates in the Euro Dollar in a perilous position.

More loans to Greece are completely absurd. Raising taxes is almost as foolish. The only way is to cut spending by the Greek government. Cut in a draconian way. Draco was Athenian so…

Another way the Greek government could get the economy going is to, clean up the government, reduce regulation on small business, improve revenue streams to people who want to start small companies, sell national utilities, etc… In short, everything the Greek government cannot do with the large communist and socialist contingent it is burdened with.

Raising taxes slows the economy and puts the Greek economy in a further diminished position. In the world markets but especially the local European markets. The Greek relative advantage will go down worsening the unemployment situation.

But unfortunately the people of the Netherlands have had their horses tied to not only to the Greek wagon, but to Spain‘s, Italy‘s, Ireland’s and Portugal’s as well. Further integration into the Euro zone should be thought out very well and taken very slowly. The crisis we have been discussing is a very bright red flag.

National sovereignty is important for the fact that it gives a multitude of political classrooms to show what works and what doesn’t. Communists, socialists and progressives cannot abide the system they espouse standing up against a capitalist one. The standard of living in the capitalist one outshines the statist vision by orders of magnitude. Let alone the standard of freedom that capitalist nations afford their people.

Freedom is a critical step in a person climbing to his or her potential. Missing rungs in the ladder are only a challenge. No ladder at all is insurmountable.

Europe and the New World Order

Sunday, May 2nd, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that Europe is in grave peril. The threat comes from many fronts. Not the least of which is their economic situation.

While the rest of the world is coming out of the recession Europe trails behind. Germany and France are doing most of the heavy lifting but they cannot sustain the social welfare loads of the whole of Europe. The communists and socialists that run Europe will not stand for any diminishments. (Of their power).

Social welfare spending is directly correlated with the power of the State. State power rises as social welfare spending rises. Because as people move from self sufficiency to government dependence they loose their autonomy to make decisions effecting the State. As I have stated many times, in many ways, a dependant has no effective voice. Dependants necessarily take what they are given.

But being a dependant of the State has no upside. There is no long term payoff. Except more dependency. The threat of hunger is always at the door if the State stops providing. There is no way to move up in the social hierarchy. And people who are dependant on the State feel low class. This opens society for many of the ills it has today.

Like crime. When a person has his or her ego damaged they lash out. Making a person a dependant on the State is a slap, followed by spittle, in their face. Regardless of the intentions of the person handing out the largess. Insults are never taken well… even when they are unintended… or are they?

The social welfare state that the European socialists have built is crushing their economies. The weight is a millstone around their necks. The European recovery is thus dragged down by the weight of government taxing and spending.

Germany and France make up for this loss in productivity by subsidizing investment in the means of production. But as in all government subsidies the lion’s share goes to large well established companies at cost to smaller more innovative companies. Hewing the smaller trees to let the big ones grow bigger. But eventually all trees die. With no small trees what will fill the canopy?

Government taxation sops up available capital that could be better used to improve productivity. There are many ways to improve productivity but government has only one avenue.

Open up transportation infrastructure. The mass transit system in Europe is a girdling root. It locks the European economy into the train schedule. This may seem on the outside to be a minor nuisance but it’s effects are pernicious.

If a business can work most efficiently at a schedule that does no coincide with the train it must put it’s workers at a disadvantage to get to work or it must work in a time frame that is not as efficient. In a global marketplace that company is now at a disadvantage to other companies in other nations that are not hamstrung by mass transit schedules.

It is a feature of people who live close together that they are willing to give up more of their liberties to protect themselves from other people. Some cities have ordinances against owning dogs. Some dogs bark incessantly and infringe on the rights of adjacent people. They argue that dogs are a nuisance and cannot be tolerated in such close quarters. Etc…

This is acceptable on a local level because conditions may make such an ordinance acceptable to the people in that locality. But when people from this locality become the national government they will bring their anti dog prejudice to the national stage. The rest of the country may love and revere dogs. But the Elite will none the less ban them. In doing so feel that they are doing a great service to the nation. This local prejudice on a national stage has the effect of creating more friction for the economy to push against.

Europe suffers under this type of pressure as well. The people who run the national governments are from the large metropolitan areas. They have the mindset of people who are used to living in close quarters. This mindset is displayed in their actions in the various parliaments and houses by their tight grip on control.

These are only a few of the burdens that Europe is suffering from. Europeans should read the history of the ancient Egyptians and the Hyksos… It may be enlightening.