No, we will have a king..

In about the time of 900 BC.. almost 3000 years ago.

In those days, there was no king in Israel, everyone did what was right in his eyes. (Judges 21:25)

This is in 1 Samuel 8.
11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."

This was in a time of a religious theocracy, when the people were ruled by the Law.  There were judges that arose, to settle disputes.

I also see this as going from a quasi 'republic' where people are ruled by laws and the govt is modest, to more statism, where the king is supreme, does whatever he wants, & the role of govt increases. We like the idea of someone who will 'lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles', but when he (the state) becomes oppressive, then 'you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen'.

It doesn't seem to matter how far back you go in history.. the state becomes oppressive. The less power we give them, & the more we put in law, like the magna carta & the bill of rights, the less we are at the whim of those in power, be they individual or a group. The state always wants more.. it is always grasping & greedy for power & control. It is a constant struggle for each generation to limit & fight off the power mongers who wish to rule us.

If people really understood the consequences of statism, they would not want it. But we don't. We let the ruling elite convince us they have divine right as kings, or they can bring peace & prosperity to the people, or social justice. No one stands up & says, 'I want to be oppressed by a totalitarian state!' But throughout history, we have been, & continue to be.

We the people need to see that we can rule ourselves, with a representative republic. But we are like the israelites of old, who after escaping slavery in egypt, want a king to rule over them.

Just from an historical perspective, this illustrates the way we are. We are not really happy with freedom, but want a king.. a ruler ordained by god... a messiah or anointed one. We want someone who gives us a thrill up our leg when he speaks.

It is hard for us to see that we can do it without the ruling elite. We don't need divinely inspired ordination for our kings. We can do it ourselves, with honest representatives who will speak for us. If they don't, we need to fire them asap & find someone who will.

The Philosophy of War

War is a constant in the history of human beings. It is an extension of the individual.. a reflection of the true nature of man. From childhood, force & violence are part of our psyche.. it is the most basic method to solve problems.

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. ~David Friedman

Why do we do it?
1. Wars of aggression. We want other people's stuff or land, so we take it, if we can.
2. Defensive war. Someone is trying to take our stuff or land, & we fight them over it.
3. Righteous war. We provide protection or aid to a friend, or to rid the world of evil. Slogans like, 'Make the world safe for democracy', or 'The war to end all wars' are used to rally people.
4. Preemptive war. The idea that to promote peace, we need to invade or bomb another country to prevent war.
5. Wars of manipulation. This is when propaganda or deception is used to manipulate people to believe that war is the only recourse in dealing with a problem. A scapegoat is created, blaming the nations' problems on them. It can be someone internal to the nation, like jews, the monarchy, the capitalists, the bourgeois; or it can be something outside, like infidels, the suffering children, or the Great Satan.
6. Wars of destiny. We have been chosen by a higher power or ideology to subjugate other nations, for their own good. It is our duty to promote our ideology with them, & help them, even if we have to kill them. These sometimes have religious tones to them, calling upon god to help us slay the wicked & promote his righteousness. People are called to sacrifice altruistically for the cause, or to god, or for the betterment of mankind.

Some of these reasons overlap, & build upon each other.
Usually, war is not something that is done logically. It is an emotional appeal by the leaders. People naturally get fired up over war.. it appeals to the nationalistic fervor of the citizens, & leaders often use the distraction of war to solidify their power base if it starts to weaken. But it is the very quality of the emotional appeal of war that makes it difficult to manage. It is more like a forest fire than a controlled burn. Things can quickly escalate until the whole world is in the throes of war.

War, in it's most basic form, is the ultimate extension of morality. Might makes right. Those who win the wars, write the history. They always show justification for their actions. There is no problem that cannot be solved by war. Any question of ownership, sovereignty over land or sea, racial or ethnic superiority, or any other issue that comes up in inter human relationships can always be settled with violence.

What should be the attitude of a free people, regarding war?
1. Be honest. Of course, we won't do that; neither will the promoters of war. They always use justification.. emotionally based calls for the rightness of the cause. We won't just say we want the other guy's stuff, it has to be a noble cause for justice & liberty. But if we were honest in our true motivations for war, we would eliminate a lot of suffering & needless destruction.
2. Live & let live. We don't have to take it upon ourselves to dictate to other nations how they should live. A free society should be tolerant within AND without. But we won't do that, either. We're a meddlesome, bossy species, always involved in other people's business.
3. Speak softly & carry a big stick. Any aggressive force can be met with an equally ferocious force. We do not have to be peaceniks or quakers, but can defend ourselves.
4. Be skeptical of the manipulators. Something this serious should not be entered into with whimsical emotions. We should have clear, well defined boundaries for any military action. If they want to make the argument that we need to invade another country & take their stuff, they should make that case. But we should not be manipulated with images of crying children or tales of injustice.
5. The military should not be the decision makers for war. They exist for war, & always have a solution ready, based on violence, destruction or intimidation. They should be the implementers, if war is chosen.

The US constitution has clear boundaries for entering into war. But the leaders have bypassed the constitution (ignored it) by using emotional appeals. 'We need to save the children!' 'These people are evil & need to be defeated!' But the central question should not be, 'What can we do to end this injustice!?!' It should be resolved with #6 above.. Is it our duty or destiny to provide justice for the world? THAT is the central motive for most of the wars in the last 100 years. America has felt an obligation to be the global justice provider. It is an extension of 'manifest destiny' of imperialistic times, & needs to be directly faced. It is not a valid reason to use violence on other nations, if we no longer believe in the basic ideology of global destiny.

Here's why the US should NOT be involved in other nations' affairs, or be 'the policeman of the world'.
1. We cannot afford it. It is that simple, & that should be enough. If we had a balanced budget, we would not do it. The taxpayers would revolt over oppressive taxation. But the politicians do it anyway, & send our children the bill.
2. To be consistent, we would have to show moral outrage over EVERY injustice on the planet, & bomb nations in africa, europe, asia, south america, & mexico. Instead, we hypocritically pick & choose where we want to fight injustice, turning a blind eye to other places.
3. Propping up evil dictators is unbecoming for a free people, as is promoting any corporate interests, or supporting crony corruption.
4. It is possible to be a neutral, freedom loving nation. We can be like switzerland.. which the left always gazes at with longing & adoration. Why not adopt their foreign policy?
5. We cannot trust bureaucrats or military intelligence to provide a full picture. There is always a hidden agenda, or propaganda, or some manipulation going on. Military actions should be clear matters of national security, not emotionally based fear mongering.
6. We make enemies of people we could be at peace with. Our meddling feeds the 'ugly american' syndrome.
7. Innocent blood is on our hands. We are responsible for the deaths of innocent people.. collateral damage. Our own soldiers are sacrificed for some politician's dreams of glory or historical significance. We the people should not be dupes to their manipulating propaganda.

Most people will read this (long!) treatise about war & agree. They see the rationale & the evils of war. But as soon as there is some hyped up event, all the basis for our actions are forgotten, & the hysteria of war seizes the discussion. We are too easily manipulated by some politician's agenda. Emotion rules, rather than a solid philosophical basis. We need to get our ideological ducks in a row, & keep them there, especially in times of hysterical shouts for war.

We didn't love freedom enough...

"What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation....We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn



..wrong finger, Alex...

We must learn from history. This is not a time to submit meekly to tyranny, but to defiantly, vocally, & demonstrably oppose the govt overreaches. We should begin non payment of taxes, and look for ways to defy federal authorities.. This should not be a time to burden local or state entities, but concentrate on the real enemy, the federal overreaches. State & local govts SHOULD show some solidarity with us in limiting the huge federal bureaucracy. If they do not, but they support the feds, then we should remind them WHO they work for, WHAT their central duty is, & WHY they need to stand with the citizens, & not the tyrants.

The federal govt will not limit itself. We must demand & push for them to cut back.. cut taxes, cut EVERY govt program.. cut the military, cut welfare.. This is not a time for scalpels, but axes. The corruption of the govt is out of hand, & it is time to run the monsters from the village, drag out the guillotines, or any other metaphor for justice you can come up with. The administration is corrupt. Congress is corrupt. The courts are corrupt. The constitution is ignored. THAT is our govt, not hundreds if thousands of bureaucrats lording it over us. If they are going to ignore the constitution, we should ignore them.

It is time to defy & oppose the govt, with CLEAR demands:

1. Stop the spending. Pass a balanced budget amendment, massively cut ALL govt programs, & bring fiscal sanity to the nation.

2. Stop the professional politician/ruling elite trend. Let us elect citizen representatives, & not treat them like celebrities, but public servants. That is how they should act, too, not like lords. Pass term limits for ALL branches of govt, drastically reform campaign laws & ENFORCE them. SEVERELY punish corruption, at ANY level. These are not children, whose misdeeds can be overlooked or winked at. This is a sacred trust.. a solemn duty that greedy, self serving people are violating.

Demand, frequently & emphatically, that our elected representatives represent us. Write & call. Keep the message short & clear. And in the next election cycle, VOTE! Be vocal with all your friends, neighbors, & co workers. This is not a partisan effort, but a message for national survival, & the freedom of america. If you can, run for office.. BE a voice for the people & liberty. Don't be fooled by the slick salesmanship of politicians, or heed their flattery. Make it clear they work for you, & if they don't do their job, they're fired. We can hire someone who will.

These 2 very simple concepts would drastically change the federal govt, if implemented. Reform can happen, if we want it. If we don't love freedom enough, we deserve everything that will happen afterward..

Lincoln: Tyrannical statist, or libertarian for freedom?

I consider lincoln to be one of the great presidents in american history. He was not a statist tyrant, & his actions in a war of rebellion are no different than any president's actions in any war to protect the nation.
The central argument against lincoln seems to be a tariff. This is also a simplistic view of the cause of war. Tariffs were very common in those days, by all governments. The tripolitan wars that Jefferson waged were basically over tariffs, or tribute. This was with a non existent army, a fledgling navy & a new branch of service: The marines. Any marines are probably humming, 'to the shores of tripoli', even now. Back then, if you wanted to do business, you paid the piper. ALL govts extorted money from wealthy traders. The traders saw it as part of doing business, & paid the tribute, tariff, or whatever other 'fee' that came up.

I am not arguing any morality or right or wrong of tariffs, just laying the foundation for the current climate of the day.

Washington had the first tariff.. 1789. 'Protection for infant industries', was how it was described & justified. In essence, it was to 'protect' the 'new' industries in america, & allow them to compete (with cheaper finished goods) with european imports. This was the very beginning of the industrial revolution, & the us was primarily an exporter of raw materials. Cotton & tobacco were significant exports. We imported finished goods.. manufactured items, from europe. That is the reasoning behind it, & the motivations for tariffs.

The north was beginning to manufacture more, & liked the protectionism. The south, in general, was an exporter of raw materials, & the import tariffs raised the price of the european finished goods. There were also the claims, as now, of artificial lowered prices.. subsidized exports. Britain did this, like china does now. The american manufacturers were seeking a level playing field. The south was not as affected by manufactured goods tariffs, & feared european reprisals, making their goods harder to export.

Here's a simplified timeline of tariffs:
1824- 30% on products like glass, lead, iron and wool
1828- 'tariff of abominations' over 60% on some items!
1861- 26%, after a period of declining protectionism.. a raise. Under Buchanan.
Civil war- fluctuated, up as much as 40% during the war.

Tariffs were down, historically right before the war. During the war, they were raised to pay for the war. Tariffs then was the major source of revenue for the federal govt. There was no income tax. I would also like to point out a significant factor: In the early years of american presidency, vetoes were primarily for questionable items of constitutionality. A president did not wield veto power like he does today.. it was not as much of a tool of negotiation back then. If the congress passed a law or bill, the president almost always signed it. John Adams & Jefferson had NO vetoes. Madison, Jackson, & Tyler had 5, 5, & 6, respectively. Lincoln continued that tradition, with 2. It was not until later that the presidential veto was employed as a policy tool.

The point of this is that congress had more power, then, & made policy. Tariffs were passed by congress. A president only rubber stamped them.. sometimes without approval.

Here is a table of tariff rates in us history:



Now, were tariffs a significant factor in the civil war? Of course. They were argued & debated for years before & since. Since the 1940's we have been in a time of declining global protectionism. Free trade is promoted. But just because we are used to free trade practices now, should not make us condemn what was commonplace in other times. Were they THE Central Reason for the civil war? Of course not. There were many factors, & slavery was a major one. There were radical anti slavery people, then, & everyone knew about it. It was a point of contention in the nation. John Brown & bleeding kansas are clear references to the times.

Now look at the body of lincoln's work. His writings & speeches were along the same line of individual freedom & limited govt as the founders.

My wife's great grandfather lived in those times. He went with his brothers to california during the gold rush of the 1850's. Evidently, they didn't strike it rich, & returned to Illinois, where their parents had migrated from pennsylvania a generation before. Henry married & pioneered to kansas.. emporia. The year was 1860. This was 'bleeding kansas' times. Raiders crossed the border from missouri, sometimes killing the free state kansans. But things got worse. In july 1862 missouri raiders were causing trouble, & henry had to flee in the night with his young children on a lumber wagon, going up through nebraska to avoid conflict. The next day after arriving back home to illinois, he enlisted. After the war, he returned to kansas.

I'm a mix. My father's side were southerners.. tennesee & kentucky, during those times. Some owned slaves. They were fighting 'The War of Northern Aggression'.

These were not people who watched reality tv all the time, or played on their ipods. They were aware of the times & the political climate, even though communication & news was slow. I have a lot of family on both sides, who enlisted. This war was brutal, but it was not forced upon an unwilling people, & the govt did not have the propaganda machine it does now. They tended to reflect the views of the people, not mold them. The press was very independent, & reflected a lot more variety.

What is a man?

Life is a journey. We begin at birth. We come into this life naked, wet, cold, & hungry. Then things get worse. We have the innocence of childhood, the insecurities of adolescence, the excitement of young adulthood, the disappointments & successes of middle age, & the feebleness of old age. But our journey is primarily one of discovery. Who are we? Why? Some of these philosophical questions we never answer, or change our minds several times as we develop through the different stages of life.
But one of the questions we face is:

What is a man? 

We have role models early on that define what a man is. Those role models can be good or bad, & we get many more as we age that either enforce that ideal, or redefine it. This is my philosophical view of manhood. I am in my 60th year of life, & will share some of the things i have learned & observed about men. I may revise this in the next decade, if i live, & perhaps again in my 80's, if i can remember. I know my view of myself & humanity has undergone many revisions over the years. My perspective is quite different now than it was in my 20's. And even my 40's have changed my perceptions. I offer this to my sons & grandsons, for them to build their lives & help them in their journey. But many of these ideas are not gender specific, so my daughters & granddaughters might enjoy them, too.

I want to provide timeless truths, not dependent on the shifting sands of social change, or the fickleness of public opinion. That is nearly impossible, as society is constantly assaulting our ideals, & revising our identity before we can come to terms with our own thinking. I also know that it is impossible to define what a man is. Philosophers & great thinkers throughout time have attempted this, & opinions will vary wildly. I can only offer my thoughts, as one who has been on the journey for a while.

Inward
1. Learn to think.
a. γνῶθι σεαυτόν ..Know Thyself
b. "The essence of knowledge is self-knowledge,” ~Plato 
c. 'There are three Things extremely hard, Steel, a Diamond, and to know one's self.' ~Benjamin Franklin
d. Limit noise & amusements. Too many people live their lives with media blaring in their eyes & ears all the time. Become acquainted with silence. Enjoy peaceful solitude. Be proactive with your thoughts, not just reactive, thinking what others tell you to. Consider other people's thoughts, but make your own.
e. Become acquainted with yourself. Time alone, in peaceful solitude is one of the best ways to think outside of the noise of the world.
f. Filter. 'Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good'. Education consists mainly of what we have unlearned. ~Mark Twain 
g. Self acceptance.. It is the basis for confidence & security. You are who you are. Accept it & embrace it. You are going to live with this person all your life. Might as well get to know him.

2. Seek God & truth.
a. A lifelong pursuit. You never arrive.
b. Be honest. God is mysterious, but reasonable. He is not offended, imo, by honest questions. Seriously, you think you can offend God? He has heard it all.
c. Reject the folly & arrogance of atheism. The universe is filled with mystery. Don't sell it short with a presumption of personal omnipotence.

3. Treasure. 
a. “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. “But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Jesus
b. Don't live for money. That is a shallow goal for your life. Sure, you have to work & provide for yourself & your family, and you need to be smart with your finances. But obsession with money kills the soul & floods the mind.

4. Don't be ruled by phobias or obsessions. Find clarity & balance.

Outward
1. Interpersonal
a. Give people the benefit of the doubt, show respect.
b. Validate everyone. Make eye contact with children. Treat every woman like a lady, every man a friend.
c. Don't suffer fools. There is a balance between treating people with respect, & letting fools walk on you or waste your time.
d. Be generous. Give more than you take.

2. Kindness to animals. If you kill it, eat it.

3. Family.
a. Be loyal. Friends will come & go, but your family will be around all your life. Accept them & their quirks.
b. Be a parent to your children, not a peer. Prepare them for life, as much as you can. But they are individuals, with choices of their own to make.
c. Value & respect your elders. Learn from them, both their successes & mistakes. The older you get, the smarter they were.
d. Prioritize. No one looks back on their life & wishes they had spent more time working. Value time spent with family, & build positive memories.

4. Violence.
a. We are in a violent world, & there will be times when it reaches you.
b. Avoid violence & violent people. Seek peace, tolerance & reason.
c. Sometimes violence is unavoidable. Once you take violence as a method, be fully committed.
d. Violence is common, but it is not manly. It is a barbaric way to settle disputes.

Skills
1. Learn & develop some agility & capability in sports.
a. throw a football spiral.
b. hit, catch, & throw a baseball.
c. dribble a soccer ball
d. dribble a basketball & shoot free throws.
e. Hit a drive & putt in golf
f. etc.

2. Hunt & plant. Handle a firearm; grow something to eat. Have some acquaintance with the outdoors. Learn survival skills.

3. Work. Do something productive with your life. Make something. Be creative. Don't look for the easy road to riches. Work hard & smart.

4. Learn. 
a. Life is an education. Look for wisdom & knowledge always. Don't despise unlikely sources, or elevate the world's values.
b. Be cynical. Develop a scientific mind. Look for evidence for your knowledge base. Do not be quick to embrace another's points, but consider other possibilities.
c. Be dazzled by the world. Never lose your childhood wonder. Experience a sense of awe in life, & look for it.
d. Don't be dogmatic. Philosophical matters are rarely black & white. Be open to possibility.

Of course there is more. Life is an adventure, & you have to change with the seasons, & adapt to the universe. But this is a one page philosophy.. a nutshell view or tweet of life. Take what you can use, & file the rest away.

Declining hegemony in the nuclear age

Is it possible for a government in the nuclear age to be minimal?

Can the US withdraw from it's 'world policeman' role in the age of nukes?

The idea of the US retreating to more of a 'lassaiz faire' foreign policy is not only appealing to many americans, but is an economic mandate. We cannot afford to babysit all the despots of the world & threaten to paddle them if they misbehave. But, if we leave them to their own devices, will this unleash nuclear activity? I am a little surprised that there hasn't been a nuclear event since ww2. Small nations like iran are working on them, & many large nations have few safeguards for the technology.

If the US continues it's decline, both in global economics & influence, will other 'rogue' states spring up with nuclear threats? How will the world deal with them? The EU can only threaten with money, & only fiat at that. Nato is losing it's teeth, especially without the us propping it up. If China continues it's growth on the world stage, will it be a deterrence to nuclear threats, or will it let them go or even encourage them? Russia is broken up into many weaker states, & has little deterrence to these rogue states.. even the ones they support.

It seems to me, without the global deterrence of the US, another nuclear event is inevitable. How will that change the world, if some aggressive dictator explodes a nuke on an enemy? Will the world prefer the meddling & 'protection' of the us over nuclear proliferation? Will the world clamor for the US to return to it's role as a world policeman? Will they pay the US for this 'protection'?

If the us breaks up into several regional 'states', who gets the nukes? Who will have the power, or WHAT will the world do to counter nuclear actions from aggressors or terrorists?

Another nuclear event seems inevitable. It will change the world once again. Time & distance from the last one has dulled our memories & it seems like an old movie or a video game. But if & when another nuclear event occurs, how will the world deal with it, and future possibilities? Will we get a world clamoring for protection, disarming, & law & order, like 30's germany?

A tale of nations.. learning from history

In the last century, there were 3 european nations that had major changes in their political climate. There were more, but i'm focusing on these 3 for the lessons we can learn.

1. Russia
2. Germany
3. Spain

All of these were coming out of a monarchy system of govt. The people were tired of the corruption, the injustice, & the inequality that this system had perpetuated for generations. During the turmoil & upheaval of change, there were many voices clamoring for power. Anarchists were active, blowing up govt buildings, battling with police, & creating mayhem. There were socialists/communists in all of them, actively working to consolidate their power & build their view of the ideal human govt. Fascists were also competing for their slice of power. They were the ones rallying the people behind nationalism & racial superiority of their people. And there were also the monarchists.. those who supported the old system & wanted to return to the old ways.

These were significant world powers. Spain had ruled the world in the not too distant past. A major world war had been fought in the previous generation with Germany being the aggressor. And Russia had been simmering in political upheaval for years. But the main point is the result of the upheaval in all of these examples.

Russia turned to collectivism. The communists were able to consolidate their power, & gained control.
Germany went fascist. Hitler's nazis gained control, & ousted the commies & the old guard.
Spain's Franco used military dictatorship to squash the communist & anarchist uprisings, & kept many of the old ways, supporting the monarchy & the ties to the church. Spain had the most involvement from outside, with many internationals fighting for communism, but germany & italy helping franco.

We tend to focus on hitler's success, since it affected the rest of the world so intensely, but all are interesting examples. Russia had nearly a century of communism, but it eventually collapsed & broke into smaller states. Franco ruled spain until the 70's, when he died, and he tried to set up the old monarchy again. But it went through a democratic process, with plenty of competing voices clamoring for power. It is still pretty much in transition.. the economy is in shambles, & there is no political identity that has a consensus. Anarchists have a large constituency there, as well as the collectivists, & the traditionalists. Germany had a very interesting transition, from a dominating world military, to defeat, to rebuilding, to currently, the most successful economy in the world. They have stayed with the democratic process, which was based in part on the success of the usa & their constitution. But it was the german people & their industriousness that lifted them from the rubble of war.

The lesson i glean from these historical examples is the continued success of a democratic republic. Collectivism, fascism, anarchy, & reactionary moves do not provide the prosperity or the freedom for the people, like is found in a democratic republic. When the people are allowed to work & keep as much as their labor as possible, the nation flourishes. But when the people are taxed oppressively, or forced to labor for the state, they languish. All nations are always in transition, & nothing stays static. But people who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.