Thursday, November 03, 2011

The Process

From Rudyard Kipling's The Gods of the Copybook Headings:

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."


On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."


In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."


Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

A simple beginning going from water being wet, fire burning us and 2+2=4.

Do note that bound up in these are some of the major tenets of modern Progressivism:

- Handgun control will help everyone... not make us all victims for criminals.

- Loving thy neighbor allows free love... and then you end up loving his wife.

- Birth control, abortion and all those lovely things will free women in the name of population control... and soon the demographics will show that the Nation will not survive.

- A 'social safety net' will 'help' the old and poor... which means you must rob the young and rich to get it destroying the very fabric making up such a 'social safety net'.

- Really there is plenty of money to go around... just print it until the leaves of the trees are worth more than the paper in your pocket.

The Gods of the Copybook Headings are very real in that they are the way in which the world works once man attempts to create society and Nations, for these two go hand-in-hand.  Without restraining ourselves by utilizing reason to control our actions, we become savages towards ourselves, firstly, and our fellow man.  When this happens man moves ever closer to villainizing the few for personal gain and, by that discontent, upsetting the social order and process which then corrodes society.

With the establishment of reason and willing to love our mates and our children, we create the first bond of society that creates the Nation: we agree amongst those we love to put aside savagery and care for each other not as a collective but as individuals.  All our freedom and liberty is within us, no Nation holds any single thing that we do not as individuals and any government created is to look after our negative liberties and utilize them only to protect us. 

The personal form of 'wealth redistribution' is called robbery when done by individuals, and taxation when done by governments.  We agree to this minor evil to create the few things necessary to oversee those individuals who will not self-govern and become a threat to us all.

The personal form of offensive warfare when done by individuals is called piracy or terrorism or brigandage, when we put together a means to utilize it to go after a common foe we turn it into public warfare which requires a declaration if we are to attack and the reasons to do so.  Individuals cannot draft up articles of war as they do not hold themselves to be judged by any other entity, they assume full power for all actions against all mankind.  They can win only by pulling all of mankind down to their level, and then a long, long road back to being civilized ensues.

The personal form of restraint of others is called bondage or slavery, while the public form is called incarceration or imprisonment, and it has controls over it to protect the innocent from it.

In all of these things, and many more, government is described thusly by Tom Paine in Common Sense:

Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. WHEREFORE, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows, that whatever FORM thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

We form society with our fellow man and agreement with him on how to protect each other.  This simple means of agreement creates government which is then bound up in the Nation we have already created by ourselves.  We create government not to uphold the good but to restrain the wicked.  Morality in government is only in that wickedness and predation are kept at bay from our positive discourse and intercourse that creates society.  When government becomes the upholder of virtue and promulgator of that which is good, it then is given power to not only restrain the wicked but to punish the good to the dictates of said government which we call tyrannical: that which should be a boon to all is provided the whip and the carrot so that we are molded into what government wants us to be, not allow us to become the best people we can possibly be.

How can government become a pure evil?  By men putting aside their desire to practice good on their own and wish to make it something that government does.

In his farewell address George Washington first reiterated what had come before:

Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

Our union is made up by individuals which is stated via We The People.  While this is a collective it is not a collective that seeks to abolish individuality so that there is only a collective self, but that which is a collection of like-minded individuals that are willing to look out for each other and seek common governance and to always hold such governance under scrutiny.  The collective cannot perform such scrutiny, only individuals have that power and that right to do so.

In creating a republic George Washington then seeks to ask a most pertinent question that had vexed all of those who reviewed history because republics were prone to fail via their very size when grown large:

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

Here the warning is against not only differential favors that others would seek to bestow so as to turn States against each other, but to warn that the holding of an ongoing military establishment at the national level is also a threat to the republic and liberty.  The form of militia the States utilized were, thusly, a bulwark for the citizenry to express dedication to the union, and a benefit to the union during wars in that the voluntary citizen soldier would be summoned to perform for their nation and their fellow man during times of trouble.  States would not have the ability for external military ventures and as the forces were all volunteer operating under guidelines, the States would have no standing army to threaten its citizens.

From this system of making the national government weak in this realm and the States strong, but not overbearing, the nation would have the capability for local self-governance and direct means to hold the national government accountable via the militia structure.  The right to keep and bear arms goes far beyond the positive aspect of personal warfare (self-defense) and the derived right of property (defense of property) but here is given a further positive aspect as defending one's State against tyrannical national government.

From Kipling the lash is implied, from Paine it is seen as a necessary instrument and here George Washington points out its positive valuation in upkeep of liberty and republican form of government to allow a wide-scale support of a republic by its component parts.  From that the responsibility for national defense lies not in the national government, which only declares or responds to war, nor in the States, that only provide for guidelines and supervision of militia, but with the citizenry that must be armed and know the means and methods of warfare.  This describes a pyramid of troops that has a small cadre at the national level, an intermediate cadre that is formalized at the State level and all citizens for defense of the nation at every turn and place.  This is just as it should be as those rights and liberty to have a nation start with the individuals and they, therefore, are depended upon to exercise those positive liberties and freedom in defense of the nation.

All ability to have a nation that defends liberty then rests not upon government at the highest level but at the lowest level of self-government.  This is the premise of how to make a large scale republic work.

Within the next paragraph the problems that can cause this to fail are then reviewed:

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

The warning against the parochial geographic advantages is not even put just at the State level but that of the districts within States.  Here corruption is seen as starting not on high, at the national level, but at the lowest level, that which is most local to you.  A corrupt system does not arrive with an instant dictator but through a corruption of normal processes that allow for the corrosion of trust between the citizens and their government via partisan favoritism displayed by those elected to office.

Beneficial government at the national level prevents external gaming of the republican system at the lowest level, but this is no sinecure against the gaming from within.  Here, too, corruption is a source of problems:

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

Here the full-blown context of the problem of local government at the district level is played out as it leads to larger scale corruption at the highest level.  This is done by factions which we come to call parties political, that seek to divide the common interest into special interests and by that means co-opt a portion of the whole from the whole for partisan gain.  Government is via the delegates who are representative of the will of the people, not the actual organs of government.  When political faction seeks to make such organs that are not directly accountable to the people and that can be swayed by political faction, then ideology is put before the common good by the minority through the offices of government.

This is what Tom Paine meant when he said "our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."  The co-optation of government by the minority for their will done via the delegated means then becomes a system of unprincipled use of government power against the common good and the common man.  From this the corruption spreads from its lowest point, in districts seeking partisan favor and gain for factional supporters, upwards into the national government by seeking the means to put in unaccountable organs that are then swayed by delegates who are partisan.

Cunning and ambitious ideologues will seek to sell factional gain as a benefit to all and establish, as their means, changes to the Constitution.  This then changes the power and accountability structure of the Constitution, itself, to be amenable to partisan means rather than the common good.  Direct differential taxation was restricted away from federal powers by design, and by design that was changed in Amendment XVI which was promised never to create an income tax above 7% and which, within 7 years of enacting it, this had jumped to 70%.  This also removed the check and balance to federal spending by having the States act as intermediaries for collection of taxation apportioned by population size.  Similarly Amendment XVII had changed the structure of the Senate away from that of appointments by State government so as to form a State governmental check on the federal government, to one in which the popular vote was substituted so as to remove the balance of State input into the national system.  These two amendments, along with Amendment XVIII on the Prohibition of Alcohol, are all amendments pushed by the Progressive movement in America.

