| My Republican professors called me a Screaming Liberal, Communist, Socialist and a Democrat. |
| My Democratic professors called me a Reactionary Conservative neanderthal and a Republican. |
| Obviously then, I am a reasonable, rational person, looking for practical solutions for complex issues. |
| Jim Hlavac |
| Poliitics Home Fundamentals The Practicalist The Socialist Era Politics Re-Explained Domestic Affairs Economic Theory Foreign Affairs Libertarian Ideas Political Theory Philosophy Royalty & Theology |
Governance is a part of nature. Everything is governed. Nearly all things governed are sort of on automatic
pilot. The universe and the physical earth itself are governed by immutable laws that are not subject to change
except in their own sweet way. Weather, and the rivers, snows, seas, and the atmospheric cocoon we live in is
on automatic pilot, too. There's nothing we are doing that at all affects the enormity of it all. It's been hotter on
earth in the past than it is today, and there was no industry and far, far fewer people. It doesn't stand to reason
that we are doing anything to heat or cool the earth. Dirty it, yes. Make it less than pretty, yes. But change the
weather, no. Plant life is on automatic pilot. We don't have to do anything and plant life will grow. In fact, if we
don't contain it, it will take over whatever we put in it's way. That's what mowing the lawn is about. Animal life of
all kinds is on automatic pilot, too. Animals just do what they do. They deal with what is given them in their own
way and without any human intervention they will do what they do. We do, obviously, control a lot of animal life.
Farms being but the clearest example. We also can impact on wildlife when we build a dam, or dig up a
mountain. Sure, that's a given. But there are ways to mitigate those impacts, however necessary they may be at
the moment we do them. And so, all around we people are things that would continue on exactly as they have for
eons, and fight it out on their own, whether we are here or not. It is we that causes the conundrum. And that
conundrum is the nexus of politics and economics.
Certain things are just fundamental to politics and economics that they are enshrined into our oldest
traditions. Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not steal. Thou shall not bear false witness. Thou shall steward the earth.
That's the Christian and the Jewish version. The Ten Commandments. But every religion has something nearly
exact to it. Oh sure, the words are slightly different in their core meanings, yet often they can't be translated word
for word due to the vagaries of languages; the tower of Babel as it were. But they are the same sentiments,
because they are fundamental to human society. Without them we do not return to some state of nature -- lions
are not on the war path against each other, nor are ants in a mound killing each other in fratricidal civil war.
Nature is at peace within like kinds. Except maybe for obtaining the right to mate. That is about the only conflict
between bull elephants. That is the only spat between stallions in the pasture, or antelope on the range. But
horses don't gang up on horses, and lizards don't attack other lizards. On an on in the animal kingdom of
greater and lesser orders it can be shown that there is interspecie violence, for eating is a brutal business in
nature. That's the food chain. Intraspecie violence seems to be virtually nonexistent, indeed, cooperation is the
order of the day. So mankind is not returning to a state of nature if it resorts to violence. Violence is the power
trip, it is natural for some people to be violent. But it is not natural for all people to be violent.
In nature mankind is cooperative. Proof of that is evident in the man made things of this earth. The vast, vast
majority of people are cooperative with each other. It is the leaders of men who are the violent ones. It is the
loner who is the violent one. And that's the problem. Society is what mankind has effected to deal with the
violent thugs in our midst. The lone violent person is easy to deal with, once discovered. Unfortunately there is
no way to discover who will be violent in the future. It is only possible to know who was violent in the past.
Though once proven to be violent once the probability is that they will be violent again. Violent people, those we
call criminals, are a small minority of any society. But every society ever to come about on earth has had the
violent minority. That's what a lot of law is about. Those violent few are so rare that when they do surface it is
rending to our appreciation of society. The cooperative majority are quick to come down on the violent minority.
No society has been without a police force to deal with those who would beat, kill, rob, steal and cause
mayhem. Those loners are the dangerous ones that make the big splash on our news today. They are the horror
stories of our kind. But they are not new to the modern world. They are not a product of the capitalist, or the
socialist system. They are not a part of any political or economic system. They are apart from everything. They
are stand alone examples of something that went wrong in the creation of the usual cooperative beings that
populate the earth.
But we also know that there are political and economic systems that somehow give vent to the violent urges
of those loners in a legal and powerful fashion. History is filled with murderous dictators, since the dawn of time.
It is the political and economic system that allowed those crazed men to get legal power of violence. Every
political philosopher recognizes that. In fact, until America, every political system was based on giving one man
absolute power. And if he was a tyrant then that was too bad for everyone. If he was a meddling busybody than
that was too bad. The sad part about it is that a system which gives absolute power to one, or even to a few,
always leads to a despotism. No matter how benign it is, that is, with the least amount of violent actions against
everyone else, every absolute ruler has to be violent to some degree. That has been an immutable law of
human nature since the dawn of time. Slowly, inexorably, mankind has been moving away from the absolute
power theory of governance of society. It is a slow process because it is changing 5000 years of recorded
human history to a brave new world of free actions within a frame work of law and rules and regulations
designed to make sure everyone can do what they want without interfering with anyone else.
It became popular sometime in the past century to believe that economics and politics were somehow
unrelated. And that politics could run economies. But they are the same thing really. For every economic
decision is affected by every political decision. There is no separating the two. They are in lockstep with each
other. You cannot change the politics without changing the economics, and you cannot change the economics
without changing the politics. You can diverge briefly from the strict convergence of the two, but eventually they
have to be brought back into their proportional relationship with each other. It comes down to this, the freer the
political situation the freer the economy. The more controlled the political situation the more controlled is the
economy. You can't have an absolute leader in a free economy. And that's because to have a free economy you
have to have almost no politics. And if you have a lot of politics you cannot have a lot of economy. They are on a
see saw. The more politics the less economy. The more economy the less politics. But like a see saw they have
to go up and down in relationship with each other. And once that proportion is out of whack, just as in a see saw
that is cracked and the two riders are not at a straight line from each other, then something has to give. That is
revolution and war, and thuggery in the nation. It is politics that always seeks to limit economy, and economy
always seeks to limit politics. It is the dividing line between the two that is the issue in society. Why there should
be a discussion yet on the merits of either side is not easy to discern, for it is obvious that less politics always
results in the greatest good for the greatest number. Conversely, it is painfully obvious that the more politics the
worse off society is. Yet, perversely, there are some who think they can alter this immutable proportion between
politics and economics.
So this is what the pages on this site will be looking at. It's always a lot easier to break it all down into small
parts and see how each works, before trying to put them in a bigger frame work. In fact, the very complexity of it
all argues for more people addressing the issues rather than fewer. And that's the political part. The fewer
people involved in running the economy the worse off it has to be for they are simply unable to accomplish what
needs doing. It is not that they are not smart people, it is that the complexity is beyond the minds of one person.
Or even a committee. Or even a community. Instead, it is that individuals each take care of their own portion
and it all comes together in a near seamless way. It is only when someone thinks they can run things that they
know nothing about that the seam breaks. Yet, the absolute ruler concept of governance presupposes that one
man, or at least a small committee of people, can run things for the good of everyone else. This is impossible
by the fundamental fact that we all don't get along, nor do we see eye to eye with each other on what we want,
how we should get it, or even the best color for it. That's why the more smaller producers of similar items, say a
hammer, will always result in the greater happiness.
And so by click on the links to the left you can see all the different parts. It is very easy to imagine each part,
to theorize about each part, to contemplate each part -- but it is not possible to run each part. Only the
individuals involved can run them. And that's why it's always best to just describe things and then propose the
most small units that can be devised so that the greatest amount of options and choices for a given thing are
possible. That way anyone of any predilection can choose the option that is best for them. And if they do that,
they are happy. It is odd that some societies think that if they give but one option then everyone will like it. But
instead, there is incessant grumbling because people can only get the one thing offered, which hardly ever fits
everyone's idea of what they need. The more people are able to get what they want and need according to their
own ideas the freer the economy, which means the smaller the politics, which means greater happiness, wealth
and peace for everyone. On the contrary, the bigger the political component of a society then the smaller will be
the economy and less the options, and thus there will be less happiness, less wealth and less peace for
everyone.
This is so obvious that one can only conclude that the people who want more politics in every decision in
society are merely seeking their happiness and wealth at the expense of everyone else. They are the lone
violent man binding with others of like outlook and operating an immoral and criminal enterprise with the veneer
of law. For there are two types of laws. There are laws which provide a frame work in which all operate equally,
and there are laws which place a straight jacket on individuals or groups to the benefit of favored people over
disfavored people. The dividing line is often exceedingly clear. The law to stop at a red light is of the first kind,
and a law that prohibits writing whatever comes to your mind is of the second. And that's the age old dilemma.
That's what the Declaration of Independence and then the Constitution set to right.
Oddly, and almost un-thought of, these were the first two documents of their kind. Until 1776 it was absolute
power in the hands of one man with the connivance of a few others. Until 1789 there was no written contract
between the people and the government, there was only the whim of the ruler and his buddies. And now, here in
America, near to 2010, we are slowly slipping back into the absolutism that has wrecked havoc on the world
since the dawn of time. Why we are going this way is not easy to discern. It seems that a mere few have seized
the idea that they will be the one to get to the top of the heap of power. And with each passing winner of the
game there are fewer to play the next round. It is like they are playing a series of games in a tournament for
complete power, and the ultimate winner, though it still be several decades away, will be like Cesar and Czar,
like King and Sultan, Potentate and Pope, and he or she will wield unGodly power and we will also suffer for it.
Yet, as I said, inexorably, free economics and limited politics will win, for the idea is out of the bag. There is no
way for the power mad to say: see, it has never existed, that's why it won't work. That's what every potentate
said throughout time whenever the idea of free economics and little politics came up. But now that we've had
250 years of it there is no way to really go back to absolute power. The reality is too clear. This is but a small
backslide in the progress towards the greater good that's been going on for the past 250 years. Every society
on earth is in the fight between more politics or more economy, and the economists are winning. This current
situation here in America is like the Battle of the Bulge in World War II -- a scary moment in the path to eventual
victory. We who want a freer economy and a lot less politics are like the defenders of Bastogne. We say "Nuts"
to those who would bring back the absolutism of the past.
Finally, don't get confused by all the terms that those who want power use. Don't confuse the math they give
with 2 + 2 = 4. There is either more politics -- by whatever name -- or there is less. It makes no difference what
you call the political system, it is the politics of it that matters. Likewise, it is irrelevant what you call the
economy, 2 + 2 still must equal 4. If it does not, if the numbers do not add up, then there is no going forward. It is
impossible. For math is immutalbe, like the universe itself. It cannot be changed by the hands of man. You can
only make up myths about it. It is science fiction to believe that you can make 2 + 2 = 5, or 3, or 500 or whatever
number you choose on your whim. The more politics, the a society will stray from the enormous number of 2 + 2
equations that must equal 4 that are required to run it peaceably and with prosperity. That's reality. That's
inescapable. That can be proven in every society or division of society that one wants to examine.
pilot. The universe and the physical earth itself are governed by immutable laws that are not subject to change
except in their own sweet way. Weather, and the rivers, snows, seas, and the atmospheric cocoon we live in is
on automatic pilot, too. There's nothing we are doing that at all affects the enormity of it all. It's been hotter on
earth in the past than it is today, and there was no industry and far, far fewer people. It doesn't stand to reason
that we are doing anything to heat or cool the earth. Dirty it, yes. Make it less than pretty, yes. But change the
weather, no. Plant life is on automatic pilot. We don't have to do anything and plant life will grow. In fact, if we
don't contain it, it will take over whatever we put in it's way. That's what mowing the lawn is about. Animal life of
all kinds is on automatic pilot, too. Animals just do what they do. They deal with what is given them in their own
way and without any human intervention they will do what they do. We do, obviously, control a lot of animal life.
Farms being but the clearest example. We also can impact on wildlife when we build a dam, or dig up a
mountain. Sure, that's a given. But there are ways to mitigate those impacts, however necessary they may be at
the moment we do them. And so, all around we people are things that would continue on exactly as they have for
eons, and fight it out on their own, whether we are here or not. It is we that causes the conundrum. And that
conundrum is the nexus of politics and economics.
Certain things are just fundamental to politics and economics that they are enshrined into our oldest
traditions. Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not steal. Thou shall not bear false witness. Thou shall steward the earth.
That's the Christian and the Jewish version. The Ten Commandments. But every religion has something nearly
exact to it. Oh sure, the words are slightly different in their core meanings, yet often they can't be translated word
for word due to the vagaries of languages; the tower of Babel as it were. But they are the same sentiments,
because they are fundamental to human society. Without them we do not return to some state of nature -- lions
are not on the war path against each other, nor are ants in a mound killing each other in fratricidal civil war.
Nature is at peace within like kinds. Except maybe for obtaining the right to mate. That is about the only conflict
between bull elephants. That is the only spat between stallions in the pasture, or antelope on the range. But
horses don't gang up on horses, and lizards don't attack other lizards. On an on in the animal kingdom of
greater and lesser orders it can be shown that there is interspecie violence, for eating is a brutal business in
nature. That's the food chain. Intraspecie violence seems to be virtually nonexistent, indeed, cooperation is the
order of the day. So mankind is not returning to a state of nature if it resorts to violence. Violence is the power
trip, it is natural for some people to be violent. But it is not natural for all people to be violent.
In nature mankind is cooperative. Proof of that is evident in the man made things of this earth. The vast, vast
majority of people are cooperative with each other. It is the leaders of men who are the violent ones. It is the
loner who is the violent one. And that's the problem. Society is what mankind has effected to deal with the
violent thugs in our midst. The lone violent person is easy to deal with, once discovered. Unfortunately there is
no way to discover who will be violent in the future. It is only possible to know who was violent in the past.
Though once proven to be violent once the probability is that they will be violent again. Violent people, those we
call criminals, are a small minority of any society. But every society ever to come about on earth has had the
violent minority. That's what a lot of law is about. Those violent few are so rare that when they do surface it is
rending to our appreciation of society. The cooperative majority are quick to come down on the violent minority.
No society has been without a police force to deal with those who would beat, kill, rob, steal and cause
mayhem. Those loners are the dangerous ones that make the big splash on our news today. They are the horror
stories of our kind. But they are not new to the modern world. They are not a product of the capitalist, or the
socialist system. They are not a part of any political or economic system. They are apart from everything. They
are stand alone examples of something that went wrong in the creation of the usual cooperative beings that
populate the earth.
But we also know that there are political and economic systems that somehow give vent to the violent urges
of those loners in a legal and powerful fashion. History is filled with murderous dictators, since the dawn of time.
It is the political and economic system that allowed those crazed men to get legal power of violence. Every
political philosopher recognizes that. In fact, until America, every political system was based on giving one man
absolute power. And if he was a tyrant then that was too bad for everyone. If he was a meddling busybody than
that was too bad. The sad part about it is that a system which gives absolute power to one, or even to a few,
always leads to a despotism. No matter how benign it is, that is, with the least amount of violent actions against
everyone else, every absolute ruler has to be violent to some degree. That has been an immutable law of
human nature since the dawn of time. Slowly, inexorably, mankind has been moving away from the absolute
power theory of governance of society. It is a slow process because it is changing 5000 years of recorded
human history to a brave new world of free actions within a frame work of law and rules and regulations
designed to make sure everyone can do what they want without interfering with anyone else.
It became popular sometime in the past century to believe that economics and politics were somehow
unrelated. And that politics could run economies. But they are the same thing really. For every economic
decision is affected by every political decision. There is no separating the two. They are in lockstep with each
other. You cannot change the politics without changing the economics, and you cannot change the economics
without changing the politics. You can diverge briefly from the strict convergence of the two, but eventually they
have to be brought back into their proportional relationship with each other. It comes down to this, the freer the
political situation the freer the economy. The more controlled the political situation the more controlled is the
economy. You can't have an absolute leader in a free economy. And that's because to have a free economy you
have to have almost no politics. And if you have a lot of politics you cannot have a lot of economy. They are on a
see saw. The more politics the less economy. The more economy the less politics. But like a see saw they have
to go up and down in relationship with each other. And once that proportion is out of whack, just as in a see saw
that is cracked and the two riders are not at a straight line from each other, then something has to give. That is
revolution and war, and thuggery in the nation. It is politics that always seeks to limit economy, and economy
always seeks to limit politics. It is the dividing line between the two that is the issue in society. Why there should
be a discussion yet on the merits of either side is not easy to discern, for it is obvious that less politics always
results in the greatest good for the greatest number. Conversely, it is painfully obvious that the more politics the
worse off society is. Yet, perversely, there are some who think they can alter this immutable proportion between
politics and economics.
So this is what the pages on this site will be looking at. It's always a lot easier to break it all down into small
parts and see how each works, before trying to put them in a bigger frame work. In fact, the very complexity of it
all argues for more people addressing the issues rather than fewer. And that's the political part. The fewer
people involved in running the economy the worse off it has to be for they are simply unable to accomplish what
needs doing. It is not that they are not smart people, it is that the complexity is beyond the minds of one person.
Or even a committee. Or even a community. Instead, it is that individuals each take care of their own portion
and it all comes together in a near seamless way. It is only when someone thinks they can run things that they
know nothing about that the seam breaks. Yet, the absolute ruler concept of governance presupposes that one
man, or at least a small committee of people, can run things for the good of everyone else. This is impossible
by the fundamental fact that we all don't get along, nor do we see eye to eye with each other on what we want,
how we should get it, or even the best color for it. That's why the more smaller producers of similar items, say a
hammer, will always result in the greater happiness.
And so by click on the links to the left you can see all the different parts. It is very easy to imagine each part,
to theorize about each part, to contemplate each part -- but it is not possible to run each part. Only the
individuals involved can run them. And that's why it's always best to just describe things and then propose the
most small units that can be devised so that the greatest amount of options and choices for a given thing are
possible. That way anyone of any predilection can choose the option that is best for them. And if they do that,
they are happy. It is odd that some societies think that if they give but one option then everyone will like it. But
instead, there is incessant grumbling because people can only get the one thing offered, which hardly ever fits
everyone's idea of what they need. The more people are able to get what they want and need according to their
own ideas the freer the economy, which means the smaller the politics, which means greater happiness, wealth
and peace for everyone. On the contrary, the bigger the political component of a society then the smaller will be
the economy and less the options, and thus there will be less happiness, less wealth and less peace for
everyone.
This is so obvious that one can only conclude that the people who want more politics in every decision in
society are merely seeking their happiness and wealth at the expense of everyone else. They are the lone
violent man binding with others of like outlook and operating an immoral and criminal enterprise with the veneer
of law. For there are two types of laws. There are laws which provide a frame work in which all operate equally,
and there are laws which place a straight jacket on individuals or groups to the benefit of favored people over
disfavored people. The dividing line is often exceedingly clear. The law to stop at a red light is of the first kind,
and a law that prohibits writing whatever comes to your mind is of the second. And that's the age old dilemma.
That's what the Declaration of Independence and then the Constitution set to right.
Oddly, and almost un-thought of, these were the first two documents of their kind. Until 1776 it was absolute
power in the hands of one man with the connivance of a few others. Until 1789 there was no written contract
between the people and the government, there was only the whim of the ruler and his buddies. And now, here in
America, near to 2010, we are slowly slipping back into the absolutism that has wrecked havoc on the world
since the dawn of time. Why we are going this way is not easy to discern. It seems that a mere few have seized
the idea that they will be the one to get to the top of the heap of power. And with each passing winner of the
game there are fewer to play the next round. It is like they are playing a series of games in a tournament for
complete power, and the ultimate winner, though it still be several decades away, will be like Cesar and Czar,
like King and Sultan, Potentate and Pope, and he or she will wield unGodly power and we will also suffer for it.
Yet, as I said, inexorably, free economics and limited politics will win, for the idea is out of the bag. There is no
way for the power mad to say: see, it has never existed, that's why it won't work. That's what every potentate
said throughout time whenever the idea of free economics and little politics came up. But now that we've had
250 years of it there is no way to really go back to absolute power. The reality is too clear. This is but a small
backslide in the progress towards the greater good that's been going on for the past 250 years. Every society
on earth is in the fight between more politics or more economy, and the economists are winning. This current
situation here in America is like the Battle of the Bulge in World War II -- a scary moment in the path to eventual
victory. We who want a freer economy and a lot less politics are like the defenders of Bastogne. We say "Nuts"
to those who would bring back the absolutism of the past.
Finally, don't get confused by all the terms that those who want power use. Don't confuse the math they give
with 2 + 2 = 4. There is either more politics -- by whatever name -- or there is less. It makes no difference what
you call the political system, it is the politics of it that matters. Likewise, it is irrelevant what you call the
economy, 2 + 2 still must equal 4. If it does not, if the numbers do not add up, then there is no going forward. It is
impossible. For math is immutalbe, like the universe itself. It cannot be changed by the hands of man. You can
only make up myths about it. It is science fiction to believe that you can make 2 + 2 = 5, or 3, or 500 or whatever
number you choose on your whim. The more politics, the a society will stray from the enormous number of 2 + 2
equations that must equal 4 that are required to run it peaceably and with prosperity. That's reality. That's
inescapable. That can be proven in every society or division of society that one wants to examine.
Introduction
To the left is a series of links which brings you to broad areas of consideration in the realm of politics and
economics. Fundamentals lays out just that, the realities you need to understand in order to make valid
conclusions and over valid solutions to any problem at hand. The Practicalist are a series of short essays about
the way that we currently look at things in a very non-practical way. The Socialist Era is a long essay about the
political and economic thoughts of the past 150 or more years and how it is wrecking what we have. Politics
Re-Explained is a look at some of the issues facing us, and offering perhaps some light at the end of the tunnel
if there is anyone willing to see it. Though too often our politics is nit picking and arguing about nothing much
than whose ball is on the playground. The rest of the sections are in depth views at the subjects but in bite sized
chunks. Actually, politics and economics does not nearly have to be as muddled and convoluted as it is today. It
is the power mad among us who wish to obfuscate the simplicity of it all, so that they can then ride to the rescue
against the mess they made with their meddling in the first place. Current politicians are like wanna-be firemen
who pour gasoline on to the house and light it on fire so that they can volunteer to put it out. And they are also not
much different than a man who shows up at your door with his friends, who are all intent on taking apart your
kitchen and remodeling it according to what they think is best. They are nuts of course, and that's the problem
with politics today, there are too many nuts running around trying to reorder the world into what they think it
should be, rather than just doing what they want to do and leaving everyone else alone. Want to save the planet?
Plant a damn tree, but don't tell me I have pay taxes so that your buddy can get a grant to study the effect of
trees on the planet. The first four words are Libertarianism. The second long phrase is our current political
situation. And there is not a person alive today who can deny that this is true.
economics. Fundamentals lays out just that, the realities you need to understand in order to make valid
conclusions and over valid solutions to any problem at hand. The Practicalist are a series of short essays about
the way that we currently look at things in a very non-practical way. The Socialist Era is a long essay about the
political and economic thoughts of the past 150 or more years and how it is wrecking what we have. Politics
Re-Explained is a look at some of the issues facing us, and offering perhaps some light at the end of the tunnel
if there is anyone willing to see it. Though too often our politics is nit picking and arguing about nothing much
than whose ball is on the playground. The rest of the sections are in depth views at the subjects but in bite sized
chunks. Actually, politics and economics does not nearly have to be as muddled and convoluted as it is today. It
is the power mad among us who wish to obfuscate the simplicity of it all, so that they can then ride to the rescue
against the mess they made with their meddling in the first place. Current politicians are like wanna-be firemen
who pour gasoline on to the house and light it on fire so that they can volunteer to put it out. And they are also not
much different than a man who shows up at your door with his friends, who are all intent on taking apart your
kitchen and remodeling it according to what they think is best. They are nuts of course, and that's the problem
with politics today, there are too many nuts running around trying to reorder the world into what they think it
should be, rather than just doing what they want to do and leaving everyone else alone. Want to save the planet?
Plant a damn tree, but don't tell me I have pay taxes so that your buddy can get a grant to study the effect of
trees on the planet. The first four words are Libertarianism. The second long phrase is our current political
situation. And there is not a person alive today who can deny that this is true.
A brief view of Governance.