Posts Tagged ‘Law’

Nuance

Sunday, August 15th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the term, “nuanced view” is most often synonymous with dialectic defeating logic.

There once was an ancient Chinese sage, who made the argument that, a white horse is not a horse but a yellow or black horse is. Using dialectic Kung Sung Lung effectively proved that a white horse is not really a horse. (Knowing himself that a white horse is of course a horse). What he was really pointing out was that the deficiencies in language make it possible to prove that a white horse is not a horse. I.e. Prove the empirically impossible.

We all know that a white horse is a horse as is any other color horse. Because color is a subservient attribute to species. But in the language that Kung Sung Lung spoke it was possible to prove otherwise. He used language (dialectic) to defeat logic (or empirical reality).

It is taking advantage of these deficiencies in language that allow people to act, speak and think anti-Semitically but not be anti Semites. They have nuanced views on the subject. But people who have no opinion at all about Jews are anti Semitic, (There is no nuance in their view). Nuance allows a politician to claim that he didn’t realize doing personal business using company property, and premises, during working hours, is a bad thing. (Soliciting campaign contributions on government phones in his government office during working hours). Nuance is why an unborn baby is not a human being but in a matter of seconds it becomes a person. Nuance gives cover when a politician lobbies for a bank teetering on bankruptcy that her husband is a large stockholder in…

Twisting language to make the absurd seem plausible is the bailiwick of lawyers. (the modern incarnation of the ancient Greek sophists). That is why a sneak thief who cuts himself on a window, he broke, getting into a hose to rob it, gets millions of dollars from the lawsuit. But the guy’s legal bills, who invents delayed wipers, outweighs the settlement. Nuance is the side of the toast the butter is on… for lawyers. That butter is rendered from human flesh however.

For the rest of us it is a source of friction. A few examples include, higher taxes, more red tape, higher unemployment, lower wages, more off shoring of jobs and a generally higher stress level in society than would otherwise be. The extra costs associated with protecting a business, person or organization from lawyers is astounding. Much of the insurance industry is simply legal costs.

But to argue that this is a positive externality is spurious. As Bastiat said about the broken window. The economic stimulus from the broken window comes at a price. That price is, whatever other use that capital would have been put to, say… a new pair of shoes. So the window maker gets a windfall at the expense of the cobbler.

What incentive does the lawyers butter set up in society? The incentive to rob homes. If you get trapped in the garage and have to subsist on Gatorade, for a week, until you are rescued by your victims, they owe you millions. Legally… How about the incentive to improve the lot of Mankind?

This butter for lawyers is a pernicious incentive to inventors and entrepreneurs. The rise of the legal oligarchy coincides with the fall of the entrepreneurial ethos. Using nuance lawyers undermine the ability of entrepreneurs to bring dynamism to markets. Stability benefit’s the wealthy Elite. (Old money).

The very dynamism that has led to the largest increase in the standard of living of the human race ever. In only four hundred years, since the invention, of the market system Humanity has gone from a state of perpetual want to a state of constant surplus. The industrial revolution itself would not have been possible if not for the market system.

So while it is nice to have a segment of society that has means. It is not in societies best interest to have that segment’s means come at the cost to dynamism in our markets. That insures we go from growth to contraction. No matter to lawyers… They make money in growth or contraction. People can be induced to fight over an ever smaller pie easier than an ever growing pie.

Nuance, it has it’s place… in History.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Group Politics, International Power, Law, economy, media | No Comments »

Human Heartedness and Government

Wednesday, August 4th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that to hold another person to a higher standard of personal conduct than one holds himself is not human hearted. To be “not human hearted” in this way, historically, qualifies a person to hold public office.

For all of human history people in power have never been held to a standard of personal conduct that is close to the demands placed on the people. The ancient Greeks with the temporary ostracism, and Romans with the Censors made gestures in the direction of holding powerful people to standards. But those two systems were flawed in that they still hadn’t solved the problem of power of personality or cults of personality.

