November | 2011 | Rose of Dawn

Musing by Lake Michigan

No Work Should Equal No Rule
Work is, ultimately, accountability. It is the check and balances of everyday life, fostering sustained competency and requiring continual reality checks.
It is worth reflecting that most “leaders” who have turned their country upside down through ideology and political huckstering have one thing in common – they have never worked for a living. There appears to be a strong inverted correlation between not being able to sustain your own existence and having a firm conviction that you know what is best for everyone elses existence.
Lenin was essentially a trust fund kid. Stalin’s roots were directly criminal. Hitler’s was a “artistic” vagabond. Mao jumped from plan to plan, living off the sweat of his father. Nehru was a supreme dilettante – his parents’ demands for him to grow up notwithstanding. Marx was simply a bum, his whole ideology put forward as his revenge for never having enough money – though he spent his life basically sponging off others without the slightest intention of paying them back.
In a related fashion, some have been “academics” – as close as you can get to not working while still being paid. For example, the Khmer Rouge were all academic ideological intellectuals. If they hadn’t been able to liquidate 1/3 of their country, they would have no doubt lived out their days debating existentialism at the Sorbonne.
The terrorists of our day follow the same pattern. Osama Bin Laden was a trust fund kid who wanted the world to pay attention to him. Unfortunately, he found a way. Indeed, virtually no “terrorists” have or had any jobs.
So, why not make the UN useful. Pass a “law” that no individual may serve as the actual leader of any country who has not earned his or her own living for at least twenty years. Apply that law to the cast of monsters, simpletons and incompetents who have done so much damage – suddenly history, and the world, would be very different. Copyright 2008 by J. Barnes

Defining the Third World

Although you will find not find it in any textbook or atlas, the geographical boundaries of the Third World can be easily defined. The Third World exists wherever the ability to compromise does not exist.
We often view the refusal to compromise as a commendable virtue but, like most things, it is a matter of degrees. Standing by “principles” in a clan based manner is the death knell of a reasoned, pluralistic society.
Like us, the Third World also wants peace, justice and prosperity- just as soon as everyone who disagrees with them is dead. To tolerate a different point of view is unfathomable. To compromise so that the nation can move forward is a non sequitur. There is no concept of “live and let live”. Absent application of crushing force, no amount of work, aid, or negotiations will lift or improve a country that would rather hate its enemies to the last rather then sit down and sort matters out.
Hitler is a very good example of a Third World mentality. Hitler had zero interest in deviating one inch from what he wanted to do. He spoke (and who knows perhaps actually believed) of a promised land that awaited the Germans. But first, every enemy had to be dealt with, every opponent destroyed. Germany held a very strong hand – Hitler managed to throw it all away.
It is one of the annoyance of modern society that we have to put up with all sorts of nonsense that we disagree with. But imagine a society where each group is fighting for their “world view” and that view is the only one that is correct, and anyone who disagrees is absolutely the enemy, who must be destroyed without compromise.
It is a waste of time to try and set people onto a “reasoned” path when none have any interest in “reason” (except perhaps as a short term tactical move). Copyright 2008 by J. Barnes

When the Money Runs Dry

We spend millions of dollars to subsidize teenagers to have children. We spend millions of dollars “institutionalizing” these children in purported centers of learning in which what is actually learned is socially and culturally destructive. We spend millions of dollars on police to arrest the “educated” children. We spend millions of dollars in a dysfunctional legal system to convict the “educated” child. We spend millions of dollars to put the “educated” child in prison. We then put the “educated” child back on the street, to perpetuate the cycle onto another generation.
We spend millions upon millions of dollars not to solve problems, but to cause them to exponentially increase. The government is best that governs least is true because only government can continually spend billions of dollars to reinforce, increase and solidify failure.
So pray tell, what will we do when the money runs out – what will we do when the whole madness, like the Soviet Union, implodes on its own irrationality and insanity.
Copyright 2008 by J. Barnes

Tom Brown’s School Days Revisited

There are many things we need to do, even must do, without in any manner being legally compelled to do them. For example, we need to work. There are, however, basically two areas where the law compels us to do something, and controls our physical movement in connection with same. One is of our own making – prison. The other we have no say in – school.
It might seem odd too place prison and school in the same breath, but is it?
Both are by definition institutional settings. Both impose conformity and expectations upon those compelled to attend. We take it as a given we are worse off for having gone to prison, but better off for having gone to school.
The premise of prison at least reasonably relates to its actuality. The premise of schooling does not reasonably relate to its actuality – i.e., that you will surrender you children to our care custody and control. We will endeavor to transform them to the lowest common denominator with values alien to you. And you will pay for the privilege.
Until Thatcher, postwar England was crippled by syndicated political unions. Americas equivalent is the teachers union. A prerequisite to teaching is obtaining a certificate by the State. Obtaining the certificate has little to do with the character, probity, intelligence or drive of the teacher. It has almost nothing to do with whether the teacher knows the subject matter being taught. Rather, obtaining the teaching certificate is depended upon completion of the left wing “educational” program (i.e., “there is no right, there is no wrong; “big bad West; “No one is responsible for their actions” ). Once so certified, teachers depart from the political line at their peril. However, if they keep their mouths shut and go along with the program, they can rest assured that they will be underworked, overpaid and have job security that few of us can dream of.

Fear, boredom, crushing property taxes, left wing ideology and stifling bureaucracy – that is the legacy of our compulsory educational system. Like mass market and mass media, it thrusts us all down to the lowest common denominator.
Public school is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem. Parents, you are being played.
Copyright 2008 by J. Barnes

Accountability

Accountability for ones own actions is the hallmark of maturity. It is also precisely the component missing from Liberal America.
That liberals never admit to mistakes is for them besides the point. Liberals don’t think that way. Rather, for liberals what matters is that they meant do well – it makes them feel good. The actual consequences of their actions are irrelevant. As long as it emotionally feels good, the actual analytical factual consequences mean nothing – their brains are simply not wired that way.
If something feels good at a cost of ten million dollars, the fact that it doesn’t work means nothing, except that it will certainly feel better at twenty million. And saying yes is certainly more fun. However, statesmanship is not a popularity contest, and the art of prudently governing, of maintaining the unwritten pact between “the dead the living and the not yet born” consists much more of saying no then of saying yes. As President Coolidge noted, “nine-tenths of a president’s callers at the White House want something they ought not to have. If you keep dead still they will run out in three or four minutes.”
From the liberal perspective, the real nice thing about consequences is that they are rarely immediate – when in doubt, simply engage in character assassination. I want to help, therefore I’m the good guy. Thus, as government and laws continue to permeate outward and inward, it bears note that the real good guys – the real heroes – are those who can say “no”. Truman was right, “the only thing new is the history you don’t know.”
Copyright 2008 by J. Barnes

On Slavery and Reparations

Slavery is, at its core, the condition (be it de facto or de jure) by which law, custom or the practice of society gives certain rights to some while denying it to others. Ultimately, slavery is the negative of equality before the law and of equal protection under the law.
It is the fashion of the times, by those bent on the suicidal destruction of their hearth and home, to roundly and routinely condemn the West as the sole perpetrators of the slave trade. The victim are portrayed (with at least some rational basis) as the decedents of the slaves and (with little rational basis) as the African nations. I write to state otherwise.
It is the singular genius of the West that they alone in world history consciously set out to destroy and end the slave trade and the practice of slavery. Where is the monument in Africa dedicated to the English navy and its overworked and underpaid sailors who accomplished this? How many African-Americans today embrace a religion (Islam) which into our own generation continued to look upon sub-Sahara Africa as a vast farm of slave labor? What African leader has ever addressed the simple fact that the African slave trade was premised on the active and eager participation of many African groups against other African groups? Indeed, England found it necessary to systematically “bribe” local chieftains to obtain their cooperation in stopping the slave trade.
Throughout history, no doubt, many saw slavery as wrong when it was directed at them personally. But none saw it wrong as a general concept. Above all else, it must be remembered that the concept that there was anything wrong with slavery belongs solely to the West. It is a Western idea, and its effect on society is one of the central explanations of both the rise of the West, and of an increasing prosperous world. For when wealth, production or status cannot be drawn by looting (and in the final analysis, having another persons uncompensated sweat enrich you is looting) profound economic and societal consequences are set in motion.
Slavery was fundamental to the ancient world, slavery was fundamental to the medieval world (calling it feudalism doesn’t drastically change what it is). Only with the rise of the West in the modern era did a civilization consciously set out to eradicate the practice, and to tender the premise that it was both fundamentally wrong and an impediment to the growth and development of all of mankind.
So, on the subject of reparations, I think we all need to dip deep into our pockets and write the Queen of England a big check. I admit a personal interest in this, as I turn intend to have the Queen of England write me a big check for the wrongs done to my Irish ancestors. Of course, the money Irish-Americans get from the Queen might in turn just cover our debts as Americans to the loyalists in the Revolution, whose descendants now live in Canada. Perhaps it would be best if we called the whole matter “even steven”.
Copyright 2008 by J. Barnes

Checking the Checkers

If you want a second opinion on a medical matter, you go to another doctor. If you want a second opinion on a legal matter, you go to another lawyer. However, if you want a second opinion on the running of a vast corporate empire, you don’t go to another businessman, accountant or knowledgeable worker. Rather, you go to a retired politician, a feel good charity person, or just a plain “diversity based” group of people who know nothing of the subject matter.
Who am I describing? The basic composition of Corporate America’s Board of Directors. Imagine if, as a check to the President’s power, the Founding Fathers had created a Congress dependent on the President and requiring that anyone serving in Congress must be completely ignorant of the workings of Government. Yet that is precisely what has developed in Corporate America.
The Board of Directors of a company should consist of people who know that companies business. It should consist of independent businessman who have met all the difficulties of running a corporation. It should consist of “professionals” versed in independent thought in the area of accounting and law.
Increasingly though, Board of Directors are used to appease the Government (and liberal interest groups) in touchy feel ways. We “care” about the community, so we appoint a community charity. We “care” about diversity, so we appoint racial groups. We “care” (perhaps understandably) about the power of Washington, so we appoint connected former politicians.
The Board of Directors are supposed to be the policeman of the Officers and Directors. That means, most times, like policeman, we are left to go about our business. However, when lines are crossed or possibly crossed, it is the duty of the Board of Directors to make inquiries and take the appropriate action.
Taking over a corporation, like a dictator taking over a third world country, can be an invitation to engage in looting. It is the duty of the officer and directors to appoint men and women who are driven by building the Company – not by financial enriching themselves.
To state the obvious, for a Board of Directors to mean anything, they have to know what they are doing. As matters stand know, most Board of Directors don’t know anything. They do as their told and receive generous payment for basically doing nothing.
Shareholders of the World Unite!
Copyright 2008 by J. Barnes

Government Shouldn’t Matter Much
What bothers me most about politicians – especially of the looney left sort, is the assumption under which they operate. That assumption, simply stated, is that government matters. Indeed, that government matters an awful, awful lot.
Certainly, Hitler or Lenin would have most earnestly agreed. Government is to rule, to control, to direct, to modify behavior, beliefs and mores – and to punish and coerce those who disagree (and in fact also many who don’t disagree).
The genius of America lies (or at least used to lie) in the exact opposite assumption. Government doesn’t matter much – and shouldn’t matter much -in a healthy functional society. In fact, government is a necessary negative, to be carefully watched and internally kept in equilibrium through checks and balances. The Founding Fathers, quite correctly, understood that it was very difficult for government to do good, and all to easy for government to do bad.
What should matter is for you to decide, though some obvious areas are family, religion, community, career, civic organizations, and self-improvement. This obvious and important truth is slowly being eroded in our society.
Beware of false premises.

The Manhattan Project Revisited

Theoretical understanding, a sudden need and the real fear that the other side would get it first resulted in the United States successfully splitting the atom in the course of time defined by the Second World War.
It might well have been better if this pandoras box had not been opened, but the point is that application of major resources to a major need produced a successful result. In like fashion, the challenge made in the early 1960’s, to land a man on the moon before the decade was out, was timely achieved by the end of the 1960’s.
Yet, since the OPEC oil embargo of the 1970’s, this country’s economic viability and security has largely been at the mercy of matters outside our own borders.
One must ask, under seven different Presidents, where has been the equivalent of the Manhattan Project or the Apollo Program. Where has been the application of immense resources geared at achieving a technological solution to our energy needs (and concurrently freeing us from the geopolitical mess where most oil comes from).
Government does so much, so poorly – why won’t it do something that would actually be of value?

Pearl Harbor, or, Why Am I Writing A Check?

On December 7, 1941, the Japanese launched a successful surprise attack on the United States. At the end of the last century, the United States finally resolved this matter by having me (i.e., a taxpayer) cut a check to the descendants of Japanese-Americans.
Perhaps America of the 1990’s would have thought twice if it could feel what America felt in 1941. Perhaps had this legislation come up for approval on September 11, 2001, it would have been viewed differently.
The premise behind reparations to Japanese -Americans (note the word reparations – funny how it now comes up all over the place) was simple. Without due process of law, the Federal Government had rounded up citizens who were of Japanese descent and relocated them to internment camps.
The United States was at war, by virtue of a surprise attack, by a very determined and (at least initially) very successful enemy. In hindsight, FDR clearly did act wrongly in imposing and maintaining the internment of Japanese-Americans, but the concept of writing checks five decades after the fact belongs to personal injury lawyers, not to the Federal Government. The fact is that the vast majority of Japanese-Americans did hope that Japan would win (or at least not lose). Subjective hope, without actual action does not make treason, but the United States in 1941 did not believe it was in a position to ponder legal niceties, anymore than President Lincoln was in 1861 when he suspended Habeas Corpus (should checks be issued to descendants of Confederate sympathizers?)
It is important to note that there has never been the slightest allegation that the United States carried out their internment policy in a cruel or uncivilized matter. No one has ever suggested that the United States treated the civilians like the Japanese treated the civilians that it captured.
A final thought. I cannot help but wonder, will my children one day have to write checks to the children of those now interned at Guantanamo Bay?
Copyright 2008 by J. Barnes

Stalin’s Child

That the Democrats are wrong is documented by the obvious fact that they do not have what they should have (at all levels of government) – a clear, comfortable and consistent majority.
If Democrats are for everyone but the rich, what is the problem?
The problem is that the electorate smells a rat. Democrats pay lip service to the working man, family and education, but they are actually creating a world that is far more concerned with a transvestites rights to a free attorney to obtain free medical treatment for a gender change.
When the Soviet Union still held elections (of a sort), Stalin’s cronies expressed concern that another faction of communists were going to prevail in Leningrad and Moscow. Stalin responded that it is not how people vote that matters, rather, what matters is who counts the votes. Needless to say, Stalin had already taken over the electoral machinery.
The people smell a rat, and thus, largely against their own self-interest, continue to make the Republican party viable. But the Democrats are dishonest – not stupid. Their affirmation of Stalin goes along the lines of, “let the people pass their laws – we will decide what the laws mean.”
Fundamentally, the Democrats strategy is two-fold. Politically, they pander to the voters. Concurrently, and far more importantly, they are slowly taking over and perverting the basic guardians and transmitters of our laws, morality and cultural heritage (i.e., the courts, education, mass media).
Like Stalin, the Democrats are patient. While you may sense something is amiss, will your children? Or your grandchildren?
Copyright 2008 by J. Barnes

India – Pakistan-Bangladesh

The nation that never was lies in the Indian subcontinent. Britain brought to India what had never been – a confederation of unity. Contrary to the required pontifications of the left wing, the Indian subcontinent is direct proof not of the negative effects of colonialism, but of the negative effects of the end of colonialism.
America is blessed because, on balance, the founding fathers loved their country more than themselves. Not so with their Indian counterparts. The Hindu’s and Muslim’s found a ripping seizure of their land preferable to sharing power with one another. Nehru trounced the rule of law upon the princely states, Eastern Pakistan ruptured into Bangladesh, and India and Pakistan remained forever locked over Kashmir.
No foreign power could ever have done to the Indian subcontinent what they voluntarily did to themselves. A prosperous, strong and secure India not only would exist today, nothing could have stopped it – except the political leaders who “freed” India from Britain.
The solution is as simple as it is impossible. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh surrender their sovereignty to Britain. Britain devolves back dominion status to India. One nation, under a federated system.
Meanwhile, back in the United States, the liberals have found a different solution. The liberals aren’t very good at solving our problems, but their excellent at making other peoples problems are problems. Those of the Indian subcontinent (even the elitist Brahmins), are now categorized as oppressed minorities upon entry to the United States. So as the mass weight of Indians problems and population are demographically thrust upon the Unites States, the Indians lot may marginally improve, ours will certainly decline. Leave it to the liberals.

The Black Death Explained

In 1348 the learned faculty of the University of Paris prepared a detailed report to king Philip VI regarding the cause of the Black Death. In a most learned and knowing manner, they ascribed the Black Death to a triple conjunction of Saturn, Jupiter and Mars in the 40th degree of Aquarius.
We may (I hope) smile at their ignorance, but it occurs to me that the academics of fourteenth century France would be well at home on today’s Supreme Court. They both do essentially the same thing – wrap up a bunch of nonsense in the guise of scholarly erudition. The wise and very limited function of the Court has been replaced by a black hole – voraciously sucking away our liberties, our freedoms and the basis of our Federal government.
In Rome, rule by Emperor slowly but surely sucked away the energy and public spirit of its people. Today, much the same is happening as all questions, decisions and plans become legal, and as the Court by fiat extends its grip deeper and deeper into the fabric of everyday life.
Things which are fundamental are often subtle in their rise and spread. Fear destroys initiative. As we atomize as a society, not only do we lose what the Roman Republic called the “Civic Romanus”, but we also turn our own motto inside out. What once was “of many, one” is fast becoming “of one, many”.
I hope the leaders and esteemed jurists of today live to be 100, that they could see the consequences of their action.
Copyright 2008 by J. Barnes

The New Christians

In Ancient times, there was a strong correlation between the rise and spread of Christianity and the decline and end of pagan animal sacrifices. As the ancient religions were losing sway, sacrifices were no longer openly done in public temples but furtively hidden away – as something shameful and disgusting. As soon as they had the power to do so, ancient Christianity eradicated the pagan religions.
The modern day Christians now find themselves in a role reversal, ever retreating before the new faith of ideological secularists who are bent on marginalizing – and eventually destroying – faith based on a higher deity. The secularists faith rests with the “supermen” of ideology, immorality and nihilism – who will bring heaven on earth. No matter that what they have actually brought, again and again, is hell on earth.
The ideological secularists face the same problem that the ancient Christians faced – the majority of people don’t want it. However, as Lenin knew, institutions are less important than who gets to manipulate those institutions.
Thus, today, the First Amendment, put into place by the Founding Fathers to uphold religious practice – without forcing any “national” religion, has been the weak link used by the secularists through the branch of government most susceptible to ideological intrigue and least accountable to the people – the judiciary.
If you believe the modern Supreme Court’s opinions can in any manner be reconciled with anything before the 1960’s – than I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in buying.
The predicate under which this nation arose, developed and grew was Christianity – albeit in many forms. Since the 1960’s, it has been the concerted efforts of ideologues (read judges) to secularize and marginalize religion. They don’t have the power to eliminate it yet, but like the early Christians view of pagan religions, they view it with contempt, scorn and ridicule. Like pagan sacrifice, the secularists want this whole religious business to be done in a hidden and furtive matter. From there, like the ancient Christians to the ancient pagans, the next step will be to eliminate it entirely.
There is a rather ironic wrinkle to this. Courts are not simply the conduits of the secular ideology, Court’s are fundamental to the new religion. The law is their God. The law, not some Christian God (or Jewish or Muslim God) should govern our daily lives, norm and expectations.
If history has taught us anything, it is that God’s do not like competition. Hence, as Judges are the new priests of the new religion of secularism, it is only to be expected that, like the ancient Christians, they seek to marginalize, trivialize and eventually eliminate the competition.
Copyright 2008 by J. Barnes

Corruption Index

I recently noticed that the Economist (the last remaining intelligent English speaking news weekly) publishes a “corruption index”. Without a doubt, they are on to something.
You may speak of democracy, ambition, drive, infrastructure, ad nauseam. But whether a country will succeed – will work, will function – can almost always be consistently answered by understanding that countries level of corruption.
This is admittedly a tricky wicket to approach. Corruption is synonymous with dishonesty, a “judgement” value which PC ideology strictly prohibits (a judgement call in and of itself, but never mind).
But if we look at reality, rather than subjective PC ideology, there is a direct correlation between a country’s honesty and how well it historically functions. Japan compared to China. Germany compared to Russia. Canada compared to Nigeria.
A countries corruption level, not elaborate rhetorical nonsense promulgated by the UN and left wingers, is what inevitably matters in the long run. Although a cultures integrity, its honesty, its “corruption index” are rigid in the short term, they are certainly fungible (for better or worse) in the long term.
Indeed, while China is getting more honest and less corrupt, the United States is getting less honest and more corrupt. This is not a “governmental issue”. It is a fundamental measure of the mores and values of society, imparted on its individuals and eventually finding expression in all fabrics of the society (including the government).
Most people are neither irrefutably good or bad. Rather, they are what the times make
them. I shudder for our future. Copyright 2008 by J. Barnes

Presidential Immunity

The noble sentiment that, “No one is above the law” is, when applied to the President, rubbish. Its proper translation is, regardless of the Constitution of the United States, regardless of the separation of powers and of our system of checks and balances, the Judicial branch may sit in judgement on (i.e., read “destroy”) the Executive branch whenever the mood (i.e., read “politics”) suits it.
The President is above the law. Or rather, stating the matter correctly, the Executive branch (the President) is not subject to the Judiciary branch (or the Legislative branch) of government except as indicated by the Constitution. The opposite, it might be added, applies as well. This is what our system of checks and balances is all about.
Outside of the Constitution, what is a President subject to? Well cynical left-wingers get ready to laugh, because the answer is the time-honored ones of character, integrity, probity and conscience. And as to the Constitution, was it silent on this matter – absolutely not. On the one hand, the Founding Fathers very much wanted the President to act as an elected, constitutional King. On the other hand, and very much unlike a King, they wished to check his power with the balance of the people – expressed through the legislative – to remove the “King” under extraordinary circumstances.
Thus, under the Constitution, on any given day of the week, the House of Representatives may impeach the President, and the Senate is then obliged to try the President. Such relief is very powerful, and every President is very much aware of it. Indeed, the threat of impeachment has, in various degrees of seriousness, hovered over most Presidents, and two presidents have actually been impeached.

The Judiciary (i.e., the Supreme Court) oversees any impeachment trial of the President. This is another example of the wisdom of the checks and balances. The Senate may try the President, but they do not get to act as the Judge. This, and this alone, is the only “power” the Judiciary branch has over the Executive branch. The President is above the law, and was absolutely intended to be by the Founding Fathers.
Copyright 2008by J. Barnes

Don’t Blame Bush

There’s a whole lot to be said for Theodore Roosevelt, but there is also one big wrong. Teddy Roosevelt’s “Bull Moose Party” split the Republican party, thereby causing Woodrow Wilson to be elected. What does that have to do with being in Iraq? It has everything to do with it.
Ideology’s, like plagues, are highly infectious and in a historical context make for strange bedfellows. There really ought to be an amendment against Southern Baptists of the preaching persuasion from becoming president. President Wilson, like President Carter, was an unmitigated disaster to this country. Carter was at least an incompetent disaster, thus leaving little historical wake. Wilson, on the other hand, was a most talented and charismatic disaster and his prodigy, like the prodigy launched by Lenin (and equally resting on a belief that divine powers had foretold what was good for humanity) left a tragic wake through the century. Lenin is at least discredited. Wilson, unfortunately, is not.
If you want to be a revered leader, it helps to be dead. Living leaders have a bad habit of talking, and thus complicating matters. The liberal darling Wilson would today squarely support George Bush. The despised Republican “isolationists” would be squarely in the left wing anti-war camp. For the wrong reasons, the left wingers are for once right.
That we will teach the rest of the world democracy, that the world would be run by the UN (a/k/a the League of Nations), that touchy feel entitlements can be applied to the rest of the world – these are the legacies of Wilson, and they deeply infected the Democratic party and the East-Coast media and high brows, to be later translated to the populous (in a much vulgarized fashion) by way of Hollywood.
What was it Spruance said about his decision to break off the Midway engagement (having achieved probably the greatest naval victory in history), “Get in, get out, don’t lose your shirt”
I didn’t see a compelling reason for either Iraq war (Kuwait’s existence or non-existence being very low on the world’s worry list). But, having allowed the first Iraq war to spawn into a protracted, dysfunctional UN managed peace (read Versailles), there is something to be said for going in to effect a regime change. However, having decided to topple Hussein, the basic strategic policy of the United States should have been, “Get in, get out, don’t lose your shirt.”
Copyright 2008 by J. Barnes

On Capitalism and Free Trade

What is capitalism exactly, and why must I embrace it? Because it fairly allocates reward to effort? Surely no one believes that – the country clubs of the world are filled with “juniors” whose effort essentially equates to the bum on the street (as does there sense of entitlement). Because it equates with industrialism ? No it does not. Because it is fair – no it is not. Capitalism is in many ways the first great PC word – charged with inferences but devoid of any actual meaning. Why, one wonders, should we embrace a term placed on us by our enemies of old (communism in general and the USSR in particular).
Capitalism – to use a word I can’t make go away – arose out of the decline of governmental power – the decline of mercantilism in particular. The Founding Fathers were remarkably uninterested in delineating the economic status of the new United States. Obsession with definitional terms is part and parcel with the rigididy, and inevitable failure, of absolute idelougy in liue of reason, common sense and learned experience. A rose by ano other name would smell as sweet.
In the absence of Governmental control, a free market arises by default. But what that means in practice depends on a country’s particulars at any given time. We should accept the general proposition of our economy, we should continue to try and understand the working of economics, but we should not declare and box ourselves in to some all encompassing and rigid ideology.
To give capitalism its due, Ayn Rand was right on one point. Capitalism is predicated on the creation of wealth through the voluntary exchange of goods and services. History is of course full of great instances of wealth creation. But usually it was premised on coercion, that is, on looting in some fashion, be it in the form of conquest, expropriation, enslavement or simple royal fiat.
To make money under capitalism one has to ultimately produce or provide a good or service in a free (i.e., competitive) market that someone else is willing to voluntarily pay for. In contrast, government – even when it seeks to do good – does not entice – government (lawfully) coerces. So I am all for free trade – all else being equal. However, it seems to me that the present fanatical attachment to “free trade” lacks some rather important qualifications and perspective.
The historical background flows from the work of British economist David Ricardo. Ricardo’s principle concern was laying to rest mercantilism. Mercantilism fundamental premise was their was only so much wealth in the world, and thus if you gain a dollar someone else must lose a dollar. While mercantilism may still exist in our subconscious more than we realize, at a governmental level the fundamental premise today is that done right, voluntary market interchange creates wealth for all, and raises the living standard for all. Wealth, in short, is not static but dynamic.
Ricardo’s most cited example is a comparison of Portugal’s wine (i.e., port) production vs England’s production of wool (i.e., cloth). Ricardo’s example supported his argument that England should produce wool, sell the surplus and import and buy wine from Portugal. Portugal, in turn, should do the opposite. The net effect would be to make both countries wealthier. In, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, Ricardo states:
England may be so circumstanced that to produce the cloth may require the labor of 100 men for one year and if she attempted to make the wine, it might require the labor of 120 men for the same time. England would therefore find it in her interest to import wine, and to purchase it by the exportation of cloth.

To produce the wine in Portugal might require only the labor of 80 men for one year, and to produce the cloth in the same country might require the labor of 90 men for the same time. It would therefore be advantageous for her to export wine in exchange for cloth.

I agree with Ricardo’s statement, indeed for its application to humanity’s wealth and prosperity, Ricardo’s analysis ranks with Einstein’s Theory of relativity in its brilliance. However, like all scientific propositions, one must be mindful of the underlying premises.
First, to state a fact. For the vast majority of America’s history, tariffs were the norm and not the exception. The purpose of tariffs were both to protect fledgling industry and to serve as a source of revenue for the Federal Government. It may be difficult to imagine today, but (except for temporary measures during the Civil War) American’s paid no direct taxes to the Federal Government in the 1800’s.
I would submit that Ricardo’s fundamental tenants of free trade still holds – when all else is equal. “All else”, in ascertaining the most efficient market transfer, essentially correlates to the economic and legal environmental burdens a business must function under. The immediately pressing burdens are salary and the welfare state. This is not to criticize the welfare state (or employee’s rights) it is simply to state that while (more or less) the United States can engage in free trade on a (more or less) level playing field with say, Western Europe, it cannot do so with China. The wage differential makes that impossible, unless the United States wishes to abandon a stable middle class, the welfare state and the penumbra of laws that govern the work place and the business world.
Consider again Ricardo’s proposition. No matter who can do what more efficiently in labor demands, the underlying assumption is that the labor costs constituting the measurement are roughly comparable. But assume China’s geographical climate permits it to engage in the cloth business and the wine business. England’s production of a set amount of cloth requires the labor of 100 men, Portugal’s production of a set amount of wine requires the labor of 80 men – for China to do same would require, say, 150 laborers for cloth and 120 laborers for wine. Clearly, under Ricardo’s analysis, China should not produce (much less export) cloth or wine, but import cloth from England, wine from Portugal and expend its own internal resources elsewhere.
But, if geography made cloth and wine a viable option for China, Ricardo’s model fails (or rather, his model, as we have truncated it from its underlying premises, fails). Simply stated, because all else is not equal, China can easily afford to expend significantly more in labor and resources and yet produce a product substantially cheaper than England’s wool or Portugal’s wine. China simply does not have to compete under the economic and legal environmental burdens that exist for a business in the West. The cost of labor alone is staggeringly high in the West compared to China.
There is a calculated methodology to all of this – bring the living standard of the third world up to a level where they will be competing with the same burdens (and enjoying the benefits of) the West. However, are economy is not that strong, and the world population is much to large, to make that work. We can choose such a policy with Mexico (for reasons both altruistic and real politick). We cannot achieve it with China, or India or Indonesia, and much less China, India and Indonesia at the same time.
All of this amounts to a subsidy of the developing world – of voluntarily assuming a burden to the world’s economy. One cannot expect – and the United States certainly does not receive – any thanks for this role. It would be very dangerous to end this subsidy in toto. However, the United States cannot assume the generosity today that it could in the 1950’s. Britain carried the world in the 1800’s, the United Sates did so in the 1900’s, but overreaching has its limits and the United States is well on the way to bankrupting its home industries to the global cause of free trade.
My bottom line is not an absolute, but a general thought – reasonable tariffs to endure some base line industry,
to ensure a working class man can make a good wage for good work cannot be forsaken. Absolute free trade, in the Ricardo model, should only apply where their exists an approximate correlation in terms of the economic and legal environmental burdens a business must function under. One can hear the distant echo of William Bryan Jennings, “you shall not crucify this nation upon the cross of free trade.”

Here We Go Again

Should “same-sex” couples enjoy the right of marriage. It’s a very interesting question. My gut says no, but my intellect says yes.
As to my gut, is this not another encroachment on time-honored traditions and structures. If you can’t beat them, take over and cannibalize their institutions. Nor can this be simply be described to homophobia (don’t you love all the new words the left-wing brings to English – who says they want us all speaking Spanish). Our great ancient mentor, Greece, took homosexual relationships as a given, and considered the young man taken under the wings of an older man as fortunate. Yet, in ancient Greece, as throughout human culture, regardless of a society’s like, dislike or indifference to homosexuality, no society that I am aware of has ever granted the institution of marriage to “same-sex” couples. Our ancestors were not all fools, and we should not lightly discard what is a universal and historical human condition.
As to my intellect, and endeavoring to practice what I preach as a conservative, I am inclined (just) to give the nod in favor of same-sex marriages. Two people who love each other, and who wish to enter into the legal obligations, burdens and responsibilities of marriage as a formal affirmation of that love, should be encouraged, not branded criminals. If many are inclined to condemn homosexuals as “promiscuous” and frivolous vis-a-vie society at large, cannot homosexuals state in all fairness that society has no business passing judgement on them while concurrently denying them the right of marriage. Fundamentally, does not the greatest social experiment of all time (the United States) embrace the expansion of freedom, love, commitment and responsibility that comes with marriage. If I want to be true to my principals, I think the answer to that question is yes.

But how we get somewhere is often just as important as where we end up. Massachusetts highest court, in tradition with the out of control judicial branch throughout the country, have simply taken it upon themselves to grant homosexual marriages by judicial fiat. When will society recognize that individuals in robes, ignoring the constitution in the name of the constitution, are as much traitors as would be a President who sold military secrets to a foreign power.
Given that no society has ever recognized homosexual marriages, and given that the constitution is silent on the question, how could the Massachusetts court determine that such a legal right exists? The answer is simple, lurking under their convoluted language and sweeping statements, they simply made it up.
The question of homosexual demand for the right of marriage is exactly the question our democratic institutions are supposed to wrestle with. I suspect that “same-sex” marriages are closer to legislative right in several states than many people would believe. But the whole process of agitation for same, voting for same, conflict, consensus and compromise in the legislation is destroyed by the judicial cavalier disregard for the constitution. King George III would never have dreamed of acting with the unilateral prerogatives that the politburo of Judges have simply given themselves.
Shame on them.
Copyright 2008 by J. Barnes

Why It Happened

For 4 years, and at the cost of its national wealth and the death of million of its citizens, the French Republic withstood and eventually defeated the military onslaught of Kaiser Germany. In 1940, in six weeks, the French Republic was completely routed and beaten by Hitler’s Germany.
Those who lived through the events of 1940 asked in stunned disbelief how it could be, how it could have come to pass. How could the great French Army of World War I be so quickly and completely defeated? Churchill had the answer, “This battle,” Churchill said, “was lost a long time ago.” And so it was.
It was lost in appeasement, profound internal discord, and simply and continually allowing an enemy to keep doing wrong and keep getting away with it. France in the 1930’s had a complete loss of unity and a complete loss of will to act.
How “9-11″ could “happen” is equally a poor question without a time line perspective. But if you have to ask it – and as Churchill so clearly understood when separating an individual event from the long tragic trail that allowed it to happen – the answer is simple. The battle to prevent 9-11from happening was lost a long time ago, and every citizen of the last twenty years is equally to blame with our leaders.
Our Left-wing political ideologists (like communist ideologists) do not permit one to draw obvious facts from obvious observations. By 1975, it was a self-evident proposition that while not all Arabs are terrorists, virtually all terrorists are Arabs. One could go even further – they were all Arab males who were unmarried and not working. Such an observation, although factually true, is as PC incorrect today as was questioning appeasement in the 1920’s and 1930’s – with much the same result. When you close your eyes to reality, unfortunately (and usually after much unnecessary pain and suffering), reality has a way of forcing brutal hard truths upon even the smallest left wing brain cell.
The battle of 9-11 was lost when a foreign government (Libya) could systematically plan, prepare, execute and carry out the deliberate destruction of an American civilian plane – in flight with civilian passengers. Through luck (a delay in the Pan Am flight taking off) the plane exploded over Scotland rather then in the middle of the Atlantic. This allowed evidence to be obtained, which, as much as one can ever know anything, proved Libya’s guilt. Perhaps I missed it, but I do not recall the President of the United States going before Congress and asking that a state of war be declared upon Libya (could you imagine FDR taking this?).
When the Germans sank the Lusitania (carrying munitions directed against Germany and flying the flag of Germany’s declared enemy – Great Britain) matters were set into motion that resulted in war being declared against Germany.
As a result of Libya’s willful attack upon the United States, we entered into “negotiations.” The United States sent a very strong message to the banana brains in the Middle East – blow up one of our planes and, if we are lucky enough to catch you, you may have to negotiate with us. And every damn American that allowed this to happen is as guilty as the next.
Along similar lines, and carefully observed by Osama Bin Laden, the United States need only suffer the downing of a helicopter to turn tail and flee Somalia. When they see a weakness, terrorists, like sharks, instinctively move in for the kill.
And the battle of 9-11 was lost when left wing ideology of the 1960’s was translated into legislation of the 1970’s – and liberal judges of the 1980’s – essentially turning the FBI and the CIA into a joke. “Sensitivity training”, not stopping your nation’s enemies, was what mattered. Unless it could be construed as “right-wing” terrorism. The FBI under Clinton could expand vast resources surrounding and destroying some nut case in Texas (along with a lot of innocent children), but when it came to foreign enemies – what could one do? After all, we don’t want to upset the UN.
Of course, how could we know that an Islamic state would shelter a terrorist organization and allow it to have a base camp to train a generation of terrorists? Oh, yeah, we did know. We did nothing. Inexplicably, we did nothing even though another faction (the Northern Alliance) bravely held out against the Taliban, and asked for nothing from us but bullets and guns to fight the Taliban with (proposed mandatory State Department employment question: what do you call your enemies enemies? answer – you call them your friends, any other answer should end the employment interview).
Of course, how could we know anyone would try and destroy the World Trade Center. Oh yeah, never mind, we did know that Arab cells in the United States did previously attempt to blow up the World Trade Center – but such statement are not politically correct.
Then of course, there is the great vanguard of our national borders, the Immigration Service – a vast Federal PC bureaucracy in action. The less you have to do with western values, norms and culture, the quicker we want you to enter the U.S. (And of course it helps immensely if you don’t speak English and have a sullen temperament and disposition to the West in general).
And what my left wing loving Americans would have happened before 9-11 if Teddy Roosevelt had been President? In all probability, he would have been impeached by Congress – and you would have supported it. I would also add that Teddy Roosevelt would have been proud to be impeached and convicted for doing what he knew was right for his country. Imagine a counter-reality, a President being impeached because he would rather be a permiscous liar than an accountable adult.
Without the will to act all else is moot. Never send to know for whom the bell tolls – it tolls for thee.
Copyright 2008 by J. Barnes

In Defense of Prejudice

Those who came of age in the 1960’s have spent three decades attempting to re-make America in the image of their ideological God. In no area have they achieved greater success, or general consensus, then in eradicating prejudice. This, all must agree, can only be for the good. Is it?
What is prejudice? Norms and opinions applied by individuals and groups to (or against) others based on events, circumstances or learned behavior.
Prejudice serves a profoundly curative role. Prejudice is the subtle signal sent by society to apply pressure to change. In the final analysis, to outlaw “prejudice” is to impose thought control. It is to hold someone legally accountable – in a free country – not for what they did (their actions), but for how they feel and think (or supposedly feel and think). Much of what passes for prejudice is simply drawing reasonable conclusions from perceived experiences. To deny reality in order to fit into a pre-set and pre-ordained thought pattern is the essence of a totalitarian government. In a free country, people should be left to their own conscience to determine their own thought, opinions and conclusions. Until the 1960’s such a statement would have been considered as profound as observing that water is wet.
The ballast driving “big bad” prejudice is, of course, race and the state of affairs of blacks in America before the civil rights movement. This will remain forever as the exception that proves the rule. The wrong done to black Americans was a simple yet profound one – they were denied equality before the law. Prejudice has no place, no relevancy, in the objective application of the law.
The ballot box is not always a quick process (much better to go the 12 members of politburo) but it is like a glacier, slow, deep and ultimately very, very powerful. It inconceivable that the development of the South after the Civil War would bare any resemblance to what actually transpired if the right to vote that is, due process as it was meant when written, was applied.
Look at George Wallace, after blacks got the right to vote in Alabama. How he courted the black vote. Remember that prejudice against prejudice is equally a powerful social force. I observe many things that I might ponder upon. Except, of course, one doesn’t ponder anything anymore, to draw conclusions based on observations simply does not trump the ideologues demand that there be “no prejudice”. Once the label of “prejudice” is attached to you can either cave in or face ruin.
You do not make a better world by passing laws making it a crime not to be good. yet that is what is done on prejudice. It is scary in that is strikingly similar to the charge of being “anti-soviet”. The label determines the outcome – and objective facts are irrelevant.
The “stick” to the melting pot was prejudice. That is to say, societies general expectations that the vast wave of immigrants (i.e., Irish, German, East Europeans) conform with the societal expectations. That is why English does not compete with German, Polish or a dozen other languages. That is why the United Sates was able to take in the huge influx of diverse immigrants without losing its social cohesion. Can the same rationally be stated today of Spanish speaking immigrants, and at increasing levels, Indians. Not only is the government not protecting the social fabric, it is doing all with its power to undermine it and punish not immigrants, but “old-stock” Americans. All in the name of the new insane and ideologically driven PC “diversity” mandate – whatever in the hell that means.
Ultimately, no government can trust its people, and no people can trust itself, when their thoughts, opinions and beliefs are relegated to a legal status enforceable by a court of law.
Copyright 2008 by J. Barnes

Get Off My Back

As a small business owner, I have one thing to say – get off my back.
Why am I in charge of health insurance for my employees? Why am I in charge of a retirement plan for my employees? Why am I an charge of unemployment insurance?
This immediately sounds like big bad businessman (or in my case very small bad businessman). You know you’ve won when people don’t even question ridiculous false premises. So again I ask – why am I ain charge of my employees health insurance? Why not their mortgage as well, or their lifestyle, or the partner they choose, or how much they spend on food?
The answer is that the government has set up a complex system which pushes employees to look to their employer as their parent, and pushes insurance companies to sell their product through employees. But this is dysfunctional from the get go. My employees should buy insurance if they want it – all they should look to me is for a paycheck to allow them to do it. Of course, they might be irresponsible and not buy insurance, so government assigns me the role of babysitter. You might say an employee can’t get insurance (or affordable insurance) on their own. But this I do not understand. 10 people obtain health insurance through me. Or 10 people buy health insurance on their own – what difference is the risk?
This would not constrict employees – it would liberate them – their insurance is not tied in with working for me. Why should something as personal as one’s health be tied through something as public as one’s employer?
There is also a secret that many do not grasp. Big companies don’t really mind all this governmental interference. They have the resources to develop a human resources department. Small business of course don’t. Thus, the government gives big companies a club to keep small companies at bay.
The more you regulate the more you create a world of big companies and bureaucracy. This is an absolute unequivocal fact.
I read an article recently where it was explained that it was impossible to do business in Russia without breaking the law. We are moving in that direction – Game players will only play games – complexity just gives them more room to maneuver. But I am an honest man who would like to know I am honestly obeying the laws while still having time to actually run my business – is that to much to ask?
What about a bright line relief? No company under 15 employees is subject to the crushing myriad of Federal or State laws. Think of what it would generate. This, not marginal and complex tax relief, would generate huge growth.
Copyright 2008 by J. Barnes

What do you Want?
What do you want? You might be surprised how few lawyers, busily engaged in attacking the other side, can answer that question when it is posed by a Judge. But if you don’t know that, you don’t know where you want to go, much less how to get there.
Lawyers, of course, do eventually “get there” by default – be it the Judge, the Jury (or more typically) settlement. What of Government leaders?
Two things are essential for civilian leaders engaged in conflict – First, what do you want (what is your objective). Second, does the power to achieve that objective lie with me?
A trivial point you might think, but I disagree. In Iraq, if our objective is to overthrow and destroy Hussein and his government, that objective is within our control. In other words, we have the power, the means, to obtain the outcome we seek.
But what is our objective now? In other words, what do we want? We want a free, united and democratic Iraq. The problem with this objective is we do not have the power to obtain the outcome. That power now rests with the Iraq people. Through the continued use of military force, we can of course hold indefinitely the status quo ante, but we cannot “win” because the goal of democracy, by definition, requires the voluntary agreement of the Iraqi people.
I believe George Bush to be a decent man seeking in Iraq a decent (indeed noble) result. I believe what President Bush is telling the American people reflects what he believes and more or less what he says in private. That is precisely the problem.
I think the current analogies to Vietnam are misplaced. The similarities lie not “over there” but over here. Both President Johnson and President Bush wanted to do good. Both believed without question in America, and that its values and political system would be desired by all people throughout the world. Both saw the world through the prism of their day – for LBJ that was communism – for Bush that is terrorism. Neither seek any fundamental territorial advantage by involving themselves in distant conflicts.
However, the US cannot “win” in Iraq if its goal is to make the Iraq people embrace reasonableness and democracy. In trying to force Iraq, it only further antagonizes them. But to do nothing would almost certainly lead to anarchy and the probable disintegration of Iraq as a singular nation.
I posture no conclusion but a parting thought by way John Quincy Adams, who, as Secretary of State, offered the following:
Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled … there will be America’s heart, her benedictions and her prayers …[but]… she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

The United States was founded by Protestant Anglo-Saxon males. Admittedly, males are not yet engendered species (sorry NOW) but both Anglo-Saxons and Protestants arguably are. If we surrender the philosophical basis of this country – equality – to the new philosophical basis of advancing set groups based on arbitrary federal definitions (Latino, homosexual, women, or a Latino homosexual women) shouldn’t we extend the principal to save what is clearly (demographically ) dying out? And by the same token shouldn’t we, at the least, not help those “groups” that already have the “demographic future” on their side?
Conservatives should stop fighting affirmative action and diversity. We should embrace it and let it follow its logical outcome. Like communism, left to its own unfettered devices it will collapse of its own insanity. Let us hope we still have a county left at that time.
Copyright 2008 by J. Barnes In Search of Shadows
I write neither in favor of, or opposition to, abortion. I write regarding conduct by the Supreme Court which constitutes treason (unless stupidity and arrogance constitute an affirmative defense to same).
The Founding Fathers were not terribly concerned with what the Federal Government would do, but rather with the relationship between the branches (i.e., the balance of power). Where fundamental restrictions need apply, the Constitution spoke directly to them.
Lenin said it best: “who does what to whom”. Ultimately, in America, the Founding Fathers envisioned a country where the voters, through their elected representatives, would determine “who does what to whom”.
It is a rather well kept secret that the Supreme Court has a pretty simple job. If it had a mission statement, it would be, “does the law before us offend (i.e., violate) the Constitution – yes or no.”
The Constitution is silent on abortion – it neither favors it nor opposes it. Until the unmitigated disaster that was the 1960’s occurred, every American throughout the nation’s history would have given the same answer on abortion – it is a matter for the individual states.
So, what does that mean? It means that in the tug and pull of democracy, the individual states (i.e., the State legislators) would have decided. On such a contentious issue, the voters would have spoken, laws would have been passed and eventually water would have found its own level through a process in which the people spoke (rather than a process where the result was simply rammed down the throats of a supposedly free people).
For what its worth, my personal opinion is that when the dust settled, the vast majority of States would have ended up with laws quite similar to the Politburo imposed regulation of Roe v. Wade. No doubt some states (say Utah) would have had very restrictive (perhaps even outright bans) on abortions. No doubt also other states (say New York) might have even more liberal guidelines.
The insidious effect of the Supreme Court’s ongoing pattern of simply unilaterally deciding matters completely outside of its constitutional peragative is fundamentally destructive of the democratic process. Why bother trying to change things “straight up” by going to the people. Change happens only behind closed doors, where deals are done to get your people on the bench who will simply give the orders that you want. It is treason to the Constitution. It is treason to the nation. No matter how convenient, you can’t make up things. I find it so sad to watch women protesting any attempt to change the Court away from Roe v. Wade. They think it proves their independence, but it exactly proves the exact opposite – their complete dependence on “big brother”. Just imagine if the Supreme Court had not turned into a subversive element. Taking artistic liberties, I tender the following:
Delete the 1960’s – Roe v. Wade – Alternative ending.
A certain citizen of Texas has tendered the proposition that a Texas law, passed by the Texas legislature, violates the Constitution of the Unites States. Of course, were such a state of affairs to be found, the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution requires that we strike down the law. However, no reasonable reading of the constitution indicates so. We could of course go in search of shadows (call them penumbras), but since shadows are everywhere, honesty would require us to simply state that the other two branches of government (both at the Federal and State level), have validity only where we don’t see shadows. It is inconceivable that any U. S. justice would do what would in fact constitute treason to the country. The appeal is affirmed, the relief requested is denied.
By today’s standard, the immediate reaction to such a ruling would be – poor women of Texas will know one help them, please big brother. By my alternative ending ignores what the 1960’s did to us. There being no “1960’s” we are not dealing with a nation of whining wimps driven by an entitlement mentality.
Indeed, on the contrary, having been told by the Supreme Court that no constitutional violation occurred, are non 1960’s women are just getting started. Grass roots movement spring up, certain areas immediately elect to the legislature pro-abortion candidates. Certain other areas of Texas immediately elect anti-abortion legislatures. Vocal opinion follow, debates at all levels of the State occur. Initial efforts fail, but slowly the tide turns. Most voters want some, but not absolute restrictions. A substantial minority however, oppose abortion completely. They contest it fully and completely, but they lose. Five years after the Supreme Court’s decision, Texas passes a law permitting abortion. The people, not the politbure, have spoken.
Copyright 2008 by J. Barnes

Israel

It hard as a western not to like Israel. First, we all love an underdog, and who was a greater underdog at its birth than Israel. Second, we all feel more comfortable with something we understand, and Israel’s western democracy (as opposed to Islamic fundamentalism) is something we are comfortable with. To put that matter another way, would you rather live in Tel Aviv or Mecca? I rest my case.
However, none of that has to do with the foreign policy of the United States.
From the arabs perspective, we are arming their enemy – and that makes us an enemy. Their isn’t any point in disagreeing with this conclusion, as we embrace it as well. Any nation aiding Japan in World War II was our enemy. Any nation aiding Germany in World War I was our enemy. Any nation aiding North Korea in the Korean War was our enemy.
The ongoing wars of the Ottoman succession will not be resolved by the United States. The United States will not make “sense” of the Middle East anymore then the Emperor of China could have made “sense” of medieval Europe.
One hears much about America’s arrogant assumption of always having (and interjecting) the answer in world affairs – and what could be more arrogant than 50 years of continued failure in the middle east?
Let water find its own level.
Copyright 2008 by J. Barnes

Free Trade – All Else Being Equal

It seems to me that the present fanatical attachment to “free trade” lacks some rather important qualifications and perspective.
The historical background flows from the work of British economist David Ricardo. Ricardo’s principle concern was laying to rest mercantilism. Mercantilism fundamental premise was their was only so much wealth in the world, and thus if you gain a dollar someone else must lose a dollar. While mercantilism may still exist in our subconscious more than we realize, at a governmental level the fundamental premise today is that done right, voluntary market interchange creates wealth for all, and raises the living standard for all. Wealth, in short, is not static but dynamic.
Ricardo’s most cited example is a comparison of Portugal’s wine (i.e., port) production vs England’s production of wool (i.e., cloth). Ricardo’s example supported his argument that England should produce wool, sell the surplus and import and buy wine from Portugal. Portugal, in turn, should do the opposite. The net effect would be to make both countries wealthier. In, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, Ricardo states:
England may be so circumstanced that to produce the cloth may require the labor of 100 men for one year and if she attempted to make the wine, it might require the labor of 120 men for the same time. England would therefore find it in her interest to import wine, and to purchase it by the exportation of cloth.

On the spread of Nuclear Weapons.

What legal clause under international law conferred upon Great Britain the right to end the slave trade. The answer, of course, is none. Had the United Nations’ existed in the 1800’s, Great Britain’s conduct would without question have been viewed as a “violation” of international law, and the General Assembly of despots and connivers would have vigorously condemn Great Britain’s “imperialistic” action.
But, if anything can be said to be right and if anything can be said to be wrong, Great Britain was right, and the Third World was wrong.
Precisely because the United Nations exists, the United States has failed to halt the spread of Nuclear Weapons. Indeed, the UN’s whole “peaceful” non-proliferation is an excellent example of how dysfunctional the UN is. A nation (even one awash in oil) need only state with a straight face its desire for nuclear energy for “peaceful” purposes to access the words nuclear technology.
Ironically, the cold war largely retarded the spread of nuclear weapons. But the end of the cold war has unlocked the checks that had stopped the spread before.
The United States has no more “right” to stop the spread of nuclear weapons than Great Britain had to the “right” to stop the slave trade. For the same reasons, less we not be able to look our grandchildren in the eye, we must do as Great Britain did.
Copyright 2008 by J. Barnes