Posts Tagged ‘justice’

Justice, Honor and Arbitrary Rule.

Thursday, July 7th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the mask has come off, we in the US now officially live under arbitrary rule and our leaders have no honor whatsoever. The fact Hillary Clinton has not, and will not be indicted for destroying evidence, keeping top secret information on an unsecured server, using a personal email for government business and/or lying under oath to congress, is proof positive we live under arbitrary rule. If anyone with less political power did one of those things they would be in jail and everyone knows it. That is an undeniable fact. The US has become, no longer a constitutional republic, but a banana republic. That a member of the elite can get away with multiple infringements of federal laws, without consequences, consequences that you or I would face, shows there is a double standard at work that is as pernicious as it is destructive. Moreover, recent news articles have shown that the rest of us no longer have the protections of law, or our Constitutional rights. Just as Rome was no longer a republic after Caesar crossed the Rubicon, the US is no longer a republic since the elite have the audacity to rub our noses in the fact they are above the law, and we are below it’s protections.

There is no true rule of law whatsoever the world over. This is not just happening in the US but is a world wide phenomenon. Human history is nothing but a story of the elite holding the people to laws they will not hold themselves to. The US was different, for a speck of time, because the US had the rule of law. True, the elite held themselves to it by their honor… but at least they did. Since FDR broke the unwritten rule that a President only run for two terms, our elite have increasingly lost all honor, and have disgraced themselves in every way possible. It is a quality of a civilized person to hold others to a lower standard then one does him or herself. To hold others to a higher standard then oneself, shows a lack of character, moral indifference and conniving which is on full display in the Hillary Clinton case.

Throughout history the wise have opined about the need for honor among the rulers of a society. When the rulers have no honor they will resort to every evil known to Man. History shows this to be true but goes further. In a society where the elite have no honor the people quickly loose their honor. Confucius said it first, (at least as far as I know), the people follow their leaders into corruption or virtue. In a nation where the leaders have no honor, the people will have no honor, where the people have no honor crime, chaos and beggary are rife. Economies grow in serenity and collapse in chaos, wealth flourishes in the absence of crime but erodes like sand when crime is rampant and where the economy is collapsing and wealth is being destroyed, poverty becomes the norm. All because the leaders have no honor.

The question of whether justice or arbitrary rule is best was considered in Plato’s book, The Republic. In it, Socrates argued for justice, while Thrasymachus the sophist argued for arbitrary rule. Thrasymachus claimed the great men, (those with political power, intelligence, wealth and ambition), should not follow the law, only appear to do so… law is only to make the hoi polloi believe there is justice to facilitate the control of the people and trick them into being obedient. Socrates made the argument justice in and of itself is a good. Justice is both a good that we do because it is good and a useful good as well. By allowing arbitrary rule to come back into fashion we become the dupes of the “great men.” Do you want the elite to exploit law to enrich themselves, amass political power over us and eventually tyrannize us? Or do you agree with Socrates that justice is a good in and of itself, one that is useful in creating a peaceful, wealthy and safe society?

Why would the people follow laws even those who write them don’t? Every one of us is a hypocrisy detector and hypocrisy is the surest way to make people despise the law. As a lack of honor flows from the top down a society will increasingly only follow laws by force and threat. Whenever they believe they can get away with breaking a law they will. Once dishonor reaches the lowest rung of a society no amount of punishment will suffice. People will not be not safe in their own homes, business cannot be conducted, children are at risk, people’s oaths are meaningless and every chance meeting becomes a danger. Clearly, to allow the leaders of a country to become utterly corrupt, dishonorable, conniving and lustful for power, can only lead to human suffering on a national scale.

One way to tell how dishonorable your leaders are is to look around with open eyes. Do people need bars on their windows, are all children safe on the streets, can you look at a passerby in the eye, is poverty rampant? Corrupt leaders will claim all this is due to worthless, lazy and ignorant people, but will never look in a mirror. The Duke of Lu asked Confucius one day, how he could get the people to stop lusting after other men’s wives, stealing and murder. Confucius said, the duke could lead by example and stop doing those things himself. Shortly after that Confucius and his disciples had to flee Lu state in fear of their lives. Let the scales drop from your eyes and really see.

So you see, this is not a matter of hate of an individual or gotcha politics, it is a matter of justice and human suffering. If we allow our noses to be rubbed in the elite’s corruption, we have given our consent to the elite to be even less honorable, in doing so we sentence our children and grand children to a life of poverty, fear and tyranny. Just because you like a politician, is no reason to allow them to get away with blatantly breaking laws, laws you or I would be severely punished for. Such actions are those of children, sycophants and imbeciles. Say nothing, do nothing, and the US will join the ranks of other failed experiments in human governance like Rome, Athens, Sparta, etc… with the same catastrophic results, human suffering on a grand scale. To do nothing is to abet a crime against humanity, to do something, even if it is small and of little consequence, is to make a stand against corruption. The choice is yours, lay down and let the elite walk over you… or stand and push back. It may be too late to have an effect, since we have allowed our leaders to be villains for so long, but maybe not. Regardless, do you want to be hated by your own grandchildren for your lack of back bone, or be a champion for liberty, prosperity and equality?

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The Close Minded Left

Thursday, May 26th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, nothing says I have an open mind, like a refusal to hear contradictory opinions… or so that is the green movement’s stand, when they outlaw debate about man made global warming. The joke about open minds notwithstanding, the closed mindedness of those in the progressive, Fabian, Frankfurt school, socialists, communists and Marxists, are not just laughing stock but is a very real and existential danger. The global warming scam is but one of the many examples, where those of the autocratic anti property faction (AAPF) blindly follow doctrine, when in all logic they should know better. They claim to be the heirs of the enlightenment movement but in fact they are the philosophical descendants of those the enlightenment movement defeated. Brass tacks is this, the real debate going on in the man made global warming scam, progressing us to ever and ever larger government, and all the other scams the new class AAPF are doing, is based on two basic arguments, do you favor arbitrary rule or limited government, and do we bow blindly to the power of authority or settle argument by debate and reason?

For some reason, the AAPF eschews reason when it comes to testable economic policies, instead adhering to their old doctrinal stance. Socialism has failed every time it has been tried, spectacularly in some instances, leading to the deaths directly related to the efforts to socialize the economy and usurp the power to implement those changes, of over a hundred million people in the twentieth century alone, and yet the AAPF in their hearts honestly believe it can work… this time. Every prediction of the man made global warming alarmists has shockingly, not come true, yet they still hold to the idea that unless government gets arbitrary rule and the supreme power of authority in all matters, the planet will burst into flame at any minute. If that is not religious fervor I don’t know what is! Their doctrine has been proven in the real world, over and over to be false, yet they cling to it like a drowning man a rope.

The debate about arbitrary rule or justice is not new to our time. The ancients debated these topics all the time, the difference is, the debate was withing the elite, since there were no means of mass dissemination information by books, mail, newspapers, email, etc… Also the debate was on topic, where today the debate is blurred by class warfare, false patriotism, fear, unending war, party loyalty, ignorance used as a weapon, etc… Moreover, the debate was settled in favor of justice. The weight of literature ancient and modern all take the side, both logical and philosophical, that justice is superior to arbitrary rule.

Plutarch’s Lives can be said to be a commentary on the debate between arbitrary rule and limited government as well as moral biographies. Plutarch’s epilogues to his biographies often balanced on the subject’s stance on arbitrary rule or justice. The life of Dion is illustrative of the open debate and gives ammo to both sides. Socrates actually debated Thrasymachus whether arbitrary rule or justice was best in The Republic. There has always been and always will be, a faction that believes arbitrary rule is best, that faction is always on the side of autocrats, dictators and tyrants, well, until they vie for the same power, then they become mortal enemies… Trump and Hillary for example.

The debate about relying on authority or argument as the final arbiter was supposed to have been settled by the Enlightenment. The advance was that the Church’s iron grip on what was acceptable to think, believe and say, was broken by academics, drinking in the new logic of the marketplace that instead argued, open debate and the free mingling of opinions, was the best way to answer questions, and voila, the age of enlightenment was born. Suddenly anything was possible. Scientific advances theretofore unimaginable were appearing in newspapers every day, the enlightenment freed humanity from the shackles of dogma, to endless possibilities.

You cannot convince someone who is closed minded to change their mind, that cannot be done, you debate a zealot to point out his closed mindedness, and thus show his arguments to be circular. The debate between arbitrary rule and justice has been settled and so it must be called something else, so those who support arbitrary rule can justify it by some other means, social justice (arbitrary rule by another name) trumping justice. Calls to authority, like banning debate on global warming, safe spaces in college where children never have to hear an opinion not sanctioned by new class intellectuals, double standards in criminal matters as well as every aspect of life, etc… will only get stronger the more the AAPF win the present debate and we get more arbitrary rule with less justice. Closed mindedness is a hallmark of those who defend arbitrary rule and authority, seeing who they are is as easy as looking at what they stand on. Anyone who demands we bow to authority and seeks arbitrary rule will have a closed mind and be zealous in their determination. Those are the people we must keep out of power.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Eschewing the Enlightenment

Thursday, December 31st, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, we are loosing the advancements of the enlightenment, and it is being done by the very people who claim to be it’s heirs. The Enlightenment was a philosophical advancement that allowed humanity to move into the space age. Since all scientific advancement is preceded by a philosophical advance, our modern era of scientific discovery and unheard of standard of living, required that philosophical advance. The basic tenets of the Enlightenment are, argument instead of authority should be the determinant of right, skepticism, the concept of natural law and empiricism. Today, the new class intellectuals, intelligentsia and our politicians, would rather us accept authority rather than rational argumentation, wander through life as babes, exchange natural law for the power of the state and the forget that all knowledge is based on what is sensible. In turning away from the advances of the Enlightenment the gains we take so for granted cannot long last.

The argument that there is a consensus of scientists that agree to such and such is a call to authority. That call to authority is magnified when rational debate is eschewed for fear mongering. Other than the number of people who’s lives will be negatively effected, what is the difference between a superstitious people burning a woman at the stake for being a witch, because of their irrational fear of witches, from today’s fear mongers calling for burning our economy, because of an irrational fear of global warming? They both rely on authority, they both eschew argumentation, they both cause suffering, they are both acts of self aggrandizement and they are both based on fear. If anthropogenic climate change were argued rationally, without vilification and lacking the blacklisting anyone who argues climate change might not be as bad as the alarmists claim, we couldn’t say it is a call to authority, but since it has all the qualities of a call to authority, that is obviously what it is.

Socialism is taught in our schools to our children without any skepticism about the past results at all. Moreover we are supposed to accept absurdity after absurdity from our leaders without question. In other words, we are told not to be skeptical but accept the word of our leaders and new class intellectuals, by faith. Our children are being filled with faith in socialism, we are supposed to accept that multiculturalism will not be the end of western culture and society, we are to be faithful to the media that calls itself unbiased, despite the absurdities we are force fed by them. The only thing we are skeptical about today are the miracles documented in the Bible, the words of the Founding Fathers and our own sense of right and wrong.

The American system of government is based on natural law. Natural law states that each human being has certain rights that come from God or nature rather than government. The Bill of Rights is based on natural law, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to keep arms, security in one’s own home, and so forth, these rights come from our natural state not from government. Government however, or more precisely, those in government, disagree. They believe that all rights flow from the governors to the governed, or put another way, they favor arbitrary rule. Constitutionalism was based on natural law, but today that attempt to stymie the natural tendencies of leaders to become power hungry, has been perverted to empower despots. Today the concept of natural rights is being attacked by new class intellectuals and intelligentsia in the media, business, government and universities.

Saint Thomas Aquinas invented the concept of Empiricism. He said all that is knowledge is sense knowledge. Which gave rise to the term nonsense. If a thing cannot be sensed it cannot be proven true. Empiricism was then polished and plumbed by John Locke and David Hume. The idea of a germ is based on our ability to increase our vision with scientific instruments, so we can “see” bacteria. Science is all about sense knowledge, based in large part on our ability to magnify our senses with technology. Even Christianity is based in sense knowledge since people saw Christ crucified, witnessed him rise from the dead, probed the wound on his hands, then recorded the experience. Today some things that are call sciences are nothing of the sort, they are at best pseudoscience since they are not based on what is sensible. Economics and Psychology are examples. They seek to emulate the advancements of physics and math but cannot. They are philosophies that masquerade as science that we are supposed to accept as empirically true by the new class.

Human societies advance and retreat in science, economic power and justice as their philosophies advance and retreat. Every real advancement in human history has been preceded by an advance in philosophy. The Greeks advanced the philosophy of democracy, the Romans with limited governmental power, and the west with the Enlightenment, which led to the outlawing of human slavery, all the freedoms we enjoy today, constitutionally limited government to protect those rights, the phenomenal advancements in science and our natural rights. Just as Greece fell when they abandoned their philosophy of democracy for arbitrary rule and Rome fell when they abandoned limited government for a Caesar… our civilization will fall if we abandon the advances of the Enlightenment. Sadly, we are well on our way to forsaking them, led by those who are tasked with protecting them.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Meritocracy… The Justice of Class Mobility.

Monday, October 12th, 2015

 
Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the real measure of justice in any society is the ability to get ahead, to move out of the social strata one is born into, and either up or down depending on the merit of the individual, and not because of their political favor. That used to be the case in the US for example, so much so that back in the late 19th century the lack of interest of Americans for socialism was explained by the socialist “economist” Thorstein Veblen, Americans don’t want to damage the interests of the rich, because every American knows he or she could become the rich, and no one wants to damage their own interests… Of course many did become rich and many more did not. Yet everyone understood the path was open for them. Opportunity has been the draw for people the world over to immigrate to the US. People would come so they could just have a chance to get ahead if they worked hard and were smart. Many did get rich and many did not but the opportunity was there. During that time, the standard of living of the American citizen rose in a way that has never been seen before, not only elevating the lot of Americans but spilling over into the rest of the world. Today that distinctly American dream, meritocracy, has been effectively crushed by our education system, regulations and cronyism.

Joseph Schumpeter said that as soon as someone becomes rich their first order of business is to close the door behind them, so no one else can come through that door and become rich. The reason is that the newly wealthy don’t want to have to face competition. Competition that lowers profits, makes one work harder for those lower profits and worst of all, creates the potential the wealthy could slide back into the middle class. The means at their disposal to close that door is regulations. Cronies use the straw dog of public safety to get regulations passed the create a barrier to entry. While an established company, with all the accouterments, can easily meet even draconian regulations, someone trying to get a business off the ground cannot. The door has effectively been closed.

Cronyism is an offshoot of closing the door. The wealthy have the money and connections to effect laws and regulations and so they use them to make easy profits. In his famous film series, Free To Choose… Milton Friedman said, if someone opens a business that sells it’s product at a lower price and has better quality, the old business owner has two options, they can lower their price and raise the quality of their product, or they could go to government and get the competitor shut down. The first option is out of the question as it requires hard work and smarts, while the second option is a no brainer. When they can they use government to ensure your profits and crush competition. Moreover, those same government connections that were formed by crushing competition can be used to get direct government money in the forms of grants and subsidies. What nation wants to loose it’s steel industry? Since every industry must corrode from within, whenever cronyism is used, it needs more and more “assistance” to stay in business, else that industry will be lost.

Regulations are the means to cronyism. Since regulations are made by unelected bureaucrats, they bypass the normal system for making laws, and can be wielded with impunity and with great effect. In addition, the cost to the economy and class mobility is irrelevant. A law is publicly debated and is subject to public scrutiny, but a regulation is passed in the dark of night, the only ones with input are the cronies who stand to gain or loose by that regulation. Examples abound, especially recently, like the new rules for the Internet, most of which are still secret, the new Pacific trade agreement, etc… the most pernicious effect of regulation however, is to limit the mobility of the population to rise above, or drop below the position they are born into. The intent and effect of regulations is to stifle class mobility.

The government monopoly education system limits our children, instead of teaching them anything is possible, it teaches them to be robots. Everyone needs to get the same education, go to the best college they can get into, take on so much debt they have to get a job and closes off both their motivation and ability to become entrepreneurs. Common core is the perfect example of this in action. Imagine trying to figure the yardage of concrete needed for a basement using common core math? It teaches the wonders of socialism where there is no possibility of class mobility, class under a socialist state is decided by political favor. The history of mankind is perverted to equate individual liberty with atrocities, when the direct opposite is true, overly powerful governments commit atrocities, while limited government is limited in it’s ability to commit atrocities. The education system has become a way for the state to remove the people’s belief in class mobility, and so make us willing to do damage to politically disfavored groups, because we have been taught… we can never become rich ourselves.

Class, caste, position, social strata, etc… are mere artificial constructs to pidgin hole people and limit them. It should be obvious to anyone with an open mind, therefore, in a society where you are stuck in the caste, class, position or social strata you are born into, regardless of your individual merits, is unjust. Justice by definition, is the equal treatment of people, where people are treated unequally, depending on some artificial construct of the elite, trapping people in the circumstances of their birth, is therefore by definition unjust. Those institutions that enforce class immobility then are damaging to the lot on mankind. Cronyism, regulations, personally limiting monopoly education system, unlimited government, socialism, etc… are by design, created to limit class mobility, and must be eliminated if we are to advance to a place where there is real justice, actual opportunity and a rising standard of living. You know in your heart this is true… speak the truth for others to hear, act so that others may follow and vote with your rightly understood interests at heart, and not out of envy or hate, and together we could restore opportunity to our kids.
Sincerely,

John Pepin

Illegal Immigration, Amnesty and Fairness

Monday, November 24th, 2014

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, one possible solution to the illegal immigration problem Obama’s policies have visited on us, would be to import one legal immigrant who is on the waiting list, for every illegal that is deported, and if the deported person returns illegally it would be a year in prison, then permanent deportation. All problems in human society exist because of negative incentives. Replace those negative incentives with positive incentives and many of the most intractable problems can be turned from a bad into a good. Change the incentive and you change the behavior. Our standard of living, our children’s welfare and even our very republic are in jeopardy if we don’t do something about illegal immigration.

Everyone agrees legal immigration is one of the factors that has made America great. Just think of how much Tesla brought to the US when he immigrated. Immigrants who take the time to come here legally, bring new ideas, new ways of thinking, they have persistence and have a strong work ethic. The US benefits greatly by legal immigration, illegal immigration however, brings with it many negative consequences. Some of these negative consequences are, an underclass, lowered wages, diminished economic outcomes for everyone, all forms of abuse, human suffering at every stage of the process, etc…

All policies, especially ones that directly impact human lives, must be fair. As I have said before Justice is the golden rule and the golden rule is fairness. The moment a person is treated differently by governmental edict than another – there has been an injustice done. That is self evident. So when someone files the paperwork, jumps through all the hoops and gets in line to enter the US, and another jumps the fence and is caught but allowed to remain, an injustice has been done to the person who is going the legal route. That injustice is magnified if the person who jumped the fence gets amnesty, the person waiting in line’s life is on hold, as they grow old, meanwhile guy who jumped ahead gets rewarded with amnesty.

Our market system, such as it is, requires honest people to function efficiently, therefore we should encourage honest people to come here. If no one could be trusted there could be no commerce. How could you trust a check if it was almost certainly bad? How could you work for someone if it was most likely you wouldn’t get paid? The economy requires, as a prerequisite, a basically honest people. Those who try to enter the US by the legal route, their very actions prove, they are more honest than someone who jumps the fence, who by their actions show, that law and morality are lower on their list of priorities than naked chaotic self interest.

The problem with illegal immigration is that it creates an underclass. The entire American experiment as well as the Western world view is based on all human beings being created equal, in the eyes of God and in the eyes of government. An underclass, especially a tacitly accepted underclass, is the antithesis of that moral foundation. An underclass in a society create a whole host of negative incentives to abuse those in the underclass. Why pay the going wage when you can get what amounts to a slave… to mow your lawn, tend your baby or vacuum your floors? The only ones who benefit by an underclass are those who plan on exploiting them.

Incentives always work, whenever human beings are the actors, incentives are the answers, here is how the incentives of replacing illegal immigrants with legal ones will function. When someone is caught in the US for any reason illegally, they would be immediately deported and someone who is on the waiting list would be given a green card. If someone who has been deported is found in the US again they would go to jail for a year and then be deported without being replaced. If anyone is caught a third time they would go on a permanent banishment list. They wouldn’t even be allowed to come here legally. Lastly, the teeth of Reagan’s amnesty program would be replaced, businesses that are caught hiring illegal aliens would face jail and huge fines. As the list of people waiting to come here legally gets shorter, and the list of those sent home gets longer, the incentives will become clear. People are smart and will take the path of least resistance.

The US needs immigrants, immigration policy must be fair, it needs to encourage honest people to come here, and one of the problems with illegal immigration is that it creates an underclass with all the negative effects on human beings of an underclass. Today, with Obama waiving his magic dictator’s pen, claiming he will give anyone who jumps the fence a free pass, the US has become a giant magnet to millions of iron filings. It has become foolish to try to follow the law to come here legally, all one needs do is get here by whatever means and Obama will grant you amnesty, and so, the US is being flooded by illegal immigrants. The elite that encourage illegal immigration must know the negative consequences to it, and therefore, they must also be accepting of those consequences. Imagine, destroying a nation’s economy, impoverishing working people by driving down their wages, creating an underclass to be exploited and abused, encouraging people to risk their lives and the lives of their children, to be that underclass… all so some multimillionaire new class progressive elite, can get their lawn mowed for a few dollars less.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Justice is a State of Mind not a State of Being

Monday, June 23rd, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, justice is simply treating everyone the same, to argue otherwise is to twist wrong into right by spurious means. Justice is not to force everyone to be, act, or think the same, it is not to give everyone the same stuff… it is to treat everyone the same. It doesn’t seem like that is such a difficult concept to understand but it is not understood by most people. They have been fooled into thinking justice is a state of being and not a state of mind. We have been deceived into thinking justice is some concept of economic equality, (a state of being), when this is only a spurious way to trick people into acting and thinking, unjustly. To be a rational maximizer, or put another way, civilized, a person has to be sufficiently mature and thoughtful to grasp this basic concept of justice, rejecting those sophist ways the elite enforce injustice, by calling it justice. Our compliance with their absurdity, even if most who honestly believe justice is a state of being, creates a fundamentally unjust society, where people cannot leave the station they are born into, which is true economic, social and cultural injustice. In other words, unless we wake up and wake up our friends, our children and grandchildren will forever be trapped in the station they are born into, living in a fog of fallacy, with no ability to transcend it, regardless of their personal merit.

 

Justice is equality in treatment not equality in some physical instance. What if the elite claimed blond hair is the best and it is unjust for anyone to be burdened with brown or black hair? Would it then follow, that the government had a legitimate role to play in improving the lives of it’s citizens, by forcing everyone to dye their hair blond? What if the elite managed to convince the people that blond hair is indeed the best, would it be just then? What about if government forced blonds to shave their heads? No, of course it wouldn’t be. Justice is not a state of being but a state of mind. To conflate the two is a path to injustice. It is however, a sure way to trick people into doing unjust actions, while thinking they are actually being just.

 

Like the terrorist who believes he is blowing himself up and killing innocents to advance the interests of God. He doesn’t examine the absurdity of the notion, he simply follows the orders of the guy who would never blow himself up, and in the end advances the goals of Satan. The ostensibly pious person damages God’s ends and advances the ends of Lucifer while all the time thinking he serves God. Ironic as it can be, people can be easily tricked into doing the opposite of what they seek, by the diabolical means of fooling someone with sophistry. When we don’t think an argument all the way to the end, we can be tricked into the opposite of what we want, and end up doing injustice when we intend justice.

 

To be civilized, is to think things through and take concepts to their logical conclusion, to do otherwise is to be a member of a mob. Unthinking brutes who act on orders instead of logic and a sense of right. Do you suppose the Nazis thought they were evil? No, they thought what they were doing was good. People cannot be convinced to do evil, for evil’s sake, the packaging of evil must appear to be good. Yes, there are a few psychopaths out there who would happily serve Beelzebub, but the throngs of humanity seek goodness, and eschew evil. To get them to serve evil requires spurious logic and sophist arguments. Twisting justice into injustice by claiming justice is a state of being and not a state of mind, is just as absurd as tricking a child into thinking that committing several mortal sins at the same time, will get him or her to heaven and serve the goals of God, when it is the exact opposite of the truth.

 

Justice is clearly a state of mind and not a state of being. To force people to be the same, economically, socially, culturally or in any other way, is effecting their state of being. Moreover, to effect one’s state of being, forcing equality in some state of being, requires as a prerequisite that an injustice be done, in other words, some must be treated differently than others, which as we have already shown, is the definition of injustice. If you treat everyone you meet the same, with gratitude for their help, courteously recognizing their humanity, and avoiding hurting those who society tell us are “the other,” you are acting justly. If you visit evil on someone because their state of being is other than what the elite have defined as “fair,” then you are acting unjustly, and no amount of twisted logic can make that wrong a right.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

Justice

Thursday, April 3rd, 2014

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, justice is simply the golden rule, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This is the most realistic and clear definition of that mercurial term there can be. Any other definition requires people to do to someone else, that which they would chafe under where it done to them, and thus is not just. It is important to define such a widely used word as justice, because when a speaker claims he or she seeks justice, and ten people are listening, inevitably there are eleven definitions of justice in the conversation. This makes the term a sophist tool to trap people. Everyone has a sense of justice but few have a defined definition that is simple and universal. If we want true justice in our world, then we must agree on a definition, else it means nothing.

 

People bandy the term justice about constantly, to get the upper hand in an argument or to denigrate this or that action, thought or philosophy, but to do so if the term is not defined, is simply spurious. It is like me saying I will give a car for this or that. Every listener will have a different idea of what type of car I mean, but lacking a definition, no one will know. If I continue claiming I am going to give people a car I can convince people to do real damage to their self interests. Once I have got money, power or property from them for this car, I can give them a plastic toy car and have not overtly lied.

 

Any definition that is more complex than the golden rule opens itself to injustice. Once we say justice requires calculations and metrics, we have made the word so complex it looses all meaning, and devolves back to a mere tool of sophists. Furthermore, justice cannot mean doing different things to different people. The moment we say it is just to do this to him, and something different to her, we have waded into quicksand. For a thing to be just it must be universally just.

 

Justice as it applies to property is the golden rule as well. If I pick up a rock and using only my talent and another rock… I carve a figurine, that figurine is mine and no one else’s. To take it violates my right to that which I have made by my own hands, and also steals my liberty in the form of the time it took to make the figurine, because had I known it would be stolen I would not have spent the time to make it. This same logic applies if I have made a thousand figurines, because to take from someone while defending one’s own property, (and everyone defends his or her own property)… violates the golden rule.

 

Rawls definition of justice comes in two parts and is meant to show how socialism is just. The first part and therefore the foundational part is that any definition of justice must give people the most liberty possible without trampling their rights. The second is that for a person to make an unbiased decision about what economic system is just, they must do it in a, “Veil of ignorance.” This veil is supposed to show that if we don’t know where we will land in this new economic system we will want everything distributed equally.

 

Nozick’s take on Rawls, is that Rawls believes money and property are like mana from heaven, and that Rawls ignores the very real effort that it takes to get money and property. My take is that Rawls second principle violates his first. If any definition of justice must firstly give maximum liberty and not violate people’s rights, then it is not possible to take from one and give to another. The very act itself makes a slave of one of the parties. Only a twisted mind would argue slavery gives maximum liberty or that it doesn’t violate human rights.

 

So… justice can be simply defined as the golden rule. Doing something to another, you would not like done to you, no matter the societal good that would be theoretically gained, is fundamentally unjust. The term justice, undefined, can be used for all sorts of pernicious ends, and usually is. Economic justice must also rest on the golden rule, it cannot be given a complex definition, and must be universal, else it is spurious. Over the years, philosophers have tried to twist justice into a reason for injustice, using complex arguments and smart sounding phraseology, but what they propose is not justice but a perversion of justice. It is important for us to understand what justice really is, to stay clear of the pitfalls of sophistry, that brings into the world injustice called justice, always at the point of a gun.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

Basic Human Worth

Monday, April 29th, 2013

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, every human being has intrinsic worth, no matter his or her mental status, race, age, religion or any other arbitrary definition. We are more than a sophisticated explosive delivery device, more than a machine that deludes itself with a notion of self awareness, and we are far more than animals to be herded by someone who thinks he is farmer to the rest. To attribute to others, less than person hood, is to deny one’s own person hood. Therefore, anyone who considers other human beings to be less than spiritual beings with intrinsic worth, is subhuman. Unless we learn this and hold it tight we risk becoming cows for someone to milk and slaughter.

Justice is a concept that can be hard to define. As a result most people have a distorted idea of what justice is. Many people’s concept of justice is subjective not objective. A subjective notion of justice is dependent on the perspective of the observer, objective justice is unchanging, no matter the observer’s perspective. Those who espouse different levels of justice, dependent on the person, are using subjective justice and thereby are being unjust themselves. Those that apply the same attributes, worth and rights to all, are just. It follows then, that to be unjust is to forfeit justice, while to be just is to deserve justice, this is the basis of criminal law. Those that forfeit justice deserve none while those that espouse and attribute justice to all deserve justice themselves. Any other consideration is sophistry.

Many times in the past have human beings been designated as less than human. Everyone knows of the Nazi atrocities. These crimes against humanity were only made possible by the philosophy that human beings are no more than animals. That it is in our best interest to cull the herd occasionally and the enlightened must be hard hearted enough to do it. Every crime against humanity has it’s roots in this twisted philosophy. The mass starvation of millions of people by Mao’s Red Guard, were justified in this way, the Nazi slaughter of Gypsies, Jews and Slavs were justified by this philosophy, China’s one child policy is contingent on this spurious notion, and the eugenics movement is based in this perverted misunderstanding of the nature of humanity.

Eugenics has as storied history in the United States as it does England and Germany. Many people in these countries were sterilized against their will by the edict of bureaucrats and judges. Human beings were denied their basic humanity by government officials, who believed that they have the God like ability, to decide who should breed and who should not. The evil of the eugenics movement led directly to the evil of abortion and population control. The same people who funded and shilled for the eugenics movement, Rockefeller, Margret Sanger, HG Wells, Dr. Mengele, President Wilson, Charles Darwin, President Hoover, and other well known notables, would breed us into Eloi and Morlocks.

A person who denies humanity to another for whatever reason also denies his or her own humanity. If the congenital nature of man is evil then all man are evil, if human beings are nothing more than machines that evolved to have the delusion of self awareness, then everyone, even those that propose this perverted philosophy, are as well. I cannot claim everyone else is less than human and claim I am human. That is an impossibility. So, we can safely say that those who deny humanity to others are in their own way subhuman, even if the philosophy they promote is incorrect, they are subject to it. They have self identified as subhuman by their own philosophy.

Slavery, abortion, population control, eugenics, and even redistribution are all forms of injustice called justice, and require as a prerequisite, the denial of someone else’s basic human worth. Denial of the value of every human being is the slippery slope that leads to these evils and more. We are human beings and all of us have individual worth outside our value to any collective or group. To maintain that personal humanity, we must accept the individual value of every other human being, rejecting the spurious notion of collective this or that, for the evil it is and the injustice it creates. If we are rational maximisers we will accept the basic worth of humanity in general and the individual in particular. To do otherwise, is to deny our very own humanity, subjecting us to our own injustice. In other words… We have accepted that we are merely cows, and the implications.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Incentives From the Cyprus Banking Bailout

Thursday, March 21st, 2013

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, everyone knows that you punish that which you don’t want, and reward that which you do want. Even a fool understands this concept. The Elite who make far more money than the average person should understand this as well. When asked, why do they make so much more then the rest of us, they always explain that they are much smarter than us, so they must get more money. Presuming their explanation to be true… we can only conclude that when they reward some behavior, they want more of that behavior, and when they punish some behavior, they want less of it. Nothing else follows logically.

Using this concept we can place the actions of the Elite into context. We don’t have to assume what they want more of… we have empirical proof. We don’t have to assume what they want less of… we also have empirical proof. This allows us to know when they are lying because we know the truth of their actions.

One example of this are the actions of the Elite in Europe and Cyprus. They are taking money from savers to keep the banks solvent. Those on the public dole however will not have any reductions in their welfare. Even a cursory examination of the reward and punishment concept gives us pause. Those that work, save money for retirement and provide investment capital for the market, will be punished by having their money taken directly from their bank accounts. The product of their labor will be stolen from them. The very fact this was considered shows, unequivocally, that the Elite in Europe and Cyprus don’t want people to work, don’t want people to save and otherwise be mature citizens.

Those that do not work, do not save for retirement and plan to live off the public dole the whole of their lives, are a large part of the financial problems of the government in Cyprus and Europe, but will face no reduction in their welfare checks. This amounts to a reward. Therefore, it is clear that the Elite in Europe want people to go on the dole, layabout all day contributing nothing, and demanding more. The old adage, “Idle hands are the devils tools and an idle mind is the devils playground,” is appropriate. Those that have nothing to do all day, because they are on public assistance, are by definition… idle minds and idle hands. This makes them a source of social unrest and criminality. If we consider our concept of punishment and reward, it is obvious, the Elite in Europe want more crime and social unrest.

Now that we have determined what the Elite want, the question that inevitably come up is, why? Why would the Elite want people to be dependent on the State for everything even to the point of encouraging crime and social unrest? It would seem that this is the opposite of their mandate to promote social order, a thriving economy, and an industrious and wealthy populous. To a person who is invested in their country, this is a hard concept to grasp, that the Elite would want these things.

Thrasymachus said, in Plato’s Republic, that most people only want to live their lives, so they readily accept the concept of justice, but those that want to rule must not. Those that seek power over others, must appear to be just, while actually being unjust… We see in the actions of reward and punishment that the modern Elite, those who seek power over others, seek to appear just, ie, saving the banking system, while actually being unjust, ie, seizing money that doesn’t belong to them. Using Thrasymachus’ logic we see that this is a means to enhance the power of the Elite.

People who follow the reward and avoid the punishment, will become dependent on the State for their sustenance, and their indigent lifestyle. Dependents worry they are unable to engage in the market system, and this gives them certain knowledge that their lifestyle will suffer, if the power of the State is eroded in any way. Therefore, as more people become dependent on the State for their livelihoods, the power of the State and of the Elite will grow. The Elite’s power to take that which they have not earned, will be increased commensurately with the number of dependents, and so we see why the Elite want less people to work, less people to save for their retirement and less money available to the market for upgrading plant and equipment. That would diminish their power not enhance it. Social unrest and crime drives a demand for government to pass more laws further increasing the power of the Elite.

The Elite have armed guards protecting them, so they don’t have to worry about crime, they have high paid, cushy government jobs, that are more protected the further society slides into chaos, and their retirements are secured by the power of the State to take the assets of those that still work. We have come full circle. The incentives and intentions of the welfare state, are far from benign, they are diabolical. Until we wake up and put a stop to it, our assets are not safe, our children are not safe and we are not safe. Are the Elite in America any different? The inevitable slide to depravity will consume us all… all but the Elite.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Justice, Political Favor and Fairness

Thursday, March 7th, 2013

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, for a nation to call itself civilized, it must hold all people to be equal under the law… that no one be above the law and no one is below the law, is the first definition of equality. Nations, systems of laws and mores, that hold people unequally are unjust and injustice is the definition of tyranny. It is the duty of all free citizens of a nation, that call themselves free, to point out anytime people are above or below the law. Deviation from this philosophy negates any good that is claimed by the political leader who engages in it. That leader is an oppressor, no matter how much we may love them, or hate the people being unjustly treated.

To have a faction that is above the law is the most pernicious form of inequality. Those that are above the law are treated so because of political favor. This is always so. Those that have political favor are under the constant inducement to act outside the law… as it would be applied to everyone else. As a result, we can say that the source of inequality in nations, is the pernicious incentives that political favor sets up.

A more obvious form of injustice is when there is a faction that is below the law. This means, they don’t enjoy the protections of the law, due to their lack of political favor or negative political favor. This is often apparent or it can be subversive. People who are below the law, know in their hearts they are not protected by the very laws that will protect others, but lacking political favor they have no way to change the paradigm in government, because political change requires, as a prerequisite, political favor.

An example of those that are above the law in the US are our Elite. The Elite in government are only held to the law when their actions are so egregious, there is public outcry, and their political favor is diminished by it. Those that are below the law, are citizens who in some way anger the political establishment and as a result, have the legal protections we all assume, taken away from them. We know this is so because, in our own lives we are willing to turn a blind eye to the injustices of our friends, and we use rules and law against those we dislike. Quite often bigotry in society is the source of negative political favor.

Those that enjoy the fruits of political favor, being human, seek to enhance the effects of political favor… since they have it. Some ways to do this include, but are not limited to, grouping people and vilifying some groups while lionizing others, using the sophist rhetoric of “fairness,” to claim that some should be above the law, or holding others to be below the law, and lastly, the ever present drive from all governing Elite, to have political favor be the source of distributive justice. If you have political favor or are in a favored group, the incentives are to continue the injustice generated by it. Since we are human beings, and like animals, all seek our own good, this must be so.

Because government gets it’s power from those it governs, it can only legally and morally engage in those actions that we as people can engage in morally, and under natural law. Murder is immoral and so government cannot simply kill those that it finds obnoxious, stealing is immoral so we cannot empower government to steal from a politically disfavored group, using violence to force others to our will is another form of injustice we cannot pass to government, because we don’t have that power by morality or natural law. All these things are done however, in the name of the people, by those with political favor to enhance their favor and to enrich themselves, in the name of “fairness.”

This is the reason why the governing Elite are so enamored with socialism… it is distributive justice by political favor. Socialism is by definition redistribution by the State. The State is government and government is always and everywhere political. Therefore socialism is distributive justice by political favor. No matter the wrongs it claims to seek to rectify, it is a form of injustice in the name of justice. Injustice is a wrong. To do a wrong, is wrong, no matter who does it… even a politically favored person, no matter if we love them or not.

If we want to live in a society that is truly just, it is incumbent upon us to not only be just in our own actions, but to hold our political leaders to be just also. When we see them using rhetoric to enforce injustice on some segment of society, even if we personally dislike that faction ourselves, we must point out the injustice. If we see that the Elite are above the law, we must demand justice be applied, no matter how much we like that politician. Because my friends, to allow someone else to be treated unjustly, sets the precedent that injustice is allowable by government, and political favor, being a fickle thing, we may find ourselves in the politically unfavored group someday, and we have forfeited our right to legal protections… by our own actions, or lack thereof. By political favor and a sophist notion of “Fairness” we are the authors of our own oppression.

Sincerely,

John Pepin