Citizens for Truth in School Pamphlet: Should Schools Teach Facts or Lies? Is Land Abundant or Scarce?

Outside of pamphlet (read right column first)

Click to expand

Inside of pamphlet

Click to expand

Written in early 2017

Based on research done by Citizens for Truth in School

First published to this blog on March 18th, 2020

Our Basic Needs Are Abundant, Not Scarce

     In late November 2017, I posted a commentary to social media regarding what I regard as the most basic and primary set of human needs, whether they are scarce or abundant, and how we could access and afford them more easily. The post, originally titled “Everything Should Be Free”, follows:

     The law of supply and demand dictates that if a good is abundant (i.e., more exists than people need), its price will fall towards zero/free.

     To clarify, resources existing in a fixed amount, does not necessarily guarantee scarcity by that fact alone. Nor does scarcity only refer to shortages; shortages which are locally felt may be a symptom of inefficient distribution, unequal distribution. Scarcity is a condition in which a resource exists in a smaller amount than the amount demanded or needed.

     We can verify that most things we need to survive are not scarce, by simply thinking about it. Which things do we need to survive, and which phenomena and technologies make them freer? Our most basic needs are air, water, food, shelter, clothing, and medicine. I have not addressed clothing here, nor the need for plumbing and sanitation; but I did not leave them out because they're any less important; they're no less important. Instead, I have chosen to comment on how to make energy and transportation more easily available to people.

     AIR is free to breathe, but there will only truly be no price for clean air, when there is no more unnecessary air pollution, and when the costs of cleaning the air up (that is, cleaning up after ourselves) have gone down to zero. But it is possible.

     WATER falls from the sky in abundance. We can collect it, but only when it's legal. Sometimes it's illegal for a good reason, like when altering rain flow affects our neighbors' property, or threatens wildlife in the area, or drastically changes the water table or causes flooding. But when collecting rainwater does not require creating an artificial lake, it can be done freely and safely. Through rooftop water filters and rain collection systems, we could make water much easier to afford and acquire.
There is also a product called LifeStraw, which converts contaminated water into free, safe, filtered, drinkable water. If this product were made easily and cheaply available to the third world, perhaps through charity or mutual aid, then struggling people would have a much easier time acquiring water, one of the most primary things we need to survive.

     Enough FOOD is produced on the planet annually to feed 10 billion, while we have to feed only 7.5 billion. While the US throws away 40% of food, France requires groceries to donate unsold food to charity. Teach people how to grow food, and let them do it in cities. Watch “Extreme Couponing” and look up the mutual aid organization Food Not Bombs.

     SHELTER could be easily made cheap, or even free, through liberalization of homesteading requirements, changing local building codes to keep up with modern safety innovations and allow experimental architectural techniques, and returning the vast swaths of land owned by the federal government back to the states and the people. This will make land more available, and in turn, more places to stay.
     There are now 6 empty residences for each homeless American. Remove all government supports (including police protection) for absentee property ownership. Allow people to host homeless and needy people in their apartments without requiring them to pay rent, and allow renters and trailer and tiny house residents to claim state homestead tax credits (in states other than Wisconsin, the only state in which residents can do so).

     MEDICINE is kept artificially scarce and artificially expensive through patents, taxes, insurance mandates, trade barriers (against foreign-made pharmaceuticals), deadly approval delays, and other unnecessary and often unconstitutional intrusions. Getting rid of these privileges and barriers could help reduce the prices of medical care, medications, and medical devices.

     ENERGY is kept artificially expensive through patents, regional monopolies, preferential subsidies for one energy source or the other, and more. Letting the market choose renewable resources like solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, and Alternating Current energy could save money, lives, and the planet.

     TRANSPORTATION could be made cheaper by withdrawing all government and taxpayer supports from car dealerships, used car lots, and car graveyards. Vehicles in car graveyards, and aircraft sitting on government-owned lands, could be repaired and turned over to those who need them. The idea that car dealerships sit on cars, and have state-licensed private security guards and the police to protect them (sometimes at taxpayer expense) should indicate that price reductions are the only way to clear the market. The fact that supply and demand are not meeting, and causing markets to clear, ought to indicate that what's being sold simply isn't worth what they're asking for. Maybe it even indicates that there is not currently a free or fair market in transportation.

For more information:

- look up Citizens for Truth in School on Facebook,

- read my article "You Don't Need Money to Live" at http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2017/02/you-dont-need-money-to-live.html

and

- read my blog entry "Links on Homelessness and Moneylessness"
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2018/05/links-on-homelessness-moneylessness.html

Originally Written in Late November 2017

Edited and Expanded on December 1^st, 2018

Published on December 1^st, 2018

Sampson Defeats Meyers, by Jack Sampson

     The backrophcy was correct!: I won, because I have won, because I will win, because I willed it (that is, wanted) to win. It's not reification, it's manifestation.

     Yes, as I warned that I would kill her again, as once I have killed J.C. Meyers in the Flesh, so again hath I kill'd her in the voting booth!

     I have done all this because the LØrd is on my side. Great are the gifts when you build your Church upon Dwayne Rock Johnson; for thou must go to Dwayne Rock Johnson if Dwayne Rock Johnson does not come to thee.

     And sew, we greet the new Day, and $ellebrate victory: over God, over J.C. Meyers, over “Life Itself”. The Age of Jack is dawning, as the Brave New Future^® of the Order is $ecure.

     Already, the chain of events has been set into motion which will ensure the stability of our church, through enacting the triune pillars of our Faith: Auto-Sarcophagic Taxation, Demiurgic Demurrage, and the Riddim-Based Salvation (that is, the salvation of face, and face-value, through self-annihilation). As the Zen master holds tight to the pillow, so must we hold tight to these pillars (or, in financial language, principals).

     Not only all this, but also, we must make ourselves more valuable, by making ourselves scarce. ...By kidnapping ourselves, just as God has done to itself. Doing so will allow you to turn the gods within yourselves over to the Order, in Order to pay that god as ransom, and receive the blessed sacrament. Call it turnover. Apple-level turnover.

     Of course – with neither hesitation, pause, nor cause – Meyers has (ahem) elected to pull some levers behind the scenes, to contest the results of your (The People's^TM) election, of me, Jack Sampson. Well, you can't bamboozle a bamboozler! Meyers' treachery is not limited to rigging elections; I suspect that this Deal has been in the Works even since long before either One of us agreed that an election beheld.

     Still, though, it was well-advised four J.C. to wait until after the votes were cast to dispute the results, because that empowered Jack to resolve the dispute. And I say that there is no dispute! To those who take Issue with this, my decree, your reward is in Heaven. By which I mean Issues.

     I'm now willing to look back and admit that it has not thus far proved helpful to have put a temporary hold on the production and acceptance of Commodity Fetish Records 999-Economic-Unit Notes (“CFR” on the Stalk Exchange). That is why I have enclosed in this issue the unthinkable: FREE MONEY^TM.

     This money is being Issued not only debt-free, but also free of the demurrage obligation. This is to say that you will not be obligated to pay a fine for failing to discharge (or, in financial language, cum) the funds within the allotted time.

     Just as life is (but a sorry) consolation for the mistake of the Creation, so shall this gift serve as an apologia for the Order. “A Fair and Square Deal”, “A Square Meal”, “Three Thoths and a Thot”; call this Deal what you Will. But one thing's for sure: This is a big deal, believe me, you're never gonna get a better deal than this. And that's a deal you can take all The Way to the bank of the River Jordan.

     Yea, just as we must serve through Works in addition to having Faith, FREE MONEY^TM Will Serve as an apology-slash-defense for the Order's mistaken old ways, and a consolation for our previous ill-advised monetary policies. My hope is that this FREE MONEY^TM Will seal the bond between you the reader, and we your benevolent overlords at Commodity Fetish Records; the bond which we here at C.F.R. have so fascistly fashioned, as if to $uture our future uponto the very lives of our audience, like a snake on a cross.

     And most importantly, you paid for it all! So this is really Your Welcome!^TM

     Ye have herd that it hath been said: The value of a coin, and of a currency, derives from the strength of the government that made it (and the strength of its armies and police). Government commands citizens to use the standard currency, so that the value of their property and produce can be assessed in terms widely agreed upon, so that it can be easily determined how much they owe in taxes (be it a portion of their money, their crops, or their hands). And when the government and its enforcement tools are strong, they can exact as much as they need from the people, and more.

     Those familiar with the work of Max Weber and Jeremy Bentham will know that an effective government must be practically omnipresent – or at least maintain a credible appearance of having agents present everywhere – in all places where it claims a monopoly on power. With particular regard to money, this means that the people must be in (more or less) constant fear that the government might deem any or all of their personal and social activities as economic ones.

     The established authority must Order the people to surrender their property and produce to the government, so that it may then use those resources to produce more money and currency, and dole out scraps of it to us... well, not us. People who can get their shit together well enough to apply for a small business loan, I guess.

     All of this is why it is said that “You've got to spend money (in Order) to make money.” Which begs the question: Who paid for the First Printing Press? Through this riddle, it is revealed that this process is nothing more than sleight-of-hand – a magick trick – and that it is nothing to be afraid of. And communion wafers were the first Mass-printed 3-D currency anyway, so whatever.

     Nea, the strength of the government matters not when it comes to enhancing the value of a coin. In fact, the value of a coin depends on its rarity and scarcity. And, if possible, its uniqueness. However, just like the idea that value can be represented, “uniqueness” only exists if our being able to conceive of it proves that it does indeed exist.

     But if the value of a coin is a function of its rarity, then wouldn't it follow that the value of a coin depends on the government which created it being a powerless historical footnote, incapable of taking the coin back? Unable to coerce payment of that coin through taxes? Of course it would!

     Modern economists do not take these considerations, though. Serious questions are not being asked, like “How can a government consider its currency successful, if it wants to spread the usage and possession of that currency, but also take a shitload of it away every year?” The answer lies in Faith.

     For, just like the twin gifts of Forgiveness and Salvation, the possession of currency was Always^TM meant to be temporary, period. This is the Demiurgic Demurrage to witch I have alluded, and it is why we must ask for Forgiveness again every week. And even make up some sins if we have to. To fail to confess is to prove God wrong about Original Sin. ...Unless the Church came up with that, of course. Either way, someone's out of a job. Don't let it be me.

     This is why we must not cling to false currencies, and why we must instead fasten ourselves soully to the New Notes. The government can only reclaim all its debts through reclaiming all the currency into which those debts were built, which it has Issued. Similarly, God may only reclaim His gift of SALvation; by taking away our carte blanche every Saturday night at midnight (glass slippers, flying pumpkin chariot of fire, and all).

     Thus, All returns to the whirling Cinder; hella. It's a Hel-La-va way for a party to End.

     Just as the Emperor is the only seller who accepts this currency, he is also the only one who accepts you. And sew, you must pay back your FREE MONEY^TM to the Emperor.

     As much as we should rejoice that people have (ahem) bought into the idea that memes make whys investment opportunities. But, funny though moth memes are, if we are to weave our sacred (in)vestments of memes, we must choose a meme which moths doth not devour. That is why I would recommend short-selling moth memes until mid-2239, as they are about to crash. Probably into a lightbulb, though.

     That is why I personally recommend – this Samhain, Allhallow's Eve, Halloween, and Day of the Dead – investing in pumpkin memes, and afterlife memes. I have a feeling that pumpkin memes are gonna peak right around January. Doot doot.

     Yes, that's right: just as to feed from every word that Issues from the mouth of God is to eat the Bread of Life (the Word), and to breathe, speak, sleep, and Sweatcoin the Bible, wearing memes as our vestments is how we Will wear our Faith on our sleeves, keep our (in)vestments free of tooth of moth, and, thus, keep our currency current, rather than dead, and decaying (in value).

     Josef Stalin once said, “Gratitude is a sickness suffered by dogs.” Although Stalin arguably saved the world from the Nazi menace, with this quotation he also spared us the indignity of having to thank him for it. And that is fortunate, because doing so would probably involve excusing all kinds of atrocities on Stalin's part.

     I have heard you speaking – in the parlors, and between my temples – many of you feel the same way about J.C. Meyers, or even about Jack Sampson's own past missteps in monetary policy. You may think of Jack, “Who is this guy, telling us to use some weird new currency every month?”

     But checkest thee before thou wreckest thyself, four hath you not endured the same abuses under your god, and, at that, every week? The same god who meted out forgiveness in the form of printed crackers, sips of booze, indulgences, and, I don't know, maybe a blow job every once in a while? Limiting your right to imbibe the sacrament, and colluding with government to limit your right to purchase it!?

     Well, knot any more, now that there's FREE MONEY^TM! Tell 'em the Mountains sent ya! If they don't believe ya, tell 'em Muhammad sent ya! If they don't believe that, tell 'em that Muhammad sent the Mountains, or where-all-fuck!

     This is how, as it was said in the Soviet Union, “We do not fight against believers, and not even clergymen. We fight against God, to snatch believers from Him.”

     Sticking with the communist theme (because why not), Che Guevara once said, “The life of a single human being is worth a million times more than all the property of the richest man on Earth.” This is the manner in witch the Order intends to dissolve and liquidate the holdings of those who afflicted you; this, in Order to bogusly inflate the value of you, the afflicted.

     This is why my name means the increase of the value of all coins; even those coins whom are humans walking among us. Not just coins, but jewels, gems, and cards, as well. So sayeth the Lord: The value of these are greater than a million Boar Vessel 600-500 B.C. Etruscan Ceramics. This is what was written on our hearts from The Beginning. Word up, but also Works up.

     Although Forgiveness and Salvation are but temporary gifts, the cards and coins and precious stones among us, are gifts to but themselves, and also, if we please, to all of us. And that is why they, and the words which attempt to define them, make perfect ransom.

     That is because the shared root of the words “price”, “precious”, “appreciate”, “praise”, and “appraisal”, is the Latin word pretium. Just as the unexamined life is Worth living, a Word is worthless unless it is relentlessly taken apart, and its many meanings dissected.

     Lend me your ears, for the linguistic lesson of this is a corny one. That flowing through the Root is the Issue of Jesse, which springs like water – nea, like a slippery cob of shibboleth (which is mostly water, for the simple fact that it is what it eats) – across the Land. Similarly, that the Zemach, like my references to it, are like the radical reference and deference to roots (and to the meanings which they carry with them) which is found in grammatical descriptivism. What is herd must not only be herd, but appreciated; that is, valued, and believed in. Moreover, praised and appraised.

     To be radical is to strike at the root of the twin problems of misunderstanding and apprehension; by listening directly, while searching for intended meaning, grammatical proscriptivism and prescriptivism are the Dry Ground of semiotics. This is how Faith grows; out of a mere Mustard Seed. In a vacuum of belief.

     Otherwhys – without that certainty that God, and our money, are dead – there would be no disconnect between what's being said, and what's being heard. And thus, no need to dissociate livestock and consumer goods from their intrinsic value, through an unending series of abstract presentations, representations, and re-representations.

     Essentially, it's a series of shittings, panarchic re-cyclings of those shittings into a feedback loop (a/k/a mouth), and re-shittings, in Order to extract all value. In chaos magick, in which many inconceivable possibililities must be filtered out as carefully as possible, we call this “the process of elimination”.

     That is the hierarchy – the food-chain – of value. We The People exist, as a shitty emulation of God (and His Word), the source($) of all meaning and value. We use goods and become what we consume. We use money to represent those goods. We use currency to represent that money, thereby re-representing what the money represents.

     And if we're smart, we use mock currency, because it is the only currency which is gilded in enough layers of abstraction (that is, bullshit) to render it fool-proof. Again, not lunatic-proof; just fool-proof. You know how the D.M.V. accepts copies, but not copies of copies? But they do accept copies of copies of copies? ...I think? It's kind of like that.

     What this means for Ewe is that FREE MONEY^TM (CFR) is the only currency coated in enough layers of bullshit to withstand the twin tests of Time and History. Nay, survive them, for just as our god is a living god that can be killed (praY¢e Jack), ours is a living currency, dutifully and zealously coated in blood, sweat, and tears.

     So help me finish overturning J.C. Meyers, turnover a new leaf of the Book, and heed its Word: Spend now! Convert now! For a deathbed repentance could, at best, only leaf you Gratefully Dead. Give this FREE MONEY^TM back to Caesar, or else give your life back to God.

     Only when we create a currency with mirrors on it, may we (ahem) forge a currency which has our own faces on it. Only then may we keep our money. But then again, these faces were never really ours in The First Place (i.e., Paradise); they always belonged to A F.I.R.E. Power. Their value AlwaysTM derived from the value of the Original Face; The Dead God That We Killed^®.

     And so, this is our sacred covenant with Ewe: that your value will never increase or decrease, no matter how much FREE MONEYTM (or how little) passes through your hands. Or the eye of a needle, for that matter.

     Acts now; four this very Column (that is, pillar) may disappear, enveloped and suffocated 'neath the heavy and the weight of these brand new spanking DEAL$. So hold tight to each the pillow, the pillar, the column, the principle, and the principal.

     It's a bunch of bullshit, but it's The Word. God is great, God is Gray, and God is Graceful, so the least you could do is be Grateful. After all, what you don't appreciate, you Will undoubtedly lose.

We must consume this money the only way we can: by spending it. This is how we Will eat the Bread of Life; by spending it before its value drops to zero. Verily, we must eat God, before Saturn Himself devours us.

     Just watch out for food poisoning. After all, an Apple a day doesn't keep the Devil away!

     Take a byte! Help yourself, just help yourself!

Written on October 16th and 17th, 2018

Published to this blog on October 17th, 2018

Also appeared in the November edition of Issues magazine

Thoughts on Education

     It matters what children are learning. But it also matters why they're learning it.

     Why do we send children to school? Is it to “compete in the economy” and “compete for jobs”? Well, whom are they supposed to compete against? What if they'd rather cooperate to get what they want? What if encouraging a culture of competition in school, and the economy, and sports, and our militant culture, is actually harming us, and we need a dose of cooperation to balance it out?

     Children will never learn anything – especially not critical and abstract thinking skills - as long as they are expected to learn most information in the context of “how can I use this information to climb the socioeconomic ladder?” After all, nobody should be willing to compete against their own neighbors, friends, and family for resources, for the bare scraps of survival. Yet many of us are, because of what we're taught in school, and how we're taught.

     In rich and poor districts alike, youth culture glorifies raking money in through whatever means necessary, and in an educational system which decreasingly teaches valuable practical hands-on skills, that could very well mean more young people becoming unskilled janitors and food service employees, failed rappers, drug dealers or prostitutes, or sellouts to the interests of exploitative companies.

     Education should be about transmitting knowledge and skills, and teaching students how to think critically, think for themselves, and independently investigating what other people are teaching them is the truth.

     Schools and economics textbooks assume and teach that there is not enough to go around, and that therefore government and markets need to distribute and allocate what scarce resources we have. However, the study of economics – and economizing (that is, saving money) – do not need to be applied to resources which are abundant, because they are not scarce, and there is enough of them go around. The resource in question might be fixed (as in the case of land), but fixedness does not necessarily guarantee that the resource is scarce.

     Between one-third and one-half of all food in America is thrown away, and without food waste there would be enough food to support 2.5 billion additional human beings. Not only is food not scarce; air, water, land, and many other of our basic needs, are abundant, or could easily become abundant or free (or at least cheaper) by removing government interventions and cronyist privileges.

     It makes absolutely no sense for a child to go hungry at school, and be expected to concentrate while hungry, because their parents have failed to keep current on their lunch payments. Teaching kids that we have to work and compete for everything we want, and that even food is a privilege that can be taken away from us, might prepare them for a cruel world, but it also normalizes such a cruel world in the process.

     Our society has chosen short-term financial gain over the real purpose of living: learning how to live a long, healthy, fulfilling life, doing so comfortably, and helping others to do the same. Nobody is going to care about truth over money, nor people over profits, until they stop prioritizing short-term gains, and keeping up with the Joneses, and frantically saving and stowing away for the future, refusing to share what they have earned with other people.

     As far as my thoughts on education policy go, education vouchers (just like housing vouchers) could serve as a popular multi-partisan compromise. Libertarians, progressive Democrats like Elizabeth Warren, progressive conservatives, conservative Democrats, and maybe even some neoliberals, could be convinced to support vouchers, if the proposal for it were triangulated right.

     During his 2016 campaign, Gary Johnson suggested that students engage in a year-long nationwide boycott of colleges and universities. This, he says, would increase colleges' demand for students (and their money), thus drastically lowering the price of tuition as soon as the boycott ends. Hopefully, this would lead to at least a few good years of low tuition, driven by people engaging in voluntary exchange through the market. Of course, that only works for privately funded schools, because publicly funded universities can only be fully boycotted once the flow of taxpayer money into them ends completely.

     The decline over the last few decades in the number of wood shops and auto shops in high schools concerns me. While I understand parents who say they're concerned that their children might get injured while taking wood or auto shop classes, acquiring hands-on skills is a valuable professional skill to have; especially now that trade skills are in higher demand. While students should not be pressured to take these classes, students who are enthusiastic about taking them should be asked to sign forms and waive the right to hold the school responsible for any injuries they sustain while taking them (but within reason, and with the schools' and teachers' responsibilities to ensure safe operation clearly defined).

     I personally spoke to a former high school shop teacher, who told me that his classroom equipment was removed without notice, after the course was terminated, on account of wealthy parents who were concerned that trade skills would lead their kids into “low-class jobs” like carpentry, electrician work, H.V.A.C., and plumbing. Of course, that is nonsense, because these are needed and valuable skills, there is no shame in providing them.

     Additionally, students introduced to such skills early could easily become interested in more advanced fields; specifically S.T.E.M. fields (science, technology, engineering, and math), which often pay even more than trade jobs. Getting more people into the trades, and into S.T.E.M. fields – and making sure that everyone owns, or at least has access to, means of production - could very well be the only way to protect our nation's future when it comes to jobs, technology, and industry.

     I hope that America's educational future is one which features the inexpensive and efficient transmission of knowledge and skills. It's not that teachers owe students an education; teachers and students each deserve a seat at the negotiation table when it comes to the costs involved. Online learning, distance learning, PDFs, e-catalogs, and other technologies have made education less expensive, and if universities expect to survive, then tuition must fall.

     Additionally, I hope that America's educational future features the dissemination of knowledge through decentralized learning. Little could be more effective at ensuring that such decentralization of knowledge becomes possible, than encouraging people to not only read, but to question what they read; to do their own research, verify facts independently, and come to their own conclusions.

Written on July 4th, 20th, 26th, and 27th, and August 1st through 4th, and 6th, 2018

Edited and Expanded on September 4th, 2018

Originally Published on September 4th, 2018

Panarchist Welfare Economics

           As a write-in candidate, a political independent, and a gradualist market panarchist, I believe that competition in all markets should be promoted, especially the markets for civic ethics and political representation.

 The following is an explanation of four sets of conditions which are asserted by the First Welfare Theorem to be necessary (given a certain set of assumptions) to achieve a minimally efficient distribution of resources; as well as a defense of the sets of civic and fiscal policies I would prescribe to realize such a situation under conditions of maximum individual liberty, and in a manner that is sufficiently socially desirable.

          The set of assumptions consists of 1) the existence of economic scarcity, and 2) local non-satiation (that is, non-satisfaction) of preferences.

To minimize the negative effects of economic scarcity, I would support reforms to eliminate all institutional structures supporting unnatural and undeserved monopolies and oligopolies in all markets and industries.

To minimize the negative effects of local non-satiation of preferences, I would recommend that individuals consider choosing to practice moderation, temperance, self-control, self-deprivation, self-denial, and asceticism whenever possible.

The first set of conditions consists of the ability to rank preferences. I feel that two additional conditions would help to realize – and augment the effects of – the primary condition of preference-ranking ability. These conditions are full information of preference-ranking, and liberty to act upon the personal ordering of preferences.

To achieve full information of preference-ranking and freedom to act upon personal ordering of preferences, I would
1) promote the notion that civic-ethical and market values are subjective;
2) support reforms which would maximize voters’ ability to rank preferences regarding political representation (such as the institution of ranked-preference voting systems);

3) support the maximization of the enlightenment and information of voter consent to representation and delegation of powers (through non-institutional measures such as encouraging the establishment of consumer- and citizen- awareness and advocacy agencies; and through institutional measures such as supporting reforms providing for A] the institution of mutual privity of consent to and recognition of contractual agreements between voters and representatives; B] the abolition of secrecy in voting systems and in government, and the public disclosure of voting results; and C] the abolition of favors for special interests, pandering, bribery, and other forms of undue influence on independent voter choice);

4) support reforms which would be conducive towards establishing a stable yet dynamic catallactic civic-societal consensus on standards of uncoerced consent to – and sufficient information regarding – the repercussions associated with the making of social, economic, and civic decisions, such as becoming party to contracts and becoming subject to political-representational and other hierarchical civic relationships;

5) support efforts to uphold and augment the rights to A) peacefully speak, transmit speech, believe, and express oneself without credibly threatening or causing immediate harm or defrauding another; B) defend oneself and others in the presence of immediate harm or threat thereof; and C) full information of the rights of juries and of the accused; and protection of such rights as fundamental and inalienable; and

6) support reforms which would uphold the freedoms to profit, lend, borrow, gift, trade, barter, share, purchase, sell, and ascribe value to goods and services.

The second set of conditions consists of establishing a dynamically complete system of markets, and minimizing externalities. I feel that to fulfill these conditions would necessitate numerous commercial, monetary, budgetary, taxation-related, and financial reforms.

 To fulfill these conditions, I would
 1) support reforms eliminating negative externalities such as systemic risk, moral hazard, and social cost (by instituting fee-for-service models, compartmentalizing risk, and urging safety and discretion);

 2) support reforms minimizing positive externalities such as free-rider problems (by permitting and promoting minority-unionism and members-only collective bargaining);

 3) support reforms making transaction costs (referred to as “friction”) minimal, negligible, and / or negative (by prohibiting usury, fractional reserve banking, the use of debt as a medium of exchange, and speculation without possession of full assets; and by promoting consumer patronage of credit unions, Mutualist banks, full-reserve banks, and zero-interest lenders rather than patronage of interest-rate-manipulating lenders such as pernicious and easy-credit lenders); and

 4) promote the notion that efforts to affect conservation and moderation of consumption of resources should be preferred to maximizing the efficiency of potential consumption thereof.

 The third set of conditions consists of the establishment of perfect price-taking behavior, such that no actor takes up enough of the market to significantly affect prices.

        To help perfect price-taking behavior, I would 1) support reforms to minimize market distortions such as disproportionate influence on price (by eliminating all institutional structures supporting unnatural and undeserved monopsonies and oligopsonies in all markets and industries); and 2) promote the existence and practice of polyopsony in all markets and industries.  

         The fourth set of conditions consists of perfect and complete competition – and competitive equilibrium – in all markets.

      I would assert that all goods and services which are typically provided by government (including defense, security, justice, and political representation) are commercial and market-oriented in nature; in that they are industries and markets, and in that they can be – and / or are (in other times and at other places, for example) – provided by some other actor or actors.

         To perfect and complete competition for the privilege to represent voters, I would support reforms which would
     1) place strict limits on the finance of political campaigns under monopoly government;
     2) permit the unlimited finance of political campaigns under conditions of competing government;
          3) facilitate candidates’ and parties’ access to polls, ballots, and debates;

4) institute consensus-based federalist, republican, and / or democratic forms of government;
5) provide for a more complete separation of powers and a more effective system of checks and balances between the branches of government;
6) restore dual federalism, augment the rights of local and subsidiary governments and governmental agencies, and permit secession and confederation;

7) invoke the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify the use of federal power to abolish federal and state territorially-monopolistic jurisdictions (effectually abolishing state borders);
8) urge states and their subsidiary governments and agencies thereof to consider extending the options of citizenship and provision of services to denizens residing and traveling in nearby jurisdictions; and

9) permit individuals to choose civic agencies from among sets of agencies competing in given territories, regardless of where individuals are located and without being required to move or travel given sufficient geographical expansion of market coverage.

In addition to establishing a consensus on informed consent to civic relationships, I would also support establishing a consensus which is more or less uniform across trading cultures on standards of 1) commercial and merchant law; and 2) uncoerced consent to – and sufficient information regarding – the repercussions associated with the making of social, economic, and civic decisions, such as becoming a party to contracts regarding political representation and socioeconomic hierarchy.

I would add that a system of competitive government would necessitate inter-governmental adjudication and dispute-resolution, as well as the resolution of disputes between individuals and their governments by some – but not necessarily (and preferably not) always the same – independent, fair, neutral, and uninterested third-party arbiter or arbitration agency.

Such a system of private law and security would likely cause and necessitate the practice of potentially perpetual and infinite appeals to a series of independent arbiters; any perceived semblance of finality only reflecting contemporary, recent, and / or sustained trends in economic, social, and civic ethics.

Through making economic, social, and political choices with fully-informed and enlightened consent, citizens – as consumers of security, defense, justice, protection, etc. – would be free to boycott and engage in cartelizing in the market for political representation.

In summary, given the assumptions of economic scarcity and non-satiation of preferences, I believe that a Pareto-efficient outcome which is minimally economically efficient, maximizing of individual liberty, and sufficiently socioeconomically just and equitable, is possible, provided that

1) preference-ranking is fully-informed; 2) there exists a dynamically complete system of markets; 3) externalities are minimized; 4) price-taking behavior is perfect; and 5) there exists perfect and complete competition – and competitive equilibrium – in all markets and industries.

As such, my primary objectives in this campaign are to
1) promote the notion that goods and services typically provided by government are forms of commerce which exist in a market;
2) support individual civil liberties and basic freedoms of the marketplace;
3) establish voluntary and consensus-based accession to and abolition of political agreements (for voters, politicians, and governments alike);

4) permit the mutual and independent choice from among competing arbiters, with sufficient preference-ranking ability and information, and given some widely-accepted consensus on systemic civic and economic standards, with potentially perpetual infinite appeals to a series of independent arbiters;

5) support the right to act, vote, buy, work, et cetera according to one’s own personal decisions and preferences (especially when they are informed, and provided that any externalities they cause are compensated-for);
6) support the right to pursue restitution for harms and benefits caused by externalities;

7) support the minimization of transaction costs and externalities (through Austrian-School and Mutualist banking reforms);
8) promote the moderation of consumption (especially as preferable to economic efficiency);

9) promote natural and deserved competition and collaboration over institutional and artificial collusion, oligarchialization, and monopolization in the provision of goods and services in all markets and industries (including – but not limited to – arbitration, political representation, security, currency, and business and labor and representation thereof);

10) promote a system of delegation of political power which is primarily derived from the rights of the individual, the locality, and the sufficiency of competence of subsidiary agencies;
11) support minimizing unnatural societal distortions and compromises which arise from excessive imposition of social culture, economics, and civics upon one another; and

12) support the right of individuals to boycott and petition competing governments to resolve past and non-institutional exploitation (such resolution being conditional upon sufficient sustained popular consumer demand).

For more entries on justice, crime, and punishment, please visit:
http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/thrasymachus-support-for-justice-being.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/distinctions-in-death-penalty.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/socratess-defense.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-konkin-schulman-bastiat-and-agorism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/07/agorism-summary.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/12/is-it-time-to-legalize-murder.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/09/proposal-for-cooperative-party-of-oregon.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-war-on-drugs.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/fourth-amendment-image.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-legalizing-heroin.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/15-reasons-to-legalize-marijuana.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/john-locke-roderick-long-and-voluntary.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/social-policies-for-2012-us-house.html

For more entries on free trade, fair trade, the balance of trade, and protectionism, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/bastiats-chrematistic-reductio.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/03/911-heres-what-i-think-happened.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/08/population-economics.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/10/comparative-economics.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/11/new-institutional-economics.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/10/map-of-contiguous-united-states-in.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/labor-protectionism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/economic-policy-for-2012-us-house.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/foreign-trade-agreements.html

Population Economics

Chapter 1: Mother Teresa (Introduction)

Mother Teresa said in 1981, “I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.”

This quote was printed in The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, a 1995 book by English author, public intellectual, and prominent atheist Christopher Hitchens. In The Missionary Position, Hitchens portrays Mother Teresa’s organization – the Missionaries of Charity – as a cult which has promoted the suffering of the poor in order to further its own financial ends.

Being that most of the money donated to Mother Teresa actually ended up in the hands of the Vatican, and that Mother Teresa accepted money from Eastern European dictators, the facts at hand – in addition to the quote which I just read – (aside from causing us to question Mother Teresa’s motives) lay bare two important questions: “How – if at all – does the suffering of the poor help the world?” and “Is it beneficial for mankind to teach the world’s poor to bear, endure, and tolerate their own suffering?”

These are the questions which I intend to answer in this piece.

Chapter 2: World Hunger

Let us begin by engaging in a thought experiment; one which is universally understandable, identifiable, and relatable. It is a problem which is both pressing and immediate, and a problem which pertains directly to the topic at hand, the suffering of the poor. That problem is world hunger.

Nearly a billion people on Earth are close to starvation – more precisely, about nine hundred twenty-five million – while the other six billion people on the planet eat more or less adequately. So how do we solve this problem? I’ll provide three choices.

The first choice is to allow those nine hundred twenty-five million to starve to death, so that the other six billion of us may eat even more adequately, and so that the risk of starvation among the well-fed six billion may become even more remote.

The second choice is to somehow resolve to cut the food consumption levels of the six billion who eat adequately by 13.4 percent, and distribute the unused and left-over food so that the whole world population may eat adequately, saving nearly a billion lives.

The third and final choice is to cut the food consumption levels of the six billion who eat adequately by 6.7 percent in order to save the lives of some four hundred sixty million starving people, although still allowing another four hundred sixty million to die of starvation.

I would imagine that there are very few people who do not find it unconscionable to simply throw up our hands, give up on the poor of the world, continue to do nothing, and to allow all the starving people to die so that the rest of us may live, the prospect of starvation thereby becoming all the more unlikely and remote for the relatively rich and prosperous.

So which of the other two choices seems more compassionate; more reasonable? Do we cut the consumption of the relatively prosperous by 13.4 percent to save everyone on the planet, or do we cut their consumption by 6.7 percent and allow nearly half a billion people to starve to death?

At this point, I imagine that you’re probably thinking: “Certainly you wouldn’t purport that the solution to all of the human suffering on the planet can be found through a cold, amoral, mathematical calculation. Certainly you wouldn’t allow for the possibility that half a billion men die unnecessarily simply to minimize the sacrifice of those who are the best-off. Certainly you aren’t proposing that human lives are worth nothing but the amount of resources which human beings consume.”

Chapter 3: Nozick’s “Utility Monster”

From the standpoint of classicist utilitarian population-economics – the likes of Thomas Malthus, John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, et cetera – it is to be understood – for the purpose of making socioeconomic calculations – a simple mathematical principle: it is impossible to maximize for two variables at once.

While it is only natural and rational to desire for humanity “the greatest good for the greatest number”, this is simply not possible due to the mathematical principle which I have just explained. That is to say, something must be sacrificed; either some good, some number, or both.

Philosopher Robert Nozick criticized utilitarianism with a thought experiment called “The Utility Monster”. A Utility Monster is a person whom is not subject to the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns, meaning that the amount of utility (or usefulness, happiness, or good) which such a person acquires through the consumption of resources either stays constant or increases as compared to previous acquisitions of utility.

Nozick posits that if there exist such people, then it is most efficient and most just to sacrifice the needs of all others to them, because such people would be able to extract more happiness from the resources given to them, meaning a net increase and a net production of good in the world.

Assume for a moment that the amount of utility acquired through consumption never increases or decreases, but that it instead stays constant. If we were to attempt to implement a system which brings about the greatest good for the greatest number in such a situation; then it would be just as moral to defend an outcome in which tens of billions of people lived on the planet at the bare minimum level of subsistence; as it would be to defend an outcome in which only one person were left alive, controlling all of the wealth and resources existing on the planet; as it would be to defend any other outcome in between.

But does the amount of utility which is acquired through the consumption of resources stay constant? Does it increase? Decrease? Could it be that the amount of utility which is acquired through the consumption of resources varies depending on the person, the time, and the structures of the social systems and economic systems of production?

Chapter 4: Rights Under Scarcity

In any situation in which there is scarcity – be it artificial (as in hoarding) or natural – either some quantity of good or utility must be sacrificed, some quantity of the population must be sacrificed, or some quantity of both must be sacrificed.

Once we accept this principle, the question no longer remains which percentage cut in consumption is more compassionate or reasonable, but which percentage cut is more realistic and likely; more realistic and likely both to be acceptable and to come about.

Assume for a moment that you have an answer to the question which I posed earlier. Assume that you are perfectly well-prepared to answer and defend whether either a 13.4 percent cut should be made in the consumption of the relatively well-off in order to end starvation; or a 6.7 percent cut should be made, causing only nearly half a billion to die instead of nearly a billion.

Putting aside – for a moment – the questions of “Which proposal is more compassionate?” and “Which proposal is more likely to actually go into effect?”, once you can explain why one of these alternatives should be chosen, then how, precisely, do you plan to implement such a proposal? How realistic is the alternative which you have chosen? How much control must be exercised on the populace in order to realize this proposal?

How many would agree that food, water, and clean air are basic human rights?... How many believe that shelter is a basic human right?... Medicine, medical treatment, health care?...

Suppose that thirty people live together, each of them claiming the right to eat three meals a day. That’s a total of ninety meals a day for the household.

Now say that the household’s income is only sufficient to support the procurement and preparation of seventy-eight meals a day. That works out to an average of 2.6 meals per person per day. How may this problem best be remedied?

Do we draw lots in order to choose which twelve members of the household only get to eat two meals on any given day? Do we get everyone in the household to reduce their consumption by an equal amount? How would we accomplish that; do we monitor everyone’s food intake?

Do we recommend that twelve people voluntarily give up a meal each day? What do we do if an insufficient number of people voluntarily give up a meal; do we put into place a back-up plan which allows us to compel people to give up meals if such a situation occurs? Could such a system still be rightfully called a voluntary system?

Put even these questions aside. Never mind how to implement systems, and the moral questions concerning free will; these are red herrings. There remains an important question which we’re avoiding; namely, “What happened to our rights?... If we agree that everyone is entitled to three meals a day, and not everyone gets to eat three meals a day, where did our so-called rights go?”

Chapter 5: Quantity, Quality, and Standards

The simple answer is that the mere fact that we agree on something does not always make it so. That is to say; believing that we have the right to something does not automatically guarantee us that thing.

The complicated answer is that belief in equal rights and equal entitlement under conditions of scarcity inevitably leads to the rationing of resources. That is to say; our rights are very often conditional because they always depend on the realities of the external environment.

This is why there may be politicians who desire to implement laws which guarantee free health care as a right rather than as a privilege, while the effect is the rationing of medical care. This is why we may experience long waiting periods for medical treatment as distributed by national public health systems. This is why societies may claim the right to be inoculated against diseases, while the effect is a population some of whom have not been vaccinated.

Medical treatment, shelter, food, clean air and water, et cetera, it’s all the same: deciding en masse that everybody has the right to some thing does not necessarily make that thing available in sufficient amounts to bring about the distribution of resources which is desired and which is necessary to sustain a population.

Making something free does not necessarily make it available.

And that’s not even taking into account the relationship between quantity and quality under scarcity.

Using the provision of health care services as an example; under scarcity, an attempt to equitably distribute the services which are available inevitably causes any number of combinations of the following problems as experienced by the individual: a decrease in the frequency of treatment, a decrease in the effectiveness and / or quality of treatment and technology, and a decrease in the quantity of treatment and technology,

And that’s not even taking into account the relationship between quantity, quality, and standards thereof under scarcity.

Under scarcity, higher standards in medical technology, safety, and treatment means fewer people who are sufficiently healthy and cared-for. Higher standards in architectural technology and safety means fewer people who are sufficiently sheltered. Higher standards in clean food, water, and air means fewer people who are eating, drinking, and breathing in a way that is safe, healthy, and sufficient.

And so, rationing may not solely occur as a decrease in the quantity of available resources, but it may also occur as a decline in the quality – and / or the standards of quantity and / or quality – of available resources.

The result of this is that – being that quantity, quality, and standards thereof are interdependent (as in the original thought experiment about world hunger) – in situations in which nobody starves, we may witness such a decline in quality taking place as the quality of life and as the degrees of satisfaction and fulfillment decline among those who see their consumption cut.

In summary, where standards of quality are imposed, quantity decreases; where standards of quantity are imposed, quality decreases.

Chapter 6: Economic Tactics

Let’s return to that second thought experiment; the one about the household. You have seventy-eight meals to feed thirty people per day. Undoubtedly, there are many ways this problem may be solved, given a household of such a low population.

But suppose for a moment that seven of these thirty people are obese. Suppose that fourteen of these thirty people have friends who own and maintain considerable stockpiles of weapons. Suppose that – rather than thirty people – your household contains nearly seven billion people. What then?

You could pass laws that penalize hoarding; i.e., the creation of artificial scarcity. You could even decide to push aside the legal and other traditional institutional methods of problem-solving, and simply steal this wealth back (if such action could even rightfully be called stealing).

But how do you ensure that these resources end up in the hands of the people who need them the most, rather than concentrated in the hands of those who expropriated them from the hoarders on behalf of others? Do you only then resolve to institute legalistic methods of monitoring distribution?

How do you ascertain whom is doing the hoarding? Who do you punish? Wealthy benefactors of familial inheritances whose earnings are derived through no actual labor of their own?

Whichever producers you think have thus far been among the least effective in bringing about a timely, efficient, and equitable production and distribution of resources? Farmers, doctors, mortgage lenders; the owners of the hospitals, the agribusinesses, the pharmaceutical plants and research facilities, and the construction companies?

Do you simply declare them to be the hoarders, due to the fact that they have thus far failed to hand over the resources and the management of the means of production to the masses and to the workers in a satisfactorily timely, efficient, and equitable fashion?

And who will manage production, the workers? How can you be certain that the workers will adequately manage production? How can you be certain that management by workers will not lead to the subjugation of an exploited class of better-qualified former managers, their important advice on responsible management beaten, tortured, and deprived out of them on a routine, systematic basis?

Chapter 7: The United States as an Example

With the United States’ debt-to-G.D.P. ratio currently hovering around one hundred percent (about fifteen trillion dollars), with a Major Fiscal Exposure of an additional sixty trillion dollars, with more than forty-three cents out of every dollar in the federal budget being borrowed, and with the deficit currently increasing at a rate of approximately twelve percent per year, the country is clearly on a path to fiscal ruin.

Being that the president could at any moment decide to declare a national fiscal emergency and impose martial law; suspend all federal, state, and municipal government spending; force all citizens to live on whatever savings they may have stored away; and confiscate all funds earned within the country’s borders; the national debt could be paid off in a single year (five years including all Major Fiscal Exposure).

Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore has recently been heard to say that “America is not broke”. Given the facts which I have just stated, he is correct. But he is only correct if one assumes that all of the wealth and resources which are possessed by Americans are really not private property, but rather public property, a certain percentage of which governmental entities deign to permit their subject individuals to keep.

Now, I’ll admit that Moore would like to see military spending cut drastically, an idea with which I strongly agree. I’ll also admit that Moore would like to see individual tax loopholes closed, and – assuming that Statist taxation as a whole is desirable at all – I agree with this notion as well.

But Michael Moore would also like to see the top marginal personal income tax rate increased to upwards of seventy percent (from its current rate of thirty-five percent), and many on the left would like to see the national corporate tax rate increased in order to help solve the budgetary crisis. I – on the other hand – would challenge these notions.

I’ll admit that the top marginal personal income tax rate is lower than it has been on average for the past century, and so, it could obviously stand to be higher. But to address the issue of the national corporate tax rate, the United States currently has the second-highest such rate in the world, second only to Japan by less than half a percentage point. Each of these two countries’ corporate tax rates is just below forty percent.

So what happens if the U.S. raises the corporate tax rate by half a percentage point, to become the country with the highest corporate tax rate in the world? Are we so naïve as so think this will accomplish anything, other than to perhaps allow our debt-to-G.D.P. ratio to eventually increase another hundred twenty-five percent, putting us on par with Japan?

Are we so naïve to think that we should not risk sacrificing some temporary, immediate corporate tax revenues, and decide to lower our corporate tax rate, if even for just long enough a time period so as to incentivize a new wave of domestic capital investment, so that we may later allow the national corporate tax rate to fluctuate naturally, contingent upon the state of our economy as it pertains to prevailing trends in international trade?

Chapter 8: To Whom Belongs Property?

To whom does all the corporate money which is earned within the borders of a given country belong? Does it belong to the people who earn, possess, and defend it? Or is their ownership invalid and illegitimate due to the fact that it was earned through a type of expropriation which was affected through the disproportionate exploitation of and predation upon the corporations’ employees and investors?

If the latter, does that money belong to the workers, and / or to the collective, and / or to the public, and / or to the government, which – often through the use of force and coercion – wield the power and authority to determine what percentage those who claim to have earned it should be permitted to keep of it?

Does the government – as representative of the people as the public and as the masses – have the authority to right wrongs which were perpetrated hundreds of years ago – and, at times, oceans away – by wealthy land-owners, aristocrats, and kings who kicked the peasants off of the communal agricultural plots which were their homes by right of birth, causing them to be driven to the city centers in order to compete for scarce employment, thereby causing the devaluation of such labor?

Should these past socioeconomic conditions – taken as a whole – be ignored as a significant and preponderant factor contributing to the current states of society and of the market?

Certainly such conditions – often so temporally and geographically remote and far-removed from modern American industrial society – can be ignored; may be ignored; but what would that solve, if anything?

Why shouldn’t modern people discover whom are the benefactors of the inheritances bequeathed by such feudal-era land-owners, aristocrats, and kings; and simply kill them; steal the resources which they wrongfully claim as their property; and distribute such resources equitably amongst the poor of the world according to their needs?

Why shouldn’t modern people determine which producers have thus far been among the least effective in bringing about a timely, efficient, and equitable production and distribution of resources; declare them hoarders; kill them; steal their resources; and distribute them amongst the poor?

Chapter 9: Stealing and Sweat-Shops

Certainly there are many among you today whom would maintain that it is not wrong to steal, as long as it is exploitive, consumerist, multinational corporate chain retailers from which you are stealing, rather than from local distributors, small-business entrepreneurs, and mom-and-pop stores, no?

Certainly your god would not punish you for declining to repent for tipping the playing field away from these exploitive chain retailers and towards the poverty-stricken, a class which undoubtedly includes the thousands of foreign nationals toiling away in sweat-shops and making mere dollars per day as well as yourself, no?

But alas, I say to you today that your god will punish you, so repent! Not only repent, but apologize and make right! What playing field are you so self-deluded as to pretend that you are tipping? Don’t you understand that whatever you take from businesses through shoplifting will by no means come out of corporate’s pockets?

C.E.O.s do not lose money when you steal; those losses come out of profits! And what happens when profits decline? Management raises prices, and so your friends and family whom do not steal pay the price! Customers and investors pay the price!

Management passes down these losses to workers, and so sweat-shop workers’ wages decline! Sweat-shops lose jobs! Poor nations’ economies lose income! Poor societies’ economies lose job markets! Under-developed cultures falter!

Are you so blind as to believe that thousands of years of development of humanistic moral philosophy overrides and invalidates that single objective moral principle proscribing coercion? What part of “thou shalt not steal” don’t you understand!? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”; is there not a statement like it in the tenets of nearly every major and minor religion!?

Put yourself in the other man’s shoes. When have you ever worked in a sweat shop? When have you ever earned mere dollars a day? When have you ever had to choose between earning nothing and earning less than is necessary for you to subsist!?

But I say to you now, ignore these questions; and steal! Rob! Take! Take to your heart’s content! Take because it’s there! Take because it’s yours! Take because it was stolen from your ancestors! Take because it was systematically expropriated through exploitation from your far-off, sweat-shop-toiling class-war compatriots!

Steal because it was stolen, and because two wrongs make a right! Steal because you have empathy! Steal because you are cultured! Steal because you are learnéd! Steal… because entitlement is your birth-right, regardless of availability, regardless of natural scarcity, regardless of the efficiency which systems of distribution lack, regardless of the fact that such progress is always ongoing and imperfect, regardless of how value varies over time and from person to person!

Steal, rob, and take; do not repent; and discover all too late whether it will cause you to burn in Hell!

Chapter 10: The Consumerization of Leftism

Now, I don’t need to tell you folks that communism, socialism, and left-wing ethics have become commercialized and consumerized. Hell, we’re all guilty of this; I own more than my fair share of ‘60’s-era classic-rock T-shirts. But no symbol of leftism has become more commercialized than the image of Che Guevara. Clothing, bags, banners, flags, Guevara’s image is everywhere.

Now, how do you think Guevara would feel about his face being plastered in proximity to – and, seemingly, inevitably, in justification of – whatever causes liberals perceive to be remotely left-wing, and for the profit of whatever corporate chain retailers they deem to be the same? Well, that all depends. It depends on how Guevara felt about the exploitation of workers. As I recall, he was against it.

But what is it to exploit? What is it to take advantage? What is it to use?

Certainly one cannot be blamed or faulted for taking advantage of an opportunity, nor for using and exploiting what is available. But using a person? Exploiting a person? Taking advantage of a person? Perish the thoughts!

I’ll ask you again: When have you ever had to choose between making nothing and making almost nothing? Say I put you in that position; say I give you three choices.

Do you make five dollars a day earning your shelter and nourishment? Do you scavenge for food and build your shelter yourself rather than earning any money at all? Or do you decline to choose and be forced to work against your will for the benefit of somebody else?

Unfortunately, this is the state which modern industry and Western globalization have forced upon the non-industrialized and industrializing worlds. The desires for fair and equitable wages and for reasonable minimum standards of living and of income have rendered the collective body of the labor movement that of a shiftless, entitled, self-important, nationalistic, sniveling slug, of which I myself am deeply ashamed and humiliated.

So China, other industrializing countries, and non-industrialized countries have terrible records of human and labor rights abuses. So many sectors of the under-industrialized world cannot afford to pay their workers a wage or an income which is deemed by modern American liberals to be up to reasonable and equitable standards. So many societies do not have free, active, and thriving labor movements.

But does that really merit and justify the boycotting of goods produced in sweat-shops? Does that really merit and justify depriving of profit those companies which contract with sweat-shops, thereby causing those profit-losses to be passed down the chain from management to investors, consumers, and laborers?

Is such an all-or-nothing mentality really tolerable or practical in a rational system of international trade? Should we allow pity of and sympathy for those nations which tolerate lower standards of compensation and conditions to justify the collective punishment of entire foreign markets and of the people who comprise them?

For – make no mistake – this is the very same sentiment which causes the resentment of illegal Mexican and Central-American immigrants for taking American jobs. So is it really sympathy which the labor movement has for foreign workers, or is it mere envy?

      Do we have pity of those who work for those low wages which would be considered illegal by American governments, or do we fear that their toleration of lower standards of compensation and conditions will obligate us to lower our own standards of compensation and conditions in the interest of staying competitive?

Is it reasonable that these foreign workers should tolerate some temporary, immediate sacrifice in exchange for some future benefit which could ultimately prove to be conducive to the economic growth and industrialization of their home countries, to which they often send remittances?

Keeping in mind that quality, quantity, and standards thereof condition one another whenever and wherever there is scarcity, wouldn’t an attempt to impose a higher standard of human and labor rights and conditions in an international trade agreement tend to make it more difficult to keep wages adequate? Wouldn’t an attempt to keep wages adequate tend to make it more difficult to keep human and labor rights and conditions adequate?

Furthermore, who are you to purport to be qualified to even attempt to answer such a question? What do you know about suffering? Are we to take your word for it – because you live in a building with adequate heating and insulation, ventilation, and plumbing; but eat at least one serving of Ramen most days out of the month, poison yourself with drugs and liquor, and cut yourself sometimes – that you are qualified to make judgments about international trade, and to lambast politicians for failing to adequately guarantee you and your sweat-shop-toiling class-war compatriots those temporary and tentative privileges which you errantly believe to be your rights?

Chapter 11: Rights versus Privileges

If people – by virtue of birth – had the right to clean air, clean water, food, shelter, and medical treatment, then they would already have those things, or at least the ability to access them. The only things to which people have rights are those things which they either already have or are able to achieve if and when they attempt to do so.

As long as there is death, life may be a privilege, but it is never a right. As long as there are scarcities, shortages, and inefficiencies in the production and distribution of water, food, medicine, shelter, or whatever else, those things are privileges and not rights.

Although there is artificial scarcity, men do not ultimately lack such resources because of kings or politicians; nor because of the exploitation of land, labor, and capital through rent and the charging of interest; men lack such resources because levels of production fluctuate, and because the development of systems of distribution is still ongoing and struggling to keep up with changes in population, geography, and human needs on the collective and individual levels.

As whether we have the ability and the means to distribute that which is necessary to sustain human survival conditions, subsumes, and may override whether we have the privilege or the right to be provided such resources, might truly does make right. To put it another way, right cannot exist without might; i.e., without ability.

Ability – then – is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of right. That is, might alone does not make right; might and ability are both tentative and conditional, because both the availability of resources and whether a person is willing to attempt to seize the resources may vary. Thus, it is not only might, but willingness and availability in addition to might which together make right.

But rights – as they are perceived in the modern political context – are legalistically-codified promises that access to some resource will be procured. What political rights really are – then – are, in fact, privileges; privileges which may be taken away whenever environmental circumstances limit the distribution of the promised resource.

If something is a privilege, you will be promised that it will be afforded you and distributed to you; if it is a right, you are able not only to attempt to reach out and take it, but also to do so with success. Rights, then, do not require legalistic codification.

Under scarcity, privilege – in ignorance of the independent external environmental circumstances which condition and often limit political institutions’ ability to procure access to some resource – is hindered, decreased, damaged, rendered irrelevant, and effectively destroyed.

Chapter 12: Arendt, Stirner, and Governments

In her 1958 work The Human Condition, socialist philosopher Hannah Arendt differentiates labor, work and action. She describes labor as the tasks which men must undertake in order to procure their own temporary, immediate, personal, private necessities of animal survival, and work as the tasks which men undertake in order to create and to innovate for the greater good of mankind.

Arendt contends that “all the values characteristic of the world of fabrication – permanence, stability, durability… are sacrificed in favor of the values of life, productivity, and abundance.” She believes that the means of mere animal necessity have been subordinated to the public realm, a subordination which she calls “the rise of the social”.

Given the pervasiveness of planned obsolescence, mass production, and industrial farming; the widespread existence of food-stamp and supplemental nutrition assistance programs; and the transformation of the American Social Security system from one which intended to function as a safety net to complement the private savings of those past the age of the average life expectancy into one which is relied upon so as to de-necessitate private savings by individuals retiring well before the age of the average life expectancy; we can plainly see that the public realm has become consumed in and burdened by the need to procure, manage, and distribute the funds and other resources which sustain the lives of low- and middle-income consumers of industrially-manufactured goods alike.

As Hannah Arendt said – in describing action, as it stands in contrast with labor and work – “Men are free… as long as they act… for to be free and to act are the same.”

This statement by Arendt may be thought of as an echo of egoist materialist philosopher Max Stirner, who said, “Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property”. Stirner also said, “If the commune does not do what suits me, I rise against it and defend my property… society gives me what I require – then… I take what I require.”

To paraphrase Stirner, if the commune – or the collective, or society as a whole – claims that it gives each of its members what he needs, then if an individual feels that he is being provided for inadequately, he will take what he feels belongs to him according to his assessment of his own needs.

Stirner also said, “The tiger that assails me is in the right. And I – in striking him down – am also in the right.” Thus, Stirner expresses a belief in the inherent right of every living thing to attempt to sustain itself, even to the detriment of other living things.

This is not to be taken as an endorsement of the “kill-or-be-killed”, “dog-eat-dog” mentality enshrined in such concepts as Social Darwinism, however; it is merely intended as an observation. There is no prescription; only description. There is nothing inherently moralistic about Stirner’s statements.

Under scarcity, it is often true that something must die so that something else may live. No promise or guarantee of right or privilege – no matter how strong, coercive, authoritative, or legitimate the entity making the promise – ever negates that essential fact of life. The only thing that makes a difference is which living things are most consistently able and willing to reach out and take that which sustains them.

Thus, we see that the ability and the willingness to give and to receive resources – as well as scarcity and availability thereof –  conditions both rights and privileges.

But what if the abilities to freely give and to freely receive are infringed upon by some coercive entity? What if there are laws in place limiting the ability of people to feed the poor and homeless? What if the broad interpretation of what constitutes aggressive and menacing panhandling causes an individual to be ticketed for asking his own friend for a cigarette on a public thoroughfare?

What if governments have the ability to levy duplicative taxes on gifts and inheritances, which were already taxed when the money was originally being earned? What if governments have the ability to change the levels of tax breaks on charitable contributions at any time they please, effectively reducing the incentive to give charitably, while a person could already be punished for giving too generously through untaxed means in the first place?

What if governments have the ability to mandate that an individual may not determine for his own subjective purposes and compensation that which he believes to be the rightful product of his labor?

What if governments decide that a man’s labor is worth some certain minimum value, and that he is cheating and competing unfairly if he decides to expend some extra effort as a gesture of kindness to his employer who capitalizes on his labor, and / or to his labor union which extracts from him his dues, and / or to his government which taxes him based on his income and his property value?

What then?

Chapter 13: The Labor Movement

We were all witness to the public-sector labor unions controversy which occurred in Wisconsin’s capital in early 2011; as well as to the vague, half-assed resurgence of the labor movement which accompanied the controversy in the forms of protests and sporadic, minute, insignificant, ineffective general strikes and boycotts.

Undoubtedly, too, some of us were witness to the mindless, automatic, self-deluded yammering amongst wage-laborers expressing solidarity with the teachers and health-care workers upon whose rights were modestly trampled (I, for the record, do not – by any stretch of the imagination – find Noodles & Company to be any figurative form of fascist dictatorship, much less in the strict, literal sense).

But I’ll admit that I do understand why teachers, health-care workers, and wage-laborers do not appreciate being used as political pawns. However, I would contend that such workers are not entirely blameless for that situation.

Before continuing, I’d like to tell a joke: “What do you call someone who doesn’t give a damn whether labor unions have legal rights?... You call them an anarcho-syndicalist.”

If you don’t want to be used as a political pawn in some larger, broader class war, there is a simple solution: stop perceiving your problem as inherently political; i.e., in the formal, institutionalized, legalistic, governmental, Statist sense of how we traditionally conceive of politics.

There was a time in America – a little less than a century ago – when the majority of the labor movement did not have any hope that the government would ever see things their way, nor did they even have a desire that the government take up their causes and enfranchise their struggles.

Regardless of whether the political off-shoots of the early-twentieth-century labor movement were successful – and, to some degree (depending on whom you ask and what their goals were), they were – why should any reasonable member of the modern labor movement expect there to be any further hope of advancing the degree and distribution of workers’ privilege?

Regardless even of this question, why should the modern labor movement trust the same government which passes and enforces any and all laws which restrict the liberty of the individual (be it the liberty to indulge in petty vices or the liberty to feed his fellow human beings), and which rapes, pillages, and destroys foreign nationals and their property around the world only to spend borrowed money rebuilding those sites of destruction when there is plenty of progress in such areas which has yet to be made right here at home to further the goals of organized labor?

Furthermore, how can the modern labor movement morally trust that same government to protect our freedoms, liberties, privileges, rights, and the very bodies in which our souls dwell?

Are we not qualified to protect these freedoms ourselves, or are we merely not willing to do so, preferring instead to delegate our rights to political bodies which claim authority to perform functions which we ourselves are not permitted to do while at the same time claiming that all of their authority is derived from the consent of the governed from whom the authority to perform such functions originate?

Suppose that our nation plummets deeper into debt and fiscal ruin at an even more accelerated rate, and that – to solve the problem – the budgets of most government departments would have to be cut significantly, even in a way that increases personal and localistic liberty (but also responsibility) at the expense of the control of the centralized federal government.

Suppose further that this would require that the privileges of private- and public-sector unions be curtailed slightly in order to temporarily repair the economy so that the markets of the country may eventually rebound and continue to have a future.

Would you desire that the police who remain faithful to the labor unions murder the comptrollers, bureaucrats, politicians, and the police faithful to them – all of whom have a genuine desire to affect a resurgence in market stability in exchange for what they perceive to be a modest and reasonable sacrifice – in the event that such a situation brings about strikes, boycotts, protests, or even riots?

Why must the labor movement be an inherently political one? Why must people lose their liberties and their lives so that the ideals of the labor movement may survive? Is it so lazy and naïve as a movement to entrust a secret band of irresponsible, unaccountable liars, robbers, murderers, and war-profiteers to use manipulation, threats, coercion, and force to do their bidding on their behalves?

Why may the improvement of wages, conditions, and standards of living not be pursued through boycotts, strikes, bargaining, and negotiation without necessitating the involvement of those violent, treasonous goons who constitute such an illegitimate federal government; taking our children away from us if and when we fail to adequately provide them some bogus, bureaucratically-defined, centrally-recommended minimum standards of technologically- and industrially-modernized care and of socially-progressive, dogmatic, indoctrinating education; stealing our money, property, and resources; and leading us into wars haphazardly and without any semblance of legitimacy or justification?

Why should the labor movement trust such a government? Why must anyone who desires that the labor movement become responsible, independent, and mindful of its own claimed rights be tossed by the wayside and dismissed as a member of a discredited fringe element of the right wing?

Must the success of the goals of the labor movement hinge on the viability of the State? Or, could an embrace of capitalism – or, at least, of certain aspects thereof – help secure the improvement of the quality of life, the quality of working conditions, and the adequacy in wages which are so sorely needed in our modern, industrialized society?

Could it be that the labor movement and those desiring the absolute liberty of the individual may actually be conducive to one another’s goals after all? Could it even be that not only can they complement one another, but even that they may act as checks against one another in a manner that could potentially eliminate the need for centralized government in the first place?

Chapter 14: The Division of Labor

      Towards the beginning of this piece, I introduced Robert Nozick’s concept of the “Utility Monster”. As I explained, the Utility Monster is some person or entity which experiences a greater degree of happiness or usefulness the more it consumes.

      Nozick theorized that if such a person or entity existed, it would be most efficient and just to sacrifice the resources possessed by – and the needs of – all others to them, because a Utility Monster would be able to extract more good from such resources, causing a net increase in the amount of good which exists in the world.

      In my treatment of this idea, I suggested that these Utility Monsters do exist, and that the prevalence of their existence in any given society is conditioned by the type of systems of social organization and of economic production which are in place in those societies.

      I contend that such Utility Monsters exist most prevalently and thrive best in those societies which endorse and maintain the most widespread and efficient specialization and division of labor possible and practical.

      Suppose that a stone pyramid needs to be built, each stone weighing some hundreds of tons.

      It is quite obvious that one man – no matter how much time he is given to complete the task – can move even one stone on his own. It is also quite obvious that many men working independently of one another – even if all of them take turns and frequent breaks, and are well-rested, adequately nourished, and in prime physical condition – will also not accomplish the task of moving a single stone.

      However, for those same men to coordinate their operations – i.e., their lifting and pulling – in the most organized, systematized, and maximally-efficient manner feasible, such a task may be accomplished, and with much less difficulty and struggle than if any man or any number of men were to attempt to move the stone or stones independently.

      The lesson of this is simple; coordinated, cooperative, and organized labor efforts bring about a more efficient utilization of resources and resource-wealth.

      But utilization may also be regarded as exploitation. That is; a resource is more efficiently consumed and exploited if and when labor is properly coordinated, and when each component of the divided-labor process is selected based on his specialized ability to perform his task most efficiently and effectively.

     

      The master of the cooperative, coordinated, organized labor effort is the corporation. But it is important to distinguish the corporate entity from the capitalist entity. While they are often one and the same – because a capitalist may often sponsor and finance cooperative corporate labor – a capitalist may also choose to sponsor and finance independent venture-capital projects – including his own – which require no coordination, cooperation, or organization whatsoever.

      Specialization and the division of labor are not strictly capitalist or corporatist concepts; as the only specialization and division of labor which is required for an independent capitalist venture is that which reduces the specialization down to the single atomistic unit which is expending the labor; i.e., the individual worker.

      Therefore, it is not capitalism alone which makes the corporation; but the capitalism which endorses, supports, and finances cooperative, coordinated, organized labor.

Chapter 15: Social-Corporativism

      As capitalism may express itself in either independent or cooperative forms, so too may socialism express itself in either independent or cooperative forms.

      The cooperative expression of socialism is obvious; words like “society”, “public”, “collective”, and “commune” never fail to evoke images of inclusiveness, universality, commonality, and sharing.

      But within certain contexts, such societies may cease to embrace inclusiveness, and instead ensure only the protection of those rights and privileges which are afforded to groups and to the members thereof, often to the detriment of other groups and / or individuals not associating with the societies in question.

      What results is something of a third tier of socialism which rejects both inclusiveness and independence; what results is social-corporatism, or social-corporativism.

      It is an obvious understatement to note that capitalism is not particularly well-known for its affinity towards the under-privileged and less-fortunate. Noted “libertarian conservatives” such as Ayn Rand, John Stossel – as well as Steven Malanga and Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute – have even been known to actively discourage giving charitably to beggars. But libertarians are not the only self-described anti-authoritarians many of whom are guilty of willfully neglecting the poor.

      What was once a network of progressive, open-minded, inclusive, and tolerant Madison co-ops has become an ambivalent, pretentious, two-faced, ivory-tower, armchair-liberal, self-appointed cultural vanguard which dictates the boundaries of the realm of acceptable, politically-correct social mores, excluding individuals based on the level of their deficits in expressing willing enthusiasm to accept and embrace any and all potential tenets of such a cultish system.

      Why, you can’t live at a co-op in Madison unless you’re a vegetarian who’s tried veganism, or have at least considered trying it. Nevermind your ability to pay rent consistently (rent… now, how are you going to have a bunch of social anarchists embracing the practice of the charging of rent?); you can’t live at a co-op in Madison unless you’re ready and able to spout off some rant about what feminism means to you at a moment’s notice at a membership meeting. Exclusion by a group… forget opposition to feminism; exclusion by a group is the true meaning of chauvinism.

      But forget living at a co-op in Madison not being enough of a vegan or a feminist; you can’t even stay at a co-op in Madison if you’re homeless. Not enough of the members know you, and you haven’t yet proven yourself trustworthy given little to no opportunity to do so. Nobody sleeps at a co-op in Madison unless they’ve been introduced to everyone who lives there, and there remain no lingering doubts about their upstanding, good, progressive nature.

      If you intend to live at and pay rent to a co-op, they put you through a membership meeting. In such cases – and even if you only intend to stay there temporarily – they try to make sure you’re introduced to everyone, so that each member may make a judgment about whether he would be comfortable having you live with and around him.

      The co-op has got to make the decision promptly, right? But not everybody happens to be there at that precise moment. So what’s the default position? Everyone votes in agreement with the vote of the house. But there is no house decision, because nobody is willing to stick his neck out and give either an up or down vote.

      Therefore, no unanimity – affirmative or negative – exists. Such lack of unanimity is interpreted as a lack of consensus, and so the majoritarian ambivalence which results is taken to be a universal, resounding vote of “we don’t care, so you’re out; good luck on the street”.

      It is in this way that the cooperative may exclude, neglect, and discriminate against the disadvantaged; those who have already been made members are given preferential treatment over all others. Thus, power, wealth, and social hierarchy entrench themselves, and passive ambivalence causes prolonged detriment to the poor in the name of inclusiveness, universality, community, liberalism, and social progress.

      But terms such as “universality” and “community” are themselves distortions of the idealized anti-discriminatory nature of the public realm. The ideal social paradigm would be inclusive of all people, whereas universality and community connote not total inclusiveness, but the perception of the members of the group as belonging to a single body possessing a oneness, as evident in the “uni-” in “universality”, and in the “unity” in “community”.

      This corporeity which many groups and social organizations possess is the “corporatist” or “corporativist” aspect of social-corporativism. There is no willingness to accept any and all potential members willing to associate themselves with the group. It is in this way that the term “chauvinism” – a word which is typically only used in the context of gender discrimination – has become the normative system of leftist social organization. Chauvinism connotes the tendency of a group to be exclusive, as opposed to inclusive.

      So what is the significance of the fact that socialism and capitalism alike both embrace independent and coordinated socioeconomic organization under various circumstances?

      The significance is that independence – and not cooperative, corporate, organized labor – is the true rival of chauvinistic socialism. Being that the labor unions would not exist were it not for cooperative labor efforts – and being that very little would ever be accomplished in a society which only permitted independent labor efforts – unions and corporations – simply – need one another and rely on each other.

      It is in this way that there is something of an interdependent relationship between corporations and labor unions. This is especially evident considering the fact that corporations and their affiliated labor unions often share interests in preventing the rise of competing unions, and in colluding to compel prospective or recent employees to become members of – and pay exclusive dues to – the predominant, well-established labor union which holds the most clout and has the longest history of dealing successfully with management (and – inevitably – of making essential concessions to it now and again).

      Aside from corporations and labor unions being interdependent on one another, they may also be jointly dependent on government (which is – in turn – dependent on both for revenue). This is especially evident considering the American federal government’s recent simultaneous bailouts of companies which manufacture automobiles and of the United Auto Workers’ union.

      But I digress; it is this interdependence which is distinct from independence; the independence resulting from the “right-to-work” laws – which permit laborers the liberty to choose not to join or pay dues to unions – which such unions abhor; and the independence of workers, unions, and corporations from the constraints imposed by governments which take various forms.

      I submit that perhaps the solution to socioeconomic organization is not to encourage and / or compel independent and / or interdependent social and labor systems, but to permit each system to exist and to largely govern itself – save for the direct action brought about through the free, willful exercise of the prerogatives of consumers – and to permit each to operate without attempting to subjugate those who would choose to associate with one and not the other.

Chapter 16: Against Anarcho-Syncretic Solutions

      While some may be keen on permitting, emphasizing, and encouraging compromise between socioeconomic systems, it appears – being that there is simply no consensus among the various ideologies about whether institutions such as interest, rent, and property are hierarchical, coercive, or morally acceptable – that it will be necessary – as well as most conducive to both individual and group rights – to not only allow but also to recommend independence, autonomy, and self-determination – in other words, segregation – of those who would choose to belong to the various systems of socioeconomic organization.

      Being that no compromise should – or can – be made between those organizational systems (because they have ideological differences with regards to interest, rent, and property), any proposed systems contending that some sort of syncretic system which would combine the best aspects of capitalism and socialism is possible and / or appropriate would – unfortunately – necessitate that some concessions be made by proponents of each idealized socioeconomic system; concessions which could only serve to destroy the idealization of each system involved.

      Rather than to attempt to combine, unite, and syncretize aspects of each system – which would inevitably entail such mutually self-defeating concessions – what we should instead seek is that each system tolerate others, but also tolerate the free choice of individual members to associate with and submit to whichever system they feel appropriate, for whatever time period they feel appropriate to do so.

      This would allow prospective self-governing autarchs, potentially inclusive communes, and both leftist- and rightist-oriented social-corporative institutions to coexist – often separately – in full knowledge of one another’s preferred system of socioeconomic organization, hopefully preventing each from attempting to impose its respective ideology on others.

      It is in this way that socialism and capitalism – properly balanced, self-governing, and guarding against the excesses of one another by way of protection of freedom of association between systems – have the potential to de-necessitate monolithic, centralized governantial organizations.

      Real-world application of this principle would entail the institution of social-libertarian mechanisms which would provide for the upholding of the types of individual liberties – at the very least, those types which would enable freedom of and from association – within any and all governantial systems and bodies caring to declare themselves capable and reputable enough to govern and provide for the prerogatives of whatever given societies or communities which would choose to abide by the execution of their decisions and legislative processes.

      That is, the freedom of and from association must become a province not only of autarchism, egoism, libertarianism, and other similar systems of social organization which are already predisposed towards the protection of such individual liberties, but also of any and all leftist socioeconomic organizational institutions which would care to come into existence.

      Ideally, this would permit only those leftist institutions which are most conducive to and permissive of individual liberty and freedom of association to come to the forefront (in addition to those rightist systems which already embrace such concepts, and – at that, enthusiastically so), and the organizational tenets of such socialist, communalist, and collectivist systems could then be compared and contrasted without requiring people to contend with consideration of the bothersome specter of totalitarian and chauvinistic socialisms.

      The application of this principle to such leftist socioeconomic organizational institutions – to the chagrin of those leftists who would endorse the conditional upholding of individual property and liberties according to the consent of some democratic, representatively-democratic, participatorily-democratic, or otherwise majoritarian social organizations (i.e., the potential entailment of the practice of expropriation) – would not permit communities or regional governments to compel any person or corporate body to exercise their freedoms in a way that is perceived to cause detriment to the members of such communities, unless such persons or corporate bodies have already consented to submit to such governance for a given period of time.

      That is – whenever they do not deign to be subjected to the execution of such communal decisions – persons and corporate bodies would be permitted to travel and to re-locate whenever – and to wherever – they feel it appropriate to evade that which they perceive to be a threat against the exercise of those processes and practices which they feel are their rights (except those practices which are obvious violations of liberty).

      This would necessitate tentative – and, often, temporary – partnerships between regional governantial organizations – and between the members thereof – when such members and organizations deem it appropriate to work together in order to disbar any individuals or corporate entities whose presence they feel causes detriment to the conditions of life and labor which they wish to bring about in the territories (or amongst the associated populaces) over which they practice jurisdiction.

      What I am describing and proposing is essentially confederacy.

      In the context of the already-extant American federal government, while states would have sovereignty and independence from larger federated associations between such states, communities would have sovereignty and independence from the ties between such communities which comprise those states. Furthermore, individuals and corporate entities would have sovereignty and independence from communities.

      But for those who do not lend credence to the legitimacy of American states, the non-Statist conception of confederacy may prove itself useful. The non-Statist conception of confederacy is functionally more or less the same as the Statist conception; all persons, corporate entities, labor unions, and governantial organizations of whatever size, territoriality, or non-territorial association have sovereignty and independence from one another, and are free to form associations, but also to revoke their consent to the proceedings of such associations whenever they feel it necessary (unless they have waived the right to do so for a given period of time).

      All in all, confederacy is a system which respects the liberties of each atomistic unit within the greater association to which it belongs. Practiced correctly, it does not require either slavery or subjugation (as understood by those who embrace individual liberty).

Chapter 17: Austerity and Independence

      Implemented effectively, confederacy is conducive to any and all attempts of constituent persons, corporate entities, and governantial agencies to secede, to gain independence, and to assert sovereignty.

      Confederacy (i.e., freely-instituted independence and isolation) stands in stark contrast to both compulsory independence (i.e., coerced isolation) and compulsory interdependence (i.e., federation and globalization), while at the same time permitting freely-instituted interdependence.

      A discussion of compulsory interdependence and of its causes and enforcers is essential now, during a time when social-corporativistic institutions are attempting to consolidate their powers and abilities to impose austerity measures on the governments and banks of indebted nations, and to tether the least indebted nations to the most through the redistribution of debt.

      When the imposition of such austerity occurs, it is not always a cop-out or a lending of credence or of legitimacy to the forces which have caused the pertinent crises and have socialized the resulting losses to the public to become austere; on the contrary, it undoubtedly proves beneficial to the members of the public to impose austerity upon themselves; i.e., to save and to spend wisely, and to make sacrifices and to conserve.

      The goal of the promotion, encouragement, and recommendation of the free institution and instatement of independence is that coercive governments and predatory lenders will not have to be relied upon – and that the most efficient governantial agencies and systems of production will come to the forefront – in the future.

      The hope is that this would permit at least a temporary trend in experimentation in governantial administration and socioeconomic production, for at least a time period long enough for an attentive public to determine which governantial and production systems are most beneficial for themselves, and that less-successful systems may seek to emulate such systems.

      The right to free association between systems agreeing with one another against the main current of governantial and economic institutional trends – however – would not be infringed upon, nor would the right to free debate and free choice between such associations.

Chapter 18: Trade or War?

      When two countries do not trade with one another, they will inevitably be engaged in either a state of war, or a state of cold war and of hostility.

      Applied to the realm of interpersonal associations, this principle dictates that both of two parties to exchange – whether they are engaging in a transaction involving the exchange of labor for wages, or in a simple market transaction involving the exchange of goods for services – will tend to be apprehensive about one another’s desires and values.

      When laborer and employer freely contract with one another, each may become aware that the values of each of them are subjective; that is, the laborer values his potential employer’s money more than he values his own labor, while the employer values his potential laborer’s labor more than he values his own money.

      Extrapolated and applied to the relationship of parties to simple market exchanges, the seller values his buyer’s money more than he values his own goods and / or services, while the buyer values his seller’s goods and / or services more than he values his own money.

      Once one of the parties becomes aware that the other party believes himself to be in a position of benefit (or advantage), he may conclude that he himself must be in a position of detriment (being taken advantage of). But he may fail to take account of his own subjective desires, i.e., that he would likely attempt to take self-perceived advantage of the other party were the opportunity presented to him (and indeed it is presented to him whenever an employment interview – or an offer to purchase some good or service – takes place).

      That is, the desire for maximum efficiency dictates that it is the goal of the laborer to procure for himself the highest wage and the best conditions, while it is the goal of the employer to obtain the highest profit and the poorest conditions acceptable to potential laborers. Likewise, it is the goal of the buyer to procure for himself the lowest price, while it is the goal of the seller to procure for himself the highest profit. Each buyer, seller, laborer, and employer has his own self-interest at heart and in mind; therefore, none may accuse another of attempting to take advantage any more than himself.

      It is the duty and the province of each party to labor and market exchanges to simply choose for his own purposes whether mutual aid, mutual harm, unilateral benefit, or unilateral detriment is occurring. To assume that the other party is trying to harm and cause detriment is an act of apprehension on the part of whichever party would care to make such an accusation; to do so neglects the possibility of mutual aid based on the subjective values of each party involved.

      But to ignore this apprehension and to proceed with the contract or exchange is an act of good faith; it is an act of charity in which at least one party ceases to concern himself with extracting a profit from the agreement, and resigns himself to rejoicing in the opportunity to help and to serve another human being.

      It is in this cessation to attempt to procure the furthering of one’s self-interest in exchange for being perceived as fair and reasonable and as desiring of mutual aid that one sacrifices.

      It is in this act of freely-self-imposed charitable sacrifice that we waive our right to dwell on the past, and to lend import to the history of the systematic exploitation of the feudal-era serfs; we consent to live in the present, to serve our own self-interest, and to acquire property, property which is never required to be used by us in order to serve solely our own interests in the future.

      It is this freely-imposed charitable sacrifice which is the key to both our personal salvation and our socioeconomic crises.

Chapter 19: Asceticism and Sacrifice (Conclusion)

      Crucial to the discussion of political, social, and economic sacrifice is the role of clerical (i.e., religious) sacrifice, and that of asceticism.

      Religions such as Catholicism and Hinduism urge that members willingly deprive themselves of and deny themselves indulgence in material temptations. This is evident in Christian self-flagellation and mortification of the flesh, and in the holiday of Lent; in both of which such self-deprivation and self-denial are exercised in order to teach oneself to identify with the suffering of Christ. Such actions may additionally be purported to serve as an act conducive to self-identification with the poor and with those suffering.

      It is this tenet of various religions – self-imposed sacrifice, self-denial, and self-deprivation – which – in addition to charitable giving – are – as I stated previously – the key to both our individual salvation and socioeconomic crises.

      To paraphrase and summarize the conclusions of socialist philosopher Hannah Arendt, men are slaves to their own desires and needs. The Buddha would likely agree. Naturally, the solution to this problem is for men to freely resolve to moderate their own desires, and to fight and to give in to their urges and temptations to whatever degree and in whatever sequence they believe to be most conducive to making most efficient and practical their consumption and production.

      To further paraphrase and summarize Arendt, the enslavement of men to the administration of laws and to the execution of the functions of governance – and to socioeconomic systems of production – is trivial as compared to the enslavement of men to their own desires and needs.

      It is for this reason that we must relegate the import which we lend to the exploitive tendencies of governments and of socioeconomic systems of production to the realm of relative insignificance in our own minds and hearts, and replace them as our primary concern with the exploitive tendencies of temptation, and of desires which we perceive as necessities.

      The natural extrapolation of this clerical or religious principle to the socioeconomic and political realms is that we as individuals must – more often than not – accustom ourselves with putting up with temporary and moderate socioeconomic and political injustices and denials for our own actual – as opposed to perceived – benefit, so that we may eventually use the utility which we extract from what little we manage to gain in the process in order to help others and to encourage others to emulate whatever governantial institutions and socioeconomic systems of production which we find it in our best interest to practice.

      This is not to say – however – that such endurance of injustices, denials, and inconveniences should be imposed or enforced by external forces.

      Socioeconomic conservatism and the tendencies to oppose social welfare are like religious asceticism in that they purport to attempt to teach the poor to endure their own suffering. However, these tendencies – as well as liberalism, which, from time to time, embraces the same principles – often ignore the role of religion, which is to encourage private charity additionally, and as a complement to the accustomization to endurance.

      Instead, conservatism and liberalism at times embrace charitable giving through the coerced extraction of taxes. Such a system relieves the taxpayers’ burden of having to bother to contemplate how to act morally of their own volition, instead delegating the duty of determining morality to government and to the institutionalized mediocrity resulting from the decision-making of the majoritarian will.

      This is a perversion of consequentialist morality. As in the statements of the priest regarding the programming of the Alex character in A Clockwork Orange against his own violent tendencies, not being able to do evil does not make us good, so long as we still wish to do evil.

      I see political, social, economic, and clerical systems which place emphasis on the role of charity and other giving as exercised by parties to free and voluntary exchanges within the private sphere as inherently more moral than those which do not.

      To paraphrase Rabbi Eleazar, the only form of giving which is more holy than anonymous giving to anonymous recipients is to take a man off the street, provide for his most urgent needs, give him a job, and teach him to provide for himself. While the Lord does indeed help those who help themselves, the Lord punishes none for helping others.

Mother Teresa said, “I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.”

In the context of this statement, I asked, “How – if at all – does the suffering of the poor help the world?” and “Is it beneficial for mankind to teach the world’s poor to bear, endure, and tolerate their own suffering?”

I conclude that it is indeed beneficial for mankind to teach the world’s poor to bear, endure, and tolerate their own suffering, and that it is indeed very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot.

This is not to say – however – that it is not very beautiful for the rich to bear, endure, and tolerate suffering.

Can that statement be used to justify expropriation from the most advantaged? Of course it can.

But should it?

To quote George Harrison, “It’s all up to what you value in your motorcar; it all rests on what it’s cost you getting where you are”.

To quote Napoleon, “Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich”.

So either get religion, or get your machete.

For more entries on philosophy, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/aristotles-criticisms-of-platos-form-of.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/aristotle-and-rousseau-on-natural.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/platonic-forms.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/socratess-defense.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/04/materialism-stirner-vs-marx.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-history-of-western-philosophy-in.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-squirrel-and-acorn.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/political-theory-flow-chart.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/max-stirner-images.html

For more entries on theory of government, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/aristotle-and-rousseau-on-natural.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/thrasymachus-support-for-justice-being.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-is-social-libertarianism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-konkin-schulman-bastiat-and-agorism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/04/materialism-stirner-vs-marx.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/04/feudalism-and-class-war.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-scott-walker-and-government-secrecy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/03/defense-policy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/03/political-compound.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/10/two-competing-class-theories.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/11/on-market-anarchism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/02/agorism-and-mutualism-summaries-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/03/market-panarchy-without-adjectives.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/03/market-anarchism-economists-vs.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/08/anarchist-kindergarten-open-letter-to.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/10/map-of-contiguous-united-states-in.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/12/nonapartism-in-social-market-economy.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/twenty-five-reasons-why-political.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/monopoly-and-property-rights.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/01/statism-to-anarchy-staircase-model.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/02/political-theory-flow-chart.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/03/illustration-of-lange-model.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/03/how-partisans-in-us-federal-government.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-philosophy-of-taxation-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/conservatives-for-georgism-and-social.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/viewing-legislation-through-economic.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/why-i-am-not-liberal.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/military-industrial-socialism-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/general-philosophy-on-government-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/on-social-corporatism-and-tripartism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/what-is-political-radicalism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/questions-about-ayn-rand.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/using-profit-incentive-to-promote.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/thoughts-on-statism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/alliance-against-tripartism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/john-locke-roderick-long-and-voluntary.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/summary-of-my-political-views.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/economic-policy-for-2012-us-house.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/social-policies-for-2012-us-house.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/response-to-campaign-for-liberty.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/agorist-protection-agencies-and.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-proper-role-of-government.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-general-welfare-clause.html

For more entries on free trade, fair trade, the balance of trade, and protectionism, please visit:

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2010/10/bastiats-chrematistic-reductio.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/03/911-heres-what-i-think-happened.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/10/comparative-economics.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/08/panarchist-welfare-economics.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2012/11/new-institutional-economics.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2013/10/map-of-contiguous-united-states-in.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/labor-protectionism.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/04/economic-policy-for-2012-us-house.html

http://www.aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2014/05/foreign-trade-agreements.html