These Amendments have garnered the population a tax code filled with favoritism and partisanship, a rubber-stamp Senate for expansion of government bodies and power, and the requirement of some sanity to say that trying to stop alcohol use is too far, but to then say that use of other drugs  can be restricted as they are used by a very small faction within the nation.  Here the will of the majority is now played upon, beset by regulations and then utilized to demonize the use of medicinal agents that can be abused and are addictive.  Yet substances agreeable to the majority that also have those characteristics are left with only minor inflictions of power via taxation upon them.  This last is the imposition of morality via the tax code and taxation is, in every instance, a necessary evil only and not a moral good.  From such a tool no moral good can arise and only the demonstration that going against morality is punished be derived.  Do as you are told or else, not do what is good because it is good, is the maxim and it is used upon children.  Adults are moral agents for themselves and society and should know better and see punishment as the only recourse from when they can no longer govern themselves and protect society from their negative liberties.  If government could instill morality, then the prevention of the ability to distill liquor would have been a final and ending point to its use and abuse, and yet just the contrary happened.

Changes in government structure and power are, therefore, things to be done slowly and with due deliberation not only at the highest level but at the lowest: not something to be pushed forward in 7 years for political and factional reasons but something to be deliberated for decades, if necessary, to see if the necessary instrument for change is truly government or if it can be satisfied by some other industry by the people as a whole.  The positive liberties of the people are far more numerous and far more powerful than the oversight of negative liberties that we empower government to perform.  Government, then, is the last and least of our common tools to help society to flourish and to care for the sick, elderly and needy, not the first.  Government can only create via the subtraction of power and wealth from the people, while the people who are creative, can generate more power for good and wealth via their industry which is a benefit to all of society and allows others to flourish and prosper.  Prosperity is the absence of governmental oversight upon our selves, our bodies, our property and our work which is the manifestation of our liberty. 

Having freedom to work, alone, is of little value if government regulates the liberty at all turns and then determines what it is you may keep by your own work and what must be handed over to government as its due.  This is an ill when considering taxation, and needs to be restricted.  When it is used to determine when you work, how long you work, for how much you can work and what your working conditions are, then you are no longer the responsible actor in your own working life and government has usurped that role.  Tyranny does not come stamping in and crashing through the doors, but is invited in as a means to 'help' others by restricting them: the boot to the face forever starts with the helping hand which is also that of the pickpocket of government.  Once you gladly accept the petty tyranny upon an employer, you then make yourself the target for the greater tyranny of restriction of all your other liberties because you have handed over the means to do so to government via your personal and factional ideologies that see the restrictions of others as fine and never realize that they also are a restriction upon you, as well.

Would that this was just a particular problem and could be easily solved!  Unfortunately George Washington goes on from there to describe just where this arises:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

Here the cause is laid out for all to see: human nature.

When we create parties and factions along with that comes factional conflict of the civil form.  Civil factional conflict is known by many names over time as the faction types and societies change:  the War of the Roses, the Praetorian Guards, the Houses of the Hapsburgs, Sultans against Emirs, Emperor against Governors, Stalinists and Trotskyites, National and International Socialists... on and on and on throughout history all the way to Democrats and Republicans.  When factional ideology represented by a minority gains power it then rubs the other party the wrong way which has its own minority viewpoint.  In theory the common good should be represented but, in fact, both minorities have views of what is right and wrong via the institution of government and then seek to place their own priorities down upon them so as to inflict them upon the common people.   This doesn't matter if it is a Sun Emperor seeking to play favorites amongst relatives and Governors or the shifting alliances of Nobles during the 30 Years War or the imposition of Party Machines via the electoral process everywhere from Weimar to Tammany Hall.  The result of factional conflict is the spirit of revenge.

Again the corruption of the people starts not on-high but with the petty struggles between parties and factions, so that there is an emotional investment of individuals in their party above the common good.  When the seeking of power becomes an end in inflicting one's ideologies upon the public and to punish one's adversaries, then no matter how 'good' the rationale that is put forward it is always, and ever, the welcome of the tyrant to dinner.

Class warfare is just such a means, as it attempts to pit the putative rich against the desperate poor, and yet if the rich are pulled down where will jobs come from?  If prosperity for the individual is not protected, then how is wealth generation sustained?  And if there is not a diverse economy but one directed to the ends of government, how can that adapt to new events and times without having the benefit of depth of diversity within it that allows for adaptation at the lowest level of concern?  At each and every point when the power of government is utilized it is a negative factor as it impedes growth, diversity, and personal achievement and impoverishes all through the restriction of liberty and factional redistribution of wealth to no long term good ends at all.

How are these organs of government turned from those of the common good to such despotic and tyrannical ends?  This subject is simple due to the increasing complexity of government that is forced upon it by each faction, in turn:

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.

In our time we have seen the consolidation of numerous government agencies into larger ones.  The Dept. of Homeland Security is one such, the Department of Justice another, and while the Director of National Intelligence is not created as being powerful it has its ability to direct large swaths of the Intelligence Community both towards foreign problems and domestic ones.  Where there were once numerous and restricted agencies and departments there are now larger ones with less well defined purposes and goals.  It is this that erodes the distinction between what is legally constituted as a restricted set of powers and what is agglomerated to become something that has no proper Constitutional basis.  Government is given very few and special powers that are each of them distinct and defined: when those lines are blurred they become indistinct and oppressive in size, scope and nature.  In a prior post I went over this by utilizing a fictional setting created by Fred Saberhagen that described what this means via his Swords books and what it means to have discrete powers that are sovereign.  Here is the poem in that series that describes them:

THE SONG OF SWORDS

Who holds Coinspinner knows good odds

Whichever move he make

But the Sword of Chance, to please the gods

Slips from him like a snake.

 

The Sword of Justice balances the pans

Of right and wrong, and foul and fair.

Eye for an eye, Doomgiver scans

The fate of all folk everywhere.

 

Dragonslicer, Dragonslicer, how d'you slay?

Reaching for the heart in behind the scales.

Dragonslicer, Dragonslicer, where do you stay?

In the belly of the giant that my blade impales.

 

Farslayer howls across the world

For thy heart, for thy heart, who hast wronged me!

Vengeance is his who casts the blade

Yet he will in the end no triumph see.

 

Whose flesh the Sword of Mercy hurts has drawn no breath;

Whose soul it heals has wandered in the night,

Has paid the summing of all debts in death

Has turned to see returning light.

 

The Mindsword spun in the dawn's gray light

And men and demons knelt down before.

The Mindsword flashed in the midday bright

Gods joined the dance, and the march to war.

It spun in the twilight dim as well

And gods and men marched off to hell.

 

I shatter Swords and splinter spears;

None stands to Shieldbreaker.

My point's the fount of orphans' tears

My edge the widowmaker.

 

The Sword of Stealth is given to

One lonely and despised.

Sightblinder's gifts: his eyes are keen

His nature is disguised.

 

The Tyrant's Blade no blood hath spilled

But doth the spirit carve

Soulcutter hath no body killed

But many left to starve.

 

The Sword of Siege struck a hammer's blow

With a crash, and a smash, and a tumbled wall.

Stonecutter laid a castle low

With a groan, and a roar, and a tower's fall.

 

Long roads the Sword of Fury makes

Hard walls it builds around the soft

The fighter who Townsaver takes

Can bid farewell to home and croft.

 

Who holds Wayfinder finds good roads

Its master's step is brisk.

The Sword of Wisdom lightens loads

But adds unto their risk.

(end of the song)

Each Sword is Sovereign within its domain with only one Sword able to cancel all, but one, itself.  There are checks and balances between Swords as there are within powers of republican government: each has its domain that is defined and cannot cross them without losing the cause and meaning of its direct power.  Even the most Omni-canceling Sword has, itself, a foil that will take it down as well, so that even the mightiest has counter and there is no counter to that one as its power is only positive, not negative at all.  Each negative power must have a domain as, at first, a sovereign power which is part and parcel of national government as seen in Law of Nations, and by republican form which casts separate powers into separate areas within national government.

Unlike other books on law, Law of Nations is a descriptive set of laws, not a prescriptive nor proscriptive set of laws. Law of Nations is universal to mankind by being man and having the ability to set aside negative liberties for common oversight and accept the necessary evil of government that forms the State to uphold the Nation.  Because it is universal, every government formed by individuals resides under it without regard to region, time period, ethnicity, religious affiliation, or any other thing.  You get Law of Nations by having marriage and creating families, not by having someone administer it to you.  Each of the sovereign powers we delegate to the nation is described in Law of Nations which is amenable to any form of government as they all have the same set of powers.  All of the Presidents at least up to Abraham Lincoln and, arguably, up to Teddy Roosevelt, understood the concepts embodied by this concept.

Washington sees that these powers are ones that are not just tools but weapons and they, like Saberhagen's SWORDS, can be used for ill within their domain and used by the few to subjugate the many.  We can not get rid of these powers unless we become savages and find ourselves willing to kill our loved ones and children for base personal desire.  Government is the organ of society that is created to stop this from happening, and yet when that organ turns toxic it becomes the weapon that is the ill to the body as a whole.  Once it starts to grow it can become cancerous and over-run the body and, finally, destroy it which requires the regeneration of a fresh body and set of organs by those who remain.

The main protection from this happening?  Knowledge.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

First off Washington performs the cart-horse order agreement by putting the horse, that is virtue or morality, before the cart, which is popular government.

The means of safety against corrupt and factional government?  Knowledge dissemination.  Here it must be noted that the institutions are not being delegated to the necessary evil, which is to say government, but to those things created by the people to create public opinion.  Public opinion cannot be created by government and the people remain free and with liberty as once it becomes the fount of opinion creation those who are in power will bend that opinion system to their will.

Edward Bernays in Propaganda (1928) put it like this in pp. 11-12:

It might be better to have, instead of propaganda and special pleading, committees of wise men who would choose our rulers, dictate our conduct, private and public, and decide upon the best types of clothes for us to wear and the best kinds of food for us to eat. But we have chosen the opposite method, that of open competition. We must find a way to make free competition function with reasonable smoothness. To achieve this society has consented to permit free competition to be organized by leadership and propaganda.

Some of the phenomena of this process are criticized— the manipulation of news, the inflation of personality, and the general ballyhoo by which politicians and commercial products and social ideas are brought to the consciousness of the masses. The instruments by which public opinion is organized and focused may be misused. But such organization and focusing are necessary to orderly life.

As civilization has become more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which opinion may be regimented.

With the printing press and the newspaper, the railroad, the telephone, telegraph, radio and airplanes, ideas can be spread rapidly and even instantaneously over the whole of America.

The 'invisible government' are those who promulgate messages and ideology inside and outside of government to sway public opinion.  Previously described are political parties to give 'order' to our political choices otherwise we would be left choosing a multitude of people and then have this messy process to narrow down who is to represent us in government which he describes just prior to this:

It is not usually realized how necessary these invisible governors are to the orderly functioning of our group life. In theory, every citizen may vote for whom he pleases. Our Constitution does not envisage political parties as part of the mechanism of government, and its framers seem not to have pictured to themselves the existence in our national politics of anything like the modern political machine. But the American voters soon found that without organization and direction their individual votes, cast, perhaps, for dozens or hundreds of candidates, would produce nothing but confusion. Invisible government, in the shape of rudimentary political parties, arose almost overnight. Ever since then we have agreed, for the sake of simplicity and practicality, that party machines should narrow down the field of choice to two candidates, or at most three or four.

What George Washington describes, however, is just such a political machine and how it comes about and what it does.  The concept of 'political machine' is seen as new and progressive in the time of Bernays, and yet describes the machinations of every dictator, tyrant and monarch in history: they each promulgated propaganda to further themselves, their cohorts and their factions from Mayan stelae and temple inscriptions to Egyptian hieroglyphics that always tended to portray the current ruler as the greatest and closest to the deities to the politically directed religious dogmas of the 30 Years War amongst various sects that changed by whoever was in power all the way known to Washington (in whole or in part).  Indeed the most depressing thing reading Progressive Era ideas is how backwards they seem when they refer to political machines as modern institutions.

These tyrannical and despotic ideas were given a new set of clothes in the Progressive Era, but the nature of what they were put on soon seeped through them so that their horrific effects could be seen, anew.  These are not brand-new ills, just the same old ones visiting us with a different pitch-line supplied to them by those who seek to endow themselves at the cost of the public and to the benefit of the factional, chosen few.

It is this corrosive concept that the few need to herd the many and make basic decisions for them that now is the problem in modern life: not only are the political mechanisms not adapting they are not made to adapt to such rapidly changing circumstances while individuals are.  Indeed you are reading this through a system that allows access to either source documents either directly (via online content) or indirectly via purchase link.  The Bernays text, itself, has been pirated numerous times so only a bit of searching can help you find it.  Do note that this is necessary as the government has been used by partisan interests of corporations to extend the copyright beyond an original 10+10years or semi-modern 16+16 years to now go to life+some years, putting such texts outside of the public domain that Bernays said was insufficient to garner information.  If you don't think an author can or should benefit beyond their natural life or a very modest set period of time, then you have the influence of Edward Bernays to thank for that as these are the 'invisible governors' showing their hand.

This then moves me to where the article began and to give the last few lines of Kipling:

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;


And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

We are not destined to repeat history if we but bothered to learn it.

Monday, October 03, 2011

On the Duties of Everyman - to Everyman

This post is a continuation of the examination of Samuel Pufendorf's On the Duty of Man and Citizen (1682).  This post follows the previous section I've looked at On the Duties of Man - To God, On the Duties of Man - To Man plus the overview of why this is important in Three Realms of Law.  This work by Pufendorf is, itself, an overview of a multi-volume work he had generated and thought that a primer on that work, suitable for students, would be a vital part of a teaching curricula examining Natural Law.  I will continue to do the overview of his logic and keep my usual commentary in abeyance as much as possible so as to follow Pufendorf's line of reasoning so that the outline of it is plain to see.

Like previous posts I will summarize Pufendorf's work.  Unlike prior works I will bring in more of his own reasoning system so as to highlight his overview on the Duties we have and why they are important which will require some of my own verbiage and attempt to see if there is any insight I can pass on to you, as a reader.  For this I am sorry for any clumsiness on my part as an individual, and will attempt to use reason to guide me throughout.

 

The Duties of Everyman to Everyman is a critical juncture as it moves from the realm of individual obligations well understood and are placed wholly upon the individual, to those of Man to our society and other men in society.  In this realm of Duties there are two major areas to know:

First those duties bound to us by our Creator, which are called absolute duties.  These are the duties imposed upon man to bind us to other men.  This is a strong binding and is universal, thusly it is absolute.

Second are those duties imposed upon us by custom or otherwise taken up as part of tradition that is advantageous to the creation and maintenance of society.  These are called hypothetical duties as they vary from culture to culture, tradition to tradition.

One is constant over all mankind so that we can have societies amongst men.  The other is variable upon individual societies and custom.

The first of all absolute duties is our obligation not to harm other men.  This is, at once, the most far-reaching and simplest of all things as it requires the mere omission of harming others, which is to say not to act.  Self-restraint via the light of reason is to restrain our passions.  It is the most necessary duty of man to have society and is the essential and necessary part of forming all societies.  As Pufendorf states:

For I can live at peace with a man who does me no positive service, and with a man who does not exchange even the commonest of duties with me, provided he does me no harm. In fact, this is all we desire from mankind at large; it is only within a fairly small circle that we impart good things to each other.

Here, then, is not only the Hippocratic Oath, but our general oath to each other: first do no harm.  Our minimal requirement beyond that is essential, however, and it is encapsulated in the idea of 'leave me alone'.  This is the most obvious of doctrines that it should be self-evident, and yet we stray as men in this so often that we cause pain and suffering all under the banner of doing good and well to others.  That cannot be done for all of mankind nor even society as a whole, but only amongst a relatively small circle of virtuous people who freely partake of positive exchanges with each other.

The obverse of this coin is likewise obvious and should be self-evident:

By contrast, there is no way that I can leave at peace with a man who does me harm. For nature has implanted in each man such a tender love of himself and of what he is, that he cannot but repel every means one offer to do harm to either.

There is no space between the first quote and the second, they are of one paragraph, one thought, and yet both concepts are absolute upon mankind as a whole and upon us as men being individuals.  The restraint of doing harm has both positive aspects, when things are not done to others, and negatives, when things that are negative are done to others.  As day follows night, this is obvious to all and a necessary pre-requisite to maintain oneself and one's society, yet at every turn in history where there is suffering and pain, both of these are transgressed.

If we are inspired by later summations of the self-evident and unalienable rights that we are endowed with, then we must be able to identify what these actually are.  Other parts of my prior examinations have been recapitulations of Pufendorf's work, and yet that passive understanding, while strong, needs some active statement at this point by me.

This necessary Duty is not only upon those things that are endowed to us by Nature, which is to say life, body, limbs, chastity and liberty, but upon those things we get as members of society via human convention and institutions.  Thus all our negative liberties and rights, for to have a negative right one gets the negative liberty of its use, must be restrained, which is to say taking things from others via spoilage, robbery, pillage.  These are crimes across all societies as these negative activities and utilization of our negative liberties puts at peril the good works of others as a violence by killing, wounding, robbery, theft, fraud and any other thing done by us directly or indirectly as an exercise of our negative liberties.

When we, As a People, speak of those few things given to government to do they are, without exception, an exercise of negative liberties that would put us all at peril from each other if they had no oversight at all.  This is not a new concept but a tradition carried on by all societies because they are societies created from marriage and that most basic binding upon us from that simple start of not exercising our negative liberties upon another person who we cling to.  From that formulation of society understood at least as far back as Brackton, it is now put forward as a full and essential right with liberty that must restrain us in its use against others beyond that of marriage.  We are not at the focal point of later documents, but at a concentration and amplification point here with Pufendorf who follows in the tradition of Brackton and Grotius and will propel this doctrine forward as it is simple, basic, self-evident and part of what we must do as an unalienable right and it comes with an unalienable duty to others.

Those who do harm are to be held accountable for their actions and all punishment and restitution is to be sought from those who do such wrongs.  Without restitution to those that have been harmed, there would be no check upon the wicked and no ability of the wronged to make peace with himself or with that individual or individuals that have done him harm.  This is all harm not just to a person but their property which has been demonstrated previously as being the means by which we support ourselves and gather together those things we create or exchange to sustain us in this life within nature.  Without compensation for those things stolen or despoiled there is no way way to make whole that which has been broken.  Simple punishment is not enough as following loss due to the original harm are all part of the original harm, without exception, and are to be considered wholly a part of such harm.

Do note that since this is in the section of Duties of Everyman to Everyman that this is what we must uphold across all mankind so as to have society and to have punishment, recompense, restitution and reconciliation amongst men.  Single and simple punishment is not enough standing on its own.  Any thought of rehabilitation without restitution and reconciliation is empty and meaningless to those who have been harmed.  This is the concept of atonement, literally 'at onement' in which the individual who atones is recognized as doing so and that the individual will not transgress that boundary again.

This is true when one acts alone to harm others and when one acts with others to harm others, the cost and obligation is held by all either in part, if simply acting as a willing actor in such harm, or equally in whole if actively participating in such harm.  Partaking of the harm, itself, is the cause for punishment and for seeking restitution against those doing the causing.  Of those who do not partake in the causing of harm or doing of harm in any instance, there is no retribution, even when they express joy in the misery of others or seek to diminish the harm caused even if they wished for it before the act, so long as they did not partake of the act there is no cause for punishment.

Next is the concept called conspiracy (again the literal is 'to breathe together' which is to con-spire) in which several men act together to inflict loss or harm.  Those who conspire are the cause of the harm and any they pull in that are not understanding of the conspiracy are merely an instrument of it (although liable for any act that is criminal on its own).  It is those that are active in a conspiracy that are liable for its crimes so the act of any single individual in a conspiracy is attributable to all within it, and any act of the conspiracy itself are liable to all actors within it as individuals.  If only a single individual in a conspiracy is caught then that person is liable for the costs of all the damages of the entire conspiracy.  In any crime in which a number of individuals partake that is not a conspiracy, they are each liable for their own actions and damages they caused, not the entire group.  With that said if just one within an entire group that are not acting together is willing to pay the damages for all, then they may do so and the rest are not held for those costs.

Here we see that each man is a moral actor within society for his actions and when the utilization of negative liberties by a group that conspires against any individual, group or all of society, then they are seen as utilizing their negative liberties in concert and towards a given end that is not upheld by the law.  When one becomes a part of such a group then they are beholden for the ills perpetrated by the entire group.  That is what happens when you create a negative version of society against the rest of society: you lose the ability to say that you are an individual by your voluntary participation in such a group, just as in normal society.  Do note this is not some version of class or race based punishment, but punishment meted out only to those who voluntarily agree to exercise their negative rights and liberties against others.

In matters of restitution those who commit crimes with malice aforethought are as liable for repayment as those done in ignorance or negligence.  In cases where there cannot be oversight or in those where the chaos is so pervasive (as in war) that accidents happen because of such chaos, then restitution may be light.  That is also the case where the strictest of oversight is given and, due to no fault of any involved, damage is done.  The unforeseen is ever with us no matter how much care we take in events and the more chaotic the events the less care and oversight that is available to even trace culpability, not to speak of restitution.

The next action set pertains to slaves and their owners, with faults attributable to the owner.  While this is outdated for its original subject matter, it still pertains to autonomous devices and mechanisms that are set for a task and then either do so but with negative consequences, or fail to do so  and in going awry cause damages.  In these cases it is the owner of the device involved that is liable for the damages.  It is this simple concept that seems to have been lost in modern times, where we try to trace culpability to a manufacturer (who may, indeed, make a bad product) and not to the user who must exercise due diligence in the care and use of such objects and understand their faults and limitations.  Can a mere manufacturer be held liable for an item duly sold, therefore transferring ownership to another, with no fault being attached to the owner?  As individuals we have the ability and, indeed, obligation to understand what our machines and devices do, to have them checked over and to understand their problems much as the slave owner of prior times had.  Only if a manufacturer sells something with knowledge of faults of device before it is sold can they be under obligation for restitution due to presenting false evidence of its reliability and trustworthiness.   Due to the complexity of devices involved we also understand that even the manufacturer may not know of faults in their devices, and for that a much lower standard of restitution must be available if they demonstrate they have upheld all other manner of oversight for all known problems.  This derivative of slave ownership being now transferred to devices and machines thus creates the concept of 'quality control'.

As it is for slaves so it is for the animals we own and our culpability for their actions is one that goes along with that of slaves.  Likewise we are liable for restitution based on similar precepts.

We must understand that beyond liability for simple loss via negligence or lack of oversight, that restitution is as much as we may seek.  When there is no malice aforethought involved, simply making good a loss is the best that can be done on this Earth.

When malice is involved the higher standard of penitence is added to reparation, so that there is an attempt to be at one with those injured by admitting to the malice, restoring what balance can be made, and then seeking to never do such things again.

For the injured Pufendorf admonishes:

Anyone who refuses to be content with reparation and repentance, and insists in any case on seeking vengeance on his own account, is merely gratifying the bitterness of his own heart and destroying the peace among men for no good reason.  On this ground vengeance too is condemned by natural law, since its only aim is to give trouble to those who have done us harm, and to console our hearts with their pain.  It is the more appropriate that men forgive each other's offences, the more frequently they violate the laws of the supreme Deity and have themselves daily need of pardon.

Friday, September 16, 2011

Signpost on the New Era

I wrote about the drivers of the New Era in Dawn of a New Era, and will draw out the underlying principles from that to examine how they work asymmetrically in the way things work.

Let's go back to the Old Era in television, specifically cable television.  Back in the day, which was the late 1970's, cable tv was going to be the New Era of television!  It had good, clean reception, lots and lots of channels (with nothing on to watch), premium content channels like HBO and Skinemax... err... Cinemax, plus 'local access' which was what the Left desired: low cost, low budget, low content places where they could say whatever they want and be watched by their friends.  Halcyon days, no?  No longer were you beholden to the 3 Letter Alphabet Stations but could get those same stations from other places, too!  Joy, oh, rapture!

Ted Turner  (with nice little bio at Wikipedia, your black hole for information) got in on that bandwagon after starting out with his father's billboard business and a little UHF channel (remember those?) back in 1963.  Then in 1970 he formed up Turner Broadcasting and after that, with his super-station of different content on cable, he made CNN which started in 1980.  He formed up CNN with $20 million dollars (which is about $55 million in today's dollars) and employed 200 people.  And he had a media empire which would grow and grow in size.

Great stuff, huh?

Now fast forward to... well... this week.

On 12 SEP 2011 Glenn Beck's television network started officially, although they had been beta testing it for a few weeks prior to the debut.  GBTV started with: $20 million.  Glenn Beck has been a media mogul... ahhh... is he a media mogul?  Not really, not in the Ted Turner buying stations sense, no.  He does have a popular radio program and when he went to Fox News Corp. he had a staggering demo at 5pm that was outdrawing primetime offerings on other News networks and was neck and neck with Bill O'Reilly at the 8pm slot at FNC.  His GBTV has some free content and pay-for content on either a monthly or annual basis.

He has more subscribers than Oprah Winfrey has viewers on OWN [Source: WSJ]:

When Mr. Beck announced GBTV in June, the network had 80,000 subscribers. In the months since, GBTV subscribers have swelled to more than 230,000, according to people close to the network, even though Mr. Beck‘s show hasn’t yet begun.

The audience is far less than the more than 2.2 million daily viewers his program on Fox drew, on average, over its 27-month run, which ended in June after clashes with the network’s management.

But it is more than the average 156,000 people who were watching the Oprah Winfrey Network in June.

Now Ted Turner built his media empire up from 1963 to the late 1970's to get together the money to put CNN on the air, which is a 24 hour news channel.

Glenn Beck worked as a top tv show host for a few years at FNC, started The Blaze (which is becoming the news portion of his new 2 hour show) in 2010, and has had a hit radio program for years.  As he recounts it 9/11 caught him wholly unprepared to know what was going on, which caused him to take a deeper look at the problems that were revealed by that attack.

Now it is time to do the signpost checklist to see how the emergence of the New Era compares to the old.

1) Moore's Law – Computing power and access to the Internet were unavailable to Ted Turner at the start of CNN, although computers were used as the network stood up, most of the early stuff was done the old fashioned way, by hand.  Glenn Beck's GBTV is all digital, via streaming media and the ROKU box, a handy little device that has dedicated media streams developed by various content providers.  Such a device with limited computer capability, memory, display (regular and high definition) and no monthly fee wasn't something you could imagine in 1980.  The computer in one way, shape or form is required for GBTV.

2) Metcalfe's Law – The network of the 1980's was satellite broadcast television for CNN.  That is descriptive of a one-to-many media, in which one provider (or gatekeeper) contacts many users.  It is inherently one-way and only gained any Internet capability in the last 15 years.  CNN has to support that system as a legacy network as it is efficient for what it is.  GBTV has no legacy network to work with: it is not on the air, not cable and not stuck with a one-to-many content system of set display times for shows.  Shows are streaming and on-demand, which means that after they are made you get to decide when to see them.  Additionally because it is a networked system on the Internet, feedback can happen in real time when GBTV is active with a live feed, thus allowing faster interaction between the host of the show and the full audience outside of the one in the studio.  Neither network is currently using the many-to-many paradigm, save for GBTV's announcement yesterday of developing a media distribution system for college students to post and distribute their content for other users.  That is a many-to-many content and distribution system and CNN doesn't have it, while GBTV will have it in a week.

3) Feiler Faster Thesis (FFT) – The FFT is descriptive of a shortened loop for ingesting, understanding and processing news information not via machines but for the user.  CNN was on the first cycle of that in 1980, allowing for a continuous content feed that helped viewers get better informed via their gateway about the world.  The FFT does not stop after one cycle, but is continuous, thus the requirement for more news from varied outlets allowed the market for news to grow, which meant that CNN had to keep up with that growth or lose market share.  It lost market share.  From the start of having a television in one's home in the late 1940's to 1980 was a bit over 30 years for the FFT to kick in.  By 1995 other 24-hour news channels had started up and the FFT was in force.  In 7 years, circa 2002, CNN was no longer top dog in the 24-hour news market.  By 2010 it was losing ability to get a top ranked show.  Now it is fighting for relevance in niche markets.  People are processing the news and analyzing it faster than it can be provided and the ability of symmetrical networks that allow many-to-many capability has begun to marginalized any news source that is run by a gatekeeper.  GBTV is not a news show, it is an asymmetrically distributed show on a many-to-many system with minor subscription fee.  Since the Internet was opened for common use in the early 1990's, say 1992, to 2011 is nearly 20 years (for rounding sake), and the FFT will be the basis for it until the analysis time because of known content amount by a user dwindles to near instantly.  If you can read an article, see its underlying assumptions, question the reasoning and doubt the conclusions and cite why and sources for each of those steps, then you are in the New Era.  GBTV is in the New Era, while CNN is struggling to figure out what the New Era actually means.

4) Stephen J. Gould's Observation on Theory-Scale Applicability – Here the idea is that to reach a wider audience requires presence and that presence is King.  This applied to the old broadcast networks and cable networks, and now presence is ubiquitous via the Internet.  Being there is half the battle now, but content, the old King, is returning with force and it does not require a high priced studio to make.  If the ability to give a compelling narrative utilizing authentic presentation media is a winner (and has been for any reality program be it Wild Kingdom or Deadliest Catch) then absolute reality captured by individuals on cellphone cameras or other digital video/audio means will then make for compelling content in the New Era.  Content and Presence together make for compelling viewing and the final piece of interaction makes for learning how to live your life and communicate with those that relate to you as you relate to them.  This schema can be applied to such things as bacteria as they are ubiquitous, have presence, do communicate with each other (although not via digital means) and are the dominant life form on the planet.  Plus they were able to make it toxic to competitors and began an arms race that hasn't ended yet on the small or large scale.  This schema for success is scale independent, then, and those following it will succeed (although not a guarantee for each individual, those following the underlying paradigm will generally be favored).  CNN is stuck with legacy capability, and lacks many functions to allow it to operate in the New Era.  It will fail if it does not adapt.  GBTV has a much better chance for success although that is not guaranteed.

5) Disintermediation – Simply put: CNN sees itself as a gatekeeper, GBTV sees itself as an enabler.  CNN wants to tell you what the news is, GBTV wants you to figure out what the world means on your own.  CNN is an intermediary and not such a good one these days.  GBTV is a provider of information and will give you one viewpoint and then ask for help to see if it is one with a high degree of correspondence to actual reality.

6) Emergence – CNN has an editorial staff, a number of writers, and a bias in reporting: that is top-down behavior.  GBTV comes from the culmination of experience which has been built up over time via research and synthesizing what works and what does not: it is contingent upon information and factual data and experience, and cannot be said to be directed to any other goal than that and is able to change based on information and knowledge.  CNN is authoritarian and agenda driven, while GBTV recognizes that, as they say, the truth has no agenda.

7) Knowledge Web – The creation of CNN was that of a standard, old line presentation system that depends little on utilization of past history to look for present relevance, only the ephemeral present matters.  GBTV is about the creation of the links to the past and present so that a living history is utilized to help us understand ourselves and our future. 

8) Accelerating Change – This is the realm that examines what it takes to stand up an information system in the New Era.  To get to a limited, national audience took 17 years, building a media system, and then investing $20 million into a news broadcast system dependent upon satellite technology.  The modern era has that same $20 million but its effective purchasing power is less than half of what it was in 1980, and yet because it utilizes the efficiencies of computer power and networks, putting together of a 'media empire' in the form of a radio show, a news oriented website and then an expanding on-demand and live broadcast system with global reach.  The acceleration of change from the early days of television to the 1980's was already fast and apparent as James Burke demonstrated at the time.  Since then the predicted acceleration of changes has continued and that has now changed how we view what we do, what media is and expanded the scope of it beyond anything that was dreamt of in 1980.  Between the late '40s and 1980 is a full cycle of ingesting the then current satellite broadcast capability to a large audience.  From 1980 to the present the reach of all telecom systems have expanded to the point where enough cellphones have been produced so that each and every person on the globe could have one... it they were all working, that is.  Media capture capability has shrunk from million dollar studios to tens of dollar cellphones and digital cameras, with some of the software for processing the raw video and audio having the price of free attached to it.  Getting skill to use it still takes time, but the barrier to entry has been reduced because of the acceleration of change so that we can not only have it but use it in new and novel ways and in ways that old era systems could never do.

Taken together CNN represents an old era media system, with legacy systems that keep it tethered to a past that is now disappearing before our eyes.  Even its next generation competitor, Fox News, is suffering from this malady although it is trying to morph into something that can survive in the New Era.  GBTV and other media systems run by individuals and dedicated small groups are the future of New Era media and the first generation of it.  They, too, will be challenged by these drivers listed above as the Next Generation of the New Era is already starting to appear.  In a decade we will not even know how we could live as we did in 1980.

Or we will be plunged into a global dark age without technology and even literacy threatened, because they will be offered on the burning pyre of those who wish to control others and cannot stand the idea of freedom of thought, expression and letting others live with liberty.

What the future holds depends, as it did when James Burke presented Connections, on you.

And I wouldn't bet that you won't live to have to make the choice between freedom with liberty or tyranny with repression.

Because for all the change, the hearts of man have not changed one single, solitary bit... we just cycle through the decision making process faster now.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

So what are the 'entitlements'?

An important misdirection on 'entitlements', especially Social Security, is that you are 'paying' into an 'account' that is a lockbox.

Unfortunately, that has never been true.

In Helvering v. Davis (1937) the Supreme Court determined that the 'payments' into SSA were simple taxes. Here is a review of Title VIII that puts SSA into place:

Title VIII, as we have said, lays two different types of tax, an "income tax on employees" and "an excise tax on employers." The income tax on employees is measured by wages paid during the calendar year. ' 801. The excise tax on the employer is to be paid "with respect to having individuals in his employ," and, like the tax on employees, is measured by wages. ' 804. Neither tax is applicable to certain types of employment, such as agricultural labor, domestic service, service for the national or state governments, and service performed by persons who have attained the age of 65 years. ' 811(b). The two taxes are at the same rate. '' 801, 804. For the years 1937 to 1939, inclusive, the rate for each tax is fixed at one percent. Thereafter the rate increases 1/2 of 1 percent every three years, until, after December 31, 1948, the rate for each tax reaches 3 percent. Ibid. In the computation of wages, all remuneration is to be included except so much as is in excess of $3,000 during the calendar year affected. ' 811(a). The income tax on employees is to be collected by the employer, who is to deduct the amount from the wages "as and when paid." ' 80a(a). He is indemnified against claims and demands of any person by reason of such payment. Ibid. The proceeds of both taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way. ' 807(a). There are penalties for nonpayment. ' 807(c).

There is the nub of it: what you pay are simple taxes that are not earmarked in any way.  You do NOT pay money into a 'lockbox' and Congress stopped the procedure of having SSA funds go to SSA and, instead, they go into the general funds with Treasury notes going to SSA with promises of repayment of those notes.  Basically the 'trust fund' set up in the 1930's was abolished by a later Congress.

Congresses get to do that, you know?

But you still had an 'account', right?

Unfortunately, that has never been the case.

In Flemming v. Nestor (1960), the Supreme Court ruled against any contractual obligation put forward by the US government in SSA.  Nestor challenged that he had a 'right' to SSA because it was 'owed' to him by the US government which had pulled his benefits due to him being a Communist Party member.

The SCOTUS ruled that the 'account' was not property and was not covered by Constitutional protections.  Indeed it is a payment made by the will of Congress.

So those slips of paper you get when you pay into SSA saying how much you 'have' in an 'account'?

Meaningless.

You pay taxes and you get promises of future support.  No promise made by the US government is binding in any way, shape or form.  WE BIND government via the Constitution, and within those limits the power we grant is Sovereign in nature.

And that 1960 case brings up one very important point.

Lets say that you were an ideologue who had gotten to the Presidency and needed a useful tool to punish those that weren't supporting you in a re-election campaign.  Key or 'swing' districts might see threats of having the individuals getting SSA have their payments reduced or even their 'accounts' severed completely.  If they didn't vote the 'right way'.  Perhaps start with missing payments due to 'timing difficulties' and then, if that didn't convince recipients to 'change their mind' then start cutting them off from those payments on a more frequent basis.

Now here is the important thing to keep in mind:  ANY President of EITHER party could do this.

SSA, then, would be used as a tool against the people of the United States if they did not agree with the politics of their 'betters' in government.

Legally, too.

Be a shame to have those 'entitlements' cut off, wouldn't it?

And the thing is that the government holds this capability on ANY contract it signs up to.  It is called 'Termination for the Convenience of the Government' or T4C in contracting parlance.  Now for all of those out there who railed and impugned Halliburton and other companies do remember that ANY President can stop contracts with those companies and that if they have no real competitors then the US would be without those functions provided by that company.  Which is why, for all of the Left railing against 'cronyism' for Halliburton, President Obama has done nothing about their contracts: their services are unique and necessary to critical missions.

And that is for the military.  Of course such a move to remove vital services might get a President thrown out of office via impeachment or the ballot box.

Unless he did it late in a political campaign so as to politicize the topic and rouse his 'base'.

Or punish the 'base' of the 'other side' via threats and intimidation.

Not just with SSA, Medicare/Medicaid but with ANY contract held with the US government in ANY district for ANY reason or NONE AT ALL.

Remember when Thomas Paine called government a 'necessary evil' way back in Common Sense?  That is for when government just does the few things it MUST do.  When it starts to hand out goodies, then the Evil becomes Pure.

Which is why anyone, with any mental capacity to understand that 1 + 1 = 2, and not 3 for large values of 1, understands why you want a highly limited, restricted government starved of any treats and kept on a damn short leash.  This beast has grown so that it is now demanding not just its food, but ours as well, and is near to threatening to bite off the hand that feeds it.  I would suggest looking for a large stick and saying 'good doggie' until it can be beaten back to its proper place.

Your liberty and freedom depend on it.

So does your life, if you do the math.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

As it was, so shall it be

Never forgive.

Never forget.

Thursday, September 08, 2011

Thinking off the cuff

After the so-called Presidential debates last night, the question of what to do with SSA came up.  I mean, the system is broke, broken and a Ponzi Scheme that exists on taxes.  So what to do?  I took 10 minutes as I was writing to think up a simple plan... I don't claim it to be good, but it does put together a lot of disparate ideas floating around, which at least makes it something different and, hopefully, a start to something better.

Thus at Hot Air I replied thusly and this will be the end of the post:

Doing away with SSA also means doing away with FICA.

We can design a better system that puts all on SSA currently into a budget area where the bonds held by the fund are used and Congress can kick in any amount it can afford to help supplement that. There would be no new recipients coming into that system and the SSA card would be used only for those recipients who wish to stay in the system.

For everyone else you can set up an account to put in money before taxes of not more than 10% of your earned income so as to reduce your tax liability, and put it into an account where, in 30 years, you can take money out tax free for any reason or no reason at all. Children can either have accounts started by their parents, or are allowed to start one with general back-dating for initiation at age 18 or at any time thereafter.

A proviso for those starting an account with an SSA card is that the account has its timer started from the day you got your SSA card: it is considered back-dated to that day. If that is more than 30 years ago you now have a way to shelter income and have a tax free way to recover that income immediately, tax free.

Another proviso is that money must go into an account in any amount annually for it to continue its status. One red cent will do it. There is no requirement for where the funds MUST come from only that funds are PUT IN to the account annually.

This ends the idea of having to hold an investment because what everyone talks about is an ‘account’ that reaches some maturity date – it isn’t the way you invest, that can be in anything, but how long you’ve had the account. And as the retirement age is abolished this gives a good way for those who are older and have a higher general income to put away a bit more of that as they grow older. They can roll other investments into that account so that any with required amounts to take out (the current IRAs) can then go directly into the new account. The old IRAs are allowed to go in tax free and the money comes out, tax free.

All fund vehicles inside the account are considered untaxable, period. While companies and diversified holding organizations do have to pay taxes for any transactions, all benefits put into the personal account are secured from further taxation as income, capital gains or any other income source. Yes you still have to pay sales taxes and other forms of taxation, but that is on the spending side, not the income side.

This does some immediate things.

- First it allows those who whine and complain about an account TODAY to get to make a REAL ACCOUNT that might actually be better and more flexible than SSA because they have held an SSA card for a long time. You don’t get ‘benefits’ from the government, but can shelter a portion of current income from taxation and if you’ve had the card longer than 30 years, you can start spending it. That isn’t wise, of course, but the account remains open as long as you have funds in it.

- Second is that those who wish to leave SSA as recipients and go back to work can then utilize this account to do the same as any other long-term SSA card holder. If you can get a job that pays more, net, than SSA you will then have away to reduce its tax burden to you. This can be ‘means tested’ so that there is a fraction of SSA going to you, based on your earned income and the year that you get more in net income from your work than you do from SSA, your SSA access ends. You have become a full and independent older adult who no longer needs the help of Uncle Sam. Thank you.

- Third is that parents can put money into a child’s account and when that child grows older he or she will have something with a date certain of when they can get to the funds. If started at birth, then you can do that at 30 years old just when that first real house starts to become a necessity. If done at 18, then at 48 you gain access to the account for medical expenditures, advanced schooling for children or other needs. This is actually far better than SSA/Medicare/Medicaid will ever be.

No one can mandate that you put money into such an account, but it is available to you as a citizen. After SSA is removed your account can be started by your parents at any time from your birth day onwards, or by you at 18 if your parents are unable to do so.

And if you start to think that this is a way to get money out of the taxable reaches of government, then you are getting the point to the account. If we mean what we say about having a sustainable economy via investment then this is just the sort of thing you want as it can hold any investment vehicle, cash, or even an entire estate which can then be rolled over without any taxation to children or other account holders. This will put all governments on a short spending leash, yes, and any who wish to expose their earnings to the ravages of legislators can do so. This will cheese of anyone who thinks that anything should be liable for taxes to pay for ‘good things’… and says to them: responsible citizens who can pay their own way should have the risks and benefits of doing so. These people are not a ‘burden’ to the system because their investment and spending will create a new system very different from today’s and a direct pipeline of funds and investment vehicles into a tax shelter for even the poorest of citizens will allow all citizens to learn to take care of themselves.

Don’t just replace SSA and other entitlements.

Make something better that the government can’t ravage to its spendthrift ends.

This took all of 10 minutes to think up.

I am sure you can do better.

ajacksonian on September 8, 2011 at 7:12 AM

Wednesday, September 07, 2011

Belief in America or Just the Bureaucracy

This is a quick take on the plan put forth by Mitt Romney for what he would do as President: Believe In America.

He has the 5 Bills for Day 1... mind you Congress makes and drafts bills, so he is asking Congress to do this for him.  Even if his proposal is just wrapped into a bill, it still has to go through normal vetting in both Houses.  Of course most Congresses dealing with a new President like to give him something early on, and that will usually be the last of it for what a President gets easily.  On to the proposals.

First – Cut corporate income tax rates to 25%.  This is becoming a theme amongst the Republican candidates with John Huntsman proposing something similar.

Second – Implement the negotiated free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.  That is a good thing and requires Senate approval, which would go relatively easily with this President who can still take this one away with a sign of his pen and handing it to Harry Reid.  That he hasn't has shown President Obama's lack of skill at foreign policy, diplomacy and the treaty ratification process which starts with the President and ends in the Senate.

Third - The Domestic Energy Act, and I will give you its talking point directly:

• Directs the Department of the Interior to undertake a comprehensive
survey of American energy reserves in partnership with exploration
companies and initiates leasing in all areas currently approved
for exploration

Notice that this talking point does not look at the role of the EPA and Dept. of Interior or if they should even exist at this point.  If the point had read 'Seeks to disband the EPA, Dept. of Energy, and end the regulatory authority of the Dept. of the Interior on energy concerns and return those to the States' he might have something.  As it is he is still working to keep the regulatory bodies around after they have proven toxic to the Nation's economy via over-reach.  That these agencies can have such power under ANY President is the problem: if we are depending on good nature and kindness from the Oval Office resident, then human nature will leave these powers open to abuse.  The problem lies not with the not granting of leasing permits, but in the US government having any power over them at all.  This is odd because of the next point.

Fourth - The Retraining Reform Act, and again direct verbiage:

• Consolidates the sprawl of federal retraining programs and returns
funding and responsibility
for these programs to the states

If this is such a great idea for 'retraining programs' then how about for determination of energy exploration?  Or why, indeed, does the federal government get involved not only with 'retraining' but 'education' as a whole?  For pointed projects for military affairs there should be some funding to support research, but the entire federal array of spending in this realm is something that belongs at the State level.  Again, why not abolish the Dept. of Education, end all 'retraining' initiatives and then just cut the budget?  The message from 2010 was Stop The Spending, and to this point it hasn't been stopped.

Fifth – A 5% across the board cut to discretionary programs, yielding $20 Billion.  Why not abolish the Dept. of Agriculture and get nearly 4x that amount?  Toss in EPA, Education, Energy, Labor, choice parts of Interior... that would be a massive re-scope in federal power, of course.  That is not what is being proposed.

 

There are also five Executive Orders that would go out on Day One and those are next.

First – Tell HHS to yield as much authority back to the States for health insurance and prepare to end Obamacare.  Say, why isn't that in a bill on Day One?

Second – Rescind all Obama regulations and cap regulation growth to $0 as to impact on the economy.  Of course if you got rid of the regulatory agencies which have over-reached you could not only get to $0 growth but get some cash back by selling off the property, furnishings and such of the regulatory agencies involved.  That is something a businessman would do – get rid of failing parts of a business and yield any revenue from their remains that he can get.  Oh, sorry!  I though Romney was a businessman...

Third -  An Order to Boost Domestic Energy Production and direct verbiage, again, boldface is mine wherever seen:

Directs the Department of the Interior to implement a process for rapid
issuance of drilling permits
to developers with established safety records
seeking to use pre-approved techniques in pre-approved areas

The federal government has proven to be the PROBLEM in issuing permits, particularly Interior and EPA.  How about just asking for those powers and regulatory organizations to be abolished and let the States figure it out for themselves as they have a good set of procedures for near shore drilling and the ability to craft good policy for their State and its concerns?  But that would be federalism at work.  Can't have that!

Fourth – A Romney hobby-horse is China and seeking sanctions against it for violating our trade agreements with it.  He could, of course, just rip up the agreement and be done with it.  Mind you, this is a guy who's company (or one of the arms of Bain) was in bed with Huawei which was seeking to muscle in on encryption technology.  Yes, his hand-picked man was running the company, but Mr. Romney was the owner of it, so that makes things look a bit interesting as to his beef with China.  He could propose a three tier system of Free Trade with Nations that are our friends and that offer protections of the rights of their citizens from abusive government, normal trade relations with any government that is neither hostile nor friendly and offers at least some protections to their citizens, and no trade for those Nations that are hostile to us and seek to abuse the rights of their own people.  You know, something simple that makes the position of the US clear and understandable with regards to Free Trade and human rights?

Fifth – And then there is this one, An Order to Empower American Businesses and Workers, and verbiage:

• Reverses the executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the
playing field in favor of organized labor, including the one encouraging
the use of union labor on major government construction projects

Great as far as it goes.  Note that the Dept. of Labor and NLRB isn't addressed in this.  He will address one of them later in the additional back-up material.  On p.4 he has a Labor Policy area and I'll give that one to start looking at the underpinnings of how Gov. Romney thinks government should be run:

LABOR POLICY
Mitt Romney will protect the worker rights and employer flexibility crucial to innovation, economic growth, and job creation. As president, Romney’s first step in improving labor policy will be to ensure that our labor laws create a stable and level playing field on which businesses can operate. This means he will appoint to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) experienced individuals with a respect for the law and an even-handed approach to labor relations. Rather than seek to impose his own vision for the future of labor law via executive fiat and bureaucratic subterfuge, Romney will take the conservative approach and work with Congress to amend the outdated portions of the existing statutory framework, setting it on a stronger footing appropriate to contemporary conditions.

Specifically, Romney will seek amendments to the National Labor Relations Act that protect free enterprise, free choice, and free speech. The Act must be amended to ensure that it does not allow the NLRB to constrain companies in their investment decisions, as the NLRB is attempting to do in the Boeing case. It must also be amended to guarantee workers the right to receive full information about the pros and cons of unionization and then express their own preference in the privacy of the voting booth. And it must put an end to the undemocratic practice of allowing unions to deduct money directly from worker paychecks and spend it on political causes with which the workers may disagree.

How about just abolishing the damned thing?  Not just the NLRB but the Dept. of Labor, both, as the States were dealing with things pretty well before these things were created.  And if you want to protect Constitutional rights, then you take the abusers to court, which means States have to make sure that everyone is treated equally, and the federal government has a lovely Congress to make sure that it can be constrained so as not to utilize any discretion when awarding contracts.  Wouldn't that be a novel idea?  Get rid of abusive agencies, hand power back to the States and then seek to have discretion removed by Congress so that abuse on the part of a President or an Agency can be taken to court.  Why, that is almost novel!  Do note, that is not what Mitt Romney is proposing.  He trusts the power and authority of the bureaucracy and thinks that all it takes is electing good people to the position of President because, you know, we would never elect someone who would abuse that power.

Right?

Oh, wait a sec... that is exactly what his proposal is addressing and he is not dealing with the root of the problem but, instead, trimming the noxious weed back a bit but leaving it in place.  If you are noticing a decided lack of distrust of bureaucracies and how they work at the federal level, then you are starting to get a feel for Mitt Romney's proposal.

Let's take a look at the part on 'human capital' right next to the labor policy area:

HUMAN CAPITAL POLICY
Mitt Romney sees two important objectives that America can pursue immediately to build on the extraordinary traditional strengths of its workforce. The first is to retrain American workers to ensure that they have the education and skills to match the jobs of today’s economy. The second is to attract the best and brightest from around the world. As president, Romney will focus retraining efforts on a partnership that brings together the states and the private sector. He will consolidate federal programs and then block grant major funding streams to states. Federal policy will be structured to encourage the use of Personal Reemployment Accounts that empower workers to put retraining funds to efficient use and that encourage employers to provide on-the-job training.

Romney will also press for an immigration policy that maximizes America’s economic potential. The United States needs to attract and retain job creators from wherever they come. Romney will raise the ceiling on the number of visas issued to holders of advanced degrees in math, science, and engineering who have job offers in those fields from U.S. companies. Romney will also work to establish a policy that staples a green card to the diploma of every eligible student visa holder who graduates from an American university with an advanced degree in math, science, or engineering.

I have some bad news for Mitt Romney: the job of President of the United States is NOT about bringing States and the private sector together.  Sorry, that is up to the States to decide.  But as he is the one in control of the cash stream via Block Grants, why, he gets to do that!  Isn't government wonderful?  Hand cash over to people and then get to tell them how to utilize it!  Why its so... Progressive!  And then he will help make individual accounts to make sure the federal government can 'help' individuals.  Gee, isn't that swell of him?

I'm all for the part of attracting the best & brightest.  Make sure they don't feel as if they are going to get shafted by having to go through all the legwork while illegals get offered some sweet amnesty, ok?  And Gov. Romney might want to take a look at closing the borders to the undocumented, illegal workers coming into the US so that Americans don't have to compete at the low end against them.

Now to back up to energy policy on p.3:

ENERGY POLICY
Mitt Romney will pursue an energy policy that puts conservative principles into action: significant regulatory reform, support for increased production, and a government that focuses on funding basic research instead of chasing fads and picking winners. Romney will streamline federal regulation of energy exploration and development so that the government acts as a facilitator of those activities instead of as an obstacle to them. He will create one-stop shops and impose fixed timelines for standard permits and approvals, and he will accelerate the process for companies with established safety records seeking to employ approved practices in approved areas.

Under this robust and efficient regulatory framework, Romney will significantly expand the areas available for energy development—including in the Gulf of Mexico, the Outer Continental Shelf, Western lands, and Alaska. He will also strengthen partnerships with Canada and Mexico to expand opportunities for American companies in the development of those nations’ resources. And he will encourage continued development of unconventional reserves like shale gas and oil that hold enormous promise for expanding the base of U.S. reserves.

You know all of that could be significantly accomplished by getting rid of federal 'oversight' in these areas.  And to make things even sweeter he could divest the US government of the land it has grabbed in energy rich areas and hand those back to the States, as well, so that some States can see some active revenue coming from their land via land taxation.  And that would mean less cost to Interior as it wouldn't have so much land under its belt to 'administer'.  Plus get rid of any potential abuse by an future President to do fun things with manipulating the energy supply of the Nation and put that back in the hands of the States where it belongs.

What I see here in this lovely plan, is a misplaced trust in government power and bureaucracies to do 'good'.  The role of the federal government is to apply equal application of the law, not tilt it towards Unions or towards business, but to apply it equally and fairly to all Americans so that any taken to court get a level playing field there.  That would mean recognizing that things done locally be it training, education, energy production, anything not handed in the Constitution to the federal government, belongs with the States and the people.  That we not only trust in God, but we then place trust in ourselves to hold our government accountable at the most local of levels where our power as citizens is at its strongest.  Not with the national government where it is at its weakest.

This plan is written so as to leave the abusive power structure largely in place and continue its drain on the federal government which, in case it hasn't been noticed, is broke.  Not just broken, but running so deep in the red that $20 billion out of $1.6 trillion is not just a bad joke but a mockery of fiscal sanity.

Gov. Romney needs to join the 21st century, as these 20th century style 'solutions' are the sort of thing that got us into this mess to begin with.  And he does not seem to recognize that these powers are misplaced and open to future abuse if the bureaucracies are left intact.  Which they are.  These are not 'solutions' of helping the American people by reducing the size, scope and power of government, but of papering over the massive defects of the government and hoping that a little bit of prosperity will lull people back to sleep about the massive problems our government has with its power.