Posts Tagged ‘rational maximiser’

Crime Unpunished

Monday, March 14th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me… crime unpunished is crime encouraged. Remember when you were a child and you ran into the road? Your mother, father or both would give you the dickens. That was because they understood that if they didn’t, you would sooner or later run into the road and be killed. Because of their love of you they needed to change your behavior. Condemning the truck drivers will not stop a child from running into the road, a slap on the behind will however. Throughout our childhoods, those of us who had nurturing, loving parents, were taught to be civilized. It probably took standing in a corner, a slap on the behind and a few cross words, but the barbarian in us was molded into civilization. It does no good whatsoever to change the negative behavior with praise of the wrongdoing, blaming the victim or cry racism, when someone acts the barbarian. This is such an obvious truism you would think everyone knows it instinctively… but apparently many don’t.

Hsun Ching said the congenital nature of Man is evil and the good in us is a learned trait. By that he meant when we are born we don’t know, right from wrong, we don’t have empathy, we think we can just take what we want, etc… basically, we are little barbarians. Our empathy, virtue and humanity is taught us by our upbringing. Those who have been civilized operate well in any system while those who have not been civilized only operate well in a very structured environment, with draconian punishments and constant monitoring. Hsun Ching’s philosophy has a direct impact on adults as well.

An adult who has not had the benefit of being civilized will commit crime, that is obvious, but what seems to be not well understood is that when an adult is allowed to commit crime and is not punished for it, they are far more likely to commit more crime later. The more they get away with the more heartless and heinous the crimes they commit. In fact, blaming the victim, claiming racism or simply avoiding addressing the crime, empowers and emboldens the criminal. They feel they have a right to victimize others. The criminal becomes even more callous to the wants and needs of other human beings, and in doing so they become less human themselves.

Humanity means to have compassion, to be kind to others and even animals, it is a quality of being a fully actualized, human hearted human being. Humanity can be grown by changing the behavior of those who act inhuman and it can be corroded by allowing crime to go unpunished. To have humanity is to understand that other people exist, have feelings, want pretty much the same things you do and are as flawed as you and I are. Accepting the flaws of others is part of being humane. A psychopath or sociopath is not humane and has no compassion for others. They are broken. Most people who commit crime however are not psychopaths or sociopaths, they are people who have not been civilized, and so lack some aspect of humanity.

When a society allows some to stand above law, morality and civilization, it provides a strong incentive for others, others who are civilized, to throw off the yoke of civilization and become barbarians themselves. Those with a deeper understanding will resist for awhile but the incentive becomes stronger and stronger the longer society encourages crime. People are adaptable, we will adapt to many things, barbarism is one of those things we can adapt to and in a barbarous society, adapt we must. Those who have virtue in a barbarous society will quickly be crushed. We see that society in the last few decades in the US and Europe has become ever more barbaric.

It doesn’t matter if the criminal is an immigrant from a far away land who thinks rape is perfectly acceptable, or a politician who claims there is no overriding legal authority to punish his open and flagrant crime, the result is the same, crime unpunished is crime encouraged. We are civilized by our parents, that is one of the greatest gifts they give us, after our very lives. Civilization in us allows us to function, socially, economically and personally. Those without the benefit of civilization will commit crime. That doesn’t mean they are psychopaths or sociopaths, it means they are not civilized. A society that fails to punish crime, is a society that nurtures an inhumane, brutish and violent people. People that require intrusive oversight, draconian punishments and onerous laws. Yet even the most draconian punishments, intrusive surveillance and onerous laws will do no good to bring a society to civilization. Once civilization is lost it takes centuries to return to it. Only the most vile, self serving and evil people would want inhumanity for humanity… so why are some crimes unpunished and therefore, encouraged?

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Atheism, Socialism, and Tyranny

Thursday, February 25th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, a nation of atheists could never have a functional and efficient economy, because their lack of faith in God, demands atheists have control, while the religious have their faith in God and so can allow an economy to work laissez faire. Everyone desires a strong vibrant economy, from the ardent Marxist to the anarchist but the path to that vibrant economy is obscured by our personal preferences. That is why some take a path that can only lead to want, famine and suffering. It isn’t that some people want these things, it is that they see no other way, and this misplaced commitment is the result. Any clear examination of economics and economic theory must include an examination of the people that make up the economy. To disregard the people that make up an economy in an investigation of that economy is to study an ecosystem while ignoring the plants and animals that make it up.

If you believe there is no God everything is up to you. You cannot ever stop and relax because there is no one to rely on. The weight of the world is on the shoulders of the atheist. Any change the atheist wants in the world must be done by the atheist himself. Every problem must be solved by the atheist’s sweat. This doesn’t allow the atheist the ability to just let go and allow something to work. This is why atheism goes hand in hand with the command and control economy. Allowing an economy to work without oversight makes the atheist’s skin crawl. They cannot let go, since there is no God in their lives to let go to, and so they cannot fathom how a let it work economy could possibly function.

