Virtues & Vices of Social Security (pt.2) by M.H. DeYoung

PART II

VIRTUES (Teleology) and VICES (deontology) of

This analysis is a concluding paragraph of PART II: Had wages in 2001 kept pace with inflation, median wage-earned income would have been $89,852.00. The 2000 reported median income for white males (the highest cited income group) is far short of inflation’s pace: it was $29,696. For white females, it was more anemic: $16,190. And, relatively still worse for minority races as blacks, Hispanics and Asians. Wage-earners became a determined economic underclass of the American System’s political economy: only the mechanist upper-caste of owner-superintendents was rewarded by the American System’s determinism. These mechanist rewards distinguish what is commonly referred to as the American Dream.

SOCIAL SECURITY: VIRTUES’ & VICES PART II, TOPICAL GUIDE FOREWORD PREFACE: critical theses

‘True’ Causal Reality requires necessary Principles

The Federalist Agenda

‘Divine right’ dogma

‘social usage’

teleology v.s. mechanist empiricism

Principles . . .[that] stand in the way of success

Whig politics gave America the Gilded Age

mercantilism . . . officially reaffirmed

33 38

teleological philosophy

St. John . . . named nature’s Creator, LOGOS

Teleology opposes mechanism’s paradoxical flaws

Capitalism: its propensities for growth (Schumperter)

profit-taking that is not entrepreneurial is invalid

Validating the proposed critical theses

Preserving Economic Baby

109

256

Tautology (revisiting truth and reason’s veracity test)

250 Is Ontologism embraced or rejected?

This political anthology’s selections and analysis, section 250.2, is from DeYoung’s research document: Our Federal Savings Plan.

M. H. DeYoung

251 Social Security

121

ENDNOTES

161

SS, PART II, FOREWORD Thomas Hobbes, 1588-1679, (as the encyclopedia stated) concluded that only matter exists. Hobbes, therefore, had asserted unitary materialist causal mechanism in his Leviathan (published in 1651): mechanism then was orthodox belief, and like belief if a ‘flat earth’ was limited in Plato’s analysis to apparent visible belief.

Mechanism, i.e., ‘the universe behaves like a big machine,’ is pragmatically deduced orthodox causal belief, which consequentially is without antecedent necessity, therefore, fails as a logically necessary principle? V. L. Parrington had referred to Hobbes’ asserted fallacy when he observed America’s cultural return to the sixteenth century from which the seventeenth was a reaction. Myriad paradoxs are in results of this return to cultural irrationalism! Not until recent scientific study, was mechanist determinism’s dragon shown as orthodox fallacy of belief: Prof. R. C. Weatherford, Univ. of South Florida gave this philosophical account of determinist mechanism: 1

determinism. It is often taken as the very general thesis about the world that all events without exception are effects -- events necessitated by earlier events. Hence any event of any kind is an effect of a prior series of effects, a causal chain with every link solid. The thesis is fundamentally simple. The ideas which it contains, notably those of events and causal connection, are certainly open to definition. If the thesis cannot be expressed as some part of science or theory in it, some determinists say, the shortcoming is not in the thesis. If the thesis is true,[and materially it appears as being ‘true’] future events are as fixed and unalterable as the past is fixed and unalterable. One graphic expression of determinism is in terms of what William James called ‘the iron block universe’: “those parts of the universe already laid down,” he wrote, “ appoint and decree what other parts shall be. The future has no ambiguous possibilities hidden in its womb: the part we call the present is compatible with only one totality. Any other future complement than the one fixed from eternity is impossible. The whole is in each and every unity, an

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

iron block, in which there can be no equivocation or shadow of turning.” If this is what the way of the world is, then only what actually happens in it could possibly have happened. There are no genuine alternatives to be realized. Philosophers and scientists have been concerned with the question of whether determinism conceived in this general and allinclusive way is true. The problem is ancient in its origins. The Homeric Fates were enigmatically described as having power over the future. Early forms of atomism were more clearly deterministic, so disturbingly so that Epicures found it necessary to hypothesize an uncaused ‘swerve’ of the atoms as they fell through the void. Hobbes and Hume, and many great and not so great philosophers after them, have been determinists. But philosophers have been more concerned with what is to many of us the most compelling part of that general question: whether we ourselves, persons, are subject to the same sort of causal necessity. Philosophers have cared less about whether or not the rest of the universe is determined -- what they have cared more about is whether or not our lives are determined. Indeed determinism has often been taken as the more limited thesis that all our choices, decisions, intentions, other mental events, and our actions are no more than effects of other equally necessitated events. The problem of determinism in this second sense is pretty well identical with the problem of freedom, or the free will problem. When philosophers have worried about this limited thesis in the past, they have typically focused on what it would mean for our concept of moral responsibility. But Strawson led us to see that more is at stake than that, including many human attitudes such as resentment [ending in terrorism?] and gratitude. Honderich has raised the stakes higher. Determinism puts in doubt all “life-hopes, personal feelings, knowledge, moral responsibility, the rightness of actions, and the moral standing of persons”. And van Inwagen has

FOREWORD

suggested that if determinism were known to be true, no one could ever rationally deliberate about any type of action. Deliberation, it is said, makes sense only if genuine alternatives are available to us. If I deliberate about whether or not to raise my arm, my deliberation is rational only if I am able either to raise it or not to raise it. If determinism is true, only one course is genuinely open to me. So it is alleged, my deliberation is irrational. But, as remarked, the most important issue historically has been moral responsibility. And what can be said about it applies in a general way to the other implications of determinism. Typically we believe that agents are morally responsible only for those acts that are freely chosen and within the power of the agent to decide. We are guilty only if we could have done otherwise. But if determinism is true, then in some sense we never could have done otherwise. Thus many philosophers have concluded that determinism and holding people responsible are incompatible. Others have strongly disagreed. Recently, however, quantum mechanics and relativity theory have generally displaced Newtonian mechanics, and various proofs of them have been claimed. Many scientists and not a few philosophers believe that the dragon of determinism has been slain. In this determinist causal sense, which always entails paradox for instance, V. L. Parrington observed the results of economic causal mechanism, onto which Whigs when in charge of government (mid seventeenth Century) asserted The American System of Political Economy loaded with organic loco parentis paternalism, as the official U.S. economic policy: that paternalistically giving to ‘Peter’ paradoxically also necessarily took equivalent economic measures from ‘Paul.’ Economist Joseph Schumperter’s early twentieth century analysis explained Parrington’s astute observation by showing that private business mechanisms’ profit-taking upset the nation’s ‘static economic circular flow.’ Paradoxically, for to ensure private economic success, the government’s loco parentis grants to private business mechanisms, as aided

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

by codifications of law, official edict, policy and myriad covert endemism, public held national resources, along with economic license, for businesses to manage and exploit for privatized economic gain. This paternalism, Parrington observed, which privatized economic gains from mechanized exploitations also determined a counter class of ‘iron caged’ wage-earner Pauls (Who constitutionally had equal rights, however, lost out economically and paternalistically simply because of paternal determinist grants, which blessed economic growth: the granted legalized enuring of inflation endemism that covertly (occultist magic like) is transformed at points of consumption ' ' by accounting to return as business capital to originating business owner Peters). 2 Was it because economic losses are mechanistically borne by subsistence-based consumption, that public debt was officially excused, or ignored, as of lesser importance than loco parentis paternalism? : society’s ‘iron caged’ wage-earning ‘Pauls,’ who by consuming to subsist, routinely mechanistically recycle much of their paychecks, which by way of accounting, magically is combined with inflation endemism, which wageearning ‘Pauls’ also consume, to return to business owner Peters’ as their legally enured capital: this recovered private retail business owned capital, is then available for profit-taking, dividend and bonus pay outs, and accumulations to underwrite more productions. Average economic growth, during the twentieth century, was measured at 4 percent, inflation endemism at 3 percent: the accounting combined returning business capital, therefore, averaged 7 percent: profits taken, however, averaged closer to 10percent, while wages-earned languished at less than half the average rate of inflation. 3 Average growth of ‘iron caged’ wage-earner-consumer experience was first the negative result of profit-taking from legally enured capital, as business property, which typically generously exceeded economy’s 4 percent growth plus inflation’s 3 percent. Wage-earning is a tethered mongrel class of mechanist business efficiency, which neither can extort profit-taking nor GNP.

The 3 percent average inflation legally returns as business owned capital.

FOREWORD A principle, to be ‘true,’ is logically ‘necessary,’ the definition of which compels coherent ‘trueness’ (is not paradoxical). Whenever ‘logical coherence’ fails, as the pseudo principles of mechanism routinely fail wage-earning ‘Pauls’, mechanism asserted as principle, is then of ‘forged’ predicate value: politically, politely, it logically is ‘fallacy’ of U.S. Political Economy’s irrationalism. Rationally, truly, it is ‘false!’ Polite political fallacies, which despite orthodox belief, are irrationally deceitful: mortally, truthfully, they are cultural lies. Temporally, conceptional deontological duties are different than cardinal teleological purposes: duties relate to Greek conceived temporal nomos, in which the de of deon is a preposition meaning the opposite of, down from, away from, or entirely (as in despoil), plus ontos, i.e., deontology, while purposes relate to Greek conceived physis consisting of telos, i.e., eos (an eternal end goal), i.e., is natural eternal causal teleology. Deontological duties are of nomos, teleological purposes of physis. The difference is narrowed greatly, when physis becomes conflated to Unitary Materialism forms of nomos belief, as shows orthodox paternalist economic mechanism, which fallaciously asserts temporal as the equal of eternal, material the equal of essence, and man the equal of God. Myriad ideological political interests were covertly added to the American System’s deontological duties, which unitary materialist mechanism’s endemism deliberately concealed, as inflation for instance.4 Classical politics, for instance, asserts that deontological duty fulfills government’s constitutional teleology, as specified in the Constitution’s Preamble. Government’s purpose, was then irrationally interpreted to ensure whatever politics asserted, regardless whether rational or irrational. Classically, irrationally, therefore, government now ensures that legally enured business profits are business owner’s property [the teleological constitutional economic purpose ‘to all,’ was changed by enuring (defined by law, to inure) as the business’ owners’ property]: therefore, the Bankers’ COLA [the endemic cost for renting the public’s economic utility (money)], which government creates as a teleological utility to serve ‘all,’ by enuring, paternalistically rewards as bank owners’ property for serving mechanist economic duties with exchanges of goods and services.

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

(However, what part of banking fiducial duty, which is physis-based responsibility, enures as a nomos-based property entitlement?). Government created ubiquitous money for the teleological purpose to ease the exchange of goods and services.’ And it regulates political economy, setting deontological rules of conduct (duties). Government is, therefore, ultimately responsible for covert inflation’s endemism. And, unfairly used (misused), money is the nation’s main conduit of inflationary endemism: if money is fallaciously asserted as a ‘propertied hoard,’ for instance, then the mechanism-based inflation-endemisms’ economic paradox, cited by Parrington as giving to ‘Peter’ by taking from ‘Paul,’ greatly ensues. And, acquisitive materialism of privatized business is then prone to a rational blindness that is related to conflated forms of Unitary Materialism, which then becomes as uniquely nomos-based as deontology is, in which reason-based formulas as Einstein’s special relativity, as representing science cited by Professor Weatherford above, which equates energy with mass (E = MC2), for instance, as exclusively valued only as an equal appendage to economic propertied Unitary Materialism, which while called ‘intellectual property’ is in most cases of employment, the legally owned property of the privatized organic economic entity. Acquisitive materialism-based political economy, as American Whigs asserted, was, therefore, irrationally philosophically defined. Tautologically, mechanism is a consequent deduced from human experience, which only can be asserted as being ‘true,’ but is without necessary antecedence as logically inferred to human intelligent faculties of reason. And Acquisitive Materialism’s dogma-based irrational antecedents, as classically asserted necessary economic principles, were judiciously legalized by the Federalist orthodoxy primarily for to serve the federalist Unitary Materialism’s deontological economic duties, paradoxically, idealistically resulting in the conflating of constitutional teleological purposes. While tautologically, Federalists have opposed the constitutional teleological purposes of SS, they officially asserted as authoritative truths, the Federalist-Whig ideological doctrine. And, the paradoxs of privatized nomos-based mechanisms,’ which act cumulatively to divide society, were politically too often also officially affirmed as SS’s antecedent principles.

FOREWORD

Incoherence, as inflation endemism, show political economy’s Unitary Materialism’s asserted pseudo principle as orthodoxy, which incorporated the dogmatic dragons of mechanism:5

materialism n. the belief that all action, thought, and feeling can be explained by the movement and changes in matter: ‘in the latter half of the 1800's, materialism severely challenged the traditional spiritual view of man’ (Science). When the U.S. Constitution was in its formative stage, Europeans were influenced by the principal Idealists, of which Craig Thomas wrote this:6 [In] prenational Prussia under Frederick the Great. Christian

theology assumed a [unitary] merger with the divine after this life; Hegel posits such a merger here on earth -- with history and the collectivity he terms the state. Thomas also wrote about the Idealists of Hegel’s unitary materialist view:

The principal Idealists -- Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel -- sought, above all else, a unitary explanation of reality, some essence behind all appearance -- in Kant’s terminology, a ‘common’ and universal noumenon, and in the poet Hölderlin’s description, the ‘spirit that is in everything’ [ontologism]. They were [expedient idealist] systemizers, assuming that there could be discovered some essential explanation of all experience, knowledge, and reality, and it was largely on this basis that they objected, Fichte most immediately and systematically, to Kant’s division between self and the world, which [they as irrationally contended] for Kant could be no more than a world of appearances. To achieve the healing of [Kant’s] dualism the Idealists posited, in Fichte’s theory most succinctly, the ego as the ‘ground of experience.’ It was not the rational ego of Kant [Plato and Descartes] nor the passive receptor of the empiricists but what Fichte describes as the ‘active ego,’ inextricably intermingled with reality, imposing itself upon the world of experience, to a degree ‘making’ the world of experience in its own image. [In this instance, the principle idealists conflated even God’s

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

antecedence to comply with the nomos of their Unitary Materialism, to which Nietzche then cried out, “we have killed God!”] As Fichte claims

in ‘The Vocation of Man’ of 1792, ‘Not to KNOW but to DO, is the vocation of Man.’ For Fichte (1762- 1814), there were only two possible responses to the world, that of the realist, or ‘dogmatist’ in his terminology, and that of the idealist. The philosopher’s response, more profound than that of the ordinary man, is idealist, while realism remains the province of non-philosophical response to an understanding of the world. . . . Thinking is no longer reflection, it is experience. Also, because of this, there can be no kind of reality that is distinct or separated from the ego that experiences it. Whereas empiricism posits, at least by implication, a ‘real’ world that is experienced, the Idealists assumed no distinction between the subject of the experiencing agent and the objective world being experienced. [Which came first, the egg or the chicken, is of no consequence to this materialist conservative idealism that compounds the issue rather than finding answers to the question; the dogmatic focus is on the neatness of confusion.]

Further, Fichte and Schelling assumed that the ego was innately a moral agent, again contrary to Kant’s conception of the effort of moral duty for the rational being, the necessity to achieve the categorical imperative [of ‘do unto others . . .’] in making any moral decision or taking any moral action. Men are regarded by the Idealists as innately, though imperfectly, moral in their essential, nondualistic natures. This leads, as we shall see, to a strangely Hobbesian view of the State as possessing the right and duty to perfect the ego’s moral imperfection by the exercise of its authority. [Note how dogmatic ‘Idealists‘ are blamed for the fallacious philosophical underpinning of the conservative materialist philosophy]

FOREWORD

‘Deterministic materialism,’ ‘mechanism,’ and ‘positivism’ is dogmatic bias of American Federalists and Whigs and also is intrinsic of the principal Idealists -- Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel’s rationalized philosophies. The Western World’s orthodox cultural dogmas, the biased values which influence materialistic ‘conservative’ belief, has proved unreliable as a fiducial parameter of pure truth. Regarding the causal moral deterioration of society, are the fallaciously idealistic philosophic foundations of ‘materialism’ of concern? Do ‘conservative’ assertions compromise individual accountability? Do they promote the Hobbesian view of the State?’ Maybe, the only reason that Unitary Materialism has failed to devastate the American political economy, as happened in Europe with organic developments of communism and fascism, is the democratic process, which as a cultural condition for constitutional ratification, required the physis-based Bill of Rights be appended. These amendments have preserved Locke’s dualism, which critically has kept the teleological human essence as an active part of government. We can thank men, as Jefferson, for having preserved this critically important human essence from the conflating effects of mechanist materialist laws of government: in what Jefferson called the ‘firewall of separation’ between mechanist law and human religious essence. In Western culture, A. Comte’s dogmatic ‘positivism’ that deals only with positive facts and phenomena, rejecting abstract speculation,7 religiously was spread as ‘the gospel of reason’ and this dogma remains entrenched in culture as tautologically fallacious doctrine. Materialism is unproved theory that rationally tautologically can only be claimed as a natural consequent of human experience, as ‘flat earth’ orthodoxy also was claimed. Unfortunately however, when Unitary Materialism is asserted as principle, on which politically assigned duties of government are its vices, Adam Smith observed,8 and Brockway confirmed this:

“in the mercantile system, the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer.” And, government’s vices officially became the determined vices of SS.

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

PREFACE: critical theses for consideration and proof: The BabyBoom’s 77 million births, factually recorded between 1946 and 1965, does not and cannot randomly change. Only mortality, at any age, can reduce the BabyBoom’s natural population (therefore, mortality necessarily naturally reduces the BabyBoom’s retirement population). And mortality is routinely quite arcuately estimated. With SS eligibility shifted to age 67, upwards of seven million persons are delayed from entering retirement. The BabyBoom’s population of natural births, over age 67, will peak, for a short period, at 42 million: ' 31 million (age 65-4) were counted in 1990, 9 35 million in 2000.10 The Census Bureau’s ratio, as projected and cited in 1983, is ‘fallacy’:11

The ratio of the working age population . . . to the retirement age population will begin an unprecedented decline. The nation had 5.3 people of working age in 1982 for every person 65 or older. The ratio is projected to drop to 4.7 in 2000 and to 2.4 in 2080. [more recent facts show the ratio did not drop in 2000] The only fact of this projected ‘fallacy’ is this: ‘The nation had 5.3 people of working age in 1982 for every person 65 or older.’ The rest is asserted fallacy, which had assumed the SS system’s maturity would have no effect on the worker to retiree ratio (assumed that mutually exclusive conditions were of no consequence, which, they are). With the SS system, as of the 1970s, now mature, facts show the ratio did not drop in 2000. Rather, it improved! And shifting retirement eligibility to age sixty-seven, keeps the ratio at or above 4.39:1, close to the benchmark ratio set in 1982 (5.3:1). Inflation’s endemism represents a greater economic concern than does the BabyBooms’ population. Mechanism causally has made inflation directly related to profit taking by the nation’s corporate mechanisms, while otherwise it is unrelated to the circular flow of SS contributions and benefits. Indexing inflation to SS contributions is double taxation that exclusively relates to mechanisms taking profits.

Immigrations and emigrations are not considered here. They are important factors of population and also can be eligible for SS.

PREFACE: critical theses

Thesis 1) Effectively, the ratio of workers to retirees will remain higher than statistical experience had registered in 1990. Thesis 2) Social Security is teleological ‘social usage’ virtue that mitigates a major paradox (vice) of the mechanist political economy: SS’s static circular flowing ‘social usage’ ensures sustenance income during the retired years of each wage-earner’s life. And causally, paying for the inflation COLAs related to SS benefits is a responsibility related to income from profits routinely legally granted to be taken from returning capital from consumed productions of business mechanisms economic circular flow, which income is not subjected to SS contribution taxes, however, is rewarded by the fact of the consumed and legally enured capital returns from inflation endemism. Thesis 3) Neither were SS bankruptcy charges in the 1980's ‘true‘ nor does the BabyBoom’s retirement benefits’ eligibility, when they come due, beginning in 2010, endanger SS. Thesis 4) Inflation’s endemism endangers political economy in a manner as to also damage Social Security: taking profits that are not the result of directly related added entrepreneurial value to mechanisms of political economy, is inflation’s primary cause. All inflation intrinsic of SS benefit payments that are loaded onto the SS contributions’ taxes must be recompensed from revenue taxes on income that is not wageearned, i. e., is exempted from paying SS contribution taxes?

Thus, exactly as Ricardo or Mill foresaw, ‘in a static economy there is no place for profit! [R. L. Heilbroner on Shumperter] Without entrepreneurial value, profits taken endemically pilfers value from wage-earned labor. And, because wage-earning does not cause inflation’s endemism, therefore, inflation’s cost must be recompensed as necessarily levied on a graduated scale of revenue tax from capital-based, rather than wage-earned income. Thesis 5) As explained in thesis 4, the inflation effects on wages must recompensed. If wages had kept pace with inflation, the median family wage earned in 2000 would be $60,000, 3.1 times greater than wages in 1975 ($19,480 white with 1-3 yrs of college 12 ): 13 , 14

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

Thesis 6) Real economic growth (growth sans inflation’s endemism) is population growth related. A better teleology for workers that mechanistically (by the determinism of the ‘iron law of wages’) are made to pay inflation’s bill as applied to SS benefits, is for Congress to fulfill its constitutional charge: reduce inflation by restricting the Bankers’ COLA. I suspect the ‘golden ratio’ [Phi (N)], which early Greeks found had natural application to growth, also naturally applies to our capitalist economy: to rid it of systemic inflation’s endemism. Mathematically, ‘the golden rule of consumption,’ 15 in which growth in economy equals growth in population (and consumption is maximized), is nearly in balance when the ‘golden ratio’ [Phi (N)] applies to economic growth. An irrational number like B, N approximately has the decimal value of 1.618. If Congress accepted its constitutional teleological charge and controlled inflation, investments in production and wageearning would shift away from the futures, casino like economy into real economy. A dollar earned would retain its inflation neutral economic value. And SS contribution rates would be a small fraction of the present rates. Thesis 7) Quite surprisingly, however, Adam Smith’s market system economy is now far more promising than when Smith had proposed it. Schumpeter’s analysis and conclusions in early twentieth century provided key necessary principles for continued economic growth: 16

PREFACE: critical theses

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

political economy sanctioned (legalized) business right, causes the static circular flow fail to respect labor’s contribution to producing goods.] . .

principle (our king), we no longer can claim logically reasoned noumenally democratic antecedents as the fundamental principles. 17

entrepreneurial activity, Schumperter’s analysis showed inflations’ endemism is as paradoxical as is its determined complement, ‘the iron cage of wages.’] We must restore and preserve Adam Smith’s ‘economic baby’ by cutting out all unnecessary paradoxical causes of inflation. Otherwise, Marx conclusion of an economic end to Smith’s system looms!

Thesis 8) Only in its fundamental spiritual (noumenal) aspect, does democratic philosophy (Rational Empiricism) diverge from Fascism and Communism. Therefore, when the noumenally spiritual aspect is conflated by adopting forms of Unitary Materialism, or by official legal actions or licensing of privatized mechanisms, which dispense with teleology, whether by mechanism or more simply by way of willed Epicurean paradoxical orthodoxy ' , and instead make deontology our antecedent

We should respect the material part of democracy for providing temporal bounties (when, holistically to all), but also regard Unitary Materialism’s natural limitations about truth: didn’t Bertrand Russell logically prove that unitary material truth was nothing but total fallacy?18

With Unitary Materialism asserted dogmatically as principle, as conflated by nihilist ‘positivism’ in fascism or communism, cultural failure sans teleology, leaves only unmeaning of determinist chaos! Thesis 9) Natural Causal Realities require natural Principle, the logical keys of which are ‘true’ antecedence, necessity and coherence. ‘True’ Causal Reality requires necessary Principles Tautology19

When, in acquisitive aggrandizements, we subscribe irrationalisms as Holmes’ glorious Epicurean Paradox:

‘give us the luxuries of life, and we will dispense with its necessaries’ [which define principles]. Oliver Wendell Holmes

‘True’ Causal Reality requires necessary Principles

formed by the conjunction of all the premises as the antecedent and the conclusion as the consequent that form a valid argument form, will always result in a tautology. Testing compound statements to see whether they are tautologies is thus equivalent to testing an argument for validity.' John N. Fujii gave three classical valid arguments (a, b, and c) and two invalid arguments (d, and e) in which P = compound premises, Q = consequent, - = denial, = therefore. (a) Modus ponens (a) P 6 Q P

(b) modus tollens (c) hypothetical syllogism (b) P 6 Q -Q

- P

(d): invalid classical argument that ‘affirms the consequent.’ P6Q Q

P6R (e): invalid classical argument that ‘denies the antecedent.’ P6Q

-P -Q

(d) Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, and (e) Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent, Fujii warned, are irrational argument forms. With all forms of ‘hypothesizing a tautological argument,’ irrational argument form (d), Affirming Consequents, is the most common form of fallacy. And, ‘Affirming natural Consequents,’ is a pseudo philosophic proclivity

By the author’s definition, each P and Q is a statement that when written in the ‘if,’ ‘then,’ compound statement form, the ‘if’ statement is the antecedent, and the ‘then’ statement is the consequent.

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

that sophistry makes intrinsic of nomos-based dogmatic belief. The Federalist Agenda, as Parrington noted, provides an example of ideologybased irrational sophistry, which St. John said was a form of lying. Logical tautology is, by applied positivism, which results similarly as Unitary Materialism, commonly officially denied. Particularly, Federalist Justice dogmatically fails to test for tautology: as is only briefly mentioned in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Federalists and Whigs, particularly, might not have understood tautology’s veracity test of truth and reason? And had research not made mathematics language applicable, tautological veracity testing still could not now be understood. 20 If interested in truth, when paradox is confronted, tautological testing is critically important. ' Opinions, based on belief, sans tautological testing, represent sophistries as lying with clear consciences and straight faces. Politics thrives on this sophistry.

[Hamilton’s] notorious comment -- which the American democrat has never forgiven him, “the people! -- the people is a great beast!” -- was charactoristically frank. . . . He was at pains, therefore, as a practical statesman, to dress his views in a garb more seemly to plebeian prejudices [irrationally, Hamilton affirmed consequents that politically fit with dogmatic plebeian biases], and like earlier Tories he paraded an ethical justification for his Toryism. The current Federalist dogma of the divine right of justice -- ‘vox justiciae vox dei’ -- was at hand to serve his purpose and he made free use of it. . . . He was frankly a monarchist, and he urged the [fallacious] monarchical principle with Hobbesian logic. “The principle chiefly '

The study of mathematics is the study of clear logical reasoning. H. W. Turnbull gave this account of the logical test for solving paradoxs: “How to face these paradoxs is an urgent problem,” he wrote. “[Brouwer traced] the presence of paradoxs to the use of indirect proofs, or more precisely to what is called in logic the law of the excluded middle.” And, he concluded, that which is fallacious is false because it illogically is irrational.

‘True’ Causal Reality requires necessary Principles

intended to be established is this -- that there must be a permanent ‘will.” “There ought to be a principle in government capable of resisting the popular current.” [In ‘Works, Vol. II, p 415] The only effective way of keeping democratic factionalism within bounds, Hamilton was convinced, lay in the erection of a powerful chief magistrate, who “ought to be hereditary, and have so much power. “ He devoted himself to the business of providing all possible checks upon the power of the democracy.” [And he hated socialism!] This Federalist agenda, as Parrington noted, provides an example of this sophistry that continues to fallaciously influence the U. S. Judiciary: St. John referred to this sophist proclivity as a form of lying. Parrington cited the Federalist-Whig proclivity to irrationally, fallaciously ‘deny antecedents’ and ‘affirm consequents’:21

hour of peril, principles go by the board. The Whig party was the lineal heir of the old Federalism, but it denied its philosophical patrimony. It substituted expediency for the old economic realism, and began and ended intellectually bankrupt.. . . aside from petty antagonism to Jackson -- was the vague assumption that the well-

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

being of the American people was dependent on governmental patronage; the belief that each economic group and section must receive its special favor, and that through tariffs and bonuses and internal improvements the country as a whole must prosper. Of this principle of special favors -- a return to the seventeenth century from which eighteenth century liberalism was a reaction -the American System of Henry Clay was the chief expression, and it remains the most significant bequest of the Whig party to our political history. ‘Divine right’ dogma was imported with the colonization of America. Along with it, also by fallaciously asserted affirmation, came a form of nihilism, that Auguste Comte dubbed positivism, that would be preached religiously as ‘the gospel of reason.’ Particularly, Calvinist minds were closed to any reasonable deist consideration of the supreme metaphysical noumenon being that intelligence, which is antecedent to all that is. This God, religiously, fallaciously supplanted by positivism, therefore, is the nomos denied natural supreme principle of all that is. When scripture recorded that God was a jealous God and would have no other before him, scripture correctly warned of the paradoxical irrationalism of affirming natural consequents as principle: God is inalterably the ultimate logical noumenal principle! While officially the U.S. Constitutional Convention neither adopted nor rejected nomos-based irrationalism, dogmatized deterministic mechanist Unitary Materialism (a returning to the sixteenth century from which the seventeenty century had been freed) eventually returned as the dominant influence of U.S. legislation and administration: the new nation’s Operating Plan that Whigs dubbed The American System of Political Economy. While this Operating Plan is based on absolute dogma, i.e., it is nomos-based fallacy, the political flux in America is dynamic and flexible, to at times polarize around the physis-based political flux of human sovereignty, of ‘we the people.’ The physis-based will of human nature is complex. It is capable to fallaciously generate dogmatized doctrines and mechanisms of

‘True’ Causal Reality requires necessary Principles

deterministic Unitary Materialism but it also looks to ‘social usage,’ as Roger Williams observed. Williams undoubtedly influenced this perspective for effective temporal democracy, as Parrington wrote:22

The state, then, is society working consciously through experience and reason, to secure for the individual citizen the largest measure of freedom and well-being. . . . But if sovereignty inheres in the majority will, what securities remain for individual and minority rights? What fields lie apart from the inquisition of the majority, and by what agencies shall the engrossing of power be thwarted? The replies to such questions, so fundamental to every democratic program, he discovers in a variety of principles; to the former in an adaptation of the spirit of medieval society that restricted political functions by social usage, and to the latter by the application of local home rule, the initiative and the referendum, and the recall. His creative conception was an adaptation of . . . corporation, of a group of persons voluntarily joining for specific purposes under the law. Mutual Insurance is a form of Williams’ ‘social usage.’ It is uniquely American and it is democratic, i.e., is physis-based. Social Security is purer Mutual Insurance and is, therefore, also a ‘social usage’ form. The U. S. Operating Plan is politics about economics, which fundamentally is about life’s substantial needs (the positivist argument is particularly convincing as regards’ life’s substantial needs). It embroils the paradoxical influences of mind with emotion, values with passions, will with substance . . .. Irrationalisms (rationalizations), are inevitable. Aristotle’s spectrum of virtue applies to resulting paradoxs: where reasoned principle (axiomatic temporal truth is found). * * Aristotle defined Virtue as the middle ground between the vices: the mean of excess and deficiency. Controlling by commanding deterministic material values is at the excess extreme where the irrational cause of collective and collusive economic rationalization, which Adam Smith warned posed the greatest threat to universal benefits of the nature-based, atomistic and independently constituted ‘market system’: which Smith carefully explicated as the

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

foundation of the evolving natural economic revolution. Heilbroner confirms Adam Smith’s intent:23

What Smith had meant by ["leave the market alone"] was one thing; what his proponents made him out to mean was another . . . If he had any bias it was in favor of the consumer. "Consumption is the sole end of production," he wrote and then proceeded to castigate those systems that placed the interest of the producer over that of the consuming public. Adam Smith anticipated and strongly castigated Whiggish mechanisms of the "American System" of political economy.

What Smith is against is the meddling of the government with the market mechanism. He is against restraints on imports and bounties on exports, against government laws that shelter industry from competition [zoning, licensing, and such], and against government spending for unproductive ends. Notice that these activities of government all bear against the proper working of the market system. Smith never faced the problem that was to cause such intellectual agony for later generations of whether the government is weakening or strengthening that system when it steps into welfare legislation. Aside from poor relief, there was virtually no welfare legislation in Smith's day -- the government [and not Smith] was the unabashed ally of the governing classes, and the great tussle within the government was whether it should be the landowning or the industrial classes who should most benefit. ' [The great American debate about placing organic sovereignty in America, was about this.] The question of whether the working class should have a voice in the direction of economic affairs simply did not enter any respectable person's mind. [Irrational bias of any sort is not democratic!]

Wage-earners were not considered by Smith as politically significant.

