Posts Tagged ‘meritocracy’

Tesla, Crony Capitalism and Creative Destruction

Thursday, July 31st, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, an excellent illustration of political favor at work, the type of political favor that is destroying our economy… is the scuffle between Tesla Motor Cars and the Dealerships in New Jersey. Everyone agrees it is about politics and we also tacitly agree the question will come down to which side has the most political favor. Free market consideration is not made at all. This small set to, between the dealerships and Tesla over whether Tesla can sell it’s cars directly to consumers, is all about stopping the free market from innovating and to protect the profits of politically connected dealerships. The best interests of the consumer is not even at question! No one in the media cares if the consumer is hurt or helped by direct sales, only which side has sufficient political favor to push their argument through the New Jersey legislature, because that is all that really counts. This is very damaging to our economy, because the interest of the people is not even a factor, simply the will of the political elite. This shows how far from free market principles we have strayed. Your job, wages, benefits and standard of living are in the balance, but bear no weight on how it turns out.

 

Tesla wants to sell it’s cars directly to the consumer, bypassing the traditional dealership network. The dealerships have asked a court to force Tesla to sell their cars through dealerships and as a result Tesla doesn’t sell cars in New Jersey. Tesla has gone to the New Jersey legislature to get a law passed allowing them to sell their cars direct to consumers. Of course, politics came into it as soon as the smell of money wafted around, and justified by the fact Tesla wanted to do something different then is traditionally done. Because, as Milton Friedman said… when a firm faces competition that sells it’s products at a lower price and better quality, the firm can increase it’s quality and lower prices, or it can go to the government to force the competition closed. That is exactly what the car dealerships have done, they went to government to force Tesla to use them, to protect their profits.

 

The problem is that this strategy always results in stifling innovation, which has a profoundly negative effect on present, and especially future GDP growth, due to the compounding effect of past growth, or lack of it. Schumpeter coined the term, “Creative Destruction” to explain the cycle of growth under the capitalist mode of production. He explained that, as a new idea is implemented, units of production are drawn into realizing that new idea. This results in GDP growth, as more labor, productive facilities and ingenuity are utilized. As the innovation matures, the old systems that are rendered redundant go bust. They go out of business and the recession part of the cycle comes in. As the cost of the units of production become cheaper due to the recessionary pressures, a new idea becomes possible to implement, starting the virtuous cycle again… unless it is short circuited by well meaning but pernicious government programs to protect older more established firms from competition, (like is done in Japan…).

 

The best way would be to let the free market sort it all out. If Tesla’s plan results in angry customers then Tesla will retreat to the traditional strategy of using dealerships to sell it’s cars. Considering the recalls recently on Tesla cars, this might have proven the dealerships argument, without having gone to court and enriching lawyers for nothing. We’ll have to wait and see how the consumer reaction is to how the recalls are handled. If Tesla’s plan does work however, it will have staked out new ground undermining the market reason for dealerships to exist, which would incentivize other companies to stop using dealerships. Either way the market will show the efficiency of the present system or the potential innovative efficiency that could result in creative destruction. With the oceans of paperwork, regulations and political favor that is needed to cross before an innovation can be implemented, the innovative part of the business cycle is drowned.

 

As government policies smother innovation creative destruction is stymied. Lower present GDP growth can be expected, and will be magnified over time due to the effect of compounded growth. That damage to the innovation process by government derails the creative part of the creative destruction by protecting the firms that would face destruction, and so to keep the old inefficient crony capitalism going government destroys the very mechanism of growth of the capitalist system, and by doing that, they lower everyone’s standard of living… but the political Elite get a ton of money and power by doing it.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

The Common Core Catastrophy

Monday, July 28th, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, a standard means nothing, if you keep changing it. Should be common sense but the logic of this thinking is lost on the educational elite. The educational system in the US has become so politically oriented, to the progressive new class way of thinking, it has failed it’s primary role as educators to the next generation, and instead become indoctrinators of the children. The total failure of the educational system, and by extension those that have run the educational system, has to be covered up, because people would be outraged to know what a pathetic job the new class has done, with the billions of dollars we have given them from our hard earned money, to educate our children, and instead we get back kids who are incapable of operating in the market system! That is why the new class progressives, who have had a monopoly of control on the school system through the NEA, Boards of education, the bureaucracy and by a hundred other subtle ways, have introduced Common Core, the curriculum that teaches to the absurd test… and therefore teaches absurdity.

 

True, our children will not have the critical thinking, adaptability, work ethic, self control, moral character or wherewithal to compete effectively in the market system, but they will be good little automatons. This fits very well with the progressive’s program to progress the economic systems of the world to communism. Self starters and individualists, those who have the character traits making them ideal to operate in a market system, are the worse kind of people in a Marxist regime, while mindless sloths who are only interested in bread and circuses are perfect. If the progressive agenda is true to their founding, propaganda and promoters, they would have motive to change the educational curriculum to meet their needs, instead of the needs of the children we are paying them to educate.

 

The Common Core curriculum, as it is called in most but not all places, is nothing but the old teaching to the test. In this case a test that has been so politically washed the facts have been bleached out. No one who gets the math portion of this “system” will be able to give two fives for a ten, with out ten minutes, some paper, a pencil… and a calculator to check their work. The history has been watered down to politically favored facts, taken out of context, what good is it to know the orders of battle of every battle fought, land and sea, during the Second World War, if the reason, the context, it was fought in the first place is left out? Isn’t that glorifying the war, and neglecting to teach why it happened, and therefore how to keep it from happening again? The science has been reduced to mere global warming scare mongering and bashing any theory the new class finds dangerous. No sense teaching the scientific method, if we applied it to things we are supposed to believe, we probably wouldn’t believe them.

 

The only way to break the stranglehold the new class progressives have on the educational system is with a non excludable voucher system. Since we as a people and society, have made the decision our children’s education is to be paid by all through the tax system, I accept this parameter, but I dismiss the argument that the government should have a monopoly on education, as a logical result. Give each student a voucher to go to whatever school they and their parents choose. The voucher would be for the full annual cost of the local public school, if the school they choose is more, they pitch in the extra and if it is less, then they get half the savings. People will want the best for their own children, as a result people will put their child into the schools that get the best results. Schools will compete for children on their outcomes for past graduates. Let people be rational maximizers and people will be self interested rightly understood.

 

One last thought, changing the test is the definition of a non standard, not a standard. The only real way to compare students year to year is to have them all take the same test. This is impossible now because the test has been changed so much. Changing the SAT to bend to political pressure has ruined it as a standard. It has become a guide at best and a poor one at that. Moreover, the SAT only looks at only one narrow facet of the human being. I would say it would be better to test a range of attributes, knowledge of course, ability to adapt, a mental stress test would be good, ability to learn and apply, MMPI as well as physical tests, would be better at identifying people’s various merits, like big firms do before they hire. That is… if we actually want to test, sample, study and quantify our children in a standardized way at all, along with the pernicious incentive to teach to the test that a education standard creates, but that is a different article.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

The Immorality of Presumption

Wednesday, July 16th, 2014

 

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, most if not all the evils visited on humanity, have been as a direct result of presumption. Someone presumes to know what is best for another, society or humanity and acts according to their prescription of their idea of “right.” Of course, their remedy is never for themselves or their family, it is always for others to pay the price for the presumer’s cure. Behind such presumption lay great hubris. When someone believes he or she is so much more intelligent, wise and beneficent than others, is the path to presumption. Recognizing hubristically fueled presumption as a source for evil in our world, is the first step to solving those evils, so that no one ever has to suffer under the presumption of arrogance again.

 

So much of what is wrong with this world, crimes against humanity for instance, are from those who presume to know what is best. From the Eugenics movement to slavery, those who have presumed to know what is best have done great evil, often in a perverted sense of justice. As I have explained before in past articles, justice can be summed up by the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” No one who was or is a advocate for eugenics would sterilize themselves, their solution is for others, since by their selfish standards, they are the best and brightest. This shows the absolute lack of justice in their actions, since doing something to another that the actor would never allow done to themselves, is in direct contravention of the golden rule.

 

Presumption is the basis for civil crime as well. The bank robber presumes to have the right to the funds of others, because they believe their needs and wants trump those of others, since he or she sees his or her own wants and needs close at hand, while they see the needs and wants of others at a distance. Therefore they presume their need for immediate wealth should come before the needs and wants of those people who earned the money by the sweat of their brow. This same logic applies to those who steal from the wealthy. Even speeding is based in hubris and presumption that the speeder is such a good driver they need not follow the speed limit. No matter what crime you use for an example it is founded in presumption and presumption is rooted in hubris.

 

Politicians are the greatest hubristic presumers there are especially progressive politicians. They presume that because they won a beauty contest, they have the democratically bestowed right to visit evils on others, while they themselves would be deeply offended if they were yoked with those same evils. This is one reason why politicians never hold themselves to their own laws. The biggest advocates for tax increases universally cheat on theirs and when they get caught there are never consequences. This is why politicians whittle away at any restraint there is on their power, because they arrogantly presume they are above any foolish Constitutional limits on their actions. Their hubristic argument usually goes, “Aren’t they the representatives of the people?” While they make this presumptuous contention they violate the golden rule without a thought.

 

Religions also fall prey to presumption. Those who are rabid followers of this or that religion presume they will go to heaven and no one else will. Atheists presume that even though they undermine the religion of others by the spurious worship of science, if they are wrong, they will go to heaven anyway. When one religious community attacks another it is presumption that is the “moral” underpinnings of their actions. Truth told, religion should be the place where presumption is the least, yet it is often where people presume the most, because all saintly religions have the golden rule as their foundation, and the golden rule is the opposite of hubris and presumption.

 

Presumption provides those who would visit the most heinous crimes against humanity cover for their hubristic egoism. To look at a fellow human being, and presume that the other should be sterilized because they are “mentally deficient” by the observer’s arbitrary standard, to be so arrogant one enslaves another, to have such a lack of a moral compass that someone kills another because they disagree with that person’s religious belief, or any of a thousand other presumptions that give people free reign to do what they arrogantly believe is “right,” is always based on presumption fueled by hubris. Moreover, that the hubristic presumer never subjects him or herself to their own remedy, is a naked violation of the golden rule and therefore is the definition of injustice, proves the hubris and presumption better than a thousand pages written on the subject. Yes, we as members of the human race need to recognize this predilection of ours to presume what is best for another, and learn to mind our own business, else we are the the villains in our own story.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

 

 

Spurious Logic and Confusing a State of Mind with a State of Being

Thursday, July 10th, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, the progressive elite often use spurious logic, to fool the people into confusing a state of mind with a state of being. To use spurious logic is to make an argument that appears on the surface to be logical, but is in fact fallacious, and is meant to deceive. By this means we can be fooled into acting against our own self interests and benefiting the arguer who uses spurious logic. If we seek to be rational maximizers, then it is important for us to know the difference, and be able to see a deception for what it is. In the realm of spurious logic, arguing a thing is other than it actually is, can be quite easy and very effective.

 

People argue in spurious logic to trick others into acting against their own self interest. This is an old con man’s trick. Claiming to be a bank auditor, and getting an old person to “loan” them money to help catch a crooked bank teller, who the con man says is ripping off the bank, is one example. The logic appears impeccable to the victim but is in fact fallacious. Many people have lost their life savings by this scam. The con man gets the victim to act against his or her own self interest, by convincing the victim something is true when it is not, using spurious logic. Twisting a state of mind into a state of being is no different.

 

A state of mind is essentially how we perceive the world. Our perception is to us, reality, it is our opinion and guides action. Examples of a state of mind are, prejudice, justice, friendship, humility, love and fear. These are not every example, nor are they an exhaustive list, but they are illustrative for the purposes of our discussion. A person can act in a bigoted way, we can act justly and we can be friendly, but that doesn’t make these things a state of being, because the root of the actions are the opinions and feelings of the actor. Our actions follow our mindset, not the other way around. A state of mind is an internal feeling, belief or thought, that effects the external world through our actions.

 

A state of being is something that is external that effects our internal state of mind. Examples include, the environment, the economy and illness. Again, this is not a comprehensive list but is sufficient to illustrate our point. A state of being is something objective that effects our subjective mindset. If the temperature is cold our mind registers it with a feeling of cold. Our feeling of cold doesn’t make the temperature lower. Just as an expanding economy might enrich us and make us feel more wealthy, but our feeling of wealth doesn’t make the economy grow faster, (despite the implications of the theories of John Maynard Keynes’ aggregate supply aggregate demand model of economics), and illness makes us feel sick, it is not that we decide to feel sick and as a result we become ill, (except in a diseased mind which is itself an illness external to the participant’s subjective mind). A state of being is external while a state of mind is internal.

 

Modern sophists like to claim a state of mind is in fact a state of being and have visited all kinds of mischief on mankind as a result. To claim a state of mind is a state of being, or vise versa, is how absurd premises get thought of as truth, and truth get thought of as falsehood, then are acted upon in the body politic. Well meaning projects to mitigate the plight of the poor are premised on conflating a state of being with a state of mind. Poverty is a state of being, but the assumption of welfare programs, is that poverty is intrinsic to the individual, as such the individual is unable to change his or her station, and cannot survive without a government handout. A great deal of damage is done to society, the economy and the poor themselves, by this pernicious notion. Not the least of which is to trap multiple generations of people in poverty, destroy the nuclear family and crush the work ethic of whole communities, all leading to more poverty.

 

Other examples of confusing a state of mind with a state of being are everywhere in the progressive playbook. From abortion to woman’s rights, using spurious logic like mixing of a state of being with a state of mind, is their go to position. Those who call attention to the absurdity of their stances are vilified as haters and bigots to deflect the criticism, which in itself is twisting a state of mind into a state of being. As you recall, bigotry and hate are states of mind, but arguing that a person’s stance on a state of being, (objective reality), proves a certain state of mind, (subjective reality), is like claiming a scalding burn is all in one’s mind. There will always be gullible people in the world, it is a fact of life, but most of us are capable, upon reflection, of recognizing spurious logic, especially if we are warned. Consider this warning.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

The Logic of Liberty

Wednesday, July 2nd, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, chaotic liberty is the single best means to societal prosperity, as controlled dependence is the best means to universal poverty. This is true not only in an economic sense but in humanistic terms as well. When people live in liberty, we must self control and by doing so we focus our minds, strengthen our spirit and become self reliant, chaotic liberty makes us more human. It is in a focused mind, spirituality and self reliance that we gain the economic advantages of liberty. Controlled dependence dulls the mind, crushes the spirit and destroys self reliance, in short controlled dependence reduces human beings to mere selfish animals. Human heartedness grows in liberty and shrinks in dependence. This is so obvious it is sad that government should seek to put people into a state of dependence while eliminating liberty. Because by doing so, it is equally as clear that diminishing humanity to a herd of egoistic animals, that see their fellows as a means instead of an end in themselves, government undermines the very argument for government.

 

That is not to say Chaos is liberty or that control is dependence, it is to say that some level of personal chaos is requisite for liberty and dependence breeds people who must be controlled. If a people who have become dependent are thrust into a state of liberty, chaos, violence and poverty will immediately result. If a different people who have become used to liberty are forced into dependence there is a faux sense of control. In a state of liberty, people self control and are do not need a heavy handed government to force them to be virtuous, but where people are dependent, people do need a tyrannical government, to enforce civil equanimity. The one is because the people self regulate and the other because people have lost the ability to self regulate.

 

When people are used to living in liberty we must control our emotions, actions and thoughts. When living in a state of liberty, everyone is at liberty, and so disturbing the civil weal is counter productive. People learn this lesson at an early age when they live in liberty. Laws need not be draconian to keep people from each others throats because people have learned to be self controlled. The society becomes more mature, civil and polite. Moreover, when people are self controlled and at liberty, it is the nature of the human being to seek to better him or herself. As each improving their situation all of society is economically improved.

 

Those poor shells of human beings that have become used to living in dependence never grow out of childhood. They become disconnected from the greater society and demand their wants and needs be met by someone else. Since the very definition of dependence is to be dependent on someone else, the fruits of another’s labor, for everything, so dependent people see others as a means to their own ends, instead of ends in themselves. To put it another way, people who have become used to being dependent see others as things and not as human beings. It is much easier to steal from a thing, the morality of killing a thing is irrelevant and you don’t open the door for a thing that is handicapped. Civility in society is destroyed and all that matters is instant gratification. This shows that controlled dependence is the path to chaos while chaotic liberty is the path to civilization.

 

How to change people who have become used to controlled dependence into self controlled, spiritual, civil and focused human beings? Obviously if liberty were thrust upon them they would devolve to a state of anarchy. We have seen this many times in history. A people get liberated, not by their own action, and the entire society falls into violence, chaos and corruption. The means to maturing a people is by the elite, the leaders of society, leading by example. The leaders must be spiritual, self controlled and honest. That would be a giant step but not all that is required. A market system must also exist. This is because the market system trains people to be human. If someone comes into your store to buy a couch, you care nothing if they are Hindi, Asian or Hutu, those groupings become subservient attributes to their being buyers. If the way to get ahead in a society is to meet the needs and wants of others, people will happily become civil, spiritual and self controlled.

 

Unfortunately governments prefer people to be dependent. Dependents have no independent voice only as a screaming mob can they get heard. If government likes what the chanting mob says they simply give in and are seen as benefactors, if government doesn’t like the message they clamp down violently and are seen as the protectors of societal tranquility. Since the reason political parties exist is to get and hold power, nothing more nothing less, and dependents depend on their benefactors, if those benefactors are a faction of government, that faction can count on their dependents for support against other political factions. This is not only a path to getting political power but of holding it as well. This is why there have been so very few examples in human history of liberty, and so many of dependence, poverty, and despotism.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

Anthropogenic Climate Change Hoax

Thursday, June 26th, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, the man made part of global warming is a hoax, a fallacy perpetrated on us by the New Class in a bid for power, the type of power Nietzsche said the uberman should strive for. They know it is impossible to prove a negative, and so they have convinced many that we are in dire straights if we do not follow their dictates and commit economic suicide, else we might face economic Armageddon. For the same reason I am skeptical when a cigarette company claims cigarettes are good for you, we should look at the arguments of those who stand to gain essentially arbitrary rule if we believe them… with a skeptical eye too. Climate change alarmists stand to gain tremendous power, wealth and prestige, by having the hoi polloi fall for the scam, and power is a compelling incentive to lie. It is in our self interests to be rational maximizers and look at the facts not the rhetoric.

 

I used to believe in anthropogenic climate change. It made me hopeful we can terraform Mars into a world we can live on. I looked at all the facts with a hopeful eye. As time went on, and the “facts” became ever murkier and confounding facts came up, my enthusiasm waned. As I began looking into the political reasons someone would perpetrate such a hoax on the world, the reality of human nature opened up to me, and I became a man made climate change denier.

 

Their arguments are based on spurious logic and have no real bearing on what is really happening. Many of the temperature data is knowingly fallacious. As land is industrialized, the same location that once was forest and fields, has become asphalt and buildings. The localized warming of a city is a well documented theory, and as civilization has encroached on locations that are cited by the climate change alarmist, the temperature will certainly go up. This is called the Urban Heat Island effect. That is not to say however, the temperature of the planet in it’s entirety has gone up, only those locations where temperature has been traditionally taken has. This makes the temperature data decidedly biased and thus dubious at best.

 

The nail in the coffin for me however, was finding out by reading Science News, (a strong voice for anthropogenic climate change), that planets around our solar system are in fact warming at a similar rate to Earth. I admit I was a bit depressed, because if planets around the solar system are warming, that pesky fact makes the likelihood of “man made,” evaporate like so much dry ice. Mars is the example most cited but there are other examples too. The planetoid, or asteroid, Ceres has been shown to be warming, Pluto seems to be warming even though it is traveling away from the sun, along with other planets and moons. The measurements of these planets and moons is not based on local temperature fluctuations, they are based in infrared measurements of the entire planet or moon, and so are more telling of the actual planet wide temperature than localized data. In other words, we have better perspective on them, then we do our own planet.

 

 

The alarmists argue that this is irrelevant because at any given time a planet or moon could be warming or cooling. It is mere coincidence that they are warming. Many pages of sophist arguments have been written with this perspective. They also claim the Sun has cooled so it is impossible for these places to be warming, and some simply deny the facts. These arguments are of course the pleas of a huckster who has been exposed trying to justify the utility of his snake oil. If their argument, that any one could be warming or cooling, then why are they all warming, and none are cooling? Logic would at least incline one to believe that if they could be warming or cooling, the ratio of planets and moons warming versus cooling, should be about fifty percent. The data flies in their face. Since there is not a single example of a planet cooling in our solar system, but many examples of planets and moons warming, this is at least strong evidence the warming trend is a solar system wide phenomenon. Since there are no carbon spewing cars on Mars, (as far as we know), Jupiter, Triton, Ceres or Pluto, the solar system wide warming cannot be human generated.

 

 

The scientific method is not a popularity contest. If it was, then the world would be flat, since most scientists believed at one time it was. There was a philosopher, Karl Popper, who posited a theory of science. In it he said that scientists are exceedingly bigoted people. They work diligently in their labs testing and proving ever smaller bits of fact about a theory, until it is proven false, then there is a paradigm shift culminating in a new theory. Since scientists have worked so long and so hard on their piece of a theorem, they have cognitive dissonance, in other words they are very resistant to change. In the case of anthropogenic climate change anyone who offers a different view is attacked as a heretic. No differently than Galileo, Kepler or Newton were in their day. Their ideas led to a paradigm shift in scientific thinking however, and are worshiped today, even as the modern equivalents of these great thinkers are vilified. Couple the propensity of science, and scientists, to cling to an idea, with the potential power such an idea as man made global warming puts in the hands of the new class, and you have the modern equivalent of the inquisition.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

Justice is a State of Mind not a State of Being

Monday, June 23rd, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

The Lake of Spurious Logic in Which We Swim.

Thursday, June 5th, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, we swim in sophistry, every argument we face is steeped in spurious logic and all controversies boil down to politics, in such a society the foundation is rotted away, as the frame it needs to support, gets larger. Examples abound where any question at hand boils down to a political one. Usually where a person stands politically, on even scientific questions, is more informative of his or her position than any other reasoning. It would be enough if most people understood this and made a huge effort to stand outside politics and observe every question with a politically unbiased eye. This is important because politics is almost always the perspective that yields the worse outcomes.

 

There are so many examples of how we are immersed in sophistry, that I could get bogged down listing them so instead, I am burrowing into one. The collegiate system is the epitome of the old boy network. The utility of that paradigm is all but spent but the prerogatives it rewards academia are growing. It is in the system of academia’s self interest, to limit the product and by doing so, using the supply demand model or scarcity value, bestowing a higher value than it might otherwise have. In this they are no different than OPEC, limiting the supply of oil onto the marketplace, keeping the cost high, and their profits high as well. This is one reason the united States is a net importer of Medical doctors, colleges limit the supply.

 

The elite in academia would have us all believe that theirs is the only way, while the market system coupled with the Internet has offered a different solution, private online colleges. These colleges break the mold in several ways, they operate for profit and so are subject to market forces, they give those who have not been identified as above average an opportunity, an opportunity that the traditional system didn’t and couldn’t care less to, and private college’s self interest is to expand production not limit it. Market forces will be an unstoppable power lowering costs and profits until either the market reaches perfect competition or the government steps in and imposes limits that block competition.

 

Some of the spurious arguments, the politicians in the pocket of academia claim, run the gamut of insane to devious. The one I always get a laugh at is, “The dropout rate is higher in private schools than public institutions.” This is absurd in that it denotes nothing. There is no context with which to weigh the sentence, which makes the argument float in meaning. Since the public institutions have the best students from the get go why wouldn’t they have a better graduation rate? Moreover, are they saying that the education at private schools is higher than that of the public institutions, since the public institutions graduate almost everyone who enters and private institutions only graduate those who merit it? Or perhaps the maker of that argument believes certain people shouldn’t even be given a chance? The sophistic echos go on and on.

 

It is not in the interests of those who run academia today to embrace change. In that change coming, their cushy jobs preaching socialism to the youth, while having sex with someone from every graduating class, being revered by other elite, and receiving much better than average pay, the incentives to keep the system in stasis are mighty. Perfect competition might lower the cost of education, so doctorates could be common, but the value of those doctorates would drop commensurately, as would the profit to those who dispensed them. The market would drive down cost and raise quality inexorably. The powers that exist have to get us to believe their spurious arguments because as Milton Friedman argued, When a business faces competition that has a better product at a lower cost, that business can lower it’s price and increase it’s quality, or it can go to government…

 

That was only one of many examples that can be cited as proof that we do indeed swim in a lake of sophistry. Today the question is irrelevant, but who the political patron is, is. Arguments that appear to be logical are actually twisting logic to make truth into a lie and a lie into the truth. We have a whole class of people who have practiced, honed and perfected this feat. It is up to us to rise above the smoke they obscure every controversy with, and be rational maximizers, weigh the costs, opportunities and risks for ourselves. Only in that way, can we truly vote and act in our own best interests, instead of someone else’s.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

Ignorance in the Information Age

Sunday, June 1st, 2014

 

 

Dear Friends,

 

They say we live in the “Information Age,” but it seems to me, we live in an Ignorance Age. We have access to heretofore unimagined volumes of information, we have the ability for very little money to put up a page and speak to the world, we can even create an app that improves the lot of Mankind and get rich. Yet in our most important duty we willingly remain ignorant. The suffrage is the only way we can protect our liberty and standard of living. Most everyone agrees about the importance of the vote, but in the US, the people feel so disenfranchised by the system, most of us don’t even bother to vote! The last few elections have been decided by 26% of the electorate! One quarter of the people eligible to cast a vote decided who we would have for President. One quarter of the people decided who would run Congress and who would serve on their local boards. We have access to all the information in the world, economics, politics and philosophy, yet we remain ignorant enough to have given up the power to hire and fire, to our and our children’s detriment.

 

What good is access if we don’t use it? There are egg producers who can legally advertize their eggs as coming from “free range” chickens. The chickens are supposed to have a better life because they were allowed to wander about the yard. When in fact all that is legally required, is for a door to be opened in the coop for a certain amount of time, if the chickens “feel” they would like to roam around they can. They never do… but that is irrelevant to the legal question of “Free Range.” We are no different than those chickens! We are allowed free range but we choose to stay in the coop.

 

The same holds true of voting. We have the Right to vote, yet so few of us use that Right it can be subverted by a faction, and we see that it has. That faction is the one that strenuously opposes any protection of that Right from fraud and abuse. They bigotedly accuse anyone who seeks to protect that fundamental Right as a hater or someone who wants to take away voting Rights. In this they show their hypocrisy, every instance of fraud disenfranchises 2 voters. and so are doing what they accuse others of. Since elections are decided by fewer and fewer people and the decisions are made by slimmer and slimmer margins, a tiny amount of fraud can turn an election, and we see that it has in the last few election cycles. Since the faction in charge is the beneficiary of the fraud they won’t do anything about it, so the only way to mitigate the pernicious damage to the moral of voters and disenfranchising voters with fraud, the only avenue open to us is to vote en masse. The greater the percentage of voters the less fraud can vex the outcomes.

 

What good is it to vote if we remain ignorant of the deeper issues making us easy to manipulate? Moreover, if we can be easily manipulated to vote for whomever the elite want us to, do we really have the suffrage? It is up to us to use that vast storehouse of information, while we can, to ferret out the truth. It is incumbent upon us to read and study economics. We live in a pseudo capitalist society and as such it is necessary for us to understand what makes the clockwork tick. Without that knowledge we cannot discern truth from fiction when the elite preach socialism to us. The history of Mankind is there for anyone to see. Plutarch’s Lives is free online, is the definitive work on human nature in situations of power, and should be read by everyone 18 and over. There is a new version of the Federalist Papers available for sale that is written in modern English or the original is available free online. The Federalist papers should be read by all US citizens.

 

With a bit more research a person can get up to snuff, on why we are in the predicament we are in for jobs, wages and liberty. Let’s become rational maximizers, by incorporating foundational knowledge, so that we can avoid being manipulated into voting against our best interests, we have to exercise our Right to vote, if only to limit the damage of vote fraud and ballot box stuffing since the elite won’t, and most of all we must stop acting like free range chickens. Now that the door is open we have to go through it and find out what is on the other side. To protect our Rights, save our Jobs and raise our wages. Willful ignorance in the information age is irony writ large.

 

 

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