Posts Tagged ‘society’

« Older Entries

Human Heartedness and Government

Wednesday, August 4th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that to hold another person to a higher standard of personal conduct than one holds himself is not human hearted. To be “not human hearted” in this way, historically, qualifies a person to hold public office.

For all of human history people in power have never been held to a standard of personal conduct that is close to the demands placed on the people. The ancient Greeks with the temporary ostracism, and Romans with the Censors made gestures in the direction of holding powerful people to standards. But those two systems were flawed in that they still hadn’t solved the problem of power of personality or cults of personality.

The ancient Greeks ostracism was a direct attack at charismatic power. If an aristocrat would get too powerful the people would call a vote. They would write yea or nay on a piece of pottery or ostrakon
and count the vote. If the ayes had it the person was sent away for a few years to let his partisans cool and his charismatic power to wane. His possessions were kept safe as were his family and slaves. When he returned he could participate in public life again. This practice visited any number of catastrophes on Athens. From Pericles (with the misshaped head) to Alcibiades the ostracism was a wash.

The Romans had the Censors. Powerful aristocrats that had draconian powers to look into the personal dealings of other aristocrats. Unfortunately with no effective public oversight the Censors used their offices to garner bribes and indulgences from the powerful people they were supposed to regulate. An early form of regulatory capture. Both pernicious and both inevitable if the conditions are right. Human nature being what it is.

Human nature is unchangeable. When faced with the choice of; Let someone burn you with a cigarette and they will give a million dollars, to charity the charity of your choice, for each hour of torture. No one would submit to it. Unless they were sadomasochistic. Despite the obvious societal good from the windfall to charity…. But give another that choice over someone else and the perspective is widened considerably. They would have no problem with this Faustian bargain. The fact that they feel no pain when the cigarette is applied is irrelevant. Or so they will say. It is universal and it is human nature.

To decry human nature is foolish as it is to decry gravity. Without it we could not exist as we are. The wise lawgiver looks human nature in the eye and works with it. Doesn’t try to change it in others while waxing his own.

That has been the problem with governments through the ages. The Elite try to force others to live as the Elite wish and the Elite live as they wish too. This sets up a fundamental tension in human governments. That tension is the underlying energy source for class struggle.

The ancient Chinese had it close. Despite their arguments and the internecine squabbles of the States the Chinese philosophers in classic times had it by the tail. That their governments ignored the good teachings and embraced the bad is just a function of human nature….

Perhaps, if some nation at some time held their leaders to the same standards they hold the people to, this fundamental tension would be relived. So maybe, to be not human hearted should disqualify a person from public office.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Group Politics, Law, Mercy, Societal Myth, philosophy, polictics of class envy | No Comments »

Environmentalism

Sunday, July 25th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the environmentalists always look at everything as a zero sum game. They couch every choice as an either-or. In doing so they always overlook alternatives that would enhance both sides. Instead of destroying the interests of landowners in the name of the environment. In doing so they ensure the destruction of that which they seek to save.

When the market system was first being debated. Some argued that it would smooth out the differences among men and lower their disposition to violence. As I have said before, the guy who sells sofas doesn’t care what color your skin is… all he cares about is the color of the money. Hobbes and Voltaire was of this persuasion. Others argued that some lost while others gained. Rousseau took this side. The argument has raged from then to now. It lands in our laps with Rousseau’s side ceding some ground.

Most educated people realize that the market system is not a zero sum game. When people are involved in the market system their wealth is much higher then if they participated in some other system. The caste system, Where distributed justice says that the goods of society are distributed to those according to caste. Or the feudal system where the goods of society are distributed depending on patronage and parentage. Or still the communist system where the goods of society are distributed by one’s political power. All these other systems have one thing in common. Their version of distributive justice has, at it’s core, that the goods of society go to those with power. And from those that produce. This sets up a pernicious incentive that feeds back and lowers the economic output of every person. While the market system distributes to those with, at least, an eye to their production.

This analogy can be applied to environmental science as well. It is becoming obvious that economic prosperity and a healthy ecosystem can go hand in hand. It is also historical truth that countries that have overly powerful Elite have a very poor track record with the environment. When a small percent of the people make all of the decisions they can simply order environmental disasters be created far from their homes. They have economic incentive to disregard environmental concerns and little incentive to protect the environment of their slaves.

But all the means the environmentalists propose move power from those that live near to those who live far away. From the people to the Elite. They claim if so and so project goes through an owl, ent or sage grouse will cease to exist.

There is a controversy of just this nature going on in the US Midwest. It is over wind towers to produce clean energy or a sage grouse that is loosing the ecosystem it needs to survive. The environmentalists are arguing that the sage grouse must be protected and the BLM land should be “protected” exclusively for them.

To me the obvious answer is to place as many towers as possible. Then replant sage brush around them leaving only access roads to the towers for maintenance. The more land that is taken by towers and replanted with perfect habitat for sage grouse that more you ensure the survival of the sage grouse. In perpetuity. The economic value of the towers will ensure the protection of the land.

The environmentalists way forces land to be “protected.” But they never think about the consequences. ( Or maybe they do). The incentive is set up for the locals to, at best, ignore the interests of the sage grouse. But people being people, when our interests are subdued for the interests of others, we resent it. Especially people who are used to being free. Outright hostility may even be shown. No matter the best or the worst the interests of the sage grouse will hurt under the benevolent “protection” of the overly powerful State. Just like family farms have languished under the benevolent “protection” of the State.

Eventually the “protected” land will be put to some other important use and the sage grouse will go extinct. By putting people in charge who have less and less direct impact from the consequences of their decisions, give them less and less oversight and, you have a recipe for environmental degradation… down the road.

The very policies of the environmentalists will destroy that which they seek to protect… Because the benevolent protection of the State is neither benevolent nor protection.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Law, economy, philosophy | No Comments »

Societal Structure

Sunday, July 11th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that government is one third of a structure that we live our lives in. (The other two being tradition and modernity). The form of government determines the real and potential standard of living of the people that live under it. Historically the more oppressive – the lower the potential. But no matter the form it has great influence on the structure.

That is one of the reasons I am so amazed by anarchists. They seek to destroy the structure. No matter it’s form. Never thinking for a moment, regardless how effectively they destroy the structure, that another will quickly rise to replace it. Most probably in the form of a tyranny (as a reaction to the chaos). Setting them back in their goal of total liberty.

The reason the structure will rise so rapidly is that, as Socrates said through Plato, we are social by our nature. It is our sociability that provide us the goods we need. In his day the division of labor was simple. There was a {warrior (and farming) division and a religious class}- Citizens, and a slave class. Slavery kept labor costs vary low. Very low labor cost meant little division of labor. That kept innovation low and prices for commodities high. But although there was a simple division of labor the benefit of society was an improved standard of living. Socrates and his fellows didn’t have the philosophical framework to understand that an economy is not a zero sum game. But they did recognize the value of our social natures. They didn’t realize that economies are dynamic. Like living organisms. They thrive when watered, aired and fed. They dry up and shrivel when they are not properly cared for. Economies rise and fall with innovation. To the ancient philosophers economies were static.

Adam Smith’s book “The Wealth Of Nations” was an innovation in the way people thought about markets and trade. Of course he didn’t produce his work in a vacuum. But he articulated his ideas well enough to start a new area of scientific enquiry.

This book, The Wealth of Nations, hints at an underlying law in human societal structure. One of the great energy sources of all human societal structure is our want to get ahead. (Greed). Every one wants better. When the governmental structure was such that it quashed this part of human nature. It was, and always will be, to protect the power of the Elite. The Elite always want a structure that ensures them their “rightful” power.

The irony of the ancient societal myth is never mentioned in anything I have read. That is, To be a citizen one must have means. But to want means is to have avarice. (And that) The labors of society rightfully belong to the Aristocracy. Anything they allow the peasants to keep is magnanimous (big in the soul). The producers of those goods had no right to the products of their labors. For them to want to keep their own products was greedy. But to want what one did not produce or help to produce was not.

Just like the rhetoric coming from the socialists, progressives and communists. The products of a person’s labor rightfully belong to the Elite. For those that labor to want a share is for producers to be greedy. If the State needs the funds, to buy votes for the ruling faction, it is the States right.

Communists, socialists and progressives want to bind society their leadership. They know, (if not explicitly), that to do that they must bring back the structure that was lost by embracing markets. Markets are natural levelers of men. As buyers you and I don’t care about the seller’s race, creed, ethnicity, tattoos, etc… all you care about is the price and the quality of a good or service. [ala Hume and Voltair] That is why the Statist Elite want to get off the market system. Markets have lowered sovereignty too low. (As far as they are concerned). Far be it… from wanting “Progress,” in truth they want an Retreat. They want to move humanity back to a time when the Elite were kings and the people were slaves. They long to move us back to that halcyon time.

The trick is to make the people believe that Elite are on their side. Just as Julius Caesar did to destroy the Republic and create the Empire. He took Roman societal structure back from republican rule to the arbitrary rule of tyrants. He made the people love him by giving out money, forcing the forgiving of debts and enacting some much needed reform. (No one is totally evil or totally good). In doing so he earned the absolute and blind following of the Roman people. He then used that following to make himself emperor. Fundamentally changing Roman societal structure. Today, history is repeating itself and, our historians are silent.

It all boils down to one fact… What kind of structure do you want your children and their children living in?

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Mercy, Societal Myth, philosophy | No Comments »

You Are What You Think

Sunday, June 6th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that you are what you think. The more a person dwells on a single subject the more their minds form to that subject. The mind being very plastic.

So when the German people in the 1920’s and 1930’s were inculcated that all their problems were the fault of the Jews and Gypsies… they dwelt on the subject. It was in the air all the time in that era and place. The German societal myth warped. Bringing about the conditions where the Gypsies were wiped out with no one left to remember them. Far worse than the Armenians or Jews. The Gypsies were annihilated.

This doesn’t mean that the German people were bad… The philosophy they followed was bad. Because they thought, to the exclusion of other things, on race.

Good intentions can be turned to bad results this way. When a person dwells on some injustice, to the exclusion of other things, it warps their minds. Their mind folds into compliance with the notion. It takes away their sense of magnitude and relativity. You and I feel that what we dwell on has more import than it actually may have. The simple act of thinking about a subject can make the subject more important to us than it really is.

So a person who is obsessed with the injustice to a group eventually gives this injustice godhood. It consumes them and they eventually can think of nothing else without extreme effort. What impact on their lives do you think this has?

When you feel this strongly about an injustice, even though it may have happened long ago, it is easy to believe that injustice must be met with injustice. Do to the former perpetrator that which he did. Even though the perpetrator may be long dead. If this is the case… find a suitable group to mete your injustice on. There is never a lack of suitable people to mete out injustice to. Look around the world.

Why do the Jews mete out injustice to the Palestinians? Why do the Palestinians mete out injustice to the Jews? Why did and do the Hutu’s mete out injustice to the Tutsi’s? And Vice versa? The pattern is repeated around the World in many forms and in many ways. The single common factor is that a group of people dwell on some injustice. This leads them to meet injustice with injustice.

So when we think about an injustice, A highly emotional thought, we tend to dwell on it. The more we dwell… Therefore it is in our best interest to try to keep balance. To meet injustice with injustice is to immortalize injustice.

Does anyone think that the annihilation of the Gypsies led to less injustice in the world? What about the Hutu’s annihilation of the Tutsi’s’? No it has only led to further injustice. Cambyses son of Cyrus the Great moved whole nations of people in forced migrations. To satisfy his sense of justice. Did this result in less injustice in the World? No it didn’t. And it never will.

Chuang Chuo the doctor of the Tao said;

“A Penumbra asked a Shadow, saying, “There are times When you are moving, times when you are at rest: times when you sit down, times when you stand up. Why do you not work out one method and stick to it?” The Shadow said, “Am I dependent on something else for being what I am? (if so) is the something else on which I am dependent… itself dependent on something else for being what it is?”

One cause leading to another in an endless stream of injustices. The only way to stop the results are to interrupt the causes… To meet injustice with injustice is never righteous.

If you dwell, on racism, you become a racist… What is the Cause in that sentence?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Group Politics, Mercy, Societal Myth, philosophy | No Comments »

Individual Sovereignty

Sunday, May 30th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the magnitude of the concept of individual sovereignty is very underappreciated. This is a relatively new philosophy. It was codified into law under the US Constitution only two hundred years ago. One of the reasons most philosophies trend tyrannical is that they place sovereignty at a higher level.

Philosophies that espouse Groupism place sovereignty at the group level. They are more concerned with the group, (race, sexual preference, class, etc…). They sample, categorize and place a person in the appropriate group. Then treat them as such. Groups are easy to handle conceptually. But, when the concepts that are envisioned by the groupist are implemented, they always result in the lowering of all of society. Be it economically, politically, or religiously.

Because when sovereignty is raised back to a level higher than the individual… the individual resents it. And, moreover, is right to do so. It is the individual that feels the bite of cold in the weather. Pain is individually sovereign. The motivation to it should be as well.

An unbiased observer would look at the state of affairs on our planet and come to the conclusion that, not only human beings are given individual sovereignty but, the beasts in the fields and forests do as well. If this is true, that even the beasts in the fields and forests have individual sovereignty… and there is a God, then it is the observed will of God that we have individual sovereignty.

Witness that every time sovereignty is moved from the individual to the group, King, President for life, city state, nation, etc… it is done so by violence or the implicit threat of violence. The violence is couched in the most pleasing terms. The greater good and all that. Even as, for the greater good, a group of human beings are exterminated… Under the aegis of anti racism.

What is the font of the American economic growth machine? Some argue that it is the diversity of the American people. But averaged growth by decade has been fairly steady from it’s inception. Even when diversity was very low… Hessians and British… Making diversity’s impact on economic growth less definite.

Some argue the American political system. They wouldn’t be far from wrong. But they would still miss the target. It isn’t the system itself but the societal myth that the system’s birth set up. Namely that sovereignty is at the individual level… Think for a moment what kind of incentives this sets up in a society that adopts it.

If you, as an individual, believe that you will be able to keep what you earn. It is a positive incentive to earn. If you believe that your real property is safe from seizure it is an incentive to own real property. If you believe that your business will not be shaken down it is an incentive to own a business… The list of positive incentives is endless. Positive incentives that work on the individual level to improve the lives of everyone.

What about societal debt some might argue. Doesn’t everyone owe a societal debt due to our social nature? The groupist likes to trip us up here. This line of argument is rife with opportunities to change the subject. Never arguing one subject to conclusion. They seek to lure the individualist’s bulldozer into their groupist swamp of argument alteration..

There is a good response however. We make up our societal debt by being productive. Beyond that society can ask nothing. If we choose to give to this or that it is our choice… we are sovereign. Our success is societies success. As long as a person or corporation is not actively holding people down, (monopoly, negative externalities, wages and hiring is based on merit, etc…) their success should be cheered. Because it is societies success. In fact societies that have individual sovereignty have higher rates of alms giving than societies that have sovereignty at a higher level. Universally.

There is a belief that groups have wisdom. Markets have been set up to predict everything from North Korea’s next violent outburst to who will win the Super Bowl. By tapping into the wisdom of large unbiased groups motivated to be right. (The motivation is supplied by a monetary payout if the individual is correct). Leads to strikingly accurate predictions.

This is from the individual acting on his or her own behalf. The individual motivated to make the correct decision, in the aggregate, are correct more often than not. This holds true solving for many factors.

But when the group of sovereign individual decision makers is turned into a single person, or smaller group, (sovereignty is moved to a higher level), the likely hood of a good decision is lowered. Especially when you make the incentives, for the deciding group or person… pernicious.

When a society taps into this vast resource of potential it is setting up a structure that is geared to win. One where the nap of the fur is up. Not down. All it need do is build the concept of individual sovereignty into their society and governmental structure.

But that is harder than it looks…

The Elite have to lower their power…

That is rarely done.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Group Politics, Law, Mercy, Societal Myth, economy, philosophy, polictics of class envy | No Comments »

Progressivism and Education

Sunday, May 16th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the way our children are taught has a great influence on them in their adult lives. Education is a means to not only teach children to read, write and do arithmetic but is a means to civilize them.

American schools today have taken a new path. They have eschewed teaching reading, writing, arithmetic and logic and have replaced them with progressive propaganda. Anti American adjectives like imperialism are often used to describe the USA. These are definitions taken directly from the Manifesto of the Communist Party and anti American Soviet handbooks. The schools teach homosexuality and the mechanics of it. They teach that God is dead. One of their favorite lessons today is that the American Constitution is a living breathing document. What do all these new evil societal myths have in common?

They serve to demean the children. They all serve to make children believe that simply the color of their skin determines if they are good or evil. This is not a very inclusive philosophy. But it has always been the philosophy of the progressives. Propaganda to the contrary aside…

I watched a show on PBS today, Need To Know. The show had a long segment about the Texas school board’s revue of new textbooks. The thrust of the piece was that a few members are wrong and bad by trying to force their conservative view of society on the whole country. Because Texas buys so many textbooks that the whole industry caters to their needs and wants. The news story never mentioned if California or New York have a similar effect on the textbook industry… At least that angle was never explored. I wonder… Would California drag the industry further to the right or the radical left… And if that had any bearing on the coverage of California’s effect on textbook slant.

Of course a hit piece on a conservative in the unbiased media is proof of their lack of bias. The show, Need To Know, also talked about the Texas Freedom Network, an organization that monitors the right’s effect on school curriculum. Amazingly this progressive organization agrees with the unbiased PBS and thinks America should be characterized as imperialist. PBS didn’t mention if there are any organizations that monitor the left… Why would there be?

The unbiased media today use evolution as a straw man argument. They constantly hammer that people of faith are bad because they deny evolution. They equate evolution deniers to holocaust deniers. The argument is used to as a means to disqualify any argument made by the right whether or not evolution is brought up. If I argue that The United States has liberated almost as many people in the twentieth century as the communists have murdered… The left argues that I deny evolution. The unbiased media agree. And the argument is changed to whether or not I believe in evolution. It has become a tool of the progressives to change the argument.

Changing the subject is a underhanded way to keep an opponent in a debate off his feet. It is the job of a good moderator to keep arguers on point. But unfortunately with the media being so unbiased only the right is kept on point the left is given free reign to move the debate as they see fit.

What is the inevitable outcome of this? The lowering of debate. Which leads to keeping the people in the dark. Which leads to the lowering of the quality of decisions made by the American people. (Exemplified in the last election). Which leads to the lowering of the lot of the American people. Which leads to the lowering of the lot of all Mankind. Because, in this World, we are all economically connected .

As long as the progressives control, the media, education and both political parties, our fortunes will continue to go down. Only until we have a media that is actually unbiased instead of pretending to be unbiased will the cancer that is progressivism be exposed by the light…

Only foul things grow in the dark… Progressivism withers in the light…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Group Politics, Societal Myth, media, philosophy | No Comments »

Pragmatism

Thursday, May 13th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that most people are pragmatists. We have to be. To lack pragmatism is to ensure future insanity. Because when you live in an insane world you must either be pragmatic about it or go crazy.

Since most people are pragmatic we seek to get along in the world with as little interference as possible. As Thrasymachus said. Most people do not want to impose on others. But they are afraid of being imposed upon. That is why most people like the idea of justice… So by his measure most people are good. There are others who are bad. (I.e. They want to impose their will on others).

We are pragmatic in many ways. We add up the costs and benefits to most things we engage in. This is a form of pragmatism. We sometimes don’t fight the good fight because we have determined that it would result in diminishing returns.

To be the avatar of pragmatism one would have to be immune to all the pitfalls that await all of us. Like the sunk cost effect, group think, etc… We all vary in our pragmatism. (Or maybe we vary in our assessment of the cost benefit to a certain action).

Pragmatism breeds happiness. People who are pragmatic give up their anger quickly. They are less prone to hopelessness. These are the antithesis to pragmatism. Because to be angry has a very high cost both in health and relationships. The payoff is not as distinct. So pragmatism says, stop that which give us diminishing returns. To be angry for too long has such diminishing returns that the pragmatist eschews it. Hopelessness is the same. To be hopeless has great cost with no benefit. So why do it?

But pragmatism has costs as well. For example, take a good person living among those who are bad. Machiavelli says that a good man must necessarily come to ruin among so many that are bad. To be pragmatic in such a situation is to become bad enough to fit in. Mencius talked about this very thing.

Mencius said that the “Jen” man (gentleman, lord, Brahman, enlightened man, etc…) strikes the golden mean. When the jen man lives among many that are bad he doesn’t go to the extreme of bad. He seeks the middle ground in that bad land. When the jen man finds himself living among saints, again he looks to the mean of the society that he lives in. Mencius said that Mo Ti would run himself into the ground to help anyone. While Sang Yang wouldn’t pull a loose thread from his cloak although it save humanity. They went too far, claimed Mencius. Aristotle was curiously similar in his philosophy of the mean.

Pragmatic people do the same. Seek the mean in the society they live in. Pragmatic people look at their leaders today (and historically), and see people who make law to benefit their friends, making tax law and don’t pay taxes, regulating banks to make bad loans to people they know cannot pay back the loans then blaming the banks for the failures, have illegal aliens for maids, nannies, gardeners to save money but claim to be hard on illegal immigration, To name a very few examples. A pragmatists may not like what he or she sees. We may not want to emulate the behavior. But pragmatism, Machiavelli, Mencius, and Aristotle all say in unison, “follow the mean.” when the rulers are this corrupt society must be corrupt. Like virtue, corruption flows down from the leaders to the led.

Unfortunately the culture that we find ourselves in is a wretched as it can be. Corruption is endemic in the Elite in government, industry, entertainment and in society. They have been so corrupt for so long it has moved deeply into our society. Political corruption oozes out of government and onto everything government touches. Like a child, the grubbier the hands, the more they want to touch. They even have the gall to call evil good and good evil. Simply by changing the language, abortion becomes choice, freedom of religion becomes separation of church and state, freedom of speech is now too much information, the list goes on and on. I am sure you can think of quite a few I have left out… if you try.

This all adds up to an insane society.

How does this apply to the International Capitalist Party? Pragmatism is the cornerstone of our philosophy. Pragmatic in our view of humanity, pragmatic in our opinions about how to best effect positive change in the human condition, but, not pragmatic in our goal. To be pragmatic about a political goal is, not to fall into the status quo, it is to set a new status quo. Progressives, communists and socialists are pragmatic in their goal, total government, but not in their assessments of people… Unless most people do want to live under a tyranny, in poverty, with no voice or ability to change the situation…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Societal Myth, philosophy | No Comments »

Flawed Societal Myths

Sunday, May 2nd, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that there are no flawed people, there are only flawed societal myths, (philosophies or ethos).

Take any group of impoverished people. There is no deficiency in the people themselves. This has been proven by the fact that many impoverished people have been enriched when they change their philosophies. China for example. The people can be very industrious but languish under an unproductive ethos. Without a proper societal myth any people will falter.

The most destructive ethos a people can have is the mantle of victim hood. No matter the quality of the individual he or she is at a loss if their philosophy tells them that they are nothing but victims. It fosters inaction. Why act if you are only a victim? It fosters anger. Why be happy if you are a victim? It has absolutely no redeeming effects on a people but to make them slaves to their victim hood.

You can judge the ethos of a people by their prosperity. Not the people themselves but the ethos they live under. If they live under a negative ethos then they will live in poverty. Unless some external source of income temporarily disrupts the natural course of their lives. Like oil income for example. If a people cannot sustain themselves it is a sure sign that they labor under a societal myth that makes this so.

Look at the places people have flourished and the places people have floundered. The arctic is an extreme example. The Inuit and Eskimo people have thrived under the most inhospitable conditions the Planet has to offer. Temperature extremes and lack of easily accessible food. No shelter and high winds. Wind chills of over one hundred degrees below zero! No other people on Earth have, not only lived under such hostile conditions, but have thrived doing it!

Another example is Africa. The availability of growing season is unparalleled on the planet. Wild game, nuts and berries abound. There is no end to the opportunities in Africa for an enterprising people. But there is absolute poverty there… as well as no innovation. The problem is the ethos… not the people.

Examples abound of people that have risen in prosperity when they followed one societal myth but have fallen into poverty when the societal myth was destroyed. Rome is but the most obvious example. Ancient China is another example. Many times before and after the warring states period China went from prosperity to poverty then back to prosperity. Confucius explained this as, when people follow the philosophies of the sage kings, Yao, Shun and Yu. What Confucius basically said is that the philosophy of a people determines their prosperity.

So we can rest on the fact that if the same people have been both, impoverished and enriched, it is more dependent on their ethos then the people. To argue otherwise would require a advocate the likes of Daniel Webster.

Thomas Jefferson said in his book, Notes on the Sate of Virginia, that it takes a temperate climate it foster innovation. His argument went like this. If people have it too easy they will not innovate, it is redundant. If people have it too hard they do not have the time to innovate. They must spend every moment surviving. It is only where people have difficulties to force innovation and the time to think about and do innovation. If this is the case maybe innovation in societal myths is best at temperate climates as well.

Now lets examine the societal Myths that foster poverty and hopelessness. As we said before victim hood is one destructive philosophy. Another is decadency. It presaged the fall of every great civilization on Earth to date. Another is dependency of the State. Every time this has been tried it has resulted in the corrosion of societal cohesiveness. Another that has had bad ends is treating barbarians as equals. This has lowered many great civilizations. Groupism is a philosophy that results in the splintering of societies into angry factions. There are many more lessons that we can take from history about good and bad societal myths. The overriding point is that societal myths that reduce people’s reliance on themselves has always had bad results. While those philosophies that have greater reliance in individual actions have had good outcomes in the past.

With this as obvious as I can make it in such a small space, why is it so important for our elected leaders to change our societal myths from the productive ones to the unproductive ones?

Why do you think?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Group Politics, Societal Myth, economy, philosophy | No Comments »

Ideas and Their Free Flow

Wednesday, March 17th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me the that, when someone has an idea and wills it forth, it can benefit Mankind or injure Mankind. The act of creation being crucial in the development of humanity. We advance and learn from the accumulated knowledge and inventions of those who have lived before us. The aggregate of their invention has raised our lot. There have been a few that have dramatically lowered the lot of Man but most have raised it.

Ideas and their offspring can be utile. Like a piece of furniture. A woodworker comes up with an idea for a new piece of furniture that will fill a need. Then he decides what wood to use, how it should be constructed and finished. (The utility f the item was decided when the person saw the need and answered it in his idea). Then he or she builds the piece. It may be effective at filling the need it was built for, it may be ineffective at filling the need it was built for or it may be found to be effective at filling some other need that was never envisioned. The idea is utile in that it fills a need that can be filled with a piece of furniture.

The utility of an idea may be in it’s entertainment value. Many people have become wealthy by filling people’s need for distraction. The need for distraction grows as free time grows. Movies, television, and any of a host of things fill this need.

Ideas may be utile only in their luster. Creating a new type or style of jewelry for example. Inventing a new setting for stones that is cheaper, stronger or better in some way than existing means of setting stones in jewelry.

Other utilities can be supposed. But in order to be beneficial to Mankind an idea and it’s outcome should be utile. If it is not utile market forces will quickly make it extinct. The market can be reliably counted on to be pragmatic. Let people assign a value to a creation and vie for market share. The market will deturmine it’s utility.

Unfortunately this is not the case. Market forces are not always used. In fact Government often undermines or warps outcomes to achieve some political end. (Some politically powerful group is benefited). Ideas are subject to increasing scrutiny as the person having it is lower on the societal scale.

I forget what philosopher said this, but, one of them said that; Appearances are more important than facts. Take a person giving a speech. Lets give him a lisp. Further lets make him very homely. A nice hump on his back and a nasally tone to his voice. Though he is a fountain of wisdom he will be ridiculed a fool. Derided as too stupid to walk among men. But take another person hansom and articulate. A tone to his voice that gives one shivers up his leg. And no matter the drivel he vomits he will be idolized and deemed a genius.

This explains why many great ideas have fallen by the wayside, While others that lower the lot of Man have been elevated. If an idea or invention helps the people but in some way damages the interests of the Elite it will be vilified and reviled by beautiful people. The person who can get just the right quiver in his voice will sway the masses… to their own injury. The unbiased media is complicit. They studiously avoid telling the whole story… About anything.

