Posts Tagged ‘Law’

Arbitrary Rule and Great Poverty

Monday, December 8th, 2014

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, two of the most corrupting influences on Mankind, are both arbitrary power and great poverty. Both stultify the soul and wither one’s empathy, they lower a person’s thinking to the most base level, reducing him to a mere animal, and both great poverty and arbitrary power give a human being a sense of entitlement, all of which lower instead of raise the individual. Only a saint could remain unaffected by unlimited power or great poverty. Therefore, if we want to live in a virtuous society, if we want mankind to grow in knowledge and wisdom, and if we want our children to live in safety and prosperity, we must strive to mitigate the effects and to eliminate arbitrary power and great poverty.

Arbitrary power has been known to be evil for thousands of years. Solon, the lawgiver of Athens, made even favoring arbitrary power punishable by the ostracism. Such was the threat the ancient Athenians held for arbitrary power. What arbitrary power is, is exactly what the term implies, that a person or group, have total control over a land and it’s people. They can make up laws as they want, they can change laws, they can take the property of others without consequence, they can order citizens executed without trial… basically, there is no limit on their power over others. Essentially, everyone suffering under arbitrary rule, are slaves, in the most draconian sense of the word. There are two kinds of tyranny, legal and arbitrary, a legal tyranny is the better because even the despot must follow the law when he tyrannizes you, but in arbitrary rule the despot’s power is unlimited. Nazi Germany is an example of a legal tyranny.

Great poverty lowers a human being’s thought to basic needs. What drowning man wouldn’t pull down even his own loved one? When living in great poverty a person doesn’t have the luxury of being able to take flights of imagination, the stomach intrudes on the mind. Those who live in great poverty have no means to change their lives because society itself lacks the resources. The starving man has no scruples around a loaf of bread, similar to a despot, who has no scruples at all. Seeing one’s own children starve to death takes away our humanity. How can it not? All of these factors impel those who live in great poverty to join rebellions, and engage in crime, because nothing strips the veneer of civilization from a person like starving to death. Unlike the despot however, once great poverty is lifted from someone their humanity returns rapidly, but the person who practices arbitrary rule is lost forever.

Wherever there is great poverty there is arbitrary rule, and whenever there is arbitrary rule, there will be great poverty. The two go hand in hand. In States where there is arbitrary rule the economy cannot function properly. There is not one example of an economy that survived arbitrary rule throughout history. Marxist nations have all collapsed economically because socialism grows arbitrary rule like a stagnant pond grows algae. Throughout the ages every great civilization that has risen in virtue has fallen in vice, vice that was introduced by arbitrary rule. When Pericles came to power in Athens he perverted Athenian polity and law to his own ends. He built great edifices to his mythical gods, and his ego, he used the ostracism as a weapon to enforce his arbitrary rule, and the result was the subjugation of Athens to Sparta.

In nations with great poverty there is always arbitrary rule. Darfur is an example of arbitrary rule destroying a people and ushering in great poverty. There has never been great wealth there, but the people had sufficient food, shelter and clothing. Once the despot, Al-Bashir, decided the people of Darfur were expendable, and on resources he wanted, he simply took the resources. When the people rebelled, Bashir sent military jets to kill them, he forced them out of their ancient villages and into the desert. The resulting great poverty was on television for all to see. Yet, most took the wrong lesson from that example, most believed the great poverty of the people of Darfur was the result of war, ignoring the root cause of that war, arbitrary power. Many believe Darfur’s great poverty could be alleviated by foreign aid, but the reality is that the warp and the woof of the problem is arbitrary rule.

Unfortunately, the siren call for the leaders of any nation to arbitrary rule is so great that only the most saintly, or the most limited, can resist it… and it is obvious that our leaders are not resisting. Despite the cautionary history of collapsed civilizations, lost wealth, and entire nations enslaved, arbitrary rule is even more of a threat now than ever in history. With modern technology, a despot could control every aspect of the people’s lives, like in the book, 1984 George Orwell. With our market based economies, of the various nations around the world, incipient arbitrary rule has already done great damage. Today we still live in relative wealth, but that is slipping away fast, even as we are told we should turn to socialism, to get an ever larger piece of an ever shrinking pie. In the end, if our children have to live in great poverty, it will be because we allowed arbitrary rule… again.


John Pepin

You Cannot Control or Plan an Economy, It Can Only Be Ridden…

Thursday, November 27th, 2014

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, an economy is an organic thing, like a horse or a flock of birds, as such it cannot be controlled it can only be ridden. Control is a science and riding is an art. Science can only be applied in a scientific, (controlled) setting. An art can be plied in the real world, where everything is messy, and where “control” is a relative term. This is one of the fundamental reasons communism and socialism cannot work with human beings. Socialism and communism require an economy to be controlled. An economy cannot be controlled. Whenever someone tries, the economy explodes, destroying lives, fortunes and families.

The economy of even a tiny nation or city state, is far too complex to be tightly controlled, and if control is attempted, a long tailed event always occurs, destroying the economy. The random inputs to even a small fruit business are too many to be controlled. A small business person will tell you that he or she does everything possible to control costs, monitor employees and maintain quality, while satisfying the customer, but that it is impossible to control everything. That is where intuition and experience come in, a business cannot be controlled it must be managed, or in other terms, ridden.

Riding a horse is an art, as is, managing a business, herding cattle, painting a picture and running a government. What do arts have in common? All these endeavors seek only a portion of control. They take elements that are disparate, and keep just enough dominance over them that those elements work together, but not so much it breaks the system. If a cowboy tried to control every single cow, the herd would immediately scatter, if the rider tried to control the placement of the horse’s feet, the horse would quickly fall, if a manager tried to micro manage every action of every employee, the business would rapidly fail, an art requires domination of that which can be mastered and accepting that those elements that cannot be mastered will look after themselves. Only those things that can be completely manipulated with absolute mastery over every input and reaction can be controlled, everything else must be ridden.

To control something one must have a way to control any unforeseen exigency. In a complex system control is impossible because there is no way to have a mechanism in place to deal with any possible emergency. The universe of potential emergencies are too vast to be thought of let alone controlled for. Only when someone has total power over every facet of a system, process or reaction, can he or she be said to control it, and even that level of control is subject to God’s laws. In fact that is the scientific method. It is the way scientists have gleaned out the nuances of God’s laws in Physics, Mathematics, and Chemistry… Economics, sociology, psychology and even history are pseudo sciences and while subject to God’s laws they escape humanity’s grasp due to their complexity.

A pseudo science is a field of study that approximates a science but in fact is an art. History for example is written by the victors and as such cannot be a perfect illustration of the facts. A Periodic Table of the Elements would not be science if large portions of it said, “Dragons be made of this…” It would not be chemistry it would be alchemy. Chemistry is a science where alchemy is mere pseudo science. Economics cannot be a science in the true sense until sociology, psychology and a whole slew of other pseudo sciences become real sciences, because economics depends on them for many of it’s theories and assumptions, if an assumption is that “dragons be made of this,” then it is not scientific. Someday, economics may become a science but until then, it is only a pseudo science approximating science.

And so, if all the inputs, the wants, reactions, fears, hopes, desires, knowledge, work ethic, illness, cheating husbands and wives, etc… for every human being in existence cannot be controlled, an economy cannot be controlled. What is the next best thing then, if we don’t want a chaotic economy that doesn’t do what we want it to? To ride it, control what we can and accept that which we cannot, set the parameters and incentives such that most of the economic actors stay in the herd, go after the strays and bring them back into the fold, establish standards, eliminate micro managing regulations, and accept the truth that total control of the economy or in other words, the planned economy, is impossible. Only when we give up trying to control our economies and instead ride them, can we have better functioning economies that do what we all want them to do, create widespread prosperity, keep our nation’s militarily strong, (to protect that wealth), and provide a rising standard of living to our children and their children.


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.


John Pepin

A stake in Society

Thursday, November 6th, 2014

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, if we want to eliminate the scourge of drugs, stop our children from joining gangs, and prevent the youth from traveling abroad to bolster terrorist groups, what we need to do is give them a sense of ownership in our society. Mencius said, “The people constitute the way (Tao). Thus the hearts of those who have a stake in the country are fixed and those who have no stake in the country are not fixed; and if they have no stake they let themselves go in vice and extravagance…” That advice is as relevant today as it was in 500 BC. A stake, or ownership in the nation, society and culture is essential to a person’s self worth and sense of future. When that stake is taken away the individual becomes careless about society, the culture and government. We see this plainly in the results of the Frankfurt school of philosophy when it was introduced into American culture in the early 1960s. If you want a better life for your children and yourself, it is up to you to make sure we all have a stake, else our standard of living will dwindle along with the fortunes of our society.

When people own their own home everyone keeps it up much better than when they rent. That is an established fact. People are at heart rational maximizers. Any rational person will maintain what they own and let go that which they do not own. This has been proven over and over in cultural experiments. In the slums of South America, when the impoverished are given title to the shacks and land they are on, those shacks get maintained, fences get built around them to protect them, they get painted and expanded. Those who do not have a deed on their shacks let them rot into the ground, because they could be bulldozed down at any moment or someone will simply come and take it from them. That is the crux, when someone has title, their stake is protected, but when someone could be tossed out at a moment’s notice, why should they maintain it for some usurper?

A nation is like a home. In nations with Right government, those countries protect the property of the people, they protect the lives of the people, apply law equally and they provide a framework that allow people to get ahead, if they work hard… and get rich if they both work hard, take chances and are smart. A nation can be allowed to deteriorate by negligence or it can be built up by elbow grease. Let the roof on a home rot away and the rest of the house quickly becomes uninhabitable, let the laws of a nation become corroded by arbitrary enforcement, and the nation rots from the inside. Break the foundation of a home and it crumbles to the ground, smash the foundation of a society and it collapses from the first wind of crisis. Give the people a stake and they will maintain it, take that stake away, and they will allow it to fall to the ground.

How does one give the people a stake in a country, culture and society? By several means. Protect the foundation of that nation by protecting the societal myth is critical. The constitution of those countries with one is that foundational societal myth. When someone destroys the constitution, they destroy the nation that was built upon it, no differently than when the foundation of a house is smashed the house falls in. To do that we must keep those who despise the constitution from having power over it. There will always be those who seek to destroy a constitution by conniving. Those people are villains of the most heinous sort.

