Category My Politics & Discussions

Feb 10 2014

Self Rule Verse a Ruling Class


Why America is Different

America and its unique Constitution was an experiment in self rule.  The way the country was put together was something never tried before on this scale and with the freedoms established.  Yes we did have some of the Greek city states and the original Roman republic but they did not give anywhere near the freedom that was established here under our Constitution.  The rest of the world watched in awe as the Republic was formed and then actually worked.

Alexis de Tocqueville a young Frenchman visited the United States in 1831 with his friend Gustave de Beaumont for a nine month visit which would have been longer had he not been called back to France. After going back to France he wrote and published a treaties called Democracy in America the first Volume I Part 1 and Part 2 in 1835 and the second Volume II Part 1 through Part 4 published in 1840.

An English translation of the First part was published in America in 1838 by Henry Reeve but Tocqueville did not think it was completely accurate.  A much later version by Francis Bowen In 1945 corrected some of this. The writing here used for reference the Penguin Classics version published by Penguin Books London in 2003 translated from French by Gerald E. Bevan with an introduction and notes by Isaac Kramnick.

Tocqueville’s writing skills and his passion for the subject make his writing a must read for any serious student in the theory of self rule.  Democracy in America was an instant hit in France and set de Tocqueville up for election to the French Chamber of Deputies and a distinguish career thereafter.

What Tocqueville found in America, was that the freedoms that existing in America after the first settlers arrived had created an awakening of a spirit in the Citizens and that it was his opinion that this was because the colonists were initially left to fend for themselves.  They were no longer restrained by artificial rules and regulations imposed on them by the Aristocracy which then ruled all of Europe in one form or another.

So they set up their own system of government based on Townships which Tocqueville credited for the eventual establishment of our present form of government. Once they had become free of those ‘old’ shackles they went on to better their lives by working hard and improving their conditions.  They did this because they could keep the fruits of their labor — they had the right of property and “local” control of the property.

These liberated American Citizens were also very aware of their government, much more so then we are today.  They understood the principles and what it meant to be free to succeed and also free to fail, but the opportunity to succeed outweighed the risks of failure. It could be said that the Citizens of America back then and without any expensive public education understood their form of government better then do even those with advanced college educations today.  I know that I did not really understand out form of government until the ‘90s. That basic understanding was one of the surprises that Tocqueville experienced while here in America. It was a surprise because in his France the subjects and even some of the Aristocrats knew very little about their form of government.

During the period he was here he did note that women did not have the right to vote but then in Europe almost no one had the right to vote so what was here was a lot better then in his native France or anywhere else for that matter.  Also free black men in the North had the right to vote but were subtly discouraged from doing so. Interestingly Tocqueville wondered if this freedom was good and whether self rule would work in the long run.  He believed that an Aristocracy might be required to get the benefits of Art Literature and Science since there was a difference that came with being high born.  More on this thought later.

Obviously that was not true as later works in America both in the arts and science would prove.  So If nothing else we now know that freedom and self rule produce more benefits to the Citizens then does any other kind of system that attempts to manipulate the results no mater the reasons good or bad, meddling is meddling.  Every obstacle that Tocqueville thought of as to why America would not work was overcome.  The problems we have today started when the things that make us great were gradually taken away.

The importance of knowing what is going on today in Washington is the result of a push by the progressives (some in each political party but mostly they are Democrats) to establish a new ruling class in America.  A ‘ruling’ class is made up of select group of people that have (mostly) inherited wealth and thereby have attended the best schools and know all the right people.  Foremost they believe, because of their station, that they know what is good for society.

Most countries even today have either a ruling class or an aristocracy (class) which is not much different except for the titles that the nobility give to their supporters with an aristocracy.  These people believe that by the very nature of their birth and privileged education they know better then anyone else what is good for the “common” man.  This is what Tocqueville down deep believed — probably because he was one of the privileged few, and he was having a hard time accepting that this views were wrong even when he saw what was going on here.

When there is a ruling class, whatever they are called, you will find that most of the important politicians are of that class. Certainly not all politicians but the ones that are in the real positions of power in the government most definitely are. They also fill the management ranks of the government bureaucracy and make sure their supporters fill the lower ranks.  These people are all well paid for the positions they hold and most retire with large pensions and connections that allow them to live well for the remainder of their lives.  In the United States today they mostly come from the north east States.

Once a ruling class is established it is almost impossible to remove especially with the number of bureaucrats in Washington and the movement of politicians in and out of the public and private sectors for lobbying.  With over $3.5 trillion dollars flowing through Washington on a yearly basis today that amounts to $10.0 Billion per day or almost $7.0 million per second of potential money up for grabs. That is a lot of temptation and incentive to grab as much as one can as Milton Friedman wrote about in his book Free To Chose.  And then more recently we have the book Extortion written by Peter Schweizer where he shows us how in great detail the politicians are able to skim off large amounts of money and retiree very wealth.

Once a ruling class is established the country becomes theirs and legislation is always designed to benefit them first and the Citizens or subjects second.  Not all those in the upper class are a part of this ruling class but as time goes on the ruling class will get larger and larger by nature and require greater and greater amounts of skim off the top of the federal budget.  At some point these kinds of system either collapse or turn into a monarchy/dictator style system. There is a good book written by Angelio M. Codeville on this subject The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America And What We Can Do About It. A portion of this book also appeared as an article in the American Spectator in the July 2010 – August 2010 issue.

There is little doubt that what is going on today in Washington is the push to establish a ruling class in this country.  All the legislation and regulation that has been pushed through starting with the New Deal, then later whenever they could, was designed to slowly take away the rights of the Citizens as listed in the Declaration of independence the U.S. Constitution and all its amendments. We are now at the final stage of that process — we will either overcome the progressives and reestablish the republic or we will become subjects to them and the republic will be no more.

Benjamin Franklin, “Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.

Thomas Pain, “What we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly; ‘tis dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.”

Feb 9 2014

Is a Change in our form of Government Coming?


The Real Reasons for Health Care & Immigration Reform

There are many serious debates going on in the country today, especially as we have an election coming up in November 2014 that could have major implications for the future of the country.  In this off year election, as it’s called, every member of the House of Representatives is up for reelection and 1/3 of the Senate.  The outcome has the potential to change the course of the country for the good or the bad.  There are three possible outcomes: the first is that the House remains under Republican control and the Republicans pick up enough seats that they gain control of the Senate; the second is that there is no major change in the makeup and the House remains under Republican control and the Senate remains under Democratic control; the third is that the Democrats gain control of the House and that they maintain their control of the Senate.

The core issue to be decided is the Obama administration going to be allowed to complete the “Transformation” of the country that he stated after he won the 2008 election and took office. Obama will probably be known, in history, as the least “qualified” person elected to this office out of the 43 that proceeded him, having only the barest minimum specified by the constitution. His reelection in 2012 was more by the incompetent management of the Republican Party than the support for his policies although it must be said that his message of more “free” stuff (Redistribution of Wealth) was very powerful to the underclass which he significantly added to, by the way, during his first four years. The question that begs an answer now is, have the American citizens woken up and are no longer mesmerized by the sweet talking progressive salesperson?

The debate over the unequal end result of life which occurs for many reasons such as heredity, station, motivation and luck has been going on for all of recorded history, some 5,000 years.  The American experience of less than 250 years represents only 5% of that body of political experience.  Many empires and kingdoms have lasted for thousands of years however none of them had a free citizenry.  Only in America had the common man been allowed to do his own bidding not that of some master.  The result was amassing as in less than 200 years we became the preeminent power on the Globe which simultaneously creating a way of life that was the envy of all.  Keep in mind that even considering the programs started in the mid to late ‘30s the Federal government was still restrained by the Constitution and the Bill-of-Rights; so the Federal government cannot claim that all the growth that occurred before that had anything to do with Federal policies.

Not until the late 60’s did foreigners’ began coming here “primarily” for the “benefits” not the “opportunity” that existed here. The massive influx of people from Europe that occurred from after the civil war until the beginning of the Vietnam war came here for the opportunity not the benefits (free stuff) as the benefits did not exist until after President Johnson (LBJ) created them in the form they now are. Unlike previous waves of immigrants today’s immigrants are given special treatment and benefits such as “welfare,” “The anchor baby” and “The dream act” policies that actually give illegal’s more benefits than citizens. Since nothing can ever be totally “free” the existing citizens are paying for this out of their earning (taxes); such that if you can sneak across the border and get here the rest of us will pay you to live here, get health care and get education at no cost to the illegal.  It’s a very good deal for them but not for us.

An argument has been made that we need the workers: but at the same time we are told that the workers we need are technicians, engineers and other professionals that can do the hi-tech jobs of the future. On face there is a very large disconnect here for the majority of those we allow to come here by our policies are uneducated for sure no technical skills and speak no English. In other words there are millions of illegal’s that have no chance of being productive members of our hi-tech society.  Whether their children will be so qualified or not is not the point they are not and for the most part will never be. So on face the propositions before us in Immigration reform are preposterous.

Since we have the Federal Government, which is now controlled by the progressive wing of the Old Democratic Party, telling us that two mutually exclusive ideas must be followed something is amiss.  The need for hi-tech workers does just not jive with bringing in illiterate non-English speaking immigrants. Therefore we can only assume that there are other reasons than those being started. The most likely being that if the existing crop of illegal’s were given any form of amnesty (meaning they could stay here) then it would be a very easy step for a future congress to grant them citizenship.  Since these are predominately uneducated people (no fault of theirs) they will be dependent on the federal Government and vote Democratic in overwhelming numbers.  Even if it would be 60/40 to the Democrats favor it would mean the end of the Republican Party. It would more likely be 75/25 or worse and than the Republican Party would be extinct.

Free health care from the Affordable Health Care act known as Obama Care is now going to add to the draw of third world people to come here one way or another.  No political or economic system can sustain these kinds of policies for long without bringing economic destruction.  By the end of this year the Federal Government will have added $10.0 trillion to the national financial obligations (T-bills are only one form) in only 6 years. Since foreign investors presently pick up 50% of the U.S. debt in the form of T-bills the continuation of this uncontrolled spending trend along with anemic jobs growth will soon make any U.S. investment problematical and some change in our form of government will be required.

When one studies Political Philosophy, especially the classic Greeks i.e. Socrates, Aristotle and Plato one finds that there are only a very few forms of government that are possible. Further there are patterns to transitions between them since no single from lasts for very long.  These “basic” forms are:

A. The people are ruled by one person which can take two forms …

A-1 MONARCHY
One ruler, restrained by law  who tries to serve all the citizens of a state.
Example: Queen Elizabeth the First.

A-2 TYRANNY
One ruler who uses his power for himself or for some special group.
Example: Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin.

B. The people are ruled by a few people which can also take two forms …

B-1 ARISTOCRACY 
The rule by a small elite of the state’s best people chosen by ability or achievement.
Example: America after the revolution for about 30 years. 

B-2 OLIGARCHY
Self-interested rule by a group chosen for their wealth or social caste.
Example: Post revolutionary France.

C. The people are ruled by themselves which can also take two forms …

C-1 POLITY
The rule by the majority of the citizens but controlled by constitutional law to protect the rights of the minority.
Example: Great Britain or The United States 

C-2 DEMOCRACY
Rule by majority. It uses its power to oppress the minority. Small groups manipulate the masses to get what they want.
Example: Ancient Athens

You can see that the only difference between C-1 and C-2 is a “strong” Constitution” which the founding fathers knew and that was their stated purpose when they created it. Over the past several decades those that desire power but were frustrated by the Constitutional limits decided to get rid of those limits by first instituted a re-education system in the American schools. The tools they used were multiculturalism, political correctness and sustainable energy.  That is now completed and the final transformation is now being instituted with all the talk of the old and obsolete Constitution and according to our current president the need for a “Bill of Positive Rights” meaning what the government can do for you.  The current talk of by-passing Congress with a pen and a phone are also part of this change. The completion of this change in beliefs will move us from C-1 to C-2 which is the opposite of what most would think.

Once this happens, and it is very close right now, according to the Classical Philosophers we move from the “C” class to the “A” class of government. The normal transition would be from C-1 to C-2 to A-2, the transition will be quick and unless the Republican Party will wake up and embrace the “Tea” party the transition to A-2 will be completed by 2020. The reason it will be quick is that it is generally believed that the from C-2 is the most unstable.

There is only one way to stop this transformation and that is for “all” conservatives to band together and keep the House and take the Senate. The goal should be to create a coalition of conservatives in the Senate comprising 60 members. If that could be accomplished than the President could be removed from office by the Impeachment process. Although that would put Joe Biden in office it would be for a very short time and in 2016 a new president could be elected that was not interested in changing our form of government.

However, even if the 60 number could not be reached in the Senate, if the Republicans got the majority, anything over 50, than Obama would have his hands tied to the point that we could at least put changes on hold till 2016 and prevent more damage from being done.

Feb 3 2014

GINI Index Explained


Hard to believe this …

The importance of the GINI index to intellectuals and others of the liberal or progressive persuasion cannot be dismissed. This popular index is used to rank countries as to how good a place to live they are by organizations such as the UN the World Bank and our own CIA. Those of us that believe that the American way of life is the best ever devised by man would place America at the top of any list of countries — American Exceptionalism — is what be believe in. We would however be very, very wrong. The chart below is based on our own CIA’s ratings and it places us way down the list at about 100 out of the 149 rated countries. Places like Cambodia, Uganda, Iran and Macedonia all have better ratings then America. The CIA gives America a GINI of 45.0 and to put that in perspective Kazakhstan has a GINI of 26.7 and that makes them the 9th best place in the world to live (lower is better). How can this be?

gini-coefficient-map1

Most Americans would find this very hard to believe for just using common sense if this GINI index were true why would just about everyone in the world be trying to get into the United States both legally and illegally? For example India with a 36.8 GINI rating is ranked as 59th verses the American ranking of 100th — almost twice as good as America. So based on the GINI rating why would anyone move from a good place to a bad place? If the facts don’t match the theory there is one conclusion that can be made and that is that the theory (rating in this case) is wrong. This should be to no surprise to those of us that have a great distrust of things coming from agencies controlled by those seeking personal power.

One of the core precepts used to make this factious rating redistributing wealth can be understood by looking at what Milton Friedman wrote in his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom. The answer can be found in Chapter X The Distribution of Income on page 171 of the fortieth anniversary edition. But first before we get into the explanation we must first understand why the rating exists at all. It’s actually very simple those that desire power need to find ways to justify their desires to the common man. Since America was so far above all the rest of the world they had to find some way to make it seem like it wasn’t as good as “we” thought it was. There was one segment of the Boomer generation that thought they knew a better way to run the country and when their revolutionary ideas failed in the 60’s and the 70’s to take hold in the general population they took a different tack.

The Education System and Politics was their path to the power they desired. Previous generations did not have their beliefs so all they had to do was wait till those that believed in America were retired and/or dead. The strategy was to out live the previous generations and manipulate the younger ones through propagandized education while they moved up in the ranks of the government at all levels. Most of us did not see this shift we were to busy living and raising our families. But we awakened after the election of 2008 put a believer of central planning and socialism in as president of the United States of American. The answer was the Tea Party, which changed the complexion of congress in time to stop further damage but not enough to reverse what was already done. The job needs to be finished this November.

Friedman has written many excellent books on the subject of economics and politics and when you read them you quickly find they are well thought out, the arguments logically developed and the conclusions sound. The issues are discussed putting both sides on the table and then he goes on to prove definitively that the only way to get a truly free and just society is to get government out of the peoples life’s. The key here is the fact that government is run by people and people have personal agendas and those are almost 100% self-serving. The founders understood that and that is why the powers they gave the federal government were so limited.

The opposite of what we have is America is central planning and limited freedom and that is what most of the rest of the world has — but we have seen that it just doesn’t work. Hundreds of million of people were killed in setting up these systems all through Europe and Asia over the last hundred years, and where are they now? These systems all had at their core an economy that was run (directly or indirectly) by their federal government, the names of the systems were different but the practice was the same in each case. We understand that and reject the concept but those that want to rule are clever and they found a way to get what they wanted through the back door while we weren’t paying attention. It started with changing our history and even the definition of words so things seemed to be different than what they really were. Keep in mind George Santayana, who, in his Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Vol.1, wrote “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Starting in 1913 with the creation of the federal reserve and them in earnest with Social Security and quickly running through The Great Society, Medicare, Medicaid, The Department of Education and many other programs and Departments we now have government (federal state and local) running (directly and indirectly) over 40% of the American economy. When the health care system take over with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010, is completed in a few more years the government will be running almost 2/3 of the economy. When that happens we will no longer be citizens we will be subjects of those that rule us.

Now the explanation of why the GINI index is what it is and how it is used to justify the Federal government taking over more and more segments of our country using every trick in the book and even some new ones as those who desire power transform the country into one that is run out of Washington.

The GINI index has many factors but the one that seems to give many counties a bad rating and others a good rating is the one that measures income disparity between the classes. This factor measures the difference between those at the top, the 1% today, verses those at the bottom, the 99% today. For example lets say the bottom segment of country A earns on average $5,000 per year and the top segment earns $50,000 so there is a difference of 10:1 which is low and that gives country A a high rating. Now we have country B where the bottom segment earns on average $10,000 per year and the top segment earns $250,000 so we have a difference of 25:1 clearly this is a great discrepancy between the top and the bottom and so country B gets a lower rating. Based on those earnings numbers and the resulting GINI rating, policy is developed to reward country A for being good and penalizes country B for being bad. But is this even a valid measure and if it isn’t of what good is it?

Friedman gives an example like this in his book and then explains what if country A has a cast system with no mobility between the classes. This is not speculation many countries have de facto cast systems where if you are born poor you stay poor. These countries are almost all poor economically because of their system of no freedom no private property and a strong central governments run by rulers that have no reason to change anything. He goes on to explain that country B has freedom, private property and limited federal government. This gives the people the incentive to work hard and make something of themselves. Sure some make a lot of money and get to the top and some don’t. But all are better off even with this income spread for the bottom of those of country B have twice the earning power as those in country A. But more importantly those in country B can be born at the bottom and through hard work and effort end up at the top. The upward mobility is the key.

But there is another factor here often over looked. When you graduate from high school or college you enter the work force at the bottom. You maybe making a reasonable amount but you also expect to move up and be earning more later in life. So you are in a lower income group when young and in a higher income group when older. The point is that the people in a free society move up and down the income groupings over time. The top today is not made of the same people from 20 years ago and the bottom is made up of different people as well. Those seeking power and using class warfare try to made us think that people stay in a group all there life — maybe they do in some countries but most do not here.

Clearly we are in country B and most of the rest of the world are in countries like county A; the prove of this is not found in the GINI index but with people that come here because of the opportunity they know is here. They voted with their feet and that is the only vote that counts.

Feb 3 2014

The Dual Nature of Mankind


The Mores of the people and Politics

Something that is both good and bad with humankind is our dual nature; the Asian Yin and Yang so to speak. We on the once side we are ruled by our self-interest doing and acting for our personal betterment to the exclusion of others. A politician passing laws where he can personally gain financial which is morally wrong even if not legal wrong. Then we have the other aspect where we act to help others even when there is no betterment to ourselves. For example we have a soldier falling on a hand grenade to save his comrades knowing he will die. Clearly these are very different aspects of our personalities. Many have studied this dichotomy and written their views on why this is true. The reasons matter not here we accept that they exist and deal with them as our founders did when they wrote our Constitution. So to prevent the former and promote the later we have hard limits placed on the federal government with checks and balances and enumerated powers — negative rights as some like to call them. The former was deemed much more important by our founders than the latter based on fine thousand years of political human history.

The importance of this issue cannot be dismissed and again as our founders understood a system like they created could not work without a moral base in the citizens. They saw religion as the provider of our moral base and they protected that right in the constitution and first amendment by making it impossible for the federal government to establish a state religion as existed in the rest of the world at that time. Contrary to current popular belief the founders made no attempt to take religion out of the government; in fact the opposite was true. This alone proves that the current drive to take religion out of the government is not valid at any level moral or Constitutional. In fact, it could be said that those that seek power are trying to establish a state religion — that religion being secularism — which is a system of beliefs designed to replace other systems of beliefs. To make that change they need to change the mores of the people and that is being done though the education system and the entertainment industry.

Montesquieu in his The Spirit of the Laws written in 1748 discuses the mores of the people extensively but two sections in particular Book 19 page 308 and Book 24 Page 460 in the Cambridge University Press 1989 translation relate to the peoples mores and their government. The issue of the mores of the people is important in politics because as Montesquieu understood the beliefs and customs of the people must be matched by their system of government. If there is a mismatch then there is conflict and if there is a large mismatch there is civil war. For example after the American Revolution the issue of slavery was not settled. The bulk of American people did not like it and wanted it gone as it went against their mores but because America was a republic the states that had slavery wanted to keep it and the issue festered. The Civil War under the first Republican president Abraham Lincoln settled the issue and the government matched the mores of the people for the next 100 years or so.

In the late 19th century in the heat of the transformative industrial revolution Karl Marx changed the mix of beliefs, mores if you will, with his radical theories now called Marxism or Communism. There was much appeal to what was proposed but not for the reasons that were stated by Marx. The intellectuals saw this as a way to reverse the trend to freedom that was transforming Europe at the time; but convincing the people that there was a better way then what existed then was not going to be easy. Further there was a reinforcing belief structure coming from a different direction that gave additional support to this trend on the intellectuals. This support came form the new Existentialism movement; in particular from Nietzsche, in my opinion, who developed his theories shortly after Marx died in 1883. Nietzsche’s writings were in part the concept that there were two kinds of mores — the mores of power and the intellectual aristocrats who had the right of rule and those of the common man, the mores of slaves as he called them who did not have that capacity and were therefore inferior. His writings were very much against religion and also against anything someone tried to claim as a “truth” of any kind even science and engineering. He appeared to be in support of the aristocrats’ as then existed in Europe for they believed only in themselves as the true sovereign man who made his own rules as only he saw fit.

Those seeking power took Marx and Nietzsche’s’ work and merged them into what is now the progressive movement; but they needed more and they got that after John Maynard Keynes gave then the political means they needed in the late 1930s with his theories expounded in his book The General Theory of Employment interest, and Money now known as Keynesian economics. The core of the progressives beliefs are: based on Nietzsche work that there are those that are born better and have the right to rule; then supported on Keynes work that big government was required; and finally on Marx that there was moral justification for doing this. Their only problem was that to get the power they sought they needed to change the mores of the people to accept being ruled. Most of the world agreed with this so that was not their problem. Their problem was America where the beliefs of Marx, Nietzsche and Keynes never took complete hold — the Citizens here were happy not being ruled.

Using the ACLU which was founded in 1920 by those with this belief — that they, the intellectuals, were destined to rule — a campaign was started to separate the Citizens from their government by changing both the government and the mores of the people. The key to achieving this change was to take over the Education system which was accomplished first when they successfully blocked public funding to bus students to public and religious schools in 1947 with the Everson v. Board of Education case and then it was completed when the department of Education was established in 1979. Once they had control of the education system they thought they could shift the mores of the people to accept a larger and larger government. The legislation introduced and passed by both political parties albeit for different reasons over the last ten years in particular has taken the country to the very edge of this transformation.

While religion was being taken out of the schools and the government an attack on the Citizens was also being waged with Political Correctness (PC) and Multiculturalism which were designed to neutralize religion and to show that there was no differences between anyone we are all the same — and for sure, to them, the American system is no better then anyone else’s system. But the sameness they believe in is Nietzsche’s the mores of the slave for the common man; and the no better, to them, is that we should accept being ruled as does everyone else in the world. The moves and the TV shows are full of this message and have been for a long time. Supporting this was a new curriculum in the schools that taught how bad America was so its no wonder that today’s the kids and young adults are confused — for why are people sneaking into America if this place is as bad as they are being told it is?

This manufactured distrust of our free market system gave the progressives the power to say we are trying to change our ways and be more like everyone else and this campaign of misinformation came to fruitions in 2008 with a new kind of president — one that fully indented to transform the country into a form that he believed was better. The one he was taught in the schools of a powerful central government ruling the people — for their own good of course. Unfortunately during the 2008 election no one bothered to ask him what he was going to transform us into and so we now have economic stagnation as we are neither free market nor central planning. And since the move is toward central planning there is no incentive to do anything as it is perceived that the government will be taking over most functions and then even if you did made some money it will be taken away a part of the redistribution of wealth program.

So where are we? Well to use an old cliché we are between the rock and the hard place. The Supreme Court ruling on June 28th tipped the scales of government to central planning; as the ruling affirming the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) of 2010 was constitutional under the power to tax gave gives the legislative branch the power to do most anything they want just as Nancy Pelosi stated during the debate on that legislation. The process of changing the government started in 1913 has now been completed with this ruling. Roberts in making this ruling ignored the constitutional amendment process which was designed to adjust the Constitution when major changes were needed. The American people did not want this legislation and it was done by one political party — clearly this was above and beyond what congress had the power to do, and it was not in the spirit of what the founders intended. Roberts will now be known as the person that ended our republic and turned us into just another European style social welfare democracy ruled by a powerful aristocratic few.

It’s never too late but we are now in the 4th quarter down 14 to 10 on the opponent’s 40 yard line; its 4th down, 9 yards to go and 8 seconds left on the clock. Only a Hail Mary pass to a receiver in the end zone can win the game. Who is going to be our quarterback in 2016? — And who is going to be the receiver? We have many good candidates to make our team; Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio or Alan West whoever it is we need stars that can complete what is needed to save the Republic. To complete that pass and save the Republic we need the Presidency and at minimum 51 Senators as well as maintaining control of the house. Than, that team needs to repeal almost everything that has been enacted since the 70’s; starting on the first full day January 21st 2016 with the repeal of PPACA Obamacare. After that the real work begins — to dismantle all the rest of the progressive transformation.

Feb 3 2014

Homeostasis and Civil Society


The Destruction of the American Family

There is a concept that has been applied to this subject before but in my quick review not in the sense that it could be developed, at least not in my opinion. The concept is Homeostasis which is the property of a living entity to regulate its internal environment such that it tends to maintain a stable, constant condition though a process of negative and positive feedback’s. This allows the entity to survive environmental conditions that are not optimum to that entity. All life as we know it has this property to lesser or greater amounts and those that favor the later expand while those with the former contract. To some degree this has been applied to social systems including humans with terms like social equilibrium but I think that is a limiting term and that applying homeostasis to the human society in its fullest sense would allow us to make some interesting observations. In the distant past that human unit would have been the tribe not the individual; today a small town might be better.

If we apply homeostasis to a human town (also known as a township or county) and use the definition described in the first paragraph of a stable system then we must have these things: first and foremost the ability to reproduce and maintain the system; then we must have the ability to exist in the environment; and lastly we must have a social system that maintains the family unit. The family unit is the key for the individual by him/her self can not fulfill the first requirement and the town can not exist without stable families. All these systems must work together to maintain the town in a form that resolves differences and promotes behavior that is acceptable to the town, the family and the individual. The highest social unit, the town, is maintained by having stable families and the families are maintained by having responsible individuals. Each must understand its purpose in the social structure and work to maintain that structure while adapting to changes in the environment.

To maintain this system in equilibrium there must be a regulating body or bodies and in this case it’s the town’s government. Many terms have been used for the systems used to regulate and resolve issues but we’ll use today’s terms of a Mayor and a Town Council as the most common. Sub systems needed are a means of maintaining order the police; and education system schools; a way to maintain the health of the individuals, medical services; a system of maintaining roads and bridges, public works and lastly a means of providing utilities such as power, water and waste management. Much more is required but the rest can be provided by the members of the town themselves. In the not to distant past small towns could exist almost completely by themselves, obviously today that is not possible but the principle of the town (township back then) as the key human social unit is the justification that was used to form this country and is what resulted in our constitution which limited the federal powers in essence hands off the local communities. These towns, back then, were in a Homeostasis State.

Those born after the late ‘40s and early ‘50s will not remember the “communities” that existed back then — it was a very different world then what came after. The people in those towns took care of themselves with very little help from outside (this discussion is for the social system not the goods and services that are required today and can be provided from outside the social system without destroying the local social system). The schools the police the town council all had one thing in common and that was protecting and nurturing the community — in particular the children. It wasn’t perfect we are human after all but the results were less strife less crime and a moral people. This system worked very well from the time the first settlers got here till say the late 1950’s which would be about 300 years give or take.

However, these towns didn’t exist in a vacuum larger structures were formed first states and then the community of states the country. The establishment of the U.S. Constitution giving preference to local control was the key to the success of this endeavor and that maintained the stable social system that had been developed in the towns. Alexis de Tocqueville understood this when he wrote Democracy in America first published in 1835 after his visit to America. This book is by far the best work ever done on the uniqueness of the American social and political system. Unfortunately, these larger political structures gave a means for those seeking power to game the system using today’s vernacular. These power seekers did not like the true power to reside in the Towns for there were too many for them to control. But there were fewer states and only one federal government so work was begun to move the power from the local communities to the national level. De Tocqueville saw that this could be something that could happen and it did although not for the exact reason he talked about and it took longer then he envisioned.

Because the system of limited federal power the founders established in the Constitution was so strong it was not easy to move the power to Washington. To move that political power would require a change of the people’s mores and that would upset the stable homeostasis social system of the towns. Some would say this was a planned change by those that wanted to rule and to some degree that might be true; however, my opinion like that of Thomas Jefferson is that the concentration of power is a natural thing and will occur on its own without some sinister master plan. This does not mean it is right it just means that the citizens must be educated and vigilant to prevent it. The one thing, in my opinion, that allowed this power shift to happen was a result of the formation of the movie segment of the entertainment industry about 100 years ago in Hollywood. This means of communications was something new to society and therefore no defense to it yet existed, if it were to be used for other than entertainment, which it soon was. Interestingly the possible corruption of the citizens morals by the arts was a serious concern for Plato and Socrates as discuses in “The Republic” in classical Athens almost 2400 years ago.

The key to rising children is a stable family preferable with a mother that stayed at home at least until the children were out of high school. Obviously that can not be done in all cases and many times the husband could not earn enough to support the family to the level the family wanted and the town expected. So many women did have to work but most took part time jobs that allowed them to be at home when the children were home from school. In this system the Children were under supervision almost all the time either at school or at home with their parent or with other relatives. This method of rising children was not perfect but it was better then any before and certainly much better then what we have now with growing government interference at all levels.

Feminism changed all this in the 70’s and much for the worse as women were convinced they should not have children and they should be in the work place just like the men and what children they did have could be placed in day care. This did two things number one it put more people in the work force so that put downward pressure on the pay rates. Number two it implied that rising children was demeaning work not worthy of a progressive woman. But worse the federal government got involved with equal rights laws that dictated that women and other defined minorities be fairly represent in all jobs. Companies had to report to the federal government how many females and other “official” minorities they had employed.

This was a drastic change in the mores of the people and the entertainment industry went into full support of this mores change. Within a few decades there wasn’t a movie being made that didn’t directly or indirectly have this message embedded in it. Worse these changes helped to break up the family structure since women were now independent of men and no longer needed their support (in the movies). And again the federal government stepped in with programs to support single mothers, Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) was started in 1935 within the Social Security system but it exploded under President Johnson and was soon under fire for promoting women to not get married and have lots of Children. Many poor families split up with the man becoming a “live in” boyfriend and to maintain the scam he would work in the underground economy for cash and often turned to crime. Within a short period of time the entrainment industry picks this up and now it would be very unusual to see a movie with a traditional family structure. Most show single profession (college educated) women living alone with one child from a failed relationship and their working as managers or executives, often in the government. If a man is even shown it’s in many cases in a derogatory role.

We could go on with the current change to define what a marriage is but that is more discussion then we need. The bottom line is that the traditional family structure that has existed for thousands of years in now in danger of disappearing. If that happens then the mores of the people will have been destroyed and replaced with a belief that only the federal government can properly raise children. We are very close to that now and, in fact, the change has gone far enough that homeostasis of the town is no longer stable we have exceeded the feed back mechanisms that allowed a community to exist. What will replace the family is unknown but if these changes aren’t reversed soon there will be no way to go back to what worked so well in the past.

Today many cities have central cores comprised only of poor single mothers as the head of the home. The live in boy friends are gone leaving the children in such horrible living conditions such that few can even get through high school. Most of the boys turn to crime such that it would be hard to find a young man in a central city that did not have a criminal record. Today there is talk of passing laws that would, in effect, hide past criminal records so these neglected children now young adults could find jobs.

This is a sorry state of affairs for a country like America and I place 100% of the blame for this in the elitism of the intellectuals that wanted power so badly that they were willing to kill the American family so all would be dependent on the federal government. And we are almost there right now.

Feb 1 2014

A Constitutional Republic


Our Form of Government

When the American Revolution started there had been a 500 year debate going on within political theorists that was having the effect of undermining the prevailing validity of the heredity based monarchies’ that predominated Europe and most of the rest of the world at that time.  Therefore western civilization was ripe for a change and that change came from the British colonies in America. Residing there was a group of very special men: Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, and Hamilton to name but a few of those that created this new system.

An interesting fact is that if we look at science and engineering for the period 50 years before and 50 years after 1776 we find that is the heart of the industrial revolution.  Mostly in England but also in the Americans we have the perfection of the steam engine, the flying shuttle loom, the crucible process for making steel, the small pox vaccine, the first machine tools, interchangeable parts, the battery and photography all being invented. From there things moved faster and faster resulting in the standard of living that we have today.

Since this was also the period of political economic and legal writing that included the likes of Adam Smith, William Blackstone, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Paine it is safe to say that we are today the result of these men and what they did during that period.

But back to politics and government to find out what was created after the end of the American Revolution with the signing of the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783.  A few years before that on March 1, 1781 the newly freed colonies begin operating under a loose form of government called the Articles of Confederation described in the first section of this book.

But there were problems with that form of government and so a few years later in 1786 a conventional was called to make changes as was allowed by the Articles of Confederation.  That quickly lead to the writing of the United States Constitution that we now have and that was ratified and put into effect on September 13, 1788.  By April of 1789 the elections had been held the 1st congress convened and Washington sown in as the first President.  The rest is history in the making.

We know most of that and most of us know a little about the form of government that we have but few know why we have what we have.  That is sad for the why is the important part, especially today when some wish to make changes to the form of government that we have that will basically make the Constitution we have an obsolete document.

We know from historical records that there was a significant debate between those wanting a relatively strong central government (Federalist) and a weak central government (Anti-Federalist).  The compromise that allowed for the ratification was the Bill of Rights which was the name given to the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.  The purpose of these amendments was to ensure that the power (for the serious readers the Sovereignty) stayed as much as possible with the people and the states.

Most of the first eight years of the new government were taken up in forming the government and forming the operating procedures for how it would actually function.  There was little historical help to those that wrote the constitution and those that were elected to run it.  And since the system was specifically set up to be cumbersome in operation with all kinds of checks and balances this was not an easy task.  So why was our government set up to be hard to get things done?

To get that answer we need to look at the forms of government and what you know about them is not necessarily what the first impression is.  If we go back to Locke and Rousseau we see that the power resides in the people and that they, through the ‘social’ contract give some of that power to the government.  The purpose of this ‘social’ contract is primarily for the protection of the people.  But it’s also to set up a system of governance that gives the people the rules (statutory and common laws) that determine the legal basis of how society operates day to day and year to year.

We can see that if there is no government and therefore no law that all the power resides in the people and they are free to do anything that they want.  This is called anarchy.  If we move to the other end as in a monarchy we have the opposite with all the power resting in the Monarch (king, emperor etc).  The people here are subjects with no rights except those that the Monarch grants them.  Today we hear about the right and the left or communism or fascism as forms of government but they are all really the same thing.  Oh there are differences but the important thing is that they all have as their base a strong central government. Which makes them little different than the heretical monarchies that ruled the world for so long.  Different titles and different procedures with or without voting but they all had at their core a ‘ruling class’ that governed the country some with almost absolute power.

Historically most countries ended up with a group that supported the monarch since it would be impractical for one person to run an entire country.  These people ended up being the royalty with a whole range of titles to establish a pecking order.  But even that wasn’t enough to affectively rule as the size of the countries increased and so councils were formed mostly of educated but not always aristocrats mostly with blood lines to the crown, so to speak.  There were various names for these councils such as the parliament in England generally the rule makers served at the Monarchs’ pleasure and were called magistrates.

When the United States Constitution was being written the founders did not want to establish a system like existed elsewhere for they had just finished fighting a long war to get rid of that kind of system.  But what else was there?  Well that is why the work of Locke and Rousseau were so important.  This is not to say that many others didn’t contribute to the thinking of that time but only that these two gave a theoretical basis for a different form of government.

So the task that those attending the constitutional convention in 1787 faced was to come up with something that was not a monarchy and not anarchy.  Something in-between the two that would give the people soon to be called citizens their freedom but yet allow for the protection of the people through a federal government. To get a better understanding of this process one of the best books written is The Five Thousand Year Leapwritten by W. Cleon Skousen.  First published in 1981 and then again in 2009 by American Documents Publishing.

The system that was set up here was deigned to fall between anarchy and a monarchy and be anchored there with strong controls and limits on what power the various governments’ power centers had.  There were Local, County, State and Federal systems each with a defined and limited ability to make laws.  Further, since their biggest concern was the Federal system it was broken up into many sections to defuse the power for they knew that the tendency would be for power to concentrate and once that accrued the form of government they had set up would be lost.

The purpose for all the checks and balances and splits in power and states rights and individual rights and the electoral system of determining the president was to prevent the concentration of power in the federal government which would inevitably lead to the Citizens be turned once more into subjects.

John Adams, “Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have … a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the character and conduct of their rulers.”

Feb 1 2014

Our Way of Life, Part I


Before we can start a discussion on civilization and society and our way of life we must briefly address the issue of how humans came to populate the earth, and this brings us to the issue of God, since all the major religions of the world teach that God created man.  Some believe that God created the earth some 5,000 odd years ago in a six-day period.  Others who are also religious are more flexible in this belief. Those that are of the first group of teachings are prescriptively rigid and therefore they cannot account for the abundance of observations and phenomena in our natural world, which point to a much greater age for the planet (ten to fifteen billion years).

Why the red shift in astronomy?  Why the many fossils that point to evolutionary development for all terrestrial life?  Why the existence of geological structures millions, even billions, of years old? Why human brains with the capacity to discover these things as we study ourselves and the universe?  Why would a God who had created the universe in six days go to such great efforts to make it appear otherwise?

We should bypass this issue by assuming that, given the existence of a God/Creator, the universe was created in a manner consistent with our scientific knowledge, but that man was an intentional result of the creation process, planned by the God/Creator from the beginning.  In other words, God created man via an indirect, evolutionary process, that many  today call “intelligent design.”   If we can agree to make this one simple assumption, then we can move on to the discussion and analysis of our humanity without getting into an argument about the existence of God and whether here is an afterlife. There will be more on this subject in future post.

Assuming that human life developed in an evolutionary process we can begin our discussion of civilization with the pre-human ancestors of modern man, who began to roam the planet coming out of Africa approximately two and a half million years ago.   By this stage of our development, pre-humans had developed a complex brain as a means of adapting to a hostile environment.   It is generally believed that at the time the earliest humans developed sentience they had banded together in small groups for protection.   The importance of this practice was three-fold:

First, living in groups provided general protection for all members of the band or tribe (in other words there was, “safety in numbers”).

Second, since the human female is particularly vulnerable during the later stages of pregnancy (pregnancy easily adds twenty-five to thirty percent to her body weight), group protection of gestating females was a very strong asset to the viability of the human species.  Whether it is politically correct or not — the primary purpose of a man is to protect and care for his mate and their children

Third, human babies are absolutely helpless (unlike most other mammals) for an extended period of time after birth, and children require many years of growing and learning before becoming independent individuals (14 to 16 years back then and much longer today), and thus group protection of infants and young children was absolutely imperative if the human species was to survive.

The females of almost all species with complex brains (and developmental patterns similar to ours) developed very strong protective instincts.  It follows logically that human males, unburdened with childbearing, became the aggressive gender of the species, whose core job was foremost to protect and provide for the females and young. In addition, males were much more expendable than females, since one male could impregnate many females.  Maybe this is one of the reasons that approximately 7% more males are born than females.  They were expected to die off and so more were needed.

These defined gender roles must have been beneficial to the development and propagation of the human species, or we would not have continued to evolve.  By the time humans had developed language and had begun to use tools and fire, the social roles of both males and females had been “programmed” into human DNA: Aggressive males protected the tribe (even at the cost of their lives), while the more passive females bore and cared for the young.  Probably as a direct result of the major physical demands of childbearing, females also became physiologically much stronger than males, thus increasing their longevity potential in comparison to males. This has major ramifications today as women live much long then men do and older people require more health care.

Based on observations of the social behaviors of other species with large, complex brains, we can assume that early humans developed specific social structures within their bands and small tribes.   Typically, a dominant male becomes the band or tribe leader; parallel to this, a dominant female also arises, thus providing the basis for a “pecking order,” or social structure, of both males and females within the group.

Probably about thirty thousand years ago basic, “civilization” was born when humans began to retain knowledge through speech, art, and writing, and the relatively simple social structure of early humans began to evolve into something more complex.  The evolutionary process became much more complicated as humans gained the knowledge that allowed them to exercise ever greater control over their environment.  Farming, mining, metal working, and the building of mechanical devices developed quickly and spread throughout the world in short very short order.

A critical mass of knowledge was reached about five thousand years ago, and the conquest of the planet then began in earnest.  It has continued in spurts ever since (periods of rapid gain of knowledge followed by periods of absorption of that knowledge) and is now progressing geometric rate. Given that most of the easy to get resources of the plant have been found and used it is critical that we continue to push the knowledge frontier so we can get to the point that we are not limited to ‘easy’ to get resources. Turing back now is not an option for if there is a second modern dark age it will not be easy to come back.

With the rapid expansion of civilization throughout the globe, the aggressive nature of the male began to constitute, at least somewhat, a liability to the development of the human race.   To some extent, war and the desire for conquest were simply an outgrowth of the male’s role as protector of the tribe.  As bigger and bigger territories were brought under the control of a single dominant, male, large areas assumed a certain stability, which, in turn, promoted the development of technology.  Since by this time no other thing on the planet could challenge the human race it began to dominate the planet.

As the number of humans grew and their knowledge base expanded, all areas or aspects did not develop equally.  Initially male-oriented skills predominated and resulted in the advancement of technology and the physical sciences.  The skills of warfare and conquest were perfected, driven by technological advances.  Human cultures that did not develop these skills were quickly swept aside by highly organized and increasingly mechanized armies.

Prior to the twentieth century, however, aggression and warfare did not impact the overall survival of the human race.  Today, unfortunately, with man’s ability to make nuclear bombs, lethal gases, and custom-designed killer viruses, warfare has the potential to threaten the survival of the human species and has become a very important issue.

“Civilization” has now reached a point at which mankind must rethink its purpose and, in fact, its very existence.  With billions of humans on the planet, and with the knowledge we now possess, it would be easy for mankind to destroy all life on the planet.  Some international tension has been displaced with the collapse of the USSR in the late ‘80s, but it must be kept in mind that, historically, a power always rises to fill a void. India, China, Japan (probably not now after the 2011 earthquake), or some other country will assert itself and replace the USSR in the pantheon of world powers. Disarmament is also not an issue as weakness breeds war, it always has and that cannot be allowed today.

Today with the apparent decline of the United States since 2008 this looks to be more and more like China will assume this role of the replacement country to the old USSR and in the process possibly even surpass the United States if the current direction is not reversed.  This is not a certainty as there are internal problems in China that are not obvious, but that is a subject for a different discussion.

The decline of the United States to a lesser status would be very bad for mankind for we can no longer allow these old aggressive power patterns of a strong leader as part of a closed political system trying to gain control of a region or significant portion of the world.  We must come to an understanding of who we are and why we do what we do; we must be able to address these issues realistically or our civilization will collapse under the onslaught of our increasing numbers our technology and our relentless impact on the ecostructure of the world.

The reason that our decline would be bad is that we are different. Because of this difference the U.S. rose to its present position as the world’s leading industrial and political power in less than 200 years. The industrial base, governmental structure and military might of our country are the culmination of five thousand years of western civilization.  The U.S. is presently unchallenged by any nation on the planet; simply said, we are the best (nation) and we got to where we are by being the best (individually) because there was no central control. However, since 2008 that is being changed and not for the good. This fact must be kept in mind or all discussion of change will lack a solid base, for if we already are the best than what are we going to change to that is better?

We got here by the intellect and hard work primarily by men of European ancestry.  This is not to imply that people with other cultural backgrounds did not contribute to America’s growth, but, prior to a very few years ago, the core leadership of this country came predominantly from western European stock (English, French, Italian, Spanish and German). This “melting pot” of people and ideas worked well as long as the melting was encouraged by the citizens.  The social structure that developed from this experiment in self rule became the “American” culture.  It makes no sense to postulate whether the contributions of eastern European or non-European cultures would have changed American culture in some substantial or “better” way, since the fact remains that the influence of these cultures was — nominal or minimal at best.

The American citizen was not ruled by the federal government and that was because of the U.S. Constitution and “Bill-of-Rights” which prevented an oppressive government from developing; that is until now.  We are being told that those documents are obsolete and must be changed or gotten rid of.  There is no logic to that thinking and it is only being promoted by those that want the power that those documents now deny. We should be very careful about making changes for another system other than what we have now for that is a return to past systems that do not and have never worked.

There are, of course, imperfections in our society we are after all human. But we should not abandon all the good we have accomplished within the parameters of American culture just because we have some negative aspects.  For sure we should not start over because of some perceived problems areas.  Make adjustments yes, but not start over.