Dear Friends,
It seems to me, Canada is on the path to Venezuela. Venezuela was the richest country in South America after the oil boom. Once the communists gained power it went from the richest to the poorest. Not because the oil dried up, but because communists are great at usurping power but can’t run a spoon. Regardless of the intention, good or bad, of the goal, or of the people in charge… the policies of socialism always and everywhere create poverty, crime, and despotism. Venezuela, North Korea, and Cuba are a few examples. For some inexplicable reason, Canadians saw the poverty, crime, and despotism that socialist central planning brings, and thought to themselves, “I want some of that!” Then they set themselves to getting it.
Socialism or central planning is a system where those who are unable tell those who are able how to do their job. The problem is that the ability to usurp power is a different skill set than that of being able to build, innovate, and create. Those who can do, and those who can’t demand those who do… to submit. Is it any wonder then that central planning always results in poverty, crime, and despotism? How could it not? Those in charge force those who do things, to do them as the central planners demand, at the point of a gun. So those who do must do what they do burdened by ever-growing stupid regulations. The people at the center get an ever-bigger cut of the constantly shrinking pie as well. As a result, all forms of socialism produce suffering… Canada is no exception.
The thing about central planning and socialism is that on paper they sound great. The central planner looks at a factory and thinks, “Look at how efficient that factory is, if only I could apply that to the economy, scientifically, the economy would be that efficient!” It makes perfect sense to them. The problem with that thinking is it’s a category error. A factory is a Mount Fuji problem. That’s a problem where there is one peak that all upward movement is towards that peak. An economy, however, is a different category. It’s a complex system, or a dancing landscape. This is one which upward movement may be away from the optimal solution. There may be peaks and valleys between where one is and the ideal. The Canadian economy then is in a different category than a factory.
As well as being a categorical error, central planning’s vexing and uncanny ability to draw poverty from plenty leads to crime and then despotism. As the pie gets smaller and the government’s share gets bigger, little people fight over the scraps. Moreover, the hoi polloi look up at the elite and see them get more corrupt by the day. Since people follow their leaders, the whole of society becomes corrupt. This can only lead to crime and more economic disruption. To stem the crime the elite pass more and more draconian laws. Then lead the people to more crime by example. Eventually the people become fed up with their leadership and the central planner has to resort to canceling elections, banning candidates, and defrauding elections. Soon the gloves come off and despotism is undeniable, like in Canada.
You can vote your way into central planning but you have to fight your way back out. Unless someone else is willing to fight for you. That only happens when they have something to gain… and it usually doesn’t include your best interests. I have to wonder if Pierre Poilievre gains traction in the polls whether the elite will ban him from running for being a right wing extremist? After what they did to the truckers’ protest, and got away with, nothing is off the table. Canada is showing signs of being in the later stage of central planning’s catastrophe. The EU is ahead in that regard but Carney has got the pedal to the metal. The Canadians, however, seem to like their despotism. Maybe they were cowed by the response to the Truckers protests. The Soviet Union, Iran, and Venezuela are likely Canada’s future.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
Language and Manipulation
Dear Friends,
It seems to me, there is what is and what we think is. To sharpen the point, there is the reality of a thing and how we think of it. Take justice for example, there is the reality of justice, and how we think about justice. Thrasymachus said, justice is the advantage of the strong over the weak. In other words in his mind justice is the law of the jungle transcribed. However, even a dog knows what justice is in its reality. So what we have is what Justice really is and what various people think it is. Law is another example of a thing that has an overt meaning and a covert meaning. The overt meaning is that little people are protected from powerful people by it, but the covert meaning is, law allows powerful people’s usurpations to be called just. These are but two examples of many.
Words are just sounds that denote an idea. As long as everyone agrees on what those ideas are, communication happens. When the ideas are jumbled, miscommunication happens. If a party uses a word so that the other party believes it means one thing, but it really means another… that’s manipulation. Take for example, a man selling a burlap sack with something wriggling inside. The buyer assumes it’s a piglet, so buys it. The seller knows it’s a cat, so he has defrauded the buyer. The problem is asymmetric information. What was meant was different than what was presumed. There is what is and there is we think there is. Words then have no innate meaning, only the meaning we assign to them. That in and of itself is the source of the issue of miscommunication and manipulation.
The meaning of a word is modified by a modifier. That’s obvious enough. But what’s the deeper meaning of this phrase? What I mean is that when we modify “Justice” in any way, it no longer means justice but something else. Yet those who hear it only hear ‘justice’ and forget the modifier. This is exactly the way a word or phrase can be understood two different ways by two different speakers. So when we hear terms such as “economic” justice, “Social” justice, or “Tax” justice, we are being manipulated, like being sold a pig in a poke (a burlap sack). Such wordplay can even be used to call evil good and good evil. If environmental justice demands farms close, then the people who ate the food produced, will just have to suffer as well… in the name of justice.
Miscommunication isn’t only from simple misunderstanding or manipulation, it comes from the very nature of language itself. Kung Sung Lung, an ancient Chinese philosopher, famously said, “A white horse is not a horse but a black or yellow one is…” Invoking universals he “proved” that a white horse is not a horse it’s something else. Obviously what he really proved was that language is insufficient to convey ideas perfectly. There will always be room for a different understanding. This is the fundamental issue with law. That fundamental flaw is that no matter how well written, understood, and applied, there will always be loopholes. They are unavoidable because of the flawed nature of language itself to convey thought.
If language is so worthless then why use it at all? Because its an expedient. As long as we understand it as such there’s no problem. Universals like justice are made into something else by a modifier. That way phrases like economic justice can be seen as the manipulations they are. This is because we aren’t taking language as categorical it’s merely an expedient, to get a point across the vast distance between minds. In ancient China an emperor had an obelisk erected. Upon it, all the laws carved in stone so all could see, be held to them, and be protected by them. The people marveled at the innovation. A disciple of Confucius was asked what he thought. The disciple said it was a very bad idea. When pushed why, he replied, “Because people will argue to the head of a pin that the law doesn’t apply to them.”
Sincerely,
John Pepin