Posts Tagged ‘Law’

Our Lack of Outrage

Monday, May 19th, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out the US, or any other government, is placing subliminal messages to conform and obey in the media. I am not saying they are, or that they have any plans to manipulate us in that manner, I sincerely hope not! I am saying that if I found out they were, I would not be shocked or surprised, and neither would anyone else. That is the problem, no one would be surprised or even outraged if such a thing were going on, considering the out of control actions the US and other governments have been caught in. What a sad statement on the level of corruption in our governments isn’t it? After all we were only slightly outraged at the NSA spying program that gets worse every day as the diabolical reality of it comes out in dribs and drabs. We have become so accustomed to our governments lying to us, conniving to take our stuff and stepping on our human rights, we have become calloused. That is a big problem, because it shows how far our governments have moved away from acting in the interests of us all, and to acting only in the interests of politically favored groups.

 

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle defined right forms of government and wrong forms of government. The attribute the right forms had in common was that they all sought to benefit the interests of the whole nation state or in his time the city state. What the wrong forms had in common was that they only sought to benefit the ruler’s interests. History shows us all too clearly that the latter is more common than the former. Most nations have been ruled by connivers who only have their own best interests at heart. The rest of us are merely tools to be exploited to get what the political elite want.

 

This paradigm has only been overturned a few times in history and has never lasted long. Those few times are illustrative of what a nation can achieve, when the leaders seek the benefit of the whole of society, instead of one or two politically favored segments. Rome in her Republican years was given wealth, freedom and military prowess. Before she became corrupted by the intercine fighting manifested by Marius and Sulla, she never invaded a neighbor, but only met force with force. There have been times in most countries around the world where this was the case. In every instance, where those nations who were blessed with rulers who ruled for the benefit of all of the people, those nations were also blessed with prosperity and freedom. History in unambiguous on this point.

 

History is also adamant that those nations who were cursed with selfish rulers who ruled for their own egoistic self interest have been damned with poverty, famine, war and tyranny. As the rulers get more selfish the fortunes of those states diminishes. They keep falling until the government is overturned from within or from without. There is not one instance in history where a nation state or city state was virtuous and was demolished. In every case, invasion or revolution, the state itself had become so corroded by corruption, cronyism and political favor, that a fall became inevitable.

 

In the very best cases of virtuous government, where the state ruled for everyone’s interests, the leaders lead by example. If they wanted the people to be less greedy they eschewed avarice themselves, where they wanted the people to be more industrious the rulers worked harder themselves, and where the governors wanted the people to have fidelity to the state, the leaders were more dutiful to the people. This is an example of self interest rightly understood. When people are given good role models in the form of virtuous leaders the people become virtuous themselves. The same is true when our leaders are corrupt, we follow them into corruption. It is human nature.

 

Today we live in societies so corrupted by our leaders that we don’t bat an eye when we hear a politician was caught in anything. We have become so jaded by the trampling of our rights and our constitutions that we wouldn’t be shocked to find out our politicians are using mind control on us. Our governors have so exploited, manipulated and lied to us, we merely rolled our eyes when we found out our government was sending weapons to drug lords and blaming it on honest gun dealers, we are not outraged when we discover our President lied to our faces about our very healthcare, we are sanguine when we learn an ambassador was left to die by our government to cover up arms dealing with our existential enemy, and not even slightly worried when we are told our government targeted people for audits and additional IRS scrutiny based on their political affiliations! Our leaders have so corrupted our governments by narrow self interested egoism, they have become in fact and in definition, the wrong forms that Aristotle talked about. The proof is in our lack of outrage at an ever increasing tsunami of corruption, cronyism and incursions on our basic rights. This can only lead to violent upheaval. Isn’t it time to be outraged, and demand our leaders follow their own laws, our constitutions and simple morality?

