The Nature of Aristocracy

Posted on February 23, 2008 by john

Dear Reader,

It seems to me that what is the fundamental attribute of a member of an aristocracy is the willingness to do violence to have ones will met.

History certainly provides us with legion examples. The patrician boy whom Cyrus ordered to be seized and beaten is a perfect example. When Cyrus was a boy, and was still in the care of the sheep herder, he was playing ’king’ with some other boys. When it was Cyrus’s turn to be king, Cyrus ordered the boys to kneel and pay him homage. One boy refused, being of patrician blood, so Cyrus ordered the assembly of boys to seize and beat the offender.

The aristocrat’s son was incensed. Ran home to his father and wanted Cyrus and his entire family killed. The Father thought this a good idea, went to Croesus the king of Lydia, and asked to have Cyrus and his family executed. Croesus was incredulous at the thought that a sheep herder’s son would have the nerve to do this. He ordered Cyrus, and his sheep herder mother and father, to come before him.

When Cyrus entered the kings hall, there was shocked silence. Not a person was there who didn’t recognize the resemblance to the king, including the king. Croesus asked the story of Cyrus’s birth. The sheep herder initially lied and said that Cyrus was his own child. When Croesus put the sheep herders wife on the chopping block, however, the sheep herder caved and told Croesus the whole story about getting Cyrus.

Croesus was dumbfounded. Cyrus was indeed the grandson of Croesus. He had ordered Cyrus murdered when Cyrus was a baby. Now the boy stood before his grandfather, in perfect health and still a threat to the throne of Croesus. The king ran to the Magi and chastised them that Cyrus was still alive. The Magi said that the prophesy, as dreamt by Croesus, had been met. Cyrus had been made a ‘king’ and had seized the ‘world‘. Croesus was off the hook and could welcome Cyrus into his house.

Elated, Croesus called for a great celebration. Croesus asked his chief advisor, the man who Croesus had entrusted the murder of Cyrus, to send his oldest son to help prepare the meal. When the repast was over Croesus asked his advisor if he liked the meal, the mutton in particular. The advisor replied that, as was usual at the table of Croesus, the food was magnificent. At this Croesus motioned for a great silver tray with an ornate cover to be brought out and placed in from of his Chief advisor. When the lid was opened it revealed the head of the man’s son. Croesus informed the man that he had eaten his own son. The advisor bowed and recognized the wisdom of Croesus. Asked for the remains that were left to be returned to him to be buried. In an act of kindness, Croesus let him bury his son.

This is only one example of the nature of aristocracy. But, people are more civilized now…Right?

Posted in Mercy | Leave a comment

Gun Ownership

Posted on February 17, 2008 by john

Dear Reader,

It seems to me that.

The argument against gun ownership goes something like this. “Because guns are dangerous, and some people will use them to kill people, they should be made illegal.” The premise is that dangerous rights should be limited. It should follow then, that the more dangerous the right, the more limits that should be placed on it.

What then, is a more dangerous right, the right to keep and bear arms, or the right to free speech? History shows us that free speech is far more dangerous than the right to keep and bear arms. Marx and Engle’s Manifesto has been the philosophy that has led to the murder of millions. Mien Kampf, caused the German people to go insane, and visit the Second World War on mankind. Two modern examples of the danger of the right of free speech. These two event alone account for the deaths of 160 million people.

So taking the logic at face value, that the right to keep and bear arms must be limited, we must logically believe that the right to free speech must be curtailed as well.

To argue that the merit of free speech supersedes the negative possibilities of Genocide (Rwanda), Revolution, Wars of aggression and Religious friction, seems weak. Those are pretty negative side effects.

Free ownership of guns leaves no segment of society without the last resort of the Penultimate Right of Self Protection. The catastrophe in Rwanda would have not been possible if everyone had guns. The Hutu would have been able to begin the genocide, but would have been stymied at the use of guns for self protection. Unarmed victims are easier to murder then free citizens carrying guns.

Posted in Societal Myth | Leave a comment

Visit Our Home Page

Posted on February 16, 2008 by john

Visit our Home Page at http://incapp.org/

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Constitutionalism

Posted on February 15, 2008 by john

The basis of Constitutionalism is that, if the maximum limits of a government were written down, adhered to strictly, and difficult to change. The government would be free, fair, stable, and weak. As long as the government was acting in a way that didn’t contradict the constitution, the people had no complaint. If the government acted extra constitutionally, the people did have a legitimate gripe.

History had shown that governments become corrupt, and tyrannical over time. The political innovation of Constitutionalism was to be the fix for this tendency. Livy’s history of Rome is a good example of the rise and decline of a civilization, and the rise of the next. There are many other examples of this tendency. Gilgamesh’s dynasty in Ur, The Spartan civilization, The Warring States Period of Classical China, and the Mongols. It was obvious that some form of muzzle must be placed on government. I am amazed that the politicians willingly applied the muzzle of Constitutionalism to themselves.

The very strength of a constitution is it’s great moment. The amount of force needed to change it. Without this immutability, a constitution is not worth the paper it is/was written on. If the constitution can be changed easily the powerful will change it to suit themselves. It will be changed first to keep the Elite in power. Then in the name of safety it will be paired back to nothing.

To say that the constitution is a ‘living breathing document’ and that it can be ‘reinterpreted’ to ‘grow with the times’ is really to say that “the dammed thing means whatever the hell I say it does.” The first way is more expedient, the second more accurate. The problem with this reasoning, is that, if you agree with the changes made today, you may not agree with the changes made tomorrow. ‘Rights’ and ‘Power to regulate’ that can be read into a constitution, outside it’s original intent, can be just as easily read out, or enlarged.

Saint Augustine said, in the city of man, that “People get the government they deserve.” When people let their rights slip away, and let their constitution be changed by an oligarchy of five, they will deserve the tyranny that they visit upon themselves and unfortunately, their children.

In fact, we are seeing these very gouges taken out of the US Constitution. The First Amendment is there specifically to protect POLITICAL speech. Not pornography. That pornography is also protected is a side effect. We see that political advertising is now illegal. Saying something bad about a person who is in office before an election is now illegal, unless you are a special organization, 527k or some such. This requires reams of paperwork, a roadblock to individual participation at that level.

The government was not to make laws respecting religion and not establish a state religion. We do now have an official state religion, Atheism.

The Second Amendment is, we are now told, was put their to protect the government’s right to keep and bear arms. This is absurd, even taken at face value. Why would the framers give the government the right to keep and bear arms in an addendum to the actual constitution. An addendum there specifically to protect the rights of the people. An amendment that is redundant, in that the power of the government to keep a standing army is in the main document. The Federalist Papers, Number 10 Madison mentions that the people regularly have guns in their homes. We shall see what the Lawyer oligarchy says about the Second Amendment pretty soon.

The most ignored Amendment is number 10. Every possible avenue of human endeavor has been interpreted as interstate commerce. Apparently if you pick your nose it can be regulated by the Federal Government, due to the possibly of it’s being sold across state lines.

We are on a slippery slope. Meddling with the constitution as much as has been done in the twentieth century is foolish. The slope is getting steeper, and we are moving faster. I don’t see a bottom in site, do you?

Posted in Societal Myth | 1 Comment

Allegory of the Baton

Posted on February 14, 2008 by john

It was a crisp autumn morning, he walked into the woods. The leaves crunched underfoot. Noticing his breath as he walked he happened upon an apple tree. The tree stood there gnarled and aged. The man noticed a branch that had broken off and was hanging. He reached up and tore the branch from the tree.

The man looked with a knowing eye at the branch. He knew that from the lobes and burls on the branch that it would have exquisite figure. Taking it home he carefully cut each end and then waxed them. He must not let the wood dry too fast, it would crack. Waiting two years, the man took down the now dry branch. He tested the moisture content. Perfect.

He then carefully sanded the branch on a lathe. Removing a little at a time, he lovingly worked the branch into something far more beautiful. When he finished working the branch on the lath, he took out the knives. With the precision of someone who had carved for a lifetime he scratched and whittled detail of the finest quality. Only a mixture of flaxseed oil and tung oil would do to finish this magnificent piece. He had fashioned a Baton, graceful and balanced.

Does the Baton then have the right to complain that it was not made an ax handle?

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

Perspective

Posted on February 8, 2008 by john

Dear Reader,

It seems to me that many we all like to read that which agrees with our own ideas and prejudices. We love to see our thoughts echoed in literature, and in the news. Seeing our own wisdom “up close” and others “at a distance” we naturally believe that ours is the best and brightest ideas there are.

We love to point at examples of why we are correct and the “other” is wrong. I am no exception to this. I do believe however that it is incumbent on us to at least look at the world with the perspective of the “other.” When we exercise our minds in this way we open them up to many possibilities. Making our perspective more reasoned and insightful.

We must always however temper our ideas by history and with reason. In this way we don’t fall prey to Francis Bacon’s “Idols of the Theater.” When I hear a pundit argue that facts are not as important as theory, I know that he is guilty of this “mind trap.”

Examples of this type of thinking abounds. Socialists believe that they are right. If history repudiates their theory, it must be that egoists stood in the way, or that Socialism/Communism was poorly applied. If only the right people were put in charge it would work as well as the Socialist believes it will. Instead of changing their theory to fit the facts, it is the facts that must be changed to fit their theory. History should be rewritten to hide the truth so that the revolution can go on.

Other people argue that government is the key to solving the worlds and societies problems. No matter the weight of evidence that government always makes problems worse. The great society programs have led to the destruction of the family in some parts of American society, leading to more poverty and dependence on government largess. More government control of the schools has led to a lowering of test scores and real academic excellence. More war on drugs has led to an explosion of drug use among our teens, and now even children are experimenting with drugs. Taxes and red tape on our corporations has led to the off shoring of jobs. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

We are told that the government just needs a little more money and the problems will be legislated away. Some say that we should grow up and accept blatant corruption in our government, despite the fact that every third world country with a miserable standard of living is rife with corruption.

The Archbishop of Canterbury even said that Britain should institute Sharia Law for Muslims in Britain. Despite the atrocities that it has wreaked upon the world in general and on women in particular. Separate but equal has worked so well in the USA the Archbishop wants to institute it in Britain.

Are we so stupid that we cannot move beyond this paradigm? Perhaps we can open our minds to new possibilities and start trying some new methods of solving our problems. If we don’t, future generations will, they will have no choice.

Posted in Group Politics | Leave a comment

Media Bias?

Posted on February 3, 2008 by john

Is there bias in the media, US, Canadian, European etc…? Many people wonder if there is some insidious bias undermining the credibility of the media. Being credulous to what we are told, is good for our society.

If you listen to the unbiased media, they will go on and on, why, they are above human nature. That even recognizing that there may, possibly, be a bias in their ranks is obnoxious to their appearance of neutrality. On The Media on NPR Sundays regularly confronts this issue. Amazingly, members of he unbiased media always conclude that they are not biased.

I find that to listen to the framing of a news story is one way t pick up bias. If the story is that something is bad, pointing to a problem in our society, that is obvious bias. Therefore I give the story less credence than one without a point of view. Another way I pick up bias is the words the media choose. If I am told that a Bill would affect “a woman’s right to choose” or “the murdering of unborn babies” I know there is a bias. Yet another way is to look for missing information. Often some important piece of information that seems to me to be very important to framing the story is missing. Comparing apples to oranges without a scalar to put the information into perspective.

No one is unbiased. No one. You, me, no one. We all have a perspective that is real to us. Francis Bacon’s Idols of the Cave. We see the world through the looking glass that is colored and distorted by our individual experiences. Those experiences, interacting with our epigenetic makeup, produce in us, who we are. Anyone who thinks that he/she is above this truth, is sadly deluding him/herself. With this in mind we again ask is he media unbiased. The obvious answer is yes. Since no one is unbiased.

The real question is does that mean we cannot trust what we hear, see or read in the media? Well, I have a Hammonds Standard Atlas of the World, published in 1938. In it there is a Illustrated Gazetteer of Principal Countries of the World. The description of the government of the Soviet Union says “All citizens-male and female- are guaranteed the right to work, to rest, to old age security, to education, freedom of religion and assembly, to free speech and correspondence. Freedom of the press is also guaranteed. The franchise [vote] is conferred on all citizens of both sexes at the age of 18, and all elections, for the first time in Russian history, will be held by direct and secret ballot.” This is how Reference material described the state of affairs in the Soviet Union. At the same time, Stalin was starving to death, 10-15 MILLION Ukrainians by taking their food and selling it on the world market, to industrialize the Soviet Union. Was persecuting Jews, Eastern Catholics, and anyone who wasn’t Atheist. Opium of the people and all that. We all know the history of the Soviet Union, and it’s failures in every aspect of good governance,  Liberty, Security, Economic and religious. The constitution, it is true, had these rights embodied within it, but the government failed to implement them. If the Constitution is ‘interpreted’ to change with the times by an Elite, instead of a document ‘cast in stone’ until it is changed by the means as layed forth by the Constitution, this kind of tyranny will inevitably result. That is another article however.

So, we see that even reference material can be suspect upon new information becoming discovered and disseminated. Personal bias is so subtle that we rarely recognize our own. If reference material is suspect what are we to believe? I think we must take everything that we hear as being suspect. Know that there is a bias of some sort behind it. Take this into account and adjust our perspective accordingly.

What we see, hear, and read now is subject to change in the future. As people trying to become civilized and enlightened, we must always retain our credulity.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Who is poor and who is wealthy is a matter of perspective

Posted on January 30, 2008 by john

Dear Reader,

Are you personally poor? Do you consider yourself poor? Are the people you see in your daily life poor? How much of the population are poor? How poor? These are questions that perplex and give rise to feelings of magnanimity in us.

Who is the poorest of the poor in the USA. Probably a homeless man? Take the homeless man in the USA. He probably sleeps outdoors in a tent or box in summer. Has access to clothing in the winter through the Salvation Army and many other charities. He also has access to the best healthcare in the world. (no matter how destitute a person is in the USA if he or she shows up at a public hospital, needing medical assistance, they by Law, must receive it). He misses some meals, but almost certainly gets one good meal offered to him a day. In winter he hopefully has access to a homeless shelter at night.

Now lets take the lower class Haitian. He or She according to the news is now reduced to eating mud cookies. Made with dirt mixed with oil and some other tasty ingredients. That is their one good meal. Live in mosquito infested slums. With raw sewage running down the street, ala middle ages. Has access to the astounding health care system of Haiti. And are subject to violent street gangs.

I’m thinking, that from the Haitians frame of reference, the homeless man in the USA has it pretty good.

How poor is poor in the USA. Poor is defined as a family earning below a certain annual adjusted level, around $16,000. The earned income credit is to boost working poor income up to or above the poverty line. So lets take $15,000 as a figure that is considered poor in the USA. The per capita GDP in the USA is around $17,000.00. So poor, is a family making less than the average individuals per capita GDP.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, the per capita GDP is around $400.00 a year. Allowing two bread winners, that is $800.00 a year for the average couple. Meaning that most families in Sub Saharan Africa are living at about that level. The poor American family making $15,000.00 a year is making 19 times as much.

The cost of living in Sub Saharan Africa is much lower than in the USA you might argue. Not so, due to the leveling affect of the monetary exchange. Dollars should buy the same amount of goods in any country. We know that this is not absolutely true, because of tariffs, taxes, regulation, trade barriers, etc… but in large part, averaged over many countries, this will hold true. Especially as markets are integrated into the global one.

Once again we see that poverty is a matter of perspective, or relative to ones frame of reference. What does this teach us about poverty? That if we want to make a real difference in poverty, the means we should use, is to grow the GDP so that the relative level of poverty is raised.

When the biggest problem of poor families is obesity, this is unheard of in human history, save for today.

Posted in polictics of class envy | Leave a comment

Who Should Rule?

Posted on January 25, 2008 by john

Dear Reader,

It seems to me that one possible way of grouping people would be, group A would be people who thrive on conflict, group B would be people who are ambivalent to conflict, and group C would be people who detest conflict.

Clearly, group A would not, at first glance, appear to be suited for governance. However upon closer examination, Politics is nothing but conflict. Conflict with other parties, conflict with the people, conflict within the party, and international conflict. Only a person inured to struggle ever gets to a seat of power. Those who are thrive on conflict, and have a thirst for dominion over society will naturally be drawn to that power. Their enjoyment of conflict will quickly inure them to the struggle, that is politics.

When one enjoys a thing, one is good at the thing enjoyed. A person who has a real enjoyment of conflict will naturally be good at it. Giving the A group person a leg up in any struggle. The dross floats to the top. They will naturally get the power they so desire.

Group B people to whom conflict is neither enjoyable nor loathsome and are drawn to dominion over others will take longer to become inured with the amount of struggle it takes to get a seat of power. They will have a leg up in that they will be better at facilitating rectification. Some will persevere but most will fall aside upon finding a better avenue for their talents.

Group C people who are draw to dominion over society must avoid politics. Those who don’t quickly learn the truth of the statement that, politics are nothing but conflict. They chafe at the struggle and must find another avenue for their interest.

Therefore we can safely conclude that most people who are in positions of power in our government and other governments, are group A people. But, are they the best people for the job?

Posted in Group Politics | Leave a comment

Notable exeption

Posted on January 21, 2008 by john

Dear Reader,It seems to me that a good case in point of a person putting the interest of the State and Society above his own, is from the story of Tarquinious Superbus by Livy. This example comes from the back end of the story.

After being dethroned, essentially by Lucricia’s sacrifice. Tarquinious Superbus, the last Etruscan king of Rome, made a last effort at regaining his seat. In this effort he enlisted the aid of two Roman Patrician brothers, along with several co-conspirators. The plan went awry, and the conspiracy was discovered. The father of the two brothers, (a Senator), personally ordered the immediate execution of his sons for their part in trying to bring back a tyrant to Rome, and overthrowing the new Roman Republic.

After watching his sons executed and overcome with grief, he went home to prepare the funeral. Then the other conspirators were brought up before the people. Trembling at what they had just seen, the conspirators, (who would have certainly murdered hundreds of people with no compunction whatsoever, had Tarquinious returned), pleaded for their lives. The people were so moved they almost gave them exile instead of execution. Some of the more stalwart plebeians and Patricians ran to the father and told him what was transpiring. The Father gathered himself up, went back to the Forum and talked sense into the masses. The conspirators were executed, and the resulting Republic lasted for nine hundred years. The people of Rome were granted nine hundred years of Liberty for this virtuous act. (A virtuous act that is clearly outside of my capability).

What does this teach us about the quality of mercy that should be shown to the Aristocracy?

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