Posts Tagged ‘standard’

Political Standards

Sunday, June 26th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that if one set of standards is good two must be better. Holding one political philosophy to a much different standard of personal conduct is one example. Holding the different political philosophies to multiple standards in rhetoric is another example, but having two standards of political attack depending if the person is pro capitalist or anti capitalist is the best example. Two sets of standards must be better because it encourages fair debate which affects all of our rights and prosperity.

Michele Bachman is a pro capitalist politician who is credited with multiple gaffs. One is that she once said that there are members of Congress who hold anti American views. She has been roundly criticized for it and is called a nut by the unbiased media for it.

It is empirically true that; there are Congressmen and women who hold the US Constitution in absolute disdain. Many openly claim as much. Many members of the US Congress are anti capitalists and avow it. There are members of the US Congress who believe that it is wrong the US is a superpower and seek to lower the status of the US to something less then a “superpower.” It is also patently true that anyone who holds these beliefs are anti American to the core. To openly admit to be an anti capitalist who thinks the Constitution is an impediment and seeks to lower the power and status of the US is obviously an anti American Congressman or woman. So Congresswoman Bachman must be called a nut to protect her political adversaries from themselves.

But no unbiased media person holds that an anti capitalist, who is running for the presidency should have a grip on such arcane knowledge as… how many States comprise the US. This is such esoteric knowledge about America, that to hold an anti capitalist politician who says there are 57 States in the US, (instead of 50), as being a nut for not knowing this, would be wrong. This is why there needs to be two sets of standards. To have only one and hold every politician to it is patently unfair. Especially to those who are so ignorant they do not know how many States are in the Union, because how can someone so obviously stupid, thrive under an honest system with only one standard everyone is held to?

Another reason why having two sets of standards is important, is to foster rigorous political debate. Imagine if pro capitalists were given the free reign to place the vitriolic rhetoric in political ads the anti capitalists are. That would be as unfair as possible. How can you hold People who regard the US as evil to the same standard you hold pro American politicians? Tossing an old woman off a cliff is acceptable political rhetoric because it is produced by anti capitalist politicians. But if a pro capitalist politician made a political ad showing an anti capitalist tossing a farmer onto the street because he couldn’t pay his taxes or axing workers because of regulation… that would be unconscionable.

Take the debate about the US national debt. An apt analogy is a mini van racing at a stone wall. The van is doing 100MPH at the wall. Everyone in the van sees the wall approaching fast but no one can see exactly how far away it is. So a debate breaks out. The debate is whether the driver, (the political Elite) should hold the accelerator to the floor or lift up a tiny bit. Those who argue to lift the foot a bit are vilified as hate mongers who want grandma to go without her social security check. Those that want to hold the peddle firmly to the floor are depicted as caring for grandma, children and little dogs.

No matter because, when the mini van hit’s the wall and everyone (except the Elite) are killed or maimed, the call will go out that it was the fault of those that wanted to lift the foot a bit off the accelerator. Not those that held it to the floor and steered at the wall. But the rhetoric will not matter because grandma will not get her check anymore. She will probably starve. Universal nationalized healthcare will no longer be dispersed because no one in their right mind will buy US bonds to pay for it. The economy will collapse because there will be no capital available for investment in plant and equipment, so the unemployment rate will necessarily skyrocket, along with the costs of everything due to the devaluation of the US dollar.

So you see, it is important that we have at least two sets of standards. If we only had one then those that seek to destroy the US Constitution and all capitalism would have a much harder time of it. Multiple standards allows the corrupt Elite to escape any meaningful scrutiny of their actions. But most importantly it is all important to hold those that are pro capitalists to a much different standard, else the logic of their position might be actually examined by the people at large.

Therefore anyone who is anti capitalist and anti American must agree… Two sets of standards are much better than one. There is no better way to lower the lot of Mankind. (If that is your goal).

The Revolution Standard

Monday, March 14th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the major difference, between the American revolution of 1776 and recent revolutions, is that there was a working government in place, that had practiced Republican principles from the start, moreover, the people were, as De Tocqueville put it, self interested rightly understood.

The actual form of government in the Western countries are Republican forms of government, not Democracies. Republican forms of government have, as an attribute usually, some form of democratic representation but republican forms of government also include monarchy, and aristocracy.

Aristotle put it like this, There are only three right forms of government, monarchy, aristocracy and polity, there are three perversions of these right forms of government, tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. Because tyranny is rule for one person, oligarchy is rule for one faction and democracy is the tyranny of the many over the few. A Republic is a blending of two or more of these right forms.

So where we have a call for democracy we actually have a call for the tyranny of the many over the few. This was a very hotly debated item in the founding of the new American Republic after the revolution. They were very aware of Aristotle’s thoughts on this subject, and others, especially Montesquieu’s adding a third branch of government… the Judicial.

Modern revolutionaries have no such advantage. The opposition parties always seek to, replace the tyrant; not overthrow tyranny. They all make the same claims, they call for social justice, they decry violence even as they apply it themselves, they all seek for the benefit of a single faction of society only and seek the submission of all other factions of society. Universally when they come into power they install a more despotic government than the one they replaced.

Especially with the help of the protyranist elements in Western culture. The Michael Moores and the George Soroses epitomize the protyranist faction in Western society. They seek tyranny and believe it the best form of government. They have, at their philosophical core, a firm belief that the masses are only fit to serve. The masses are patently unfit to rule. “Democracy” is only a way to prove it to them.

Once the democratic experiment has failed the people will turn to another tyrant to restore order. That will be the communist or some other savior in name only. They will then reestablish a form of feudal system where they and their children will be the aristocracy and the benefits of society will be distributed by political merit instead of by market means.

There were protyranist elements in colonial days but they were separated by kilometers of ocean and were easily turned against one another. Just as today’s protyranist turns capitalist elements against each other. To reestablish the new fiefdom will take the same tactics as it did to destroy the old feudal system.

But really, who doesn’t want to live under a feudal system… like communism? It is great. You have no decisions to make your lords make them for you. If you are lucky you will be the equivalent of a serf in the new system. Then you will be looked after by your lord, or owner, depends on how you look at it. But really what could go wrong?

Everything. The loss a functional market system under a Caliphate or some Socialist fiefdom would throw humanity back into another dark age. One that I am sure we will pull out of, eventually, and reestablish a functional market but the loss to humanity would be incalculable.

There is a basic Republican system, that provides a standard, for new revolutions to follow in forming their new “Democracies,” it could possibly benefit a few. But, if any are helped, the better for us all. The standard, rarely followed, is the US Constitution, (arguments for and against) and the Manifesto of the International Capitalist Party