I've been asked what economic "system" do I believe in. Is it "capitalism" or "socialism" or some other such mental contraption? I must say that I do not disbelieve or believe in anything called an "economic system." I don't begin or end with such "ideas" as these,even if I were completely aware of what they meant or certain whether others using the terms meant them in exactly the way I might think of them at a given moment.
I begin at the beginning,with the fundamental Nature of (Wo)Man. Humans are thinking beings,social beings, and spiritual beings all at the same time. Therefore, we must be free to think,we must be free to live with one another in peace and with whom we choose or not choose,and we must be free to exercise our capacity as partially non-corporeal beings, meaning that our needs and desires are not purely or even primarily material or economic.
And so we see that Man does not live,in the first instance, within an economic "system." She lives within her Nature as a human being. It is only in the expression of that Nature that we create "systems." These include the economic of course. They also include the spiritual, the legal,the political, the recreational and a whole host of other systems that I cannot think of and would not presume to think of for others.
The political system we create,what we usually call a government, is simply another one of these systems that is created in response to our nature as human beings. However, it must be said that the political systems and the economic systems we create are closely tied to one another as the former must fund the latter and the latter must in some way be legally sanctioned in such a way as to avoid a kind of anarchy that would make the maintenance of any kind of economy virtually impossible.
Viewed from this perspective then, we see that the governmental "system" and the economic "system" do not stand OUTSIDE of the society of humans and their nature but firmly within that society and expressive of the common nature of the beings within it. In other words, from my perspective, I do not BEGIN by saying that I want to impose a certain political or economic system on a particular group of human beings or God forbid on humanity in its entirety. No. This is the meaning of the Declaration when it says that "governments are derived among men", and gain their just powers from them. We might say our "systems" are not our creator. The Creator is our creator and WE create, as expressions of our humanity, the "systems" that we believe best facilitate that expression.
So, to return to the beginning, what "economic system" do I believe in? I do not believe that the economy is a system. The economy is an organic interaction of human beings. People, as human beings, are social. We want to live among each other. We are lost without each other. This means that part of the way we interact with each other is to fulfill each others economic needs. We buy from one another, we sell to each other, we trade with one another, we barter, haggle, negotiate, finagle with one another, sometimes, yes, we steal from one another. The common way people throughout history have done all these things, for better or worse, (and yes sometimes it is worse), is to set up what we call "markets" where people can come together in all sorts of capacities and venues to interact with each other in an economic way. This is not to say, as I said above, that there is a complete separation between the political "system" and the economic "system". They must interact with each other, for the reasons that all humans must interact with each other and because of the special link between government and economics. This is not even to say that something called "Capitalism" whatever that has come to mean as a "system" of economics is good or bad. After all, we must admit that any maintenance of a "Capitalist System" at time requires a strong government. It is to say, however, that any suppression of the activity that occurs within a market by the political "system" is, in general, a suppression of some aspect of human nature. One might say at times this is a good thing and no doubt, at times, you'd be correct. But make no mistake this suppression will be resisted as a matter of course. And if the suppression goes too far and circumscribes Justice, it risks becoming a tyranny and suppressing the very Nature of BOTH our politics AND our economics it ought to be fostering.
We might say that we begin again with Human Nature. Our minds, our relationships, and our being(spirit) all constitute this Nature. All of our systems are simply our ways of expressing these fundamental aspects of ourselves. From my perspective, any "system" that tries to impose itself into this nature, whether called Capitalist, Socialist or Communist and takes it not into account but attempts to take it into its sway, is pernicious, destructive, and doomed to fail.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Monday, August 13, 2012
The American Revolution as an Advancement of Empire
It can be asserted, one may submit, that the American Revolution was fought in defense of the idea of an ever expansive British Empire of Liberty. This idea was simply continued after independence as the idea and reality of an American Empire of Liberty.
The English Parliament never had the universal conception of the British Empire that the Americans, especially Ben Franklin, had. Some of the anti-Monarchical Whigs had such a conception. However, the Whigs were not powerful enough politically in the late 18th-century as to be able to change the nature of the Empire.
The majority of the English parliament was still Tory and in favor of a monarchical, centralized idea of an empire administered from the Parliament in London on behalf of the King.
The English Parliament never had the universal conception of the British Empire that the Americans, especially Ben Franklin, had. Some of the anti-Monarchical Whigs had such a conception. However, the Whigs were not powerful enough politically in the late 18th-century as to be able to change the nature of the Empire.
The majority of the English parliament was still Tory and in favor of a monarchical, centralized idea of an empire administered from the Parliament in London on behalf of the King.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Ben Franklin to the Constitutional Convention
The more I learn about Franklin, the more I know that his wisdom and genius and a better understanding of them are a small key to maintaining the fraying tapestry of our Union. He has a beautiful, brilliant, elegant, and lovely mind. I love him like a brother. His writings are intoxicating for those of you of any political persuasion. All humans can benefit from reading his Autobiography. It is the tale of a solitary soul imbibing the world with the fire of his overwhelming curiosity. It shows that a life of "book learning" or "hands on learning" are not opposed to one another but essential in their combination to nourish the soul and create that inner light that, when combined with a generous spirit, can illuminate the world, quite literally in the case of Dr. Franklin.
Here is Franklin's Speech to the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787. He was a man of 81 years at this point and could hardly get enough breath to speak, but his mind was alight with wisdom, courage and patriotism.
Here is Franklin's Speech to the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787. He was a man of 81 years at this point and could hardly get enough breath to speak, but his mind was alight with wisdom, courage and patriotism.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Romney Rice 2012??
I can't imagine why Mitt Romney would be seriously considering Condi Rice to be his running mate. It makes no sense politically. It is nonsense in terms of practical government if Romney happens to be elected.
On a political level, Rice has no constituency whatsoever. She is an academic and is very intelligent. However, she has no base of support which will automatically flow into the Romney column by his choice of her. Her race, let's be blunt, is probably at least one thing Romney is considering as an attribute in order to counter Obama's significant and probably growing lead among all racial groups other than whites. But even on the crude racial level, the choice makes no sense. African-Americans, generally, have a distaste for Rice. They, to a large extent, view her as an opportunist who is used by whites as a black-face to put into a white administration. She will be viewed this way even more so while running as vice-President. Whites tend to distrust Rice because she conjures up memories of the W. Bush administration, by definition bad for Romney.
On another political level, Rice is viewed as extremely liberal by Conservatives, especially on social issues. She will be viewed as an opportunist pick to "make the minorities happy" and it will further racialize this election which is exactly Obama's goal. The more the election is about race the better for Obama. The residual pride in the election of an African-American President in 2008 still lingers and is flamed up again when race becomes an issue. The choice of Condi will simply keep the election's focus on race, something Romney needs to avoid.
On a practical governing level, all of Rice's experience is in foreign policy in a moment where the economy is in a state of slow train wreck, and becoming faster. Romney, if elected, will need all the help he can receive in order to solve economic problems and a Vice-President that has all the attributes of a Secretary of State does not necessarily help in that area.
I can only conclude that the Condi Rice moment is just a moment. It is a story put out by the Romney campaign to gauge the reaction of the Public and of Conservatives to a Rice ticket. I can't imagine Romney will actually choose her. I expect other people to have their moment as "trial balloons" before this long process is over.
On a political level, Rice has no constituency whatsoever. She is an academic and is very intelligent. However, she has no base of support which will automatically flow into the Romney column by his choice of her. Her race, let's be blunt, is probably at least one thing Romney is considering as an attribute in order to counter Obama's significant and probably growing lead among all racial groups other than whites. But even on the crude racial level, the choice makes no sense. African-Americans, generally, have a distaste for Rice. They, to a large extent, view her as an opportunist who is used by whites as a black-face to put into a white administration. She will be viewed this way even more so while running as vice-President. Whites tend to distrust Rice because she conjures up memories of the W. Bush administration, by definition bad for Romney.
On another political level, Rice is viewed as extremely liberal by Conservatives, especially on social issues. She will be viewed as an opportunist pick to "make the minorities happy" and it will further racialize this election which is exactly Obama's goal. The more the election is about race the better for Obama. The residual pride in the election of an African-American President in 2008 still lingers and is flamed up again when race becomes an issue. The choice of Condi will simply keep the election's focus on race, something Romney needs to avoid.
On a practical governing level, all of Rice's experience is in foreign policy in a moment where the economy is in a state of slow train wreck, and becoming faster. Romney, if elected, will need all the help he can receive in order to solve economic problems and a Vice-President that has all the attributes of a Secretary of State does not necessarily help in that area.
I can only conclude that the Condi Rice moment is just a moment. It is a story put out by the Romney campaign to gauge the reaction of the Public and of Conservatives to a Rice ticket. I can't imagine Romney will actually choose her. I expect other people to have their moment as "trial balloons" before this long process is over.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Some Business and Ben Franklin
Unbelievably this blog is linked to on an actual rather popular blog run by a rather popular MSNBC "talking head" and thegrio.com journalist and I've been negligent in my thanks. My views tend to be about 180 degrees away from my former interlocutor and "rival" but I thank her for the link especially in this year where it is easier to view our political differences as unbridgeable chasms. The wonderful blog is reidreport.com So, thanks again Joy.
My internal demographics for this blog tell me I have around 5,500 views. That is not a lot considering, however it is quite a few considering the random and deleterious nature of my postings. I fancy that most of the views are readers of the reid report clicking on my site by accident and seeing the politically heretical nature of my opinions recoiling in horror and returning to the decidedly left-leaning views of their favorite amateur turned professional pundit. :) (Oddly, about a third of the views come from Russia, so to my Russian readers, I'm re-reading my War and Peace and starting in on Anna Karenina so brace yourselves for some GREAT reviews!! Tolstoy is the friggin' BOLSHOI!!:) And to any FSB "friends" reading this:stop wasting your time and go blow up some more apartment buildings to blame on Chechens!!
As an aside, I am finishing up the wonderful Charles Van Doren 1939 Benjamin Franklin biography. It won the Pulitzer Prize that year. It is beautifully written using many of Franklin's exquisite letters to give a real sense of this patient,patriotic,stoic,genius,eclectic,wonderful and wise First American. Franklin's diplomatic engineering of Parliament's repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766 was a lesson in the art of using peacefully persuasive leverage upon a rival in order to patiently and pacifically achieve the interests of one's nation. I can only vainly hope that we modern Americans will study and remember that first great peaceful victory where we united as a nation to boycott British goods until the repeal of the Stamp Act. It is important to remember, perhaps as much for this country as any, that not all "victories" must be bathed in the blood of the innocents.
So, as always, I say remember American history and remember the peaceful victory of 1766 where Franklin cultivated friendships in the very bowels of our future enemy and helped unify our country for peaceful and noble ends: the defense of our ancient Liberties brought down to us by the very nation trying to abrogate them.
My internal demographics for this blog tell me I have around 5,500 views. That is not a lot considering, however it is quite a few considering the random and deleterious nature of my postings. I fancy that most of the views are readers of the reid report clicking on my site by accident and seeing the politically heretical nature of my opinions recoiling in horror and returning to the decidedly left-leaning views of their favorite amateur turned professional pundit. :) (Oddly, about a third of the views come from Russia, so to my Russian readers, I'm re-reading my War and Peace and starting in on Anna Karenina so brace yourselves for some GREAT reviews!! Tolstoy is the friggin' BOLSHOI!!:) And to any FSB "friends" reading this:stop wasting your time and go blow up some more apartment buildings to blame on Chechens!!
As an aside, I am finishing up the wonderful Charles Van Doren 1939 Benjamin Franklin biography. It won the Pulitzer Prize that year. It is beautifully written using many of Franklin's exquisite letters to give a real sense of this patient,patriotic,stoic,genius,eclectic,wonderful and wise First American. Franklin's diplomatic engineering of Parliament's repeal of the Stamp Act in 1766 was a lesson in the art of using peacefully persuasive leverage upon a rival in order to patiently and pacifically achieve the interests of one's nation. I can only vainly hope that we modern Americans will study and remember that first great peaceful victory where we united as a nation to boycott British goods until the repeal of the Stamp Act. It is important to remember, perhaps as much for this country as any, that not all "victories" must be bathed in the blood of the innocents.
So, as always, I say remember American history and remember the peaceful victory of 1766 where Franklin cultivated friendships in the very bowels of our future enemy and helped unify our country for peaceful and noble ends: the defense of our ancient Liberties brought down to us by the very nation trying to abrogate them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)