Anti Capitalist Elite and Rhetoric

Posted on January 10, 2011 by john

Dear Friends

It seems to me, the most detested self evident right, of all Elite, is freedom of speech. No other right is as loathed as the public’s ability, in some nations, to freely speak negatively of their rulers. The Elite want to work in darkness… like mold. The light of public discourse is withering to them, so they seek at every turn, to undermine the right to free speech.

The Elite love Human Rights that require the Elite to extract property, at the point of a gun, from others in society. These, non self evident rights, empower the Elite to do what they want to do anyway… Tax and spend. Think of it this way. If your neighbor had the legal right, to spend an unlimited amount of money in your name, only subject to his or her whim, and can spend the money freely on themselves, how deeply in debt would they put you, how deeply in debt would you put them? How much more egregious, would you or they be, if the spending was done in the dark?

To get at free speech however, the Elite will cross any bridge, and then turn and burn it. Take the tragic shooting of the Congress woman in Arizona. The Anti capitalist faction of the Elite are trying to use this episode for political gain. Crass and despicable as it may be, they seek to use this tragedy, to narrow political discourse into channels they find more appealing. Decrying the vitriol of those that seek liberty while ignoring the vitriol of those that seek tyranny.

No way that could be a bad thing. Quieting the discourse of those that seek to limit the power of government, and allowing the most hateful vitriol to go unchallenged, must be a good thing? Have people forgotten the names the anti capitalists, including Obama himself, called George W. Bush? The books written and published how to kill Bush, the constant drum beat of hateful rhetoric against the man? I ask you, is this acceptable political discourse… It is if it comes from anti capitalists.

Yet they use the lone gunmen to paint whole swaths of society. Anyone who disagrees with the future tyrant, is disturbing the order of society, by inciting violence. But when the Communist calls for violent revolution in front of a crowd of believers he is given a place in the Executive Branch. Van Jones rhetoric must not be dangerous, but if it is pointed out that the new health care law will necessarily give rise to panels of people who will have the power of life and death, people will rise up and bomb abortion clinics. The anti capitalist, intentionally twists cause and effect, to undermine the ability of us to speak freely among ourselves.

Yet the anti capitalist faction of the American Elite claimed that when Major Malik Nadal Hasan opened up and started shooting yelling “Abu Akbar” it was the act of a lone gunman. Seriously, if the nut job who shot Arizona Congresswoman Giffords, had announced he was doing it for some right wing organization, would it still get as soft pedaled as the clearly anti American Fart Hood shooting was by the anti capitalist Elite? Yet the President has no problem with the rhetoric coming from violent Jihad originations? Why is that?

The other self evident right, the anti capitalist Elite hate, is the absolute right of self defense. The Right of self defense gives rise to the American Constitutional Right to keeps and Bear Arms. The Elite see this as a threat to the State’s absolute monopoly on violence. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is another right that will be attacked by the anti capitalist Elite in the coming days. The anti capitalist Elite want people to be dependant. The Right to self defense makes people independent. Independent people have little need of “help” from government, ergo they generate little need for the Elite to tax and spend, their favorite activity.

So we can clearly see, that the right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms interferes with the anti capitalist Elite’s favorite activities… pillaging the money and property and raping the rights of their serfs. To answer a question I posed earlier, there is no level of debt that another will not put you or I in, if he or she can with no consequence. I am no better than your neighbor, or you, so why do people think, those who have proven themselves to be selfish, greedy and despicable, in every way… to be more virtuous than you or I?

Because people who lie constantly say they are?

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

Running a Government is a Team Effort

Posted on January 6, 2011 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that a goalie in any Soccer game, would not be considered to have done a good job, even having scored 2 points in a game, if he was never at the net, instead, doing the job of a forward. Or the case of a forward who never crossed the center line always protecting the net. In these cases you could say that even though the men may have expertise in playing, their not being in position makes their skill superfluous. If a forward never moves forward goals will not be scored and if a goalie never guards the net even passing shots will get points. Because they have been given an extremely important task.

Now take the case of the US Congress, they have one thing that is an imperative, pass a budget every year. That is the most important reason they convene. To pass a budget, it need not be balanced, it need not be sane, but it must be passed. Passing a budget is kind of like guarding a net. It keeps the US government’s spending, ahem, under control. Yet in 2010 the Congress didn’t pass a budget for 2011.

Why didn’t they get this most important job done? Even with both houses of Congress controlled by one party? Because they had too much to do that was more important. What is more important to a goalie than guarding the net you may ask? Getting goals of course! They scored at least two against the American people. The one, health care, and the other, banking regulation, the latter of which will come back to bite the US economy in due time.

But they are called the most productive Congress in recent memory. Largely because of the two points they scored on you and I. They seized control of a third of the US economy, put it under direct control of the US government, making one third of the US economy, a planned economy. Remember the planned economy? It was going to bury us. Under toxic waste I suppose, that is the biggest legacy, of the Eastern Bloc and USSR’s economic programs.

Now take the case of a right guard who acts the goalie / forward. Always sliding in knocking the goalie away from the net, or running ahead, always out of position. He wouldn’t be able to do his job well if he was never at the right place. This is much like the US Judicial system. It thinks it is the goalie, the left and right guards, the center and every other player on the field. The US judicial system believes itself, all knowing and all seeing, the omnipotent benevolent power behind the curtain. (And they are… minus the all knowing and benevolent parts).

Why not? Lawyers write all law, lawyers have a plurality of seats in the US Congress, the President is a lawyer and the Judicial branch is barred to all non lawyers. So I ask you, what faction of the American people, have the most power to shape society? Now, people being people, do you suppose they have no hand in the litigious society that we live in? It is definitely in the best interests of lawyers to keep people at each others throats, to move all decisions into the courts, where lawyers get financially rewarded for litigating the solutions.

So we have a judiciary that thinks itself capable of running the entire, of our government, our society and make our personal decisions too. That seems like a right guard that wants to play every position to me… So with the Judicial Branch of the government doing everything, it cannot do a good job at what it is supposed to do, protect the Constitution. Not milk it for all the wealth and power they can.

The Executive Branch is more like the center. It controls the offense. Pushing the political hot potatoes into the opponent’s side, maintaining his position until the puck shoots back to him, so he can regain the initiative. Our President was more concerned with shackling the American people, with manacles forged of health care; than passing a budget, fighting the war or getting and holding the International initiative. Did Obama get, or give up the initiative, when he reneged on the deal with Poland for a missile shield?

With a team like this playing “for” us, how can we…

Posted in economy, Law, philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Threat of Regulation

Posted on January 3, 2011 by john

Dear Friends,

Happy New Year!

It seems to me that if the Obama administration goes through with it’s threat, to go around Congress by enacting reams of regulation, it will be an excellent example for the rest of the World to watch, watch as the US economy crashes and burns.

I have gone on and on about the pernicious nature of regulation in these blogs. Regulation is one of the biggest impediments to a good natural rate of unemployment in an economy. Regulation, by it’s very nature, raises the natural level of unemployment. Economists seem to agree, although economists are like cats, loners and they love to fight each other., that the natural rate of unemployment in the US has reset to around 7%.

Regulation is bad enough, but when it is used to bypass the normal flow of law, it carves divergent channels. Like water will carve a new channel when it is forced out of it’s banks, so too will a means of controlling the public, that is easier for the Elite to use, once discovered, will be used with increasing frequency. A new path to power will have been carved.

When an idea that should be discussed in the marketplace of ideas, is imposed by a small faction instead, it leads to societal convulsions. Look at the historical example of abortion in the US. The Constitutional argument granting the unlimited right was fabricated from whole cloth. Since then the public reaction has grown more negative every year. The blood on the hands of those “Justices” is chilling… I pray for their souls.

In making the pronouncement itself, the administration is announcing it’s repugnance for the Constitutional means of enacting law. When A person breaks the law, it is not because they love the law, it is because they detest the law. Thinking that law an impediment to their best interests they simply ignore that law, until caught and punished, for the violation of the government’s morality. When a private person does it is bad for society, this how much worse the societal damage when the Elite do this.

Reams of regulation also proclaims that the rite role of government is to force societal change. A small cadre of Elite, that have no meaningful interactions with the public at large, (except for the occasional hot dog on the campaign trail), impose their self righteous view of “societal justice“ on us masses of ignoramuses. They believe we the public are stupid, you and I, they believe we don’t actually know what is, in fact, in our best interests, and so it is their imperative to force us to bend to their will.

Lets look at empirical examples of what type of regulation the administration has in store for us…. The administration has regulated to date; Off shore drilling, (wiping from the map thousands of jobs and trillions of dollars of economic growth from future GDP), the banking and investment industry, (lets see how consumer friendly the regulation turns out to be), the health care industry, (fully a third of the US economy will come under direct or nearly direct government oversight and regulation), the free flow of information on the internet, (through net neutrality) the list goes on and on…

All these things will combine to dramatically raise unemployment and drive down economic growth if they actually happen, (most already have). The example is obvious, a road to ruin will be illuminated for the rest of the world to see. A road that, once illuminated, will be eschewed by other nations, for the road to prosperity, the market system encumbered by as little regulation as is possible. Regulation that is strictly enforced even whet it is broken by the Elite themselves.

That, my friends, is the path to prosperity, smart, and minimal regulation on industry. Limiting government influence on the Market would result in more efficient and productive markets. With far less warping of those markets… to insure the profit of corrupt officials.

Not that corrupt officials have a negative effect on an economy… Nor that unlimited power creates corrupt officials…

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

Beware the Anti Capitalist

Posted on December 30, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that many if not most anti capitalists, are ambivalent what system of economy a government imposes, as long as it is not the market system. To the hardened anti capitalist, reverting to the feudal system would be preferable to market based economics.

The feudal system has it’s attractions for the anti capitalist. It strictly controls who can own land and people. Regulating land and labor in this way would ensure that a small faction of society decides what is to be made and farmed making profit a secondary consideration. The feudal system has a permanent upper class and lower classes. This would protect the elite from upstart entrepreneurs that threaten their elite status. So you see, to the anti capitalist even the feudal system is preferable to the market system.

Some people may say, “That would lower the standard of living for the people, do you really think they want that?” To them I say, “Yes they do!” Look at their rhetoric. A never ending drumbeat of everyone must sacrifice, meaning, we must sacrifice while they engorge themselves as rent seekers. Anti capitalists claim our cars are too big, our houses are too big and our taxes too low. The anti capitalist is opposed to an ever increasing standard of living, they want the standard of living, of the masses, to at least stagnate but better if it went down.

It is exactly that the market system leads people to a higher standard of living that makes the anti capitalist an anti capitalist. Lets examine some of their rhetoric in this regard. Anti capitalists are fond of claiming capitalism begets poverty. It was in the Communist Manifesto, and has been propounded ever since. Marx spoke largely of the inherent tensions between industrial demand for labor dropping due to the increase of efficiency in the productivity of each laborer. “As the forest of arms raised for work grows ever thicker, while those arms themselves grow ever thinner, will the revolution take place.”

But as with most if not all anti capitalists, it is not that someone has more than someone else that is intolerable, it is that someone has more then the anti capitalist… that is intolerable. Being an anti capitalist requires some level of self centeredness. For a person to believe that every other person should bow to his will requires a high level of hubris. So with self centered hubris in hand the anti capitalist seeks to change the world more to his or her liking. Using force to impose his will, for our own good, if necessary.

With the word “equality” always on his lips the anti capitalist seeks to impose absolute inequality on society. When a communist, socialist or progressive, all anti capitalists, claim it is wrong that 10% of society control 80% of the wealth what they really mean is that 1 person should control 100% of the wealth; like in Cuba, North Korea, the former USSR , etc… The “equality” they espouse is the equality of the powerless. Equality in tyranny, equality in misery, equality in helplessness and equality in hopelessness.

I have said many times in these blogs to watch the actions of people instead of their rhetoric. The anti capitalists always betrays himself this way. Decrying in others that which they themselves do. Appealing to your emotions. Because emotional arguments get in under the radar of logical examination. That is why everything an anti capitalist says makes perfect sense… until you think about it.

Like government creating economic demand from taxing it’s citizens then spending the money on $500.00 toilet seats. This absurd idea neglects to think that if the money were not taxed in the first place it would flow naturally to where it is needed in the economy due to market forces. Most probably far more efficiently than any government stimulus, imagined by some number cruncher in a cubicle, with limited faculties, facilities and fidelity.

Let me make this suggestion; if the wealth of a nation is shrinking it means government policies have warped the market such that money is being forced into inefficient use. If the wealth of a nation is growing it is an indicator that government policies are not warping the market more than it‘s ability to overcome them. It is also a means to tell if the anti capitalists have too much power…or not.

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

Belief In God

Posted on December 27, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that there are only two possibilities, one that God exists, and two that God does not exist, lets take the position, for proposes of argument, that God does not exist, is it then in our personal best interest, to believe in a non existent God? Put another way, why should a person believe in a fiction.

The argument of a functional myth is well known and has pertinence here. A functional myth is an idea, similar to a societal myth, that bestows a benefit upon it’s adherents that functions outside it’s obvious meaning. Like the Roman Societal myth that the best death was death in battle, a marshal societal myth that made Rome into a world power, protecting the large share of it‘s inhabitants the horrors of war, war that they honored, and resulted in Pax Romana. But a functional myth about God would not have the same effect as a marshal myth about a warlike culture. It would necessarily function in a different way.

The point here is very similar to the point Socrates was trying to prove when arguing for Glaucon and his compatriots in Plato’s Republic. The point is, that all benefit, when people are honorable. The greater the percent of a society that is honorable, the more smoothly life can proceed, no matter the economic system. People who have a belief in God are more likely to be honorable than those who do not. If a society has few that actually believe in God, and are not honorable, corrupting those that do, is not a reflection on a belief in God, but in the absence of belief in God. You cannot live in a cesspool and not smell like it.

Belief in God grants a person the ability to move past injustices and personal setbacks. Having a means to flush the detritus of life is essential, especially if there is no God. If there is no God then why not flush the excrement of our lives to the fiction. Relieve ourselves of our personal demons and nagging doubts to the “fictitious” God. No can argue we are better off holding every setback, frustration, lost love, death, and all the other negative things we have to deal with, as living beings. To argue thus is to argue down is up and up is down.

We all need something to worship. It is a fact of life. Look at people. Those that don’t believe in God, believe in horoscopes, crystals, witchcraft, and any other plethora of nonsensical beliefs that have negative consequences for there adherents. We can clearly see that in the modern hedonistic society that we find ourselves in, the number of fanciful beliefs, grows daily. Probably the most pernicious is worship of the Earth… a stone age belief system.

Lack of belief in God fosters a hedonistic society where it is common to hear “I would rather die owing a million dollars… then having a million dollars, because then, I will have spent and gotten the benefit of that money.” This philosophy of life is as pernicious as any. Disregarding the fact, that it discount’s the needs of one’s heirs, it insures that a person will not have a well lived life. The person who believes this will not have a correct moral compass. Lack of a functional moral compass will lead a person into all sorts of negative outcomes.

Some people, who consider themselves enlightened, will argue, it is unenlightened to believe in any theory that is unproven. These same people have an unwavering faith in Anthropomorphic Climate Change, Quantum theory, Einstein’s theory of relative motion, evolution and many other “scientific” explanations for the perceived world around us. Even the most dedicated cosmologist has no explanation for what came before the “Big Bang.“ All of these theories have applications and all of these theories are very incomplete. To have unwavering faith in an incomplete theory is simply a belief.

We have to ask ourselves, will a stone age belief system serve us well in the Twenty First century? One that allows for any action, possibility or legislation? Remember, one of the most important functions of a belief in God is the moderating effect it has on these areas of humanity. Is all research good research? Are all actions good actions? And is all legislation good legislation? Don’t we need a means to control the hot tempers of today against the interests of the next generation? This is one important function of a societal belief in God we cannot do without.

But if we add to the argument that there is a very real possibility that God does exist then we have to admit that it is pure selfish delusion not to believe in God. If we admit there is the possibility of God we have to also admit the possibility of punishment for our transgressions and the possibility of a reward for our good actions.

This subject is far too complex to be treated well in a one page blog.

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

Economics and John Meynard Keynes

Posted on December 23, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the US economy is as “stimulated” as it can be, any more and we will start hearing martini bar music. Trillions of dollars have been printed and circulated during Quantitative easing 1 and 2 with 2 not finished yet, trillions have been borrowed and spent by the US government, interest rates have been kept at artificially low levels, by the Fed, and yet we have 2.6% annual growth in the GDP, according to the latest figures. All this stimulus and more to come in the form of additional quantitative easing if it is deemed necessary by the Fed Chief, Bernanke.

According to John Maynard Keynes theory of economics the economy should be spinning out of control.. but it’s not? Either Keynesian economic theory, the theory that formed the basis for the twentieth century economists is wrong or there iss something else at work. I have questioned the theory myself many times and find his demand side economics to be wanting, as I find Say’s Law to be wanting in it’s own respect, but I don’t claim or think Keynesian economics has nothing to teach us. But the present day stands as confounding evidence for Keynesian economics.

My last blog about how the Healthcare law is holding back the economy in a dangerous way made salient points about why the economy is so lagging with so much stimulus in place. Another reason not mentioned is the Banking regulation passed by the last Congress. It drives up costs, increases paperwork, makes the market less nimble, applies more layers of bureaucracy, and does nothing to protect us from another economic disaster.

No matter your political leanings you have to admit that more regulation of an industry makes it more expensive to do business in that industry. The cost of starting a new business, to compete with established business, becomes more expensive as well. The more regulation the higher the cost of running a business and starting a competing company in that industry.

When you drive up the expense of starting a business, less will be started. Less new business means less demand for workers, less innovation, less entrepreneurial activity and more entrenched monopolistic companies, that can, and are urged to, grow too big to fail. These businesses that grow to be too big to fail are necessarily less innovative, have higher prices for the consumer of their products, and skew the wages in a nation.

All these things that hold back the economy are a direct result of the legislation passed by the last Congress. The pernicious incentives and direct headwinds to the economy will have their effect. The thing is, these are not the first bad laws passed in the USA that negatively effect the economy. For years laws that drive up the cost of startups and protected entrenched companies have filled tome upon tome. More and more regulation that lowers the efficiency of American workers and drive up the imbedded cost of doing business didn’t materialize overnight.

It’s just that the last Congress went too far and passed legislation, they allowed socialists to write, into law. Legislation, that when added to the pile of already bad laws, snaps the back of our proverbial camel like a twig. Even the ship of the desert has only so much capacity to handle a load as does the American economy.

Nothing is unbreakable; if you set your mind to it…

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Health Care Insurance

Posted on December 20, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that one of the biggest, if not the biggest, drag on the US economy, is the Health Care law. The new law is to be implemented over a period of years making the business environment uncertain for years. The long phase in period is only one of the negative impacts of the new law, the necessary increase in health care costs and taxes is another. All this bile for the economy to swallow, over such a long period of time violates Machiavelli’s maxim, that a when a wise prince can do a good for his people, he draws it out so it can be better enjoyed; but when he must do an evil to his people, he makes it quick so it is not tasted for long.

Never mind that this law is State centered, unconstitutional, with so many unrealistic requirements from the market, state governments and the insurance industry, it will ensure the system will collapse, requiring the government to eventually become a single payer provider. One reason people find this so vexing is because, in their hearts, they know this truth and resent it.

The sad part is that we all know the US needs to get health care costs under control. The part the government has already taken control of, Medicare and Medicaid, is destined to bankrupt the nation in the near future. The Obama Health care law was supposed to address this problem, with the State taking total control in ten years or so, when the system collapses. His plan was to simply accelerate the collapse.

Over five hundred years before Christ, Confucius was asked about good government; He replied good government straitens things out, rectifies terms and sets good examples.

Perhaps a better way to get health care costs under control is to follow Confucius teachings, and for the US government rectify terms. First of all, healthcare insurance is intrinsically an interstate commerce question, and should be regulated on the National level per the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution, state governments have no true legal justification in regulating healthcare insurance. If all regulation of health care were done at the national level portability would go away as an issue.

Another way to rectify terms would be to have a panel convene with equal representation from small insurance companies and large insurance companies to come up with five to ten policies that would be priced by each insurance company independently. Bringing market forces more closely aligned and making the choices for American people and American business much more easily comparable. All companies would bid on the five to ten policies. At least one would be an umbrella policy that is for catastrophic illness coverage only.

Standardized policies across state lines and standardized forms would reduce the paperwork for doctors, insurance companies and patients alike. Reduction in paperwork and file space, to accommodate the reams of redundant paperwork, required by the various companies for various illnesses, necessarily increases the overhead costs health care. Rectifying terms in these ways, would drive down these costs, for everyone effected.

But give insurance companies the leeway to come up with clever new ways to control costs. When government tries to regulate an industry it always gets more and more labyrinthine and less efficient, driving up costs, and lowering quality. This is necessarily true do to the nature of government i.e. Government being a Political animal.

Health care could be a source of growth for the US economy but it is a source of reduction. It all boils down to incentives for the individual to act. When government draws out pain for the people it does no one a service. When government creates confusion in the markets it violates one of it’s fundamental responsibilities, to straiten things out. Government does all of these things at it’s own peril, but not only it’s own, at the peril of the nation at large also.

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

Inheritance Tax

Posted on December 16, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that a person who has never done a days work in his life, did nothing but complain about how good some have it, while never producing for himself, his family or society, only complaining and griping about those that produce for him and his family, when the reality is, that he was and is, too lazy to produce, becomes rich at the public trough, that person is a hypocrite. Useless to himself, his family and especially society the hypocrite continues to whine that a producer might be able to leave his heirs his amassed wealth while the hypocrite has no intention of paying any tax on his amassed wealth no matter the immoral nature of the hypocrite’s amassed wealth.

We are of course talking about the inheritance tax. The tax that will effect the entrepreneur, the farmer, the collector, and the businessman but not the rich. Make no mistake, those that argue that the “rich” should be punished have a different idea of who the “rich” are. No matter their personal fortune they are never “rich” and will never come under the provisions of the inheritance tax.

Do you honestly think Nancy Pelosi ‘s heirs will pay any inheritance tax? Of course not. That’s foolishness. She will, has or knows, of a loophole for her and her friends. Don’t worry about the billionaire Nancy Pelosi, she will have an exception just like in the Healthcare Law, that a part of has been recently declared unconstitutional.

Really, do you really think that someone like Bernie Sanders heirs will ever pay a penny of inheritance tax? No matter his accumulated wealth. To set the record straight, he did work half a day, one time, painting Bailey Spring and Glass in Barre, but he threw down his paintbrush and exclaimed, “This is intolerable!” And went back on welfare. Since he was elected to office he has been a mayor and a house representative now is a Senator and is worth millions. Remember what President Truman said, “Anyone who gets rich at politics is a God Damned crook.“ Yet Bernie Sanders begrudges those that produced a good for humanity their wealth.

Like Bill Gates. No matter your personal opinion of the man you have to admit, that had he not sold Dos to the IBM clone producers, the computer age may never have taken off, at least not as quickly. Bill Gates is the Henry Ford of our time. No matter your personal opinion of Henry Ford…

Those men improved the lot of Mankind and by doing so they became rich. How they use the money is their choice not Bernie Sanders who has produced nothing but a string of complaints, yet he will never pay the taxes someone who produces and makes the money, Bernie does, will.

Morality aside, money is better in the purse of the public than in the public purse. The individual will spend his or her money much more efficiently than any government no matter how benign and enlightened. Even if a person or two simply burned the money to light cigars the money will have been put to a more productive use than government would. Money burned to light a cigar is taken out of circulation slightly raising the value of every other dollar and putting money in your pocket… not taking it out.

The hard truth is, that the inheritance tax and any other ruse, to make one group hate another, is a form of Fascism. That is the nature of Fascism, to group people, make them hate each other, then use the out of control hate to wield people like swords. Chopping your way to total power. Pitting society against a group, no matter the definition of that group, by race, economic status, religion, handicap, sexual orientation, or any other way, to do so is evil and wrong.

So we have pointed out the utter hypocrisy of those that call for the inheritance tax, the pernicious effect on the economy of more government spending on the economy and the self serving nature of the argument, but it feels so good to hate the rich, even though the people who are urging us to hate the rich are themselves rich, and mostly do not deserve their wealth, and moreover that the very tactic they are using is evil and wrong…

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

Constitutionalism

Posted on December 13, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that to say, The Constitution is a statement of values and the job of a court is to apply those values to a changing situation, is to focus on a small quality while ignoring the larger quality. Unfortunately, this argument will go on ad infinitem, due to Mankind’s capriciousness in trying to get out of contracts, we see as not advantageous to us.

Codifying the values, or morality, of a governmental system, is implicit in any law, as law is the codifyment of government morality. Why else pass a law, because a policymaker’s opinion, is that this or that is unconscionable. The term unconscionable suggests a moral determination. To be unconscionable a thing or action must be morally wrong else it is conscionable. So morality is implied by any law or system of law… but is not the primary purpose of a Constitution.

The primary purpose of a Constitution, is the explicit need of people, to be protected from an out of control government. Tyranny has been the more natural state of humanity throughout the ages. Constitutionalism was conceived as a means to counter this tendency in human government. The Constitution is a contract between the governors and the governed. It clearly states the limits of government. This is the larger quality of a constitution.

To try to logically prove that a smaller quality should supersede larger quality of a thing or action is one definition of arguing spuriously. Spurious argument is to make an argument that sounds logical, while it is in fact, not logic at all and is, in fact, being used a means to deceive. In this case we can clearly see that to ignore the larger quality, that a constitution is a contract between the governed and the governors, limiting the power and scope of power of the governors, and instead to claim that it is merely a statement of “values” is as spurious as can be.

Since the invention of constitutional government the governors have been trying to escape the more difficult proscriptions of their constitutions. Governors being more comfortable in the role of tyrants than as public servants. Why should they serve anyone? They are the Elite and should be served. The modern incarnation of aristocracy, to hold aristocracy to a contract, proves that we don’t know our station in life.

So to argue that a constitution only suggests, by means of a value system, how to govern but is no actual limit to the governors, is to use rhetoric as a sophist, as a means to get your wants met regardless of the justice of those wants.

The example of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is always brought up so we will address it here. The side that prefers tyranny argues that the first clause in the statement, “A well regulated militia” means the Amendment gives the State government’s the Right to keep and bear arms and is not a blanket limit on government’s monopoly on violence. When in fact, when reading the words of the founding fathers, we can clearly see that they were not interested in limiting the power of the people but in limiting the power of government to oppress those people. So why would they have specifically given government a right it already has written elsewhere in the document? Merely as redundancy?

