Free Will

Posted on April 24, 2011 by john

Happy Easter Everyone!

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that it is the clear desire of God that Mankind have free will. It is obvious that free will is a quality that God has endowed upon Mankind and is supported by not only scripture but nature and the phenomenon of civilization. As something endowed by God it must have a purpose.

Even in the Garden Adam and Eve were given free will to eat or not to eat of the fruit. God must have known they would eat of the fruit, and so it was his will that they eat of it, against his “say so” and of their own free will.

The State of Nature, as stated by philosophers for ages, is nothing but a state of unfettered free will. This absolute state of free will is also called chaos or anarchy. In a total state of free will it has been argued that this is analogous to a state of total warfare man against man.

But it is from this state of anarchy and chaos that emerges the phenomenon of civilization. Even though there is a Law of the universe (Chemistry), that states, “The universe tends towards entropy.” This means things tend to become less uniform over time not more. Civilization flies in the face of this fundamental law… As does Life.

From a state of chaos emerges civilization by a feedback loop that is inherent in free will. If a person seeks his or her own good, and that person has eaten of the tree of knowledge, then they have foresight and foreknowledge of causality. With this foreknowledge and knowledge of causality a rational self maximizer must acknowledge that civilization is preferable to anarchy.

It is when the feed back from action to consequences is broken does free will becomes problematic. Just as when government regulation seeks to eliminate the feed backs for prices through price controls and rent controls is the market distorted, when government mitigates, or especially when government eliminates, the negative consequences for negative behaviors does rational self maximization run afoul.

To say, for example, the “haves” should “help” the “havenots” is sophistry, because it is the job of the “havenots” to start businesses or get jobs and become the “haves,” In a free capitalist society. To make the “haves” support the “havenots” takes away both or their free wills. The “haves” free will is violated by taking their property and the “havenots” free will is violated by indefinitely prolonging their state of poverty through dependency.

In a total state of nature, before civilization emerges, individuals have as a primary example that the most corrupt get the best results. To lie when lying is acceptable is in one’s best interest. In a total state of nature the man or woman who is willing to be the most despicable gets a decided advantage. It is when self interested people realize this principle and band together freely, to suppress these qualities in all, that creates the conditions for civilization to emerge.

In a state of civilization however, when a legal system, ethos, moral norm, etc… is set up, or more likely evolves into such a system, one where the despicable have the upper hand, then chaos emerges from civilization. Societies that allow civil servants to take bribes or allow powerful politicians to lie under oath motivate people, freely, to become less civilized and left unchecked by self interested individuals, can lead to the emergence of anarchy from civilization.

Adam Smith said that people prefer to command another to do something rather than persuade a free man to acquiesce of his free will. This is more a problem of the Elite than of the people. It is a driving motivator to become one of the Elite. That is, to control people by coercion, instead of freely persuading them.

Anarchy however can be looked at like the melting of a metal. That is always the first step to forming something totally different from the metal. If a faction wanted to eliminate free will the furnace of chaos would be the first step to truly reorganize and fundamentally change our civilization. Too bad free will is a dog hair in the Elite’s mashed potatoes. But to the rest of use it is a gift from God to be cherished, protected and used for the betterment of all Mankind.

Posted in Group Politics, Law, Mercy, philosophy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Democracy, Tyranny and the Market Sytem

Posted on April 21, 2011 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that there are ways to make things that work well and ways to make things that work poorly. When a means is chosen that has a historical track record, of making things that work well, things have a much better likelihood of working well then if a means that has only resulted in poorly working things, is chosen.

Making a board from a trunk is an example. If we use a means that has proven itself to work we will get better results than if we use a means that has not worked in the past. If I use a sawmill, rip saw or hewing axe the results will be much more satisfactory than if I use a die grinder. No matter how much I like using a die grinder it will never produce boards as efficiently or as uniformly as the means that have worked in the past.

No matter how much I might like the idea of using a die grinder, to hew boards from oak stems, it will be frustrating and a waste of time. Even if I reasoned that it would work better because the work of grinding is less degrading than sawing. If my personal bias or bigotry is such that I eschew the use of all saws and axes on moral and ethical grounds it still doesn’t negate the fact that a saw or axe works better for fabricating boards from logs.

Everything is this way. From shoveling coal to operating a remote controlled armature doing laparoscopic surgery there are ways that work, have proven themselves to work and will always work and there are ways that have not worked in the past, have proven themselves not to work and never will work no matter how many times they are tried. No matter how much we might want a means to work, if it doesn’t it doesn’t, and will never.

This is as true in the affairs of humanity as it is milling or shoveling. History shows us that before a democratically elected government becomes feasible the people musty have been inculcated in a market economy. That is the means that has worked in the past works now and will always work, but history also teaches us that alternate means to the market system haven’t worked, have proven themselves not to work and will never work.

In fact they have failed catastrophically. Every time an alternate to the market system has been tried it has killed directly and indirectly huge swaths of people. Usually with the intent to turn people from God through famine, instilling worship of the beloved leader with propaganda, mismanagement of the economy because there is no way a political entity can manage an economy and outright slaying their political enemies in the most gruesome manner possible to scare the masses into submission.

The market system works because it is as close to an organic system as humans can create. The market system is organic in many ways, it is basically an emergent phenomenon just as is life, the market system is dynamic just as is an ecosystem, the market system is growth oriented and most of all the market system is civilizing.

If we want a democratic republic, form of government, instead of tyranny, then the means that will work is introducing a market system into that civilization. Once a generation or two has passed functioning in a market system then democratic reform must take place. The rising wealth in a society, that engages in a market system, gives people more connection to the society. More connection to the society makes people more civilized because that connection is in fact a stake in the outcome of the society. So people want a say in what they see as their personal interests… civic affairs.

This civilization, due to connectedness to society, is lacking in a society that is based on raw political power, like a tribal feudal system. Under this type of system, people are connected to their tribe or faction, than to society, so it makes far more sense for a person to protect the privileges of his or her tribe or class then to have an over arching concept of connectedness to society at large.

So in this context doesn’t it make sense for the US government to be asking more about the economic policies of people it is giving money to, than to dwell on a single issue, democracy? But I have not seen a single report on the economic policies of the Libyan rebels, or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, or the faction(s) that will soon be toppling the governments of Syria and Yemen. This question is more important then the democracy question because it trumps it. Without a market based economy democracy cannot work.

Posted in economy, Group Politics, Law, media, philosophy, polictics of class envy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

From the Sustainability Desk…

Posted on April 18, 2011 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the tern sustainability is bandied about without a care as to whether or not it has any real applicability to the example represented. This is unsustainable and that is unsustainable, no mention why or by what means, it is merely unsustainable. Simply telling us a thing is unsustainable is supposed to send us into an apoplectic quivering mass of jelly ready to cede any liberty to rectify the problem.

The Western way of life, we are told, is unsustainable. We are given vague reason like global warming, population bomb, peak oil, pesticide use, mining, timbering, breathing. The fear monger comes up with scientific sounding explanations why you should lower your standard of living but he should raise his.

Extreme examples like Al Gore, promoting a drastic lowering of the American standard of living yet burns more BTUs of energy in a month than ten households in the US in a year, are common. This level of hypocrisy is always on display whenever the true fear mongers speak. The very things they warn us of they are doing themselves.

But one thing the true fear mongers agree, should not be ratcheted down, is the level of government spending. The term unsustainable is forgotten in this context. We are told that if only taxes went up a tiny little bit the level of spending could be sustained.

I wonder however. If some alien race, landed on Earth and gave the US government a billion dollars an hour, to subsidize the level of spending, would that solve the US national debt? No it would exacerbate the problem. Even if the aliens gave the US government a trillion dollars an hour it would fall short of what was needed.

Because there is no end to the need of government to spend money. Government’s appetite for spending is insatiable. No amount of income could come close to sating this beast. It could swallow the universe and cry for more with true indignation. It is a beast with a mouth but no stomach.

So if government deficit spending cannot possibly be solved by increases in revenue then how do we solve the problem? We slay the beast. We slay it else it will slay us. The amount of money the US government has pledged to spend but is not accounted for in the fourteen trillion dollar debit is closer to seventy five trillion dollars! The amount of money the US government will have to spend due to it’s Medicare/Medicaid commitments will exceed thirty percent of total US GDP in Five years.

This coupled with the social security time bomb that is ticking down. The US social security administration is already spending more than it is taking in. As with any Ponzi scheme this is the beginning of the death spiral. Again in five years the amount of US GDP swallowed by social security will be over twenty percent of total GDP. Thirty plus twenty is fifty percent of the US GDP swallowed by just these two programs! But that is not the peak.

This is the definition of unsustainable. Government spending exceeding fifty percent of GDP for a prolonged period is assured economic collapse. Government spending cannot long surpass a countries surplus GDP. Even the most efficient economies have surplus GDP in the area of fifteen percent. Any level of spending over that gnaws away at economic growth. That saps the prosperity from a country.

If a person is standing on a train bridge over a chasm, you see a train coming, it is not fear mongering to warn him or her. But if a person is standing in a field and there is a possibility that a meteor might hit him, it is fear mongering, to work him or her into a lather over it.

Posted in economy, International Power, media, philosophy, polictics of class envy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Capitalism or Culture, Who Can Say?

Posted on April 14, 2011 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the difference between capitalism, as expressed in the market system, and culture have a great deal in common, and their respective effects on society are often confused, even by very smart people. Many times economists and philosophers have attributed societal ills to the market system. When it would be more correct to say it is the culture that causes these effects.

They are similar in that they both are basically sets of rules of how to act in such and such a situation. The market system rules economic intercourse and culture rules all personal interactions. They overlap in market transactions and can be confused easily. When people interact in a market situation they have two sets of rules they play by, one are the cultural rules of the society, and two, market rules.

Cultural rules may or may not be conducive to market interactions or they may be, but the effects of culture are independent, (because they predate the market in all but the newest societies), of the market and the effects on society of market actions and market rules. Market rules are similar, they are independent of cultural rules, (because they are almost universal), but if they rub culture wrong market rules are broken by the Elite in that society.

Often, that is the very reason some departments of government exist, simply to force rules on market interactions so that they comport better with cultural rules. Regulations that exist merely to protect some self determined cultural norm are examples. Many regulations that aim at enacting some system of fairness in a society as in Welfare State Capitalism are other examples. These things are means that Elite in government use to enforce a cultural morality on society.

Lets examine a few examples of, social scientists that have expressed their thoughts about the effects of capitalism on society, where they were confusing capitalism’s effects with cultural effects. One that springs to mind is the perennial claim that capitalism causes imperialism. This was a common way to decry the market system in the nineteenth century. It appeared at the time to have some truth to it. The European countries were divvying up the globe like a roast turkey.

But the negative effects during the nineteenth century that anti capitalist attributed to capitalism were in fact a throwback to the feudal system capitalism had recently emerged from. The feudal system saw the world as land to be divided by the aristocracy. The bigger the fiefs the more important the lord or baron. Moreover the claims that the capitalists were seeking a dump for their extra capital has proven to be foolishness. The colonies were merely a gift to the egos of the last European aristocrats.

Marcuse claim that capitalism engages in psychological warfare not the least of which is manipulation of the sexual drives. Clearly we can see that this is as much a critique on his times as on capitalism. The sexual revolution was not a capitalist thing it was an anti capitalist thing. It wasn’t women who were busy at work or tending their children who were burning their bras, it was the upper middle class youth who had been inculcated to hate anything Western, capitalism, sexual control and so on.

Even a cursory examination of history shows that capitalism existed a long time before the sexual revolution without creating one before. From this we can lean to culture as the culprit in the sexual revolution. If we also look into the movies and other cultural medium of the day we see that they reflected a sexually promiscuous society. But lastly any sociologist knows that sexual mores are an effect of cultural mores. So we can confidently conclude, that Marcuse was confusing the effect of capitalism with the effect of culture, at least where sexuality is concerned.

Anyone can confuse the effects of similar forces on society. But when the theories of anti capitalists have been proven wrong over and over. Not the least of which because, they have confused the effects of capitalism with culture, then intentionally influencing culture to have negative effects on society, proves they are not people who should ever be let near power. There is no better proof than that.

Saint Augustine said “People get the government they deserve.” That has never been more true, at any time or in any place than in the US today and anyplace that has universal suffrage and people choose their leaders.

Posted in economy, Group Politics, International Power, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Distributive Justice

Posted on April 10, 2011 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that any governmental budget debate can be framed as a debate between whether or not the goods of society should be rightly distributed by either merit or political favor. The definition of merit being the main sticking point. Political favor being self explanatory.

