Health Care Reform

Posted on December 16, 2009 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that if I were to be president, (God forbid), and I wanted to make health care reform my priority I would publicly adopt a three or four year plan.

The first year I would announce the initiative and ask for public input from the other side. After a reasonable time getting options from all sides I would then set down with the leaders of the legislature and discuss what might be the best and where we should point the debate.

The second year would be devoted to public debate. Put a generic one page bill on the table. Then debate in the open, fairly, and with all points offered. I would then get some money from congress to have a poll. Get the opinion of the American people. Having a year to debate and crush the vitriol from the issue would tire some of the partisan rhetoric. Taking a year or two to debate a bill of such magnitude would be simply common sense.

The third year would be writing the bill. More debate would follow. I would insist the bill be no more than one hundred typed pages. If it needs to be longer than that it is overreaching. Publish the bill in major news outlets and have the final debate then vote.

Of course this description belies my, (blissful) ignorance of the sausage making that is… modern legislation. The quality of which we all see.

When government takes on a Herculean task as reforming something, as complex and affecting every citizen, like the American health care system, it should act slowly, openly, and deliberately. Debate should be public and one goal should be front and center. “The interests of the American people come first.” In this way the president would get the people on his side.

The American people are not stupid despite what our leaders think. We make cunning decisions every day. It is the nature of the capitalist system we live in. We have to be sly enough to detect a scam. Or else we learn to be. We have to be cagy about our work and investments. If we are entrepreneurs we have to be amoral with our employees. (In the case of having to lay someone off to sustain the business). People who live in a capitalist system are naturally sly when it comes to being horn swaggled.

Being naturally cagy Americans are also busy people. We have a hundred irons in the fire. Days and nights filled with active production American people’s time is limited and valuable. Politics takes time. Americans would rather the government just went on and didn’t interfere with their lives too much. But are too busy to get involved. Nothing gets an American’s ire like having his wealth taken. In this way people are people. As were the people in Machiavelli’s Florence, people loath loosing wealth, especially to a scam. And nothing gets the attention of an American quicker than a scam he detects threatening his wealth (or health).

Like, why does this legislation have to be passed in the dark of night, as fast as possible? Thousands of pages no one has read and yet there is negotiations about the content? Why does it need to be thousands of pages? Why do the taxes kick in immediately and the benefits later? Is it wise to raise taxes in recession? Why all the scare tactics? Apparently if government doesn’t take on this giant entitlement the US will go bankrupt? Is it thousands of pages to guarantee no one will read it… American’s see the inept slight of hand.

So, by acting like a shifty eyed car sales man, the government is getting exactly what it seeks to avoid… attention. The government wants the American people to just go on about their lives and ignorantly let their liberty be stolen. But in it’s zeal to grab power the progressives have overreached. The American people are awake. If this leviathan of a bill passes there will be hell to pay at the ballot box.

Hell… there probably already will be.

Posted in economy, Law | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Human Sovereignty

Posted on December 13, 2009 by john

Dear Friends, It seems to me that any utilitarian/stoic philosophy of government must have at it’s core the belief that people are “ends in themselves“. To believe otherwise opens the door to despotism.

To be an “end in oneself” means that there is no other reason you and I are here except that we are. We are not here to serve some other purpose than what we will. We are sovereign. The belief that we are an end in ourselves is the premise of the belief that it is wrong to enslave another. (To make use of a human being as a tool).

To make mankind the end and people the means… as does communism, socialism and progressivism, is to lower our status to slavery. A tool for the Elite, through government, to exploit. The enlightenment was for naught. Hume and Kant argued to the air. For our new philosophy has us back to the right of kings, (in another guise). Socrates arguments about justice were premised on people being an end in themselves… sovereign. Because if we are not sovereign then justice is a figment of our imaginations. A slight of hand to keep us gullible weaklings in line. To serve the Elite.

So any logic proposed that denies in any way the sovereignty on the human being is fundamentally flawed and is sophistry. Logic that appears correct but really is meant to deceive. In fact to tricking another into choosing a path that is disadvantageous to him.

What would be examples of this form of sophistry? Arguments that are premised that you or I should have our property taken from us, by government, and put to a use that is not advantageous to us. Like taxing us for supporting some good that the Elite see fit. Art, earmarks, “special” contracts granted, favorable legislation, etc…are some examples. When money is coerced from us, and spent on something that we don’t use and will never use, it is denying our individual sovereignty.

Another example would be if government borrows money in my name and sends it to get a certain faction more power. That is patently against the best interests of society in general and mine in particular. The ability for government to borrow money without restraint is a direct affront to the sovereignty of the human being.

What difference between the Pharaoh who coerced a month a year from his subjects to build a monumental tomb for himself, or the president, that coerces three months labor worth of money from his subjects? The Pharaoh is less demanding of his subjects property.

If property, in the form of money, is coerced from us and spent to protect us from tyrants that would invade our country and subject us to despotism it does not deny our sovereignty. The slippery slope is close at hand however. Is it, in our true best interest, to use our money to “protect” us from an invader that would liberate us… from tyranny? Or to coerce us to spend the blood of our children to protect a tyrants power? What do you think the answer is?

Free will of the governed. One of the cornerstones of constitutionalism. That the governed must freely will the government they are subjected to. Constitutions were meant to keep the powers of government in check. When we see constitutions that exceed one hundred pages it is plain to see that people don’t trust governments. But, a would be depot is always singing the siren song of wanting to “help” his people in some way. If only he had the “power” to “help,” he would improve the lot of his people… They decry that constitutions are by their natures sets of negative rights.

Cambyses (as related in Herodotus) asked his most trusted advisor one day, “what do the people think of me?” The advisor pleaded that the opinion was not his but the people thought Cambyses drunk too often. To which Cambyses pulled out his bow, knocked an arrow, and fired the bolt directly into the heart of his advisors oldest son. Cambyses then said “I have drunk quite a lot today, if I in fact do drink too much my aim would have been off. If the arrow has not pierced the heart of your son, I agree, I drink too much.” Then ordered the palace guards to cut open the child. The guards said the arrow went directly through the heart of the youth.

The youth’s death proved, by the logic of the governor, Cambyses didn’t drink too much… He was used effectively.

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

Copenhagen

Posted on December 9, 2009 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, that if the treaty at Copenhagen is passed and the industrialized world sends climate reparations to third world countries, the best investment in the stock market will be in armaments manufacturers. The money to be made there will be phenomenal!

What is the first thing a tin pot dictator does when he is handed money? He upgrades his army. Eventually building his confidence so he thinks he can tyrannize other people too. So he launches a war. This is the natural state of affairs of tyrants. Read history.

The central theme of the climate talks in Copenhagen are climate reparations. The industrialized world has contributed to “green house warming” in industrializing. So the people of the industrialized nations should pay the tyrants of poor countries to make amends for the climate damage. Damage that will be disproportionately born by those in impoverished countries. The negative externality of industrialization. Assuming global climate change is anthromorphic (man made).

Sending billions of dollars to third world dictators will inevitably lead to war. There is no other outcome possible. As soon as they get their hands on the money they will arm themselves. History is the perfect example. No nation has become wealthy without arming to protect it’s wealth. It is human nature. The problem here is that when billions of dollars are transferred to third world tyrants through the utterly corrupt UN not a single penny will get to the man on the street… Unless a car bomb blows up a convoy of money.

When something is gained with little or no effort little or no value is given it. Another maxim of human nature. When the governments of impoverished countries get money it will be spent on every foolish notion that the dictator’s mistress has. The legislative bodies will squander millions and will further impoverish their people. Instead of building infrastructure they will “go out to eat” with the money. It will be like when a person hit’s the lottery. They usually crash and burn. But don’t count on the UN to help.

The UN will look the other way as millions are stashed. Exactly like the “Oil For Food” scandal. The UN scandal that no one was punished for. A scandal that directly led to the deaths of thousands of innocent people at the hands of Saddam Hussein. Oil for Food was a debacle and showed in no uncertain terms the corruption of the UN when it comes to money. Even Kofi Annon’s son was implicated. But again no one was punished. Not even the appearance of accountability was offered. To expect an utterly mendacious group like the UN to handle money is like expecting Bernie Madoff to hand out the money!

Regardless of the fact that the globe might be heating or cooling, (some of the original data was destroyed by the IPCC so their findings cannot be verified), mankind’s hand in it is diminutive at best. Note that Mars has warmed in lockstep with Earth since 1959. (The year Earth started heating).

Here are a few corroborating links;

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/gallery/PIA04295.html

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/CO2_Science_rel/

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/17977/Mars_Is_Warming_NASA_Scientists_Report.html

Of course Climate scare mongers torture logic to claim that Mars warming is due to albedo and not anything common to Earth and Mars… Like the Sun. They claim it is more likely that Mars has somehow changed colors the very time we evil people are warming the planet by improving the lot of Mankind. Merely a coincidence according to them. One in a billion coincidence.

In this case we must forget the most simple cause and go for the one that will, predictably and certainly, have negative externalities like, Wars, impoverishing the industrialized world, lower standard of living for everyone on the planet and setting up the framework for a world tyranny. This, when Mars negates the possibility, that climate change is man made? Add to it that the IPCC has been caught in the worst sins a scientist can commit, in the name off man made climate change and I ask why?

Industrialists will be further enriched. They have clout and like enrichment no matter the bad effects to society. More importantly, socialists, communists and progressives will get their greatest desire… POWER.

Power to control the heat in our homes, how far and what we drive, what we eat, even our procreation, they will have a valid reason to intrude into every facet of our lives! Between climate change regulation and the government Health care takeover in the US those seeking power over the masses will have the tools at their disposal.

But hey… I‘m sure they are as virtuous as the driven in snow…

Posted in economy, International Power, Mercy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Bubble Bubble, Toil and Trouble

Posted on December 6, 2009 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me people are incapable of learning from the past. Doesn’t anyone think, maybe, gold prices might be bubbling a little bit? I mean come on… unprecedented run up in price, all time highs being set daily now, and most importantly people are buying gold because it is going up so fast. Isn’t that the very definition of a bubble forming?

Hard to see where a price bubble could be a bad thing… but lets look at the subject.

Real Estate bubbles are historic in that they have been happening since the middle ages and probably before. Stock bubbles are a more recent phenomenon and commodity prices are classic bubbles. Think about the price drops of some commodities that have experienced their price bubbles bursting. Think rhodium between 2004’s price buildup to 2007’s climax of $10,000.00 an ounce. to $1000.00 an ounce in 2008, (a 90% price drop). Gold is a commodity just like rhodium and is subject to the same market forces.

Another thing driving up the price of gold is that production is outpaced by demand. Demand that is largely driven by an expectation that the price will go up indefinitely. But I ask you what happens when the price of a commodity goes up drastically? Production of that commodity goes up as soon as it can be ramped up. When gold was relatively cheap many gold mines became unprofitable. They are being brought back on line as we speak. They are a source of a potential prick.

The profoundly unwise monetary policy of the US is also another factor in the gold bubble. The US government has been printing and borrowing money way too fast. This is damaging the perceived value of US caveat currency. When this happens people seek a better store for their wealth. Gold is a historic store of wealth. But if the price of gold were to drop in half, (which is not unlikely in a bubble burst), then what good that store? Once the price bubble bursts the price will be suppressed for some time.

If America’s caveat currency looses it’s value do to it’s foolish spending, do you think the US government might entertain the thought of nationalizing the gold supply, seizing personal gold held by it‘s citizens? Like has done in the past by progressives. Making a potential barb from the us government.

China is buying gold at a fast pace. As both a store of wealth and as a tool to balance it’s currency. But if the perceived value of gold were to drop for whatever reason, China could bankrupt herself, but the price would still plummet. Opinion is like that… it can turn on a dime and is as powerful as a tsunami. That is what makes bubbles so dangerous.

Coming on the heels of the financial industry’s near death experience a gold bubble bursting could send the world into depression. The caveat being the bubble could go up for several more years, (rhodium rose for three years before the fall), making it more dangerous or it could burst tomorrow, if the conditions present themselves.

By their nature bubble’s are unpredictable. The only thing that generally defines a bubble is after it has burst people claim it was obvious. The truth is few people see a bubble forming… but everyone sees it burst.

I am not saying money cannot be made in a bubble. The trick is to get out just before it bursts. Those that do make out exceptionally well. Those that don’t… Well, some try to fly.

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

Are Our Votes Really Free?

Posted on December 2, 2009 by john

Dear Friends,

I am always amazed when I hear someone say they have always voted for one party and will never vote for the other. Especially when they don’t agree with one sliver of the platform of the party they vote for.

Many older people fall into this category. They will say they are democrats and will never vote republican. When I ask if they are advocates for abortion rights they say emphatically no! When asked if they believe that the government has a role to play in improving people’s lives. They act like I’m insane to ask such a thing. Because they want the government out of their lives. They believe in lower taxes and more freedom. But always vote for the democrat party?

The reason is they were raised to believe that republicans are the party of the rich. They aren’t rich and so they aren’t republicans. This semi myth is propagated by the unbiased media. The republican party was a party of the rich when Hoover was president and was a progressive. The republicans have been shedding the old guard since.

Several decades ago a term was coined… Rhino republicans, by the conservatives in the republican party. They didn’t believe the republican party should stand for exactly the same things the democrat party stood for. Unfortunately the leaders of the republican party are still the old guard. They are progressive to the core. So the republican party is still somewhat a party of the rich. What is not well publicized is the fact that the democrat party is even more a party of the rich.

Rhetoric to the side, the democrat party is run by and for, the rich. That they claim to stand for the little guy is just politics. They no more stand for the little guy than did Chairman Mao. Unless you believe that to stand for the little guy means to impoverish him, starve his children, murder him if he dissents, and suppress his rights. If that is your definition of “helping the little guy” you are a progressive!

Now that progressives control the democrat party and still retain some control of the republican party in the US the American people are at great peril. Progressives are not good people. They have advocated evil measures in the past and have shown no remorse for them. What evil doctrines you ask? Breeding people like cattle for one. The progressives had no problem with eugenics at the turn of the twentieth century. They were good friends with Hitler and Mussolini. They have advocated as lately as the 1970’s putting sterilants in the drinking water of the US. Among many others. (Of course they wouldn’t ever have to be subjected to these extreme measures themselves).

These measures are premised that human beings are not an end in themselves. To believe these things are acceptable actions by a government one must believe that people are no better than cows. To equate people to cows is evil. To believe that people are simply subjects to experiment on is evil. To have the hubris to actually advocate theses things is evil. Ergo Progressives are not good people.

How to change the trajectory of the US? The only way is to get people in office that see human beings as an end in themselves. To simply ask if they see people as an and is of no use. Politicians are consummate liars. They are typically sociopaths and have no remorse about anything they do. Look at history and read Plutarch. To that end, getting good people in office, there must be an effective means.

As a means to get better people (non progressive) some argue that the republican party should be purged of the Elite. Rush Limbaugh is on this side. Some argue that a third party is the only answer. Others have empty hope. You can come up with your own answer but it must be done. Everything the government is doing right now is imperiling the American people’s rights, liberty, economy, and posterity.

Progressives are wealthy, powerful, cunning and patient. They have worked it so that every American must vote for a progressive whether a democrat or a republican. Their second biggest ally is the unbiased media. But unwitting dupes that vote without using their minds are the progressive’s ace in the hole.

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

Governent and the Job Market

Posted on November 29, 2009 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that if the government wanted to actually lower the unemployment rate in the US it would act as such.

Everything the government is doing will inevitably lead to a lower demand for labor. From the health care initiative to the cap and trade forced reductions in carbon output the government is aiming at reducing the demand for labor in the US.

Take Cap and Trade. It will produce a huge amount of new friction to doing business in the US. Costs will inevitably rise. Both of which erodes GDP growth. As GDP growth is curtailed by the higher cost of energy and the friction of regulation, the result is net loss of jobs.

More importantly the government is doing nothing to stimulate jobs. The bill entitled “Stimulus” was anything but. It’s focus was in government spending. Not on new job creation. Since the focus was on raising government spending to new levels… it was a resounding success. It never was focused on job creation so to say that it has failed in that respect is like saying the Medicare program failed in putting a man on the moon. It didn’t do what it was not designed to do. Government rhetoric aside.

Judging from the actions of the people in charge in the US they have as their goal to reduce the demand for labor in the US. A cynic might say that they are intentionally creating a dependant class. In place of the middle class. To do so, do away with the middling element, would result in a people that are dependant on the ruler. (Hard to see where that could go bad). But as I said, a cynic would believe such a thing.

So what could the government do if it really wanted to generate a demand for labor driving down the unemployment rate and raising the value of labor? What about; Targeted tax breaks to businesses that create jobs, announce a first time business startup tax break, change the regulation that funnels money from small business to ACRON, and cut taxes across the board for everyone.

Targeted tax breaks would lower the cost of labor. Lowering the cost of something of value gives people incentive to purchase that thing of value. If a job would be of marginal value to an employer and the imbedded cost of that laborer is lowered the metrics change. The marginally profitable job becomes quite profitable. Making it far more likely a position will be added to the payroll.

A first time business tax and regulation break would have more effect then it’s cost would indicate. Most businesses don’t make a profit for several years but the rhetoric would create a perception. The chief benefit would be that perception, that it is much easier to start a business, than it previously was. Many people who have good ideas are stymied by what they see as daunting regulation, taxes, and some simply fear the government. By removing, (even if only in the minds of individuals) this pernicious incentive, the number of startups would go up dramatically. After all, isn’t small startups that will generate the next Microsoft?

In a fit of stupidity the government changed the regulation of a law that had at it’s core to help fund small businesses through short term downturns. The banks and lending institutions that participated in the program were told that instead of lending to small businesses they could donate money to ACORN. The banks and lending institutions recognized their cost of doing business would go down and their political clout would rise if they donated money to ACORN instead of lending to small businesses. With all the paperwork and government regulatory costs associated with lending to business the cost calculation was easy. So ACORN’s nest has been padded at the cost to small business. (the engine of job creation). What doe’s this action say about the real objectives of the US government?

More importantly an across the board tax cut would put money into the hands of the people that produced it. If people are smart enough to earn the money they should be smart enough to spend it. But government is of another opinion… The fools would waste it on junk like food, clothing, housing, entertainment, paying down debt etc… the government can spend it on something much more valuable for the American people like, A specialized zoo enclosure for animals a zoo will never get, $500.00 hammers, bridges to nowhere, and other such enlightened projects.

But if more money is put into the hands of the people and less taken and spent by government the demand for labor would inevitably increase. More money in the hands of the people drives up demand for the things that require labor. Money in the hands of government is usually flushed down the toilet.

So… Rhetoric aside, what do the actions of the US government tell you?

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

Industrialists or Capitalists

Posted on November 25, 2009 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that we at the International Capitalist Party define “capitalist” differently than some other people. Our definition is; “A person who believes that the free market is the most just means to distribute the goods of society.” Not only that but; “And, acts on this belief by promoting perfect competition in every market.”

Most have the first part but not the second. Many people who are called capitalist are not capitalists at all… they are industrialists. Industrialists believe; “My good over the good of society.” It is manifest in their every action. With hubris and greed they seek to undermine free markets, create monopoly, (which is the opposite of perfect competition), and hold power without consequence. In short they are the modern incarnation of Galba. (Before he became emperor).

Capitalists think the means of production should be held by individuals. Especially in the hands of many individuals. We don’t believe that the means of production should be concentrated in the hands of a few elite whether or not they are industrialists, communists, progressives, or socialists. A true capitalist believes that the means of production in the hands of the many are the engine of creation.

When tools are widely distributed in society an innate seed is sown in society that grows the economy. When people have tools, lathes, welders, shapers and milling machines they can fabricate things that they think up. Most will be futile but a few will be promising and a few of those will turn into a real profitable enterprise. It takes a lot of people trialing and erring to get a few great products. We all know what happens when someone hits upon a winner… society wins.

Jobs are created building the invention on a larger scale. Money flows into the local economy from the new jobs and for plant upkeep and raw input. The roads are sometimes upgraded to meet the new demand. The list is endless. But it takes many trying for few to succeed. When no one has the ability to try no one succeeds. Economic growth is stunted.

Industrialists are too enamored by the monumental potential of mass production. Without doubt mass production has bettered the lives of everyone on the planet. Even cheap wind up radios are a boon where electricity is scarce and often non existent. The benefits of mass production are beyond question.

But it is not in giant industries that paradigm quaking ideas are produced. It is by individuals. The economy lives and dies by the small entrepreneur having and idea and starting a business. These small businesses in the US provide most of the jobs (and the ideas).

Industrialists seek to use government to warp the market giving them some advantage. Whether it is trade regulation or tax loop holes they are always conniving. Where a capitalist could be anyone who believes as the first paragraph states. We may scheme to get rich, but a true capitalist of the International Capitalist Party bent, will use just means to that end. Plying politicians with bribes to get a leg up are not just means.

So I can see how some people can mistakenly believe that capitalists are bad. They have confused a capitalist with an industrialist. Who in our minds are no different than a communist, progressive or socialist… they all connive to get power for unjust ends.

Oh… and also believe power concentrated in the hands of the few is good…

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Legitimate Role of Government.

Posted on November 22, 2009 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that redistribution of wealth is not a legitimate role of government.

It presupposes government has the right to the property of individuals. When government can legally take your property and mine it is no different than enslaving us. Property represents labor. That is how the vast majority of us get the money to buy our other property. When government has taken up the legal right to seize at their discretion, our property, they have in fact seized the time from our lives we gave in labor to purchase that property. So Taking property from a working person is tantamount to enslaving him or her for the time he or she put into acquiring said property.

The premise of redistribution is undermined by the nature of government. Money will not flow from those that have too much to those that have too little it will flow from those that are politically weak to those that are politically strong. That is undeniably the nature of government. As Bastiat said in his treatise on Law, people see government as a means to plunder the wealth of others and to protect their wealth. That is why politics are so factious.

Government is controlled by the politically strong and is only constrained by a constitution. The power of the Elite, that make up the politically strong , is inversely proportional to the power of the constitution that restrains them. If the constitution allows for the redistribution of wealth it gives the Elite, not only the power to tangentially enslave the nation but it will give them, a tool for the wielding of the masses to unambiguously nefarious ends.

In the past, when government acted the Robin Hood, it has always ended badly. Julius Caesar used the masses as a tool to destroy the Republic. He gave freely to the poor to buy their loyalty. As Machiavelli said, when faced with the choice of having the people or the aristocracy on his side the wise prince chooses the people to be on his side. The aristocracy are few and can be bribed the people are many and can fall like a scythe on the few. Many other times the ability to redistribute wealth has been used, by the would be tyrant to gain the trust of the people… before enslaving them.

The true role of government is to protect individual property. Why else have government? If not to protect our property from those would be Thrasymachus’s (unjust politically powerful people) that would seize our property. Which includes protecting us from foreign thieves of our property.

It is by this means that government promotes prosperity. When people are given the just use of property they have acquired by their own labor the lot of man is bettered. When people are comfortable in their possessions all people seek to acquire possessions. We put more energy into making than in protecting. Thus society is bettered. More and more is available for people to have better lives.

When we fear for that which we have got from our labor, the opposite is true, we put more energy into protecting our property than in building. The lot of man is lowered. Less is available to people to better their lives. Less and less is produced. The standard of living is reduced and reduced. It is all about incentives. Redistribution is nothing but perverse incentives. Incentives that put too much power in the hands of government.

Even a cursory look at history shows the folly of too much power in the hands of government. But the sirens keep up their song and the masses listen. Nation after nation is swept against the shoals of redistribution… I wonder if that last crunch was our economic keel snapping?

Maybe someday, people will have matured to the point they will simply laugh when the Elite are crying for redistribution, and will see them for who they are. When that happens, and it will happen, prosperity will be rampant. Until then we might have to swim for it!

Posted in economy, Law | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Karzai and Afghanistan

Posted on November 18, 2009 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that if Hamid Karzai really wants what is best for Afghanistan he would announce that he will not run again and the rest of his term will be focused on cleaning up the Afghan government.

This would clean up his image so to speak. He would go from the guy who rigged an election to the guy who voluntarily renounced his power for the good of the nation. That would give him much more moral clout. Hamid Karzai would then be the first modern leader in Afghanistan to voluntarily step down.

The mere announcement would show that Karzai has at his heart the best interests of Afghanistan. One of the great political philosophers said, what makes a king, a king, is public opinion. If the people woke up one morning and forgot he was king, he would no longer be king and would in fact, he would be ridiculed for trying to push the point. So if public opinion is that Karzai has the best interests of Afghanistan at heart the job of ruling will be that much easier.

It would also give him moral standing to ask people to step down. Karzai could legitimately make the argument that a person was fine at the job, allowing them to save face, but need to step down to allow new ideas. Just like Karzai would be doing.

The announcement alone would focus the people of Afghanistan. Even though there was an election the people of Afghanistan never thought there would be substantive change. They knew the fix was in for Karzai. But the devil you know.. They fear the unknown more than the Karzai government’s corruption. If Karzai made a pledge to step down after his term is served , fear will focus the minds… of the people, the Elite, and the bureaucracy. Fear of who or what will come next.

It would establish a precedent. The next president would be under much pressure to step down after two terms in office… Like Karzai had done. This keeps churn in the top management of a country. Churn of officials keeps corruption to a minimum. (Barring a NUMA). It also helps minimize stagnation of ideas.

Even taken to the point of constitutional reform. Establishing a term limit for the President. Today the Afghans are debating limiting the powers of the President in Afghanistan. If instead, they limit the term of office and the access to the military, they will achieve the same ends with less turmoil.

History would treat Karzai better. Think about how history remembers… Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius. Cyrus is largely remembered for releasing the Jews. Cambyses is remembered in Herodotus as a blood thirsty drunk. Darius for being defeated by the Greeks at the battle of Marathon. (The other one for being defeated by Alexander). Who is remembered with the most warmth? Cyrus… for saving the Jews. Great men are remembered for their most humane acts or their least humane acts. The choice is the actors.

So it seems that it would benefit Karzai to announce he will step down, the country of Afghanistan would benefit, the people would benefit and the children of Afghanistan would benefit. To do so would be the classic win, win. Unless Karzai has different aims…

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

Who Should Lower Their Standard of Living?

Posted on November 15, 2009 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that all the answers from the left are to lower our standard of living. You and I must lower our standard of living… voluntarily or if necessary…

Listen to the premise of every public service message from the communists, socialists and progressives. Walk more drive less, bring a bag to the store, buy organic, use more environmentally friendly power the list goes on and on. The underlying premise is that we live too well and must ratchet down our standard of living.

The communists, socialists and progressives argue that Americans and Europeans live too well and we should live on less. They never argue for more for the third world. They only argue for less. They claim the world could not bear the human race if we all enjoyed the standard of living of the modern US. That is of course sophistry.

Sophistry is intentionally using logic fallaciously and especially to misdirect. They argue, the plurality of scientists, believe in man made climate change. But they eschew argument. If their case were really so powerful they would gladly welcome argument. When we have the better argument we love to do battle. We are certain of victory and in doing so we show the masses the true course.

But when we know our arguments are weak we eschew argument in favor of character assassination, and claiming the science is settled and we need no longer discuss the point. (I’m sure the people who voted to put Socrates to death felt the same way). The matter was settled and need no longer be questioned. Nothing in science is ever settled perfectly. It is not possible. Even such basic theories as, what is a planet, are subject to revision.

Power is, was and always will be, a great motivator of men. Many men in history have claimed to be liberators when the opposite was true. They showed their intentions with their deeds. Their words were mere shadows used as a means to veil their true ends. In this way modern sophists like communists, socialists and progressives argue the rest of use must live on less. While they live on more and more.

The Nobel Laureate Al Gore is reported to spend thousands of dollars a month on electricity. (On a house he is not in most of the time). Yet you and I should walk to work? People in Africa should keep living in abject poverty? (But with free healthcare to keep them dependant). And most importantly we should lower our standard of living to suit the Elite?

Their actions belie their intentions. If they were indeed concerned, to nearly the extent they claim, about man made climate change they would act as they preach. (Owning a prius as part of a fleet is not acting as one preaches nor is paying oneself thousands of dollars as ‘green investment‘ to offset one‘s copious carbon usage). Actions don’t lie… people do.

So we are to be very concerned about how much we use from the planet. I should burn an extra few hours from my day to walk to work. My time is so cheap, to those that don’t live it, a few hours is nothing. Thy don’t feel a thing, on their private plane to Europe, when I am walking in below zero temperatures.

Like “no idling’ ordinances some cities are implementing. It is much more important that, a lawyer who sits in a heated and air conditioned office all day, not smell exhaust fumes as he or she walks to the bistro for lunch, than the worker who has to work in the heat of the summer and the bitter cold of the winter to get warm or cool off. The lawyers don’t feel a bit of the frost bite the worker gets so the lawyer doesn’t have to be inconvenienced.

The Elite all believe that if only we stupid ignorant fools simply did as we are told the world would become Eden. They believe it in their hearts. They believe we are like bratty children in not behaving. We insist on driving SUVs, (that should only be for the Elite), keep using shopping bags, and driving to work. Some of use are even hording money in the form of paying off debt.

What the Elite don’t recognize is that we are human beings. We all want better. For our children, our family, our friends, and ourselves. Everyone on Earth. We all want better… not worse. So wouldn’t it be better to work within the constraints of the attributes of human beings? More importantly treat us as such. As Kant said, we have free will and are thus efficient cause. As efficient cause we are an end in ourselves… Not a means for the Elite.

There have always been people that are willing to drink the coolaid but the rest of us see that the emperor has no clothes. When we mention it however, those that have invested to much in the emperors new look, feel they are beset upon. They must protect their honor and defend the tailor… Regardless of the facts. For if he is wrong they are wrong and are fools… That can never be.

Posted in Group Politics, Mercy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment