Pragmatism, Fatalism and Idealism

Posted on October 17, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that Capitalism, more precisely, the Market System, breeds pragmatism. The feudal system and socialistic systems create other points of view.

People who live in a market system have to weigh decisions all the time. Whether to spend more time looking for the cheapest alternative, or decide they have sufficient information, weighing time against money. We who live in a capitalist system also weigh our actions and reactions every day and in every way. To live in a capitalist nation one practices pragmatism all the time… Practice makes perfect.

If a person get’s stuck on some losing venture it is often more practicable to simply take your licks and try another. Spending $300.00 to get back $100.00 is foolish. The pragmatists just moves to another table. The emotional person will fight it out no matter the cost.

Some corrupt people count on pragmatists. They know that most pragmatists will not throw good money after bad. This philosophy only works as long as some large portion of society is pragmatic. But if the portion that will emotionally react, and take it as a personal insult, gets to some theoretical limit, the profitability of the scam is washed by the incessant, costly, fighting.

In this way pragmatism, which is beneficial for not only the markets to function efficiently, but for society to operate smoothly, is a threat to the very markets and society it benefits.

But in societies that have no functional market system due to government not protecting property rights, or too much corruption in government, there is no incentive to pragmatism. Fatalism takes hold in these societies. Fatalist philosophy that undermines a market far more effectively than pragmatism.

Because fatalism is not a motivating factor it is de-motivating. If there is no hope why struggle? Just blend into the cesspool that you live in, cleaning nothing, improving nothing, further fouling the community. The fatalist is not motivated to improve his lot because he is convinced it cannot be improved.

The pragmatist however, sees the plight of his community, and seeks to change it for the better. Perhaps by starting a business… to alleviate some want in his community. The pragmatist realizes the corrupt nature of Man. But the pragmatist simply works within the parameters of Mankind‘s nature.

Idealists provide fodder for pragmatists, but fail themselves, because monsters from their Ids sabotage their efforts. Those monsters are, their egos, bigotry, ignorance’s and point of view. Each monster undermines the idealists attempts at societal evolution/revolution.

An ego is a terrible thing to waste but waste it we must, else we run the risk of seeing our fellow man as a lab rat, not as a human being. Never taking his wants or point of view into account. After all, who know’s better, some ignorant lab rat, or the idealist?

No one is free from bigotry. Not you and not I. But bigotry is not an inborn thing. Certainly not within the congenital nature of Man, but it is a learned thing, an extrinsic thing. Because when a child is born they have no feelings one way or another about other people. They have no concept of other yet. An infant learns about other by their interactions with others. Some interactions will inevitably be good and some bad. All of our initial interactions with others, however, will color our view of other.

Knowledge is never universal. No flawed human being can be omniscient. No amount of learning can prepare a person to run the lives of millions of his fellows. Because it is impossible to hold that much knowledge in one’s mind. Let alone actually learn everything needed to undertake such a Herculean task. Noah’s and Uncle Po’s long lives fell short of the time to learn all that would be required. We all are ignorant in our own way. There is no getting around that.

All these factors combine to make a human being’s point of view. The idealist, the fatalist and the pragmatist all have their point of view, honed by years of interactions, learning, and the societal ethos they were raised in. All these points of view have negative incentives for the proper functioning of a market system.

But of all three, it is the idealist that has visited far more horror on Mankind, in the name of good, than all the others combined.

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

The Quality of Debate Effects the Quality of Policy

Posted on October 14, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that when a person’s argument is weak they tend to change the subject a lot. Doing so keeps their opponent off balance. More importantly, the weak points in their arguments are never examined.

A weak policy point, not examined, makes bad policy when enacted. As more and more poorly thought out policies are put into place the material wellbeing of a society suffers. The legislator that seeks to avoid argument, ducking the facts, making ad homonym attacks, and answering the question he wished he was asked instead of the question he was actually asked, inevitably puts bad policies into regulation and law.

Not one side does it, both sides do it, in the USA. In other countries all sides do it. Even a cursory glance at the media coverage of the political struggle going on today in the US, shows undeniably, that the policies and premises of the people running for office are studiously avoided.

I for one want to know what a candidate for public office has for a basic philosophy. Not only of governing but his or her view of their fellow man. That goes directly back to the basic philosophical underpinnings of a candidate. A pointless attack ad with scary music in the background gives me no usable information at all. But then again, isn’t that the point, it isn‘t supposed to?

To obfuscate the issues. Both sides do it so both sides must feel their arguments are weak. If both sides have no confidence in their arguments how can they feel comfortable putting their ideas into action? One look at the product of our legislators, the regulations and laws they enact, shows how shoddy their workmanship is.

We have measures for the accuracy of a line. We can scale the cost benefit of a given business plan. As rational maximizers we weigh the cost vs. benefits of everything we do, on a daily basis. All these things are done today, by those that live in this time and this place, because we were raised and live in a market economy.

But there is no value for the quality of legislation… Or is there?

Quality legislation is never easy. Lengthy, impossible to understand legislation, with a myriad of unexpected consequences is far easier. An historical example, why too much complexity can be damaging, is from World War Two, it is the difference between a German Panzer Kampf Wagon Mark 5 Panther and a US mark 5 Sherman Medium Battle Tank. The Panther was far stronger, with much more armor, and bigger gun, but was prone to breakdowns. The Sherman had one advantage, It worked. It started and ran. In an average Panzer unit as much as 50% or more Panthers could be out of service due to mechanical problems. A typical Sherman unit had less then 20% down at any time.

So if two identical units, of 100 tanks each, engaged in combat, the US unit would have 80 tanks, or more, on the battlefield, the German would have fewer than 50. In individual terms the Panther was superior but in the aggregate the Sherman was superior. Because the Sherman was simpler.

Simplicity in legislation avoids one of the biggest problems with new legislation… unintended consequences. It also minimizes the need for attorneys to “interpret” what the law means. If it is well written and simple the meaning is obvious, but if it is serpentine and highly intrusive, it is less obvious and effects more and more things it wasn’t intended to.

But most importantly does it work and how often? Legislation or regulation that damages the interests of those that are regulated is commonplace. Is that good regulation? Often legislation drives whole industries offshore. Is that well though out?

But the incentives, as they are in our society, drive the media and our politicians to avoid the issues and focus on personal attacks, because they work. The electorate is satisfied with mud slinging. It protects us from having to think, we can just react.

And there is the point. As long as we live in a market economy, using logic on a daily basis for every decision we make. Reacting instead of thinking, when it comes to politics, ensures bad results.

Emotionally based policymaking is far more dangerous than it feels.

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

This Election Season

Posted on October 10, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, this election season, in the US, is another example of the electorate searching for leaders, that actually follow the American ethos. So far, both political parties have run as neo-conservatives, (people who want to conserve the modern liberal democracy and market system as opposed to traditional European conservatives who want(ed) to conserve the feudal system), But when they get into power they rule as neo-liberals, (anti capitalist pro government people, who hold the average citizen to be a mouth breathing fool, needing to be controlled).

Take the Republican party running in 2000. They ran on a platform of tax cuts and further fiscal tightening. After they got the victory, the economy went into recession, as a result of the overbuilding of infrastructure in the years before Y2K. Once the Millennium passed and the World’s computer networks didn’t crash, there was no need of more technology upgrades until the newly purchased equipment was obsolete, collapsing the demand for technology

The republicans passed tax cuts as “stimulus” and spent money to keep up aggregate demand, per the Keynesian model. Their following the liberal model of economic stimulus worked to some extent in that the economy did expand at a fast rate until 2007. But shortsighted regulation, causing bubbles to form, driving up energy costs and thus unbalancing the economy, made conditions perfect for a recession. The inevitable, (due to regulation), huge spike in energy costs provided the trigger and the World economy went into recession.

In the 2008 election season the democrats campaigned that the republicans had spent the American people into the poor house. That the democrats could repair the economy in short order. No real plan was put forth but vague talking points like middle class tax cuts and rhetoric about fairness. The democrats were elected in a landslide. Their demi-conservative message and their cult of personality leader generating the momentum.

As soon as the democrats regained “their” power they raised taxes on the poor in the form of cigarette tax increase. The wave of spending, regulation, usurping of rights and outright corruption, in only 2 years back in power have turned the stomachs of the American people. Now the American people are looking for someone who will control taxes… AND spending but most importantly… get the economy back to a healthy growth rate! To do this government must abandon the Keynesian model and go back to the historically effective neo conservative approach. Even if they don’t know, consciously, what that approach is.

Put simply, the neo conservative approach to managing the economy, are to move as close to lasses faire policies as possible, without damaging the interests of the consumer. Lowering regulation would help the economy drastically. Cutting spending would send a signal to markets that the US government will remain solvent, and signal the consumer, that taxes will not need to be raised in the future. Another consequence of lowering government spending is that it will positively impact the US balance of trade. Less government spending means less government demand for foreign capital.

As I have argued many times before in this blog, government demand does not equal consumer demand. So when aggregate demand is driven up by government demand the economy must warp to meet the new demand. It must necessarily turn away from meeting the demands of consumers and business and meet the new government demand. Remember our poor sofa salesman. But when the government cannot keep up it’s demand, the gravy train has to end when government is bankrupt, the economic actors must revert to try to meet consumer demand. Further diminishing the efficiency of economic forces due to the unbalanced situation that government demand puts on an economy.

So, as I have pointed out, the reason the American people are becoming more polarized and more angry, is that both parties, run as neo conservatives… but rule as neo liberals. Regardless of the rhetoric in the elections, the American people have come to believe that their leaders, will act as tax and spend liberals, no matter their party affiliation, because that has been the paradigm.

Will the incoming group behave differently? If history is to tell, then no, they won’t. We can expect spending to accelerate, regulation to be passed without even being read and taxes to rise. The inevitable result will be, diminishing economic growth, creating more anger and polarization of the electorate.

But what would happen if the new bunch actually legislate instead of rule? We can expect vitriol from the unbiased media. We can expect the personal lives of any legislators that buck the system to be destroyed. The entrenched elite will fight to their last breath. They will count on Olson being correct. Making the fight bloody.

But, with this much at stake, I pray the newly elected members of the US congress are true to their word, despite the inevitable personal destruction they will experience for it…

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

Foundational Wisdom and the Right Constitution of Government

Posted on October 7, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that true wisdom, foundational wisdom, stands the test of time. By time, I don’t mean the ideas are still talked about, like the Spartan civilization, but are still relevant.

Take Confucius. His philosophy is as relevant today as it was then. His theory of the Jen Man, (Gentleman), is meta-societal. The mean that the Jen Man lives is very similar to the Aristotle’s mean. No matter the society one finds himself in the Jen Man finds the moral mean. He is never off balance because he lives the mean.

Why would a person ever be off balance if they always lived the moral average of the society in which they live? To live the average makes a person average. Mediocrity in morality is not repellant. But the extremely moral person makes the average sinner feel inferior just as the reprobate makes the average sinner feel superior. No matter that comparing is a sin we all do it comparing is human nature. That is why the person who lives the golden mean is never off balance… Timeless advice from 550BC.

I look at the modern incarnations of sages and find them wanting. They are full of advice about selling your home or getting a date. There is nothing wrong or foolish about these things. But they are tied to this time and this place. Similarly Marx’s and Justus Moser’s philosophies were mired in time and place.

In the time and place it was written this type of philosophy can be quite useful and sagely advice. But it does not become foundational wisdom. Such foundational wisdom can be found throughout the ages and in many places. The Bhagavaad Gita is another ancient example from India.

When the founders of governments have these foundational insights in mind, the governments created by such men, are like niobium magnets to the iron filings of able people. People are drawn to those nations even against their own will.

An ancient example is Rome. As Livy described it, after Romulus founded Rome, he opened it up to immigration, anyone, no matter the reason they wanted in, could come. The result was Rome was filled with extremely ambitious and able men. It could be argued that the most ambitious people from all across the Italian peninsula and beyond settled Rome. Certainly Greeks from some of the Greek colonies on the peninsula at the time came and became Romans. When Numa Pompi wrote the Laws of Rome, Laws that would stand for 900 years, he had foundational wisdom in mind. With the combination of an ambitious people and well crafted laws, (for the time), Rome became one of the most advanced civilizations the planet has seen.

A modern example being the United States of America. The founders had, firmly in mind, foundational truths. They read and were familiar with, not only Christian doctrine and philosophy, but the philosophy of many others as well. In the Federalist Papers Madison refers to Aristotle, Smith, and Montesquieu. He discussed some of the spurious arguments socialists would bring up later and deftly explains the sophistry of them. The founders were well read and keen minded, individualists, in the sense that De Toquville had in mind. They understood human nature and the Constitution they wrote is a shining example of their insight.

For all the hate America rhetoric around the World, there is no other nation of Earth, that has so many people, from across the world, clamoring to get into it. If the American experience is so bad why do so many people seek it and vote with their feet for it? Remember actions speak louder than words. No matter how loudly a person says they hate everything the US stands for, if they seek to immigrate to the US, their actions bely their words. Because who seeks to immigrate to North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, ETC…? No matter the extreme level of equality. Equally paid, fed, housed, clothed, health services and tyrannized.

That is because the foundation of those governments, are mired in a time and a place, and as a jealous reaction, to the surplus of supply, generated by the advent of the market system. Therefore they are doomed. No amount of tinkering can fix a car that never worked from the time it was brand new. No matter how well built an internal combustion engine cannot run on water. If the design is flawed there is no use… it must be destroyed and rebuilt.

So why would anyone in their right mind ever want to change the USA into North Korea? It defies logic. But that is exactly where the road leads that the Obama administration has put us on. Dragging the recalcitrant American people every step. The outright rage seen in the American electorate is clear evidence they have no interest in that destination.

Everyone agrees it is not a place anyone wants to go to… So why go there?

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

Property Rights Come in Many Flavors

Posted on October 3, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that there is both public and private speech. But speech can be broken down further. There is private speech about public things and private speech about private things. There can also be public speech about public things and public speech about private things.

For government to interfere in private speech at all is a dire threat to free speech and the well ordering of our society. As well as for government to interfere in public speech about public things.

Public speech about private things is a different matter. US law allows that public speech about an individual must be factually correct else it may be tried as slander. This is an example of public speech about private things.

The reason this is the case, is that public speech about private things is an immoral way to leverage people, into acting against their personal interests and perhaps the public interests (blackmail). It also is a prerequisite for a market system to function.

Every economist from Adam Smith through Olson agree that property rights are the cornerstone of a market system. Without property rights markets stop functioning. I have gone over many reasons in previous blogs why this is so.

Property comes in a variety of flavors however. There can be real property. Land, homes or condominiums. There can be property in the form of ideas a person puts down on paper, film or record. Personal property like chattel is another example. But property also can be information about a person. Personal information and personal dignity. These are also forms of private property.

Today we have examples of why this is so. The media has been reporting that a college student committed suicide after another televised his personal behavior on the internet. Regardless of the behavior, the person who televised secretly the personal information of the college student, stole from him no less than if he had shoved a gun in his face and demanded his wallet. In this case the government has a duty to prosecute the perpetrator as if he or she were a common thief.

That’s not what the government wants to do. The government wants to use the case to further the legal notion of thought laws. The people who violated the student’s property rights are being punished for their thoughts instead of their actions. Looking down this steep a slope gives me the chills. But this line of legal argument inevitably forces us, as a people and society, onto it.

Another example that appears in today’s media are the people who are protesting at the funerals of US servicemen and women who have died in action. On the surface it appears that it is public speech about public things. If that is the case it should be protected by the Court as free speech. But, if you think about it, is it really?

Is a cemetery a public forum for the free exchange of ideas? Is a funeral a public event… or a private event? But most importantly, is the dignity of a soldier, a human being who has, altruistically given his or her life, for the property rights of society as a whole, should government protect the property rights of that person? Are the property rights of a fallen soldier forfeited because he died in a public event? I.e. a war.

The reason government exists in a society that has a market system is to provide the framework to allow the market to function. Property rights being one of them. The deeper reason property rights are protected is the incentives that are set up if they are not.

What are the incentives in our society where, these most personal and private, property rights are not protected by the State?

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

The ACLU and Religious Freedom in America

Posted on September 30, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that when people call for separation of church and State, and their actions don’t match their words, I wonder what they are really saying… Because actions speak louder than words.

Take the instance in Texas.

The Texas ACLU is adamantly against a board of education resolution summed up within the resolution itself as; “State Board of Education will look to reject future prejudicial social studies submissions that continue to offend Texas law with respect to treatment of the world’s major religious groups by significant inequalities of coverage space-wise and by demonizing or lionizing one or more of them over others.”

What the resolution is saying is that text book publishers must not treat a religion as good or bad. Doing so would be lionizing or demonizing that religion. Under this rule it would be frowned upon for a text book publisher to come out with a text book that said or alluded that Islam is evil. This resolution clearly states that demonizing a world religion is to be rejected. The resolution also would forbid a text book that took the position that Islam is the only true religion. That would be lionizing it.

What about ensuring that the World’s religions are treated fairly is obnoxious to the Texas ACLU?

Well a cursory look at the blogs on religion written by the Texas ACLU are uniformly pro Islam. I didn’t see one reference to any anti Mormonism. Seems funny that the ACLU feels that anti Moslem behavior is unacceptable but completely overlooks anti Mormon behavior.

What type of anti Mormon behavior? What about laws on the books in Missouri until 1976 that made it legal to kill a Mormon? The ACLU was silent on that issue. It was legal to kill a human being in the USA until 1976 if he or she practiced a certain religion. Mormonism. Nowhere and at no time in the USA has there ever been a law allowing for any anti Islamic behavior. Yet the ACLU is very concerned over the treatment of Moslems but not Mormons?

Anti Mormon bigotry is evident today. In the main stream media. Mormon temples are denied permits every day but the ACLU is silent. It is probable that the Mormons have been the most persecuted minority in the history of the USA. Yet the ACLU and the arbiters of public knowledge are silent.

The position the ACLU and the unbiased media have taken is that one or more of the World’s religions should be lionized and some should be demonized. That the text books our children are forced to read at the expediture of the public purse should propagandize religion. It is a valid role of government to demonize some religions and lionise others. No matter the wishes of the parents.

But why would they want that? It doesn’t make sense. The ACLU cliams to promote tolerance and religions freedom. Yet their actions belie their words. So what are we to make of it? These are questions that have great moment in present human history. Moreover they are questions with much emotional weight. But the ACLU acts the opposite of it’s stated intentions.

To agitate about the one while ignoring the other makes them hypocrites. But that hypocrisy is dangerous as well. The danger lays in the tension this resentment builds in society. Tension that creates friction between groups of people who are corralled in a fictitious fence of human conception. Corralled for the service of the Elite. In this case the ACLU.

People can be grouped in many ways. The same people fall into multiple groups. All of which are of human conception and design. Take Germans, Chinese, and Nigerians or Whites and Blacks, or Christians, Moslems and Buddists, or Lefties or righties, or men and women the ways to classify the same people are infinite.

Realise that when people seek to group people it is to some end. Not always in the interest of the people being grouped. Always to the interests of the people grouping them. Grouping people and classifying them is what romantic anti capitalists have done since Justus Moser. It is a way of causing friction and upheaval in society. Capitalism thrives on stability. So when the anti capitalist creates chaos he undermines capitalist markets and the functioning of the capitalist system. Like for example… propagandizing to children in public schools.

Not saying the ACLU are anti capitalists. I’m sure if you asked most would avow a love of capitalism… It’s just their actions, and words, are those of historical anti capitalists…

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

Economic Equalibrium

Posted on September 26, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that as soon as the real economy kicks in the US will have several problems crop up that will imperil the economic reawakening.

One is the very low interest the government is paying on bonds. Once the economy starts to gain traction the rate of inflation will rapidly rise due to the high level of quantitative easing already in the market. Pulling trillions of dollars back from the economy will be e Herculean task. Doing so without causing the economy to roll over or to inflate will require the wisdom of Solon as well. Inflation being the most likely outcome.

When this tidal wave of inflation hits and banks are caught flat footed with their money tied up in very low yielding treasuries they will panic trying to get out. This will necessitate a loss. The banks will turn to the government to cover the losses and the government will issue new debt to cover the banks losses. As they have come to expect. Non the less the banking industry will take a good knock. Similar to the one that put us in this downturn.

The government will have to sell new treasuries at a much higher rate. Rapidly driving up mandatory government spending. On a six month rotational basis the US government will have to roll trillions of dollars of debt from one half percent interest to perhaps four or more percent. This will dramatically lower the availability of money in the capital markets for plant and equipment upgrades, wage increases, new opportunity investments, etc…

Remember, when economists say that the US consumes too much, part of the equation is government consumption of debt. As government consumes debt the capital must come from somewhere. If the American people are not saving sufficiently to cover the debt it must be imported from abroad. This is factored into the US balance of trade. The elephant in the room is that it presupposes investors in other countries have an appetite for US government debt. If the money is inflating rapidly, debt in US dollars, are much less profitable. If the US government is seen by investors as too debt laden compared to the rate of growth in GDP then US government debt will become even more expensive.

Another shoal in the waters of any economic advance is US energy policy. Which is easy to sum up. It is to drive the cost of energy as high as government policies can. Even at the low rate of demand we see in the US energy price is relatively high. Moratoriums on drilling and permanently closing production facilities have that effect. If government, in their total lack of wisdom, enact Cap and Trade under any name the cost of energy to the US consumer of energy will skyrocket. Imagine how much less spending power a consumer will have when his or her electric bill goes from $90 a month to $500 a month… No way that could hurt the economy.

The one ace we have in the hole is that the government is at present doing it’s best to keep the economy in the doldrums. It’s every action, from threatening the biggest tax increase in US history to constantly increasing levels of regulation, serve to keep the economy off balance. Moratoriums on drilling that cost thousands of good paying jobs ensure the unemployment rate will stay high and increasing regulation will make companies that are too big to fail even bigger. Only the biggest companies can meet extremely intrusive government regulatory rules.

The present faction in power have established equilibrium. An equilibrium of stagnation and lower expectations… But an equilibrium. The faction that will come into power in the Congress will have a tough job ahead. Navigating the shoals I have pointed out and many others the deluge of government intervention in the markets have laid down will be a challenge. With the faction that is now in power attacking with it’s fifth column in the unbiased media propagandizing every move.

The challenge is daunting but the rewards are many. I hope and pray the faction that is in power when the dust settles after the election is up to it…

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

Should There Be Negative Consequences For Negative Behavior?

Posted on September 23, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me all parents know that you punish that which you don’t want and you reward that which you want. Any parent that did otherwise would quickly find their child unmanageable. But government sees it exactly the opposite way.

Government explicitly punishes good behavior and rewards bad behavior. Then wonders aloud why there is so much crime and poverty. In this case we see that the parent of a six years old son has more wisdom than the enlightened legislator.

Take two people. One saves and works hard. She pinches pennies to keep ahead of her bills. She studiously saves some money for retirement so she won’t be a burden. How does the welfare State treat her?

By taxing her at every turn. Her income is taxed at the highest rate, her property is taxed and the interest from her investments are taxed. In the aggregate dramatically lowering her standard of living.

Take a second person. She doesn’t work. Instead gets on drugs and gets pregnant. Her child is born with deformities from drug use during pregnancy. She doesn’t learn in school and is ignorant of reading and math as a result. How does the government treat her?

By providing spending money, housing, food, healthcare, daycare so she can have a “break,” often a car and free counseling.

But who has the better life? Most would argue that the woman who delays gratification. The person who makes the hard decisions, the person who is punished by the government. The person who is rewarded has a much lower standard of living even though she has immense amounts of free time to improve her situation. So it is clear that welfare state policies lower the lot of everyone.

So now we have an explosion of out of wedlock births in America coupled with an abortion rate that is the modern moral equivalent of slavery. The blame can be placed at the feet of the modern welfare State.

By trying as much as possible to eliminate the negative consequences of negative behavior government creates an incentive for people to engage in that behavior. Remember people are people. We are self maximizers. Most of us are rational self maximizers. But there are those who have not learned the rational part. It is a result of civilization. As children are civilized they become more rational about their choices.

But if government intercedes in the civilization of children by supplanting fathers it creates adults later who lack the rational part of rational self maximizer. Or in the terms of De Tocqueville self interested, rightly understood.

Unfortunately the problem has gotten out of hand. So badly so that to change policy now would inevitably lead to hugely negative results in the near term. This is only one of the myriad problems created by the modern welfare state. Problems that defy easy solutions. Every means of freeing society requires human suffering. (Which must always be avoided at as much as possible).

But the advocates of the welfare state claim more welfare state policies will fix the problems that earlier welfare state policies gave birth to. Like adding water to a flood. A little more won’t hurt much… but a little less would help… A lot.

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

On The Threatened Koran Burning

Posted on September 19, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that when society has different standards for different people it sets up a negative feedback loop that makes people less virtuous… In every way.

The people held to the lowest standard of personal conduct become more and more corrupt to the limit that society will tolerate. Even exceeding it when they can. Those that are held to the highest standard of personal conduct will resent the unequal treatment. That resentment puts a huge tension on society. When the tension, (from all sources), exceeds societal cohesion, the fabric of society rends. This manifests itself in many undesirable ways… Not the least of which spill’s blood and topple’s governments.

This is one of the most important points the International Capitalist Party makes. That there must be one standard that all people are held to. This religious conflict that some people seem to want is a perfect example of this law of politics in action.

Many people are condemning the Pastor in Florida that was threatening to burn Korans. They went on and on how despicable a thing it is to do… And it is. I wonder, however, what they are actually saying…

I assume that they are saying that the means that the Pastor is using is despicable because the means will offend a group of people. Holding that group to be human beings, and bestowing the right not to be offended, makes a means that offends them, despicable. In this case the means is burning Korans the point being in the mind of the Pastor and manifested with the speech at the time.

I don’t think the point they are making is that it is wrong to make a point or that all means of doing so are bad. That would be saying that all debate is off limits and is despicable. To say such a thing is tantamount to despotism. Once the voice of the people has been silenced there will be no end to the mischief of unrestrained government.

Perhaps their point is, that desecrating a religious symbol is what is bad. No matter if it is to make a point.

However, I don’t remember the same people taking the same position when the Andres Serrano‘s exhibit was funded with US taxpayer dollars. The exhibit included depictions of a crucifix immersed in human urine. Another example of desecrating a religious symbol. This was extremely offensive to all Christians. Yet the same people (in the USA) that revile the Pastor for the means he threatened to use, (but didn’t), took exactly the opposite stance during the Andres Serrano’s debates. This makes one wonder, again, what they are really saying.

Because it suggests that the problem they have is not the means of making a point but the group that will be offended by that means. If that is the case they are holding different people to different standards… Multiple standards of personal conduct. With all the negative externalities that comes with it.

But in the Arab world I have a hard time believing that members of Islam would have changed their stance an iota. I am sure that most would take the same stand. That the means are offensive no matter the group offended. They would have stood with Christians against the offensive Andres Serrano’s exhibit as Christians should stand with Moslems against burning Korans.

Making a point with discourse, rhetoric and logic is much more difficult than ginning up hatred with offensive actions. There is no reason for anyone to create friction where there should be none. To do so shows that person has an agenda that is in contravention to the interests of Humanity. That is not self interest or being rational in any way. It is stupid shortsightedness. Because the only possible outcome from such actions are bad.

Would those same people who condemn the Koran burnings still condemn it if it was in the name of art… And happily force Moslems to pay for it?

Why?

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

The Romantic Anti Capitalist

Posted on September 16, 2010 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that The ideas demanding communal aims are sophistry at it’s most dangerous.

The call for communal goals is the swan song of the romantic anti capitalist. From the folk ethos to the green movement there have always been people who call for communal aims. They claim the “moral” high ground yet decry if someone on the other side says the word moral. Because to the romantic anti capitalist the campaign takes the form of a moral imperative.

The campaign is of course the destruction of the market system. That is the goal. Communal aims are the means. Whether the notion resides in the id, ego or super ego, it is the overriding incentive for the romantic anti capitalist.

Calls for communal goals are ironic in that they are always espoused by people who pretend to advance the idea of “individualism.” The irony is that individuality as a philosophy is diametrically opposed to any communal goal. They are fundamentally incompatible.

Because a communal goal or aim subjugates the individual to the collective. The individual is not an end he or she is a means. The means to the communal end. The philosophy of individualism is that the individual must be allowed to make his or her own way. Like the point of the movie Easy Rider. Freedom is the highest goal for the individual. But freedom in one generates fear in another, etc…

This tension in the progressive philosophy is never examined… Probably because of where it would lead…

Adam Smith talked about how the political process can undermine economic progress. Universally the problems he lined out went back, in chain of causality, to one factor… People being foolishly self interested. Ignoring societal good for short term personal gain.

During the 1970s there was a lively debate why the economy had stagnated and yet inflation was out of control. Many pointed to the problems of political interference in markets to support this or that worthy cause. This debate was a mirror of earlier debates about the political process and economics. Basically some argued that democracy itself undermines economies by the mechanisms I have described.

We at the International Capitalist Party observe that the demographic shift in the labor force (large scale movement of women from unpaid to paid market activity), drove up unemployment. The added familial income driving up inflation. That inflation then drove up the cost of capital driving down investment in productive capacity. Because more profit could be made by investing in bonds at the high rate of return the high inflation generated.

The romantic anti capitalist knows economic history. They study the laws economics to find a way to game them. The wily romantic anti capitalist uses the propensity of democracy to undermine capitalism… to undermine capitalism. They know that if they can get a real economic downturn to happen people might begin to blame capitalism itself. Like we have heard from members of the Obama administration. Proclaiming ‘Capitalism is dead‘. (More like wishful thinking).

In this very real economic downturn, it is clear to see who is a romantic anti capitalist, by their rhetoric and actions. It is also clear to see who is more selfless in their regard for the common good. By their rhetoric and actions…

Because in reality the individual is ennobled by his magnanimity… Governments and societies are destroyed by it.

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