I realize it's a waste of 50 bucks, but I decided to go to the Utah Freedom Conference after all.
Yes, I am upset that the "Utah Freedom Conference" fails to advance "freedom." The conference is held by a bunch of politicos who wish to use the anger aimed at Obama to grab power. Topics of the conference include expanding the sheriff's office to counter the Feds. (POWER GRAB) Expanding state powers to counter the feds. (POWER GRAB). Getting state hands on Federal Lands (POWER GRAB). The only interesting topic is in starting a local currency to counter Wall Street.
Health Care is the most important issue of our day. The second one mentions alternatives to insurance, Conservatives shut their hears and make incoherent bubbly noise to defend their power base in the insurance industry.
Anyway, the Utah Freedom Conference is by people who want to use fear of Obama to gain power themselves. They refuse to discuss issues that diminish their power. The conference is pure hypocrisy.
But it's the only game in town.
I decided to attend the conference because I happen to believe it is very important to support the people around me.
As you see, the American experiment in self rule is not the ideal of people living in isolation. The Founders discovered the secret of prosperity. Strong individuals make for a vibrant community.
Conversely, when people try to make a strong community (at the cost of individuals) they end up diminishing both the individual and the community.
We become strong individuals when we support the people around us.
I actually do put my money where my mouth is. You may have noticed that I've created a collection of directories for the Mountain West under the banner: Community Color. Sites included are Missoula.ws Salt Lake Sites, Denver Color, Provo Utah dot US, gjct.com I started making link lists for local communities back in 2000.
These sites exist simply because I believe in supporting people around me. The real heart of a free society is free minds that freely associate.
A free society, by its very nature, should be open and inclusive. Conservatives undermine the free market when they automatically close their minds to challenges to the power base (insurance).
Anyway, I will attend the Utah Freedom Conference even though I suspect it will simply be a waste of time and money. It would be fun to someday attend a conference that is actually about freedom, and not simply a game of political players grubbing for power.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Sunday, September 09, 2012
Is Mormonism a Secret Combination?
I am a big fan of the American Experiment in Self-Rule. I would love to find people in Salt Lake actually interested in talking about free market health care. I simply cannot find any such group.
Regardless, I follow any local online conversation I can about freedom. Anyway, Someone with the alias freedomfighter wrote on LDS Freedom Forum a post called: 61 points about Secret Combinations in the Book of Mormon that begins:
A common thread of conspiracies is that they start with a belief that some other "evil" entity is engaged in a conspiracy. Therefore, our group must counter their group.
The Book of Mormon is about how an evil conspiracy destroyed a Democracy set up by a fictional group called the Nephites. The article cites some of the ominous warnings of the conspiracy (aka, the secret combination).
Since the LDS Church is a large organized group (with secret rituals) that seeks power, it is very easy to accuse it of being a "secret combination."
Anyway, I've been trying to figure out the dynamics of the local system in which people use freedom rhetoric, but fail to carry through in promoting individual liberty.
There will be a Utah Freedom Conference on September 15th. This conference does not include discussions on individual freedom; nor does it include discussions about free market health care reform.
The subjects of the conference are: Expanding state powers to counter the expansion of Federal Powers. Expanding the powers of local sheriffs to counter evil environmentalists. Getting at public lands, Creating a Utah bank to coin a new precious metal backed currency, and (most important of all) expanding the power and influence of the Mormon Church.
Every single one of these topics is about making select local institutions bigger. There is no talk about defending or expanding individual freedom.
Shouldn't a freedom conference have discussions about freedom or at least discussions about expanding individual liberty?
The most significant issue of our day is health freedom. Free market health care reform is not even on the docket. I should note that, in four years of active search, I've been unable to find a single person in Utah willing to discuss free market health care reform. They throw me out the door when they realize that I am serious.
Why are the minds in this state so completely and utterly shut to the discussion of free market health care reform?
The Utah Freedom Conference reminds me about why I gave up on "liberalism." Modern liberals talk about freedom. When "liberals" talk about "freedom" the conversation always ends up with a demand to expand the state and reduce individual liberty.
I gave up on liberals because they don't support liberty. I am sad, but not surprised, to see Conservatives pulling the same stunt.
The trick of using freedom rhetoric to expand the state started with conservatives. This trick was first perfected by royalists after the revolution. (The Hegelian Right came before the Hegelian Left)!
Hegel (1770-1830) presented a philosophy of history in which the world spirit progressed through national conflicts on the world stage. In this theory Hegel develops a strange ontological concept of freedom in which individual freedom is part of the mechanism through which the world spirit progresses. Individual free will is a little like the random number generator used in computer games to help keep the game of war interesting.
This clever redefinition of freedom allows royalists to dismiss the American Revolution as simply a phase in the evolution of the world. The American experiment in self-rule was just a historical mistake that will soon be rectified.
The Keynote Speaker of the Utah Freedom Conference, Tim Ballard, plays a similar game in his book The Covenant. The book claims history is an ever changing progression of collective covenants between the Heavenly Father and man.
The idea of covenant is not new. Prior to the Revolution, royalists claimed that the monarchy received divine authority through a covenant between God and the ancient patriarchs of Israel. (The Divine Right of Kings).
During the early 1800s, several people presented fantastical histories in which there was an ever progressing covenant with God. God made the first covenant with Adam. Adam's first son (Cain) killed his younger brother (Abel). God was so upset at Abel for breaking the covenant that he smited Cain and turned the descendants of Cain black (the mark of Cain). Some people used this fake history to justify slavery.
The Book or Mormon claims that the lost tribes of Israel (the Nephites) built a submarine and came to the new world to establish a new collective Covenant with God. Depraved evil gentiles formed secret combinations that destroyed the covenant. God got mad. God smited the Nephites and turned them into red savages.
Golly, We know these stories are true because there are people with black skin and indigenous Americans have darker skin. There must be a reason for this!!!
Tim Ballard claims that the US Revolution was directed by the Heavenly Father to create a new covenant. His book presents the US Founders as hapless fools used by the Heavenly Father to create the conditions for the restoration of the true church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints).
In this view, The Declaration of Independence and Constitution were scriptural works revealed by the Heavenly Father. They were not the product of reason, as evil gentiles such as myself contend.