Another thing that must be done is to enforce the laws equally and without bias. That requires laws that can be read and understood. While this should seem obvious, in practice it is perhaps the hardest to achieve. All people are selfish to some extent. Lawyers make the laws, lawyers prosecute those laws and lawyers interpret the laws. This gives lawyers a great incentive to make laws that benefit them, prosecute laws in such a way as to enrich themselves and interpret those laws to protect their position in society. To do that they must make the laws of a society so circuitous that no one, even lawyers themselves, can fully comprehend them. Furthermore, it is in lawyers best interests to force everyone to use a lawyer for every economic interaction, by undermining the very laws they are supposed to protect.

Perhaps the most important thing a people can do to give everyone a stake in the system is to maintain class mobility. Not only to maintain the ability of individuals to rise from poverty to the elite but to maintain the societal belief of class mobility. When schools teach children that it is not possible for them to advance beyond their status they undermine class mobility. When the elite pervert the societal myth, that class mobility is available for anyone if they work hard, take smart chances and persevere, they destroy the belief of class mobility. Possibly the worst way the elite in a society can eliminate class mobility as well as the belief of class mobility is to sell the fiction of equal outcomes.

The very concept of equal outcomes takes away everyone’s stake in society. When you will get the same as everyone else, no matter how hard you work or even if you work, you have no stake in that society. You are merely a slave and everyone knows a slave cannot own anything. Redistribution is so corrosive of a people’s sense of ownership in a nation it should be attacked anytime it is mentioned. The only people who have a stake in a country that redistributes the wealth of the people are the elite that do the redistributing. They always take more than their share and their share is protected by the army.

The results of these negative incentives can be seen in the United States since the 1960s. The concepts of the Frankfurt school came into their own then. Redistribution became vogue, class mobility was attacked in the classroom and in popular culture, the laws had been undermined by bureaucracy for two decades, the arbitrary application of the law became obvious, and the US Constitution became a living breathing document destroying the very foundation of American society. All these innovations took away the people’s stake, or ownership, in the country. The results were that drug use became rampant, it was the beginning of the scourge of drugs, crime skyrocketed, violence became endemic and the institutions of civil society began to deteriorate. Clearly, the path to prosperity is through giving all people a stake in their nation, the path to poverty is to take that stake away.


John Pepin

The Road to Poverty for a Nation

Thursday, October 30th, 2014

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, if we want to live in a nation of prosperity and liberty, but not one of poverty and tyranny, it is up to us to use our common sense when we vote. We all want to be prosperous that is a natural desire of humanity. The drive for liberty is a heart felt feeling that people have had since the days of Adam and Eve. How unfortunate then that these two mutually compatible wants are almost never met? Instead we always get tyranny and poverty. Our leaders constantly lead us astray, lowering our standard of living and becoming ever more tyrannical, until the nation state, city state or empire becomes so rotted from the inside, it collapses from something that wouldn’t have been a bump in the road a mere generation earlier.

I believe this is because of the fiction of enough. Oh, we can have enough pain, enough hunger or enough sickness, but it is impossible to have enough wealth, power, luxury, food or happiness. We might be sated for a short time after a huge meal, the giant bonus might make us happy for a day, but as soon as the food is digested or the bonus is put in the bank, we want more. There can never be enough of a good – while even a little of a bad is too much. It is in our nature to strive for more good and less bad and only a saint is immune.

This maxim applies to government and it’s officials as much as the common laborer, possibly more. Those in government want more money, sex and power. The seven deadly sins are all the more deadly when exercised by the political elite, because they not only destroy the virtue of the elite, but the nation they lead as well. No matter how much power the elite get they demand more. No matter the problems they created with the power they were already given, they want more, to fix those same problems, which will certainly be used to create more problems… so they can get more power. They can never have enough power over the individual, sex with young interns or wealth at the expense of the people.

History says nothing if not, when government grows beyond simply protecting the people from foreign states, safeguarding our lives and watch over our property… poverty, plague and war result. In fact, the fiction of enough is exactly why there is war in the first place. No nation has enough land, no matter how much land it has, no nation has enough wealth, no matter how rich it is, and no country on Earth is satisfied with the resources it possesses. All countries look upon the wealth, land and resources of their neighbor with a greedy eye. Perpetual war is also the most efficient way to remove our liberty from us, from subjecting us to tyranny, to “protect us” from this or that bogyman. This is made easier, by the fact the new class elite control the media in all nations, including the US. We are so easily deceived.

The covetousness of the political elite is not spent only on the property of other nations it is most hungry when turned on the wealth of their own people. Those in power will think of all kinds of ways to plunder our wealth for their own use. In this, the more power the government has, the easier it is to take what we earned through labor, to line the pockets of the elite. President Harry Truman said, “Anyone who gets rich in politics is a God damned crook…” How many politicians, in any country on Earth, are not rich within a year or two of gaining office? The more socialist the nation’s government is the richer the political elite and the poorer the people. That is because no amount of wealth is enough, even if it costs the nation it’s economy, liberty and happiness.

The only answer is to limit government’s power over us. But power taken is never returned except by a collapse and reset. Of course the elite will scream to the rafters that they need that power to do us good. But as I have pointed out, that power will do us no good, it will enrich the political elite and destroy our culture, society, nation and economy. The political elite know this as well or better than you and I but their greed, lust and hunger, overpowers their patriotism. When a politician tells you that he or she needs to be able to take from someone to give to you, they are really telling you they want to be able to legally steal from others, including you. You will get no benefit but your children will live in poverty and tyranny because of it. They appeal to our greed to satisfy their greed and call it progress. We are as lazy as the elite and seek wealth without work too.

We follow our leaders, we want to get rich in politics as well, even if we are not members of the political elite. They exploit this tendency in us to manipulate our selfish desires, desires they have put in us when we look at their wealth, power and prerogative, and stand in awe of it. We become desirous of those things ourselves. But in no nation or country ever constituted, has wealth been taken from the people and been given back, at no point in time has power been returned to the people, never has an oligarchy ruled for the benefit of all, and no place where the people have fallen for the deceit that they can vote other people’s money into their own pocket… has there been anything but increasing poverty, lowering of liberty, and eventually, catastrophic collapse. Yes, the elite start it because they can never have enough, but we always go along, voting the most corrupt politicians in, because they claim they will “give” us the wealth someone else has piled up… suckers that we are.


John Pepin

Shall Not Be Infringed

Monday, October 27th, 2014

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, guns are the most regulated tools in the United States, despite the clear prohibition against gun regulation in the United States Constitution. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Those who oppose limits on government, limits that are the very reason for our Constitution in the first place, spuriously argue the Second Amendment is to give government the right to keep and bear arms, which of course is absurd on the face of it and is based on perverting the meaning of the word “militia,” and ignoring the phrase, “being necessary to the security of a free State.” They bolster their argument by claiming guns are dangerous, and as dangerous tools they must be regulated, for the safety of us all. But, is that really why guns are so regulated, or are these just distractions to the real purpose of gun control? I would posit that the real reason the political, cultural and social elite seek gun control is for a far more insidious agenda.

Of course regulation is the very definition of an infringement. Regulation and laws are there to keep people from doing something, or having something, the elite have decided are bad. In infringing on an action, product or thought, the argument is always that it is for the greater good. In the case of laws against murder, the reason for them is that if a person’s life is taken, that person has been denied his or her fundamental individual Right to exist. In the case of laws against theft, the rational is that people have the Right to their possessions, and taking something from someone denies them the enjoyment of that possession. Right law protects individuals – not society. In all cases law that is in keeping with Our Constitution are there to protect our person, property or liberty. Gun control however is different, gun laws are there to deny us the ability to defend our lives, to protect our property and to make it possible to remove our liberty, the exact opposite of right law.

The rabid gun control advocate demands all people, especially law abiding citizens give up guns so the fearful man or woman can feel safer. In that the crux of their argument is “guns are dangerous and therefore they must be regulated, the Constitution can go to Hell.” But in making such arguments they forget that all the Rights enumerated in the Constitution are dangerous. The Right to free speech is very dangerous, far more dangerous than the Right to keep and bear arms. The most an armed lunatic can kill is a hundred, maybe a few more, but the damage an armed terrorist can visit on humanity is limited by the response of law abiding armed citizens as well as law enforcement. The damage a pamphleteer can do to the well ordering of society is exponentially worse. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf which in large part abetted the slaughter of sixty million human beings and the rewriting of the world’s map. Marx and Engels penned The Communist Manifesto which to date has justified the extermination of well over one hundred million innocent people! Clearly, if safety is what the gun control advocate wants, freedom of speech is far more dangerous then the Right to keep and bear arms, and so must be outlawed.

If we examine the results of gun control laws, both in the united States and elsewhere, a clear pattern emerges. In the cities with the greatest infringement on the Right to keep and bear arms, violence of all kinds is out of control, especially gun violence. In those places where guns are the least regulated, there is the least violence, especially gun violence. Furthermore, where guns are outlawed most of the violence is stranger on stranger violence, and where guns are legally protected, almost all the violence is between people who know each other, in other words, crimes of passion. In countries where guns have been outlawed, like Australia, gun violence has skyrocketed. So the argument that gun laws keep people safe is obviously untrue.

The new class elite who seek to take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, argue that since the Right was prefaced by the term Well regulated Militia, it was meant to apply to the government and not to individuals. Even a perfunctory examination of this argument shows it to be absurd. That the founders would place a Right in the Bill of Rights that gives government a Right, that has already been granted elsewhere is clearly spurious, that they would place a government Right among Rights specifically designated for individuals to protect us from tyranny, shows it to be sophistry of the most diabolical kind. The Bill of Rights was specifically designed, under great debate, to protect the people from a despotic government. Certainly not to empower government to become despotic! Madison himself said, Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. At the time the Bill of Rights was written militia meant all able bodied men. Like I said, even a cursory glance at the spurious claim that the Second Amendment is to give government the sole power to keep and bear arms is absurd.

The Bill of Rights was added to our Constitution as a secondary bulwark against government becoming despotic. Madison initially objected, arguing what need a of a Bill of Rights, since the Constitution forbade government from doing anything it is not specifically allowed to do under the Constitution. Going further he reasoned, if the Bill of Rights forbade the regulation of jumping jacks, could it then therefore regulate tiddlywinks? He eventually came on board with the Federalists who called for a Bill of Rights and wrote them himself. But as we now see, our government has become so extra constitutional, even the “parchment barriers” of our Bill of Rights can be ignored by a government intent on ignoring them. Now that our Constitution, and even our Bill of Rights means nothing, tyranny cannot be far away. That my friends is why we need to add a Fourth Branch… but that is another article for another time.


John Pepin

Post Constitutional America

Wednesday, October 22nd, 2014

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the United States has entered a post Constitutional era, similar to when Rome passed from a republic to a tyranny, America has thrown off her founding principles and replaced them with the authoritarian credo of a despot. All nations founded in liberty eventually follow this path. In all cases the path to authoritarianism is led by the elite, political, cultural and social. Sadly in every case the entering of an authoritarian era always leads the known world into a dark age. The distance in time between abandoning of the societal myth and the complete fall, depends on how tenacious the people are in holding onto their societal myth, divided by how corrupt the ruling class has become. The economic might of the nation is another factor crucial to the length of time a republic has, after it ceases to be a republic in fact, but in name only. In the case of Rome, the people held tightly to their societal myth, while in the US, the people have all but cast aside our societal myth. Given that fact, the time between entering our post constitutional era and the total collapse of our republic is probably very short indeed. When the US republic falls the world will be plunged into a dark age with horrors visited on mankind which could have never even been imagined before.

America is not any different than any of the republics that have come before. I like to use the example of Rome, because it was founded in liberty and collapsed in tyranny, making it a perfect example for the American experiment. The founding fathers looked to Rome for inspiration even considering using the consular system. That system was rejected in favor of the newer system of Constitutionalism. That Rome was a precursor and template for the American experiment is shown in our edifices that follow the Greek and Roman patterns. In fact even the very idea of a nation founded in liberty has it’s roots in the Greco-Roman tradition.

When Rome followed the republican path she saw an uninterrupted string of successes. No city state or empire could defeat her in war. The Roman economy was second to none and the people had a freedom of thought and action never before seen in humanity. Sparta was unbeatable when it followed the laws of Lycurgus. Once the Spartans tossed out Lycurgus’ laws they quickly collapsed and were subjugated by the Macedonians. Athens followed the laws of Draco then Solon. Once Pericles began using the ostracism as a political tool the fall of Athens to Sparta was at hand.

Athens, perhaps the most renowned democracy, gave rise to some of the most influential thinkers in human history culminating in Aristotle, who wrote Nicomachean Ethics. In which he enumerated the right forms of government and the wrong forms. His right forms were, monarchy, aristocracy and polity, and explained the wrong forms are perversions of the right forms, tyranny a perversion of monarchy, oligarchy a perversion of aristocracy and democracy the perversion of polity. He went on to argue a republic, or blending of the right forms, was the best possible form. That history was well known to the founding fathers of the American republic.

In all cases the elite led the people to ruin. My favorite story from the Spring and Summer Annuls, is the story of the Duke of Lu, who asked Confucius how he could get the people to be less greedy, not engage in adultery, and stop shirking their duty. Confucius answered by saying the Duke could stop doing these things himself and lead by example. Confucius and his disciples had to flee Lu state shortly after. The point of the story is that corruption flows from the top down, never from the bottom up. The people, busy with their own lives, have very little time to oversee the rulers and typically have no power over them anyway. So without consequences for villainy the rulers become ever more corrupt. The people see their leaders corruption and follow. Eventually, the society becomes a house of cards, so rotted it collapses at the first gust of wind.

Constitutionalism is supposed to strictly limit the ability of any government to become tyrannical. The concept was that a constitution is to be a contract between the governors and the governed, in which the people would give up some of their sovereignty to the government, for purposes of protecting the people’s property, lives and liberty. That concept has been evolved by the new class elite to mean something very different. Today constitutions are living breathing documents who’s meaning changes with the wants and avarice of the ruling elite. The words change meanings, the intent is ignored and the most absurd things are inferred into it. The US Constitution has become merely a pretty cloak to cover the emperor’s tyranny. Today the Constitution means whatever the elite claim it does.

The meaning of the US Constitution has been so bastardized it bears no resemblance to the original document at all. This started under Teddy Roosevelt, was accelerated by Woodrow Wilson, was cast in stone by Franklin Roosevelt and our Constitution has become utterly irrelevant under Barack Obama. Obama creates legislation by fiat, the legislative branch has become nothing more than a chatterbox that has given away all it’s real power to the bureaucracy, while the Judicial branch has overseen the transition to our post Constitutional era with delight. The amendments have been so perverted they mean nothing. Freedom of religion has given way to the state religion of atheism, the freedom to keep and bear arms has been so infringed the people have been effectively disarmed, the police have become militarized to the point of becoming a modern praetorian guard, the Tenth amendment is superfluous, since virtually all power has been elevated to the Federal government, the list goes on and on.

Yes the United States has abandoned our Constitution and most of the people could care less. The few who stand for our founding principles are attacked as extremists while those who openly avow to overthrow our system are mainstream. Our economy has been hollowed out so badly it takes over two hundred billion dollars printed a month, to keep our economic balloon inflated, our government has us in a perpetual state of war, our standard of living is diminishing at an ever faster rate, the President now has arbitrary rule, our universities have become mere indoctrination centers for Marxists and our entertainment elite parade a plethora of absurdities in front of us to keep us distracted. Elitist theory is adamant about one thing, great civilizations are never overthrown from without, they are always hollowed out by corruption from within… and once the fall comes, it is because the civilization is ripe for it.


John Pepin

Creative Destruction, Say’s Law and the Pseudo Science of Economics

Monday, October 20th, 2014

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, supply really does drive demand in the creative phase of the creative destruction cycle, and arguments to the contrary are most often based on observation bias. The theory that supply drives demand is Say’s law, but I am changing it a bit. Keynesian economic theory is that demand drives supply which is the opposite of Say’s law. These two theories have been at odds since John Maynard Keynes developed his theory. Keynes theory falls short of the mark, as does Say’s law, but if we combine Schumpeter’s theory with that of Say, the amalgam provides us with a better snapshot of the workings of a healthy economy. This is because an economy is a complex system, and complex systems are by their nature messy, making it impossible to quantify and measure the inputs to any real degree of reliability, therefore economics are a pseudo science or in other words, an art. This is important because our lives are better when we live in an expanding economy with a rising standard of living.

Economics is not a real science in the strictest of terms. The theories cannot be independently verified because the fundamentals cannot be effectively measured. Moreover economics, like any of the humanist “sciences,” are subject to the personal bigotries of the “scientist.” These pseudo sciences have built in traps for those who would promote their theories over those of another. One of those traps is observation bias. In the hard sciences like physics the parameters can be set, measured and quantified. The bias of the observer is irrelevant, a stone dropped accelerates at nine point eight meters per second squared, no matter who is observing it, but since humanistic sciences, economics and climate “science” are not hard sciences based on directly observable phenomenon, but are instead complex systems that have far too many inputs and interactions, so observing and measuring any number of inputs and interactions, many of which are not directly observable at all let alone measurable, gives very little insight into the emergent phenomenon that is different in kind than the sum of the inputs… a key distinction of a complex system.

Since economics is the science/art of a complex system, theories cannot be measured by looking at any of the inputs, but instead must be measured from the emergent phenomenon that rises from the complex system itself. In other words, we cannot reason from the bottom up, like the hard sciences, we have to reason from the top down, and even then, we find observation bias creeping in. In the aggregate demand aggregate supply model, the assumption is that if there is no demand for products and services, any supply is over supply, and therefore demand drives supply. In Say’s law, that supply drives demand, the foundation is that if there is a supply of something there will be demand, even if the demand is at a price point that is lower than the manufacturing cost. In Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction, the theory rests on the concept that new ideas draw in the means of production until the idea is fully implemented, then the outmoded ideas are destroyed.

All those theories start at some sub function of the complex system, demand, supply, new ideas, etc… then reason from the sub function or input, to the emergent phenomenon. As I have explained this is not an efficient way to reason about complex systems. If we instead look at the desired results, the emergent phenomenon we seek in an economic system, IE. a “healthy economy,” and then reason down, we are more likely to find workable theories that are less subject to observation bias… as long as the term “Healthy economy” is agreed to at the outset. Let’s set the parameters for a “healthy economy,” to be full employment, an expanding economy and a rising standard of living. Notice I didn’t make one of the parameters no recessions. This is because recession’s are clearly a facet of a healthy economy as we have described. We can deduce this by the fact that all complex systems grow in fits and starts, animals and plants grow rapidly, slow, then grow rapidly again, until they have reached maturity. Weather patterns change constantly from rain to clear and back to rain, all complex systems wax and wane and therefore reasoning from the top down, we can reasonably conclude recession is a function of a healthy economy, just as sleep is a function of a healthy body.

The emergent phenomenon of a healthy economy, requires a high utilization of workers, increasing demand for products and services, innovations that improve the standard of living and rising wages relative to the cost of living. From this we can see that driving demand by whatever means has no effect on innovation, it has no direct correlation to wages and only a tangential correlation to demand for labor. Creative destruction correlates well with innovation and tangentially with demand for labor but falls short of the mark when it comes to wages and demand. Say’s law that supply drives demand also falls short. If we combine them however we can get closer to describing conditions required for the emergent phenomenon we are calling a healthy economy.

Justus Moser lamented the fact that the market system invents new products then creates a demand for them. Before there were home computers there was no demand for them, in fact many of the economic brianiacs of the day argued there would never be a need for a home computer, because who needs all that number crunching power? Once the PC came out however, many new uses, from word processing and spreadsheets to computer games followed, giving the home computer uses that exceeded anyone’s initial concept of what a home computer would do. These innovations drove demand for the products they created and for their ancillary products as well. The same holds true for new innovations that have not even been thought of yet.

Aggregate supply aggregate demand, being easy to quantify is therefore scientific appearing, it is an oversimplification however that leads to many negative policies that hinder an economy from being healthy. Moreover it is especially subject to observation bias. This model is easy to understand. The most pernicious effect of this theory is that it’s inherent observation bias gives rise to bad policies. Policies that encourage politicians to deficit spend and redistribute other people’s money. It argues all demand is equal. If that was so then full aggregate demand of anything would give rise to a healthy economy. This is reasoning from the bottom up however. For example, if the only demand in an economy was for cocaine and all the productive resources was put to that end, would that lead to a healthy economy? Of course not, a truly sick economy would arise from such demand, even though aggregate demand exceeds aggregate supply, proving the weakness of the aggregate demand aggregate supply model.

If however, we combine Say’s law with Schumpeter’s creative destruction, reasoning from the top down, we find we have a better description of what is needed to have a healthy economy, ergo… sufficient demand for supply, innovation that betters people’s lives, increasing demand for labor and a rise in real wages driven by the demand for more complex labor. Put simply the theory simply works. Reasoning further down, we can observe the conditions that give rise to creation and the supply produced driving demand. The lower we descend however the more observation bias is likely to come into play. Creation requires as a prerequisite, ease of starting a business, else there can be no creation. This presupposes access to the capital necessary to start a business along with the tax and regulatory environment conducive of it. If these conditions are not met, lacking the supply that creation provides, demand falls short, and an economy fails to meet our definition of healthy. That is why I say, creative destruction must be wedded with Say’s law, to better explain the factors that give rise to the emergent phenomenon of a healthy or sick economy, which then points us to policy directives that will result in a healthy economy.


John Pepin

The Air War against ISIS

Thursday, October 16th, 2014

Dear Friends,


It seems to me, the elite don’t want the air war against ISIS to be effective, because their end game is an everlasting ground war. The air war against Gaddafi was highly effective however, which forces the question, why was that air war effective against Gaddafi and the air war against ISIS is not? We are constantly told we must intervene to stop ISIS but there are ever present news reports of American advisers helping train ISIS fighters, US equipment in ISIS hands, The Toyota Trucks driven by ISIS given to them by the US, The Benghazi weapons network, etc… Perhaps these reports are propaganda or possibly they are true, given the predilection of this administration to lie when the truth would serve them better, anyone with an open mind must at least question the reasoning behind the call for ground troops. Remember, those “troops” are someone’s child, maybe yours, anytime an American soldier is sent to fight in a foreign land, it is incumbent upon us to insure the plan is to win, and not to simply fight a war of attrition.


The US has a recent history of sending American’s children to fight in wars they are not supposed to win. The most glaring example was Vietnam. In that war the greatest enemy of our sons was the government that sent them there. Our fathers and brthers guarded military bases without ammunition for their guns, they were used as test subjects in experiments that would have made Mengele proud, all while under a legal microscope. There was no support for them on American streets, in academia or by the political or cultural elites. Even when they returned home they were vilified as baby killers. Rich Hollywood actors and actresses went to North Vietnam to support the Marxist regime. Jane Fonda even gave aid and comfort to the Marxists! Clearly, they were not sent to Vietnam to win… only to die at the hands of communists.


In Iraq the American people supported our sons and daughters but the cultural and political elite did not. Our children were hamstrung by a steady litany of condemnation that undermined the war effort… by the very people sending them into harms way today! American soldiers have to fight terrorists who have no limitations on the atrocities they can perform, even as our kids have to fight under a legal microscope, manned by teams of lawyers looking for any transgression on the terrorists “rights.” There are American soldiers today who are serving life sentences for returning fire and killing terrorists that were firing on them! Only a fool of the highest order would believe there is any intention of the backstabbers who run the US government today to win any war they send our children to fight.


When Gaddafi had all but won the war against the terrorists the US and Europe went in with only air power and annihilated Gaddafi’s forces. Once the air war started the war was over quick. The effectiveness of the US air force was staggering. All at a cost that is pennies on the dollar of the air war against ISIS today. We are supposed to believe what was so effective against Gaddafi is utterly impotent today? That is absurd on the face of it. The US has spent more money attacking ISIS from the air to no effect than they did utterly obliterating Gaddafi’s forces. In other words we are to believe up is down and down is up.


If the air war was supposed to be effective… why doesn’t the air force target massed ISIS troops? Why don’t they target reinforcements? Why not jdam the hill ISIS is using for artillery attacks into Kobani? Why not provide close air support to the Kurds? Why allow Turkey to attack Kurdish forces with air power? Why not interdict ISIS supplies? Why not eliminate ISIS armored forces? Why are they using multimillion dollar smart munitions to kill a single guy out behind his hut smoking a cigarette? Why are they attacking civilians? These are questions everyone should be asking… but are not.


Then there are those alarming reports of US special forces training ISIS, US government arming and equipping them as well as the Benghazi weapons network. These, let’s call them rumors for now, are not reported by the unbiased media, they are in the alternative press. Since the unbiased media have been caught so many times fabricating stories out of thin air to political ends, only an ignoramus would believe them. The CBS story about Bush’s air guard service coming out a week before the election that were proved to be utterly false is just one egregious example. Couple that with Susan Rice’s lying tour of the Sunday talk shows about Benghazi which they slavishly lapped up is another. The point is, our press that calls itself unbiased cannot be counted on to give us even a hint of actual unbiased truth, so we have to give the alternative press some credibility.


Why would our government do that to our children though? Why would they seek to send our kids, children our wives gave birth to in great pain, we cleaned their skinned knees, wiped their noses, changed their diapers and suffered with them when their boyfriend/girlfriend broke their hearts, why would our government send them to die in a foreign land, with no intention of winning? Many theories have been promoted, from the military industrial complex to outright traitorous action on the part of the elite. Perhaps it is the Cloward and Piven war strategy to destroy America by bleeding her to death, or perhaps it is to deny us our posterity but whatever the reason, it is diabolical. If the air war was supposed to be effective, it would be, clearly it is not, could that be so the political elite can justify sending our kids to fight again? What is possibly the most telling of the heinous intentions of the ruling elite today, is that they refuse to call Islamist terrorists, terrorists, you know, ISIS… people who behead innocents, crush babies, rape and sell women and girls, and commit genocide… but our government does call our returning soldiers, terrorists. Which in and of itself is traitorous.





John Pepin

Anti Corruption Laws

Thursday, October 9th, 2014

Dear Friends,


It seems to me, anti corruption laws are only as good as their enforcement, and if the same corrupt politicians enforce those anti corruption laws on themselves, those laws are as good as worthless. If self policing worked then why do we have police? Why not just have everyone pledge to follow the law and be done with it? Wouldn’t that be far less expensive than having a standing police force? Especially now that the police have become so militarized. The cost saving would be huge! But of course that is absurd, people cannot self police, and that applies more to the elite than to the average citizen.

The world is awash in corrupt governments. Story after story is written in the unbiased press calling attention to it. Hectares of forests have been cleared to produce the paper necessary to print the articles. All to no avail. Before Ukraine collapsed into chaos every news organization on the planet reported the endemic corruption in Ukraine’s government. Africa has suffered more than any other continent under government corruption with South America a close second. The US is suffering with the most corrupt, by every measure, government we have ever had, bar none, and Europe is close behind. Corruption, it would seem, is a quality of all governments.

Corruption in government is the single most effective way to determine if a nation’s economy will thrive or fail. The most corrupt governments universally have the lowest standards of living, for the people, but the highest for the elite. This is one of the few universal truths there are. Africa was a bread basket until the colonial powers were overthrown today Africa is a basket case. The the governments that rose up after the colonial era were riddled with corruption. The elite became richer than rich while the people became poorer than poorer. The standard of living in the US has gone up on average every half decade except for the 1930s and today. The single closest attributes of the FDR administration and the Obama administration is the endemic despotic corruption.

There is not one historical example of a corrupt nation that had a rising standard of living. The economies of South America are the perfect example of this in action. In South America, and Africa for that matter, all capitalism is crony capitalism. I have a friend that lives in Guatemala. I mentioned to him one time, we could buy land there, and grow valuable timber using modern silvicultural practices. He laughed hysterically. He told me only certain people can own land and make a profit there. I was aghast at the implication. Any economist worth his salt will tell you crony capitalism is not capitalism at all, but a form of redistribution, from the people to the wealthy. In the case of crony capitalism, all the market mechanisms that grow the pie and provide an invisible hand, are turned upside down. Crony capitalism, that can only survive in a corrupt country, is a zero sum game. One person’s gain is another’s loss.

All the laws the elite pass to eliminate corruption are simply used to crush political dissent. Law is supposed to protect the property and lives of the citizens, but when government is corrupt, law has a different purpose. Law is used as a bludgeon to protect the prerogatives of the elite in power. Obama has shown this in living color. He uses the IRS to punish his political foes, he wiretaps reporters, he rules arbitrarily by executive fiat, he bestows billions of dollars of crony welfare to his allies, and the list goes on and on… As Obama has corrupted the US government we have seen a steady decline in the wages of the people while the lot of the politically favored elite has skyrocketed.

Where government is corrupt violence and crime are rampant. Confucius recognized this thousands of years ago and taught about this propensity of the elite to his disciples. He rightly pointed out that people follow their leaders, if the leaders are corrupt then the people will follow and be corrupt. If the leaders are virtuous the people will follow and be virtuous. The concept is simple, but in practice the leaders will always be as corrupt as they can get away with, dragging the whole of the nation into corruption. The Duke of Lu asked Confucius how he could get the people to stop lusting after each other’s wives, refrain from theft, and so forth. Confucius told the Duke of Lu he could stop doing those things himself and lead by example. Confucius and his disciples had to flee Lu state shortly after.

It is human nature to test limits, seek comfort and avoid pain. Bastiat said, “Now, labor being in itself a pain, and man being naturally inclined to avoid pain, it follows, and history proves it, that wherever plunder is less burdensome than labor, it prevails; and neither religion nor morality can, in this case, prevent it from prevailing.” When and where the elite having the ability to plunder the property of the people, without consequence, they will certainly resort to plunder, especially as their plunder destroys the economy, lowering the property available for plunder. The problem of corruption is epidemic in the world and we people have no immediate power to stop it. Even the vote is undermined by fraud and abuse.

But is all lost then? No, because there is a way to limit the ability of the elite to abuse their power. Constitutions were designed for just this purpose. A constitution is to limit the power of government not expand it as the new class has dishonestly argued. That the elite have so perverted the nature and reason for Constitutions is a testament to the propensity of the elite to corruption. I would say, lets use what has proven to work in the past on the people, and apply it to government. That is police the government. Not with a police force the elite have dominion over, that leads to Eric Holder’s using government to punish political foes, not at all, make an independent police force that has the power to act, buttressed by a Constitutional amendment granting such power. Police that can actually force the elite to follow our Constitutions and their own laws. I call it a Fourth Branch and have titled it a NUMA after Numa Pompilius the lawgiver of Rome. Only when government is effectively policed, can we as a human race escape the bonds of government corruption and start to live as we were supposed to… in liberty and prosperity. Until then we face an ever lowering standard of living until we are nothing but slaves.



John Pepin