‘True’ Causal Reality requires necessary Principles

Maybe because of Smith but surely because the revolution was the working people’s war, working Americans decided the Constitution’s purpose was to provide for democracy and be the ultimate voice, of, for and by the people. This fact was made clear when the Constitution’s ratification was withheld until a Bill of Rights was provided. Mechanist political influences of American Tory, Federalist, and Whig conservatives (those of seminal interests in property, position, and commerce) sided with American Political Economy, and by fostering a conflated Unitary Materialism, had trampled the public voice. Politics of Commerce and industry is not alone in this. An underworld of economics, as Heilbroner calls it, points to other culprits that farther on are presented. While Smith’s observations are universally evident in the basis of Political Economy, our ‘conservatives’ (Which I call whiggish ‘White Rabbits’ of our wonderland) have not subscribed to Smith’s warning about economic monopoly. Economic Determinism, as based on Hobbesian deductive reasoning, has surely caused economic monopoly and material value concentration. And it also poses the ultimate cause of systemic economic failure. Deductive reasoning that tautologically is fallacious (‘false’) is undoubtedly an amorality form of Heidegger’s irrationalism, as those who rationalize to engage it neither know truth (about faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty toward God and humanity) nor virtues of ‘true’ mitigating principle. While the U.S. Strategic Plan is categorical imperative intensive and teleologically ethical (of giving of self in the sense of acting together to secure common values and purposes), the Operating Plan is based on individually taking and securing what we each want as our own property. The difference between giving and taking is, of course, diabolical and paradoxical. While strategy is each individual’s responsibility, about preserving every individual’s self evident inalienable rights, operationally speaking, we expect selfishness and we want ‘absolutism’ with ownership, contracts, and such. Often we confuse inalienable strategic rights with our absolute material wants. In this, wants often are extreme vices on the spectrum of virtue: and, intentionally or not, legally nullify others’ physisbased sovereignty. Our material wants often abuse Natural Law while they violate no temporal manmade law. Therefore, we need to be clear about

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

definition and purpose. Christ may have said it best: man doth not live by bread only. And with political economy, we especially need clarity and balance when reasoning to enact laws that define the constitutional administrations of government, particularly as extended to include licensed individual and organizational agents, codifications, and regulations. Particularly, ‘fictitious legal person’ corporations, that official agency of state governments grant licenses to act as humans must officially be unbundled from society when forms of mercantilism, for instance, are implicated. ‘True’ natural differences are critical. Nature’s God did not endow corporations with inalienable rights, as the right to free speech (which economically they now command). And, they are not naturally coeval of government in matters of sovereignty and suffrage. E. K. Hunt wrote this about Veblen’s ‘property rights’ origins: 24 Private property had its origins in brute coercive force and was perpetuated both by force and by institutional and ideological legitimization. [Such irrationalism surely is not ‘truly’ antecedent.] Hunt, concluded about results of ‘Internal Improvement’-based policies, 25

The passage of the Sherman Act and the establishment of various government regulatory agencies were ostensibly aimed at controlling these giant corporations. In practice, however, government tended to aid these giants in consolidating and stabilizing their massive empires. With the lawful impunity of states’ rights, corporations engage in competitive and collusive forms of neo-mercantilism. We should not only recognize this, we should be concerned that large multinational corporations are today, larger than our nation was and that as ‘fictitious legal individuals,’ they represent the greatest threat to nullifying individual sovereignty. Like nations, they represent Leviathan entities, which are allowed by license to make their own rules, we might say, with which humans individually are not allowed and cannot compete:26

Mercantilism was an economic policy pursued by almost all of the trading nations in the late sixteenth, seventeenth, and early eighteenth centuries, which aimed at increasing a nation’s wealth and power by encouraging the export of goods in return for gold.

‘True’ Causal Reality requires necessary Principles

[’gold’ and ‘wealth’ are not identical value forms]

As part of the mercantilist program, individual governments promoted large investments in export industries; built high tariff walls to restrict imports, which could be produced domestically; restricted exports of domestic raw materials, which could be used by the domestic industry; interfered with the emigration of skilled workers; encouraged immigration of skilled workers; and, in several cases, prohibited sales of precious metals to foreigners. . . . Adam Smith accused mercantilists of not being able to distinguish between wealth and what they called treasure, pointing out that the accumulation of treasure is merely instrumental to the acquisition of wealth. [Smith’s wealth was ‘usable’ goods] Not only, should corporate involvement in ‘mercantilism, ‘concern us, we should also be concerned about their organized involvement in politics, free speech and political contributions. * * Whether from foreign countries where they conduct corporate business or in the sense that they represent something other than human sovereignty, political contributions from corporations to political interests are foreign, if not alien. This reasoned sentiment extends to all organizations, particularly Political Action Committees and religion. Antecedent teleology v.s. consequential mechanist empiricism (NATURAL CAUSATION anticipates natural Principle while affirmed causation irrationally supplants natural principle.) If a principle is ‘necessary,’ the logical meaning of ‘necessary’ makes CARDINALLY ANTECEDENT PRINCIPLE INVIOLATE: 27 ''

necessary 3. Logic. that cannot be denied because denial would entail contradiction of what has already been established.

Contemplating this cardinal importance resulted in definition research called PRINCIPLE. It is an ADDENDUM to this research, about TRUTH.

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

Unless that principle is systemically ‘coherent,’ it cannot be ‘necessary’28 and is, therefore, falsely considered. Mechanism (‘the universe behaves like a big machine’) fails as necessary principle: Mechanism is dogmatic classical theory that fallaciously Thomas Hobbes had affirmed as principle to his empiricism. Classical determinism, inferred by Mechanism, is irrational and paradoxical. And, it fits this definition: Determinism: ‘what happened before determines what happens today; only the past and present can control the future.’ [However extensive this fallacious belief, and it is extensive, recidivisim of unlawful acts is paradoxically condemned rather than excused by orthodox society.] ‘Federalist duty’ (devised as legal springs to catch unwary democrats), was fallaciously administered officially in highest realms of colonial classical orthodoxy: Federalists, by fallaciously affirming causal Mechanism, irrationally displaced logical antecedent principles. ‘Legal springs’ deployed by mechanism act to conflate the noumenal influence in Rational Empiricism: influence which embraces human rights as being equal to life’s materialities; Rational Empiricists are ‘true’ democrats. Ideologies of deontological duty and teleological purpose, are diabolical poles of Heidegger’s cultural contest between “rationalism and irrationalism”: Mechanist duty divides society for to be exploitative, while teleological purpose is holistically aspiring. To contend that necessary principles block success, infer that irrationalism, as the asserted principle, logically intends to antecede the rational principle.29

‘True’ Causal Reality requires necessary Principles

unsurveyed frontiers of the American experiment, assigning exact metes and bounds beyond which it should not go. Like John Marshall and Joseph Story he was expert in devising legal springs to catch unwary democrats, and while the Jeffersonians were shouting over their victories at the polls, he was engaged in the strategic work of placing the Constitution under the narrow custodianship of the English law. An ardent Federalist and later an equally ardent Whig, he reveals in his precise thinking the intimate relations that everywhere exist between economics, politics, and legal principles. [Fallacious principle asserted by affirmation is Mechanism’s hallmark] Mercantilism fits the fallacious ‘overlord ideology,’ as was practiced by Whigs and Federalists. And as Mercantilism’s irrationally legal legitimation, such fallacy cannot be oversold. It represents a plethora of mechanized tenets about manmade unitary materialities as money, tariffs, taxes, . . ., that, of design, favor home spun industry. Colonials were particularly aware of England’s mercantilism practices. Mercantilism contends allot that classically, fallaciously, economists have asserted affirmatively as attributable to Adam Smith’s economic postulation: for instance, 30

“in the mercantile system, the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer” [money is wealth’s equal?]. In Smith’s view, however, wealth was the goods and services of production, money, the economic utility that aided wealth’s (goods and services) circulation to ‘all’: money hoards were treasures, not wealth. About English mercantilism, Benjamin Franklin was both great and prolific, expressing and doing what his deliberately ethical conscience dictated: forty seven years before Adam Smith adopted, and in ‘The Wealth of Nations,’ reaffirmed, Benjamin Franklin wrote about labor as the measure of value when he wrote this about mechanisms:31

Manufactures are founded in poverty. It is the number of poor without land in a country, and who must work for others at low wages

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

or starve, that enables undertakers to carry on a manufacture, and afford it cheap enough to prevent the importation of the same kind from abroad, and to bear the expense of its own exportation. In 1769, in his Positions to be Examined concerning National Wealth, Franklin wrote this:

There seem to be but three ways for a nation to acquire wealth. The first is by war, as the Romans did, in plundering their conquered neighbors. This is robbery. The second by commerce, which is generally cheating. The third by agriculture, the only honest way, wherein man receives a real increase of the seed thrown into the ground, in a kind of continual miracle, wrought by the hand of God in his favor. Parrington’s comments on mercantilism and Franklin continue:

“As a colonial, long familiar with the injustice of Navigation Laws, Boards of Trade, and other restrictions in favor of British tradesmen, Franklin agreed with Adam Smith on the principle of free trade; but with later developments of the laissez-faire school -- its fetish of the economic man and its iron law of wages 32 -- he would not have agreed. . . . In his later speculations he was rather the social philosopher than the economist, puzzled at the irrationality of society that chooses to make a pigsty of the world, instead of the garden that it might be if men would but use the sense that God has given them. ‘The happiness of individuals is evidently the ultimate end of political society,’ he believed, and a starvation wage-system was the surest way of destroying that happiness. In one of the most delightful letters he ever wrote, Franklin commented on the ways of men thus: ”It is wonderful how preposterously the affairs of the world are managed. Naturally one would imagine, that the interests of a few individuals should give way to general interest; but individuals manage their affairs with so much more application, industry, and address, than the public do theirs, that

‘True’ Causal Reality requires necessary Principles

general interest most commonly gives way to particular. We assemble parliaments and councils, to have the benefit of their collected wisdom; but we necessarily have, at the same time, the inconvenience of their collected passions, prejudices, and private interests. By the help of these, artful men over power their wisdom and dupe its possessors; and if we may judge by the acts, arrets, and edicts, all the world over, for regulating commerce, an assembly of great men is the greatest fool upon earth? “ Parrington also wrote this:33

The final test of every government Paine found in its concern for the public affairs or the public good; any government that does not make [these] its whole and sole object, is not a good government. . . . It is the injustice of government that creates armies to defend the earnings of injustice. 34 But every wise government will respect its limitations. As a child of the eighteenth century, Paine hated [Hobbes’] leviathan state as a monster created by a minority to serve the ends of tyranny.35 The political state he accepted as a present necessity, but he would not have its prestige magnified and the temptation to tyranny increased by the cult of nationalism. . . . The maturest elaboration of Paine’s political philosophy is found in “The Rights of Man.” This extraordinary work, the most influential English contribution to the revolutionary movement, was an examination of the English constitution in the light of what Paine held were the true source and ends of government. It is a brilliant reply to [Edmund] Burke, who rested his interpretation of the English Constitution on the legal ground of the common law of contract. Following the revolution in 1688, Burke had argued, the English people through their legal representatives, entered into a solemn contract, binding “themselves, their heirs, and posterity forever,” to certain express terms; and neither in law nor in equity were they, of whatever generation, free to change those terms except by the consent of both parties to the contract. This was an

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

elaboration of the theory of the Old Whigs, which derived government from a perpetual civil contract as opposed the radical doctrine of a revocable social contract; and in attacking it Paine allied himself with such thinkers as Price, Priestley, Franklin and Rousseau. He pointed out the absurdity of carrying over the law of private property into the high realm of political principle--to seek to impose the dead past upon the living sovereignty. If sovereignty inhered in the English people in 1688, it must inhere in the English people in 1793, unless it had been violently wrested from them; no parchment terms of another age can bind that sovereignty other than voluntarily. Over against Burke’s theory of a single, static contract, Paine set the doctrine of the reaffirmation of natural rights. Any generation--as the generation of 1866--is competent to deal with its affairs as it sees fit, but it cannot barter away the rights of those unborn; such a contract on the face of it is null and void. . . . Burke’s defense fares even worse when the argument is examined in the light of expediency. Illogical as the English system must appear to the political philosopher, can it plead the justification that it works; that it does well the things it is paid to do; that it makes the [public affairs or the public good, holistically] its main concern? The reply to such questions Paine believed, should be sought in the condition of the national economy; more particularly by an examination of the account books of the exchequer [i.e., the nation’s treasury]. The English people paid annually seventeen millions sterling for the maintenance of government, and what did they get in return? Nine millions of the total went to pay interest on old wars, which in the budget was known as the funded debt; of the remaining eight millions the larger part was spent in new wars and sinecure pensions; whereas the real needs of England--the true [public affairs or public good]--were shamelessly neglected. The English people got little for their money except new debt to justify

‘True’ Causal Reality requires necessary Principles

new taxes. The poor were even taxed for the benefit of the great. Thus my Lord Onslow, who was particularly zealous in the business of proscribing Paine as “the common enemy of us all,” drew four thousand pounds from the royal chest in sinecures, which made him “the principal pauper of the neighborhood, and occasioning a greater expense than the poor, the aged, and the infirm, for ten miles around.” Government on the hereditary principle of Burke did not appear to advantage in the light of such facts. Both in England and in America, Burke’s writings about government substantially contributed to traditional conservatism’s classical philosophy. About Adam Smith’s system of economy, Burke is listed as a ‘classical liberal’ with note that ‘traditional conservatism’ is particularly protective of business and markets of commerce: to allow them to regulate themselves (put the fox in charge of the henhouse, critics always observe).36 Parrington commented about the Whiggishly conservative American System of Political Economy:37

Horace Greeley and Henry Carey were only straws in the wind that during the Gilded Age was blowing the doctrine of paternalism about the land. A Colonel Sellers was to be found at every fireside talking the same blowsy doctrine. Infectious in their optimism, naive in their faith that something would be turned up for them by the government if they made known their wants, they were hoping for dollars to be put in their pockets by a generous administration at Washington. Congress had rich gifts to bestow -- in lands, tariffs, subsidies, favors of all sorts; and when influential citizens made their wishes known to the reigning statesmen, the sympathetic politicians were quick to turn the government into the fairy godmother the voters wanted it to be. A huge barbecue was spread to which all presumably were invited . . .. It was a splendid feast. If the waiters saw to it that the choicest portions were served to favored guests, they were not unmindful of their numerous homespun constituencies and they loudly proclaimed the fine democratic principle that what belongs to the people should

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

be enjoyed by the people -- not with petty bureaucratic restrictions, not as a social body, but as individuals, each free citizen using what came to hand for his own private ends, with no questions asked. . . . how differently rich and poor fared at the democratic feast, is suggested by the contrast between the Homestead Act and the Union Pacific land-grant . . . By the terms of the former the homesteader got his hundred and sixty acres at a price of $1.25 an acre; by the terms of the latter the promoters got a vast empire for nothing . . . In the tumultuous decades that followed there was not bargaining with corporations for the use of what the public gave; they took what they wanted and no impertinent questions were asked . . . There were hard headed men in the world of Beriah Sellers who knew how easy it was to overreach the simple, and it was they who got the most from the common pot. We may call them buccaneers if we choose, and speak of the great barbecue as a democratic debauch. But why single out a few, when all were drunk? . . . Whig politics gave America the Gilded Age. This political Whiggamore (as Schumperter wrote, ‘the way in which capitalism develops its propensities for growth’) drives the privatized economic growth of the American system of political economy. Capitalism’s propensities shamelessly favor privatized profits, as officially patronized by a paternal government that necessarily must ‘take from Paul to give to Peter’, the capitalists. As Parrington observed,38 Congress had rich gifts to bestow -- in lands, tariffs, subsidies, favors of all sorts. And government, for political contributions engaged the contest of auctioning legislative influence, and outright gifts: Political parties became the enterprises of government’s pork barrel paternalism? Whigs succeeded to metamorphose rational democracy into serving as the official agent of privatized profit taking from economic exploitations. Philosophically, democracy embraces both spiritual and material human aspects. What separates democracy from other political philosophies is its custodianship of human spirituality. When this is lost,

‘True’ Causal Reality requires necessary Principles

democracy is lost! Still, democracy coequally embraces life’s materiality. Therefore, democrats neither can nor should apologize for embracing equally Whiggish political paternalism. Democrats, not necessarily Party Democrats, have disdain for capitalism, communism and fascism’s ideological unitary materialism: which dogmatically assert that life’s materialities, are antecedent to spirituality. In fact, when democracy’s spiritual aspects are conflated to dogmatic Unitary Materialism, democracy is then not distinguishable from all other Unitary Materialism sympathetic philosophies. The pure philosophical argument, therefore, is about teleological wholeness that requires logical antecedent principles of reason and truth: natural principles are of either human side, spiritual or material, cannot be ignored, or denied as mechanistically invariably happens when government unequally grants paternalistic license to some. Following Lincoln’s death, Whigs of the GOP officially reasserted mercantilism’s irrationalities: The American System of Political Economy was installed. In the policy name of ‘internal improvements,’ as Parrington recorded, government became the ‘fairy godmother’ to business interests. 39

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

mongrel, without logical cohesion, and it seemed doomed to break up as the Whig Party had broken up and the Federalist Party had broken up. But fate was now on the side of the Whigs as it had not been earlier. The democratic forces had lost strength from the war, and democratic principles were in ill repute. The drift to centralization, the enormous development of capitalism, the spirit of exploitation, were prophetic of a changing temper that was preparing to exalt the doctrine of manifest destiny 40 which the Whig party stood sponsor for. The practical problem of the moment was to transform the mongrel Republican party into a strong cohesive instrument, and to accomplish that it was necessary to hold the loyalty of its Democratic voters amongst the farmers and working-classes whilst putting into effect its Whig program. Under normal conditions the thing would have been impossible, but the times were wrought up and blindly passionate and the politicians skillful [in words that Plato would use, ‘their truth -- if truth at all -- was of ‘opinion,’ not ‘reason’]. . . The rebellion of the Independent Republicans under Horace Greeley in 1872 was brought to nothing by the skillful use of Grant's military prestige, and the party passed definitely under the control of capitalism, and became such an instrument for exploitation as Henry Clay dreamed of but could not perfect. Under the nominal leadership of the easy-going Grant a loose rein was given to Whiggish ambitions and the Republican party became a political instrument worthy of the Gilded Age. Philosophically, our nation’s administration was returned to the Hobbesian view from which Locke’s rational democratic view had reacted: irrationalism was officially returned by this illogic: 41

post hoc, ergo propter hoc. ‘After this, therefore because of this.’ Strictly, the fallacy of inferring that one event is caused by another merely because it comes after it. More loosely, the fallacy

‘True’ Causal Reality requires necessary Principles

(characteristic of superstitious beliefs) of assuming too readily that an event that follows another is caused by it without considering factors such as counter-evidence or the possibility of a common cause. (Causality.) The name appears to derive from Aristotle’s Rhetoric (1401 29-34). Dr. Penelope Mackie As a pseudo principle of belief, determinist mechanism is common fallacious, paradoxical dogma. The dogmatic value predicates of belief, shuns logically rational metaphysical principles. And such irrationalism has become hateful calumnious conservative orthodoxy: that incidentally is true of Islam also. Confronting metaphysical evidences, humans choose between rationalism and irrationalism: Rationalists logically pursue truthful inferences by the ‘scientific method.’ Designing Brahminists irrationally assert dogmatic idealism, or they are sycophants that blindly follow the classical orthodox ‘dogmatic beliefs.’ In this, the critical thinking is left to the scientists and the philosophers whose inate interest is to ‘know.’ ' True Science, until logical coherence is reasonable, remains inconclusive. Dogma eschews and calumniously exploits this natural scientific enigmatic uncertainty. And, the appeal of absolutism is strong. Blindly following absolute ‘dogmatic beliefs’ is the popular alternative that abides as classical cultural orthodoxy (under religious banners and sponsorship, that include Christianity and Islam). If virtue exists in blindly following cultural dogma, it belongs to religious belief that universally teaches a form of ‘divine right’: ‘God tells you to follow me, for God has appointed me to lead you’? About such dogma, I suspect, prompted L. C. Allison, to write this:42

Man is given free will and his first conscious act is to make himself into God. [That is exactly what dogma is designed to do] Like truth, hope of religious virtue can be ‘true’ or ‘false.’

True hope is swift, and flies with swallow’s wings; kings it makes gods, and meaner creatures kings. Shakespeare

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

Religious hope converts fear into comfort and assurance.

We speak of hope; but is not hope only a more gentle name for fear? L. E. Landon And, hope can be medicine that cures.

Hope -- of all ills that men endure. The only cheap and universal cure; the captive’s freedom, and the sick man’s health, the lover’s victory, and the beggar’s wealth. Abraham Cowley We are never beneath hope, while above hell; nor above hope, while beneath heaven. The miserable hath no other medicine but only hope. Shakespeare On the ‘false’ side of hope,

The man who lives only by hope will die with despair. Italian Proverb Patrick Henry, in his Give me Liberty Address, said:43

It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, . . . Emily Dickinson captured in poetry the simple comforts of hope.

"Hope" is the thing with feathers-That perches in the soul-And sings the tune without the words-And never stops--at all-And sweetest--in the Gale--is heard-And sore must be the storm-That could abash the little Bird-That kept so many warm-I've heard it in the chillest land-And on the strangest Sea-Yet, never, in Extremity-It asked a crumb--of Me. Others also captured hope’s essence.

To ‘know’ is to logically distinguish what is ‘true’ from what is ‘false.’

The Worldly Hope men set their Hearts upon

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

Turns Ashes--or it prospers; and anon, Like Snow upon the Desert's dusty Face Lighting a little Hour or two--is gone.

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

If a principle is a ‘necessary’ something, the logical meaning of ‘necessary’ makes that principle something: Rubaiyat

What I admire in Columbus is not his having discovered a world, but his having gone to search for it on the faith of an opinion. [faith of opinion, rather than reason, aptly defines hope] anon

Some men see things as they are and say: why? I dream things as they never were and say: why not? R. F. Kennedy Deontology is the science of human duty. Teleology concerns St. Paul’s faith-based hope that reaches for reasoned coherent purposes:44

‘But faith is a Basis of things hoped for, a Conviction of things unseen’ [From an original Greek translation] Thought is of noumenon (Kant’s word-choice to distinguish things of mind and spirit) from which human perceptions of duty (deontology) or purpose (teleology) are distinguished: as when Socrates, in prison, said to Crito who had offered to help Socrates escape, ‘Leave me Crito, for I must follow God.’ This showed how far afield of Greek orthodox duty to the many gods of Greek mythology, Socrates’ teleological perception of his reasoned coherent truth of God, had become: truth with coherent end purposes rather than mere duty to Greek mythology? Socrates demonstrated his truth’s necessary principles: with teleological purposes that far transcended the dogmatic belief-based deontological duty. Humans’ free will allows them to embrace or reject ontologism Ontologism is intuitive communication, as intuition perceived when in the presence of another. Ontologism describes the intuitive knowledge of God, which knowledge is the source of all knowledge. In this intuitive sense, ontologism must be dogmatic, as Kant expressed in his Critique of Pure Reason: Principle that has no other proof than ‘true’ coherent logic, i.e., systemic necessity and coherence!

that cannot be denied because denial would entail contradiction of what already has been established. Unless a principle has systemic ‘coherence,’ it cannot be ‘necessary’ and is, therefore, falsely considered. If, therefore, the LOGOS of God is the supreme antecedent ontological principle, God’s LOGOS is axiomatically antecedent to all that is. The Song of Moses, and I John, provided testimony to this reasonable axiomatic nature of God. The Teleological Argument for the existence of God is both of human ontological reason and experience based.45 The Ontological Argument is ‘a priori’ reason-based.46 When by dogmatic belief, humans turn ontologism off, simply by denial, logical ‘a priori’ reasoning is turned off. Thereby a mechanist conservative Positivist might never engage pure ‘a priori’ thought: might discount altogether the Teleological Argument; and, because a Positivist believes dogma that annihilates, as unreal, ‘a priori’ thoughts, the Ontological Argument of God’s existence also fails for him? : does the rich man of Christ’s parable fit this observation? Christ recognized the ‘unknowing’ plight of mechanist conservatism-based deontology that had entrapped and prosecuted him, when He plead:

Forgive them, for they know not what they do. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Heb. 11:1 Positivist’s religion, like Abraham’s ‘faith,’ does not transcend hope. And as Kierkegaard observed: [Abraham] was not a thinker, he felt no need of getting beyond [his hope of] faith. Kierkegaard The teleology of faith was lost in translation. Teleology concerns St. Paul’s faith that reaches for reasonably coherent purposes:47

‘But faith is a Basis of things hoped for, a Conviction of things unseen’ [From an original Greek translation]

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

To take faith beyond hope, pure thought about metaphysics is essential and ‘a priori’ reasoning and syllogism must be engaged (ontologism must be invited and systemic coherence applied). To think about the substances and evidences of St. Paul’s definition of faith is to ponder the eternal, universal nature of things which are naturally teleological before any possible human experience entered in. And early Greeks, rather than Christians, gave order to teleological philosophy: Cosmology is the universe, Ontology [< Greek Ón, `ntos being + -logi -logy] the nature of reality (being). Greek (d©on, -ontos duty) makes Deontology the nature of duty.

We find mankind liberated from spooks and spirits, from lords and priests, by becoming mechanized. Once the universe was running like a clock, there was nothing for it but to fit us to a wheel in the works -perhaps a greater thing than a cog, but mechanical nevertheless. For us to be fit for this function, psychology had to subject us to mechanical controls. Or, as J. W. Miller said, we had first to lose our souls, then our minds; and finally, with the behaviorists, consciousness. Economic man is a prime example of this remarkable servomechanism.

Deontology [< Greek d©on, -ontos duty + English -logy] fails to emphasize the Greek’s accent [`ntos (being)]: science of duty or moral obligation is more often than not metamorphosed to manmade temporal duties. Whereas, in the pure sense, Ontology (including ontologism) is about pure ‘a priori’ noumenal reality: it is teleological!

Robert Heilbroner endorsing Brockway’s book, said this:

Logically, as principle, noumena, is naturally antecedent to phenomena: The provence of noumena is where answers to unanserable temporal questions are found (as, which came first, the chicken or the egg?). Still of the LOGOS of nature, the source of all noumena, intelligence, spirit or energy, Ontologism is the natural relationship, or communication, of man with his maker. St. John understood this metaphysics as the spiritual reality of his faith: in fact, he named nature’s Creator LOGOS. 48 He understood Ontology, Deontology and Teleology and the promise of an abiding noumenal companionship with God as predicated on a humans’ understanding of Ontologism: W. R. Inge’s,

‘Either the world shows a teleology or it does not,’ suggests: that to choose ‘mechanism’ shows unbelief in ‘teleology.’ Inge infers that: when deontologists choose mechanism, they have their intuitive (Plato’s pure thought) ontologism switch turned off and, their choice to say no, or deny the natural principles, make’s them unbelievers in the teleologies of God (St. John said that to not walk in the light of the truth of God, makes us liars). When humans fallaciously determine causal ‘mechanisms,’ they deny Teleology. (And they deny God) About the philosophy of mechanism, Brockway wrote this:49

“George Brockway is a master at demystifying the science whose

curse is not that it is dismal, but that it has become incomprehensible. In Brockway’s hands economics becomes entirely understandable, sometimes amusing, and often infuriating.” The book’s cover gives this summary:

Economic man, the imaginary monster from whose supposedly rational behavior the “laws” of contemporary economics are deduced, is selfishness incarnate [mechanist irrationalism incarnate]. He has brought us a long way, but, this multifaceted book suggests, he has gone about as far as he can go. If we do not dethrone him, our world (like the Pharaonic, Roman, Medieval, and Mandarin worlds) will slip into a long and bumpy decline. In support of this thesis, George Brockway shows how the principal assumptions of contemporary economics lead to an exaltation of ‘things’ -- the gross national product, the bottom line -over ‘human beings.’ When this balance is corrected, economics takes on a wholly new and more friendly aspect. The law of supply and demand is reformulated; saving and investment are redefined; production and speculation are seen in conflict, as are wages and interest rates (but not profits);the labor theory of value is supplanted

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

by the labor theory of right; ‘productivity’ is revealed as a questionbegging question; high interest rates [the mechanist “Bankers’ COLA”] are exposed as a prime cause of inflation; and mores, morals, and morale become important economic concerns. I had deliberately put Brockway’s book on the shelf until my own research was settled for writing this section’s final comments. Brockway’s references and examples about inflation, mercantilism and mechanism furnish critical information to all who would venture to improve the deontological mechanist Political Economy to achieve teleological constitutional purposes. I interpret ‘The End of Economic Man,’ to mean, the adoption of teleology to mitigate political economy’s classical deontology. And this can only be done by finding, then applying the natural antecedent principles that mitigate the paradoxical idealist deontologies of myriad mechanisms spawned by political economy. Teleology opposes (overcomes) mechanism’s flaws World Book Encycolpedia explained it this way:50

Mechanism is one of the two great philosophical theories of cause and effect in the universe. Opposed to the theory of mechanism is the theory of teleology. Any thing that grows and develops can be explained in two ways. Mechanism explains it from behind, in terms of its [material] origins. Teleology explains it from the front, in terms of the goal [noumenal purpose] it is seeking. Life forms are distinguished in this contrast: or, we should say intelligence of one sort or another has causal patterns that are unrelated to duties intrinsic of mechanism: inert v.s. organic. Hesiod (700s BC) had distinguished human intelligence from among the life forms, And Hesiod had cited, what is today called deontology, as aggravated by the temporal world’s paradoxical nomos (of Plato’s visible reality).51 . . . The word ‘nomos’ is as old as the epic poets, and seems

originally to have been used to denote the ways of behavior

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

characteristic of any group of living beings, whether men or wild beasts. Thus Hesiod uses it in ‘Works and Days:’ The Son of Cronos has ordained this ‘nomos’ for men. Fishes and beasts and winged fowl devour one another, for right is not in them; but to mankind he gave ‘right,’ which proves far the best (Evelyn-White’s translation). In later days ‘nomos’ was applied only to human ways of behavior; but it never lost its original meaning of custom, nor its association with justice. [Hesiod found nomos irrationally tyrannous] In Works and Days, Hesiod also wrote about the ‘fall of man,’ because of Pandora’s curiosities, which undoubtedly revealed the paradoxs.52

It describes the deterioration of the world through five stages: the Age of Gold; the Silver Age; the Bronze Age; the age of Heros, and the Age of Iron in which Hesiod liv[eHde. siod believed that his Age was last] Would man regress to lose the rational noumenal intelligence, which Evelyn White interpreted as ‘right’? In many ways and reasons, this question still puzzles to day. But Hesiod’s human distinction is critically important. Human ‘rights and responsibilities,’ ‘duties and purposes,’ either apply or they do not. Unless logically principled, paradoxs of manmade mechanist idealistic irrationalist designs are endemic to life: when logically beneficient principles are ignored, God is ignored! A critical lack of logically beneficent principles is evident, both organically and legally. Did the supreme intelligence, God, which created life in temporal environs, strategically conceive mechanisms’ paradoxs and entrapments: Which endemically are both irrationally fallacious and wrong? Deists, generally, express their lack of faith in this mechanist creative scenario! Mechanisms do not qualify as ‘necessary’ principle, and Hesiod’s nomos suggests what is wrong! : mechanisms are conceived to entrap beneficence rather than stand sponsor for its principles. Parrington captured evidence of this classical conservative conceived deontological duty, which contend that beneficent principles block ideological success, affirming instead materialist irrationalisms of their belief as necessity.53

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

Principles must not stand in the way of success Through the fierce scramble of rival politicians moved a scholarly figure who preserved to the last dignity and distinction of an earlier age. James Kent, whose long life and ripe legal learning were devoted to upholding what he conceived to be the ultimate principles of law and politics, was the chief political thinker of the transition days of New York. A disciple of Locke and Blackstone, remodeling seventeenth-century liberalism into eighteenth-century conservatism, he was concerned to erect the barriers of the Common Law about the unsurveyed frontiers of the American experiment, assigning exact metes and bounds beyond which it should not go. Like John Marshall and Joseph Story he was expert in devising legal springs to catch unwary democrats, and while the Jeffersonians were shouting over their victories at the polls, he was engaged in the strategic work of placing the Constitution under the narrow custodianship of the English law. An ardent Federalist and later an equally ardent Whig, he reveals in his precise thinking the intimate relations that everywhere exist between economics, politics, and legal principles. [Unitary materialist conservatism deliberately puts aside all rational logical reviews of its belief-based dogma: affirming irrational fallacy as principle is thereby Mechanism’s endemic hallmark] Only democracy (Rational Empiricism) holds noumenal reality temporally equal to phenomenal reality. It is the only logical rationally principled political form of organic order. And unless teleological principles are sought, and lived by, humans cannot know what is wrong. Worse, we are party to Allison’s suggestion when he introduced The Bible.54

Man is given free will and his first conscious act is to make himself into God. (His second act, when caught, is to blame someone else) [St. John, says in this we live a form of lying]55 We justify acquisitiveness by rationalizing idealist deontologies of our mechanist creations. And, otherwise, in acquisitive aggrandizements, we subscribe irrationalisms as Holmes’ glorious Epicurean Paradox:

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

‘give us the luxuries of life, and we will dispense with its necessaries.’ Oliver Wendell Holmes Because nomos-based paradoxs prolifrate with irrationalism, organic forms of mitigating irrationalism by rationalism is necessary for to redress life’s ‘necessities,’ i.e., to counter with organic systems that are based on ‘true’ antecedent principles. For instance, because conservative orthodoxy of the American System of Political Economy organically, mechanistically reward ‘property’ and ‘affluence,’ this official organic paternalism, which must ‘take,’ in order to ‘give’ paternalistically, must also, therefore, be the mechanist determining cause of impoverished classes in capitalism: Social Security is an example of ‘necessary’ beneficent social usage insurance that redresses the mechanism caused economic impoverishment: expressly of former workers that due to age are no longer as fitted to earn a paycheck in capitalist orthodoxy. Logical reason justifies the ‘necessity’ of Social Security. For to confirm the antecedent principles of Social Security, four situations are cited: to also confirm the contrast of rational teleology with irrational deontology. Situation one (Mechanisms’ Paradoxs that spring up to discriminate against privacy rights): credit card solicitations and fee-based offers to consolidate personal debts are unnecessary consequences of the licensed banking and finance industry’s mechanist deontologies. Both industries take advantage of their paternalist license to gain ‘profits’ from mechanism-based economic determinism in what G. P. Brockway dubbed ‘the banker’s COLA.’ This economic determinism affirms that political economy’s license, as granted to administer money’s accounting, which is the ‘standard of economic exchange’ utility, has because it can in the mechanist deontology, metamorphose into an equivalence to ‘owning’ a money hoard as treasure, it has and does do this. Money’s metamorphism originated with systemic assertions that money earned for exchanging goods and services was also ‘possessed, i.e., is equivalent to ‘owning’ the money earned. Adam Smith had apparently failed to convince us that wealth and money are not one and the same: to Smith, money is the nation’s common utility of ‘wealth’: goods and services produced and consumed by all. Without consuming goods and

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

services, money ‘owned’ to Smith is a hoarded treasure, and is not, therefore, intrinsic of a nation’s wealth.56

For the market system is not just a means of exchanging goods; ‘it is a mechanism for sustaining and maintaining an entire society.’ . . . It is not [Smith’s] aim to espouse the interests of any class. He is concerned with promoting the wealth of the entire nation. And wealth, to Adam Smith, consists of the goods that ‘all’ the people of society consume; note ‘all’-- this is a democratic, and hence radical, philosophy of wealth. Gone is the notion of gold, treasures, kingly hoards; gone the prerogatives of merchants or farmers or working guilds. We are in the modern world, where the flow of goods and services consumed by everyone constitutes the ultimate aim and end of economic life. [The contrast between a nation’s GNP profit as an exploitation of consumption (the working classes only means of subsiding), and Smith’s beneficent purpose to distribute goods and services to all, exposes organic deontology that Adam Smith neither had anticipated nor hypothisized.] To the wage-earner, ‘money’ is, by his subsistence needs, earned value for the exchange of goods and services. To the banker, ‘money’ is government’s fiat-based commodity, which it licensed to bankers for to store, rent out, and collect a rate of interest on (Brockway’s “banker’s COLA”). To organic government, ‘money’ is an authorized utility provision for the capitalist political economy’s endemic ubiquitousness: 57 providing a bonded national value for the free exchange of goods and services. And, with two thirds of our national economy, which is wageearner consumption related, and one third investment related to the capital side of economy, ‘money’ is the catalyst which plays a fundamentally divergent, i.e., paradoxical role. In the one instance, it represents governments ubiquitous constitutional organic intent, in the other it acts as the custodian for accumulated money hoards called capital. And when truck loads (literally $ trillions) of foreign U.S. money hoards and gold turn up at the boarder points in attempts to flee the conflict, as happened in the aftermath of our waging war with Iraq, should be cause to wonder about the

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

accounting and custody paradox of the nation’s ubiquitous fiat created utility which had metamorphosed into a commodity: what is the money trail (how much of it now feeds covert political intrigue)? 58 * * In terrorism, money plays greatly: is foreign terrorism controllable by putting tighter controls on money hoards? , Tighter rules for the exchange of currencies? Are all foreign exchanges of goods and services required to first register their domestic exchange of currencies? If they are not, they should be: all foreign exchanges must officially be registered because they all represent money hoarding rather than utilities. Commodity Exchanges representing contraband, drugs, oil and such require that official records be kept of the monetary transactions. Officially licensed acquisitive banking interests are targets of illegal collusion involved with money laundering and because of this are often caught in taking profits from the illegal money traffic for which they are licensed as the necessary legal function through which the illegal money sources. Without such licensed complicities, terrorism purchased in one country for delivery in another is surely more difficult to transport. Whether the Press is liberal or conservative, both questions and silence abound: little, if anything, changes! Until, when an Arab nation proposes to buy control of our nation’s waterway ports, should tell us something about the grand circular flow of American fiat currency hoarding that has resulted from our near total dependence on foreign produced oil. As with the truck loads of U.S. currency in Iraq, indicates that our hoarded fiat-currency in foreign hands has only the limited circulation outlet: which is either U.S. goods and services, the federal instruments of its deficit spending, or as the above proposal to buy administrative control of port authority. And, we suddenly become aware that the G. W. Bush administration has been financing our vastly growing national debt with foreign investments in our deficit spending? , Mostly from China. Brockway’s “banker’s COLA” is a substantial part of inflation’s legal side, but causal inflation’s illegal side is also very bad:59

Banks wash billions in dirty laundry Washington -- The failure of U.S. banks and regulators to track transactions with foreign banks enables criminals to route billions of

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

dollars from drug sales, internet gambling, tax evasion or other illegal activities into the United States each year, a new Senate subcommittee report concludes. Although regulators have prodded U.S. banks in recent years to bolster their efforts to control money laundering through individual accounts, the Senate permanent subcommittee on investigations found banks an regulators have been lax in applying similar standards to correspondent banking, in which foreign banks use U.S. banks to perform wire transfers and other transactions. The subcommittee’s report, which concludes a year long investigation, will be made public today. Regulators and bankers familiar with the inquiry say it’s the first comprehensive look at this aspect of banking and how it facilitates money laundering. “Inattention and disinterest by U.S. banks in screening the foreign banks they take in as clients have allowed rogue foreign banks and their criminal clients to carry on money laundering and other criminal activity in the United States and to benefit from the protections afforded by the safety and soundness of the U.S. banking industry,” said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the subcommittee. The subcommittee launched its investigation after a Russian money-laundering scandal erupted at Bank of New York 18 months ago. It examined a number of giant, well known banks, including Bank of America, Citygroup, J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. And First Union. . . . Money laundering, which the Clinton administration declared a national security threat, is the act of concealing the source of funds obtained from an illegal activity. An estimated $1 trillion is laundered each year -- about half of it, or $500 billion , through the United States, according to the rep[Boyrto. t.h.erwise legal banking of course!] Since the ‘iron cage’ of wage-earned money is controlled by payroll accounting and individual wage-earner checking accounts the nation’s legal

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

inflationary pressures stem mostly now from interest charged of consumer loans, stock and futures investments, and foreign exchanges. Licenced paternalism’s inflation is, therefore, government’s problem, the primary burden of which rests on wage-earned consumption. Wage-earning, however, is not causally related to inflation from governments paternalist grants and licensing. Inflation stemming from stocks and futures markets is directly beneficial to the investors, whose money hoards also are at risk to economic loss as well as usual gains. When SS contribution taxes are paid, the identification numbers assigned for administrative purposes, are often used by banking and others. This assigned number identifies individuals and their financial transactions. When applying for a mortgage, a loan, an auto or marriage license, this personal identification is required. But frauds from personal identity theft and counterfeiting, has caused government and legal business to protect individual privacy and stop identity theft frauds from occurring. Laws now require businesses to not only respect each individual’s right to privacy, but are now responsible for protecting it. Still, diabolically, business interests now assert that licensing gave them rights to use personal identities for maintaining ‘black lists’ and such, for protecting business interests. And while Privacy Policies make businesses fiducially responsible for individuals’ private information entrusted to them, each licensed corporate mechanisms,’ as are legally licensed has contractual tentacles that reach almost everywhere and are considered as being legally proprietary, which is the diabolical antecedent to each individual’s privacy rights. Individual financial information is anything but a personally, private right (The American Political Economy System is now a legally interconnected mechanist Leviathan): is certainly not a utility as money, personal information or identity, which are not for misuse, sale, exchange, or sharing. Regardless, constitutional personal rights protected by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights are routinely, politically and legally compromised by government licensed, organic business practices.

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

Aping commonly prosecuted cases in courts of law, businesses have incorporated mechanistically and preemptively to be their own court, acting first to discriminate by isolating who is punishable. * * As, when MSNBC and CNBC fired Don Imus (his talk show) in April of 2007 for a slanderous comment about a girls college sports team, they acted as both judge and jury in the matter: he was never legally indicted or convicted; that he on air personally apologized for the incident and all team members forgave him had no effect in the matter. Financial businesses seeking the highest possible profits from money they loaned, despite the security pledged, take note and advantage of personal financial adversities. This preemptive discriminatory personal information is not a paternal grant of business license and should not be allowed? : Still, licensed economic mechanisms are allowed to enforce self serving deontological duties onto personal identities that are private? Sadly, legalized deontology does not offer beneficient answers. About teleology as should apply to the administrations of law, to fulfill a hollow semblance of beneficience, words of the Lord’s Prayer and an Emerson quote come to mind:

Lead us not into temptation (forgive us as we forgive) . . . , and That which we each all the while do . . .. Civil authorities solicit and receive generous political donations for licensing civil corruption but shun responsibility for deontological dutybased prosecutions by mechanist laws ($6 million in political donations by the tobacco industry influenced a $50 million tax reduction; similar generous political donations to local political offices buy substantial influence there?): ‘For profit’ businesses (tobacco, drugs, liquor, gambling, prostitution, usury-based financial services, . . .) thrive and generously contribute to candidates for local government offices. Laws originate and otherwise are administered by these office-holders. And ‘sinners,’ so called, as are ‘caught’ by the prosecutorial mechanisms, are adjudged by the nomos-jaded authorities that either excuse their own acts or enjoy paternalist granted immunity from the effects of law.

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

And, individually we are concerned only when we ourselves stand accused: until then, we either trust that laws are constitutional and teleologically ethical, or we take advantage whenever we can to gain personal advantages. And, always, we are rudely enlightened when entrapped ourselves by the legal deontological duty-based mechanisms. We disdain the realists who are skeptical. And mostly realists also are also duty-based. ‘To err is human, to forgive divine’: ‘The deadliest sin,’ said Carlyle, ‘is no consciousness of sin.’ In contrast, Jessica Williams, despaired by having driven the car that killed teenagers that were where civil authorities had put them, bunched up, for garbage detail, expressed that her life was dedicated to those who lost theirs that day. Civil authorities were not prosecuted, and were silent on why the youngsters were there. Civil authorities, in this, represent Carlyle’s deadliest sin. Despite the Constitution, laws in America are mostly formulated to serve the deontological mechanisms (witness Parrington’s account of spiteful Federalist deontology ‘to devise legal springs’ to entrap democrats and their constitutional teleologies).60

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

English law. An ardent Federalist and later an equally ardent Whig, he reveals in his precise thinking the intimate relations that everywhere exis[tAblel t‘w faelelancieocuosnporm incicipsl,eps’oslihtoicusld , abnedunletigeadlmpercihnacnipislteicsa. lly] Paradoxical entrapments ensnare many who by processes of indictment are caught in the ever expanding litany of legal mechanisms: Many of society’s prescribed pill takers would test positive for a controlled substance in their blood, but until prosecutors are given a reason to indict, they are ‘good’ citizens; similarly, many drink, smoke, gamble, or flirt with smut. But legally entrapped, then prosecuted, freedom is no longer their inalienable right (as happened with public disclosure that William Bennett, the noted moralist, was a gambling addict that had lost $ millions). ‘Sinners’ have not changed. They act and do the same day in and day out. But when caught, betrayed, or indicted, selectively rather than consistently, they are prosecuted. Indeed, the whole of society is implicated in life’s paradoxs and because at times we fail to ‘walk the line’ of virtue and principle, we all commit ‘sins’ if not crime: We are ‘tempters’ and ‘sinners,’ all! St. Paul candidly admitted this:61

For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that I do.

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

Virtues or teleological principles have only a narrowing mean existence in the middle range or spectrum of paradoxical behavior. And when justice fails to espouse beneficent teleology (to without deontological bias consider ‘innocence’ until guilt has been proven, for instance, and when guilt is legally proven and forgiveness is beneficial to society, the legal penalty is mittigated), however, justice as the dutiful agent of deontological mechanism, is, therefore, an accomplice, if not itself, sinful or criminal: surely is not an ally to Christ’s admonition as made to those ready to stone the woman caught in adultery:

‘those without sin, should throw the stones’ : was the teleologic principle of this admonition? Dutiful prosecution, which has become far too creative with mechanist entrapments and jurists armed with retributive ethics and, unfortunately, effects of mechanism-based, but legalized irrationalism has made‘ legal penalties and imprisonments exclusively of unitary materialist nomos (teleologically, ‘imprisonment’ is a false decision whenever a person, posing no threat to society, is incarcerated *). That our prisons are now so over crowded, that older lesser penalties must be excused, is evidence that society is officially irrational, i.e., of unitary materialist belief, that is deontological in nature, rather than beneficial.

And maybe worse than those indicted, are the deontological duty-based concupiscent sins of unholy sanctimony authoritatively feigned: pride, arrogance, conceit: indigenous of caste, fraternity, clubs, gangs, politics, . . . , sinful undercurrents, that also embroil students in pursuit of knowledge, where paradoxs also thrive: the common value predicates of sin are both mechanist and retributive in nature: where ‘snitches,’ ‘moles,’ and entrapments are employed for to avert civic disasters. The hypocrisies of mechanisms blur consistently virtuous principle teleologies.

About this, on Chris Mathew’s Hardball, June 26, 2007, Ann Coulter was asked her reaction to Cristopher Hitchens recent atheistic statement that religion was responsible for the paradoxical circumstance of cultural society (my crude interpretation): her answer blithely shifted this responsibility onto God, the Creator of all, which answer confirmed to me that Coulter’s belief is of the irrational unitary materialist religious form: which variation of belief is very close to Hitchens’ belief denial. An athiest of great logical distinction said this about materialist belief:

In Nevada, for instance, not paying a gambling marker, then when caught in a traffic violation, can land you in jail. Politics there has made civil authority the collector of gambling debts, which are electronically flagged as a violation of law calling for an arrest and prosecutorial procedure.

If we imagine a world of mere matter, there would be no room for falsehood in such a world, and although it would contain what may be called facts, it would not contain any truth, in the sense in which truths are things of the same kind as falsehoods. In fact, truth and falsehood are properties of beliefs and statements: hence a world of mere matter, since it

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

would contain no beliefs of statements, would also contain not truth or falsehood. Bertrand Russell * The cozy relationship between government and commerce, called Political Economy, is undeniable; in the value predicates wreckage of this relationship is where Roger Williams’ theory of state, as a compact was found. Clearly, compact theory was foremost in the minds of Colonials when, only after the Bill of Rights was promised, they ratified the Constitution. When sifting through the materialist wreckage hoping to find answers to subdue increasing amorality (as kids intentionally shooting kids), we should constantly remind ourselves of the radically pure moral value predicates which Roger William’s natural-law-based theory provided to American colonial culture: don’t we now prosecute ‘Martha Stewarts’ while $billions of securities fraud is not prosecuted? 62

The state is society organized, government is the state functioning -- it is the political machinery devised by the sovereign people to effect definite ends. And since the single end and purpose for which the body of citizens erect the state is the furtherance of the communal well-being, the government becomes a convenient instrument to serve the common weal, responsible to the sovereign people and strictly limited by the terms of the social agreement. . . . The state, then, is society working consciously through experience and reason, to secure for the individual citizen the largest measure of freedom and well-being. It is armed with a potential power of coercion, but only to secure justice. . . . But if sovereignty inheres in the majority will [which now is overpowered by corporate treasure], what securities remain for the individual and minority rights? William’s reasoned, Society (and not standing laws) is the constitutional organum: our Constitution is effected only by consented individual sovereignty and not by legislation, administration or legal reviews of law.

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

The government paternalism to business and the reciprocal control of government by business, i.e., The American System of Political Economy, has by Roger William’s definition, evolved, and by mechanization now is the most dominant political ‘state’ of the United States. And like the fictions rationalized to support it, deontologists of the Federalist-Whigg genre refuse to acknowledge the teleology (the state is society organized, government the state functioning -- it is the political machinery devised by the sovereign people to effect definite ends). Morally ‘bankrupted,’ our elected deontologist representatives affirmed Hamilton’s fallacious unitary materialist property-based political prescription for suffrage, and thereby carpetbagged mercantilism and materialism’s return to America, from which sixteenth century America reacted, as Parrington observed.63 Prime interest rates are made available only to preferred borrowers: a form of economic discrimination, which must encroach on human privacy rights. And the low initial mechanist range of interest rates has expanded greatly since the high interest rates of the 1980s: making usury a norm for those that must borrow in order to subsist. This deontology is naturally paradoxical and it embroils human rights. Privacy infringements: during April 2001 my insurance company sent this explanation of its new Privacy Policy:

A new federal law permits banks, investment companies, and insurance companies to provide financial services. This same law requires [that we] share in writing our attached Notice of Privacy policy. This federal law does not apply to our efforts to market products or services to you . . .. The Policy included these provisions:

• We do not sell customer information. • We do not provide customer information to persons or organizations outside our family of companies. • We contractually require any person or organization providing products or services to customers on our behalf to protect the confidentiality of company information.

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

• We do not share customer medical information with anyone within the family of companies, unless you expressly authorize it, or unless your insurance policy contract with us permits us. [What medical information should be in the underwriting files of a company that insures property? : whether or not the company also offers medical insurance?] • We afford prospective and former customers the same protections as existing customers with respect to the use of personal information. Until recently, insurance officially was held separate from banking. Banking and Insurance were then considered the twin pillars of financial services. With the new ‘financial services’ concept, banks are now allowed to own and operate insurance companies. And, reciprocally, insurance companies are now allowed to own and operate banks. For a half century or more, Congressman Wright Patman, alone it seemed, opposed and held this organic economic merger at bay. ‘Because,’ he maintained, that ‘separately they were huge but together they posed unhealthy behemoth economic control’ of human identities and inalienable rights. Privacy issues also embroil in scientific advances to understand the human genetic makeup. Political economy’s organic entities conceptually must discriminate necessarily in such advances (Parrington observed that the paradoxical ‘fly in Whiggish honey’ was political economy’s proclivity to paternalistically give to some by taking from others): a state or nation’s economy is a holistic concept. It includes all, not some or a preferred some! However, political economy’s mechanisms were designed with favor to some. Therefore, to discriminate, they seek private information on which to do this. Responsibilities to respect privacy rights have increased exponentially, making privacy a far more important issue as government politically loosens its regulatory responsibility with interconnected private sector business mechanisms: for instance, legal complaints directed to MSN are responded to by Dun & Bradstreet, correspondence to Smith Barney is responded to by Citibank, the real estate business of the largest builder of

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

homes (Pardee), in matters of mortgage loans, is interrelated with Wells Fargo’s banking. The credit bureau reporting mechanisms installed to serve the financial service companies are designed to enforce the mechanisms own brand of justice: for instance, credit bureaus adjudge collected reports as legal facts, without legally required due processes. The advances in electronic and wireless media require far stricter enforcements of privacy laws. As paradoxs of this convergence are considered, principles that mitigate the irrational effects on those, whose rights are impugned are a fresh critically important democratic issue. And when rational principles are considered, each mechanism’s lack in teleological purposes must be considered: licensed public utilities, as Banking and Insurance, must apply holistically to all: because both extraordinarily characterize ‘the public interest.’ Therefore, unless privacy issues prevail over fallaciously affirmed and hierarchically mechanized private business duties (for which licensed dogmatic organic duties are unsuited), the ranks of society’s discriminated class must continually get larger. And constitutional ‘minority rights’ issues are routinely politically neglected by the growing lack of common interest that is due to the Epicurean nature of orthodox irrationalism:

‘give us the luxuries of life, and we will dispense with its necessaries.’ Oliver Wendell Holmes What government edict or policy will ever protect ‘minority human rights’ from the licensed politically affirmed deontologies of our legalized fictitious business leviathan: organic fictional mechanisms that organically are fallaciously licensed to conduct economy’s extra private affairs? For the fiducial management of risk, the Financial Services Industry needs critical customer information. But the Financial Services Industry wants more than rightfully they should be licensed for to discriminate. Instead of consolidating to discriminate and thereby more greatly compromise individual rights, Roger Williams ‘social usage’ (mutual reinsurance) is available to mitigate the ill effects of all organic forms of financial business. Organic rejection of this efficient option is because the deontological acquisitive mentality prefers to blame irrationally by installing reporting mechanisms for to tabulate adverse personal information in order

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

to justify service fees and usury rates of interest, which will return greater profits to them. Causes of repayment lateness and delinquencies -- as losing employment, getting ill, . . . , that at times, more often now it seems, quite naturally befalls humans -- is summarily excused as collateral personal responsibility, which legally has usually not been causally linked to business: so which has sovereign antecedence business or humans? The deontological value predicates of mechanisms designed to collect adverse consumer reports electronically, are also irrationally amoral, and truthfully are of ‘false’ value: the effected humans must monitor these reports and pay fees for the service to purge errors and mitigating circumstances. This fact, also denies business’ causal responsibility, which had ordered this service to business creation. Irrationally, with privacy rights, only consumers are held responsible and must pay to monitor and purge inaccurate and fraudulent reports of record, or live with them as they often erroneously are reported. Like lawyers, who are keenly aware of legal entrapments in real property laws that eventually will occur when unawares individuals needing mortgages are confronted by a lien filed against their property. Individuals are then are coerced either to pay off the liens so to clear the record that should not have occurred excepting that legal favor was given to lawyers that wish to covertly rather than overtly use the law. (An interesting study that has never been made involves the number and cost involved with covert law that overtly would never have been filed.) Recently, identity fraud that emanated from financial institutions’ reporting mechanisms, had withdrawn $billions from reported individuals’ bank accounts:. ‘insider fraud,’ like a staph disease in hospitals, had corrupted fiducial integrity of reporting mechanisms. And because of this incidental spreading of privacy responsibility, reporting mechanisms should be closed for to preserve individual privacy. Insurance companies have, for years, wrestled with the fact of underwriting risks that, when extreme losses had occurred, they could not pay the loss claims from insurance funds (for instance, as Katrina has shown, that all private insurance failed miserably to perform as contractually agreed). Potentially, catastrophic losses can and do bankrupt insurance

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

companies. Insurers have partially solved this dilemma without putting any burden onto the consumers of insurance: Their solution was to reinsure the portions of risk that potentially threatened business solvency. This ‘social usage’ business principle is mentioned to suggest that the same non intrusive procedure is available to the Financial Services Industry, thereby replacing the onerously burdensome antitrust busting centralized reporting that has led to myriad law suits, and potentially must lead to eventual expensive class actions. Financial Services is critically important as a utility service to society: Financial Services must, therefore, be regulated for society’s benefit, rather than, as now has been metamorphosed to, the Financial Services benefit. Government’s licensing and reciprocal regulatory responsibility is accountable for this irrational transmutation. situation two: federal education grants In May 2001, Headline News disclosed that the G. W. Bush’ Administration acted to more strictly apply the 1998 law regarding education grants: A question on the application form asked whether or not the applicant had been convicted of a drug charge. If they had, they were not eligible for the grant. During 1999 the Clinton Administration had overlooked applications that ignored this question. The Bush administration’s more strict enforcement then canceled many grants: denying education grants to the applicants. In the news, November 2006, there were now fewer college graduates. And, the growing ranks of illegal imegres were glad to fill the low end wageearning employments. situation three: the $ 1.35 trillion revenue tax reduction Bill approved by the Senate in May 2001 provides another example of political paradox, which levies duty without principle, deontology without teleology. While pondering to comprehend the effects of this tax proposal, my wife handed me Readers Digest’s May issue to enjoy with her this humor that had caused both of us to laugh aloud: and this humorous quip provided situation four. The quip was this:

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

One day my wife and I came home to find a message from a friend of hers on our phone machine. She said she had applied for a job and needed a character reference -- basically someone to verify she was honest and trustworthy -- and had given the interviewer my wife’s name. . . . Also, she said. There was a form for my wife to sign. “But I couldn’t find you,” the friend concluded, “so I forged your signature.” This quip dramatized the practical difference between deontology and teleology. J. S. Mill had stated teleology’s practical utilitarianism: The greatest good of the greatest number should be the purpose of human conduct (dictionary, 2153). 64

Mill defends utilitarianism, a form of teleological ethics [for instance, Kant’s categorical imperative ' ], against more rule bound deontological systems. ‘Teleology’ is from the Greek ‘telos’ which means ‘end’ or ‘goal.’ That is, the standard of right or wrong action for the teleologists is the comparative consequences of the available actions. That act is right which produces the best consequences. Whereas the deontologist is concerned only with the rightness of the act itself, the teleologist assert that there is no such thing as an act having intrinsic worth. While there is something intrinsically bad with lying for the deontologist, the only thing wrong with lying for the teleologist is the bad consequences it produces. If you can reasonably calculate that a lie will do even slightly more good than telling the truth, you have an obligation to lie. Mill’s definition of teleology has found no appeal with deontologists, whose interest is in the immediate performance of deontological duties and results. The four cited situations can be sorted into categories, as to serving teleological ‘purpose’ or mechanist deontological ‘duty.’

To act as you would will others in the same situation to act.

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

Teleology always adds mitigating principle to empirical paradox, which exists only on the deontological range or spectrum: deontological duty is always produced by fallacious ideological dogmatic belief that is affirmed as principle, therefore, logically is ‘false,’ and fails to impress responsibly of necessity onto deontologists thoughts and actions. Ann Coulter’s high level of intelligence provides a prime example of those who without conscience, enjoy castigating necessary logical rationality, and represents her hate as being consistent with her convenient religious belief: her unitary materialist Hobbism belief. is Federalist dogmatic! (President Reagan’s Teflon nature and President G. W. Bush’s justification of preemptive war remind of such fallacious deontological affirmations.) Pausing now to distinguish teleology Abiding teleology for ‘situation one' (Paradox that discriminates against privacy rights) founders because a deontological persuaded Congress’ has failed to fulfill its constitutional role to provide for specified teleological, constitutional responsibility. Deontological placebos as the song ‘America, the Beautiful’ expresses hope but fails to inspire resolve to satisfy constitutional teleology (holistic purposes).

‘America, God shed his grace on thee, And crown thy good with brotherhood from Sea to shining Sea’ Sends shivers of patriotism that make one feel good but in voids of unfulfilled constitutional responsibilities remain to appal rationality. Roger Sherman’s ‘A Caveat Against Injustice’ is on my desk reminding of myriad evil ideological deontologies allowed by the fluctuating values of our Exchange Mediums. Sherman thought he had afforded that only non fluctuating value standards were constitutional: the specific charge to Congress is contained in Article I Section 8:

. . . to coin money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the standards of weights and measures. To satisfy this charge, Congress must find and provide teleological principle that mitigates the myriad fluctuating Financial Services’ paradoxs: When the Fed. determines a discount rate of interest, a narrow range of legally

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

enforced interest rates must eliminate corrupt gauging that is exercised in the name of competitive private business as licensed by government. Now that banking and insurance industries are integrated. All financial service businesses can avail reinsurance to insure their financial results. Bankruptcies represent a greater amorality problem that not necessarily is only a consumer problem. Nefarious business practices must also account, particularly since the practices of Enron and WorldCom are now shown as common business practice. Anyway, business loss patterns due to personal bankruptcies are statistically stable enough to make reinsurance a rational solution. And don’t ever sell business intel short on smarts: my guess is that reinsurance already applies to business loses due to customer failures: at 2% of the business portfolio, the reinsurance cost is nominal and what government allowes them to charge customers beyond this represents tyrannous breaches of public trust [G. P. Brockway named government’s paternal permissive interest rates’ license the bankers’ COLA, for to specify it as inflation’s greatest source]: Congress and businesses’ lack of teleology are to blame for heaping rationalized mechanist deontological duties and service fees onto wage-earners whose mechanist political economy duty it is to borrow for to consume to subsist. Competitive Financial Service should be more concerned with its quality of service, than with variable high rates excused by credit reports by a cabalist business association as based on performance reports collected and adjudged by the business association, which sans individual sovereign consent, in fact, encroaches on government’s consented authority and should itself, in each instance of assigning an evaluation, be subjected to the due process provision of justice. As water naturally flows in channels of least resistance, credit reports have found a popular political following, particularly by licensed insurers that persue deontological Leviathan duty like authority, as now commonly shows in government mandated auto insurance. Despite confidentiality laws, more auto insurers now use credit reports to charge increased premiums. Akin to unconstitutional ‘redlining’ practice, a recent news article reported that 90 percent of auto insurers nationwide engage in this illegal rate setting practice. 65 So despite their confidentiality notices,

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

Banks, Finance companies, and Insurers (with their agents), now have online access to credit reports that violate individual customer privacy. So, as to public purpose, which is teleological, where are the public’ defenders, Insurance Commissioners, for instance? Why the isolatation from privacy issues? : are they aligned with the deontological foxes of government license, ‘together in the henhouse’? About ‘situation two’ (federal education grants) If the holistic teleology, for the ‘good’ or beneficence of society, is to educate everyone with a capability to learn, then deontologies to mechanistically sort out drug users act to favor the economically privileged of political hierarchy, as mercantilism also does. The situation mentioned, cited a young lady stopped for a traffic violation and the car she was driving was then randomly searched. A heroine pipe she said she knew nothing about was found and she was ticketed on a drug charge. She was honest when answering the application’s question. In results of her honesty, she lost her education grant. What message is registered here? Surely, by denying the grant, neither ‘being truthful’ is reinforced, nor is society bettered by having not educating her, even if as a drug user? And situation three (the $1.35 trillion tax return bill). The American System of Political Economy’s deontological politics has divided society into economic castes, for instance, on which this tax return was based. Hobbesian, which is Machiavellian, political deontology’s effectiveness was confirmed. The ‘greed’ of the paternal mechanism favored segment, which qualified by their high income, showed in the support for the tax return. But where is teleology, the holistic public ‘good’ or beneficence, found in this? : and where is constitutional responsibility to balance government’s receipts with expenditures? We must know what results will be, but, as the Epicurean Paradox had cited, do we care about this fiscal responsibility? And about the political opprobrium of returned taxes to those without need, for how long and what holistic benefit, will the returned taxes last? : will prescription drug costs for the elderly be abated? , Or the uninsured’s medical costs, or the increasing gasoline price be abated?

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

Does not this the deontological politics remind of politics, which in 1984 [short years following the Carter administrations SS review (in ‘78) which declared SS sound for the forseeable future] had clamored for increasing SS contribution taxation to provide SS surplus funds because, it was claimed, SS was bankrupt? : and since has systemically spent these SS surplus funds as general revenue. No answers are given as for accumulating funding, which was legislated to pay for future SS benefits. As Congress routinely spends the SS surplus as general revenue, who can honestly claim that SS contributions differ from general revenue taxes? And, who are the dupes of this systemic tax fraud? : has politics now proved J. S. Mill’s rational ownership principle, as regards government’s unfunded IOUs to SS tax payers and retirees? 66

But . . . the laws of economics have nothing to do with distribution. Once we have produced wealth [As with Adam Smith’s concept of wealth, Mill also concieves of wealth as goods and services produced] as best we can, we can do with it as we like. “The things once there,” says Mill, “mankind, individually or collectively, can do with them as they please, and on whatever terms. . . . Even what a person has produced by his individual toil, unaided by anyone, he cannot keep, unless by the permission of society. Not only can society take it from him, but individuals could and would take it from him, if society . . . did not . . . employ and pay people for the purpose of preventing him from being disturbed in [his] possession. The distribution of wealth, therefore, depends on the laws and customs of society. [Government as consented, can, without conscience, reprise, or need, take from ‘Paul’ to give to ‘Peter,’ for to ‘grow’ economy, and otherwise retake from ‘Peter’ for to restore ‘Paul,’ as regards life’s causal need: subsistence, health care, etc.] As Kant had reasoned, Politics more easily can summons public support for deontological idealiam, although systemically society’s noumenal ‘birthright’ is then replaced by unitary materialist ‘pottage.’ Teleological proposals, as surplus funding for future SS benefits, is far less popular in any immediate sense and can only hope to gain governments noumenal promise,

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

as a treaty of sorts, backed by the government’s accounting of IOUs along with compounding interest to eventually provide funds for SS benefits. Why, you might ask is this so? : money is a utility created by government to ease the exchange wealth, as defined by Smith and Mill. But, mostly, no ‘good’ fiducial (safe) reality exists, for which to invest the accumulating surplus contributions of SS. (In 2000) this accounted debt to SS reached to more than $3 trillion and by 2010 is projected to reach past $10 trillion. And, how does this huge amount, which was spent as general revenue, relate to the nation’s accumulating national deficit? :The Clinton Administration had endeavored to reduce dependence on foreign investments in the federal deficit, by replacing foreign investments with actual SS surplus contributions, which unique teleological policy has not otherwise occurred, particularly by deontological politics. A politically run government is vulnerable to political raiding on future society’s real obligations by a mortgaging process, which acts to defers debt for future generations to repay, even as monarchical government is vulnerable to raiding by the Monarch and his cronies, or as privileged only to a monarchical class, and particularly by means of the mechanist deontologically caused inflation endemism, which also is inherent to the U.S. political economy. The G. W. Bush Administration’s 2001Tax Bill, while appearing as successful deontology, has effectively aborted the intended bipartisan teleology of the 1984 SS Tax law. ' Idealist political deontologists openly eschew Mill’s economic analysis, and still they reinforce, by the mechanism caused experience, his truth: they enjoy the causal means of making the nation’s goods’-based wealth into their own private treasures. Parrington cited this FederalistWhig affinity of ‘denying antecedents’ and ‘affirming consequents’:67

Maybe President Bush’s advocacy for his 2001 tax return, “it’s your money!”, represents his greatest political irrationalism? : Money created by government, for the utility of exchanging goods and services, teleologically, is the whole of society’s that had authorized the government to create it.

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

Massachusetts . . . property interests were as secure as any old Federalist could have wished. Gentlemen of principle and property were still in control of the state; and if less emphasis was laid on principle [physis] and more on property [nomos] -- if less regard seemed to be paid to gentlemen of breeding and manners, and more to assertive self-seeking -- business was no less secure than in the good old days, and its profits were greater. . . . Provided of course that the Constitution should follow population and safeguard business interests against . . .the menace of particularism Situation four: Readers Digest May issue’s humorous quip, requires no explanation. Teleologists excuse the forgery as ‘power of attorney’ reasonably assumed. Deontologists contend that a criminal act was committed. But where are the damages? Should character be a concern, the employer could follow up with the friend whose name was forged. As Bill Leer observed of the officiousness and bureaucratic deontology tendencies which had invaded his business organization: he said this: “If I were now to apply for a job here, I could not qualify.” To overcome present bureaucratic officiousness, it now takes ‘gutspa’ and creative, often collusion, and embellished qualifications to get hired. This applicant was teleological in her approach of an irrational situation. The Practicality of teleological ethics was emphasized, humorously. Pausing to compare teleology to specified deontology now ends. ...

Ignorance gives a sort of eternity to prejudice, and perpetuity to error. Robert Hall Human illusion, which Hall calls ignorance, has a compelling influence on politics: both illusion and belief represent ‘contingent’ forms of truth that often paradoxically have both ‘true’ and ‘false’ truth value. And both forms irrationally are popular in temporal life. Therefore, they are of life’s reality, but paradoxically. About which Eldredge Cleaver observed this: If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. As Plato reasoned, both visual forms are truth-based, but the predicate-truthvalue can be both ‘true’ and ‘false.’ When the assertion “it is ‘true,” is

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

made, for instance, this assertion intends to say that pure necessary antecedent meanings have been distinguished from the commonly impure understandings, which mostly bear a mixture of ‘true-false’ truth values. However, Knowledge must be necessary, Plato reasoned! In this instance, Truth-based, means to say that its predicate truth-value is purely ‘true.’ Unfortunately, what is commonly believed as knowledge, when carefully examined, often is impure and partly ‘false’ (As, Descartes’ ‘truthful’ philosophical example portrayed *) * Rene Descartes explained his experience with transcending to necessary truth. And in doing this he described the depths to which he went to find reasonable bedrock in temporal life, i.e, necessary principles on which to found his necessary truths. I suspect that it was this philosophical foundation, which gained for him this just recognition: ‘the father of modern philosophy.’ Descartes wrote this:68

Several years have now passed since I first realized how many were the false opinions that in my youth I took to be true, and thus how doubtful were all the things that I subsequently built upon these opinions. From the time I became aware of this, I realized that for once I had to raze everything in my life, down to the very bottom, so as to begin again from the first foundations, if I wanted to establish anything firm and lasting. Finding necessary ‘truth’ in ethics, invariably requires that the gamut of vice and virtue be run. And, Aristotle's contribution to a philosophy of virtue retains great respect. Aristotle wrote this: 69

There are then three dispositions, two being vices, namely excess and deficiency, and one virtue, which is the mean between them; and they are all in a sense mutually opposed. The extremes are opposed both to the mean and to each other, and the mean is opposed to the extremes. . . . The liberal man appears extravagant compared with the stingy man but stingy compared with the spendthrift. The result is that the extremes each denounce the mean as belonging to the

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

other extreme; the coward calls the brave man foolhardy and the foolhardy man ca[lTlshihs inmicceloywdaersdcrliyb;eas nthdesvoirotune. found in temporal politics!] And I expect, the paradoxical ideological political conflict among the masses becomes heightened as virtue necessarily takes the objective path of outward-turned logical reason. The politics of virtue -- if such politics ever is competetive (political human nature, being attuned to the subjective inward-turned orthodox popularity) -- must, it appears, be as the brave virtuous man of Aristotle’s virtue: dedicated to achieving and abiding the political mean by some grand magic of courting the popular extreme dispositions -- which Aristotle called vises of deficiency and excess -without becoming attuned to either vise. And this might be impossible in the long run of being ellected in the democratic political process. Achieving politics of virtue, in any event, is as great a step in temporal transcendence as the most extreme visions in liberal truth seeking minds can be. It is indeed a lonely endeavor as the ethical dispositions of ignorant, profligate, brutish society will embrace the extreme vices, rather abide the mean virtue. '' Temporal transcendent truth is then purer reasoned truth, as was expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The value and enjoyment of purer truth is only found by temporally abiding in its knowledge.

Ignorance [Heidegger’s irrationalism cited in part 1] gives a sort of eternity to prejudice, and perpetuity to error. Robert Hall But, is Hall’s assertion knowledge-based? : Hall believes that his perception is ‘true’: but, is it purely ‘true,’ or ‘partly true, partly false’? : and of what truth-value are asserted ignorance, prejudice or error? : As the extremes, which Ann Coulter practices with a popular following? With knowledge, the perception of truth’s object must be accurate and when perception fails to correctly, ‘truly,’ depict the realities of truth’s object, pure truth simply cannot and does not exist. Perception is then an illusion that, as for truth’s predicate value, is ‘false.’ It is ignorance, that ''

LIFE’S OMNIPRESENT SPIRITUAL QUANDARY is a piece I wrote to myself following having attended a presentation of Man of La Mancha: as an Addendum to truth, which is included separately, it fits here.

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

expressed, is only an opinion, the truth-value of which is mostly ‘false.’ ‘False’ perception never is stable enough in temporal life to fit with consistent, let alone eternal knowledge. Illusions are idealistically conjured by undisciplined minds whereas knowledge is exclusively the disciplined product of one’s own virtuous will, which chooses trueness as the principal value predicate of one’s rational faculties. Undisciplined illusion is always selfishly inward-turned. Disciplined knowledge spurns selfish considerations to focus perception outwardly onto ontologies (objectively logical realities). Truth -- the ontologically accurate perception of independent objects of noumena or phenomena -- is neither ethical nor moral: while the exercise of selfdiscipline, involves both ethics and morality, and is, therefore, a personal requirement to realize virtuous truth and to give fiducial custody to it.

Truth is as much a matter of experience as of speculation.-- An honest man will generally find it: above all, must live in it. -- Then it becomes vital to his spirit:-- a part of his being. R. Turnbull There are three parts in truth: first the inquiry, which is the wooing of it; secondly, the knowledge of it, which is the [essential] presence of it; and thirdly, the belief, which is the enjoyment of it. Bacon Why are wage-earning Americans devoted to SS’s practical teleological purpose (is holistic socially, and is necessary)? And of greater concern, why are deontological disposed idealists, SSs arch enemies? : does the teleology of SS spoil the carefully crafted and mechanized ideologically conflated unitary materialist ‘carrot and stick’ economic and Calvinist religious duties, which dogmatically philosophically are the basis of fallacious Whig-asserted and affirmed pseudo principles of the American System of Political Economy’s unitary materialism-based organic mechanism? Does SS, which draws upon the purer noumenal part of democratic philosophy (which defines Rational Empiricism), which specifies the mutual necessity of human dualism (both spiritual and material being), therefore, incite the reactive orthodox dogmatic unitary materialist politics? As perception is spread politically and has become standardized, the split in public mind’s predicate values is nearly even

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

between paradoxical half truth of dogmatic mechanism, which belief in unitary materialism conflates human noumenon, and natural human dualism’s reasonable balancing of the spiritual and material aspects which confront organic Rational Empiricism?* * Our elected representatives and political appointees act with consented sovereign organic authority that either fosters mechanism-based unitary materialist political predicate values, or they understand that their consented authority represents John Locke’s individual ‘property of person’ intent for rationally balanced representation of the collective, all not some, human body and spirit’s dualism. Mechanist deontological organic authority, which conflates the human spirit to unitary materialist forms, is fraudulent representation because it constrains the constitutional purposes as were consented to when the Constitution was ratified: individual inalienable sovereignty is thereby denied. Organic authorities then are irrational, which by asserting the Constitution is a contract and a permanent ‘rule of law’ has supplanted organic authority’s (necessary) principle of sovereign consent. The Supreme Court has often sided with this unitary materialist political assertion: when, for instance, giving Fourteenth Amendment constitutional ‘rights’ protection to ‘fictitious person’ corporations: as if the legally asserted ‘fictitious person’ corporations were as naturally coeval of inalienable rights as humans were. Then the Supreme Court decided that corporate capital, when spent to advertize products or influence politics, were forms of ‘free speech,’ therefore had constitutional rights, which transcended those of humans. These legal decisions bother because their truth-value is ‘false.’ they promote deontological Duty sans teleological purpose (unitary materiality sans human essence). Giving ‘human rights’ to business entities is equivalent to asserting that materiality is antecedent to human faculties of reason: asserting that fiction is as real as human reason is, and, therefore, Heidegger’s irrationalism is made the antecedent of rationalism: patent asserted irrationalism that concerns only empowerment and control that is devoid of human inalienably rational principles and rights. As if Russell didn’t prove materiality had no truth?70

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

If we imagine a world of mere matter, there would be no room for falsehood in such a world, and although it would contain what may be called ‘facts,’ it would not contain any truths, in the sense in which truths are things of the same kind as falsehoods. In fact, truth and falsehood are properties of beliefs and statements; hence a world of mere matter, since it would contain no beliefs or statements, would also contain no truth or falsehood. Bertrand Russell Asserted dogmatic belief in unitary materialism and, thereby, deduced nihilist ‘positivism,’ had destined both fascism and communism’s failure. Without noumenal teleology and ontologism, truth there isn’t, only facts! The political flap over gerrymandering political districts as occurred in Texas and temporarily was thwarted by legislators’ absenteeism, is an example of a deontological power grab that only collusive absenteeism could impede: only the organic absenteeism was teleological. And when politics of reason is muted by unitary materialist irrationality, isn’t our nation’s consented authority then hijacked, philosophically, making it fascist rather than democratic? The power grab in 2003 for California’s gubernatorial authority was equally fascist in nature. California voters had recalled Gray Davis, and then elected a new governor in which only by 49 percent of eligible voters participated. This result, which empowered the new governor was deficient as the vote which had recalled Davis also was. Whatever abstract organic authority had designed this recall election, faithful democratic principles were ignored. Therefore, the recall of Davis was expressly conducted to result in a gerrymandered form of a political power grabbing. Politics must yield to reason if the state or nation is to benefit from purer truth-based knowledge. And society cannot progress beneficially until a body-politic is imbued with reason-based knowledge: the only source of which is intrinsic of the express consent of John Locke’s sovereign individual ‘property of person’ When power and authority of government are manipulated politically, organic perceptions are adversely affected by materialist bias: perceptions of this toward reality then starkly diverge from the teleological expectations inherent of human rights? Organic duties

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

contrived as values, which as fictitiously sponsor government’s economic paternalism to legally licensed fictitious person mechanisms’ is therefore the U.S. Constitution’s enemy # one. 71

In U.S. distrust is deep, Nearly four of 10 Americans believe the federal government threatens their freedom, according to a recent poll by CNN and USA Today. Only one out of 10 has faith in the government, according to the Yankelovich Monitor. With no independent cognition, the public mind is destined to remain affected by a temporal world’s material nature, which St. John had observed is passing and cannot therefore, because of subjective inwardturned materialist illusions that irrationally dominate objective outwardturned truth, be ‘true.’ Laws and constitutions, in the evolving world, must depend on the individual disciplines involved with actualizing virtuous purer truth-based knowledge. Finding Truth that is ‘true’ is a constant, confronting challenge to each individual, each new generation, and each organic state or nation: all, are, therefore, destined to sort out the paradoxically irrational imperfections to celebrate natural cognitive faculties that allow the freedoms of reason-based truth. Laws and constitutions are essential to any society, and must preserve order and assure the foundations of objective-based beneficial results, or, they are not teleological: which provides foundation to W. R. Inge’s, Either the world shows a teleology or it does not. Teleology’s counter causal theory is the popular materialist orthodoxy called mechanism. Patterned on the Ten Commandments, mechanism is retributive, not beneficent. In teleology, however, Categorical Imperative fulfills naturally paradoxical retribution: as Christ had declared! Christ’s Gospel is beneficent principle and, therefore, in Heidegger’s analogy, Christ provided rationalist action that fulfills the organic retributive irrationalism:72

“St. Paul,” says Dean Inge in one of his ‘Outspoken Essays,’ “understood what most Christians never realize, namely, that the Gospel of Christ is not a religion, but religion itself in its most universal and deepest significance.”

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

Deists, are teleologists, because mostly, they live this way. Deontologists do not! Maybe because their focus is on the tree rather than the forest. Particularly, Calvinist mechanist duty-based religious hierarchies fail to recognize Christ’s religion’s universal and deepest significance. American Christianity was taught a pure teleological lesson by the Amish Mennonites, 73 when in 2006 several young women students were assaulted and murdered: then when economic sympathies were offered, their condition of acceptance required that the family of the accused also be included in the sympathy: this was purer Christianity. Contrarily, in our hate of acts of crime or terror, we fail to recognize that the actor’s family and associates are as innocent as we are. Deontology casts hate dutifully and broadly.' We divide into groups by our thoughts and actions: as we choose to reason deliberately in the pursuit of truth that is ‘true‘, or we do not. The groups so defined are not pure. Only in relative terms are the groups distinguished by knowledge (wisdom that has the truth predicate, ‘is true’) in the first instance, and by ignorance (the resident illusions spawned by the concupiscence of pride, status, will, prejudice and such) in the second. In fact, we all possess a mix of both -- too little knowledge if we trust those who stand tall among us. For instance, our celebrated twentieth century philosopher reasoned he had achieved little knowledge: Bertrand Russell's Epilogue declared this:74

I have wished to understand the hearts of men. I have wished to know why the stars shine. And I have tried to apprehend the Pythagorean power by which number holds sway above the flux. A little of this but not much, I have achieved.* * Russell surely would have enjoyed James Gleick's book on Chaos?75

Ed Firmage, Jr. wrote this in the November 29, 2006 Salt Lake Tribune: In my Bible, Jesus’ injunction “love your enemies” has no escape clause in fine print that says “unless he’s trying to kill you,” or “unless you’re an American and he’s an al-Qaida thug.” . . .

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

So, what is important to distinguish the knowledge-ignorance groups, involves mind sets, demeanor that Dean Inge observed was the fundamental practice of religion, as Christ had said:

Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me: for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven. More than quantities or proportions of the knowledge-mix, Christ emphasized the importance of attitude in one's quest to know and practice Christ's pure truth-based Categorical Imperative.76 While this says little about perceptions, decisions and actions, it says a lot: the better demeanor is tuned to a carefully disciplined openness and reception of truth, the more sure are ‘true’ predicate values of one’s reasoned cognition. Goethe’s ‘outward-turned,’ is used here to describe an essential attitude or discipline of thought required to reason deliberately and truthfully. And particularly, this quality should be a requirement for those who would legislate laws for society or aspire to hold the consented organic reigns of democratic cardinal sovereignty (probity and honor is what John Locke called for).77 Rene Descartes' What then am I? provides an example of essential attitude: a philosophical starting point.78 Descartes had reached for the essential objective reality of self, thereby providing an example of necessary thought discipline in pursuit of truth.

What then am I? A thing that thinks. What is that? A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and which also imagines and knows. Descartes chose deliberately uncommon words to describe his thought processes: Unique words that are not listed in the computerized thesaurus being utilized here. The thesaurus lists these ‘positive’ words, which show, therefore, the effectiveness of August Compte’s ‘positivism’ on Western cultural thought: inculcated as ‘the gospel of reason’: consider, contemplate, meditate, ponder, reflect, recall, recollect, remember, conclude, judge, presume, reason, suppose, conceive, create, envision, imagine, and invent are the orthodox stand-ins for think. Descartes chose these negative words: doubt, denial, refusal, and will. They are not listed for think in my Thesaurus. And I expect in few others.

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

Why did Descartes choose uncommon ‘appositives’ deliberately to attest that deliberate human thought must possess both positive and negative responsibility, capability and demeanor (and while words connote meaning, they have no cognitive inalienability)? Acclaimed for his super great accomplishments, Descartes’ precise manner of thinking and writing was unique. For this alone, his intent must not be dismissed for any lack of only ‘positive’ meaning. And Descartes’ choice of words to describe his personal property, his thing that thinks, must carefully and respectfully be considered for to find his end purpose (i.e., what to me is Inga’s Christian teleology). * * Long before Descartes, St. Thomas’ epistle had been dismissed from

inclusion in the Bible. St. Thomas’ ‘doubting’ nature was then as now considered undesirable. And, isn’t it strange that St. Thomas’ Gnosticism was, back then as now, deliberately considered the only way of finding ‘true’ gospel knowledge? As Descartes, himself, was the truth object of his philosophical inquiry: his very carefully chosen words are predicates that describe the critical aspects of thought required to discern facts and things of self that represent truth that is purely ‘true’ (has no opposites). By reasoning the results of doubting his own existence, he actualized to himself, as truth, that the thing in him that thinks exists: One cannot doubt doubt, he reasoned. As focus is put onto the discerning processes of thought required to filter out impure from the pure facts and things; doubt, denial, and refusal are indeed crucially important although these represent self-discipline that disturbs inculcated dogma of society’s classical entrenchments. Descartes' chose will just as carefully to describe the discipline ‘necessary’ to deliberately restrict necessary thought actions of doubting, denying, and refusing the thoughts and influences which have no reasonable bearing on the object of inquiry: to fully cognize an understanding of the object’s independent reality.79

Will (is defined) as the power of the mind to decide and do; deliberate control over thought and action.

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

Knowing is acquired only as individuals’ reason deliberately until full comprehension occurs. Goethe had mentioned this 80 :

What is not fully understood is not possessed. To fully comprehend an event, a state of affairs, or some other intangible object, requires individual’s to think objectively. In other words, one's thoughts of an object (whether the object is non material, as thoughts of the subject-self, as in Descartes' case, or a thing of materiality, totally separated) must be sufficiently insulated from myriad biases of self that intrude or are invited to cohabit thoughts in our minds. It was, I believe, Rene Descartes keen sense of biases that led him to list doubt, denial, and refusal as coequals with more commonly used words for thinking. About the hold biases have on each of us, another Russell-statement is recalled:81

The [person] who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the cooperation or consent of his deliberate reason. Subjective comprehension is and always will be a reality of temporal life. And, comprehension that embraces another’s opinion with all its biased baggage, rather than reason deliberately, which is objectively critical, gives foundation to conflated noumenal unitary materialist nihilism, which logically reasoned philosophy rejects because of its dogmatism.’* * Nihilistic philosophy, in the sense that deliberate reason is utilized here, only adds to the enigma of life while proffering few, if any, truthful resolutions to the enigma. Since pure truth by definition requires objectivity, nihilism, which is subjective, denies what purely is truth. But mostly, subjective comprehension is illusion and since this is not knowledge, it is Heidegger’s ignorant irrationalism. John Locke, as he meditated this contrast, expressed this sentiment:82

Truth, whether in or out of fashion, is the measure of knowledge, and the business of the understanding; whatsoever is beside that, however authorized by consent, or recommended by rarity, is nothing but ignorance, or something worse.

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

To comprehend objectively requires outward-turned thoughts and actions as well the purging of one’s subjective influences. [And this process has parallels with fasting -- as Christ reportedly did for forty days -- to purge his soul from worldly influence, to put the focus on noumenal (spiritual) realities]. No one thinks outwardly always. And indeed more unfortunate for society -- than for each individual -- is that most avenues to outwardturned thinking are denied for society’s impoverished individuals, in which causal effects of mechanism is most impressed. As poverty increases, the extent and quality of objective thinking must decline. And, in turn, the relative size of those failing to reason deliberately increases, making Society an inevitable loser. This says only that one's objective focus on, outward-turned thought is disabled (maybe is impossible) when one's survival instinct dominates outward-turned thoughts and actions. E. K. Hunt gave these as Capitalism’s deontological mechanism’s determined essentials: 83

Capitalism is defined by . . . [irrationally asserted, therefore, a logical misnomer] essential features that are always present in a capitalist economy. ---First is the ubiquity of monetary exchange. For the vast majority of people in capitalism, one can get the things one wants and needs only if one has money with which to buy these things in the market. ---Second, capitalism always has at least four clearly identifiable socioeconomic classes: the class of wealthy capitalists, the class of small businesspeople and independent professionals, the class of working people and the class of destitute persons who live by various welfare programs or by theft, prostitution, or whatever means are available. . . . [These class identities, of American Capitalism, also make American democracy a misnomer]

The working class has no significant access to or ownership of productive resources. Individuals in this class must sell control of

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

their power to labor (i.e., get a job) as their only means to escape sinking to the destitute class. . . . [T. R. Malthus and Max Weber observed ‘the iron cage of wages,’ as befitting this mechanist determined working class caste]

Income from ownership and the wages of workers are considered to be the only socially respectable sources of income. The destitute class must depend on the somewhat “less than respectable” sources of income, such as welfare, charity, or the fruits of quasi legal or illegal activities in order to get by. The stigma that attaches to members of this class motivates all propertyless individuals to try very hard to secure employment even if working conditions and wages are poor. Clearly Hunt wrote here about The American System of Political Economy’s Capitalism. American Whigs, contemporaries of Lincoln, had achieved to conflate American democracy’s unique spiritual values to a unitary materialist economic form in order to establish the causal mechanisms of this political American System (to an extent, resulting in a circumstance similar to that which C. Thomas had found regarding Hegel’s Unitary Materialism, called Dialectical Materialism, which philosophically is found in both fascism and communism. *). * Whenever society acts to mortgage progress repaid by taxation, society mechanistically puts tax burden onto those guys who are to be. And politically, this only can happen by interpreting our Constitution to accord with Whiggish conservatives’ classical ‘fixed contract’ doctrine. Edmund Burke gave definition to this conservative doctrine. And Federalist-Whig politics, as deduced from this conservative doctrine fosters and persuades American government to operate according to this irrationally asserted economic principle. While rational evidence supports suspicions of this, the irrationalism is at least equally strong. Showing that an awareness that conflated Unitary Materialism had led to the mechanist concept of state, which Craig Thomas wrote about: (One still is left to speculate whether they were aware of their deliberately irrational assertions):84

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

. . . to be precise, not even Germany but prenational Prussia under Frederick the Great. Christian theology assumed a [unitary] merger with the divine after this life; Hegel posits such a merger here on earth -- with history and the collectivity he terms the state. Thomas also wrote this about idealists who collaborated in Hegel’s unitary materialist view (Hegel declared he wasn’t a materialist!): The principal Idealists -- Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel -- sought, above all else, a unitary explanation of reality, some essence behind all appearance -- in Kant’s terminology, a ‘common’ and universal noumenon, and in the poet Hölderlin’s description, the ‘spirit that is in everything’ [ontologism]. They were [expedient idealist] systemizers, assuming that there could be discovered some essential explanation of all experience, knowledge, and reality, and it was largely on this basis that they objected, Fichte most immediately and systematically, to Kant’s division between self and the world, which [they as irrationally contended] for Kant could be no more than a world of appearances. To achieve the healing of that dualism the Idealists posited, in Fichte’s theory most succinctly, the ego as the ‘ground of experience.’ It was not the rational ego of Kant [Plato and Descartes] nor the passive receptor of the empiricists but what Fichte describes as the ‘active ego,’ inextricably intermingled with reality, imposing itself upon the world of experience, to a degree ‘making’ the world of experience in its own image. As Fichte claims in ‘The Vocation of Man’ of 1792, ‘Not to KNOW but to DO, is the vocation of Man.’ ' For Fichte (1762- 1814), there were only two possible responses to the world, that of the realist, or ‘dogmatist’ in his terminology, and that of the idealist. The philosopher’s response, more profound than that of the ordinary man, is idealist, while realism remains the province of non-philosophical response to an understanding of the world. . . . Thinking is no longer reflection, it is experience. Also, because of this, there can be no kind of reality that is distinct or separated from the

In this, the principle idealists conflated even God’s antecedence, to which Nietzche cried out, “we have killed God!”.

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

ego that experiences it. Whereas empiricism posits, at least by implication, a ‘real’ world that is experienced, the Idealists assumed no distinction between the subject of the experiencing agent and the objective world being experienced. [Which came first, the egg or the chicken, is of no consequence to this materialist conservative idealism that compounds the issue rather than finding answers to the question; the dogmatic focus is on the neatness of confusion.] Further, Fichte and Schelling assumed that the ego was innately a moral agent, again contrary to Kant’s conception of the effort of moral duty for the rational being, the necessity to achieve the categorical imperative [of ‘do unto others . . .’] in making any moral decision or taking any moral action. Men are regarded by the Idealists as innately, though imperfectly, moral in their essential, nondualistic natures. This leads, as we shall see, to a strangely Hobbesian view of the State as possessing the right and duty to perfect the ego’s moral imperfection by the exercise of its authority. [Note how irrationally dogmatic ‘Idealists‘ are blameworthy for the fallacious philosophical underpinning of conservative’s materialist philosophy] While Hunt’s account of the politically privatized American economic organic development is starkly presented, the prescriptive intentions of America’s political system neither considered nor accommodated the fundamental antecedent principle necessities of democracy: as ‘inalienable human rights,’ for instance. Only as amorality filled in the paradoxical voids of unitary materialist mechanist deontological duties,’ which failed to accommodate human desiderata, were human necessities then scantily accommodated. Economy’s mechanisms, by affirmation, persist in supplanting empirical dogma for naturally antecedent immutable laws:85

The eternal and immutable laws of justice and of morality are paramount to all human legislation. The violation of those laws is certainly within the power, but it is not among the rights of nations. The power of a nation is the collected power of all the individuals which compose it. . . . If, therefore, a majority . . . are bound by no law, human or divine, and have no other rule but their sovereign will

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

and pleasure to direct them, what possible security can any citizen of the nation have for the protection of his unalienable rights? [Cardinal Sovereignty, like life, is not transferable; nations have no consented authority to grant license to private businesses to violate inalienable human rights] A great problem of denying natural antecedence rests with those of society who simply choose not to reason objectively; ‘positive’ thinking, for instance, suppresses, by affirmation or denial, the unapparent essential reality. At times we all are guilty of this common nihilism. * * In Western Europe, nihilism meant a denial of objective truths and values. The philosopher Friedreich Nietzsche, referring to himself, said he was a nihilist.86 Tautologically, nihilism is either the fallacious denial of natural antecedent principles or it is the irrational affirmation of logical consequents, which in either effect is, as Heidegger concluded, irrationalism: for instance, ‘guns do not kill!’ Is a sample of nihilist denial (only when bullets fail to cause death will guns that propel them not be the implemented cause to kill?) ; when organically assigning responsibility for causing death, however, only humans are naturally capable of this responsibility. Nietzsche’s existential philosophy (about the human Id) arguably failed to affect the mass ignorance of Hitler’s Germany. Existentialism, as any philosophy, is open to rational and irrational thoughts and debate. Nietzsche's philosophical persuasions had a great and negative (irrational) influence on Hitler and Nazism. Id is always each individual’s own responsibility. Self disciplining the mind is critically important to one's cognizance and transcendence into knowledge. And again, such transcendence can only be gained individually. Society gains or loses as individuals gain or do not gain outward-turned knowledge based on pure truth.87

The problems of inward-turning were sketched long ago by Goethe, speaking to Eckermann. "Epochs which are regressive, and in the process of dissolution, are always subjective, whereas the trend in all progressive epochs were all objective in nature . . . Every truly excellent endeavor turns from within toward the world, as you see in

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

the great epochs which were truly in progression and aspiration, and which were all obje[cG tivoe tihnen’sarteum rea.r"k distinguishes Heidegger’s rationalism] R. L. Heilbroner wrote this about economist Joseph Schumpeter: 88

But now comes the Schumpeterian contradiction: capitalism may be an economic success, but it is not a sociological success. This is because . . . the economic base of capitalism creates its [illogically fallacious] ideological superstructure . . .. In the end, this capitalist mentality, brings down the system. [Is terrorism, a precursor of this end?] “Capitalism creates a critical frame of mind which, after having destroyed the moral authority of so many other institutions, in the end turns against its own; the bourgeois finds to its amazement that the [fallaciously irrational] rationalist attitude does not stop at the credentials of kings and popes but goes on to attack private property and the whole scheme of bourgeois values.” The SS System provides a mending example of Schumperter’s reference to capitalism’s failed sociological success, which has resulted from paternalist mechanism-based giving of profit to private capitalists (both individually and organicly), which holistically has no source other than from wage-earned production. And, since the fickle American democratic body politic might never again be graced with teleological purpose to the extent that it was during the great depression, the beneficence of Social Security, as beneficence generally, must either be lawfully sustained, or it rests on fragile, vacillating politics: unless objectively rational political persuasions effectively counter Capitalism’s political irrationalism, the irrationalism could eventually succeed to politically dismantle the SS system. The political implosions of Federalist, Whig, and now neo-con policies, brightens the outlook for nation and Social Security, however. The rational necessity of SS is logically apparent. And logically, rationalism is constantly assailed by popular irrationalism, as Heidegger observed. So, ultimately, SS’s vitality depends on society’s devotion to Social Security’s social beneficence: those, who reason logically so to understand ‘true’ facts, must actively be diligent to cogently leaven with truth the fallacious mechanisms of popular orthodox irrationalism.*

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

* The three ladies honored with Time’s ‘man of the year (2002)’award shows that political rationalism, at times, finds liberal honorees. Or, when before, has our capitalist society celebrated ‘whistle blowers’? Classically, capitalism prevails to oppress ‘whistle blowing’: fired, exiled or martyred for not performing ‘dutifully’ conventionally is capitalism’s prescribed fate. That ‘Time’ celebrated these three ladies is not only evidence of Schumperter’s observation, but also that capitalism’s irrationalism has now become more transparent. The general facts, of inflation, population growth, and SS contribution-tax rates, are now presented. Each fact resulted from our market-system-based capitalist, i.e., determinist mechanism-based Political Economy. And each greatly influences adversely the sociological perceptions: the politics of SS, as the public filter of truth, makes Eldredge Cleaver’s political observation appurtenant:

If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem! The increasing population of workers (compared with the retirement population) is indicated in the following table and has provided to government greatly increased Social Security contribution-tax revenue. The numbers represent population projections of age groups rather than the actual counts of workers or retirees. The badly faulted projection -- which eventually will be proved as an illusion rather than fact -- on which the 1984 contribution-tax law became the political reality, is explained. The 1978 Statistical Abstract of the U. S. provided these facts and projections.89 It was government’s last published issue, (The U. S. printing office was then disbanded). What is critically important is that births of all BabyBoom years’ are facts, which change naturally only by

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

mortality: mortality is estimated only to conclude the 65-4 age group. And with the shift to age 67, nearly seven million persons are delayed from entering retirement.

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

making: The Census Bureau now predicts an 80 percent population increase by 2050. It's Common Census: More Americans Now 90

WASHINGTON -- Today ( January 1, 1993) there should be an estimated 256,561,239 Americans, says the Census Bureau. Since 1990, the U.S. population has risen 7.9 million. During 1992, 4.1 million Americans were born, 2.2 million died, 846,000 immigrants showed up, and 129,000 citizens living abroad came home. Projected group populations for the ages’ 18-64, for the years ‘85 and later, are estimates, not population facts: They include birth estimates that occured following 1976. ESTIMATED AND PROJECTED POPULATIONS (millions) YEAR AGES: 18 TO 64 65-4 RESPECTIVE INDICES 1950 92.6 12.4 --- base = 1.00 --1960 99.5 16.7 1.07 1.34 Facts, as the following released as 1992 conclude d, provided evidence that a secondary birth wave is in the

1985*

123.7

27.3

1.34

2.2

2000*

159.6

31.8

1.72

2.56

2025-* 154.5 48.6 1.67 3.92 4 symbolizes ‘to life's end’ ; * symbolizes ‘that rather than facts, these are anticipated projections of the late '70s’: projections are not facts. The 67- 4 population of deminished natural births might approach 42 milion, but will not reach 48.6 as this projection (not a fact) for 2025 had estimated. And, worse, 80 million that commonly politically is touted, is no more than rhetoric that is based on a published error that willfully this fallacious politics perpetuates. The median age is an important aspect of this research, however: 30.2 in 1950, it drops to 29 in ‘76, then with anticipated birth dynamics of projected ‘zero growth’-based analysis, rises to 38.4 in 2025, and 38.9 in 2050. The fertility rates of ‘zero growth’ (the assumed scenario as affirmed in this projection) would need be much lower than presently factually they are. With this Conclusion! : While fertility remains high, ‘zero growth’

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

cannot occur: the group population of ages 18-64 will, in reality, mecessarily be much higher, with the factual median age substantially lower than 38. Fertility, as contemporary reality proves, confirms my population model, and it debunks the ‘zero-based’ projection , which in 2025, projected that only two individuals of working age will exist for each individual over age 65. But, the following age groups, of the ‘zero growth’ scenario, show a necessary trend of the holistic nature of median populations. Yr 0-4 5-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-64 65-4 1950 10.8 20.2 10.6 15.8 14.2 20.3 8.1 1976 7.1 23.2 13.1 14.9 10.7 20.3 10.7 2050 6.5 16.9 9 12.7 12.5 23.4 19 In 1950, four factual Birth-Boom-years are in the 0-4 age range. In 1976, the peak (the 4.26 million births of ‘57) are included in the 18-24 range. And in 2050, all survivors of the birth-boom are in the 65-4 range. Percent of population mirrors percentages of economy: when more is put into one range means that less necessarilly must be in another. If in 2050, for instance, the population of births, ages 0-4, comprise 10.8 percent of the population, as was the fact in 1950 (instead of 6.5 projected for 2050), the population’s percent of retired 65-4 must surely be lower than projected by as much as 4.3 percent (14.7 instead of 19). ' The Census Bureau’s biased assumption that the fertility rate was declining to the anticipated ‘zero growth’ scenario, as this ‘78 projection analysis shows, was clearly fallacy. In reality, fertility has remained stable if not as strong, partly because population increase mostly involved women of childbearing ages in which promiscuous cultural freedoms probably were also at play. Anyway, the demographics have made not resulted in a declining proportion of workers to retirees: demographics are not, therefore, the greatest problem for SS as regards retiring the Babyboom. Because inflation discriminates (giving to one economic class by taking from another), and population decreases indiscriminately only by mortality, which holistically statistically is quite stable (While births are

This argument holds ‘true’ if the rates of mortality are relatively stable, which life insurance has consistently offered premiums that bet they are.

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

analogous to ocean waves, mortality is analogous to ocean level) the economic amalgam of mechanism-based taxation and mortality-based SS populations is an incomparable admixture: mechanism-based inflation, which discriminates, is incomparable to the effects of natural mortality, which does not discriminate: And, anyway, SS is not an inflation cause! Social Security’s greatest problem is inflation, not population dynamics. And inflation is the nation’s problem: is not related to Social Security’s ‘social usage’ form of insurance? : inflation intrinsic of benefits paid to the retired population is the nation’s problem since the nation administratively has unconstitutionally allowed inflation to effect consumer costs! Wage-earners must mechanistically buy goods and services, as all others of society must also. Wage-earners are a different economic class than the others, however: to additionally pile inflation’s cost effects onto SS contribution taxes puts a double inflation burden onto wage-earners conscripted also to pay the SS contribution tax, from which the SS retirement benefits are paid. Added to this idealism determined economic reality, is the different sources of income, as related to economic productions: wage-earners are consumers that must subsist by their wagesearned. Those, whose income are from sources other than wages, from ownership interests in productions for instance, and are not conscripted to pay contributions to SS, benefit from inflation in the legal fact that the mechanist economy returns consumed inflation to ‘owners of productions’ as ‘enured’ capital that includes the real production costs. This sentence from the FOREWORD now has its idealist foundation: The average economic growth, during the twentieth century, was measured at 4 percent, inflation endemism at 3 percent: resulting in business capital returns in excess of 7 percent while wages languished below the 3 percent inflation endemism 91 : the average ‘iron caged’ wage-earner-consumer experienced the average economic growth as the negative result of business profit-taking, which typically as a percentage of the GNP exceeded the sum of economy’s 4 percent growth plus inflation’s 3 percent. CONSUMER PRICE INDICES 92 YEAR ALL ITEMS MEDICAL CARE 1950 base = 1.00 base = 1.00

Is ontologism embraced or rejected? 1960 1970 1977 1980 1984 1988

1.23 1.61 2.52 3.43 4.31 5.00

1.47 2.25 3.77 4.98 7.07 NA

Comments about inflation endemism’s causes, as applied to CPI, also apply to the ‘social usage’ insurance systems of medical care, flood, whether related crop damage, etc. Profits taken are undoubtedly a primary cause of disparity with private insurance systems. For instance, the extent that health care insurance is unavailable, a greater health care expense must be put onto those with insurance. As of 2003 the uninsured count rose to 44 million. SOCIAL SECURITY TAX RATES

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984

-------- RATES ------(PERCENT OF WAGES) TOTAL OASDI HI 3 3 4 4 6 6 7.25 7.25 9.6 8.4 1.2 10.4 9.2 1.2 10.4 9.2 1.2 11.7 9.7 2 11.7 9.9 1.8 no rate change -------- RATES ------(PERCENT OF WAGES) TOTAL OASDI HI " " " " " " 12.1 10.1 2 12.26 10.16 2.1 no rate change 13.3 10.7 2.6 13.4 10.8 2.6 no rate change 14 11.4 2.6

WAGE CAP MAXIMUM INCREASE (IN DOLLARS) (INDEX) $ 3,000 base = 1.00 4,200 1.87 4,800 3.2 4,800 3.87 7,800 8.32 7,800 9.01 9,000 10. 10,800 14.04 13,200 17.16 14,100 18.33 WAGE CAP MAXIMUM INCREASE (IN DOLLARS) (INDEX) 15,300 19.89 16,500 21.45 17,700 23.8 22,900 31.19 25,900 35.28 29,700 43.89 32,400 48.24 35,700 53.15 37,800 58.8

88 1985 1986 1987 1988 1990

250-260 14.1 11.4 14.3 11.4 no rate change 15.02 12.12 15.3 12.4

SS: VIRTUES and VICES 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.9

39,600 42,000 43,800 45,000 45,000

62.04 66.73 69.59 75.1 76.5*

* The SS contributions’ tax maximum increase is 76.5 times the base, which was reset in 1950. Contributions began in 1935. Medical costs have increased faster than the CPI. And Medical Insurance is an influence, if not a cause, of inflation’s economic paradox, which thoughtful observers will undoubtedly consider. Inflation’s paradoxical economic effect is allied with Heidegger’s irrationalism that deductively feeds political paradox as, for example, affirmation’s that corporate dividends should be free of revenue taxation since ‘businesses already have paid the revenue tax.’ This common affirmation is analogous to arguments, which claim this: because I work for Joe and Joe pays taxes, I, therefore, should not pay taxes on earnings that Joe pays me for work, which benefits him. In rational reality, however, double taxation in SS’s contribution tax collections is far more irrational than the double charging in any of the above examples or in corporate dividend collections. Why? Because the SS contribution taxes are directly related to the inflation effects on SS benefits that are paid directly from SS contributions. And, in this contrast to those of dividends from investments, they are recipients of inflation consumed that mechanistically legally has enured as returning capital to businesses. For this fundamental reason, inflation’s economic cost to SS benefits should rationally be fully charged to graduated general revenue and not to SS contributions taxation. Because of idealist capitalist mechanist theoretical economic determinism, which politically paternalistically acts in the manner that Parrington described as (a curiously ingenious scheme to milk the cow and divide the milk among those who supervised the milking), median wage-earned income is maintained below the SS tax cap. As median income rises, the wage cap is increased, making SS contributions’ tax revenue near directly indexed to the median rise in wages. Compounding inflation endemic of median and lower wage increases is directly taxed (‘72-’73 law made SS benefit COLAs automatic 93 ). Therefore, a compounding load of

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

inflation is made intrinsic of SS contribution taxes each time the law adjusts the SS contributions’ cap to assure that wage-earner contributions, not general revenue taxes, pay for the inflation-COLA-adjusted SS benefits. Wages subjected to SS contributions taxation, until the wage cap is exceeded, are additionally subjected to general revenue taxation. Therefore, because SS has no causal economic inflation effect, indexing contribution’s taxes to inflation is a logically fallacious politically endemic corollary that should signal great wage-earner political alarm. That causally, inflation is intrinsic of government’s political paternalist economy (giving to some by taking from others), makes the SS contributions’ taxation irrational: since political economy, not SS, is the causal source of inflation (as G. P. Brockway’s End of Economic Man found, inflation’s source is the government’s covertly endemic political economy’s paternal grants, as the Banker’s COLA for instance ' ). The COLA-related SS benefits’ cost should be fully paid from general revenue taxes, instead of SS contribution taxes. Those, whose income is not and was not subject to SS contribution taxes, have by government’s paternalism, been granted an entitled economic advantage from their inflation related income that legally is enured capital returns from subsistence related consumption, but also, by lawful fact that in 1984, surplus SS contributions have been collected and spent as government’s general revenue. Idealogically deontological designed economic paradoxs that entice investors to gain from political economy’s fluctuating mediums of exchange (of pseudo government-run exchanges) also greatly cause inflation that covertly is intrinsic of all economic transactions. And, while government’s transaction-based debt plus interest is intended to be repaid by general revenues, the privatized investment gains have resulted in this quip: we privatize profit and socialize debt. Which tells it all about the cozy and

Compounding interest on personal debt generally doubles according to the rule of 72: at 3 percent in 36 years, at 6 percent in 12 years, and at 12 percent in 6 years. Debt repaid over time is surely inflation intensive and public bonded debt is a great culprit of inflation endemism, which progress, so called, feeds!

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

irrational relationship between government’s official functions and its privatized political economy, paternalism induced, grants. As, when funding for a sports stadium, for instance, is secured by public bonds, privatized profits are then paid as the construction project is completed while the bonds, along with compounding interest, are over time retired by tax revenues. Touting progress, or by threats of moving to another city, the public is quite usually conned to approve the inflation cost consumed, which often equals the construction cost, to retire the bonds. However, controlling inflation requires that progress must be moderate. However, irrational acquisitive political rhetoric is difficult if possible to subdue and seemingly always wins the debate, causing public debt to increase exponentially along with repayment of bonded interest. Capitalism’s propensities for growth 94

‘The Theory of Economic Development’ sounds like an analysis of what we have come to call the underdeveloped world. But in 1912 the special economic status and problems of that “world” had not yet come into existence -- this was still the unabashed colonialism [Whigs while in charge of the government’s Gilded Age officially by then had installed the privatized American System of Political economy with its government administered pork barrel ‘internal improvement’ paternalism].

Schumperter’s book was about another kind of development -- the way in which capitalism develops its propensities for growth. Scholarly in tone and tedious in style (a lite from time to time with lightning flashes), the book would not strike the casual reader as being of much political importance. Yet this academic treatise was destined to become the basis for one of the most influential interpretations of capitalism ever written. The exposition begins in Schumpeter’s contradictory way. It is a book about capitalist growth and dynamics, but it opens with a depiction of a capitalist economy in which growth is totally absent. Schumpeter’s initial portrait describes a capitalism that lacks the very

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

ingredient that brought growth into the worlds of Smith and Mill and Marx and Keynes -- namely, the accumulation of capital. Schumpeter describes instead a capitalism sans accumulation -- a capitalism whose flow of production is perfectly static and changeless, reproducing itself in a “circular flow” that never alters or expands its creation of wealth. The model resembles the stationary state envisaged by Ricardo and Mill, with the difference that the stationary state seemed the end of capitalism to the earlier writers, whereas for Schumpeter it was the beginning of capitalism. Therefore we must examine the characteristics of the circular flow a little more carefully. Because the system has no momentum, inertia is the rule of its economic life: “All knowledge and habit, once acquired,” writes Schumpeter, “becomes as firmly rooted in ourselves as a railway embankment in the earth.” Thus having found by trial and error the economic course that is most advantageous for ourselves, we repeat it by routine. Economic life may have originally been a challenge; it becomes a habit. More important, in this changeless flow competition will have removed all earnings that exceed the value of anyone’s contribution to output. This means that competition among employers will force them to pay their workers the full value of the product they create, and that owners of land or other natural wealth will likewise receive as rents whatever value their resources contribute. So workers and landowners will get their shares in the circular flow. And capitalists? Another surprise. Capitalists will receive nothing, except their wages as management. That is because any contribution to the value of output that was derived from capital goods they owned would be entirely absorbed by the value of labor that went into making those goods plus the value of resources they contained. Thus, exactly as

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

Ricardo or Mill foresaw, ‘in a static economy there is no place for profit! Why does Schumpeter present us with such a strange -- not to say strained -- image of the system? Perhaps we have already divined the purpose behind his method: the model of a static capitalism is an attempt to answer the question of where profits come from. The source of profits is a question that has been gingerly handled by most economists. Smith wavered between viewing profit as a deduction from the value created by labor and as a kind of independent return located in capital itself. If profits were a deduction, of course, the explanation implied that labor was shortchanged; and if they were a contribution of capital, one would have to explain why the profits went to the owner of the machine, not to its inventor or user. Mill suggested that profits were the reward for the “abstinence” of capitalists, but he did not explain why capitalists were entitled to a reward for an activity that was clearly in their own interest. Still other economists described profits as the earnings of “capital,” speaking as if the shovel itself were paid for its contribution to output. Marx, of course, said that Smith was right in the first place though he didn’t know it -- that profits were a deduction from the actual value created by the working man. But that was part of the labor theory of value which everyone knew to be wrong and therefore did not have to be reckoned with. Schumpeter now came forward with a brilliant answer to this vexing question. Profits he said, did not arise from exploitation of labor or from the earnings of capital. They were the result of quite another process. ‘Profits appeared in a static economy when the circular flow failed to follow its routinized course.’ [And profits routinely taken, despite entrepreneurial activity, as now is commonly a classical paternal political economy sanctioned business right, causes the static circular flow fail to respect labor’s economic contribution.]

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

Now we can see why the wildly unrealistic circular flow is so brilliant a starting point. For all the forces leading to disruptions in routine, one stands out. This is the introduction of technological or organizational innovations into the circular flow -- new or cheaper ways of making things, or ways of making wholly new things. ‘As a result of these innovations a flow of income arises that cannot be traced either to the contribution of labor or of resource owners.’ A new process enables an innovating capitalist to produce the same goods as his competitors, but at a cheaper cost, exactly as a favorably located piece of land enables its owner to produce crops more cheaply than less well situated fellow landlords. Again, exactly like the fortunate landlord, the innovating capitalist now receives a “rent” from the differential in his cost. But this rent is not derived from Godgiven advantages in location or fertility. It springs from the will and intelligence of the innovator, and it will disappear as soon as other capitalists learn the tricks of the pioneer. The new flow is not therefore a more or less permanent rent. It is a wholly transient profit. An innovation implies an innovator -- someone who is responsible for combining the factors of production in new ways. This is obviously not a “normal” businessman, following established routines. The person who introduces change into economic life is a representative of another class -- or more accurately, another group, because innovators do not necessarily come from any social class. Schumpeter took an old word from the economic lexicon and used it to describe these revolutionists of production. He called them ‘entrepreneurs.’ Entrepreneurs and their innovating activity were thus the source of profit in the capitalist system. [Sans entrepreneurial activity, Schumperter’s analysis bared inflations’ endemism as paradoxically as its complement, ‘the iron cage of wages.’]

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

R. L. Heibroner’s comment about the nature of Smiths market system is now better understood as a static circular flowing system. And Heilbroner’s analysis of Adam Smith’s economic system applies also, more directly, to classical tenets of natural conservatism:95

In a sense his system presupposes that eighteenth-century England will remain unchanged forever. Only in quantity will it grow: more people, more goods, more wealth; its quality will remain unchanged. His are the dynamics of a static community; it grows but it never matures. Schumpeter’s Static economic circular flow presents the core holistic view of Smith’s economy. And, important is that taking profit from the static system, cause trade offs, of taking from other parts of the system. Parrington noted this as taking from ‘Paul’ to give to ‘Peter’, which he described as the fly in Whiggish honey? Parrington also described how politics was adapted to sponsor business interests, as Eric Hoffer also observed, to make politics a profitable enterprise:96

Citizens had saved the government in the trying days that were past; it was only fair in return that government should aid the patriotic citizen in the necessary work of developing national resources. It was paternalism as understood by speculators and subsidy-hunters, but was it not a part of the great American System that was to make the country rich and self-sufficient? The American System had been talked of for forty years; it had slowly got on its feet in pre-war days despite the stubborn planter opposition; now at last it had fairly come into it own. The time was ripe for the Republican party to become a fairy godmother to the millions of Beriah Sellerses throughout the North and the West. [Whigs’ paternal political pork barrel was installed] Despite the evolution which gave our nation deterministic paternalism via ‘The American System of Economy,’ truth about ‘shadows instead of reality’ remains in our dogma, as parrington reported:

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

However attractive the disguises it may assume, it is in essence the logical creed of the profit philosophy. ' It is the expression in politics of the acquisitive instinct and it assumes as the greatest good the shaping of public policy to promote private interests. It asserts that it is a duty of the state to help its citizens to make money, and it conceives of the political state as a useful instrument for effective exploitation. How otherwise? The public good cannot be served apart from business interests for business interests are the public good and in serving business the state is serving society. Everybodys eggs are in the basket and they must not be broken. For a capitalistic society Whiggery is the only rational politics, for it exalts the profitmotive as the sole object of parliamentary concern. Government has only to wave its wand and fairy gifts descend upon business like the golden sands of Pactolus. It graciously bestows its tariffs and subsidies, and streams of wealth flow into private wells. [Parrington introduced this thought with: Whiggery springs up as naturally as pigweed in a garden.]

[a fly in the Whiggish honey] But unhappily there is a fly in the Whiggish honey. In a competitive order, government is forced to make its choices. It cannot serve both Peter and Paul. If it gives with one hand it must take away with the other. And so the persuasive ideal of paternalism in the common interest degenerates in practice into legalized favoritism. Governmental gifts go to the largest investments. Lesser interests are sacrificed to greater interests and Whiggery comes finally to serve the lords of the earth without whose good will the

However, if Schumpeter’s analysis is ‘true’ (others, as Ricardo and Malthus verified that it is) taking profits without providing valued entrepreneurial advantages that directly justify the profits, irrationally robs value from the production of goods and services.

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

wheels of business will not turn. To him that hath shall be given. If the few do not prosper the many will starve, and if the many have bread who would begrudge the few their abundance? In Whiggery [now cultural dogma of the GOP side of politics] is the fulfillment of the Scriptures. [Is this fulfillment, an Armageddon that ever looms?] Schumpeter’s ‘static circular flow’ analysis answered economic concerns about profit: He showed that statically neither profit nor inflation was truly causally endemic to economy. After describing the new rented value that entrepreneurs gave to ‘circular flow,’ his conclusion was emphatic: The new flow is not therefore a more or less permanent rent. It is a wholly transient profit. So, when profits are taken regularly, without adding entrepreneurial rent value, profit takers surely benefit. However, without adding entrepreneurial rent value to the ‘circular flow,’ profit-taking acts like Brockway’s ‘bankers’ COLA,’granting economic benefits to ‘Peter that are taken from Paul.’ Regularly taking profits without adding directly compensatory entrepreneurial rent value causes paradoxical phenomenal endemic companions,’ as inflation, to oppositely give the allusion of balance to the economic ‘circular flow.’ And, despite official legalities that grant paternalistic rights and privileges to those who superintend political economy’s privatized mechanisms, uncannily, those who directly benefit from the paradoxical phenomenal ‘inflation endemism’ intrinsic of the ‘profit taking,’ as legally paternalistically granted, still are causally responsible for the economic determinism that mechanistically endemically rapes and pillages wage-earners. Critical economic observers -notably Franklin, Ricardo, Malthus, Weber -- indicted this economic determinism for imposing ‘the iron cage of wages.’ Schumpeter’s ‘static circular flow’ analysis causally therefore, gave reasoned evidence why graduated general revenue taxation is both justified and necessary. Putting inflation’s cost onto general revenue taxes is the only rational causal place for recovering the economic endemism that was paternalistically granted as unearned benefits only to the investment

Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

class of ‘superintendents’ of privatized political economy. Rationally, this causal change order should soon be resolved! By cutting inflation’s cost from the SS contribution taxes, the contribution rates would be vastly reduced (maybe as much as 80 to 90 percent), and still satisfy the SS’s inflation free benefit requirements. The systemic regressiveness of SS taxation would then be mitigated. And if contribution taxes were then applied to all income, SS benefits could be greatly enhanced: and also include ‘social usage’ funding for other areas of income security. Another aspect on Shumperter’s ‘static circular flow’ analysis shows clearly that deontological (not teleological, i.e, entrepreneurial) profittaking is mechanism-based. Organic profit-taking that is not entrepreneurial is teleologically invalid: 97 affirming it as valid, as federalist-Whigs have done, is an inrational but effective economic lie. Shumperter’s analysis confirms that the SS system, as a mutual insurance form, is teleological, while Unitary Materialism-based economic mechanisms are deontological. Mitigating the paradoxical phenomena caused by this irrational political economy, by ‘social usage’ (a mutual insurance form) is not only rational, it is necessary. Anyway, teleological analysis is convincing. The birth counts of any large existing group do not pose a threatening problem for the SS System. Instead, the threat to SS is from ideological sophistries of mechanist deontological politics: due to classicists of The American System of Political Economy that fail to follow Adam Smith’s ethical creed regarding wage-earned production. The political, mechanist design has entrapped consumers into paying by consuming the full cost of economic inflation endemism (Those consuming to subsist and not required to pay SS contributions, are reimbursed by enuring capital returns that enhance their income). This deontological duty was systemically and covertly accomplished, in the manner, which John Maynard Keynes had astutely portrayed:98

By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose. Keynes Parrington had documented the Federalist designs ‘to devise legal springs’ (legal entrapments) of (constitutional teleologies).99

Principles must not stand in the way of success Through the fierce scramble of rival politicians moved a scholarly figure who preserved to the last dignity and distinction of an earlier age. James Kent, whose long life and ripe legal learning were devoted to upholding what he conceived to be the ultimate principles of law and politics, was the chief political thinker of the transition days of New York. A desciple of Locke and Blackstone, remodeling seventeenth-century liberalism into eighteenth-century conservatism, he was concerned to erect the barriers of the Common Law about the unsurveyed frontiers of the Ameican experiment, assigning exact metes and bounds beyond which it should not go. Like John Marshall and Joseph Story he was expert in devising legal springs to catch unwary democrats, and while the Jeffersonians were shouting over their victories at the polls, he was engaged in the strategic work of placing the Constitution under the narrow custodianship of the English law. An ardent Federalist and later an equally ardent Whig, he reveals in his precise thinking the intimate relations that everywhere exist between economics, politics, and [affirmed] legal principles. [The irrationalism affirmed as principles should be identified and untied mechanistically] Validating my proposed critical theses The problem is this: The BabyBoom’s rounded factual aggregate birth count, as recorded between 1946 and 1965, is 77 million. Birth facts do not and cannot

Validating the proposed critical theses

randomly increase, and only mortality, at any age, reduces the birth count. The BabyBoom’s population is the natural difference of recorded birth counts naturally reduced by mortality, the rates of which actuarially are quite arcuately maintained for insurance purposes. And, therefore, only mortality rates are actuarially needed to reliably establish the anticipated life schedule for the BabyBoom’s retirement population. With SS retirement eligibility shifted to age 67, upwards of seven million births are delayed from entering the retirement population. The BabyBoom’s population of natural births, age 67 and over, peaks, for a short period, at about 42 million (sans immigrations and emigrations that are population after facts that also can be eligible for SS insurance): ---31 million retirees (age 65-4) were counted in 1990, 100 35 million in 2000. 101 The Census Bureau’s ratio projection, which might have been based on the zero population growth theory, cited in 1983, is ‘false’:102

The ratio of the working age population . . . to the retirement age population will begin an unprecedented decline. The nation had 5.3 people of working age in 1982 for every person 65 or older. The ratio is projected to drop to 4.7 in 2000 and to 2.4 in 2080. [Population facts now show that the ratio did not drop in 2000.] The only fact of this cited scenario is this: ‘The nation had 5.3 people of working age in 1982 for every person 65 or older.’ All the rest is asserted fiction of projection rather than of fact, which politically intended to infer that SS was not a workable system. This politics, maybe deliberately, failed, however, to consider that the worker to retiree ratio, was at the time, conflicted by the system’s immaturity, which independent start-up concern had a profound influence on the ratio of concern. With the SS system now mature, facts show the ratio did not drop in 2000. It improved. And by shifting eligibility to age 67, keeps the ratio at or above 4.39:1, close to the ratio in 1982 (5.3:1). Inflation’s endemism is a far greater economic problem than is the BabyBooms’ demographics. Causally, inflation, which returns as business capital, directly relates to the nation’s paternal

100

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

mechanized grant of profit taking by the private businesses, and, oppositely is directly related to the nation’s paternal administration of the economic circular flowing SS contributions taxes: adjusting (i.e., Indexing) for inflation that impacts on SS benefits, which is proper, politically has resulted in double taxation from wage-earners who pay SS contribution taxes, which is improper since SS does not cause inflation, endemically or directly. Political paternal granting of profit taking should only relate to entrepreneurial business activity but has become a paternal business entitlement, which precedence allows a diminished amount of capital for wage-earned income from economic productions. Therefore, the results of this disparity must be recompensed: both the SS contribution’s tax surplus, spent as general government revenue, and inflation’s endemism, which mechanistically is transformed into capital returns directly to businessws from produced consumption, both must be recompensed! Politically, and falsely, inflation’s economic effect on SS benefits, was irrationally loaded onto SS contribution taxes, and to be rational, must be recompensed from general revenue taxation. Validations: Thesis 1) Effectively, the following table shows that the ratio of workers to retirees, remains higher than statistical experience in 1990. Validation of Thesis 1: SS reached its relative maturity in the late 1970s. SS began in 1935, and gradually matured as beneficiaries reached age 65: when a full population complement of beneficiaries became qualified to receive full SS benefits (workers in 1940 would not qualify for full retirement benefits until 1980). The system approached maturity in the late1970s coincident with a mini boom demographic, the notch babies’ eligibility for full SS benefits. Before 1980, statistics are not typical of the mature SS system, i.e., systemic coherence as fiducially appraised, fails as necessary systemic reality: for instance, back when the average age of mortality was age 50, the number of workers compared to those 65 and older was very large (And as our young nation began, the ratio of workers to

Validating the proposed critical theses

101

retirees probably might have exceeded 200:1), but this circumstance has no logical nexus to the circumstances of SS in the twenty first century. Similarly, to assume that requirements for SS today had anything to do with the facts in 1945 (that 42 workers existed for every retiree) also has no relative significance to the now mature SS system. And while the ratio in 1982 (5.3:1), might, for various reasons, be a little high, in reality, it is a benchmark (a standard) of the now mature SS system. Recent demographical facts prove the ratio did not drop in 2000 as, in ‘82, had officially, fallaciously been projected and cited. Then, with the shift to age 67 (other circumstances not considered), the ratio remains above 4.39 (shaded ratios apply and the applicable ratio for 2015 is between 5.29 and 5.49 depending on conversion to age 67). My mature system’s model, shows that the following shaded ratios apply: ' Year Ages

1990

2000

2010

2015

2025

2050

18-64

5.15

5.88

6.06

5.29

4.22

5.43

18-66

5.23

6.13

6.29

5.49

4.39

5.59

Thesis 2) Social Security is teleological ‘social usage’ virtue that mitigates a major paradox (vice) of the mechanist political economy: SS’s static circular flowing ‘social usage’ ensures sustenance income during the retired years of each wage-earner’s life. And causally, paying for the inflation COLAs related to SS benefits is a responsibility far more related to income from profits routinely legally granted to be taken from returning capital from consumed business productions, which capital is not subjected to SS contribution taxation, but is rewarded by the legally consumed enuring capital from inflation endemism. This comment is from Part III:

All birth counts of my model are registered facts, which are conservatively reduced by actuarial determined mortality rates!

102

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

With classical political economy’s extra fair accounting treatments, profit, taken as an absolute right of business owners, now exceeds 10 percent of the ‘gross personal income (or ‘Gross National income’). Increases in GDP during the twentieth century averaged 4 percent while inflation averaged 3 percent. 103 Taken together, the classical practice of cost accounting inflation’ endemism to consumption, which then, at points of consumption (sale), is returned to the capital side of accounting (i.e., then bypasses wage-earning that was involved in productions), while acting to increase ‘National income,’ covertly also acts to put inflation’s economic cost only onto consumption (the average 4 percent growth in GDP, plus the 3 percent average inflation’s consumer cost, which returns to business owners, as enured capital) mysticly eases the effects of taking 10 percent profits from GDP’s ‘gross personal income,’ as classically accounted and taken from business capital accounts, while inflation’s cost burden (economy’s negative impact) is covertly mechanistically born only by consumers: mostly wage-earners. Maybe said more novelly, if the 3 percent inflation effect did not enure as returning capital, then included in business owners high profit take from GDP, taking 10 percent profit from a diminished ‘Gross’ economic growth would necessarily require a greater offset taken from Parrington’s Paul’s ‘wageearned personal income’ 104 [which aggregated wages and salaries is listed separately in the Analysis of U.S. National Income by Type of Income (page 8)]: the ‘iron cage’ of “Paul’s” wages and salaries would necessarily be more directly restricted by capitalists’ demand for profit. Validation of Thesis 2: maybe disappointing is that SS is not a savings account or that, to retain the simple, direct, teleological mutual (social usage) insurance basis of SS, not-for profit-systems cannot properly be managed in the classical mechanist ‘for profit’ manner (the greatest difference involves profit, which incidently is not a valid necessary consideration of the static economic circular flow). And because of this, we need be aware that SS is not only more efficient: its administrative cost is only about 2% of revenue, with 98% of the non surplus collections distributed as benefits. But also, profits taken from so called for-profit

Validating the proposed critical theses

103

economic mechanisms is causally a growing source of inflation’s endemism. And when comparing economic growth, sans the inflation, the nation’s net economic growth for the twentieth century was then an anemic 1 percent: just a little less than early Greeks had hypothesized as ‘true’ economic growth in pace with population increases. Thesis 3) Neither were the SS bankruptcy charges ‘true‘ nor does paying retirement benefits’ to the BabyBoom, when they come due, endanger SS. Validation of Thesis 3: the ‘necessary’ systemic realities of SS cannot logically be concluded from hypothesized projections and trends. For instance, often now, officials assert this fallacy as a fact: ‘When the BabyBoom retires, there will not be enough workers to support them in retirement.’ [SS’s political opposition to SS, with preemptive encouragement, commonly asserts this ‘false’ anticipation.] SS’s political opposition has reasserted this fallacy since when SS was adopted: reasserted it during the 1980s, and now often despite factual evidences, which show that it is ‘false.’ In 1983-1984, this fallacious assertion had embroiled the retirement debate of another factual mini demographic birth wave and this fallacy was taken as evidence and the commonly affirmed fallacy was again certified. * * SS had reached maturity coincidently as the notch babies’ retirement wave, born between 1918-1926, presented a particularly heavier benefit burden on the pay-as-you-go SS system. ' At the critical time when SS was experiencing this increased benefit’s burden, the conservative Congress had changed the nation’s fiscal accounting year, adding months of SS benefits’ expenses without additional contribution tax collections to accommodate the added months to the fiscal year: the administrative

104

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

politics, which otherwise was faced with running huge federal deficits, then seized the opportunity to declare SS Bankrupt. Based on this fiscal scenario, the SS contribution tax rates were loaded to accumulate surplus (ostensibly to make SS a pay-for-yourself system for when the BabyBoom retired). However, none of this surplus went to equally pay retirement benefits to the then retiring ‘notch babies.’ Thesis 4) Inflation’s endemism endangers political economy as it also does Social Security: taking profits, that are not directly related to adding entrepreneurial value to mechanisms of political economy, is maybe inflation’s primary cause that also causes SS benefits to increase. Inflation costs loaded onto the SS benefits must be recompensed.

Thus, exactly as Ricardo or Mill foresaw, ‘in a static economy there is no place for profit! [R. L. Heilbroner on Shumperter] Without adding entrepreneurial value to economy, taking profits endemically take value from labor-based wage earning. Labor has nothing to do with inflation’s endemism. Therefore, inflation’s cost must be recompensed from general revenues taxation, as necessarily levied on a graduated scale of non wage-earned income. Validation of Thesis 4: Since SS did not and cannot mechanistically cause inflation, the inflation portion of benefits cost put onto SS contributions, also must be separated from SS’s contributions taxation. And this inflation’s cost put onto SS, in total, should be recompensed from general tax revenues. High end incomes, beyond the SS taxation caps, not only do not pay for the inflation they cause, as a class they are inflation’s main cause. And economically, inflation benefits them: Therefore, graduated rates of general revenue taxation should completely pay for the SS inflation load. And, as well, recompense inflation’s endemic effects causally related to “the iron cage of wages” effect.

The notch babies drew the fortuitous short straw of this scenario: their SS benefits were lower than were usually paid. And shamelessly this circumstance was ignored.

Thesis 5) Inflation endemism’s effects on wages must also be recompensed. If wages kept pace with inflation, the median family wage

Validating the proposed critical theses

105

earned in 2000 would be 3.1 times greater than median wages paid in 1975 ($19,480 white w 1-3 yrs of college 105 ): 106 more than $60,000. Validation of Thesis 5 is provided by the Endnotes. Thesis 6) Real economic growth (growth sans inflation’s endemism) is population growth related. Better teleology for workers now mechanistically (casually by determinism of an ‘iron law of wages’) made to pay the SS benefits’ inflation put onto the SS contributions tax, is for Congress to fulfill its Constitution-VESTED POWERS [section 8. (5)] and as reasserted in 1978 by the HumphreyHawkins law: to contain inflation by setting fixed regulation and trade standards and restrict banking rates of interest. I suspect the ‘golden ratio’ [Phi (N)], which early Greeks found had natural application to population growth, also naturally applies to our capitalist economy: to rid it of systemic inflation’s endemism. Mathematically, ‘the golden rule of consumption,’ 107 in which growth in economy equals growth in population and consumption is maximized, is nearly in balance when the ‘golden ratio’ [Phi (N)] applies to economic growth. An irrational number like B, N approximately has the decimal value 1.618. If Congress accepted its constitutional teleological charge to regulate the value coin and trade (thereby control inflation), investments in production and wage-earning would shift away from the casino economy of fluctuating markets into real economy of productions and consumption. A dollar earned would retain its inflation neutral economic value. And SS contribution rates would be but a fraction of present inflated rates. Validation of Thesis 6: the following statement of recent research results, was made on TV during October of 2003: ‘Over the last century, average economic growth was 4%, inflation 3%.’ To these facts of research, my deliberate commentary is added: economic growth measures the national increase in non earned economic value (shares of corporate profits by investors in fluctuating markets, for instance), while inflation measures the national increase in aggregated consumer costs. Economic growth is

106

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

enhanced by capital returns from consumed inflation to effect non earned affluence, while inflation in consumer costs negatively effects wages-earned in two ways (as goods and services are necessarily consumed to subsist and by the effects on wages-earned because of owner profit-taking that exceeds the sum of economic growth and inflation): systemically, mechanistically ‘giving to business owner-investors by taking from wage-earner-consumers.’ Thesis 7) Adam Smith’s market-based system of economy is far more promising now than when Smith had proposed it. Schumpeter’s analysis and conclusion provided principled keys for assuring long running economic growth: 108

Validating the proposed critical theses

107

thus the source of profit in the capitalist system. [Sans entrepreneurial activity, Schumperter’s analysis showed inflations’ endemism as paradoxically as its determined complement, ‘the iron cage of wages.’] By cutting out all unnecessary paradoxical inflation causes, we must restore and preserve Adam Smith’s ‘economic baby.’ The validation of Thesis 7 was made by quoting Heilbroner on Schumperter. Thesis 8) Only by its fundamental spiritual aspect, which added to a material visceral body, often called dualism, does democratic philosophy (Rational Empiricism) diverge from Fascism and Communism. When we, by official actions or licensing of privatized mechanisms, disband dualism teleology, and instead make unitary materialist deontology our antecedent principle (our king), we no longer can claim that a dualism of democratic antecedents are our principles. 109

‘Rational Empiricism,’ the philosophic basis of democracy, believes that the world is both material and spiritual. It holds that change and progress occur by applying reason to experience, and human nature can be changed and improved by experience. On the basis of these principles, democracy stresses discussion and the use of reason as a way of arriving at conclusions. It emphasizes the importance of tolerance and freedom in developing intelligent, loyal citizens. We should respect the material part of democracy for providing temporal bounties, but also must regard its natural limitations with regard to truth and virtue: didn’t Bertrand Russell logically prove that unitary materialist truth was nothing but imagined fallacy? : 110

108

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

mere matter, since it would contain no beliefs or statements, would also contain no truth or falsehood. With Unitary Materialism asserted dogmatically and, thereby, the deduced nihilist ‘positivism’ in both fascism and communism, their cultural failure was destined because of the dogmatic unitary materialist belief. Without dualism-based rational teleology, there is only meaningless facts! The context here requires no further Validation. Thesis 9) Natural Causal Realities require natural Principles, the logical keys of which are ‘true’ antecedence, necessity and coherence. Validation of Thesis 9: Tautologically, only democratic principles in this review qualify as principled antecedence while GOP Republicans’ Whiggish ambitions mostly only qualify as either the denial of necessary antecedent principles or fallacious affirmations of unnecessary consequents: both of which logically clearly bereft of dualism, represent only dogmatic irrationalism. From their respective philosophical postures, each Political Party argues that they best serve the interests of the nation. Unfortunately, too little thought, and less dedication, is given to holistic solving problems of our macro economy that constitutionally intends that ‘all’ are served. Our politics, in fact, has become enterprise, as E. Hoffer observed:111

When a mass movement begins to attract people who are interested in their individual careers, it is a sign that it has passed its vigorous stage; that it is no longer engaged in molding a new world but in possessing and preserving the present. It ceases to be a movement and becomes an enterprise. And prominently, our holistic macro-economy is ignored because the micro ‘special interest’ political desires of affluence are to sustain the American System’s paternalism that has government expending effort and taxes to open international markets to business enterprise: simply an ever expanding dimension of American System paternalism, emanating from the Whiggish designed Gilded-Age-federal ‘poker game’ that naturally leaves those bereft of their ‘poker stake’ disfranchised and on the sidelines of the nation’s

256

Preserving Economic Baby

109

economic progress, and many more losers clinging on but without political standing (without effective political representation in government) -- it is explicitly a tyranny of the masses. However, before open mind sets become dogma convinced by orthodoxy, we need carefully to contemplate the System that Adam Smith gave to us. Preserving Economic Baby (Coping with the Economic Paradoxs of Mechanism) To mitigate the legally licensed politically exploitative deontological results of government’s fiction-based American System mechanisms’ paradoxs, social usage programs are required. However, infusing mitigating teleologies is always vigorously met with politics of those directly value benefiting from idealistic deontologies of wedge politics. We have social usage-based workers’ compensation, pensions, crop-hail and flood insurance, and Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. We have a Constitution which specifies a Bill of Rights and equal protection under law. However, we lack common philosophical reason (exercised political opinions are far too often irrational and also violate oaths of office that are taken) to support the original constitutional American teleology of ‘equal protection’ under law (the constitutional Categorical Imperative). And, to be effective, this Imperative is essential for democratic teleology. But, while casting out the dirty bathwater (irrational unitary materialistmechanist dogmas endemic of the fallacious belief that axiomatically supplants constitutional teleology, as if it were the antecedent of teleology), we must preserve our mechanism-based deontological ‘economic baby' ’: The American System of Political Economy. * * While everyone should favor economic growth, those not benefiting from it have rationally good reason to react the irrational results put upon them. 256

While everyone favors economic growth, those not benefiting from it have good reason to react to the irrational results put upon them. Wage-earners would undoubtedly settle the smaller portion, however, must decry the excesses of economic exploitation in which, for instance, inflations’ endemism is put onto SS and medical insurance.

110

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

Wage-earners would undoubtedly settle for their smaller portion, however must rationally decry the excesses of economic exploitation in which, for instance, inflation’s endemism is irrationally mechanistically assigned to SS and medical insurance. And this is why centrist politics, with rationally antecedent principles instilled, are of necessity to democracy: only democracy offers philosophy that rationally balances the dual spiritual and material aspects of human life. Irrationally, socialism, fascism and capitalism aggrandize unitary materialism: life’s sum (its spiritual essence) is denied, conflated, belittled or equivocated. And while Whigs have done this, we cannot blame our plight on the politics that founded the GOP: Abraham Lincoln’s politics. In his letter to H. L. Prince, Lincoln cited Jefferson’s logical fidelity to antecedent principles, for instance.112 “Remembering . . . that the Jefferson party was formed upon its

supposed superior devotion to the personal rights of men, holding the rights of property to be secondary only, and greatly inferior . . . it will be . . . interesting to note how completely the two [parties] have changed hands as to the principles upon which they were originally supposed to be divided. The Democracy of today hold the liberty of one man to be absolutely nothing, when in conflict with another’s right to property [as Democrats’ politics of slavery had done]; Republicans on the contrary, are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar [is Lincoln’s ‘true’ appraisal of Jeffersonian democracy]. . . . But, soberly, it is now no child’s play to save the principles of Jefferson from total overthrow in this nation. . . . The principles of Jefferson are the principles and axioms of free society and yet they are denied and evaded, with no small show of success. One dashingly calls them ‘glittering generalities.’ Another bluntly calls them ‘self-evident lies!’ And others insidiously argue that they apply to ‘superior races.’ These expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect -- the supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. . . . They are the vanguard, the miners and sappers of

256

Preserving Economic Baby

111

returning despotism. We must repulse them or they will subjugate us.” [By returning us to Sixteenth century dogmatism] Also Schumperter’s finding that our economic system is young and flexible but needs rational attending, we should bear in mind. 113

The model resembles the stationary state envisaged by Ricardo and Mill, with the difference that the stationary state seemed the end of capitalism to the earlier writers, whereas for Schumpeter it was the beginning of capitalism. Therefore we must examine the characteristics of the circular flow a little more carefully. Clearly, our unequal democratic society has neither rationally attended to our economic system nor to our human spiritual reality, upon which culturally truth and knowledge are naturally dependent. Instead, in acquisitive aggrandizements of Unitary Materialism, we mostly subscribe irrationalisms, as the glorious Epicurean Paradox had expressed: ‘give us the luxuries of life, and we will dispense with its necessaries.’ Oliver Wendell Holmes Befitting this Epicurean Paradox, issuing from Political Economy’s paternal license and privilege, Whiggish irrationalism increases relatively with inflation’s endemism. Society now bears what we commonly call ‘society’s haves,’ which most all now aspire for. Henry Clay’s full blown Whiggish American System was installed by the GOP following Abraham Lincoln’s death. The deontology of this privatized unitary materialist mechanist system, as was fundamental to mercantilism, was designed to politically grant federal paternalism to productive business entities in faith that all in society would benefit economically, which faith alone has never been fulfilled, particularly among the wage-earning class (But wage-earning production was then made irrelevant to economic growth, which has phenomenally occurred to benefit society’s haves). H. Clay sponsored and his classical Whiggish followers affirmed this trickle down fallacy as the American System of Political Economy’s essential pseudo principle. Mercantilism’s determinism was fitted in to contend many subliminal things, in which orthodox dogma is also appended: for instance, ‘money is wealth,’ instead of its original exclusive exchange utility, and as

112

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

Adam Smith observed, ‘in the mercantile system, the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer.’ 114 The systemic irrationalism constantly perpetrated (which only covertly cause Desiderius) paradoxically effect the naturally inviolate human free will, as Schumpeter inferred, were expressed as complaints, or as terrorism. Thorstein Veblen wrote The Theory of Business Enterprise: 115

[It] came out in 1904. . . . the point of view that it advocated seemed to fly in the face of common sense. Every economist from the days of Adam Smith had made of the capitalist the driving figure in the economic tableau; whether for better or worse, he was generally assumed to be the central generator of economic progress. But with Veblen all this was turned topsy-turvy. The businessman was still the central figure, but no longer the motor force. Now he was portrayed as the ‘saboteur’ of the system! Needless to say, it was a strange perspective on society that could produce so disconcerting a view. Veblen did not begin , as Ricardo or Marx or the Victorians, with the clash of human interests; he began at a stage below, in the non human substratum of technology. What fascinated him was the machine (unitary materialist causality that is called mechanism). He saw society as dominated by the machine, caught up in its standardization, timed to its regular cycle of performance, geared to it insistence on accuracy and precision. More than that, he envisaged the economic process itself as being basically mechanical in nature. Economics meant production, and production meant the machine like meshing of society as it turned out goods. Such a social machine would need tenders, of course -- technicians and engineers to make whatever adjustments were necessary to ensure the most efficient cooperation of the parts. But from an overall view, society could best be pictured as a gigantic but purely matter-of-fact mechanism, a highly specialized, highly coordinated human clockwork.

256

Preserving Economic Baby

113

But where would the businessman fit into such a scheme? For the businessman was interested in making money, whereas the machine and it engineer masters knew no end except making goods. If the machine functioned well and fitted together smoothly, where would there be a place for a man whose only aim was profit? Ideally, there would be none. The machine was not concerned with values and profits; it ground out goods. Hence the businessman would have no function to perform -- unless he turned engineer. But as a member of the leisure class he was not interested in engineering; he wanted to accumulate. And this was something the machine was not set up to do at all. So the businessman achieved his end, not by working within the framework of the social machine, but by conspiring against it. His function was not to help make goods, but to cause breakdowns in the regular flow of output so that values would fluctuate and he could capitalize on the confusion to reap a profit. * * Particularly, the mortgage banking business proves this: providing teaser rates of adjustable interest, and of course fully charging for the closing costs, then soon thereafter offering a higher fixed rate to curtail rising adjustable rates, and again fully charging for closing costs. Closing costs amortized over time are a causal source of consumed inflation. A few years later, Schumperter proved Veblen’s view: the following passage is repeated: 116

‘The Theory of Economic Development’ sounds like an analysis of what we have come to call the underdeveloped world. But in 1912 the special economic status and problems of that “world” had not yet come into existence -- this was still the unabashed colonialism [Whigs in charge of the government’s Gilded Age officially had installed the American System of Political economy’s administrations along with its pork barrel ‘internal improvement’ paternalism]. Schumperter’s book was about another kind of development -- the way in which capitalism develops its propensities for growth. Scholarly in tone and tedious in style (a lite from time to time with lightning flashes), the book would

114

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

not strike the casual reader as being of much political importance. Yet this academic treatise was destined to become the basis for one of the most influential interpretations of capitalism ever written. The exposition begins in Schumpeter’s contradictory way. It is a book about capitalist growth and dynamics, but it opens with a depiction of a capitalist economy in which growth is totally absent. Schumpeter’s initial portrait describes a capitalism that lacks the very ingredient that brought growth into the worlds of Smith and Mill and Marx and Keynes -- namely, the accumulation of capital. Schumpeter describes instead a capitalism sans accumulation -- a capitalism whose flow of production is perfectly static and changeless, reproducing itself in a “circular flow” that never alters or expands its creation of wealth. The model resembles the stationary state envisaged by Ricardo and Mill, with the difference that the stationary state seemed the end of capitalism to the earlier writers, whereas for Schumpeter it was the beginning of capitalism. Therefore we must examine the characteristics of the circular flow a little more carefully. Because the system has no momentum, inertia is the rule of its economic life: “All knowledge and habit, once acquired,” writes Schumpeter, “becomes as firmly rooted in ourselves as a railway embankment in the earth.” Thus having found by trial and error the economic course that is most advantageous for ourselves, we repeat it by routine. Economic life may have originally been a challenge; it becomes a habit. More important, in this changeless flow competition will have removed all earnings that exceed the value of anyone’s contribution to output. This means that competition among employers will force them to pay their workers the full value of the product they create, and that owners of land or other natural wealth will likewise receive as rents whatever value their resources contribute. So workers and

256

Preserving Economic Baby

115

landowners will get their shares in the circular flow. And capitalists? Another surprise. Capitalists will receive nothing, except their wages as management. That is because any contribution to the value of output that was derived from capital goods they owned would be entirely absorbed by the value of labor that went into making those goods plus the value of resources they contained. Thus, exactly as Ricardo or Mill foresaw, ‘in a static economy there is no place for profit! Why does Schumpeter present us with such a strange -- not to say strained -- image of the system? Perhaps we have the static circular already divined the purpose behind his method: the model of a static capitalism is an attempt to answer the question of where profits come from. The source of profits is a question that has been gingerly handled by most economists. Smith wavered between viewing profit as a deduction from the value created by labor and as a kind of independent return located in capital itself. If profits were a deduction, of course, the explanation implied that labor was shortchanged; and if they were a contribution of capital, one would have to explain why the profits went to the owner of the machine, not to its inventor or user. Mill suggested that profits were the reward for the “abstinence” of capitalists, but he did not explain why capitalists were entitled to a reward for an activity that was clearly in their own interest. Still other economists described profits as the earnings of “capital,” speaking as if the shovel itself were paid for its contribution to output. Marx, of course, said that Smith was right in the first place though he didn’t know it -- that profits were a deduction from the actual value created by the working man. But that was part of the labor theory of value which everyone knew to be wrong and therefore did not have to be reckoned with.

116

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

Schumpeter now came forward with a brilliant answer to this vexing question. Profits he said, did not arise from exploitation of labor or from the earnings of capital. They were the result of quite another process. ‘Profits appeared in a static economy when the circular flow failed to follow its routinized course.’ [And profits routinely taken, despite entrepreneurial activity, as now commonly is a classical paternalism of political economy’s sanctioned business right, preempts just rewards to labor: fails to respect labor’s productive contribution.]

256

Preserving Economic Baby

117

because innovators do not necessarily come from any social class. Schumpeter took an old word from the economic lexicon and used it to describe these revolutionists of production. He called them ‘entrepreneurs.’ Entrepreneurs and their innovating activity were thus the source of profit in the capitalist system. [Sans entrepreneurial activity, inflations’ endemism is introduced, as its paradoxical complement, ‘the iron cage of wages,’ also is.] Whenever profits, by paternalist license are taken from political economy’s privatized mechanisms and are not entrepreneurial justified, the paradoxical complement, ‘the iron cage of wages,’ is also endemic of paternalist license to economic results. About Whigs’ mechanist philosophy, G. P. Brockway wrote this:117

Once the universe was running like a clock, there was nothing for it but to fit us to a wheel in the works -- perhaps a greater thing than a cog, but mechanical nevertheless. For us to be fit for this function, psychology had to subject us to mechanical controls. Or, as J. W. Miller said, we had first to lose our souls, then our minds; finally, with the behaviorists, consciousness. Economic man is a prime example of this remarkable servomechanism. The covert fallacious paternal official policies are thereby politically applied to nomos-defined property [which include mechanisms, capital, machinery, labor (which is a form of slavery), . . . ], and they deliberately intended to transpose constitutional teleological necessary purposes into nomos-based deontological duties, causing myriad Desiderius to adversely effect natural human sovereignties and rights. Henry Clay had the vision, but men like John Calhoun rhetorically provided the fallacious affirmations that appealed to society: Whigs designed the American political economy to cater individual and corporate property interests in the accumulation function of political economy. Calhoun’s rationalized argument for democracy as patterned on Greek democracy justified wage-earners as the slaves of the Whiggish political economy. Parrington gave this sample of Calhoun, a prolific political thinker and orator.118

118

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

The true origin of government, he asserted in common with John Adams, is to be found in practical necessity . . . It has always been found necessary to lodge coercive powers in certain hands as a social protection against individual aggression. Since all men are impelled by self interest, political systems are determined in form and scope by this universal instinct. Without government there is anarchy; with government there is[Tpeortreonritsim al, tmyroastnpnryo.bably is caused by imposed tyranny] Speaking of Jefferson Davis, who northern conservatives called a terrorist, Parrington, bared the underbelly of this northern irrationalism:119

The president of the Confederacy may have been an unfortunate civil leader, but the slanders that so long clung to his name are only worthy of the gutter. The sin that he was led into was not counted a sin in his southern decalogue; it was the sin, not of secession, but of imperialism--a sin common to all America in those drunken times when the great West invited explo[bityatmioenan. s of paternalist license, no less!] --Is American society still afflicted by political divisions caused by exploitative interests in gold’s glitter, timber, grazing, recreation and such on public lands whose proprietor is the consented authority, which has licensed the exploitations, i.e., by creating special interests of paternally licensed private businesses to exploit the commonwealth’s resources? --What is the commonweal interest? (Parrington commented,):

In the year 1825 three streams of tendency were flowing through the [American mind], rising from different sources, incompatible in spirt and purpose, strong in their diverse appeals; and in the end the major current was certain to engulf the lesser. The humanitarianism of Virginia, the individualism of the new West, and the imperialism of the Black Belt might seem to mingle their waters for a time, but there would be confusions of thought and diversity of counsels until one or another had worn a deeper channel through which the dominant opinion might run. There could be no more fascinating study in the economics of political theory than the changing mind of the South during the critical decades from 1825 to 1850, as it followed the

256

Preserving Economic Baby

119

course determined by its peculiar institution. . . . It is unintelligent to charge upon southern politicians a lack of consistency---to point out that after 1820 Calhoun reversed himself on every major political principle. It was true of Calhoun, as it was true of Webster and true of Clay. In a rapidly changing America, with economics in a state of flux, men were no longer free political agents, guiding themselves by the fixed stars of accepted theory: they were borne like corks on the current of the times, and their inconsistency is the surest evidence that they spoke for their constituents. The North and the South were at the parting of the ways, and if southern imperialism created for its needs a philosophy of particularism, it was met by a counter philosophy of nationalism created for its needs by northern capitalism, which likewise was following the path of its manifest destiny. R. L. Heilbroner wrote about economic fallacies with this comment: 120

. . . The notions of the great economists were world-shaking and their mistakes nothing short of calamitous. ---Are policies less calamitous when officially made by authorities of government instead of by economists? ---Do issues confront America in 1996 (or now in 2002) that resulted from errant American politics that influenced the official policies of exploitative Imperialism and Manifest Destiny? ---Are these politics perpetuated as our nation’s Foreign Policy? --Is the policy of Preemptive Action (war) related to the irrational paternalist official Imperialism and Manifest Destiny? The ongoing political debate about a patient’s right to sue, for instance, boils down to whether this or that economic entity is given official paternalist immunity from law suits (‘legal immunity’ as affirmed by classical Justice is, therefore, also exposed as fallacious irrationalism): unequal sovereignties and rights in this organic debate, are routinely politically nomosly decided? As similarly, in affirmed mercantilism, business is granted the right to exploit consumption, management to exploit labor, bankers (insurers) to the exploit money’s utility, . . .: Irrational fallacies! , All! By what right or sovereignty are fallaciously affirmed

120

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

vices of dogmatic biases justified? For instance, by what equality of right or sovereignty can capitalists claim profits produced by labor? (Veblen’s view as confirmed by Schumpeter’s economic ‘circular flow’ analysis is about this.) The answer is this: politically irrational inequalities are legally affirmed policy, fallaciously supplanting rationally ‘antecedent’ principles by affirming logical ‘consequents’ to replace them: making irrationalism the basis of law. Politically, what has been inculcated as science, and legally justified, is devoid of natural antecedence, systemic necessity and coherence. Therefore, it cannot be ‘true!’: maybe it’s art, but never is it science. About life’s omnipresent quandary, these definitions and explanations shed light, on materialism: Idealism (philosophy) -- belief that all our knowledge is based on ideas and that it is impossible to know whether there really is a world of objects on which our ideas are based. Idealism, as opposed to materialism, holds that objects do not really exist apart from our ideas.121 Idealism conflates life’s essence to a unitary form of materialism! : the meaning of conflate is critical to understanding that Unitary Materialism results when materialist politics conflates the essence side of democracy (as has happened during the G.W. Bush administration): 122 Conflate, v.t. 1. to bring or put together; compose of various elements. Is idealism logically reasonable? -- it is not! Idealism consistently, unjustifiably, demeans the omnipresent fiducial purposes of logical reason: as Kant had challenged philosophers and scientists to produce evidence that would allow us to make assertions about things we have not actually experienced. 123 Science is critically important regarding finding and retaining truth and knowledge. Ideology’s first definition confirms that science and ideology are not compatible disciplines: 124 1. A set of doctrines; body of opinions: The majority of teachers and professors do not teach any ideology (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists) 2. The combined doctrines, assertions, and intentions of a social or political movement: i.e., “communist ideology.” 3. Abstract speculation, especially theorizing or speculation of a visionary or impractical nature. 4. The science of the origin and nature of ideas. 5. A system of philosophy that derives all ideas exclusively from sensation

251

Social Security

121

[assertions based on empiricism]. Philosophically, democracy cannot exist in an absence of rational human essence, which absence occurs when unitary materialism is officially affirmed as the antecedent of reason. If our materialist political economy ever achieves to sponsor the investment of SS surplus contributions in fluctuating markets, then wageearners’ only savings for retirement will be made into the subject and cause for greater endemic inflation, i.e., wage-earners will become a causal accomplice of the mechanists’ inflation endemism. The far better teleology for workers that, by consuming what they produce, mechanistically are determined to fully pay for the mechanists’ endemically caused inflation, is for Congress to fulfill its constitutional charge: reduce inflation by restricting the Bankers’ COLA along with all other inflation causes. I suspect the ‘golden ratio,’ named Phi (N), that the Greeks found, has natural application to our capitalist democratic economy: to rid it of systemic inflation. Mathematically, ‘the golden rule of consumption,’125 in which economic growth equals population growth (and consumption is maximized), is nearly in balance when the ‘golden ratio’ applies to economic growth. An irrational number like B, N approximately has the decimal value of 1.618.126 If Congress accepted its constitutional teleological charge and controlled inflation by eliminating the endemism wherever found, investments in production growth and wage-earning would shift away from the casino economy, of fluctuating futures markets, into the real economy of production and consumption. The dollar would then retain its value. 251 SOCIAL SECURITY Found among illusive economic perceptions of American Society, Social Security is a beneficent oddity that centrally the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Security System depicts: a beneficent not for profit social usagebased mechanism designed to operate, without disruption, alongside the Whiggish ‘for profit’ mechanisms, SS, functions supplement the exploitative for profit mechanisms of American political economy. Jaded American society scorns (claims to hate) Socialism: maybe because, as a clearly expressed form of unitary materialism, the socialist foundation is commonly

122

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

known? Still, the American System’s capitalism feigns democracy while also practicing unitary materialism. And so, while Social Security curiously is thought to be related to socialism, which thought gives feelings of indigestion to many, American capitalism is more closely related. Despite its label, Social Security is a pure form of social usage-based Mutual Insurance with no more socialist tendencies than the Mutual, Grange, Farm Bureau or Union Insurance Company that functions in most American neighborhoods: with benefit payments made to current SS beneficiaries spread onto the social base of wages-earned by the current policyholders of SS. And, wage-earners are the financial base of the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Security System of insurance reserves. Contributions to this system are the basis for benefit entitlement to eventual retirement annuities. Insurance, was never more straight forward and direct! But inflation’s systemic endemism effects on SS benefits are not only extraneous, their source systemically is completely foreign, which fact has been ignored by government authority: forty years of compounding inflation effects devastate an SS benefit value. Politically, this inflation cost was licensed for collection by SS contributions’ taxation, and it will remain this way until wage-earners unite politically to demand redress of this economic disparity. Compounding inflation, has made the problem very big: now in year 2000, the nation owes wage-earner-contributors to the SS surplus, which began in 1984, something more than $3 trillion, which has routinely been spent as governments’ revenue. Wisely, I believe. The designers of privately organized mutual insurance companies, which operate as form of ‘social usage’, chose not to name their companies, The ABC Socialized Insurance Company. They did not because ‘social usage,’ as Roger Williams had defined it was a vestige of embryonic democracy not socialism. ' Mutual insurance in the U.S. is older than the nation. ‘The Philadelphia Contributorship’ (a mutual fire insurance company and the first insurance company in the colonies, with Benjamin Franklin’s support) was founded in 1752. Since then, literally

Philosophically, democracy (rational empiricism) has the duality of essence and materiality, whereas socialism has only Unitary Materialism as its basis.

251

Social Security

123

thousands of Mutual insurance companies, Granges, Farm Bureaus and Unions were organized by policyholders (the insurance subscribers) whose common interest and purpose was to spread, or share, particularly defined individual risks of loss on the whole subscribership financial base (whenever insurance premiums were insufficient to pay losses, a special premium assessment then became a necessary subscriber liability).127

The policyholders own Mutual Insurance companies. All profits are held for their mutual benefit [and company losses are a mutual liability]. Many largest U.S. insurance companies are, or were, mutual social usage-based companies: Society did not pause to ponder the social usage aspect of mutual insurance, as being a form of Socialism (socializing insurance losses by social usage does not qualify, in any philosophical organic sense, as socialism): philosophically, Socialism is a form of organic Absolute Idealism that practices unitary materialism and, in which the freedom of choice does not exist. Because the distinguishing factor of democracy is human dualism (of essence as well as materiality), in fact, therefore, while unitary materialist commonalities relate to mechanism of the U.S. economy and to the organic philosophy of communism and fascism, it fails to apply to the dualism-based social usage principle as was or is applied to all insurance forms in the U.S. As our nation began, capital was scarce - frankly did not exist. The mutual organization was the only viable insurance alternative for most Americans who desired to enjoy insurance security and otherwise had to make do without it. The capitalist unitary materialist objective to ‘grow’ by ‘gaining from profit’ infused deontological duties to privatized ‘social usage’ insurance mechanisms, and by doing this, teleological mutual ownership was supplanted by private ownership. (See Schumpeter’s: the way in which capitalism develops its propensities for growth.) Poignant stories were commonly told about the unique cooperative manner in which mutual insurance losses were settled, without implications of law. Trust prevailed: insurance furnished the materials and policyholders joined together to repair or rebuild, what had been lost or damaged.

124

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

Even with the money hoarding of today, society has not outgrown its need for mutual insurance (for example, ‘Terrorism Insurance’ is a late mutual form of informal insurance that is tax based). In fact, private sector ‘for profit’ insurance, has inculcated broad public expectations for economic redress in ever more frequent instances of loss that private sector ‘for profit insurance’ is incapable to provide. And, therefore, agencies of the federal government paternally politically have provided tax based economic redress to victims of private catastrophic losses of an earthquake, hurricane, flood, ravages of war, insurrection, and other natural disasters that do not qualify for or are denied by private sector insurance. To the ever growing list of natural disasters, the Savings and Loan and Bank bailouts of the 1980s was added to this category of federal tax-based economic redress (the government after all, in fact, informally provides a form of mutual insurance of last resort). Private insurance defines the policy (the contract of coverage) that is based on, and balanced with, the financial capability as limited to each company’s financial capacity. And, natural catastrophic events, more often now, prove to exceed the aggregated financial capacity of all private insurance. Katrina, unfortunately, once again in fact, has proved this. Most tax-based redress of private financial loss (social paternal assists paid by government agencies) depend on politics and because the lac of formal contractual risk definition, or a defined contractual social usage base on which to spread the individual losses, these examples are of aid, and, therefore, are not considered as insurance, which defacto it is. Anyway, Benjamin Franklin did not import Socialism to America. What he imported was the valid insurance concept of spreading risk onto a social group of voluntary participants. Whether a company is private, stock, mutual, or government does not change the insurance principal that is, in fact, social usage based: the fundamental insurance concept, which Franklin imported, might be stated? :

Risk, specifically defined and sufficiently spread onto a socialized economic base, is manageable whereas risk which is not socialized can and at times will devastate, economically, individuals of society.

251

Social Security

125

The overwhelming number of mutual companies that have withstood loss adversities of centuries offers undeniable evidence that this insurance principle works. But, to be sure, there are uninsurable risks, the losses of which can only be redressed by government by social usage of the total public sector’s tax base. And such social redress is not, any more than mutual insurance is, a Socialism form. The only difference is that the ultimate organic league of risk socialization has politically shifted onto our national federation. ‘Risk-spreading,’ is a legitimate insurance principle that formally applies only to private sector insurance: cannot apply in catastrophic instances of property loss. And, if catastrophic risks, which often defy policy definition, are ever to be insured, the private insurance business sector must better cooperate with government to provide for it. This heterogeneous partnership needs much improvement and unwillingness always has originated in the private sector more than from government. Organic rights paternalistically granted, as often are politically achieved, get in the way of reason: what society, by way of government without cost to private businesses, paternally has allowed in realty and security, experience has shown, are then legally adjudged as the businesses’ own private property? * * For instance, in The End of Economic Man, G. P. Brockway called attention to the organic financial grant, which private business claims to own by way of freely given license to business economic productions: wages that are paid only after each pay period is completed. Brockway described this organic grant as a free front end loan with each pay period, which in fact is a continuous loan that the productive wage-earners make to their employer. With this fact in mind, wage-earners that start pennyless are often put into crisis situations, which force onto them prospects of obtaining usury-based loans from a growing, thriving paternally licensed private business sector that charges from eight to 15 percent, per week, (which at the low end amounts to 416 percent yearly interest) for what is called a paycheck loan. The ultimate solution to this growing problem rests mostly on the redress of the organic paternal license modification to businesses, which allow free front end wage-earned work without pay: in effect are capital loans to businesses (and which also includes military pay periods): wage-earners

126

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

must be organically be also granted an equitable paternal license for to access prospective pay directly as work is delivered. The government’s Crop Hail Insurance was in the news a few years ago. Agents of private insurance companies profited fraudulently from this insurance: Insurance policies for crops, which had never been successful in the dust belt of America, were sold only with an intent to file claims of loss for the corn and peanut crop failures. The report of this fraud exhibited a large barn that a farmer had built with his insurance check. The checks for supposed losses were issued by private insurance companies and were contractually reimbursed by the government: taxpayers paid for the fraud! The fronting private sector underwriting companies had perpetrated an insurance sham of mechanist design to only reap profits. The agents of these companies got their commissions and farmers got paid for failed crops that, agents, farmers, and the private insurance companies knew, from the outset, would never grow to be harvested. Fraud is a huge business centered in all private forms of insurance and private sector business: seeking profits is the concupiscent culprit. Twenty percent of auto insurance loss payments routinely go to paying for stolen cars that never are recovered. Medical insurance fraud is huge. And Medicare is the granddaddy of private mechanist concupiscent nefariousness. Seemingly innocuous breaches of ethical culture are wrought by political economy’s pseudo principles of legalized property-based mechanisms: fictitious corporate entities, and (‘shrug’) nefarious concupiscent type attitudes as ‘insurance pays my bill, not other patients or the hospital.’ ' And all insurance fraud is causally related to inflation endemism that when consumed legally returns as enured capital that is then owned by the business source. In his chapters on Speculation and Property, G. P. Brockway exposes a vast divergence between legal allowances given

Recently, my wife had reason to consult a primary doctor, and inocently clarified the workings of her new HMO subscription. Her wait was long, her visit brief, ten minutes or so. The doctor’s HMO billing note read: ‘Comprehensive, new patient interview, more time than usual, 45 min.’

251

Social Security

127

corporations and those given to persons: legal court-interpretations are at the roots of business’ nefariousness: despite this, Jefferson’s interpretation of ‘ownership’:

The earth belongs to the living and not to the dead. While Jefferson said this, his argument was Paine’s, in an ongoing and unsettled debate with Burke, the adopted ‘father of conservatism.’ And still, the public’s greatest need is health insurance: Forty million Americans cannot afford the private insurance system’s cost. The Clinton administration’s attempt to install a universal health insurance system was overwhelmingly defeated. Opposition to this system came mostly from private sector insurance that provided more than $100 million in PAC lobby money to ensure this defeat. And such fictitious sovereign intrusion, by licensed fiction, into politics by Corporate Interests represents the greatest threat to American constitutional democracy. Maybe there is new hope of better democratic representation with ‘soft money’ reform of McCain-Feingold? (And, more surely, with the 2006 national congressional election?) But getting the attention of classically orthodox officials -- to act rationally -- is as impossible as solving the chicken and egg question: each antecedent hypothesis is independent of the other. Anyway, change is always radical (therefore, is liberal?). Brockway points to the orthodox notion of rights and declares this:

There is no right that capitalists claim, that equally cannot be claimed by labor. Brockway reasons that classical orthodoxy gave legal advantages to capitalists: with all earnings delayed until a work pay period is completed, capitalists are legally thereby granted a continuous periodical increment of free capital. Capital, which is, thereby, a free advantage for to advertize and lobby. And, egregiously this legal advantage was then deemed a business right (as speech, for instance). Which classical capitalist orthodoxy achieved to put wage-earners into a mechanist ‘iron wage cage’ with no free front end payment of or access to their wages earned. And, paternally organically, this

128

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

paradox has not been mitigated! About capitalism’s propensities for economic growth, R. L. Heilbroner cited J. Schumperter’s telling economic analysis, which is again repeated: 128

‘The Theory of Economic Development’ sounds like an analysis of what we have come to call the underdeveloped world. But in 1912 the special economic status and problems of that “world” had not yet come into existence -- this was still the unabashed colonialism [Whigs in charge of the government’s Gilded Age officially had installed pork barrel ‘internal improvement’ paternalism into the American System of Political economy’s administrations]. Schumperter’s book was about another

kind of development -- the way in which capitalism develops its propensities for growth. . . . this academic treatise was destined to become the basis for one of the most influential interpretations of capitalism ever written. . . .. Schumpeter’s initial portrait describes a capitalism that lacks the very ingredient that brought growth into the worlds of Smith and Mill and Marx and Keynes -- namely, the accumulation of capital. Schumpeter describes instead a capitalism sans accumulation -- a capitalism whose flow of production is perfectly static and changeless, reproducing itself in a “circular flow” that never alters or expands its creation of wealth. The model resembles the stationary state envisaged by Ricardo and Mill, with the difference that the stationary state seemed the end of capitalism to the earlier writers, whereas for Schumpeter it was the beginning of capitalism. Therefore we must examine the characteristics of the circular flow a little more carefully. Because the system has no momentum, inertia is the rule of its economic life: “All knowledge and habit, once acquired,” writes Schumpeter, “becomes as firmly rooted in ourselves as a railway embankment in the earth.” Thus having found by trial and error the economic course that is most advantageous for ourselves, we repeat it by routine. Economic life may have originally been a challenge; it becomes a habit.

251

Social Security

129

More important, in this changeless flow competition will have removed all earnings that exceed the value of anyone’s contribution to output. This means that competition among employers will force them to pay their workers the full value of the product they create, and that owners of land or other natural wealth will likewise receive as rents whatever value their resources contribute. So workers and landowners will get their shares in the circular flow. And capitalists? Another surprise. Capitalists will receive nothing, except their wages as management. That is because any contribution to the value of output that was derived from capital goods they owned would be entirely absorbed by the value of labor that went into making those goods plus the value of resources they contained. Thus, exactly as Ricardo or Mill foresaw, ‘in a static economy there is no place for profit! Why does Schumpeter present us with such a strange -- not to say strained -- image of the system? Perhaps we have already divined the purpose behind his method: the model of a static capitalism is an attempt to answer the question of where profits come from. The source of profits is a question that has been gingerly handled by most economists. Smith wavered between viewing profit as a deduction from the value created by labor and as a kind of independent return located in capital itself. If profits were a deduction, of course, the explanation implied that labor was shortchanged; and if they were a contribution of capital, one would have to explain why the profits went to the owner of the machine, not to its inventor or user. Mill suggested that profits were the reward for the “abstinence” of capitalists, but he did not explain why capitalists were entitled to a reward for an activity that was clearly in their own interest. Still other economists described profits as the earnings of “capital,” speaking as if the shovel itself were paid for its contribution to output. Marx, of course, said that Smith was right in

130

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

the first place though he didn’t know it -- that profits were a deduction from the actual value created by the working man. But that was part of the labor theory of value which everyone knew to be wrong and therefore did not have to be reckoned with. Schumpeter now came forward with a brilliant answer to this vexing question. Profits he said, did not arise from exploitation of labor or from the earnings of capital. They were the result of quite another process. ‘Profits appeared in a static economy when the circular flow failed to follow its routinized course.’ Now we can see why the wildly unrealistic circular flow is so brilliant a starting point. For all the forces leading to disruptions in routine, one stands out. This is the introduction of technological or organizational innovations into the circular flow -- new or cheaper ways of making things, or ways of making wholly new things. ‘As a result of these innovations a flow of income arises that cannot be traced either to the contribution of labor or of resource owners.’ A new process enables an innovating capitalist to produce the same goods as his competitors, but at a cheaper cost, exactly as a favorably located piece of land enables its owner to produce crops more cheaply than less well situated fellow landlords. Again, exactly like the fortunate landlord, the innovating capitalist now receives a “rent” from the differential in his cost. But this rent is not derived from Godgiven advantages in location or fertility. It springs from the will and intelligence of the innovator, and it will disappear as soon as other capitalists learn the tricks of the pioneer. The new flow is not therefore a more or less permanent rent. It is a wholly transient profit. An innovation implies an innovator -- someone who is responsible for combining the factors of production in new ways. This is obviously not a “normal” businessman, following established routines. The person who introduces change into economic life is a

251

Social Security

131

representative of another class -- or more accurately, another group, because innovators do not necessarily come from any social class. Schumpeter took an old word from the economic lexicon and used it to describe these revolutionists of production. He called them ‘entrepreneurs.’ Entrepreneurs and their innovating activity were thus the source of profit in the capitalist system. Schumperter’s capitalist Entrepreneurs neither asked for nor required government paternalism, as granting free front end capital or Gilded Age demands for ‘internal improvement‘ assistance. Only entrepreneurship was required: so, what political irrationalism justifies government’s paternalism with profit-taking? Answering this question requires the holistic recognition that granting privilege to some naturally requires that what is given must be taken from others. And the bond of democratic equality is thereby broken! If our nation is to remain interested in preserving democracy, equal rights must be preserved and, therefore, the granting of privileges must be redressed with beneficent grants to the unprivileged, which beneficence must be paid for by those of the politically granted privileges, with profit-taking, for instance. Economy’s inordinate growth has been irrationally achieved by fallaciously accounting the intrinsically related paternalism’s economic benefits derived by the Whiggish political economy scheme, which Parrington described as being ingenious:

a curiously ingenious scheme to milk the cow and divide the milk among those who supervised the milking. And profits taken fail to trickle down as capitalist ideology claimed: 129

Henry Ward Beecher, the 19th century American clergyman, said 'You cannot sift out the poor from the community. The poor are indispensable to the rich.’ The early-20th century English poet and novelist G. K. Chesterton felt that even when the rich helped out, it was more through acceptance of poverty than a desire to cure it. He wrote: 'If we wish to protect the poor we shall be in favor of fixed rules and clear dogma. The rules of a club are occasionally in favor of the poor

132

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

member. The drift [the political flux] of a club is always in favor of the rich one. Beecher and Chesterton’s thoughts are teleologically rational because recognize that paternalistically granting license to some naturally impugns others. They also recognized that politics will always favor the rich and powerful. Parrington observed this irrational politics as giving to Peter by taking from Paul: leaving equally deserving citizens to contend with myriad economic misfortunes, of which the paternal granting of license to private business mechanisms to exploit the natural whole of society caused. And that logical principles were politically aborted by this- * 130 ),

* Principles must not stand in the way of success Through the fierce scramble of rival politicians moved a scholarly figure who preserved to the last dignity and distinction of an earlier age. James Kent, whose long life and ripe legal learning were devoted to upholding what he conceived to be the ultimate principles of law and politics, was the chief political thinker of the transition days of New York. A disciple of Locke and Blackstone, remodeling seventeenth-century liberalism into eighteenth-century conservatism, he was concerned to erect the barriers of the Common Law about the unsurveyed frontiers of the American experiment, assigning exact metes and bounds beyond which it should not go. Like John Marshall and Joseph Story he was expert in devising legal springs to catch unwary democrats, and while the Jeffersonians were shouting over their victories at the polls, he was engaged in the strategic work of placing the Constitution under the narrow custodianship of the English law. An ardent Federalist and later an equally ardent Whig, he reveals in his precise thinking the intimate relations that everywhere exist between economics, politics, and legal principles. [Asserting affirmed fallacies as principle are mechanistic hallmarks] -and where the nation’s growing public debt is fallaciously excused, or ignored, because the economic progress’ cost ultimately mechanistically

251

Social Security

133

settles onto wage-earners’ consumption and taxes. About this, George Will on ABC’s, This Week, astutely observed this:

We privatize profits and socialize debts [Profits from economic progress go to owners of companies of The American System of Political Economy while public debt ultimately is only repaid by the general revenue taxes of wage-earners]. Political Economy decidedly favors acquisitive influence and power more than human rights or teleology? Social Security, as conservatives perceive of it, however, contradicts political economy’s economic paternalism. But SS is compatible with Schumpertarian capitalism, which denies randomly taking profits unless entrepreneurship is provided. And what this says was quite exactly expressed by the Epicurean paradox:

‘give us the luxuries of life, and we will dispense with its necessaries.’ Oliver Wendell Holmes The Social Security System spreads the ‘risk’ (certainty in this instance) of age related loss of wage-earning abilities, under defined cases of old age, survivorship and disability, onto the ‘social base’ of wage-earners: If paid wages, you participate in this social usage-based insurance. The teleology of SS is the logical necessary principle that mutual insurance had introduced in the U.S.; it is devoid of the exploitative ‘profit’ motive intrinsic of classically orthodox ‘for profit’ economic insurance mechanisms; collectively, under any natural meaning of ‘ownership,’ as entrusted to government’s administration, wage-earners own the SS insurance (as all mutual insurance mechanisms are of this Schumpertarian ‘static circular flow’ type). And all that constitutes ‘the insurance premium’ (contribution taxes) are (should be) enough to cover benefits (in inflation neutral dollars) that are necessarily paid. And, fiducial reciprocity exists between the owners and beneficiaries: Mutual insurance and SS are forms of reciprocal risk spreading that Roger Williams called ‘social usage.’ And, even ‘for profit’ businesses have internally employed this concept: The Federal Reserve, for instance, operates as ‘social usage’ to its family of banks. FDIC insurance is another example of it that serves to insure bank deposits. Reinsurance,

134

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

which is conducted between insurance companies, is also ‘social usage’ insurance - as also is the federal redress in cases of catastrophic disasters. Terrorism’ insurance, has no mutual reciprocity. It insures ‘privatized capitalists’ profit, while socializing the losses of it that wageearner tax payers must pay to provide for it. It is an extension of government’s paternalism granted to ‘for profit’ business mechanisms. Myths about SS have sprung forth, in part, because, as individuals, we have not paid much attention to the SS System as a reciprocal form of ‘social usage.’ Sure we each are aware of those, on SS, who don't need it and to fewer instances of those who need SS and aren't on it. It's easy to be critical of the seeming obvious omissions-inefficiencies or to suppose that our SS contribution-taxes are, or should be, deposited to some gigantic account to be held in some sort of ‘locked box’ while compounding interest until, in our retiring years, we individually need the money. Maybe it disappoints us that SS is not a savings account or that, to retain the simple, direct, teleological mutual insurance basis, that not-for profit ‘social usage’ mechanisms cannot efficiently be managed in the ‘for profit’ business manner. One thing we need be aware of, in this regard, is that SS is the most efficiently designed reciprocating insurance ever: excepting surplus collections, its operations cost is about 2% of revenue: 98% of it is distributed in benefits paid. ‘Social Security’ was established to provide a pipeline through which revenues collected from today's larger group of workers flow out as benefits to today's smaller group of elderly beneficiaries. The smaller retired group is getting larger and quite fallaciously orthodoxy expects it to become very large beginning in 2010. And, has made fallacious deductions about this perceived demographical trend, which the Census Bureau’s zero growth study had presented. But while this expectation is ‘false,’ it has popular orthodox political appeal! As any well-defined insurance, SS was established with clear ‘risk’ definition (loss of wage-earning) and everyone who participates, is a survivor, or dependent of a participant (not only - or all - those who need it) is an eligible beneficiary of the system (SS provides security through the working years as well). However, the July 17, 1991-news clip confirms

251

Social Security

135

that political problems exist: Maybe we trust too much that the SS administration is unaffected by politics. SS is now an ‘off budget’ government account: Help! 131

“The Social Security Commissioner, asked local governments to help the Social Security Administration find a large segment of the American public which is eligible for benefits but can't be found. 35 percent of those eligible aren't being located. Social Security is reaching out, and needs help from counties to find that homeless woman, that elderly couple, that disabled child,” King said. The administration last week began mailing notices to 435,000 disabled children found by the U.S. Supreme Court to have been denied supplemental benefits improperly over the past 11 years. [Was this denial of benefits politics related?] The court ordered the agency to redefine its standards for eligibility, and to provide retroactive benefits that could amount to $2 billion. “It is the right thing to do,” King said. “A child improperly denied justice should not have to wait one minute longer to receive benefits.” [As there was no available follow up on this news release, the issue remains unresolved: was this simply political rhetoric made to satisfy, but not settle, a law suit?] I furnished this disclosure to emphasize the expanded SS coverage: those paying into the SS pipeline, and their families, are insured in specific cases of disability and death: benefits are intended to be paid to many who are eligible without having reached the threshold age of retirement. Survivors benefits have greatly expanded SS coverage: ---- 3 Widows or widowers -- benefits are paid at age 60, (at age 50 if disabled), or at any age, including those divorced, when they are responsible for dependents, under age 16 or disabled and receiving aid. ---- 33 Surviving children under age 18, (19 if attending high school), or at any age when disabled. ---- 333 Dependent parents aged 62 or older.

136

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

A unique Medicare benefit, which must be signed-up for, became available in 1988 but was not adequately disclosed (politics, maybe ?): Eligible persons for this benefit have not been contacted because Congress, federal officials explained, had cut all administrative costs. The Medicare benefit pays the Medicare premiums and the deductibles in cases of hardship. Hardship is explained: ---- 3333 Retired persons on Medicare who fall below the poverty level, are eligible for this Medicare benefit, which pays both the Medicare premiums and deductibles. Contact Medicare for answers to your questions. Bills charged to Hospital Insurance (Medicare) are paid from revenue that flows through the SS pipeline (The tax rates are listed in the following table under the heading, HI). SS law in 1984 expanded the regressive SS contribution’s tax, the specified rates of collection, which went beyond providing for the inflation adjusted benefit payments. The contribution tax collections included surplus funding, which since have routinely been spent as government’s general revenues: the maximum new SS tax increase index (76.5), represents a 7,510 percent tax increase since SS’s inception. And because the SS cap has been adjusted to rise ahead of median family income, wage-earning families, aggregated, pay close to the maximum tax increase. The SS revenue near directly is indexed to the median rise in wages, which irrationally lags inflation’s index (since the 1960s, constant dollar wages have not kept pace with inflation). This SS contributions’ tax law should signal alarm, particularly with wage-earners who contribute surplus funding that routinely is spent as government’s general revenue (the collections of surplus funds, with inflation included in benefits as anticipated, which has routinely been spent, now exceeds $ 3 trillion). For fiducial purposes of accounting, employers deposit SS contribution tax revenues with participating collection banks before they sent to the government: where the revenues are then accounted to three separate trust funds for disbursement to the beneficiaries (The Treasury Department is government’s collecting and dispensing arm). And because surplus SS funds

251

Social Security

137

are routinely spent as general revenue, the trust fund accounts now include IOUs (showing that government owes the collected money, that was routinely spent, to the Trust Funds ' ). The contribution tax is commonly called the OASDHI payroll tax: the trust funds acronym. The Old-Age and Survivor's Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) is this research’ primary concern. For convenience of reference, the following table is repeated. SOCIAL SECURITY TAX RATES

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982

-------- RATES ------(PERCENT OF WAGES) TOTAL OASDI HI 3 3 4 4 6 6 7.25 7.25 9.6 8.4 1.2 10.4 9.2 1.2 10.4 9.2 1.2 11.7 9.7 2 11.7 9.9 1.8 no rate change no rate change -------- RATES ------(PERCENT OF WAGES) TOTAL OASDI HI " " " 12.1 10.1 2 12.26 10.16 2.1 no rate change 13.3 10.7 2.6 13.4 10.8 2.6

WAGE CAP MAXIMUM INCREASE (IN DOLLARS) (AN INDEX) $ 3,000 base = 1.00 4,200 1.87 4,800 3.2 4,800 3.87 7,800 8.32 7,800 9.01 9,000 10. 10,800 14.04 13,200 17.16 14,100 18.33 15,300 19.89 WAGE CAP MAXIMUM INCREASE (IN DOLLARS) (AN INDEX) 16,500 21.45 17,700 23.8 22,900 31.19 25,900 35.28 29,700 43.89 32,400 48.24

The ideological politics, which achieved law to collect SS surplus contributions, has maintained the position that taxes, including SS surplus, are government’s to use as it wishes, for to disclaim any liability to the tax payers, which also can easily argue that funds spent cannot be made a liable obligation to the Trust Funds.

138 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1990

250-260 no rate change 14 11.4 14.1 11.4 14.3 11.4 no rate change 15.02 12.12 15.3 12.4

2.6 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.9

SS: VIRTUES and VICES 35,700 37,800 39,600 42,000 43,800 45,000 45,000

53.15 58.8 62.04 66.73 69.59 75.1 76.5

(Senator J. Kerry allowed that the SS cap in 2003 was $86,000, thereby allowing that the contributions’ index is now more than 150 times its origin) As of 1998, the accounted Trust Funds shown in the 2000 World Almanac (New York times, pp. 766-767, in $ millions) are: ---3 Old Age and Survivors (OAS) $653,108 ---33 Disability Insurance (DI) $77,087 ---333 Hospital Insurance (HI). $117,113 ---SMI (paid from general taxes) $40,889 ---Total accounted Trust Funds $847,308 The third program, the Medicare program, has part A, Hospital Insurance (HI) and part B, Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI). HI’s funding is piggybacked onto the payroll tax. And because of inflation extremes with HI, the public's perceptions of OASI and DI programs, by association, are partly blamed. Seldom, but at times to satisfy particular payout demands (as happened in 1984, and politically dubbed ‘the bankruptcy of SS’), contributions earmarked for one program were diverted, as a loan, to another: This expedience riled political opposition: particular illusions, deliberately spun by the irrational politics, succeeded to set the SS contributions tax increases. Medicaid, as Medicare, was approved by Congress in 1965. Medicaid, also not a prime consideration here, is public aid administered by individual states. Its only connection to SS is that it was authorized under Title XlX of the Social Security Code. The federal government’s general tax revenues provides most -- about 70% -- of the funding for this public aid. States that fail to supplement their 30% share, lose proportionately, the federal participation. Medicaid has not worked uniformly well. And with federal budget constraints, increasing tax burdens are shifting onto States, whose political mood more often now is represented by initiatives to deny spending

251

Social Security

139

140

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

increases, state’s Medicaid support is then cut in the state’s budget processes: complicities make Balanced Budget politics impossible.

Godmother to business:’ holistically, necessarily taking from Paul to give to Peter. Parrington wrote this: 132

Escalating costs of Medicaid, as with all private medical insurance, has defied inflation containment. The cost of gratuitous health care is to a practical extent spread onto bills paid by insurance. And, most insureds’ reaction to high billings for medical care, as with fraud, is rationalized:

Democrat and Whig no longer faced each other conscious of the different ends they sought. The great party of Jefferson and Jackson was prostrate, borne down by the odium of slavery and secession . . . The Whig Republican was still Hamiltonian paternalistic, and the Democrat Republican was still Jeffersonian laissez faire, and until it was determined which wing should control the party councils there would be only confusion. The politicians were fertile in compromises but in nominating Lincoln and Johnson the party ventured to get astride two horses that would not run together. To attempt to make yoke-fellows of democratic leveling and capitalistic paternalism was prophetic of rifts and schisms that only the passions of reconstruction days could hold in check. In 1865 the Republican party [the now GOP] was no other than a war machine that had accomplished its purpose. It was a political mongrel, without logical cohesion, and it seemed doomed to break up as the Whig Party had broken up and the Federalist Party had broken up. But fate was now on the side of the Whigs as it had not been earlier. The democratic forces had lost strength from the war, and democratic principles were in ill repute. The drift to centralization, the enormous development of capitalism, the spirit of exploitation, were prophetic of a changing temper that was preparing to exalt the doctrine of manifest destiny 133 which the Whig party stood sponsor for. The practical problem of the moment was to transform the mongrel Republican party into a strong cohesive instrument, and to accomplish that it was necessary to hold the loyalty of its Democratic voters amongst the farmers and working-classes whilst putting into effect its Whig program. Under normal conditions the thing would have been impossible, but the times were wrought up and blindly passionate and

‘it didn’t cost me a cent; my insurance paid the bill.’ Unfortunately, medical insurance premiums must, therefore, increase, unusually. Private insurance has provided a litany of financial mechanisms, which offers protection by assuming personal cost, and, in this sense, insurance has abetted the inordinate increases in health care cost, which increases also indicate increasing inflation endemism. A reality check of economic privileges and legal grants perpetuated by Political Economy of private business mechanisms, reveals that consumers of products and services are the ultimate bearers of all production costs (On TV’s This Week, it was, I expect, because of this mechanist systemic reality that prompted Treasury Secretary O Neil to tell a businessmen’s group that business’ income taxes should be eliminated.). Particularly, the cost of employer-paid private, so called, insurance plans are ultimately repaid by returning business capital by consumers. So, in reality, those who must use all their wages to subsist by consuming necessities, mechanistically pay for ‘employer-paid insurance,’ that is enjoyed by the employees who have it. Only in the sense of ‘unequal rights,’ by politically asserting ‘consequents’ as supplanted for principles, which are irrational fallacies, is this orthodox lament true:

‘We, with insurance, pay for the uninsured gratuitous care.’ The ‘prejudice’ of this lament ignores ‘special interest’ unequal ‘legal right’based privileges granted by Political Economy to them: so, when does a legal privilege granted preempt the moral validity of ‘equal rights’? Parrington recorded the events and circumstances that allowed Whigs to make the Republican Party’s political economic determinism into the ‘Fairy

251

Social Security

141

the politicians skillful [in Plato’s words, ‘their popular truth was of ‘opinion,’ not ‘reason’]. . . The rebellion of the Independent Republicans under Horace Greeley in 1872 was brought to nothing by the skillful use of Grant's military prestige, and the party passed definitely under the control of capitalism, and became such an instrument for exploitation as Henry Clay dreamed of but could not perfect. Under the nominal leadership of the easy-going Grant a loose rein was given to Whiggish ambitions and the Republican party became a political instrument worthy of the Gilded Age. Tautologically, only democratic principles in this review qualify as representing natural necessary antecedence, while Whiggish ambitions of the classical Republicans imbued by opinions of manifest destiny can only qualify as a denial of antecedent necessary principle, the affirmation of natural consequents, or both: tautologically, the new GOP clearly politically represented irrational fallacy. From their respective postures, each Party argues that they best serve the interests of the nation. Unfortunately, too little thought, and less dedication, is given to solving the paradoxical problems caused by our macro mechanist economy that constitutionally holistically was consecrated for to serve all equally. Each side of our politics, in fact, has become an enterprise as Eric Hoffer observed:134

When a mass movement begins to attract people who are interested in their individual careers, it is a sign that it has passed its vigorous stage; that it is no longer engaged in molding a new world but in possessing and preserving the present. It ceases to be a movement and becomes an enterprise. And prominently, our holistic macro-economy is ignored because the ‘special interest’ micro political desires of affluence are to sustain the American System’s mechanist paternalism that has government expending prime efforts to open international economic markets to them: simply ever expanding American System paternalism, emanating from the Whiggish

142

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

designed Gilded Age federal ‘poker game’ that paradoxically leaves hoards on the sidelines of our nation’s economic progress and many more losers clinging on without political standing, and, therefore, without government’s representation -- paradoxically it is tyranny of the masses. ‘American System,’ political economy referenced ideas credited to Henry Clay of the Jacksonian era. Parrington wrote this:135

The spirit of Henry Clay survived his death and his followers were everywhere in the land. The plain citizen who wanted a slice of the rich prairie land of Iowa or Kansas, with a railway convenient to his homestead, had learned to look to the government for a gift, and if he got his quarter section and his transportation he was careless about what the other fellow got. A little more or less could make no difference to a country inexhaustible in resources [This, we can no longer afford to believe]. America belonged to the American people and not to the government, and resources in private hands paid taxes and increased the national wealth. [Those of paternal grants must recompense what organically was necessarily taken from others: taxes paid by those of paternal grants are insufficient to fulfill this organic responsibility!] Parrington had previously described how political philosophy was adapted to sponsor business interests and as Eric Hoffer has observed, to make politics an enterprise:136

251

Social Security

143

fairy godmother to the millions of Beriah Sellerses throughout the North and the West. Despite the evolution which gave our nation determinist mechanism-based economic paternalism via ‘The American System of Economy,’ truth about ‘covert shadows instead of truthful reality’ remain as dogma:

However attractive the disguises it may assume, it is in essence the logical creed of the profit philosophy. It is the expression in politics of the acquisitive instinct and it assumes as the greatest good the shaping of public policy to promote private interests. It asserts that it is a duty of the state to help its citizens to make money, and it conceives of the political state as a useful instrument for effective exploitation. How otherwise? The public good cannot be served apart from business interests for business interests are the public good and in serving business the state is serving society. Every bodys eggs are in the basket and they must not be broken. For a capitalistic society Whiggery is the only rational politics, for it exalts the profitmotive as the sole object of parliamentary concern. Government has only to wave its wand and fairy gifts descend upon business like the golden sands of Pactolus. It graciously bestows its tariffs and subsidies, and streams of wealth flow into private wells. [Introducing his thought, Parrington wrote this: Whiggery springs up as naturally as pigweed in a garden.] [But there is a fly in the Whiggish honey] But unhappily there is a fly in the Whiggish honey. In a competitive order, government is forced to make its choices. It cannot serve both Peter and Paul. ' If it gives with one hand it must take away with the other. And so the persuasive ideal of paternalism

So, for which, Peter or Paul, was the Constitution created: can democracy exist when equality is not meted by economic policy?

144

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

in the common interest degenerates in practice into legalized favoritism. Governmental gifts go to the largest investments. Lesser interests are sacrificed to greater interests and Whiggery comes finally to serve [in momos and not physis] the lords of the earth without whose good will the wheels of business will not turn. To him that hath shall be given. If the few do not prosper the many will starve, and if the many have bread who would begrudge the few their abundance? In Whiggery [which home is with GOP politics] is the fulfillment of the Scriptures. Holistic organic systems, which constitutionally are any U.S. state or nation, which practices paternal, i.e, ‘legalized favoritism,’ most probably, also fallaciously denies any mechanist nexus to the complementary impoverishment. This sort of rational blindness is a result of political conflations of human essence to belief in unitary materialism: 137

Men are regarded by the Idealists as innately, though imperfectly, moral in their essential, nondualistic natures. This leads, as we shall see, to a strangely Hobbesian view of the State as possessing the right and duty to perfect the ego’s moral imperfection by the exercise of its authority. [In] prenational Prussia under Frederick the Great. Christian

theology assumed a [unitary] merger with the divine after this life; Hegel posits such a merger here on earth -- with history and the collectivity he terms the state. Craig Thomas also wrote this about the Idealists who influenced Hegel’s unitary materialist view:

251

Social Security

145

explanation of all experience, knowledge, and reality, and it was largely on this basis that they objected, Fichte most immediately and systematically, to Kant’s division between self and the world, which [they as irrationally contended] for Kant could be no more than a world of appearances. To achieve the healing of [Kant’s] dualism the Idealists posited, in Fichte’s theory most succinctly, the ego as the ‘ground of experience.’ It was not the rational ego of Kant [Plato and Descartes] nor the passive receptor of the empiricists but what Fichte describes as the ‘active ego,’ inextricably intermingled with reality, imposing itself upon the world of experience, to a degree ‘making’ the world of experience in its own image. [In this instance, the principle Idealists conflated even God’s antecedence to comply with the unitary materialism, of their nomos-based reality, to which Nietzsche then cried out, “we have killed God!”] As Fichte claims in ‘The Vocation of Man’ of

1792, ‘Not to KNOW but to DO, is the vocation of Man.’ For Fichte (1762- 1814), there were only two possible responses to the world, that of the realist, or ‘dogmatist’ in his terminology, and that of the idealist. The philosopher’s response, more profound than that of the ordinary man, is idealist, while realism remains the province of nonphilosophical response to an understanding of the world. Thinking is no longer reflection, it is experience. Also, because of this, there can be no kind of reality that is distinct or separated from the ego that experiences it. Whereas empiricism posits, at least by implication, a ‘real’ world that is experienced, the Idealists assumed no distinction between the subject of the experiencing agent and the objective world being experienced. [Which came first, the egg or the chicken, is of no consequence to this materialist conservative idealism that compounds the issue rather than reasoning to find answers; the dogmatic focus is then shifted onto the neatness of confusion.]

Further, Fichte and Schelling assumed that the ego was innately a moral agent, again contrary to Kant’s conception of the

146

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

effort of moral duty for the rational being, the necessity to achieve the categorical imperative [of ‘do unto others . . .’] in making any moral decision or taking any moral action. Men are regarded by the Idealists as innately, though imperfectly, moral in their essential, nondualistic natures. This leads, as we shall see, to a strangely Hobbesian view of the State as possessing the right and duty to perfect the ego’s moral imperfection by the exercise of its authority. Take a moment to review the Social Security Tax Rates. Look closely at changes made in 1984 when the SS surplus taxes began. This SS Tax legislation, completed in 1983, signed into law in 1984! During the 1980's, SS contribution tax rates more than doubled. Political economy’s inflation endemism was a greater cause of this increase. Political rhetoric, as conflated to unitary materialism, blamed SS for the high inflation rates. And irrational rhetoric is opinion that defies reason: ' ' tautologically fiducial ‘trueness’ is, however, capable to evaluate and settle the political falsity of rhetoric. And, if the thesis set forth by Parrington on the previous page is correct (I believe it is), the GOP’s politics is incapable of anything but dogmatic political rhetoric, which, therefore, cannot know logical truth. The payroll tax (OASDHI) funds three separate trusts: OASI, DI, and HI. Employers match the employee's payroll tax (self-employed individuals must pay both the employee's tax and the employer's matching tax). Social Security began in 1936 with OAI (Old Age Insurance). Survivors Insurance, SI, was added in 1940 and Disability Insurance, DI, in 1956. Separate accountings are maintained for OASI and DI, but for simplicity the rates of taxation are bundled with inflation effects of benefit costs. The primary cause of increasing SS benefits cost is neither the politically influenced expansion into social welfare nor higher rates and wage caps that are fundamental to increased contribution tax rates. The main culprit of increasing SS benefits cost, and, therefore, the

As Hamilton observed: success knows no ethics! (But also this lac of ethics also shows the deficient insight in virtue and good of truth and right.)

251

Social Security

147

contribution tax rates, is inflation’s mechanist endemism. Responsibility for inflation’s endemism is squarely government’s. Not Social Security’s! The requirement that all federal employees must now participate in Social Security and pay contribution-taxes greatly expanded the contribution-tax base. This expansion, in the short term, furnishes a large infusion of revenue to SS until the retired complement of this new group matures to also become full SS beneficiaries. However, this expansion does nothing to solve the main problem: INFLATION! The purchasing power of the dollar, since 1950, has lost value so much that inflation must be separated to accomplish meaningful economic analysis. Take away inflation and a far different wage-scenario is revealed: most important, average family income declined from a peak reached in the late 70's. Inflation was not caused by SS and, therefore, SS contribution taxes should not be burdened because of it. Inflation, as the indices of consumer prices (CPI) indicate, is the primary factor of SS cost increase. One dollar in 1950 has an equivalent purchase value of $5.00 in 1988. But five times is but a fraction of 76.5 times that SS contribution tax indices have increased to in 1990. With inflation set aside, the main cause of increase is with inordinate start-up costs of the maturing SS system. But, the conflated unitary materialist Whiggish deontological politics prefers to compound one causal increase by the other (the rates of inflation then are multiplied by rates of increase due to the maturing SS system). This fallacy has resulted in politics based on appearances of inordinate SS systemic inflation that does not, did not, and cannot exist. Worse, the 76.5 times tax bite was put onto low necessary wages that were required simply to subside: and sans inflation, the politics of the capitalist ‘iron cage of wages’ has succeeded to deny all real inflation neutral wage growth. YEAR 1950 1960 1970 1977 1980

CONSUMER PRICE INDICES138 ALL ITEMS MEDICAL CARE base = 1.00 base = 1.00 1.23 1.47 1.61 2.25 2.52 3.77 3.43 4.98

148 YEAR 1984 1988

250-260 ALL ITEMS 4.31 5.0

SS: VIRTUES and VICES MEDICAL CARE 7.07 NA

(Inflation’s endemism has effected medical care far more than SS; and the greatest part of this difference is related to systemic fraud, which mostly is perpetrated by medical professionals, quite similarly as political economy is effected by mechanist conservative greed.) Not available when this research was concluded, medical costs have continued to increase far beyond the CPI, and this anomaly is in part explained by a rather common necessity to put the cost of unpaid gratuitous care onto paid insured care. Another part is caused by Political Economy’s unequal rights doctrine that choosing mechanism, denies the holistic, teleological nature of economy. Affluence profits from inflation: for workers, however, compounded effects of inflation has politically been assigned to the SS contribution-tax burden: only those with incomes, which allow discretionary spending, has money to invest for to gain from the inflation effect on economy: George P. Brockway’s inflation producing ‘bankers COLA’ works for them. * * Brockway’s book documents the deontological Political Economy endowed unequal rights advantage that bankers and investment counselors enjoy (which profits usually are the greatest): added to the rate of interest banks pay for renting money they loan, is the Bankers COLA. What was once around 3% is now what political economy will allow. With the new financial services approach, insurance has merged paternalist Political Economy rights of banking with those allowed in cases of insurance and annuity products, which they both now offer. For instance, the latest insurance annuity product guarantees a flat rate of return from a contract that allows for the company to invest the premium in mutual funds (endemic pernicious pitfalls exist here which consumers usually are not aware of). Of course the banker’s COLA applies in both instances and pays the investment brokers commissions. Because endemic inflation is ubiquitous, efforts to control it are made difficult.

251

Social Security

149

The SS Tax Law of 1984 unreasonably began the collections of so called SS surplus. If this SS surplus has made SS into a general revenue tax collector (for government to spend at will), inflation has compounded the heavy burden of paying the contribution taxes of our nation's most regressive tax system: all average wage increases are held below the apperance of growth due to inflation. Irrationally the effects of the ‘84 SS rate increases to collect SS surplus has been compounded by the wage-earner contribution tax burden. This compounded tax burden was put upon the lowest quintile of wage-earners, severely restricting, even violating their natural subsistence requirements. This ‘84 SS law violated a fundamental natural principle of freedom and right: Bread shall not be taken from the mouth of labor! The following graph demonstrates fundamental unfairness in the distribution of income, which unfairness applied in the matter of the SS Tax Law of 1984. It demonstrates how mechanistically applied inflation’s endemism has acted: wages touted as merit increases and position promotions had the appearance of increasing economic status but in reality, holistically, had lost economic value. SS tax rates that appeared low (because half was paid by employers) were, as regards subsistence needs, much more burdensome than were the highest income tax rates on affluence. And as Brockway has observed, the ‘Bankers’ COLA’ only kicks in to aid the unearned incomes of those in the upper quintiles of income distribution. It portrays inflation’s effects more than growth, as John Maynard Keynes had warned that it would: 139

150

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose. Keynes However, as V. L. Parrington had described the American System of Political Economy, inflation was a false but brilliant addition allied to Whiggish mercantilism, which mechanistically returned as capital:

a curiously ingenious scheme to milk the cow and divide the milk among those who supervised the milking. [greatly aided by fiat money infusions, during the 1980s, investment bankers became corporate takeover pirates: taking $ billions of legalized booty 140 ] The important fact here is the deliberate classical rejection of Adam Smith’s wealth: goods and services circulated to the benefit of ‘all’ in society. Instead ubiquitous fiat income, as distributed in the graph, is now fallaciously asserted as wealth’s equivalent. As David Callahan, in The Moral Center had quoted Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandies, “We can have concentrated wealth in the hands of a few or we can have democracy. But we cannot have both.” Unearned income If we could strip away the industries of the military-industrial-complex, we would find that our political economy’s fiat money has facilitated far more exchange than its capital based production of wealth (according to Smith’s original economic definition). Despite Smith's postulated economy, we now define new wealth as government’s accumulated procurement of war implements and machinery, the maintenance of armies, mechanist bureaucracies (including private businesses), by usury and myriad other sources of ‘unearned’ income, contemporary to our federally sponsored American Plan of political economy. I suggest, our paternal political

251

Social Security

151

economy has for too long allowed leveraged ‘wealth’ (Smith's postulation), by creative assertions that unearned and often unaccounted money hoards are the equivalent of ‘wealth.’ * * By magical creative means, unearned money is now routinely generated by processes which Keynes had described as secretly and unobserved confiscations: by socializing the ownership of future production of goods and services (as with owning stocks, bonds, and commodities futures). How, for instance, William Rockefeller gained a large ‘money hoard’ (which was considered the equivalent of ‘wealth’) by purchasing Anaconda Copper Corp. with a conditional check (Then immediately he floated a new public stock offering to cover the check and personally gain a substantial cash reward). More recently, money hoards amounting to $15 million -- units of unearned value ‘in God we trust’ -- taken at different times and circumstances each by George Bush, the father, and George W. Bush, the son. And, while they represent small fish in Political Economy‘s big pond of myriad legal and illegal mediums of unearned inflation prone and privatized ‘money hoarding,’ all are forms of futures ownership economic chicanery, of which, according to George P. Brockway, the ‘bankers COLA’ represents inflations greatest source.141 Keynes had observed myriad other sources when in 1920 he wrote this:142

“By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler. No surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.” -- John Maynard Keynes -The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920 Roger Sherman’s ‘A Caveat Against Injustice’ is on my desk to remind me of inflation’s evils: of fluctuating privatized values of our floating futures Mediums of Exchange. Sherman had argued hard to secure the constitutional provision for a non fluctuating value standard. The Constitution’s instruction to Congress is Article I Section 8:

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

. . . to coin money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the standards of weights and measures. Legally causally inflation is bad. Its illegal side is maybe worse:143

Banks wash billions in dirty laundry Washington -- The failure of U.S. banks and regulators to track transactions with foreign banks enables criminals to route billions of dollars from drug sales, Internet gambling, tax evasion or other illegal activities into the United States each year, a new Senate subcommittee report concludes. Althouth regulators have prodded U.S. banks in recent years to bolster their efforts to control money laundering through individual accounts, the Senate permanent subcommittee on investigations found banks and regulators have been lax in applying similar standards to correspondent banking, in which foreign banks use U.S. banks to perform wire transfers and other transactions. The subcommittee’s report, which concludes a yearlong investigation, will be made public today. Regulators and bankers familiar with the inquiry say it’s the first comprehensive look at this aspect of banking and how it facilitates money laundering. “Inattention and disinterest by U.S. banks in screening the foreign banks they take in as clients have allowed rogue foreign banks and their criminal clients to carry on money laundering and other criminal activity in the United States and to benefit from the protections afforded by the safety and soundness of the U.S. banking industry,” said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the subcommittee. The subcommittee launched its investigation after a Russian money-laundering scandal erupted at Bank of New York 18 months ago. It examined a number of giant, well known banks, including Bank of America, Citygroup, J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. And First Union. . . .

251

Social Security

153

Money laundering, which the Clinton administration declared a national security threat, is the act of concealing the source of funds obtained from an illegal activity. An estimated $1 trillion is laundered each year -- about half of it, or $500 billion , through the United States, according to the report. . . All this is evident in the fact that the dollar’s value today compares to a few pennies of a century ago. Much of the excess corporate capital of the '80s -hundreds of billions -- was seized by modern acts of Whiggish piracy (as previously described as money hoarding by Rockefeller and the Bushs’): captivating by creative purchasing, then restructuring and downsizing the raided corporate entities, and finally refloating new public offerings. Relatively dormant accumulated corporate capital was seized, then converted to privatized money hoards (confronted retroactively from a twenty first century economic perspective, regulators had allowed the nation’s economic life blood to be seized by this creative form of piracy, which they summarily excused because corporate debt had replaced it). Utilizing computer technology, investment bankers (who’s access to the nation’s fiat money creation is at lowest interest rates) consorted to purchase all the corporate stock via short term bank loans, then as sole stock owner consortiums, enforced restructuring and privatized money hoarding: now as the closed corporate owners, by arranging long term corporate debt to finance ongoing productions, they freed the corporate capital accumulations for distribution to the closed stock owner-consortiums, and then divided the cash hoards among themselves. Then, sometime later, they issued new stock offerings to the public to retire the short term bank loans from which they had purchased the original stock. All corporate entities considered for such buy-outs were ‘cash cows’ ready for ‘milking’ by the American System’s ‘curiously ingenious scheme to milk the cow and divide the milk among those who superintended the milking,’ as Parrington had observed. The investment banker, KKR, was ranked higher than GM on the auditor’s list of clients. ....

154

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

We must ask and answer: should investment bank consortiums be allowed to commandeer money that the nation explicitly ‘coined’ to exchange goods and services produced, for to purchase as if a commodity, the corporate producers of the nation’s goods and services? : making licensed fictitious corporate entities the investment banker’s exclusive commodity? Or does this fiducial breach of political economy’s intended Banking authorization, make the leveraged buyout practice a common act of piracy? And, to what end does it lead? 144

The right to property is defined as an essential or basic right for the purpose of defining the sovereignty of the individual and the necessity to guarantee his rights and property 'against' others, 'not' so as to allow him to acquire, to control, to achieve domination through landed property. * * We should note the legal disparity between investment banking that, analogous to ‘property,’ considers ‘corporations’ a commodity, and the Supreme Court’s decision that analogous to ‘human property,’ considered Bill of Rights protections to corporate fictitious legal persons of far more legal force than protections assured to humans are given. John Locke’s ‘property of person,’ is thereby violated:

----Every Man has a 'Property' in his own 'Person.' ----Men living together 'according to reason' are properly in the 'State of Nature.' ----No individual has a right or power over the life of another. ----Force without Right, upon a man's person, makes a State of War. . ----It is a 'right,' a possession of each individual which must be protected together with his other freedoms, protected from others who are in a 'State of War' against the individual . . . ---He that in the State of Nature, would take away the Freedom, that belongs to anyone in that State, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away everything else, that 'Freedom' being the foundation of all. ..

251

Social Security

155

Brockway, portrayed property as intrinsically related to rights and concluded that economics must eventually weigh equities in rights to be more valuable than what Smith called equities in material hoards. ********* The Industrial Age is giving way to another less secure age and society's need to formalize insurance to provide Sustenance Security to all citizens who find themselves in need through circumstances which are beyond their own making is becoming increasingly necessary. * * Fed Chairman Greenspan on 5/21/’03 told Senators that unemployment insurance must be short in duration to give incentive to unemployed’s to actively find work. He admitted that unemployment insurance was not designed to cure unemployment: inferring that causal reasons for long-term unemployment are not related (i.e., unemployment is not the employer’s problem). The employee’s deontological economic duties to find and keep employment, intrinsic of the American System’s causal mechanisms, as compared to the teleological purpose of earning wages is clearly drawn. So, answer whether or not economic mechanisms are of the people, for the people or by the people? They surely are not! Organic mechanisms are of, for, and by organic ideology, are often corporate forms of this. And as surely, mechanisms were not constitutionally addressed and consented to? My compulsion with writing about this arises from the same rational argument from which SS came to be: a sense suggesting that Sustenance Security is as necessary and must find political support: with politics in which the spiritual sense of physis and teleology is equally real and practical as ideological organic deontology is (Fictions are not real and should not legally be made the equal of real). Sustenance Security should replace all welfare systems, but must not become an extension of SS: the welfare burdens put onto SS might then be transferred to the social usage-based Sustenance Security Insurance. And, with Sustenance Security, infusing newly printed fiat money to the economy, the purpose of which serves utility with the exchange of goods

156

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

and services, might then be directly routed to effect teleological alternatives to the existing Fed system of discounted loans to banks, which then fund loans to investment bank consortiums established to effect corporate buyouts, for instance. Banks no longer need government’s paternalism that is mis-usable in this manner. While printing money is government’s constitutional function. And antecedently, government wholly sustains the Federal Reserve’s government function, government was not conceived for to sustain any particular paternal utility. Particularly, government should not be the paternal gardian, which mechanistically disadvantages individuals. An alternative to these investment banker acts, is to require government to distribute printed fiat money directly to impoverished individuals who are sure to spend it to subsist: no good or essential reason exists not to distribute all newly printed fiat money to fund necessary economically-beneficial consumption, thereby putting the distribution of goods, services, and education where it is most needed:145

The fundamental weakness of the 1920s prosperity was not that Americans were profligate, spending too much and saving too little, but the opposite. "We did not as a nation consume more than we produced--far from it," Eccles declared. "We were excessively thrifty." The maldistribution of incomes guaranteed that millions of potential consumers--workers, farmers, everyone who did not earn enough to join the ranks of accumulating wealth--would eventually exhaust their purchasing power. "While the national income rose to high levels," Eccles explained, "it was so distributed that the incomes of the majority were entirely inadequate and business activity was sustained only by a rapid and unsound increase in the private debt structure, including ever-increasing installment buying of consumption goods." When the consumers' chips were gone, when they could no longer borrow or buy things, the producers would naturally curtail their production of goods too. More factories were closed; more people lost their incomes. The game was over.

251

Social Security

157

For Eccles, it did not matter greatly who owned wealth or how much they owned. Money itself was neutral as an economic force-positive if it was put into transactions and investment, harmful if it was hoarded in idle savings. What mattered was that people kept their money moving. Putting money into the direct control of citizens with need, and making banking an equal service to these real subsistence consumers. Whereas as now, fiat money loans are misused by banking consortiums (an economically devastating form of monopoly, Adam Smith would say) to arrange corporate takeovers and economic restructuring. Fiat money would then flow upward rather than as crumbs falling from the tables of the overlords: It would have teleology rather than be of service to the mechanist economic deontological advantage that Brockway called the ‘bankers’ COLA.’ Here, there is opportunity for installing an oppositely oriented economic mechanism compromise. Real income increased in the '50s and '60s, reached a high in the '70s, then declined, approximating in 1983 the purchasing value achieved in 1965. Since 1983, real income has not increased appreciably (while I have not reviewed this since 1988, not much improvement was achieved, until 1992 and minimum wage increases). MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME 146 CURRENT

INFLATION

CONSTANT

YEAR DOLLARS

FACTOR

DOLLARS

1950 1960

$3,319 5,620

4.31 3.5

$14,305 19,692

1970

9,867

2.68

26,444

1977

16,009

1.71

27,375

1983

24,580

1.00

24,580

With inflation, an increasing worker population, and wages increasing accordingly, it is surely expected that total non-government employee wages rose at an unprecedented pace. They did:

158

250-260

SS: VIRTUES and VICES

1965 inflation index 147 Tot. Wages (billions)148 Employed (millions)

1984

Increase

94.5

310

3.28

$292.1

$1,454.2

4.98

71.1

105

1.48

Of the 4.98 total wages increase, 3.21 of it was due to inflation, and 1.48 due to population increase (note that employment counts do not relate to work force population counts). And this real wage increase scenario is compatible with real wages increasing until 1965, then remaining flat. Density factors -those working as a proportion of the available (male-female) worker population -- are respectively .66 and .75. More often heard these days is the lament that two salaries are now necessary. And these density factors substantiate the reason for lament: The income of working mothers is now required to achieve an equivalent constant dollar wage value that existed in the 60's. This economic result reflects poorly on the conventional mechanist deontology that unrealistically and irrationally holds wages low while winking at inflationary profit and salary abundances taken at the top. Real wages did not keep pace: and inflation is The American System’s pernicious wage-earner tax that systemically takes from wage-earners to compensate for the vastly increasing profits that are taken. Had wages in 2001 kept pace with inflation, median wage-earned income would have been $89,852.00. The 2000 reported median income for white males (the highest cited income group) is far short of inflation’s pace: it was $29,696. For white females, it was more anemic: $16,190. And, relatively still worse for minority races as blacks, Hispanics and Asians. Wage-earners became a determined economic underclass of the American System’s political economy: only the mechanist upper-caste of owner-superintendents was rewarded by the American System’s determinism. These mechanist rewards distinguish what is commonly referred to as the American Dream.

251

Social Security

159

Despite this sad economic irrationalism resulted median income, the Whiggish deontological government administration’s explanation, “because it is their money,” returned $ 1.3 trillion of the revenue taxes collected from those that inflation had benefited in 2001 (not to those of median or lower income). Government repeated this nefarious deontology again in 2002 -2007 --? , with annual federal deficits up to $ 500 billion. Natural Causal Realities require natural Principle: the logical keys of which are ‘true’ antecedence, necessity and coherence. Therefore, testing for tautological reason and truth is necessary.149

By a tautology we mean a statement, which has the truth value ‘true’ for all possible truth values of its components. . . . Compound statements with all truth values ‘true’ are called tautologies and represent valid argument forms. The implication formed by the conjunction of all the premises as the antecedent and the conclusion as the consequent that form a valid argument form, will always result in a tautology. Testing compound statements to see whether they are tautologies is thus equivalent to testing an argument for validity.

John N. Fujii gave three classical valid arguments (a, b, and c) and two invalid arguments (d, and e) in which P = compound premises, Q = consequent, - = denial, = therefore. (a) Modus ponens P6Q P

(b) modus tollens (c) hypothetical syllogism P6Q -Q

- P

160

250-260

(d): invalid classical argument that ‘affirms the consequent.’ P6Q Q

SS: VIRTUES and VICES (e): invalid classical argument that ‘denies the antecedent.’ P6Q

-P -Q

(d) Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, and (e) Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent, Fujii warned, are irrational argument forms. [By author’s definition, each P and Q is a statement that when written in the ‘if,’ ‘then,’ compound statement format, the ‘if’ statement is the antecedent, and the ‘then’ statement is the consequent.] Unanchored, therefore, unreasoned, deficient truth is the quintessence of politics, which too often not only lacks commonly understood definition, it begs for the natural axiomatic principles of noumenon: Increasingly, anchored to dogmatic prejudice rather than to principles of reasoned-noumenon, it is nothing more than logic-deficient rhetoric, calumnious opinion, that of design appeals to a dogma-afflicted class of sycophantic believers. Science look-a-likes,150

Humanists - philosophers, theologians, historians, literary critics [and judicial officers particularly] -- have to worry about whether they are being scientific - whether they are entitled to think of their conclusions, no matter how carefully argued, as worthy of the term ‘true.’ Richard Rorty Mechanistically, as effected by government administered economic paternalism (mostly inflation’s endemism) ' , ‘Peter’ now owes ‘Paul’ far more than $ 3 trillion in 2000, growing to $ 10 trillion by 2010.

P6Q Q6R

P6R '

It is government paternalism that assigns inflation’s endemism, as measured by the CPI, to the contribution taxes of Social Security.

ENDNOTES 1

Edited by T. Honderich, THE OXFORD COMPANION TO PHILOSOPHY (Oxford Press, 1995) 194

2 V. L Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought, Vol II, 197-98

161

ENDNOTES

162

17 Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, 348 18 L.P. Pojman, Philosophy, The Wuest for Truth (Wadsworth, 1989) 152 19 J. N. Fugii, Introduction to the elements of Mathematics (J. Wiley &

3 Reported on national TV as 2003 ended. Think about it. $3 of every $4

Sons, 1961) 45

accounted as the nation’s GDP during the twentieth century represented inflation. Real net growth was, therefore, only about 1 percent. Inflation’s endemism was directly cost accounted to prices that consumers paid for goods and services. Consumers, therefore, became the only owners of inflation. All unearned income, much of which had created inflation, got a free ride. And organic profits (greater than the sum of inflation and growth) were classically construed to belong exclusively to ‘business owners.’

20 Parrington, Vol. I, 300-301

4 The paradoxical companion of taking profits, which upsets static

25 Hunt, 132

economic circular flow’s economic balance, is the Bankers’ COLA, G. P. Brockway charged was inflation endemism’s primary cause?

21 Parrington, Volume Two, Winds . . ., 297 22 Parrington., Vol. I, 70 23 Heilbroner, 68-70 24 E. K. Hunt, PROPERTY AND PROPHETS (Harper and Row, 1990) 123

26 Greenwald, Encyclopedia of Economics (McGraw Hill, 1982) 647

5 Dictionary, 1196

27 Dictionary, 1293

6 Thomas, 264-265

28 World Book Dictionary (1965) 1293

7 Dictionary, 1516

29 Parrington, Vol II, 197-98

8 G. P. Brockway, The End of Economic Man (Cornelia & Michael Bessie

30 Brockway, 91 (from Smith, Wealth. 6)

Books, 1991) 91 (from Smith, Wealth. 6) : Discretionary money, which transcends subsistence, is classically regarded the same as property and wealth. And the ubiquitous nature of money is violated.

31 Parrington, Vol. I, 171-175

9 The World Almanac, 1994, 957-958

33 Parrington, Vol. I, p. 333-35

10 The World Almanac 2002 (New York Times) 385

34 Bob Deans (Cox news service), Third year is typically tough, Las

32 Max Weber’s “iron Cage” that Malthus had called the “iron Law”?

13 World Almanac 2002, 103

Vegas Review Journal October 5, 2003, included these questions: Why were 35 million Americans living in poverty last year -- about 1.4 million more than the year before -- while the number of people without health insurance rose by 2.4 million to reach 44 million? And, what exactly is the plan for confronting the massive federal budget deficit?

14 Encyclopedia Britannica Almanac 2004, 847: While median family

35 Do our enemies view our government in this manner? If so, is our

11 World Almanac 1986, 257 12 Statistical Abstract of the U.S. (1978) 457

income is not shown here, the median male income w compatible education in 2000 in ($) thousands 40, and the female income is 29. Two incomes are now required to keep pace with inflation.

tyranny the cause of foreign terrorism directed at us?

36 Greenwald, Encyclopedia of Economics (McGraw Hill, 1982), 142

15 D. Greenwald, Encyclopedia of Economics (McGraw Hill, 1982) 115

37 Parrington; Vol. III, p. 23-25.

16 R. L. Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers (Touchstone, 1986) 293

38 Parrington; Vol. III, p. 23-25.

ENDNOTES

163

ENDNOTES

164

39 Parrington, Vol. III, 20 - 23

59 K. Day (The Washington Post), Banks wash billions inf dirty laundry,

40 Belief in the inevitable territorial expansion to encompass all of North

Las Vegas-Review Journal, February 5, 2001

America. First argued in the 1840s: revived during and after the SpanishAmerican War. It is of the same philosophy as Dollar Diplomacy, upon which Captains of American enterprise expanded their exploitations beyond the nation’s borders: driving the expansion of the nation’s Foreign Policy. Preemption is also of this philosophy.

60 Parrington, Vol. II, 197-98

41 T. Honderich (editor), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Oxford, 1995), 707

42 E. S. Bates, The Bible (Simon and Schuster, 1993) xii 43 D. Ravitch (editor), Speech to the Second Virginia Convention, American Reader (Harper Colins, 1990) 18

61 Romans 7: 15 62 Parrington, Vol. I, 66-71 63 Parrington, Vol. I, 299 64 Pojman, 354 65 A. Satariano, Method to set rates debated (Critics say using credit reports to establish risk level is an underhanded way to increase rates), Las Vegas Review Journal, December 2, 2002

66 Heilbroner, 129

44 Diaglott’s Heb. 11:1 (Diaglott is an original Greek translation)

67 Parrington, Volume Two, Winds . . ., 297

45 L. Pojman, Philosophy, The Quest For Truth (Wadsworth, ‘89) 25

68 Pojman, 99 (Cartesian Theory of Knowledge)

46 Pojman, 49

69 Pojman, 340-41(The Ethics of Virtue)

47 Diaglott’s Heb. 11:1 (Diaglott is an original Greek translation)

70 Pojman, 152

48 Diaglott, 312

71 S. Thomma, Knight-Ridder Newspapers, April 29, 1995 Las Vegas

Dr. A. Clarke remarks, : “[Logos] should be left untranslated for the very same reason why the names Jesus and Christ are left untranslated.”

49 Brockway, 4 50 Mechanist, World Book (1965) Vol. 13, 298 51 G. R. Morrow, Plato and the Law of Nature, in Essays in Political Theory Presented to George H. Sabine, Milton R. Konvitz and Arthur E. Murphy, eds. (Ithica, N.Y. :Cornell University Press, 1948) 20-25, 28-29

Review Journal

72 H. G. Wells, The Outline of History (Garden City, 1961) 426-27 73 World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, 326: Mennonites base their beliefs on the New Testament, particularly Christs sermon on the Mount.

74 Pojman, 471 (Reflections on Suffering) 75 J. Gleick, Chaos, Making a New Science (Penguin Books, 1987)

52 World Book, Vol. 9, 203

76 St Matthew 19:14

53 V. L Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought, Vol II, 197-98

77 Regarding outward-turning, see R. Hughes, Culture of Complaint, The

54 Bates, xii 55 I John 56 R. L Hielbroner, Worldly Philosophers (Touchstone, 1986) 27 & 53 57 E. K. Hunt, 12 58 See E. S. Herman and N. Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent (Pantheon, 1988)

Fraying of America (Oxford Press, 1993) 10

78 Pojman, 103 (Cartesian Theory of Knowledge) 79 The World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary, 1965, 80 The New Dictionary of Thoughts, A Cyclopedia of Quotations, Standard Book Company, 1955, 315

81 Pojman, 2

ENDNOTES

165

ENDNOTES

166

82 New Dictionary of Thoughts, 662

101 The World Almanac 2002 (New York Times) 385

83 E. K. Hunt, 12

102 World Almanac 1986, 257

84 Thomas, 264-265

103 Reported on national TV as 2003 ended. Think about it. $3 of every

85 John Quincy Adams, Publicola, Columbian Centinel of Boston, June 8

$4 accounted as the nation’s GDP during the twentieth century represented inflation. Real net growth was only about 1 percent. Inflation’s endemism was directly cost accounted to prices that consumers paid for goods and services. Consumers, therefore, became the only owners of inflation. All unearned income, much of which had created inflation, got a free ride. And organic profits (which were greater than the sum of inflation and growth) were classically construed to belong exclusively to ‘business owners.’

to July 27, 1791 (as reprinted in Main Currents . . ., Parrington, p 325)

86 World Book Encyclopedia (1965) Vol. 14, 330 87 R. Hughes, Culture of Complaint, The Fraying of America (Oxford Press, 1993) 10

88 Heilbroner, 302

104 Parrington astutely recognized that government’s paternalist grants to

89 Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1978, 8

“Peter” required the equal taking from “Paul.” (See quote on p 86-87)

90 The Associated Press, The Salt Lake Tribune, January 1, 1993

105 Statistical Abstract of the U.S. (1978) 457

91 Reported on national TV as 2003 ended. Think about it. $3 of every $4

106 World Almanac 2002, 103

accounted as the nation’s GDP during the twentieth century represented inflation. Real net growth was only about 1 percent. Inflation’s endemism was directly cost accounted to prices that consumers paid for goods and services. Consumers, therefore, became the only owners of inflation. All unearned income, much of which had created inflation, got a free ride. And organic profits (which were greater than the sum of inflation and growth) were classically construed to belong exclusively to ‘business owners.’

92 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 93 Brockway, 193 94 R. L. Heilbroner, 293 95 Heilbroner, 72 96 Parrington, Vol. III, 21 97 Brockway points to the orthodox notion of rights and declares:

There is no right that capitalists claim, that equally cannot be claimed by labor. He asserts. Classical orthodoxy gave legal advantages to capitalists: 98 J. M. Keynes,‘The Economic Consequences of the Peace,’ 1920 99 Parrington, Vol. II, 197-98 100 The World Almanac, 1994, 957-958

107 D. Greenwald, Encyclopedia of Economics (McGraw Hill, 1982) 115 108 R. L. Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers (Touchstone, 1986) 293 109 Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, 348 110 Pojman, 152 111 Eric Hoffer, The True Believer (As furnished by Shelby Steele in his essay The New ty), Harpers Magazine, July, 1992

112 Letter to H. L. Prince, April 6, 1859, in Works, Vol. V, pp. 125-126 113 Heilbroner, 293 114 Brockway, 91 (from Smith, Wealth. 6) 115 Heilbroner, 235-36 116 Heilbroner, 293 117 Brockway, 4 118 Parrington, Vol. II, 78 119 Parrington, Vol. II, 66 120 Heilbroner, 14 121 World Book Dictionary, 1965, 976

ENDNOTES

167

ENDNOTES

168

122 World Book Dictionary, 1965, 418

141 Brockway, Book’s Cover

123 World Book Encyclopedia, 1965, Vol. 11, 200

142 F. T. Saussy, Roger Sherman, 8

124 World Book Dictionary, 1965, 976

143 K. Day (The Washington Post), Banks wash billions inf dirty laundry,

125 D. Greenwald, Encyclopedia of Economics (McGraw Hill, 1982) 115

Las Vegas-Review Journal, February 5, 2001

126 Over the last century, average stock growth was 4%, inflation 3%:

144 Thomas, 89, 91

stock growth reflects non earned income (shares of corporate profits that enure to investors), inflation the growth in consumer cost. Stock growth enhances affluence while growth in consumer cost mostly impresses negatively on wages earned: systemic ‘giving to Peter by taking from Paul.’

145 W. Greider, Secrets of the Temple (Touchstone, 1987) 307-308

127 Insurance, World Book Encyclopedia, 1965, vol. 10, p. 243

148 World Almanac (1986), 103 (non government wages and salaries)

128 Heilbroner, 293

149 J. N. Fugii, 45

129 Excerpted from a United Press article carried by the Daily Spectrum,

150 Lawson and Appignanesi, editors, Dismantling Truth (St. Martin’s

St. George, Utah; Oct.2, 1988.

Press,1989), 6

130 Parrington, Vol II, 197-98 131 (AP) article, Federal-Local Partnership Urged, The Daily Spectrum, July 17, 1991 (a news report on the National Association of Counties' 56th convention in Salt Lake City, Utah:)

132 Parrington, Vol. III, 20 - 23 133 Belief in the inevitable territorial expansion to encompass all of North America. First argued in the 1840s: revived during and after the SpanishAmerican War. It is of the same philosophy as Dollar Diplomacy, upon which Captains of American enterprise expanded their exploitations beyond the nation’s borders: driving the expansion of the nation’s Foreign Policy. Preemption is also of this philosophy.

134 Eric Hoffer, The True Believer (As furnished by Shelby Steele in his essay in Harpers Magazine, July, 1992

135 Parrington, Vol. III, 22 136 Parrington, Vol. III, 21 137 Thomas, 264-265 138 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 139 J. M. Keynes,‘The Economic Consequences of the Peace,’ 1920 140 see G. Anders, Merchants of Debt (Basic Books, 1992)

146 Source, the U. S. Bureau of the Census. 147 World Almanac (2002), 103 (CPI, 1915 -- 2001)

100

200

CONTENTS of OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN and ETHEREAL-GOLD (the shaded titles) FOREWORD Quintessential Foundations (An Introduction) 101 Security: our Heritage 102 Insurance: our Heritage 103 Political Economy: the foundation of our Heritage (introduces 205) 104 Exercising Sovereignty: a responsibility of Heritage (introduces 208) 109 Truth’s Fiducial Gauges (introduces 209) Substantial Quintessence (Virtuous Knowledge) 201 Life’s enigma and the essential need for philosophy 202 Perceptions of reality and illusions 203 The requirements of self in finding truth 204 Politics for what it is 205 Political Economy 205 Appendix, Petitioning ‘Civitas’ 206 Liberal and Conservative 207 Our "Captains of Industry" 208 Sovereignty 209.1 Truth: The value predicate divisions of 209.2 Truth: The Fiducial Gauges of 210 Truth: Postscript about Organizations 211 Truth: Postscript about Emotion 212 Truth: Postscript about Faith 220 Truth: Postscript about Paradoxs 230 Truth: Postscript about Paradox and Mechanism 240 Truth: Postscript about Deontology sans Teleology 250 Virtues of Social Security and Vices of organization

In 2000, wage-earners have a $2 trillion (+) stake in the Economy. Teleologically, this $2 trillion stake (with interest) should have been repaid before the top 20 percent of income earners (who did not contribute to SS) were given a revenue tax refund (top income earners got tax refunds, common wage-earners did not). ABOUT ETHEREAL-GOLD

“It is the uniqueness of individuals, as they are encouraged to develop responsibly, into which the beauties of nations bloom. The American heritage is ETHEREAL-GOLD. The unalienable qualities of individuals are not compatible with anything that we produce, particularly on production lines.” From Petitioning‘Civitas,’ the Appendix to 205 The American System of Political Economy is a mechanism that opposes teleology: It divides the economy and upsets the ethical flux in culture. Our Political Economy locks Americans of the REAL ECONOMY between Americans of the SURREAL ECONOMY and Americans of the NON ECONOMY. Tyrannous Determinism results to compromise the human rights bequeathed by the Constitution. --Are we losing our unique AMERICAN HERITAGE? ---

Do we allow Mechanism to gamble with Teleology?

Increased in 1967 to provide for Medicare, Congress increased Social Security contribution-taxes again in 1984 to fund OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN for SS (Then spent the money) and (as reported in NEWSWEEK, May 13, 1991, p. 35) "the centrists [in Congress] say the deficit-ridden government needs the money." All attempts to cut SS taxes have failed. Political Economy, however, now calls for general tax reductions. The Administration of 2001 anointed this political objective.