Trust: Friend Anonymous Lets Us Down

Good morning, Friend Anonymous.

I must say I'm disappointed. You let me down. But you do underline the basic techniques of what I find passes for discussion by believers in Radical Leftism, by introducing us to yet another logical fallacy, known as Genetic Fallacy, in particular the Argumentum ad Hominem.

For those of you who didn't read his comments in this post, he starts out quoting me:

"Now, to bankers.

"I know several. And a bunch of tellers. Now is it the tellers I should keep my eye on? I know several loan officers who started as tellers. Or is it the stockholders of banks, even though they have little to do with the day-to-day operation of banks? And what is it precisely that marks banks/bankers for extermination? Is it the safety of my money that bothers you?

"HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! the "safety" of your money! You must be either on drugs or 10 years old.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_Loan_crisis

"sell my wheat, I'm getting robbed. I sell my fish? Robbed.

"Im (sic) going to take a wild guess here but I have reason to suspect you've never sold much fish(legally anyway), or relied on family owned agricultural operations to support the business and yourself. Is that a reasonable supposition?"

(Anon, before we go any further, here's a quick resource for you. You can shorten your URL references at TinyURL. It will make your comments "more pro".)

Typically, these types of fallacious attacks are best dealt with by ignoring them. Or, pointing them out and moving on. It doesn't matter whether or not I have a background in agriculture or fishing. Nor would I expect you to have had a background in either industry to answer the questions I've posited in the aforementioned post. You are recommending the overthrow of the capitalist system. We want to be like you, we want to join you, we want to be a part of this brave, new world.

But we have questions. Like, "So we do what you want, how do things get done in your new system of social organization? Who writes the checks? Who pays the bills? Who makes sure there are green peas on the shelves of the supermarkets?"

Tell us how and we will pick up the banner and help you complete this New Cultural Renaissance. Instead you change the subject. And completely miss the point. In golf this is referred to as a "whiff".

One of the problems with referring to Wiki entries to anyone who has a background is that Wiki writers rarely have the kind of in-depth knowledge or training to write on the subjects they've chosen to write about. A better citation would have been an FDIC report on the effects of DIDMCA (1980). In your Wiki cite I find no mention of this act. Ah, well, here's one.

So, what do we have here. Another attempt to avoid the discussion by attempting another red herring. And another red herring. And no direct response to the text above. Yourself? You've proven no connection to either agriculture, fishing, even architecture or the law. Although none of these things are required of you. You ask us to join you on your Road to Tarsus. St. Paul gave us his epistle to the Colossians. (Which you should read. St. Paul condemned lust, greed, lying and racial divisions. He promoted love, peace and kindness. You and St. Paul apparently share a lot of common beliefs!)

And finally, the corporation I served as Treasurer sold its limited entry permits and vessels in the '90's. My dad sold our quarter section to my uncle in the '80's. When we were actively involved in dryland farming we leased or owned more than 1,000 acres of land. Not big. But you gotta admit, driving a combine is fun!

But who cares? You obviously feel that someone shouldn't have an opinion about something that they've "never done". Why? I know guys who have built horse trailers who have never ridden a horse.

You have no discernable training in the evolution of human society, organization of markets, understanding of banking, although you proclaim a religious epiphany that we should follow. And that's okay. No one ever claimed that Lenin or Trotsky ever fished, farmed or logged. At the time of Lenin's ascendency in Russia, he had no known background in making a payroll. He hadn't owned a stationary shop. Or tannery.

Yet he was able to argue for his program of change.

I've given you several chances for you to do this, as well. You've disappointed all of us. Given a chance to explain and convert, you attempt to change the subject. You are walking away from willing accolytes. Your prophet creds are getting tarnished. I'm beginning to believe you don't know what you're talking about.

That would be a sad day, a day in which we find out that the arguments of the Radical Left are nothing more than bumper sticker and logical fallacy. Not surprising, but sad.

In my sadness, I think I shall golf. Have a nice day!

Trust and the Level Playing Field: We Should Simply Do Nothing

I think we should all thank "anonymous" for his visits here, and his willingness to share his thoughts and beliefs. When I began the series of articles I have titled "Trust and the Level Playing Field," I began that series with this article, "A Foot in the Door or a Seat at the Table?." My sole purpose was to present a starting point for what I have labeled in my working papers as "Exegesis and hermeneutics." By refering to Arrigo Levi's article in the December, 1976 edition of the Saturday Review, I wanted to remind readers of the level of confidence that we had, as Americans, in our dealings and relations with foreign powers, and quickly review the balance of world power as it existed prior to the Carter administration.

Since the Vietnam War and the radicalization of the Left, the movement on the Left has been guided by several radical precepts. These are, in no particular order, American Imperialism, the Military-Industrial Complex, and the Rise of Victimhood. Since there is no rational method to describe how these tenants of the radical Left can be justified, in the face of actual reality, it was my thought that perhaps an exegetical analysis of the Left was called for. If we are to live in the new society being promulgated by the Radical Left, it's important to know what is called for behaviour on the part of its citizenry. Under the old system of American governance we were pretty much free to choose how and where we worked, what we wanted to buy and own, and were free to express ourselves as a product of the natural state of Man. Think Locke, DesCartes, Hume, Rousseau and Augustine. And, let us not understate the importance of Martin Luther.

But the Cartesian idea of cogito, ergo sum has always struck me as the unique identity moment in the modern Rational period. The idea of something being both knowable and true at the same moment, out of the reach of those who would impose their beliefs upon us. When Jefferson penned the words "We hold these truths to be self-evident," these words formed the synthesis of thoughts and writings that reflected a new understanding of Man and his relationship to the State. If you can recall the next few lines of Mr. Jefferson's missive, you can, perhaps, appreciate the driving force behind my political and social beliefs.

So if we're all going to throw these beliefs into the ash heap of history, an inquiry into our brave, new world seems to be in order. And for that I want to thank "anonymous". While it has triggered a digression into the specific beliefs and opinions of one writer, anonymous has been gracious in his return to this site, and gracious in sharing with us a look into the theoretical framework that guides his utterances. And his last comments helped me a great deal in a move toward greater understanding of the Left. To anonymous, thank you.

Being well-read has advantages. And this will move along fairly quickly--for those who have the background--and perhaps, grindingly slow if you haven't read the basic texts. Such is life. Where possible I will attempt to provide occasional links, but if you're well-read this will go much faster.

My two favourite authors as examples of this type of disquisition are Plato and Bishop Berkeley (pronounced Bark-ley). The impact of Plato on modern thought is perhaps weakening as today's teachers have all but forgotten who he was and what he taught. But even the latest fads in philosophy owe a great deal to this magnificent thinker. When you approach the Dialogues a couple of things pop out. First is Plato's reliance upon the student to arrive at the correct answers to questions on his own. The second is the language of Plato. When you read Dialogues, think 4th Century B.C. blogger.

Berkeley is a unique case, an illustrative case of temptation overwhelming reason.

I loved reading the Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous. What Barkeley teaches, perhaps through example more than intent, is the plague upon reason of equivocation. When we started our dialogue with anonymous, we tried to point out the weakness of the Tu Quoque (You're Another) as a tool to advance an argument. So, if we are going to have an effective argument, not only must we dispense with the "so's your old man" argument, and enforce strict rules upon the meaning of words. As you read Berkeley another fallacy must be kept top-of-the-mind. The fallacy of ambiguity.

And I'm afraid this is where we lose our dialogue partner, anonymous. When you enforce the meaning of words upon the person who utters those words, arguments tend to fall apart. Fealty is a mixed blessing. Had Lt. Calley's men shown less featly to Calley, perhaps My Lai would not have occured. Had President Nixon shown less fealty to his subordinates, perhaps the Watergate Coverup would not have occured.

What is the meaning of fealty to the Radical Left? Or, perhaps better, can reason overcome fealty to Radical Leftism? Let's take a look at the most recent words of anonymous.

"Greed is the driving force for capitalism. When the world has been rid of the merchants of misery and warmongering capitalist scum (sic) then the quality of life for all will be better. Only when the stranglehold the bankers and corporations have on the government, (thanks to their corrupt stooges commonly called "politicians") ends, will fairness and equality prevail and create a true level playing field.Want to end poverty, racism and war? Then remove those who profit from it. Give the power to the workers and throw the capitalists into the sea."

...

"Let's here it for the latest Oregon Allstar GOP crooked capitalist pig Mr Craig Berkman! I wonder how well he is sleeping at night these days! HAHAHAHHAHAHA HAHAHHAHHAHA!!!

"Throw him in prison, the scumbag.

"Oh wait, I forgot. this is all about some radio station embezzler in NYC being proof that the left corrupt beyond redemption and the right is all about honesty and a level playing field. "

...

"...The man who hires out his labour is stealing from his boss. The man who grows wheat from his land is stealing from the elevator operator. The fisherman is stealing from the processor. At every step, at every transaction, larceny occurs.

"Uhh, you got it ass backwards there, Sport. Management steals from labor, the grain dealers steal from the farmers and the processors steal from the fishermen."

I guess the thing that pops off the page is Mr. anonymous' belief that there are certain types of jobs out there that create problems for him. Tops on his list are the Merchants of Misery and the Warmongering Capitalist Scum. Perhaps for our use, anonymous would be kind enough to make these expressions more approachable to those who don't use these phrases on a daily basis. I, too, am not sure that I support the Merchants of Misery. And I've never been fond of Scum. The whole idea of my somehow lending my support to Merchants of Misery is disturbing. One of the things that we can all do is spend some time helping to identify the Merchants of Misery. Scum should be easy.

I could attempt to interpret anonymous' remarks, but I think it's important that he does that. I find the appelations Merchant of Misery and Warmongering Capitalist Scum to be rather vague. Would I be right in assuming he meant that the coalminer extracting coal from a West Virginia mine a Merchant of Misery? If he withheld his labour, would the misery be reduced? If Tillamook Cheese ends up at a base exchange at Fort Lewis, would the dairyman who helped produce milk for cheese be described as Warmongering Capitalist Scum?

When Friend Anonymous fails to let us know to whom we must direct our outrage with specificity, he fails to let us support him in his outrage. And that's not right. Here is a moment of advantage for Friend Anonymous. We are giving him attention, and attention to his ideas. What we need to know is do we generally assume that everyone is a Merchant of Misery (MoM) or Warmongering Capitalist Scum (WCS)? Or, is there some way of knowing when one isn't a MoM or WCS? Friend Anonymous, what attribute or traits of yours should I emulate to avoid being a MoM or WCS? If there are easily taken steps that can free us from our MoMery or WCSery, rest assured that the steps will be taken.

Now, to bankers.

I know several. And a bunch of tellers. Now is it the tellers I should keep my eye on? I know several loan officers who started as tellers. Or is it the stockholders of banks, even though they have little to do with the day-to-day operation of banks? And what is it precisely that marks banks/bankers for extermination? Is it the safety of my money that bothers you? How would your life--or my life--be better if I kept my money under my pillow? Most of us have checking accounts because it's safe to have someone else hold our excess cash. If my house burns down, I may lose my stereo and John Mayer tapes, but my cash will still be safe. I don't care if I lose my checkbook. That's just pretty much useless paper without my signature. But cash is cash, man!

Friend Anonymous, I too would like to end poverty, racism and war. But I hesitate to throw bankers under the bus because they keep my cash safe. And I'm thinking that mebbe I don't want to throw corporations under the bus, either. But I will defer to your judgement.

Tell me the mechanism of change that will allow us to end corporations. It's always the "how" that hangs me up.

How do we get past the contractual obligations that corporations have to their customers and suppliers? How do we get past those obligations to the people who work for these corporations? Under the anonymous plan, how do we accumulate the capital (that's cash) to invest in new sites, new buildings, new equipment? And more importantly, who do we use to determine investment in new sites, new buildings, new equipment? Do we do it without financial analysis? Without architects, engineers and equipment and construction companies?

If you want us to voluteer to join you in this move to "remove those who profit" from the decision making process, where do I look to find this new generation of decision makers? How are they chosen? And which trait is more important, technical competence? or, revolutionary zeal? Or do you suggest that those who wish to avoid profit are preferable to those who wish to gain profit?

We will come willingly into a future free from poverty, racism and war. We are willing to follow you. But, you must show us how you are going to lead us there. Show us how removing one bank teller, one loan officer, one financial analyst will improve the road we tread upon, and we will gladly take up your cross.

"Give the power to the workers and throw the capitalists into the sea." How appropriate. It's reminiscent of Mathew, Chapter 10, "And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease."

Perhaps you, dear Friend Anonymous, have failed to be completely forthcoming. Have you been annointed by Christ to do these things? I'll be the first to admit that if you're in contact with Him it would only be fair to say so. If we're going to be involved in a major rewrite of the Holy Bible it would only be friendly to let us know. If you're going to be able to rely upon miracles to achieve your new economic policy (NEP), you could have told us. That would only be fair. But we, the readers of your comments, have yet no reason to assume this is so.

So without divine intervention, the questions of how we achieve your goals remains an important question.

And on your last thought..."Management steals from labor, the grain dealers steal from the farmers and the processors steal from the fishermen." I'm struggling here. I thought it was the man who sold a thing that was the thief. Now I get the sense that it is the man who buys a thing that is the thief. This forces a brief admission: I had no idea that that was how theft occured. I was working under an older concept of theft, something along the unauthorized conversion of property for personal use.

So, if you would, clear this up for me. If you had a perfect job, would it be to determine whether or not the price someone has paid for a thing represents a fair deal or theft? And is a fair deal possible? Or, somehow does the mere act of purchase imply theft?

I've a busy agenda for the day. I'm going to be keeping my eyes open for MoMs and WCSs. I'm also going to be questioning those that make purchases from me. Am I being robbed? These people who buy things, what's up with that? I sell my labour, I'm getting robbed. I sell my wheat, I'm getting robbed. I sell my fish? Robbed.

Kinda makes a man not want to sell anything, huh? Is the only way to avoid being a MoM or WCS to simply do nothing? Man, I'm down with that!

Trust and the Level Playing Field: "The sin isn't in the crime, the sin is in getting caught."

What is the best way to find out how someone thinks?

It's to listen to his words. One of my basic beliefs is in the nature of man and his being essentially honest. And that honesty is revealed in his words. And attempts to deceive are especially revealing. Which is why I'm sharing the words of an anonymous commentator to this post with you now. The poster chose to post as anonymous, although I would suggest that this "anonymous" commentator is actually a fellow blogger, and doesn't want to expose his honest feelings and then allow an association with the words he chooses to use on his own blog. He is, in effect, a sockpuppet.

If you believe the sentiment above, "The sin isn't in the crime, the sin is in getting caught", then chances are you yourself are crooked. And sockpuppetry is to be expected. I am honest, and raised my children to be honest, because the life of the honest man is the easiest life to live. There are no rewards for cheating that I can think of. If getting money is a reward for cheating...well, I suppose you can say that that is a reward. But I would rather not live that life. See, in my world, living honestly is what a person does naturally. Being dishonest is a choice that is unnatural. And I can pay the bills I incur through the honest application of my abilities to providing honest service to those who purchase my services. Pretty neat, huh?

"Capitalism, by it's (sic) nature, is larcenous."

Wow. Here's someone who needs some remedial education. That someone would utter these words is surprising to me. Just look at the chain of events that would need to exist for this utterance to be true. The farmer, buying seed, is robbed by the seed grower. He is then robbed by the tractor dealer. And the fertilizer supplier. At the end of the season, he takes his crop to market, only to steal from the produce broker. Who then steals from the processor, who then steals from the food distributor.

The level of theft here is amazing and we haven't even gotten the product to your grocery store. Which, of course, steals from us.

Or, maybe, I don't understand the word "larcenous."

So I go to the Big Book. The 1950 Webster's Unabridged.

I get "larcener", one who commits larceny. There's "larcenic" and "larcenish". "Larsenist" and "larcenous": "Having the character of larceny; committing larceny; thievish."

I guess I do understand the word larcenous. What I don't understand is someone who would hold the belief that capitalism, by its nature, is larcenous.

The man who hires out his labour is stealing from his boss. The man who grows wheat from his land is stealing from the elevator operator. The fisherman is stealing from the processor. At every step, at every transaction, larceny occurs.

What breadth of willful ignorance could breed the words "capitalism, by its nature, is larcenous"? It's sad that even a person with a fifth grade education hadn't been exposed to the travails of Farmer Brown and his trip to market with his chickens--that go "cluck-cluck"--and his ducks--that go "quack-quack"--to sell his chickens and ducks to get the money to buy his little boy and little girl new clothes for school. The implicit message is that money is a "store of value" for Farmer Brown. It represents the value of his efforts and expense in raising the "cluck-clucks" and the "quack-quacks". It is his profit. Is it within its role as "store of value" that the larceny occurs? Since we have moved from a barter system--that conceals profit--to a market system, is it the nature of cash itself that forms the inherent nature of larceny? Perhaps it is so. Those with cash have made a profit. And profit is representative of theft.

Or do I have it somehows backwards? Those who do not have cash, or profitable enterprise, are thieves? That is, that thieves self-identify with theft?

Before the end of the Soviet Union, and the falsification of socialism/communism, there was a chance for socialists/communists to prove their theory of resource allocation. (Resource here is used in the broadest sense, to include all the inputs in production; labour, land, machines, etc.)

The theory went something like this; since the state owned all property and all the means of production, theft was impossible. Since individuals owned nothing. "From each according to their abilities, to each according to his needs." How and when you would contribute would depend upon the state's determination of how to use your labour as an input in the process of providing the necessary goods and services required by society as determined by the state.

An interesting closed-system that still, I fear, has adherents today. How else to explain the idea that government can allocate carbon and carbon use, creation or utilization? How better to outlaw cars and require bicycles than to mandate the end of gasoline based upon carbon utilization demands as determined by the state? This would not be considered theft. It's for our own good. When compared to the Soviet model of resource allocation one finds that the methods for determining appropriate usage of carbon follows the Five-Year Plan model fairly well. Rather than nationalizing industries, we will simply deprive them of the necessary inputs to allow them to continue their "selfish" efforts to serve the demands of the marketplace.

Market mandates will replace nationalization. And those industries that are determined to be "thieves" will be denied their access to energy. Since, after all, that's what carbon produces.

But according to our "Capitalism, by it's (sic) nature, is larcenous" philosopher, this will not be theft nor taking. Since it is the State making these determinations in our name. And since our philosopher can't conceive of markets existing for any purpose other than to serve the dishonest, through larceny, appeals to intellect must therefore fail.

Each of us who views our work as honest is victim of our own self-delusions. Capitalism is larcenous. The issue is whether or not one has been "caught". Our anonymous commentator reveals much about himself.

And attempts to cover for Air America head Evan Cohen. Who, as head of a federally regulated industry was required to work in the service of community. Who had a public trust. Who is a liar and thief. Who took $875,000.00 from the non-profit Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club. Who misled investors, claiming that $30-million had been raised for the capitalization of Air America, when in fact only $6-million had been raised.

I would assert that these charges are apocalyptic for the Left. When the best argument for support of the Left relies upon tu qouque fallacies can the end be near? A flurry, or litany of wrongs committed by those identified as capitalists or conservatives does nothing more than underscore the seduction of corruption. That some guys cheat. At golf, at Monopoly, on their wife. The law exists as a recognition that corruptions and crimes occur.

It serves, when applied well, as our guarantee of a Level Playing Field.

Trust and the Level Playing Field: Five

I've written before about Canadian author Terry Glavin. In my contact with what are called "liberals" in Canada, I've always been impressed with some of the concrete traits of Canadians. First among these is the intellectual integrity found among leftists in Canada. It has more in common with the American left of the '50's and '60's than today's lefties.

In the '50's and '60's, leftism was expressed best by beliefs in the progressive income tax, and the levels applied to The Rich. Taxing the rich has been the province of Leftists since Davey Crocket's time. (Ron Paul link...not an endorsement, just an interesting story.)

By the end of the '60's--and the split in the Democrat party that originated with Lyndon Baines Johnson--merely taxing the rich wasn't "progressive enough". By then it became a goal of the Democrats to not merely charge the rich more for their success, in terms of providing a greater percentage of their earnings in the form of public goods, it became the job of the rich to provide for those Americans who fail to provide for themselves.

The "split" occured between what had been the natural base of Democrats in the Forties through the Sixties, with Joe Lunchpail and the Blue Collar Worker, to the Social Justice Movement.

As unions gained control of various local and state governments it became clear to those in control of unions that to achieve greater wealth meant greater membership. Traditionalists in the labour movement--like George Meany--identified with the American worker as a producer of a good, labour, that deserved to be paid a fair wage for his contribution to production. In a lot of good ways, Mr. Meany's contribution to our current understanding of the value of inputs of production are due to his work on behalf of Joe Lunchpail.

The mantra of the AFL-CIO wasn't the role of worker as victim. Because of Mr. Meany's work, workers weren't victims. They became partners with capital in production. And such is, in the main, the working principles set about in viewing the phenomenom of the left in Canada today.

Make no mistake, unionism is alive in Canada. But the faults of the progressive movement so vivid in the American Left today have been mostly absent in the Canadian version of the left. Much of my experience with the left in Canada has been centered around resource allocation--timber, fisheries, mining--that the understood ownership of these resources has been the country itself. Granting management rights over resources has left an entitlement to profits of the resource that in its granting has been within itself the implicit belief that the owner of the resource is due the greatest return on the development of the resource. Just as are the rights of capital due to the ownership of capital.

Combine that with the rights of labour to organize and the playing field in Canada is set to a different level in terms of the balance between capital and labour in the industries reliant upon resource allocation. (This is not to say that the American model of gifting resource allocation rights is deficient. I think it an important and beneficial difference in the speed with which a resource can be exploited. And limitations on timber cutting at this point don't fit under that model.)

So, it's with that said that I introduce you again to the difference between the left and the right in Canada, and the Left and the Right here. I give you Terry Glavin.

UPDATE: Thoughts on Mr. Glavin's essay at Harry'sPlace.

Air America Exec Arrested

Let's not forget that there are some to whom the rules are believed not apply. Whether it's Spitzer or , it's amazing to watch crooks fall.

Meet Evan Cohen. He's in jail. A member of the Elite.

"The onetime chairman of the lib-net, Evan Cohen has been arrested in Guam and awaits extradition to Hawaii where he faces charges of theft, fraud and money laundering. If convicted, he could face up to ten years in prison. Since leaving Air America, Cohen returned to his native Guam where he's the managing director of a radio and TV production company. Read the court documents HERE." (pdf)

When I write about the Level Playing Field, I'm not talking about balancing crooks on the Right with crooks on the Left. It's a view that law serves as a leveler. And the strict enforcement of law is the best service that a society can provide its citizens.

One of the reason why I hate stupid laws. Or vague laws. Or law that exceeds the authority lawmakers receive from their constitutions, federal and state. But that is for another time. This is about simple crookedness and getting caught.