Merit has been defined by Aristotle as a man of virtue, someone who is warlike and ready to defend his city, eschews comfort, is politically engaged and civic minded in his affairs. Distributive justice as Aristotle considered it required that this type of man get the goods of society distributed to him. This is one definition of merit but not the one I am using here.

Another definition of merit is a person or group strong enough to take what they want. As the Gaul King said to the Roman, “By natural law, the law that states the strong should naturally take from the weak.” This definition of merit is absolutely incompatible with the market system, (but compatible with social justice), and is another definition that we will not use.

The definition of merit we will use, is any person who can be considered the rightful producer of that good, whether directly as the person who whittles a tool handle or indirectly by compiling labor time in the form of money to procure the item. This is a form of merit that comports with our definitions of right and wrong and is our working definition of merit.

The distribution of the goods of society by political favor is also called social justice. This social justice is when a person in political power, an Elite, takes the property from one faction of society and redistributes it to another faction of society. This form of distribution of the goods of society, on the face, looks benign or even good.

Attention is always called to the inequalities in society by those people who seek to use social justice. But where the goods of society are distributed by political favor, universally, there is great poverty. Masses of people actually starve, sometimes intentionally to make a political point, sometimes due to the innate inefficiencies of that form of distributional justice. The aggregate lot of those societies that use political favor as the template for distributive justice inevitably goes down.

While those societies that use merit as the template, as much as politically possible, generally have the lot of their people go up. The impoverished in those societies have as their biggest concern, obesity. The gap is large but not nearly as large as in those the seek to redistribute to the poor. That only creates more poor.

It is by a variety of means that political distributive justice leads to aggregate poverty. One is the incentive system it sets up in society. The incentive under such a system is to garner political favor instead of producing a service or good. This lowers the GDP of any country as more and more people drop out of being producers to garnering political favor, making the pie grow smaller and smaller…

Another way political distributive justice or social justice insipiently introduces aggregate poverty in a country is the corruption it creates in government and civic affairs. There is no punishment for bribery, racism, personal vendettas or any other form of corruption in the civil service under social justice. The goods of society are distributed by political favor, if you are in government in the civil service, by definition, you have political favor…

There are many other pernicious ways social justice undermines the good ordering of society. It is especially good at creating people unfit to engage in the market system. Buy making people unable to control themselves sufficiently to engage in work, (How many times have you heard someone who can’t hold down a job say, “I won’t tolerate being treated like that…”), it makes people unable to concentrate long enough to be productive, among others, social justice creates an entitlement mindset that lowers aggregate GDP by rendering a large portion of the workforce, unfit for work, subtracting their production from aggregate GDP.

This all leads inexorably to communal poverty. Aggregate, or communal poverty, leads to more anger in the lower classes. This anger can be strung, tuned and played by the anti capitalist, in those countries that use social justice, to smash the market system and it’s evils like, class mobility and ever improving standard of living, for the stupid masses, who are nothing more than lab rats to be experimented with.

So, if we want aggregate poverty, social justice is the means we should employ, but if aggregate prosperity and an ever expanding standard of living is what we seek, it is meritorious distribution we want. The budget should react accordingly…

Posted in economy, Group Politics, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Libyan Civil War

Posted on April 7, 2011 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that this Libyan intervention has been handled as poorly as it could have been. Without question, I cannot think of a worse way it could have been handled by the International Community, the United States government and the Arab League. There is plenty of blame to go around.

If the Actors I have mentioned wanted Moammar out, the time to have acted was in February, not in March. The high tide of the uprising is the time to act as did Obama in Egypt. Once the tide is lapping at the top of the dam it is easy to push it over but once it has receded it is much harder to fill the void again. If the International community had acted immediately Moammar would be gone.

But they didn’t, they acted exactly as a political body always acts, they dithered. That is why Republican Rome had Consuls, Aristotle claimed the best form of right government (that was practicable) was Monarchy and every country has an executive branch, to act when acting is practical. But the normal actor on the World stage is the US President. This time the president didn’t act. He waited for the committee to decide.

Then when the leviathan began to move, the “no fly zone” mandate, was done under the new doctrine of “Responsibility to act.” I wonder if any honest thinker thinks the “Responsibility to act” doctrine will be fairly meted out? Because only a fool could fall for that tripe. Let us not forget who makes up the vaunted UN, tribal tyrants (like Moammar), political tyrants (like communists), religious tyrants (like Iran), Military Juntas, Monarchs, poltroons terrified of the underclass they have created, cults of personality, and a very, very few liberal, pragmatic capitalist countries. (Less every day).

The Coalition air force immediately started engaging Moammar’s ground forces, like armored units and artillery. To save the embattled rebels, hold up in their last bastion, Benghazi. The Allies stepped in just as the rebels were about to fall. The war would have been over in probably less than 24 hours. But the intervention stopped Moammar and gave the rebels the initiative.

The foretold carnage and reprisals at Benghazi haven’t materialized yet, so the Allies have laid hold to that, as results that justify the action. The International coalition intervened in Libya March 18, 2011. Now it is April and the Civil War drags on. There is a river of blood flowing out of Libya fed by the continued fighting. It is hard to imagine how prolonging a war could possibly lower the casualty rate and especially the civilian casualty rate and actually “protect the innocent.”

But what is never remembered, is that the people who rise up at the beginning are never the ones who are alive at the end, if the fighting is too long. Warfare and fighting inevitably leads to the loss of fighters. They have to be replaced. Where are the replacements coming from in Libya? The people that were the most eager have been decimated. Not a great example for those that would join the fight.

So now in frustration with their too little too late strategy, the Allies have put “boots on the ground” although, they haven’t officially put “boots on the ground.” Al Jazeera reports that the US government has the CIA training Libyan rebels, and other countries are participating. It seems that “no fly” means whatever they tell us it means. No way that could be a bad precedent. What we are seeing, played out in front of our eyes, is the effective actions that a One World Government would practice, as promoted by the Open Society Project.

At the outset it was obvious the International Community had no idea what “Responsibility to act“ meant. Deutsche Welle had three politicians on, all had a different point of view, as to the nature of the operation. One claimed it was the ouster of Moammar, another asserted only to keep Moammar’s aircraft on the ground, another was certain it was to kill Moammar himself. The American press was just as chaotic. Everyone had a different opinion about what the UN had endorsed.

So here we are. The rebels have had 2 high tides, the second far lower than the first, the rebels are blaming the Allies for their losses, Moammar is on the move again, there is no end in sight to the even slow the river, the Coalition is still fighting over leadership, simple collateral damage to civilians has led to as many deaths as Moammar would have meted out, and, worst of all, extremist jihadists have moved in to take up the banner, replacements for the democracy fighters who are KIA.

If Moammar is in fact ousted then who will rise to the top? It is my contention that whenever there is heat sufficient to melt then it is always the dross that floats to the top. In the end, the World will have spent billions of dollars, stained it’s hands with the blood of thousands of people (needlessly killed, and set dozens of bad precedents, all to replace dross with dross. This is exactly what we can expect from any more experiments with “responsibility to act.”

As an aside, if the Libyan Rebels want people to flock to their banner, (and they really do want a democratic republic), then the way to do it is to have some Constitution they are fighting for, (there are plenty out there). People will fight for something harder than they will fight against something…

Posted in International Power, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Capitalist Prayer

Posted on April 3, 2011 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the Capitalists Prayer sums up my thoughts about the role of the Market System in society. The Capitalist prayer is:

“Lord God… I pray that somehow and in some way, I improve the lot of all of humanity, and that my life be a blessing on mankind forever… Amen”

Prior to the advent of the Market System all of humanity lived under some form of the feudal system. (A large portion on Mankind still does). This is a system of government where your prospects for life is determined by your birth. If you were born to a peasant then you would inevitable be a peasant, if you were born a serf then you would grow up to be a serf, there is no class mobility.

Another attribute of the feudal system is that it stagnates the wealth and growth of a society, unless there is some external source of food, ie, a wealthy capitalist society. This stagnation is because there is no incentive for individuals to innovate. Innovation under the feudal system can lead to the death of the innovator for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is that the aristocracy are very jealous of their power and position which is backed up by a quick temper and willingness to kill any offender.

So prayers under a feudal system will naturally dwell in pleadings to God for benevolent rulers and favorable harvests because these are the things that have a direct impact on the lives of people under such a system. Improving the lot of others while your personal lot is so bad is unthinkable.

But under a Market System not only is there constant motivation to innovate in every way but there is, inherent in a market based society, class mobility. A person raised in an orphanage can become wealthy enough to save the US stock exchange almost single handedly. A person can go from the lowest rung in society to the highest, in his or her lifetime, as long as they keep the Capitalist Prayer in mind.

Not only for the class mobility that a Market System provides, but as was first proposed by Voltaire, toleration. Toleration of others is a natural effect of a Market System. As I have used the Couch salesman as a example before I will use it here. The couch salesman doesn’t care who buys his couches. He is indiffrent if the buyer is a different race, religion, sexual orientation or sex. His primary consideration, when serving a customer, is whether or not the customer will be able to pay for the sofa. The market system thus teaches the common man toleration.

Voltaire went on to argue that the real question, for or against the Market system, is; equality or abundance? History since his time has proven his hypothesis beyond a doubt. The only way to still hate the Market System is by a blind, ignorant, rage that allows for no argument and will broach no dissention. This bigoted way of looking at the world is counter productive and is the opposite of what the Capitalist Prayer intends and motivates Mankind to do.

The Capitalist Prayer also embodies the dynamism that embodies a true Market System. That dynamism is the Market’s ability to innovate by complex means. The basis of the prayer is a set of instructions to individual actors within a complex system that results in emergent phenomenon, that manifest themselves as a steady improvement in the standard of living, or the material welfare, of Man. This is the mechanism by which the Market System improves the lives of people who participate in it.

The Capitalist prayer shows the underlying nature of Capitalism in many ways. As we have shown here Capitalism and the Market System improves the lot of Man, materially. In his health by producing sufficient food, her welfare is protected under the modern incarnation of welfare state capitalism, his property is protected regardless of his political affiliation, her children have access to a minimum of education (as a necessity element of a modern economy), his old age will not end in a hoodlum killing him and his wife to steal a few dollars and she dies knowing her grand children will live a better life than she was able to.

All these goods are a direct result of the Market System. The best way to create one where you live is to say the Capitalist Prayer every day. It will instill a mode of thinking that will open doors. Walking through them will serve the ends of the Market, to change that which was luxury into necessity and to introduce new luxury to replace the old.

Posted in economy, Group Politics, Law, philosophy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Once Broken…

Posted on March 31, 2011 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that once something is lost, it is much harder to get it back, than to have not lost it in the first place. I cannot think of a single example where this axiom doesn’t hold true. From the smallest thing like a sewing needle misplaced will cost many times it’s value to replace to the family farm lost to foreclosure the simile seems almost universal. Except that there can be no universals or so more than a few Chinese Philosophers, in classical times, would have us believe.

With the World on fire, the President’s lackeys giving Obama the credit, (or blame), we seem to be on the precipice of a great change in the fabric of the World’s governmental structure. If the dominoes continue to fall, Libya, Syria, Algeria, Yemen, Dubai and possibly Iraq the whole region could fall under the influence of an Al Qaeda affiliate.

If this happens Israel would be in mortal danger. The Muslim extremists, including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have made no question about their antipathy towards Israel. The ensuing war will bring untold bloodshed and chaos to the region. With all the usual horrors of war that follow, like the children of Ares, Famine and Disease. With his adopted child Fallout. Radiation sufficient to make ten thousand Chernobyl’s.

With the people of the World completely ignorant of the precarious position the US government is in fiscally. The official debt pales in comparison to the implicit debt. When the US government implicitly backs a corporation or entity (like Fannie Mae and Fredi Mac) and that entity then issues debt, the US taxpayer is on the hook for that debt. If the firm or entity cannot pay back the loan then the US government bellies up to the bar and pays the tab.

With the implicit debt, (unaccounted for debt) is tallied, it comes to a shocking fifty to two hundred TRILLION dollars!!! Seriously! Depending on the source and the bias of that source the number can be quite alarming and quite hard to disprove. With this actual overhang where the US government is spending more than the WHOLE WORLD is producing, (around 70 trillion), there may be a problem with the US spending.

I was reading the other day that if the US stopped producing and exporting food, millions of people around the World would starve to death in less than six months. Africa would be especially hard hit with as much as fifty percent of some countries starving to death in a year. The magnitude of this is hard to comprehend. Hundreds of millions perhaps billions of human beings, people just like you and I, starving to death.

Of course Mao thought starvation a tool of politics. He sent the army into the countryside house to house collecting all the rice. Mao then stored the rice in warehouses. After thirty million human beings had starved to death Mao opened the warehouses and the famine was over. Both Mao and Lenin thought starvation a good tool that would turn the people away from God. Such nice people…

One thing the Bolshevik-anti capitalists were famous for, is taking a person (a kulak), tying their hands, cutting a small incision in the victims belly and pull out a piece of intestine. Then the anti capitalist would nail the intestine to a tree then whip and whip the victim until he or she got up and ran around the tree unwinding their intestines around the tree until they ran out, lay down and died in a few hours. This is typical of how anti capitalists behave once they gain power.

We even have anti capitalists, or Protyranists, in the US openly calling to intentionally capsize the US economy. Openly and overtly. He is backed by many people holding great political power and therefore is above the law. So he works in the open, with only a very few people watching. The unbiased media have bigger fish to fry, ripping into the violent and racist Tea party movement, for example.

If only the unbiased media could find something about them to report. So far, no violence at all in any of their rallies. Well there were a few incidents, when the anti Tea party rallies got out of control but, drats, none from the Tea party itself. The overt violence not only threatened by anti capitalists but acted out is not really news. You see if a man bites a dog, that is news, but if a dog bites a man, that is an average mundane event.

Like a beautiful glass vase, finely sculpted and carefully wrought, by the most skilled craftsmen of all time, cannot be replaced and cannot be duplicated, but is today in the hands of an Lich, with nothing but loathing and jealousy in it’s heart. That Lich is the anti capitalist element in the US government.

It’s time to pick a side and stick to it, not choosing is making a choice, because once broken it can never be replaced…. Especially by a fiend with the track record of this Lich!

Posted in economy, media, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Constitutions, Positive Rights and Class Mobility

Posted on March 28, 2011 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that any Constitution that is a list of “positive rights” is nothing more than Slave Papers. Such Constitutions require that one group/faction is entitled to the labor of another group/faction. No matter if, the group/faction that is entitled, is the aristocracy, or the tyranny of the proletariat (as embodied in the person of one man), it has many pernicious effects on society and the market system.

We always see these types of constitutions in countries that are sliding quickly to socialism/communism. The same communism that has led to bloodshed every single time it has been implemented. That is because socialistic thinking is incompatible with a functional market system. It is and was intended to supplant the market system as the dominant doctrine on the means of production. As such it requires the execution of, clergy and capitalists, and the reeducation of the masses of people.

Constitutions that list positive rights are a tool, a means to an end, of the socialist/communist/progressive. This tool is to undermine the market system by poisoning the supply of workers. The poison is an attitude of entitlement. This attitude of entitlement is fostered and husbanded by the socialist by such tools. Like a gardener needs a hoe to weed the ground around his seedlings.

Another, maybe the most pernicious, is that such Constitutions create the environment for oligarchal capitalism to appear. Such capitalism is a form of Stupid Capitalism. Under this type of system the regulation in a country is set up so that the families in power are the only people with access to permits, capital, squishy regulation, and other benefits not available to the people at large. This allows a small group of Elite in a country to amass extreme power and wealth that is mirrored by the extreme poverty in the masses such a system creates.

This is another reason the socialist/progressive love positive rights, it undermines the market system in a way that the ignorant can be misled to believe is a fault of the market instead of the poison introduced into the market. The socialist/communist points at the extreme gap, in such a country, between the rich and the poor and claim it is the fault of capitalism! When they have misled in at least two ways.

One is that they are using a faulty metric to measure the justice of a system The fault is that they are measuring the gap between the rich and the poor. Think about the margins on a page. How far they are apart is not as important as how close to the left edge, (if we consider that the side of absolute poverty), the left margin is set. If we set them too close together we loose the ability to do productive work.

So the real measure is the distance from the left edge to the margin. Moreover, the margin if you will, should be set by the aggregate decisions of the people at large not by government. Whenever government intercedes in such fundamental properties of the market it has created imbalances in the markets, such as rent controls, price controls, and the like. But despite using a flawed metric they come up with the right answer.

The other is that by using a faulty means of getting the right answer they can create profound anger that can in fact lead to revolution. They infiltrate the people and sow the seeds of anger. The communist/socialist can then use the conditions they created, with their Constitution of positive rights, to overthrow the government and any market system in that country. If your timeline is generations it is as elegant as it is evil.

We all know the history of Communist tyrannies. They have visited the greatest horrors on Mankind to date. Over 120,000,000 people, just like you and I, murdered by Communists, in the most horrible ways possible. Yet today’s Communist is not even the least bit recalcitrant. No today’s Communists claim the same mantle of ruthlessness as their predecessors.

But if the End is a democratic republic the only means, that has been devised to date, is the market system. A functional productive, lightly regulated market system where every person has access to and no one is excluded the means of production. With all the trappings of a functional market system like the protection of private property, both real and chattel, free hold land rights and personal protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. The list can be discerned in the US Constitution…

As I have said before, a market system can exist under both tyranny and liberty but communism/socialism/progressivism can only exist under tyranny. So if you want liberty, first you must have a market system, then liberty can follow. To have a functional market system you must allow everyone to participate and let there be class mobility. Because in the end it is class mobility that is really destroyed by the introduction of “positive rights.”

Class Mobility being a meta attribute of a functional market system. It must be encouraged and husbanded by a Constitution so that entrepreneurialism can prosper. Even though the Elite despise class mobility and the poor are kept ignorant of it…

Posted in economy, Law, philosophy, polictics of class envy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Romantically Involved with Revolution

Posted on March 24, 2011 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that we all romanticize that which we know nothing of. Those that know nothing of war romanticize it and think they would emerge strong and heroic from one if they were involved. But whenever the real chance to become involved appears we recoil at the stark horror of what war really is. We romanticize marriage… until we are married… We romanticize many things but the reality of them always fails to meet our expectations.

Like the anti capitalists romanticize the worker. To a man, from Marx and Moser through Toonies and Marcuse, they worshipped work and eschewed it at the same time. Not that Moser was lazy like Marx or that Marcuse was the hypocrite Toonies was, but none of them had any real hands on knowledge, of manual labor. Yet they, and today’s anti capitalist like Obama, have never labored and would never labor yet they claim to worship the laborer.

But is it really a form of worship to subject a person to servitude? How many times have the romantic anti capitalists gathered sufficient masses to lever the reigns of government to their own ends. Whenever this has happened it has always resulted in economic stagnation, widespread poverty and outright starvation, but most importantly, political repression. History shows us one thing, that the Market System can exist under both tyrannies and republics but socialism and communism can only exist under tyranny.

Romantic anti capitalists have always used, as their willing pawns, the youth. Led by upper middle class youth, (the most dangerous people on Earth). The romantic anti capitalist revs up the youth to rise up and revolt. A few misled but bright young kids killed in smashing capitalism is a small price the anti capitalist is willing to let them pay.

Look at Mao’s cultural revolutions in the 1960s. What was the point of that? To instill in the people the political ethos of the right to revolution? Or to so demoralize the people they expended their will to fight on each other instead of examining their own lot. It was effective at culling the population and terrorizing the people. Mao used the youth, the most dangerous people in any society, to do his handy work.

Because they have no experience. Knowledge without experience to temper it is very dangerous, it has led to the attempted extermination of more then just the Gypsies and the Jews at he hands of the Nazis, communists and socialists have murdered tens of millions of people. Che and Castro praised the willingness of the youth to kill in the name of the revolution. I have read, Che was fond of killing people tied up and begging for their lives, what a big hearted man.

Today the youth of the World have been urged to rise up… demand you be heard, and take back power from the tyrant! They are being wound up to run into the meat grinder of tyrannical politics. For their own good? Or for the mischievous purposes of a few Elite who would be kings. Do you think the kids running the revolutions around the World might be a tad wide eyed?

We all want liberty for the people of the World. Everyone deserves the right of self determination and is sovereign. The only system that has ever been devised that raises the lot of Man is the Market System. The youth who are rising today should instead seek market reform, lifting regulation, stomping down corruption in the civil service corps and strong protection of the property of every person with no exemptions. This would serve to raise the standard of living and more importantly teach the people of the middle East how to live in a republic, (what the unbiased media calls “democracy”).

The recent election in Egypt calling for immediate parliamentary elections and a rewrite of the Egyptian Constitution will certainly bring the Moslem Brotherhood into power to write the new Constitution and rule for the meantime. Does anyone think that regulation reform is on the agenda for the Moslem Brotherhood? Or that the wide eyed youth have the experience to force them to?

Posted in economy, Group Politics, International Power, Law, media, Mercy, philosophy, polictics of class envy, Societal Myth | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment