When, and Why?

It is quite certain, that before any human being specialized in administering justice, there was already a shared view of what justice was.Before there was government there was law.
However counter-intuitive this concept may seem to any one who has never lived without a government,it is inherit in both in our understanding of law, and, in the United States of America, in our understanding of government.
The statement might seem less unusual if phrased differently:
"Before there was government, there was right and wrong."
The book of Genesis tells us that after the Flood, God gave us a law.Among the commandments found in Genesis 9:1-7 , one is distinguished from the others by being given to men to enforce on other men.
"He who sheds man's blood,by man shall his blood be shed."
As there is not, for instance, a similar injunction to men to enforce the commandment to be fruitful and multiply,this may be reasonably reckoned the first law.
More secular explanations exist for the origin of this first principle of cooperative living.
"It was realized centuries ago that it is impossible for a man to protect himself against murder, because it's extremely easy to kill a man, so it was agreed that men should protect each other."
-Rex Stout, via the incomparable Nero Wolfe, TOO MANY COOKS, 1938
People agreed- if one does this, that must be done to him.When ever human beings decide to live in proximity to one another, we must always find a way to answer the question, ''How ought we to order our lives together?'', or, put differently,"When shall we use force against one of our number, and why?" This is the whole, and the only, question of law.

What Is Good For The Country?

"...for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors and vice versa. The difference did not exist. Our company is too big. It goes with the welfare of the country."-Charles E. Wilson('Engine Charlie'),15 January,1953.


Reuters reported today that George Richard Wagoner,jr.,president and chief executive officer of General Motors Corporation,resigned "under pressure from the Obama administration".
The continuing government intervention in private American businesses grows invasive, as the current President of the United States, a constitutional law professor, discovers that his office now has the power to appoint,and secure the resignation of, the executives of said businesses, in exchange for loans made from the Treasury.
The ultimate end of this policy is to place these failing businesses under the firm control of organs of the American government.This, in turn, is justified by the position that the relevant companies are failing because of the incompetence of their most senior management,who,consequently, should be punished for their failures,by being denied continued leadership. The veracity of the belief that popularly elected government officials will prove better qualified in this role has not been critically examined and is not immediately apparent to this author.

"But apart from this contemporary mood, the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil."
-John Maynard Keynes, THE GENERAL THEORY OF EMPLOYMENT, INTEREST AND MONEY,1936.

Two Things In Life

" Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."

While the constitution expressly assigns the protections and rights of citizens to those born within our boarders, it is silent on the rights of the unborn, and within this ambiguity, debate has proceeded without interruption for decades.
Recently, two issues have entered our public debate that, on critical examination, reveal themselves to be of a different nature than that which their proponents assign them.
Firstly, we read that our chief executive has reversed previous rules regarding the use of government funds for research involving genetically human test subjects.While the moral questions involved in the artificial creation of a lifeform of human heritage that is not human under the law have yet to be resolved within that law, the issue of government funding for this controversial research should be much simpler.
Properly phrased the question is not," Shall we permit these experiments to take place?"
No law banning these experiments was under discussion.Forgoing congressional input, in the same fashion as his predecessor, the President undertook to answer a very different question :
" Shall we in power today force those of our countrymen who disagree with us to participate in funding this research?"
His answer was yes.
We also find that the administration is "inviting" public comment on another question of policy involving an opinion about the nature of human life. At issue is whether medical professionals are permitted to disagree with the President about the morality of performing abortions.As above, no one is questioning whether or not a woman may choose to have an abortion performed. Instead, we are being asked if someone else should be punished for refusing to help her.
At issue in both of these cases is the moral use of government resources.To answer such a question we need only remind ourselves where those resources come from.
They come from us.Every time we, as a people, choose to spend public money, we are choosing to coerce the cooperation of the tax paying public.
The present author is hardly the first to point out that the use of government power is nothing more or less than the use of force. It is point that he might perhaps be justly accused of stressing at some length.If it is certain that we must have a government, and that it must levy taxes, then we must undertake to see that those taxes, once collected, are used in a manner that their collection, by force of arms,justifies.As another author has written,"If you don't pay your taxes...you'll be jailed.If you try escape from jail, you'll be shot."
Without any input from Congress, the President of United States has declared two important issues,involving the consciences of millions of Americans, settled.
The reader is invited to review the previous entry, on the subject of Tyranny.

Our Lives Together

In any contentious debate, it is always worth the time to review the principles which underlay the contested subject matter.This is particularly true when the stakes are raised beyond mere academic pride, as is the case when decisions are to made based on the conclusions of the debate. Clarity of thought and speech becomes especially vital when the goals of debaters do not require agreement or consensus, but rather, a majority of the parties involved will be able to enforce cooperation on those descenting.
These conditions describe every debate, of every parliamentary body in the world.For this reason,wherever majority rules, debate ought be clear,concise, and thorough.
It is in this light that we ought judge the bills currently being debated in our own Congress, and those likely to be introduced in the future by individuals currently wielding great influence in that body.
Our own first principles,then:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Tyranny is intrinsically evil.Taking what does belong to you is inherently wrong.Interfering with the free exercise of another's conscience, for reasons other than the preservation of Life, or Liberty, is Tyranny.
These principles were cited as sufficient reason for the formation of our nation as a sovereign state, separate from Great Britain,and it is these most basic of agreed upon principles which are central to The United States of America's answer to Aristotle's famous political question: "How ought we to order our lives together?"It is in the light of these Great Truths, which all of us hold in common,that current and proposed legislative priorities should be judged.
It is,in fact,an inherent affront,both to our nation's founders, and to our current population,when our legislators choose to pursue their policies without first examining the worth of such in this sacred light of history.A free people may rightly regard those who desire to force quick, and possibly irrevocable decisions, and to support these decisions with the collective might of that people's democratic government, as dangerous and unstable personalities who ought not be charged with public service.It is a lesson that those personalities now in power should learn from the election of November last, when that judgement was entered against their predecessors.

Mine

For many years now, The United States of America,and much of the world, has enjoyed a "boom market" in our economy.This market has been characterized by unexplained and unexamined increases in the prices of almost every conceivable investment , from real estate to stock.
Recently, we have been reminded that " boom market" was originally a term used in conjunction with "bust".As in "Boom and Bust". What is happening?
The current apparent shortage of liquidity has nothing to do with the actual work in, or the value of items on, the market.Rather, it is a shortage of the credit on which this market has come to rely.
Credit occurs, as everyone knows, when someone who has capital ( money), loans it to someone else for a period of time, expecting to receive it back again, with compensation for its use.A good loan,then, is is a loan that is likely to be paid back in a reasonable period of time with sufficient interest to compensate the lender for the use of his money during the interim.Such loans are typically of a type that can be called "productive", that is , the person borrowing the money uses it to finance a business, and the loan is repaid out of the profit.Other kinds of loans- to buy something which the borrower can not afford- and which are not productive,are comparatively riskier, and less likely to be paid back.Indeed, the interest on such loans is called usury,and its collection forbidden, by many religious faiths.

"For even as a man going into a far country called his servants and delivered to him his goods;
And to one he gave five talents, and to other two, and to another one, to every one according to his proper ability: and immediately he took his journey.
And he that had received the five talents went his way and traded with the same and gained other five.
And in like manner he that had received the two gained other two.
But he that had received the one, going his way, digged into the earth and hid his lord's money.
But after a long time the lord of those servants came and reckoned with them.
And he that had received the five talents coming brought other five talents, saying: Lord, thou didst deliver to me five talents. Behold I have gained other five over and above.
His lord said to him : Well done, good and faithful servant, because hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things.Enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
And he also that had received the two talents came and said : Lord, thou deliveredst two talents to me. Behold I have gained other two.
His lord said to him : Well done thou good and faithful servant :because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things. Enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
But he that had received the one talent came and said : Lord, I know that thou art a hard man ; thou reapest where thou hast not sown and gatherest where thou hast not strewed.
And being afraid, I went and hid thy talent in the earth.Behold here thou hast that which is thine.
And his lord answering, said to him : Wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sow not and gather where I have not strewed.
Thou oughtest therefor to have committed my money to the bankers : and at my coming I should have received my own with usury.
Take ye away therefor the talent from him and give it him that hath ten talents.

'Due diligence' is the term applied, under the law, to the responsibility that a person, who is lending someone else's money, has to ensure that the loan will be paid back.In days gone by, this involved inspecting the assets and business plans of borrowers.During our recent "boom" , however, it has become common to loan money to people who had no obvious plan to multiply these investments prior to repaying them.Worse, these loans were derived from so-called "financial institutions" , who were loaning out money which belonged to people whom the institutions, in turn, had promised high interest rates while pledging not to risk this money in speculative ventures.Of course, any interest rate significantly above the rate of inflation can only be achieved by speculation which necessarily involves risk.To believe differently is delusional-It is unreasonable to expect that one will be able to grow one's wealth without risking it in a productive business.This fantasy is as alien to the dignity and sensibilities of a free people as the previously discussed desire to receive one's essentials from a benevolent monarchy.

What is happening then, is not a failure of our free market economy, but a collapse of the credit market, two very different things.This, in turn, is the natural, and inevitable, consequence of the unethical, predatory and amoral business practices of our much beloved "boom market".
Those businesses which are founded on selling their wares to customers who can not afford them will fail.Similarly,those that rely on revolving credit- credit which is never actually paid back- for their basic operations, will also be forced to close. This is thought remarkable,only because it has been so long in coming. Now that the day of reckoning is at hand, the chaff will be separated from the wheat, and no power on earth can long prevent it.Nor should any try.

Electing Santa Clause

It is no mistake that our elections in the United States come in the fall.Once upon a time this was the harvest season, the time to pack all of one's accumulated wealth indoors before the big,bad Winter set in.

Then, some time between St.Nicholas Day on Dec.6th, and Three King's Day, or Epiphany, on the 6th of January,( with The Feast of The Nativity on the first day of Christmas, December 25th, being the date the majority of us have experience with) everyone could get together for a celebratory, gift giving occasion.Winter was a time for social gatherings, a time when not much work could be accomplished, and travel was relatively hard.

Gifts were exchanged freely and, often, the wealthier members of a community could use this custom to supply the needs of those less fortunate than themselves, without subjecting the recipients of such gifts to the opprobrium of receiving charity. The middle of winter was excellent time for such neighbourliness.
This excellent custom, very suitable for a free people, seems to have degenerated somewhat in modern times.
Now, when we Americans find that we lack some basic good, we vote it to ourselves. All throughout the recent campaign, while Republicans and Democrats argued with one another as to whom could be the most generous with other people's money, who could give the most benefits, and health care, and "stimulus" away, if only they were elected to high office, I kept waiting for someone to point it out, but no one did:
Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
When we, as free citizens, in a free,democratic republic, exercise our right to vote, we are practising the use of force, as every participant, in every human government through out history, has done. The singular advantage of representational democracy, over any other system, is that our leaders can not become tyrants- when the yoke of any leader becomes too great, we replace him.Our system of government was designed, expressly, to prevent the accumulation of power in one person's hands, no matter how benevolent or capable.
This is important to remember.We do not trust our leaders, nor is it appropriate for them to ask for our faith.We expect that the mortals we elect will be accountable to us for their use of our collective power.
It appears that many of the people who vote today believe they select a deity, who will honour their devotion by showering blessings down upon them.Perhaps this godly figure will expand the economy, or give you your own doctor, to wait on you at your leisure, with never a thought for payment for his own professional services.Perhaps this saintly benefactor will make your boss like you, and cause the place where you work to stay open forever, whether or not it ever makes any money for it's owners.
Maybe he will simply give you money.He could use his miraculous powers to make all manor of good things for everyone, then, magically empowered by your votes, he could travel through out the land , leaving them in your homes for all of you to find in the morning.
Tuesday is Armistice Day,the anniversary of the end of World War I.Celebrated as Veteran's Day here in the United State it is a day to remember that all good things,even freedom and democracy, come at a price.
Voting is a sacred trust- not because it grants godlike power, but because it does not.When next we go to the polls,we would all do well to remember, that we go to limit the power of our government, so as to protect the freedoms that others have bought for us.For when our government has the power to give us the things we want, it then also has the power to take them away.This is a power that we in America do not grant to our leaders, whether they hail from Chicago, or from Flagstaff, or even the North Pole.

Where Do They All Come From?

In the United States of America,we live,and work, in a free market economy.

This "capitalism" means simply, and only, that each of us is free to labour where and when we like, and dispose of the fruits of that labour in what ever way we see fit.
Although this is the obvious natural condition of man, it is a way of life that many of our ancestors would not have recognized.
Throughout much of the world, and a great deal of human history, many educated and powerful people have been enarmoured of fantastic nonsense, "theories about the economy", which they purport to use to show that everyone can become "equal", if only everyone will allow the theorists to be more equal than the rest.From Plato's Republic to the communists parties of twentieth century dictatorships,and into modern times, these Utopians have asked us to believe that that there was something fundamental wrong with human society, that they, alone, knew how to fix.
This is not the case.
We have, each of us, that which we have made ourselves, or that which others have given us. Born into this world naked, and doomed to return to the earth the same way,when faced with a desire for something which someone else has, you are possessed of only three avenues to obtain it for yourself:
You may take it from it's owner against his will,offer him something which he values more in exchange, or persuade him to give it to you has a gift. It is important, at least to one the parties in this transaction, that the first of these approaches is never confused with the last.

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house:thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."

It is common today, and quite fashionable, to describe the desire to improve one's lot in life by honourable and honest means- the "profit motive"- as greed.Yet when this author sees all of the divers plans and theories in the world that call,against all logic, for the confiscation and redistribution of the chattels and wealth of the most fortunate and successful among us, he must ask- where do all of these ideas, these theories, come from? ; and, in answer, he sees an ugly thing to which this pejorative appellation, "greed", is much more aptly applied.
Communism, fascism, socialism, and any other "ism", purporting to demonstrate that someone else is more entitled to what you have than you are, are all based the idea, or ideal, that people are, generally,better off when people are, generally, not permitted to make themselves better off.Put this way the truth would seem to become painfully obvious.

And, after near a century of genocide, riots, famine and war, the obvious has, indeed, become that painful.