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

Crying Wolf

Thursday, May 15th, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, the elite should relearn the old fable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, else they run the risk of falling into that trap. Name calling is such a fall back position of the new class that it has become knee jerk. Anyone who disagrees with those who overtly seek to bring on a Brave new world, or the alternative 1984 George Orwell, are called racists. The term has been so overused it has lost much of the punch it should have. The elite pretend to be above bigotry while they are in fact the biggest racists there are. Their heroes are, to a man and woman, evil people who are the epitome of bigots, while they ignore their own roots and personal feelings, they point their filthy finger at others never thinking that three fingers are pointed back at them. This would be comical except that the world our children will live in is profoundly effected by their socialist policies.

 

The fable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf is simple. A shepherd boy was watching his flock and was bored. He thought to himself, “If I run into town and cry wolf the townspeople will run here and it will be fun.” So he ran into town crying, “Wolf! There is a wolf after the sheep.” the townspeople ran to the fields and found no wolf but the little boy laughing at the gullibility of the townsfolk. They trudged back to their duties. Awhile later, the boy came back shouting, “Wolf, there really is a wolf now!” The people dropped whatever they were doing, running into the field only to find the boy laughing even harder this time. Exasperated the townspeople walked back to town. Later chuckling to himself the little boy saw a real wolf. The wolf killed a ram. The little boy ran into town yelling, “Wolf! There really is a wolf this time! Please help!” The townspeople laughed and went back to work. No matter how the boy cried and cajoled the people they wouldn’t come help. When the boy returned alone to fight the wolf, his flock they were all dead, and it killed him.

 

The elite have been crying wolf for so long people barely even look up unless they have a political reason to promote the fiction. This is all well and good but it gives actual racists a pass. Like the New Jersey Representative (a Democrat), who was caught saying her city would become an “N” word town. Even our President, Barack Obama, has made racists remarks when he called his grandmother, “a typical white person,” that statement would have destroyed a conservative had he or she said it. Obama derided White Americans as, “bitter people clinging to their guns and religion.” Imagine if a Tea Party member were caught saying that about African Americans, Muslims or Latinos! The media would claim that proves all Tea Party members are racists… but calling all Tea Party people racists, is itself bigoted. The definition of bigotry is to hold all members of a group as having the same characteristics. By this definition, grouping people is itself bigoted… and what political faction favors grouping people? When the unbiased media are faced with real racism and bigotry by the new class, they turn a blind eye, because it doesn’t forward their agenda.

 

The heroes of the progressives are uniformly racists of the most despicable order. Woodrow Wilson openly avowed racial and sexist remarks that would make even Adolf Hitler shudder. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, wanted abortion as a means to exterminate blacks! World depopulation is a theme of the progressives the world over. The Georgia Guide stones openly say it. They want to kill nine tenths of the human population lowering our numbers to five hundred million. Do you suppose they mean to kill themselves or their own children? No, they mean to kill those people who don’t conform, to their vision of the perfect people. Do you suppose that could include races they consider, lesser?

 

We live in a time where logical debate about facts and outcomes has given weigh to circular reasoning about who is a bigot and who is not. The bigots are the ones who claim victim hood while those of us trying to have a conversation are labeled with epithets more suited to Margret Sanger, Woodrow Wilson and even Barack Obama. The elite cry racist whenever they are met with a question they cannot answer while they drag us into their dark vision of a Brave new world. In the movie or the book by Aldus Huxley, did you notice any Asians, American Indians, or Latinos? No, of course not, they were to be excluded from that nightmarish vision of the new class. Ad homonym attacks and name calling, belong on the playground of ignorant children’s taunting, not in our political debate. Crying wolf only lowers us to the intellectual level of children and is as dangerous today as when that fable was written.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

The Danger of Following a Lunatic

Sunday, May 11th, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems amazing to me how the progressives can convince us of things we know to be false. The list is endless of absurdities they have tricked us into believing. The list isn’t as important as is the fact that we, or at least enough of us, fall for the used car salesman’s pitch to damage our mutual interests. Perhaps the answer lay in the fact, they convince themselves of absurdities they know to be false, because they seem so good if they were true. If we want to call ourselves civilized then we must stop believing in those things we know in our hearts to be false, else we are nothing more than maniacs, in a technological age. As we all know, give a lunatic power and it will be used for evil, no matter his or her intentions.

