Posts Tagged ‘rational maximiser’

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

 

 

 

Deflation and Deficit Spending

Monday, May 26th, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, the real reason economists, politicians and Central Bank Presidents are so terrified about deflation, has nothing to do with any pernicious incentives deflation would introduce into the economy, but actually because it would hamper the ability of governments the world over, to deficit spend. Deficit spending has become so entrenched in our political systems that most people don’t give it a thought, and when they do, they grumble but consider it a necessary evil. The ability to deficit spend gives politicians extraordinary power, over the economy, our lives and political evolution. The political elite exploit their ability to spend huge sums of money, to reward their political cronies aka crony capitalism, they “stimulate” the economy with deficit spending and they get and hold office, by promising this or that constituency a hand out if they get elected. All of which are pernicious and destructive of our economies, our Rights and our personal standard of living.

 

John Maynard Keynes aggregate supply aggregate demand model of economics gives politicians an imperative to deficit spend. In the aggregate demand aggregate supply model, if aggregate demand exceeds aggregate supply the economy grows, but if aggregate demand falls below aggregate supply then the economy shrinks, resulting in recession. Keynes made no distinction between consumer demand, business demand or government demand. In fact, he is famously known for saying, if the government buried money in the bottom of a mine, and let firms use the market system to get it out, that would stimulate the economy. This shows he made no distinction between productive uses of money, and schemes that use money to draw people into non productive actions, actions they otherwise wouldn’t engage in.

 

One of the fundamental reasons the aggregate supply aggregate demand model is deficient, is that it doesn’t make distinctions between productive spending, where productivity is increased by upgrading plant and equipment or where someone’s needs or wants are being met, and schemes where money is wasted to draw in other money, which is then also wasted, to increase aggregate demand. When government spends money to stimulate the economy, it takes money that otherwise would be used for productive purposes, and wastes it.

 

The more money that is wasted the lower real economic output will be. Every government today counts government spending as a part of Gross Domestic Product. Therefore, as they deficit spend to draw in other money to gin up the economy, using aggregate demand aggregate supply, the money that is wasted feeds a system where government must have more deficit spending, to offset the loss of market efficiency that is the inevitable result of government “stimulus.” In other words, government spending is increased, to increase GDP, where the market has been so damaged by deficit spending and stimulus, it cannot increase GDP itself. Where government doesn’t deficit spend sufficiently to raise GDP, outside of actual economic growth, economists call it fiscal headwinds.

 

Crony capitalism around the world is fueled by deficit spending. The political elite use it to reward their half witted brother in laws and political backers. In many countries it is impossible to get a permit to do business unless you have political backing. No one can get licensed in those countries to compete with the political hacks. If the power to deficit spend were limited, that would also limit the ability of the politically favored, to reward their backers and half wit relations, for their own illegitimate purposes.

 

The first goal of any political party is to get and hold power. Deficit spending allows the faction in power at any time to hold that power. Further, it allows that faction that is willing to damage the interests of society as a whole, by deficit spending, to get that power they so covet. This is a pernicious incentive for political factions each trying to out promise the other. The party offering the most rewards to the people will be the one to get and hold office. This has the tendency to ratchet up deficit spending to ever higher extremes while lowering outcomes. Simply because, that party which has the least scruples to protect the public purse is rewarded, while the party that practices the most fiduciary responsibility, is punished.

 

All of these things rely on deficit spending and deficit spending needs inflation. Inflation is a hidden tax on the accounts of savers. As a government’s deficit gets ever larger, if the value of the money that the deficit is counted in gets smaller, that deficit also shrinks. If however, the value of the money a deficit is counted in goes up, savers and consumers are rewarded, but government deficits become more problematical. Therefore, governments, central banks and their dependent economists cannot allow any deflation. Deflation would explode the huge deficits governments have built up over the years… to reward their cronies, buy power and “stimulate” the economy. Deflation would show in stark contrast the fiction that deficit spending can go on indefinitely and the system of political favor would come crashing down. Make no mistake, they couldn’t care less about the good to society, in fact the ability to deficit spend rewards those who care the least for the public good, so next time you see a central banker weep at the possibility of deflation remember, those are crocodile tears.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

Economics of A Scale

Thursday, May 1st, 2014

 

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, a simple way to think about a nation’s economy, is that of a balance. On one side of the scale there would be education, entrepreneurial ethos, work ethic, incentives, etc… and the other would be, cost of labor versus productivity, cost of start up, taxes, regulation, cronyism, etc… If the balance tips to the first side, GDP will have a positive incentive for growth, but if is tipped the other, the incentives for GDP growth turn negative. If we add to education and then to regulation, at a balance the scale is not changed, but moment of inertia is. If we take away from education by such follies as Common Core, while adding to regulation, the balance is tipped to negative incentives. The opposite is true if we add to productivity and subtract from taxes. If this is done the scale will be tipped to positive incentives for growth. This is important for people to understand… because when GDP is growing people’s lives get better and when GDP is not growing people’s lives get worse.

 

Moment of inertia in such a scale would be the resistance to change in the system. As an economy becomes more advanced it also necessarily becomes more weighted by the taxes and regulations that accompany an advanced economy. The same resistance both makes the system harder to change and over react when it does. Just like a fly wheel, it is hard to get spinning, but it imparts a great deal of power once it is.

 

The pivot point for our scale is how much a country’s people want to get ahead economically. This varies depending on all the factors that make up our scale. If the basic ethos of a society is to weigh the cost versus the benefit of a given action, as those who are raised in a capitalist society do, the point of the scale will be sharp. People who reason their actions differently have a large negative incentive to prosperity. In such countries, where capitalism has not trained the people to weigh cost v benefit, the pivot point will be so sticky it is certain to resist change until it breaks, and in total failure falls off the machine altogether.

 

On the positive side of the scale, education can always be improved. Perhaps the best method for improving the entrepreneurial education of children would be to add basic economics to the curriculum as early as possible. The basic concepts of economics are really pretty easy to understand, especially if theory and history are stressed, eschewing the heavy duty mathematics. A courteous society is helpful to creating the conditions where a country becomes prosperous. Courtesy really is the grease that allows society to function.

 

On the negative side many of the factors can be changed really pretty easily. Regulation and taxation can be directly changed by fiat of the political elite. It is almost never done because a corresponding loss of political might is lost as well. Cronyism can also be changed at the will of the ruling elite, but provides such an economic windfall for the political elite and their patrons that option is not even considered, except in spurious campaign ads targeted at conservatives.

 

The scale is actually the complex system that is a nation’s economy. All of us doing our thing. Every economic decision everyone makes every day is what makes our economy grow, stagnate or shrink. If we are flush we spend, if we are scraping by with high fuel prices, low wages, rising food prices, stressed at work and facing waves of cheap imported labor, we cannot spend, we have none to spend or save. When entrepreneurs are dissuaded from starting a business the economy suffers a critical wound. As expectations shrink with a new normal the standard of living must also go down. All this can be changed simply by removing weight from the negative side of the scale, but our leaders find it too vexing to lower taxes, or regulation, never mind limiting their cronyism, they drive up the cost of legal labor with minimum wage laws while lowering the cost of illegal labor with amnesty, plus they remove from the education system with folly and undermining morality. With all the weight our leaders are loading up on the negative side, seems no wonder that regardless of the stimulus of central banks, we are getting poorer as a planet.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

 

 

Logically Consistent Measure of Right Versus Wrong

Sunday, April 27th, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

Persistence

Thursday, April 24th, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, persistence in the face of adversity is a sign of inner strength, and the only way to succeed. We all meet challenges in our daily lives. It is the human condition. To get mad, depressed or angry when we are held back is normal, but to move ahead is uber human. To advance when the ground has been cleared for us is no sign of strength but one of weakness. We grow in adversity and stagnate in ease. This truism is one of the counter intuitive facts of human existence. The old saying, “only the strong survive.” is more true than we like to think. Knowing this is one of the keys to success in life.

 

Persistence is not giving up. Many times we are told this or that cannot work, that we are not qualified or competent enough, but these are fallacies told us by the prince of lies. Virtually every advancement in human history was poo pooed by the “learned” in society. If those great men and women who advanced the cause of science, philosophy, government and invention gave up, we would still be in the stone age. None of the advancements that have freed us to pursue our dreams could have happened. If we allow ourselves to be frustrated by the gate keepers we cede the future of humanity to them.

 

It is all too easy to give up when we experience a setback by life. We can easily loose hope and fall into self recriminations. This is the path to mediocrity and failure. Those who have succeeded in the face of great adversity have always been those who get back up and move on. The truth is, anyone can lay down, but only the powerful of heart move forward. It is up to us to choose to be powerful of heart or weak in spirit. I suggest we choose strength instead of weakness.

 

It is human to get mad, feel despair, or turn inward when our ideas, plans and ambitions are turned back by the gatekeepers, but those very human emotions can be turned to our advantage. We can feed from anger to push against the tide of ignorant people. Despair however chains us as does turning inward. We must temper our emotions with logic, but as Freud proposed, the poor ego is attacked at every turn by the super ego and the id. It has also been said differently, but the same, that our emotions are like an elephant, our rationality the driver. The driver has limited control and it is the elephant that has the real power. If we let the elephant control us we are lost but if we nudge the elephant into the right path we can use it’s power to do real work.

 

Every good in the World comes through other people from God. We can use this to our advantage by asking other people’s advice. We must stay in communication with each other to get the good that God bestows on us because it is his will that we do. Allow others to teach us, help us and sustain us, it not only helps us but them as well. People need to be needed and by our asking or leaning on them, we tell them in no uncertain terms that we need them. Others can be a font of strength that we sometimes need when we have been pushed down.

 

Unfortunately some people don’t want us to succeed because it makes them feel big to see us fail. They toss road blocks in our way and laugh that we are too dumb, too ignorant or too idealistic to pass. They revel in stomping on our dreams because theirs are so mundane. In a barrel of monkeys none can get out because if one tries the others will pull it back in. We cannot be monkeys we must be human hearted people.

 

If success is because the road has been paved for us it is not real success. Those who are given awards they do not deserve, positions they do not merit and accolades they have not earned, are weakened by them not strengthened. It is human nature to grow in wisdom when a thing is earned and to grow in hubris when it is not. Those who get ahead this way never really mature they simply get older. It is not in our best interest to get ahead by these methods but to push through adversity. I sometimes feel that it is the struggle that is the most important thing… not the success.

 

Our world needs us to stand up pushing through the road blocks that the elite have tossed in our paths. We will be strengthened by doing so, while those the elite have raised on their shoulders, will become children. Our society, culture and governments will become more humane and free by our efforts. To shrivel back would be to allow those children to keep ruining our World. Not only would we allow but we would actually participate in it’s destruction. So, I say to you, push, strive and persist! That is the only way we will be successful. In life as in saving our planet from those who would enslave us.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

God and the State

Monday, April 21st, 2014

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, government is intent on replacing God, and in doing so they demand equal supplication. This is not a new thing, the ancient empires all did it. The Egyptian Pharaohs were considered the sons of gods, as were many other kings. It was a means back then, when people were ignorant and superstitious, to legitimize arbitrary rule by kings over the people. Today the idea is essentially the same, the elite claim there is no God, and if there is no God, then all of our rights come from the State. If our rights come from the State then the State can revoke them as the politically elite see fit. This circular reasoning is elevated to an actual religion in the case of Communist States where we see mass murderers worshiped like Gods. Lenin and Mao come immediately to mind as does the North Korean demon Kim. The communist manifesto argued that religion is the opium of the people, and by that logic that pernicious religion seeks to replace God with the State. As we slide deeper into the morass of Statism, we will find ourselves in exactly the same position as the ancient peoples, subjects and slaves. If we allow it then we deserve it.

 

The US Constitution is based on a Judeo Christian definition of God. This cannot be denied unless one is ignorant of the words of the founding fathers or intentionally misleading the public. Moreover the Declaration of Independence clearly states that our Rights come from God. Which means that the founders of the American republic recognized God and that the State is a necessary evil to protect us and our property from those who would take them. They sought the most limited State possible that would have the power to protect us, our children and our things. The US founding documents are unambiguous about this.

 

That paradigm doesn’t suit the progressive and socialist faction. They seek to unshackle the US government, and indeed all governments, from any limitations whatsoever. They imagine all the good they could do if only they had unlimited power to redistribute the goods of society as they see fit. The State could eliminate all the ills of society and culture by deciding who wins and who looses in various human and economic interactions. They even have the hubris to seek to change our very nature, as in Marx’s Manifesto, he claims that once we live under communism we will loose touch with our individual selves and evolve into our species selves. All of this implies a strong worship of the State and the power of the State.

 

Of course all the “good” that could be done by government is dependent on eliminating the limitations that Constitutions and a belief in God place on them. Under a system where eternal punishment is taken as a given we are more placid knowing everything is in God’s very capable hands. But the socialist needs people to forget the eternal and dwell in the moment. This makes us jealous of our things, scared of each other, it forces us to be politically active all the time and lowers us to the level of mere animals. All of which works in the favor of those that seek to replace God with the State.

 

There are very few who have not witnessed a miracle. Perhaps it is the birth of a baby, the spontaneous remission of cancer or an astonishingly unlikely happenstance that benefited us in some way, but most of us have witnessed an act of God. Not to mention the miracles recorded in the Bible… like the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This makes the task of those that seek to replace God with the State much harder, and so they deny any of these things are miracles. Like a shyster they tell us to ignore our lying eyes and believe their honest pleas. Only a fool however will ignore his own eyes, experience and history to believe in a scam being perpetrated on them by a huckster. Unfortunately many do.

 

It is not reasonable to deny God exists in the face of the miraculous and worship the State given the history of human government. The State is administered by human beings, who are greedy, conniving and fearful, making the State these same things. Only a State administered by saints would be different. Those who consider themselves saints however, are in fact demons, and those who are saints, eschew power, making it impossible for a State to be anything but greedy, conniving and fearful. A self interested people rightly understood, understand these basic facts, but those who remain willfully ignorant do not. A rational maximizer will weigh the cost of turning from God to the State and find the wager absurd, while a fool will not only go along, but will attack the rational maximizer as mean and old fashioned. The results of turning away from God and to the State are there for all of us to see, they are arbitrary rule, if only we open our eyes and look.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

The Honor System

Sunday, March 30th, 2014

Dear Friends,

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin