Essential Sovereignty

ESSENTIAL

TOPICAL GUIDE

2

104 SOVEREIGNTY (and White Rabbits) FOREWORD Why essence instead of nothing?

what execrations should the statesman be loaded Humans bond for security

is of cardinal essence, 1 essence. is a word philosophers use to explain the nature of things. While essence is the special nature that makes each kind of thing different [and] the substance is the same in all kinds of things, essence and substance are both contained in any thing.

Greeks concluded sine qua non, which literally means without which, not, i.e, is essential or indispensable: applicable only to essence. "

it grows but it never matures.

“By a continuing process of inflation . . .”

104

SOVEREIGNTY (and White Rabbits) humans are the sovereign ‘identity element’ definition of sovereignty Sovereignty is individual responsibility

What is Property?

Proudhon’s answer Benjamin Franklin (democrat)

In 2004, the national averages of economic growth and inflation, for the past century,were published: growth was 4%, inflation 3%.

Mercantilism

In the late 1990s, economic analysis suggested that with 2% economic growth, profits would likely be about 6%. So, without inflation redounding legally enured as capital for profit taking, how is this pseudo scientific economic analysis possible. And, consider the paradoxical opposite side of net economic growth, of wage-earning consumers that to subsist must consume the inflation in market prices.

“tyranny of nomos” ‘physis’

This anthology of political Economy’s substance affirmed as essence, paradoxically challenge Our Federal Savings Plan: DeYoung’s research document about SS. By

"

Melvin H. DeYoung

All Rights Reserved

Scripture has bluntly said that God is supreme, i.e., is the naturally necessary antecedent of all that is, and therefore, cannot tolerate, by irrational belief of being, transposed in status, to that of a cosmic consequent: from whence dire consequences are naturally in results.

Hesiod’s nomos

tautologically, nomos-based law is affirmed fallacy

combinations against the public privileges of corporations should be destroyed Jorling’s concern Is the inheritance destiny of the unborn propertyless ? was this Court decision irrational? (read the endnote) Is government an innocent partner “Classical Liberals” “causal mechanism” Nullification Jean-Paul Sarter’s Existentialism Locke and Kant are (rational) beacons of truth

The Principle of Justice: Equality

4 4 6 8 9 10 12 12 13 17 20 21 24 28 30

31 32 34 35 36 36 39 42 43 44 46 48 50 50 51

TOPICAL GUIDE

The principal Idealists a strangely Hobbesian view of the State Roger Williams’ contribution to American democracy consciously through experience and reason the weak shall not inherit property!

“Mayflower Compact,” Does balanced democracy exist in America? inflation consumed then legally is enured capital employment is a ‘symptom of inflation,’ not its ‘cause.

521 POPULATION CHANGES IN THE 20 - 65 AGE GROUP those who cause inflation should pay for it. bank-loses laid onto Deposit Insurance and taxes consumption was the only real purpose of economy

the greatest quantum power in our society mercantilist (John Law was a mercantilist 2 )

3 54 56 57 58 58 64 66 71 75 75 80 82 83 84 85 85 85 86 86 89

government that serves . . . men of property a democratic state stands in "loco parentis" "American Plan," Imperial Grand Strategy Lincoln was essentially Jeffersonian. today ... liberty [is] nothing, when in conflict with another’s right to property 89 To amalgamate idealism and economics is not easy 92 But, domestic policy is the primary concern Endemism and Inflation

99 101

10 to 20 percent of an insurance premium

101

Economy’s front-end endemism causes inflation. business incentive to favor fraud’s endemism Government’s paternalism is against individuals that private insurance is the “only ball game” that private insurance is the “only ball game”

102 103 103 104 107

4

FOREWORD

Philosopher Martin Heidegger pondered, Why essence instead of nothing? He concluded that principle axioms are of essence, which for unknown reason baffle temporally, i.e., as apart from its specific context with substance are also undefinable, as for instance, the cardinal principle axiom of human being is rationally evident but apart from its human material context, is undefinable. However, this essence in context with each temporal human life is rationally clear: Essence < essen, essentis, essentia, and sum About cardinal sovereignty’s essence, V. L. Parrington observed this: 3

Discovering in the principle of liberty, the cardinal principles of American democracy, [G. W. Curtis] was disposed to accept a wide application of laissez faire, yet when it opened the door to extortion he was willing to curb an anti-social individualism.

While human essence is of cardinal sovereign liberty and free-agency, irrationally affirmed consequents by mechanist politics to serve concupiscent caste desires, as the essential antecedents of materialists causal idealism, defined as mechanism, paradoxes then embroil human essence, as Oliver Wendell Holmes observed:4

“There is that glorious epicurean paradox: give us the luxuries of life, and we will dispense with its necessaries.”

[What is of necessary antecedence is undeniable, sine qua non, i.e., (literally meaning) [without which, not] Ralph Manheim translated to English Martin Heidegger’s, ‘An Introduction to Metaphysics. To explain Heidegger, Manheim ‘coined a word: “essent,” “essents,” “the essent,” as based on the [materialist?] fiction that “essens,” “essentis” is the present participle of sum: the following dictionary definition of ‘sum’ confirms Manheim’s usage: 5

sum 6. The essence or gist of anything; pith; “That the Sermon on the Mount contains the ‘sum and substance’ of Christianity”

FOREWORD

5

(F. W. Robertson) [Heidegger reasoned that essence is of pure truth’s domain (as sovereignty is also), having no opposites.] 6 Respectively, the essential ‘sum’ (human ‘prescriptive logos’) and ‘substance’ (the corresponding truthful ‘fact’ of rational perception), defines truth. And when human prescriptive logos cohere with nature’s LOGOS (God), only then, can human posits of facts, which correspond with the human perception (‘sum’), represent ‘pure truth.’

Which truth must also be tautologically objective perception that is coherent with an objective factual ‘substance,’ as another’s fact posited independently or a natural fact.

The antecedent human essential cause (or prescription) in human culture is an admixture of empirical ‘substance’ and reasoned ‘sum’, as Hegel observed. Therefore, the determinism (or causal mechanisms) of natural material energy and forces, and ubiquitous natural essence of antecedent causes in temporal human life, are constantly in paradoxical conflict with the mechanist idealist substance-based determinism: causal libertarianism (or teleology) of natural human essence, as the Apostle Paul observed 7 , and, in this regard, as Craig Thomas also noted, ‘the decline of the empirical tradition of natural law theory [which natural theory was exclusively based on early reasoning of ‘sum’] may be dated from the first decades of the nineteenth century.’

This temporal cultural decline occurred as the affirmation of Substance, i.e., unitary materialism, was celebrated dogmatically during centuries of the Enlightenment Period, which celebration irrationally subordinated the naturally antecedent principles of cultural essence, the human sum. In this manner, mechanist ‘White Rabbits of [our] wonderland’ installed mechanist causal ‘mechanisms’ of unitary materialism (determinism) as their fallaciously affirmed antecedent principles, of U.S. political economy, which then deductively quite pseudo naturally sponsored paradoxes with naturally, i.e.,

FOREWORD

6

consequential, tyrannous, cultural effects (which pseudo scientific analysis introduced this research section 104): hopefully, maybe now Jefferson’s fierce attitude against those that assume ‘the right to tyrannize others’ can rationally be appreciated (?): by contemplating Jefferson’s thoughts on the cultural effects of slavery, for instance.

When social or economic mechanisms exacerbate political social division, to tyrannize as Jefferson suggests, should be condemned by statesmen, our divided national sovereignty shows forth clearly to others. Jefferson asks,

with what execrations should the statesman be loaded who, permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part and ‘amor patriae’ of the other?

[Is Jefferson’s question appurtenant to Psalms 2?]

At bottom line, all are admonished to put their trust in the Lord’s essence, and it appears, the expectation is this: the heathen better fulfills this requirement than human potentates and their sycophants (organic representations of fascism " surely qualify as such potentates).

“The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust” 8 It is difficult to determine on the standard by which a nation may be tried, whether catholic, or particular. It is more difficult for a native to bring to that standard the manners of his nation, familiarized to him by habit. There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and "

Licensed corporations are organically fascist in nature.

FOREWORD

7

degrading submission on the other. Our children see this and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to the grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his self-love for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of his wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose rein to the worst of passions and thus nursed, educated and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities.

The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. And with what execrations should the statesman be loaded who, permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part and ‘amor patriae’ of the other. For if a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any other in preference to that in which he is born to live and labor for another: in which he must lock up the faculties of his nature, contribute as far as depends on his individual endeavors to the evanishment of the human race or entail his own miserable condition on the endless generations proceeding from him. With the morals of the people, their industry is also destroyed. For in a warm climate, no man will labor for himself who can make another labor for him. This is so true that, of the proprietors of slaves, a very small proportion are ever seen to labor. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have

8

FOREWORD

removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can not sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of torture, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!

The Almighty has not attributes which can take side with us in such a contest. But it is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they will once their way into everyone’s mind. I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way, I hope, preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation; and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation.

Thomas Jefferson Humans bond for security: to ensure and insure. to ensure began with familial concerns, Insurance began with life’s desiderata. 9

± ensure, insure. ‘Ensure’ is the usual spelling for “make sure or certain”; ‘insure’ for “arrange for money payment in case of loss, accident or death.”

[To ensure entails essence while insurance concerns financial redress of substantial property losses, which are caused by no personal human fault] Taxation is required to ensure that government can administer all organic forms of security including the insurances, which often are

FOREWORD

9

rhetorically redundant, commitment without funding (legislators are rhetorically “full of it” in matters of ensuring assurances, but often falter to commit to funding for the insurance necessities).

Independent analysis disclosed that only 70 percent of government’s expenditures in 2004 were funded. The 30% deficiency was largely attributable to President G. W. Bush’s policy, which had given back $ Trillions of high end revenue taxes “to those that paid them”: this political paternalist gift happened because government spent surplus SS contribution taxes, accounted as an IOU, gave mechanists fallacious reason to claim that revenue taxes had been excessive.

Mechanists were aware that SS contribution taxation had been legally approved as a form of general taxation: all SS surpluses are governments to use as it will, they fully contend as legal if not moral.

And with this rank demonstration of unfaithfulness to SS, mechanists want the public trust for to repair SS for the retiring BabyBoom.

10

FOREWORD

Federalists were a main political faction behind establishing our federal government. Their politics is mechanist and consistently anticipates and expects paternally delivered selfish benefits (as the administrative policy to return revenue taxes “to those that paid them,” for instance), which fundamentally is contrary to the constitutional holistic purposes of this common ensuring authority, as was ratified only after the Bill of Rights, based on the common sovereign consent, was promised, which mechanists have administered with no commonality to the common consent which had established the Constitution with all its authorities. Particularly, this is true of revenue taxes paid by licensed private businesses that then, as granted by government, are put onto retail consumption so to redound as business capital that then legally is the private business owners’ profit.

Other mechanist political Economy’ provisions do the same, to which J. M. Keynes in 1920 observed:10

Seekers of better ways of life ensured the uniqueness of American government with noble prospects for equanimity in matters of government’s insurances.’ Contrarily, Whigs of property-based flux, ensured to officially adopt the privatized economic mechanisms of the American System of Political Economy. They ensured to perpetuate the ‘divine-right’-based insurances that rejected dogmatically the insurances of government, which American Seekers envisioned. Only Seekers were of intent to move culture beyond economy’s politically set mechanist fallacies, which Whigs officially had affirmed as principles of the American System political economy,

“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.”

only in quantity will it grow: more people, more goods, more wealth; its quality will remain unchanged forever . . .; it grows but it never matures.

R. L. Heilbroner

In 2004, the national averages of economic growth and inflation, for the past century, were disclosed: growth was 4%, inflation 3%. In the late 1990s, economic analysis had shown that with 2% economic growth, private business profits would likely be about 6%. So, please tell me how, without inflation legally redounding as capital for profit taking, this pseudo scientific economic analysis can be possible. And,

Fundamentally, ultimately, government was constituted to administer society’s common ensured security and insurances. And, as regards the source and manner of this appointment, it is fair to recall that

-- John Maynard Keynes The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920

FOREWORD

11

as you cannot otherwise explain it, please then consider the opposite paradoxical side of economic growth: of wage-earning consumers that by the mechanist economic system must consume inflation to subsist.

Colonial life under mechanist ‘divine right’ changed slowly even as feudal life of the dark ages. Tories, Federalists, and Whigs are the American ‘divine right’ patrons, and politically they succeeded to affirm that government’s insurances are best provided by privatized Political Economy’s government licensed, mechanisms (Where inflation’s endemism as legally granted by government is buried in consumption without accounting detail: inflation is, therefore, consumed but not accounted for, and maybe patterned on ubiquitous essence, which it is not, was deliberately left undefined, and described as economic endemism, however, unlike ubiquitous but rational essence, is ubiquitous but irrational substance). This mechanist classical economic entrenchment has thwarted society’s maturing progress that only is enabled by Seekers’ reason-based enlightenment.

So, which politics ensures government and its insurances, and whom do government’s licensed privatized mechanisms insure?

Tautologically, which politics is irrational and fraudulently, therefore, acts in dishonor to the Constitution’s holistic purposes?

This January 2005 article ran in The Las Vegas review Journal: Social Security battle looming Bush allies raising millions to fund drive for private accounts

by Jim Vandehei, of THE WASHINGTON POST WASHINGTON -- President Bush’s political allies are raising millions of dollars for an election style campaign to promote private Social Security accounts, as Democrats and Republicans prepare for what they predict will be the most expensive and extensive public policy debate since the 1993 fight over the Clinton administration’s failed health care plan. . . . GOP groups close to the White House are asking the same donors who helped reelect Bush to fund an expensive

12

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

campaign to convince Americans -- and skeptical lawmakers -- that Social Security is in crisis and that private accounts are the only cure. . . . an independent conservative group has set aside $9 million to support the president’s Social Security plan. . . . [another] conservative group has raised $1.5 million and hopes to hit a $15 million target. . . .

“It could easily be a $ 50 million to $ 100 million cost to convince people this is legislation that needs to be enacted,” said [Stephen] Moore. . . . “If we feel like gambling, we’ll play the slots,” [is the slogan AARP, as enjoined by Democratic groups, will counter with.]

104

SOVEREIGNTY (and White Rabbits)

Sovereign, in the sense of feudal materialist monarchy, referred to kings and their kingdoms. Then during the reign of James I in 1489 to honor the uniting of Scotland with England, (absolutely necessary) new sine qua non 11 meaning was given to sovereign. By calling England’s unit of money, a sovereign, the Pound Sterling (^), as also the one pound gold coin, was then called a sovereign. Money then became quantified by the ordinal count of sovereign units.12 And, economic value of money is intrinsically consequential of substance (as all ‘consequents’ identified with goods and properties are).

Logically intended, therefore, this irrational analogy to sine qua non sovereign essence also intends to identify sovereignty’s natural sum.

Mathematically, this meaning compares sovereignty to the natural uniqueness of counting numbers, which have both cardinal and ordinal attributes. If, therefore, naturally substantial consequential sovereign value is at all analogous, then it must exclusively relate to the only primacy, as found in ordinal numbers, which is the single cardinal identity element. This cardinal identity analogously is found in humans and is the essential human sum, and surely is not at all necessarily independently related to the human substance.

The cardinal identity element of arithmetic: unit, number 1 is

104 SOVEREIGNTY (and White Rabbits)

13

the only prime integer that is identified as a multiple of all integers (And, 1, is, therefore, the multiplicative ‘identity element’ of arithmetic). Analogously, humans are the sovereign ‘identity element’ of ordinal (group consented) sovereignty (and, all sovereign value that is affirmed to ordinal group sovereignty, requires that a majority of cardinally sovereign value yields, i.e., has either consented or involuntarily yielded its naturally antecedent cardinal sovereignty).

In results of the 2004 presidential election and the legislation to create the position of Director of Homeland Security, there was an unrelated provision to fund a secreted security program, which Congress had previously denied. Senator J. Rockefeller objected to this provision but could not, because of a congressional secrecy seal, identify it publicly. This secrecy clearly violates human cardinal sovereignty, as consented, if it does not violate the Constitution’s division of authorities as consented to government. Because this secrecy’s origin was a select factional group of elected representatives with a freshly elected administration, acting independently of consented authorities in formulating this secreted program funding, of which no one, inside or out is then allowed to speak publicly, clearly is either an impeachable cause, or logically a valid reason for cardinal sovereign citizens to recall those elected officials of the cabal, and to reorganize government to strictly accord with the Constitution.

This is a common definition of sovereignty: 13 A person, group, or nation having supreme control or dominion.

Entities of sine qua non (absolutely necessary) cardinal authority, power or value naturally depict sovereigns .

Humans, are the natural cardinal sovereigns of temporal life. A groups’ ordinal sovereignty is either by human sovereign consent or contrived. Consented ordinal sovereignty never departs (with impunity) from the cardinal human essence. Tautologically,

14

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

contrived sovereignty, of a king, for instance, is an affirmed metamorphism of consented human essence, which either by denial or affirmation, is claimed to be the supreme antecedent sovereign essence, or ‘sum,’ which grand fallacy either denies life’s natural antecedents, or affirms natural consequents as life’s antecedents.

It is the uniqueness of individuals in temporal life, as they are encouraged to develop responsibly, into which the essential ethereal beauties of life and nations bloom. The American heritage is pure ETHEREAL-GOLD. The unalienable qualities of individuals are priceless; not compatible with any material thing that humans can produce. (from my research on ‘Civitas’) The quintessence of U.S. constitutional sovereignty is consenting, collective sine qua non unalienable cardinal essence, ‘sum’ (without which the human ‘substance,’ is not), or the ‘soul’ of human life, as nature bestowed to each human being; each is a sovereign entity that individually or collectively is unalienable because nature is unalienable; cardinal, because nature is supreme. * * Of note, human ‘life’ is a post temporal conceived definition that without a sovereign sine qua non ‘sum,’ has no rational meaning as regards life’s ‘substance.‘ (Which essentially is what Bertrand Russell, an agnostic extraordinary mathematician-philosopher, had reasoned.) Russell cogently understood the natural axiomatic ordering of all temporal reality with a sine qua non ‘sum’ of life as its cardinal essence. He observed this about the mechanist view on life: 14

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

CULTURAL ‘NIHILISM’ is subtle conservative dogma

15

contain no beliefs or statements, would also contain no truth.

H. W. Turnbull cited Russell’s uniquely qualified mathematics’ source for observing this in The Great Mathematicians. He wrote: 15

‘Of what use,’ said Kronecker to Lindemann, ‘is your beautiful investigation regarding B? Why study such problems, since irrational numbers are nonexistent?’

These ideas [of mathematicians] have had an enormous influence on the trend of recent and contemporary thought; it is enough to say here that they exhibit in diverse ways the more mathematical side of that philosophical search into the principles of our subject which has marked the most recent stage of its history. For mathematics had now reached a state in which it was possible to do for the whole what Euclid tried to do for Geometry, by disclosing the underlying axioms or primitive propositions, as Peano called them: and the most patient investigation has been made -- notably in our own land by Whitehead and Russell -- first of the subject-matter itself and next of the very ideas that govern the subject-matter. As all this was conceived on a sublimely universal scale, it is hardly remarkable that certain paradoxes have come to light. How to face these paradoxes is an urgent problem, and there are at present two or three schools of thought employed upon this. . . .

Turnbull is also cited in section 109, about fiducial gauges of truth.

Human ‘life’ is naturally constituted as an independent human entity, which to sustain its temporal ‘being’ that breaths the air, and ingests material substances. Embryonic ‘life,’ is sustained in the mother’s womb, which fails to require this temporal constitution of human being and is, therefore, while legally is defined as human, still is a misnomer. The ‘sum’ of temporal life requires external nurturing

16

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

and maturing processes, which progresses while a clock like natural (dust to dust) reversion is occurring throughout each of life’s ‘substantial‘ sojourn.

The sum of human life is the only repository of sine qua non cardinal sovereignty. And, nature limited organic ordinal sovereignty to cardinal qualities, only to the extent that cardinal sovereignty grants, or is coerced to yield. Nature does not discriminate, with endowments to individuals, groups or races superior in authorities or rights as the class consciousness of any wonderland’s acquisitive “White Rabbits” might avow.

Thomas Hobbes presented an attractive theory of greed, as based on his dogmatic empirical belief. Tautologically, his thesis is an affirmed ‘Divine Rights’-based fallacy. And rational deductions from this thesis retain the dogmas of his thesis. All are fallacies that mechanist “White Rabbits” of our wonderland affirm as truth. Hobbes conceded this: human equality exists to the extent that rebuttal is folly: 16

Nature hath made men so equall, in the faculties of body, and mind; as that though there bee found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind then another; yet when all is reconed together, the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable, as that one man can claim to himselfe any benefit, to which another may not pretend, as well as he.

Thomas Hobbes And, in their Declaration of Independence, Colonial Americans proclaimed these natural human ‘essents’ (Heidegger’s word).17

In Congress, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When . . . it becomes necessary . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them . . .

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

17

created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. . .

An overwhelming colonial subscription to these cardinal unalienable truths won for Americans, independence, both of cardinal (individual) and ordinal (organic) sovereignty (where cardinal sovereignty is nature’s individually bequeathed sine qua non essence).

--Does the cardinally leveled sovereignty of nature endow privilege or responsibility?

Sovereignty is individual responsibility John Locke’s philosophy about the naturally endowed values and powers of each person supported the American independence movement. Locke intellectually ruled the Eighteenth Century.18 Locke’s philosophy sidestepped the sophistries of classical orthodoxy’s dogmas: divine right, materialism, mechanist determinism, positivism, . . .. Cicero’s thoughts on natural law were deliberately considered. But, Locke left alone these reasoned but nomos contested theories when he explained his physis-based empiricism. Instead, he directly confronted the fallacies of rank by appealing to each individual’s natural ‘essents’ (as Heidegger called the faculties of the human soul) to confront the dogmatized superiority-inferiority castings of society. Leaving natural laws uncontested and apart, Locke’s experience-based reasoning alone defined the unalienable essence of individual equality, i.e., the democratically "leveled" sovereignty for which Colonial Americans aspired and faught for. While Locke’s clear explication was commonly celebrated, many members of the Constitutional Convention held fast to Hobbes’ materialist view. Reluctantly, democratic-cardinal-sovereignty became the anchor of constitutional purposes: the Convention adopted democratic-cardinal-sovereignty as the physis-based Strategic plan for America, but then isolated this

18

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

strategy by adopting the nomos-based republican sponsored substance-based sovereignty as the nation’s economic Operating Plan. While the Convention adopted “leveled cardinal sovereignty” as the basis of its organic constitutional strategy, as with England’s unit of money (the U.S. sovereignty was quantified by the ordinal tally of individual cardinal sovereign units), authority and power aspiring ‘White Rabbits’ consistently exercise their mechanist nomos-based substantial sovereign rule: as measured by owned property holdings. * * Property’s definition (a thing or things owned 19 ) is not only unitary substance-based, as orthodoxy it was legally confirmed. And, Slavery universally was justified in the fallacious context of this definition, which context irrationally infers that Slaves are not sovereign humans. Whenever property is politically affirmed as an antecedent principle, as in Slavery, for instance, either substance is affirmed as the antecedent of essence, or life’s essence is denied. Both fallacies are equally irrational and either separately or together compromise natural security (as usufruct provided) to .commonweals.

The popularity of property was demonstrated when Pierre Joseph Proudhon in 1840 published his book, What is Property.

Culturally, Proudhon had embraced the social Enlightenment which preceded the French Revolution (1789-1799). France had not adopted democracy, but no longer had monarchy either. Mechanist, chaotic starving and poverty were common. Proudhon charged that property is theft. The positive mechanist political absolutism which celebrated substance rejected Proudhon’s charge, and because his extreme view, was broadly perceived as socialism, he spent time in prison and in exile. Whenever the celebration of substance is affirmed as the antecedent of essence, for to subjugate natural security’s safety nets, as usufruct and commonweal, it also, however, produces effects, and exploitations that in fact are buccaneer forms of thievery. * * President G.W. Bush’s February 23, 2005-joint-news-

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

19

briefing with V. Putin of Russia exposed the nature, existence, and divergences of what they mutually excused as “strong” democratic reality: Bush quipped that in America we accept as reality that the big “C” dominates democracy, while Putin defended what Americans’ view for being anti-democratic in Russia is equally needed for it to be strong. Putin pointed out that the predominant U.S. Electoral System, is akin to appointments rather than elections in Russia. (A panel discussion on TV of this conference disclosed that capitalist “big C” corporate interests want to exploit the vast Russian natural resources) Under the surface of the democratic claims of both, inferences of mechanist material-based “strength” belie the fact that neither Bush nor Putin, by their individual values and actions, is a worthy representative of democratic essence: in a good cop, bad cop analogy, both irrationally have an affirmed bad cop (mentality). And, while irrational, both are right in the aspect that democracy is philosophical belief that concludes that the temporal world includes both spiritual and material aspects. Both are wrong, however, in the aspect of truth in which irrationalism never qualifies as truth: as Bertrand Russell’s analysis of sine qua non antecedences is cogently applicable. Both have ordered their domains so that absolutism only allows material-based facts.

And, Proudhon’s social rejection, in this light, represents Auguste Comte’s substantial doctrinal triumph ( his unitary substantial doctrine called positivism), which absolutism socially fomented beginning sometime after 1789. 20 Irrationally it denied cardinal essence.

About cardinal essence, Proudhon was profoundly eloquent, as Heilbroner had written this about Marx’s philosophic feud with Proudhon. Therefore, we are assured that Marx was aware of eventual enlightment failure whenever the oligarchical mechanist intelligentsia is imbued only of pure capitalist unitary materialism.21

20

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

Perhaps no single incident was more provocative, more prophetic of a witch-hunt for ‘deviationists’ and ‘counter revolutionaries’ than the feud between Marx and Pierre Proudhon. Proudhon was the son of a French barrelmaker, a self-educated brilliant Socialist who had rocked the French intelligentsia with a book entitled ‘What is Property? Proudhon had answered, Property is Theft, and he had called for an end to huge private riches, although not to all private property. Marx and he had met and talked and corresponded, and then Marx asked him to join forces with himself and Engels. Proudhon’s answer is so profoundly moving and prescient that it is worth quoting at some length: Let us together seek, if you wish, the laws of society, the manner in which these laws are reached, the process by which we shall succeed in discovering them; but, for God’s sake, after having demolished all the ‘a priori’ dogmatisms [as ‘divine right’], do not let us in our turn dream of indoctrinating the people. . . . I applaud with all my heart your thought of inviting all shades of opinion; let us carry on a good and loyal polemic, let us give the world the example of an informed and farsighted tolerance, but let us not -- simply because we are at the head of a movement -- make ourselves into the leaders of a new intolerance, let us not pose as the apostles of a new religion, even if it be the religion of logic, the religion of reason. Let us gather and encourage all dissent, let us outlaw all exclusiveness, all mysticism, let us never regard a question as exhausted, and when we have used one last argument, let us if necessary begin again -- with eloquence and irony. On these conditions, I will gladly enter into your association. Otherwise,

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

21

no!

Proudhon, a socialist, rebuffed the communist doctrine for the same irrational propensities as the inteligencia of capitalism had affirmed as their antecedent principle. Democracy’s more fragile, i.e., essential dilemma is that it necessarily allows its irrational mechanist materialist political opposition an equal voice.

[And the U.S. presidential election of 2004 confirms how equal it is] Post U.S. Constitution, in assessing the constitutional measures of consented organic sovereignty, mechanist politics affirmed Substance as a coequal of Sum. This, while tautologically fallacious, allowed Substance, at critical times, to be legally adjudged as Sum’s antecedent, which, for instance, happened when the Supreme Court sided with Hamilton’s affirmation of government’s substancebased economic functions, rather than holding to Jefferson’s agrarianbased conservatism: of government’s consented sovereign roles involving politically privatized economic issues. Another instance was fundamental to the Dred Scott Decision in which the cardinal sovereignty of a freed slave was subordinated to the mechanist idea of property rights that the slave was owned by his master, and was, therefor, returned to slavery. The mechanist Supreme Court has made other decisions in an absence of supporting legislation, as when following President Lincoln’s Emancipation Order, the Court extended to corporations, as adjudged legal persons, constitutionally protected cardinal sovereign right to Due Process [which fallaciously but legally extended to corporations of the slave trade, as legal person entities, sine qua non natural human cardinal sovereign rights (what President John Adams had reasoned were rights coeval of government)]. This decision slowed by centuries the legal processes of granting emancipation: the due process rights of large plantation owners’ were given legal standing over the due process rights of freed slaves. (And, this aggrieved situation now extends to individual

22

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

citizens, when in legal contests with corporations) The list of such legal fallacies is much longer.

The Constitutional Convention proposed individual democratic-sovereignty, i.e., naturally endowed human rights that we each can claim and must individually exercise as our own cardinal sovereign property (which natural sine qua non property is different fundamentally than substantial property in the aspect of reality (which without essence, is not reality, at all) as Bertrand Russell’s critically reasoning of reality explained: requiring a dynamic and responsible consistency in individual presence that is culturally holistically attuned. And by infusing practical property-based sovereignty antecedently into the cultural mix of political economy, Whigs infused a perpetual paradoxical challenge to this individual responsibility, which, of nature, must adopt “categorical Imperatives” for to be democratic. We each exercise this responsibility by thinking clearly, proclaiming candidly and acting upon what we think (Until, we get put in the ‘pokey’ for mis speaking publically, and particularly when mis speaking about ‘top-secretes’ as are interpreted and designated by those of the paradoxical political authorities.) This exercise of individual cardinal sovereignty provides the constantly renewable reparation of our constitutional Strategy, i.e., each fresh generation of dynamic sovereign citizens quantifies and qualifies the nation’s ordinal sovereignty by suffrage processes of consenting to it.

However, the constitutional reparation, we call freedom, also requires of each individual (and political factions) an outward-turned (objective) perspective with all common aspects (or, the whole) of society. Each individual is naturally accountable to admit that the liberty and freedom, which they themselves require, must be also allowed to all others of responsible cardinal sovereignty (which effectively is Christ’s categorically imperative Golden Rule.22

[John Locke] assert[s physis-based natural law] in the contemporary,' to 'claim' that it is true by the admission of any

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

23

individual that his or her requirements of liberty and freedom must be admitted to others, 'unless' the form of political society under which they live is unjust.

Craig Thomas Our individual responsibility is to pursue knowledge and this cardinal essence requires that truth-based ethical responsibility is pursued, that when benignly neglected, allows mechanist power aspiring “White Rabbits” to ordinally in substantial sovereignty proliferate and, thereby, without discussion or debate, nullify the constitutionally administered democratic-sovereignty. In benign neglect we abdicate our unalienable individual cardinal sovereign rights to those armed with orthodox dogmas and superior accumulated materiality, as they, in orthodox nomos, influence the acts of government to favor themselves. In his recent book, Who will tell the People, William Grider summarized the latent effectiveness of American sovereignty; he illuminated whys and hows of usurping unalienable sovereignty:23

Americans have never achieved the full reality in their history or even agreed completely on democracy's meaning. The democratic idea has always been most powerful in America as an unfulfilled vision of what the country might someday become -- a society advancing imperfectly toward self-realization.

24

Grider warns:

American democracy is in much deeper trouble than most people wish to acknowledge. . . . What exists behind the formal shell is a systemic breakdown of the shared civic values we call democracy.

William Grider All aspects of life must embroil the issues of our material world: material aspects surely embroiled the “great debate,” as Parrington called the debate about the Constitution and sovereignty.

Concerning the tenuousness, i.e., the ethereal essential status of American democracy, and before laying blame for the high cost of ineffective political driven government, each citizen should refer to

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

24

Parrington’s statement about Benjamin Franklin (democrat):25

He sat in the Constitutional Convention as one of the few democrats, and although he was unable to make headway against the aristocratic majority, he was quite unconvinced by their rhetoric. . . . when he heard eloquent young lawyers argue that a single-chamber legislature, responsive to a democratic electorate, must lead to mob legislation, and that good government required a carefully calculated system of checks and balances, he remarked: It appears to me . . . like putting one horse before the cart and the other behind it, and whipping them both. If the horses are of equal strength, the wheels of the cart, like the wheels of government, will stand still; and if the horses are strong enough the cart will be torn to pieces.26 " When in 1790,it was proposed to substitute a bicameral system for the single-chamber in Pennsylvania, Franklin came to the defense of the simpler, more democratic form, with a vivacity little stalled by years: "" Has not the famous political fable of the snake, with two heads and one body, some useful instruction contained in it? She was going to a brook to drink, and in her way was to pass through a

"

When considering the diabolical teleology and mechanism causalities, which are represented respectively since Lincoln in the Democratic and Whiggish-Republican politics, Franklin was prophetic. ""

Regarding the recent problems with deciding elections via the Electoral College and Supreme Court, Franklin displayed keen insight here as well.

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

25

hedge, a twig of which opposed her direct course; one head chose to go on the right side of the twig, the other on the left; so that time was spent in the contest, and before the decision was completed, the poor snake died with thirst.27 Both his economic principles and his views on government have been condemned by Federalist [mechanist] critics as tainted with populism. They both sprang from the same root of agrarian democracy. Whether Franklin or his critics more adequately represented the larger interests of eighteenth-century America is beside the present question; it is enough to note that all such criticism is leveled primarily at Franklin’s democratic philosophy as a thing in itself undesirable, if not dangerous.

Franklin may often have been wrong, but he was never arrogant, never dogmatic. He was too wise and too generous for that. In the midst of prosperity he never forgot the unprosperous. All his life his sympathy went out to whoever suffered in person or fortune from the injustice of society: to the debtor who found himself pinched by the shrinking supply of currency; to the black slave who suffered the most elementary of wrongs; to impressed seamen; to the weak and wretched of earth. He was part of that emerging humanitarian movement which, during the last half of the eighteenth century, was creating a new sense of social responsibility.

“Social responsibility” and “democratic sovereignty” is the grist of continuing political debate in th U.S., as well in all parts of the world.

Hamilton argued prescriptively in absolute favor of English mercantilist mechanist causal-determinism doctrine, i.e., mechanism:28

A commercial people understands that a government that serves the interests of men of property, serves the interests of all, for if capital will not invest how shall labor find employment?

26

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

---Does Hamilton base his prescription exclusively on mercantilist doctrine which Hobbes unitary materialism is about?

---In this, does he disregard the causal nature of the human essence of will, i.e., the intelligent spiritual-state of humanity that Christ referred to when he said: man doth not live by bread only? 29 Is this non material Provence the Provence of lasting truth, knowledge and justice? The Provence of human tranquility?

---Does Hamilton’s prescription found American politicalconservatism, which is often diabolical to Jefferson’s foundations to democracy and cardinal sovereignty? Is Hamilton’s prescription a form of “Divine Rights” dogma?

---Does Hamilton prescriptively ignore Immanuel Kant’s “synthetic a priori”, i.e., false reasoning about deterministic materialism (i.e., Kant’s tautological dilemma)?

---What dogmatized doctrine, theory or law exists to ensure that men of property will invest in ways to insure that labor finds employment (Economists, Veblen and Heilbroner, among others, as Schumperter and Brockway, voiced great concern about this)?

While officially the Constitutional Convention neither adopted nor rejected Hamilton’s prescription, dogmatized deterministic materialism eventually became the nation’s dominant influence of legislation and administration of the new nation’s Operating Plan (mechanist insurance), which we call The American System of Political Economy. While our Operating Plan’s insurance presently is based on absolute dogma (it is nomos-based), the political flux in America is dynamic and flexible to adapt to the individual flux of natural unalienable cardinal human sovereignty. The will of human nature is complex. It is capable to generate dogmatized doctrines and mechanisms of deterministic materialism and it also looks to socialization such as the “social usage-based insurance”, as colonial America’s Roger Williams had astutely observed.

As we ponder the antecedent cause of the members of Heaven’s Gate

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

27

committing mass suicide, we should also ponder the doctrines that we seldom freely select on our own to command our individual actions and prescriptive pronouncements of truth. The cultural nomos of society represent a collage of dogmatized theories and doctrine that we individually, in hope, sometimes willingly subscribe as “the truth.”

Unwittingly, we too often subscribe to fraud, however. (About our cultural corner on truth, ours is similar to the Islamic culture that also too often we in dogmatic prejudice brand for being evil.)

The United States’ Operating Plan is politics about economics. It embroils the influences of mind with emotion, values with passions, essence of will with mechanist materialism, . . . Rationalizations are inevitable and Aristotle’s spectrum of virtue is applicable (Virtue, Aristotle explained, is the middle ground between the vices: the mean of excess and deficiency.): At the extreme of excess, controlling by commanding materialities and their deterministic values is an inevitable cause of collective and collusive rationalization, which Adam Smith warned posed the greatest threat to the universal benefits of his natural reason-based “market system” that he carefully explained as the basis of the inevitable economic evolution. His observations about economic evolution are universally evident. But, the licensed, privatized economic mechanisms of “White Rabbits” determinism challenge Smith’s warning about monopoly.

While the U.S. Strategic Plan is based on ethics [giving of self in the sense of acting together to secure (ensure and insure) common values], the Operating Plan is based on individually taking and securing what we want as our own property. The difference between giving and taking is, of course, diabolical. While strategy is each individual’s responsibility, about the preserving every individual’s unalienable rights, operationally speaking, we expect selfishness and want absolutism with property ownership, contracts, and such. Often unalienable human strategic rights conflict with mechanist absolute objectives involving property. Wants often qualify

28

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

as extreme vices on the spectrum of virtue, and mechanistically, determinism works legally to nullify physis-based sovereignty. In this, natural laws are abused while mechanist wants violate no manmade law, which Jefferson reasoned gave Americans abstract justice. Therefore, we need to be clear about definition and purpose.

Christ may have said it best: man doth not live by bread only, which paraphrased says that human life requires more than just the nomos of unitary substance. About political economy, we especially need be clear and balanced in reason when enacting laws that define government’s administrative functions, with its privatized agents, codifications and regulations. Particularly, as we officially consider adopting or licensing forms of mercantilism, for instance, we should consider the nature of our government licensed “fictitious legal person” corporations, that agencies of state government gave license to act as human entities. Nature’s God did not create fiction and according to reasoned inferences of Natural Law, which apply specifically to humans, fictitious persons have no unalienable cardinal sovereign rights. Still, with lawful impunity fictions called corporations engage in competitive and collusive forms of neomercantilism. We should not only recognize this, we should be concerned that multinational corporations are today, larger than our nation was and that as “fictitious legal individuals,” they represent the greatest threat to nullifying individual cardinal sovereignty. They represent Leviathan entities, nations, that make their own rules, we might say, with which humans individually cannot compete. The following describes mercantilism:30

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. . . .

As part of the mercantilist program, individual

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

29

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 [which he defined as consumable and usable goods " ].

Douglas Greenwald Not only should we be concerned about corporate mercantilism, we should also be concerned about their collusive mechanist monopolist politics, purchased free speech, accounted as a cost of doing business, and recovered from economic consumption: PAC contributions to political parties, similarly they also recover from consumption. * * Whether from foreign countries where they conduct corporate business or in the sense that they represent something other than

"

Government minted money, in Smith’s view, was the fungible medium of exchanging “wealth.” White Rabbits of their own mechanist view of wonderland, in mercantilism, metamorphosed government’s fungible exchange value medium, as government was constitutionally commissioned to create, to money that is now an investment commodity that mechanistically can legally grow, the down side of which also economically results to reduce the wageearned fungible exchange value that is available to subsistence consumption “wealth.” And counterfeited money often goes unnoticed as it fills the void created by this shrinking availability to wage-earning, as the investment commodity and hoarding grows.

30

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

human cardinal sovereignty, political contributions from corporations are foreign, if not alien, contributions. This also applies to all social and religious organizations and particularly to PACs. Confusion, conflict, and paradoxes are inevitable in the dual sovereign realms of our mechanist neo democratic-sovereignty. We might distinguish these realms by their dominant characteristics: intangible responsibility (which is metaphysical) and (tangible and temporal) material acquisition (which St. John said was sinfully concupiscent). Hesiod’s nomos, which G. R. Morrow wrote about: 31

. . . The word ‘nomos’ is as old as the epic poets, and seems originally to have been used to denote the ways of behavior characteristic of any group of living beings, whether men or wild beasts. Thus Hesiod [700s BC] 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. . . . Law is primarily an embodiment of justice, and conversely the just man is he who obeys the laws. But two other elements came to be associated with the idea of ‘nomos:’ the element of constraint, and the element of enactment. Customary law in its early stages is usually felt by a people as only vaguely compelling; conformity results without the machinery of courts and penalties.

Similarly these customs are usually regarded as owing little to human contrivance; they are the gift of the gods, or a part of the unchanging order of things. For the Greeks this state of innocence was ended by the process of political unification and

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

31

the colonization. When two or more communities found it expedient to join forces for mutual protection and benefit, their tribal and local customs had to be harmonized, and something like a common law, the law of the city, had to be set up, in some respects overriding the earlier and more familiar customs. Such a law of the city was felt to have, and would need to have, more explicit legislation or enactment, by deliberate choice of “the best.” . . . By the beginning of the fifth century the Greeks were well aware of this element of human judgment and positive enactment [as Jefferson alluded to?] in the laws under which they lived. The course of political events in the fifth century only deepened this awareness. At Athens, for example, the successive changes in the constitution, the increasing resort to legislation, the growth of litigation, the widespread contact with other peoples and other laws, and the heightened sense of individual interests distinct from those of the community, all converged in their influence to give the Athenian citizen the conviction that his laws were to a great extent the result of legislation or enactment, and derived much of their authority from the sanctions explicitly attached to them.

Yet, so strong was the traditional association of law with justice, it appeared inconceivable that there should be justice apart from law. The relations of the two concepts had to a great extent been reversed. Whereas in the beginning law was regarded as finding its norm in justice, in the fifth century justice came to be defined in terms of law. Under these circumstances the only recourse open to one who felt the injustice of his city’s law was to appeal to a higher law. . . . In short, there seemed no escape from the “tyranny of nomos.”

The dilemma of the fifth-century thinker is nicely exemplified

32

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

in the attitude of Socrates. Before the Athenian court he declares firmly that he must “obey God rather than men.” Yet he was a loyal subject to the laws of Athens, and according to Xenophon he fully concurred in the current opinion that justice means conformity to the laws.

Socrates’ Apology confirms that allegiance to reasoned truth and knowledge was his categorical imperative, while temporal nomosbased law was also very important, but consequential instead of antecedent. His Apology was coerced by the oligarchical power’s misuse of nomos-based law, intransigently to suppress his freedom of thought and expression. Contemporarily, this form of nomos arises in biases of concupiscent self-interest, as emphasized by “dollar morality“ for instance, and the dogmatic oligarchical intolerance of physis might present the greatest threat to the individual freedoms of democracy: Kervorkian provided an example, which embroils an individual’s inalienable ‘right’ to decide how and when to die. Our orthodoxy’s dogmatic mechanist‘divine right’ based cultural nomos, not only disrespects this individual cardinal sovereign right, it makes society bear the costs of prosecutions and incarcerations, as putting ‘Kervorkians’ in jail for assisting individuals to die peacefully, painlessly and without great social and economic cost. Nomos-based laws which represent tautological fallacies are at fault.

The notion of ‘physis’ belongs to an entirely different context.

---The idea of ‘nomos’ is the product of reflection on political and moral experience; ---the conception of ‘physis’ was worked out by the early Greek scientists -- those men of Miletus, Ephesus, Clazomenae, and Abdera, of Sicily and southern Italy, who attempted to explain, in terms of familiar elements and processes the phenomena of heavens and all the other varied occurrences in

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

33

the cosmos that surrounds human life.

The speculations of these early thinkers were universally designated, from the fifth century onward and perhaps even earlier, as inquiries into ‘physis.’ . . . These inquiries were introduced into Athens in the fifth century by Anaxagoras, and the shock they gave to the older beliefs of the Athenians is one of the major events of that century. The meaning of the term ‘physis,’ universally used to designate the object of these inquiries, varied somewhat with the thinker and with context in which the term was used. Sometimes it referred to the primary stuff, or kinds of stuff, of which the ordered cosmos is constituted; sometimes it denoted that ordered cosmos itself . . . ; sometimes the form or constitution of any person or thing within that cosmos; and sometimes the originating power or agency through which this order came about, whether in the cosmos as a whole, or in its separate parts. . . . But these varied meanings had a common core. Underlying all these investigations into ‘physis’ was the assumption that there are certain enduring primary characters or elemental forces which, if understood, would explain the origin and behavior of the cosmos and all its parts.

The contrast between ‘nomos’ and ‘physis’ is therefore unmistakable.

---‘Nomos’ varies from place to place and from time to time, whereas ---‘physis’ has the character of necessity [sine qua non] . . . and is therefore invariable.

‘Nomos’ is transitory, while ‘physis’ is “ageless and deathless.” “Nomos’ is the product of human contriving; but the forces at work in nature, and the order they bring about,

34

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

are independent of human agency. Furthermore ‘physis’ is primary, not merely in the order of being, but also in time; for ‘nomos,’ together with all other human institutions, is a late occurrence in cosmic history. [tautologically, nomos-based law is affirmed fallacy] Consider, for instance, the institution of marriage. The marriage vows, as taken in pure love, are physis-based, the responsibilities of which, to each other and those procreated, are inherent and reasonably can be understood. However, the material realities of the lawful marriage contract are nomos-based and primarily substantial in nature. When society acts to formalize the fused physisnomos rights in marriage -- as to liberties, license, powers, prerogatives, privileges, . . . society inevitably discriminates against those to whom an officially sanctioned marriage is denied. However argued and despite honorable and ethical intents, nomos-based tenets of society violate the individual sovereign rights of some with favor to others. But when society sanctions marriage expressly for exclusive purposes to reenforce responsibilities relating to the vows, particularly involving procreation, which is the primary physis-based sine qua non responsibility of marriage, then same sex vows cannot naturally qualify for social reenforcement, whether or not such union is called a marriage. A prudent Society should still clearly define the responsibilities inherent of nomos-based favoritism to avoid confusion that leads to an official sanctioning of nomos, of same sex marriage and thereby compromising the natural purpose of marriage that socially inheres in a three-way partnership.

One might note that the sacred partnership, inherent to the physis-based marriage contract, involves three principal entities (a particular male, a particular female, and the organic whole of society): each entity has inherently natural interests and responsibilities with each new sovereign entity of procreation whether in or out of marriage (and essential procreation does not naturally occur without years of

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

35

nurturing care in the temporal environs of life, i.e., a human life is not procreated in the mother’s womb only). With these inherent responsibilities understood, favoritism becomes recognized instead as an unalienable natural responsibility: In democracy, favoritism without natural responsibility is unwarranted as it damages leveledsovereignty. In my view, this contemporary concern clearly provides an example of physis-based natural law that nomos-based laws cannot accommodate. Anyway, the natural responsibilities mitigate the envy of perceptions, which contend that rights and privileges are compromised! And, marriage does not always provide advantages: Tax laws often discriminate with favor to single individuals: anyway, society has no inherent or implied interest in the eunuches like circumstance of same sex unions.

Constitutional rights, as specified in the Bill of Rights, restrain government actions (and as agents of government, should also restrain corporations) and thereby guarantee that all individuals are on an even playing field, as important and influential in lawfully determining their individual situations and circumstances.

---However, to what extent should these constitutional Rights apply to “fictitious legal person” corporate entities?

---And, to what extent should government’s licensed corporate mechanisms of the privatized political economy’s operational Plan be tolerated when they nullify individual cardinal sovereignty?

Adam Smith’s reference notes in Wealth of Nations reveal where to find details of his personal concerns about corporations.32

Corporations, tendency of the exclusive privileges of, on trade, 30, 58; by what authority erected, 61; the advantages corporations derive from surrounding country, 61; check the operations of competition, 63; their internal regulations, combinations against the public, 63-4; are injurious even to the members of them, 64; the laws of, obstruct the free circulation

36

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

of labour, from one employment to another, 67; the origin of, 192; are exempted by their priveleges from the power of feudal barons, 193; European East India Companies disadvantageous to the eastern commerce, 214; The exclusive privileges of corporations should be destroyed, 225-26.

Thomas C. Jorling’s concern is both contemporary and direct: 33

With some reluctance, I have chosen to register independent views on . . . the exercise of power by large, often multinational corporations.

Deep concern over accountability in the exercise of power, especially as it affects individuals, has been a hallmark of American society. In my view, the Commission (for a National Agenda for The Eighties) should have acknowledged, in the context of the eighties, the historic concern of Americans with the exercise of power. At the time of the framing of the Constitution, many provisions were adopted to constrain and make accountable an agent of power--the federal government.

During the past 200 years, new aggregates of power have come into being, especially the large, multinational corporation.

Brought into existence by state charter, these institutions were once constrained by limits on size and power, limits rapidly made obsolete by interstate competition. Justice Brandeis, in a descent in the 1932 case Liggett v. Lee, described the history concisely: 'Although they fully recognized the value of this instrumentality in commerce and industry, they commonly denied incorporation for business long after they had granted it for religious, educational, and charitable purposes. They denied it because of fear. Fear of encroachment upon the liberties and opportunities of the individual. Fear of the

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

37

subjection of labor to capital. Fear of monopoly. Fear that the absorption of capital by corporations, and their perpetual life, might bring evils similar to those which attended 'mortmain.'

There was a sense of some insidious menace inherent to large corporations. So at first the corporate privilege was granted sparingly; and only when the grant seemed necessary in order to procure some specific benefit otherwise unobtainable.

The removal by leading industrial states of the limitations upon the size and powers of business corporations appears to have been due, not to their conviction that maintenance of the restrictions was undesirable in itself, but to the conviction that it was futile to insist upon them; because local restriction would be circumvented by foreign (other states) incorporation. Indeed, local restriction seemed worse than futile; Lesser States eager for the revenue derived from traffic in charters, had removed safeguards from their own incorporation laws. 288 US 517, 548, 557.

Nothing took the place of the limits -- limits designed to control power -- once imposed by states. Subsequently, the corporation has continued to grow, and it now is the source of the exercise of the greatest amount of power in national and global society. Simply put, the large business corporations, separately and collectively, wield the greatest quantum power in our society. Power with many dimensions: to shape the form of society, to alter the landscape, to distribute new chemicals, to provide or withhold food, to determine income differentials, to make us dependent upon technology. On and on we could go, but for purposes here it is sufficient to assert that the power once thought of as the exclusive provence of government -- to exercise power to control others -- is now held and executed

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

38

largely by large business corporations.

Where government has such power, we establish measures to protect the individual, but not so with the corporation. While government cannot deprive a life experience for the exercise of speech, a corporation can deny employment providing the paycheck essential for survival for such expression. Specific multinational corporations wield power beyond the boundaries of any national jurisdiction.

By exercising free speech, assembly and suffrage, all humans in citizenship have equal constitutional rights to actualize the government’s ordinal sovereign intent. However, government and law, as constitutionally and separately specified, licensed each corporation to act as an individual, with individual rights as protected by due process and such, while in fact, corporations, in matters of politics and economy, are privatized and mechanized organic-agentcontractors of government’s functions. In fact, as respects to states’ rights and relations with the federal government, evidently privatized and mechanized fictitious corporate entities enjoy much of the same, and more, with legalized cardinal sovereign authorities and functions, as constitutionally is allowed to state governments (They enjoy more since, beyond all boundaries of the world, they can aggressively endeavor to exploit anything that is profitable, with assurances that U.S. foreign policy provides them with security. " ). However, maybe the greatest fictional difference (rights of both states and corporations

"

An early foreign trip the U. S. Secretary of State made, in President G. W. Bush’s first administration was to India where Enron Corp., was installing a super system for supplying electric generation and grid work. Then, because Enron had failed, the Secretary was asked about the constitutional nature of his visit there? In effect, he responded: “I was doing my Job as others in this position have always done: supporting the foreign workings of U.S. industry.”

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

39

are fiction-based) here is that corporations are independent of government’s liabilities, particularly as regards property ownership, distribution of income, and intellectual properties that corporations are contractually and legally allowed to commandeer and accumulate. All of which enjoy, Due Process, Bill of Rights protection.

Still, regarding matters embroiling the dual and conflicting realms of ordinal sovereignty’s nomos, are laws irrationally deduced from custom or tradition. Cabalist political influences of wealth and the political proclivity for positivism, materialists determinism-based, dogmatic belief is never of antecedent principle that is a fiducial basis of rationality. Elected government representatives often now deliberately formulate, in cabalist group-think forums (but what cardinal sovereignty consented to allow non elected representatives, to participate), the constitutionally fallacious formulation of proposed legislation. They subordinate, to the status of consequents, what “naturally” or “rightly,” represents “true” cardinally sovereign antecedent consent. The destined results show in factual paradoxs in which only some will prosper. In this irrational manner, the privatized corporate agencies of government, by mechanist processes of cardinal sovereign exclusion, to the extent their license allows and with increasing preemptive impunity, violate the Constitution’s intent.

For instance, ownership contracts are specific written agreements between mutually consenting parties, and multiple entities in ownership, are difficult if possible, and without mutual consent, they cannot be binding. And, those to whom ownership is possible, always want more, and often another’s property. And those of wealth, as the board game Monopoly shows, always desire the prime parcels if not all parcels. With the practical evidence of “trueness,” is the destiny of fictitious legal corporate individuals, with their perpetual legal existence eventually destined to own most if not all property?

(Is the inheritance destiny of the unborn propertyless ?)

The common threat of bin Laden, Al Qaeda terrorism, by the fact these

40

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

words were not commonly in print, surely is of less concern than insidious threats imposed by mechanisms of political economy’s privatized corporate entities which are irrationally licensed to accumulate property ownership by extending sine qua non unalienable human cardinal citizen rights protections, counter constitutionally to also apply to corporations having no natural or legal mortality limit.

Humans allow only themselves to be fooled by corporate politics, which in fact, like puppets, are tethered to the organic cabala expansionist politics that cries constantly about threats, which often originate from within the organic cabal itself. And, which paradoxical economic influence now dominates our nation’s foreign policies and defenses, however, to stave off demise as the world’s economic leader, must become tautologically pure from within itself. Our nation must either be defended in the name of democracy, which the paradoxical mechanist corporate regimen surely never has represented, or allow corporations, as the mere individuals that legally they were licensed as, to stand or fail on their own when exploiting for profit in foreign cultures and economies. For instance, check out the above footnote about Enron’s exploitation in India’s economy as our government’s Secretary of State, no less, interceded for and was also rebuffed.

The Al Qaeda threat, of December 2004, was waged against the oligarchical one family control of Saudi Arabia, which was where bin Laden was born. Is bin Laden’s terrorist interests now equally opposed to the imperialist oligarchy in Saudi Arabia as he is to the international corporate exploits, as are backed by the U.S. government, as terrorism inflicted on the World Trade Center in New York City, and the Pentagon showed? : Was war in Iraq a corporate influenced diversion from this terrorism focus?

---Should fictitious legal person corporate entities that by law are perpetual and to which privatized investment banking systemically gives an unlimited access to government coined money, from the nation’s central banking system no less, be allowed to control society

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

41

by controlling property? : should a corporation’s property, i.e., reality legally owned by fiction which the Supreme Court defined to be a legal person (with human rights, i.e., essence), as leveraged to advertize, and lobby, politically, represent human free speech? Or, was this legal Supreme Court decision a conflated mechanist unitary materialist deduced result of affirming a material consequent as a principle? When a woman registered her dog to vote, for instance, she was confronted with legal action, and while a dog is not fiction, this circumstance presents quite an analogous situation with what the Supreme Court had done in the instances of legally allowing human essence to fictitious person corporations? : While property is clearly substance, corporate sovereignty, which is fiction, which to be analogous to human sovereignty, must represent corporate essence, which no amount of human reason can ever make real or substantial.

This Supreme Court decision was, therefore, irrational. Human sovereignty, while ubiquitous, is real, as human life is real but never is substantial. What the Supreme Court decided, in this instance, of free speech, is as fictitious as, is the definition, which designated that corporations were fictitious persons, and therefore had constitutional unalienable rights, which were established to protect the human essence of sovereignty?

It is clear that when the Court decided that corporate wealth spent to deliver a message or influence a political action represents the equivalent essence of human sine qua non unalienable free speech, the Supreme Court’s action, therefore, logically infers that mechanist Federalism’s unitary materialist bias, which is monarchical and not republican democratic was affirmed as the principle of consideration.

The deliberately affirmed corporate sovereignty, as substance rather than essence, which in either instance, fiction cannot represent, confirms that the mechanist Federalist inclined Supreme Court, because of its unitary materialist bias is reminiscent of the European Principle Idealists of that time, which sought to conflate human

42

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

essence to a unitary materialist form (Hegel’s dialectical materialism, which Lenin based his communist philosophy on)], as inferred, denied the natural antecedence of unalienable human faculties (essence) (tautologically speaking, the Supreme Court either committed the logical fallacy of affirming a material-based consequent or denying the reality of natural human essence, as the logical antecedent of deduction)! And, did the Supreme Court, by this decision, infer that the Constitution’s empowered of Justice allowed them to contradict nature, that corporate fiction, as licensed, also had the sine qua non essence, of humans? Or, was this Court decision irrational? 34 --In his most recent book, Carl Sagan referred to the meta-mind, undoubtedly referring to the cosmic side of man’s origin. Is there a meta side, a meta-mind, or cardinal essence inherent of corporations? * * Organizations, as churches and public works, required land and facilities. And, Roger Williams’ “social usage” also had such medieval notions of corporations in mind. This was the basis of legislative rationalization for the “corporate soul,” which fiction provided legal precedent for not-for-profit organizations to own property. “For-profit” corporations were first licensed in Europe. On this foundation, political cabals of nomos-based “for-profit” enterprise in the U.S., at the state level of government, eventually achieved to obtain licences as fictitious person corporations.

The concern about preserving democratic-sovereignty is a constant concern, the physis-based answers to which seem always naturally founded in the mechanist phenomena of human life, as the natural temporal clock of human life, for instance. While each generation’s rights and justice depend on individual knowledge and usufruct 35 opportunities, of which the substantial aspects of life and ownership, thereof, are usurped lawfully by the politically privatized mechanist economy: Positive Laws commandeered usufruct and natural cardinal sovereignty.

---Do corporations, which legally are perpetual, pose the greatest

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

43

threat to the unalienable rights and distributive justice of those whose cardinal sovereignty is the constitutional reparation of future generations? Is government an innocent partner in this political process? Which mechanist complicity is constitutionally compliant?

Craig Thomas commented about this concern:36

Locke deliberately employs the idea of the 'state of Nature' rather than the 'law of Nature.' He insists not upon uncovering any 'laws' of nature (i.e., human nature) but rather upon the capacity of human 'reason' to promulgate a code of civil law that is the 'constitution' of a just political society. . . .

Human reason alone was 'universal' among human beings, and by its application would men be able to develop a concept of equivalence linked to necessary justice . . .

The 'State of Nature' is that which is governed by a 'natural' law or 'right Rule of Reason' (i.e., the admission of the equivalence of others). [While] not out to prove the existence of any law of nature . . . ' [Locke radically] assert[s natural law] in the contemporary,' to 'claim' that it is true by the admission of any individual that his or her requirements of liberty and freedom must be admitted to others, 'unless' the form of political society under which they live is unjust. Craig Thomas Then to explain Locke’s reasoning, Thomas commented: 37

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 [the material wealth of] landed property.

---Every Man has a 'Property' in his own 'Person.'

---Men living together 'according to reason' are properly in the 'State of Nature.'

44

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

---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 the rest.

Vernon Louis Parrington called the effects of Locke’s philosophy of individual cardinal sovereignty “The Glorious Revolution.” And, Locke’s philosophy influenced Adam Smith’s postulations for economy. More important, Locke’s philosophy influenced the constitutional definition of individual cardinal sovereignty.

Locke’s philosophy founded the Declaration of Independence and it united Colonial Americans to demand their independence from England. Contrarily, “Classical Liberals” claim to believe both in Locke as well as Adam Smith’s philosophy concerning postulates for economy and markets. L. Moss provided this account: 38

Classical liberalism may be defined simply as social philosophy that recognizes the need for open markets and for decentralized control of the means of production for individual liberty. John Locke, the celebrated philosopher of the so-called glorious revolution, is considered to be the father of classical liberalism, although elements of his teachings can be located in Roman stoic thought as early as the fourth century B.C. In his “Second Treatice” on Government [1690], Locke developed three important notions about the relationship between the individual

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

45

and government: ---first, that individuals existed in cooperative social groupings prior [antecedent] to the creation of civil government; ---second, that individuals enter into political society with certain natural rights that cannot be legitimately traded away in commercial exchange or eliminated by government [human rights that are coeval of government]; ---and third, that when government is no longer able [or willing] to protect these rights, the members of society are justified in overthrowing their government and replacing it with a more effective one.

Of these three notions, the second and third are frequently cited by intellectual historians especially because they formed the antiauthoritarian ideologies of both American and French Revolutions. Locke’s first notion, that society existed prior to government, encouraged a search for the factors promoting order and organization among individuals and in this way served as an important formative influence on social scientific thought in the eighteenth century. Classical Liberals Are Foes of Socialists [but expediently adopted A. Comte’s ‘positivism’ as expediently it served their mecllhanist irrationalism]. " The eighteenth-century British philosophers, Bernard Mandeville, David Hume, Adam Smith, C. L. De Montesquieu, Edmund Burke, John Millar, Adam Ferguson, and later writers

"

This isolated statement is irrational in that Classical Liberals and Socialists are both substance biased, probably as influenced by A. Comte’s “materialism” based ‘positivism,’ which biased philosophy was popularized in the French period of enlightenment.

46

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

such as Sir Henry Maine, Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich A. Von Hayek, explored the actual social processes by which custom, business law, private property, money and banking institutions, and so on come into existence and are maintained. Frequently, those institutions most useful to humanity evolved as an unintended consequence of selfinterested behavior in the market. By way of contrast, those arrangements brought about by government planners often fail to meet their objectives and are chaotic and oppressive to individual liberty. For these reasons, modern classical liberals join company with traditional conservatives [of Burke] and warn of the dangers of damaging through intervention in business the wisdom of the ages as contained in established customs and business practices [mechanist causal mechanism, * it appears, is the bond between classical liberals with traditional conservatives].

Laurence S. Moss * The theory of “causal mechanism” is that everything in the universe is produced and can be explained by mechanical or material forces, i.e., it expresses the natural determinism of unitary materialism, which Hegel had pursued with other Principle Idealists in Europe. 39 Immanuel Kant, however, observed that this theory was a synthetic a priori. Kant recognized that the natural essential physisbased causal theory was teleology-based, and not compatible with dogmatic nomos-based causal theory defined by unitary materialist mechanism.

Classical liberals are the arch foes of socialists who propose centralized control of the means of production and the substitution of central planning for impersonal market mechanisms.

[This clearly infers that classical liberals affirmed ‘production’ and ‘central planning’ as the logical antecedents

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

47

to their idealistic personal mechanist political economy.]

However pertinent, is that each political economy extreme, by inculcating a particular dogmatic bias, damages Adam Smith’s moral approbation, as he intended would apply in particular instances of dogmatic biases: all extremely biased theories of political economy raise the dogmatic affirmations of sophistry to the fallacious antecedent but errant norm of the expedient political purposes (which President G.W. Bush’s administration has been consistent in keeping with about half of cardinal sovereignty’s consent and approval)

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, economists explained how markets contain a variety of self-regulating devices that move resources [constantly] toward their most highly valued uses and thereby promote economic development. The role of open markets in eliminating waste and responding rapidly to changing consumer wants left classical liberals opposed to all those monopolization schemes that would restrict entry into markets and limit competition. Classical liberals generally oppose the creation of public utilities, the issuance of licenses and entry requirements into professions, the imposition of restrictions on international trade, immigration quotas, and the use of state power to restrict competition. Still, classical liberals are not advocates of strict laissez faire. They offer a long agenda of duties and responsibilities for the state to perform such as national defense, police protection, regulation of public health and industrial safety, provision of large-scale capital projects such as harbors and dams, patents to encourage innovation, and the creation of a sound and secure currency. As constitutionalists, classical liberals believe the purpose of the law is to provide a framework or rule of law within which individuals may freely associate and interact for their mutual

48

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

benefit. Law must be designed to create broad incentives for individuals regardless of race, religion, or personal wealth. At all times the political system must avoid substituting a rule of human beings for the rule of law because discretionary behavior on the political level can open the way toward abuses of state power in the form of political favoritism and corruption.

As is evident of the Bush administration, however, the rule of law applies in all instances to “them” and not to his administrative “us.”

Locke’s “Glorious Revolution” faces strong opposition!

Nomos presents a constant values battle for each generation individually to decide. The battle between mind and emotion is constant -- between sine qua non essential (physis-based) and material (nomos-based) values -- that each individual must win or lose in the conduct of life. Democracy is a voluntary, essential, common value that stands or falls in results of synthesized individual cardinal sovereign actions.

Nullification results from actions that foreclose on others’ sovereignty. Grand nullifications result from factional orchestrations of tautologically fallacious official affirmed supplantations in place of constitutional values, the actions of which are in pursuit of some nomos-based mechanist advantage in disregard for the commonwealth’s essential tautological holistic values: Sans natural responsible essential sovereignty, organizations are always motivated by an Idealist substantial nomos-based agenda in disregard for the physis-based commonweal. Whigs, who celebrate the mechanist GOP banner, are masters at recognizing and leading such wedge politics.

Corporate mogul Paul Baran presented this thought to a forum of business executives some years ago (And, since my notes intended to capture the substance, spelling of the author’s name was of less concern and could probably be inaccurate, for which I apologize):

There are many ways to describe the contrast between the tycoon

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

49

50

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

and modern manager. The former was the parent of the giant corporation, the later is its child. The tycoon stood outside and above, dominating the corporation. The manager is an insider dominated by it. The loyalty of the one was to himself and his family . . . the loyalty of the other is to the organization to which he belongs and through which he expresses himself. To one the corporation was merely a means to enrichment; to the other the good of the company has become both an economic and ethical end. The one stole from the company, the other steals for it.

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.

[Note the organic metamorphism, which by mechanist political affirmation, changed the highest elite organic position from a position of a natural antecedence (which remained outside and above), to the highest but consequential organic dependent position.]

the [mechanist material] world had no meaning for man. He declared, however, the individual should find [logical] direction and meaning for his life. He should develop a sense of responsibility for his own decisions and actions and so become free, nothing was individually good unless it was good for all.

Locke’s logical ‘Glorious Revolution’ demonstrated (proved to the reasonable) that individual cardinal sovereignty is the only sine qua non sovereignty of creation, and the only legitimate temporal possibility of consensus sovereign consent for licensing this natural sovereign antecedence, of and for organic governing authority is by specific constitutional suffrage. Also, on the flip side, this natural antecedence is the only source of naturally endowed responsibility for ethical behavior: Each individual cardinal sovereign must respect each other individual sovereign or, when they do not, logically formulated organic justice-based penalties are justified. Ethics and morality, however, cannot effectively be made to fit with mechanist mechanisms of enforceable law, or adjudged thereby. About this, consider Bertrand Russell’s observation about resulting philosophical nihilism of irrational logic that attends affirmations deduced from " materialism:40

"

Was it not irrationalism as this, which caused Nietzsche to rant, “we have killed God?”

Jean-Paul Sarter’s Existentialism, is similar in that: 41

Without logic-based reasoning, experiences in the temporal world cannot represent truth or knowledge in any purity consistency of meaning. In this light, both Locke and Kant are beacons of truth, whereas Thomas Hobbes’ experience-based analysis is logical fallacy.

Teleology instead of mechanism is the “true” social causal standard of distributive justice.

Society, the word, infers an innate organic essence is still individual showing that consented human sovereignty as bonding exists naturally. History shows materialism, as indiscriminately licensed, is naturally nihilistically amoral. And, to the extent of this, life’s spoils are as easily taken without payment or penalty by licensed mechanist exploiters (which more often now are fictitious corporate individuals whose primary purpose is to exploit for profit).

Again, is poverty in the U.S. "American System" made?

W. Frankena, Philosophy Professor (retired) alluded to the great mechanist prescriptive flaw of the “American System” :42

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

51

52

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

The Principle of Justice: Equality We have seen that we must recognize a basic principle of justice.

But which one? What is justice? We cannot go into the whole subject of social justice here, but we must at least complete our outline of normative theory of moral obligation, in which the principle of justice plays a crucial role. We are talking here about “distributive justice,” justice in the distribution of good and evil. There is also “retributive justice” (punishment, etc.), about which a little will be said in [another] chapter.

Distributive justice is a matter of “comparative treatment” of individuals. The paradigm case of injustice is that in which there are two similar individuals in similar circumstances and one of them is treated better or worse than the other. In this case the cry of injustice rightly goes up against the responsible agent or group; and unless that agent or group can establish that there is some relevant dissimilarity after all between the individuals concerned and their circumstances, he or they will be guilty as charged. [those on economic bottom rungs of employment are in fact

about theft by conquest and pillage, Heilbroner wrote this:43

not in anyway near to being of equal qualification to those on the upper rungs of employment; however, a disparity in Distributive Justice does occur with regard to those mechanistically held below the level of impoverishment and those mechanistically above it!]

About satisfying government’s purpose, promoting the general welfare, or insuring domestic tranquility, any insurance system, including its causal basis, as mechanism, whether of government’s or privately licensed by government, which fails to deliver distributive

Back then successful capitalist buccaneers flew official flags and sometimes were knighted. About civilized distributive social ethics, mechanist conservative human values, while logically fallacious, have perpetuated feudalism’s “capitalist” desire to ‘acquire and possess’ property: “He who has gold,” Christopher Columbus said, “makes and accomplishes whatever he wishes in the world . . ..” Now maybe more civilized, however, political economy must pay heed to this common mechanist orthodox human propensity, which of mechanist idealism, fails to ease social economic exploitations, which are the social result of political economy’s mechanist causality.

justice, fails to be constitutionally just.

Considering mechanist origins of property, commerce, even auto thefts endemic to insurance , as facts, of civilization, i.e, steps of progress:

An aspect of the political change that was revolutionizing Europe was the encouragement of foreign adventure and exploration. . . . And in turn the great national adventures of the English and Spanish and Portuguese sailor-capitalists brought a flood of treasure and treasure-consciousness back to Europe.

“He who has gold,” Christopher Columbus said, “makes and accomplishes whatever he wishes in the world and finally uses it to send souls into paradise.” The sentiments of Columbus were the sentiments of an age, and hastened the advent of a society oriented toward gain and chance and activate the chase after money. Be it noted, in passing, that the treasures of the East were truly fabulous. With the share received as a stockholder in Sir Francis Drake’s voyage of the ‘Golden Hynd,’ Queen Elizabeth paid off all England’s foreign debts, balanced its budget, and invested abroad a sum large enough, at compound interest, to account for Britain’s entire overseas wealth in 1930!

Still, when Society necessarily acts to arbitrate for the aggrieved human sovereigns, in which licensed actions of some have violated the

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

53

sovereignty of others, political economy’s capitalist actors, now licensed corporations, adversely confuse beneficent social usage-based solutions and thereby deny distributive justice (fiction, licensed to act as a sine qua non person, which is dogmatic mechanist idealist, in any event, can never effectively be brought to human justice (or try to put such fiction in jail, for instance), and this licensed corporate immunity is maybe the greatest reason to incorporate for to effect capitalist acquisitive materialist exploitations). The politics of accumulated hoards (“treasure,” as Adam Smith distinguished hoards from capital that was recycled in productions of consumption processes) makes justice more complicated, and this also serves the licensed surreal capitalist corporate economic purposes. But, the cost of justice as complicated by nihilistic materialism, is now become prohibitive, foreclosing individual common folk from rightful justice.

An American political faction, accommodated their own wants, by introducing mercantilism-based political confusion as now is indicated by fictitious legal person corporations, as primary capitalist actors of the American System of political economy: This political faction was the American Whig Party, which took the Grand Old Party name: GOP Republican. It was Whigs’ political expediency,for which I called them “White Rabbits of Wonderland” : because they affirm as logical antecedents, expedient consequential purposes which of design will serve their own wants, in disregard to serving society holistically. They are the contemporary extreme political “conservative mechanists” of American society, which idealist political economy-wise has produced paradoxes on paradoxes: as deductively based on fallacious causal theory called mechanism, which by affirmation metamorphosed constitutional purposes to the expedient Whig purposes. Willfully and absolutely Whigs have disregarded Immanuel Kant’s dilemma about causality, and deduced from their mechanist form of “unitary materialism,” determinist mechanism to serve as the economic antecedent axiom, even though

54

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

Kant had shown that this Determinism was logically a “synthetic a priori,” i.e., a false a priori, which did not logically fit with the mechanist a posteriori temporal human life experience-based Whig conclusions, which fallaciously affirmed, had made orthodox human experience the antecedent of natural human essence.

Without supporting evidence they were aware that conflated forms of unitary materialism led to the irrational Hobbesean organic concept, which Craig Thomas wrote about here, one might still speculate that they made deliberate irrational assertions: 44

. . . 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.

Craig Thomas also wrote this about idealist philosophy, which had influenced 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 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

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

55

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 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,

"

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

56

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

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 the principal ‘Idealists‘ are blameworthy for the fallacious philosophical underpinning of conservative materialist philosophy] Contemporarily, American Whigs, in their dogmatic ‘positivism,’ irrationally affirmed that (unitary materialism based) human mechanist experience was the natural causal antecedent, thereby denying natural essence had caused humanity to exist, of which human experience clearly logically is consequential and not principle. It is an impossible logical stretch to affirm human experience as the natural ‘antecedent’ of all creation, and by doing this, Whigs committed the greatest possible logical fallacy: that of putting temporal human experiencebased theory, simply by affirming it ahead of the essence of natural creation. In such patent falsehood, classical economic paradoxes show, that our ‘White Rabbit’ Whigs absolutely established selfserving mechanist dogma, which as Russell observed, annihilates human essence: 45

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.

Oliver Wendell Holmes explained the how of concupiscent paradox: 46

“There is that glorious epicurean paradox . . .: give us the luxuries of life, and we will dispense with its necessaries.” [And, what is necessary is logically undeniable] Oliver Wendell Holmes St, John’s First Epistle was about temporal concupiscence that Holmes

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

57

epicurean paradox is about.

“True” “Liberals” are found on the left horn of Kant’s dilemma: in natural antecedences, therefore, with essential emphasis on civilized, beneficent sovereign human ‘free will’: as the antecedent causal force required to underpin metaphysical essence in values as truth, knowledge and justice. In this, liberals perceive of physis as the only “right principles” on which to base official laws and actions as applied to human behavior. Parrington provided this account of Roger Williams’ contribution to American democracy.47

Since the single end and purpose for which the body of citizens erect the state is the furtherance of the communal wellbeing, the government becomes a convenient instrument [of Williams “social usage” insurance] to serve the common weal, responsible to the sovereign people and strictly limited by the terms of the social agreement. “The sovereign power of all civil Authority,” he asserted, “is founded in the consent of the People that every Commonwealth hath radically and fundamentally. The very Common-weals, bodies of people . . . have fundamentally in themselves the Root of Power, to set up what government and Governors they shall agree upon.” . . . 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.

[Justice, like truth, must be rational, and certainly is not, irrationally deduced from empirical nomos.]

Fortunate, as regards Williams “social usage” insurance, which mechanist nomos-based laws continually administer economic paternalism to the materially affluent caste, consented cardinal sovereignties of the people have not muted and are available to ensure that government administers true economic justice simply by restoring the cardinal requirement of consent to government’s constitutional authorities. The unjust experiences of those whose unalienable

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

58

sovereignty was nullified will then become reconciled to paternal equality with the mechanist paternal consequences of nomos-based laws. Give mechanist deterministic unitary materialism administration more time, however, and it eventually will nullify all essential individual cardinal sovereignty, making certain that the impoverished weak shall not inherit property!.""

Lincoln was a fresh democratic breeze regarding his loose alliance with Whigs’ mechanist doctrine, which digression broadly identified his political alliance with Jefferson’s cardinal sovereign’ antecedence of essence in particular. And, because Lincoln was not culpable for government’s mechanist changes, which Whigs installed following his assassination, Parrington’s assessment is maybe more accurate than his political alliances with Whigs portray him: 48

Long an ardent Whig of the Clay school, and thoroughly indoctrinated in a paternalistic nationalism, he was brought, as every thoughtful American of the times was brought, to weigh the program of slave imperialism in the scales with the Declaration of Independence. The doctrines of that great document lay before every man’s feet in those uncertain days, to get over as one could. They could not easily be evaded or got around; they must be dealt with. Rufus Choate, representing Boston Toryism, had come upon them and dismissed them as ‘glittering and sounding generalities.’ Calhoun, representing southern imperialism, had come upon them and essayed to destroy them by a critical realism. Lincoln, embodying the spontaneous liberalism of the West, came upon them and paused to take his bearings afresh. He could neither wave them aside nor destroy them. The deep-rooted equalitarianism of his simple ""

I expect that Noam Chomsky’s 2003 book, Hegemony or Survival, America’s Guest for Global Dominance, was a conclusion based on the Global dominant materialist power concentration which resulted from the U.S. political economy’s paternalist mechanist unitary materialist economic causality, called mechanism? .

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

59

social philosophy found in them and eloquent pronouncement of its democratic faith, that set him upon considering how such doctrine might be squared with the reality of slavery. The agrarianism of John Taylor and the Whiggery of Henry Clay could tell him nothing about that; he must seek elsewhere; and the solution he found in an amalgamation of equalitarianism and free-soilism, in an adaptation of western Whiggery to Jeffersonian principles.

Whatever party name he might call himself by, in his love of justice and his warm humanity Lincoln was essentially Jeffersonian. He respected property rights, but other rights he believed more sacred. And as he watched the emergence in the South, of the ideal of a Greek democracy, as he considered how the party of Jackson had become the party of Calhoun and Douglas, bent solely on strengthening as spreading the institution of slavery, his equalitarianism took alarm. He could not sit quiet while the principles of the Declaration of Independence were being openly flouted; he must speak out; he must arouse the idealism of the people to deal with [mechanist] iconoclasts. In an important pronouncement written in 1859, he set the problem before them thus: “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 [mechanist] Democracy of today holds the liberty of one man to be absolutely nothing, when in conflict with another’s right to property;[original] Republicans on the contrary, are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar. . . . But, soberly, it is now no child’s play to save the principles of Jefferson from total overthrow in this nation. . . . The

60

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

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 then ‘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 returning despotism. We must repulse them or they will subjugate us.”

(Letter to H. L. Prince, April 6, 1859, in Works, Vol. V, pp. 125-126)

Two conceptions were here competing in Lincoln’s mind, the older equalitarianism that sprang from French humanitarianism and the newer economics that came from English ‘laissez faire’; and the attempt to reconcile them suggests how far he had traveled along the path of western Whiggery. With the spirit of enterprise he had no complaint; the ideal of progress was associated in his mind with a fluid economics that permitted the capable to rise through skillful exploitation. He had no love for the stable economics of the eighteenth century that Jackson preferred; the profit motive, functioning freely, he regarded as the legitimate driving force of society; but he was concerned that competition should be open to all on equal terms. [In this, Lincoln was philosophically opposed to corporate mechanisms, i.e, the monopolist control of economy, which would stifle the competition that he envisioned] As he watched the transition from an agrarian to an industrial order, he found himself more in sympathy with the new than the old. Accepting the principle of exploitation he came to the position of the little capitalist who believed that in America capitalism could be democratized by the simple method of keeping the opportunities for exploitation open to every citizen [Political Whiggery, however, succeeded to get corporate

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

61

‘fictitious-legal-person’ rights that equaled the natural teleological unalienable rights of human citizens, and this opened corporate exploitations in America to corporate mechanist foreigners while substantially closing like opportunities to individual U.S. citizens].

It was common view of western Whiggery, and in so far as Lincoln remained a Whig, content with a system which he accepted as peculiarly suited to the genius of the American people. In a late speech he summed it up thus: “What is the true condition of the laborer? I take it that it is best to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don’t believe in law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we don’t propose any war on capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with anybody else. When one starts poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition; he knows that there is no fixed condition of labor for his whole life. . . . I want every man to have a chance -- and I believe a black man is entitled to it -- in which he can better his condition -- when he may look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for himself afterwards, and finally to hire men to work for him. That is the true system.”

(Speech at New Haven, March 6, 1860, in Works, Vol., V, pp. 360-361)

But as a western man Lincoln was far more concerned over the application of ‘laissez faire’ to the problem of western lands, and as he contemplated the practical workings of ‘squatter sovereignty’ he learned how the free functioning of ‘laissez faire’ may be interfered with by economic imperialisms.

That lesson determined his final stand. The virgin prairies beyond the Mississippi were coveted equally by northern and southern exploiters; and who should finally possess them, whether the small freeholder or the slave-master, was a question that could not be put off forever. None knew this better than the

62

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

small farmers who were already staking out homesteads there. If Congress yielded to the pro-slavery demands, their economic future would be endangered. It was the free-soil West that sent the first anti-slavery men to Washington and provided the backbone of the new party. Not the respectable West, but the plain people, Whig as well as Democrat. ‘Much of the plain old Democracy is with us,’ said Lincoln in 1858, ‘while nearly all the old silk-stocking Whiggery is against us. I don’t mean nearly all the old Whig party, but nearly all of the nice exclusive sort.’ (Letter to A. C. Henry, in Works, Vol. V, p. 95) . . .

The free-soiler hated slavery because it threatened his immediate interests; nevertheless as the great struggle developed, the moral injustice of slavery was thrust to the fore and imparted a humanitarian motive to the free-soil argument. The humanitarian motive Lincoln seized upon, wedded it to the ideal of national union, and thus doubly armed went forth to the fight.

To amalgamate idealism and economics is not an easy task. ‘Public opinion,’ he said in a speech at Hartford, ‘is founded, to a great extent, on a property basis.’ But it is not the sole basis. The ideal of justice comes in to upset all purely economic calculations. ‘The property basis will have its weight.

The love of property and a consciousness of right and wrong have conflicting places in our organization, which often make a man’s course seem crooked, his conduct a riddle.’ (Works, Vol. V, p. 330) Beyond question it was this recognition of the perennial conflict between economics and justice, between realism and idealism, that explains the hesitancies and harassing doubts that marked Lincoln’s development. To reconcile the principle of exploitation with the Declaration of Independence it was necessary to stick like a flea to ‘laissez faire’ -- to eliminate slave labor and accept only free labor.

Lincoln was a slow man and cautious, and he pulled himself forward to such a position by main force. He was not a rare

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

63

intellect like Thoreau, to think swiftly to a conclusion and abide the consequences. He was a political leader rather than an intellectual, and he could advance only a little ahead of the slow-moving mass he sought to draw after him. A hundred invisible ties held him back -- his belief in the rights of local democracies, his respect for law and order, his devotion to the Constitution, his recognition of property interests in the slave, his understanding of the complexity of the problem, with the entire economy of the South resting on a slave basis. Here were difficulties enough to trouble an honest mind. His practical sense, which is only another name for political realism, restrained his idealism and made him of necessity an opportunist, willing to yield much to save the Union. A simple, tolerant, easy-going man, he was at bottom a realist who had come to understand what may be considered the greatest truth in political science, namely, that an enduring state must rest on willing allegiance. Force cannot compel loyalty; authority may put down revolt but it cannot destroy the seeds of discontent; for that only the sovereignty of good will is competent, and in free states the sovereignty of good will must rest upon compromise.

Lincoln was a better democrat than Jackson, for he would rather persuade than drive. If Hamilton embodied the aristocratic principle of coercive government, Lincoln embodied the democratic principle of give and take, that prefers compromise to bayonets. With a cause resting on the common good will it might safely be trusted to muddle through.

‘In those days our Declaration of Independence was held sacred by all, and thought to include all; but now, to aid in making the bondage of the Negro universal and eternal, it is assailed and sneered at and construed, and hawked at and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it. All the powers of earth seem rapidly combining against him. Mammon is after him, ambition follows, philosophy

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

64

follows, and the theology of the day is fast joining the cry. They have him in the prison-house; they have searched his person, and left no prying instrument with him. One after another they have closed the heavy iron doors upon him; and now they have him, as it were, bolted in with a lock of a hundred keys, which can never be unlocked without the concurrence of every key -the keys in the hands of a hundred different men, and they scattered to a hundred different and distant places; and they stand musing as to what invention, in all the dominions of mind and matter, can be produced to make the impossibility of his escape more complete than it is.’ (Speech at Springfield, June 27, 1857, in Works, Vol. II, pp. 327-328) Life in mechanist America, was not only economically changed, it also evolved socially: as the barbarism of frontier life yielded to civilization. In the transition, however, free-will-based individual cardinal sovereignty, by practicing the tautological fallacy of politically affirming consequents as principle, became metamorphosed by the resulting idealists’ mechanist materialism: ordinal sovereign political groups metamorphosed culture from its cardinal sovereign antecedence to the consequents of mechanist economy. The brilliance of this mechanist causality, while logical fallacy, is its covertness, i.e., causal mechanism is an affirmed pseudo axiomatic principle of political economy, which is constantly at work.

American Colonial society was a voluntary association of emigrants. Commonweal benefits were rooted in a written and signed agreement called “Mayflower Compact,” " which arrived in America on the Mayflower, November 11,1620.* * . . . by these presents solemnly & mutualy in ye presence of God, and one of another, covenant, & combine ourselves together into a Civill body politick; for our better ordering, & preservation & furtherance of ye ends aforsaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just & equall Laws, ordinances, Acts,

"

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

65

constitutions, & offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete & convenient for ye general good of ye colonie: unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. . . .

This Colonial migration was clearly a precursor to John Locke (1632 1704), the intellectual ruler of the eighteenth century, which historians called the “Glorious Revolution.” Which philosophy had strongly, but independently, also originated in colonial Americans as Roger Williams. 49 And, the independently reasoned democratic effects produced the Constitution, which furnished a clear strategy for administering untold rules and benefits to each state, city, town, village, and all individuals within this grand democratic American nation’s consented ordinally sovereign authority.

Americans should ponder carefully how the constitutional Bill of Rights, as citizens required as the necessary condition to ratify, ensured citizens’ naturally endowed individual cardinal sovereignty.

However, the democratic, leveled, i.e., ordinally equal cardinal individual sovereignty, as consented by suffrage to the nation’s sovereign government, at poling times, faces constant challenge by mechanist materialist special interest factional sophistries of privatized mechanist organic politics, and the legally fictional, seeming magical belief-based economic causality (mechanism), which constantly infuse paradoxical economic nullifications to consented constitutional administered representations. Political sophistries are spawned by dogmatic unitary materialist forms of belief, as is fostered by elected mechanist ‘White Rabbit’ representatives: the myriad factional cardinal sovereign interests of which, as philosophically is necessarily administrative detail required in unitary forms of materialism: as property and legal contracts, mechanist title to property ownership, social position and such. ‘White Rabbits’ have always been the perpetrators of these tautological fallacies, which either argue by ‘denying antecedents’ or‘affirming consequents’ or both. When, for instance, constitutional cardinal-sovereign-responsibilities to society are forgiven by paternalist mechanist abstract law, for whatever reason, which ensure economic profits to some, not all, a tautological ‘White Rabbit’ type mechanist unbalanced unlevel sovereignty-based fallacy is officially perpetrated.

66

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

Democratic, cardinal sovereignty is level. None is greater than another. But, in kingdoms, the king’s “divine right” based cardinal sovereignty, which is not consenting authority, was absolutely supreme only because of “divine right” dogmatic belief, and thereby the king’s powers of allocation and policing, with sinecures and such, is awesome and arbitrary. Caste societies are always fallaciously un leveled sovereignty based, which affirm to distribute paternalist organic sovereign privileges unevenly to favor the privileges of class.

This unevenness of essential human cardinal sovereign value and paternal distribution, is the measure of governance for determining the state of democracy, which fails when individual cardinal sovereignty fails to receive its due, of equal distributive justice.

---Does balanced democracy exist in America? Did it ever exist? Can it ever exist?

Answers, of course, depend on a consensus of natural sovereign quality as consented by each of us: individually interdependent responsibility, which collectively, as a nation is represented in our exercise of cardinal sovereign responsibility.

With these existential remarks, attention is called to the individual sovereign political majority that will clamor for government to provide urgent commonweal “social usage” insurance solutions to further adjust the mechanist government administered economic paternalism, holistically the complement to which is government created impoverishment which is disadvantaged of security and economic insurance, as for instance, social usage-based Social Security insurance provided an adjustment to economic security and insurance that mechanist industrial political economy had created an urgent need for retired wage-earning seniors (which mechanist political intent to fix, as President G. W. Bush said would be high on his second term agenda, because of his mechanist politics is nothing more than a rhetorical prescriptive promise that in social value offers less than nothing). Eventually, the democratic political clamor will also succeed to have government’s administrative paternal equality restored by additional social usage-based insurance adjustments to the mechanism-based delivery of paternal economic advantages, which

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

67

affords privatized high quality security and insurance to privatized businesses: Equivalent universal social usage-based health care insurance is the only answer to constitutionally adjust this government paternal granting of afforded mechanist unequalness which delivers to privatized economic mechanisms, economic advantages. * * While mechanist politics undoubtedly has great paternal economic advantages in orthodox status and appeal, retrofitting of Social Security’s physis-based values to mechanist political values imbued of nomos-based unitary materialism, ends in a conflated retrofitting of human essence to substance, which reminds of the European principal Idealists attempt to find a unitary materialist reality, which conclude in definition that Hegel called dialectical materialism, that Lenin then based communism on: in Bertrand Russell’s view, it is like retrofitting human cognizance to abstract nothingness. Both mechanist dogma and endemism, can never adequately be equated to social usage insurance that is necessary to achieve a reasonable equality of individual cardinal sovereignty.

The following excerpt was taken from Vandehei’s article that ran in the Las Vegas Review Journal, January 1, 2005.

Social Security battle looming Bush allies raising millions to fund drive for private accounts

by Jim Vandehei, THE WASHINGTON POST WASHINGTON -- President Bush’s political allies are raising millions of dollars for an election style campaign to promote private Social Security accounts, as Democrats and Republicans prepare for what they predict will be the most expensive and extensive public policy debate since the 1993 fight over the Clinton administration’s failed health care plan. . . . GOP groups close to the White House are asking the same donors who helped reelect Bush to fund an expensive campaign to convince Americans -- and skeptical lawmakers -- that Social Security is in crisis and that private accounts are the only cure. . . . an independent conservative group has set aside $9 million to

68

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

support the president’s Social Security plan. . . . [another] conservative group has raised $1.5 million and hopes to hit a $15 million target. . . . “It could easily be a $ 50 million to $ 100 million cost to convince people this is legislation that needs to be enacted,” said [Stephen] Moore. . . . “If we feel like gambling, we’ll play the slots,” [is the slogan AARP, as enjoined

by Democratic groups, will counter with.]

Government, of the people, by the people and for the people, aptly describes the ordinal organic sovereign authority of government. This foundation is what the U.S. Constitution is about. When, therefore, in any manner, distributive justice is denied to this foundation, the nation’s constitutional commonweal interests are denied: more specifically, when, the organic cardinal sovereign choice of representative government is to not provide social usage-based insurance, for to deliver distributive justice-based balance to the paternal license and grants of government, for instance, of which commonweal interests, which are diabolical to privatized exploitative business interests, have never been government’s administrative objective, which also rationally infer that distributive justice to government’s cardinal sovereign base has never fully been subscribed by the elected representatives in government. Particularly, common cardinal interests are not for private enterprise politics with impunity to decide, exploit, or dismantle. Even as Court actions now punish parents who fail with proper parenting, or punish corporations for selling cancer producing products, as society now aggressively sanctions, society will also eventually influence Court actions to redress businesses of private enterprise to profit from exploitations that mechanistically forestall government from providing social usagebased insurance to provide distributive justice to the nation’s ordinal sovereign common interests is patently unconstitutional. Private insurance companies -- that separately and collectively are mechanists in nature and, therefore, incapable to act uniformly and efficiently with delivering distributive justice-based effects are particularly vulnerable to legal class based indictments that will surely come.

Damaged cardinal sovereign common interests of society have

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

69

pierced the corporate shield. A corporation’s license can no longer guarantee legal protection of the business owners from their antecedent constitutional responsibilities: as the tobacco industry has learned.

The mechanist ‘White Rabbits’ who would politically limit corporate liability expressly to protect accumulated business’ owned properties (including the workers, and professionals that is employed) represent a tautological fallacy that cannot long stand up to truth and reason: --What natural ‘antecedent’ can ‘White Rabbits’ claim is their argument’s principle? ‘White Rabbits’ ignore logical tautology: they either deny the natural sine qua non antecedent sovereignty, or ‘affirm the consequent’(property or dogma) as their argument’s fallacious principle, to the extent that this affirmed irrational consequent metamorphoses belief for to serve as the ‘White Rabbits’ argument’s antecedent, which results in their ‘Wonderlands’ paradoxical truth, i.e., belief taken to expediently mean whatever they want it to be.

Rather than limiting liability, society, to be rational and truthful, must hold the private businesses’ principals accountable for all mechanized corporate actions: for balanced democracy’s distributive justice to exist, business owners must assume full responsibility for the mechanist economic effects, determinism’s unbalanced results of the mechanized corporate actions. Irrationally nullifying the cardinal sovereignty of only one individual with fallacious impunity is democratically unacceptable. While, dialectical materialism more surely fits with communism or fascism, capitalism is also based on a mechanist unitary form of materialism?

While the processes of civilization are slow, society is progressing to make the ‘strategic’ cardinal sovereign aspects of democracy inevitable. Advances in communication technologies help this progress. Errant mechanistic ‘operational’ aspects of society must eventually conform to democratic balanced sovereignty or suffer the severe penalties. Cicero had such as this inevitable scenario in mind.

Cicero favored to preserve Roman democracy. He advocated a natural law of right reason to support his call for the "leveling" of sovereignty. Cicero's eloquent advocacy -- purely appealing to perceptions of physis alone -- was possible because of the unusually

70

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

enlightened Greek democratic society which greatly influenced Cicero, if not the Roman Empire. But democracy still threatened those of oligarchical power. When Cicero refused to join the mechanist Triumvirate of Julius Caesar, Pompey and Crassus, they had him banished from Rome. His outspoken physis-reasoned advocacy eventually incited his death warrant. Of Cicero's perception of natural law, Craig Thomas wrote this:50

Cicero encapsulates the whole theory of natural law when he says: "There is in fact a true law -- namely, right reason -- which is in accordance with nature, applies to all men, and is unchangeable and eternal . . . The man who will not obey it will abandon his better self, and, in denying the true nature of a man, will suffer the severest of penalties, though he has escaped all the consequences which men call punishments.”

Before leaving natural sine qua non cardinal essentials, even for substantial sovereign quintessence (for which another research section is required), and, to answer whether or not an alliance of political economy is linked with cardinal sovereignty, focus here returns to private “for profit” insurance, which is mechanist based?

Anyway, until the White-Rabbit-mechanisms of The

American System’s political economy, conclude and command that employee benefits are paid from business profits, rather than cost accounted to consumption, from which returns to businesses as enured capital, this indictment holds “true:” Insuring employees as a cost of doing business is sophist nonsense, of which The American System of Political Economy provides a sort of Teflon insurance protection to such non production-business cost laid onto consumption rather than accounted to capital expenditures. This accounting fallacy ensures that business related costs, which are consequential rather than essential to production, act as a direct business tax on business productions’ costs. This direct but covert business administered tax, as enured, (legal definition) adds the inflation endemism loaded onto the prices that consumers must pay: thereby inflation is consumed similarly as goods and services are

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

71

consumed to return to business owners as their capital. In the end, political economy ensures that these consequential benefit costs, along with the production costs are returned to the businesses of productions origin. By this direct systemic pseudo taxation, political economy, which is a form of government’s “social usage” insurance for businesses, makes consumers to pay for all that is cost accounted including executive perks and political lobbying and, as well, the covertly unaccounted inflation endemism that nearly equals the mechanist economic growth. In this light, consider these economic facts: The average production increase in economy over the last century was 4%. And the average rate of inflation for the same period was 3%. So, what was the average rate of profits taken from economy? If it was greater than 1%, and it was, part of this marginal rate of profit had to be taken from wages paid to produce the goods and services. But the sad part of this inflation scenario is that inflation, is a negative economic endemism only as it relates to consumer prices, which mostly are consumed by wage-earners’ natural economic need to subsist. When covert inflation endemism is consumed it then is legally enured capital, which is no longer covert: inflated consumer prices that negatively effect wages earned, then legally become a positive amount of redounding capital to the capital owners of business’ goods (services), as produced and consumed.

Translating this effect on business profits taken from after consumed production, as taken mechanistically from the American System of Political Economy, which was the name mechanist Whig politics gave to this causal mechanism-based economic insurance, administered by government, as legally is administered, and grants to businesses the taking of profit that during the last century amounted to more than twice the legal defined enured inflation returns, which had impacted on wage-earned prices of subsistence consumption. The net effect of this government administered economic justice is this: wage-earned income fails miserably when compared to economic growth. And this justifies this opening statement: In the late 1990s, economic analysis suggested that with 2% economic growth, profits would likely be about 6%. So, without

72

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

inflation redounding legally enured as capital for profit taking, how is this pseudo scientific economic analysis possible. And, consider the paradoxical opposite side of net economic growth, of wage-earning consumers that to subsist must consume the inflation in market prices.

Private insurance -- whether health care, Social Security, Life, Business Interruption, Fire, Casualty . . . -- paid for by employers, as direct or contingent production costs (including private insurance, as administered and sold as the business product), politically, fallaciously affirm the public illusion that private businesses bear these costs. But, in fact, they do not. Political economy allows businesses to account these costs, along with wages and other production related costs, for recovery when they sell the product/services of the business. This fact makes the mechanist Whig inflation illusion a tautological fraud, as politically spun. Ultimately, the consumers pay for all of it.

---Is ‘newly created wealth,’ the Wealth of Nations, as Smith inferred by the title to his classical market system of economy theories?

By the ultimate consented authority of centralized ordinal sovereignty of government, as then licensed, administered or allowed to privatized political economy, nations create new wealth with an express purpose to sustain balance in the economic equation of ‘production and consumption.’ This privatized agency based economic system, as licensed, was intended to remain in balance when “new wealth” is recycled: in increased production and wages to perpetually create more ‘new wealth.’

Added value accumulates, as is created by the efforts of wageearners in processes of producing and delivering goods and services, and this added value represents ‘new wealth.’ It is only as consumers purchase the goods/services, i.e., when wages earned are spent to consume the products, that businesses realize as profit the accumulated values that labor had provided (Adam Smith’s thesis that Marx, among others had challenged). As businesses sell all goods (services), the cost of producing and delivering goods and services systemically shifts onto the user base of Consumption: onto personal fully taxed

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

73

wages that are (in instances of personal debt, not yet ) ‘earned.’

---Who owns ‘new wealth’? Is it owned by the privatized corporate entities of production, the political system of economy, or holistically to the ordinal sovereign sponsor and licensor, i.e., society?

If ‘new wealth’ belongs to the organic sovereign sponsor (the nation), as Smith inferred, the wage-earners that provided the “added value,” or its privatized agency (the political system of economy), why then does the sovereign sponsor (the nation) by legal justification grant its licensed administrative agents, the privatized businesses of political economy, to claim all ‘new wealth’ as their own?

Employers organize enterprise, deploy capital and are supposed to assume the risks of business enterprise. And, surely, they do all this with full faith and intent to accumulate profit and new wealth. When we believe in Adam Smith, and we also should believe in his postulations about wealth: Employers do not create new wealth.

Instead, Smith concluded that wage-earners are the creators of wealth not because of their creative efforts in earning wages but in the fact they spend their income to consume the products/services that businesses own. But, as consumers, wage-earners purchase the product-services, along with the marginal increase in product/ service value (which their work effort for wages had provided), along with all inflation endemism that is a reasonable business cost. In Smith’s view, therefore, labor is the creator of wealth. By this, Smith intends that “wealth,” increased goods and services, will reciprocally provide increased capital value also to wage-earners. Each nation, which by licensing business allows “new wealth” to accumulate, does so with teleological intent that naturally needed increases in wage-based consumption is also thereby accommodated. Smith’s postulation is a social compact type of equation, in which increases in accumulation are maintained in balance with increases in consumption (inferring that constitutional value standards must strictly be maintained). For doing this, the consented ordinal sovereignty of government was

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

74

constitutionally commissioned to maintain. " see (cont’d) for a continuation on this * The American System of Political Economy is a neoclassical economy for which many models and theorems exist. Models, from which a theorem called “the golden rule of accumulation”arose: 51

Both models [Kaldor and Robinson] have the common property that the respective shares of income received by capitalists and workers are determined simultaneously with the rate of profit, the capital-output ratio, and the overall growth rate of the economy. They give rise to such elegant results as the Pasinetti theorem . . . The import of the Pasinetti theorem is unclear; equally unclear is the importance of theorems that flow from certain alternative neoclassical growth models, such as “the golden rule of accumulation,” which tells us that consumption per head is only maximized in an economy growing at a steady state when the rate of return on capital is equalized with the growth rate.

On March 25, 1997, the Federal Reserve set the official policy for the U.S. economy: to sustain moderate “economic growth” (the trend of which is about 2 percent) with the expected “rate of return” to capitalists of 6 percent or more. Clearly, no official attention was given to the above stated“golden rule of accumulation.” Wages and consumption are the mechanist targeted scapegoats of our official policies on inflation, which economic causality relate to economic endemism, as licensed, laid only onto consumption, and thereby impact earned wages most severely.

While inflation is neither caused by consumption nor employment, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan observed that pressure could arise, even during the contemporary unexpectedly low rate of

"

Roger Sherman was satisfied that the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8 (5) (. . . fix the standard of weights and measures) had specified this assigned congressional responsibility.

521

Population Changes

75

unemployment, to increase wages, causing inflation to rise (Officially, how wages would cause inflation is inexplicable since such endemic increases in wages would cause business failures, rather than inflation?). John Maynard Keynes had referred to employment as ‘symptomatic of inflation’ rather than its ‘cause.’

The low rates of unemployment during the 1990s are in results of the demographic phenomenon called the BabyBoom, that political management of the economy cannot change. Included here is analysis of another research section. Particularly, population changes indicated in the column labeled NET CHANGE should be carefully noted and evaluated: Lower “net changes” show that fewer than usual workers had entered the productive age group of wage-earner-producers).

Mortality used to reduce the birth counts are from the Table of Mortality furnished by the Census Bureau for 1990. They are 0.9869 for age 18, 0.7822 for age 65 and 0.7451 for age 67. Of note is that mortality claims 3.7 percent of the population in the age range between 65 and 67 (for each 100 individuals that enter retirement at age 65, 3.7 percent will not have survived to be in the retired population, which begins at age 67). My population model shows that the retired birth boom population, with others that are retired coincident with them, is reduced by more than 6 million by the shift in retirement age. Notes that follow the table, are numbered as shown in parentheses.

521 POPULATION CHANGES IN THE 20 - 65 AGE GROUP (in millions of potential producers) YEAR

ENTER (Age 18)

1965 1966 1967 1968 1969

3.65 3.59 3.60 3.58 3.77

EXIT (Age 65) (1) 1.49 1.49 1.56 1.64 1.72

NET CHNG 2.16 2.10 2.04 1.94 2.05

TOT. (18-64) (1)

?

TOT. (65-?) ?

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

76 YEAR

ENTER (Age 18)

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974

3.86 3.91 4.02 4.05 4.16

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984

EXIT (Age 65)

NET CHNG

TOT. (18-64)

1.80 1.88 . . 1.96 2.03 2.17

2.06 2.04 2.07 2.02 2.00

(2)115.1

4.11 4.04 3.97 3.71 3.56

2.32 2.31 2.31 2.31 2.31

1.80 1.73 1.66 1.40 1.25

134.8

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989

3.47 3.46 3.55 3.68 3.51

2.30 2.29 2.29 2.28 2.28

1.17 1.16 1.26 1.40 1.23

142.0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

3.22 3.10 3.12 3.10 3.13

2.23 2.18 2.14 2.09 2.05

.99 (3) .91 .98 1.01 1.08

148.1 (4)147.0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

3.28 3.29 3.45 3.56 3.60

2.01 1.97 1.93 1.90 1.86

1.27 1.32 1.51 1.67 1.74

153.3

2000

3.63

1.89

1.75

161.3

2005

3.78

1.97

1.81

169.9

2010

4.03

(6) 2.57

1.45

178.5

TOT. (65-?)

(2)

20.1

(7) (4)

28.8 31.1

(7)

26.15

(7)

27.36

521

Population Changes

77

YEAR

ENTER (Age 18)

EXIT (Age 65)

NET CHNG

TOT. (18-64)

2015

(5) 3.75

2.99

.76

183.3

2020

(5) 3.75

3.30

.45

186.2

2025

(5) 3.75

3.34

.41

188.2

2030

(5) 3.75

2.82

0.93

191.6

2035

(5) 3.75

2.78

.97

196.3

2040

(5) 3.75

2.48

1.27

202.7

2045

(5) 3.75

2.85

.90

207.8

2050

(5) 3.75

2.92

.83

212.1

TOT. (65-?)

(7)

31.53

(7)

39.77

(7)

34.88

Note the emboldened NET CHNG, i.e., increases in available workers.

Businesses that are outsourcing jobs are always ahead of this factual reality. And unemployment rates will be far lower than were normal as the BabyBoom entered the work force. Unemployment rates greatly mislead economic mechanists of society, as an indicator of a healthy economy. And, for those beyond the age of retirement and are still capable and willing to continue in employment will find jobs that are readily available.

(1) Reliable birth counts for the years before 1910 are unavailable from the Census Bureau. The following note explains:52

The rates of mortality among the general population in the United States have been calculated and published after each decennial census since 1890. However, the earlier tables did not represent national mortality since they were based only upon data from states which require statewide registration of births and deaths. By 1940, all the states were in this category, so that the mortality rates of the tables published thereafter do reflect nationwide experience.

78

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

(2) Census Bureau’s estimates.53 (3) This net change is the lowest since 1965 (those entering retirements in ‘65 were born at the turn of the century). The net change suggests a lighter level of competition for jobs. One might anticipate that this natural phenomenon of demographics will cause unemployment rates to abate during the ‘90s (as it now has) and again following 2010.

(4) My population projection appears reliable through 1990. The Census Bureau’s more recent projection (published in the 1986 World Almanac) confirms this.54 (5) The counts are estimates as empirical counts were not available from published data beyond 1993 55 (6) The age of retirement begins a gradual shift from 65 to 67.

(7) based on my model that is shown in another section. With the shift in retirement from 65 to 67, the counts of those retired are reduced by approximately 6 million. The total retirement counts shown in my model are 25.55 million for 2015, 33.25 for 2025 and 29.09 for 2050.

For comparison, the actual count of retirees in 1990 was a little more than 31 million. end of excerpt from my research ---Does Congress or the Federal Reserve track with similar demographic analysis to monitor the economic effects of inflation?

---Is the overall population growth, of less than 2 percent natural births annually, a natural reason to manage economic growth to also be in balance at less than 2 percent natural population growth?

---Is the growth in consumption related to the growth in the wage-earner population of those aged 18-65, or 18-67?

---Is the target of unemployment (just less than 6 percent) for containing inflation, realistic? Or, should the target change as the net change in population is far lower than usual? Economists determined this target during the 1970s when the “net change” in the population of workers was greater than 2 million each year. Should this target now exist at all?

The greatest cause of inflation during the late 1970s had

521

Population Changes

79

nothing to do with employment rates. Instead, inflation was caused by U.S. policy to import oil, and OPECs oil embargo. More important, the fixed target of 6 percent unemployment has had no empirically rational basis during the 1990s and will again be low following 2005.

So, shouldn’t we again look more carefully at the Fed’s policy?

On March 25, 1997, the Federal Reserve set the official policy for the U.S. economy: to sustain moderate “economic growth” (the trend of which is about 2 percent) with input from business of the expected “rate of return” to capitalists of 6 percent or more.

More particularly, this policy should be appraised by former standards as set by neoclassical growth models, such as “the golden rule of accumulation,” which tells us that consumption per head is only maximized in an economy . . . when the rate of return on capital is equalized with the growth rate.

Clearly, unbounded mathematical functions are involved here.

And while the growth in capital is reaching to the “stars” at three times the exponential rate of economic growth (This is evident in the exponentially growing multi million dollar annual salaries now being paid to top positions of employment and media and sports stars).

Mathematicians are familiar with unbounded mathematical functions, as exponentially compounding interest for instance, and rates of return on investments that exceed the rate of economic growth intuitively are of serious rational mathematical concern: at what point of infinity does the unbounded mechanist economic polity reach the point of being ridiculous?. The “golden rule of accumulation,” which tells us that consumption per head is only maximized in an economy growing at a steady state when the rate of return on capital is equalized with the growth rate,” undoubtedly only finds respect in rational mathematical analysis. Of concern here, however, is the irrational mechanist sophists debunking of the “the golden rule of accumulation.”

Mechanist sophists celebrated the phrase only maximized in an economy growing at a steady state to argue that economic growth is never in a steady state, as if to infer that because of this “the golden rule” does not hold “true.” However, in statistical mathematics, the

80

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

Calculus deals with all sorts of cyclical functions, as respects averages and such. Finding maximum and minimum points of cyclical functions is common. So, “the golden rule of accumulation” is mathematically valid, as regards “average” rather than “steady” economic growth.

And, therefore, any “Balanced Budget Amendment” must specify formulated rates of interest targets that correspond to the rate of economic growth targets (only after growth that benefits from inflation is adjusted by taxation to equalize inflation’s effects on consumption). Under this scenario, the government must regulate the rate of interest that is charged instead of putting the economic burden onto components of economy, as unemployment, that register only as ‘symptoms’ of the inflation.

And, to the extent that Milton Friedman is correct, the solution will involve monetary restraint of fiat money creation, also to conform to targeted economic growth. The greater correction must deal with balancing the economic playing field by effecting taxation rates that equalize the tax burden as related to the inflation causes: those who cause inflation should pay for it. In this regard, G. P Brockway’s analysis appertains to comments that I have made here: Businesses that recover, as revenue flowing into their capital accounts, costaccounted inflation endemism that along with economic “growth” feed “unearned income” distributions to the business owners, must at least be made to pay taxes to offset the inflation loads on consumption that are directly related to inflation, and which sorely affects the tax rates of SS contributions, and the costs of Medicare and Medicaid: neither are wage-earners nor consumers a cause of political economy’s inflation endemism that actively effects all government ”social usage”-based insurance costs. Bearing in mind, of course, that government is the grandest form of “social usage”-organization that ensures and insures society, of which consented cardinal human sovereignty is the sine qua non equal distributive justification (without which all organic economics is of not). To ensure this grand organic reality rationally, those who cause inflation should pay for it. But then, irrationally government gave revenue tax reductions to the top

521

Population Changes

81

end incomes simply because mechanist politics affirmed they had paid an excess taxes. This politics must either be ignorant or careless of inflations’ cause, or more probably are aware of the real causes but dogmatically excuse this injustice on the basis of divine right: the government has the right to do as it wills as regards taxes paid.

And, to ensure that government’s fiat money creations result in ‘essential needs to exist’-based consumption of goods and services produced, rather than in collateral human interests as leveraged corporate buyouts (LBOs) or stock market equities’ investments, which arguably bolster ‘new wealth’ productions, my concluding section suggests that all government’s increases in coinage or printing fiat money might be distributed directly to those of direst subsistence needs (welfare might then be limited to government’s creations of fiat money, and reciprocally government’s fiat money creations limited to dire welfare needs). This would substantially eliminate surreal political economic game playing as is now granted and controlled by the investment banking industry, which ultimately is Fed controlled. * * About causality of LBOs to the S&L (and Bank) failures of 1987, this account comes very close to linking directly the $500 billion public bail out of the failed banking industry with the LBOs:56

A handful of buyout companies began having trouble paying their debts in 1989 as overall economic growth slowed significantly for the first time in seven years. With a weak economy, the prospect of more financial failures loomed, Quickly, lenders and regulators began to tear apart the network of easy credit that had been built up in the previous ten years.

Before long, the risks of bankrolling heavily indebted companies -- which they had ignored or denied as late as 1988 -- became an increasingly big worry for bankers and junk-bond buyers.

The giddy optimism at the peak of the lending cycle subsided. In its place came a new wariness and distrust.

Just as rampant speculation had fed on itself for years, so too did the new skepticism. From 1989 to 1990, bank's loans to

82

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

buyout companies skidded 86 percent, to their lowest level since the early 1980s. The junk-bond market collapsed even more drastically. Lenders at mutual funds, insurance companies, and S&Ls all took a hard look at the types of deals they had been bankrolling. Cash began fleeing the junk-bond market at a rate of billions of dollars a month, as onetime lenders blinked, cursed their folly in putting money into unsound deals, and then swore never to be so reckless with their cash again. . . .

About the only area in which financial authorities used their muscle was in prosecuting insider trading associated with takeovers -- a relatively minor economic issue compared with the impact of piling an extra $1 trillion of debt on corporate America's books. . . .

In 1988, Bankers Trust executives had breezily admitted originating $60 billion in buyout loans over the past few years, while hanging onto just $2.7 billion themselves. The remaining 95.5 percent of the loans had been shoveled into the portfolios of foreign banks, regional banks, insurance companies, and other loan buyers. . . . Gung-ho loan syndicators at the big banks found it wasn't so easy anymore to promise a $500 million buyout loan, quickly skim of the up-front fees [the amounts are shocking], and then peddle 90 percent or more of the loans to little banks.

And we know from experiencing this depression. Those billions of bank-loses were laid onto Deposit Insurance and future taxes, as additions to the federal deficits. Tax paying consumers were revealed to be, in all instances, the “lender of last resort.”

But our capitalist captains thrived on their market manipulations. And their grand incomes became factors of traditional measures of economic condition: GNP & GDP. Many on the surreal side of economy have called the growth of the ‘80s the best in economic history. While, for more than half the American population,

521

Population Changes

83

the economy was in depression.

Or, when did we discontinue believing that consumption was the only real purpose of economy, as Adam Smith had postulated?

(Cont’d) (Please tell me about business executives that assign responsibility to one employee, which in turn agree will be reassigned to another, which employee those executives will hold primarily accountable?)

Contrarily, as regards this mechanist basic rule, however, The American System of Political Economy, which also is mechanist idealistic, achieved politically to use the consented ordinal sovereign administrative “social usage”-based organic form, called government, to legally misappropriate the consented ordinal sovereign authority to license private corporations to act as agents of government but distribute as dividends only to shareholders the profit thereby produced as ‘new wealth.’ " While this decentralized privatized political-economy’s idealist design may have modicums of tautological honor, the mechanist materialist political flux of businesses is patently amoral as regard’s the consented custodianship of the ordinal sovereign constitutional responsibility to serve all. T. C. Jorling’s concern in this regard is prescient: 57

At the time of the framing of the Constitution, many provisions were adopted to constrain and make accountable an agent of power--the federal government. During the past 200 years, new aggregates of power have come into being, especially the large, multinational corporation. Brought into existence by state charter, these institutions were once constrained by limits on size and power, limits rapidly made obsolete by interstate competition. Justice Brandeis, in a descent in the 1932 case Liggett v. Lee, described the history concisely: 'Although they fully recognized the value of this instrumentality in commerce

"

New wealth, to Adam Smith, was “goods and services” distributed to all in society. (See Heilbroner’s writings on this)

84

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

and industry, they commonly denied incorporation for business long after they had granted it for religious, educational, and charitable purposes. They denied it because of fear. Fear of encroachment upon the liberties and opportunities of the individual. Fear of the subjection of labor to capital. Fear of monopoly. Fear that the absorption of capital by corporations, and their perpetual life, might bring evils similar to those which attended 'mortmain.' There was a sense of some insidious menace inherent to large corporations. So at first the corporate privilege was granted sparingly; and only when the grant seemed necessary in order to procure some specific benefit otherwise unobtainable.

The removal by leading industrial states of the limitations upon the size and powers of business corporations appears to have been due, not to their conviction that maintenance of the restrictions was undesirable in itself, but to the conviction that it was futile to insist upon them; because local restriction would be circumvented by foreign (other states) incorporation. Indeed, local restriction seemed worse than futile; Lesser States eager for the revenue derived from traffic in charters, had removed safeguards from their own incorporation laws. 288 US 517, 548, 557.

Nothing took the place of the limits -- limits designed to control power -- once imposed by states. Subsequently, the corporation has continued to grow, and it now is the source of the exercise of the greatest amount of power in national and global society. Simply put, the large business corporations, separately and collectively, wield the greatest quantum power in our society.

Government is constitutionally constrained to ensure, insure and adjudicate in an equanimity, which distributive justice defines.

Privatized businesses, however, believe sincerely that what is good for them mechanistically is good for the nation and dogmatically are

521

Population Changes

85

unwilling to alter Hamilton’s classical original arguments, which prescriptively, at least, favored the English mercantilist economic doctrine of causal-determinism, i.e., mechanism:58

A commercial people understands that a government that serves the interests of men of property, serves the interests of all, for if capital will not invest how shall labor find employment?

The “all” of Smith’s postulation is metamorphosed to “the few superintendents of production”of mercantilist doctrine.

The American economic System (of Whiggish origin as sponsored by Henry Clay) not only allowed domination through landed property.

Clay’s privatized idealist mechanist political economy was designed to accomplish this domination, which Hamilton subscribed: 59

Capital was wanting, and unless collective funds were available, exploitation must be slow and inadequate. There was need of the state to further the opening up of western lands and to throw its guardianship about an infant industrialism. Roads and canals could not wait on individual enterprise; tariffs and subsidies could flow only from the government. Hence arose a modification of "laissez faire," from which resulted the theory that a democratic state stands in "loco parentis" to the economic interests of its citizens, and should guarantee the progressive well-being of strategic groups on whose prosperity depended the common well-being [surely in the sense of trickling-down]. It was this modification of the English philosophy that the Whig party came to embody in its platform, and which by pooling the interests of western speculators, eastern financiers and New England industrialists, sponsored the "American Plan," a curiously ingenious scheme to milk the cow and divide the milk among those who superintended the milking.

Wage-earners, in the trenches of producing the goods and services of economy, are the day ‘slaves’ that for wages, consented to do the work. Ignored by the ‘foxes,‘ which by the fiat nature of laissez faire,

86

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

are in charge of ‘the chickens,’ so to speak, and as indulged by Whig idealist notions of laissez faire and determinism, the superintending ‘foxes’ of this hybrid ‘American Economy’ are rewarded from the growth in economy plus inflation enured as returning capital from consumption: which mechanistic reward, at the top end, has reached to far more than 500 times the average earned-wage. The mechanist profit-based values of business are diabolically in discord with the consented cardinal sovereign constitutional values of government, and, probably never will fully subscribe to Adam Smith’s ethics-based economic equation (which intended to provide wealth, i.e., goods and services to ‘all’ in society). In fallacious belief that government’s grant of mechanist laissez faire license did not transfer government’s consented sovereignty-based responsibilities to the privatized agent business’ superintendents, other than the unspecified contractual responsibility to their employees to pay wages of unspecified amount, but as meager as possible, as is agreed to by the proletariat like worker slaves in need of wages for to subsist, are not only agreeable but clamorous for wages as the privatized mechanist laissez faire superintendents’ government granted business values are not just allowed, they now have metamorphosed to antecede the specified constitutional values, which they had consented their cardinal sovereignty to government to secure and ensure. Noam Chomsky documented this mechanist political strategy in his recent book: 60

Imperial Grand Strategy High on the global agenda by fall 2002, was the declared intention of the most powerful state in history to maintain its hegemony through the threat or use of military force, the dimension of power in which it reigns supreme. In the official rhetoric of the National Security Strategy, “our forces will be strong, enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing, a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United states.” 61 One well-known international affairs specialist, John Ikenberry, describes the declaration as a “grand Strategy [that] begins with a fundamental commitment to maintaining a

521

Population Changes

87

unipolar world in which the United States has no peer competitor,” a condition that is to be “permanent [so] tht no state or coalition could ever challenge [the US] as global leader, protector, and enforcer.” The declared “approach renders international norms of self-defense–enshrined by Article 51 of the UN Charter–almost meaningless.” More generally, the doctrine dismisses international law and institutions as of “little value.” Ikenberry continues: “”The new imperial grand strategy presents the United States [as] a revisionist state seeking to parlay it momentary advantages into a world order in which it runs the show,” prompting others to find ways to “work around, undermine, contain and retaliate against U.S. power.”

The strategy threatens to “leave the world more dangerous and divided–and the United States less secure,” 62 a view widely shared within the foreign policy elite.

Despite the fallaciousness of the mechanist economic design, however, government legally granted licenses to privatized agent businesses that allows to them far less than government’s Constitutional sovereign rights, as consented. Mechanist laissez faire antecedence, as affirmed, violate the cardinal sovereign consent that was granted to government. When private agent businesses fail to act according to the constitutional economic role as cardinal sovereignty had consented, it now apparently was inevitable that mechanist Superintendents of private business would become, as they now are, not legally culpable. When government’s ordinal sovereign responsibility is not provided by privatized businesses, and because of this, wage-earning employees have urgent cause to grumble, business Superintendents then play the game of political tag, by putting blame for the wage-slavery onto government. Government’s constitutional responsibility to wage-earners-citizens often gets lost until the need for special forms of Roger Williams’ “social usage” insurance get generally acknowledged, then designed and administered by fiat-based citizen referendum: Social Security and Medicare are such “social usage”-insurance adjustments that counterbalance government’s

88

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

mechanist laissez faire paternal grant of “social usage”-based economic insurance to businesses.

---As agents of government, do constitutional purposes apply to “for profit” businesses, which take as their profit three times the rate of economic growth? Should the Constitution’s charge to, promote the general welfare, apply to them? , Or should profits be taxed to pay for the “social usage” insurance, required by sovereign responsibility?

Before progressing here, the following about the justified irrationalism of wage-earner slavery appertains to the contemporary wage-earners’ plight. About this, Parrington’s assessment of Lincoln is more accurate, than others are, about Lincoln’s Whig alliances: 63

Long an ardent Whig of the Clay school, and thoroughly indoctrinated in a paternalistic nationalism, he was brought, as every thoughtful American of the times was brought, to weigh the program of slave imperialism in the scales with the Declaration of Independence. The doctrines of that great document lay before every man’s feet in those uncertain days, to get over as one could. They could not easily be evaded or got around; they must be dealt with. Rufus Choate, representing Boston Toryism, had come upon them and dismissed them as ‘glittering and sounding generalities.’ Calhoun, representing southern imperialism, had come upon them and essayed to destroy them by a critical realism. Lincoln, embodying the spontaneous liberalism of the West, came upon them and paused to take his bearings afresh. He could neither wave them aside nor destroy them. The deep-rooted equalitarianism of his simple social philosophy found in them and eloquent pronouncement of its democratic faith, that set him upon considering how such doctrine might be squared with the reality of slavery. The agrarianism of John Taylor and the Whiggery of Henry Clay could tell him nothing about that; he must seek elsewhere; and the solution he found in an amalgamation of equalitarianism and free-soilism, in an adaptation of western Whiggery to

521

Population Changes

89

Jeffersonian principles.

Whatever party name he might call himself by, in his love of justice and his warm humanity Lincoln was essentially Jeffersonian. He respected property rights, but other rights he believed more sacred. And as he watched the emergence in the South, of the ideal of a Greek democracy, as he considered how the party of Jackson had become the party of Calhoun and Douglas, bent solely on strengthening as spreading the institution of slavery, his equalitarianism took alarm. He could not sit quiet while the principles of the Declaration of Independence were being openly flouted; he must speak out; he must arouse the idealism of the people to deal with the iconoclasts. In an important pronouncement written in 1859, he set the problem before them thus: “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 holds the liberty of one man to be absolutely nothing, when in conflict with another’s right to property; Republicans on the contrary, are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar. . . . 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 then ‘self-evident lies!’ And others insidiously argue that they apply to ‘superior races.’ These [materialist] expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect -- the

90

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. . . . They are the vanguard, the miners and sappers of returning despotism. We must repulse them or they will subjugate us.” (Letter to H. L. Prince, April 6, 1859, in Works, Vol. V, pp. 125-126)

Two conceptions were here competing in Lincoln’s mind, the older equalitarianism that sprang from French humanitarianism and the newer economics that came from English ‘laissez faire’; and the attempt to reconcile them suggests how far he had traveled along the path of western Whiggery. With the spirit of enterprise he had no complaint; the ideal of progress was associated in his mind with a fluid economics that permitted the capable to rise through skillful exploitation. He had no love for the stable economics of the eighteenth century that Jackson preferred; the profit motive, functioning freely, he regarded as the legitimate driving force of society; but he was concerned that competition should be open to all on equal terms. [In this, Lincoln was philosophically opposed to corporate mechanisms, the monopolist control of economy, of which would stifle the competition that he envisioned] As he watched the transition from an agrarian to an industrial order, he found himself more in sympathy with the new than the old. Accepting the principle of exploitation he came to the position of the little capitalist who believed that in America capitalism could be democratized by the simple method of keeping the opportunities for exploitation open to every citizen [Political Whiggery succeeded to obtain corporate ‘fictitiouslegal-person’ rights that equaled the natural unalienable rights of humans and this opened exploitations in America to foreigners while, in time, closing individual citizens’ economic opportunities].

It was common view of western Whiggery, and in so far as Lincoln remained a Whig, content with a system which he

521

Population Changes

91

accepted as peculiarly suited to the genius of the American people. In a late speech he summed it up thus: “What is the true condition of the laborer? I take it that it is best to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don’t believe in law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we don’t propose any war on capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with anybody else. When one starts poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition; he knows that there is no fixed condition of labor for his whole life. . . . I want every man to have a chance -- and I believe a black man is entitled to it -- in which he can better his condition -- when he may look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for himself afterwards, and finally to hire men to work for him. That is the true system.”

(Speech at New Haven, March 6, 1860, in Works, Vol., V, pp. 360-361)

But as a western man Lincoln was far more concerned over the application of ‘laissez faire’ to the problem of western lands, and as he contemplated the practical workings of ‘squatter sovereignty’ he learned how the free functioning of ‘laissez faire’ may be interfered with by economic imperialisms.

That lesson determined his final stand. The virgin prairies beyond the Mississippi were coveted equally by northern and southern exploiters; and who should finally possess them, whether the small freeholder or the slave-master, was a question that could not be put off forever. None knew this better than the small farmers who were already staking out homesteads there. If Congress yielded to the pro-slavery demands, their economic future would be endangered. It was the free-soil West that sent the first anti-slavery men to Washington and provided the backbone of the new party. [Which party they called: Republican,

92

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

after the Grand Old Party] Not the respectable West, but the plain

people, Whig as well as Democrat. ‘Much of the plain old Democracy is with us,’ said Lincoln in 1858, ‘while nearly all the old silk-stocking Whiggery is against us. I don’t mean nearly all the old Whig party, but nearly all of the nice exclusive sort.’ (Letter to A. C. Henry, in Works, Vol. V, p. 95) . . .

The free-soiler hated slavery because it threatened his immediate interests; nevertheless as the great struggle developed, the moral injustice of slavery was thrust to the fore and imparted a humanitarian motive to the free-soil argument. The humanitarian motive Lincoln seized upon, wedded it to the ideal of national union, and thus doubly armed went forth to the fight.

To amalgamate idealism and economics is not an easy task. ‘Public opinion,’ he said in a speech at Hartford, ‘is founded, to a great extent, on a property basis.’ But it is not the sole basis. The ideal of justice comes in to upset all purely economic calculations. ‘The property basis will have its weight.

The love of property and a consciousness of right and wrong have conflicting places in our organization, which often make a man’s course seem crooked, his conduct a riddle.’ (Works, Vol. V, p. 330) Beyond question it was this recognition of the perennial conflict between economics and justice, between realism and idealism, that explains the hesitancies and harassing doubts that marked Lincoln’s development. To reconcile the principle of exploitation with the Declaration of Independence it was necessary to stick like a flea to ‘laissez faire’ -- to eliminate slave labor and accept only free labor. [And, this has yet to be accomplished] Lincoln was a slow man and cautious, and he pulled himself forward to such a position by main force. He was not a rare intellect like Thoreau, to think swiftly to a conclusion and abide the consequences. He was a political leader rather than an intellectual, and he could advance only a little ahead of

521

Population Changes

93

the slow-moving mass he sought to draw after him. A hundred invisible ties held him back -- his belief in the rights of local democracies, his respect for law and order, his devotion to the Constitution, his recognition of property interests in the slave, his understanding of the complexity of the problem, with the entire economy of the South resting on a slave basis. Here were difficulties enough to trouble an honest mind. His practical sense, which is only another name for political realism, restrained his idealism and made him of necessity an opportunist, willing to yield much to save the Union. A simple, tolerant, easy-going man, he was at bottom a realist who had come to understand what may be considered the greatest truth in political science, namely, that an enduring state must rest on willing allegiance. Force cannot compel loyalty; authority may put down revolt but it cannot destroy the seeds of discontent; for that only the sovereignty of good will is competent, and in free states the sovereignty of good will must rest upon compromise.

Lincoln was a better democrat than Jackson, for he would rather persuade than drive. If Hamilton embodied the aristocratic principle of coercive government [Which currently the GOP holds to], Lincoln embodied the democratic principle of give and take, that prefers compromise to bayonets. With a cause resting on the common good will it might safely be trusted to muddle through.

‘In those days our Declaration of Independence was held sacred by all, and thought to include all; but now, to aid in making the bondage of the Negro universal and eternal, it is assailed and sneered at and construed, and hawked at and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it. All the powers of earth seem rapidly combining against him. Mammon is after him, ambition follows, philosophy follows, and the theology of the day is fast joining the cry. They

94

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

have him in the prison-house; they have searched his person, and left no prying instrument with him. One after another they have closed the heavy iron doors upon him; and now they have him, as it were, bolted in with a lock of a hundred keys, which can never be unlocked without the concurrence of every key -the keys in the hands of a hundred different men, and they scattered to a hundred different and distant places; and they stand musing as to what invention, in all the dominions of mind and matter, can be produced to make the impossibility of his escape more complete than it is.’ (Speech at Springfield, June 27, 1857, in Works, Vol. II, pp. 327-328) Life in America, not only changes economically, it also evolves socially: as the barbarism of frontier life yielded to civilization. In the transition, however, free-will-based individual cardinal sovereignty was politically mechanistically metamorphosed by a determinist unitary materialism form: by practicing tautological fallacies, ordinal sovereign political groups bent on strategic materialist objectives metamorphosed culture from their positions of cardinal sovereign antecedence to consequential positions of mechanisms’ affirmed antecedence.

With the above review, these questions must be considered! : ---As agents of government, do constitutional purposes apply to “for profit” businesses, which take as their profit, is more than three times the rate of economic growth, as modified by the economic effects of inflation on wage earning (And the ratio of wage-earners to the owners of profit, is huge)? Or should the constitutional charge to, promote the general welfare, apply to the profit takers? And, for ethical reasons, should profits of laissez faire licensed businesses be taxed to pay for the “social usage” insurance, as is necessarily required by constitutional distributive justice sovereign responsibility?

While income of wage-earners is a cost of production, which then is consumed, the laissez faire licensing of the American System political economy allows businesses to cost account, as business related costs, their personal consumption of goods and services, which

521

Population Changes

95

are produced by wage-earners: in this manner, businesses, unlike wage-earners, do not consume products and services for to subsist.

And, they recover all their cost accountings at points of sale to consumers. From the three-times rate of ‘economic growth’ " profit, which has consumption as its primary revenue source, corporations distribute part of the accumulated ‘new capital’ to shareholders, which accounting wise, only affects the capital side of the corporate ledger, where the net corporate assets and liabilities are accounted. These shareholder distributions neither directly relate to production costs nor with Smith’s postulation’s for creating wealth (which Smith considered as consumable goods and services). These stock owner distributions from net corporate profit represent nothing more than an ownership of the corporate ‘new capital.’ Which share in neither the corporate debt nor the tax liabilities. A corporate stock share is nothing more than a legalized perpetual claim on the net corporate capitalized income. Shareholders of a public corporation perpetually own a proportioned part of the corporation’s new capital, no more. 64

Stockholders’ equity reflects the amounts invested by stockholders in the company. They are entitled to the residual remaining after legally fixed obligations are met, and as a consequence they (limited to their investment) bear the residual risk inherent in the operations of the business.

One might conclude that our ‘White Rabbits of our wonderland’ had law made to accommodate the socialization of the new capital of ‘public’ owned corporate businesses. In this, did Political Economy license public corporations to violate Smith’s economic equation? : Government’s exclusive economic purpose is to sustain the economic needs of all by sustaining the economic equation of ‘production and consumption.’ The economic system, as authorized and licensed, however, constitutionally should intends that “new capital” that "

On March 25, 1997, the Federal Reserve set the official policy for the U.S. economy: to sustain moderate “economic growth” (the trend of which is about 2 percent) with the expected “rate of return” to capitalists of 6 percent or more.

96

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

derives by consumption is recycled in new production and wages to create each new cycle of ‘new capital.’ It has failed to do this.

By means of political economy, and in instances of paying dividends from “new capital” accumulations that tautologically were justified for expanding production, political economy has fallaciously ‘affirmed the consequent’ (new capital) of Smith’s tautology. As examined in other sections, ‘American-System’-political-economy’s metamorphosed socialization, underpins our Surreal Economy (stock, bond, commodities and money markets) and residuals of these logical fallacies are where Enron’s accounting ended in a near complete failure of the seventh largest public corporation. Unfortunately for wage-earners, the capitalist Surreal Economy exists at ever increasing compromise to the exclusive constitutional function (which is a cardinal function of individual sovereignty commitment, which was aborted by government’s consented sovereignty for: to promote the general welfare. Political economy, therefore, violates the individual sovereignty of wage-earners that the constitutional purpose was instituted to ensure, as government’s consented insurance was instituted to secure.

Mechanist persuaded Employers interpret their licenced constitutional national purpose role, to promote the general welfare, as totally fulfilled by paying wages to their employees. And, as only wage-earning employees are considered, this claim holds merit as providing constitutional distributive justice. The mechanist persuaded view, however, is as Lincoln had observed:

To amalgamate idealism and economics is not an easy task.

‘Public opinion,’ he said in a speech at Hartford, ‘is founded, to a great extent, on a property basis.’ But it is not the sole basis.

The ideal of justice comes in to upset all purely economic calculations. ‘The property basis will have its weight. The love of property and a consciousness of right and wrong have conflicting places in our organization, which often make a man’s course seem crooked, his conduct a riddle.’

The distributive justice problem, therefore, is mainly with differences in the political view of cardinal sovereign citizens that consented to

521

Population Changes

97

the Constitution, and the Mechanist view of business owners. Only when free enterprise works as Adam Smith had proposed and employers continually provide wage-based security ‘to all’ employees in a manner that satisfies distributive justice as regards the mechanist economic take for superintending the mechanism-based economy, only then does licensed private enterprise fulfill its licensed agency role of government’s constitutional purpose to promote the general welfare, as cardinal sovereignty had consented to government to administer.

Often now, the mechanist view of this granted agency role, as the sophists of old did, expediently exchange by political affirmation, antecedences and consequences of government’s purposes to provide the best material return to themselves. In this irrationalism, distributive justice is lost or veiled.

It is critically important to the essence of democracy that cardinal sovereignty’s natural antecedences are recognized, celebrated, and applied: that government is nothing more than a consent consequential to this resident cardinal sovereignty: that government’s licensing authorities cannot reasonably transfer, exchange or bargain with this resident cardinal sovereignty for to grant to business’ mechanist purposes, which are then affirmed as the antecedent to constitutional-government-purposes.

In our temporal world, irrational confusion of fallacious consequents, affirmed as antecedents, has often prevailed politically and administratively. We, of resident cardinal sovereignty, must, therefore, be deliberate about common meanings of money, wealth, capital, etc. For instance, ‘new capital’ that enures because wageearned labor had created ‘new wealth’, then by consuming the ‘new wealth’(goods and services produced), with wages earned as Smith had postulated, provided for the continuum of wage-earned production and consumption. However, all ‘new capital’ is routinely claimed by capitalist owners as their reward for having capitalized the processes of production. And the Federalist mechanist judiciary gave legality to this view by giving legal meaning to the word to enure. 65 Which incidently is an example of irrationally affirming antecedence.

When business owners distribute the net ‘new capital’ only to owners and shareholders, they abort the constitutional function, to

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

98

promote the general welfare. George P. Brockway’s book, The End of Economic Man, cited details of this fact when he wrote to this effect:

Capitalists’ claim on new capital is of no greater merit than could be made by wage-earners [who lac materialist standing].

The U.S. political economy’s government-licensed grant to businesses is directly related to Federalist material-weighted sovereign politics.

As regards’ privatized employers, who ordinally have an equal distributed justice-based-cardinal-sovereignty as wage-earners do, this paternal economic grant can only be an irrational idealist reality of dogmatic belief. The idealist economic reality of government, which licensed privatized businesses, did so because of the irrational Federalist unitary materialism-based definition of sovereignty, and under Whigs’ government administration are now become the mechanist owner lords of government. Cardinal sovereign persons should carefully consider this unitary materialism-based fact. Then by means of suffrage, they should decide about placing fixed and limited contracts onto the materialist licensed corporate sovereignty: constitutional responsibility should be assigned, as well as a fixed economic license-life-span so to restrict fiction-based economic licensing that enables, by stock ownership, anyone of substance, including foreigners with economic windfalls of ubiquitous U.S. money "" , to purchase owner corporate shares (our worry about the twelve million illegal immigrants, is similar political irrationalism as is based on unitary materialist ideals, which confuses the constitutional sovereign equally of citizens: more, dangerous erosion of our naturally based constitutional sovereignty, however?

The monetary inflows of political domination by foreign ownership of corporate businesses now exceeds to several $ trillions each year (roughly measured, the sum of foreign investments in the

""

Chinese businesses, for instance, invest their foreign trade surpluses in U.S. Treasury investment instruments, which are made available by the accumulating U.S. deficit, or U.S. Currency paid for foreign oil imports that eventually find a way to return to the U.S. economy by way of investment, rather than exchange.

521

Population Changes

99

national deficits and the imbalances in trade with foreign countries, is maybe the greatest part of it): now only a matter of time that political domination (subordination of democratic cardinal sovereignty), by foreign owners of licensed businesses, is absolutely but fallaciously made the antecedent of national cardinal sovereignty. And, our national foreign policy is now politically driven by unitary materialist sovereignty. But, domestic policy is the primary concern here.

The great political attraction of Employer-Paid-Benefits mostly is found in untaxed economic value, which Employer-Paid Benefits represent. Because the mechanist political economy paternalism allows employers to spread the cost of providing employee benefits’ value onto its produced goods for public consumption, businesses then recover this cost of providing this benefits’ value to their employees.

When only some employees receive the non taxed value, the financial advantage is greatest. But, should it happen that all employers provide to all wage-earners the same package of Employer-Paid-Benefits, the economic advantage evaporates. Employer-Paid-Benefits, therefore, are a conflated unitary materialist political wedge issue that, in economic fact, abstractly nullify cardinal sovereignty, the mechanist cost of which is impressed onto consumers, and therefore, is paid for by consumers. This economic benefit’s endemism, like inflation, is then also an abstracted reality of political economic paternalism that devastates constitutional distributive justice-based equality.

And, when all employees are given this benefit by government fiat, the employers are then disadvantaged by product costs that fail to compete with foreign produced product costs.

Private enterprise supports either the constitutional function -- to promote the general welfare -- or it compromises this all important function. When some employers give their wage-earners EmployerPaid-Benefits and other employers do not, those with benefits are provided value for which consumers are made to pay; it is wageearners that essentially must spend their wages to consume the goods and services of economy. Mechanistically, wage-earners are then the dupes of these so called benefits. The sovereign rights of some are nullified to provide benefit value to others and both ethically and

100

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

practically the Constitution’s purpose to promote the general welfare - is compromised. Anyway, because the American System of Political Economy provides mechanist based paternalism to businesses as regards the accounting of production costs, which is a systemic Teflon like effect on production costs that are shifted onto wage-earning consumers, fully taxed wage-earner income, in either event, is the only real financial base on which to spread all commonly insurable aspects of society. Illusions involving other creative bases, as employer paid benefits, for instance, because of the mechanist economic system, are Teflon like, with the cost not sticking to them. The only solution to this dilemma is to define all income as taxable ‘earned income’ Critical questions, involving homogenous, dependent, collateral insurance interests of society, therefore, include these: ---What form of insurance will cardinal sovereign members of society rationally choose? Has political economy’s allowed endemism made the choice too complicated for wage-earners to understand?

---Will cardinal sovereign members allow the surreal income affluence (of private business capital interests) of political economy to overwhelm their sovereign choice of insurance security?

---Will cardinal sovereign members choosing the insurance, as a cog of the mechanism, accede to the wiles of private “for profit” enterprise’ where amoral profit always determines business-morality?

---Will sovereign members of society choose a single-payer system sponsored and controlled by society’s collective sovereignty where the importance of Abraham Lincoln’s “of, for, and by the people” instills probity and honor to govern the ‘not-for-profit’ insurance affairs?

As Adam Smith might probably ask, please review the above contrasts and in “moral approbation”, choose? (With administering private forms of insurance, consider motives of profit that damages values as probity and honor.)

In matters of fraud and corruption, the fiducial business essence of any insurance management must adjudge losses for all policyholders (the risk population mass): when it is less expensive (profitable) to stay out of the fray, fiducial insurance managers must curtail ethical concerns. For instance, private insurers will always pay

Endemism and Inflation

101

small claims of loss without spending to investigate or litigate the calims’ validity. What entails less overall cost is the fiducial standard for managing the insurance.

Endemism and Inflation The combined fraud and corruption endemism hidden from the public’s view is very big "monkey-business." Articles about insurance fraud are seldom, if ever, front page news. Marcia Pledger reported the following article. It appeared on page 13E of the October 27, 1994 Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Automobile insurance fraud is big business in Nevada [it is in fact big business everywhere] Automobile insurance fraud costs Nevadans an estimated $50 million each year. Indeed, if insurance fraud and auto theft nationally were a business, it would rank in the top 25 of the fortune 500, according to experts in the field.

Often, organized crime rings run by doctors and lawyers are behind the scams . . .

Thomas Norton [senior special agent for the Western Region of the National Insurance Crime Bureau] said he is frustrated by the lack of publicity about insurance fraud, especially because 10 to 20 percent of a premium goes to cover the cost of fraudulent claims. [Which insured fraud is an endemism that acts as a consumption tax but accounting-wise is lost from view.]

Political Economy’s mechanist authorized endemism to private insurance businesses includes the above 10 to 20 percent of an insurance premium [which] goes to cover the cost of fraudulent claims. In the pure premium sense in which the pure premium represents only half of the total premium cost, fraud inclusive of the fraud endemism, therefore, represents 20 to 40 percent of the mechanist allowed pure insurance cost. And, consumers of insurance pay for this endemism as a hidden form of taxation. (From which fraudulent businesses thrive however) The operations profit of each

102

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

insurer is additional to insurance losses and the endemism, including advertizing, lobbying and executive perks.

The endemism to insurers is as ‘good’ or better than is political economy’s endemism granted to mortgage brokers: Listed as items payable in connection with a recent mortgage loan are: Loan Origination Fee to (Broker) $1680.00 Appraisal Review Fee to (Lender) 150.00 Credit Report to (Broker) 25.00 Processing Fee to (Broker) 495.00 Funding and Review Fee to (lender) 350.00 Payment Processing to (Lender) 200.00 Tax Registration (Lereta Corp) 71.00 Flood Determination (Lereta) 13.00 Wire Transfer Fee to (lender) 35.00 Yield Spread Prem. To (Broker, pd by Lender) 3360.00 Settlement or closing fee (to Title Company) 175.00 Title Insurance 1029.00 Post Closing Recon Tracking Fee (to Title Co) 30.00 Recording fees (to government) 62.00 Additional Charges (to Title Company) 60.00 Loan amortization repays this front end cost loaded endemism.

Political Economy’s front-end endemism causes inflation.

George P. Brockway charges the Banker’s COLA as the primary source of inflation. However, bankers’ have also now adopted service fees and charges that are front-end loaded. In my analysis, the front end endemism including brokerage fees of all sorts and the front-end loaded costs of economic progress, so called, that requires bonding amortized by property taxation, is another primary source of inflation.

Front end money that is repaid by debt that is loaded with bankers’ COLA interest upsets Adam Smith’s economic equation: production = consumption.

Endemism and Inflation

103

Added to the extreme endemic cost of fraud, which insurance companies pass on to the insurance consuming public, mechanist political economy’s paternalist formulated grant to insurers allows them to charge 6 percent as their profit. And this profit allowance is additional to and consequential of the formulated allowance for fraud (For instance, if fraud represents a fortune 500 company, as the above news article suggests, 6% profit represents a substantial paternal grant to insurers, which provides substantial business incentive to favor fraud’s endemism.). And, government’s paternalism, as specified, does nothing to protect the consumers of insurance from fraud.

---more than fifteen hundred separate private insurance companies exist; ---each company can and a few do, in fact, fail; ---Political Economy is indiscriminate in matters of ethics and morality. Crooks appear honest but intend to defraud. They can and do organize companies. Government’s paternalism to business is against individuals, the sovereign consent of which is government’s only rational sponsor. With ‘American System of Political Economy’s paternalism, a powerful cabal was created: the official agencies of government are in partnership with private businesses. Intentionally, they collusively defraud the sovereign public. About the only valid advice to consumers, ‘buyers beware,’ is the rule.

Heavily censored energy policy papers released 66 Washington -- The Bush administration on Monday reluctantly released thousands of documents related to its energy task force but left many pages blank, fanning a controversy about the role industry groups and campaign donors played in shaping the president’s energy policy.

In putting out 11,000 pages of documents, the Energy Department listed meetings between Secretary Spencer Abraham and 30 energy industry groups.

The documents did little to quell the legal and political controversy about the private meetings that administration officials had with outside groups. Critics say the

104

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

administration’s plan is tilted toward production rather than conservation. . . .

---Mechanistically, insurance consumers are required to renew policies (deliberate insurance contracts that are unique and, therefore, not commonly understood) to perpetuate insurance that often now is mandatory (enforced by Political Economy’s police).

Initially, most companies offered five-year and three-year policies.

Administrative efficiencies, then justified reduced premiums. But now, automation has provided greater administrative efficiencies: but the cost savings are not now passed on to the consumers of insurance.

The multiple year policies that were once the standard insurance option, are now rare, if available. Instead, policies are now offered for shorter terms than one year: compounding profits are maximized.

With this history of increasing premiums and shorter policy terms, private insurance has a formidable burden of proving its (fiducial) worth, particularly as conduct exuding service related probity and honor is considered.

---When pure premiums are considered, the cost of overhead, service and profit is often now (even with shorter policy terms) more than the pure premium (the pure cost of insurance).

The fact that private insurance is the “only ball game” in town is the only valid argument to justify the grossly negligent service endemism of private “for profit” insurance.

However, about the consumption function of economy, one might consider that many people are provided income by way of private insurance. But, so do many people who work as police, postal carriers and other wage-earners of the bureaucratic agencies of government. As we consider ways to curtail costs, as we must, we must consider forcing efficiencies onto all areas of political economy.

---And, we must curtail the "deep pockets" of private insurance that become legally available for the proliferation of insurance settlements that spawn infinite schemes of fraud and corruption.

Ever increasing liability settlements are very high among the

Endemism and Inflation

105

greatest factors underlying the great cost increases in Health Care.

Limiting liability is not rational, however.

Because wage-earner consumers of society must ultimately bear all insurance costs, limiting insurance losses to those which are individual consumer unaffordable will greatly reduce fraud of all sorts (What I am saying here is that a substantial first layer of insurance must always be the individual consumerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s personal responsibility): Each insured individual, by themselves (without the benefit of risk socialization of insurance) must directly pay for loss situations which fit the first layer of responsibility, as rationally defined.

When responsibility is theirs alone, individuals are capable and creative: they will always find ways of organizing to eliminate fraud from occurring to affect them (If you say this is a security problem, it is, but you must agree that paternalistic endemism of private insurance too often gets in the way). The following graphs illustrate the typical distribution of insurance loss events. If the $5,000 layer of insurance losses, for instance, was the responsibility of each insured individual, the insurance company would then be responsible for only 3 loss layers of the following exampleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 1,100 loss events: but they would be losses that are individually unaffordable. The premium cost would be low; and the chance of fraud, of which the insured has no control, minimal.

The insurance consumers might be frightened by the chances of having to pay for many small losses. However, about fire insurance, each insurance consumer has only about one chance in ten of sustaining a loss of any size in any particular year. By putting the insurance premium savings into a savings account, each insured would end up with enough to buy a larger home, more new cars, or maybe enough to pay for the familyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s education expenses.

---Will this sort of insurance policy ever happen on the watch of private insurers whose primary concern is to profit? Not likely!

Thoughts of the alternative -- of a bureaucratic administration influenced by the tugs and pulls of politics -- greatly lighten this burden of consideration. Nevertheless, the overwhelming strengths and ultimate sovereignty of government sponsored, social usage-based single-payer insurance system will act to decrease defiant fraudulent

106

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

costs. "Deep pockets" of private insurance that are legally made available to provide myriad opportunities for proliferating liability settlements are not nearly then so accessible or vulnerable.

In single-payer systems, with sufficient independence, coordination and oversight as instilled by a concerned central authority that is responsive to the collective sovereignty of individuals will fulfill managerial requirements for probity and honor. Billings for unnecessary procedures could and would become a moral concern that currently is completely without any assigned responsibility in the privatized political economic cabal of private systems whose business motivation and purpose are to grow and return ever greater profits.

TYPICAL FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF 1100 LOSS EVENTS 67

Individual insurance consumer should be responsible for the loss-costs of low end loss events, that reason finds is unsuited for insurance.

Endemism and Inflation

107

Because such costs are affordable directly, rationally, each individual should bear these costs directly. What gets in reason’s way is political economy’s endemism that feeds on fraudulent inefficiencies.

More important, when consumption is captivated, free enterprise no longer exists. When a private insurer dominates a market, they will attempt to also captivate consumption: Auto insurers surely have attempted to captivate the consumption function with auto repair as also health insurance companies do with health care (The synergy management that is now rampant in mergers of huge public corporations is primarily about captivating markets).

About orthodoxy, private systems of insurance inculcated dogma of unreasonable expectations regarding the low end, directly affordable losses. For profits they would achieve, they sold to the public the illusion that lower end losses are insurable. For example, in the early '70s, insurers politically ran the Insurance Commissioner of Pennsylvania out of office. Because this Commissioner had proposed to mandate higher deductibles for Home Insurance, which would

108

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

represent great consumer savings.. The educated Commissioner, with PhD degree, argued very clearly and properly for increasing the deductible and saving consumers 10 percent and more of their insurance cost. He found, however, that support from the insurance business community did not exist. The Insurance lobby painted him as uninformed and against free enterprise. This political influence succeeded ultimately to force him from office. This is only one of many such examples.

Still, this question remains: ---What alternative to the private systems of insurance (influenced by dollar morality) can find a political sponsorship that will subdue the powerful privatized Insurance Lobby?

This question remains as the greatest rational test of our Sovereign Will. Again, this essential question is for Sovereign Will to answer: ---Which administrative insurance form will provide the most efficient security and ethical support to lifestyles in what our nation’s ancestors called probity and honor? The answer ultimately lies in considerations of the benefits to society as provided by wage-earners, labor on one political side, capital on the other, and constitutionally our insured right to security in the middle. The answers are in the quintessence of our often conflated duality involving our unitary materialist mechanist politics and our teleological noumenal sovereignty, which more often now has little to no legal standing so as mechanist politics is concerned. In this, We, the people must learn what our unique teleologically noumenal sovereignty is about and how to preserve, then effectively exercise it.

In the demographic sense, at least, Thomas Jefferson stood with a losing cause and philosophy: on the side of the security provided naturally by the harsh but nostalgic agrarian lifestyle.

Security in this lifestyle was founded in Dr. Francois Quesnay's postulation of what we might call the natural accretion from the land in results of husbandry. Adam Smith was familiar with Quesnay’s observation of natural accretion enhanced by labor and it influenced greatly his postulations involving labor. Smith did not discredit Quesnay. However, he criticized wealth creation as attributed to

Endemism and Inflation

109

natural accretion by husbandry instead of labor.

Great poetry sprang from the nostalgia of the agrarian lifestyle.

---In contrast, what poetry do lifestyles sponsored by American Political Economy inspire?

Alfred Lord Tennyson, in the following verse, may have written the agrarian lifestyleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s epitaph:

Tears, idle tears, I know not what they mean, -- tears from the depth of some divine despair rise in the heart and gather in the eyes, in looking on the happy autumn fields, and thinking of days that are no more.

Social Security functions with faith and dependence on demography but it also depends upon favorable economics and politics for its wellbeing. Created in the industrialized economic reality of depression when paychecks were too few to go around, the foundation of Social Security was and is still extremely solid. For aged workers and dependents of workers, the beneficiaries, Social Security insures practical but modest meanings of life, liberty, and happiness: the values that society claimed as unalienable rights as our nation was born. They framed these values in the demanded amendment to the Constitution: more particularly called the Bill of Rights.

Whether Social Security remains depend largely upon transferring to new generations, the essential, unalienable values and customs, upon which the Bill of Rights is based. Concerns with erosions of society's values imply that diminished human rights and values are also important considerations to the perpetuation of Social Security: But maybe more importantly (as some historians are warning us), such erosion could presage our decline as a nation and this surely would affect Social Security. Therefore, education is an inalienable essential for ensuring sovereignty that ensures Social Security.

The Constitution May Be Our Most Popular Export is the caption of Jack Anderson's syndicated column. Anderson wrote this:68

Sometimes it seems our own citizenry would even like to throw it out and start fresh. Indeed, there have been a number of

110

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

experiments where Americans have been read the Bill of Rights without knowing what it was; a few said it sounded dangerously communistic to them.

But if Americans take the Constitution for granted, it is surprisingly alive in the hearts of those who live without it, as the Commission on the Bicentennial of the Constitution is finding out.

Anderson's column shared many touching letters requesting to receive a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

Then, add to Jack Anderson's message the editorial Western Culture Must Go by Bernard Lewis. Lewis is/was Dodge Professor emeritus of Near Eastern studies at Princeton (and with the terrorism of 9/11/â&#x20AC;&#x2122;01, it has greater significance). Lewis wrote this:69

This demand has been made of late by significant groups of students at Stanford and elsewhere, with increasing support from professors, politicians and others.

If Western culture does indeed go, a number of things would go with it and others would come in its place.

One consequence would be the restoration of slavery. . . . existed in virtually all the societies known to human history.

(This) would also facilitate the introduction of another almost universal non-western institution: the harem. . . . could include child marriage and the burning of widows.

Opposition . . . could easily be overcome by the removal of another of the peculiar and distinctive features of Western culture, namely political freedom.

The idea that ordinary people have the right to share in the formation and conduct of government, and to criticize and seek to change the policies of those in power, is again peculiar to the western culture tradition and has its roots going back to the American and French revolutions.

The replacement of this outworn tradition by the natural and almost universal combination of authority and submission

Endemism and Inflation

111

would greatly ease the transition to a less parochially western way of life.

Could Social Security be symbolic of a bellwether, to suggest the direction of our society's choice or abandonment of basic social values (Roger Williams’ “social usage” insurance form, for instance)? If society's choice is abandonment, then those in the birth-wave called the BabyBoom, which now is assuming sovereignty’s majority political sway, could effect political economy’s "Killer Wave" to submerge the Social Security Insurance system!

Social Security is a foundation or building block that is far more important today than it was in 1935. Should Western Philosophy and Truth, as began with Descartes, prevail and if we can master our economy (this indeed is the greater political challenge) and define our Civitas (pronounced se.wi.ta, which interpreted means the virtues of a public spirit), the important elements of Social Security should eventually fit a mosaic of society's economic connectors to assure basic economic security to all Americans without frustrating incentives with productivity and business investments. Still, this will require a growing concerted exercise of sovereignty that trumps materialism’s powerful sway, without barriers on foreign entry, on Political Economy.

Our world is changing and with it society's security needs are changing! Ultimately, the Social Security System depends on advances in technologies being applied. Technologies, therefore, must be evaluated and reconciled with chaos of the old. And, this depends on the exercise of Sovereignty: sovereign responsibility that is natural responsibility for each individual to exercise. And, should society’s political sway fail to protect wage-earned-consumption, the economic evolution endemic to mechanisms’ unearned wealth (endemism as inflation, for instance) portends to destroy constitutional values, as mechanism’s political sway controls economy absolutely.

About controlling taxes to ensure the insurances of government, in probity the first focuse of individual sovereignty must be to redress the SS contribution tax law of 1984 (which tax collection, according to the Supreme Court’s view, at the outset of SS, is a form of general

112

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

revenue taxation). If we do not do this, the nomos-based economic determinist flux of mechanisms eventually will nullify the constitutional sovereignty of all wage-earners. Clearly, this nomos is not compatible with constitutional purposes as specified and consented for America.

Also, as I proposed to confirm the irrational relationship of political economy with sovereignty, and with this accomplished here, this section concludes with this admonition: --Consider the monetary unit’s definition that in England was called a sovereign: in this analogy, each human citizen represents sovereignty’s cardinal unit of the U.S. constitutional sovereignty.

--Then consider the Supreme Court ruling about money’s relationship with free speech.

--Finally, consider how Political-Economy-paternalism commissions privatized corporate business, by way of laying endemism onto consumption, to siphon the cost of their operations, including advertizing, lobbying bribes, and perks, from wage-earnerconsumers. When we allow justice to metamorphose legality to directly equate materialist wealth, to natural inalienable sovereign entitlements to free speech, only then can we comprehend the means of political economy that effects mechanized deterministic taxation involving not only the accounting of money but also reciprocally the usurpation of human sovereignty.

Only by understanding this contrived metamorphosing of sovereignty, can we undo the metamorphosing and thereby preserve the inalienable rights of naturally endowed individual sovereignty and to them only.

Dogmatized deterministic materialism called mechanism provides the irrational deductive means of the metamorphosing. The veracity test of tautology shows that it is fallacy. And this irrational deductive fallacy is the main source of our political quandary.

When a materialist of classical economy affirms that he knows ‘the truth,’ of whatever is affirmed, you might be reminded of Bertrand Russell’s observation about the nothingness of such truth: 70

Endemism and Inflation

113

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.

Prosecuting war on terrorism unravels the benevolent national standard: my thoughts on this are supported by these definitions, 71

Treason, once meant disloyalty to a sovereign ruler, such as a king. A person who criticized the ruler’s policies and actions might find himself convicted of treason. But today, the meaning of treason has changed, The people in a democratic country are expected to criticize the government, and to work as freely as they like for the election of a new government. The United States Constitution clearly defines treason as: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

This definition protects the right of citizens to oppose the actions of their government in all reasonable ways. No one can be punished for treason until he has been convicted in the courts, or by court-martial in time of war.

The twenty-year-old American found with the Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan puts treason in our war on terrorism into question. If this American knowingly participated with the entity that intends to destroy the American way of life, until he has been convicted in the courts, he is not a traitor? If he pursued his own ‘impossible dream,’ foreign reality made his dream a nightmare.

The coordinated acts of terrorism, in which the terrorists died on 9/11, cannot be put onto any particular nation any more than deaths due to smoking can be put onto those who manufactured the cigarettes, which caused the deaths. Still, the victims of 9/11 caused, or gave a good excuse, for the U. S. to declare war on terrorism because it

114

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

clearly was an act of war: was it really? Allowed, of course, that no ‘state’ or ‘religion’ could be blamed! And, home-grown terrorism, which included Anthrax, Oklahoma, High School shootings, . . ,.represent victims of home-grown terrorism that would like treatmentequality with those of 9/11 (AP Article, McVeigh victims feeling slighted, L.V., 12/22,’01). Unduly, our ‘war on terrorism’ accommodated foreign involvement, that maybe was politically exploitative rather than being necessary. Political and economic exploits have thrived at great expense to the general economy. And economic depression clearly has affected our nation and all nations’ economies as well.

The ideal American standard is aptly stated when citing our Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the nation for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Of note, ‘the flag’ symbolizes the standard of American citizens and, therefore, the nation as well. But, is our war on terrorism about ‘liberty and justice for all?’ Or, is it more about attempting to mete justice for acts of foreign aggression against the United States?

And if so, which foreign entity can be blamed and targeted. Truthful answers to these questions are critically important to making our war legitimate.

Does, being a member of the Taliban in Afghanistan make that American a terrorist? More particularly, does it make an American that joined the taliban in Afghanistan, before any declaration of our ‘war on terrorism,’ a traitor?

With the Taliban forces, which had walked out of the hills to surrender to their Northern Alliance captors (whose fighting war we claim that it was), John Walker Lindh, the wounded American, was found after the prison uprising in which many prisoners and guards died. He has a story to tell (see Newsweek, 12/17/01). One in which he exercised his sovereign liberty as an American. He could not then suspect that the act of terrorism on the U.S. would put him into conflict with his citizenship. If he is tried for un-American acts related

Endemism and Inflation

115

to terrorism, then analogously, there should be separate trials to prosecute corporate officials for their un-American acts of terrorismeffects, which are due to smoking the cigarettes of which manufacture’s were aware of smoking’s causal effects.

For sure, John Walker Lindh shows how undefined (unreal) this war, so called, is. No one will deny that an aggressive response was appropriate. However, is it just as appropriate to also declare that our justice has been served and thereby retract any aggressions of conducting which hunts called a war that embroils cultural values and intents (only facts are in reality at issue here). Our nation’s purposes are better served in humanitarian ways. Particularly, we cannot serve an objective role in the Palestinian conflict by having Israel aping our reasons and actions of war: sucking us into the cultural value’s conflict with Israel and Islam, as Bin Laden would like to happen. In the scenario of values, tyrannies must be factored into the causes of terrorism. And balance is critical for every nation to resolve.

What are the facts that belief can know? Consider the statement ‘I know because I believe.’ Is it rational? , true, or false? ‘Know’ and ‘believe’ are, in Heidegger’s view, ‘essents’ of being. ‘To know’ is to “stand in truth.” ‘To believe’ assumes ‘to know,’ without an objective confirmation of truth’s object. About the ‘sum and substance’ of truth, belief is only ‘sum’ without an anchor to the truthfully corresponding substance? It is nothing but human essence, i.e., of prescriptive human logos. Depending on what the facts are, belief is ‘true’ or ‘false.’ And allegations, until proved, are statements of belief. They are not facts. About grammatical correctness, ‘belief’ assumes its independent object (the substance or fact) of truth. And until truth’s object materializes, ‘belief’ begs for truth. ‘Sum’s’ dictionary definition confirm this philosophical meaning,72

sum 6. the essence or gist of anything; pith; ‘That the Sermon on the Mount contains the ‘sum and substance’ of Christianity (F. W. Robertson)’ observed]

[‘truth inherently is of essence,’ as Heidegger

The ‘sum and substance’ of truth are, respectively, ‘prescriptive logos’

116

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

(sum) and ‘fact’ (substance).

[Only when human logos cohere with God’s (LOGOS), does human posits of fact cohere with pure truth] Opinion similarly begs for truth whereas only reason pursues to confirm its truth-object. Heidegger said, in another instance, that knowledge is ‘standing in truth’: to ‘stand in belief’ always presents a precarious dependence upon what the facts are.

Spinoza reasoned each individual’s ‘good or evil’ intent.

(29) No individual object whose nature is altogether different from our own can either help or restrain our power of acting, and absolutely nothing, can be to us either good or evil unless it possesses something in common with ourselves.

Which value, of those that believe, fits Spinoza’s “conformity with guidance of reason?” : seeking unity in the ‘highest good’ of the prescriptive mind? And, where does political calumny fit?

Federalist deontology, of ‘duty,’ as administered in high positions of colonial orthodoxy, devised legal springs to catch unwary democrats. This historical fact shows that Federalists deliberately set ‘legal springs’ to impede ‘rational-empiricism,’ which meaning defines democracy, the political processes of which intends that reasoned human rights are the coequal of human materialities.

Federalists vilified democracy. Ideologies identified with deontologies (duty associated with materialism) and teleologies (purpose associated with human rights) are fundamental to the political divide in American politics. These ideologies are diabolically disposed: ‘Mechanism’ exploits human rights whereas teleology aspires to consider end purposes of humanity that are coherent.

Parrington wrote this about Federalist strategy.73 Principles must not stand in the way of success Through the fierce scramble of rival politicians moved a scholarly

Endemism and Inflation

117

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 everwhere exist between economics, politics, and legal principles. [’False principles’ are hallmarks of mechanisms] And sorting out this political paradox is very important to the disposal of $ trillions of SS surplus that is an accounting reality only and can, if allowed, be summarily excused by the mechanist conservative politics which created the government deficits (This politics has consistently held that SS surplus is the government’s to use as it will, the plethora of deficit spending of 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 shows factual substantiation of this politics).

Remember. Conservative political flux most always begins by calling for the appointment of an independent council. About the ‘sum and substance’ of truth, the correspondence veracity of each call can be inspected (is either or both of ‘sum and substance,’ ‘true’ or ‘false’?). Often, authority acts with impunity. About the ensuing perjury, consider compliance with the oaths of office.74 The most famous oath prescribed by law in the United States is the one repeated by the President when he takes his office. The Constitution says that the Chief Executive, “shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

118

faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The Constitution also requires every Senator, Representative, state legislator, governor, and state of federal judge to swear or affirm his loyalty to the Constitution, but it specifically forbids any requirement that a federal official swear that he has any religious belief.

Kenneth Starr was appointed to head the special investigation of President Clinton’s conduct. The authority of this appointment came not from the president and was to report both to Congress and Justice.

Did a cabal of federal officers contrive politically to appoint Starr?

Did the appointment abridge the separation of powers? And if this did not happen, could Starr’s appointment have occured? So it occurred!

Did those of cabals’ violate their oaths of office? Did they more surely than Clinton did, commit perjury? It is patently evident that they did? , but to prove it? And, where in the Constitution does politics enjoy the anonymity of religion? Should the prescriptive intent of politics stand adjudged by the common standards of truth?

Starr acted as a conduit of information of a most private inalienable rights related first amendment nature: to the court in the Jones deposition, Starr gave Linda’s stories about Clinton and Monica, and he deliberately spilled it to the public in delivering it to Congress.

These are facts that showed the political nature of the special investigation. It was hardly judicial in any constitutional sense.

The investigation went from Hillary and her partnership in the Rose Law firm, to the death of her law partner ‘Vince’ then serving as a presidential advisor, to ‘travel-gate’ and ‘White Water’ (‘Susan’ was imprisoned, then acquitted). After five years of investigating, costing $50 million, The infamous ‘Linda’ delivered information about Monica’s consented trysts with the President to Starr " Trysts that

"

A&E’s tapes about important people of the millennium included ‘Linda,’ the snitch’s ‘I’m you’ statement, to which most (continued...)

Endemism and Inflation

119

120

ENDNOTES

Clinton had stopped on his own prior to any investigation. The impeachment of Clinton that followed eclipsed forever his rights to due process. And when acquitted of the impeachment, the nefarious politics has continued."

When Clinton answered a question with, “it all depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” politics of opposition lambasted him in the usual manner of calumny, for ‘parsing’ words. However, this following independently framed complex statement of Heidegger’s, vindicates Clinton’s analytical response.75

1. World Book Encyclopedia (1965), Vol. 6, 287

A look at the familiar but diversified usage of the “is” convinced us that it is a mistake to talk about the indeterminateness and emptiness of being. The “is” determines the meaning and content of infinitive “sein” (being), and not the other way around. We are now in a position to see why this must be so. In statement the “is” serves as a copula, as a “little word of relation” (Kant). But because statement, ‘logos’ as ‘kategoria,’ has become a court of judgement over being, ‘it’ defines being on the basis of ‘its own’ “is,” the “is” of the statement.

7. Rom. : 7

Now, in 2005 Clinton is more popular than ever.

2. World Book Dictionary (1965), 1212 3. Parrington, Main Currents . . ., Vol. III (Harcourt, 1930) 152 4. World Book Dictionary (1965) 1406 5. World Book Dictionary (1965) 1956 6. M. Heidegger, Metahhysics (Doubeday, 1961) 86-87

8. Commentary, Star Tribune, Minneapolis, MN, November 26, 2001: T. Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (first published in France in 1785), an excerpt from 1782 9. World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary (1965) 655 10. F. T. Saussy, Roger Sherman, A Caveat Against Injustice (Spencer Judd, 1982) 8 11. Dictionary, 1814 [(literally) without which not] 12. Pound Sterling, World Book Encyclopedia, 1965, Vol.15, p 650 13. Sovereign, World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary, 1965, p 1862 14. Pojman, 152 15. H. W. Turnbull, The Great Mathematicians, (Barnes & Noble, 1993) 140-141 16. There to Here, Craig Thomas, Harper Perennial, 1991, p 160

"

(...continued) uttered ‘oh yea’; Clinton’s achievements palled in this comparison. "

As mid eastern terrorism is subdued, our own political evils remain. The anthrax scenario probably is not of mid eastern origin. It is of the genre like that which pursued to dethrone Clinton. Or explain why the targets for death were the leading democrats in Congress?

17. Declaration . . ., World Book Encyclopedia, 1965, Vol. 5, p 66 18. World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 12, 369 19. Dictionary, 1556 20. See A. Comte, World Book Encyclopedia (1965) Vol. 4, 746 21. Heilbroner, 153-54

ENDNOTES

121

22. C. Thomas, There to Here (Harper Perennial, 1991) 82-85 23. W. Greider, Who will tell the People (Simon and Schuster, 1992) 14-15 24. Greider, 11 25. Parrington, Vol. I, 177 26. Parrington’s note: Works of Thomas Paine, edited by M. D. Conway, Vol. IV, p 465.

27. Parrington’s note: In “Queries and Remarks . . .,” in Works Vol. V, p 167 28. Parrington, Vol. I, 299 29. Matt. 4: 4 30. D. Greenwald, Encyclopedia of Economics (McGraw Hill, 1982) 647 31. M. R. Konvitz and A. E. Murphy, eds., Plato and the Law of Nature, in Essays in Political Theory Presented to George H. Sabine, (Ithica, N.Y. :Cornell University Press, 1948) 20-25, 28-29 32. A Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Great Books of the Western World (Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1991) Vol. 36, p 485 33. An excerpt from An Additional View to the Report of the President's Commission for a National Agenda for the Eighties. (The Report ordered by Carter was ignored if not excoriated by President Reagan) 34. This note on Idealism appertains: About life’s omnipresent quandary, these nomos-based mechanist definitions and explanations shed light, with focus on materialism:

Idealism (philosophy) -- belief that all our knowledge is based on ideas and that it is impossible to know whether there really

122

ENDNOTES

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.

Idealism conflates life’s essence to a unitary form of materialism! : the meaning of conflate is critical to an understanding of unitary materialism’s meaning: 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. Ideology’s definition confirms this: 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 [assertions based on empiricism].

And, because materialism-based Conservative ideology has routinely and dogmatically, by way of assertions, challenged logical reason, this definition of ideology applies exclusively to conservative materialists, who, with dogma of the ‘Nicene’ unitary “three in one” conflation of God, Conservative ideology, expediently makes dogma-based assertions, which are both antecedent to, and consequential of, materialism.

35. Usufruct, Dictionary, 2152:

The legal right to use another’s property and enjoy the advantages of it without injuring or destroying it.

[All of nature is God’s property, not man’s!]

36. Thomas, 82-85

ENDNOTES

123

124

ENDNOTES

37. Thomas, 89, 91

42. Pojman, 365

38. Greenwald, 141-42

43. Heilbroner, 34-35

39. This excerpt is from section 265 of my research: Our philosophic economic unitary materialist causality called ‘The American System of Political Economy,’ which, was not legislated,

44. Thomas, 264-265

is the officially assumed and licensed ‘economic determinism,’ which now has international ‘legs,’ will, by ‘owning’ and accumulating natural resources, win the philosophic war of essence. And while ours will not become a communist form of ‘Dialectical materialism,’ it surely will become a form of ‘Absolute idealism’ which philosophically defines ‘fascism.’

The philosophic advantage given to ‘conservative’ unitary materialism is taking us this way.

While Hegel claimed that he was not a materialist, he provided a history of philosophy that fed the Western Communist movement. About which, C. Thomas wrote this: Marx’s imitation of Hegelian dialectic caused him the most profound problems in attempting to obviate its optimistic determinism, such that it is an intellectual reaction that causes him to embrace the notion of revolution. He is brought to the pass of having to imply, if not promote, the idea of revolution as the Weltgeist of history, in order to free human activity from Hegel’s conclusion that the future is unpredictable except that it will be the next or futher manifestation of Spirit in History. In that sense, the dialectic, whether his own as borrowed or the Hegelian original, failed Marx, since Hegel’s view of history is ‘amoral’ while Marx’s was fundamentally imbued with moral outrage.

46. World Book Dictionary (1965) 1406

40. Pojman, 152

58. Parrington, Vol. I, 299

41. World Book Encylclopedia (1965), Vol, 17, 113

59. Parrington, Vol. II, viii

45. Pojman, 152

47. Parrington, Vol. I, 69 48. Parrington, Vol., II, 152-160 49. World Book Encyclopedia (1965), Vol. 12 (John Locke) & Vol. 13 (Mayflower) 50. Thomas, 89, 13 51. Greenwald, 110-11 52. W. O. Menge & Carl H. Fischer, The Mathematics of Life Insurance (Ulrich Books 1965) 7 53. The Statistical Abstract of the United States, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1978, p 8 54. The World Almanac 1996, Newspaper Enterprises Assn., Inc., p 258 55. 1996 Information Please Almanac, Otto Johnson, Editor, Houghton Mifflin, 1996, P 840 56. G. Anders, MERCHANTS OF DEBT (Basic Books, 1992) 232234 57. An excerpt from An Additional View to the Report of the President's Commission for a National Agenda for the Eighties. (The Report ordered by Carter was ignored if not excoriated by President Reagan)

ENDNOTES

125

60. N. Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, America’s Quest for Global Dominance (Oak Books, 2003), 11-12 61. Chomsky’s endnote 1:White House, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, released 17 September 2002.

62. Chonsky’s endnote 2:John Ikenberry, Foreign Affairs, SeptemberOctober 2002.

100

63. Parrington, Vol., II, 152-160 64. Greenwald, 405 65. Dictionary, 658 66. J. D. Salant (AP), Las Vegas Review Journal, March 26, 2002 67. J.J. Launie, J. Finley Lee, N. A. Baglini, Principles of Property and Liability Underwriting (Insurance Institute of America, 1976) 244 68. The Daily Spectrum; St. George, Utah, March 12, 1988 69. Western Culture Must Go, Wall Street Journal, May 2, 1988 70. Pojman, 152 71. World Book Encyclopedia, 1965, Vol. 18 72. World Book Dictionary (1965) 1956 73. Parrington, Vol. II, 197-98 74. Readers Digest, 696 75. M. Heidegger, 168

200

RESEARCH SECTIONS 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 predicate value 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 Paradoxes 230 Truth: Postscript about Paradox and Mechanism 240 Truth: Postscript about Deontology without 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) must be repaid before the top 20 percent of income earners (who did not contribute to SS) are 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.