 

From abortion and man made climate change to socialism and peace through weakness our logic is under constant assault from those who consider themselves enlightened. The elite in academia are the epitome of ignoramuses. Who is more ignorant, one who understands he or she doesn’t know everything, or one who has the hubris to believe they know everything? They exploit their monopoly of the media, education and the dissemination of information to wash us with their propaganda, without a thought to the consequences of their beliefs. It is patently true that if they actually got their way and the planet became one world communist government, and make no mistake, that is exactly what their end game is, they would be the first rounded up and executed as potential troublemakers.

 

George Orwell said people will believe what the media tells them they believe. This is as true a statement as has been uttered. We are social animals and we follow the flock. We reason that I myself cannot know more then the multitude, and so it must be in my best interests to follow, even when we see the cliff looming ahead. Only the few have the self control to stand up and shout, “that way is death.” Those who do are attacked in the most vitriolic and despicable way possible. Those that are leading, care nothing about where they are leading us, only that they lead.

 

It is the elite, in politics, academia and culture who are falling victim to their own propaganda. They so want promiscuity to be a good thing they convince themselves abortion is good, they so lack self esteem they must have total control of everyone else so they blindly chant the dangers of climate change, they need us to rely on them for everything and in every way so they connive for communism, and they desire so much that world peace can be reached without war they disarm the good and arm the evil… to show them how peace loving we are, the list goes on and on, The elite have convinced themselves of the most idiotic things imaginable, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

 

Scientists can infer there is an ocean under forty kilometers of ice on the moon Enceladus, simply by the speed in which the Cassini spacecraft flies by, but they cannot understand that communism has resulted in millions of deaths and untold human suffering every time it is tried. You would have to conclude they are idiot savants. They convince themselves that absurdity is true and reality is false, and that is their right as human beings. We however must not fall victim to their insanity. We must stand against the tide of insanity lest it wash over us and our children with all it implies. When we know a thing to be false we must not go along to keep the peace we must speak up and point out the absurdity, those in academia may know how to parse a sentence and quote Marx but that doesn’t make them Gods, it makes them germs living in a microscopic world of specialization. Just because someone knows everything there is to know about the guanine step in DNA, doesn’t mean they know anything about human existence, and we are smart to understand that. Remember, he who follows a madman is mad himself, no matter if he knows his leader is insane…

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

Denying Rights to Another

Thursday, May 8th, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, when someone denies a right to another, they also deny that right to themselves. By this logic, the latest push by the government to stifle the free expression of conservative media outlets, can easily backfire. The left has had a monopoly on information for several generations now. They are naturally alarmed that another point of view is becoming available threatening their control. Taking such a fundamental right however is tantamount to denying that right to everyone. Freedoms of information, of the press and of speech, are our primary defense against a tyrannical government, (the normal state of humanity). Any threat to one or all of those freedoms is a direct assault on our liberty.

 

One of the fundamental realities of human existence is that we are all equal. We are equal in value, equal in rights and equal in the eyes of God. If a right is denied to anyone, then by the fact that we are equal, that right can be denied to anyone. To argue otherwise requires as a prerequisite… that we are not equal, that some of us are more equal than others. This is sophistry pure and simple. If we are not all equal then who decides who is more equal? The judge will naturally decide he or she is more equal of course, no matter who the judge is, proving the spuriousness of the argument.

 

Limiting the ability of one faction of the political spectrum to speak while giving carte blanch to another is the epitome of inequality. Furthermore, that very limitation gives the limited faction not only the legal ability to limit the free speech of those in power today should they get power, but a moral right to do so as well. This is based on reciprocal applicability. When one person attributes a quality, action or consideration to another, that other has the human right to apply those same things to the first. That is why killing in self defense is moral while murder is not. When the killer considers that the victim’s life can be taken, the would be victim then has the moral right to apply that same consideration to the would be killer, because the would be killer applied the logic first.

 

The left, or better put, the new class, has held a monopoly on information for generations. All the major news outlets are owned, run, edited, reported and overseen, by the new class. This includes FOX News. They are all simply walls in an echo chamber, bouncing around the information the new class wants us to “know,” and thereby think about. Notice the climate hoax is in the news every day despite the fact that most people think it is none sense, or more to the point, because people believe it is foolishness. We must be convinced to disbelieve our own eyes and believe those who we have caught lying to us over and over.

 

Their monopoly gives them great power to control the thoughts and actions of the people. Such power is never given up willingly it can only be taken by a lion or a fox. Today the new class has outsmarted themselves. They thought control of information would be easier with the internet since it was initially only populated by the new class, but as with many new technologies the results can be hard to predict, and in this case it has spun out of their hands. New media are increasingly offering a refreshingly different perspective from the echo chamber. People can get news not only conservative voices but from the world over. This opens the people’s minds to new possibilities and realities. Possibilities that fly in the face of where the new class wants to take us, and the realities history teaches us, that the new class find problematic.

 

Like North Korea, China and all other socialist regimes the new class need total control of the media and the flow of information to forward their agenda. To them, the rise of new media threatens their monopoly, and thereby their power. So conservative voices must be silenced. Since the only way that socialists like the new class and Marxists argue is through intimidation, lies, violence and propaganda fueled by government power, they are playing that one card… government’s power to coerce. The theme of all socialists, like the new class, is that some are more equal than others and so they see no difficulty in denying rights to others they demand for themselves, but the reality is that by their own actions they are making it possible and even moral, for others to deny them the right to free speech as well. In fact, it becomes a moral imperative through reciprocal applicability to do so, since they seek to deny that right to others. Therefore, it would be wise for the new class and socialists of every stripe to remember, when you deny a right to another, you deny that right to yourself.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

Logically Consistent Measure of Right Versus Wrong

Sunday, April 27th, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, what most of us consider wrong, depends on whether we identify with one or the other actor. While this is perfectly human, being subjective, it is not a good measure of good and evil. A better way would be to find an objective measure that is not emotionally dependent but logically consistent. A great deal of the arguments we have in our society can be traced back to this fundamental truism. Government and law would be well served to move past this archaic means of measuring right from wrong. Imagine if we did move our legal system and cultural ethos beyond this pernicious paradigm? Much of the energy we now waste arguing based on our subjective emotions, could be turned to productive discussion, evil would be struck a powerful blow, and people could live much more freely.

 

Who we identify with says a lot about us. Some people believe abortion is perfectly acceptable while others believe abortion is a terrific evil. Both positions today are largely dependent on who the person identifies with. Those who identify with the woman favor abortion, and those who identify with the baby, are pro life. This fairly obvious observation applies to most of the questions we face as a people. Even questions that bring war into the world can be examined this way. Who you or I believe is right depends on who we identify with.

 

Let’s face facts, we are not going to change human nature, and to try only shows arrogance and presumption. I cede the fact, we are not going to change, mature or evolve, out of who and what we are. That is not possible. As a people however, we can grow out of our individual dogmatism to find a more human hearted and logical metric, with which to gauge right from wrong. This is only possible if the leaders of society subject their own prejudices to the test. To accomplish that would require limiting the power of the elite at the individual level and empowering a wide range of elite as a group.

 

There is a stream of philosophical thought in which an action can be measured by the good versus the harm it brings. This is pure sophistry because it takes the individual’s sovereign right out of the equation. All human beings have a right to exist, live as human beings and have property, that supersedes anyone else’s right to enjoyment, food, medicine or even harm. If a scientist came up with a machine that would cure cancer at all stages, but as an input it required a child be put in it and tortured for months, as the innocent child dies of pain overdose, his or her body would emit a substance the machine would then refine that would cure a thousand cases of cancer, would it be right or wrong? What if it would cure ten million? There are those who would identify with the cancer patient and say yes! Those who identify with the child would shudder and scream NO!

 

Instead of making our decisions on an emotional basis we should strive to take emotions out of it and instead try to use the logic if individual liberty. If a thing harms and individual, even if it brings great benefit to another, it is wrong… no matter the level of benefit. To say a thing is good, even though it does great evil to someone, because it brings great good to another… is selfishness writ large. The good from any action cannot be judged good if it comes at cost to another. What I am saying is that the individual’s sovereign rights must not be infringed on, else that action is wrong, pure and simple.

 

If we could move as a society, away from measuring good and evil based on some sophist calculation of the good it brings one against the harm it brings another, then we would have made a great leap in human understanding. The rights of the individual must be protected and cannot be measured by another. No one is saintly enough to make that calculation. As in our fictitious machine that cures cancer, the right of the person to life liberty and happiness cannot be trumped by the “good” that would come to millions, even billions of OTHERS, by stepping on the rights of that person. Protecting the individual, my good friends, is the logically consistent measure of right and wrong I would have us replace the emotionally dependent one we use today, that of who we identify with.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

The Godhead of the State

Sunday, April 6th, 2014

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, government is intent on replacing God, and by doing so enslaving humanity. This is not a new thing, in fact, it is human history’s meme. The Egyptian Pharaohs, Hittite kings, and Genghis Khan, along with every other mass murderer who declared himself emperor, called themselves the sons of gods. It was and is, a means to legitimize arbitrary rule by kings over us, keeping us ignorant and superstitious. Today, the idea is essentially the same, if there is no God, then all of our rights come from the State. Since the State is controlled by the political elite, and if our rights come from the State and not God, then the State can revoke them as the elite see fit, sans God. This is elevated to an actual religion in the case of Communist countries where we see mass murderers worshiped like Gods. Lenin, and Mao come immediately to mind as does the North Korean devil Kim mentally ill. Marx argued that religion is the opium of the people, and so that pernicious religion of the State, Marxism, replaces God. As we slide deeper into the morass of Statism, we will find ourselves in exactly the same position as the ancient peoples… slaves. If we allow it, then we deserve it, but our children deserve better.

 

Those who are the most vociferous against God, are the very ones who are foisting the imbecilic notion, that the State is the font of all that is good… against every example in human history. They claim God is Dead, like Nietzsche. Now Nietzsche is not my favorite philosopher by any stretch. In fact I have a hard time reading his work because it gives me the chills, as if a demon is toying with my soul, but he has a point with his master, slave mentality. Nietzsche said that there is a direct dichotomy between the mentality of a master and a slave. The master’s mentality is that of action and the slave is reaction. Since the master can do as he or she pleases, they do just that and are active, but slaves must not offend their masters and so they must react to the actions of the master. Nietzsche said this is the inheritance of Western culture, that we all have the slave mentality. I offer however, those of us that have been raised in the American experiment are active, and not reactive. It is because our founders placed the State in the correct position, below us, and not above us.

 

As the State is elevated to Godhead, our mentality will change from active to reactive, and we see this happening all around us. The US government is militarizing every branch, bureau and agency, regulations are so arcane even lawyers cannot know them all, we have to get permission from the government for almost any action in the form of a license or permit… the list is endless. Traditionally in the US, the philosophy has been that which has not been made illegal is legal, but today that mentality is changing to, that which is not made legal is illegal. Where a thing needs to be sanctioned by the State before it is considered legal, people must be reactive, and where a thing needs to be made illegal before it is illegal, people are active. Each ethos begets a mindset either of action or reaction. Where people are active there is scientific advancement, economic progress, wealth creation and liberty, but where the people are reactive there is stagnation, superstition, poverty and tyranny. Governments that usurp the role of God create a slaves mentality in the people and indeed slaves in all but name.

 

We have to ask ourselves… what kind of world do we want to bequeath to our children and grandchildren? Do we want them to be slaves or do we want them to be free human beings, with every right and prerogative that is the inheritance of a free people? If we want them to be slaves all we need do is sit back and continue on the path we are on. In doing so we will be following the history of the human race. If we want to leave them with a free society where people are sovereign then we must act. Act to stop the usurpations of Western governments that undermine limited government, demand our political elite be held to the law, and most importantly our Constitutions. The choice is ours and ours alone. Our children will not be given a choice unless we fight to give one to them. Then they will have to fight the same fight, because it is the battle every generation has fought, since the first man crushed the head of another, weapon in hand and covered in the blood of his foe, declared himself king.

 

 

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

The Honor System

Sunday, March 30th, 2014

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, the political elite only pledge to follow our various Constitutions, but are not forced to. This is nothing more than an honor system. To place such responsibility in the hands of so few without any real oversight, is not only dangerous, but it is unfair to them. The lessons of history are unanimous about this. Every nation, republic, democracy and empire has fallen due to corruption. Corruption stemming from both basic human nature, (self interest), and political favor. The fundamental problem in Ukraine that led to the loss of Crimea to Russia, was government corruption, the poor performance of the economy despite huge the energy reserves of Russia, is from government corruption, the present constitutional crisis in the US, is from government corruption… the list is endless. The point is, to change the paradigm to one that actually works in the interests of the people and the elite, is to force the political elite to follow the limits placed on them, in our Constitutions. Lacking that fundamental shift in governance, we can expect to see history repeat itself over and over again, resulting in war, unrest, famine and poverty.

 

Imagine a society where there are laws but everyone is on the honor system to follow them. The deaths simply from traffic accidents would be daunting. No one would be safe in their own home, unless they went to extreme measures to protect themselves, and people would have to. Our children wouldn’t be safe on the streets, far less safe than they are now! Moreover, the market system could not function under such a regime. Such a system would ring in epic poverty and famine. Everyone reading this article knows and understands this fact, but people are so brainwashed by the elite that as soon as I bring up a constitutionally empowered police of government, people have a visceral reaction against the idea.

 

The spurious arguments flow like a torrent. Some include… “it would be too expensive.” So, it isn’t too expensive to intrusively monitor three hundred million people to the nth degree, but it is too expensive to monitor a few thousand? “More bureaucracy is not the solution,” this ignores the fact that bureaucrats regulate every aspect of our lives, and grows like a kudzu vine strangling our economy and freedoms, but if government were held to Constitutional limits, the existing unconstitutional bureaucracy would have to be scaled back. “They would just get corrupt themselves.” This is the most pernicious argument for allowing the elite to continue in the honor system, crushing our liberty under the jack boot of government corruption. To believe that a Fourth Branch would necessarily become corrupt, one has to believe the local police, the State police and every other law enforcement agency is also utterly corrupt. If someone believes that, they must necessarily believe those agencies should be disbanded, putting the whole of society on the honor system.

 

Human nature is self interest. The market system twists our self interested nature into being rational maximizers, (civilized people). The difference is that a rational maximizer understands that his or her self interest is tied up in everyone else’s self interest. Our basic nature, (barbaric nature), is to follow our immediate self interest regardless of the consequences to society and others. The market system and American ideals have taught humanity the truth of Socrates argument in The Republic. That lesson is lost on those with political favor, because their self interest can be met outside of the market system simply by perverting it into it’s evil twin, crony capitalism. This is furthered by the corruptible elite who are also prevented from being rational maximizers by the lack of any real oversight.

 

There is not a nation on the face of our planet that would not benefit from policing the political elite. Even socialism would work better if it had a Fourth branch policing the actions of the political elite. Since the beginning of time people have sought ways to limit the political elite’s propensity to pervert government to their own self interests. Constitutionalism is a relatively new phenomenon. It has had limited utility because the political elite are still on the honor system. Once the political elite cannot use their offices for personal gain, without facing the imminent fear of prosecution and jail, government will shrink back to it’s Constitutional limits, the people will be prosperous and crime will dwindle. A Fourth Branch is a win win for society, culture and even government itself. The real winners however will be us, the people, stable government is a boon for everyone.

 

You can read more about it in my book, The Fourth Branch here; https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/277193

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

Oligarchy of The Red Tapeworm

Thursday, March 27th, 2014

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, the legal system is supposed to facilitate market interactions, but in reality the legal system more often than not, is a parasitic drag on the free market. Like a tape worm imparts some resistance to diarrhea when it is small, it eventually outgrows it’s host, and if it isn’t dealt with, the host eventually starves to death no matter how much food they eat. This is not to say that there should be no laws. It is to say that the legal system in most western countries has out grown their hosts, the economies, and is draining those economies the vital sustenance, capital, they need. Many people have pointed this out to no avail. The reason the legal system always overtakes the national good is because Lawyers are a defacto oligarchy. Our economic futures rest on our ability to prune back the parasitic nature of our legal systems, else we and our children will live in an economy that is being starved, by the very legal system that is supposed to protect it.

 

Market economies need standards, this is a basic fact of any study on market economics. People have to be able to make valid legal contracts, that are binding, we have to be able to sue for redress of economic harm visited on us… among a whole host of other valuable services a functional legal system provides. No economy can do without laws and standards. However, as Madison said in The Federalist Papers, when those laws become so abstruse, even a person knowledgeable in the law cannot possibly understand them all, you have tyranny.

 

The legal system is essentially a faction. This faction, like all factions, seeks the best interests of it’s members, no differently than a labor union. The legal faction is made up of attorneys. It is not coincidental that all governments have a large portion of their members as attorneys. Modern governments are broken into three branches, Executive, Legislative and Judicial. This was Montesquieu idea, to limit the source of most tyranny that ruins republican government, an overly powerful Executive. Break the authority from the Executive to adjudicate over law, and form it into a new, or third branch, the Judicial, (the lawyer’s exclusive branch). So, since all three branches are largely populated by lawyers, most legislators are attorneys, most Presidents have been lawyers, and with one branch exclusive to lawyers, the legal faction is overly represented in government. This makes the legal faction an oligarchy. They eventually rule, not in the interests of everyone, but in the interests of their faction, the classic definition of an oligarchy, ala Aristotle’s wrong forms of government.

 

Many learned people have suggested tort reform but it never gets anywhere. That is because the very people who would have to pass it, lawyers, would suffer real harm from it. The legal faction’s power would be diminished and the members of it, attorneys, would suffer economic harm. That is why tort reform is always dead on arrival whenever anyone offers it. Moreover, every time a new regulation is written, a new law is passed, a court finds a business has to pay a litigant for burning herself with hot coffee, or a judge rules a legal contract is null and void, along with many other legal abuses, the demand for lawyers goes up. Economics 101 is supply and demand, as the barrier to entry is raised by more and more stringent testing and pretesting requirements, lowering supply, while at the same time the demand for attorneys is elevated by absurd rulings and tomes of arcane regulations and laws, raising demand, the profit for lawyers must necessarily go up.

 

That is why the media and lawyers attack oil company profits in the tens of billions but no one decries the profits of law firms that run into the hundreds of billions. Doctors are vilified for charging what they do to save the life of a child but the absurd charges attorneys get away with are ho hummed. The legal faction controls the government and thus the conversation. The fees of lawyers goes up, along with the regulations they pass and society has to follow, in a Fibonacci curve while economic growth dwindles away. No matter to the legal faction however, their fortunes continue to rise. But, like the Roman empire was destroyed, in no small part by the stifling regulation and bureaucracy, their legal system built up, our modern societies are being eaten from within by the red tape worm of the legal faction. Most likely, we will end up like the Roman civilization, because we refuse to learn the lesson history teaches us.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

The Irony Of Progressivism

Sunday, March 23rd, 2014

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, “liberals” not only demand we approve of everything they do and think, but we must even support and pay for it, while they are entitled to decree to the rest of us what to do, and even what to think. Reminiscent of 1984 George Orwell, the thought police are here under the guise of “social justice,” “inclusiveness” and “fairness.” Progressives themselves seem blind to the chilling effect their beliefs have on open and honest debate. (Or are they)? The people who follow leftist reasoning constantly sing the praises of democracy, but true democracy requires as a precondition open debate, lacking that free debate, democracy is nothing more than a tyranny of the loudmouths. Moreover, lacking freedom of thought, conscience and action, a society quickly devolves into poverty, stagnation and oppression. Lest we follow many other great civilizations into deprivation, we have to open our eyes to this most pernicious form of thought control, highlighting it for the rest of society to see.

 

Like the inquisitor of old, modern “liberals” demand conformity with their way of thinking, else they are happy to use the power of the State to compel agreement. Today we are forced, through thought laws and political correctness, to support the political line no matter how absurd it is, or becomes. Christians are forced to pay for “art” that depicts Mary decorated in feces, (the sign of Baal), we are forced to pay for abortions, we must cater gay weddings else loose our businesses, etc… There is no level of oppressive action that is out of limits for the political and cultural elite to foist on Christians. In our “modern” society Christianity has negative political favor.

 

Christians and Jews are not the only victims of the thought police. Gun owners are regularly called vitriolic names by the political elite, and the Right to keep and bear arms is increasingly being infringed. Progressives don’t like cigarettes, so they outlaw smoking in public, and even in one’s own home, in some places. The nanny state is fueled by the leftist mindset where everything they think we should do is enshrined in regulation. From economically destructive regulations against hydro fracturing, to how many days a store can have a sign out, are common in states that have a high proportion of progressives. They regulate every aspect of what it is to be human, but cannot stand anyone else finding what they do, immoral. Anyone who disagrees with the progressive political establishment is under attack today.

 

Hate crime is the definition of a thought crime. If someone kills or harms another, based on a thought, IE hate, they are punished especially fervently. This kind of law is based on what a person thinks and not what a person does. Therefore, when a hate crime is charged, thought police are active. There are already laws against murder, assault and theft, and so if someone commits those crimes, they can be punished for what they do, and not what they think. This wrong is magnified by the fact that certain politically favored groups cannot be charged with hate crimes, only a disfavored race can, which is racist in and of itself. Illustrating the pernicious nature of thought laws.

 

Freedom doesn’t only apply to those who we agree with though. I find many things detestable, but I don’t try to outlaw the idea, I argue against them in open debate. If something is wrong society will eventually recognize it and grow beyond it. Only if there is free debate however. Lacking debate, absurdity can become entrenched, growing to undermine economic prosperity, and liberty itself. We all want to be thought open minded, no one wants people to be discriminated against, but thought laws make us closed minded and force us to discriminate, in the name of social justice and fairness, when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Most people are not really engaged in the workings of politics, especially when society is moderately wealthy, they only want to work, have a family and go on vacation now and then. They don’t want to be called racists, haters or other vitriolic names and so they keep quiet and go along. Since these negative monickers are poured on certain segments of society, those people who remain silent fall into a trap set for them, believing that those segments are evil, and that disagreement with the cultural and political elite is actually hateful. So they vote, act and agree with what they know in their hearts is wrong. This is the way societies crumble, economies collapse, tyrannies rise and a new normal of economic depression is formed. Open, honest and free debate is the solution, thought laws are the problem, if we continue to embrace the problem and eschew the solution, we can kiss our liberty, and prosperity goodbye, forever.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin