Beyond Justice

2011-04-28T12:38:00.005-06:00

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

2009-08-08T15:48:00.005-06:00

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

2009-08-08T15:26:00.006-06:00

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

2009-08-08T14:32:00.004-06:00

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

2009-08-08T10:11:00.010-06:00

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

2009-05-19T15:12:00.002-06:00

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

2009-05-12T22:04:00.006-06:00

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!

2009-02-24T21:12:00.006-07:00

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

2009-02-06T13:16:00.002-07:00

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

2009-02-06T06:54:00.006-07:00

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

2008-12-15T23:49:00.001-07:00

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.

The Last Owner

2008-12-09T22:52:00.002-07:00

With the collapsing of our financial system and the subsequent and continuous massive federal bailout, "We The People" have to understand our system more completely to avoid future catastrophic failures. Currently those most responsible for this systemic failure are now the ones performing the autopsy. Those participants the financial media, politicians, and bureaucrats motives are too interested in a game of pin the blame on the donkey, or the elephant, or even best of all on the market. In fact, if they can succeed in pinning the blame on our market system, then ironically those who participated in this failure will be able to consolidate even more power to themselves.

But at last it is not the market that failed us, we have failed the market. And failed it in a most fundamental way. In a way that "free market" Republicans naively ignore and in a way that Democrats and even "classic" media who's faith in government is almost childlike, may never understand. Understanding the market failure begins by reviewing the nature of property, and the role of government in protecting personal property. This is where John Locke began. This is where capitalism begins. This is where the understanding of our freedom begins. In it's simplest form property has been defined as the right a person has to the fruit of their labors. And the governments role once was defined as an obligation on the part of society to protect personal property. Government also supports the freedom of individuals to use and dispose of personal property as they choose. This is the most basic relationship between government and individuals.

How do corporations fit into this system? Under current law a corporation is treated as an immortal person. "Property owners" of the corporation are shareholders and corporate governance is controlled by a board of directors who appoint executives to run the corporation. A standard for both members of the board of directors and corporate executives is that they are incented with large amounts of corporate property in the form of "time released" stock. If the stock price goes up, they win big, if it goes down they only have excorbitant salaries to fall back on. Other owners of the corporation are large mutual fund holdings and small private shareholders. Both mutual funds and private shareholders tend to own a specific company for a very short time with commitment to ownership always just a mouse click away.

So how do these property owners behave with regard to corporation they own. With regard to executives the incentive packages are so extraordinary that it's like giving a reckless teenager the keys to the car. If they drive it fast and hard the thrill is the greatest. If they drive it off the cliff, they simply open up the golden parachute and let the car and passengers crash below. There is no incentive to just drive the car reasonably.

We might think the passengers...or other shareholders would provide that incentive right? But in fact, they also want the car driver to drive as fast and furiously as possible to have the good short term thrill because really they too have an easy parachute to jump out with if the car goes off the cliff. To shift the analogy, Mutual Fund property owners really behave more like squatters than property owners. A squatter really could care less about the property they reside on. They want to be able to use it without putting anything into it. Mutual Funds really have little long term interest in the condition of a corporation. So in terms of property ownership who has the long term interest of the corporation in mind? Who wants the corporation to survive and thrive not just for a couple of years but for a couple of decades? You know who, it's the one who wants a job until they retire, it's the employees; not the union employee, the real employee. Ironically the last tie between employees and formal stock ownership was severed with Sarbanes-Oxley a government regulation intended to improve corporate governance. Executives decided with Sarbanes-Oxley that stock options should only be used for executive incentives and so the last owner of the corporation is gone.

When the last shred of owner left, Lehman Brothers, AIG, GM, Chrylser, Ford, and multitudes of Corporate Americana were driven off the cliff. We can try to blame government regulations but really if any of these companies had true ownership this would not have been allowed it this to happen. Executives in each of these failed corporations knew they were building a house of cards but there job was to drive fast until they went off the cliff.

To save our free market system somebody must own the corporation. And the only people in a corporation who can really behave like owners because of how they are incented are the employees. This suggests that corporate governance must be changed. At the very least, employees should have a 25% voting block. Thus allowing employees to form a coalition with a good CEO, or to form a coalition against a poor CEO.

Converting the current corporation into this new form of corporation would occur through corporate tax breaks or as part of the current bailout of our American Car companies. Think of the change that might occur if instead of unions, the employees had a 25% voting right in the company.

Now is the time to create a positive change for the future. If you like this idea climb on board, digg it, reddit it, or write your Senator or Congressman.

A Rationale On Proposition 8

2008-11-13T21:50:00.001-07:00

Having read many articles debating for and against proposition 8, the most dominant argument is obviously name calling. When I was a kid in grade school this often seemed like a very good way to make a point and apparently for the most vocal in the debate it still is. The religious argument has also been a large part of the argument. But at last the reason we have so many churches is because so many have a different opinion of what the Bible actually means, making it impossible to really gain clarity. The religious debate almost always degenerates back into name calling. There is also debate on the grounds of tradition. The tradition debate has valid points on both sides of the debate and is probably the most carefully thought out that I have seen. But what I haven't seen is a statement for or against proposition 8 based on simple reason and logic. I love the words of Georg Hegel which state that...what is rational will be. So I thought I'd give my best shot at a rationale on proposition 8. Ultimately reason can provide the best ground for progress in any debate.

In thinking of each individuals relationship with society, it's a symbiosis. Each individual relies on a healthy society to have the most possible freedom proffered to them. Conversely, society is reliant on the sum of it's individuals to create the best conditions for all. Easily stated, hardly done. But there are some obvious requirements for a "healthy society". The aged rely on those who are younger for their strength and even sustenance. Society relies on the very young for the enthusiasm and joy they bring into the world and for the continuance of society itself. It is sometimes forgotten in this age of disrespect but society is extraordinarily reliant on the old for their wisdom and experience. These different demographic groups are related to society in a mutualistic way. It's easy for anyone to see that infants must rely on someone older for sustenance and that we rely on infants for society to continue.

Now with regard to the issue of same sex marriages. An easy mental experiment is to ask, what becomes of society if all marriages are same sex marriages? Of course that's easy to answer. It doesn't continue. In fact it doesn't even last a single generation because nobody is around to provide sustenance and assistance to this aging society. Now in my mind I can hear the geek in the back of the class with the tape wrapped on his glasses saying...but you could use artificial insemination to continue this society. But honestly that kind of society is not only on life support but the defibrillator is charged and the doctor is yelling "CLEAR" for the third time.

So where are we? If we think of a symbiosis, the relationship of this demographic group to society is at best commensal. Meaning that this demographic absolutely relies on a healthy society for it's continuance, but it's not as clear that society requires this demographic for it to continue. In other words, the homosexual demographic actually has a greater interest than a typical demographic, in supporting and sustaining "traditional" marriage. I now resort to the name calling of my youth I suppose because I want to join in the fun. With these arguments everyone can now be called a bigot. Those for Proposition 8 are bigoted homosexual haters or religious bigots and those against Proposition 8 are bigoted society haters.

But I digressed for just a moment. Returning to the higher ground of logic. When we think beyond ourselves and towards others or in other words towards our society. Whether homosexual or heterosexual we all need a healthy society. Many in this debate are young now, but they will become old and in that day we all pay for what we've done to our society either to our benefit or our detriment. Let us make our choices not just for our todays', but for all of us in our tomorrows.

2007-08-28T21:46:00.000-06:00

Uncle Robert

The children, the grand children, and even the great grand children know him as Uncle Robert. His picture hangs on a wall in many of their homes. Visitors are always drawn towards his picture to gaze for awhile. Such a manly, handsome, young, and Christian smile, topped by a military cap. No silver screen actor could portray the face in that picture. What is his story? They all want to know. He was born the oldest of eight and raised as a farm boy in Afton Wyoming. He lived in a log cabin below the Grand Tetons. Beside the cabin was a stream where the family drew water. In Afton winters, the snow would pile as deep as a young pine tree. Uncle Robert was always older for his age and would drive a team of horses ahead of the sleigh bus as he, just a young school boy himself brought the neighborhood children to school. His childhood knew the great depression. But his father did well enough to have the only radio in the area. Neighbors would gather in the log cabin to listen from the radio to what was happening in the world beyond Afton Wyoming.

As Uncle Robert grew older he loved to dance at his high school, ride horses, and hunt along the base of the Grand Tetons. In time, the radio would bring news from the world beyond that war was coming...and it came for the young farm boys in Afton Wyoming. Uncle Robert's father was an old World War I soldier. He feared Uncle Robert going into the infantry, so he encouraged him to enlist so he could choose where he served. Uncle Robert chose to serve with the 10th Mountain Division. For a man who loved the mountains, it was the natural choice. It's now the famed 10th Mountain Division. The 10th Mountain was America's first special forces unit. They trained in the mountains of Colorado and readied themselves to fight against the Nazi mountain fortresses. Uncle Robert was a well respected soldier in that division. He fought bravely until the last days of the last battle of the 10th mountain Division. As World War II drew to a close, he was shot down and killed in a mountain tunnel by a beautiful lake in Italy.

News of Uncle Robert's death reached his home in Afton in the spring of 1945. His mother was never quite the same after that. For years after she would often rock for hours in the log cabin gazing at the picture. The one that the children, the grand children, and even the great grand children have on a wall in their homes. It is the picture of an American sacrifice for freedom.

But it's not the end of Uncle Robert's story. I have stood by his grave which rests below the Grand Tetons. It's a place where Heaven meets earth. At his grave, The Sun plays on the leaves of the Aspen trees and the mountains breeze whispers that one day Robert will Rise again. In the day when "God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away".

For now, his memory and his sacrifice for his family are remembered as visitors gaze at the picture on the walls of the children, the grand children, and the great grand children.

2007-08-28T20:06:00.000-06:00

New Scientific Theory of Global Warming

I've been performing some experiments of my own lately to gain a better understanding of Global Warming. Every morning I begin my experiments. I observe that before the Sun comes up the weather is cooler than after it comes up. I also note that in the heat of the day, it seems to have a lot to do with the Sun. Another startling obervation is that when the clouds block the Sun, the temperature cools almost immediately.

I'm not certain but I suspect the Sun has a great deal to do with Global Warming! A few more observations to make. New Global Warming Data suggests that the mean global temperature of the earth has risen 0.01 degrees. Let me say that again, the mean global temperature of the earth has risen 1/100 of a degree. WOW!!!

Now lets consider something else. At the core of the Sun, it's temperature is tens of millions of degrees! Notice, we don't measure it to the 1/100 of a degree, we just say it's tens of millions of degrees within it's core. So a question. What on this earth makes us think there won't be some degree of variability in the Sun's warming effects on the earth? The effect that living organisms have on this planet are nothing at all compared with the effects of variability in the Sun. Seriously, if we all use just two sheets of toilet paper as suggested by our enlightened entertainment industry I'm not sure it's going to have much effect against a few millions degrees of variablity in the Sun's core...am I wrong here?

For anyone really thinking about it, the miracle really is that this earth's temperature is so carefully climate controlled.

One thought before finishing. We arrogantly think we can solve Global Warming and refuse to consider that a planet so carefully climate controlled might be blessed by a God who loves His children. In our arrogance we refuse to register that the Old Testament is a continual description of "Global Warming"; of famine and of drought. In fact, in the story of Elijah the prophet he is preserved by birds bringing him food in the midst of terrible famine and drought.

And so from the Old Testament, here is a detailed solution to Global Warming, even a human solution for Global Warming. Hear these words from Leviticus.

3 ¶ If ye ^awalk in my statutes, and ^bkeep my commandments, and do them;

4 Then I will ^agive you ^brain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.

5 And your threshing shall reach unto the vintage, and the vintage shall reach unto the sowing time: and ye shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely.

6 And I will ^agive ^bpeace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid: and I will rid evil beasts out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land.

7 And ye shall chase your ^aenemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.

8 And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.

9 For I will ^ahave respect unto you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you.

10 And ye shall eat old store, and ^abring forth the old because of the new.

11 And I will set my tabernacle among you: and my soul shall not abhor you.

12 And I will ^awalk ^bamong you, and will be your ^cGod, and ye shall be my ^dpeople.

Because of my own experiences and the experiences of my father and my father's father. I firmly believe this promise still stands today. And personally I see a lot more wisdom in trying this as a solution than trying to force everyone to use two sheets of toilet paper.

2007-02-08T12:48:00.000-07:00

Einstein's Theory of Absolutivity

Consider this; Einstein's theory of Relativity is based on the premise that the speed of light is absolutely constant. And since light is constant then time had to be the relative factor. And so it is that Einstein's theory might well have been better named the Theory of Absolutivity.

And if named the Theory of Absolutivity, we have to wonder, what would have become of the moral relativists. At once the theory of relativity became a standard for rational thinking in science and a gateway of stupidity for social scientists. But give social science it's due, their genius really is that they hijacked brilliance to masquerade their own moronic thinking.

Moral relativism as a concept is not really new and neither is it brilliant. Brilliance really comes when we humbly recognize two things. Truth exists, and you and I still don't know much about it. But we seek truth and because we recognize that we don't know all truth, or very little truth for that matter, we allow as much free-agency for each individual as possible to discover truth for themselves. If the moral relativists can hijack Einstein's Theory of Relativity then I shall hijack his Theory of Absolutivy to say this one thing. In the world of religion, light and truth are considered to be synonymous terms. And so as light is constant so truth is constant. When we abide by those things that bring us light and good in our lives, we abide by the truth.

2007-02-07T10:08:00.000-07:00

A 9/11 Who Dunnit?

This year of global warming has been unusually cold at my house. And because of the cold my pipe's froze and sprung a leak, completely watering down one of our bedrooms. I called one of my friends who is a plumber to come and fix it. After making the repairs the talk turned to the "fact" that 9/11 was an inside job. Done so that conspirators could pass the Patriot Act and take away our freedom. Well, this isn't the first time I'd heard this stuff. I have a friend, a software programmer who is very intelligent and very well read who is also completely convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. But that's not all, when I was young and going to college, I used to work as a research assistant at BYU. One of my projects was to build a tunnel cathode for none other than Steven Jones. At the time he was doing experiments with muon catalyzed fusion. Very interesting work and Dr. Jones was also a very interesting person. Now I see that Dr. Jones has joined the Scholars for Truth 9/11 conspiracy theorists. So I'm naturally curious about this topic. In fact curious enough that I've studied it somewhat myself. In part of my study process I emailed a reporter I very much respect named Jack Cashill. Jack Cashill reminds me of the old muckraker Jack Anderson. I might talk about both of them in more detail some other time. In any case, Jack wrote me back to say basically this: I knew Barbara Olsen, whenever I hear these theories come up I have to ask....where's Barbara?

Good question. Where is Barbara? Jack's point of course is that if it's an inside job you have to ask. Who dunnit, and how did they stage it. So let's play for a minute like 9/11 was an inside job and see what we discover. Our theory based on the 9/11 conspiracy stories is this:

Bush and Cheney dunnit. And the motive was to pass the Patriot Act. And we'll start with. They dunnit it with prepared explosives in the World Trade Center, three remote controlled planes, and a missile. Let's start with that missile. One of the center pieces of the 9/11 conspiracies believers is that photographic evidence suggests that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. They suggest that to penetrate the concrete and to coincide with the photographic evidence, a missile had to have been launched into the Pentagon. This is really one of my favorite parts in this entire theory. I love it. Now lets think for a minute or maybe even two. To pull this entire thing off in this first place would be an enormous undertaking. Just huge. When do you suppose Bush and Cheney got together and first started planning this? It would take serious planning and teamwork and logistics. Bush had been in office for what... 9 months? So did Bush and Cheny pull in Rice and Rumsfield from day 1? And then they pulled in military staff and others to begin a missile launch plan? All to pass the Patriot Act? And they all liked this idea? Ok, we'll revisit this topic later. But let's say these wacky people really had this as their main objective for getting into office. The first thing they do in planning this is to say, "Were going to launch the three remote control planes and then we'll launch a missile into the Pentagon". The reason we'll use the missile is to uh...well...it's to provide a way to expose ourselves in this whole thing. Nothing quite like launching a missile in the heart of Washington DC into the PENTAGON to do that. This is our way to announce to the world that we pulled an inside job. And were going to get away with it anyway.

Shall we think about this for even a minute more. Those people in the Pentagon are a freedom loving, patriotic, top notch group of people. Once the conspiracy planners flew the missile into the Pentagon, of course they knew that none of the evidence would be seen by anyone of these people and that none of them would say a word about it? Hmmm. Ok. Let's throw out the missile theory and go with another remote controlled plane being flown into the Pentagon.

So now were going with four remote controlled planes. Two in the trade center, one in the Pentagon, and one going down in Pennsylvania. Ok, let's play with this one. The way this theory works is that no passengers were on board. All the planes were remote controlled and flown into important targets to promote fear and to pass the Patriot Act. So I think the plane going down in Pennsylvania is really interesting. Think of the work involved to stage this. The remote control part would be the easiest part. Controlling the information is a huge problem. First, think about this. In cities all over the country your local reporters told stories of family members who got on a plane at their local airport on a specific flight and never came back. So....did the Bush administration get buy in from multitudes of people at the airlines to tell this story? Or are all your local media reporters helping to get the Patriot Act passed? Where did they put the people that did not get on the remote controlled planes but never came back? Have they killed or imprisoned them all? And did they really stage a hero show in Pennsylvania as part of this? Ok whatever. But really, the easier way to do this is to remote control the airline planes with the people in them and actually have the planes with people in them hit the buildings. It still takes a lot of effort to pull this off. Remember they had 9 months from start to finish in pull this off. So now, we still have this problem of producing enough of a show on the plane where passengers call real people at home to report terrorists on the plane. Now we're down to suggesting that maybe the cleanest and best way to pull this off is to actually hire some crazy Saudis to get on these planes and be terrorists. When all is said and done, this is really the best way to pull an inside job. It makes the information much easier to keep "safe". So do you hire crazy terrorists directly? No, instead you go through some guy that will tell them that they will be rewarded with virgins in heaven. You hire a guy like Osama Bin Laden. So now we're going with four real airline planes in the buildings with real people and terrorists on the plane under the direction of someone like Osama Bin Laden. This is the cleanest and easiest plan of all to carry out. Fewer evil people need to collaborate to make this happen. Fewer people need to be paid.

But what about the explosives in the Trade Center? This one is interesting because it exposes something else. It exposes the fact that Bush and Cheney must have really been working on this plan for a decade or more. And that Clinton and Gore were likely in on the deal! Why is this. Wait, don't you remember that the Trade Center had already been bombed once by purported terrorists in the Clinton Era? But why do I say Gore was in on this? Well it was either Gore or the Supreme Court that was in on it. Because had Bush not been elected Gore would have needed to continue the job which started in the Clinton era. The first bombing of the World Trade Center was the setup, but the job had to be completed. Gore would have had to complete it had Bush not been elected. But wait...maybe Gore didn't know, maybe it was the Supreme Court that knew and that's why they had to step in and make sure that Bush won.

So, here are another couple of points to make. If you believe this was all staged, then you believe in both tremendous brilliance and "bipartisan" collaboration of a large group of very evil people who's chief concern is to get the Partiot Act passed. With this many people involved it would be easier to just pass it in Congress without all the fuss. If you believe in all of this, you believe that in the midst of this brilliance these people would be so stupid as to launch a missile into the Pentagon. If you believe in all of this, here is one last question. Evil people love to glorify themselves. This is usually central to an evil nature. So, let's talk about Iraq for a minute. If these people could stage something like 9/11, then why in the world didn't they stage a Weapon's of Mass Destruction Easter egg hunt in Iraq? Even you and I can pull off an Easter egg hunt. Think about how much simpler this would have been to stage. We invade Iraq with "embedded" reporters. A small group of special forces puts the little WMD easter eggs in place, and our embedded reporters discover the WMD Easter eggs on live TV! Bush is then crowned king of the world!

Sorry folks, these people didn't pull a 9/11 inside job. And to the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Until you can answer Mr. Cashill's question of where is Barbara? Without sounding like nut jobs, then your efforts to undermine and weaken the government are just as insidious as the efforts of the terrorists themselves. And in some respects your efforts are more insidious...because it's an inside job.

2007-01-18T20:56:00.000-07:00

Isn't It Ironic

Isn't it ironic this caricature of the Republican vs. Democratic Parties. The Corporate Capitalists vs Anti-Corporate Socialists.

In the first place these are strange mixes of words to me. Corporate Capitalists and Anti-Corporate Socialists. Thinking of Corporations as pillars of capitalism is odd. Aren't they also pillars of socialism? Remember the USSR? Corporate command and control takes a page from the Soviet School of Management. Is their a difference? Here is the dictionary statement defining socialism. It states that that socialism is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole"

Of course, legal ownership of a corporation is in shareholders. But if we think of "ownership" in Bastian sense where property is defined as "the right a laborer has to the fruits of their own labors". Then this definition of property and ownership applies to the collective of employees within the corporation. Ultimately, command and control determines how much property each employee is allowed. Again... doesn't this model sounds more like the The Union of Soviet Socialists of decades past?

And so, the irony. Shouldn't it be Democrats "loving" socialist corporate America and Republicans "hating" socialist corporate America?

I think it's time for another Hegelian Dialectic on the ideas of Marx. We know from socialist experiments of the past century that their are profound problems with the implementation of Marxism. We also ought to recognise that the major difference between the model of the USSR and the model of Corporate America is that Corporate Socialist Unions are smaller and more numerous. Meaning that that we can choose more readily which Socialist Union we want to be part of.

But is this really as good as it gets? Or is it time to move beyond political caricature and recapture the profound thinking of our founding fathers. These altruistic, yet realistic men had tremendous faith in logic and reason. And by virtue of logic and reason they did not destroy the concept of country. They created a new concept of country built by the people and for the people. Ultimately when we consider the contributions corporations make. Their real purpose is not to make money. Their real purpose is to enrich peoples lives. And by enriching lives, money naturally follows. But structurally we can do better. We must believe we can do better and renew enlightened thinking on how our corporations are governed.

2006-07-14T17:11:00.000-06:00

Middle Eastern Collusion with Terrorists.

This quote in WorldNetDaily from Walid Jumblati of Lebanon is interesting.

"They (Iran and Syria) are financially and militarily supporting Hezbollah. It is a known fact that this alliance from Tehran to Beirut is quite a solid strategic alliance."

We take these statements with a grain of salt it seems. Is this really true? I think actually most people believe this is true. And so this great contradiction. We easily and readily accept that Iran and Syria are financially backing Hezbollah but we do not believe that they are backing al-Qaeda? Or do we just as easily believe and accept that they are financially backing al-Qaeda but Iraq never was involved?

Here is the central premise of the War in Iraq. For some thirty years Islamic terrorists have been funded by the nation-states of the Middle East. Notice in the news today regarding Israel that these states act in concert and unity against Israel. They also act in concert and unison against the United States. Do you believe that they have no idea what the other is doing when it comes to funding terrorism?

Terrorism provides an organization of deniable plausibility for these nations. Through the arm of terrorism Middle-eastern countries can engage in acts of war almost at will and then deny and misinform a press that is easily misled and mislead or worse is traitorous.

When we become confused by the continual misinformation that lead to this war, we have to ask ourselves if being slowly boiled to death is really what we wanted all along or do we need to deal with the deception that is the middle east. They have been engaging us in various acts of war for thirty years. 9/11 was just the biggest attack. And with 9/11 it was harder to suggest to the people of the United States that it was an inside job or an accident.

Now think for a moment though. What if that could have been suggested that 9/11 was an inside job. What if the government had been able to convince American's that some US whacks had gone nutty and had pulled off 9/11.

Wouldn't that have made things much easier on the President? Think about it. If you were President, the easiest way to approach the job would be to hide problems and make it seem like everything is OK. Someone tell me why that wouldn't make a President more popular and liked by the people.

2006-07-11T08:08:00.000-06:00

Liberalism Lost

"Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.[1] Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are protected. "

The above is a quote from wikipedia. Think it over and ask yourself, does the "liberal party" in America represent this ideal in any way?

As stated in the Princess Bride, I do not think that word means what they think it means.

And how did this liberal party become so lost? The title of Ann Coulter's new book sums it in one word...they have become "Godless"

Whether we want to believe it or not, those western philosophers who formed the definition of liberalism were steeped in Christianity and built their philosophy on the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

This nation, built on the doctrine of liberalism has flourished. To return the Democratic Party to respectability, every "liberal" would do well to study what that word really means and where it's concepts stem from. America needs liberalism, but a Godless people can never be a liberal people it's a natural impossibility.

2006-07-11T07:29:00.000-06:00

Democracy in America

Been reading Alexis De Tocqueville's Democracy in America. With every page he has tremendous insight into America. I love his geographic description of America as the book begins. Describing the land as one great valley that drains into the Father of Rivers...even the Mississippi.

His discussion on the judiciary system in the United States is fascinating because he talks of it's political power and yet of it's passive attributes.

That is, the judiciary cannot act on it's own, it must be engaged to act. Tocqueville's clear reasoning on our judiciary system could almost be considered as an outline on how the judiciary can be controlled and misused for political purpose. Though that is not what he intended, clearly that is what has happened in our time. The collusive pairing of activist judges and special interests is most definitely the easiest way for minority interests to control the laws for the majority.

I'm currently reviewing Tocqueville's writings on Federalism where he points out that "Small nations have therefore ever been the cradle of Liberty". But that large nations provide physical strength, which means security.

He points out that Federalism provides both advantages. I wish for every student in school that they could read "Democracy in America". Such an easy read, such clear thinking, such marvelous statements on how and why our system works. How is it that I did not read this in my own schooling?

Is this the Boston Tea Party we're looking for?

2006-06-22T10:53:00.000-06:00

This is wonderful news!

I love this quote from the article as part of the campaign. Thomas Jefferson that was highlighted in election materials: "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Because identifying aristocracy as the true enemy to freedom is extremely important. If we do not understand this at the core of our beliefs, then this country will ultimately lose it's freedom to socialism.

Again, the true enemy of capitalism and democracy is not socialism, it is aristocracy.

We have met the enemy and they are us!

2006-06-09T15:50:00.000-06:00

We have met the enemy and they are us!

It's become more apparent to me of late that the conservative/capitalist cause is fighting the wrong battle. It pits itself continually against socialism as the greatest enemy to human progress. And yet, there is a much greater enemy to the cause of capitalism and conservatism. And if we do not recognized and deal with this enemy conservatism will always defeat itself first. Only then does socialism and communism rush in to fill the void.

And what is the enemy within our capitalist system? First, a simple reminder. Freedom is based on property, and property is the right that laborers have to the fruit of their own labors. This is a founding fundamental of our country. But in the practice of a capitalist society we continually offend this principle, with another more archaic principle, the principle of Aristocracy.

Can this really be? And what is Aristocracy? It is the right of property that a man has because of birth or class distinctions. And now, where do we most continually support and sustain the rights of aristocrats within this country?

I would submit that we most continually support this concept within the corporate governance structure. What strange irony isn't it? Corporations the centerpiece of Capitalist America, are not a capitalist concept at all. They are both Aristocratic and Socialistic in truth. They are Aristocratic in this sense: can a truthful person honestly suggest that the benefits aquired by Corporate Executive Officers are obtained by the fruit of their labors? Stated another way, in the last 20 years have corporate officers truly become so much more productive and capable that whereas 20 years ago they were "worth" 40 times the average corporate employee while now they are "worth" on average 330 times more than the average corporate employee? Obviously no. This has only happened because a clearly aristocratic structure is in place.

To represent the rights of property more properly within corporations, governance must be modified, with employees having a significant representation within the corporate Boards of Directors. As capitalism removes the enemy of Aristrocracy from within, the attractions of socialism and communism will fade. These systems attract the masses most deeply when Aristocracy has robbed property from the people. Ultimately when the thievery is too great, the people rebel and the property claimed by Aristocracy is reclaimed by class warfare in the form of socialism.

Corporate Common Sense

2005-12-01T15:59:00.000-07:00

American's cannot comprehend a system of Kings and Monarchies that once existed. We cannot comprehend how the ancient European's could allow themselves to be ruled by a few intermingled families that called themselves royalty. Because we believe firmly in a system of meritocracy. However once, before our American independence, the people of this land of America believed firmly in the benevolence and goodness of European monarchies.

But King George encroached, and stole American property through taxation without representation. And the fire of liberty was ignited in America when a Thomas Paine's Common Sense questioned the governing right of monarchs. Then, a group of pragmatic, practical, idealists and realists, our founding fathers, established a governing system that recognized the weakness of men when placed in power. They forged a system that protected freedom by protecting the right to property, or in other words the right a man has to the fruit of their labor.

And now we live in a new world because of their courageous break from the old world. Or do we? When wisdom settles in our minds, we realize that every generation must capture freedom anew. And every generation grapples with old problems in a new way. And a more careful view of our new world would suggest that it actually looks a lot like the old world of our forefathers. The old monarchies of the past are born again in our day under a new name. And people have dimly recognized the old face of the new monarchies having already attacked it with something akin to a French revolution who's solution was worse than a monarchy.

And so it is that we have already seen the clash of monarchically governed corporations against also corrupt unions. And we have apparently determined that the monarchical governance of corporations is better than the union solution. So now just as American's past, we rely almost solely on the benevolence of the corporate monarch's to rule over us.

But like American's past will we recognize that this new monarchy is built very much like the old European monarchy? Where Board's of Directors are filled with executive “Royalty” from other corporations, just as European Royalty was “filled” by marriage from other countries? Will we recognize as in the past that our property, which is the right we have to enjoy the fruits of our labors is being stolen at will, just readily as any King George ever did it?

Are we actually foolish enough to believe that within two decades corporate executives have so advanced in capability that where once they worth 40 times more than thier employees they are now worth 330 times more then a subject employee? We have been fools for too long. This is not capitalism this is monarchic corruption!

And the solution lies in the recognition of the unrealized property that a corporate laborer possesses. And change towards better performing corporations will occur when monarchical rule is replaced with a balance of power and employees also take part in the governing Board of Directors.

Like countries, corporations have demonstrated a great capacity to advance society. History has shown that countries and companies ruled by a good monarch perform very well but are very few. History has also demonstrated that where a decent balance of power exists, almost without exception countries are better off. Isn't it common sense to believe this same effect can happen in corporations?

Every American knows that something is wrong in our corporations. We both rely on these great institutions and wonder at why we can't make them better. But now will we recognize that the old desires and means used to obtain power, yes even the old monarch's have returned to roost in our time and in our corporations. Will we have the honesty, the integrity, the courage of our "quaint" and "outdated" forefathers to replace these monarchies with a better form of corporate governance? Or will we modern, and enlightened American's so enraptured by our own enlightenment continue to deny that we, once again are living in a feudal system with a new name.