The navy SEAL snipers who rescued the captured American ship captain are to be lauded. In all, the US Navy's handling of the situation seems from my armchair to have been quite good. However, it should not stop there.
Piracy is a plague upon the earth. For as long as man has sailed the waters, man has preyed upon his fellows. Whether killing crews and siezing ships for the hulls and the cargo, raiding coastal settlements for slaves, loot, or other things, or even the more modern ransom-holding piracy, the lessons of history are clear. There can be only one response to piracy that will end it and make the waters safe once more.
Rome faced pirates many times throughout its long life. Each time they dallied around, allowing the pirates free reign on the seas until finally they pushed too far. Only then did Rome do what it should have done in the beginning, marshalling a large fleet, invading the pirates' homes, and killing them all. Later in the Empire's history, it became even more difficult to deal with piracy since the pirates, now Arabs and Turks, had the backing of powerful states. Still the Romans tried, and often succeeded, purging the pirates from their havens and bringing peace to shipping.
The Barbary Pirates are the next great example, and perhaps are an even better one given that they were interacting with what would become the modern Amero-European powers (in this case specifically France, the UK, and the USA, mostly). When the first American ships were preyed upon by these scum, Jefferson (the president at the time) dispatched a small fleet of frigates and a handful of Marines to deal with the situation. After a rather epic story, with the United States and their local allies poised for an incredible victory that would allow them to dictate terms to any survivors, Jefferson sold out those local allies to the leader of the pirates and withdrew the Marines (at least the commander on the ground had some scruples, as he made sure to pull out the mercenary auxiliaries he had hired). It wasn't until many years later, when the Barbary states were once again becoming a serious problem for everybody sailing through the area, that a permanent solution was found. The three states mentioned above gathered ships together and began to shell all the cities along the Barbary coast, pounding the pirate states into submission. They pretty much destroyed the pirate kingdoms, ultimately paving the way for European domination of the region (the rising tide of colonialism took full advantage of the power vacuum following the fall of the pirate states).
Now we have pirates on the coast of Somalia. How is the world, or in this case the United States (given the threats levied against it by the pirates after the heroic rescue), to deal permanently with these vile criminals? I have a few suggestions.
1) Any pirate captured should be summarily shot and thrown overboard.
2) Any act of piracy should result in serious and violent reprisals, whether in the form of naval bombardment of coastal settlements or an actual landing of Marine soldiers to conduct a more thorough and targeted purge of the area.
3) Any deaths of hostages should result in an immediate invasion of the area, not for occupation but for purgation.
In short, if any pirate has the nerve to attack shipping, take hostages, or worst of all kill any captured crewmen, then there should be no limit to how hard and how fast the USMC comes down on their heads. None should live to regret their actions. Make an example of them, kill them all, and end the threat that they pose forever.
It might get messy. Innocent civilians among the Somali population might be caught in the crossfire. Hostages would probably die in the process. But if the world coddles this kind of unacceptable activity then it will continue and it will spread. Better to end it quickly and permanently, even at a high cost, than to allow it to proceed uninterrupted. The SEAL snipers have made a start. It is now up to the USA and other countries who suffer at the hands of these pirates to step up and finish the job, before more innocents are victimized by some of the lowest scum on the earth.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
On racism
Every time that I encounter somebody who is hung up about racism I always have to wonder, who really cares? Whether it's the guy who thinks everyone who looks different from himself is inferior or the guy who accuses everybody who looks different from himself of thinking that he is inferior, both are hung up needlessly on an utterly stupid idea. Why? What possible benefit could either point of view actually hold for anybody? It frustrates me to no end how utterly self-centered people can be, especially when it plays out in a way that is so utterly meaningless.
Once more I will go to my old standby example to illustrate my point. Under the Roman Empire it didn't really matter who you were or where you came from or how you looked or anything like that. What really counted was your religion and your language and your politics. Those things combined with whatever degree of competency you were capable of expressing tended to matter far more in terms of advancement than anything else. Sure, the great families had wealth and power, but there were always the new rich or the recently promoted families, proving that even the aristocracy wasn't immune to advancement. Virtue, competency, merit, whatever you want to call it, in the Roman civilization it ultimately determined how high you could rise.
Let's look specifically at the Empire. There were countless emperors with diverse backgrounds. You had Thracian peasants, Armenian generals, Isaurian thugs, classic Greco-Roman aristocrats, and so many others rising to the purple. Ultimately what made a man emperor was his ability to rally the people behind him, to get the army to back him, and to get the aristocrats to support him. Whether he was a stableboy who managed to get a job at the palace, befriend a young emperor, use that influence to rise to a position of power, and then use that power to establish the single greatest dynasty the Empire ever saw, or he was a peasant from a hick town in a hick region of an utterly civilized society who managed to get his uncle proclaimed as emperor and then ruling from behind the scenes, only to take open power upon said uncle's death, if a man had enough skill, enough ambition, and enough sheer audacity he could rise from the very bottom to the very top.
Throw in the Church and you have even more opportunity. Anyone could become a great cleric, a renown monk, or even the Patriarch of Constantinople itself.
Then of course there is the military. Of all the institutions in the Empire it perhaps was the most meritocratic. Sheer ability could make the lowliest of men rise to heights of wealth and power regardless of where he came from. For that matter, eunich slaves taken in battle by Roman officers could rise to command the entire military might of the Empire, and prove both loyal and capable in the process.
So basically what I'm trying to say here is this. If somebody is good at what he does then he should be rewarded within that field. If he is not, then he should not be rewarded. If somebody is a great leader, then people should follow him. If he is a brilliant general, then he ought to be able to rise to command of armies. If he is fervent in his belief, orthodox in his practice, and as virtuous in his life as he can be given the state of this fallen world, then by all means raise him to the clergy and make him overseer of many congregations. Whether he is black, white, yellow, red, or some other color is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that matters is can he do the job? If he can, then let him. If he can't, then don't put him where he is unworthy to be. It should be as simple as that.
Sometimes I get the feeling that people like to play the so-called "race card" as a cover for their own incompetence. This applies both ways, too. The person who screams discrimination at the drop of a pin is just as bad as the person who complains about the evil others who are contaminating society or whatever other drivel he happens to spout.
If somebody is black, so what? If he's a socialist, then it matters. If somebody is white, why does it matter? If he's a bhaal worshipper, though, then there might be some problems (such as infant sacrifice...). Ultimately, if you are going to look at anything other than basic ability when judging somebody, then the only things that I can see that are justifiable as criteria would have to be politics, economics, and religion. Anything else you can probably deal with easily enough. Certainly no accident of birth or vagary of genetics should have any impact beyond whatever outright physical or mental disabilities might be attributed to such causes.
Racism, like nationalism, is a stupid idea that is dangerous and irrational. It destroys civilizations, breeds divisiveness, and utlimately prevents those who ought to be doing things from having the proper opportunities to do them. Whether racism is an offensive, "I hate different people" thing or a defensive, "nobody is letting me succeed because I'm different" thing, it still amounts to the same fundamental idea, and still causes the same basic problems within society. So give it up already, all of you. If you want to be treated well, then earn it by action. If you want to look down on somebody, find a reason that matters, such as base incompetence or outright malicious corruption. Don't waste your time, or more importantly everybody else's, with your petty and meaningless stupidity.
Once more I will go to my old standby example to illustrate my point. Under the Roman Empire it didn't really matter who you were or where you came from or how you looked or anything like that. What really counted was your religion and your language and your politics. Those things combined with whatever degree of competency you were capable of expressing tended to matter far more in terms of advancement than anything else. Sure, the great families had wealth and power, but there were always the new rich or the recently promoted families, proving that even the aristocracy wasn't immune to advancement. Virtue, competency, merit, whatever you want to call it, in the Roman civilization it ultimately determined how high you could rise.
Let's look specifically at the Empire. There were countless emperors with diverse backgrounds. You had Thracian peasants, Armenian generals, Isaurian thugs, classic Greco-Roman aristocrats, and so many others rising to the purple. Ultimately what made a man emperor was his ability to rally the people behind him, to get the army to back him, and to get the aristocrats to support him. Whether he was a stableboy who managed to get a job at the palace, befriend a young emperor, use that influence to rise to a position of power, and then use that power to establish the single greatest dynasty the Empire ever saw, or he was a peasant from a hick town in a hick region of an utterly civilized society who managed to get his uncle proclaimed as emperor and then ruling from behind the scenes, only to take open power upon said uncle's death, if a man had enough skill, enough ambition, and enough sheer audacity he could rise from the very bottom to the very top.
Throw in the Church and you have even more opportunity. Anyone could become a great cleric, a renown monk, or even the Patriarch of Constantinople itself.
Then of course there is the military. Of all the institutions in the Empire it perhaps was the most meritocratic. Sheer ability could make the lowliest of men rise to heights of wealth and power regardless of where he came from. For that matter, eunich slaves taken in battle by Roman officers could rise to command the entire military might of the Empire, and prove both loyal and capable in the process.
So basically what I'm trying to say here is this. If somebody is good at what he does then he should be rewarded within that field. If he is not, then he should not be rewarded. If somebody is a great leader, then people should follow him. If he is a brilliant general, then he ought to be able to rise to command of armies. If he is fervent in his belief, orthodox in his practice, and as virtuous in his life as he can be given the state of this fallen world, then by all means raise him to the clergy and make him overseer of many congregations. Whether he is black, white, yellow, red, or some other color is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that matters is can he do the job? If he can, then let him. If he can't, then don't put him where he is unworthy to be. It should be as simple as that.
Sometimes I get the feeling that people like to play the so-called "race card" as a cover for their own incompetence. This applies both ways, too. The person who screams discrimination at the drop of a pin is just as bad as the person who complains about the evil others who are contaminating society or whatever other drivel he happens to spout.
If somebody is black, so what? If he's a socialist, then it matters. If somebody is white, why does it matter? If he's a bhaal worshipper, though, then there might be some problems (such as infant sacrifice...). Ultimately, if you are going to look at anything other than basic ability when judging somebody, then the only things that I can see that are justifiable as criteria would have to be politics, economics, and religion. Anything else you can probably deal with easily enough. Certainly no accident of birth or vagary of genetics should have any impact beyond whatever outright physical or mental disabilities might be attributed to such causes.
Racism, like nationalism, is a stupid idea that is dangerous and irrational. It destroys civilizations, breeds divisiveness, and utlimately prevents those who ought to be doing things from having the proper opportunities to do them. Whether racism is an offensive, "I hate different people" thing or a defensive, "nobody is letting me succeed because I'm different" thing, it still amounts to the same fundamental idea, and still causes the same basic problems within society. So give it up already, all of you. If you want to be treated well, then earn it by action. If you want to look down on somebody, find a reason that matters, such as base incompetence or outright malicious corruption. Don't waste your time, or more importantly everybody else's, with your petty and meaningless stupidity.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
On Church and State
Ever since the founding of these Unites States of America people have been trying to deal with the complicated issue of the proper relationship between Church and State. Perhaps the most important phrase in that discussion was one made by Jefferson in a letter during his presidency. It mentions a "wall of seperation" between the two. This has since been adopted as tantamount to constitutional canon, despite its almost entirely personal nature (it was from a private letter, which under any understanding of the Constitution cannot have the force of law). This phrase has come to be the definitive interpretation of the 1st Amendment that states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of." People say that the 1st Amendment establishes a complete and inviolable seperation between Church and State.
Let us then examine the wording of the Amendment in this regard. "Congress shall make no law" is pretty straightforward. Congress, or the House of Representatives and the Senate, are prohibited in the exercise of their enumerated powers from making any law whatsoever that would violate the amendment. This does not limit the powers of the President, of officers or officials who are not members of Congress, or even of the operations of Congress itself outside of its lawmaking duties. "... respecting an establishment of religion..." is also clear. The aforementioned outright prohibition on legislation applies to each and every issue that is in respect to establishment of religion. This means that Congress cannot by law forbid any other part of the Federal government (that is, the several States, the other branches of the General government, or other such bodies, including private institutions) from establishing one or more religions as the official religion of said body. This would apply to States such as Virginia (which might decide to establish the Methodist Church as its official religion) or Massechusetts (which might establish some form of reformed or Puritan church as its official religion), just as it would apply to a college (for instance Fordham might make Roman Catholicism its official religion, while Brigham Young University might establish the Baptist Church as its official religion). So too could the President declare that all officers of the executive branch must hold whatever religion he so chooses to be the official religion of said branch of government. However, it also applies in the other direction. Congress cannot force any institution to adopt a particular religion as its offical one (so if Virginia wanted to disestablish its church it could do so without interference, or if the President wanted to secularize the executive branch then he could). Finally, "... nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is the most problematic section, and the one most often ignored. It means, quite simply, that Congress cannot make any form of law that would limit the ability of the People freely and openly to practice their religions. This would mean that public prayer, open wearing of religious symbols, and all other such trappings of faith are untouchable by any act of Congress. And since all legislative power has been reserved to Congress, the States, and the People in their respective spheres, if the People decide to practice a religion and the States allow them to do so then Congress cannot interfere (nor can any other part of the General government, since only Congress can pass laws; courts, I'm looking at you here).
There are two major problems with the above analysis. First, what about religions like Druidism or Baal worship that entail human sacrifice (infant sacrifice in the case of the latter)? What about other religions with similarly evil practices? It is my conclusion that the religion itself remains protected. Only those specific practices of that religion that violate other laws can be prosecuted, and then only because they violate other laws. A law cannot be passed that says that women are not allowed to wear veils in order to limit their right of exercise of religions like Islam. However, laws can be passed that prohibit murder, which would prevent human sacrifice as an incidental effect. Second, there is the 14th Amendment. Though not broadly applicable when it comes to restricting the several States by the limitations of the Constitution, by stretching its wording it can be argued that a State establishing a religion would thereby be abridging the privileges and immunities of the citizens of that State who were not members of said religion. This is a tenuous argument, though, since the 14th Amendment is most clearly read when it is interpreted to refer only to such things as voting rights, criminal rights, and other such matters of basic personal protections, rights, and responsibilities inherent to citizenship.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that the 1st Amendment therefore prohibits Congress from imposing any limits whatsoever on the free exercise of religion, up to and including a State establishing (or disestablishing) a particular religion as its official one.
Let us then examine the wording of the Amendment in this regard. "Congress shall make no law" is pretty straightforward. Congress, or the House of Representatives and the Senate, are prohibited in the exercise of their enumerated powers from making any law whatsoever that would violate the amendment. This does not limit the powers of the President, of officers or officials who are not members of Congress, or even of the operations of Congress itself outside of its lawmaking duties. "... respecting an establishment of religion..." is also clear. The aforementioned outright prohibition on legislation applies to each and every issue that is in respect to establishment of religion. This means that Congress cannot by law forbid any other part of the Federal government (that is, the several States, the other branches of the General government, or other such bodies, including private institutions) from establishing one or more religions as the official religion of said body. This would apply to States such as Virginia (which might decide to establish the Methodist Church as its official religion) or Massechusetts (which might establish some form of reformed or Puritan church as its official religion), just as it would apply to a college (for instance Fordham might make Roman Catholicism its official religion, while Brigham Young University might establish the Baptist Church as its official religion). So too could the President declare that all officers of the executive branch must hold whatever religion he so chooses to be the official religion of said branch of government. However, it also applies in the other direction. Congress cannot force any institution to adopt a particular religion as its offical one (so if Virginia wanted to disestablish its church it could do so without interference, or if the President wanted to secularize the executive branch then he could). Finally, "... nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is the most problematic section, and the one most often ignored. It means, quite simply, that Congress cannot make any form of law that would limit the ability of the People freely and openly to practice their religions. This would mean that public prayer, open wearing of religious symbols, and all other such trappings of faith are untouchable by any act of Congress. And since all legislative power has been reserved to Congress, the States, and the People in their respective spheres, if the People decide to practice a religion and the States allow them to do so then Congress cannot interfere (nor can any other part of the General government, since only Congress can pass laws; courts, I'm looking at you here).
There are two major problems with the above analysis. First, what about religions like Druidism or Baal worship that entail human sacrifice (infant sacrifice in the case of the latter)? What about other religions with similarly evil practices? It is my conclusion that the religion itself remains protected. Only those specific practices of that religion that violate other laws can be prosecuted, and then only because they violate other laws. A law cannot be passed that says that women are not allowed to wear veils in order to limit their right of exercise of religions like Islam. However, laws can be passed that prohibit murder, which would prevent human sacrifice as an incidental effect. Second, there is the 14th Amendment. Though not broadly applicable when it comes to restricting the several States by the limitations of the Constitution, by stretching its wording it can be argued that a State establishing a religion would thereby be abridging the privileges and immunities of the citizens of that State who were not members of said religion. This is a tenuous argument, though, since the 14th Amendment is most clearly read when it is interpreted to refer only to such things as voting rights, criminal rights, and other such matters of basic personal protections, rights, and responsibilities inherent to citizenship.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that the 1st Amendment therefore prohibits Congress from imposing any limits whatsoever on the free exercise of religion, up to and including a State establishing (or disestablishing) a particular religion as its official one.
Monday, November 24, 2008
On the Electoral College
There has been quite a bit of talk over the last few years about doing away with the electoral college. The basis for the argument seems to be one of democracy. It is undemocratic for the president to be elected by having a high enough electoral count despite losing the popular vote. Indeed, the way the system currently is set up is very bad, since in many ways it is dishonest and fails to accomplish that which the electoral college was intended.
Currently each of the states is run by the parties (Republican and Democrat). They use their positions of control to ensure that each party must put forward a slate of electors who most people never actually know even so much as the names of. Said slates are then bound to vote for whichever candidate their slate was attached to. In a handful of states, the slate is assigned partially based on a proportion of the popular votes cast, while in the rest it is an all-or-nothing system.
What does this do? It makes people think that they are voting for president, when in reality they are voting for a slate of people that they never even heard of. It also turns the election into a popularity contest where celebrity, demagoguery, and other such plagues of the democracies of the world can bring about their full corrupting effect. The result is such people as FDR getting four terms (the closest the US has come to a totalitarian dictator so far), Kennedy getting elected at all (a corrupt and incompetent president if ever there was one), and most every other president that we've had defeating the few potential good candidates (most of whom lost due to a lack of popular support, despite being the only ones who actually spoke the truth, obeyed the Constitution, and maintained dignity and morality in their campaigns).
How should things work? The electoral college was established to remove the presidency from the realm of petty politics and to elevate it to a more considered, more stable, and more principled manner of choosing. The state legislatures were supposed to decide how their respective states would choose electors, whether the governor would appoint them, the legistlature itself pick them, or the people vote for them by district, at large, or in some other fashion. This would make the choice not one of presidential candidate, but rather one of elector. The election would come down to picking those people who were most respected for their principles and wisdom, for their capacity to judge character and competence, and for their faithfulness to the needs of the people of their state and to the requirements of the Constitution.
How can we go from our current corrupted way of electing presidents to one consistent with the wisdom and foresight of the Founders? My favorite solution would be to have the several states remove the presidential candidates from the ballot altogether, indeed they ought to disallow campaigning for president completely. Rather, they should require that those who wish to take a seat in the electoral college run for that office. Turn the presidential race into an electoral college race. Require that candidates be citizens of the states in which they run and allow the people therein to get to know said candidates well enough that they can make wise choices about who to trust to pick their president. If all works as I hope, then the president would be chosen once more by a thoroughly vetted group of trusted people in accordance with the Constitution. Factional strife, demogoguery, and petty rhetoric would be limited in their impact, while true considered wisdom and though might actually return to the process. Shallow celebrities, blatant criminals, and other typical party candidates would no longer be likely to make the cut, while virtuous statesmen and honest politicians might finally have a chance at winning the presidency.
Currently each of the states is run by the parties (Republican and Democrat). They use their positions of control to ensure that each party must put forward a slate of electors who most people never actually know even so much as the names of. Said slates are then bound to vote for whichever candidate their slate was attached to. In a handful of states, the slate is assigned partially based on a proportion of the popular votes cast, while in the rest it is an all-or-nothing system.
What does this do? It makes people think that they are voting for president, when in reality they are voting for a slate of people that they never even heard of. It also turns the election into a popularity contest where celebrity, demagoguery, and other such plagues of the democracies of the world can bring about their full corrupting effect. The result is such people as FDR getting four terms (the closest the US has come to a totalitarian dictator so far), Kennedy getting elected at all (a corrupt and incompetent president if ever there was one), and most every other president that we've had defeating the few potential good candidates (most of whom lost due to a lack of popular support, despite being the only ones who actually spoke the truth, obeyed the Constitution, and maintained dignity and morality in their campaigns).
How should things work? The electoral college was established to remove the presidency from the realm of petty politics and to elevate it to a more considered, more stable, and more principled manner of choosing. The state legislatures were supposed to decide how their respective states would choose electors, whether the governor would appoint them, the legistlature itself pick them, or the people vote for them by district, at large, or in some other fashion. This would make the choice not one of presidential candidate, but rather one of elector. The election would come down to picking those people who were most respected for their principles and wisdom, for their capacity to judge character and competence, and for their faithfulness to the needs of the people of their state and to the requirements of the Constitution.
How can we go from our current corrupted way of electing presidents to one consistent with the wisdom and foresight of the Founders? My favorite solution would be to have the several states remove the presidential candidates from the ballot altogether, indeed they ought to disallow campaigning for president completely. Rather, they should require that those who wish to take a seat in the electoral college run for that office. Turn the presidential race into an electoral college race. Require that candidates be citizens of the states in which they run and allow the people therein to get to know said candidates well enough that they can make wise choices about who to trust to pick their president. If all works as I hope, then the president would be chosen once more by a thoroughly vetted group of trusted people in accordance with the Constitution. Factional strife, demogoguery, and petty rhetoric would be limited in their impact, while true considered wisdom and though might actually return to the process. Shallow celebrities, blatant criminals, and other typical party candidates would no longer be likely to make the cut, while virtuous statesmen and honest politicians might finally have a chance at winning the presidency.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Free Market versus Regulation
There's been quite a bit of talk lately about the so-called failure of the Free Market, as exemplified in the recent banking/credit crisis. Naturally, all the progressive statists insist that the fault lies with unregulated wall street bankers, with the solution of course being increased, New Deal-esque regulations being imposed upon the entire financial system of the United States (and the rest of the world too, judging by events overseas so far). Here are a few things to keep in mind however:
1) The banks in question were not truly free market institutions, since they already operate under extensive general government regulation (especially programs intended to promote the lower economic classes, such as incentives designed to cause banks to make loans to dangerously unworthy homeowners without sufficient capital to sustain their purchases).
2) The government "bailout" and subsequent partial nationalisation of banking institutions by means of state purchasing of corporate stocks not only removes the main disincentive to taking foolish risks by proving that the state, and hence the taxpayers, will finance any failures that result, but also is a highly dangerous precedent that violates the Constitution of the United States, creates billions of dollars out of nothing, saddles the taxpayers with a huge load of unrecoverable debt (essentially meaning we will all have to pitch in to cover it with our own money), and will in the end serve primarily to extend the duration and thus increase the impact of the current financial difficulties by preventing the necessary correction (as exemplified by the collapse of several incompetent financial institutions that have proven their lack of worthiness to survive, a collapse prevented by radical government intervention).
3) A truly free market would have lacked the incentives to risk-taking that drove the housing and credit bubbles while simultaneously providing disincentives in the form of the knowledge that failure would lead to collapse. State intervention that pressured financial institutions into actions that were dangerous from a business standpoint, all in the name of ideology, combines with the removal of any real risk to financial institutions themselves (by transferring it to the taxpayers) to lead to rampant stupid risk-taking that creates the bubbles that inevitably will burst when the market attempts to correct for them.
4) Market corrections in a free environment can be painful, but they tend to hurt mainly those responsible for the problems. In a regulated environment, the corrections tend to have a harder time at fixing things, since the state injects artificial stimulation in an attempt to limit consequences. This results in longer, slower corrections that, though slightly less painful in the immediate present, end up being much harsher to a much wider portion of the economy, as the imbalances present begin to be exacerbated by interventions, thereby spreading the impact to more and more sectors of the economy.
My ultimate conclusion then is that the general government is taking exactly the wrong approach to this situation. They were instrumental in causing it by means of their regulations and incentives set up to ensure certain high-risk people could be approved for loans that they otherwise couldn't get. They have been instrumental in prolonging and increasing its effects by means of their bailout and further intervention policies, thereby preventing a localized correction from taking place. Finally, they are poised to cause it all to happen again, by setting the precedent of goverment intervetion to eliminate all negative consequences from taking stupid, economically infeasible risks that otherwise would have been prevented from happening due to the very real risk of catastrophic financial damage caused to those institutions that indulged in such nonsensical practices.
What can one do about it? Support those members of Congress who opposed the bailout votes. Fight to see that those members of Congress who voted in favor of the bailouts fail to be reelected. In short, transition control of Congress away from those who would turn us into a socialist workers' paradise with everyone accountable only to the state and toward those who believe in truly free markets, individual responsibility, and the rule of law as exemplified by the Supreme Law of the Land, the United States Constitution.
1) The banks in question were not truly free market institutions, since they already operate under extensive general government regulation (especially programs intended to promote the lower economic classes, such as incentives designed to cause banks to make loans to dangerously unworthy homeowners without sufficient capital to sustain their purchases).
2) The government "bailout" and subsequent partial nationalisation of banking institutions by means of state purchasing of corporate stocks not only removes the main disincentive to taking foolish risks by proving that the state, and hence the taxpayers, will finance any failures that result, but also is a highly dangerous precedent that violates the Constitution of the United States, creates billions of dollars out of nothing, saddles the taxpayers with a huge load of unrecoverable debt (essentially meaning we will all have to pitch in to cover it with our own money), and will in the end serve primarily to extend the duration and thus increase the impact of the current financial difficulties by preventing the necessary correction (as exemplified by the collapse of several incompetent financial institutions that have proven their lack of worthiness to survive, a collapse prevented by radical government intervention).
3) A truly free market would have lacked the incentives to risk-taking that drove the housing and credit bubbles while simultaneously providing disincentives in the form of the knowledge that failure would lead to collapse. State intervention that pressured financial institutions into actions that were dangerous from a business standpoint, all in the name of ideology, combines with the removal of any real risk to financial institutions themselves (by transferring it to the taxpayers) to lead to rampant stupid risk-taking that creates the bubbles that inevitably will burst when the market attempts to correct for them.
4) Market corrections in a free environment can be painful, but they tend to hurt mainly those responsible for the problems. In a regulated environment, the corrections tend to have a harder time at fixing things, since the state injects artificial stimulation in an attempt to limit consequences. This results in longer, slower corrections that, though slightly less painful in the immediate present, end up being much harsher to a much wider portion of the economy, as the imbalances present begin to be exacerbated by interventions, thereby spreading the impact to more and more sectors of the economy.
My ultimate conclusion then is that the general government is taking exactly the wrong approach to this situation. They were instrumental in causing it by means of their regulations and incentives set up to ensure certain high-risk people could be approved for loans that they otherwise couldn't get. They have been instrumental in prolonging and increasing its effects by means of their bailout and further intervention policies, thereby preventing a localized correction from taking place. Finally, they are poised to cause it all to happen again, by setting the precedent of goverment intervetion to eliminate all negative consequences from taking stupid, economically infeasible risks that otherwise would have been prevented from happening due to the very real risk of catastrophic financial damage caused to those institutions that indulged in such nonsensical practices.
What can one do about it? Support those members of Congress who opposed the bailout votes. Fight to see that those members of Congress who voted in favor of the bailouts fail to be reelected. In short, transition control of Congress away from those who would turn us into a socialist workers' paradise with everyone accountable only to the state and toward those who believe in truly free markets, individual responsibility, and the rule of law as exemplified by the Supreme Law of the Land, the United States Constitution.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
On the nature of nations and nationalism.
I think it is important to clear up some basic terminology, especially if I plan on having very many more posts of a political nature. This will deal with nationalism and its various related terms.
What is nationalism? It is a recent phenomenon (with roots in Europe in the Enlightenment period, if I remember correctly) that has spread throughout the world much like a systemic autoimmune disorder affects the entire body. Nationalism is the glorification of the "nation," a term which as been corrupted from a simple historical term useful for tracing tribal units and other people groups into some kind of mythical racial superentity. In the good old days, a nation was simply a group of people that shared similar linguistic roots. In the last few hundred years however it has shifted to be a genetic, cultural, racist term. Nationalism, then, is the promotion of the changed idea of nationhood into the most important defining characteristic of a state or of a people. For instance, a Turk is someone who is ethnically descended from Turkish ancestors, who speaks Turkish, who preferably lives in modern-day Turkey, and in many cases (though not exclusively) is a follower of Islam. A Greek is someone from modern Greece (or from formerly greek-speaking areas, such as Asia Minor, who was forced to move to Greece), with Greek ancestors, who speaks modern Greek, and who is a nominal member of the official Church of Greece. A Frenchman is a person who lives in France, who speaks French, who is either an enlightened atheist or a nominal Catholic, and who has French ancestors. A German is someone from modern-day Germany, with German ancestors, who speaks German, and who is either a nominal Lutheran (or German Prostestant or whatever they call it now) or a nominal Catholic.
The defining characteristic then becomes a sense of ethnic unity with one's fellows, with the assumption (though vigorously denied by all and sundry in the modern era) that one's specific ethnic background is somehow inherently superior (both in prowess and in moral worth) to all others (generally there is at least on specific ethnicity to which it is emphatically, even violently, opposed). Nationalism has resulted in the unification of Germany and of Italy, but it has also led to the dissolusion of a great many states. Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, modern Georgia, Serbia, etc. Nationalism is also responsible for warmongering and violence on a grand scale. Terrorism, world wars, and most especially genocides such as the Holocaust (against Jews, Gypsies, Russians, and others), the Armenian Genocide, ethnic cleansing in Darfur, and many others. All in all, nationalism is overwhelmingly a negative force, one which spawns violence, which leads to politics of the nation instead of politics of the ideal (dictatorship becomes much easier when one can appeal to nationalism, which incidentally prepares people mentally for the idea that one should sacrifice everything to promote the ascendency of the nation, making for very effective propoganda during times of war), and which promotes bigotry and racism instead of the meritocracy that directs all the most successful of states.
Compare this to how things used to be. Under the Hellenistic governments of the Macedonian Successors, Greek as a language was vital to effective administration. It brought with it naturally many elements of Greek culture and civilization, but ultimately it was not a racial or ethnic thing in any way. All that one needed to do in order to succeed was to learn Greek. An Ethiopian, a Persian, or a Jew would be equally able to rise to the highest of positions in the administration of one of the successors' empires simply by knowing Greek and being competent. Look too at the Romans, the world's paragon of meritocracy in premodern times. There are Isaurians (barbarians from the mountains of Asia Minor), Armenians, Thracians, Arabs, Italians, Greeks, and any number of other ethnicities that managed to rise to the highest office ever instituted among men: Emperor of the Roman Empire. Did their race or ethnicity, or even their native tongue matter at all? No! All that was required of them was that they learn Latin, and later Greek, and that they be competent (in many cases supremely so). If someone saw the opportunity and took it, he could rise from stableboy to Emperor in almost no time at all. Indeed, some of the best rulers in the entire history of the world were spawned by a line founded by one such stableboy. Look at Justin and Justinian, a pair of country hicks who were not even literate when they moved to Constantinople. The former rose to be commander of the imperial guard before becoming emperor, while the latter educated himself and became one of the greatest, most well known rulers in history. Indeed, if not for the plague that broke his empire's finances, he likely would be ranked above all others in his achievements. Would any of this have been possible if nationalism existed in its modern form at the time? Resoundingly no! Such outstanding people would have been relegated to second- or even third-class citizenship, if they were not unlucky enough to be killed off-hand in a spat of racial violence. Could Rome itself, as an empire, even have existed if nationalism were present? Again, no! Rebellion by local ethnic minorities, pogroms by local ethnic majorities, and general unrest due to nothing more than a desire to be ruled by a despot related to oneself instead of by an "other" would have torn it apart. Look at what happened to the Ottomans. They were one of the most cohesive, widely diverse states in the world until the rise of nationalism combined with inherent religious tensions (caused in no small part by oppressive anti-Christian policies enacted by various rulers) to destroy the country in a rapid series of rebellions. This was exacerbated by the rise of the Turkish nationalists, exemplified by the so-called Ataturk, who even now enjoys a near god-like reverence among his people.
Now to the United States of America. Is the US a nation? I hope not. Unfortunately, those who are most influential in shaping politics and the media in our country are trying constantly to turn us into one. We are at bottom a country, not a nation. We are unified not by a common ethnic, religious, or even linguistic unity (though English is overwhelmingly the most common tongue is use, and simple economics should dictate that those who hope to be successful on anything other than a purely local level learn at least basic speech and literacy with that language). Instead, we share a political ideal. Instead of promoting the nation over everything else, instead Americans value the rule of law and a sense of freedom and individual responsibility. Or at least, that was how things once were. During the world wars of the past century, and the polarizing Cold War, America began to see itself as something less, something more immediately obvious. People were told that they were a nation, and now most of them believe it. One can see the results in the way that our country acts, both domestically and in foreign relations. The US has become cavalier toward the sovereign rights of others states. It compromises on the highest law of the land, the Constitution itself, at every turn, simply in the name of making our nation great. People are expected to sacrifice everything, lives, property, but most especially liberty in order to promote the security and the glory of the nation. Look at the appeals about the state of education in our country. Instead of appealing to people's desire to improve the minds of their children, the pundits talk about competing with nations that have surpassed certain benchmarks. They speak of reclaiming our ascendency among the nations by improving our schools, with no mention made of improving the quality of life of our citizens for their own sake.
I don't know if I have explained myself well, but I hope that you come away with a sense of what our country, and indeed the world, has lost as a result of nationalism. It is a tool for division, a source of conflict and violence, and ultimately a means for despots and tyrants to sieze power in the name of greatness. Even the globalization movement uses nationalism well, for every instance of nationalistic conflict simply reinforces their arguments in favor of a single world government that would be above such petty differences. The problem is that it wouldn't be above it; rather, it would enable those in power to enforce their views on national differences. It would also make oppression easier. Want to keep "peace" in the Balkans? Station Greek troops in Turkey and Turkish groups in Greece. The so-called peacekeepers would be more than happy to maintain order at any cost, since they would hold the lives of those they were nominally protecting at less than the price of a bullet.
What is nationalism? It is a recent phenomenon (with roots in Europe in the Enlightenment period, if I remember correctly) that has spread throughout the world much like a systemic autoimmune disorder affects the entire body. Nationalism is the glorification of the "nation," a term which as been corrupted from a simple historical term useful for tracing tribal units and other people groups into some kind of mythical racial superentity. In the good old days, a nation was simply a group of people that shared similar linguistic roots. In the last few hundred years however it has shifted to be a genetic, cultural, racist term. Nationalism, then, is the promotion of the changed idea of nationhood into the most important defining characteristic of a state or of a people. For instance, a Turk is someone who is ethnically descended from Turkish ancestors, who speaks Turkish, who preferably lives in modern-day Turkey, and in many cases (though not exclusively) is a follower of Islam. A Greek is someone from modern Greece (or from formerly greek-speaking areas, such as Asia Minor, who was forced to move to Greece), with Greek ancestors, who speaks modern Greek, and who is a nominal member of the official Church of Greece. A Frenchman is a person who lives in France, who speaks French, who is either an enlightened atheist or a nominal Catholic, and who has French ancestors. A German is someone from modern-day Germany, with German ancestors, who speaks German, and who is either a nominal Lutheran (or German Prostestant or whatever they call it now) or a nominal Catholic.
The defining characteristic then becomes a sense of ethnic unity with one's fellows, with the assumption (though vigorously denied by all and sundry in the modern era) that one's specific ethnic background is somehow inherently superior (both in prowess and in moral worth) to all others (generally there is at least on specific ethnicity to which it is emphatically, even violently, opposed). Nationalism has resulted in the unification of Germany and of Italy, but it has also led to the dissolusion of a great many states. Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, modern Georgia, Serbia, etc. Nationalism is also responsible for warmongering and violence on a grand scale. Terrorism, world wars, and most especially genocides such as the Holocaust (against Jews, Gypsies, Russians, and others), the Armenian Genocide, ethnic cleansing in Darfur, and many others. All in all, nationalism is overwhelmingly a negative force, one which spawns violence, which leads to politics of the nation instead of politics of the ideal (dictatorship becomes much easier when one can appeal to nationalism, which incidentally prepares people mentally for the idea that one should sacrifice everything to promote the ascendency of the nation, making for very effective propoganda during times of war), and which promotes bigotry and racism instead of the meritocracy that directs all the most successful of states.
Compare this to how things used to be. Under the Hellenistic governments of the Macedonian Successors, Greek as a language was vital to effective administration. It brought with it naturally many elements of Greek culture and civilization, but ultimately it was not a racial or ethnic thing in any way. All that one needed to do in order to succeed was to learn Greek. An Ethiopian, a Persian, or a Jew would be equally able to rise to the highest of positions in the administration of one of the successors' empires simply by knowing Greek and being competent. Look too at the Romans, the world's paragon of meritocracy in premodern times. There are Isaurians (barbarians from the mountains of Asia Minor), Armenians, Thracians, Arabs, Italians, Greeks, and any number of other ethnicities that managed to rise to the highest office ever instituted among men: Emperor of the Roman Empire. Did their race or ethnicity, or even their native tongue matter at all? No! All that was required of them was that they learn Latin, and later Greek, and that they be competent (in many cases supremely so). If someone saw the opportunity and took it, he could rise from stableboy to Emperor in almost no time at all. Indeed, some of the best rulers in the entire history of the world were spawned by a line founded by one such stableboy. Look at Justin and Justinian, a pair of country hicks who were not even literate when they moved to Constantinople. The former rose to be commander of the imperial guard before becoming emperor, while the latter educated himself and became one of the greatest, most well known rulers in history. Indeed, if not for the plague that broke his empire's finances, he likely would be ranked above all others in his achievements. Would any of this have been possible if nationalism existed in its modern form at the time? Resoundingly no! Such outstanding people would have been relegated to second- or even third-class citizenship, if they were not unlucky enough to be killed off-hand in a spat of racial violence. Could Rome itself, as an empire, even have existed if nationalism were present? Again, no! Rebellion by local ethnic minorities, pogroms by local ethnic majorities, and general unrest due to nothing more than a desire to be ruled by a despot related to oneself instead of by an "other" would have torn it apart. Look at what happened to the Ottomans. They were one of the most cohesive, widely diverse states in the world until the rise of nationalism combined with inherent religious tensions (caused in no small part by oppressive anti-Christian policies enacted by various rulers) to destroy the country in a rapid series of rebellions. This was exacerbated by the rise of the Turkish nationalists, exemplified by the so-called Ataturk, who even now enjoys a near god-like reverence among his people.
Now to the United States of America. Is the US a nation? I hope not. Unfortunately, those who are most influential in shaping politics and the media in our country are trying constantly to turn us into one. We are at bottom a country, not a nation. We are unified not by a common ethnic, religious, or even linguistic unity (though English is overwhelmingly the most common tongue is use, and simple economics should dictate that those who hope to be successful on anything other than a purely local level learn at least basic speech and literacy with that language). Instead, we share a political ideal. Instead of promoting the nation over everything else, instead Americans value the rule of law and a sense of freedom and individual responsibility. Or at least, that was how things once were. During the world wars of the past century, and the polarizing Cold War, America began to see itself as something less, something more immediately obvious. People were told that they were a nation, and now most of them believe it. One can see the results in the way that our country acts, both domestically and in foreign relations. The US has become cavalier toward the sovereign rights of others states. It compromises on the highest law of the land, the Constitution itself, at every turn, simply in the name of making our nation great. People are expected to sacrifice everything, lives, property, but most especially liberty in order to promote the security and the glory of the nation. Look at the appeals about the state of education in our country. Instead of appealing to people's desire to improve the minds of their children, the pundits talk about competing with nations that have surpassed certain benchmarks. They speak of reclaiming our ascendency among the nations by improving our schools, with no mention made of improving the quality of life of our citizens for their own sake.
I don't know if I have explained myself well, but I hope that you come away with a sense of what our country, and indeed the world, has lost as a result of nationalism. It is a tool for division, a source of conflict and violence, and ultimately a means for despots and tyrants to sieze power in the name of greatness. Even the globalization movement uses nationalism well, for every instance of nationalistic conflict simply reinforces their arguments in favor of a single world government that would be above such petty differences. The problem is that it wouldn't be above it; rather, it would enable those in power to enforce their views on national differences. It would also make oppression easier. Want to keep "peace" in the Balkans? Station Greek troops in Turkey and Turkish groups in Greece. The so-called peacekeepers would be more than happy to maintain order at any cost, since they would hold the lives of those they were nominally protecting at less than the price of a bullet.
Monday, September 8, 2008
On foreign policy.
The United States of America are in a tough position, put there by the leaders of this country over the last century or more (primarily Wilson, FDR, and the Cold War presidents). What is our situation? We have soldiers scattered all across the world, we send money to people everywhere (in many cases to people on opposite sides of a single conflict), we rush to impose our will by means of economic sanctions (which tend only to hurt the masses of a country, while the elites take advantage of it to rail against us as the great enemy, thereby solidifying their control all the while enjoying an undisturbed standard of living at their citizens' expense) or by military intervention (Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq, Iraq again, Lebanon, the list keeps getting longer), we simultaneously preach about civil rights and sovereignty while pushing the UN with its terrible record on both issues (indeed, the latter is considered the enemy by proponents of the UN, while the former is ignored whenever the UN finds it expedient to do so) and while treating many other countries as if they were little more than protectorates without any of the rights of sovereign states. This cavalier attitude toward the rest of the world is harmful both to us and to them. It allows dictators and tyrants to point to us as the enemy, fueling their propoganda and making their domination of their peoples both easier and more complete. It hurts us economically, as countries everywhere see us as exploiting them and therefore try their hardest to exploit us back, by means of everything from extensive subsidies to entire industries to easy access to dirt cheap labor in large quantities. There are countless other problems caused by the pattern of behavior set by our progressive internationalist leaders over the last century, with consequences that we are even still just beginning to feel (and more loom ever closer on the horizon, such as the growing military threat in China and nacent communism resurfacing in Russia's recent policies).
So what can be done about these things? Is it too late to correct the situation, or are we stuck with a bad hand and must simply play it through to the end? All that is really needed is this: a return to Constitutional government at home and a consequent return to the basic principles of limited government, personal freedom and responsibility, and fair and moral treatment of others (both domestically/personally and internationally). Simply applying the Golden Rule should make things much better very quickly. We want other countries to treat us as a free and sovereign state, so we ought to treat them in the same manner. No violating their borders, interfering with their internal politics, or supporting unpopular or dangerous regimes with vast sums of money. End all foreign subsidies and aid, thereby cutting the government's budget by an immense sum. Eliminate our overseas bases (with the possible exception of a handful of naval stations for convenient resupply of carrier groups), bringing our troops home from wherever they may be (be it Iraq or Germany). This would not only remove a lot of the onerous presence that so many people object to, it would also make our country vastly more secure against foreign military threats (after all, who would be dumb enough to invade the USA when its entire armed force is available to oppose them instead of being scattered to the four corners of the earth?). As for trade, eliminate the various so-called free trade agreements, which are anything but free. Instead, institute a fair trade policy, where our government matches whatever subsidies a foreign state puts on a particular industry by imposing tarrifs to match, while also matching whatever tarrifs other countries put on our goods (so those who pursue a protectionist policy wind up suffering from one themselves when they try to send goods to us). This in general should promote fair trade practices, by making subsidies useless and discouraging high tarrif barriers. Let the quality of American goods speak for itself on the market; if they aren't worthwhile, then they shouldn't succeed, but if they are then their own qualities should ensure their success. The UN and other international organizations are another matter. We have ambassadors and allow embassies on our soil for the express purpose of communicating with our fellow states. Why do we need an international body with its own power, its own agenda, and its own political sensibilities (most of which are at odds with American Constitutional government) to do a job that we already have the means to accomplish? Did the UN actually stop World War Three? I think not. Indeed, by getting us into Korea and countless other conflicts, it has pushed us closer to another general war than it ever pulled us away from one. NATO may have served a certain purpose during the height of the Cold War, but now what does it really do for us other than spread our troops around to defend and increasingly hostile Europe from monsters of their own making? Mutual defense alliances and treaty organizations are a very dangerous thing. All it takes is one member deciding to go to war and suddenly we find ourselves fighting overseas for who knows what reason. Not only is that an unsafe proposition, but it is patently illegal. The warmaking power is reserved exclusively for Congress (contrary to popular belief, being commander-in-chief does not allow the President to start wars unilaterally; instead, it only allows him to direct our armed forces after Congress declares war) and is not meant to be delegated to foreign powers that most likely do not have our best interests in mind.
In short, the best option of the United States to follow is that of careful neutrality, economic fairness, and diplomatic and military firmness without needless intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign countries. To those who object to such things as the genocide in Darfur, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, or human rights abuses in China, I answer that nothing is stopping them from taking action themselves. Whether they find an organization and donate to it, purchase arms and hire instructors to promote oppressed peoples' ability to defend themselves, or even volunteer to fight on behalf of the victimized, it is their choice and their freedom so to act. The General Government of the United States has neither the responsibility nor the lawful power to interfere, nor do other governments have any legitimate ability to do the same to us. Sovereignty and responsibility are not just for individuals, they are for states as well. Respecting those things in others and promoting them internally are the best policies available to people and to countries.
So what can be done about these things? Is it too late to correct the situation, or are we stuck with a bad hand and must simply play it through to the end? All that is really needed is this: a return to Constitutional government at home and a consequent return to the basic principles of limited government, personal freedom and responsibility, and fair and moral treatment of others (both domestically/personally and internationally). Simply applying the Golden Rule should make things much better very quickly. We want other countries to treat us as a free and sovereign state, so we ought to treat them in the same manner. No violating their borders, interfering with their internal politics, or supporting unpopular or dangerous regimes with vast sums of money. End all foreign subsidies and aid, thereby cutting the government's budget by an immense sum. Eliminate our overseas bases (with the possible exception of a handful of naval stations for convenient resupply of carrier groups), bringing our troops home from wherever they may be (be it Iraq or Germany). This would not only remove a lot of the onerous presence that so many people object to, it would also make our country vastly more secure against foreign military threats (after all, who would be dumb enough to invade the USA when its entire armed force is available to oppose them instead of being scattered to the four corners of the earth?). As for trade, eliminate the various so-called free trade agreements, which are anything but free. Instead, institute a fair trade policy, where our government matches whatever subsidies a foreign state puts on a particular industry by imposing tarrifs to match, while also matching whatever tarrifs other countries put on our goods (so those who pursue a protectionist policy wind up suffering from one themselves when they try to send goods to us). This in general should promote fair trade practices, by making subsidies useless and discouraging high tarrif barriers. Let the quality of American goods speak for itself on the market; if they aren't worthwhile, then they shouldn't succeed, but if they are then their own qualities should ensure their success. The UN and other international organizations are another matter. We have ambassadors and allow embassies on our soil for the express purpose of communicating with our fellow states. Why do we need an international body with its own power, its own agenda, and its own political sensibilities (most of which are at odds with American Constitutional government) to do a job that we already have the means to accomplish? Did the UN actually stop World War Three? I think not. Indeed, by getting us into Korea and countless other conflicts, it has pushed us closer to another general war than it ever pulled us away from one. NATO may have served a certain purpose during the height of the Cold War, but now what does it really do for us other than spread our troops around to defend and increasingly hostile Europe from monsters of their own making? Mutual defense alliances and treaty organizations are a very dangerous thing. All it takes is one member deciding to go to war and suddenly we find ourselves fighting overseas for who knows what reason. Not only is that an unsafe proposition, but it is patently illegal. The warmaking power is reserved exclusively for Congress (contrary to popular belief, being commander-in-chief does not allow the President to start wars unilaterally; instead, it only allows him to direct our armed forces after Congress declares war) and is not meant to be delegated to foreign powers that most likely do not have our best interests in mind.
In short, the best option of the United States to follow is that of careful neutrality, economic fairness, and diplomatic and military firmness without needless intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign countries. To those who object to such things as the genocide in Darfur, ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, or human rights abuses in China, I answer that nothing is stopping them from taking action themselves. Whether they find an organization and donate to it, purchase arms and hire instructors to promote oppressed peoples' ability to defend themselves, or even volunteer to fight on behalf of the victimized, it is their choice and their freedom so to act. The General Government of the United States has neither the responsibility nor the lawful power to interfere, nor do other governments have any legitimate ability to do the same to us. Sovereignty and responsibility are not just for individuals, they are for states as well. Respecting those things in others and promoting them internally are the best policies available to people and to countries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)