The religious however will work for the change they seek in the world but at the end of the day we understand that God has the final say. Our faith allows us to allow the world to work. People with faith don’t feel the weight of the world is on our shoulders and so have less stress. Both allowing the world to work and having less stress gives the religious the ability to allow an economy to work. This is why in those places where Christianity and Judaism are the primary religions laissez fair and liberty have been allowed. In those places where atheism and religions that demand people submit have command and control economies. Be it socialism or feudalism, such ideologies fall into tyranny, due to their reliance on man instead of God.

History is unambiguous about which economy provides the highest standard of living, most prosperity and greatest technological advancement, it is the same economic system that brought about the industrial revolution, that system is the free market. Since this is well known and understood, everyone talks about a free market but atheists always introduce the false premise of regulated free markets. Regulated is never free. The atheist cannot understand how allowing something to work without constant oversight could function and so they seek to “progress” the economy to socialism and then outright Marxism. Capitalism’s complex system that demands it be let alone is an anathema to the atheist. It is no coincidence that socialism’s founders and it’s most ardent supporters have all been atheists.

Since atheism is on the rise in western countries, so too is the rise of socialism, along with the negative effects of socialism. The atheist demand ever more powerful government. In all the spheres of human life the atheist’s innate need for control leads them to rely more and more on an ever growing government. History shows, as the people of Europe turned away from their Christian roots and towards atheism, the power of the state grew and their economies became more and more socialistic. Today the native population of Europe is largely atheist and elect socialists to power. Those socialists in power raise taxes, pass ever more restrictive regulation and lower the efficiency of the European economies.

A belief in God allows us to let go and allow things to work for themselves, since we know God will take care of the small things, but a lack of faith doesn’t allow for the atheist to let go, because to them if they don’t take care of it, no one will. This is a fundamental difference between atheists and the religious. History shows that fundamentally an economy works best, that is controlled the least, and those controlled the most, function the worse. The rise of atheism goes hand in hand with the rise of state power due to the innate philosophy of atheism. The slowing of Europe’s great economies coincides with the rise of atheism as a result. A free market cannot be a free market if it is controlled by bureaucracy or a tyrant yet atheism demands control. In this we see that a “rational” choice, atheism, leads to irrational outcomes, Marxism and tyranny.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Style over Substance in Democracy

Thursday, February 18th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, in politics, to follow style and ignore substance is to court tyranny and spurn liberty. Sadly, a political race is all about style and nothing about substance. The election of Barak Obama showed this in neon lights. He ran on “hope and change,” without a moment given to what that meant. Today Trump is running on “Make America great again.” Both slogans are strong on style but have little substance. When people vote on a slogan, instead of on policies, they open themselves up to politicians who don’t necessarily have the people’s best interests at heart. If a politician is reticent to explain how he or she will make his or her slogan come true, then the reason is probably that they have no idea how, they just want political power. Perhaps they have an idea, but know it would be obnoxious to the electorate, so the dishonest politician falls back on a slogan.

For good or evil it is policies that get things done. If more jobs is what is sought, lower regulations, less government intrusion into the market, lower taxes and less cronyism are the policies that are called for. This set of policies have the drawback to the statist of, lower government and political power and to the dependent of less government handouts. If more government power is the goal, then higher regulations more intrusion and higher taxes are the ticket. Those policies have the drawback of lower wages, less jobs, lower economic output and less liberty, however. There are always trade offs to any policy.

Since there are trade offs a conniving politician seeks to persuade the people to follow him or her with an empty slogan. Every politician and political adviser knows running on lower wages, less jobs and the loss of liberty is a loosing message. Those who seek more government control cannot run on the drawbacks or even let the idea there will be drawbacks into the conversation. They have to deftly avoid admitting the results of their policies will have drawbacks, in fact, they usually claim they seek the very opposite things their policies will result in. Politicians are Machiavellian in that they care nothing about how they get to their goal, only that they get to their goal.

An empty slogan has the advantage of avoiding talking about any negative effects of their policies but also of focusing the people on some simple to understand sentence. Those politicians who run on policies however, have the double difficulty of explaining how their policies will do what they say they will and defending the attacks on those policies for their trade offs. Since most people are lazy in thought their eyes will gloss over at discussions of policies and their effects instead focus on an empty slogan.

Slogans work best when they are backed up by personality. The most charismatic politician with the best slogan usually wins. Of course… no one is more charismatic than a psychopath or sociopath. That is because people with these disorders have no self awareness, they glibly lie, care not when they are caught, can look you in the eye while and smile as they stab you in the back, love to manipulate people, etc… Have you ever wondered why Hannibal Lector in the Silence of the Lambs is so magnetic? Psychopaths are inherently charismatic, love to manipulate others and seek luxury, and so they levitate to politics where their special abilities and needs serve them, and are served by them as well.

It is by the people being lazy in their voting, voting for a slogan rather than policies, that a nation is moved from limited government, free markets and liberty, and the economic strength that results, to unlimited government, socialism and tyranny. Even as the people begin to feel the results of the policies that result in lower wages, less jobs and reduced liberty, they fail to see their own part in the problem, continuing to vote for slogans instead of policies. Very few voters really want lower wages, less jobs and reduced liberty but when faced with the task of processing and examining the probable results of various policies, they fall back on a slogan and personality.

This paradigm of democracy has corroded every democratic republic ever constructed. Constitutionalism was supposed to limit this quality of democracy, but has been perverted by the very people elected to preserve our constitutions, as is the nature of democracy. The answer is not to eliminate democracy, it is only through the assent of the governed that any government has legitimacy, the answer is a thoughtful electorate. You have the ability to cast a vote, you are the foundation of your governmental system, you have the responsibility to act as a rational maximizer, a self interested human being rightly understood. If you choose to vote for a psychopath with a catchy slogan, you are the problem, but if you look into the policies, reason what the logical outcome of those policies will be, and vote accordingly… then you are the solution.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The Death of the US Constitution

Monday, February 15th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, with the death of Antonin Scalia our Constitution, which has been on life support for so many years, is about to die as well. There are two main factions battling for the soul of the US, one is adamant that the Constitution and limited government must be conserved, the other, that our Constitution is an impediment in their desire to progress the US into a fully rationalized economy, unlimited government and a controlled populace. Both factions believe their way is best for everyone. The faction that believes in unlimited government, rationalized economy and controlled people has been moving the ball down the field for the whole of the twentieth Century. With the death of Scalia the faction that seeks to preserve limited government, a free market and liberty for the people has lost it’s last hold on the last instrument of protecting our Constitution and what it stands for. Once Obama has appointed another anti constitutionalist to the bench, you can count on a rapid slew of legislating from that bench, more ruling like Roe v Wade and a total loss of your Constitutional rights. They will be replaced, for awhile, by rights that are distributed by government.

Obama has already made a lasting impression on the Supreme Court. His picks have proven themselves to be uber partisans in gutting our Constitution and our Constitutional principles. Even when naked conflicts of interest, such as Sotomayor’s when ruling on the Affordable Care Act, Obama’s appointments have refused to rescind themselves. They have ruled until now, against the majority, that the Second Amendment does not confer a personal right to keep and bear arms, despite the obvious meaning of that amendment in the Bill Of Rights. Obama’s pick to replace Scalia will be another progressive who loathes our nation, it’s people, the free market and our Constitution. The erosion of our rights since the end of the Nineteenth Century can now go into overdrive.

The end of the Nineteenth Century saw the Presidency of Teddy Roosevelt. He was the first progressive, and in the political environment he was in, had to tread carefully. Even though, he instituted the National Park system, which allowed the Federal government to usurp the lands of private citizens for “wilderness areas.” The national park system, that has been so abused by the bureaucracy lately, has become a means for the government to abuse it’s citizens, like the Bundys and Hammonds. Teddy Roosevelt was the first President to make a real move to get the US away from it’s Constitutional bounds.

Woodrow Wilson made a complete break from constitutionally limited government. His rule was so obnoxious that when he was finished the country voted in Harding and Coolidge in a landslide. They returned the US to Constitutionally limited government, laissez faire economics and liberty for the people. Their Presidencies ushered in the period of the fastest economic growth of the Twentieth Century, the near total destruction of the Klu Klux Klan, lowering crime rates, and widespread prosperity. When Coolidge stepped down he was replaced by the progressive Hoover. Hoover went back to moving the US away from our Constitution, free markets and liberty with such policies as the Smoot Hawly act that collapsed international trade ushering in the Great Depression.

Franklin Roosevelt ran as a conservative but became a progressive tyrant in all but name. He took the reigns of the economy with policies controlling how much and what a farmer could plant on his own land, what retailers could charge for underwear and concentration camps for Americans of Japanese descent. Violating the unstated law that since Washington had been in place, FDR ran for a third term and became President for life. On his death the nation lurched back to constitutional rule, but each time our nation was pulled away from our Constitution, the step back was weaker and many of the ideas and policies of the progressives stayed. The Supreme court during the FDR administration ruled in Wickard v Filburn the government could control what, how much and when a farmer could plant dramatically increasing the power, scope and rch of the government.

Some will pin their hopes on the next election. Many believe that with the election of a constitutionalist, of which there are very few running, the nation can be returned to constitutionally limited government. Alas that is not the case. The Supreme Court has as it’s only responsibility to protect our Constitution and maintain limited government. With the control of the Supreme Court by progressives they will immediately take it upon themselves to gut our Constitution and it’s limits on government. The Court is stacked with young progressives who will serve life terms. The most the next President could do, is replace the few constitutionalists on the bench with others, but that will not effect the status quo. Moreover, since all lawyers are members of the new class, the likelihood of getting a constitutionalist from that group grows smaller with each passing day.

The new class today are the strongest advocates for the progressive faction, that sees our nation as an impediment to a world government, where the human race can be controlled by people who are much smarter than us, for our own good. Trained by the intellectuals who are uniformly of the Frankfurt school the new class intelligentsia run our schools, media, businesses, culture and government. An antipathy for limited government has been thoroughly inculcated into their very psyche. They will cheer the appointment of a progressive to the Supreme court, tipping the balance away from constitutionally limited government, free markets and liberty, and towards unlimited government, rationalized economy and controlled populace. With the control of the last bastion that limits government, the progressive faction can put the last nail in the coffin of our Constitution, once and for all. Wickard v Filburn is only a small taste of the poison that will come from the Supreme Court now. The death of Antonin Scalia is the death of liberty, free markets and limited government, your children will live in an Orwellian tyranny from which there will be no escape… regardless of who we elect next. Prepare for the coming tyranny as best you can.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Evil Manipulators

Thursday, February 4th, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the greatest victory for evil there is, is to use someone’s benevolence to do evil. It happens more than you might think. Malevolent people and institutions play on our good natures to undermine our intentions. They say the road to Hell is paved with good intentions which is just a simplification of this scheme in play. If you think about it, it becomes obvious, evil has no qualms about perverting a good thing into bad, such is the nature of evil. Once you understand this and apply it, it becomes much harder for the diabolical to pervert your good intentions to evil, because you have become wise to it. This is why we all should pay attention, not to the intentions, stated of otherwise,, but to the likely outcome. That is the only way to guard against being manipulated by evil people into lowering the lot of Mankind.

History is filled with examples of good intentions turned bad. From Eve biting the apple to the welfare state, people have sought to improve their lives and the lives of their fellows, but the exact opposite came about. Their intentions were good and often noble but the results were evil. This only happens when we act without thinking. The Nazis used this tactic to get the German people to slaughter the innocent. A Nazi professor would walk into a room full of upper middle class youth, and show pictures of profoundly handicapped people and then ask, “would you want to live like this?” The unanimous answer form the rash youths, who had not lived a life yet and so were easily manipulated was, “NO!” In this way the Nazis used the German people’s compassion to murder millions of innocent people.

Some say listen to the heart, it will always tell you what is right, they are either wrong or manipulating us. The heart is an emotional organ. When we act on emotion and not logic bad outcomes are almost certain. This is one reason those who favor arbitrary rule so love the idea of democracy. They know people can be manipulated, especially in large numbers, by applying to their emotions. Democracy is nothing more than organized mob rule. Everyone knows a mob can be manipulated, only to destroy however, never to build. A mob can be wound into a frenzy then set upon some person, group or organization. The mob has no mind only raw emotion. After the fact, many who participated will be ashamed and regretful but too late, they allowed themselves to be manipulated, like a puppet.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions is an old saying that has always been pertinent and always will be. In our own lives we seek a good, with the best of intentions, and it goes all wrong. You might want to help someone who is handicapped so you open the door for her. By doing so you have said, by your actions, they are incapable. Of course that was not your intention but that could be the message they get. Perhaps your actions legitimize someone else feelings of inadequacy, or maybe your actions result in the exact opposite of what you intend, but either way the results didn’t comport with your intentions. Intentions must be tempered with logic and reason before they can do good works.

There is a whole political movement dedicated to manipulating people, into acting against their own good and the common good, by using people’s good intentions and emotions. What is ostensibly directed at helping the poor actually creates more poor and locks those it is supposed to help into perpetual generational poverty. Universal health care is sold emotionally, everyone under it is supposed to get health care, but the results fall far short of the promise. This political movement has resulted in famines that killed untold millions of people, oppression in the name of equality that destroyed whole nations, wars to spread it’s ideology that killed and maimed millions more. Socialism and communism prey on our empathy, manipulate us through our sympathy and get us to act against our own and society’s interests with our benevolence.

Knowing a scam is underway is the first step to avoid it’s snare. It is up to us as rational maximizers to weigh the benefits against the costs of an action without falling for naked emotion. It is only by pragmatically looking at the historical results of various actions that we can truly judge them good or bad. When we blindly follow our intentions the results are almost certain to be bad. Only through acknowledging this and keeping it top of mind can we stop falling victim to evil manipulators, who will happily use our empathy, sympathy and benevolence to bring about evil in the world. It is by doing these things and not falling prey to evil manipulators that we can say we have become civilized. A barbarian is controlled by his emotion, a civilized human being acts on logic and pragmatism. Which are you?

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Why Government Cannot Solve Our Problems…

Monday, February 1st, 2016

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, government failures are so common they are common knowledge, and so are ignored and ridiculed, yet we give government more and more power over us every day, so that government can fix every problem. This is using that which doesn’t work to fix that which does work. What is most amazing however is, we all know government fails at everything, we laugh at it’s failures and they are so common we often don’t even notice them, but we give government more power and money over and over? Moreover, most of the political establishment the world over is dedicated to government solving the world’s problems. If most or at least a plurality of people disagreed with that philosophy such a paradigm couldn’t exist yet it does, so I have to wonder, what gives?

The reasons government fails at everything it put’s it’s hands to are numerous but one stands out. Government officials are never held to account. Despite the enormous amount of money bureaucrats make there is never accounting for the results only the process. Forget to put three staples in a document, signaling three copies need to be made and the consequences are immediate and drastic, release a million gallons of deadly toxic water into a watershed however, and get a raise. In the big things government failures are overlooked, or made fun of, but in the small insignificant things government is a well oiled machine.

If you or I started a series of events that lead to a negative outcome, like a practical joke, where someone removes a fence protecting pedestrians from a thousand foot cliff and jumping out as they pass… would lead to consequences, both for the unfortunate pedestrian and the jokester. Let government start a chain of circumstances that lead to a tragic death, and the victim is blamed, as in the recent death of Lavoy Finicum. There was no compelling reason to initiate the confrontation, the outcome was obvious, and the consequences for the police and bureaucrat who started it are non existent. That failure of government, both in using law to prevent terrorism against a rancher so the government can take his land, and the confrontation that clearly would lead to the needless death of a protester, will go unnoticed by the media and public at large.

Governments waste money on an epic scale. Hillary Clinton’s State department “lost” five billion dollars. No one was held to account, no charges were filed, the money just went missing. Of course, someone or some entity is five billion dollars richer, at your and my expense. Every year congresspeople have their wasteful spending lists. From five hundred dollar toilet seats to building a five hundred thousand dollar facility that melted in the rain, government wastes money that could be better used by the private sector, to create jobs, improve the economy and raise our standard of living. Pork barrel politics is the bread and butter of government.

So what is it about government that makes so many people believe it is the answer to every question? Perhaps it is the mistaken idea that throwing money at a problem will solve any problem. When I was a child in the first grade I read an article about how George McGovern believed more government spending would solve all our problems. At the time I thought that was insightful and intuitive because, as I thought then, spend enough money and any problem can be solved. Now that I have grown up, I realize more money thrown at a problem means more waste, graft and fraud… not a solution. In fact, more money creates the incentive NOT to solve the problem, else the gravy train would stop.

As I have shown, government only fails, and often fails spectacularly so why are so many people still tricked into giving government more power to solve all of our problems? Examples where government has succeeded are yet to be found, other than war, and war is not a strategy we should ever seek. Common sense dictates we limit government, take away it’s power to waste money, control our actions and hobble the economy. Elitists will use scare tactics, like claiming we will drink polluted water if not for the EPA, (who recently released millions of gallons of toxic water), fuel would be too expensive if not for the Energy department, (which has resided in the gutting of America’s energy infrastructure resulting in our dependence on foreign powers for energy), our children will get a poor education if not for the Education department, (which has presided over an education system that has to continually dumb down tests so our kids can pass the SAT), our farms will cease to exist unless government helps them with the Farm Bureau, (which has seen the evisceration of the family farm), etc… Only in government can failure be an advantage.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Why the Elite Do Such Absurd Things

Monday, November 30th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, chaos, terrorism, crime and fear create conditions where tyranny is not only likely but inevitable, and so anyone who seeks tyranny or in other words, arbitrary rule, merely sow these things and their job is almost done. To argue that no one would want tyranny is to argue no one would want to eat. It is human nature to seek power over others, as evidenced by all of human history, just as it is human nature to eat. Moreover, those that seek political power do so usually to use that power, else why seek it? So, those in political power, not all that have or seek political power, but a large majority, actually want tyranny, (as long as they are the tyrant) and therefore will actively sow chaos, terrorism, crime and fear in society, as a means to that goal.

It was the ancient Greeks who actually admitted and debated the faction that favored arbitrary rule. Today our schools, colleges and universities avoid teaching about arbitrary rule and so most people educated by the new class have no concept of it, as a philosophy or even that there are always those who favor it. To understand the philosophy of arbitrary rule one has to read Plutarch’s Lives, Plato and Aristotle. Since few actually read them, and many are told what they said, few really know and many think they know. The philosophy of arbitrary rule is, that the people are better served when they are ruled by a person or group, that can pass laws arbitrarily. It is as simple as that. Those that favor arbitrary rule believe humanity is better off if we are controlled by our “betters.” That people are so ignorant of this philosophy is damning to our education system but even more telling of the intentions of the new class.

Rationally self interested people, rational maximizers as economists label us, and self interested rightly understood as Tocqueville put it, struggle with those who favor arbitrary rule. We believe that humanity is better off when we the people have a say in our laws, customs and economy. We believe that people in the aggregate are better equipped to understand what society needs than a group of “superior men.” We understand that it is only through the protection of individual liberties that society can flourish… and our philosophy is born out by empirical testing. The period since the invention of Constitutional rule, a form of government that intentionally limits the elite and explicitly forbids arbitrary rule, has seen the greatest advancement in the human condition since the first man and woman walked upright. Those times where arbitrary rule has reasserted itself have seen famine, slaughter and suffering, without exception.

If you listen to the rhetoric of the elite, every solution they offer, is always more power in the hands of the few. Each time a problem pops up, a new regulation, law or form of surveillance is the only answer the elite allow us to debate. It is logical to conclude that due to their default position, of more government power and their favorite economic system socialism, that the elite favor arbitrary rule. It would be absurd to claim someone who always and everywhere seek more power in the hands of fewer and fewer people, favors individual liberty and eschews arbitrary rule! So since they favor and seek arbitrary rule it follows that they will do what it takes to create the conditions favorable to establishing arbitrary rule, for the good of humanity as they see it.

Perhaps that is why the political establishment goes to such lengths to create chaos in society. The elite have been undermining those institutions that create stability for over a century. The nuclear family is the most stabilizing force and is increasingly under attack by the elite. From the welfare state to gay marriage the elite have launched an all out war against the family. Christian religious institutions also create stability and so have been cowed by the elite. No church is willing to give up it’s religious tax exemption and so is unwilling to speak out, afraid to offend those who have the power to remove it, and so they have made themselves irrelevant. The list of stabilizing institutions is far too long to go into here but I am sure if you try you can think of many that are under attack or no longer exist.

Maybe the elite’s drive to tyranny is why the elite seek more terrorism instead of less. No one in their right mind believes that mass migration of Muslims will not create more terrorism in Europe and the US. To argue that it won’t is to argue up is down and down is up. Moreover, flooding a country will people who despise the culture and the people, then giving the invaders free everything is a terrifically destabilizing force, and can only lead to resentment, violence, backlash and more violence. Smashing the stable tyrants in the Middle East intentionally sowed the seeds of the migration which will inevitably lead to violence in Europe and the US on a wide scale, that violence can only lead to fear.

It is possible that the people who want to establish themselves as arbitrary rulers create the conditions for crime to flourish. More law doesn’t prevent crime, it only makes more people criminals, moreover, more regulations makes it harder to start a business or make a profit in an established business. This leads to less employment opportunities, lower wages and more crime because of it. History shows that periods of rapid economic expansion see very low crime rates and periods of low economic expansion and recession see rising crime, social strife and hate groups. All of which makes the people afraid, of their economic outlook, their property and their very lives.

Fear is the uniting element that makes the others so effective. Terrorism, chaos and crime all create fear, and a human being who is blinded by fear will run into the arms of anyone claiming they can put that fear at rest. Since we have been carefully conditioned to believe that more government power is always the answer to every question and all exigencies, most people will turn to a strongman who will “get them” and “fix it.” Like Germans did after Wiemar. Fear limits the mind and terror shrivels the soul, making people little more than animals, willing to burn another at the stake for causing the plague, behead a Virgin to restore the crops, and wipe out a race of human kind. Fear that will answer all the dreams of those that seek arbitrary rule, because the end justifies the means, and in the end, they believe arbitrary rule is in all of our best interests, especially theirs.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Foolishness and Wisdom

Monday, November 23rd, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the more ignorant and foolish a person is, the more secure they are in their beliefs. Where a reasoning man or woman questions their assumptions and biases, a fool never burns a calorie in their mind at all, they see no need. The foolish and ignorant are the first to resort to anger and violence if their beliefs are questioned. Being foolish, they would rather fight than think, and that quality of the foolish is fundamental. Ignorance is a condition that can be repaired, but the foolish will see knowledge, especially knowledge that questions their world view, as heretical. So sure are they in their beliefs that they need not learn. All of which make the foolish and ignorant easy to pick out, they refuse to listen to argument, instead making personal attacks, are quick to anger, resort to force rather than reason, have religious like faith in mankind and government, and most of all they are certain about that which cannot be known.

Young people have little life experience and so are more foolish than someone with a great deal of life experience. This is both a benefit and a curse to them. It is beneficial because they are willing to innovate in the face of almost certain failure. This is often the source of human advancement and is why most advancement comes from the youth. It is a curse however since most tyrannies have been ushered in by the youth. They foolishly follow some charismatic villain and find they have forged their own chains. The foolish youth are quick to resort to violence and that tendency has been put to good use by many despots. Che Guevara lauded that tendency of the youth to engage in violence. Once they grow up however most people loose their foolishness in the passage of time.

Unlike religious faith, which is based on rational self interest, the foolish have faith in that which has proven itself unworthy of faith. To digress for a moment, Religious faith is based on rational self interest for a host of reasons, those who have faith in God lead happier lives, live longer, live healthier, have more success in life, have stronger family ties and the retirement benefits are much better than the alternative. Religious like faith in some person, system or idea is the path to catastrophe. Get enough zealots to follow a villain and tyranny results, blind faith in an economic system like socialism and the economic future of the people is forever lowered, unquestioned belief in an idea is how entire cultures are destroyed.

A recent poll of generation x concluded that as many as 40% of them are in favor of government restricting speech that might be offensive. The real number is probably lower, (I hope), but the vehemence of those that see no problem with government deciding what speech is acceptable, are so sure of their position they need not question themselves or their assumptions. Disagree with them and they immediately attack you as a hater. They can’t be bothered with reason, like the slippery slope argument, the history of such movements or that innovation requires free thought which flows from free speech. They are willingly forging their own (and our) chains, and are helped along by professors who never grew up and dropped their foolishness, because they never left the coddling cradle of academia.

