Vote for Balance

Well, here we are on the verge (or past after 11/07/06) of a promising election. A republic, by any standard is a balanced government, something that a single political party domination is not. So, I hope that, anyone that happens to read this post between now and election day has learned enough on my site to recognize that liberty can only come as a result of balance, not as the result of the domination of one party over another.

-I hope to see our government become balanced in this election.

What I do not want to see is a tyrannical landslide to the other pole. I do not want to see a G.W. Bush impeachment congress. To me that is petty and ignorant. The United States is dependent on foreign oil more than any other nation in the world. We do in fact need to manage the flow of oil from a strong position, though I am not convinced that exercising the military industrial complex, ignoring renewable energy technologies and driving inflation sky high by massive spending in non-wealth producing areas, not to mention behaving illiberally and belligerently toward every other nation in the world, is any way to be strengthening our position (see Caesar's Commentaries for an experienced view of political power). The current president belongs in a far distant past century, but he does in fact represent a balance, even single handedly. None of the policies on consumer credit, war, border fencing, debt, international trade or international citizenship are of any benefit to the wealth production in the United States. The problem is that the legislative power and the executive power have been in the same hands, which is a huge no no in any government that lays claim to being a republic. And it is the 'republican' party doing it - of course. Is this irony or pure barbarian cynicism. I believe it to be the latter and not the former. Eliminating balance in the power structure of government simultaneously eliminates reason or concern for any other faction or fraction in the country.

I have not been able to generate any interest, so far, in the idea of a Capitalist Party, but I intend to continue to pursue this idea, primarily because it is the only way for a republic to ever happen. For now we must remain a tyranized state. Anyone interested in the platform of this political party is welcome to contact me to be a candidate. The only branch of government that this party will prefer to back, however is the Senate - Local, State or National. In addition, it would be strategic to assimilate both the Libertarians and the Greens.

The Libertarians, obviously, because they understand the policies outlined by Milton Friedman with regard to education, medicine and capitalism in general, which includes both ideals and goals. The Capitalist party, however, I wish to be goal oriented and not ideal oriented (except the capitalist idea, as it is a strong position against tyranny). Libertarians, in many areas have been successful in obtaining followers and members and our views are, at least, parallel though the Capitalist party is more centrist and based upon concerns for the here and now and not some future state. If there is one underlying goal for the Capitalist party it is to establish a system of legislation that allows capitalism as a system of wealth production (Wealth being the sum of necessaries, conveniences, luxurys and 'arts and sciences' in a nation) to flourish. In this I understand us to be coincident with the Libertarian Party.

The Greens for nearly opposite reasons. There is another contradiction of Capital other than the laborer-consumer one pointed out by Mr Marx, and that is that Capitalist production also would like to have the cheapest starting materials available as well as the most, to take advantage of neoclassical profitability opportunities. In an under regulated world, Capitalism is forced to expolit resources in the callous and oppressive manner that it is accused of by the world's variety of naturalists. If one business does not take advantage of an opportunity, another will, so a competition for consumption of all potential resource bases persists unabated. Is this due to greed or simple need? If one arm of the Capitalist party includes the Greens contingent, in a balanced and rational forum that selects for a few members of this party that actually possess knowledge and a capacity for reason, policies that regulate resource use can emerge that solve for both current demand and future demand. As well as future innovation, which species diversity represents the potential for. Fully and sincerely pursuing this path as a government function, rather than a dysfunctional business policy will endear a large sector of the 'organic' population to the Capitalist party.

The Libertarian faction of the Capitalist Party serves to pursue the conceptual prehensions - the reasons and ideals necessary to promote Capitalism and the 'aristocratic' class of society as distinct from either the political or 'monarchical' class and the labor or 'democratic' class of society. The Green faction serves to pursue the physical prehensions- a sustainable and reasonable use of resources, which keeps the wealth producing nature of capitalism real and viable. The primary faction of the Capitalist Party, should be the myriad capitalist producers and businesses in the country, whether the sourcing, the manufacturing or the retail components. The Capitalist party also includes the legitimate financing businesses that support the growth and maintenance of Capital.

Financial Capital only excludes those investment vehicles that incorrectly assume that money is capital and deserves a profit (or interest in its archaic form). This truism ended 30 years ago and is currently false and highly detrimental to real capital. Bonds, Stock, Entreprenurial capital and such vehicles that represent actual ownership and carry part of the liabilities of ownership are valid investment vehicles. Money, being nothing more than a governmental promise that a value on one end will exchange for the same value on the other end, does not possess value in between. If a payment need be granted for this service it should be to the government since it is a government service, and not to the lender of the money (or credit). Those who advance credit for profit are mistaken in the belief that the money they lend deserves an interest. While they do deserve to earn a profit for their service, they should look elsewhere than 'interest' to realize their reward. Gold was a form of capital since it was a real tool that required physical labor and capital equipment to extract and purify. Hence it held real value. As an economy grew and the demand for gold increased, its profitability also increased, hence its value was a real and a natural value. Credit offered today represents nothing of the sort and can be expanded indefinitely, which causes inflation and diminishes the marketability of domestic products, not to mention domestic labor. Hence Capital is required, under such an arbitrary and tyrannical system, to quit its country of origin and find more stable and reasonable nations within which to produce wealth. Nations which today seem to be China, India and Mexico.

Well, I only meant to promote the balancing of government in this blog and got carried away a little bit. Take this information to the poles with you when you go to vote. Vote for individuals instead of parties, where you still can, work towards a pro-domestic business Senate and a democratic House of Representatives. Do not elect fanatics that want only to impeach presidents - no matter how insane they (the president) might be... These are the policies of objective reason, which needs to become the hallmark of the Capitalist Party if we ever wish to become a true Republic = a tripartite balance of power.

VOTE: UNITED STATES CAPITALIST PARTY!

"Adams v.s, Jefferson"

Just finished reading this book: "Adams v.s. Jefferson, The Tumultus Election of 1800" by John Ferling, 2004. There are some egregious errors perpetuated in this book. It is obvious that this author never actually read Adam's "Defence of the Constitutions of the United States, A Response to the Letter from John Turgot to Dr. Price" 1787-1788. Within the 1300, or fo, pages of this work, Adams spells out the clearest mechanics of a balanced Republic and provides the most exhaustive case studies to support this form of balanced government. Ferling followed the propaganda that was spread to the widely illiterate American public in 1800 by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson of the Republican party, and parroted the false representation of the work as a case for monarchy. To find a case study supporting monarchy, one needs to turn to Thomas Hobbes "Leviathan", which was both a support for monarchy and an excellent argument for freedom of religion, which James Madison and Thomas Jefferson had read and were familiar with. Adam's "Defence" was in no way a case study for monarchy. Every page is filled with historical evidence supporting a balanced triumverate constitutional republic.

For 1300 pages Adams shows over and over again examples of governmental forms that purported to support liberty, but which, owing to their structure could provide the sovereign nation with nothing but tyranny. Samuel Adams argued that government need only be divided into three branches, but John Adams provides reasons and examples why this too fails, and is no better than a simple democracy, aristocracy or monarchy. The problem being that it does not prevent all power from accumulating in one center. A true republic keeps the power divided between the three classes of people. In our society these classes are: the ordinary people, the capitalists and the government functionaries. To accomplish this, the people must control the House of Representatives, Capital must control the Senate and the government must be represented in the presidency (the executive branch). The best way to keep this divided is by a differential campaign financing system that keeps contributions for the House low, and the Senate High, and restricts Presidential candidates to a government dispensation.

I read something by Caesar recently, which rings very true."Convictolitanis increases the evil state of affairs, and goads on the people to fury, that by the commission of some outrage they may be ashamed to return to propriety." Capital is looked upon as being bereft of propriety, yet this is not what Adam Smith wrote about it in 1776. Smith showed that it was the propriety of the merchant that broke the yoke of servitude to the feudal land lords and allowed liberty to become established as the civil societies we realize today (kinda like the Japanese automobiles serving the will of the U.S. public and out pacing the barbarian american automobile boards of directors). The Capitalist, by serving the needs and convenience of the people grew wealthy at the expense of the tyrannical feudal lords who's only focus in life was exploiting the people to serve their own selfish needs. This impoverished the self-centered land lords and enriched the merchant. Both were serving their "self - interest", but the propriety of the merchant won the contest for the hearts of the people over the selfishness of the feudal lord.

Since the 1860s when Karl Marx began the trend toward condemning capital, less than a century after Smith wrote, Capital has been in the position of being increasingly isolated and estranged from the common people rather than embraced by the people as many of the products of capital indeed are. This Marxian condemnation of Capital is the means by which the propriety of the Capitalist has been undermined to the point where the modern Capitalist is 'ashamed' to return to propriety. This can never be allowed to happen in a civil society. Capitalism is what ushered in the possibility of a republic and its attendant liberty as it brought distinction to the mercantile class and the industrial capitalist class by increasing the differentiation between the capitalist and the laborer. This however is a functional differentiation not a social status or individual quality differentiation and people need to be able to accept this. We all play some role in civil society and we must accept that someone needs to coordinate our efforts.

The condemnation of John Adams by the early Republicans as pro monarchy was a powerful political move designed to prevent the republic from forming. People like Jefferson and Madison were not capitalists, they were feudal land lords. Adams and Hamilton recognized the potentials growing in industrial Capitalism in the late 1700s and struggled against the old school feudalists to institute the economic framework necessary for Capitalism to fluorish here in the United States. The feudalists were naturally opposed to all such efforts. As the Patricians of Ancient Rome were always opposed to Emperors and contemptuous of the Tribunes, since they both represented a limitation to their power. In the emerging United States, the possibility of a real republic was actually viewed, by the supposed champions of 'Democracy', as a threat to their barbarian 'liberty'. A real Republic by balancing the powers between the three natural classes of any society, equilibrate power, which is how liberty is maintained in every class. Without a constitutional republic, every imbalance of power must have a dominant faction and a subordinate faction. None of the members of the subordinate faction will enjoy liberty. The members of the dominant faction will enjoy unbridled liberty, since they become effectively above civil law. However, this will not be conducive to neoclassical profits.

This is the problem with a two party political system, there is no balance. Whichever party happens to gain power, does so at the expense of the losing party. Introducing a third party prevents this imbalance by remaining free to side with either of the other two on any issue. The goal of every participant in this triumverate is no longer to win, but to appeal to reason, which is the basis of liberty. In a triumverate, there is always a majority rule and always 2/3 or more of the nation enjoying liberty. In a two party system only 1/2 of the nation is ever enjoying liberty at a time.

A triumverate republic also has the added advantage of diffusing the focus on any one party, so a lot of the finger pointing and negative campaigning will be rendered useless politically, since the goal becomes being reasonable rather than some perverse version of moral or victorious.

Getting back to John Adams and the accusations of being pro Monarchy, one need simply look at the time and the obvious conditions he was in power under. The United States had just broken off with Great Britain and we had no history of monarchy, no hereditary kings... we were missing the third class necessary for a functional republic to work. John Adams not only was supporting all the systems necessary for industrial capitalism to emerge as a power in the United States, he was also working hard at inventing a powerful executive branch where none previously existed. Hence the bias in his efforts toward monarchy. It was not a monarchy he was after, but a monarchical or executive class. Reading his "Defence" will thoroughly convince the reader of this truth.
The problem in the U.S. today shows us that our government is still imbalanced and that it was the Jeffersonians all along working to destabilize our Republic. Promoting idiotic themes like unqualified 'democracy' and undermining real republics with accusations of monarchy shows that this faction is after absolute power and tyranny. Capitalism does not work under tyranny, since the dominant class dictates things like property ownership, the value of the money, the routes of trade the trade partners, the means of distribution and every other aspect of the economy, including who gets fresh water and who doesn't....

So, would people complain if the U.S. Senate were dominated perpetually with corporate executives and businessmen? Not if we were taught what a Republic is and how it works by our government owned education system. How do we get the tyrants to do that?

VOTE: U.S. CAPITALIST PARTY

,