To use the means codified in the Constitution to change it, to meet a changing situation such as the Internet, is not efficient enough, for those that favor tyranny, but I would add the modifying phrase, “for their tastes.” The means written in the US Constitution are very difficult and drawn out. Not only subjecting any potential amendment to a great deal of scrutiny in area but temporally as well. It takes a lot of time to get it looked at and passed.

Why do you suppose the framers of the US Constitution wrote such a long and arduous road into the Constitution when it is to be changed to meet a changing situation? The person who favors tyranny would argue that they foresaw the Supreme court changing the meaning to meet the new situation, making the need to follow such a difficult process redundant and only for window dressing, so to speak.

It is clear, from this line of reasoning, that those that favor tyranny, believe a constitution limit’s the people, and those that favor liberty, believe that constitutions limit government, giving us a metric to see who favors tyranny, from their arguments…

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

Letting Go

Posted on December 9, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that you have issues, he has issues and I have issues, that guy over there, who claims he doesn’t have issues… that is one of his issues. We all are flawed human beings. To believe that I am flawless is to believe that I am superhuman. A person with no flaws need not improve him or herself in any way.

No reason to diet, perfect weight, no need to read, perfect knowledge, no need to think, perfect recall and no need to eat, perfect digestion. That person is one who most reasonable people would admit doesn’t and probably cannot exist. Even the Jew, Jesus Christ of Nazareth came into this world as a child, learned at the hands of his parents and Rabbis then grew into what he became. Even he didn’t achieve perfection until his resurrection. How much less are we?

We mask our issues as best we can. Some better than others, the guy drunk on the train tracks, no job, not even looking for employment has made the choice that society or community be damned. He wears no mask. If some one wants to help by buying him a bottle of Old Duke he is willing for the comfort. He has no mask… The rest of us wear masks.

The thing is, there are so many shoals in the seas of life that we must run aground now and then. It is inevitable. They are there for good people and bad alike. But as special accident theory goes, the more complex the system and the more tightly it is interdependent the more likely of a catastrophic failure in it. Life is no different.

Obstinacy, temper, aloofness, vitriol etc… in our lives amounts to tightening up the interconnections, our lives are complex as it is but throw in some lies and complexity grows exponentially. No matter the source of the lies. Increasing complexity and tightening the connections assures us of a catastrophic failure when we run aground instead of a minor scrape.

One way to loosen up the tightness of the interconnections is to have a belief in God. When we run aground there is no better attitude then to say to yourself, “It was the will of God.” Then let go. The biggest obstacle to this path is the human ego.

Hearing this makes the gut tighten, and we have a fight or flight feeling. We feel we can’t run and have to fight so we tense our gut gird ourselves. But the third option, to let it go and give it to God, is the best option. Even though it makes our gut even tighter… until we let go.

Most people respect their boss. You wouldn’t say to him or her , “You are a jerk.” (or something much worse),except kidding. To do so puts one’s livelihood at risk, and as Confucius says, “A fool walks a dangerous path when a safe one is available.” To be socially inept, intentionally, with a boss is foolish, and so we don‘t let our ego get in the way. But what is the worst he could do? Fire us Taking away our lively hood. But we say vitriolic things to God, at least once in our lives… or more.

I’m not saying we should quiver in fear of a vindictive God, I am saying we should respect God for a person who takes all kinds of verbal abuse and puts up with it. (Few thankyou’s and a lot of please’s, why’s, don’t’s and anger).

So when a shoal comes into our lives and we run aground it is better to let go of the issue, say “it was the will of God,” and move on, than to clutch it, hold it tight, and nurse it into a grudge. Or be so shattered by it that it results in some catastrophic failure in our lives.

Maybe, as someone told me once, we live many lives, each teaching us a lesson, some painful some joyful, the one we are in maybe one of the painful lives… or it may be one of the joyous.

Depends more on your point of view.

Posted in Mercy, philosophy | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment