The big debate right now is on health care.  There was a nice little attempt at a distraction a couple weeks ago when a snobby Harvard professor (and our president) acted like an idiot and the media attempted to turn the debate to racism in America.  Black leaders were indignant, police groups were on the defensive, and we all counted down to that damn "beer summit" like it was the new millennium. We learned Harvard professors can be rude, officer Crowley is a really nice guy, and our president drinks pee-pee-water-sorority-girl beer.  Thank God the People pulled the discussion back to health care.  I guess.  It'd be great if the debate was actually about health care, but the debate has changed from the actual bill to discussing just how angry the People are (usually described as "those" people meaning right-wing extremists and GOP operatives) and how rude they're acting to their representatives. 

Rachel Maddow, for instance, (who I used to kind of like, I don't agree with her but at least she mixes her progressive sentiments with some light-hearted laughs here and there) is busy digging through the records of the heads of Freedom Works and American Solutions and other conservative political action committees and showing how they're programing "those" people showing up at the townhalls to thinking all kinds of garbage that's not in the bill, but actually is in the bill.... oops.

Is there top-down tinkering in politics, of course there is, on both sides of the issue.  Just because someone agrees with Obamacare doesn't mean they're paid off by George Soros and is a mindless ACORN lacky, adversely, if someone disagrees with Obamacare, it doesn't mean they're a GOP operative bought and paid for by Rupert Murdock.  Accusing both unfoundedly of conspiring together only hampers what actually matters--the debate.

Republitarded leaders do a service by listing the things in the bill, but then give health care proponents fodder and do a disservice by giving those things extreme names to scare people.  Democraptastic leaders are just as guilty by simply rubber-stamping the legislation without reading it and then blindly calling opponents nazis.

So how about it, gang, can we talk about the bill please?  We all agree something happens to be done.  The politicians are saying "something has to be done, may as well be this" as if there's a crisis.  A crisis?  Really?  A CRISIS?  Buck up!  Moscow pointing missiles at us is a crisis, health care is not at crisis levels!  Plus, even if we pass it now, it won't be effective until 2013!  So, if the crisis isn't so deep that we can wait four years after passing it, I think we can spare a couple months to come up with something better.  With that said, I'll propose my idea!  This idea is so good, it'll make you poop yourself your cheeks will be so relieved after being so tightly puckered for this whole debate!  I have a beautiful idea so that everyone can get whatever they want and be happy and SHUT THE HELL UP! 

Ready?

States' rights.  How about that? 

A huge problem with our health system is that it is all ready highly nationalized.  How about denationalize it?  If California or Massachussetts really wants universal health care, they should be allowed to do it.  If Indiana and Illinois want a public option to "compete" with private insurance, go for it, if Texans and Georgians want to get the government out and further privatize health care, they should be allowed to do so as well.  "We want single payer!"; "We want court reform!"; "We want a public option!"; "We want the government out of health care!"; "We want contract reform!" whatever floats your boat, you can have, and if it's not in your state, hey! you're free to move to a state that has what you want!  Brilliant!

Why is it that the whole nation HAS to be under the same health care system and the same mandate?  We all obviously want different things; why not let us have different things?

Oh wait... Washington wont get new powers...

Well, dammit...  I guess that idea's scrapped.

Wake me when the Death Panel calls me.

-WDP

I've been mulling it over for a while and I believe I've figured out what bothers me so much about Sonya Sotomayor.  I know, I know, I'm annoyed with me too that I'm even talking about it what with health care conform and angry mobs of "nazis" (according to Pelosi), a monetary policy dreamed up by the same losers that brought us the Weimar Republic and a government running so many Ponzi schemes it makes Bernie Madoff look like a petty thief!  Nothing about the Supreme Court is going to change with Sotomayor in it, the decisions before her were 5-4, they will remain 5-4 unless (God forbid) a member of that 5 decides to retire.  So what bothers me about her?

If you listened to the oh so intelligent debate between the Democraps and the Republitards, you're no better off than you were before she was nominated (seriously, why do we keep paying these losers to explain things to us?).  The Republitards argued that she was an sleeper-communist that performs social justice by killing white people, performing abortions (herself!) with guns she snatched from every gun owner in America and was marrying gay people--"OH NO!  Not marrying gay people!"--oh, yes! 

The Democraps retort: "Nuh-uuuhhh!  She's.... Hispanic!...... Racist doody-head!  And she read... (sob!) Nancy Drew! (sob!).... And (blubber!) she was inspired... (sniffle!) by Perry Mason! (Sobsoobsobsobsobsobbsooobbbb!!)"

Neither one very convincing arguments.  The hearings were an absolute joke (seriously, we vote for these people??) and a mockery of republican democracy, Jefferson just puked in his mouth.  The Republitards came across as redundant, rambling, and bullyish, but within their lost and repetative diatribes there lay a few kernals that could be considered good points like her views on race (which they mentioned twenty THOUSAND times each!).  That, is more than I can say for the Democraps, for they had no arguments.  They just blubbered and fawned. 

However, it was during Chuck Schumer's turn to ask her questions (which he didn't do, mostly answered questions for her, way to be condescending, Chucky) when I realized what it was exactly that didn't set well with me about her.

He was listing a bunch of cases she had decided and finishing each with "that decision is well within the mainstream, yes?" to which she would dutifully nod.  What I noticed is that she seems to decide cases solely on "legal precedent", leading her to side more often than not, with (our enemy) the State*.  Legal precedent is established by norms within case law, which is not necessarily Constitutional.  For instance, the Dred Scott Decision which denied citizenship to all blacks in the United States and denied personship to all slaves was based on legal precedent, but was not Constitutional.  I realized with that and her decisions, which were idealogically inconsistant, why I feel uneasy about her being a Supreme Court Justice.  She doesn't have a bone in her body that understands Natural Law (the bedrock of the Declaration of Independence) or Constitutional protocol (which keeps government moving slow in order to allow the people to make good, debated decisions).

People have been theorizing as to what kind of Justice she'll be--"will she decide from the left?  The right?  The center?  As if we're talking the hokey-pokey, not the Supreme Court!  I'll tell you right now how she'll decide: on the side of the State.  Because it is, after all the State that sets legal precedent, no?  And think of all of the wildly unconstitutional items on the President's agenda (and the last one's and the last one's and the last one's...), she will lay down and allow it as long as Congress passes it! 

The Constitution has within it, a certain protocol that says if you want to pass something that is not in the Constitution, you have to amend the document in order to pass it constitutionally.  Most of the things our government is doing is, in fact, completely unconstitutional and it is allowed because we've had a Supreme Court that simply laid down and allowed it since Lincoln because of "legal precedent".

That's why I don't like her--she's just as spineless and willing to lay down to Congress, the Senate, and the President as most of the other Supreme Court Justices have been for over 150 years, allowing the State to run wild and swallow more and more of our freedoms that it is supposed to protect with the power of the Constitution, not "legal precedent" or "case law".  The Supreme Court is supposed to decide when "legal precedent" and "case law" is Constitutional, not uphold that Scylla and Charybdis of "legal precedent" and "case law".

"Legal precedent" can eat me.  Give me the Constitution.

Um.... The End...
-DubyaDee




reference to: Our Enemy the State by Albert Jay Nock

The gaps, as mentioned in the last entry, between various Social Doctrines is rather wide.  There is a world of difference between most of them and to jump the gap is difficult.  However, what connects these various spectra are systems in economics.  At a point, a spectrum's beau ideal of an economic system begins to run and mix with various ideas of the next spectrum, the camel's nose under the proverbial tent if I may.  This mixing of doctrines sets in motion a movement toward the next spectrum and tends to cloud the advent of an entirely new political system.  During the transition, the economics appear to be the same, it looks like the old system, it smells like the old system, but in reality, the old system is breaking down.

To remind the reader, the Social Doctrines are Anarchism (order sans government), Liberalism (minimal government based on natural law and delegated power), Nationalism (centralized national power), and Internationalism (centralized multi-national government and imperialism).  To learn the ins and outs of these basic Doctrines, read the last entry.  Each of these Social Doctrines carries with it economic ideas being that economics is actually based less on mathematics and more on philosophy and theology.  Most arguments against a particular school of economics usually say "well, that sounds good, but it's just a theory", but truthfully, all economic ideas either are or began as a theory.  Only time can really prove whether Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, Karl Marx, Albert Marshall, or Maynard Keynes was right.  If they are proven wrong, new people come along and try new theories, there is no cut-and-dry economics that all economists believe in.

Yet, the ideas that have been disproven often get ample chances to again prove their error, mostly because of an unconscious populace that can't tell one economic system from the other, hense they are easily fooled when an erroneous system suffers upon the people a resurgence.  Each Social Doctrine, their roots being in philosophy, carry with them certain ideas they feel should be accomplished in an economic system, thus, they naturally gravitate towards the ones that most easily meet those desired ends.  All of these economic theories are compatable with two Social Doctrines but in different doses, which is why they serve as an ideal bridge on to a new spectrum.

Lets begin with Anarchism.  At the 0 degree point, there is no real "market" at all.  In the absence of government people are forced to live in close quarters and harvest what they require for sustanance and since anything they do must contribute to staying alive, they have no surplus to serve the purpose of trade.  A market is then impossible unless that particular locality begins innovating and is able, through technology, to create a surplus and require less time to work for sustanance.  They are able to use that surplus to find another locality with things that they want, since they are able to supply this other locality with products it cannot produce or cannot produce as efficiently, they open up trade and concentrate their efforts on things they can produce more efficiently in order to use these better products for other things they need or want.  The two economies build and the economics of 0 degrees shift to the economics of 45 degrees--capitalism. 

Capitalism is one of those terms with an over-definition.  People often do this with terms like "peace" and "white-supremacy" by adding to the contextual definitions with other definitions mixed with stereotypes creating a mongrel of a definition rather than actually using the words in a conprehensive way.  Since Capitalism--as mentioned above--is one of these over-defined terms, allow me to define it properly.  Free-market, laissez-faire Capitalism is simply a free-exchange economy.  Money isn't even a necessity in Capitalism, a medium of exchange or a reference point to value is all that's required.  You have something I want, I have something you want, lets work out a trade.  That's Capitalism.  This system can develop in the absence of government but thrives in the presence of a government that merely enforces ground rules (i.e. private property, definitive fraud, honor of contract, etc.), thus it is borne of Anarchism and serves as a bridge into Liberalism, connecting the absence of government to the presence of a liberal government.  Since Capitalism thrives with the certainty and impartiality of law provided by Liberalism, the two systems make good bed-fellows.  The danger in the success of Capitalism, though, is the fact that government eventually gets greedy, and wants to harness the power of Capitalism to best suit its needs and to award it more control in a Nationalistic government.  So in order to push the purpose of government from impartial referee to a more powerful ruler, it has to prove it can harness the power of Capitalism and make it greater through the system of Mercantilism, the bridge beginning at 135 degrees.

Many people, mostly Marxists, tend to confuse Mercantilism for Capitalism, and for good reason.  Firstly, it calls itself "Capitalism", secondly, it strongly resembles it.  There is a freedom of exchange in the lower levels of the economy, but it is seen in Mercantilism as illigitimate, the big differences between Capitalism and Mercantilism are the way the two treat "bigness".  For example, in Capitalism, if a firm becomes big and makes bad decisions, it is treated just as harshly by the "invisible hand" as a small firm that makes an equally bad mistake through either insolvency or a loss in profits.  Mercantilism, however, tries to alter and guide the "invisible hand" in order to nourish the "national interest" through protectionist policies (i.e. tariffs to alter supply and demand), government recognition of business cabals and cartels, centralized banking, and a nationalized currency.  Before a society notices, it has jumped the gamut solidly from Liberalism, into the Social Doctrine of Nationalism

The system of Mercantilism is an attempt to better empower business and its interests in order to help the nation as a whole, but it leads to monopolies and oligopolies in business, and lobbying and corruption in government.  Every industry feels it should be protected by a tariff in order to give it an unfair advantage and protect it from foreign competitors.  However, this system ends up hurting the consumer because the tariffs force prices to go up, giving the business to charge what it wishes rather than what the consumer is willing to pay for it as it is in Capitalism.  Businesses can also go to the government for subsidies, loans, and contracts in the name of the "public good", leading to lobbying and corruption through bribery as well as the empowerment of politicians as lords of business.  The inevitable corruption that comes from Mercantilism eventually outrages the people who demand something cleaner, more transparency.  The government gives it to them, a system even more corrupt that puts up the front of purity with promises to "reign in" corruption in business and government.  This system is called Corporatism, which begins at the point of 225 degrees on the greater-spectrum.

The system of Corporatism is, even still, oft-confused with Capitalism even though they are very far apart.  Corporatism, to define it simply, is government direction of the means of production as opposed to out-right ownership of production found in Socialism.  It begins with the government promising to "clean up" the government-business relationship with more stringent regulations on business.  However, what happens is that the businesses are allowed to help in the writing of the regulations, leading to regulations that help the cabals and cartels remove the threat of competition.  This makes way for even stronger monopolies and oligopolies with the government on their side in thwarting off any possible threats.  Essentially, in Corporatism, the business interests become the national interests.  Businesses, getting too big for just one country, begin to open firms all over the world and the government increases their spread in order to protect their national interests, assisting these mongrel firms and moving the country from Nationalism to Internationalism. 

A point made by F.A. Hayek in his book The Road to Serfdom, as well as in Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt was that Corporatism creates a demand from the people for Socialism.  Hayek wrote his book on the basic premise of inevitablity.  He pointed out that as governments aide businesses in the name of "national interests", the corruption becomes more and more apparent, this incestuous relationship creates resentment in the people.  Not only does the corruption disgust people, but the pouring of resources into the pockets of the cabals in the name of the "nation" while the general population is left out of the mix, makes the poor look at their empty plates in anger and resentment towards "Capitalism" even though it isn't Capitalism they're seeing.  The people, naturally begin to demand a share in the spoils ("where's our bail-out??") and demand more egalitarian solutions to the problems created by Corporatism.  So at 315 degrees, the nation hops on to the bridge of Socialism.

Socialism is defined as government ownership of the means of production and is the epitome of the Collectivist philosophy put into economic terms.  While the Collectivism of Mercantilism and Corporatism is based more in varying degrees of Nationalism, which, by nature can be exclusionary, Socialism believes the government should seize all means of production and distribute all the goods equally or according to "need".  While there are varying stripes and colors among Socialists, Marxists, in particular, don't even trust the government to distribute goods correctly, which is why Marxists, dogmatically, believe that the government should collapse or dissipate in order for the trade unions to take charge of the distribution of goods.  Whether Marxists gain influence in a Socialist society is irrelevent because Socialism inevitably collapses because government is truly unable to take on such a lofty task as "properly" egalitarian distribution of goods.  There is no central planner in the world that can "fairly" set prices or provide basic needs to all people equally.  Socialist governments are also notoriously corrupt so typically, a Socialistic society is either forced to scale back its control (as Sweden and China are doing currently and Russia was forced to do) or it collapses into Anarchism.  Thus, the cycle begins anew with non-market anarchism.  The global Collectivist dream remains for some time but fades as localities become more isolated, such as it was after the Roman Empire gave way to the Dark Ages.

So with this, we see a clear movement, a cycle that renews itself should a nation travel the whole distance: Liberalism is an inevitablity of Anarchism; Nationalism is an inevitablity of Liberalism; Internationalism is an inevitablity of Nationalism; and Anarchism is an inevitability of Internationalism.  To go in the other direction is very difficult but it can be done, it has to do with the fact that after government reaches a certain point of strength, it is very difficult to scale it back, and by the time the people are usually conscious of it--it's too late. 

In the latter part of the 19th century, Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species changed the political and sociological debate as Newton's Law of Gravity had changed the debate before that.  Nary a scientific idea has had the impact that the Theory of Evolution did on political scientists and economists.  Two groups formed from this discussion--the "progressives" (modern so-called "liberals") and the anarchists.  The progressives believed that since society evolves, then old notions of society reach obsolescence, therefore government must be pragmatic and strong in order to move society along and adapt to the issues of the day free of dogma or principle.  Since people evolve, they thought, so must government, to insure that societal evolution is best harnessed for the better of the collective.  Anarchists went in the opposite direction believing that since people evolve and adapt, then that means the people out-grow the need for government.  They believed that truth was truth and would thus remain so (as Darwin did), after all, a man who jumps off a cliff is still going to die, they just believed that man had evolved to the point that he was too enlightened to think he can fly by flapping his arms.  Anarchists viewed government as a hinderance to mans' evolutionary potential, thus an enemy of man and progress itself.  What this disagreement shows is the vast casm that separates an Individualist from a Statist--one believes that the natural movement of man is toward want of more government to tame him and ensure equality, whereas the other believes the natural movement of man is away from control and toward freedom without regard for material equality. 

I say that both are right.  The natural movement of society as a group of individuals is toward less government as it becomes more enlightened.  The enlightened man can now more easily adapt and provide for itself the accoutrements formerly provided by the government whereas the unenlightened man could not provide for himself much outside what he could produce himself.  In a free economy, a need is seen and it is filled by someone to make society more efficient and comfortable, allowing the quality of life to rise without the necessary aide of government to provide that luxury.  Governments didn't bring us resorts for instance, people through a more efficiently run society became more able to afford holidays and needed a place to go and simply enjoy themselves--a need was seen and it was filled.  What the semi-free economy we've enjoyed over the past two hundred years has shown us is this fact--that society's natural movement is toward individualism and less government interferance.  The opposite is true, however, in the case of government. 

Governments crave power and control by nature.  A society where government isn't needed is a society with an almost inept and quite boring government.  The natural movement for government then, is towards more and more power, using economics to create inequities and promising to alleviate them if they're only given more power.  As individuals show they can do something without the aide of government, the ability is robbed through regulation or nationalization of the service.  It is in constant need to show how useful and essential it is, so it claims more and more power.

No matter what, all nations are vulnerable to the very cycle illustrated in my last several entries.  Next time, I'll show a couple countries that make my point perfectly.  A couple that traveled the whole cycle, and those trapped somewhere within, unable to progress.

-W.D.P.

Social Doctrines are the basic premises based on general ideas of the role of government and its purpose.  Cultural Philosophy plays an optimal role in deciding such premises which, in turn, dictate the type of government to which a particular society is partial.  Imagine the political spectrum not as a single line upon which everything falls neatly, but imagine political thought as a series of spectra based on completely independent doctrines based on variances of the two basic philosophies of Collectivism and Individualism.  To refresh the readers mind, Collectivism is to be defined as the exaltation of the group over the individual; Individualism is to be defined as exaltation of the individual over the group. 

The next question raised after the identifying of the Cultural Philosophy is the definition of the individual or the collective.  How is the individual or collective to be defined?  Is the individual to be defined in a more Nietzchian light--as an island with absolute sovereignty unfettered by rules of morality?  Or is the individual to be defined by a more Aristotolean definition--as an inherently social being that must view respect of other individuals as its hallmark of reality?  How is the collective to be defined?  Is the collective a race?  A geographical nation?  A culture?  A religion?  A Platonic brotherhood?  How is the collective to be preserved?  Genocide?  Diseducation?  Multi-culturalism? These are all questions that the various spectra of Social Doctrines define.

Within every spectrum within the greater cyclical political spectrum, there is a different approach--a Radical approach, and a Conservative approach.  "Radical" coming from the Latinate "Radi" meaning "root" will be defined as the more uncompromising approach that hopes to bring the absolute root idea of the particular Social Doctrine to fruition.  "Conservative" will be defined as the slower moving, more resistant, and "luke warm" approach that holds on to certain ideas from the previous Social Doctrine (or the "Ancien Regime" as it shall be refered to henceforth) held by the society. 

The greater-spectrum can be divided into four slices like a pie, each one of these slices are the lesser-spectra or Social Doctrines.  At the point of "0 degrees", there is the dividing line between Absolutism (100% government) and Anarchy (0% government) (Absolutism and Anarchy are not Social Doctrines, merely extreme situations).  In geometry, 0 degrees can also be 360 degrees depending on direction, whether the direction is "right" or "left" is inconsequential because as I have said, left and right are directions, not ideologies.  They merely distract and add unneeded abstraction to an already abstract school of thought.  It is best to use the terms describing from which of the spectra a society moved rather than simply saying it moved left or right. 

The Social Doctrines that are the subject of this discussion are as follows; from 0 degrees to 90 degrees: Anarchism, to be defined as order sans government; from 90 degrees to 180 degrees: Liberalism, to be defined as government based on Natural Law and voluntary government through Social Contract; 180 degrees to 270 degrees: Nationalism, to be defined as centralized national government (the definition of that "nation" is relative to the discussion); 270 degrees to 360 degrees: Internationalism, to be defined as centralized international government (i.e. imperialism and/or dependence--not interdependence).

Each of these Social Doctrines as noted above have within them a "Radical" and "Conservative" approach to that particular doctrine.  What is described as "Conservative" or "Radical" usually depends on the Ancien Regime of the particular society.  If the society practices an Internationalist doctrine, for example, the conservatives will reject to retreating back toward Nationalism or Liberalism, as well as would wholly reject collapsing into Anarchism.  As the radicals push for the pure idea of any of these doctrines, the conservatives fight back, warry of going all-in.  (Keep in mind that the modern term "conservative" doesn't apply.  I prefer to use the classical definitions for semantic reasons.)  The conservative and radical elements make up the "north and south" or the two different sides of the same coin.

Take the Social Doctrine of Anarchism, for instance; depending on whether it was an Internationalist society that collapsed under its own weight, or it simply evolved from Liberalism, the conservative and radical elements could take either of two forms.  Should a society collapse from Internationalism, the radical element would appear in an anarcho-captialist, market-based anarchism or an individualist-anarchist movement.  Internationalism being the Ancien Regime in this case, and Internationalism being based on a Collectivist Cultural Philosophy, radicals would wish to totally rebel and take a radically individualist shape, respecting the rights to private property with competing private enterprise providing services and protections that government used to provide, thus more delegated power.  In the same case, the conservative element would keep hold of a Collectivist philosophy and venture a more non-market anarchistic, anarcho-socialist route with centralized power within the locality.  On the other hand, should the Ancien Regime be Liberalism, the opposite would be the case--the radical elements would seek a more Collectivist philosophy in anarcho-socialism while the conservative elements would choose to hold on to the Individualist philosophy and go the anarcho-capitalist  route, still valuing Liberal ideas of voluntarianism, private property, and free-exchange.

The same can be said for the other Social Doctrines.  Take Liberalism which can either devolve from Nationalism, or develope from Anarchism.  In the first case, the conservative element would be more Nationalistic, wanting a centralized power to hold limited sway over the localities and smaller juristictions (i.e. our Constitutional system of federalism) while the radical element would want the smaller juristictions and localities to hold sway over the centralized power (i.e. our pre-Constitutional system of anti-federalism).  In the case of Liberalism developing from Anarchism, again, the opposite would be true with anti-federalists taking the conservative role in preserving the Ancien Regime of Anarchism through highly delegated and localized power, forcing the central powers almost into ineptitude, while the federalists would be the radicals pushing for a stronger centralized government. 

Which leads us to the next Social Doctrine--Nationalism.  Again, the radical and conservative elements are dependent upon the evolution/devolution of the society.  In the case of Liberalism developing into Nationalism, the conservative element would take on the shape of progessivism which sees Liberalism as too scattered and unorganized.  Progressivism seeks to simply organize the rewards of Liberalism and direct them towards more Nationalistic goals.  It doesn't seek to destroy all elements of Liberalism, but to allow Liberalism to exist in a more organized fashion, as opposed to the radical element (fascism) which seeks to destroy all things liberal and turn all efforts unapologetically towards the "national" interests as defined by the organizers in power (note to reader: "fascism" has nothing to do with killing Jews.  That was Hitlerian National Socialism and was distinct to post-WWI Germany, though Nazism does fit into the radically nationalistic element in what was becoming an increasingly Liberal Europe, therefore a sub-category of fascism).  Nationalism, in general, hopes to organize society to serve the "common good" of the defined collective.  The cross from Liberalism into Nationalism requires a change in the Cultural Philosophy from Individualism to Collectivism.  However, in the case of an Internationalist government contracting and taking a more Nationalistic approach, the progressives would be the radicals, using elements of Liberalism to better the national condition, whereas the conservatives would be the fascists, seeking to reinvigorate the "nation" into pursuing its former imperial glory.

Finally, we have the Social Doctrine of Internationalism which can either develop from Nationalism, or be attempted from Anarchism.  Again, the radical and conservative elements being decided by the Ancien Regime.  In the first case, a nation can begin to view itself as so great that it becomes evangelical, wanting to either spread its system or want to simply acquire more territory for expansionist or economic reasons.  Its based on the idea of a greater collective outside just the "nation" but views the "nation" as the greatest carrier of the message.  The conservative element of Internationalism would be fabian socialism, believing that the nations should maintain some sovereignty as businesses would be given in a nationalistic economy: free to produce, but "collectively-minded" in its distribution.  In this case, the radical element is communism which seeks the dissolution of private property and rights with the out-right and immediate "collectivization" of all societal elements.  As many know, communism is based on the economic ideas of Karl Marx, who believed that government should swoop in, take over the means of production, collectivize the population, and dissipate into anarchy.  The reason most communist/socialist countries tend to be very unstable is because they try to shift from anarchy into absolutism by trying to expand local collectivism into global collectivism wanting to "free the people".  In the case of anarchistic collectivists moving towards Internationalism, the communists would be the conservatives fighting to maintain the root idea of collectivized economics and public ownership of the means of production distributed with the barometer of "need".  The fabians, here, would be the radicals, insisting on more quasi-capitalistic means to meet the same collectivist ends. 

The shift from one Social Doctrine to the next is very difficult and usually begets much strife in the transition.  Yet, with each transition, many of those experiencing the shift are not aware that they are involved in an historic changing of the guard.  The reason this is, is because it is typically not a conscious transition, each of these Social Doctrines have a bridge that connects them, sneaking in the new Social Doctrine bit by bit, until the society recognizes the sea-change only in retrospect.  That bridge, is economics.  Each Social Doctrine shares elements of the socio-economic systems of the two surrounding spectra, providing a much smoother, and often hidden, transition from spectra to spectra.  So what are those economic systems and how do they connect?  That will be discussed later.

-W.D.P.

Cultural Philosophy, to define it directly, would be the general views toward human interaction held by a society.  These views mold the type of ethos a society will follow, thus judging for it its Social Doctrine, and finally, its system of government.  Ultimately, all the philosophies in the world can be summed up by a single query: "What matters, and why?"  This simple question determines the ethics of human interaction.  The views of human interaction can be summed up into two different philosophies that beget different views of ethics.  Philosophy is the root of all thought.  It was the study of philosophy that led the naturally inquisitive human to medical sciences, natural sciences, social sciences, and law.  Like I've said, without a discussion of philosophy, a discussion on ethics is useless, and without a discussion of ethics, a discussion of politics is useless.  So in order to understand political science (the study of societal interaction), one must first understand philosophy.

Most views and ethos can be traced back to one of two general philosophies: Individualism and Collectivism which contain their own general ethics that beget sublets with much stricter ethical standards.  In the ultimate question of political systems, the question of Cultural Philosophy is the first unanswered question to be answered.  Whether they seek to break free from the philosophy of their current rulers or they simply developed the outlook in the absence of government is irrelevant; it is the Cultural Philosophy that dictates their preferences in a government.

So let's reconstruct the political spectrum.  Picture it the way it's presented now: atheistic communist-socialism on the left and religious nut-job fascistic super-capitalism on the right.  Now throw that away--left and right are not ideologies, they're directions.  The spectrum the founders of our nation believed in had no government on one end and too much government on the other but that's not right either.  The many political ideas can't simply be put properly on a spectrum based on no or too much governance, there's too much to political discussion to simplify it to that single issue.  It doesn't get down to the philosophy of a civilization, nor does it give a direction to that civilization.  If a nation wants a strong central power, who will benefit?  That question is not answered by a simple no/too much government spectrum, and it surely isn't answered by the right-left spectrum we have now.

I'm sure you'd like to know what it is if it isn't a spectrum and I'll tell you now: it's a circle.  A cycle based on the growth and collapse of a government.  No and too much government aren't ideas on opposite ends of the spectrum, it's a tipping point where a government collapses.  The stability of a nation is determined by what point on the circle a nation begins and that point is determined, ultimately, by that initial unconscious decision of the philosophies of Individualism or Collectivism.  Now, allow me to define those philosophies:

Individualism is the philosophy that makes the case for the autonomy and sovereignty of a human being  as the chief decider in his own life.  The individual has a right to private property and to live his life as he sees fit.
Collectivism on the other hand, makes the case for humanity being a brotherhood, a partnership.  Collectivism says that there is no individual without the collective.  The collective grants him his rights and all the individual does ought to be done for the benefit of the collective (whatever the "collective" may be.  It is a term defined by the authority).

How these Cultural Philosophies influence Social Doctrine and the political systems is fairly simple and self-evident.  In a society that believes in the individual's sovereignty and rights to property and life will have a natural inclination to make a small, non-intrusive government that allows the individual to fail or succeed as he sees fit while societies of the more collectivist persuasion will prefer a large safety-net of a government that supplies for the needs and wants of the collective. 

People tend to forget the strong links between science and politics these days.  We tend to see them as separate subjects but the early thinkers of all of the social sciences were heavily influenced by physics, astronomy, and biology--changes is scientific thought inspired change in socio-political thought as well.  Take for instance Thomas Hobbes, writer of Leviathan, considered one of the first true political scientists.  He was inspired not by statesmen and politicians, but by the astronomer and physicist Galileo.  It was Galileo's theory that the natural state of things was to be in motion that inspired Hobbes to theorize in Leviathan that society was constantly in motion, therefore it needed a strong sovereign to guide it to the most productive path; it was Isaac Newton's law of gravity that sparked that explosion of political ideas that birthed our nation called the Enlightenment; it was Charles Darwin's theory of evolution that revolutionized political thoughts leading to not only the acceleration of the progressive movement, but also the little known anarchist movement in the late 19th century.  Each one of these great discoveries shook the world, sparking arguments among the intelligensia as to its meaning to society.  Those debates created massive rifts in the societies that changed everything.

Take the aforementioned idea of Galileo who also proved that the Earth revolved around the sun.  His theory of motion, which he realized after proving Capunicus's theory of the sun, changed the debate.  If the Earth is constantly moving, then motion is natural, and if motion is natural, then surely human interactions are in constant motion, changing society and moving it forward into new ages.  Hobbes was fascinated by this and theorized that it was the government (the "Leviathan")'s duty to harness and guide that motion.  Others took it differently, arguing the obsolescence of monarchy in favor of granting all power to the House of Commons, sparking the English Civil War.  Do not misunderstand me and think I'm saying Galileo indirectly sparked the English Civil War, tensions had been developing for years before.  However, Galileo's theory did change the language of the time, sending the debates in new directions.

Newton's Law of Gravity had a similar impact on social thought.  The implications of the Law of Gravity and his other theorums were that there were certain "natural laws" (as Cicero called them) from which humanity could not escape.  If you jump off a cliff, you can flap your arms, but you will hit the ground and die.  Science took a new direction.  Galileo opened minds to exploration and curiosity of the superstitions and the functions of the world.  Newton's theory sent scientists to discover other natural laws.  The search for natural laws led to the birth of the study of economics, leading to a storm of new economic thought by the likes of Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, Jean-Baptiste Say, and David Ricardo to dispell the conventional wisdom of mercantilism.  They sought the "natural laws" of a market.  How the Law of Gravity punished bad economic decisions.

The Enlightenment is also the time of the birth of socialism.  While most Enlightemnent thinkers sought through the doctrine of Liberalism the individual impact of natural laws, Socialists sought to discover the utopia described by Plato as Atlantis.  While Liberals talked about natural laws and individual rights, the Socialists talked about universal brotherhood.  The Liberals won the debate because the utopianists sounded more like medeivalists yearning for the "good old days" of the dark ages while still wanting to reap the benefits of modern advancement.  The Liberals believed that what a man created should be his and should only be sold voluntarily for the sake of personal profit, thereby benefiting society by harnessing an individual's self-interest.  The Socialists believed that what a man created was not his, but the society's, and therefore should be given selflessly to the whole for the joy of benefitting mankind. 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution was equally as revolutionary to political thought in the latter half of the 19th century.  He was hailed as the "man who killed God", much to his disgust (he was a christian) and people began a hot new debate.  His theory, as we all know, was that species, when in a certain environment, adapt to better meet the rigors of what it takes to survive.  He spoke of "natural selection" harkening the ideas of "natural laws" that the Enlightenment thinkers sought to better define.  The debate changed.  If species evolve and change and adapt, then surely humans must too, and if humans adapt, then surely human thought adapts and evolves too.  It was a further confirmation of that Galilean principle that the natural state of things was in motion.

The debate with a subject as radical and polarizing as the Theory of Evolution was equally as radical in its socio-political implications and the thought it inspired.  Spurred on by the expansion of government under Lincoln and the progressive measures taken by his Republican Party after the Civil War, progressive intelligensia latched on to evolution, adapting it to their ideology and using it to justify Lincoln's destruction of states' rights, the racism of the earlier part of the century, and the death of Liberalism in general: since there are different cultures and different races and people, then they must evolve at a different pace, making some superior and other inferior.  For a society to prosper, the most "fit" should run things while the inferior stay below us until they've evolved to the point of being equal.  While the more extreme elements of progressivism sought population controls of the "unfit" through birth control movements, etc, others simply wanted to "take care" of the inferiors until they're ready.  This mirrors the pre-Civil War attitude towards blacks where the South wanted to keep them as slaves till they were "ready for freedom" and most in the North just wanted to send them back to Africa (called "colonization").  Banishment from paradise or subserviance would be the only options for the "unfit".  With this knowledge, it was the State's duty to oversee and control the "evolution" of a society in order to gain the optimal result.

However, the evolutionary idea also sparked a debate in a completely different direction.  The Individualist Anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and Henry George argued that as humans evolve and become more enlightened, government becomes less and less necessary, and in order for humanity to truly thrive, government had to be destroyed and replaced by either a very small government, or no government at all.  Since humans are subject to evolution and even more capable of evolutionary thought due to the studies of science and philosophy, adaptation in a world sans government would be a snap.  Spontaneous order would occur and people would establish orders of their own in order to co-exist.  This, mixed with the Liberalism of the Enlgithenment, made what eventually became known as the Libertarian Movement.  Though both Progressivism and Individual Anarchism were both atheistic in nature, they did not match in ethics.  Progressivism rejected the ideas of natural law and put the "State" in its place.  This way ethics were no longer absolutes, but elastic, bendable to the government, or as they say; "will of the people".  The Anarchists, obviously, had a different view.  People had evolved into strong, capable, enlightened beings, therefore the "State" is not needed and a "Leviathan" is purely unnatural.  There was no "will of the people" anymore, we had evolved past that; there is only the "will of the person".

Now, we see the duality of a Cultural Philosophy.  With the advent of new debates and ideas, one philosopher takes one view and the other takes a completely different view.  This is the ultimate decider as to where on the circle a society lies and what type of Social Doctrine that society is proned to.  Individualists tend toward more delegated and personal control, whereas Collectivists tend toward more centralized and less personal control.  We'll see what kind of Social Doctrines are available to the Collectivists and Individualists in my next entry.

-W.D.P.

Good question!  A political system doesn't simply appear from nowhere, there is a process that leads to a society drafting a constitution or choosing a form of government.  Whether it be conscious or unconscious is not germane to the process or the discussion of political theory in general.  A political system takes ages to dream up, apply, and even when applied, takes ages to perfect provided that the system is at all sustainable to begin with.  The proper study of politics is feckless when separated from a discussion of politics or ethics because without ethics, a discussion of justice and how to apply it to a society becomes meaningless, and without philosophy, a discussion of ethics floats in mid-air and collapses of its own weightlessness.  "Politics" sans philosophy, is meaningless.

This, in essence, is the ultimate problem with the contemporary political discussion.  We hear about the Republicans and the Democrats, "right" and "left", "liberals" and "conservatives" with no real definition attached to the terms, rendering them more disorienting than definite, making the entire political discussion cloudy, making any attempt at having a rational discussion quixotic at best.  So, those terms; "Republican", "Democrat", "right-wing", "left-wing", "liberal", "conservative"; forget them.  They're not classically defined words but a product of the Stalin Doctrine ("whatever the party [communists/Stalin] disagrees with is 'right-wing'") and Alinskian (i.e. Saul Alinsky) methods of misdirection for the purpose of power. 

We tend to use these words because we don't know how they came into being, which is the real problem.  To top it off, popular culture has so perverted the meanings and so effectively applied Stalin's Doctrine to the terms, that we don't question them.  A pundit we agree with most of the time berates the "left" or the "right", "liberalism" or "conservatism" and we simply become familiar with those words in that particular context and create an image in our head of the subject of our beloved pundit's hatred that we burn in effigy in our heads and find ourselves appalled when we find one of our friends or relatives is one of "them".

Today's entry will concentrate on defining our political semantics.  It will be followed by a deeper explanation of political systems and how they're formed and the inevitability of unenlightened cyclical motion of collapse and renewal.  It's less a "redefining" of the political spectrum that we usually apply and more of a lynching, burning, and pissing on the ashes of an evil beast that devoured our children and raped our wives in the dead of night.  My theory works basically on the idea that the development of political economy, law, and justice put a nation somewhere on the spectrum and judges how long they can ultimately last before collapse and renewal.  It works on the Galelean/Hobbesian idea that the natural state of things is in motion until someone stops it.  Since people are natural beings susceptible to natural laws, and since motion and inertia are both natural principles, and since the study of political science is the study of human interaction and societal ethics, then the natural state of society and human interaction is in motion.  By this very simple principle, I can say rather soundly that the shift of prevalent societies through this cycle is inevitable when the people of that society are unconscious. 

One of the ways that the people are rendered unconscious to history, politics, and economics, is through the ambiguety of terms.  It happens to all of us: "C-SPAN is just so boring, economics has all those words I don't understand, and political pundits on TV just yell over each other, history is simply a series of dates and people I don't care about, and when people talk about any of it I get bored to tears!"  One of the ways it becomes boring or infuriating is through the undefining of our political language.  Allow me to clear up where the terms come from.

Republican:
Obviously, a political party, also known as the GOP (Grand Old Party).  The Republican Party officially began in 1854 in Michigan, shortly after the collapse of the Whig Party.  There was a void left there that was mostly being filled by the "Know Nothing" Party (AKA the "Native American" party- a protectionist, anti-immigrant party.) and the Free-Soil party, which ran solely on abolitionism.  Now, to understand the Republican Party, you have to understand the Whig Party.  They were formed by the former Speaker of the House Henry Clay of Kentucky in the early part of the 1800s.  Originally called the "National Republicans" during the non-partisan period before the forming of the Whig and Democratic Parties, they were the more radical descendants of the Federalist Party (Alexander Hamilton and John Adams' party).  Hamilton was the more radically pro-central government of the founding fathers and was often out of step with the Madisons, Jeffersons, and even the Adamses, but he was the beau ideal of Henry Clay and his National Republicans/Whigs.  The Whigs were in favor of a bigger centralized state than the Federalists originally wanted by way of a national bank, a nationalized currency, "internal improvements" (i.e. corporate subsidies to build infrastructure), protectionism through high tarriffs, and nativism.  This was all what Clay called the "American System".  Lincoln was a big believer in this. 
The Whigs only managed to get two presidents in the White House (William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor) but both died in office leaving less than desirable Vice-Presidents in their sted (John Tyler and Millard Fillmore).  In 1860, however, three years after the panic of 1857, Lincoln campaigned for the Republicans, presenting Clay's "American System" as a cure for all ills and to put an end to panics and recessions.  Lincoln was advised by the Whigs/Republicans' favorite economist; a man named Henry C. Carey, a man who proclaimed Adam Smith as a fause prophet and the vindication of Hamiltonian mercantilism.  He also admitted once that he hadn't spent even three days devoted to the study of economics, explaining his love for such an asanine economic system as the "American System".  So basically, the Republicans were formed to be the "progressive" party in the sense of the progressive movement.  The party planted the seed for the expansion of government.
It wasn't until the Great Depression where things started to change for the party.  There was a new movement in the form of a group called the Liberty League, led by Democrats and Republicans disgusted by Roosevelt's New Deal.  The Liberty League gave rise to the Libertarian movement, which birthed also the Conservative movement and started making Fabian-like plans to take over the Republican Party, viewing the Democratic Party as too far gone now under the spell of the Rooseveltian myth.  There are still Hamiltonians among the Republican Party, but Jeffersonians/Libertarians have been slowly taking it over for some time now.  Reagan was highly influenced by the Libertarian movement and openly read Libertarian magazines like the Freeman.  Though Reagan was disappointing to many Libertarians, he did pave the way for a more Jeffersonian Republican Party, setting an archetype for conservatives, but a mere stepping stone to the Jeffersonians.

Democrat:
The other major political party formed in the early 1800s by Martin Van Buren to counter Clay's Whiggish "American System".  They were the descendants of the Democratic-Republicans (the party of Jefferson and Madison).  They believed in delegated, decentralize government power through states' rights, free-trade, economic freedom, and were against "internal improvements", a central bank, and a nationalized currency.  Because of this, the Democrats had many presidents in the early half of the 19th century (Jackson, Van Buren, Polk, Pierce, and Buchannan) thus a lock on the Supreme Court.  The Civil War changed the dynamics drastically.  With Lincoln forcibly answering the secession question with a resounding "no, you have no right", and the Republican Monopoly of the latter half of the 19th century (Grover Cleveland was the only Democratic president of that period and fought against the expansion of government), there was a sea-change in the Democratic Party during the Progressive movement. 
The Democratic Party was mostly changed during the turn of the century through Southern Nationalism.  After the Civil War, the South was in shambles economically.  Education was poor and the people were poorer and disenfranchised.  Pressures began mounting for the Democratic Party (the party of the South) to take more militant and radical pro-poor measures.  This led to a stronger interest in socialistic and progressive ideas.  Mixing socialism with the nationalism of the progressive doctrines of the Republicans, they turned the American System on its head.
Then, of course, the sixties changed everything.  The hippies were at best confused, mixing Libertarian liberalism and individualism with socialism and progressivism.  This led to the modern Democratic Party.  It was during this time that the Republican Party simply reacted, retreating to ardent nationalism in order to provide a contrast.

The long-and-short of it is that depending on party as a definition is fickle and unreliable.  The more Libertarian Democratic Party of the early 19th century is completely different from the more nationalistic party of the early 20th, and the more socialistic party of the latter 20th and current era.  To simply say the killing of indians is the "fault of the Republicans", or slavery is the "fault of the Democrats".  You must look at the ideology of the particular issue.  Just because the Democrats were the more Libertarian party also doesn't mean Libertarianism is to blame for slavery, for reading the justifications of slavery reveal Southern Nationalism as the root and not the Classical Liberalism that influenced Libertarianism.  Replacing philosophy and ethics with partisanship in politics robs politics of its very meaning.

Right/Left-Wing:
The terms "Right" and "Left" Wing have no basis in philosophy or ethics either.  The terms are based on parlamentary seating and have no meaning whatsoever.  For instance, the "left" in revolutionary France were laissez-faire individualists while the "right" were monarchists and mercantilists, the socialists were actually seated center-back.  So what we now consider "right" was "left" to France and what was "center-back" to them is "left" to us now, where as their "right" has no baring in modern American politics.  Therefore "left" and "right" are unreliable terms.

Liberal:
Liberalism, by its classical definition, was a philosophical movement during the Enlightenment based on individualism, free-markets, and natural laws.  It bred a new school of economics, justice, science, and political theology based on natural law and personal freedom.  It worked on the idea of spontanious order and that people are capable of governing themselves better than the government can.
However, the progressive movement changed the definition of Liberal and took it from a Newtonian ideology and applied it to a Darwinian ideology of collectivism and applied the Liberalism to societies and groups and the idea of the State rather than individuals.  This flipped the term on its head.  In fact, many imbittered Libertarians still sneeringly call modern Liberals "so-called liberals".  So seeing as Liberalism has been robbed of its classical definition, the modern term of "liberal" is unreliable and clouds political discussion.

Conservative:
Again, Conservative, like Liberal, has been robbed of its classical definition, rendering the term useless.  Conservative simply means "not radical" or "resistant to change".  The term in itself carries no philosophy with it.  In the modern political games, the term is used to describe someone who is uptight or simply an obstructionist.  "Conservative" was never used in its modern sense until the 1950s as the Conservative Movement began breaking away from the Libertarian Movement and carving its own identity with family values and religion at its forefront, two ideals Libertarianism rejected.  Chiefly, "Conservatism" in its modern sense is used to describe someone who believes in the Newtonian idealism of the Enlightenment, but mixes it with religion and family values, and nationalism.  However, since it, like Liberal, has been robbed of its classical meaning, it is rendered useless in political science.

Radical:
The root word, "Radi" is the Latinate term for "root" (i.e. radish).  A Radical believes in a pure idea and demands immediate and drastic change to that pure idea.  The conservative, classically, is meant to resist and suppress the Radical.  That's all the term means.

From now on, in my entries, when I use these words, I will be using the classical definitions.  I will continue to get into the spectrum and cycles that serve as the focus of my political theory.  I will revert from using parties as definitions and will explain the spectrum of no government, to absolute government that inevitably collapses back into no government--Anarchism to Internationalism.

Pay attention, folks, I'm going to be thorough.

-W.D.P.

It's all over the news.  TARP (Troubled Assets Recovery Program) is apparently not only subject to fraud (no!), but it's also not working (gasp!  NO!) because, surprise, surprise, none of the banks given money are lending more.  The experts are flabbergasted as to how this could be; "after all," they say, "we've given them all this money!  They should lend to us more!"  Once again, they try to reach a simple goal by going over the river and through the woods to reach something that didn't even need rerouting.  The problem is (apparently) that people aren't spending enough because the banks aren't lending.  The easy solution would be to stop soaking up so much private capital and to simply allow the money to begin flowing again, starting with investors taking risks on production and business and working its way down to small spenders.  But no, it can't be that simple!  Because who gets left out of the loop?  The big-money campaign donors who see their "donations" as "investments" in the protection of their wealth and assets.  Uncle Sam to the rescuuuuue!  They take the money from the small spenders and tax-payers, package it up and hand it to their donors in order to keep their business afloat, and tell them to start paying it back immediately.  Now, Uncle Sam is bereft with anger that the banks he gave money to aren't lending!  Not only are they not lending, rates are going UP!  How can this be??  Apparently, Uncle Sam has lost a grip on reality and basic applied economics.

Suppose you get floated a loan from one of your friends who needs it paid back a couple months.  What are you going to do?  You're going to make that money last as long as possible by cutting back on your spending and doing what you can to make money so you can pay him back sooner, right?  Of course you would, you're vulnerable to the Natural Laws of economics.  If you went out and spent it all at once, you'd have to start from scratch in order to pay him back, it'll take longer for you to do so.  This is the case with the banks, it's simple, smart, applied economics.  They want Uncle Sam off their backs, they figure the best way to do so is to pay him.  They got a loan to stay afloat, so they're staying afloat, using the money wiser so they don't have to raise more revenue from scratch in order to pay the tax-payer back.  They're aware of the hatred directed towards banks at the moment so they know they have to stay on "the Peoples'" good graces, which requires them to pay back the loans as soon as possible and to remove themselves from the dole.

It makes good sense what they're doing.  They use the TARP money carefully, using it to pay for operation costs and a few prudent loans to ensure a return on the loan with interest to make the money they borrowed back and maybe (kids, cover your ears!) a PROFIT.  One of the problems is that Uncle Sam wants the money back soon, which means the banks have to rake in a lot of money soon in order to pay back the TARP money, so they sit on as much as possible, prudently lend it to safe borrowers, and increase interest rates and fees in order to make more money to pay back to the TARP. 

This would be great if just keeping the banks afloat was the spoken intention of TARP but it wasn't.  We were told that TARP would "unfreeze credit" and "get banks lending again" (which someone--ahem--said was nonsense when that was the stated case) and it clearly hasn't for the above stated reasons.  The government doesn't want banks to lend prudently, it wants the banks to lend indiscriminately as it did before the crisis.  The problem is that the behavior the government is wanting to advocate is what got us in the mess.  "Cheap money" (to borrow a nonsensical term from the idiot Ed Schultz) got us in this mess, lax lending standards perpetuated by government regulation got us in this mess and TARP was meant as an extension to the same games and the same lie.  TARP is simply a new deck of cards to add on to the already crumbling house currently on the table.  If there is anything that makes less sense, it's continuing the plans of "Helicopter" Ben Bernanke when they've done nothing but dig a deeper hole. 

In short, the banks aren't lending not because they're greedy or evil or in search of those damned (kids, cover your ears again) PROFITS (!!), it's because it makes absolutely no economic or financial sense to indiscriminately loan borrowed money you're expected to pay back.  Would you?  Ask yourself now, if TARP makes no logical sense whatsoever, doesn't do what it claims to do, and is susceptible to fraud, why do it?  Good question, I'm glad you asked!

F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises both talked about a theory they called "spontaneous order" which was, to put it briefly: where men were free, order would follow.  This is a basic idea based on Cicero's "Natural Law" which states that logic, God (Cicero was a monotheist despite being Roman), reason, all rule the universe with concrete principles and laws from which it can never err.  These basic principles are the building blocks of civilization and have to be personally discovered through life.  This was the foundation that would form the ideas of the Enlightenment now known as "classical liberalism". 

All the thinkers of this school of thought viewed Natural Law, be it administered by God, reason, or logic, as the foundation for civilized progress.  The ultimate end being a people without need of control and government micro-management in their lives.  The doctrine of classical liberalism states that as technology advances and the populace becomes more enlightened and better educated, governmental powers lose their purpose and fade into obsolescence.  This has been happening since the beginning of the American Experiment which is the ultimate enemy of the concept of a ruling power.  With an ever progressing world full of technology and many of the functions of government being obsolete for over a century now, it has to maintain its relevance and over compensate when it acts in order to prove it is still needed.  In effect, it holds civilization back by toying with the economy and manipulating the free market guided by Natural Laws. 

One way it has maintained its relevence is by sticking to the game that first developed the need for government: protection.  Many businessmen develope into desperate opportunists seeking to protect and maintain their standing in society so in a desperate bid to get ahead, hire the government to protect them through tarriffs or favors, more regulations with strings like insurances with bail-outs if the company goes belly-up.  It uses this illusion to make the case for its purpose as a driver for the economic engine of the nation.  This, of course, is false in liberal thinking because the forces of Natural Law guide the marketplace through personal decisions as well as corporate.  The government, with TARP, is trying to make a case for its relevance.  However, insodoing, it's proving its obsolescence through forceful, clumsy action that defies logic.  It's trying to manipulate Natural Law, but they will find Natural Law to not be manipulated.  TARP is in violation of market forces and Natural Law.  It's illiberality is regressive and draconian and will be the death knell of its case for aggressive action.  And this, at the crux, is why TARP will not work.

And that's the Real Spit
-WilliamPitt

As I write this, the Dow-Jones Industrial Average is up 53.92 points.  Oooohhhh.  This week, it climbed up 9% from its low of around 6000.  Cause for celebration?  Hardly.  The Dims and pro-stimulus Rips (i.e. Keynesians) are touting the triumph of central banking and government-controlled economics over adversity.  Apparently, so they say, the stimulus plan is working sooner than they thought.  There's a reason the market is up but it's more than likely not the reasons they want you to think.  No one wants to admit why and what is going on which shows how shallow our media is to simply start celebrating stimulus plans at the first sign of an uptick.  Most people are scratching their heads--Dims are pleasantly surprised and Rips are saying, "gee, well I guess it does work".  It doesn't.

In January, believe it or not, we cut our trade deficit by a small amount, the manufacturing sector (at least in Georgia) has actually grown, consumer confidence has grown despite the president's herranging of the economy because people have accepted times are tough and are adjusting as such.  The panic is simply settling.  This is how recessions (and potential depressions) work.  There's a drop, a panic, an acceptance, and a rebuilding, the end.  The problem right now is all part of the boom-bust cycle (made worse by government tampering) and is only temporary.  However, what is left out of the national discussion is that the fundamentals are not strong, we're not out of the woods yet, we've merely had a good couple of days in the market, which happens, and is not reflective of the economy as a whole. 

A huge reason for the upswing is because of a massive investment rush in health care companies like Humana, mainly because of all the talk about nationalizing health care, Keynesians are rushing to the trough to make their money, and Misesians (i.e. smart people) are putting their money in to capitalize and then get the hell out as soon as the nationalization of it is eminent.  Note the fact that financial stocks were plummeting when there was talk of nationalization, now that nationalization has been dismissed as an inevitablity and the banks have reported (shocker!) a profit, investment in them began inching up again.  Barring all of this in mind, there is no way that this week's upswing is because of the stimulus plan, and I don't even have to mention that NONE OF THE MONEY HAS EVEN BEEN SPENT YET!!!!!

I do have a feeling that the market will plummet if this card-check nonsense is passed, and it will begin tanking again once the tax-hikes and all the spending kicks in.  China, (the communists!) are sounding ever more and more capitalist when they tell us to stop spending and announce their squeemishness towards buying up more treasuries (they're actually saying "buying the US's debt" now).  And all of this is just a prelude to what will happen to us once that debt comes home to roost.  Europe and Asia are already talking about wanting a one world-currency, which usually makes folks on my side of the spectrum flip out but let me tell you: we already have a one world-currency--the US dollar.  Remember Bretton Woods?  Making the US Dollar the base currency for trade?  That's what a one world-currency is!  A trade currency!  That, I'm okay with, truthfully.  With the countries keeping their own currency based on a central currency held in reserves (by the countries' own banks, I'm NOT okay with a global central bank) and used strictly for trade.  The bad news on this is: bye-bye US Dollar.  The air would spew out from under it and the dollar will crash and America will be forced into having a (I know this is a stretch) real currency backed by either goods or gold.

Anyway, back on track!  An economy is more than just a stock market, and a fundamentally strong market can have a low amount of trading or no trading at all.  Third-world countries have economies, smaller countries have economies, and they don't trade on the floor of any stock exchange!  An economy is anywhere where there are human transactions and an exchange of goods, whether you're trading ducks, grapefruits, or dollars, it's an economy--and a fundamentally strong economy can exist without a stock exchange.  Smaller "emerging market" economies are fundamentally stronger than America's economy.  Hong Kong's economy is more fundamentally sound.  Singapore's economy is more fundamentally sound.  Switzerland's economy is more fundamentally sound.  China's economy is more fundamentally sound.  And these are all by capitalist standards!  The thing is that America's GDP is bigger than all of these countries' GDPs (our GDP is calculated rather fraudulently, by the way, wait for it) and more stocks are traded on our stock exchange floors than in these other countries but they are stronger economically.  You know why?  It's because they're producers, we are consumers.  We have become the Soviet Union.  More communist than China.  Surprised? 

An economy's strength cannot be judged by the GDP alone.  Our GDP measures all transactions in America, including the exchange of goods from foreign companies and excludes the exchange of American goods in foreign countries!  The GDP used to simply measure how much money American companies made; how much American goods made by American companies had been bought and sold domestically or foreign.  It doesn't measure that anymore.  The GDP now merely calculates our consumerism.  How much money we've spent as a market rather than how much we've earned as a nation.  So truthfully, the front of America having the strongest economy in the world is nothing less than a farse.  Strip away the fraudulent GDP, the artificially maintained inflation, and the picture becomes rather grim.  No longer do we see a robust nation that capitalism built, but a lie that socialism destroyed.  We are the world's biggest debtor, using the fact that our dollar is "needed" in order for other countries trade to force them to prop us up as we consumed whatever they created.  For what?  For "rights" that socialists and progressives insisted everyone was entitled to.  The truth is that we're a couple ammendments (speech, arms) shy of pure communism, and the government is working on those.

So this is the big joke, people.  We, the country founded on classical liberalism, free markets, and liberty (which means freedom from government) find ourselves in a country that sees our once inalienable rights as more arbitrary annoyances to be overcome.  The nation that fought the tyranny of communism adopted its principles in order to be "inclusive".  We allowed ourselves to get fat off of our newly defined consumer-capitalism where we take and take, never wanting to be bothered to earn.  Now, we wake up in chains.  Enslaved for the rest of our lives and for future generations.  What was once the freest country on Earth is now the least free.  We've been destroyed by our own mismanagement, miseducation, and misunderstanding of the very system of capitalism we pioneered.  That's the great joke.  How do you feel about the punch-line?

I write this as a staunch classical liberal and a minarchist.  A writer who believes in freedom and liberty as my highest of values.  Wont for those is what guides my decisions, my economics, my views, and forces me to defend the values of this country.  I refuse to let a good day on the DOW or a bromidic speech by some man-boy president guide what I know is right.  They say that stimulus is necessary.  Is it?  What is more important?  Security or freedom?  The slaves were secure.  They had housing, food, even medical care all supplied to them by their masters but they still weren't free.  And isn't that the burning desire that is etched through each and every one of the ideas that formed this country?  Whether it be the Articles of Association, the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution, we all sought freedom from the heavy hand of government control.  We're so obsessed with the banks and the New York Stock Exchange like they're the most important thing America has!  It's not!  We have principles of freedom and liberty.  They're in our book stores!  The very ideas that made this country are available whenever you want in the words of Adam Smith, DeCartes, John Trenchard, Thomas Gordon, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, Samuel and John Adams, even Aristotle and Socrates!  The resounding idea that men are made to be free!  Not safe!  Free!  And that it's men, not government that should be free.

We've totally lost this.  This is why I can mourn on a day when the market is up.  I don't care where the DOW or the S&P 500 are at.  They simply measure the value of stocks, not the strength of our economy.  The DOW or the S&P 500 or the NASDAQ are not accurate measures of our economy, but our economy is an accurate measure of our freedom. 

Show me a free people, and I'll show you a prosperous people.

And that's the Real Spit
-WilliamPitt

Today's going to be a busy day, so in order to keep you guys coming back to my page, I decided to transfer an old column that I'm proud of.  I know that this particular column flies in the face of the traditional definition of socialism as state ownership of labor but I felt that that definition didn't do the horrors of socialism proper justice.  I believe, contrary to most, that socialism is not a new idea but, in fact, an ancient one with themes common through many ancient and modern civilizations.  What I describe in this column (as I most conceitedly call it.  I guess "blog" isn't as dignified a term as I'd like) is what could be called a newer, more general definition of socialism, tying together the common traits and themes of many political ideas.  In fact, many may believe that what I now deem as "socialism" is what Ayn Rand would spitefully refer to as "collectivism".  I do agree with Ms. Rand, however, "collectivism", to me, is a culturally philosophical dogma, not a socio-economic system.  My definition of socialism grants the ideas and epistemology of collectivism the gift of a system of policy rather than just a politico-cultural movement within the "body politic".  It takes the metaphysical and invisible and grants it an objective movement whose devastation can be calculated and studied.  My definition of socialism is any form of government that places social issues over individual and economic freedom.  Which I find much more accurate.  By the way, there are a couple changes.  Hope you enjoy.  Godbless!

-WilliamPitt 3/7/09

If there ever was a catchphrase for the 2008 presidential election, it was “maverick”, followed closely by “socialism”. Truthfully, a lot of people heard it, repeated it, and called Obama a socialist (including myself), but would appear baffled when asked: "what kind of socialist is he?" To the surprise of many people, socialism isn’t a form of government, it (like capitalism) is a socio-economic system that takes many forms depending on the recent history, the culture, and the location. You have National Socialism (i.e. Naziism), Fascism, Communism, Feudalism, Constitutional Monarchy, and Democratic Socialism, all of which fall into the category of "socialism". Contrary to popular belief, socialism existed long before Karl Marx's wife left him.

So what is socialism? Socialism is a system that places social issues over economic ones and manipulates economics to suit whatever social issues take precedence in a given time or nation. This is why socialism differs from place to place, time period to time period. This is why Italian Fascism was completely different from Spanish Fascism, and they, different from German Naziism, and all three running on anti-Bolshevism, and Bolshevism violently opposing Fascism and Naziism which was, likewise, exclusive to Russia, which is completely different from Chinese Communism. One main idea tying all forms of socialism together is the idea of the importance of social issues (race, class, etc) and the nonsensical economics of public ownership.

In socialism, winners and losers are selected out of the "body politic" to quote Hobbes, and economics are manipulated to accommodate. The only systems of socialism to be successful (if success is to be judged by longevity) are Feudalism and Constitutional Monarchy. The reason these forms have been able to last is because it makes no bones about who the Elite are and why they are the Elite around whom the economics of the nation revolve. It’s because of this totalitarian brute-honesty that they are able to survive, the people below have no hope of getting to the Elite level so they either bow and scrape or simply go about their business.  Granted a Constitutional Monarchy is the more free of the two (England was, at one time, the freest nation in the world, but still not free enough for the Americans), but it still revolves around the same premise of all things belonging to the King or Queen on loan to the People.  Rather than the very American (and capitalist) notion of individuals owning what they earn and loaning it to others as they see fit.

All other forms of socialism tend to be very unstable, shifting leadership and in constant fear of imminent revolution and a new form of government. The reason for that is because all the other forms of socialism (Fascism, Naziism, Communism, Democratic Socialism, et al.) are forms of socialism that rebel against the monarch and giving the power to "the People" (another notion as abstract and impossible as "Royalty".  "The People" don't actually exist.  They're a group of individuals, not a single body of a single mind), which to those forms of socialism means the underdog. These forms of socialism promise instant gratification and power to "the People" and when "the People" never get that gratification, or when "the People" become the monarch, a new revolution begins and the cycle continues (See much of Latin America with their rampant regime changes).

Socialism, in all cases, is totalitarian, but it can be subdivided into two categories: authoritarian and popular. Before I describe authoritarian and popular socialism, allow me to define "totalitarian" since "totalitarianism" and "authoritarianism" tend to merge in the popular mind. Totalitarianism is government that is all-encompassing; as Mussolini said "everything within the State, nothing outside the State". Totalitarianism doesn’t necessarily mean a dictatorship with the mantra of "what I say goes", it simply means that there is no issue that wanders outside the realm of politics. In a totalitarian government, everything is a political issue to be dealt with and solved by the State (money, labor, race, even sex). What divides totalitarianism into the two subcategories of authoritarianism and populism is the leadership.

An authoritarian government has one leader, a dictator or a king appointed by either "the People" or God/bloodline. This leader has absolute and indisputable rule over the body politic and can only be overthrown by death or uprising. This is different in a populist government where the leader calls himself a "president" (like Hugo Chavez or Robert Mugabe) and still holds elections that "may or may not" (if you watch the news) be rigged to favor the president. Social-populist governments tend to rely on pandering and mob-rule, bankrupting their country to remain in power, which is why these countries are so unstable and quite often back-wardly poor.

Philosophically, socialism is also self-destructive and utter gibberish. It was built first on the foundation of Platonist metaphysics, then later Kantian/Hegelian existentialism and pragmatism, which requires a separation from reality and principle. Socialist economics thrives on separating from economic reality for the social want and the whim of "the People". Socialism attempts to mix existentialism with economics which is like mixing oil and water. Economics can't work properly while denying or questioning reality as existentialism does, and existentialism implodes in its own weightlessness when reminded of the reality that economics need. This is apparent in the socialist view of property. Socialism insists that there is no private property when the reality states that there is private ownership. They ask the existential question: "how do you know that that is your property?" and then deny that the deed in your hand exists. It's also obsessed with dealing quickly the issue at hand without thought, approximation, or any kind of objective questioning as to the origins of the issue. (Note all socialist heroes were men of "action" like Mussolini, Hitler, Jackson, Polk, Roosevelt, Guevara, Castro, etc.) Pragmatism drives political expediency and quick (even if temporary) fixes demanded by the mob with the loudest voices and the biggest signs. It has no regard for principle or foundation and actually views the two as a detriment.

Karl Marx took the entire socialism argument into a new plain. Marxism is very different from the other forms of socialism in that pure Marxism is, in reality, anarchy. Marx was a medievalist who was embittered by his aristocratic wife leaving him and his disillusionment with economics as a rather brilliant economist. His books; Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto laid out his vision of government that sweeps in through fire and revolution, organizes society into communes, and then disappears forever, leaving society back in the dark ages of societal evolution. He envisioned a world without government, rules, commerce, possession, or trade. A world where these small self-sufficient communities organized labor and put all the fruits of the labor into a common pool from which all ate and received supplies in accordance to their need–basically Atheistic Calvinism. Marxism, though it inspired Russian Communism, was a very different vision from Vladimr Lenin or Joseph Stalin who believed government could continue to exist and regulate those communes forcibly, manipulating prices and other market forces to suit their whims. Both Marxism and Communism are an extreme departure from the idea of socialism, but they are the very farthest a society can go to the left; likewise, Anarcho-Capitalism is the farthest a society can go to the right (not Fascism, which floats in the middle).

Allow me to redefine socialism as an economic system that places social issues above economic reality or principle itself. It's the manipulation of economics in order to pander to social prejudices or preferences. America has had many forays into what could be considered socialism, but we are ingrained, as a nation, in a classically liberal, capitalistic foundation so when the Hydra of socialism has reared it’s ugly head in America’s history, be it through the Euro-centric, expansionist, light-feudalism of the southern states in the early national and antebellum periods (the aristocracy anyway, many of the poor in the South were almost proto-libertarian), the progressive movement of the early 1900s, the age of the ever-growing Nation-State in the mid-20th century, it has been rejected at one point or another in favor of capitalism light and individualism until we forget through distant nostalgia just how terribly the socialist experiments worked out.

We hear "right" and "left" spouted off constantly without definition, but to define Right versus Left in the simplest, most modern, and most American way possible, is simply as capitalism versus socialism. What are the differences between the two? Well, one champions classical liberalism, which is laissez-faire economics and individualism with no importance placed upon social issues provided they don’t harm another person’s individual rights; the other champions modern liberalism, which is actually Euro-centric conservatism meaning socially engineered economics and collectivism. What I tend to see in the usual "right vs. left" debates is not the argument between capitalism and socialism, but the argument of social conservatism and social liberalism, both of which are forms of socialism and neither of which pertain to capitalism whose only concern is free-markets and economic freedom for the individual.

Every election, I see things like obesity, environment, health care, welfare, and gay marriage come up and I'm flabbergasted because I wonder: "what place do these issues rightfully have in a classically liberal government?" If we are truly free, then why do we concern ourselves with social issues? If we put too much stock in social issues, we give to one group by the oppression of another group. That is not freedom. This is the reason socialism and social issues in general are detrimental to a free society. If we manipulate economics (which naturally wants to reward those who earn it) in order to perpetuate and prop up social policies, we oppress man's mind and man's strength. And if man truly is a creature of intellect and strength, then any form of government or economics is, by nature, destructive.

I've often wondered why actual liberals like Ron Paul or Barry Goldwater can't seem to win elections while "liberals" like John McCain, Barack Obama, and Lyndon Johnson can't help but win. It's because we are a society obsessed with social issues and pop culture. We demand our government exhibit compassion to those we (temporarily) view as down-trodden. But on whose dime? On whose back do we place the burden? That forgotten soul is the truly oppressed and the true victim of society–the individual. But our society, through the crafty rhetoric of our politicians, seems to think that that man doesn’t exist. As if compassion in itself yields results and funds from thin air. That’s why the Pauls and Goldwaters lose--because the Johnsons, Obamas, and McCains champion the social issues, while the Pauls and Goldwaters don't feel the need to dignify them.

Thus socialism wins elections; however, capitalism–liberty–is stuck only winning hearts and minds.

-WilliamPitt

While perusing the Georgia General Assembly web page, I came across something very interesting that I feel more people need to be aware of and that more states should look in to doing.  The bill, if you'd like to look it up, is HB 430, otherwise known as the "Constitutional Tender Act".  The summary is a little vague, but it reads:


"A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Title 7 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to banking and finance, so as provide a short title; to provide legislative findings; to define certain terms; to require any bank or lending institution serving as a depository for the state or any department or agency of the state to offer and to accept gold and silver coin for deposit; to amend Title 50 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to state government, so as to provide legislative findings; to define certain terms; to require the exclusive use of gold and silver coin as tender in payment of debts by or to the state; to provide for related matters; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes."*

*http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/search/hb430.htm
(If you'd like to read the full bill, you can find it at: www.constitutionaltender.com)

    The reason this is a big deal is because the Georgia State government is taking the advice of Rosland Capital, Gold Line, etc. and investing in real money--gold and silver.  Not even investing, but using this bill to nullify any law on the books that outlaws the use of precious metals as legal tender.  As of right now, a private investor can only invest in gold with dollars as a hedge against inflation and the volatility of the market, he's not able to go to the store and buy anything with that gold, only the worth of that gold in dollars.  By law, the State itself cannot accept or issue gold or silver as legal tender, which is clearly unconstitutional.  In fact, it is explicitly unconstitutional (Article I, Section 10, "No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts") and the fact that Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, and Nixon took such huge steps in outlawing gold as legal tender in exchange for a fiat currency should be enough to squeeze them into the "worst presidents of all time" bin (along with Jackson, Polk, Pierce, Buchanan, Lincoln, Grant, Aurthur, Harding, Truman, Kennedy, Ford, and Carter.  No, none of these names were accidents.)

    The purpose, as stated in the Constitutional Tender Act (CTA henceforth) is to "define certain terms", to "require any bank or lending institution serving as a depository of the state... to offer and accept gold and silver coin for deposit", as well as to "require the exclusive use of gold and silver coin as tender in payment of debts by or to the state", and to "repeal conflicting laws".  In addition to Federal Reserve notes (the fiat currency in question... if you don't know what "fiat" means; look it up), it says that the state is to accept "Gold Eagle" coins (minted as collectors items and gold investment items since 1986; see: www.goldeneaglecoin.com); "Pre-1965 silver" coins (i.e. the face value of silver coins minted before 1965 before the Coinage Act); and "Silver Eagle" coins (the silver counterpart of the Gold Eagle; again, see: www.goldeneaglecoin.com), creating separate accounts for each in Georgia banks that deal with the State.  Those who create a silver, gold, or dollar account with any of the banks will receive the same tender in return when money is withdrawn. 

    Chapter 37 of the bill states that "the Georgia General Assembly finds that...the state shall not make anything but gold and silver as tender in payment of debts" and that the "Federal Reserve (Notes), having no redeeming value in gold or silver coin, shall not be made a tender in payment of debts".  The almost Ron Pauline language of this bill almost gives me goosebumps when they say that the state will only use gold and silver to pay any private or public debt to any person or entity.  They define the value of the coins by the current market value (the current market value for one Gold Eagle is roughly $940 USD) in relation to exchange rates with persons or entities.  This can only point to one thing: circulation.  Gradual, but circulation none the less.

    There is obviously going to be some question about this bill.  "Why switch to using collectible coins as tender?  Do you know how long that's going to take to circulate?"  I agree, yes, it will take a while.  But what it does, is protect the state economy from the continued devaluation of the dollar.  Prices is Federal Reserve notes will rise and rise, while the prices is Gold and Silver tender will drop and drop because the inherent worth of the constitutional tender will remain the same, while our free-floating fiat dollar will continue to devalue as the government prints more and more dollars.  It will take a while to circulate, but all it will take is saving followed by an exchange and you are no longer exposed to the rigors of the plummeting dollar. 

    The reason this bill is so fascinating to me and so important is because a state is actually doing this!  A state is wanting to make a move to eventually get itself off the U.S. Dollar to protect its economy in order to protect a state's wealth.  I can't help but wonder: will other states follow suit?  Will other states push towards getting off the dollar and accepting real tender?  Are the states leaning more towards autonomy rather than dependence?  It'll be a fascinating thing to watch, I'm sure, and I hope the Georgia General Assembly passes this bill and starts a movement by other states to break away from this idiotic Keynesian monster that's looming at our heals hoping to devour us in debt and immeasurable deficits for the sake of saying "we can afford it".

    The truth of the matter is that this house of cards that is our dollar and our monetary system (eerily resembling the Roman monetary system around the time the empire fell), is bound to fall.  After all, what kind of house is a house of cards if there's a hurricane just over the horizon?  When this system and this phony dollar collapses, the country will implode unless there is a monetary back-up plan--and this is that plan we need.  One that will step up and give us a plan of value.  This is not so much an out-and-out rejection of the dollar as it is an insurance policy so that when we got knocked back, we don't simply float of into space, but hit the ground so we can get back on our feet.  We as a nation, have let our monetary policy get out of hand for far too long and we have to take measures to stop it.  Investing and buying gold coins as a personal investment/hedge has been a well-advised plan for a few years now.  The Ron Pauls and Peter Schiffs (the smart investors and economists) have been hunkering down with gold tender for some time now, urging others to do the same. 

    As the price of gold skyrockets due to the demand (which is caused by the scramble of investors to keep themselves safe), our dollar is still on a free fall.  We could very well suffer the same fate as the Weimar Republic, a fate of massive hyperinflation if we don't protect ourselves with gold and silver.  This bill is simply the state doing what the private investor has been doing for some time in order to protect itself, disobeying and nullifying the laws of the Federal Government that prohibit any tender outside of Federal Reserve Notes which is a dollar whose value is determined by credit and debt rather than real intrinsic value. 

    The flaw in a gold standard (to the state) is that you're not able to inflate it freely in order to finance projects to buy votes.  The gold standard demands state discipline and a free private sector which is why small to no government folks such as myself are big fans of it while big to global government folks like our president are so repulsed by it.  There can be no such thing as a free expansion of government with a gold standard, only a free expansion of the private sector in accordance to what gold is mined.  With a gold standard, the economy controls you, you can't control the economy, and the private sector with the gold holds sway over the government rather than the government holding sway over the private sector by the power it has in controlling the money.  With a fiat currency, no man can be free, only a slave.  The gold standard is a policy of freedom.  Which is why the government fears it so much.

    As a European central banker once said long ago; "give me your money, and I'll care not of your laws".


And that's the Real Spit
-WilliamPitt


(Read old entries at: http://williamdavidpitt.bustablog.com

    If you were to freely give your money to what is advertised as a dog training facility and it turned out to not be a dog training facility but a kennel where they simply fed the dogs and kept them in cages; what would you do upon hearing that information?  A sensible person would divest, allocating their much needed funds into something more worthwhile that's honest.  If you wanted to give to a kennel, you'd give to a kennel, right?  Now, what if that company said "well, too bad, you're invested, you can't divest, besides; what about the poor dogs?", and continued to pull an automatic draft from your check every time you got paid?  What would you do then?  File suit?  Of course you would.  So why, I ask you, are we putting up with the sorry state of our public school system?
   
    To provide the reader a little background, I went to public school in Beaufort, South Carolina where my mother is still a teacher and my dad is training to be one himself, so I am very much familiar with the problems in the system.  In fact, the problems are so immense, so irreparable, that I simply say, "what's the use?  Why try getting a dead horse in race?".  Now, I know there will be those who will call me a cynic when it's just the opposite, I have the utmost faith in humanity, (which is why I deem public schools so unnecessary) others will call me a crazy anarchist and an anti-establishmentarian (which, in all actuality, is a great American tradition) as if "conservative", "libertarian", "old-right winger", or "free-marketeer" are too nice of words to pin on someone who wants to deny children education.  However, to be honest, the truth is just the opposite: I want children to be educated, educated to the fullest; and that's precisely why I wish death upon the public school system.

    A writer and "individual anarchist", as he was called, Albert Jay Nock put it best when he said that public schools did not provide education, but training.  He felt (as I do) that education was the seeking of knowledge simply for the sake, and love, of acquiring knowledge.  Education was a choice to Nock, and to fulfill a choice is a privilege, not a right as many modern "liberals" try to claim these days (I put "liberals" in quotations because modern "liberals" are not liberals in a classical sense).  Since education is a choice and a privilege, one's education should be voluntary, therefore, paying for that choice should be voluntary.  Toward the end of his life, Nock espoused a rather cynical view of humanity, believing that most people may as well not even learn how to read being that few people actually do anything worthwhile with literacy.  I don't quite espouse such a belief because, as I mentioned, I am not a cynic, but I do see in many people an utter disregard for any skills learned passed elementary school.

    A big problem with abolishing the public school system is that no one is alive anymore that remembers what it was like before it was established.  The truth is that the local-community schools (paid for by the parents of the children or voluntarily by the local community), private schools, and Christian and Catholic schools provided much better education for those that attended than our modern public schools.  It's also true that private schools have a much better graduation and college rate than public schools because the parents and students take their education much more seriously.  This is because exposing schools (universities and colleges, I'm talking to you too!) to the rigors and risks of the free-market place would ensure better schools, better conditions, and better teachers because the inadequate ones would be liquidated.  Teachers would be paid on merit and quality rather than seniority or rank in the teachers' union; if they're a good school, more people will send their kids there which would enable them to bring down the price and afford them a better budget; that budget, them being a business rather than a government bureaucracy with a set budget will use that money more wisely for (I know, this is crazy) educational purposes and paying the teachers.

    There is also the issue of the parents.  Teachers complain about the uncaring parents almost constantly, to the point that it almost sounds like merely passing the buck.  Believe me, it's not.  Parent involvement in their child's education is a severe problem, and one that the government can never, ever solve if they mandate it, pass legislation, or do anything other than refusing to invest in education any longer, forcing the parents to pay their hard-earned dollars for education, rather than telling them and their children that they have a right and an entitlement to everything under the sun.  It's that air of entitlement that has reduced "education" in this country into a joke.  It started out as a right to education, then a right to misbehave and receive no punishment, then a right to an unearned self-esteem, and now, a right to not care whose money your wasting.

    An argument against me that states that I wish to deny children education would, perhaps be valid, if that was what the children were actually receiving--it's not.  Education, if I may state again, is acquisition of knowledge for the love of knowledge.  Education requires either a love of knowing or a desired goal.  What our public school system provides is the opposite--training for something unknown free of goals or love of anything.  It's an obligation, a duty, not a choice.  Since the State (der Stat to invoke the proper imagery) is incapable at providing or sustaining the right to choice (choice is freedom, der Stat is the apotheosis of freedom), and choice is inalienable to education, der Stat is, by all accounts, incapable of providing education.  What they can provide, however, is training, which is what they try to do with public schools.

    What I mean when I say "training" is mindless indoctrination, not free pursuit of knowledge.  Public schooling doesn't show students the tools for expanding their minds or acquiring skills but conditions them into an attitude and state of mind of cynicism, entitlement, and moral relativism--not exactly a spring-board for the intellect.  It's because of this separation from reality, the laws of nature, philosophy, and epistemology, even ethics that leaves students ill-prepared for life after school and under the delusion that everything, including knowledge should be handed to them.  Granted, that doesn't necessarily mean that every child will be a government stooge and we plunge into a real-life Idiocracy, but the pool of potential great minds is diluted in the process of public schooling.

    Public schools, at the end of the day, have proven (like Social Security) to be possibly the largest malinvestment (as Ludwig von Mises said) in American history.  Being that a malinvestment is irreparable, it needs the legs pulled from under it so it either floats away or collapses in its own weightlessness.  Either one is fine with me, frankly, I don't much care which direction public schools go as long as it's away.  To take my money, by force, to buy legs to prop up a falling institution yelling "I can fix it!" is beyond immoral.  It's like using over-priced duct tape to fix a leaky dike; you can say you fixed it--for now--but what happens when that dike finally breaks?  My ultimate problem with the government's "solutions" is that they don't even bother using duct tape, but scotch tape!  Several billions of dollars of it too! 

    Not only this, but our president now wants to do the same thing the government does to public schools to colleges and universities, and early childhood development.  He's advancing a bill that revokes vouchers for D.C. area kids to attend private magnate schools!  To help people pay for college, he's seeking to nationalize Public Allies--a group he worked for that "trains" people to work for not-for-profits organizations and community activism--as a "boot camp" for college hopefuls between ages 18 and 24.  He wants to nationalize a "zero to five" program that will basically raise kids from the cradle to "prepare" them for public schooling (which sounds kind of Hitler youth-ish to me).  He pushes all of this under the guise of "education" but this is impossible.  Where is the choice?  Where is the pursuit for the sake of love and thirst for knowledge?  Without either of these, it is impossible to be educated!  The public school system has tried this approach of dutied training to no avail, and the grand solution is to expand that approach?  If we want our children to be anything more than trained monkeys, the best course of action is to burn down the entire public school system and use the ashes for something way more useful.  Like fertilizer.

And that's the Real Spit
-WilliamPitt

(Read old entries at: http://williamdavidpitt.bustablog.com)

    Here, in Georgia, the guru of Georgian Conservatism is none other than Neal Boortz, who has written two books on the FairTax, Mike Huckabee won Georgia in the Republican primaries hands-down because he was the only vocal supporter of the FairTax; it's a drastic understatement to say that Georgia is FairTax land, no senator or congressman can hope to get elected unless he supports the FairTax.  The thing is, the FairTax never sat well with me and I've never been able to figure out why.  The very basic premise (after all, Neal Boortz has written two books on the subject) is that the IRS be abolished (I'm all for that), along with it goes the income tax (all for that too), the nullification of the 16th amendment (again, I support it), as well as the abolition of several other taxes, and, finally, the part that doesn't sit well with me: an astronomical consumption tax to be the government's only real source of revenue.  On the surface, it sounds reasonable, right?  I mean, finally!  A tax plan that will beat back governmental growth and force it into the constraints that the Constitution provided.  Unfortunately, it makes some assumptions about government that are quite naive.

    Since the 1920s, we have worked very hard to undermine the strength of a production economy to replace it with a consumer economy.  Rather than save and produce, Americans spend and serve--not exactly the formula for a strong economy.  We are currently seeing the unraveling of that entire system of loan-and-spend economics that was the result of our obsession with fairness and our apparent trepidation towards laissez-faire.  Our government has built institutions and systems to insure that we have plenty of money to spend whenever we want to spend it on whatever we want to spend it.  This built a culture that gives us money that, in essence, is valueless because there is an endless supply of it carrying no intrinsic value.  The Great Producer has become the Great Debtor, and this is why I fear the FairTax.

    The FairTax assumes, in correctly, that a lone consumption tax will discipline and irresponsible government by restricting its income (or in the government's case: outtake) to a single source.  And what of it?  What if their revenue is reduced to one source?  Why, the irresponsible government we have will try their best to suck every droplet of water from that stone by encouraging rampant consumerism at all costs--almost to the point of mandate--in order to fill its coffers and fund the very institutions that have destroyed our economy and will continue to undermine it even with the FairTax.

    What if the FairTax is passed?  What if, by some strange miracle, Saxby Chambliss actually passes the FairTax proposal (probably by pretending it's some kind of sweeping welfare initiative)?  What happens now?  Well, the government, obviously, would downsize a couple things here and there, including the IRS, to make room for the new budget, but they would leave a couple government departments like the Federal Reserve and they're business-regulatory arms, because, obviously, we'd still be shaky in the knees about laissez-faire.  What would they do with these?  Well, to put it plainly, they'd destroy the country; and rather rapidly.

    They wouldn't cut too much, so they will be short in the budget, so what will they do?  That's where the Federal Reserve will come in.  The Treasury Dept. will give them debt in the form of Treasuries to sell to other countries and they'll get the printing presses running, printing dollars upon dollars and keeping inflation down artificially, actually merely delaying it.  Now that the government's budget is dictated by mere consumption, thereby mostly excluding savers from paying a lot of taxes, they'll need to get people spending even more to fill their belly and to at least keep face to foreign investors in the dollar.  Further inflation of the currency will be the first step in order to put the money out there that they can get back through that consumption tax; the effects of that inflation would be delayed as it usually is.

    That, they'll accomplish with the same methods they used in the past to force unwise loans in order to pump-up whatever bubble was most suitable to their short-term political gains.  They'll build up the capability of the FDIC to insure more bank assets per account, get the Attorney General to threaten investigation (as Janet Reno did) on banks that refuse to make ludicrous loans, tell the SEC to look the other way, and continue to allow Fannie and Freddie to do their thing, creating more debt to sell to the world market.  Yes, exactly what they did to cause this economic collapse, but ten-fold.  The reason we have the mixed (NOT free-market) economy we do, is because this government, in need of control, is incapable of living within a budget, it needs more and more money, going after more and more of the GDP and brokering as much debt as possible in order to borrow money it could then turn around and use to further the agenda that threatens the very foundation of our country.  Taking away more sources of government revenue, would only make this government more desperate for a cheap, and unearned buck.

    The only way that the FairTax would work was if the FDIC, the SEC, the Federal Reserve, and every other commercial-regulatory arm of the government went away with the 16th amendment and the IRS.  Being that the government is so very good at scaring us about the rigors and risks of laissez-faire and actual free-markets, they would never allow those to be abolished, though they rightfully should anyway.  I mean, this is a government that seizes control and refuses to let go no matter what damage their control does.  A world without an income tax is also a world without regulation on business and anti-trust "laws", and oh, what a day that would be.

And that's the Real Spit
-WilliamPitt

http://williamdavidpitt.bustablog.com