On the Problem of Property

Property and Freedom are inseparable. This was the message of the founding grandfathers such as John Locke. It was something that our founding fathers clearly understood, and it was badly misunderstood by the French Revolutionaries.

When a government protects individual property, it protects individual freedom. This statement would almost summarize the overarching philosophy that guided the birth of our constitution.

Having stated some simple fundamentals that most all conservatives know well, I want to wander for a minute before getting to the problem of property that threatens our freedom. I’ve never been a great mathematician but I love the concepts of math, particularly calculus. The concept of limits that calculus is built on is fascinating. A very simple example of limits is that if you take a number n, in the equation 1/n as n approaches infinity, the limit for the equation is zero.

What does this have to do with anything at all :-)

In corporate law, corporations are treated as having an infinite lifespan. Individual CEOs can certainly destroy corporations with utter greed and gross mismanagement as with Lehman Brothers, but even in that process all valuable corporate assets are merged into another corporation. So think about limits for a moment. If corporations have an infinite life span while individuals have an 80 year life span, What happens to property over time?

It’s almost as simple as the 1/n problem I just talked about. The limit over time is that corporations will own all property and individuals will own none. Of course, it’s not quite as simple as that. Individuals “harvest” off of corporations and therefore property is retained by fewer and fewer people.

Unless of course you have your head completely in the sand conservatives and liberals alike know in there gut that this is what’s happening. As just a couple of examples for those who may have slept through it all, we now have about four major investment firms that control our currency (which I’ll talk about in another blog) and we now have basically four major corporations controlling our food chain with Monsanto even seeking control over our seeds!

As fewer and fewer people retain more and more property what becomes of freedom? Freedom approaches Zero.

This is the problem of property that every conservative ought to be mindful of.

If conservatives don’t begin to examine how we need to restructure and improve our corporations, aristocracy of a corporate form will continue to destroy middle class America and socialism will rush to fill the void.

Should I restate that in a different way? Conservatives prove themselves to be fools in 'fighting' against the 'cause' of Socialism. Because Socialism is a symptom not a cause. The cause of growing socialism is Aristocracy in a new form. The very same cause that fired the Revolutionary War.

So conservatives have two choices. Fight Aristocracy and defend freedom by properly protecting property or let the modern French Revolutionists fight Aristocracy while conservative balance the budget.

Since Socialism is all about redistributing property, it might well be said that for the many, freedom has been at least in some sense regained. They will have government controlled property, but it will at least be a form of property.

Think about it.

A Dialog with Atheists

Awhile ago I posted a response to an article written by an Atheist. I actually posted this blog to that site and received numerous responses. I've haven't had time to respond but thought I'd take time to respond to some of my favorites. One poster apparently being complimentary stated "what a maroon". I'm not sure how to respond to that except that when I was a kid we bought a brand new maroon colored car. And I really liked it. So maybe they liked what they read I don't know.

Someone else stated an almost childlike faith in science. It brought back that scene from the Jack Black movie where the scrawny and "erudite" ;-) wrestler declares "I don't believe in God I believe in science".

Others tried vainly to help this poor blogger understand probability and evolution. I appreciate their efforts. I admit I am still an ignoramus even after receiving a degree in Microbiology and Electrical Engineering, even after working for years as a research assistent and later as an Engineer Scientist. However along the way I learned a great deal more about evolution and probability than my atheist responders were able to explain to me in a few ranting sentences.

I also had a grammar checker and some who had seen all these old arguments before.

But the ones I really want to respond to is those who tried to explain that Atheism wasn't a religion. Apparently they did not grasp the Irony in Atheism. So I will try to be more plain.

Religion at it's heart tries to explain where we came from and how we got here. Atheists too try to explain where we came from and how we got here. They explain how we got here through principles of probability and evolution. And like everyone else, because they weren't there when it all happened, it is a faith. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...you tell me, is it a duck? Atheism may not be defined as a religion but it sure looks like a religion no?

So now I will say it again. If by probability and evolution we can explain the existence of our Universe, this Earth, and the Sun that warms us perfectly. If probability can explain how we have a Sun that is multi-trillions of degrees at it's core yet it warms us so perfectly that we panic and call it Global Warming when their may or may not be a 1 degree variation in our Global temperature. If probability and evolution can explain the wonderful correlation of reason and mathematics to the physical world. If probability can explain our existence and the existence of the plants that are perfectly attuned to our nourishment. If probability and evolution can explain all of this then why do we suddenly and almost randomly constrain it? What is the probability that in the vast space of which we know so little, some Being more intelligent than us exists? And what is the probability that this Being might be far far more intelligent than us? And if so what say you, why not call the Being...God?

Why States Powers Must Increase And Federal Power Must Decrease

I don't fly very much so when I do I'm like a kid. Flying amazes me. I recall a recent flight out of Seattle and as the plane turned I saw the thousands of cars like ants meandering through the forests.

That small moment looking at the thousands of cars taught me new lessons in Federalism. I began to think about it. Most of our states individually have populations vastly larger than our Federal government was 150 years ago. And so I began to wonder, isn't it an astonishing arrogance for federal representatives to think that our Federal Government must make so many decisions for so many.

There may have been past times where it was important for the Federal Government to right the wrongs of local governing systems. But the new and more grave danger now is that when the Federal government makes an error, it scales to 300 million people. Or really, it scales to 6 billion people worldwide. That is just too dangerous. We live in an age of the Internet, which increases our ability to communicate. When errors, injustices, or wrongs occur on a local level, they are published via YouTube to the world. This is the new instrument that allows us to influence each other towards greater Justice. Through the Internet much of the educational responsiblities of federal agencies become uneccesary. We inform each other with ideas through the Internet. We have states with large enough populations to take on the majority of the decisions now made by our Federal government.

Because of these things, it's now time to swing the pendulum back. To recreate a Federal government that is lean, that is small, and is focused on a very few tasks so it can do them well.

I recently saw a public debate where Senator Specter was shouted down by the crowd as he explained that he had to make fast decisions on the multitude of bills that are thousands of pages. It was surreal. In that moment, he made the case better than I ever could of why the Federal government no longer scales. We have a huge systemic problem. Our system of representation no longer scales, and Senator Specter and every other Congressman and Senator that cannot read through the vast number of Bills have just told the world that it no longer scales.

Except that the system really does scale beautifully. And that is the real power of Federalism. Governing responsiblities are shared at federal, state, local, family, and individual levels.

And for the sake of our own Federal Senators and Congressmen we need to remove almost all of their responsibilities and return those responsibilities to states,local, family, and individual levels and let them focus on the few that they actually should be doing!

Why It's Time for American's to Divorce their Political Party

The Philosopher Hegel stated that.."What is Rational Will Be". The Christians state it a little differently, but it's more complete "The Truth Will Prevail".

Thus the person who reasons most carefully, most truthfully begins to appear to be a prophet. For they speak of things that will inevitably happen if we don't change.

George Washington in his Farewell Address to the nation warned against the dangers of political parties. He carefully outlined what would happen, and we are now experiencing those effects very deeply. His warnings were prophetic, and it is now time to heed him.

The sad state of our political parties is that they are now so distrustful of one another and now so glutonous for power that they would ally with foreign powers to gain advantage over thier political enemies. And those enemies also happen to be American's.

They are now like a divorced couple, perpetually blaming each other for past errors and seldom solving problems. In fact they now increase problems because their custody battle for the American people will stop at nothing to maintain control.

This is not new, it has happened before. When the founders of this nation came together, they were in it together. They trusted each other with thier lives. Together they created a revolutionary system that moved away from Aristocracy towards a new system of Meritocracy. The system they created is well reasoned, with an objective that was clearly in behalf of "We the People". But once elections began, those same men became bitter and distrustful rivals. Brilliant men like Hamilton and Jefferson hated each other. And at times their were real reasons for mistrust. After all Hamilton did really try to hire a King from Europe, and Jefferson as a member of Washington's cabinet was a "backstabber" to the president.

With lesson's from the past, and prophetic warnings from our first president. It's time for us to side with Goerge Washington's uncommonly Common Sense. We the People must declare independance from the political parties. We can no longer afford to ally ourselves with them. We must separate from them. In doing so we will choose our representatives in a new way. It will be subtly revolutionary. For we will quietly no longer tolerate their Nazi name calling caricatures of each other. Mostly because we will no longer participate with them. When they begin to caricature and name call, we will no longer pass along the chain mail. Rather we will call our representatives and tell them to knock it off.

Encourage your friends and neighbors to ally with each other, in behalf of America, and not in behalf of a political party. They are an old and outdated thing and ought to die with the dinosaur.

Encourage your neighbors to go and learn what this thing means to "Agree with thine adversary quickly while thou art in the way him". It means to find the common ground. We have alot of it as American's. Thier are significant differences too that cannot be ignored. But they can be dealt with more readily when we first seek common ground. In this way we begin a new type of debate that is reminicent of the founders BP (Before Parties).

Now is the time for all American's to band together against our political parties and to band together in behal of each other as American's.

Let's Do It.

Resume of The U.S. Government

Purpose: Seeking to control 10-15% of the US economy through control of the Health Care industry

Experience: No direct experience.

1992: Was responsible for creating the Food Pyramid. Much of our current health education is centered around this. The Food Pyramid is considered to be the perfect prescription for creating a society rampant with heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. All of these diseases have risen exponentially in the past 20 years.

1965: Established Medicaid/Medicare through title XIX of the Social Security Act

1935: Established the Social Security System. The system structure is Ponzi Scheme. FDRs counselors predicted the Ponzi Scheme would fail in the 1980s. It still continues in part by virtue of the U.S. Dollar Standard which was adopted when the Gold Standard began to expose the Ponzi Scheme.

Other: Created and then managed the current collapse of our modern economic system by repealing Glass-Steagall Act, and by creating Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae pseudo-government entities that were central to irresponsible loaning practices.

Currently demonstrating exponentially out of control spending practises because this will work at least until the U.S. Dollar/Oil Standard is destroyed.

Reason for Applying: The Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security Ponzi Scheme is out of control. Based on past experience would like to bring these back into control by extending and modifying the Ponzi Scheme. Mistakes in Health Care education make it necessary to reign in Health Care costs for a Heart Disease Ridden, Diabetic, Obese society.

Response to Alarmists: Many alarmists such as the Government Accountability Office predict looming bankruptcy for the Federal Government. Some of these same alarmists (e.g.) Porter Stansberry predicted the unthinkable bankruptcy of GM 2-3 years ago as well as bankruptcy for California. Their past predictions were just lucky and they should be disregarded.

The Irony of Atheism

Atheism appears to be a growing fad on the Internet. Like all fads, it will reach it's zenith and then fade. The young atheist, becomes the more experienced agnostic, and finally a foolish believer.

The religion of Atheism intrigues me. In this religion the young men are wise and the old men are fools. It worships the god of probability, it's theology is evolution, and it's rewards are intellectual superiority and self-righteousness.

Still I have respect for the atheist that openly declares their belief. For in declaring, they join all other religious people in stating that they know some things but all else is faith. To say otherwise is to suggest a perfect knowledge.

For an atheist knows and experiences in some small degree how probability plays it's part in the astonishing adaptability of life. However, like any other religion, the omnipotent requirements of probability to form this universe, it's planets and all forms of life are far beyond anyone's ability to comprehend. And so it is a faith.

The atheist is left to admit to an astounding and even awesome belief in an omnipotent god of probability. Anyone with such a remarkable faith in the power of probability ought to be aware of the irony in constraining it's powers. For a power of this magnitude would look strangely at odds with itself if it suggested that probably a Being does not exist who really is Omniscient.

How George Soros & Rush Limbaugh are in Violent Agreement

The MO of our political parties is now full press demonic caricature. They do it not for love of country but for love of power. When We the people refuse to participate with them. When we refuse to stoop to their level, we will regain our power to control our government.

As citizen's who love country more than party, we need to realize that a central principle for civil progress is to find the common ground that we share. Listening less to the shrill voices of special interests and more to our own "internal" voice of reason and civility.

Jesus Christ once stated that we should "agree with thine adversary quickly while thou art in the way with them". In modern parlance, this means find the common ground quickly. Once we can find common ground, their is always more common ground. Because as humans we have so much more in common than we have that divides us.

So what does this have to do with Rush Limbaugh whom the Democrats cast as the head of the Republican party and as an evil stupid man. And what does this have to do with George Soros, whom the Republicans cast as the "shadow" head of the Democratic party and who is also cast as an evil stupid man.

If you read the writings of George Soros as nearly as I can tell, his first concern has been about removing George Bush from office. He once stated that he would give up all of his wealth if he could guarantee former President Bush's removal from office. He also has apparently felt that the United States has too much power. As nearly as I can tell, he wouldn't mind if more of that power was subjugated to the United Nations.

Rush is less difficult to read. Nearly everyday of his life he states that the Federal government has too much power. Simple as that.

From an international perspective, there is certainly resentment world wide because the United States has so much power. Every effort is made by foreign nations and peoples to effect the outcome of our elections because the United States is so powerful.

Now we have the tea party revolt. The main issue in the tea party revolt is that our Federal government has too much power.

Anyone notice a trend here? Replace the term United States with Federal government and you will realize that the entire world is unanimous.

Our Federal Government has too much power! Our President has too much power! Our Congress has too much power! And everyone violently and unanimously agrees. So if everyone agrees, why does the Federal Leviathan continue to grow in power?

I think in major part because we are so busy casting one another as stupid evil people that we don't see how completely we agree. So for a moment, assuming we all agree and understand that the Leviathan is out of control. How are the two parties seeking to solve the problem?

From a liberal perspective as nearly as I can understand. There are two approaches to taming the power of the Federal Leviathan. First, get your righteous person in power and all will be well. Because the President has so much power, they must be righteous to weld that power. And second, using the Lion tamer approach, try and have the UN tame that power.

From the conservative perspective as nearly as I understand. There are two approaches to taming the Federal Leviathan. First, get your righteous person in power, and second talk about making government smaller.

Of course the liberal approach won't work because the Leviathan grants and takes away power from the UN as it desires. And because the righteous person is never omniscient, which is really the requirement for someone granted with so much power.

The conservative approach will never work either. Because of precedence. At this point in time their is little that the President and Congress don't allow themselves to do. So a political "conservative" can be elected to office. But with so much power granted to them, really how do they withhold? How can they restrain from using their unlimited power? I would ask any "conservative" to walk for a mile in the President's shoes, and they will understand that to relieve issues they feel strongly about they would overstep conservative bounds to do it. So again, conservatives have the liberal dilemma, their righteous person is never omniscient and is only human.

So what if we all know that too much power is the problem and that we all agree on that. This in itself is a beginning. Taking time to consider the problem. I'll probably write a follow on suggesting some approaches to solving the problem. But for now I welcome your comments and feedback.

I say without equivocation we do not torture!

As I listened to President Obama I appreciated his efforts to communicate that "He gets" the concerns of Americans. Democrats and Republicans alike are appalled with rewarding irresponsiblity and failure. We are appalled with the dishonesty of a few affecting the lives of all of us. I appreciated his efforts to explain his desires to craft a solution necessary for our recovery.

However, in President Obama's efforts to state things straightly and honestly with the American people, he made one truly startling statement.

"I say without equivocation that we do not torture"

Sadly as this video reminds us, while leaving the arena of torturing our terrorist enemies we are renewing of efforts to torture our own children



I am eager to support President Obama in a future America where we can honestly say without equivocation that not only do we not torture those who would destroy us, we also do not torture and destroy our children who would create our future.

We Have Met the Enemy And It Is Us

I speak conservative blasphemy for I have tired of Rush, Glen, and Sean.  I no longer listen to them. Yes I believe tax cuts will renew our economy and yes I believe in capitalism. But that's just the problem.  I don't think conservatives believe in capitalism anymore.  

Why do I make such an outrageous charge against conservatives?  Capitalism, well formed and well defined is a system of Meritocracy.  It is a system that rewards capability, competence, and service. The enemy of Capitalism has never been Socialism, rather it's true enemy is always, always Aristocracy.  Aristocracy is a system that rewards position and status because it can.  And whenever a state moves from a Meritocracy to an Aristocracy, in a Democracy it is inevitable that the people will use their own voting position to seize Aristocratic property just because they can.

What evidence do we have that we are now a deeply Aristocratic society?  Exhibit A is the Wall Street community awarding themselves with the fourth highest bonuses in their history.  This in the year when they have nearly destroyed not just the American economy but the World economy and for that a bonus is merited.  No, they awarded those bonuses to themselves just because they can. 

And what has been the Republican response?  What has been the Conservative response to the demise of Capitalism and the rise of Aristocracy? Tax cuts and talk of Capitalism.  I don't think that word Capitalism means what we think it means.  Unless the Republican party seizes Capitalism back from the Aristocratic sink hole it has fallen into, then we have become our own worst enemy.  And we will have been enabling accomplices to the new rise of Socialism.

 

 

The Single Page Stimulus Plan

Strange, I lie awake at night worrying about people's jobs and wondering about provisions of a trillion dollar stimulus package. But I don't think I'm the only one, I note that twitter conversation is dominated by the topic.

And people are amazingly resourceful. Some great sites have cropped up that allow a microscope to be placed on the Trillion Dollar Economic Stimulus. And on further review as Governor Romney suggests, it's really a Government Stimulus plan. 

So here is an alternative stimulus plan in less than one page that I think has purpose, is clear, and could provide...well, economic stimulus.

Part one: Reenact Glass-Steagall's separation of banks and financial institutions. CDOs * fractional banking = fraud squared. Our financials system has been doing alright with just plain old fractional banking fraud. Why did we need to put the fraud on steroids?

Part two: Extreme tax incentives for manufacturing in the United States. Plain and simple, America needs to keep the know-how to make stuff. America needs jobs where people just make stuff. America needs to regain the chain of production from raw materials, to steel, to cars. We've read all the blather about a services economy. Let the rest of the world manufacture while we consume it and produce some kind of service. Whatever. Some people just like to make stuff for a living and we may just miss that at some point in the near future when our currency is completely destroyed and all we know how to do is talk about making stuff.

Part three: Extreme tax incentives for those corporations that formulate under new rules of corporate governance. I've written on this before. But it's obvious that nobody really owns our corporations anymore. Tell me again, who behaves as the owner of GM? Is it the CEO that makes money and bonuses whether GM makes or loses money? Is it the CEO who has a Golden Parachute that sets him up for life after failing? Is he going to act as an owner? Is it the UAW? The UAW that preys on GM like a vulture picking over the dead corpse until nothing is left? Is it the shareholder that can "squat" on GM property and leave at the first sign of trouble?  Right now, the only people with ownership incentive of GM are the non-union workers who are innovating and producing the great ideas at GM. These employees truly want GM to succeed. They want thier GM job to last for the next 25 years. And they need a corporate voting right as a check against executives that don't have the incentives to care.

Part four: Incentives for renewable energy. This one has to be carefully incented to be market driven however or we will get more corn/ethanol outcomes. But this one is obvious. Cheap energy is ultimate economic freedom. Cheap energy is the real engine of economic growth. Nothing is more helpful to the poor than cheap energy. Because cheap energy means cheaper food and cheaper housing and cheaper anything else.

OK maybe the one page stimulus plan is naive and obviously it needs more detail. But is it less naive than the trillion dollar plan? Is anyone comfortable with a plan that will take years to implement let alone understand? And why is it not possible to break up the bill into smaller more focused and understandable chunks. Some portions such as tax cuts can be immediately implemented and passed first while other portions can take more time to be passed since they take more time to implement.

We know why that can't be done of course. The First Principle of Porking is the Omnibus Bill.

We ask our politicians, is your pork worth more than the American Dollar Standard?  Do we really want to trade the American Dollar as the world currency for your pork?  

Please President Obama, put America first.  Prioritize a set of bills.  Put away the Porking Principle. Begin with the most immediate impact bills, and pass singularly focused bills each debated on their own merits.  

The Last Owner: A Reprise

Had some good feedback from readers on the previous posting concerning corporate ownership. The feedback brought up some issues that I'd like to clarify. As stated previously we have a corporate model where property is represented in terms of shares of stock. And for sometime this model has worked sufficiently well. However, when we look at the current state of corporations they are obviously very unhealthy. So much so that standard presumptions of capitalists have failed. This statement from previous Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan is instructive "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, was such as that they were capable of protecting their own shareholders". The Greenspan presumption is really the presumption of every capitalist.

So why didn't executives protect thier shareholders? Or even more concerning why didn't shareholders move to protect themselves when it was obvious their interests weren't being served? Obviously it was because it really wasn't in there own self-interest!

The current incentives provided for executives really promotes four types of behaviours in relation to corporate property: looting, squatting, gambling, or caretaking in a best case scenario. The incentive to behave as a property owner doesn't exist. We need only look at GM and the current cast of financial executives. In the finance industry executives were emailing each other about the "House of Cards" they knew they were building. They also knew it would all come down, but hopefully they would have looted and gambled enough of the corporate property to meet thier own needs before a collapse took place. And who was there to protect the property from the looters and gamblers? Was it supposed to be the Mutual Fund "owners" and private shareholders who only have a "squatters" relationship with the corporate property too? Why would they try to correct bad executive behaviour when it's so easy to consume corporate property for themselves and quickly move on at the first hint of problems?

Look at GM's situation, they have lost around 70 billion dollars for four years and counting. It doesn't take a degree in business to know that this is a problem. But the incentive for Rick Wagoner has been to act the role of a squatter. We can condemn Wagoner and all these executives for being evil, but things get more uncomfortable when we ask ourselves, what would I do in Mr. Wagoner's shoes with the incentives he was given? How would you or I respond if we "earned" 10 million a year for maintaining the status quo without hassling with the UAW? At least in terms of self-interest the incentive is to take the role of a squatter or a looter until the corporate property is consumed.

Of course an owners incentive wouldn't tolerate what has happened to GM. An owners incentive would move mountains to make sure that GM was healthy, competitive, and profitable. An owners incentive wouldn't blame government or the unions or anything else. An owners incentive would fix the problems.

In GM's case particularly, it was completely doomed to fail because not even the employees had an ownership interest. The UAW assured that the employee reltionship with the corporation would be also be a looting relationship.

So who really can have an ownership interest in the corporation? Those who need long term work and see the corporation as a way to have that. Those who don't have Golden Parachute's to reward failure.

We arrive again at the fact that the only possible people who can have a long term interest, or in other words an ownership relationship with a corporation is it's employees.

So now to some of the reader feedback. Some wonder if providing employees with any power is creating a built in union. I would suggest that it's more similar to other democratic social structures. The majority would act in the interest of corporate self-preservation. Union's act in the interest of union preservation to the detriment of a corporation.

Also suggested was that a a corporation be structured so that a number of employees could be on the board of directors. That'a a possibility that would be interesting too, but trying to respect the model of shareholder property ownership it seems that a small voting percentage for employees could be sufficient. In this way employees would have to form coalitions with others who own standard shares to effect changes. Ultimately, these posts seek to stir ideas that will help self-interest to align with corporate interests so that we can have healthy competitive, long lasting corporations.