Real Republic

In a real democratic republic, there would be a mechanism for ensuring that the proper classes dominated in their respective branches of government. Where there is nothing but free election for any branch, it doesn't matter whether there are three branches or fifty, the power will accumulate to one center and the tyranny of the majority will prevail as it always has. Throw reason out the window. Tyranny has been and always will be the emergence of specious and arbitrary rules and laws that defy reason and the well functioning of society. The majority will always pick idols and icons as their leaders and reasoning individuals will be excluded from political power. We know this from our own experiences, and it has been written down in every major age.

Our founding fathers understood the principals of a functioning republic (see classical liberals). They learned them from the study of history, not from any dogmatic rhetoric. These principals seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle, perhaps after the populist revolt in the 1870s when the functioning oligarchy decided to jimmy the text books and eliminate any reference to what republics really were. John Adam's "Defence of the Constitutions of the Governments of the United States, A Response to the letter from Mr Turgot to Dr. Price", 1787 - 1788, is an excellent piece of work that should be read by every highschooler in the United States, or at least be a part of the Liberal Arts program for all undergraduate study. It shows clearly the reasons and the reasoning why any republic that hopes to stand must balance the political power between all three classes of society. The result is a mutual stand off, and while everyone may not get their most glorius wish, no one is oppressed.

As to glorius wishes, Nicollo Machiavelli wrote: "Liberty is a funny word, some use it to justify licentiousness, these are typically the commoners, others use it to justify slavery, these are typically the nobility". This is ultimately the same exact sentiment covered by Karl Marx's 'first contradiction of capital', where capital is tripped up when some choose to underpay labor, since labor is also the consumer with a different hat. When labor is underpaid, consumption drops, someone gets lots of money, but the sum total of wealth in the nation drops. Wealth being the sum of necessaries, conveniences and luxuries of life. The similarity is in the fact that labor wants unlimited pay and capital works towards minimal costs.

Today, for instance, credit cards are grafting wages. This is a perpetual problem that would be manageable if real capital had an outright political domination in the U.S. Senate. Piggybacking on Democrats or Republicans requires too many compromises, too much dependence on ones mutual adversaries in the power struggle. Capital needs its own political party, one that is in the open to show the people of this nation that capital is not in fact the bad guy. Capital is the source of this nations wealth - the source of all necessaries, conveniences and luxuries in everyone's lives (and if we include natural capital, everything is encompassed).

To get back to a republic can be attained only if a U.S. Capitalist Party is established and funded. There is already name recognition, unlike parties such as independents, populists, libertarians, greens and the like, which are words that don't mean anything to most people. The key to differentiating the three branches of the government, is first in establishing a third party and then through campaign financing.

If in the U.S. House of Representatives, the candidates are limited in their accepting of donations to say the $100.00 - $500.00 range per individual, there will not be a whole lot of business interest or bias represented. Splendid.

If in the U.S. Senate, the candidates are not limited in their accepting of donations, or to keep things fair, are limited to the $10,000.00 - %50,000.00 range, then capital will have a much greater chance of getting candidates that represent their issues. A differentiation is forming?

If for the U.S. Presidency, the government splits a fund, say in the $1,000,000.00 - $5,000,000.00 range, equally between the top four contenders (one for the complainy parties, just to seem fair), and other than the individual's own personal fortune, no other compaign contributions can be legally accepted. Then, the executive will be chosen fairly on their personal merits. Not that that has ever worked before... But with a real balance established between the three branches, a crappy executive won't be that big of a problem.

This was the intent of our government by the founding fathers. It is similar to the British, with their House of Lords, House of Commons and Prime Minister, which has lasted longer than our system. We have a serious threat to our freedom everytime one party takes all three branches. John Adams' most serious warning was - not to let all power accumulate to one center, or one faction. This is the basis of all forms of tyranny and the loss of liberty.

We all learn in high school that to solve a problem with three variables, we need three equations or else the solution is arbitrary. This is simple math. With two parties, if one uses an equal chance of either party winning an election over the three branches of government, all power accumulates in one center every 2.7 years. With three parties, all power accumulates in one center once every 12.5 years. Hence, if we have been witnessing power accumulating to one party about every 50 or 60 years with the two party system, with a three party system, it will take more like 225 to 270 years.

To prevent the excesses the two party system has been taking with capital, requires that capital assert a presence in the U.S. Senate where it can legislate against excessive credit inflating the money supply and pricing U.S. commodities out of the range of international customers. Legislation can be considered that finds a solution to Marx's 'first contradiction of capital'. A more experienced business mentality would go a long way toward balancing the budget, such that pork would be more carefully guarded against - out of mutual jealousy, yet beneficial programs, such as education and health care funded properly. The capitalist class in any society is more scientific, rational, reasonable, and just plain smarter than the other two classes... in general. Hence any nation that allows its Aristocracy to be absent from its government in any organized fashion courts error in judgement and plenty of economic waste.

The stock market has been flat for a long time, this is no fluke. Interest rates at both the business end and, surreptitiously, on the consumer end have been inflating prices and impoverishing consumers. International competitors are growing stronger daily due to the flagging value of the dollar, supported only by the value forced upon it as the currency of oil, but what is it costing us to support even this? We need to get back to a more sound politics, a more sound economics and a more stable and thinking society. We can't afford tyranny, where liberality is the mechanism by which society adapts to changing circumstances. What with fossil fuels running low and global warming increasing, while populations grow and diseases spread. We are in a time where adaptation and new ideas need a place to originate and emerge. We need a U.S. Capitalist Party.

Vote U.S. Capitalist party.

Oh, I found a nice link that supports much of the thought these writings of mine are based on, for those who havent done the reading I have - Classical Liberals

Economic Republic

The thesis of a republic is to balance the power between all three classes that comprise a nation or commonwealth. To do this requires first that the legislative power be divided between the three classes by dividing it between a House of Representatives, a Senate and an Executive. In this way, the people, capital and the government class all have the opportunity to agree or disagree with the legislation. That which negatively impacts one third or more of the mechanism of society will have a difficult time becoming the law of the land. The constitution is also equipped with checks and balances to prevent all power from accumulating in one branch or another. This, however means political power.

Today, there is a more popular power than political power, and that is financial power. Money goes a long way to influencing political power, it shapes the landscape and usually has the final say in decision making. To balance all power between the three classes of society, the social product, that is the money left over to do stuff with after all costs are taken care of, needs to be divided equally between the three classes as well. The social product in our capitalist economy is the sum of all profits taken before any taxes and any taxes taken from wages as well.

The best way to divide the social product up is to eliminate wage taxes, first of all and instead tax resources to get the social product for the common class, this is currently the social security and medicare taxes. This will come out of the profits of capital, as usual, only from a different direction, the actual balance in anyone's books or budget will stay the same. The tax can be exacted at the commodities exchanges that deal in natural resources. The criteria for taxing should be any resource that ENTERS the economy, hence recycled materials are exempt and the neoclassical option remains open.

The remaining profits are divided 50/50 between capital and government taxes. While this looks big with these numbers it is about a 60% increase in the profits of capital. Which allows for an immense amount of new investment and employment in the domestic or productive sector.

Following is an excerpt from a thesis I wrote earlier concerning this issue that reasons things from example and actual data taken from various government sources. As I was accumulating this data, I lost two hard drives to some sort of virus attack that rewrote the format code on the hard drives. I discovered that the drives were still functional when I connected them up on parallel connections and the drive format program showed them as working. I lost all the sources, but I had already written down the info. Some of the sites I visited were the U.S. Social Security web site, the IRS web site, some commodities web sites, which showed that the price of all resources in 1996 equaled the cost of social security taxes which gave me some ideas for establishing a working economic value for our natural heritage. The principal is based on the Ricardian rent idea, which theoretically should not impact profits of capital, being due instead to the productivity of nature.

Here is part of it:

So, let's apply this thesis to a hypothetical example in the manner of a Ricardo, Smith, or Marx. For instance, let there be an average business that makes $100.00 surplus in a year. The tax on that profit will be 50% or $50.00, so the actual profit is $50.00. The average business cost of materials might be $100.00, with $50.00 of that going into the dispensation tax.

Now, we need to make a couple of assumptions here. The first is that 20% of the population does not work and that 80% does. On average this ratio holds across the population. So if the average business pays $50.00 to the dispensation tax, the average total wages will be ($50.00/20%)*80% = $200.00. It is up to the new branch of government to keep businesses up to date on the ratio of employed to unemployed individuals, and also on the rate of 'rent' of resources for those who trade in primary commodities. This could be a monthly or weekly publication, or an instantaneous set of values using the computer outputs provided to exchanges.

In a simple business model, the price of commodities will equal the cost of materials + wages + profits. In this example that gives us $100.00 (materials) + $200.00 (wages) + $100.00 (surplus) = $400.00. The rate of profit in this example is $50.00/$400.00 = 12.5%. If the resources are all recycled, there is no materials tax (since the materials have not recently entered the economy) so the total price is $350.00 and the rate of profit is $50.00/$350.00 or 14.3%. These rates of profit are averages, but are close to what any business can expect. Some do better some don't do as well, but it is obvious that it is not oppressive. In addition there is a clear incentive to recycle, which implements the neoclassical economic model, which in turn makes everyone healthier, wealthier and wiser.

Now, how does this play out at the political level. Regarding the capitalist as the aristocracy, the laborer as the democracy and government as the monarchy, the goal is to balance the wealth between these classes. The balance of power being the only way known to mankind to maintain the liberation of any individual from the clutches of tyranny.

Using data from 1996, and rounding it all off, gives us a pretty clear picture of what we have now and what we would have with this Republican economy.

• Corporate profits for that year were about 650 billion dollars.
  
• Corporate taxes paid were about 171 billion dollars.
  
• Corporate social security taxes were 233 billion dollars.
  
• Individuals paid 655 billion in taxes
• Individuals paid a total of 232 billion in social security, Medicare and Medicaid taxes.

Now, to see how much social product there actually was before any taxes, we need to add 650 billion onto the 655 billion, along with 232 billion plus 233 billion. We ignore the corporate tax paid, since it is was already included in the profit number. The sum is 1.77 trillion. Now, the total of all taxes is 826 billion dollars, which originates from profits, so, the total take home profit minus only the monarchy's (government's) portion is 944 billion dollars. The total dispensation (social security and hospital) taxes were 465 billion, 232 from labor + 233 from capital, and the total profit remaining for capital reinvestment then, was 479 billion.


If we subtract from the government taxes a rate of 10% for the basic functioning of government itself ( a verifiable number), we must subtract out 83 billion, leaving them with 743 billion dollars of the social product. This is clearly not a balance of power. The difference went to bloat military expenses.

Take the sum of 1.77 trillion dollars, subtract the 83 billion of legitimate cost, gives 1.69 trillion dollars of pure social product, one third of that is 562 billion dollars.

To give each class one third of the surplus value produced by our nation, would lower the government's share by 743 billion - 562 billion = 181 billion, which if it came out of the military budget, would still leave us enough military to conquer all the world's largest countries. It would raise social security by an additional 97 billion, which ought to be enough to keep seniors solvent ad infinitum. The remaining money would go back into corporate profits, which would add an additional economic stimulus package to the tune of 83 billion. The additional money going to business contributes to the rate of individual consumption, as does that going to seniors and others unemployable. These additional markets should raise profits and the system become perpetually productive, the faster rate of exchange being the more sustainable too, due to the encouragement to recycle and conserve.
The improvement in the economy actually comes as a result of the market becoming more neo-classical, in the sense that money is more distributed and people can buy more stuff.

The current popular economic mythology is all classical, expecting markets to appear out of nowhere and pumping wealth into the hands of the few to invest in nothing. Concentrations of wealth are unnecessary in a capitalist economy. In fact they are one of the great threats to any republic, said President John Adams, an expert on the subject. The idea behind capitalism is that where there is a demand, capital will collect, and demand is another term for market. While there are many things people want, most people cannot afford them, so the market can't materialize (at least not without the slavery producing mechanism of debt). If government has the un-repubican lion's share of the social product, investment by capital - with or without tax breaks- will fall far short of remaining coincident with demand.

The main reason for this financial lacuna is clear in the economic breakdown from 1996, all the money is going to the military, and for no good reason other than a perverse drive for power that is rapidly destroying the U.S. republic. Markets are simply drying up due to the lack of an economic balance of power regarding either the broad-based consumers or the capitalist class. The social product needs to be invested in the national economy and not in chasing magnified bogeymen around the planet with grotesquely expensive forces. While 3000 people were in fact killed by terrorists in one year, three years ago, since that time, 9000 people per year were killed by handguns giving a total of 27,000 and 40,000 people per year were killed on our nations highways giving us a total of 120,000 deaths. In my book, working on some night vision, heat vision and wireless interactive technologies to prevent automobiles from hitting people and other vehicles should be getting the billions of extra dollars. Perhaps completely automating automobiles would go a long way to reducing the anxieties that lead to many of the handgun murders. Loosening individual liquidity would probably cover the rest of the distance.

We must still ask how this new republic will affect an individual from any of the three classes? The labor class gains a safety net, the aristocracy gains markets and respect and the government loses some of its bloated military potential, yet must fulfil its social obligations without abandoning the management of society. The system suggested could be implemented fractionally over a period of five years, with a lot of analysis and observations made to ensure that there is benefit and that losses are insignificant amd mitigated. The constitutional amendment would simply establish two new offices, the one to collect and distribute the resource rents for the unemployable class and a second to split the remaining corporate profit, progressively, in half, taking only one of the halves to support governmental activities.

The typical worker would at first find that their annual pay is a lot smaller, since the income tax fraction will be retained by the employer, but their take home pay larger. The social security tax would be returned to the working class to enable them to purchase goods where the price has risen due to the increased price of resources. This would appear as a mild form of inflation.

For example the cost of a barrel of oil doubled within the year 2004 and the price of gasoline barely noticed it. A bushel of grain weighs about 60# and costs about $4.00. If a 1# loaf of bread were assumed to be entirely made of flour, and not have any additional water or other ingredients, the cost of the flour is $.067. If a loaf of bread is $2.00, a doubling of the price of grain would raise the price of bread to $2.07. Since the individual is retaining an additional 10% of their pay, the extra 3.5% increase in cost shouldn't matter. In reality, however, the various additional costs such as sugar, yeast and ovens should add up and sum to that same 10% so bread should actually rise to $2.20 per loaf but wages rising the same 10% covers this increase.

In either case, the increase is not a lot, and it is accompanied by a real increase in the wage. The increase in pay, however, can lend itself to the purchase of a greater quantity of products where labor is the more significant cost, since the cost of labor with respect to the cost of working stock will diminish. As shown earlier, the money available to seniors will increase 27%, so they're covered too. Finally, the typical worker who doesn't have any significant investment income will not need to file an income tax form; their employer will be required to file an employee cost form, which shows what everyone made. There should probably be some sort of accountability as well, such as a notice mailed out by the government to each worker to verify the figures.

The capitalist will find surplus value split three ways. They will pay a 100% rent on all raw materials they purchase. If they are processed materials the additional cost will already be figured in, so there is no further action to take, other than paying a higher price. The primary effect most businesses will see is the tax rate fall and their labor costs fall, though not to the same extent. The typical tax rate will be near 50%, but it will be progressive and entirely on profits or growth. Labor will not be responsible for any taxes, this part of the wage now being retained. Control over these taxes in government is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to the House of Representative, so losing the actual handling of the money by each individual should pose no political threat. The benefit is that markets will increase and expand dramatically, and total profits rise due to the increased demand. In addition, there should be an increase in profitability across the board of (83 billion / 479 billion) * 100% = 17%, which should encourage all manner of improvements. State governments may get a healthy portion of that though.

There will be two new offices of government, one associated with the IRS the other with social security, this latter having a presence in the commodities exchanges. The unique part of this tax system is that government will be required to pay taxes on material things too. It is unavoidable when purchasing finished goods, and required when stockpiling strategic materials. The reason being that the rent on these materials accrues to the unemployed of the working class, the democratic class, and hopefully many of those now in the military class who have been disabled. Trying to circumvent this tax impoverishes those who need civil society the most.

Government debt should become a thing of the past. In fact, the elimination of government debt should be a requirement of the establishment phase, since debt is a way government can cheat the system and increase their share of the power. The dramatic increase in government funds due to downsizing to a realistic sized military should be applied directly to paying off debt and establishing a war fund in addition to funding improvements in the education system and transportation infrastructure.
Comparing the economic difference between the classes for the years 1996 to 2001 we see each got:

Year:		1996 (millions)		1998 (millions)		2000 (millions)		2001 (millions)
GOV (G)		826,041,404		970,087,125		1,242,729,393		1,054,648,264
Capital (C)		469,219,050		481,840,382		556,360,546		468,545,428
Labor (L)		490,109,550		556,349,751		638,834,880		671,579,948
G-(C+L) =		-133,287,196		-68,103,008		47,533,967		-85,477,112
G/C =		1.7		2.01		2.23		2.25
G/L =		1.68		1.74		1.95		1.57

By 2001, it appears that labor is tending to grow with respect to the government, but capital is shrinking. While the combined capital plus labor, or democratic plus aristocratic forces seem to be gathering strength with respect to the government, the power of capital is shrinking steadily in recent years. In addition, government has been borrowing money, so its effective power is greater than that reflected purely in tax revenues.

Losing its aristocratic class is normally the greatest political tragedy a nation can suffer. It can either be lost to oligarchy and corruption of its own accord or to disempowerment through other means, such as despotical tyranny or anarchy. In either case, the loss means the loss of the best of skills, cooperation and intellect, which tend to benefit everyone when applied socially to wealth production. This impoverishment in our situation is a direct consequence of the rise of the military state, which may have worked for Sparta, but for which there is no longer an environment that can support such bigotry or unsecured balancing of power.

The temporary rise of the democratic class is far from permanent. The idea of privatizing social security was recently on the table. If such a policy had proceeded, it would have demolished both classes leaving only a tyrannical despotism. The reason being that the cost of providing funds as contrasted with the current dispensation system is about 20 times higher. It would have required all remaining profits of capital to fund it. -This is another proof that the Republican Party is anything but the party of business - the two are as mutually exclusive as business and the Democratic party or the Democratic party and the Republican party. The idea of our country was for a tripartite government, not a tug of war between two factions.

Vote U.S. Capitalist Party

How Arbitrary is Interest?

Interest is an arbitrary term in the first place, as mentioned in a previous post, it was once considered as compensation for the loss in value that the wear on the gold or silver removed. It has also been considered a compensation for taking the risk of lending out of the gold or silver, back when highway robbery was actually considered lawful in places... Some authors even considered interest in the sense of a bond, where there is an obvious net sharing in profit and ownership, the venture capitalist approach. It certainly is not a form of punishment, since in the United States, everyone has a right to a jury trial where the amount in question exceeds $20.00 (Amendment 7 of the United States Constitution).

Now that we have a sanctioned capitalist economy, most of the reasons for charging interest have fallen by the wayside. With a paper or electronic money, there is no wearing away of value, so that excuse is null and void. Highway robbery is no longer a valid excuse, since there are civil laws to protect against it, which we are obliged to trust as citizens, the failure to do so is equivalent to a failure to trust in the government and hence its money as well. The venture capital approach is still valid, as a sharing in the profits earned by the investment between the financier and the businessman, but the term 'profit' would suffice better than the term 'interest'.

The highway robbery excuse has morphed into what is now known as a 'risk' factor, based upon the credit worthiness of the borrower. The problem with this is that it is no longer in the range of the definition of profit
on capital, the only principally sound basis for interest in a capitalist economy that can remain consistent with the economic form. Instead, risk is a form of insurance payment that must be distinguished from the term 'interest'.

Were we to distinguish interest and insurance properly, an individual could simply have debt insurance that they could pay to one company that would base their rates on risk. This would be a legal criteria for administering a loan, the same as having insurance on a car as a legal criterion for procuring a loan already represents. Rolling the risk insurance into the term interest is arbitrary and misleading and a route to undermining the profits on capital and the liberty of the citizens. Instead of interest, the sole price of a loan with a fiat money can within the bounds of reason be none other than the cost of servicing it and perhaps a normal rate of profit on that. In other words, the price of a loan is necessarily independent of the quantity of that loan with a fiat money. Some of the arbitrary, unreasonable and unpredictable excuses for perpetuating the myth of interest:

• Credit risk - the risk of default on the loan due to bankrupcy. This risk should be set to zero if the individual has debt insurance.
• Maturity/Term risk – the risk involved in a long-term investment: This risk is forfeit by the lender when the investment is not made in the real capital market, that of business and industrial growth. When an investor chooses to invest in, say, consumer loans, it must be due to the fact that they have no other option and the loss of future opportunity is their own and must be borne by them. The equivalent is; if I invest in a stock and it goes down, I do not get any compensation for that, so what magical incantation priviledges the monied class over the commoner class in the United States when it comes to loans?
• Liquidity risk – the need of compensating the illiquidity of the debt: This 'risk' is borne by both the lender and the borrower and is not a real risk unless viewed from the perspective of an illegal priviledging of a class of people. Ultimately, such a priviledging does not include profit making capitalists, only old leisure class money and corrupt bankers. And this "compensation" comes directly out of the profits of working capital, whether via labor costs or loss of consumer power.
• Inflation risk; Is the most disengenuous of the excuses, since it is unbridled debt and illegitimate interest charging that are most responsible for inflation. With a fiat money, inflation is 100% manageable by the government that backs the money's value and hence, to charge for this nature of 'risk' is to fail to trust in the government and the money's value itself, which is absurd. That the propagation of this inflation is by these very same lenders who fein to doubt the value of the money is in fact treachery against the government and could readily be viewed as treason. Obviously there is also corruption within the U.S. Treasury Department to allow ot this sale of individual liberty, which needs to be removed and harshly dealt with.
  
• The fluctuation of a currency due to the currency exchange rate is normal economics and it is irrational to ground any excuse to charge interest on this notion of risk. The value of a money is due to the quantity of money in circulation. If there is an imbalance in international trade, where there is a sound monetary system, the value of the money will in fact fluctuate, but such fluctuation in a large economy is minimal, and were it to occur it would represent an increasing in the wealth of the nation, and an increase in the purchasing potential of all money. If the loan were large and the value of money increased, that is that much more wealthier the banker becomes as the loan is repaid. If the value of money decreases due to a revolution in productivity and international sales, that is all the more insignificant the magnitude of the loan becomes. In neither case is there a genuine 'risk'.
  

Other excuses for charging of interest today are:

• Time value of money: having money now is more valuable than having it at some future time because interest is earned; Obviously this is the profit earning motive for lending money. It is also the very reason why there is a prime lending rate. The investment incentive should be to investing in stocks and bonds and not proffering loans. John Maynard Keynes ("The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money",1936) very ably showed that there is no market limit to the rate of interest and that if it can find a way to exceed the rate of profit it will do so to the detriment of industry, and employment. Allowing of this excuse for the charging of interest should occasion the elimination of Ben Bernache's job. As it stands, the prime lending rate should be the only allowed lending rate for any and all loans made in the public or private sectors, since all interest payments ultimately derive from the profits of capital, and protecting the right to profit is the very point of setting a prime lending rate in the first place.
  
• Interest is the value borrowers place on having money now; Wants are unlimited, hence by this excuse, interest should be unlimited. This is the very justification of the need not to have interest. And when money is of the fiat nature, and does not represent any form of real capital, it is in direct competition with real capital for the right of profit... under any name.
• Opportunity cost: The cost in terms of options no longer available once one particular option is chosen; Again, this is the 'want' factor. Wants are unlimited. If another individual has the means to make the purchase, they are the rightful purchasers. If there is no one capable of making the purchase, by the law of supply and demand, the price must come down. If it is a profit making venture, say during the course of business competition, then the sharing in the profit through the tool of a bond is justified, but the term interest, due to it's current state of corruption might be changed to profit, which the 'interest' in a bond represents.

The United States Constitution, Article 1 section 9 states that: No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States. And that is not an amendment. It strictly implies that no citizen of the United States shall be priviledged as nobility either. Hence there can be no priviledging that results in payment to any individual or institution based strictly on their wealth or title alone within the United States, nor any recognition of such priviledging from abroad. Hence all the rationalizations for charging interest on fiat money are null and void, since it does not represent actual ownership of capital, but only the possession of the value necessary to obtain capital. The possession of this form of value can not be construed as an entitlement to any priviledge that can be interpreted as belonging to a nobility class, such as the command over interest today represents.

The modern capitalist class emerged from the merchant class, which is what Adam Smith's "invisible hand" quote refers to when taken in context. This class displaced the nobility class by impoverishing it out of the sheer volume of production and novelty that such production could obtain overwhelming the financial capacity of the nobility. The emergence of this new class did lead to substantial hardships of its own, primarily at the beginning, where some things were mechanical and others yet manual labor. Over time, however, and with the conception and establishment of the modern republic, capital has produced great benefits to humanity.

The founding fathers warned that a republic must always be on guard against this old school nobility. Human nature has a bad side, and when power collects in one center, liberties are lost, lives are lost, and the state of war of every man against every man returns. It is up to the capitalist class to oppose this collecting of power in one center. And it is up to the people to recognize this threat and back the emergence of a U.S. Capitalist Party.

Vote U.S. Capitalist Party

Simple Math

The knee jerk response to a "U.S. Capitalist Party" by a general reader will probably be "whatever", but that is the general response to most anything that differs from the status quo. In Harriet and John Stuart Mill's work "On Liberty" published in 1859, they explain that the benefit of liberty in a society is to enable progress to be made. Change happens and when we try to prevent it from happening, it still happens. One of the effects of change is that ideas that were true or 'just' at one point in time become untrue or injust due to some physical, cultural, political, economic, technological or environmental change beyond governmental control. Liberty is the capacity within a society to tolerate and consider new ideas and new behaviours to adapt to those changes, not only those perceived as rational, but those as well that could be rational, but that are currently not part of the popular perspective. Ideas such as abandoning interest to correspond with the abandonmnent of the gold standard is one such solidly principled idea that is not part of the current social habit of thought.

Now, with regard to the U.S. Capitalist Party. John Adams and Niccolo Machiavelli are two of the few thinkers to stumble on the idea of a balanced republic. Adam's version was much more well considered than Machiavelli's since he more closely reasoned the checks and balances that would be necessary between the three classes that represent the three forms of government: Democracy = government by the majority alone; Aristocracy = government by the wealthy or property owners alone; Monarchy = government by a king or general alone.

The modern idea of a republic no longer hinges on the etymology of the word, which is 'res publica' which translates from the latin as 'represents the public' which would today be recognized as a representative democracy (* note the distinction between the phrases: representative democracy and democratic republic, they are opposites when it comes to protecting liberty). Accepting this definition of the word republic is tantamount to insisting that a car is a buggy pulled by a horse. The modern republic, the one guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the Constitution of the United States is a form of government that has all three primary forms of government; aristocracy, democracy and monarchy combined in a mutual stand-off. The age of reason out of which the modern republic was born was obsessed with studying the character of man in the social and on the political stage. Much of this debate emerged out of the work of Thomas Hobbes in his "Leviathan" published in 1651 detailing the contrast between man in the state of nature; every man at virtual war with every other, contrasted with man in civil society where, in the interest of peace, from which wealth ("the sum of necessaries, conveniences and luxuries in a nation", Adam Smith) and defence of the individual increases through cooperation with others, we voluntarily forfeit our 'natural right' to do or take whatever we wish from whom ever or wherever we can.

Cooperation automatically breaks society into three classes, 1) the working class or common class that includes potential as well as incapable workers, who are responsible for the actual wealth production or defence. 2). The owners of property, resources, buildings and machinery which enable wealth production. and 3). The governing body that ensures cooperation by enforcing adherence to common rules and laws of cooperation and oversees the defence of the nation.

Problems arise when any single class gains the upper hand over the other two. The dominating power is no longer subordinate to civil laws and reverts to the state of natural law; each man against every other for their own personal gain. The experiments of government throughout history have given us ample evidence of this:

• If this dominant power be from the democratic class (working class) we have anarchy with the oppressive domination of a minority by a majority ("That a majority will oppress the minority in an unbalanced government is proven on every page of the history of the whole world", John Adams 1788) rules will be arbitrary, unreasonable and unpredictable to the minority and unenforced to the majority.
• If the dominant power be Aristocratic we have oligarchy with oppressive domination of the working class by the property owners. Thorstein Veblen in his "Theory of the Leisure Class", 1899 characterizes oligarchical individuals who live lives of pure luxury entirely off the oppressive servitude of a working class. He calls these oligarchs "predatory barbarians". We saw this in history with feudalism and slavery, with the patricians and plebeians of Rome to the early French influenced U.S. south. In this form of government laws and rules are again arbitrary, unreasonable and unpredictible to the working class, as well as any of their heros that rise up against the oppressors, such as Julius Caesar as one classical example, who we know was murdered by the oligarchy
• If the dominant power be a monarchy, or all power collected in the hands of one individual, we quickly see a despotism emerge. We saw this form of government in England under king Charles and king Phillip, who made the boast that "If I choose both the judges and the bishops, I can not only dictate what is right and wrong, but I can also dictate to the people what to believe". Again laws and rules are arbitrary, unreasonable, and unpredictable.

John Adams reasoned that if the legislative branch was divided between these three classes, with a House of Representatives to represent the Democratic class, a Senate to represent the Aristocracy (Capitalist class in our world) and a president to represent the monarchical class, no law could be passed that infringed upon the liberties of any individual. This system was enforced by checks and balances, such as a check on the purse (money) of the Executive branch by the House of Representatives, and we see this realized in Article 1 section 7 of the U.S. Constitution. Part and parcel to this control is managing the validity of the U.S. currency, which can be called into serious question when a fiat money allows for chronic inflation. Since this inflation can be attributed directly to the charging of an arbitrary, unjustifiable and unpredictable interest on this artificial currency. This interest also allows the executive branch to borrow money and undermine the intent of the checks and balances that popular dissent over excessive taxation would impress upon the House of Representatives. It is a truism of liberty that it cannot be forfeit or given away, since then one is not at liberty to recover it. Allowing such an arbitrary interest that allows for unbridled borrowing, is a forfeiture of liberty that presents a serious corruption of civil law.

Now, simple algebra, which every American should learn in school shows us that one cannot solve for three unknowns with only two equations. To solve for three unknowns requires three equations. In the United States, we have always had two political parties to differentiate three branches of government. This appears to be an intentional error, but we must look back to the time period to see what was going on in the late 18th century to see if there is an explanation, and there is. This was the dawn of the industrial age, and Capitalism was gigantic. There was no need of a third party because the entire purse (finances) of government came from the pockets of a handful of wealthy industrialists. Names like Morgan, Carnagie, Mellon..., came a bit later, but provide the example. Names like the Mississippi Valley company, the Hudson Bay company and that fur trader dude from New York were more likely akin to the financial powers of the early day. Their power needed to be balanced by the government and the people, so we had Whigs and Federalists, and later Republicans and Democrats, which we still have today.

Something, however, has changed. The giant corporate names still enjoy the ear of government, but they no longer represent the wealth of this country. It is the smaller capitalists that make up the greater majority of the wealth, income and jobs in this country. This is the true or actual Aristocracy of our nation. The old money, which is now mostly represented by the banking industry, has devolved into an oligarchy. This is why consumers are paying 30% interest rates on consumer purchases and real time wages cannot keep pace with the resulting inflation and the actual reason for job emigration from this country.

The problem is that actual capital, especially after the hack econmic hypothesizing of the Marxists for the past 150 years, and its pop appeal, as contrasted with any rational appeal , has diminished the political standing of capitalism. This in spite of the fact that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" quote that is ignorantly abused by bigoted radio pundits, is referring to the correlation between the freedom of the peasantry and the emergence of industrial capitalism, which bankrupted the feudal oligarchy of Europe. In his work "Capitalism and Freedom", Milton Friedman also explains alot about the mechanics of freedom and how it is intimately tied to capitalism.

One needs, however to distinguish between Aristocratic capital and oligarchic capital. That is that capital that participates in civil society and that which accomplishes nothing other than supporting luxurious welfare of predatory barbarians. To the oligarchic "capitalists" (the quotes symbolize that their income is due to the unjustifiable charging of interest on a fiat money as contrasted with constructive investment in real capital) we can donate all the vituperations of Marx, but Aristocratic capital deserves praise and admiration, when taken in the light of what these people actually accomplish.

The United States Senate is the proper house for the expression of the liberty of capital and Capitalists. It is automatically regulated by the House of Representatives and the President. The absence of a U.S. Capitalist party along side of a Republican party, whose job it is to represent governmental and executive issues, i.e. the expression of political power, or physical force, and a Democratic party whose job it is to represent the will and interests of the people, breaks our nation down to a simple partician/plebian tug of war, or worse, majority v.s minority anarchy. Without three parties, three classes can not be represented, only two. What ends up happening is exactly what we have been seeing happen for over a century, capital is forced to side with one or another of its mutual antagonists.

Siding with the Democratic party, we get excessive unionizing, which effectively undermined the true democratic power of the people, concentrating it in the hands of a few thug unionists. Any rational debate and regulation over Marx's one contribution to society, the first contradiction of capital; that labor and consumers are one and the same, so should wages be low or high? , can never come under public discussion where a functional solution can be arrived at and enforced. Instead we see SOME people earning great wages and excellent benefits and the rest of us supporting their dead weight.

Siding with the Republican party, we get all kinds of militarist favoritism and their brand of economic dogma, which is readily shown to degrade the wealth of any nation, despite whether money is spent or not (the GDP lie), since the products made are not for consumption or of use to any individual, but the wages earned by these weapon's manufacturers sure do go to boosting the price of domestic goods and the consequent wages of every other industry necessary to purchase them, which also leads to job emigration... oh yea and more consumer indenture.

So, as you can see, we do not need a second Democratic party or a second Republican party (whose job it is to keep all power from accumulating in one center or to one party... choke!). We need a U.S. Capitalist party to emerge. There was no previous time for this to happen, but there is now a definite need for it to happen, as all power is accumulating in one center and civil law is crumbling: Patriot act civil rights violations, unnecessary wars, underfunded education, excessive accumulation of money, religious bigotry, flat stock market (corrected for inflation?)...

If one works out the probability of all power accumulating in one center with two parties with our existing governmental structure, we will see this happen every century or so. With three parties this can only happen about once in a millennium. This later number was the target our founding fathers had in mind for the perpetuation of our nation. It is time for consumers and capitalists to find common ground and rally behind a novel third party, one which has been the intent of our constitution since it's inception. The U.S. Capitalist Party.

-thanks for your patience

Three Constitutional Amendments

There are three constitutional amendments that we need, to keep our Republic strong and our liberty from being undermined.

1. Economic Republic: Since money is power too, we need to divide the social product equally between the three classes: 1/3 kept by Capital, currently less than 20% of the profits of capital are retained by capital for reinvestment. 1/3 to the people, currently social security and the medicare stuff total to just over 1/5 of the social product. 1/3 for government - they take about 60% of the profits of capital to invest in aggrandizing political power = the use of force. If this balance were reestablished strictly out of the military budget, we would still have a larger military budget than China and Russia combined.
   
2. Real Republic, Simple Math: To set up campaign finance law so that a Representative, who's job is supposed to be to represent the common people can take no more that the equivalent of $100.00 per head. A Senator can take all the corporate money they like, as the Senate is historically the branch held by the aristocracy. All presidential candidates must use their own fortunes but also get an equal amount given to each plausible candidate out of theFederal budget - with no other contributions.
3. The Problem with Interest, How Arbitrary is Interest: Since we've switched to a fiat money back in the 1970s, money is no longer backed by capital, which is what the gold thingy was about, but rather is backed by the credit of the United States Government alone. Well, we have a capitalist economy. Why is it that only some people have a right to profit, as interest payments, on the "credit of the United Stated Government", and avoid all that messy stuff having to do with actually producing wealth? I suggest a third constitutional amendment banning interest on any fiat money and also establishing a monetary policy that holds the money supply in proportion with functional capital. to prevent all this inflation crap. For instance, what is the stock market worth after correcting for inflation? Interest on fiat money undermines real capital directly... what's the big idea?