Emptiness VIII at New Ruskin College

www.NewRuskinCollege.com

08-27-05, 08-29-05
Emptiness VIII

We have seen in things both large and small, near and far, the consequences of the simian’s willingness to tell pleasing lies to each other.

The “channeled quickness” (E. O. Wilson) of our minds allows us to double back in our arguments, in a single breath contradict ourselves, without pause to notice. One illogical, self serving, irrational thought follows another in an apparently random manner.

Rationalizations piled up around the ego for its self protection in a hostile world, more than for any political philosophy, or search for truth. For who among us could remain sane if he knew, as George Eliot put it, the sound of the beating of every heart? She concluded that we are all of us, luckily, thickly wadded with our ignorance.

No doubt, perceiving this and its consequence, a confused public discourse, many have simply given up on reason, logic, even self awareness in their grab for power. These are the people who, when they seek political power and have access to the mass media, are what I have called fascists. Their very act of “giving up,” is their bad faith.

Like Iago, the fascist makes an artful grab for power, manipulating ignorance, egotism, the ready willingness of the victim to believe that which is convenient to the ego. In play after play Shakespeare arranges for the good and honest to debate the clever and wicked with princes and the noble sitting in judgment. Almost always the dishonest arguments of the wicked are victorious over the just. The master playwright understood the power of words when marshaled in arguments to defeat truth.

In politics we find hidden behind the high sounding phrases and appeals for compassion, selfishness, masquerading as humility and decency. For without the truth test of the market, the requirement that one actually give up something for what one professes, how do we know who is true and who is false?

In example after example we have seen how the selfishness of the few, twists their reason, and by means of the power of the state they are able to funnel to themselves the advantages which except for that state action would flow to others. We have noted in these transactions that there is an association here of the Left with the oligarchy and we have wondered at this coincidence.

Politics makes strange bed fellows but why these two, The Left and the oligarchy?

The reason can be found in the fact that the Left has an ideology which justifies its meddling in the market, even proclaims the superiority of their meddling over the market. This ideology is supported by a series of false propositions all of which share the failure to accept the consensual associations of mutual benefit which are at the foundation of the market.

The market rises up out of the sea of lies and dishonesty which is the human condition. The market replaces the waves of disingenuous arguments with the rock of a medium of exchange, thus making economic calculation possible. Replaces false words with genuine acts and goods, which can be counted. Allows each to decide for himself what is “best” and “good” and what is “worth” and what is “worthless.”

But the Left accepts none of this and is antagonistic to the market and would replace the judgments of the consumers with the judgment of the leaders of the Left.

Now, who else besides the Left wants to escape the market? Well nearly everyone. We would all like to have things arranged differently for our own convenience. Why slave meeting the consumer’s demands when by a simple act of Congress all could be made “right”? But what can we do?

Then too most of us recognize that though we might personally benefit from a reorganization of the market, if it were done just so, we would most likely all lose in the expected fight as each of us sought some special privilege or favor from the bribed and dissolute Congress. In general the middle class recognizes that the market represents the most advantageous method of distribution.

But this recognition is not universally held. The oligarchy sees no particular benefit in ‘meeting the needs of the consumers.’ ‘Who are they to us? Why should they be given such importance? Better that they consume what we tell them,’ says the oligarchy to itself.

It is generally supposed that the rich are friends of the market for this is what they profess at every opportunity. This is not true. The rich would escape the market if they could. Wouldn’t we all? Ah, but the means are lacking. But not for the rich. They have means.

Also they know better than most that in the competition of the market they might lose. And they know too that they have much more to lose than most. Where as the market protects the middle class from the predation of the rich; for the rich the market acts as an impediment.

When the rich want to raise the rent who says ‘NO!’ ?

Answer: The market.

It is the market which stands between the rich and the savings accounts of the middle class.

So perceiving this obstacle to their ambitions the rich unite and form the oligarchy and look around for supporters and allies to harness the power of the state to their ambition of overturning the market, and removing this impediment to their privileged desires.

And looking around the political landscape they eye the conservatives, defenders of the market, . . . no, no good there, . . . and looking further they perceive . . . THE LEFT. For does not the Left also agree that the market is “unjust” or at least so they say they believe, but who really knows? Does not The Left prefer the power of the state over the market for reasons of “social justice”, or so they say? Yes, yes.

And so the political alliance was formed the Left and the oligarchy.

For example the Ethanol Fraud is a perfect example. The science is that the production of ethanol costs more, uses more energy, destroys, mines, resources to a greater extent than does oil. Yet an alliance has been formed between the oligarchy and the Left environmentalists.

In California Bill Jones, a Republican, threw an election; he failed to run a single ad against Marin Senator Boxer. He even took back out of his campaign the $2 million he had promised. Why? He claimed that he was forced to because all of his reputed $50 million fortune was tied up in his ethanol plants.

Then Left environmentalists who had argued against ethanol changed their positions and joined the Democrats of Californian and advocated ethanol. Mr. Jones’ fortune was secured. Lucky man. Just think of the risk of having all your money tied up not just in an industry utterly dependent on government environmental law, but in one company! Such a lucky man. Oh, he lost the election. The Marin Senator has another six years. The Democrats are so thankful.

Note that the Republican joined with the Left. The oligarchy is ecumenical. The point earlier was only that the Left in particular has a political philosophy that encourages state intervention.

Yet many on the Right can join in the plunder. For example in California the State pays 50% of the cost of photovoltaic panels. These panels are economically inefficient. No one would buy them in such scale if not for the subsidy. Thus the 50%. And who can afford the other 50%? The rich! All tax payers must pay but the rich uniquely benefit. What is the opposite of progressive? Regressive. Yes, Post Liberal.

Recently John Roberts of CBS, (and an Imus regular), was interviewing his “on the road” reporter about ethanol. The man enthused that 50% of all agricultural production in Nebraska was devoted to ethanol. And then acknowledged some had objected on “economics” but with the new dollar a gallon tax reduction, subsidy, “the wind has come out of the sails on that argument.”

Shakespeare would have appreciated the cliché in service to a perfidious end, in political debate. That the tax subsidy, reduction, of a dollar a gallon had no “economic” effect was apparently lost on both CBS “newsmen.” Ethanol is still not economic now even with the subsidy, the subsidy for ethanol was, as with the photovoltaic panels, required because it is not economic.

I am sure many Republicans in California have installed the panels and taken the State’s money, our money, our tax money, which we pay to a greater extent than do the rich because we, unlike the rich, do not have the same ability to raise our prices and offset, pass on the taxes. We all pay but the rich benefit. And I am also sure that many of the farmers of Nebraska are also Republicans. But the intervention in the market is sponsored by the Left, and its meaning is covered up by the Left, by people such as CBS’ John Roberts.

These miss-directions of the market parallel and are part of the misdirection described earlier. The trade unions have secured their public employee pensions, pensions of 105% guaranteed by the government as a growing burden on the people, not because they alone deserve such concessions but because they have joined with the Democrat Party machines to extort the money from the people.

Millionaires have “flood” insurance on their country homes paid for by the people not because they deserve this protection but because they have formed an alliance with the Left. This alliance has secured the oligarchy hundreds of billions of dollars in tax shelters for their “foundations” and “charities” and “institutes” such as the Gallo Brothers' wine institute. And see that the Left does not bother the oligarchy with any oversight. The rich alone can decide how to spend our tax money.

Our tax money? Well of course this is another reason the Left and the rich are so agreeable. For the Left will not accept the idea that the dynamics of the market redirects all cost through the price mechanism.

Every attempt to tax the rich in a free market, i.e. without wage and price controls, will only result in higher prices, inflation, as the rich raise their prices, which they can do because their goods and services are in high demand, unlike yours and mine which are replaceable. Thus the rich can raise their prices to cover the tax and then the Left says, ‘Oh, you can keep that share for your foundation, why it is only fair, after all it is 'your' money.’ And the oligarchy of course agrees once again with the Left.

And we can be replaced by whom? Well by foreign workers for one, either overseas or right here. For the Left and the oligarchy agree on unlimited immigration. Why should the rich have their property held hostage by domestic workers, who might try to raise their prices? Only the rich should be able to raise prices! Let us have open competition; competition for labor, and socialism for the rich!

The top 20% of Social Security recipients have not “contributed” the money they now take out of the paychecks of the people and add to their already substantial incomes of over $75,000. They too have connected with the Left and its claim of “universality.” But universality has nothing to do with the 50% of the income that the top 20% control, not the 60% of the financial assets which they control. No, no universality for any of this, this all belongs exclusively to the top 20%, only the withholdings from the people’s meager paychecks are to be made "universal", here with our money the Left and the oligarchy are all universality.

And this selfishness in our “public” policy is self destructive. If the unions had been more expansive in their lobbying on medical coverage, and opened the discussion up to those groups that all can agree should be covered, victims of accidents, i.e. emergency trauma care, the children, and those with congenital, i.e. uninsurable conditions, the cost of health coverage would have fallen and availability would increase. But selfishness prevented this.

Nixon offered Senator Kennedy a Federal health program but he turned it down, he would not compromise. Then during the Clinton Administration the Republicans again offered an incremental compromise on the Mrs. Billy Clinton proposal for a “single payer” system. The Republicans offered to insure all children but again the Democrat being the champion of the people turned down the compromise. They are such clever negotiators! They will never give an inch. Not on Social Security, not on health care, never! They are so “radical.” And the people suffer for there arrogance.

In our schools technology has not developed because the government bureaucrats have no interest in innovation even though this technology would be a boon to our own children and the world. And similarly in highways we again have seen the Left in league with the oligarchy pour our money into pork barrel highway projects misdirected by government while, for example, electronics could greatly increase both the efficiency of our roads and their safety. But because the highway bureaucrats, like the educational ones, are not paid to improve either, because there are no market incentives, 43,000 die each year on our roads, hundreds of thousands seriously wounded, and nothing can be done because government controls all. And who controls government? Without logic and reason, without honesty, can anyone control? Does it not simply become a base struggle for power in which factions contend to twist the market to their advantage?


We do not, as noted above, regularly make global reassessments of our situation. Who can fight city hall.

Just see how ridiculous I have appeared to you, and to the oligarchs, Imus, Weiner, Imus’ regular Senator Hatch, Senator McCain, all the rest . . . I rose above my place, my class and am destroyed for it. But is not my story simply itself another example for why politics is irretrievably corrupt. Can you not see how all is twisted by this political process?

The consequences can be seen anywhere one chooses to look:

www.NewRuskinCollege.com