I am given hope by the rise of new media. New media has already caught unbiased reporters fabricating from whole cloth hit stories about politicians they dislike. There is nothing more destructive of liberty than a biased media that claims to be unbiased.

With “new” media creating supply (of content), demand has shown itself to follow Say’s Law… and grows. “Supply drives demand.” the old classical economist maxim. This new content (like you are reading now) opens the ocean of ideas to the valley of demand for them. Filling this valley will raise everyone’s boat. Even if it is a life vest.

Unfortunately the US and other government’s are looking to clamp down on the free flow of ideas that the internet represents. They see people being empowered as a threat. Rightly so. Tyrants that world over quiver at the thought of an informed populace. Look at the lengths China has gone to. I would bet if you typed in “International Capitalist Party” (without quotation marks) in a Chinese search engine you wouldn’t get a single link to this sight. (Like Bing).

As government puts the brakes on the flow of information through the internet the economies of the world will inevitably suffer. GDP will be lowered for generations. But really, isn’t that a small price to pay, so that the Elite can keep oppressing people?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Societal Myth, economy, philosophy | No Comments »

Obama Care

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the two thousand page bill before congress, (that is to be passed without the usual vetting process of a sixty vote majority in the Senate), has to lower healthcare costs… After all, it not only creates more paperwork for doctors to do. It puts restraints on doctors ability to treat patients,. It lowers Medicare and Medicaid payments to doctors. It forces insurance companies to take on unparalleled adverse selection. While forcing insurance companies to submit to onerous regulation. At the same time forcing anyone who has opted not to get insurance to pay to get insurance else be fined… No perverse incentives there.

This healthcare debate has been hanging over the heads of the American people and business like a sword of Damocles. Held by one blond strand. No knows on who’s head it will fall on when it becomes law. We do know this administration has invested too much political capital to let it fail. So fall it must.

Insurance companies seem to be in the crosshairs but if you think about it for a minute we are the ones actually in the cross hairs.

When medicare and Medicaid is cut, but the rolls are enlarged, the extra costs will be born by those that have private insurance. Doctors will have to shift their extra costs of making out paperwork to prevent Medicare/Medicaid fraud. Their costs will necessarily go up. They must recoup them or go out of business. Insurance companies are the ones carrying that water today and it looks like they will be tomorrow too.

When insurance companies pick up the slack for government programs it is like a hidden tax on that industry. Taxes are costs and costs are passed to consumers. The same law that forces us all to be consumers will also force insurance companies to accept very sick people (adverse selection). Further driving up costs.

Moving them from government’s books to the private sector’s books. But the economy is like a pair of pants. No matter what pocket you take money from it must have been put there.

The people who do most of the putting in are the workers of society. Martialed into productive effort by capitalism. We are the workers. So all of us must necessarily pick up the costs government wants to obligate the insurance industry (us) to. Especially those of us who have opted, as self interested maximizes, not to buy insurance and to use the money, (in what they see) as more productive efforts. They will be forced to redirect their revenue stream into what they see as a less productive course or be subjected to fines. Their free will is overridden by the power of the State to compel action.

We, my friends, are they. Some us reading this have opted not to buy insurance. Partially because of the cost. Maybe because we are gamblers and are betting we will have good health. If this passes, we will not only be forced to buy insurance, but, insurance rates will necessarily go up. Our real disposable income will be greatly reduced. The stream of money flowing to the healthcare industry will turn into a torrent. This law will open all of our wallets to the vacuum of unrestrained spending.

But the administration, counter to popular opinion, has been cagey in debating healthcare instead of the economy. Because every thing they propose to restart the economy will choke it. (Especially this health care bill).The administration’s Keynesian economic policies are undermining the economic growth that would be necessary to provide the updraft to float this lead balloon. So any diversion from jobs and the economy helps this administration… politically. Us on the other hand…

When Obama, Biden, Pelosi, or Clinton go to Canada to have surgery I will have much more faith in government run healthcare. But as long as Stephen Harper keeps coming to the US for surgery…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Mercy, economy, philosophy | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries