Net Neutrality

Posted on November 21, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the political Elite are always searching for ways to control the flow of information, especially political information. Free flowing political information represents a threat to the power of the political Elite. They, being human, want to defend themselves from any threat, not least of which, to their political power, so it follows that they obey their self interest and seek to control information.

The new bill to come out of the Senate committee, ‘Net Neutrality’ is an thinly veiled attempt to control information on the internet under the guise of a legitimate function of government i.e., protection of property.

As I stated in my last blog, that not only is it important for government to protect the property of It’s citizens… it is an imperative. Because if government does not, the lot of everyone in that society, will go down… Intellectual property being the hardest to protect.

Net Neutrality is supposed to protect intellectual property, by allowing the US government to shut down any website, that violates any copyright protection, no matter how tangential. If a website has a link to another site that has been deemed to have been guilty of copyright infringement, the offending site can be simply turned off, by a government bureaucrat without du process… Simply by erasing the DNS entry.

If a certain political faction, that has a history of propagandizing, had control of that function of the government, for example, they could close a site that reported an inconvenient fact by finding a site several links away that violates copyright law no matter how tangentially, then follow the chain of links to the offending site without any supervision. Even a cashier at Wal-Mart has more oversight than government would under this bill.

The US government, under this bill, would be able to turn off websites that offend the political Elite no matter where the are, in any country or nation, on Earth. Putting the US government in the position of potentially being the gatekeeper of information to the World. No way that could go wrong…

The most interesting thing is the way this bill has been reported in the unbiased media. It has been reported as a technical bill to address bandwidth challenges posed by the carriers of internet traffic. Those carriers, (Verizon, ATT, ETC…), want to continue having the ability to choke off bandwidth hogging applications, if their network begins to bog down. This technical and erudite description totally misses the mark. Perhaps intentionally so.

The bill, as advertised, does seek to address a problem with the internet, the ability of internet users to exchange data, (often copyrighted), between each other. This has dramatically diminished the profit of the people who produce content. “Good!” Some anti capitalists might say. “Why should they get rich from music or from a movie?” Because they made it. Just like if you make a chair. It is your property. If someone wants to have it in their house they must reimburse you for your labor producing it to your satisfaction. To do otherwise is stealing. Intellectual property is no different.

Moreover, if intellectual property becomes impossible to profit from there will be less and less available. No one will spend millions of dollars and hours heaped on hours of time to produce a movie that will be stolen immediately. They will go hungry. No one would do that.

In meeting a truly legitimate function of government, our government is seizing an opportunity. An opportunity to snatch the reigns of the flow of information. Elegant in principle, overtly using an important function of government, to subvertly undermine that very function, certainly making Trasymachus proud!

Great politicians don’t necessarily make acceptable lawmakers…

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

Property Rights

Posted on November 18, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that there are three general practices that government can follow, in the area of property rights, of it’s citizens and non citizens; They are, government protects the property and free use of it‘s citizens and non citizens, government can allow the corrupt to usurp the property and rights of the politically weak while protecting the usurper from any negative consequences, or government can be the usurper.

Governments that are the usurper of property include but are not limited to, Nazi Germany, The United Soviet Socialist Republic, Cambodia, North Korea, with many others far too numerous to count, modern examples including, Cuba, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe among others. Clearly an historic group of countries contributing much to the historical annuls, the combined knowledge base and lore of humanity, the true misery, visited on a people who follow an ethos based on jealousy.

These countries all had, (have) a declining standard of living. The governments of these countries are united, in their usurping of private property rights, of their citizens and non citizens. Regardless of the original motives behind the government’s usurping property rights the result, universally, is misery.

Other countries have a semi rule of Law, where there is Law, but it is selectively applied. Countries with oligarchal capitalist systems follow this path. Mexico is a glittering example of an oligarchal capitalist country that has a system of Law but it is selectively applied.

The results of the Mexican practice is large scale poverty along with corruption in, government, business and the population. Perhaps the reason is that, if a drug lord killed a person’s son, for example, there would be no government attempt to prosecute the drug lord or any of his minions. If however the person who suffered a real loss takes matters into his own hands and retaliates killing the drug lord and the minions that were directly involved in his son‘s murder, rest assured, that person would be tried to the utmost limits of the Law, and made an example of.

What is the incentive for the average person in such a system?

The last system is where government holds the property rights of individuals equally and as freehold. There are no examples in the world today, of this right government, all falling into some level of the others. Historic examples include the US, Denmark, and England among few others.

History emphatically shows that where this is the state of affairs, government protects property rights of it’s citizens and non citizens, the standard of living increases dramatically. Reading the writings of Voltaire and Hume shows the advancement of the standard of living of the human race directly as a result of the enlightenment. The advent of the Market System could not have happened where government does not protect property rights. It’s not hard to understand why, when Denmark vociferously claimed they would protect, even the property rights of the hated Jews, was where and when the Market System came into being.

The thing I find wonderful, is that the standard of living of people, not even involved in the market system, standard off living went and continues to, go up. Like a desert getting slowly flooded. Plants and animals gather where the water is deepest, but water leeches through the sand, nourishing other places. Especially where there is some attempt to protect property rights… We find cacti and succulents. Imagine how much better it would be if those countries that practice usurpation or allow usurpation changed course?

If they started actually protecting, equally, access to property, including the means of production, controlling the avarice of the Elite, making equal demands of all citizens and holding the powerful to the same Law the weak are held to, Imagine how much better the lot of Mankind would be. Everywhere.

Why not?

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

TEA Party and Taxation

Posted on November 15, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that any plan to balance the US budget that includes raising taxes is a betrayal of the Tea Party movement. Remember TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already? The reason for the Tea Party movement is that the American people, people that have been steeped in market theory, are rational self interested people.

Being Rationally self interested we understand that, even though the ride seems fine now, the rapidly approaching rock ledge will stop us far too quickly for our comfort. We have been asking our lawmakers to apply the brakes for awhile now but the music must be too high. Our increasingly frantic pleas for some slowing to our breakneck speed has been met with the driver stomping down on the pedal. Panicked the American people are reacting as anyone would in a life threatening situation. In this case economically life threatening.

The American people’s spending is measured every day and in every way. Daily reports come out, stressing that this or that sector, has seen a slipping of consumer spending. Whole industries stock value rise and fall on consumer sentiment for that afternoon. Fortunes are made and lost over a rumor about what Americans are going to buy next.

But what about the American consumer? That greedy, self absorbed, crass, purchaser of goods, what about her? Accumulator of stuff for no other reason than to… Shore up the world’s economy?

That gal is being stretched economically. Her husband has been laid off and there are no small startups to provide another, perhapse because the government has been propping up inefficient companies, at the expense of entrepreneurs, for political gain. Her cost of living is rising fast even as her disposable income is shrinking and she watches in horror at the mushroom cloud of government debt rising over her head.

The answer, according to the Elite, is to raise her taxes, say only $.15 a gallon. Or perhaps eliminate the exemption on mortgage interest? What is a few thousand dollars a year out of the American consumer? Nothing really, what, only 5% more taken from her.

What will she have to do to make up for that mere 5%? Lower her standard of living, (buy less stuff). That is the effect of the cause, i.e. raising her taxes. She is an American and knows this even if only on a subconscious level. She also understands that Wall Street is watching her every move. If she stops spending on this or that people will loose there jobs, maybe her. How will she pay taxes then? Oh… they will just go up more to make up for her loss…

When something burns it is really an oxidation reaction. The carbon compound is heated to a sufficient level to start reacting with the oxygen in the air around it. The nature of the reaction is such that sufficient heat is generated that it produces a surplus. That surplus heat then causes more of the combustible material to react with the surrounding oxygen. The reaction is said to be self sustaining. Put another way a feedback loop.

Many situations can cause a feedback loop or self sustaining reaction to occur. The scenario I have related is one. The funny thing is that the “ignorant” masses understand this, as I said, perhaps on a subconscious level, but they understand it. The droll part is that the Elite do not. They understand little of what is in front of their eyes. But we are the ignorant masses.

The Elite are like a crowd of hoodlums siphoning gas at night. Eyes stinging with gasoline fumes mouths dry from spitting out gas fumes hanging in the air, they can’t quite see, so one asks, “Gimme a light.” The guy behind flicks his bic…

The problem with spending is spending; not taxing.

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

Equality, Liberty and Social Justice

Posted on November 11, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the concept of Equality is not the same as Social Justice. In fact the term social justice is the antithesis of equality, social justice requiring inequality to function, moreover equality is an intrinsic quality and social justice an extrinsic quality.

The concept of Equality is an intrinsic quality because it pertains to intrinsic metalaws, like; equality in worth, equality in law, equality in existence and so forth. The intrinsic nature of equality, is such that, it is a non excludable social good, like a road. This non excludable social good, that is equality, brings us a whole basket of goods not the least of which is an expanding standard of living for the people. This is the very nature of Equality. Social Justice is extrinsic in that it is interested in extrinsic qualities like, income, positions, property ownership and ownership of the means of production.

Social Justice is the antithesis of Equality in that the very concept of Social Justice not only requires inequality but vociferously demands it! That people not only should be treated differently by government, but must be. Those people the communist deems as having too much, (excluding the communist himself), are to be subjected to all nature of harm social, economic and personal. In this trial, the progressive is the judge the socialist is the prosecutor and the communist is the accuser, how can such a trial be anything but fair? Social Justice requires that the goods of society are distributed by politics. It’s very nature lowers the lot of Mankind.

As the requisite of social justice is political preference so it lowers the standard of living for the people. The Elite’s standard of living skyrockets however. Talk about the “gap between the rich and the poor” look at North Korea, now there, there is a gap! The people starve while the Elite feast. How about the glorious example of the Soviet Union? Tens of Millions of people starved to death… intentionally, to industrialize the “Workers Republic.” That is the very nature of Social Justice, poverty and starvation. Ask China.

Equality has side effects however, one is Liberty. In a republic where there is Equality there is also Liberty. Liberty requires people who have self control; people who are self interested, rightly understood, or put another way, Rational Maximisers. Liberty quickly falls to tyranny where the people act like animals. Machiavelli said it best when he said, “A corrupt people can never be free.” But why does Equality beget Liberty that requires virtuous people?

Equality and liberty, put this way, must make people more civilized and less barbaric. If we examine the subject we see that where people are treated equally and as adults, we act like adults and act equitably, but where people are treated like children and unequally we act like children and are inequitable to others. Think of it this way, If someone treats you like a child scolding you and controlling you… you, and I, and everyone else, want to escape, but if we are stymied our increasingly frantic attempts appear to be childish. We all act as we are acted on. Equitably or inequitably.

So we have established that in a society or community where people are entitled to Equality under law, socially and economically, Liberty is close at hand, but how does Equality beget a higher standard of living? Forgetting, for a moment, that Liberty is a higher standard of living than tyranny, Liberty also has the side effect of unleashing people.

The Human being is remarkable. We are capable of so much if we are so motivated and are allowed. The human being unleashed from the shackles of tyranny in all it’s ugly forms is not only self sufficient but is able to create more than he or she needs. One of the fundamental qualities of human beings is that we all want to be comfortable, we want nice things and we want our health. Universally if someone didn’t want good health we would say that something is wrong with his head. If we are given liberty, we naturally create a better standard of living for ourselves, much better than a State could ever provide. Self sufficiency is begotten from Liberty and liberty from equality.

We see, historically and empirically, that wherever social justice is enacted the standard of living erodes and where equality is approached the standard of living rises… so why do you suppose anti capitalists tout social justice and mime equality so?

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

Three Paths to Virtue in Society

Posted on November 7, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that for a market system to function properly the people must be honest. As the people that make up a society become less honest, for whatever reason, the market becomes less and less efficient until it’s correct function is totally destroyed.

In this article we mean honesty in the sense of; honesty in action, honesty in speech and honesty in thought.

Most people think there is one path that can be taken to create the necessary conditions for an honest society when in fact there are three;

The first is the path the human race has taken the most, the easiest and worn with wheel ruts, it is to use draconian law to control the avarice of the people. The aristocracy is given free reign to their avarice. The few exceptions are notable in that they resulted in historically significant advancements in human understanding.

The second means to keep the citizenry honest is to hold the aristocracy to a high level of honesty. This is the means proscribed by Confucius. This is the means, that comports with reality the best, in that people, naturally follow the Elite. The people value what the Elite value and disdain what the Elite disdain. In societies where the Elite value luxury the people will value luxury. In societies where the Elite value hard work the people will value hard work.

The sage kings of ancient China are said to have put aside their own selfishness even to the point of selecting the next king by merit instead of blood. The Spartan civilization, under the laws of Lycurgus, is another example. The Spartan citizens were, by law, forbidden from luxury, coined money in iron, could not do manual labor and had to constantly train for war. While the laws of Lycurgus warped and distorted humanity they did show the advantages of forcing the Elite in a society to eschew luxury and vice. The Spartan by law… the Sage Kings by being sages.

Moreover people try to act as the Elite as best they can. When the Elite are corrupt the people will follow them into Hades. Where the Elite are virtuous the people will be virtuous. It follows then that to hold the Elite honest holds the people honest.

The third way is chaos. Hold no one to no standard. As a means, this is the worst, and would not result in an honest Elite or an honest citizenry, inevitably resulting in the lowering of everyone’s standard of living.

Just as water flows downhill and smoke rises in still air a dishonest society requires ever expanding law and punishments. Providing clear evidence that the Elite are corrupt in that society. Just as water proves a grade and smoke proves fire. In societies that are increasingly honest there is less need for onerous law and punishments. Liberty in society requires an honest people to enjoy it.

In a society where there is liberty but not honesty, the people will quickly call for more and more law, to protect them selves and their property from the dishonest society they live in. You cannot live in a cesspool however without smelling like it. People who lived in a less and less honorable society are incentivised to become less honest themselves. Even the Jen Man who lives the Golden Mean will necessarily lower his level of honesty as that of society lowers. Like a boat with the tide.

The ideal example is the Weimar Republic in Germany during the interwar period. The Elite tried to protect their vassal businesses with legislation. Protectionism was the ethos of the 1930s and the Weimar Republic was a big believer. They also wanted to minimize the negative impact their policies had on society so they passed ever more socialistic laws. Laws that undermined the very business they sought to protect. So government and society corroded. The Government decided that all they needed was more money and they could subsidize favored business, and support the people put out of work, from the self serving policies of the politicians. The result was an economic collapse and a backlash against liberty. The people came to the conclusion that it was liberty that was causing such a mess of the economy. They thought that if only the government could have more power the Elite could do what was necessary to get the economy moving again. This pernicious notion coupled with extreme nationalism created the NAZI party.

Corrupt Elite enact corrupt policies which create more need of law, allowing the self serving Elite to pass more corrupt law. The loop is only broken when the Elite are forced to be honest. They won’t do it by themselves. The Elite must be forced to it. Else liberty will be something our grand children read about in history books…

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

Analysis of the 2010 Election Results.

Posted on November 4, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the recently completed elections in the US, show that with a few exceptions, the people of the United States want a much more conservative government, than we have. The elections that took place in 2008 put into this context make much more sense.

In 2008 the “Conservative” faction of the American electorate stayed home to protest the big spending of the Republicans, this coupled with an historically significant election year, generating turnout in factions that don’t normally vote, and you have a Democratic victory. This theory can be empirically proven by counting the calls to conservative radio shows during the 2008 election season. It can be inferred that each call that makes this argument, represents 100 calls that didn’t make it through and each of those 100 calls that didn’t make it through, represent 100 people who didn’t even bother to call, that had the same opinion.

This year 2010 the American electorate turned out very well for a non presidential year. With the only exceptions being California, New York, Vermont and Massachusetts these States returned a largely anti capitalist bunch back to power. With some notably corrupt characters… Charlie Rangel with his proclivity not to report income and Barney Frank with his dodgy record overseeing Fannie and Freddy during the financial meltdown.

The rest of the nation turned Republicans to office. Almost a landslide victory for Republicans gives them a mandate far more than did Obama’s landslide at 52% of the popular vote. No other Democrat had done that since Jimmy Carter. The last few elections taken into consideration along with general polling data about the American people show the American government is far to the left of the American people.

But will the Republicans actually come through and cut any government?

If a Republican calls for the elimination of the Mohair subsidy, (to protect the US military’s access to mohair for WWI uniforms), he or she will be reviled in the unbiased media. The thrust of every story on NPR will be how heartless and actually cruel the Republican is to want to hurt those poor farmers. After all aren’t farmers the back bone of America? Olson’s “Logic of collective action.” will rear it’s ugly head in every proposed cut.

Literally billions of dollars will be leveled against anyone who steps out of line. Those that do will be dragged through the mud even worse then in this election. In the end the mohair subsidy will stay, but the uncooperative congressmen or woman, will be gone. So no. No they will not cut anything.

This will enrage the American electorate even more. Who knows how the American electorate will handle their anger when that time comes… never mind they will be angry at themselves for allowing it. Maybe the Republican name will be so destroyed that it will cease to be a viable party, like the Whigs, to supplanted by another party that actually embodies the American Conservative ethos.

What is the American conservative ethos? I’m glad you asked…

The term “conservative” is very misleading. To the European it means a person who want’s to conserve the feudal system. Or return to a similar system. Where the goods of society are distributed by class.

But an American conservative wants to conserve the advances of the Enlightenment, where the goods of society are distributed by the market system, a far more meritorious distribution, that has served us so very well. The American Conservative wants to conserve all the things that allow a market system to work.

Those are family, and religion. Family is obvious. People raised in a family especially a large family learn quickly to bide their time, work with in a frame work, are compliant to superiors but know the difference between legitimate orders and illegitimate orders all through incessant fighting with their siblings and parents.

Religion is valuable to a market system because it helps keep people honorable. The only person we really have to fear getting unlimited power is a true atheist. Because a true atheist is not limited in his or her actions. To argue they have a conscience is laughable. The human conscience is the poorest control over human behavior. Whenever the conscience runs against the ego the conscience never fails to bend. That is one of the chief reasons religion is important for a functional market system.

That is the American Conservative ethos, pro capitalism, to conserve the market system and the things that allow it to work… for our children and their children.

As opposed to the American Liberal ethos, anti capitalism.

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

Liberty Independence and Responsibility

Posted on October 31, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that liberty comes with responsibility. To be truly free one must be responsible for him or her self. To be “free” while in a state of dependence is an oxymoron.

Liberty, independence and responsibility are codependent concepts. Whenever practiced these tree maxims always result in the improving of the lot of Man. Put it this way, we can say that liberty cannot exist without independence, and a person cannot be independent without having responsibility.

Today people seem to want liberty or “freedom” in the same way a teenager want’s “freedom.” In the sense that they should have total freedom of action, with no responsibilities, practicing no restraint, being fed clothed and house for free, and having the negative consequences of their action smoothed over of for them, without having to expend any effort at productive labor.

A rational maximizer wants his or her needs met but is rational about it. If I am hungry I buy food. It is not in my best interest to steal food especially if I have money to buy it. But what if I want a snow machine? Then, can I morally steal, even food? No, of course not. To do so is against my long term best interests. In more than the obvious way.

If there were no society and no community and people lived in a state of nature or absolute individualism we would have to expend productive effort to stay alive. If we are too lazy we are quickly goaded into productive effort by our hunger. It is society and community that allow us to fill our stomachs without productive effort. If we undermine that society and or community by withholding our productive effort, then we put the filling of not only our stomachs at risk, but risk not filling those of people who are putting in productive effort.

If there were no society and no community we would have to be responsible for ourselves. If we step off a cliff then we are dashed on the rocks below there would be no rescue chopper. We would be forced by nature to expire from our lack of vigilance. It is society and community that allow us the luxury of lack forethought and vigilance.

If there were no society and no community we would live in a state of total liberty. There would be nothing, that we could do, that we could not do. No law restraining our actions and no morality to restrain our appetites. It is society and community that force us to have law and morality.

It is only in a society that allows it’s citizens to be freely responsible people and holding them responsible for their actions with a great measure of liberty that have increasing standards of living. As societies move to greater and greater levels of the Big Brother government then the standard of living will inevitably decline.

It will decline because Liberty is decoupled from responsibility and independence. In this circumstance people have no incentive to expend productive effort. It is wasted in the most vulgar way. Your productive labor harms your interest.

The market system however allows us to live in a society where our needs can be easily met. By providing productive labor into the system we get independence like we would if we lived in a state of nature. Under the market system we have the feed back that allows us to work to get the standard of living we want, if we are willing to work for it.

Veblen claimed people don’t resent the robber barons of his day because they felt they could someday be a robber baron if they worked hard enough and were smart enough… No one denying their own intelligence. With this as the societal myth look at how the standard of living went up and scientific progress exploded.

Under the one set of motives people can be expected to act in ways that are counter productive to their long term interests, it follows, (like a breaching a dam results in a flood down stream). Under the other (Liberty, Independence and responcibility) people act in ways that are in both their short and long term best interests as they see fit. The one results in the steady decline of humanity the other… elevation.

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

Legislation and Legislators

Posted on October 28, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that writing legislation is like building a house.

Most legislation is never pointed at any particular thing. Take the drug policies of most nations. They are targeted at some nebulous idea of eradicating drug use. But they never actually look at what they really want to get and what compromises they are willing to make to get it.

If we further narrow down what we seek, as a goal, in the drug policies of a given nation, we might say, we want to keep our children off drugs. So we should give that priority over a shotgun approach. To lay out legislation without thinking in this way is like building a house without plans.

We show up at the job with a backhoe on site. Never laying out a line we guesstimate the sides and corners eventually joining the excavation. The cement truck pulls in and pours the footings filling the whole excavation using much more concrete than is necessary. Then we have lumber delivered and start framing. Unfortunately the footings are not square. So we have to make up for it in the framing of the walls. Then we close in the house with a roof. We don’t bother measuring the width of the roof so we order the wrong length trusses. What the hell we say they are long enough to reach the end of the wall… with no overhang. So we spike them in.

When we are done with our new house we find there are a few problems. Rain water sheets down the exterior walls getting in the poorly caulked windows. The rooms are either way too big or way too small for the use they are supposed to be put to and we find the our furniture doesn’t fit into the un-square corners. It is clear that building a house without plans or forethought is not a good idea. The outcome will fall far short of what is necessary.

So why is legislation different? No plan as to what is really wanted so no real thought can be given to the incentives that would actually result in the wanted outcome in real society. Is like our legislators randomly digging the footers for our new house.

Political patronage will keep the legislators from measuring anything very closely…After all it’s government money and is an endless font. More wording (concrete) is used than is needed. The walls are not exactly plumb perhaps because there is no scale for measuring legislation.

One of the Great Sages of Human history, Confucius I think, said; let a principality be governed by human hearted principles [leaders leading by example and actually following their own laws], and people will flock there from all lands. He was speaking ironically, because he knew that no such principality existed and would be many centuries away if it was even possible.

The illuminati who bestow our law don’t feel they should have to actually follow it. This makes them crooked. How can someone crooked lay out a plumb wall? They also have to make up for unintended consequences of pouring footers that are not square. The constitutionality is not square, because the footers were poorly built, but that cannot be helped, the right people on the Supreme Court will fix that. The roof is, the Executive branch, tasked with enforcing Law. Being only as sound as the Elite that run that branch. There will be some leaks. Like the SEC looking at Face book and porn instead for doing their job and watching the markets during the banking meltdown. Well actually, that was more of a gaping hole in the roof letting in a torrent not a trickle…

We find that the legislation doesn’t cover as much as we had hoped. The new law being barely utile despite much more materials going into it than was necessary. Not much is really covered by our new legislation but it will take lawyers thousands of man hours to figure that out. How do you suppose this legislation will hold up in an economic earthquake?

Costs go up and utility goes down, even as more legislation is needed to address the new problems in society, that crop up as a consequence of some pernicious incentive, from poorly thought out and worded legislation. Glomming on additions here and there to cover what was supposed to be covered by the original house, er legislation.

I wonder, if the legislators don’t even bother to read legislation they are enacting, maybe it’s because they won’t have to live with it… We will.

Time for a Numa?

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

The General Strike

Posted on October 24, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the concept of the general strike, is as pernicious as it is manipulative, of the people and our welfare, it’s like a person’s liver stopping functioning because it wants more time off, and the spleen, stomach, and anus join in.

Anyone can see that if this were to happen the body would soon pass. The economic body of the nation is like the human body… susceptible to shock. To shock a nation’s economy so profoundly over some argument, about a hypothetical metric, devised by the State and the Elite, is self defeating. The more that nation’s markets are disturbed the less ability the market and the State have to meet the demands of the strikers.

Does it make sense to destroy the ability of the market to provide us with employment to get an extra dollar? Or is the principle of worker power so important that workers should be impoverished to prove it? That is the price the Socialist and Communist are willing to pay… for someone else to go hungry for the revolution. Someone else can bleed for the revolution so the leader can have more power. Power he will use to further impoverish his people. Hungry masses are easier to manipulate.

The Communist and Socialist makes it a party for the striker, a day off and permission to despoil, in the name of fairness. Smash a business someone has risked his largess on, disrupting the shopkeeper who barley ekes out a living, overturning the delivery van the small business owner uses to make his deliveries, the general strike is a purely anti capitalist tool.

Why would anyone do it then? Thrasymachus has the answer; Most people have no interest in being unjust but wish to be protected from being subject to injustice and so adhere to some foolish notion of justice hoping the powerful will also adhere to it. (Clearly he agrees with Hsun Ching on the congenital nature of Man). Those that seek power and care nothing for the cost to humanity are free to use injustice as a means to power. Thrasymachus has them nailed they want to appear just while being unjust.

That is why they always make emotional arguments about fairness. Like how “unfair” the US is, applying a measure of 45 or so to us while Europe gets a more favorable 20 or so.. But if you actually look into the metric they use, it is clearly skewed. In Europe they include the redistribution of wealth through the State welfare system in the US they do not. But a much simpler, (and thus less prone to biases but less nuanced) approach is to compare absolute income to absolute income. Average GDP per person in Europe is around $26,000.00 in US dollars, the GDP per person in the US is around $45,000.00 per person. Given that both locals have billionaires the average GDP per person compared to the billionaire makes the US come out much more favorably.

So what is the Fairness the Socialist and Communist seek that they are wiling to visit such calamity on a nation? They claim fairness, in that society has established a floor, below which government will not let a person fall. The definition of that floor, is the metric, that is the font of the general strike. The Communist and Socialist claim to be compassionate, giving to the poor and taking from the rich. Never mind they are always the superrich who never seem to be taxed as they tax others.

Halfwit children of capitalists the Communist and Socialist seeks to control the foolish, money grubbing, dirty little people. Those who smoke and drive around without seatbelts must be reigned in. What the State does best is decide what decisions to make for the people. The premise being, the people, us, we are too stupid to make our own decisions.

The Communist, Socialist and Progressive would shout back, “You prove it every day by smoking, driving around in an SUV, and acting out in general.” All the while smoking a cigarette, jetting to the Riviera for lunch and snorting cocaine the whole way. The main difference being they are the Elite and are not subject to the law while we are not the elite and are.

Not saying George Soros snort’s cocaine…

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

The Many Flavors of Nationalism

Posted on October 21, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, that ninety nine percent of the people on this planet don’t understand why the US is so strong, when it is made up of so many different races of people. In a meeting with the OKW, Hitler was asked about America, when the USSR and Briton were annihilated, what would be the next step. Hitler replied nothing. American cannot survive long, with blacks, whites and asiatics living together, they must necessarily hate and kill each other… Was he wrong.

Because the US is not a nation of whites or Blacks or Latinos or any other color, it is a Nation of Capitalists. We are united in our greed. The pragmatic capitalism that De Tocqueville defined as individualism. People learn English because it is the language of capitalism in the US. People fit in because they want to get ahead… Like every single person in the world, whether they admit it or not. Except people with trust funds, bestowed by some rich relative, in the certain knowledge they are inept, the trust funder detests the money grubbing of their inferiors… Us.

It is not a coincidence that immigrants to the US tend to do better than native citizens. Immigrants tend to be risk takers, else they would have never left their home country. This attribute, along with a strong work ethic, combined with the American capitalist system, allow immigrants to do very well here. Not as many native born citizens are risk takers, Americans may be more risk taking than other people in general, but the percent of immigrants who are risk takers is 100%, while the percent of any given non-mobile population can never approach that number..

Most other nations rally around some form of racial identity. Yes Virginia, we fought WWII to eliminate nationalism, but it is more a force in the World today than ever before. People want to live with people who look and act exactly like themselves. The Yugoslavian war was an example of this. Czechoslovakia and the breakup of the USSR are others. The Basque separatists and Chechnian conflicts continue, as do many others around the globe… Nationalism today is alive and well despite the deaths of millions to stop it.

But in the US nationalism is different. We, most of us, don’t rally around a racial ideal, we rally around a meritorious ideal. The more this ethos is promoted the more US society can absorb different people into itself. Nothing focuses the mind on priorities better than money.

But as these nationalistic countries, out of a sense of jealousy, focus more and more on some view of fairness, that is tied up with national and racial identity, they will have a lower and lower standard of living, polarizing people further and further, into smaller and smaller views of nation.

Like the City State period; In that time people viewed the nation as the city they lived in. Their view of their personal good was inextricably tied to the city state in which they were born in. If they were captured by the neighboring city state they were made slaves. If their city was overrun their families would be tossed from the walls. Their good was the State’s good. And their view of who were their fellows was limited to the people within the walls of their city.

As City States gave way to Nation States people’s view of nation widened. But today it seems people’s view of nation is swinging back to ever smaller definitions. Some argue that this is an inevitable recoil from the breakup of the colonial period. Which has some merit, except for the fact, so much nationalism is happening in Europe where the colonization was done… from, not to. Presumably the Basques didn’t have a problem being part of Spain when Spain was awash in money from the New World, or when Lucullus outwitted the Roman Aristocracy in Iberia until he was stabbed in the back by the people he had saved.

There are many flavors of Nationalism some less caustic than others. Regardless of the definition of nation it is in the best interests of all people to define their nation as anyone living in your geologic local, who is working towards bettering the lives of their families and are participating in the political life of the national community. Race and ethnicity are quickly becoming outmoded terms as the people of the world become more mobile. In a few hundred years, as long as humanity doesn’t fall back into a dark age, there will be very few people who can claim one “nationality” as most Americans are multi national in their lineages

That is why the US continues to absorb people from the world over all calling themselves Americans. We are united… in our wants, to want a better life for our children, to want the things that will make our lives easier, the want of independence and our want to be free to enjoy the fruits of that independence. Americans focus on wants and disregard how much other people have. As Veblen said, in America people don’t resent wealth because they might someday have it…

People are united in greed but are disunited in jealousy.

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