Posts Tagged ‘genocide’

Should We Spread Democracy or Capitalism Around the World?

Sunday, September 2nd, 2012

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, that the sophist call for the US to spread “democracy” around the World, shows how foolish and stupefied we have all become. Democracy is no more synonymous with freedom and prosperity than aristocracy, monarchy or even republicanism. They are forms of government, that usually, have a lack of freedom for the individual as their chief attribute. Democracy has an equally horrible track record in this regard as any dictator or oligarch. Aristotle said, “democracy is the tyranny of the majority over the minority” and his sentiments were echoed by the US founding fathers. That is why Ben Franklin, when asked what kind of government the founders had given us, replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” A more correct thing, for America and other freedom loving people around the World to spread, would be capitalism.

Democracy was one of Aristotle’s wrong forms of government. He listed the correct forms of government as, polity, aristocracy and monarchy… and the wrong forms as, democracy, oligarchy and tyranny. The thing the right forms have in common is that they rule for the betterment of all. The wrong forms in that they rule for the benefit of the rulers. Democracy is no different. The size of the oppressor group is superfluous.

If we seek a more peaceful and prosperous World, what we should be spreading, is free market capitalism! It is free market capitalism that has led to the fastest and most widespread prosperity the World has ever seen. The history of Man is one of poverty for the masses and prosperity for the few. Capitalism turns that on it’s head and distributes prosperity, and freedom, to everyone.

Free markets and capitalism requires, as a prerequisite, freedom of the individual. To attempt to have free markets without freedom for the individual is like trying to breathe water. It cannot be done. This is because, for a free market to work, we must be free to live our lives and engage in business. We must be free to win and free to fail. Often it is in failure that we learn to succeed. We must be allowed to take risks and to make our own decisions about our lives, habits and time. We must have room from regulation, to create new paradigms of business, meet new and expanding human needs and wants…and our lives must be our own. Else the free market simply collapses and becomes distributive justice by political favor, the historical norm.

Capitalist systems, and all other economic systems, are by their nature complex systems. Complex systems are systems of individual actors who are independent, diverse, interconnected, able to adapt, interdependent and respond to their local environments. Democracy, being the tyranny of the majority over the minority, undermines some of the basic attributes of a complex system. Tyranny, in all it’s forms, limits the ability of actors to, adapt, eliminates diversity and independence, while increasing interdependency to ridiculous heights. If the complex system of economics is allowed to function, with all it’s warts as well as it’s halos, the lot of Man is improved. If it is undermined, by a man or group seeking it’s own good, above the good of all, the lot of Mankind is lowered.

No system is perfect, but the horrors visited on Mankind, by economic and political systems, that use distributive justice by political favor as their model, have been universally evil. History is littered with the detritus of failed States, mutilated bodies and destroyed families, that used this model. Many had democracy as their cornerstone. But, they sought to distribute the goods of society by political favor, from those with no political power to those with political power… believing it to be more fair. The killing fields of Cambodia, Stalin’s purges, Mao’s famines, mass slaughter of dissidents in communist countries, mass graves, Nazism and other ideologies systematic extermination of people, like Jews, Gypsies, Armenians and others, are outcomes of this pernicious notion, that majority rule is the be all and end all of human existence.

As I have shown, to say that democracy is the highest good, is sophistry. This is self evident once a person takes a long hard look at the underlying logic. It is not to say that every form of government should not have a democratic component, because for a government to be legitimate, it must have the consent of the governed. But it is to say, that democracy in and of itself, is not the final answer, it is more often than not, a means to trick people into empowering an oppressor group, the size of that group being irrelevant to the fact they are despots. If we truly want to improve the lot of Man, and put an end to the inhumanities that have plagued mankind throughout the ages, we must seek to spread capitalism around the World. Capitalism, a system that has led to the unheard of standard of living we enjoy today. A lifestyle that is put at risk, when we fall prey to foolish and sophistic claims, that democracy is the font of all that is good. That is why I say, “We must spread free markets and freedom around the World… if we want peace and prosperity.” If you want poverty and atrocity, however, then democracy is as good a way to go as any.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Causality

Sunday, May 22nd, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that if a person, (the originator), points a gun at another, aims at the victim’s heart, pulls the trigger, the mechanism of the gun operates, the hammer drives the pin into the primer, the primer’s explosive goes off, fire is ejected through the touch hole into the cartridge, the powder in the cartridge is ignited, the deflagrating powder and the resulting pressure pushes the bullet from the cartridge at great velocity, the bullet interacts with the barrel and the rifling in the barrel, imparting a spin, thus a gyroscopic effect to the speeding bullet, the bullet flies unerringly to the target, penetrating the victim’s chest, passing through the heart, exiting the back, flying erratically until it impacts some object and comes to a rest…  that person is responsible for the effects of his or her original cause, ie, shooting the gun at someone, and the precognition of the events, that would probably take place from his or her original cause, has relevance to their guilt.

What about if a person had personal knowledge that the ice on a lake was thin. Checked the ice and verified that it was thin. Then gathered a group of people and urged them onto the ice. Some people would complain that the ice was too thin and no one should go onto it. Then the original person called for the complainers and conspiracy theorists to be shut up. The group then taped the complainers mouths shut. Then the group, (except the originator) go out onto the ice, the limit of the ice’s ability to support weight is exceeded and the ice catastrophically fails. The whole group falls into frigid water, many necessarily die. The only person who is safe, is the person who has stayed on the shore, the originator. Is that person not equally as responsible as the person who shoots the gun at another? In every way?

Consider the example of the man who knows the end result of initially “democratic” uprisings, has researched the outcomes of historical events and their ramifications to World history and the effects on Mankind, then urge a group of people to gather and stage a “democratic” uprising, they fire the group up with rhetoric and stories of “democracy.” Some people complain, however, that uprisings are dangerous. Most have not resulted in more liberty they have resulted in less liberty. The originator calls to have the complainers shut up! They are beaten into submission some are gang raped. The originator stays in a “safe” country and keeps his or her assets safe with hard assets like gold and a basket of international currencies. Then when the uprising inevitably kill thousands and results in less liberty, is this originator any less guilty… or more?

How about the originator who has personal knowledge that anti capitalist philosophies such as Communism result in famine, tyranny, despotism and an ever diminishing standard of living, researched the subject to find there were no examples in history where communism resulted in prosperity, then convinced a powerful Elite it was a good idea to force communism, not on the people of one country or nation only, but upon the entire World. Some people would complain that this path led to universal poverty. The originator calls for the complainer to be shut up! Calls the complainer selfish, greedy and counter-revolutionary. His or her followers call the complainer a kook, insane, and dangerous. The complainers are effectively suppressed and ignored. When the World goes out on the thin ice, that is communism, in a one great World government… is the person or group of people, as guilty, for the resulting deaths through famine, torture, political suppression, maintenance of oligarchy, and protection of the Elite… or more guilty?

In every one of these examples we have an originator and the victims. In each case the victims died and in each case the originator had foreknowledge and therefore was guilty for all the deaths…Is the perpetrator evil or good? In the first and second examples the perpetrator would be hunted down, arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to jail and possibly executed. In the third example the perpetrator would be reviled in some circles but have no meaningful negative consequences in his or her life. In the fourth example the perpetrator would be set up as the king of the World. But under a different name… President (for life), Great Leader, Prime Minister, or by whatever name he or she would go by, but they will be, in fact, Caesar.

Now that we have a template lets do a thought experiment… Take a person who urges a group of people to change the borders of their nation, such that it guarantees the extermination of that people, by neighbors who daily say genocide is their goal. Then, predictably, the people are exterminated. Is the originator guilty of genocide? What if he has a Nobel Prize? And what does that say about what the Nobel Prize will have become?

In any case, it is not relevant how long the chain of event, the predictable outcome is what determines guilt. As in the case of the drunken driver not being prosecuted for intentions but for actions and probable outcomes…