Lawyers and Society

Posted on November 11, 2009 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that Lawyers are little more than parasites on the corpus Humana. The job of an attorney is to facilitate transactions between people to allow capitalistic enterprise to work. Attorneys have discovered however that if they throw roadblocks, loop holes, and sue whenever they can, they make far more money.

So Lawyers have eschewed their true function in society and have instead taken the path governed by greed. Not greed that is channeled to help the lot of man but greed that profoundly negatively affects the lot of man. As attorneys are complaining that big oil makes too much money… one year it was $30 billion dollars. That same year, lawyers made well over $100 billion, after tax. Lawyers complain that the health care system should be socialized using the single payer model but are in far more need of being reigned in than any doctor. Moreover Lawyers are fond of calling others greedy. (What else is the premise of the argument that “pay for services” cause doctors do too much testing)? When in fact they are the most greedy people on Earth! They feed their greed at the cost to mankind!

Every time a judge finds that a criminal who cuts his arm breaking into a person’s home is entitled to damages they create more demand for attorneys. Every time a judge finds a loophole in a solid contract they create a greater demand for lawyers. Every time a judge finds that I am liable for your action they create more of a demand for attorneys. Every time a legislative body requires more paperwork and regulations for business to work they drive the demand for attorneys. All of which drives up the cost of doing business and therefore slows business (job) growth.

The legal justice system in the US feeds the greed of today’s modern lawyer. An advocate they are… no more. Divorce lawyers keep former lovers at each others throats. Instead of giving up a $100.00 item lawyers will encourage their victims to pay them $1,000 to fight for it. All the while saying they are basically a plumber who charges by the hour.

What plumber could come into your home to fix a leak, break every faucet in your home, even ones that didn’t formerly leak, charge you five times his quote and act like you are a jerk? Lawyers would tear him to pieces. But they don’t have any oversight. They are self governed.

If self government is such a good idea for the Elite (lawyers) then why not for the rest of us? For a law to be valid it must be universally valid. If we cannot be trusted to self govern then how much more those that govern us?? Self government does not work because, as Hsun Ching said, “mankind’s congenital nature is evil.” in that we are self indulgent and our self indulgence is learned away.

Maybe before we destroy the health care industry in the US we should look into creating a single payer system for lawyers? Why should rich people be the only people who can afford to protect their property in a lawsuit? Why is it that only rich people should be able to use the legal justice system to drive their own personal agendas?

Like shutting down progress they don’t like. Road building has become exponentially more expensive since trust funders have their lawyers suing in environmental court. A road was ready to be constructed in Vermont a few years ago, the machinery was on site and initial construction had began, and some judge shut it down. He claimed an environmental study’s timeframe had elapsed (because of the incessant lawsuits that took years to wind through the courts) and the road project must be stopped. Tens of Millions of dollars was wasted…. But what the judge really meant was, “we lawyers haven’t sucked enough money from this project yet. So you must waste millions of dollars of taxpayer’s hard earned money so we can be further enriched!”

That is the definition of a leech if you ask me. Leeching off the labor of those that produce. The legal system in the US is as much friction to the right ordering of society as are all the criminal acts combined. They suck money from the system and waste it just like government. Together Lawyers and government provide a huge weight holding back the working man and woman in this country. But working people mean nothing to someone making $200.00 an hour to destroy people‘s lives.

So yes, I believe that lawyers in the twentieth century, an masse, have decided to go for the gold. Instead of helping society function they hinder it. Making more money even as they deserve less. But when your faction controls the presidency, the legislative bodies and the Supreme Court you have some clout! Madison be damned.

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

Happiness

Posted on November 8, 2009 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that to find the means to true happiness we have to rectify the term happiness. What is it to actually be happy? Some say happiness consists of material wealth but many who have great material wealth are on Prozac. Some argue those that have great power are happy. But we know this not to be true. No matter the power someone has it is never enough. Especially the more power over others an individual has the more unhappy they are. Others claim great physical ability is the path to happiness. But many if not most top athletes are on steroids to enhance their physical prowess and are simply running a treadmill.

It may simply be that some of us are programmed, by our epigenetic/genetics, to be happy or to be unhappy. Or it may be that our childhood is paramount. But surely there are some means to happiness even with the misfortune of being preprogrammed or raised to be unhappy.

Happiness is not a thing. It cannot be held or touched. But it can be felt. A better approximation is that it is more of an intrinsic state of being rather than a feeling. A way of reacting.

Happiness must be something intrinsic. To be otherwise (extrinsic) lets open the door to the problem of poor old Job. (Who, even in his great misfortune, thanked god for a spec of moldy bread). So if happiness is intrinsic it should run across (extrinsic) groups. We see that it does. There are wealthy people who can be classified as happy and some that are not happy. Some athletes are happy and some are not. An unknown number of powerful people are happy and some are unhappy. But most importantly we see that some very poor people are happy while some are not. So some people in all these groups are happy and some are unhappy.

Being an intrinsic attribute we can say that happiness must involve some level of contentment with our lot in life. This was a tenet of Confucius. That people be content in their position. But many people are happy who have a great deal of drive. They are content now but seek glory later. So contentment cannot be the only sub definition of happiness. There must be more. Contentment in one’s lot being one of several.

What are the other attributes of those that are happy? Happy people react to outside stimulus much differently than unhappy people. If a generally happy person meets another’s eye and the other frowns the generally happy person, won’t take the frown personally, and won’t think about it again. But an unhappy person will most assuredly take the frown as a personal insult. Regardless if the frown was an insult or not, clearly the better reaction (for the benefit of the reactor), is to forget the incident. But to hold on to the insult, perceived or not does the holder a disservice, it makes them unhappy. So another attribute of happiness is the ability to forget a minor insult. Happy people don’t hold on to things that disserve them. When a generally happy person meets with misfortune he or she doesn’t hold onto the misfortune long. They release it and move on. They know to hold onto that which does us a disservice leads to unhappiness… Inevitably.

Another attribute of happy people is that they are kind to others. They know that to be kind to others does us a service in that, our self esteem is raised, our karma is elevated, our ability to help others is also enhanced. Every time we chose to help another it is more likely that we will do so again. As we sow the seeds of kindness we must not seek to reap. Else the kindness we bestow comes with strings and becomes a mere capitalistic exercise. Kindness must be done for no reason but for itself. It is an intrinsic good. A duty that builds us far more than it helps someone else.

So happiness is an intrinsic way of feeling about the world, requires foundational contentment, contains within it a way of reacting to outside stimulus, (that doesn’t hurt us more than the actual misfortune), and has a basic kindness to it. I am sure that there are other more deep and profound attributes of happiness that I have left out in my muddled thinking, but, I believe that these are the fundamental attributes of happiness. Ones that we can all achieve if we want, endeavor, and persevere to.

Posted in philosophy | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Republicans Repurposed

Posted on November 3, 2009 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that if the American Republican party wants to know why they are no longer in power in Washington they need look no further than Diedre Scozzafava. The republican Elite chose her to run in a very conservative district. She is, as has been proven by history, far to the left of the constituents in the area. So much so that the people felt they must make a stand. So they put up Doug Hoffman as an independent.

It would be like an extremely liberal community having a very conservative democrat and a conservative republican running. Regardless of their vote they would be sending a conservative to congress from a liberal community. The congressman or woman wouldn’t reflect the views of their constituents. In this case liberals would certainly put up another candidate to run against the two conservatives… as would be their right.

So in the end the republican Elite chose, that the people of a conservative district, must have a socialist (democrat) or a progressive (republican). This reflects the purpose of the republican Elite. If they had at their core values smaller government, less intrusive regulation, lower taxes or even conservative family values, they would have chosen someone who more accurately reflected the people of the district and theirs. They didn’t.

Further proof of the point is that, after Diedre Scozzafava backed out of the race, she backed the democrat! (I wonder how many of the republican Elite do too). I recall Newt Gingrich backed Diedre Scozzafava. Do you think he still agrees with her point of view now? There are even rumors in upstate New York that she was going to change her affiliation to democrat.

We know the leaders of the American democratic party are communists, progressives, and socialists. Now we have further proof that the American republican party is led by the same type of people. (At least people who have the same aim). So why vote for a wannabe democrat? Why not vote for the real thing? If both parties of a dual party republic, like the US, are headed by exactly the same people, what is the difference from China? Single party rule.

But the Leftists in the unbiased media declaim that republicans should stand for anything. (Goaded by the republican elite). They circle hawkishly over conservative lawmakers while turning a blind eye to their friends minor infractions, like, trading postal vouchers for money to buy drugs with, lawmakers caught taking bribes, tax evasion, DUI death resulting, sex with pages, and on and on. If you look at who has the get out of jail free cards in our society you will see who the real Elite are.

Republicans (who should stand for nothing) must accept all points of view under their tent else they are a small tent party. This sophistry is promulgated constantly in the unbiased media. Of course the democrat party is never called to include. People who are right to life are prevented from giving speeches in the democratic convention. People that disagree with any plank of the democrat platform are shouted down.

Is it a good idea to take advice from those that want to see you dead? Sane people argue no. So why does the republican Elite agree with the unbiased media that they need to include people that disagree with every plank of the republican party? Like Diedre Scozzafava… Because they share the same goals!

Popcorn; If I say I like popcorn yet act like I don’t… The actions of the republican Elite show they don’t have the best interests of the USA and the World in mind…. Regardless of their talk. They don’t want to divest the National government of power. They want to increase the power and role of government in the lives of the people… just like the democrats. So, given these two choices, how do the American people vote? For the (Communist, Progressive, Socialist) candidate or the (Communist, Progressive, Socialist) candidate? Is it any wonder that the American people are frustrated at their government?

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

Israeli Palestinian Differences

Posted on November 1, 2009 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that Jewish settlement of the West Bank is a tractable problem… If both sides want long term peace.

The Jews and the Palestinians could exchange land. Land that is largely settled by Israelis in the west bank for a substantial land bridge along the Egyptian border connecting Gaza and the West Bank. Exchange equal land in the West Bank for land along the border. (Including land that has been ipso facto taken by the Israeli “wall.“ Were the two side to come to this agreement it would benefit them both.

The Palestinians would have a continual piece of land to hold sovereignty over. One that they can control politically as well as culturally. Palestinians (with the financial help of the Israeli state) could settle the new Palestinian land. Trade with Egypt should flourish.

Israel could shorten their boarders with potentially hostile neighbors drastically. A shorter border is easier to protect. Having a continuous Palestinian state would free up a great deal of military investments for use in more productive endeavors.

If the Palestinians have a shot at making a real Palestinian state. Not one that is utterly dependant on a hostile neighbor. They will work hard and make a good life for their children and their children’s children. I am certain that the Palestinian people will make good choices in their own governance once they are depressurized.

Today the Palestinian people are under the yoke of two tyrannies. One is the Israeli state. The other is their own hatred of the Israelis. It makes them allow rockets to be fired from their children’s playgrounds at other people‘s children‘s playgrounds. It makes them vote for a party they know will eventually oppress them. But they hope it will save them from the corrupt one they feel they were saddled with. Depressurize the Palestinian people and we may all be surprised at the refinement the Palestinians possess.

But Israel must work to make this happen. It won’t be easy… I don’t believe that the Israeli state will give up any land no matter if they are getting land in the West Bank. They feel it is their birthright… as do the Palestinians. But the hardest nut to crack will be getting the settlers that already occupy land on the future Palestinian West Bank to evacuate or be subject to the Palestinian authority.

I can see the horror in the faces of people in the world over at reading this. But there was a guy named William James who had a theory of philosophy… Pragmatism. Pragmatism is the basic philosophy of Capitalists and of the American people. If we all know something cannot work, namely a fractured Palestinian state, then why spend energy on it?

To continue to polish the turd doesn‘t make it any better. If it cannot work and has been proven not to work… try something new. The “plan for peace“ was rejected by Yassier Arafat in Washington DC when Bill Clinton even leveraged an agreement for part of Jerusalem to be capital of the Palestinian State. He knew that Palestine must be contiguous. The two parts must connect. Break that egg and the world might have a settlement of the Israeli Palestinian differences… Peace.

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

Global Climate Change as a Trojan Horse

Posted on October 28, 2009 by john

 

Dear Friends,
It seems to me that sending 67 billion dollars to Africa to recompense Africans for “global warming” is absolutely absurd. Here are a couple proponent articles on the subject; http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE57N26M20090824 and http://www.economist.com/world/middleeast-africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14376520
Who in their right mind believes that the money will help anyone who isn’t a member of the African Elite. Corruption is rife in African governments. I cannot think of one single African leader that is not corrupt and incompetent. Can you?
Every penny of the money, if sent, will go into the pockets of already rich tyrants. I am wondering how enriching evil dictators, who do nothing but lower the lot of the people in their care, will help global warming? If African tyrants have more money to spend on terrorizing people perhaps the people will forget about global warming… because of their suffering.
One thing I find interesting is that the global elite that claim we must act now have such an obvious agenda… to destroy individual sovereignty. Every prescription they offer will result in a global government. One from which global tyranny can sprout. The global Elite stand to gain a great deal. But you will be ridiculed if you mention they are greedy for power and money. When you think about it… aren’t we better off without self determination? Elite politicians can make all our decisions for us. Who knows better, what we as individuals need, but people we have never met and care nothing for us… or us?
The global Elite don’t really know if the planet is warming or cooling. They have renamed the phenomena global climate change because of their ignorance on the subject. They are spending billions of dollars, of our money, to study what will happen if the planet warms. Even as the planet cools. They don’t know if the planet is heating or cooling, but they do know one thing… whatever it is doing, it is our fault. 
They even discount the sun as a determiner of climate. The recent global cooling episode we have been in science 1998 is discounted as an anomaly. The lack of sunspot activity apparently has no affect on our climate. Just as the access of sunspot activity and the sun’s overpowering certain radio frequencies during the 1990s had no effect… according to the global Elite. 
I bet that if mankind were wiped from the planet now the temperature of the planet wouldn’t change half a degree. But, f the sun were removed from the solar system, the temperature would change drastically. Yet the Elite claim the sun has no effect on climate. Maybe I am wrong… maybe the planet would heat if the sun were removed from the solar system.
What about the planet Mars warming in virtual lockstep with Earth until 1998? How is that explained by the global Elite? The planet has changed color. I remember something in high school science class… Chemistry. There is some law that states color changes are a sign of a chemical reaction. I ask… what chemical reaction has taken place on Mars recently that didn’t happen over millions of years to now… why now? What is the cause? My Hyundai? 
But enriching African tyrants is critical! It must be done immediately! Else we are doomed! We have no time to think. We must act! Look at the track record of the global climate change alarmists. They were the same people who predicted the population bomb. Remember… the one that was a dud? Even third world countries have seen a fast decline in human fecundity. In the industrialized world fertility has reached an all time low. Articles are appearing warning of the graying time bomb. Not enough workers to provide for the many old people.
I am still waiting for the silent spring. DDT was outlawed resulting in thousands if not millions of deaths from malaria. But the world was saved. Slow death by malaria is the price others have to pay for the ideas of the Global Elite. You and I should be excited to die a slow sucking death for the ideas of some rich half wit moron with far too much power and too little wisdom.
I do understand how impoverishing Americans and Europeans will cut down global carbon emissions. We will have to go back to subsistence farming (if the Elite let us) after we transfer our wealth through the Elite to Africa. Really… don’t you feel good about sending your hard earned money to some evil tyrant in Africa so he can rape children, kill indiscriminately and ethnically cleanse areas of his country?  I don’t, but then again, I am an evil greedy capitalist, who believes in sovereignty of the individual… not Stateism.
Posted in International Power | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Unbiased Journalists

Posted on October 25, 2009 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the modern definition of media bias depends on your perspective.

What is media bias? There seem to be several definitions. Everyone who finds a media story that portrays them in a negative light believes it is slanted. Some people believe that media stories that include certain information to be slanted. Others believe that media stories that allow certain points of view to see the light of day are slanted.

Every definition depends mostly on the point of perspective of the opiner’s. The merits of this or that argument is superfluous. The perspective of the viewer is paramount. An example is the Chris Mathews Show today.

Chris Mathews emphasizes he is a journalist and had three other journalists on his show today. They all had the exact point of view regarding Obama’s attack on Fox News. They all agreed that it was Fox News that is being unfair to the President. They also chortled at the unbiased journalist Chris Mathews calling everyone on his right and those at Fox News “wing nuts.” Chris was also incensed that Palin would use a teleprompter! (Apparently no other presidential candidate has ever used one before). Chris’s unbiased reporting went on, when Palin’s book was brought up as a best seller, he mentioned that it was ghost written. Apparently from his demeanor Chris Mathews finds ghost writing a book extremely distasteful.

Andrew Sullivan (who claimed to be a conservative… but has absolutely no conservative viewpoints) claimed Mitt Romney will say anything… To what end? He didn‘t elaborate. Andrews the conservative also claimed that McCain picking Sara Palin was wrong, because it was caving to the right wing. (of which he claims to be part of). But Mostly he purports that Obama’s best forte is his ability to let the right wing destroy themselves. By giving them enough rope.

Kathleen Parker said that, in the republican party, publicly, the belief is that Sara Palin could win the Whitehouse, But privately…(Read Elite), the belief is, she cannot.

The most interesting point was by Helena, (they didn’t put her name or credentials on the screen), when she said that right wing media makes republicans look more centrist. I wonder if she even gets a whiff of the irony in what she was saying as an unbiased journalist?

Unfortunately Dan Rather was incoherent. He came out with sophist statements like “The megaphone of right wing media outweighs them.” Of course he is the only one on the panel who has been caught fabricating evidence, then reported it as fact, just before an election… So he can be certified an unbiased journalist.

So… if this is the case, how can we ever rectify the term media bias?

Like a carpenter uses a chalk line to find a straight line we need to use, find or develop tools to find the straight in “news” as well. Many tools exist now but are only selectively used. Ad Homonym attacks like wing nuts show a perspective that is not in keeping with actually being unbiased.

Rhetoric is effective at moving a crowd but appeals to emotion… not to logic. Political philosophers have made the determination that government must run on logic not emotion. To do otherwise is folly. Every mischief will follow. So empty rhetoric is not a fair tool to use to make a point. Phrases like “The megaphone of right wing media outweighs them.” are good examples of this sophistry.

Changing the subject is another sophist means of redirecting a discussion away from a loosing point. Things like when a book is on the best seller list the author is denigrated instead of pointing out some flaw in the logic of the book.

Many other rules exist regarding just discussion of a subject… Regrettably the unbiased media demonstrates knowledge of none of them.

Posted in media | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Why Isn’t The Economy Creating Jobs?

Posted on October 21, 2009 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the economy should be humming along creating jobs…

The dollar is very low as compared to other currencies. The Canadian Dollar is almost at par and is predicted to be at par by the end of the year at 60%. With the US Dollar so low wages in the US are lowered as compared to other nations. Notably the European Union. Making American labor comparatively cheap.

With so many talented and skilled workers being laid off Entrepreneurialship should be rampant. When there are no jobs available many people start a business. There is always a demand for something. Doing so fills a vacuum and pulls other people into job creation as well.

Government is spending gobs of money. Trillions of US Dollars are being spent on TARP and Stimulus. Roads are being repaved and bridges are being painted. With an unprecedented amount of government spending, the economy, (according to John Menard Keynes) should be ripping. (Isn’t painting a bridge more productive than burying money at the bottom of an old mine shaft)?

Government has bought General Motors. The government has appointed the board of directors and the president. Ensuring many high paid jobs will stay. Theoretically keeping the economies in the areas that have auto manufacturing plants viable.

The “problem” of sticky wages seems to have been solved. Workers across the US are taking pay cuts. Many are being forced to take unpaid days off. Union contracts are being broken in bankruptsy court. Wages are more reactive to the market conditions.

The stock market is booming. Up 50% this year. Capital is flowing into the stock market driving up the share prices. As the DOW goes up billions are made. All this money at the hands of people.

The Fed is keeping the interest rate near zero. That is like having the accelerator all the way to the floor. But no matter the access to air an engine needs fuel in the right mixture. Thus the pushing on a string analogy. You can pull a string, (slow the economy), but you can only let up on the string. If there is no pulling back the string will only go limp.

So why isn’t the economy creating jobs?

The government has declared profit a bad thing. Part of the societal myth of the United States is that profit is good. Now it is being redefined. So if profit is bad and those that make profit, (everyone except government and nonprofit) is bad. We the people are bad. This pernicious attack on the foundation of our society is corrosive of job creation. Without profit there can be no jobs. It follows necessarily.

Government is roiling the waters as it comes to regulation. Government is threatening, but everyone tacitly knows, the elite friends of government will have their oxen protected. Just as Bastiat said, “Government is seen as a means to plunder the goods of others and protect your goods from being plundered.” Threatening greater regulation puts a hold on some business. Especially that business that is being threatened by regulation. This is the very definition of friction to the economy.

Government is destroying the perceived value of the US Dollar. Remember caveat currency only has the value we give it. But, like it is public opinion that makes a king a king, as soon as the people see the king with no clothes he is no longer king. The currency of a nation is it’s life blood. Poison it at the peril of the nation.

Government is spending the money very unwisely. By trying to decide exactly where each dollar should go the government is handy capping the US economy. If the money were given back as a temporary tax cut the money would naturally flow to where it was needed. If the banks needed the money it would have flowed there. Manufacturing would have gotten a piece of the pie. Landscapers to Architects would have reaped the benefit. But the way government has decided to spend trillions of dollars, basically on reelection campaigns, it has guaranteed our children will have a lower standard of living than we have had.

Besides, most of the stimulus spending will be kicking in in 2010. An election year. I would think that spending timed to coincide with an election season next year won’t help the economy in crisis this year. Generally emergency spending to fend off a depression is spent quickly. Not earmarked for a year later.

It is a Faustian bargain at best to sell the futures of our children and grandchildren… to get reelected.

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

Terry McAuliffe vs Karl Rove… My Take

Posted on October 18, 2009 by john

Dear friends,

I just watched a debate between Terry McAuliffe and Karl Rove. The debate was “if the Obama administration’s targeting Fox News as an enemy is a good thing for the Administration to do… Or not.”

Terry McAuliffe made several points;

That Fox News had interviewed an Administration official, then, the next week, had pointed out factual errors in her points. Terry then said that had never been done before. The Fox reporter claimed that he had never seem such disregard for the facts and felt he had to point out the truth of the matter.

I am of the opinion that it is the job of news organizations to point out the facts. No matter who is the President. To do otherwise would make a news organization biased on point of fact if not in opinion.

Terry said that Fox News is an arm of the Republican Party.

The premise of this statement is that “if a news organization is too critical of a political party, (as seen by that party) it is a tool of the other political party.” In a two party system… With this definition of a yellow news organization at hand much mischief can be done. Not the least of which is the obliterating of the first amendment to the Constitution.

Once it is acceptable for a faction to claim it is being preyed upon by some news entity, and can justly use the apparatus of government to damage the interests of that news organization, any party or faction in power can do this. When that is the case news must become a tool of the party in power. Else they risk their franchise. Like in Venezuela.

Terry also claimed Fox had not shown Barok Obama’s address about health care.

To this point I believe Karl Rove made an acceptable retort.

The last salient point I think he made was that one of Fox News opinion journalists had called Barok Obama a racist.

Premised, I suppose, that calling anyone a racist is unacceptable. Else Terry could mean that only calling Obama a racist is unacceptable. Or he could have meant that only calling a democrat a racist is unacceptable.

Only the first premise is acceptable in logic. The others have obvious flaws. (To go into them would require much more room then my blog has). If calling anyone a racist is unacceptable and anyone who calls someone a racist is bad. And that Fox news is bad by association because one of it’s opinion journalists called someone a racist and is bad. Then everyone who associates with people who call others racists are bad by association as well.

Former President Carter called everyone in the US South racist and is bad for saying that. And by association, the Administration is bad, for it’s association with someone who calls others racist.

Only by pointing out the universality of an argument can we sometimes see the flaws in it.

Terry also tried to change the subject to health care.

Although not having anywhere near as much microphone time Karl Rove made several points;

That The only Presidential Administration that has ever made a news organization an enemy was the Nixon Administration.

The much despised Nixon Administration. (Nixon had the audacity to prosecute Alger Hiss)! Nixon had an enemies list that included news outlets. Nixon was much reviled for this by the very people who are doing it now.

Karl Rove also claimed it is bad policy to target individual news outlets as enemies.

To do so is an attribute of despotic governors.

In retort to Terry McAuliffe’s points Karl pointed out;

That it was Fox Entertainment not fox news that didn’t show the President’s Health care address. Fox news did.. But the Administration is targeting Fox News not Fox entertainment. To it I would add, then, are all entertainment outlets, news affiliates enemies, that didn’t show the address? The address was not on every channel… Nor should it have been.

Glaucon said, what good (is justice) for the man who is perfectly just if he has the reputation of perfect injustice. He will be stoned and punished as if he were unjust. But the man who is perfectly unjust and has the reputation of perfect justice will be esteemed a great man. So it is only the appearance of justice that one needs.

This Administration is trying to make the just appear to be unjust. Then they will be stoned and tortured. To do this makes the one who engages in it unjust by this action. This is the behavior of people who want to appear to be perfectly just while actually being perfectly unjust.

Is that who we want ruling us… the perfectly unjust?

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

Socrates in Afghanistan

Posted on October 14, 2009 by john

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, that it depends on what type of society you live in, whether or not Socrates or Thrasymachus was correct in their summations of the question… Is living the just life good in itself (intrinsic) or is it at best for some external good (extrinsic) or is it even good at all.

Of all the interlocutors in the Republic Thrasymachus is the most interesting. Angry and like and overheated pot he opens up what he thinks is the “truth”. Namely that justice is for fools and the weak. The powerful never are just and they shouldn’t be.

Poor Socrates has to make a just life appealing to the upper middle class youth, (the most dangerous people on Earth). They have heard Thrasymachus talk of the natural law as the Gaul King saw it… The strong must take from the weak, to insure the survival of the strong. Justice is but a tool. But how is Socrates to defend Justice under such a powerful attack?

Religion has always been affective at taming some people. The youth in this house were indifferent to religious inducements… Threats of Hades and punishment. They were more inclined to logical dialectic reduction of the arguments.

Fortunately Socrates was expert at this. He created a “perfect” republic that even Socrates admitted wasn’t possible. But this “Republic” was used as a device to deduce that each person must be just and be dutiful for society to work. That when there is anarchy in the countryside society breaks down. In that breakdown men have no use of one another. The very thing that has allowed our species to develop to the extent it has is undermined. I do my thing and you do yours… together we all make the stuff of civilization. When justice is rare starvation is rampant.

So Socrates basically argued that society depends on justice, and if the injustice of bread makers has such a negative impact on society, then how much more the impact when lawmakers themselves are corrupt?

So back to the original assertion. Take a society like Afghanistan. Apparently no one is just. From Karzai to the guy who issues the license for latrines they are all utterly corrupt. Read one issue of the Kabul Press. Corruption is rampant in Afghanistan.

In this situation who is right? Socrates or Thrasymachus? This situation is a live demonstration of a non functional Republic. Were a miracle to happen, and the government and the people of Afghanistan were to become just instantly, society would right itself in minutes.

How to make that happen… Sufficient troops will stomp down a peace. That is unquestionable. But what then? The problem is how to establish a just government while a peace is being forced. One where elections are free from corruption. (The US is still working on that). One that is free of graft. One that would be an example for the people of Afghanistan to follow… Possibly a NUMA?

I guess I was wrong, no matter what society you live in, Socrates was right.

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

Distributive Justice

Posted on October 12, 2009 by john

Dear Friends,
It seems to me that there are two arguments about distributive justice.

One is that the goods of society should be distributed equally to equals. All those that are citizens of a society should share equally in it’s goods. This is characteristic of progressives, socialists and communists. They argue that, if all people are equal, then all people deserve equal distribution of the goods of society. To do otherwise is morally wrong.

The other is that people are not equal. We cannot be. I am different than you. It is the way it is. So if that is the case, to take from one who produces, lowering his or her standard of living, and give to one who does not produce is morally wrong… Just as stealing is wrong.

Our inequality can be summed up like this. You may be able to ski very well. I cannot ski well at all. The only way to make us equal, in skiing, is to disable you. Bring you down to my level. Then we can share equally in the joys of skiing. This lowers not elevates.

The one seeks to cut a pie equally, the other seeks to give to him who produces his or her share. Empirical evidence shows us that when you cut a pie up equally the pie grows ever smaller and smaller. Eventually getting so small the people are reduced to starvation. Examples include China and North Korea among others.

When the pie is distributed by what is produced the pie grows and grows. As the pie grows all people can have their standard of living raised. As long as distribution is according to production. If workers are being underpaid for their labor growth will be stunted. If labor is overpaid jobs will be lost. But when labor is rewarded for their labor correctly the pie will grow. I’m sure there is some bell curve that could be produced equating labor’s getting some percentage of the value of the labor they produce. Percent of labor’s cost relating to it’s production to growth curve.

But distributive justice goes even deeper. To take the libertarian point too far would be to say that if a person was starving to death… It would be morally wrong for him or her to steal food. I would argue that it would not be morally wrong. Provided there was no other means at hand to procure food and the person stolen from has more than sufficient food. Why not morally wrong?

Because of the absolute right to life. All other rights and sovereignty is subservient to this truth. God, Earth, the heavens or whatever provides for all. No matter who plants a seed… the seed will grow. No matter the hand that plants it, if the conditions are good, the seed will produce. Who we are is not relevant. What we are is not relevant. The relevant fact is that no matter who plants a seed God, Earth, the heavens or whatever will produce form our labor. God grants to all what they have produced. Mankind redistributes the fruits of labor. So if this is the case and someone takes the products of someone else’s labor, to give to someone who the taker feels is more deserving, the taker assumes the role of God.

From this it is plain to see that to redistribute is morally wrong… no matter the good intentions. The answer is always… to pay labor fairly and give to him/her that which he/she produces that does him/her and society the most good. Nothing else is morally correct.

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