The ancient Greeks ostracism was a direct attack at charismatic power. If an aristocrat would get too powerful the people would call a vote. They would write yea or nay on a piece of pottery or ostrakon
and count the vote. If the ayes had it the person was sent away for a few years to let his partisans cool and his charismatic power to wane. His possessions were kept safe as were his family and slaves. When he returned he could participate in public life again. This practice visited any number of catastrophes on Athens. From Pericles (with the misshaped head) to Alcibiades the ostracism was a wash.

The Romans had the Censors. Powerful aristocrats that had draconian powers to look into the personal dealings of other aristocrats. Unfortunately with no effective public oversight the Censors used their offices to garner bribes and indulgences from the powerful people they were supposed to regulate. An early form of regulatory capture. Both pernicious and both inevitable if the conditions are right. Human nature being what it is.

Human nature is unchangeable. When faced with the choice of; Let someone burn you with a cigarette and they will give a million dollars, to charity the charity of your choice, for each hour of torture. No one would submit to it. Unless they were sadomasochistic. Despite the obvious societal good from the windfall to charity…. But give another that choice over someone else and the perspective is widened considerably. They would have no problem with this Faustian bargain. The fact that they feel no pain when the cigarette is applied is irrelevant. Or so they will say. It is universal and it is human nature.

To decry human nature is foolish as it is to decry gravity. Without it we could not exist as we are. The wise lawgiver looks human nature in the eye and works with it. Doesn’t try to change it in others while waxing his own.

That has been the problem with governments through the ages. The Elite try to force others to live as the Elite wish and the Elite live as they wish too. This sets up a fundamental tension in human governments. That tension is the underlying energy source for class struggle.

The ancient Chinese had it close. Despite their arguments and the internecine squabbles of the States the Chinese philosophers in classic times had it by the tail. That their governments ignored the good teachings and embraced the bad is just a function of human nature….

Perhaps, if some nation at some time held their leaders to the same standards they hold the people to, this fundamental tension would be relived. So maybe, to be not human hearted should disqualify a person from public office.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Group Politics, Law, Mercy, Societal Myth, philosophy, polictics of class envy | No Comments »

Individualism vs Egoism

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that when a millionaire ten times over says he or she will hurt the rich and help me… I know I am being lied to. Because for a rich person to hurt the rich violates human nature. They would have to hurt themselves. No one hurts themselves… No one. Unless they are mentally deranged. I hope not many of our lawmakers are mentally deranged… but their actions an the other hand…

John Kerry is a perfect example. He went to New Zealand to buy a 7 million dollar yacht. (Apparently he doesn’t like union workers in Massachusetts). Then he moored it in Rhode Island to avoid paying the five hundred thousand dollar sales tax bill and the seventy thousand dollar a year excise (luxury) tax, (that Kerry supports). Here is an example of a man who claims to help the poor by hurting the rich. I.e. Raising taxes on the rich. Apparently he doesn’t believe himself rich… People who have exponentially less money then him are rich. Their taxes are going up. But the billionaire is not.

The best part of this story is that a reporter asked Kerry; if he docked the boat in Massachusetts would he have to pay the Massachusetts tax then. Kerry responded, “It depends on who owns the boat.” [A very rare example of honesty in a lawgiver.]

The premise of this statement is that some people are subject to taxation and others are not. I ask you… What incentive does this set up in society? Where the people who set tax law are not held to that law? Is it likely, self interested, human beings will keep tax law fair if they are not subject to it? Of course not.

It is not human nature to hold the interests of others as high as one hold’s his or her own. In this instance Hsun Ching is correct that the congenital nature of Man is evil… Self centered. Philosophies that hold human nature to be wrong and force whatever the Elite believe, today, is “virtue” are flawed. To have at the core of a philosophy of ruling people a premise that is diametrically opposed to human nature is like building a gasoline motor and trying to run water in it. It is flawed. Not the motor… or the water… just that they will not work together.

Over and over we have examples of why people cannot self police yet we staunchly believe that the Elite will violate human nature. I.e. be un-self-interested. Even when we have grievous examples like the one above before us many say; “so what.” To them tomorrow is a white fog. Impossible to predict and mysterious as a Stephen King novel. I dare say too many people are of this persuasion. When the fruit of their nonchalance is visited on them they will lament that it was unforeseeable.