A person need not be young to be foolish and some who are foolish are not ignorant but the two go together like chocolate and milk. Ignorance is not only a lack of knowledge, but the inability to apply knowledge, which is in itself a form of foolishness. There are people who don’t have a great deal of knowledge, but are wise, which again shows that knowledge is not proof against foolishness, and ignorance is not proof of foolishness. To be foolish is to be willfully ignorant, self inflicted and self directed. To be wise is to be open minded and willing to question assumptions, but not to abandon those concepts that have been tested in the crucible of time, to do so is to be foolish.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The Lesson of the Twentieth Century

Thursday, November 19th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the fall of the Berlin wall was the period on the sentence of socialism, yet the elite have go all in for socialism. When the Berlin wall fell it was final proof that socialism was a failed economic system. The Soviets had tried for decades to make it work yet it failed. That failure of socialism was the end of a century of failure. Every time socialism was tried it ended in catastrophe for those who tried it. From the United Soviet States of Russia to Cambodia, socialism failed and failed spectacularly. The end of a century of failure was the fall of the Berlin wall, the final capitulation that even a nation with unbounded natural resources, huge population, committed socialists, powerful education system and was a superpower, failed. Yet today, the democratic party of the US is full blown socialist, Europe is run by socialists, and Canada recently voted in a socialist, it would seem that the world want to try socialism again. Of course it will fail again, but the elite are so in love with the system, they care not how many people will die of famine again, the deep level of suffering it will bring on, nor do they care about the tyranny socialism always brings with it, they are willing to inflict all these disasters on humanity so they can try it once again.

Socialism has built within it the seeds of it’s failure. The incentive to work is non existent in a socialist system. The socialist system, where everyone gets the same amount of money, no matter how hard they work or even if they work, can only undermine the work ethic. In those places where the work ethic is very strong, socialism can last longer, but in the end, the people will realize they don’t have to work to get the same as those who don’t. This is a pernicious effect that cannot be mitigated. Sure, some have argued the lash can be sufficient substitute for the incentive to get ahead, but in the end the lash only further alienates the people and lowers the quality of their work, even if it improves the quantity. The incentives of socialism corrode it from within.

Planning an economy isn’t like planning a wedding, there are simply too many moving parts. Imagine all the information that must be garnered, categorized and understood. The mass of information is simply too large for any bureaucracy, even equipped with quantum computers to effectively gather let alone understand. How many socks to manufacture for example. The market system has the price feedback so a manufacturer knows, by the price he is getting for his socks, whether to make more or less, but in a socialist, planned economy, the number must be set by a bureaucrat. No matter how smart, well meaning or committed to socialism the bureaucrat is, she will never get the number, of even a simple commodity like socks correct. Now consider the style of socks people might want. The level of information about how much to produce quickly becomes impossible to assess, and so there are always huge gluts and shortages. Moreover, the style of what is produced is never what the people actually want.

The drive to advance efficiency is destroyed in a socialist system. If you come up with an innovation in a socialist system, is there any incentive to implement it, is there an incentive for a bureaucrat to implement it either? No, there is not, innovation is a pain in the butt for the central planner, it is simply too much trouble. Implementing innovation is hard work, if you cannot get ahead for your innovation, will you struggle to push it through? No of course not. If you push in a socialist system you are labeled a troublemaker and no one wants to be labeled a troublemaker in a socialist system! That can get you sent to reeducation or worse. Innovation, and the advancement of efficiency that comes with it is frowned upon in a socialist system.

Socialism always and everywhere must institute a tyranny. In order to plan an economy the natural rights of the people must be taken by force, the good of the society always comes before the good of the individual, and so your inborn natural rights are eliminated. Of course, the good of society is always in line with the personal good of the leaders. Under socialism everyone is a slave to the state except those who run the state, so in other words, the leaders of a socialist country own everyone within that country. Socialism is the modern equivalent of arbitrary rule. If the beloved leader believes your death will serve the society he will expect it of you. You have no right in a socialist system to the products of your labor, you are in deed and fact a slave, in a socialist country tyranny is the norm and must be the norm.

The twentieth century was a century that proved, over and over again, that socialism cannot work. The fall of the Berlin wall was the period to that sentence. All the arguments against socialism I have put forth are made moot, because the lesson of the twentieth century was that socialism must fail. Yet here in the twenty first century the elite are intent on creating a world government based on socialism. In their hubris they believe they can make the unworkable work, they are wise enough to fix the incentives, they believe themselves virtuous enough to prevent tyranny, they believe themselves to be gods. Our hope is that people will remember the fall of the Berlin wall, and the lessons of the twentieth century and forestall the insane plans of the global elite. God help us of we don’t, in a world government that is socialist there will be no escaping it, and the more it fails the more insane the leaders will get.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Pragmatism, The American Philosophy

Monday, November 9th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, pragmatism is the quintessential American philosophy, it embodies everything our founders believed. The US founding was based on a market system… of ideas, economics, politics and philosophy. In a marketplace, ideas, products, and even philosophy are tested. Pragmatism as a method of thought and inquiry tests ideas and weighs them on an empirical scale. In a market, if a product gives value then it will be successful, if however, it is of no value, it fails. Marketing a product then can be said to require pragmatism, if it fails losses need to be cut, so the product is discontinued. Philosophy requires pragmatism to test its results, if the results are good then the philosophy can be said to be good, and if the results of it’s implementation are bad, then the philosophy itself can be said to be bad. In a marketplace, the measure of anything is how it sells, where there is no marketplace however, without pragmatic consideration, there is no viable test on the value of a product, idea, system or philosophy. Moreover, we see empirically that where pragmatism is used the standard of living improves and where pragmatism is eschewed, the standard of living declines. Your standard of living and that of your children is dependent on our leaders, teachers, executives and even ourselves, to be pragmatic and use pragmatism to weigh our decisions.

Pragmatism as a body of philosophy is normative, or in other words, it harmonizes that which we believe and think, with that which is real. People believe in all sorts of things, from communism to relativity, but how can we discern what beliefs are true and which are false? That is where normative philosophy comes in. Pragmatism tests the social theories, philosophical ideas and organizational attempts not strictly scientific questions, while science tests physical theories not complex ones. This is a mistake that many in the sciences have made, they seek to apply the scientific method to questions of society and social philosophy, (complex systems) because the scientific method has been so successful in discerning what water is, how fast a rock will fall, and other purely scientific problems. In complexity theory, strictly scientific questions would be called mount Fuji questions, where questions of society and social interaction are a changing landscape. Therefore, to apply the scientific method to questions of social philosophy, is like driving a nail with a screwdriver.

How pragmatism is used, is it observes the results of an action, then rates those results as good or bad. The rating is then used to predict the outcome of other similar actions. For example, if government puts a limit on the price of rental housing, for even the most noble of reasons, the result is a lack of housing. Pragmatically then, rent control has a negative outcome, even though the motivation might have been altruistic. Pragmatism looks at results not motivations. When the scientific method is used however, it always takes into account the motivation, like a chemical reaction, all the inputs need to be measured, quantified and the method of combining them weighed. In a chemical reaction this is necessary and fits the requirements well, but in complex systems this level of measure is impossible, and so the scientific method fails to predict the results… where pragmatism succeeds.

The founding fathers looked at the results of all the civilizations that came before them. They were very learned men who knew history. They weighed the results of all the governmental systems that had come before, and using pragmatism, they settled on a system of government that combined the best of what history had to offer and discarding the worst. In that way the very founding of the United States was based on pragmatism. The founders pragmatically looked at the results of various systems and if they produced good results, they were considered good and were incorporated, and if they produced bad results, they were considered bad and were discarded. The founders didn’t consider the motivations of the framers of past nations, civilizations and economic systems, they only looked at the results of those systems.

The United States was founded with limited government so those in power couldn’t contaminate the system. The founders had seen the results of powerful governments and so enacted limited government to protect their new nation from those results. While the leaders of powerful governments might be virtuous, have only the most noble of motivations and honest, the results always were and are the same. The system becomes more and more despotic until the tyranny is open for everyone to see. Once that happens the people understand they are victims and loose their perceived stake in that society and the society collapses. The founders recognized that it is the nature of government to seek ever more power over the people, and pragmatically tried to check that tendency, with pragmatic Constitutional limits on the power of government.

The US was founded as a market system because the market system had resulted in such a dramatic rise in the lot of humanity. Under a market system everyone is pragmatic. If you could make more money at another job you change jobs, if you can make more money building anther product or adding features to your existing product you do it, if it fails, you revert to what worked before. Everyone weights the results of their actions. Since we are pragmatic in our business dealings, as a matter of human nature, we apply pragmatism to other aspects of our lives. Our relationships, our housing situation, etc… our every decision is based on pragmatism. Pragmatism becomes ingrained.

Pragmatism therefore is the quintessential American philosophy. The US founding was based on pragmatism, the style of government is pragmatic, our market system is based on pragmatism, our people have been inculcated with pragmatism and our society itself is pragmatic. Tocqueville called attention to American pragmatism in his theory of self interest rightly understood. To be a rational maximizer is to be pragmatic. Everything about America and the American way is pragmatic. Unfortunately, today our leaders are not pragmatic but ideological, and seek to move us away from our founding, to a place that our founders looked at, weighed and rejected… for the results it produced. Our modern leaders care nothing about results and only consider motivations. They believe a system that has only resulted in human suffering on a massive scale, can be made to work, if only the “right” motivations are applied and the “right” people are in charge. Pragmatically speaking, their ideas can only fail, and fail big time, because they always have.

Sincerely,

John Pepin