Socialize This!

Posted on May 4, 2008 by john

Dear Reader,

It seems to me that if we take as a given, as a means of argument, that to socialize some industry is a good.

Then I would argue that socializing the Health Care industry would be a bad first choice. If you really want to do society some real good socialize the Legal industry.

All attorneys would be paid by the State. Given a good salary and fourty hours a week. If you need a legal document made out you would submit it to the government lawyer and he/she would provide the service at a flat rate. Legal services such as lawsuits would be assigned an attorney by lot.

Or perhaps there could be a ’One Payer’ system. We would be taxed by the government. The taxes would pay all lawyers a set rate for their work. Then if you need legal services it would be free. The poor should have access to legal services, like the rich, it’s a matter of justice!

This would keep large corporations more in check. Anyone injured, real or perceived, would be able to, free of charge, sue anyone else. The single payer system would be the ‘gold standard’ of legal representation.

To make the system really fair however one would have to make it illegal to use any legal services outside the government system. This would assure fairness, efficiency, quality, affordability, racial justice and certainty of services as only the government can provide.

Think about this for a few seconds…

Why then are we doing this to our health care system?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Just Law, or just law?

Posted on April 20, 2008 by john

Dear Reader,

It seems to me that If we were to ask a person who is on trial for murder. “Irrespective of your case, are the laws against murder just?” almost everyone would say that yes, the laws against murder are just. This makes the law against murder, “Just Law“. As we move from law to law we would find that some laws would have more or less, of the people on trial for those offences, admit the justice of the law they are charged with.

You will come to some laws that almost universally the defendant would argue that no, the laws against “A” are not Just. Political trials come immediately to mind. Other examples, to a greater or lesser degree, include laws against homosexuality, prostitution, drugs, bigamy, etc… I’m sure you can think of some if you try.

By this scalar, these laws are Unjust, or at least questionable. The middle ground of laws that are attested to be Just, by half the defendants, are probably Unjust as well. Providing the laws in question are ‘victimless’. Anyone who infringes on another human beings fundamental human rights, and is charged with Law, is being Justly charged.

How do unjust laws get passed and added to the cannon of jurisprudence? They are reactionary laws that seek to erase some flawed human predilection, and force some perceived form of perfection in human nature on society. This may be laudable but the road to hell is paved with laudable intentions.

Unjust laws make society less human hearted not more human hearted. Human hearted government recognizes that people are flawed and tries to work within the propensities of human beings. Human propensities are like water. If you stop it up, it will inevitably build and seek a path. Once the path has been found water will enlarge the opening until the backup results in a torrent , destroying anything in it’s path. (The lives of people).

Perhaps a better way would be to direct the flow of human frailties into a safe channel. Allowing the negative human propensities a safe ‘path to ground‘. Were this done, there would be no backup of wants and desires. There would be no overflowing of this pressure and no resulting torrent when the dam is breached. Society would be better served and people would be happier and less stressed.

In other words, legalize and regulate these actions. Bring them above the table. When done in the light regulated by the final temporal arbiter, (the government), flawed human predilections will be far less harmful to society and it’s members.

However, it is also in human nature, to want to control the lives and decisions of others. We believe that we are more wise than our neighbors. The lives of our neighbors would be vastly improved if we made their decisions for them. We see the tragic mistakes that they make, and want to fix it. If only they listened to us…

As Jesus said, “Look to the plank in your own eye before plucking the speck from someone else’s.”

Posted in Societal Myth | Leave a comment

Money in Politics

Posted on April 12, 2008 by john

Dear Reader,

It seems to me that the huge amount of money that politicians spend to get into office today is telling of what they want from the office. Why would a sane person be willing to spend tens of millions of dollars to be elected to an office that pays under five hundred thousand per year? Of course most if not all of the money is someone else’s. But still, tens of millions of dollars?

The founding Fathers said that they wanted a WEAK but STABLE government. Weak in that it was severely limited in the scope of the Federal government’s power. Stable in that the government was to be regularly and, with a minimum of political convulsions, transferred to the next regime.

The Constitution was the limiter of governmental power. The tenth amendment says it all, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Powers that are not given to the government cannot be exercised by the government. Madison was against the Amendments. His logic went like this, If the government is not given the power to do a thing. Then it has not the power to do that thing. However, if the government is barred from one thing, and is not given the power to do another thing, does that mean that since the government was barred from the one, the other may be permitted. It could then be argued then that anything not put in or barred from government was ok. Thus the Amendments were to him redundant and dangerous.

The Constitution guarantees stability by separating powers, and providing for a straight forward means of transferring power. Much debate was given to the terms of all members of the government. The terms were to be long enough to be profitable to the people but short enough for the people to exercise their power of suffrage effectively.

The underlying philosophy of government was this. Stable governments are conducive to business. Weak governments have less regulation and taxation releasing the power of business. With the guarantees of property and liberty, the thought was, that free people freely exercising their liberty would build, a better, more sound, and with an ever higher standard of living, society.

Today with the “Living Breathing Document” of a Constitution we have toilet paper. The greatest fears of our Founding Fathers is realized. We have willingly put out collective heads into the ox yoke of dependence. The same corrosive habit that destroyed Rome. We have let our government grow strong, by becoming dependant on it, and with the giant sums of money more factious and thus less stable.

As the power of government has grown so has the penchant of politicians to spend more and more money to get into office. The inordinate power of government today can be directly measured by considering the vast ocean of money that surrounds it.

Posted in Societal Myth | Leave a comment

Ideas about Infrastructure

Posted on April 3, 2008 by john

Dear Reader,

It seems to me that the news is full of stories about our crumbling roads. Not to be outdone the bridges are ready to catastrophically fail at any second. Remember London Bridges Falling Down?

Well here is a innovative concept. Look at what has been done in the past and worked. Simple use of best practice. What roads and what bridges built by what people in the past have held up the best and fulfilled the task they were designed to do?

The answer is clear, Roman roads and bridges. In Europe today there are Roman bridges that carry car and truck traffic. Think about that for a moment. These bridges were built over a thousand years ago. Thousand year old bridges working today. Compare that to bridges built today.

The state of the art bridges on our intestate highway system are elegant and thin. They span great distances while carrying great loads, (cars and trucks). They also only last thirty to fifty years before they need to be totally rebuilt. Some abutments can stay and the steel can sometimes be reused but obsolescence is built in. One half century compared to ten centuries of functional life.

On an annualized maintenance cost basis the Roman made bridge is exponentially more cost efficient. Plus think of how much more transportation funds would be available for road improvement. Forget for the sake of argument that a free spending legislature might rob some of the transportation funds for some other enterprise like education spending.

Some would argue that building a dry laid stone bridge today would be too difficult. With CAD software and thousands of grout piles throughout the USA. Simply put a modern Saw plant at the base of a large grout pile, take prints from engineers, and a computerized saw could turn out bridges like kits. Some assembly required. The means are at hand, The will but lacking.

Instead of burdening our children with crushing debt and obsolete infrastructure perhaps we might think of making some things that actually last.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Lawyers and Power

Posted on March 31, 2008 by john

Dear Reader,

It seems to me that the thrust of Madison’s Federalist Paper number Ten (10) was that we must guard, at all cost, against letting a faction control more than one branch of our government. He stressed this over and over. A faction that gains the reigns of government is a faction that will visit tyranny upon us all. To see Federalist Paper number Ten (10) http://incapp.org/federalist papers/no 10/no_10.htm .

As a faction lawyers have total control of the Judicial Branch of our government. Laymen are barred from the Judicial Branch. Only those that have passed the Bar Exam and are licensed can be members. The Legislative Branch of our government is at least 2/3 two thirds lawyers. Lawyers have overriding authority in the Legislative as well.

Most of our president’s have been attorneys. Making all three Branches of our government most of our history in the hands of attorneys. Madison himself was an attorney. With at least two branches under control of lawyers at all times, and all three Branches under control of one faction some times, we might have a problem.

If we take as a self evident fact that people do what they perceive to be in their personal best interest, then lawyers being human, they are as susceptible as any other human to this attribute. They will work together as a faction consciously and unconsciously to improve their lot. To the detriment of the rest of us.

Further, an honest examination of the facts will show the unbiased observer that Lawyers do business outside the market. They as a faction and as a profession, are outside the normal ebb and flow of market forces, determining the rate of pay for the work. What other profession charges at least $125.00 an hour even when there is a glut of workers in the field?

What other profession is held to a lower standard than the layman? If you appear in court per se, and the opposing lawyer forgets to file some important paperwork, he or she will be given a pass. You, however, will absolutely not. Even if the omission is obvious and has been brought to the attention of the attorney. If you even forget to file an obscure and arcane piece of paperwork the opposing lawyer will file a motion to whatever, and it will be granted. Game over. This is one of the ways that lawyers keep themselves outside market forces. Is there any other profession where a lay person is held to a much higher standard than someone licensed?

Have you ever wondered why tort reform is so obnoxious to the legislature? They ardently resist any push to control frivolous law suits. Everyone has heard of some of the more insane verdicts. The burglar that won tens of thousands of dollars for cutting himself on the window he broke to get in, the guy who won hundreds of thousands for trying to stop the spinning chainsaw chain with his fingers, etc… Why is the Legislature so reluctant to take on this issue? The answer is obvious, most legislators are lawyers. No one hurts themselves!

Who makes out in a class action lawsuit? The people that suffer actual damages get a pittance. The big winner, often making tens, or hundreds of millions of dollars, are the lawyers. Who wins when there is a large amount of crime, Lawyers. Who wins when society mistrusts itself, Lawyers. Who wins when people are sue happy, Lawyers. Who wins when there is turmoil in business, Lawyers. Are we seeing a pattern yet?

If decadence, chaos, instability, etc… in society enriches attorneys, and attorneys, as a faction, control government, and people do what is in their personal best interest, consciously or unconsciously, why would we assume that lawyers work to make society otherwise? Is it truly in our best interest to allow lawyers have so much power?

Most of all, why assume that attorneys are more virtuous than society as a whole?

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Slavery

Posted on March 29, 2008 by john

It seems to me that the most egregious condition that humans live under is slavery. Other egregious conditions such as poverty and ill-health are generally not directly visited by humans on humans. Making them subjective bads. They are only objective in that we who live under better conditions are offended that others are impoverished, and sick. People do not intentionally impoverish or sicken others, sometimes it is a byproduct of rapine but not as a direct means to an end.

Slavery however is the direct, intentional, and conscious ruining of the human condition of another individual human being as an means to some selfish end. Slavery is objective as well as subjective. To the person enslaved slavery is very subjective. To the person enslaving another, slavery is objective and subjective to himself. Objective in that he is not visited by the evil he visits on others. Subjective in that he is involved intricately in the operation.

In the Twenty First Century that there should be human slavery is obnoxious to all human hearted people. Societies that allow the traffic in human beings as chattel prove their unworthiness. Worthy societies have at least minimum protections on the rights of the individual.

Societies that allow the marketing of people in their midst prove their corruption as well. Machiavelli said that a “corrupt society can never be free.” Watching other human beings being enslaved and sold in your presence sows the seeds of your own enslavement by the State. Thus Saint Augustine’s adage that people get the government they deserve, is proven. Societies that allow slavery are, or soon will be, under the jack boot of a tyrant.

The opposite is also true. Societies that do not allow slavery tend to be less corrupt as a people. They are less likely to be under a dictator. As a society becomes less decadent and more virtuous it naturally finds the shackles of tyranny more and more suffocating. Society grows but the bindings don’t. Pressure builds until the chain is sundered and society finds itself free. When society shrinks in decadence the bonds of tyranny are ever more binding, and don‘t seem to suffocate.

Slavery is a pretty good predictor of the economic outcome of a society. History supplies plenty of examples of this. Rome practiced slavery. While Rome was a Republic there were few slaves and many plebeians. The people had work. When Rome became decadent under the emperors and slavery increased due to the conquering of other peoples, the plebeians had less and less work. More and more was done by slaves. The plebeians were made dependant on the State. Slaves did all the work. The people refused to fight in war as well. If they didn’t have to work, why fight? The mercenaries would do the fighting for the Romans. Attila the Hun was the logical outcome of this reasoning.

Another example is the USA. When Slavery was legal here the GDP growth was fairly flat. Expansion into the territories was the primary engine of economic growth. After the Civil War slavery was abolished. And shortly after territorial expansion ground to a halt. The primary engine of economic growth was slowed dramatically and the catastrophe of war needed to be cleaned up. Yet the American economy continued to grow at a brisk pace. There were brief recession’s but real GDP continued to grow. With the demise of slavery the former slaves had to be paid for their production. That pay, little as it was, triggered more economic growth. Keynesian economics at work. To argue that the industrial revolution was the primary driver is to ignore that places that still had slavery didn’t participate in the economic expansion of the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century.

Places like the Barbary Coast at the time had real GDP’s that were the equal of the USA at the time. In some cases higher per capita GDP. They had and have slavery to this day and the lot of the people has declined in proportion as the lot in America has grown.

If a society wants real economic growth to raise the lot of it’s people it must be virtuous. Slavery is the antithesis of virtue in a society. It inevitably leads the society to tyranny, crime, poverty and sickness. Perhaps this is the result of God’s being displeased. I think that God’s intervention is not required. The natural dynamics at work, (rules as set down by God), inevitably lead to this outcome.

Posted in Mercy | 1 Comment

Right Role of Right Government in Religion

Posted on March 16, 2008 by john

Dear Reader,

It seems to me that it is a self evident fact that good government works for the good of all. Bad government tries to help one faction, segment, ethnicity, or any other why in which you want to group people. The goal of right government is to promote the good of all.

Another self evident fact is that “good” is subjective not objective. The individual only knows the state of his or her heart. This knowledge is foreign to the other. To have some other impose a “good” upon an individual against his or her will is applying an extrinsic good where an intrinsic “good” is the correct object. This would be the antithesis of good. Good is subjective not objective.

There are three parts to the human being. Physical, the body and the physiological possesses that keep us alive. Mental, the conscious and unconscious minds. Working together to order our lives. And the spiritual, the inner longing we have for God, or some higher calling. As we all know, if an attribute is not used, it atrophies. When we live a sedentary life without exercising we grow fat and weak. When we live as mind numbed robots, never using our minds, we become mind numbed robots. When we don’t exercise our spiritual side with prayer and meditation we become corrupt and fall prey to all sorts of myths and superstitions.

Religious good is subjective also in that it is within the individual to find his or her own way to God or their higher existence. Each person’s path is unique to him or herself. This makes it Right Government’s goal to work for the freedom of the individual to choose his or her personal path. To try to channel the people’s religiosity to some perceived social “good” is to deny the very premise on which right government is founded on. Government must promote the good of all, since good is subjective, the religion must be chosen subjectively. Government tampering with religion is objectively imposing a subjective good.

Government has three options in dealing with the question of religion. It can, promote religion, be ambivalent to religion, or suppress religion. Since we have determined the role of right government we have only to apply our new rectification of terms to the question. To promote, would be to try to channel religion… not good. To suppress would be to try to channel religion… Also not good. Ocham’s Razor tells us that once all other option’s are removed, whatever is left no matter how absurd, is correct. In this case we have the middle option, that government must be ambivalent to religion. Religion must be allowed in the public square. Religious schools must have equal access to the public funding of education arbitrated by the marketplace, and government must not establish religion or irreligion. Government must be ambivalent to religion. That, A Priory, is the role of Right Government in religion.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Innovation

Posted on March 10, 2008 by john

 Dear Reader,

Imagine the man or woman who thought up the idea of putting ridges on twist off lids. This little innovation, one built upon many others, has eased the opening of container lids in an ever so small a way… each use. Cumulatively over a lifetime this little, seemingly irrelevant, innovation saves us all much strength. Multiply that by all the people who’s life has been eased and it is a tremendous amount of energy saved in the course of daily work. Now multiply that, over all the people, throughout time, who will be unburdened by this little small innovation, and you have a mind numbing amount of people helped and energy saved. This is my definition of a brick.

Seems to me that it is with the bricks of innovation that the artifices of mankind are erected. Each brick adding to the mass. The whole improving the lot of man. We are impelled to add bricks to our artifice building it higher to improve the lives’ of our children. They for their children. Mankind slowly, not wafting, but climbing, on the structure of our own creation. That artifice built of the bricks of our innovation. Someone who had seen the artifice even a few hundred years ago would not even recognize it today. But, someone who had seen the artifice one thousand years ago would have recognized the similarities with the artifice of the 1600’s.

Back to the guy or gal who invented the ridges on container lids. When this person stands before the Pearly Gates, they must carry quite a bit of water with the Gate Keeper. The person may have been unjust, cruel, or simply quick tempered. These personal traits at least have some off set. Improving the lot of man. That, is a pretty good offset. This person probably has never thought about this offset, rest assured, it will be brought up in their intercourse with our Gate Keeper. But how much weight should an outcome have on the weight on a man’s soul if he or she was not aware of the magnitude of the virtue/sin? —Too deep… Basically, every little innovation helps. We are called to innovate and think of a better way of doing things. Something that makes people’s lives easier, funnier, or fitter. Then, people’s lives are improved and we all win! The essence of International Capitalism.

Posted in Societal Myth | Leave a comment

Elections

Posted on March 5, 2008 by john

Dear Readers,

It seems to me that in the long run it doesn’t matter who wins any particular election.

History is inevitable and resolute. We are history, like the tendency of water to flow down hill, the societies of man will tend eventually to gravitate to human heartedness. The marketplace gives us a glimpse into the way in which history unfolds.

The marketplace rewards good ideas and punishes bad ideas. It is amoral and doesn‘t choose sides. It is simply a set of rules, like a complex game, that is merely the framework. The outcome and the method is totally the prerogative of the player. If the player chooses poorly, she is punished. If she chooses well she is rewarded. But as in any game the player must choose well sometimes else the game will be over. The few correct choices will eventually lead her nearer and nearer to the goal. If the player is persistent, she will win…eventually. History as has been relayed to us through the ages verifies this.

A compass that points approximately north is still better than none at all. If only the navigator’s of our society would bother to look at it now and then. If someone were to look at human history, without bias, and simply gauge which philosophy of governance, and society has garnered the highest standard of living, in every way, for it’s inhabitant’s, most rational people would say the philosophy and governance of the USA since it’s inception.

Here is a compass that doesn’t point true north, there is some angle of imprecision . Does that mean that our leaders should disregard the tool? Many would have us throw it away and follow the path as blazed by histories great populists, Caesar, Napoleon, Vladimir Ulunove, and a painter from Austria. That, according to our compass, is almost directly south. If our goal is north…

The long and short of it is that mankind can build as many monuments to dictators as we want. History will topple them all. The Societies that come closer to the way, fact, or actual, will live better, longer healthier lives. Not necessarily happier lives. Until we get beyond the ‘misery factor‘…

Healthy society is always growing. The artifices man places upon himself are always getting too tight, they chafe. In chafing they sow the seeds of their destruction. When the sores rubbing on the framework, become unbearable, we smash them. And build another, hopefully, one with a better fit and has the ability to grow. The more flexibility, the less a societal framework chafes, creating sores on society, the lives of the people will be better, longer, healthier, and more decadent.

Under this paradigm society will eventually evolve into one that fits us best. As humans we will make many mistakes. That is inevitable, but like evolutionists say, eventually…

History, like the market, and like a game makes no distinction to mankind’s wishes. History flows to the goal. The reason we fall is our own stubbornness. We are constantly pushed towards the path. We have only to open our eyes.

“Societies are the result of man’s virtue, Government the result of his vice.” -John Stuart Mill

Posted in Societal Myth | Leave a comment

Public Good

Posted on February 29, 2008 by john

Dear reader,

It seems to me that the goal of good government should be to; Raise the standard of living in every way, for every person under it’s dominion. The societal structure, as much as is possible, must be set up so that people have, low cost of food (as a percentage of household income), rising disposable income as compared to inflation, continually improving health, low unemployment, access to housing, freedom to practice religion, relative safety, good and improving infrastructure, availability of information to every person, protection of property rights, and most of all, the freedom to, enjoy them, or opt out of them, as the individual sees fit… If we all agree on this precept, we can get down to the fight over how we are going to achieve these results.

Some would argue that an efficient means would be to use the governmental laws and regulation to legislate happiness. When we are protected from ourselves, (helmet laws and seatbelt laws come to mind), by regulation, we hold with disdain the intrusion into our liberties. Some people will capitulate to the intrusion, others will openly flout the law. Neither method is effective at protecting people or our liberties. Those who flout the law are not protected in an accident and people who wear their seatbelts, as the law requires, willingly give up some of their sovereignty to the state. A better way would be through the use of public opinion and societal pressure. Government can wield these tools effectively, if it is used with good intent, and implemented by people above reproach.

To have the Elite above reproach is like jumping to the moon and back, naked. But, it is possible to travel to the moon, using technology. Man’s ability is leveraged by his manipulation of his world. Using the correct means could in effect make the Elite, jump to the moon and back, with the use of leverage. This leverage is a fourth branch of government, see the Manifesto, http://incapp.org/incapp_org_manifesto.htm . Only an Elite set up to oversee other Elites will suffice. Elites have a way of always setting up systems in which they are their own overseers. We all know how well that works. A separate branch would elevate the power of the overseers to the same level as the Elite they are watching. Place the Fourth branch at odds with the other three, and you will have the beginnings of leverage.God gave man free will. If you don’t believe in God, then nature gave man free will. Either way, man’s free will, is the will of heaven or nature. Mencius said that ‘heaven gives good to all men equally, (regardless of who plants a seed it will grow), no matter their station in life, it follows then, that heaven is all encompassing love.’ The goods of production are not spread evenly throughout society, (due to mankind’s nature), but, free will is. Apparently, heaven believes that free will is more important than temporal good. It doesn’t follow then, that God gave man free will to take by force, the free will of another. Regardless of the perceived merit of the enterprise.

The ability to opt out of the system is the logical end to this argument. That isn’t to imply that others then owe the opt outers a living. To opt out is to opt out, society as a whole owes nothing to those who opt out of the society, except, their natural rights. Freedom of; thought, movement, speech, religion, gun ownership (self protection), property (real and chattel), and freedom from; unwarranted arrest, self incrimination, and harassment from the government.

Government has a monopoly on force. The concept of government having a monopoly on violence has been established since the Knights Revolution in the 1400’s. That makes government the final arbiter of every conflict within society.

When a Public Good is provided, it is widely recognized that, some force is needed to provide the largess for them. The argument of the ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ is relevant here, in that, an informed person intelligent and aware, acting in his own immediate self interest, can make decisions that lead to his own and society‘s not meeting their long term interest‘s. “If I don’t pay for the good someone else will,” when everyone thinks this way the good is not provided. Government having a monopoly on violence is the only member of society to be able to extract the funds uniformly from the public to provide the Public Good. Government must provide the funds for Public Goods.

When a person’s self interest is involved he, (no matter his virtue), cannot be trusted to be fair in his dealings. The provider of a Public Good should have an interest in providing that good only, and have a ’Final Arbiter’ to intercede for the consumer of that Public Good. If government provides a Public Good, there is no ’final arbiter’ of that service, except the government.

The best means to the end of providing a society that allows the goods, referred to in the first paragraph, to be most widely disseminated in society, is Capitalism. Government being a self interested party cannot be a really disinterested Final Arbiter. The Final Arbiter must be disinterested, else the service will be at best inefficient, and at worse corrupt.

The most significant problem of having firms provide Public Goods is that they will naturally seek monopoly. The method used to date has been to bribe officials in charge of allocating territories. The bribed officials then only give the franchise to that firm, (giving it a monopoly). To society’s detriment, in that, the members of society have to pay more than is the fair market rate for that good. The flexibility of supply is interrupted. We pay more than we need to for the service.

The Fourth Branch as I have inculcated in the Manifesto and elsewhere would counter this propensity. Corrupt officials would be ferreted out and prosecuted. When the light of justice is shone on government cockroaches will have no sanctuary. They will have to flee and find some other place, with more cover, to hide and corrupt. Allowing Public Goods to be delivered economically and fairly.

Isn’t that what we all want?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment