Why Politics…?

Created: 2013, July 20th
Revised: 2013, July 24th


Synopsis

Why do we accept politics—with its branches of civil, military and religious activities— as a societal system for thinking beings?

A system that creates the unsolved and unsolvable problems that make thinking life an ordeal and a tragedy.

More…

Disclosure

Although I have been working on this for 50 years or so, this is a new approach to handling it. Starting over again, So everthing appears incomplete and nonsensical? The fate of all new and controversial knowledge. For now I will say no more than what is right. Can not be wrong. As it is consistent with the laws of nature and history. That we have a very serious societal problem that needs solving, Else we will continue inexorably on our way to non-viability as a specie. That you should therefore bear with, read and learn. And not practice intellectual dishonestyIntellectual Dishonesty
The failure to accept new knowledge that is right on an absolute basis, when it conflicts with currently held incorrect beliefs on the subject.


Why is it that some people believe they must control the life and property of others? To regulate their lives, make them do things they would not ordinarily do. Especially when those things are irrational and immoral. To prevent them from doing things that are rational.

Why is it that all people seem to accept the idea that this is “the way”? That this must be done? Especially when they rebel and do not wish to do the first things they are told they must do. Or must not do.

And even in “warm and fuzzy” democracies it must be under penalty of death, yes? No? Please think about it…

Failure to comply with political law—unnatural law—must always carry with it the idea that failure to obey—to comply with the edicts of your local régime—must carry with it the hidden penalty of death.

Take the most innocuous, victimless laws. No one has been hurt by the action. Such as failure to get a license for your dog, even your cat? If you fail to get the license, the “animal control” department or whatever it is called will send you a notice. Neither you nor your cat see any need for the license, so you ignore it.

There will be ever–more strident notices until one day you receive a letter that says that if you fail to appear and explain why you are not complying with the law, a “bench warrant” will be issued for your arrest. And, when you do not appear, it will be issued.

This proclaims you to be a “criminal” and authorizes any police officer to arrest you for the crime you have committed. Being busy with prostitutes, inside traders, drug users, they will probably not send a SWAT team to arrest you. But your name and authorization to arrest you will go into the computers of the régime.

If you are stopped for a “traffic check” or for some other reason the political police will see the car is registered to someone with a warrant for their arrest. They will ask for your license to make sure it is you, and then “… please step out of the car, keeping your hands in sight”. These days, they will shackle and chain you, take you to their car, and shove you in.

Since you have been designated a criminal, the police will not discuss the matter with you. Perhaps the first time you can talk to anyone about the matter will be to a judge in a few days. And they will tow your car to a very expensive parking facility.

But just suppose they were a bit casual, as in the old days. Did not shackle you, and did talk to you. Remember in the old days, they would chat with the gangster for a few minutes. Then gently touch their elbow and ask them to get in the car? The days when the “picture of the year” was a Hollywood musical, with singing and dancing and everyone enjoying life? Rather than killing each other?

Anyway, with some distance between you and they, you announce that you are not a criminal and will not obey them. “It is only a dog license, and I will not go with you”. You physically refuse, and they start to use ever–increasing force. Calling for “back up” if necessary. If at some point it appears you may represent a threat to the safety of the political police, they will kill you. They must.

You must see, that at no point can they suddenly say “Oh, gee, golly, you really do not want a license for your dog?! Well why didn’t you say so?! This is the ‘land of the free’ and we would not dream of forcing you to get the license. Please, you are free to leave with our blessings, and have a nice day”.

This can’t happen, right? If they let you go, then someone else may not wish to get a license to start a business. To build a tree house for their children. Then, horror of horrors, someone might not want to pay their taxes. And the entire system of rule by force and fraud would fail. There would be chaos and disorder in society, with everyone doing what they wished instead of what the régime wants.

Anyway, back to the main story…


Studies on babies and toddlers at the Infant Cognition Center at Yale University tell us that, although very young children often appear to be aggressive and want to control others, they are not really that way.

I think we become this way as adults because we learn it from parents and teachers. That this is the way society is supposed to be. They way to get things done is to force people to do it. Or better, if you can, to deceive them into thinking it is the best way. For, as some have observed, the best way is to convince people that it is in their individual best interest to do things the way the ruler and ruling party faction wish. As it is must easier to control a group of thinking beings when they enjoy their servitude. Distracted by things you give them, or the wonders of technology.

When, as we look around us, nothing works. As measured by crime, depressions, famine, genocide, homelessness, hunger, inflation, recessions, terrorism, unemployment, war. A so–called “educational” system that creates an ever–increasing number of school–leavers[ 01 ] who are functional illiterates. And can not perform tasks needed to create products and services for others. As measured by the fact they can not get and keep jobs.

A healthcare system that, amidst great advances in biology and medicine provides ever–less care at ever–greater costs. A pension system that was a failure at inception, keeping its “beneficiaries” in poverty and the provider bankrupt.

The mechanism of trying to do things for individuals that they should do for themselves makes people increasingly incompetent at caring for themselves. Requiring ever–more “services”, requiring the printing or theft of ever–more money to do this.

Yes, I know, everyone rails against taxes and most rail against those who oppose them. Saying they are necessary to provide the alleged “services”. Especially tasks that are “too big” to be provided by any other means. Such as postal system, defense, streets and roads, police and fire services, etc.

Thinking how to respond to that makes me almost incoherent with frustration and anger. Postal systems run by the régime should be easy to dispense with, as companies such as FedEx and UPS have long ago passed the political post office in things delivered. In quantity and customer service. One of the so–called problem areas used to be “what to do about the farmer who lives a one hour drive from a post office.

Of course Email now handles that, as does FedEx and UPS. This same argument applies to electricity and telephone services. But the real answer was always that the individual wanted to live “out in the middle of nowhere”. And they needed to take into consideration the availability, the difficulty of having some services. And either do without it or find some other way to handle it. The price they pay for the life style they want is their problem and responsibility as individual thinking beings.

It is criminal to force some else to handle and solve their problem for them. Unless they are properly compensated for doing so. Please, you need to think about the truth and validity of my statement. Else we will never solve any of our societal problems…

I think of the rhetorical question in a newspaper when I was living in the Untied [sic] Kingdom, in Guildford, near London. “Where will the money come from to build the housing required from an expanding population?” And I thought “… how about the quaint old idea of the money coming from the people who need the house?” Along the same line, when I was living in Spain for a time there were occasional power outages in Madrid. About which I complained.

“We are a poor country, and we can not afford to build power plants. Who would pay for the power plants?” My thought of course was “… how about the people who will use the electricity. Why can’t they pay for it?”

But again, the feeling is that this is such a big thing that only a political régime—the so–called “government[ 01a ]”—can provide this to the people. So it is done. The people pay more for it than the market would require, and you have shortages and outages.

Think of the first electric power plants in the world, which were built in New York City. They were built by individuals who expected there would be a “demand” for electricity, and they would make money satisfying this demand.

While this may seem to have been yet another diversion, you must see that it is really part of the story, which continues…


Many people who descend[ 02 ] into politics do so for “honorable” reasons. They want to help others. What they don’t realize is that you can not help others by doing for them what they should do for themselves. And by requiring others to give up part of their income earned through production of goods and services to accomplish this. That represents slavery and theft. And—please, again—I ask you to think about the principles involved.

We have the wrong “heroes” in history. We commemorate the lives of people such as Alexander of Macedon, the Caesars and Pharaohs, Genghis Khan, Napoleon and others when they are nothing but serial killers and serial property destroyers. When they are “successful”, they end up a slave master. With the losers who did not die being their slaves. Think: what value did they bring to others?

As compared to Brahe, Einstein, Faraday, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, the Wright brothers. These people brought our modern technological world of anesthesia, antibiotics, automobiles, central heating, commercial airliners, electricity, iPhones, on–line shopping, the end of Polio.

When I was young and the Encyclopedia Britannica was the world reference source for information, the information provided on the life of Isaac Newton took about 2/3 of a page. That on Napoleon took up about 30 pages. Including of course many pictures. Think of his uniform! His wife, and the Galas (parties), soirées. Of the millions who died, the vast amount of property destroyed. The fact he impoverished France and Europe for a century. But he did it with style, yes? Well, except for the retreat of the Grande Armée…

While Newton’s accomplishment was the start of the Industrial Revolution and our modern world. Where life did not stop at sunset, resuming at dawn. Man and other animals were no longer the main “beast of burden”. Carrying loads and powering primitive machines. You could travel around the world in less than 80 hours, rather than 80 days. You can communicate with anyone anywhere in the world in less than a minute, not weeks or months. You don’t wait 3 months for the “mail packet” (a sailing ship) to arrive with news from the other side of the world.

I must say something more about the true, real, effective accomplishment of Isaac Newton, as almost no one understands it. And it is very important for the solution of our societal problems. Even our survival as a viable specie. With credit to Saddam Hussein, we might have said that Newton was “the mother of all innovators”. And to enlighten Albert Gore, who is trying to find the levers of change after creating the Internet. By which I assume he means those factors that will solve problems and create a better life for all…?

The lever of change may exist when:

Of these, the last item is by far the most important. Without a way to know whether your hypotheses are right ot nor right you can not create new and useful knowledge. And you will end up with the situation of the Dark Ages. Or now

Most people say that Newton’s most important work and products were his laws of motion and optics. And that he invented the reflection telescope, which is not true. He was a very great man and I do not mean to nitpick and denigrate his accomplishments. But he only improved on the reflecting telescope.

But what he did do was something of truly immeasurable importance. Because it facilitates the creation of endless new and useful knowledge. In the way he laid out the proof for his laws of motion and gravity. The use of the tool we call The Scientific Method. He showed how to validate knowledge for rightness[ 03 ]. To corroborate a hypothesis against history and laws of nature. Converting something from a hypothesis[ 04 ] to a theory[ 05 ].

And, although I will not discuss this now, it is the failure to apply this tool to the knowledge related to our societal system—to so–called “social science”[ 06 ] —is the reason for all our societal problems.

Before Newton, and especially during the Dark Ages of Europe, people accepted knowledge based on faith[ 07 ]. And anyone who challenged such as statement could be accused of heresy, blasphemy and assorted other crimes and brought before the Holy Inquisition. The repository of falsehoods and mysticism.

Which is why they did not have automobiles, computers,
electricity, TV., etc. The only reason these things did not exist
during the time of the Greeks and Romans was because:

One thing you really need to add to this list if you wish to end up with product in the market, is something like a “venture capitalist”. Someone who will fund addition research and the work needed to make prototypes and get something ready for production.

But you know the story, yes? Giordano Bruno[ 08 ] burned at the stake in the presence of a cheering, festive crowd. For proclaiming the “heresy&dquo; that the stars were merely other suns, and that there was an “infinite” universe and world out there.

Galileo only avoided the same fate by recanting his views, dying after a long period under house arrest. Bruno would not recant. Copernicus[ 09 ] also “conveniently” died before his great work De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was published. The prevailing theory in Europe during Copernicus’ lifetime was the one that Ptolemy published in his Almagest circa 150ce. That the Earth was the stationary center of the universe. When you try to validate this hypothesis for rightness you discover it is not right. As was most of what was believed in Europe for the 1,500 years or so before Newton.

If a venture capitalist had been available around 40ce the world might be much different than now. It is even possible we might have a workable societal system, and be on our way to the stars. This was the time of Hero of Alexandria[ 10 ], who invented what a person might describe as a steam turbine. A “reaction engine” that used steam to power it. He also created one that used compressed air, which he obtained by heating air in a closed chamber. Amazing, interesting, yes?

Another problem though, besides the missing venture capitalist, is that there was no machinery to power with the device. Something with gears, that would turn something, do some “work”. Pump water, turn a wheel, etc. With nothing to power, it would seem a bit like a useless thing.

What does all this have to do with accepting politics when there is no good reason to do so? When it leads us to untold misery, and the probability of becoming non–valid as a thinking specie?

As I think I am trying to say, “… it just happened”. We started out that way and have never stopped to think about it. It has always been this way. We have tried other ways (not true) and they do not work. “All we need is ‘reform’, which we will get from the new régime”. Happy days are here again, etc. The old régime is out, there is dancing in the streets. But soon followed by protests in the streets. The barricades, etc.

We know, from the fact that we have great and wonderful technology, that you only solve problems by understanding them. By applying The Scientific Method to the related hypotheses, et Voila! You have something that works.

Don’t do that, and you have our “modern” world of crime, depressions, famine, financial meltdowns, genocide, human trafficking, hunger, inflation, poverty, unemployment, recessions, slavery, terrorism, war. Failed education, healthcare and pensions systems.

If there had been a Rome Daily, Roman Times or whatever newspaper 2,000 years ago, it would discuss the same littany of problems that exist today. The proof is in Cicero’s discussion of life in Rome in Taylor Caldwell’s magnificent A Pillar of Iron[ 11 ]. Read it. And wonder why, 2,000 years later, we still have the same problems. Why is that we have solved a myriad of technological problems, but not one societal problem…?

The answer is here.

I intended to end there, but want to present a statement—a few paragraphs—from Henry Grady Weaver’s magnificent, eloquent, very prescient book The Mainspring of Human Progress[ 12 ]. Which, as most very important books do, has more or less disappeared.

Again, the answer to our societal problems is here…


End Notes

  1. I like this expression of the British, in preference to saying “graduate”, as this is clearly not true.
    Return to Text

1a Government: “A mechanism that provides property protection services”.
With credit to A. J.Galambos for the definition.
Return to Text

  1. Descend is the correct direction, as a person is going from a situation in which they cannot and usually do not do immoral and irrational things, to a position where it is required that they do irrational and immoral things. When an individual leaves such a position it should be said that they are “stepping up from [position]”.
    Return to Text
  2. Right: “That which is based on true premises, valid and logical thought processes, and is corroborated by history and the laws of nature. And the resulting action—if any—is moral.
    Return to Text
  3. Hypothesis: “A suggested—but unproven—explanation for the cause of an event or phenomenon”. A conclusion based on faith.
    Return to Text
  4. Theory: “The explanation for the cause of a phenomenon or event that is right on an absolute basis”.
    Return to Text
  5. Social Science: Which, as Galambos pointed out, is neither “social” nor “science”. Its result is not nice, and certainly does not represent organized, useful knowledge.
    Return to Text
  6. Faith: “Belief that something will happen based on irrational reasons and invalid thought processes”.
    Return to Text
  7. Giordano Bruno (1548–1600), burned at the stake by order of His Holiness Pope Clement VIII. Convicted with the aid of Cardinal Bellamine. At the beautifully named and tragically used Fiori del Campo in Rome, on February 1, 1600.
    Return to Text
  8. Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543
    Return to Text
  9. Hero of Alexandria (10ce – 70ce). Considered the greatest experimenter of antiquity. An incredible man “out of his time&dquo;, he probably did work on what we now call cybernetics. He also created a “wind wheel” or wind turbine, but again with nothing to power. He also invented the vending machine…
    Return to Text
  10. Taylor Caldwell, A Pillar of Iron, Doublday (1965, First Edition), ISBN 978-0385053037
    Return to Text
  11. Henry Grady Weave, The Mainspring of Human Progress, first published in 1947. I think by Talbot Books. It soon went out of print. Recent reprints are availabe from Amazon and from the Foundation for Economic Education, which has tried to preserve Weaver’s image.
    In The Modern Library list of the best 100 non–fiction books, Mainspring ranks #48.
    Return to Text

Related subjects:


℗ Prototype 1971–∞ — Andrew J. Galambos — All Rights Reserved
© Copyright 1983–∞ — William W Morgan — All Rights Reserved