It’s all in the pie

I was thinking of the phrase, “bigger piece of the pie,” and it occurred to me that the thought there is actually Marxist in origin. The idea presented is that there is a finite pie which gets portioned to the individual per their actions. The bigger piece of pie will necessitate someone else have a smaller piece. As an aside, for those who believe this and maintain huge salaries, doesn’t that mean that they like the idea of removing from others? Back to the thought. A pie is finite in its size and ability to be cut. There is a limited quantity of pie available and the only question is who gets how much. If that was so in an economy, how is it possible for the economy to grow? The additional money had to come from somewhere. I guess the Fed made it. Well what other possibility is there? How about the idea that money is a representation of time and effort of the individual? The time and effort are translated to money in the marketplace and as such there is an engine for increased production related to the efforts of the individuals in the population. Economic growth is the sum total of the efforts of the population seen in the translation of their time and energies to money terms. This makes sense in that it allows the economy to grow relative to the population. It rewards individuals differently according to their application of time and effort and the increased reward of one does not remove from the reward of another. The pie doesn’t apply.

 

From an e-mail

Here is where Francis W. Porretto from Eternity Road went, and he has a very good post about:

The Julia Story

…

One of the central points of 1984 is that in true totalitarianism, the State must displace the natural allegiances of love — romantic, familial, and brotherly (and, though Orwell might not agree — Love of God, too)– with a love of State.
….

http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2012/05/julia-story.html

I thought this was interesting in that once one tries to rid themselves of God, they end up picking another god as a substitute -in Zero’s case, himself. The concept that environmentalists have that we are destroying the planet, is only logical if held in the idea that we are as powerful as God. We can control the seas, we can effect the sun, we can protect all wildlife, all everyone has to do is stop breathing. Yes, it’s carbon dioxide that is the problem, so if we stop breathing all will be fine. (eyes roll) I was sitting next to some female in chemistry class listeneing to the professor describe the formation and real-life orientation of the ozone molecule. It actually doesn’t exist as a three oxygen set, but rather as portions of radical molecules that trade off their electrons and subsequently pass of heat to nitrogen atoms nearby. The power for all of the activity was the sun and the presence of oxygen. I noted this little fact to my seatmate and was informed that we were destroying the atmosphere. Uhhh, what did the prof just say? All that is required to produce ozone is oxygen and sunlight. Period. End of sentence. We have to get rid of one or the other. Only God is able, and I’m not applying for that job. Yet we have mindless tape recorders running around spouting off talking points without the slightest sense of what they just said violates reality. Orwell – down is up, up is down.
For some reason, the superhero came to mind and I had to check out the origin and rise of the superhero. To my interest, the superhero comics started their rise in the mid 30′s. Why is that important? Well, that is when Roosevelt was starting the dismantling of the Constitution. Consider how the country was founded and what kind of individuals would be there. The second amendment mentioned the well regulated militia. There were no police, no armies, no coast guard, no immigration officials. It was up to each individual to defend themselves, their home, and band together to defend their communities. Each person was responsible for their own defense. What if a superior force showed? The original communities would band together. The superhero was to provide the mental concept against that mindset. Do I believe that is why they created them? Of course not. They created them to sell the magazines and produce a profit. I do, however, believe that the concepts presented had some association with the politics of the day and desire for socialists, progressives, liberals, etc to get a foot hold on the minds of free men. So when the force comes that is larger than the individual can handle, instead of banding together and fighting, we now have the community saved by an indivudal with super strength, super powers, or whatever other special characteristic he has that on one else possesses. The people no longer save themselves, protect themselves, or band together to the betterment of the group.
They have, in effect, picked a mini god. Then you get the effects like this. The salmon have been around for how long? Sea lions have been around for how long? Who is trying to be god? I can guarantee it won’t work because that job has already been taken, and no one here is qualified, no matter how big their ego. (You can put your hand down, Zero)

 

Interesting Concept

But he is in error. He is in error because he’s comparing apples and oranges. Marxism and capitalism are not two opposing economic theories as many people believe. Marxism is a religion, and capitalism is an economic theory. Moreover, capitalism is an economic theory THAT WORKS. As even the Dalai Lama admits, capitalism in China “…brought a lot of positive to China. Millions of people’s living standards improved.”

Capitalism is amoral because it is an economic theory. Marxism has a morality because it is a religion.
Read the rest.

 

Slavery

Before the founding of this nation, there was a philosophical idea that the results of someone’s labor was theirs – they owned that for which they produced. This was the basis of copyright laws as well as the repugnance of slavery. In the latter case, the person’s labor is taken and this was considered against natural law. Without going into any detail on the arguments, note that the words life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were long considered in light of natural law and “property” was dropped for the possible application slave owners would utilize. Therefore, the end result was an acknowledgement that rights were those applied by our Creator and not dependent upon any other person’s labors.
Government doesn’t produce anything of marketable value. It exists as an agent of force. Nothing given by the government was done so by the production of the same government, it was removed from someone who applied efforts to produce. Therefore, government can’t give anything to anyone it hasn’t taken from someone else.
It is a false concept that the government can provide health care. The government doesn’t produce anything, it can only take from the medically trained professionals to give to someone else. Therefore, healthcare is nothing more than the application of someone’s labors to the advantage of someone’s health – betterment of their physical or emotional being. When the government mandated that emergency rooms provide health care to anyone walking into their doors – regardless of ability to pay – they relegated health professionals to the status of slaves – ones from whom labor could be taken. One may argue that the doctors earn so much, they could do some for free. If that’s the case, let’s apply the same logic to Pres Zero’s bank account. He has plenty and I need some. Give me some of his bank account. It’s the same argument.
Think back to rights for a moment. They are that given by the Creator to the individual in this life. The application of someone else’s labor into my life is not a right as their labor belongs to them. Therefore, there is no right to health care. There is only slavery of the health care worker when their labor is removed by the government.

 

I am now free

The prison ministry is finished and spouseinbox and I are back home – and exhausted.  There are no alarms set for tomorrow. (I am now posting this in the morning)

Just a thought: once the takers of society outnumber the producers, doesn’t that indicate that we producers are no longer represented?  We have a situation where three wolves and one sheep democratically vote on what’s for dinner.  The outcome is predetermined.  When the producers of dinner are no longer available, the remainder starve.  Look at the situation of any communist country.  The only uniformity available is poverty.

I want to restate my definition of the American Dream: getting paid for what you do.  It’s not the car, house, television set or any other piece of property.  It is the knowledge that my effort will produce my result.  My result may be different than someone else’s, and that is all right.

 

Further down the road

Siblinginbox sent a link with an interesting association with the lying theme I previously posted.  Here is a piece of the article with one of the comments:

“Leftoids take production for granted in the same way. It happens out of sight and out of mind,  by processes and under the influence of forces that are not comprehended, not comprehensible, and in any case not affected by anything they do. They are therefore free to make whatever changes they care to make in the processes and forces that they can see and affect, because since nothing they do affects the existence of wealth, by definition if they can do it it doesn’t change anything important.”

…

The Monster

Rand was absolutely right about that. The Left does not want to know (consciously) the complex chains of events that converge upon a stock clerk putting merchandise on a shelf in a store. The pithy “blank out” exactly captures the deliberate arrest of cognitive ability so as to not know.

It wasn’t until I saw Evan Sayet’s first Heritage lecture that I understood why they do it. As a recovering leftist, he was able to explain it perfectly: Leftism deliberately arrests thinking at the Kindergarten level (which I think fits in at about the economic understanding of a hunter-gatherer) because to think more maturely is to risk committing the ultimate crime of discrimination.

Rand also talks about the archetypes of Attila (the tribal chief) and the Witch Doctor (shaman), which pretty much every hunting-gathering society has. It’s as if our species existed at the H-G level long enough for our brains to be pretty much hard-wired to function there, while any higher level of economic progress requires us to do the mental work to figure out that those mammoth will not always be there in large numbers, so if we can domesticate the beasts, and do controlled slaughter that keeps the numbers of the herd up, we really can have even more meat to eat, hides to wear, etc.

Domestication of animals and agriculture support roughly 30x the population density of H-G. But there’s a price to pay. You have to recognize that the herdsman who tends to those animals every day has earned the right to prevent others from killing his animals. For hunters, the idea that someone “owns” an animal is weird. It takes mental effort to grasp the necessity of a moral code that recognizes that herdsman’s rights over his animals, and strength of character to hunt wild animals instead of his domesticated herd, even though “hunting” his herd is so easy.

Similarly, the farmer who tends and nurtures his crops until they’re ready to harvest has earned the right to prevent others from “gathering” them. The mental effort is analogous, and therefore ought to be easier to do, because some of it has already been done in grasping the rights inherent in animal husbandry. But there’s a difference. Herdsmen can lead a nomadic existence, letting their animals graze over different lands as they move about, but a farmer has to be able to benefit from the produce of a particular piece of ground for at least a full growing season. If the ground wasn’t well-suited for farming at first, the farmer had to invest a great deal of effort in making it so. He needs the confidence that he can benefit from that effort over a prolonged time span, or he won’t do the work, and the crops will not exist.

A mature market economy depends on a moral and legal system that recognizes the rights of the producer to the product of his efforts, and to trade that product with other producers upon mutually-agreed terms, with no element of coercion in the negotiations. Whenever such transactions occur, each party leaves with more value than it had before. But once coercion is allowed into the equation, it’s possible for one or more parties to be poorer as a result. Maybe even everyone in the transaction other than the guy doing the coercing. That’s called “robbery”, unless the coercer’s wearing a badge or the King’s livery. Then it’s called “taxation” or “fairness”.

This may explain the concept of economics to the leftist/communist, however, I still think lying is the base approach with the end purpose of population control.  When things don’t work the way they want, people are just lazy.  Reality is not an option.

 

Additional Thoughts

An insert in the linked page had this:

Alinsky’s tactics were based, not on Stalin’s revolutionary violence, but on the Neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist. Relying on gradualism, infiltration and the dialectic process rather than a bloody revolution, Gramsci’s transformational Marxism was so subtle that few even noticed the deliberate changes.

Like Alinsky, Mikhail Gorbachev followed Gramsci, not Lenin. In fact, Gramsci aroused Stalins’s wrath by suggesting that Lenin’s revolutionary plan wouldn’t work in the West. Instead the primary assault would be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish. Malachi Martin gave us a progress report:

“By 1985, the influence of traditional Christian philosophy in the West was weak and negligible…. Gramsci’s master strategy was now feasible. Humanly speaking, it was no longer too tall an order to strip large majorities of men and women in the West of those last vestiges that remained to them of Christianity’s transcendent God.”

I note that the intent was destruction of Christianity.  Why?

I propose that the freedom associated with Christianity is diametrically opposed to the mindset required to administer communism.  ”You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”   Also, note ownership may be of some importance:  “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.  the world and they that dwell therein.”    Truth spoken to those who live under the absolute authority of lies can be like the cross to Dracula.  Truth, hence Christianity, must be destroyed to allow communism full reign.

 

Common Sense

Found here:
I open with the opening thought from this historic document:

Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason. As a long and violent abuse of power, is generally the Means of calling the right of it in question (and in Matters too which might never have been thought of, had not the Sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry) and as the King of England hath undertaken in his OWN RIGHT, to support the Parliament in what he calls THEIRS, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpation of either.

Is there anything better at describing the application of bureaucracy today? The king of England was removed from the population and oppressing them. The people had no say in the operation of the king and how laws were applied to themselves. Is that any different than the bureaucracies today? Mr. Paine opens with the argument that time has the tendency of providing legitimacy to the item in question when reason would dictate otherwise. Is it any different with the bureaucracies today? Are they constitutional, or has the passage of time provided an unearned legitimacy to them? I would argue that the enumerated powers combined with the 10th amendment forbid the federal government to operate in the manner to which it has become accustomed these past 60 years. My further appeal is to the concept that our founders knew what they were doing and we need to emulate that foundation again. This would require a move away from marxism and central control back to individual responsibility.

 

Thoughts on music and relative philosophies

I have been working on the story of Samson for some time now. Two songs are finished, one is in process and the remainder of the lyrics are sitting waiting on their turn to be dressed in harmony. One thing about writing is that when the sheet is on the table empty, anything is possible. The full range of instruments, words, styles are just holding their breath at the possibility of being used on the new text. Once the text begins, however, it is an exclusive realm. The more words that position themselves on the page, the fewer possibilities remain. Infinite becomes definite. To choose a note on the staff rejects all other notes at the same time. As the chord is developed, several may join the initial note, but formation of the chord removes the chance of other notes being selected. The same is true for the lyrics. The matter of Samson rejects the idea of a song extolling the beauty of sunrise. To select this material as subject rejects the remainder of subjects for this work.
Once something is selected, there is a natural selection cost – the decision that no others will be taken. One choice excludes all others. The earlier selection is made, the more determined the outcome.
When I say that muslims are simply following a totalitarian philosophy, it is because that choice of reference excludes all others. That removes muslims from religion, from capitalism, from freedom. My observation of their behavior and history has led me to this conclusion and I will note that it is in great contrast to the media and politicians who have used the same concept of exclusion to try and extol the virtues of this destructive philosophy as their hope is to remove chance of the opposing view taking precedence. As the MSP (main stream propagandists) and politicians sing the wonders of islam, the grating discord of terrorism, mutilations, and attacks drone against the melody political types broadcast. This is why I stand here stating my observations. They (MSP, etc) will not remove my objective reality with their repeated attempts to choose the notes.

 

Further Thoughts

I listen to Dave Ramsey on the radio and have applied some of his ideas. For the record, we have two loans to go. I imagine it will be an even bigger smile once they are paid in full. When someone calls in there, usually there are two answers to the financial situation – apart from keeping records – decrease spending, (sell the car) and increase revenue. When someone takes a loan, they are betting on the future income to pay for what was used in the present. Stated another way, the borrower is reducing their future income by the amount of the principle and interest. (I mentioned interest payments in an earlier blog.) When one gets to the future (theoretically impossible, but I digress) and income doesn’t equal expenses, remember, that pesky principle and interest, the individual is faced with two options – either increase the income or decrease the expenditures. AKA: Dave Ramsey. I think we have a gut understanding of this concept and that is why this last budget battle created such a stir. The political class in Washington just proved that they do not plan on cutting any spending, and want to continue borrowing until China says “no.” This has led me to analyze their actions as destructive to our economy. Added to this are the actions of pres 0. We can loan Brazil two billion dollars, or send our troops to Libia to protect oil for Europe, but here at home there is a moratorium on drilling, and he promised bankruptcy for power plants. Given the previous sentence, I feel safe to say that pres 0 doesn’t have anything against energy – just us having energy. This lack of energy has a couple effects: lower income for the laborers in the field and higher energy costs with the money going outside this country to our enemies. Given the spending increases and obstruction of ability for us to tap our resources and increase income, I have come to the conclusion that pres 0 and the political class of Washington have decided to run this country into bankruptcy.
That taken to the end leads to another previous post that I stated we were on step 3. A destruction of this economy will lead to the end of the country as we know it, as the recipients of the tax money will be screaming for their handouts and nothing will be available. The dollar will have to inflate for the fed to continue their spending which will reduce the value of the currency and we enter the Weimar Republic. This is the moment that is desired by the socialists among us as noted by the video I linked to previously. So when I assert that pres 0 is trying to destroy this country, these are the considerations I am using.