Theos-Talk Archives (November 1999 Message tl00309)

In reply to the numbered points:
1.  I agree it is moral and ethical to share and be more selfless.  The issue
is how is this accomplished.  Liberals think it's the state's job to
redistribute the fruit of labor, to force everyone to be "moral" as the state
defines it.  The Constitutionalist, the libertarian view is that the fruit of
your labor is yours and it is up to you to reach within to do the right
thing.  I see the later position as much more "spiritual" than the former.
So why would you be a liberal in this regard?
Also, why do those who have too much, have it in your opinion?
Also, why do those who have too little, have that in your opinion?
Since you mentioned Bill Gates in your last post, why does he have too much
in your opinion?
2.  I think there are much more profound differences between men and women
than you would suggest.  Pointing to exceptions-such as some women are
stronger than some men-
does not cancel the broad categorical disparities between the two.  Let's say
every country on earth had a female army except one.  War could only be
fought by hand to hand combat and the number of participants on each side
must be the same.  Who do you think would end up in the number one position?
The two sexes complement each other, they are not the same.  You can begin
with the genitalia and take the differences all the way through the way each
thinks even on a spiritual level (I'm talking in the general, not the
exceptional).  Some differences may be subtle but they are there.  Some more
obvious such as the testicular narcissim that chest beats hear occassionally.
Theosophy is the wisdom religion.  It is supposed to reflect univeral truths
and time honored
tradition.  The differences in the sexes has been recognized from the
beginning of recorded history.  Why would you want to deny it now?
3.  "Affirmitive action" is a pathetic putative attempt by the state to force
a subjective moral issue.  In actual fact, it is merely demagoguery by the
Democrat party for the purpose of securing votes from the ignorant.  In
actual fact, the policy creates racism, it doesn't dissolve it.
Racism, the belief that there are differences between the races, will never
be obliterated because it is a truth.  Racism that unfairly gives one an
advantage over the other-such as in affirmitive action-should be illegal and
punishable.
I'm again surprised that as a theosophist, believing in karma and personal
responsibility, you would buy into this political nonsense and not position
yourself with those who advocate the most amount of personal freedom and
liberty.
4.  The beauty of a Republic is that it mimics the ideal government, a
benevolent dictatorship.
It's a theosophical thing too: law rules.  Problem with your democracy is
that 51% of the crazies can vote to kill the other 49%.  Do you see where
"democracy"  would eventually lead to a mere contest of self-serving
manipulations.  It's exactly what we see presently in the Democrat party.
The goal of government should be to create just laws relflecting the "ancient
religion" if you will and hold the population to it.
What's this business that because the Constitution is 200 years old it can't
apply today? Give me an example of what modern circumstance requires
something beyond the scope of the Constitution.  How does this notion that
things written a long time ago are effete, jibe with theosophy, ancient
wisdom?
The Constitution is the greatest libertarian document yet written too my
knowledge.  It gives priority to personal liberty and makes government a
servant of the people.  It also places responsibility squarely on the
individual where it should be and entitles everyone to the fruit of their
labors.  If I bust my ass getting rich, I get to keep it, give it to the
truly needy, squander it or whatever.  If I sit on my duff and do nothing,
then I get to starve to death.  Can't get more morally perfect than that.
(I've attached a letter written to some friends a time back on this subject.
Jim was an employee of the State and was of course a Democrat.  Funny how
those who depend on or want the money of others handed to them are always
Democrat liberals.  Those who get out there and want to use their creative
talents to make their own way are usually libertarian-no personal afrront
intended if this might seem to apply to you.)
The fur rubber, Randy

This is part of a letter written to friends, Jim and Cindy, some time ago.
Kinda long.  Sorry

Okay, on to your thoughts.  First let me put you at ease by saying I have
never voted for a
Republican nor do I agree with some of Rush’s stuff as you can see in the
newsletter. I
consider myself a free-thinker.  I belong to no group. I have no mentors.  I
care only
about reason since it is that alone that offers us any semblance of order now
and any hope
for the future. That’s a good lesson from our JW apostasy I will keep.  I
will support
others to the degree they advance personal freedom.

 There are elements of many political groups I like.  The Libertarians,
Constitutional Law
Party, the Cat Institute and the Republicans, for example, have some of the
ideas I like.  I
haven’t found much in the democrats I agree with however for the reason that
they seem
bent on government growth and intrusion on individual liberty.

I think the primary issue should be freedom and liberty in society.  It’s
what we all seem
to be chasing in one way or another.  It’s what you and Cindy seem to be
enjoying more
of now.  I have a really independent spirit and personal freedom is critical
for my
happiness.

  Let me preface this discussion of politics(friends are never supposed to
talk religion or
politics;  good friends can talk about both)  with your understanding that I
am only
interested in ultimate solutions, basic causes and underlying “truths”(excuse
me, I’m still
on that kick).

For example, modern medicine deals with effects, not causes.  The promise of
cure
assures the perpetuation of disease.  Turning off fire alarms while the fire
smolders in the
closet nets them a trillion dollar a year industry --to our detriment unless
we(the majority)
wise up.
The fundamental cause of disease is not lack of surgery or aspirins.  It is
living out of our
proper genetic context.

Another example.  A third world nation starves.  Our solution is to send boat
loads of
food.  We save hundreds of thousands so they can breed some more and even
further
outstrip the resources of their country.  Now when starvation occurs it is
even a greater
disaster thanks to our Band-Aids.  The  fundamental cause is mismanagement of
resources and overpopulation.  Until population matches resources the problem
will not
be solved.

Another example.  Environmental  efforts are focused on fixing symptoms:
garbage,
effluent, acid rain, etc.  The engine that drives the problem, the
fundamental cause is
population.  If we don’t control that to match sustainable resources there is
no hope no
matter how many shower savers are bought. (I know you’re thinking this jack
rabbit is a
great one to talk on this subject.  Live and learn.)

I like to back up and look in overview at the whole problem and try to
discern the real
causes.  Then real solutions become possible.

Now to government.  Let’s say you, Cindy and I(sorry Cindy, I’m still
fantasizing about
our threesome-particularly since Jim is so into sharing) decide to buy an
island and make
it a sovereign nation.  We spend all we have to buy it, equal shares, so we
go there with
nothing.

 Once we’re there I decide to spend most of my time eating coconuts in a
hammock and
watching that babe wife of yours skinny dip.  You get real industrious
carving cute little
coconut heads to sell to canoeists passing by.  I spend just enough time
finding food to
feed myself and to make a few trinkets attempting to woo your wife away from
you.  But
you work night and day carving out those coconut heads. You even get a callus.

Now then, a hurricane comes and washes away my hammock, Cindy’s grass skirt(Oh
goody) and a bunch of baby coconut trees you planted.  Our only hope to save
the island
is to hire the merchant marine to build some breakwalls.  I’ve only been able
to save a
little money by selling peep show  passes  of Cindy in the lagoon to passing
natives.  I
gave her a cut depending upon how many of the honey dipped discretely placed
flower
pedals she would remove for the voyeurs.

 But you, you entrepreneurial animal, you’ve saved thousands.  Since its a
democracy(you convinced us on the boat to the island that that’s the only
fair and moral
way), Cindy and I out vote you two to one that payment for the breakwall
should be
based on income and since you’re rich it is only fair that you pay the lions
share.  You’re
upset for a bit but then realize you have no right to be rich and us just
poor workers who
would deplete all of our savings from the peep shows if we had to share
equally in paying
for the breakwall. Besides, you don’t want to be some insensitive wealthy
capitalistic pig,
so you ante up and the island is saved.  Cindy and I rejoice at the wonders
of democracy
and our own version of the income tax and resolve to be sure to keep voting
to keep
everything as is.

After a while, Cindy can’t resist me anymore because I’ve been doing a lot of
sit-ups and
my abs are like an etched washer board.  She decides to dump you.  We all
vote and
majority rules that she should get half of everything you have and that you
should pay
alimony so she can continue in the style to which she is accustomed.
Further, she is
awarded child support for the two kids she had while on the island.  You
object because
you are sure they are mine because of their good looks, abs and great
intelligence.  We
vote and decide you should not be a dead beat dad and ante up.

With time our little population grows and we all come to work for you.  We
vote that the
kids shouldn’t work until they’re 21...a sort of child labor law.  Besides
you are very rich
by working day and night and can afford the taxes to cover their needs.  The
rest of us
form a union to make sure we get appropriate benefits...lots of vacation,
short work days,
medical, retirement,  a high minimum wage, etc., which is only deserved
because why
should you be rich and the rest of us so poor.  You greedy bastard, you’ve
even got a
bigger hut than the rest of us and two canoes.  But this is all done very
proper with voting
so there can be no moral or ethical objection.

Over time we decide to make our own currency.  We make little painted
shells-lots of
them.  We vote that this should be our money.  We use these to buy your
coconut heads
and then sell them for real cash abroad. Your margins start to
decline(rightly so you
selfish fascist pig) and the little shell coins are increasingly worthless as
we continue
busily painting new ones.

In the meantime we vote to increase our standard of living and increase taxes
on you and
paint ever more shell money.  You want to move your factory offshore and we
vote to
deny that and issue a monetary penalty for your lack of patriotism.  We also
set up a
bunch of regulatory agencies for you to pay for so we can make sure you’re
towing the
line.

Finally, exhausted and broke, you close the factory.  Population has now
grown way
beyond the islands resources.  We vote to confiscate your retirement equity
because you
were always too rich anyway and we were just poor working class.  We send for
boat
loads of supplies and all is well again so we set about further breeding--we
voted that
unlimited procreation is everyone’s right.

Now we have twice as many people as when the supplies ran out.  As time
passes all the
islands resources are gone, no one will take our shell money and there is no
more real
cash.  We have a meeting and democratically vote not to starve and die.  Our
final  futile,
but ethical act.

Okay, enough fun.  Let’s get serious about saving the world.  Here are  some
preliminaries.  Your agreement at this level is critical otherwise there is
no hope of
agreement later as we build upon this foundation. (I know there’s no hope
anyway you
bullheaded bigot.  But I’ll at least humor and purge myself with this tirade.)

These are the premises:
1.  Humans and the societies they construct are not above the same natural
laws
governing all of nature.  We may postpone, temporarily circumvent and ignore
these laws
but they always catch up. Natural laws are are oblivious to human
“humaneness”.
2. Freedom is a basic human need and right
3. Everyone has the right to their own fairly acquired property
4.  Everyone has the responsibility to pay the required fee for what they
agree to purchase
from another.
5.  Resources necessary for life, air, water, natural areas, etc.-are common
property and
no one has the right to privatize or destroy them.

>From this  heuristic foundation a fair, moral and rational society can be
constructed.
These provide an algorithm for the development of  a limited good government.

I grant you that communism, socialism, fascism, benign dictatorships and the
like are all
valid attempts at governing complex human society.  There can  be endless
debates about
which is better.  All of them can theoretically create a harmonious society.
As a college
student, communism seemed to be the ideal to me.  Gads what could be  more
fair than
“from each according to his ability and to each according to his need”?.

The best government is your own will, your freedom to live your life as you
choose  and
enjoy the rewards of good decisions and be solely responsible for the poor
ones.  You
don’t want me to tell you what to do, and I don’t want  you to tell me what
to do either.  I
want to be able to enjoy the fruit of my labor with no obligation to anyone.
I take that
right knowing full well its corollary is that I alone am responsible also for
the negative
consequences of my own acts...or failure to act. I now, therefore, think the
yardstick of
the best government is the one that accomplishes the above goals for the
individual while
still maintaining social order.

Socialism and communism merely grapple with the symptoms of social
disharmony.
They do not establish the preeminent rights of the individual but rather
force him into a
social structure that violates many of his basic needs and rights.

I see the only hope being a benign  dictatorship.  That’s basically what
America is.  We
are a country of law with the Constitution being the supreme dictator.  That
“dictator”
uniquely sets forth the very premises outlined above that protect individual
rights and
freedom while maintaining social order.

Here are some random thoughts addressing some of the points you made:

>democracy means 51% of the people can vote to kill the other 49%; it also
promotes the
prevalent belief in our society of the superior wisdom of the ignorant.
>voting is a right, perhaps, but it is also a responsibility.  No one should
vote who does
not understand the Constitution(almost nobody has even read this basic
contract between
our government and us) and are informed on the issues in contention.  A test
should be
given to anyone desiring to vote.  If they are not informed they relinquish
the right.
Nobody has the right to vote on my destiny if they are ignorant.  But what we
have in this
country is ignorance of the people, by the people, for the people.  There is
indeed no
underestimating the intelligence of the public.
>The US is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy ruled by plebiscite
>The government has a right to render services required by its citizens.
Citizens have a
responsibility to pay for those services via taxes.  This has nothing to do
with their
income anymore than a gas station can ethically charge based on the income of
the
customer. I should have to pay in an absolute amount(not a tricky percentage
of
“income”) exactly the same as anyone else who is using the same government
service.  Its
real simple to me anyway.  If the government renders me a service-defense,
infrastructure, etc., it doesn’t matter-then send me a bill.  Don’t use my
debt for the
service as an excuse to pry into every nook and cranny of my life and bury me
with
ridiculous forms, paperwork and bills from accountants to interpret it all,
or to extort
resources from me to support those who choose of their own volition to do
less.
>The government does not have a right to decide how I will spend my money on
humanitarian needs or even if I should spend any.  The present social
programs remove
individual and community conscience.  If I’m taxed to pay for the needy then
I need not
individually care about the needy,  The dehumanizing and desensitization of
communities
by our  “good Samaritan” government interloper takes a toll  far greater than
anyone can
estimate.
>Medical schools may be subsidized but so are high schools, many trade
schools and
others.  What success I have has little to do with irrelevant formal
education.  What I do
now is practically entirely self-taught.  I succeed in spite of government,
not because of it.
>Raising the minimum wage as well as funding all other social programs does
not create
a net benefit.  These acts are not market driven and thus no net economic
change can
occur.  Such government manipulations is merely card shuffling.  Money is not
created
by government(except by printing press),  only by the private industrial
sector(with the
exception of ventures such as yours) and thus raising their costs only
results in their
raising prices.  This is why a dollar today is worth a nickel a  short while
back before the
socialists perverted the system.(That and the government making funny money
on their
presses)
>Is the Michigan sales(consumption) tax immoral?
>Citing labor abuses by some in the infancy of  this country as an excuse for
the morass
of regulations and guarantees for workers today is like the blacks wanting
special
consideration because one of their ancestors was boated over here as a slave
three
hundred years ago.
>I have employed at least 200 people in the past 15 years, paid none of them
minimum
wage, gave them an on-site day care, benefits, and limitless opportunity and
was forced to
do none of it.  What I have done is modest compared to what many others have
done.  I
do it to try to be fair and to entice them to stay.  Market forces, not
government forces
create jobs, benefits and true high wages.  In return, workers with a
socialistic(I’m a
victim and I’m owed) mentality lie to me, quit after I train them, fake
injury to get
unemployment compensation, steal from me and then sue me when I fire them,
make
countless mindless costly errors, falsify time cards, never improve
themselves or create
business but rather rely on me to do it all, never take work home while I
spend 16-18
hour days making sure their job is secure.
>I hear less outrage from the Republicans about Clinton than from the media.
Republicans and all thinking people should be outraged and this should not be
diminished
even if it could be proven that a former Republican president was a pedophile
and axe
murderer. (My disrespect for his duplicity and demagoguery does not suggest
that I or
other critics are without sin.  If you put yourself in a position of moral
leadership,
advance yourself as a model for a nation’s children, then you are accountable
not
excusable. My resentment for him is not because of what fun he has had with
ingenues in
his office but because of his failure to move government in a direction that
increases my
personal freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution and also because of the
lying,
Machiavellian deceit, spins, mantras, ad hominem rhetoric and demagoguery,
preaching
doctrines he knows are untrue to people he knows are idiots.  I have the
personal feeling
that when all revelations eventually come forth(which may take decades) the
corruption
of this guy will prove to be unparalleled.  Too bad he’s the first example of
what our
generation can do when in charge.
>A democratic majority virtually assures error.  The majority are always
wrong regarding
anything even slightly abstract and therefore democratic rule assures
ultimate failure.
The Democratic party, by pandering to the “majority”, have taken on the
pathetic
mentality of the majority.  They don’t wisely lead, they follow fools.
>Speaking of majorities, the constant publication of polls is enough to make
me puke.
Just what I want to know, what the ignorant majority think.  I like the polls
that showed
the increase in popularity of Clinton as the revelations became more
damaging.  That says
it all regarding majorities.
>The socialistic effort to level the playing field assures the survival of
the unfit.  This
goes against natural law and will ultimately result in the demise of a
population.
(Incidentally I understand the ratio of government employees to manufacturing
jobs is
now 1:1...certainly on our way to a totally socialistic state.)
>What I hear on the news about what Republicans do and think is quite unlike
the
thoughtful and intelligent information I get when communicating directly with
some of
them or reading their written works directly.  I agree that the religious
element in the
party should make us feel uneasy.  But that’s the beauty of Constitutional
government
over democracy.  Their influence is severely limited.
>The more money I make, the more money I spend on new jobs, higher wages, more
benefits to employees and supplies.  I might buy a bigger home or car and
stuff to fill my
garage but that also creates jobs and economic health for the community.  The
“rich”
don’t hoard their money they spend it, and most importantly  they create it.
If they do
hoard it in banks it creates revenues for the bank and resources for loans.
Even more
important, it is their property not that of the community to be distributed
by charging
them more for government services than those who earn less. What the rich do
with their
fairly acquired wealth is their concern only.  Its nobody else’s
business...as long as the
freedom exists for others to do the same thing.
>Wealth is the opportunity for freedom.  It is the “pursuit of happiness” in
“life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness”.  As such it is a basic human right, not a
target for abuse by
democrats who want to attenuate it  by redistribution.  To excel, to be most
fit, should be
the aspiration of all, not an accomplishment to be  resented, despised and
punished.
When we go to Naples we are surrounded by the wealthy.   Every other car is a
Jag,
Porsche, BMW, etc.  High rises abound with starting prices at one million.
Stores have
shirts for $800.  The opulence is incredible.  How they all got it I don’t
know but I do
know I don’t have a right to it.   Nor do I feel they should be paying more
for the same
government services I receive.  If I envy it, then I should have the right to
go for it too.  If
I don’t succeed,  then I have no one to blame but me.
>America was created because of oppressive taxation and loss of freedoms.  It
was not
created to form a socialistic state.  It is a place where people can go to
succeed and keep
the fruits of their labors.  Democrats(socialists)would have it otherwise,
ignoring the
intent of the founding fathers and denying the evident failure of like systems
experimented with around the world.
> All creatures have a basic very selfish survival instinct.  If this were
not the case no
species would survive.  We have this same instinct but have moralized in
society such
that we attempt to create circumstances that protect the weak  and unfit for
survival.  To
excel, to be “rich” is anathema, and to be of the mediocre “working class”
laudable.
Exactly the opposite of what occurs in nature.  In nature the fit survive,
they don’t spend
their skills protecting the unfit so there can be even more competition for
resources.
Socialistic “humanitarian” programs may appear to be a wonderful ethic but
ignore the
long term consequences to society since punishing the more fit, the
successful, and
rewarding the less successful can only ultimately weaken a culture. (You may
not see the
“wealthy” as being punished.  Some 80+% of new businesses fail.  Those who do
succeed
have to fight and struggle (“work” of the most difficult kind) far beyond
that required of
the “working class” primarily because of needless government intervention[I
recently
spent tens of thousands to change the spacing  and insignificant language on
a food label
because we were sued to stop sale because of it in a state] and costs created
by socialism.)
>Everyone is responsible for their actions or inactions.  If someone does not
wish to work
extra hard, take risks, etc., but rather prefers risk-free secure
guarantees(like me on the
island), then they have no bitch with others who are more successful.  If
they can’t make
ends meet and they go hungry then welcome to the real world of survival of
the fittest.
They don’t have the right to vote my hard earned dollars away from me to pay
for their
failure to perform.
>The “wealthy”(other than the family money type) have succeeded because they
have
done the hardest work of all, think.  Ford once said something like:
“Thinking is the
hardest work there is, which is probably why so few engage in it.”  My
experience with
“workers” is that this is very much so.  They will almost do anything, even
the most
stupid repetitious unnecessary chore,  rather than think of a better way.  It
is a constant
struggle at the office.
>  I  find it difficult to take a leader seriously who aspired for kingship
since he was an
infant.  What principles and potentially fruitful ideas did he have for a
nation at this age?
Evidently about the same as he does now, none, other than the desire for
position and
power.  We should seek leaders who aspire to the position because of true
vision and
principle consistent with the premises I’ve outlined above.

Let’s, see, that would in effect make me king of the world wouldn’t it?  Cool!

Later, Comrade