“How could this possibly have happened? I voted for the same people over and over but things never got better. They only got worse and worse.” is the lament of the willfully ignorant.

Another sophist argument that I hear and am dumbfounded at is that I personally have it ok now so why worry about the future. To make this argument and believe it a person must live in a one dimensional world. A point in time with no past no future, and no other possibilities then what is.

I love the way de Tocqueville called American individualism as opposed to egoism; “The doctrine of self interest rightly understood.” What a beautiful way to explain the truly civilized person. Someone who understands that sometimes we have to subordinate immediate gratification for long term gratification. To understand that self interest is intricately tied to societal interest. And that safe streets are in our own best interests. Of course the progressives are working to undermine this character trait in the American ethos.

The Elite are not held to the law in most places and times on the Earth. Their self interest need not be rightly understood. If they are not subject to a law will they give it the same scrutiny that they would if they were subject to it?

The modern Elite (progressives) seek to change people from individualists to egoists. Then the egoists will willingly forge the chains for the Elite and even bind themselves with them. Egoism is stupid self interest. It requires that one not think critically about our leaders. An egoist lives in a singularity. Egoism makes a person think a job flipping burgers is beneath him but being on the public dole is honorable. An egoist believes that the world owes him or her. An egoist calls another greedy because he doesn’t want to give more of his hard earned money to the lazy egoist but the egoist will scream like a scalded cat if a dollar of his money is missing.

By the way… did you hear about Barney Frank flipping out over not getting a senior citizens discount that he was not entitled to?

It cost him an extra dollar for the ride.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Group Politics, Law, Mercy, philosophy | No Comments »

We Judge Others By Ourselves

Thursday, June 17th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that people judge others by themselves. The best template we have to place others in is the one we ourselves have forged… And it is the one we know best.

That is why a thief is the most afraid of being stolen from. A liar always believes everyone is lying to them and an adulterer always is the most afraid of having someone cheat on them. It is in our nature. We all have faults and we project them on others.

That is one of the reasons that the uber rich are progressive if not actually communists. They believe that everyone is as heartless as they are. To them it is impossible to believe that another person would do a virtuous thing. Then turn around and do another. There has to be a catch. They themselves always have a hook. Basically they are the avatar of the man Thrasymachus and Nietzsche believed in.

Like Nietzsche’s book The Will to Power. (A dark book that chills the soul to read). Nietzsche is smart enough to know the tribulations en route and the end of the road that he proposes. Yet he goes ahead and proposes it. The path and the end is chaos. A state of perpetual war… man against man. Victory to the cleverest, strongest or most political. Mankind would very quickly shed the accoutrements that are given to us by our social nature. Like housing, ready access to food, transportation, heated homes, etc…

People of this ilk often become extremely rich. But not all extremely rich people are of this ilk, i.e. sociopaths. The ones that are however have the ability to sow much mischief in the world. Placing all mankind in the same box as themselves they can only see total government to curb mankind’s total greed. They have no concept that others have no desire for riches beyond what makes them comfortable. Beyond that to make one comfortable further riches only serve to gain more security. But at an acceleratingly diminishing rate of return. At some point the wealthy Neitzchian would get a better return, (in improvement in his or her lot in life), by investing it in science research. The security and improvement in the standard of living would accrue to him as well as society. And could possibly lengthen his or her life span.

What about Power? The ultimate goal of the self centered. Power rover others. Power to coerce action at another’s expense simply for the satisfaction of some whim. Like old king Di Xin, he, reportedly, had a pool filled with wine and ruled by his whim… Once Caesar and some friends were riding past a small filthy French town. His friends said to Caesar, “How would you like to live in such a wretched place?” To which Caesar replied, “I would rather rule there that serve in Rome.” Later Caesar overturned the Republican system that had served Rome well for most of a millennium.

If this is the template that you judge others by… Isn’t your view going to be skewed? If I am a self centered despot in waiting… I will think everyone else is too. When I get power I will gear my input on law to reflect my view of humanity. (Based on myself).

These are the Elite. The ten percent of any group that will take control. (The dross floats to the top). Rarely is someone put into power who did not seek it. Numa Pompey is the only one who comes to mind. (And that tale is probably more myth than reality). So When almost everyone who writes law is an utterly self centered, despot in waiting, is it hard to explain why we have law that is always written with an eye to serve some faction?

Lately every law, that is written and passed in the USA, is expressly for a faction against the overall good. Take the “Health Care overhaul”. It has as it’s purpose to redistribute wealth. From those that have health care to those that don’t. The actual reason the people don’t have it is never addressed. Except a background hum that they are poor. (The poor already had healthcare under Medicaid). Reality was never allowed into the debate.

The result will be much higher cost of healthcare for every American. Lower standard of care for normal Americans. A higher rate of structural unemployment… Among other negative effects. The Elite however will have no diminishments in their health care. They have a separate system. The rest of us are forced into the government “choices” by law. The Elite are not.

With Elitist theory, as I have explained, we can clearly see why…

But, I am told, there is no need of a NUMA.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Group Politics, Law, Mercy, philosophy | No Comments »

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?

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Law, philosophy | 1 Comment »

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.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Group Politics, International Power, Law, Mercy, economy, media, philosophy | No Comments »

Machinery and Law

Thursday, December 24th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that a well designed machine has as few parts as possible, is put together as simply as possible and performs it’s function very well. Law is no different. It should be simple, well written and perform it’s function well and with no unintended consequences.

During the Second World War the German army produced a tank that was considered to be, if not the best of the war, among the top two. It was the Panzer Kampf Wagon Mark 5… The Panther. It had a heavy gun from the start and was able to pierce the armor along the frontal arc of the Russian T32. (The tank for which it was designed to destroy). The tank was fast overland for it’s day and had wide tracks for better soft terrain maneuver. The Achilles heel of the PzKW Mark V was it was notoriously prone to breakdowns. Any unit equipped with the new tanks was sure to have at least a few down for maintenance at any time. Reducing the effectiveness of the unit. So despite it’s surface beauty and function it was flawed. That flaw made the tank that fought beautifully, destroyed in the motor pool, not on the battlefield. The machine was too complicated. The internal complexity undermined the outer function.

There are many examples of machines that don’t work because they were too complicated. Law that is too complicated only serves the interests of attorneys. Society is poorly served when the law that we are held to cannot be known to us. Especially when ignorance is no excuse under the law. When laws are so complicated a reasonably intelligent person with due diligence cannot perform functions that law requires of him… Law becomes tyranny. Tax law is only one example.

Regulation that is very complicated is also poorly thought out. Like a machine that is too complicated. Ask any engineer if it is harder to design a simply made machine that will work or a complicated machine to do the same job. They will answer the more simple a machine to do a function is, the harder it is to design, but the longer it will last, the easier it will be to work on, and the less it will break down. The simple machine is the function of a diligent engineer but a complicated machine is the work of a sloppy engineer. Complicated law and regulation is the work of sloppy legislators and is prone to unintended consequences, revision, running afoul of some other regulation or regulatory body and the more it will be despised.

Moreover complicated law increases the need for lawyers. Lawyers that make law that suits their needs, (not the needs of society). Law that sows more chaos than it quells. And law that makes the people fear their government.

But when you think about it isn’t that what complicated law is supposed to do. Make the people fear their government? When you never know when you are acting outside legality you are never safe from the law. If you don’t know the law pertaining to your every day business you don’t ever know if you are breaking the law. To know if you are breaking the law you must know what the law is. To assume that because you are acting morally is to be in utter ignorance of the purpose of law. That is, to protect the property of those in power and plunder the property of those not in power.

In the end, in machinery or law, you only get the product of the person who designs it. If engineering was a popularity contest instead of merit based I bet we would still be cutting with churt and lighting with flint.

Humanity has moved to a place where we have machines that do incredibly complex tasks and break down rarely. We have achieved the balance between function and complexity in our machines. Too bad our legislation hasn’t progressed a bit since Roman times.

Oh well… I hear Ballet With Baal has a new episode!

Tags: , ,
Posted in Law | 1 Comment »