Joseph Smith (1805-1844) advanced a theory called "free agency." Free agency is a little like the random number generator used in a computer games. In the game called life, The Heavenly Father created an ever progressing conflict between the righteous and evil gentiles. Individuals have free agency to side up with the righteous (the one true church) or with the evil gentiles (everybody else). Free agency plays a part in the Heavenly Father's collective covenant because we have to side up for the conflict.
Perhaps this strange definition of "free agency" could explain why a conference on freedom is all about expanding the power of groups that the conference givers control. The righteous need to make the political entities they control stronger to counter then things controlled by the secret combination of the gentiles.
Tim Ballard's thesis that the purpose of the Constitution is simply to create conditions for the rise of the LDS Church might explain why I've found it so difficult to get Utahans to actually talk about freedom. After all, I am an evil gentile who must be part of the secret combination of gentiles.
Anyway, having just read about how evil gentiles set up secret combinations and form secret covenants to undermine the righteous, I thought I should point out that it is easier to make the case that the LDS Church is a secret combination than to claim that all the gentiles not the church are part of a secret combination.
The LDS Church is a large politically active entity with a top-down political structure. The hierarchy makes claims to covenants, it has secret rituals and it promotes a fantastical history of ancient submarines and cultures that vanished without a trace.
Of course, my suggestion that the LDS Church is the same form as the secret covenants Joseph Smith warns against can be dismissed because I am obviously one of those evil gentiles your bishop warned you about.
ADDED: I just discovered a short article by Darrin Andrews called "Waking Up to Secret Combinations. On LDS Freedom Portal. LDS Freedom Portal reiterates the notion that the Constitution was revealed by the Heavenly Father. From its Homepage:
Regardless, I follow any local online conversation I can about freedom. Anyway, Someone with the alias freedomfighter wrote on LDS Freedom Forum a post called: 61 points about Secret Combinations in the Book of Mormon that begins:
"Secret combinations existed in times of old" (2 Nephi 26:22),
"They [evil gentiles] have secret oaths, covenants, agreements, signs, wonders, and plans (Alma 37:27,32)
A common thread of conspiracies is that they start with a belief that some other "evil" entity is engaged in a conspiracy. Therefore, our group must counter their group.
The Book of Mormon is about how an evil conspiracy destroyed a Democracy set up by a fictional group called the Nephites. The article cites some of the ominous warnings of the conspiracy (aka, the secret combination).
Since the LDS Church is a large organized group (with secret rituals) that seeks power, it is very easy to accuse it of being a "secret combination."
Anyway, I've been trying to figure out the dynamics of the local system in which people use freedom rhetoric, but fail to carry through in promoting individual liberty.
There will be a Utah Freedom Conference on September 15th. This conference does not include discussions on individual freedom; nor does it include discussions about free market health care reform.
The subjects of the conference are: Expanding state powers to counter the expansion of Federal Powers. Expanding the powers of local sheriffs to counter evil environmentalists. Getting at public lands, Creating a Utah bank to coin a new precious metal backed currency, and (most important of all) expanding the power and influence of the Mormon Church.
Every single one of these topics is about making select local institutions bigger. There is no talk about defending or expanding individual freedom.
Shouldn't a freedom conference have discussions about freedom or at least discussions about expanding individual liberty?
The most significant issue of our day is health freedom. Free market health care reform is not even on the docket. I should note that, in four years of active search, I've been unable to find a single person in Utah willing to discuss free market health care reform. They throw me out the door when they realize that I am serious.
Why are the minds in this state so completely and utterly shut to the discussion of free market health care reform?
The Utah Freedom Conference reminds me about why I gave up on "liberalism." Modern liberals talk about freedom. When "liberals" talk about "freedom" the conversation always ends up with a demand to expand the state and reduce individual liberty.
I gave up on liberals because they don't support liberty. I am sad, but not surprised, to see Conservatives pulling the same stunt.
The trick of using freedom rhetoric to expand the state started with conservatives. This trick was first perfected by royalists after the revolution. (The Hegelian Right came before the Hegelian Left)!
Hegel (1770-1830) presented a philosophy of history in which the world spirit progressed through national conflicts on the world stage. In this theory Hegel develops a strange ontological concept of freedom in which individual freedom is part of the mechanism through which the world spirit progresses. Individual free will is a little like the random number generator used in computer games to help keep the game of war interesting.
This clever redefinition of freedom allows royalists to dismiss the American Revolution as simply a phase in the evolution of the world. The American experiment in self-rule was just a historical mistake that will soon be rectified.
The Keynote Speaker of the Utah Freedom Conference, Tim Ballard, plays a similar game in his book The Covenant. The book claims history is an ever changing progression of collective covenants between the Heavenly Father and man.
The idea of covenant is not new. Prior to the Revolution, royalists claimed that the monarchy received divine authority through a covenant between God and the ancient patriarchs of Israel. (The Divine Right of Kings).
During the early 1800s, several people presented fantastical histories in which there was an ever progressing covenant with God. God made the first covenant with Adam. Adam's first son (Cain) killed his younger brother (Abel). God was so upset at Abel for breaking the covenant that he smited Cain and turned the descendants of Cain black (the mark of Cain). Some people used this fake history to justify slavery.
The Book or Mormon claims that the lost tribes of Israel (the Nephites) built a submarine and came to the new world to establish a new collective Covenant with God. Depraved evil gentiles formed secret combinations that destroyed the covenant. God got mad. God smited the Nephites and turned them into red savages.
Golly, We know these stories are true because there are people with black skin and indigenous Americans have darker skin. There must be a reason for this!!!
Tim Ballard claims that the US Revolution was directed by the Heavenly Father to create a new covenant. His book presents the US Founders as hapless fools used by the Heavenly Father to create the conditions for the restoration of the true church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints).
In this view, The Declaration of Independence and Constitution were scriptural works revealed by the Heavenly Father. They were not the product of reason, as evil gentiles such as myself contend.
Joseph Smith (1805-1844) advanced a theory called "free agency." Free agency is a little like the random number generator used in a computer games. In the game called life, The Heavenly Father created an ever progressing conflict between the righteous and evil gentiles. Individuals have free agency to side up with the righteous (the one true church) or with the evil gentiles (everybody else). Free agency plays a part in the Heavenly Father's collective covenant because we have to side up for the conflict.
Perhaps this strange definition of "free agency" could explain why a conference on freedom is all about expanding the power of groups that the conference givers control. The righteous need to make the political entities they control stronger to counter then things controlled by the secret combination of the gentiles.
Tim Ballard's thesis that the purpose of the Constitution is simply to create conditions for the rise of the LDS Church might explain why I've found it so difficult to get Utahans to actually talk about freedom. After all, I am an evil gentile who must be part of the secret combination of gentiles.
Anyway, having just read about how evil gentiles set up secret combinations and form secret covenants to undermine the righteous, I thought I should point out that it is easier to make the case that the LDS Church is a secret combination than to claim that all the gentiles not the church are part of a secret combination.
The LDS Church is a large politically active entity with a top-down political structure. The hierarchy makes claims to covenants, it has secret rituals and it promotes a fantastical history of ancient submarines and cultures that vanished without a trace.
Of course, my suggestion that the LDS Church is the same form as the secret covenants Joseph Smith warns against can be dismissed because I am obviously one of those evil gentiles your bishop warned you about.
ADDED: I just discovered a short article by Darrin Andrews called "Waking Up to Secret Combinations. On LDS Freedom Portal. LDS Freedom Portal reiterates the notion that the Constitution was revealed by the Heavenly Father. From its Homepage:
"Over the years the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have written and spoken much on political matters. In addition, ancient and modern scripture make reference to revealed and inspired governmental laws."
Friday, September 07, 2012
Idea Free Zone
I watched substantial portions of both the RNC and DNC Convention.
My first observation was that the conventions contained almost no new information. Both conventions were about positioning their presidential candidate, while framing the opposition in a negative light. The conventions themselves were idea free zones.
I feel that the parties are bringing our nation to the brink of failure and there is nothing that the millions of people who are disgusted with the parties can do about it. The corrupt parties have the people locked out.
I wish to emphasize that the parties were not part of the Constitution. The US Founders hated factions. Sadly, they failed to anticipate the two party system.
In my post on the Hegelian Left and Right, I argue that the parties (both Conservative and Progressive) seem to reflect the rational style of the royalist opposition to our experiment in self rule.
Both the DNC and RNC had the same form. Both conventions focused exclusively on the presidential race, and both conventions really pushed ideas to the back burner.
The political parties are top-down centralized constructs. The form of the parties creates a political dynamic that favors political and economic centralization.
Because of the structure of the parties, America is forces into an unending cycle of economic and political consolidation regardless of which party wins.
The president is the head of the Party. If Romney wins the presidency, his inclination will be to move to the center in preparation for the 2016 election. In his efforts to shift left, he will silence the free-market voices in the Republican party while passing legislation to expand the state.
To counter Romney's moving left, Democrats will move radically left.
The absurd structure of the partisan system actually means that it is better for the freedom movement to lose the presidency. If Obama wins a lame duck term, he will have to bunker down to defend the unwarranted government expansion of his first term. If Obama wins because Libertarians split the vote, we would have four years in which both the Democrats and Republicans competed for the freedom vote.
During the conventions, I kept vacillating between which candidate I want to vote against most. Voting against both presidential candidates by going third party is the best route.
My first observation was that the conventions contained almost no new information. Both conventions were about positioning their presidential candidate, while framing the opposition in a negative light. The conventions themselves were idea free zones.
I feel that the parties are bringing our nation to the brink of failure and there is nothing that the millions of people who are disgusted with the parties can do about it. The corrupt parties have the people locked out.
I wish to emphasize that the parties were not part of the Constitution. The US Founders hated factions. Sadly, they failed to anticipate the two party system.
In my post on the Hegelian Left and Right, I argue that the parties (both Conservative and Progressive) seem to reflect the rational style of the royalist opposition to our experiment in self rule.
Both the DNC and RNC had the same form. Both conventions focused exclusively on the presidential race, and both conventions really pushed ideas to the back burner.
The political parties are top-down centralized constructs. The form of the parties creates a political dynamic that favors political and economic centralization.
Because of the structure of the parties, America is forces into an unending cycle of economic and political consolidation regardless of which party wins.
The president is the head of the Party. If Romney wins the presidency, his inclination will be to move to the center in preparation for the 2016 election. In his efforts to shift left, he will silence the free-market voices in the Republican party while passing legislation to expand the state.
To counter Romney's moving left, Democrats will move radically left.
The absurd structure of the partisan system actually means that it is better for the freedom movement to lose the presidency. If Obama wins a lame duck term, he will have to bunker down to defend the unwarranted government expansion of his first term. If Obama wins because Libertarians split the vote, we would have four years in which both the Democrats and Republicans competed for the freedom vote.
During the conventions, I kept vacillating between which candidate I want to vote against most. Voting against both presidential candidates by going third party is the best route.
Thursday, September 06, 2012
Democrats Controlled the Government in 2006
Dear Mr. Biden,
Just a reminder. Democrats won the Congress in 2006 in a landslide election. George Bush was in complete bunker mode from the 2006 to 2008 and spent every dime of political capital on the surge.
Internationally, the world turned left in reaction to Bush's wars. One by one, countries were electing in socialists or outright communist regimes before the great crash.
As pointed out in the last post, the derivatives that played a role in the crash were created during the Clinton Administration.
A final observation. People invest looking forward and not looking back.
It was clear to anyone with a brain that 2008 would be a blow out for Democrats. The people who were removing their money from the market did so because they felt the future would be bad, not because they thought the past was bad.
I reject completely the notion that the king is the economy. I think it is dangerous to develop a cult of the presidency in which we attribute the economic condition to the president.
When we begin to believe pure speculative statements like "Obama saved us from a Depression" we fault in a mode of superstition and not reason.
Advocates of the Austrian School of economics actually claim that Obama's policies turned a recession into a prolonged recession because the bailouts failed to let the economy hit bottom.
Just a reminder. Democrats won the Congress in 2006 in a landslide election. George Bush was in complete bunker mode from the 2006 to 2008 and spent every dime of political capital on the surge.
Internationally, the world turned left in reaction to Bush's wars. One by one, countries were electing in socialists or outright communist regimes before the great crash.
As pointed out in the last post, the derivatives that played a role in the crash were created during the Clinton Administration.
A final observation. People invest looking forward and not looking back.
It was clear to anyone with a brain that 2008 would be a blow out for Democrats. The people who were removing their money from the market did so because they felt the future would be bad, not because they thought the past was bad.
I reject completely the notion that the king is the economy. I think it is dangerous to develop a cult of the presidency in which we attribute the economic condition to the president.
When we begin to believe pure speculative statements like "Obama saved us from a Depression" we fault in a mode of superstition and not reason.
Advocates of the Austrian School of economics actually claim that Obama's policies turned a recession into a prolonged recession because the bailouts failed to let the economy hit bottom.
Restoring American Individualism
Communitarianism is a system with the community as the primary focus. Individualism is a system with the individual (or family unit) as the primary focus.
Communities are composed of individuals. When you have strong individuals, you get a strong community. Community is an abstraction. When we focus on the community as it it were a solid thing, the individuals languish and we get a weak community.
The left seeks power by consolidating the community. To do this they attack individualism by ridiculing a straw-man called the self-made man. The self-made straw-man is absurd. Individualism simply means that the free individual is the focus of society. Free people in a free market make more associations in the community than people living in top-down structured societies.
Unfortunately, the advocates of liberty do an absolutely pathetic job of defending individualism. Reactionary conservatives make the mistake of defending the straw-man. Defending the straw-man allows the left to project false images on to the free market. When the right defends the straw-man, the left is able to project the false image that the free market has people living in isolation in a winner take all society.
Free marketeers are also prone to start defending the free market on economic terms instead of moral terms.
We have a top down financial system with money produced by the feds, which trickles down to the people through the banks and Wall Street. Wall Street is a centralized market with all trades tightly regulated. We proponents of the free market attempt to argue finance, the left is able to project all of the faults of the financial system on the free market.
The free market is about free minds defining values and pursuing aspirations.
Deregulating a top-heavy captured financial system does not lead to a free market. It leads to a top-heavy society dominated by its worst elements.
A large number of the devices in our financial markets were designed by progressives to regulate the market. Insurance, short selling, derivatives, CDOs, Mortgage Backed Securities, hedge funds, etc., were created for the expressed purpose of regulating the economy.
Since so many financial tools were designed to regulate, financial deregulation involves deregulating regulators ... which is a formula for disaster.
We see this clearly with the Commodities Future Modernization Act of 2000 signed by William Jefferson Clinton. (If floored me to see Clinton blaming Bush for a bill that he signed!) The dervivatives created by this act were designed to create a regulated market. The belief was that the complex derivatives would be self regulating. When William Jefferson Clinton created the dervatives that crashed the economy, William Jefferson Clinton believed that he was creating a self-regulating regulatory regime.
Conservatives keep being duped into thinking that the financial system is the free market. IT IS NOT.
To restore the free market we have to start creating financial tools that empower individuals from the ground up. The Medical Savings and Loan is such a system. It empowers people by giving people direct control over the first block of their health care.
Rather than talking about tax cuts, Republcans would be wise to look for tax reform that gives people greater control over their finances. For example, in our current system, employers do the bulk of the accounting for their employers. Republicans should define a new tax system such as the Object Tax. This is an account based tax in which your entire paycheck is deposited into an account. You pay your tax to withdraw your money. Such a system gives individuals greater control over their money and taxes.
Unfortunately, as long as we play the game in which we allow the enemies of freedom define the terms of the debate, we will continue to see our precious freedoms diminish.
The American experiment in self rule held the individual in high esteem. In this experiment our forefathers discovered that a community with strong individuals is a strong community. The left seeks to destroy the experiment in self rule by ridiculing a straw-man. Unfortunately, since conservatives are reactionary idiots, the left is able to get away with game.
Communities are composed of individuals. When you have strong individuals, you get a strong community. Community is an abstraction. When we focus on the community as it it were a solid thing, the individuals languish and we get a weak community.
The left seeks power by consolidating the community. To do this they attack individualism by ridiculing a straw-man called the self-made man. The self-made straw-man is absurd. Individualism simply means that the free individual is the focus of society. Free people in a free market make more associations in the community than people living in top-down structured societies.
Unfortunately, the advocates of liberty do an absolutely pathetic job of defending individualism. Reactionary conservatives make the mistake of defending the straw-man. Defending the straw-man allows the left to project false images on to the free market. When the right defends the straw-man, the left is able to project the false image that the free market has people living in isolation in a winner take all society.
Free marketeers are also prone to start defending the free market on economic terms instead of moral terms.
We have a top down financial system with money produced by the feds, which trickles down to the people through the banks and Wall Street. Wall Street is a centralized market with all trades tightly regulated. We proponents of the free market attempt to argue finance, the left is able to project all of the faults of the financial system on the free market.
The free market is about free minds defining values and pursuing aspirations.
Deregulating a top-heavy captured financial system does not lead to a free market. It leads to a top-heavy society dominated by its worst elements.
A large number of the devices in our financial markets were designed by progressives to regulate the market. Insurance, short selling, derivatives, CDOs, Mortgage Backed Securities, hedge funds, etc., were created for the expressed purpose of regulating the economy.
Since so many financial tools were designed to regulate, financial deregulation involves deregulating regulators ... which is a formula for disaster.
We see this clearly with the Commodities Future Modernization Act of 2000 signed by William Jefferson Clinton. (If floored me to see Clinton blaming Bush for a bill that he signed!) The dervivatives created by this act were designed to create a regulated market. The belief was that the complex derivatives would be self regulating. When William Jefferson Clinton created the dervatives that crashed the economy, William Jefferson Clinton believed that he was creating a self-regulating regulatory regime.
Conservatives keep being duped into thinking that the financial system is the free market. IT IS NOT.
To restore the free market we have to start creating financial tools that empower individuals from the ground up. The Medical Savings and Loan is such a system. It empowers people by giving people direct control over the first block of their health care.
Rather than talking about tax cuts, Republcans would be wise to look for tax reform that gives people greater control over their finances. For example, in our current system, employers do the bulk of the accounting for their employers. Republicans should define a new tax system such as the Object Tax. This is an account based tax in which your entire paycheck is deposited into an account. You pay your tax to withdraw your money. Such a system gives individuals greater control over their money and taxes.
Unfortunately, as long as we play the game in which we allow the enemies of freedom define the terms of the debate, we will continue to see our precious freedoms diminish.
The American experiment in self rule held the individual in high esteem. In this experiment our forefathers discovered that a community with strong individuals is a strong community. The left seeks to destroy the experiment in self rule by ridiculing a straw-man. Unfortunately, since conservatives are reactionary idiots, the left is able to get away with game.
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
Clinton Attacks a Strawman
Bill Clinton made a tedious attack on a strawman during the Democratic National Convention.
The theory of a free market is not about "self-made-men" living in isolation. A market is a community. The free market is about free people who have property rights engaging with the world at large.
A key element of the founder's vision is freedom of association. The free market allows people to own things and choose their associations. A free market is not about isolation.
Communitarians are the ones who seek to impose social controls and associations. Communitarians are the ones who drive out the people who do not conform to the norms of the community. Yes, communitarians love when people gather in the square to admire the virtues of the glorious leader, but that is not much of a community.
The founders sought freedom and discovered a great secret. They discovered that strong individuals make up strong communities.
Conversely, people who start to create strong communities often create top-heavy oppressive communities.
The free market starts with property owning individuals engaged in a market (the community).
Sadly, I fear Clinton's criticism of Mitt Romney may be right. Mitt Romney career jumping from big government to big finance to big business indicates that he might have top-down vision of the free market.
Such a vision might be called "financialism." This is where politically connected players take out huge financial positions with the aim of dominating a market.
For example, The Sports Authority was designed as a vehicle for Kmart to move into the sporting goods sector. Through rapid acquisition the store dominates the market. (Acquisitions include Garts, Oshman's, Sportscastle, Sportmart, Copeland's, etc.).
This game is one where politically connected investors seek to dominate a market or perish. Such competition leads to a world where most perish and the winner takes all.
I hate the game of projection. One of the effects of projection is that people often become the image projected on them.
The free market is an inherently bottom up affair. A free market is a community-center system in which property owning individuals seek ways to maximize the return their property by associating with others in the market.
The top down approach of "financialism" is diametrically opposed to the free market.
I wanted to write a post that said: "Clinton attacks strawman and finds straw." Unfortunately, since Republicans foolishly nominated a Robber Barron who plays game of the business warrior, I am left with the complex task of explaining that the top heavy economic vision of Bain Capital is not a free market.
Sadly, I think the best hope for America is for people to realize that both parties are corrupt and vote third party.
The theory of a free market is not about "self-made-men" living in isolation. A market is a community. The free market is about free people who have property rights engaging with the world at large.
A key element of the founder's vision is freedom of association. The free market allows people to own things and choose their associations. A free market is not about isolation.
Communitarians are the ones who seek to impose social controls and associations. Communitarians are the ones who drive out the people who do not conform to the norms of the community. Yes, communitarians love when people gather in the square to admire the virtues of the glorious leader, but that is not much of a community.
The founders sought freedom and discovered a great secret. They discovered that strong individuals make up strong communities.
Conversely, people who start to create strong communities often create top-heavy oppressive communities.
The free market starts with property owning individuals engaged in a market (the community).
Sadly, I fear Clinton's criticism of Mitt Romney may be right. Mitt Romney career jumping from big government to big finance to big business indicates that he might have top-down vision of the free market.
Such a vision might be called "financialism." This is where politically connected players take out huge financial positions with the aim of dominating a market.
For example, The Sports Authority was designed as a vehicle for Kmart to move into the sporting goods sector. Through rapid acquisition the store dominates the market. (Acquisitions include Garts, Oshman's, Sportscastle, Sportmart, Copeland's, etc.).
This game is one where politically connected investors seek to dominate a market or perish. Such competition leads to a world where most perish and the winner takes all.
Effects of Projection
Throughout my entire life, the left has been projecting the false image that the free market is a top down world with business warriors engaged in a blood sport of dominate-or-perish. The game is winner take all with entire markets quickly dominated by just a few tycoons.I hate the game of projection. One of the effects of projection is that people often become the image projected on them.
The free market is an inherently bottom up affair. A free market is a community-center system in which property owning individuals seek ways to maximize the return their property by associating with others in the market.
The top down approach of "financialism" is diametrically opposed to the free market.
I wanted to write a post that said: "Clinton attacks strawman and finds straw." Unfortunately, since Republicans foolishly nominated a Robber Barron who plays game of the business warrior, I am left with the complex task of explaining that the top heavy economic vision of Bain Capital is not a free market.
Sadly, I think the best hope for America is for people to realize that both parties are corrupt and vote third party.
Tuesday, September 04, 2012
Free Market v. Capitalism
"Property" means say so. Property Rights means that individuals have say so over an equity such as a piece of land, a shop.
The most important of all property rights is the right to our minds and bodies. The conversation about property rights died down after the US Revolution as plantation owners sought to conserve slavery.
The Free Market as seen by the US Founders and Adam Smith was a vision with widespread ownership. Individuals owned companies that they built.
Capitalism is a dystopia conceived by Karl Marx and detailed in Das Kapital. The Capitalism, the ruling class abstract off capital ownership in to large pools that corporate warriors use to dominate markets. This reduces people from the role of capital owner to being servants to the large capital pool.
When the capital is controlled by large capital firms, the people begin to diminish. Marx sought to raise these people in revolution with a mistaken belief that the revolution would lead to utopia on earth.
Marx was cunning. Marx read Machiavelli and Sun Tsu. He knew that, in the Art of War, the group that defines the battlefield wins the war.
FYI, if you are a business warrior who believes in using large capital pools and the Art of War to dominate markets, then you are a disciple of Marx's vision written in Das Kapital.
Marx knew that he could not argue directly for communism, so he snookered a group of half-wits called "conservatives" in to going out and arguing for Capitalism, when he convinced another group of nitwits to rebel against his capitalists.
Marx called his game Material Dialectics. In this game, the intellectual defines both sides of a contrived conflict. Pits them against each other in conflict, then reaps the whirlwind.
Imbeciles like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity will make loud screeching noises to defend Marx's vision outlined in Das Kapital without ever realizing that they are the one's setting up our nation for failure. In response, half wits on the left form Occupy Wall Street with the call for revolution.
Karl Marx deserves acclaim as the most influential economist of all time. Karl Marx is the father of both Capitalism and Communism. He is the father of a great conflict that took hundreds of millions of lives and that continues to wreak havoc in our lives.
Today, we have a financial system which was captured by large capital pools set to dominate markets. Americans are systematically being reduced from property owners to mere employees. We have a financial system captured by insiders and set on restoring a class society with a distinct ownership class and working class.
Sadly, Bain Capital is an important issue during the election. It is a company built on the formula in which large capital pools seek to dominate markets. For example Sports Authority partnered with KMart to make one huge sporting goods store that could dominate the market. It sucked up all the regional chains like Garts and now we have a dominated market with little opportunity for outsiders.
Our financial system was built on the Marxian fantasy of business warriors using massive capital pools to dominate the market.
The American Experiment in self rule hinged on the concept of individuals as owners. A society in which people are just employees who will never own anything of significance will diminish ... or, as Marx hoped when he fathered Capitalism, erupt into revolution.
Romney's business career and political campaign indicates that he bought into the vision of Das Kapital in which business warriors use a captured financial system to dominate markets and reduce the people to workers owned by the capital pools.
Property rights were the key to the American vision of self-rule. With widespread property ownership, people would have little domains that they could grow an nurture. The sad fact that the right bought into Marx's definition of Capitalism is as much a threat to this experiment as the fact that the left bought into Marx's idea of revolution against capitalism.
My hope at this point is that American wakes up to the fact that both sides of the left/right split are corrupt and vote third party in November.
The most important of all property rights is the right to our minds and bodies. The conversation about property rights died down after the US Revolution as plantation owners sought to conserve slavery.
The Free Market as seen by the US Founders and Adam Smith was a vision with widespread ownership. Individuals owned companies that they built.
Capitalism is a dystopia conceived by Karl Marx and detailed in Das Kapital. The Capitalism, the ruling class abstract off capital ownership in to large pools that corporate warriors use to dominate markets. This reduces people from the role of capital owner to being servants to the large capital pool.
When the capital is controlled by large capital firms, the people begin to diminish. Marx sought to raise these people in revolution with a mistaken belief that the revolution would lead to utopia on earth.
Marx was cunning. Marx read Machiavelli and Sun Tsu. He knew that, in the Art of War, the group that defines the battlefield wins the war.
FYI, if you are a business warrior who believes in using large capital pools and the Art of War to dominate markets, then you are a disciple of Marx's vision written in Das Kapital.
Marx knew that he could not argue directly for communism, so he snookered a group of half-wits called "conservatives" in to going out and arguing for Capitalism, when he convinced another group of nitwits to rebel against his capitalists.
Marx called his game Material Dialectics. In this game, the intellectual defines both sides of a contrived conflict. Pits them against each other in conflict, then reaps the whirlwind.
Imbeciles like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity will make loud screeching noises to defend Marx's vision outlined in Das Kapital without ever realizing that they are the one's setting up our nation for failure. In response, half wits on the left form Occupy Wall Street with the call for revolution.
Karl Marx deserves acclaim as the most influential economist of all time. Karl Marx is the father of both Capitalism and Communism. He is the father of a great conflict that took hundreds of millions of lives and that continues to wreak havoc in our lives.
Today, we have a financial system which was captured by large capital pools set to dominate markets. Americans are systematically being reduced from property owners to mere employees. We have a financial system captured by insiders and set on restoring a class society with a distinct ownership class and working class.
Sadly, Bain Capital is an important issue during the election. It is a company built on the formula in which large capital pools seek to dominate markets. For example Sports Authority partnered with KMart to make one huge sporting goods store that could dominate the market. It sucked up all the regional chains like Garts and now we have a dominated market with little opportunity for outsiders.
Our financial system was built on the Marxian fantasy of business warriors using massive capital pools to dominate the market.
The American Experiment in self rule hinged on the concept of individuals as owners. A society in which people are just employees who will never own anything of significance will diminish ... or, as Marx hoped when he fathered Capitalism, erupt into revolution.
Romney's business career and political campaign indicates that he bought into the vision of Das Kapital in which business warriors use a captured financial system to dominate markets and reduce the people to workers owned by the capital pools.
Property rights were the key to the American vision of self-rule. With widespread property ownership, people would have little domains that they could grow an nurture. The sad fact that the right bought into Marx's definition of Capitalism is as much a threat to this experiment as the fact that the left bought into Marx's idea of revolution against capitalism.
My hope at this point is that American wakes up to the fact that both sides of the left/right split are corrupt and vote third party in November.
Saturday, September 01, 2012
Modern Liberals and Modern Conservatives
I need to recap the posts on the Hegelian Right and Left.
The Left/Right split which dominates modern politics did not come from the US Revolution.
Contrary to what the GOP claims, Modern Conservatism does not trace to the revolution. It traces to the royalist reaction to the revolution.
The Modern Liberal movement is even more ugly. It traces to efforts to make the royalist position look progressive.
The Constitution did not anticipate the two party system. The founders despised the factions they saw in European government.
In the post called The Pendulum Swing, I argued that the two party system has created a mechanism that systematically clamps down on individual liberty. Both parties play the game in which they use freedom rhetoric when they are out of power, but clamp down when they are in power.
Since that post, we saw the Republican Party encourage the rise of the Tea Party after the Democratic win in 2008. They are now muzzling and silencing the patriots of the Tea Party.
After the Democrats lost in 2010, the Democrats responded by creating the Occupy Wall Street movement which used their paradoxical freedom message.
To actually achieve a restoration of the American Experiment in self rule, Americans need to realize that the party system is the problem.
The left/right split came from the French Revolution. The left wanted radical social change and the right wanted to preserve the social order and custom of the ancient regime. Both were corrupt.
The logic of the two party system that emerged in the early 1800s is exemplified by the royalist Hegel. (I know, I know, Hegel was German. How could Germans be influential in defining the royalist position??? Unless, of course, the Hanoverian Kings of England were from, say, Hanover.)
The Founders of the United States were a great generation. The generations that followed were pathetic in comparison. Partisan intellectuals sought to frame the revolution to their advantage. The slave owners sought to preserve the institution of slavery.
The whole mess of corrupt thought from 1800-1860 led to the Civil War.
The problem is that the generation following the founders was the generation that wrote the history books.
The enemies of freedom have created traps that continue to undermine the freedom movement. People who are sincere in their desire to restore the concept of self rule must watch for the trips, else we will continue along the path to servitude.
The Left/Right split which dominates modern politics did not come from the US Revolution.
Contrary to what the GOP claims, Modern Conservatism does not trace to the revolution. It traces to the royalist reaction to the revolution.
The Modern Liberal movement is even more ugly. It traces to efforts to make the royalist position look progressive.
The Constitution did not anticipate the two party system. The founders despised the factions they saw in European government.
In the post called The Pendulum Swing, I argued that the two party system has created a mechanism that systematically clamps down on individual liberty. Both parties play the game in which they use freedom rhetoric when they are out of power, but clamp down when they are in power.
Since that post, we saw the Republican Party encourage the rise of the Tea Party after the Democratic win in 2008. They are now muzzling and silencing the patriots of the Tea Party.
After the Democrats lost in 2010, the Democrats responded by creating the Occupy Wall Street movement which used their paradoxical freedom message.
To actually achieve a restoration of the American Experiment in self rule, Americans need to realize that the party system is the problem.
The left/right split came from the French Revolution. The left wanted radical social change and the right wanted to preserve the social order and custom of the ancient regime. Both were corrupt.
The logic of the two party system that emerged in the early 1800s is exemplified by the royalist Hegel. (I know, I know, Hegel was German. How could Germans be influential in defining the royalist position??? Unless, of course, the Hanoverian Kings of England were from, say, Hanover.)
The Founders of the United States were a great generation. The generations that followed were pathetic in comparison. Partisan intellectuals sought to frame the revolution to their advantage. The slave owners sought to preserve the institution of slavery.
The whole mess of corrupt thought from 1800-1860 led to the Civil War.
The problem is that the generation following the founders was the generation that wrote the history books.
The enemies of freedom have created traps that continue to undermine the freedom movement. People who are sincere in their desire to restore the concept of self rule must watch for the trips, else we will continue along the path to servitude.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Setting Up the Freedom Movement for Failure
There have been some great speeches at the Republican National Conferences. Some of the speeches remind me of the glory days of the long dead Tea Party.
Sadly, as I listened to the speeches, I realized the Republican Establishment has set the freedom movement up for failure.
The RNC has just made "jobs" the fundamental issue of the presidency. If Romney gets elected and there is not a big surge in jobs accompanied by increases in wages, then the socialist movement will be able to march back with a vengeance.
Making jobs the number one priority of the presidency is wrong because the presidency is not about jobs.
Setting up the expectation that the government is the source of jobs leads directly to government sponsored anti-market activities.
The Founders were much wiser than the politicians of our day. The founders realized that the job of the government was simply to protect property rights. If we had an equitable distribution of property in this nation, jobs would take care of themselves.
In the light of the productivity gains, I am not certain that "a job" is the right and proper aspiration of our nation's children.
A job is a regulated existence. The idea behind "the job" is that most people would live lives regulated by the employer.
Is a life where your employer owns your heart and soul really freedom?
The economic model we currently have is flawed. The idea is that most people will be nothing more than just workers who works a regulated job, has regulated health care and consumes too much.
To restore America we need to restore the economic model in which Americans are seen owners, and not just highly paid workers who consume too much.
I am deeply disturbed to see the Romney campaign pursuing a flawed economic vision.
Republicans failed to engage in a substantial debate about economic reform. As Republicans are pushing a failed economic vision, they are setting up the whole freedom movement for failure.
Contrary to what modern Republicans think, the American Experiment was not about creating powerful leaders. Americans rebelled against the highly centralized monarchy of Europe. Americans fought for the classical liberal concept of "self-rule."
Strong leaders set the people up for failure.
Historically, we find that the people diminish when they are placed under the yoke of a strong leader.
So, while I adore the great speeches being made at the Republican National Convention, I am praying for a split vote. Since the Republican establishment is setting up the freedom movement for failure, it would be better to lose the presidency in a split vote.
The American Experiment in self rule was one in which a limited government protected property rights. It was not an experiment in which a powerful leader created jobs for the people (who are nothing but mindless workers that consume too much.)
By making the promise that Mitt Romney will create millions of jobs sets the freedom movement up for failure.
On the bright side, if Romney loses in a split vote, both parties would engage in a four year discourse on freedom. The lame duck years of the Clinton administration were good for American. Obama's winning a lame duck term is better than a strong-armed Republican that will undermine the freedom movement at home and abroad.
Sadly, as I listened to the speeches, I realized the Republican Establishment has set the freedom movement up for failure.
The RNC has just made "jobs" the fundamental issue of the presidency. If Romney gets elected and there is not a big surge in jobs accompanied by increases in wages, then the socialist movement will be able to march back with a vengeance.
Making jobs the number one priority of the presidency is wrong because the presidency is not about jobs.
Setting up the expectation that the government is the source of jobs leads directly to government sponsored anti-market activities.
The Founders were much wiser than the politicians of our day. The founders realized that the job of the government was simply to protect property rights. If we had an equitable distribution of property in this nation, jobs would take care of themselves.
In the light of the productivity gains, I am not certain that "a job" is the right and proper aspiration of our nation's children.
A job is a regulated existence. The idea behind "the job" is that most people would live lives regulated by the employer.
Is a life where your employer owns your heart and soul really freedom?
The economic model we currently have is flawed. The idea is that most people will be nothing more than just workers who works a regulated job, has regulated health care and consumes too much.
To restore America we need to restore the economic model in which Americans are seen owners, and not just highly paid workers who consume too much.
I am deeply disturbed to see the Romney campaign pursuing a flawed economic vision.
Republicans failed to engage in a substantial debate about economic reform. As Republicans are pushing a failed economic vision, they are setting up the whole freedom movement for failure.
Contrary to what modern Republicans think, the American Experiment was not about creating powerful leaders. Americans rebelled against the highly centralized monarchy of Europe. Americans fought for the classical liberal concept of "self-rule."
Strong leaders set the people up for failure.
Historically, we find that the people diminish when they are placed under the yoke of a strong leader.
So, while I adore the great speeches being made at the Republican National Convention, I am praying for a split vote. Since the Republican establishment is setting up the freedom movement for failure, it would be better to lose the presidency in a split vote.
The American Experiment in self rule was one in which a limited government protected property rights. It was not an experiment in which a powerful leader created jobs for the people (who are nothing but mindless workers that consume too much.)
By making the promise that Mitt Romney will create millions of jobs sets the freedom movement up for failure.
On the bright side, if Romney loses in a split vote, both parties would engage in a four year discourse on freedom. The lame duck years of the Clinton administration were good for American. Obama's winning a lame duck term is better than a strong-armed Republican that will undermine the freedom movement at home and abroad.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Rational Religion
IMO, The Founders of the United States were both Christian and deeply religious; however, I suspect they had a radically different understanding of religion than we have today.
The founders had a much more rational understanding of Christianity.
The founders had a classical education. The legs of the Trivium are language, logic and rhetoric. The classical tradition would have held that God is Truth and students would then cut their teeth applying logic to their cultural tradition.
A quality education would bring up questions about what is reason? What is truth, etc.? The classical liberal traditional proceeded along the line that there was One God, One Truth but that we all head different and woefully incomplete perspectives of the truth.
BTW: You don't need to be looking at something that is absolutely true to have a discussion about truth. Imagine that an orc and a hobbit were doing arithmetic. The orc says "2 + 2 = 4." Does the truth associated with the statement "2 + 2 = 4" change because orcs are fictional creatures?
I find that questions of truth are best discussed in context of the known instead of the unknown.
There are, of course, some ugly aspects of religion. There is a long history of rulers oppressing the people with religion. Politicians and rulers see religion as a tool for imposing authority. The last post brought up Robert Filmer who spat nonsense in defending the divine right of kings.
Interestingly, when the ruling class had finally worn out its theological justifications for its authoritarian rule, the ruling class turned to a radicalized form of anti-religion non-sense to justify authoritarian rule (Feuerbach, Marx, etc).
Modern dialectics (Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx) is a game in which one holds a paradox at the base of reason and conflict at the surface. Atheists holds the belief that they hold no belief (the reflexive paradox). Atheists of the Hegelian/Marxist tradition then construct a belief system based on eternal conflict. On reading the Black Book of Communism, one discovers that more people have been killed in the name of this new non-belief than traditional beliefs).
In my reading of the Founders, it appears that the Founders were deeply Christian. Their Christianity was wrapped up in a different rational style.
It is this rational style that we need to preserve. Sadly, I fear that many modern Christians have abandoned the rational tradition of Christianity for its base superstitions. Some modern sects seem to hold the God is a dancing clown who does magic. The primary goal of God is to give political authority to a chosen few... all outside the confines of that chosen few are servants of Satan.
I like the idea that God is Truth. Although much of the mythology of Christianity is suspect, I find within the traditional a beautiful rational style.
Holding that God is Truth, of course, puts one in conflict with those who invoke the name of God to establish political authority. Such sects hold that truth is what advances the political authority. It is a chain of thought that gets ugly, quickly.
Here behind the Zion Curtain, I've actually had people wearing white shirts and name tags call me Satan for rejecting the political hierarchy. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. It is next to impossible to have a rational conversation with people who belief that those outside the political authority are Satan.
While waiting for a train a while back, I learned that the direction a train is facing tells me more about where the train is going than the history of where the train's been. If there is a train of people who are authentically engaged in a pursuit of truth, they are likely to go in a more promising direction than a train of people who are starting on solid ground but are heading off on a pursuit of power through conflict.
There was a beautiful rational style that emerged in the Western Christian tradition. It breaks my heart that the tradition has been taken over by a religious right who simply use Christianity in their pursuit of power and forget the time-honored tradition of the pursuit of truth.
The founders had a much more rational understanding of Christianity.
The founders had a classical education. The legs of the Trivium are language, logic and rhetoric. The classical tradition would have held that God is Truth and students would then cut their teeth applying logic to their cultural tradition.
A quality education would bring up questions about what is reason? What is truth, etc.? The classical liberal traditional proceeded along the line that there was One God, One Truth but that we all head different and woefully incomplete perspectives of the truth.
BTW: You don't need to be looking at something that is absolutely true to have a discussion about truth. Imagine that an orc and a hobbit were doing arithmetic. The orc says "2 + 2 = 4." Does the truth associated with the statement "2 + 2 = 4" change because orcs are fictional creatures?
I find that questions of truth are best discussed in context of the known instead of the unknown.
There are, of course, some ugly aspects of religion. There is a long history of rulers oppressing the people with religion. Politicians and rulers see religion as a tool for imposing authority. The last post brought up Robert Filmer who spat nonsense in defending the divine right of kings.
Interestingly, when the ruling class had finally worn out its theological justifications for its authoritarian rule, the ruling class turned to a radicalized form of anti-religion non-sense to justify authoritarian rule (Feuerbach, Marx, etc).
Modern dialectics (Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx) is a game in which one holds a paradox at the base of reason and conflict at the surface. Atheists holds the belief that they hold no belief (the reflexive paradox). Atheists of the Hegelian/Marxist tradition then construct a belief system based on eternal conflict. On reading the Black Book of Communism, one discovers that more people have been killed in the name of this new non-belief than traditional beliefs).
In my reading of the Founders, it appears that the Founders were deeply Christian. Their Christianity was wrapped up in a different rational style.
It is this rational style that we need to preserve. Sadly, I fear that many modern Christians have abandoned the rational tradition of Christianity for its base superstitions. Some modern sects seem to hold the God is a dancing clown who does magic. The primary goal of God is to give political authority to a chosen few... all outside the confines of that chosen few are servants of Satan.
I like the idea that God is Truth. Although much of the mythology of Christianity is suspect, I find within the traditional a beautiful rational style.
Holding that God is Truth, of course, puts one in conflict with those who invoke the name of God to establish political authority. Such sects hold that truth is what advances the political authority. It is a chain of thought that gets ugly, quickly.
Here behind the Zion Curtain, I've actually had people wearing white shirts and name tags call me Satan for rejecting the political hierarchy. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. It is next to impossible to have a rational conversation with people who belief that those outside the political authority are Satan.
While waiting for a train a while back, I learned that the direction a train is facing tells me more about where the train is going than the history of where the train's been. If there is a train of people who are authentically engaged in a pursuit of truth, they are likely to go in a more promising direction than a train of people who are starting on solid ground but are heading off on a pursuit of power through conflict.
There was a beautiful rational style that emerged in the Western Christian tradition. It breaks my heart that the tradition has been taken over by a religious right who simply use Christianity in their pursuit of power and forget the time-honored tradition of the pursuit of truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)