Truth's Fiducial Gauges by M.H. DeYoung

TRUTH’s

Research Section 109 Truth’s temporal nature is enigmatic, as human life is also: whether of faith or reason, truth’s essentials are coincident with life’s salvation, in what St. John declared was “eternal life?” 1 Truth’s predicate, ‘is true,’ appertains to perceived fiducial gauges for salvation, or truth. The fiducial nature of truth is critically pertinent to the noumena of human being: this fiducial pertinence also critically relates to this development and documentation of Social Security: 2

noumenon: 2. A thing in itself; something that remains of an object of thought after all the categories of understanding, such as space, time,[light, gravity], etc., have been removed from it. Because perceptive faculties of truth are of human essence, this preregister of truth caps all research of ESSENCE. Its cogitation occurred as the substantial sections of 209 were developed. Thoughts and references here are selected from materials presented in sections 209, on. (Truth’s most reliable test for paradox is logical tautology).

Melvin H. DeYoung

109 TOPICAL GUIDE FOREWORD CULTURAL ‘NIHILISM’: subtle conservative dogma why ‘coherence’ rather than ‘correspondence’ nihilism Truth’s Fiducial Gauges: A Prologue epistemology, metaphysics, axiology noumenon and phenomenon Pure truth . . . democracy, communism, and fascism fictitious sovereignty of wealth CONCLUDING THOUGHTS (See idealism on p. 97) AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD Heidegger’s “rationalism vs. irrationalism” When did the U.S. become fascist? (Addendum 1) tautology (Addendum 2) Islam (Addendum 3) As fallacious as fiction (Addendum 4)

APPENDIXES Initiative Campaigns snake in the grass roots Special Endnotes NOTE 1 (logically fallacious political fiction) NOTE 2 A FLY IN THE WHIGGISH HONEY REPUBLICAN-CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRAT-LIBERAL THE POLITICS OF EMOTION THE PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE NOTE 3 NOTE 4 NOTE 5 NOTE 6 REGULAR ENDNOTES

3 6 11 13 15 15 16-17 21 23 27 95 114 113 117 133 136 142 160 160 162 167 167 171 185 188 209 217 233 246 246 264 265 268

FOREWORD Truth’s temporal nature is enigmatic, as human life is also: whether of faith or reason, truth’s essentials are coincident with life’s salvation, in what St. John declared was “eternal life?” 3 Truth’s predicate, ‘is true,’ appertains to perceived fiducial gauges for salvation, or truth. And, because paradoxes predominate temporal existence, trueness and falsity are constantly both represented in the free will choices for human actions. Predicate-based falsity, affirmed, believed, decreed or enacted as truth, especially, requires careful scrutiny. And, because ‘true’ faith and knowledge is critically important to both the truth and salvation of life, the focus here is on fiducial standards of logical truth, as mathematics has distinguished. [Mathematicians traced] the presence of paradoxes to the use of indirect

proofs, or more precisely to what is called in logic ‘the law of the excluded middle.’ H. W. Turnbull Einstein’s formula shows creative noumenal prescription:4 G:< [gravity (:<)]= 8BT:< [light (:<)]. When scientists review this enigmatic noumenal (Relativity) equation, they attribute the achievement to ‘reading God’s pure prescriptive mind.’ Einstein, who claims no religion, furnished substantial evidence of natural LOGOS-directed cosmic order, transcending religion or not, that vindicates phrases ‘under God,’ or ‘in God we trust,’ which underpin religious faith and charity, and our pledge and money. The fiducial nature of truth is critically pertinent to the noumena of human being: this fiducial pertinence also critically relates to this development and documentation of Social Security: 5

noumenon: 2. A thing in itself; something that remains of an object of thought after all the categories of understanding , such as space, time,[light, gravity], etc., have been removed from it. How did Einstein ‘read’ God’s mind? And as difficult, how are humans sure that what they believe, or claim ‘to know’ is ‘true’? Truth without natural fiducial anchorage is adrift. For instance, ‘time’ without natural temporally phenomenal definition has no precise meaning. ‘Time,’ respective to human life spans has no meaning without

reckoning the earth’s rotations relative to the sun and stars. Similarly, irrationalism always abuses deliberately reasoned fiducial anchors to nature’s predicate values (of nature’s LOGOS, or TRUTH), which about human life also spurns logical definition. Variously, individual inferential reasoning of the pure values in nature’s charter-LOGOS has recorded faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, and promise as naturally necessary coherent fiducial values. 6 Commonly understood truth is fiducially restricted to anchors of Correspondence and Coherence " : for instance, truth lacking fiducial anchorage to natural factual phenomena, has no corresponding reliability. And truth, which lacks fiducial anchors to natural noumena, inevitably fuels controversy as whose subjective perception coheres with natural noumenal reality (has the predicate value ‘is true,’ i.e., is coherent with nature’s charter values)? Coherence is problematical because subjective belief has usually been relied on to prove that human noumena and logos represent nature’s noumena and logos. Pragmatism becomes important, therefore, in answering whether or not human ideas agree or disagree with reality: pragmatists appear more analytic and painstaking. 7 The following excerpt shows a current rage, embroiling Bible texts rejected at the time the Bible was published: the gospel of Thomas particularly, was about Gnosticism’s proclivity for liberalism and democracy: 8

Followers of the Gospel of Thomas The gnostics . . . felt that only a faction of humans were capable of their kind of salvation -- but among themselves they were democratic, abandoning titles like bishop or deacon for a kind of commonwealth of individual inspiration. . . . This irked critics who were building a church with the hierarchy and discipline to withstand Roman persecution. Attendees at Gnostic services “all have access equally,”

A ‘pragmatic theory’ of truth was popularized by William James at the turn of the twentieth century. This method was like the science of calculus: belief was adopted as an approximation of truth, which over time was revisited to restrict the range of truth.

grumbled Tertullian, a church father who helped consolidate the Christianity we know today. “They pray equally . . . they share the kiss of peace with all, for they do not care how differently they treat topics -- All offer you gnosis!” [spiritual knowledge] Unanchored, therefore, unreasoned, deficient factional truth is the quintessence of politics, which too often not only lacks commonly understood definition, it begs for the natural axiomatic principles of noumenon: Increasingly, anchored to dogmatic prejudice rather than to principles of reasoned-noumenon, it is nothing more than logic-deficient rhetoric, calumnious opinion, that of design appeals to a dogma-afflicted class of sycophantic believers: 9

[Science look-a-likes as] Humanists - philosophers, theologians, historians, literary critics [and judicial officers particularly] -- have to worry about whether they are being scientific - whether they are entitled to think of their conclusions, no matter how carefully argued, as worthy of the term ‘true.’ Richard Rorty Because perceptive faculties of truth are of human essence, this preregister of temporal truth caps my research of ESSENCE. Its cogitation occurred as the substantial sections of 209 were developed. Thoughts and references here are selected from materials of sections 209, on. (Truth’s most reliable test of paradoxs is logical tautology).

CULTURAL ‘NIHILISM’ (is conservative surreal, i.e., unpositive dogma?) While writing ‘FACT’ on the blackboard, Archaeology Professor ‘Indiana Jones,’ of movie fame, said this to his class:

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

Archaeology is about ‘fact!’ If its ‘truth’ you’re after, the philosophy class is down the hall. To distinguish Archaeology as a science of material facts, ‘Indiana Jones’ emphasized foundationally the principle difference between material ‘fact’ and ethereal ‘truth.’ This foundation is distinguished as the axiomatic human phylum: apart from this intangible intelligence-spiritual part of human being, nothing has perceivable definition, and without the materialvisceral part, humans command no tangible active capability. However, when ‘Jones’ exalted material ‘fact’ over ethereal ‘perception,’ he showed a commonly pervasive and temporal cultural proclivity: ‘nihilism,’ which as Heideger observed simply declines to engage the faculty of reason. About this subtle ‘nihilism,’ consider the dissimilar mathematical campaigns of Kronecker and Lindemann; then put Jones’ inference with Kronecker’s ‘nihilist’ attitude; then consider whether, or not, for a stubborn dogmatic unconcern, the fiducial ‘necessities’ of truth are thereby apprehended: --Apart from the critical role played by the intelligent, spiritual part of human being, what, if anything, can exist? About this question, concerning human senses, this is often asked: --If a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, is there a noise? And maybe more subtle: --is a half-filled glass, half full or half empty? Temporal truth (and its paradoxical associate falsity) is integral of such fundamental contemplation: finding truth involves finding necessity that falsity easily but irrationally emulates. Whereas cultural ‘nihilism’ shows an abjectly determined lack of critical contemplation, effectively it infers belief in dogma where in the ‘black holes of thought’ (effects of ‘nihilistic’ nothingness) fit. Fiducial surety is found in temporal gauges of truth, wherein cultural ‘nihilism’ maybe is the most subtle of conservative dogmas? In his book, The Great Mathematicians, H. W. Turnbull wrote this about the contributions that mathematical science gave to an understanding of truth’s necessities, as applied to meanings: 10

CULTURAL ‘NIHILISM’ is subtle conservative dogma

‘Of what use,’ said Kronecker to Lindemann, ‘is your beautiful investigation regarding B? Why study such problems, since irrational numbers are nonexistent?’ [Reality that is enigmatic, but necessary, as noumenal truth is, is mathematically demonstrated by the necessary Irrational numbers.]

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. . . . They trace the presence of paradoxes to the use of indirect proofs, or more precisely to what is called in logic the law of the excluded middle. To this they object, very much as others have objected to the Parallel Postulate of Euclid: indeed, it may be a symptom of the advent of a high synthesis in arithmetic and analysis, just as the earlier was in geometry. As nothing less than the whole edifice from Eudoxus to Cantor is at stake, little wonder that these viewes cause a stir in the mathematical world. ‘Of what use,’ said Kronecker to Lindemann, ‘is your beautiful investigation regarding B? Why study such problems, since irrational numbers are nonexistent?’* * The precise evaluation of B can only be approached and this irrational

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

number is critical to precisely evaluating circles: which geometrically is as ‘real’ as squares, or any other multi sided object?

So back we are once more at the logical scandal such as troubled the Greeks. The Greeks survived and conquered it, and so shall we . . .. There is a largeness about mathematics that transcends race and time: mathematics may humbly help in the market-place, but it also reaches to the stars. To one, mathematics is a game (but what a game!) and to another it is the handmaiden of theology. . . . Mathematics transfigures the fortuitous concourse . . . into the tracery of the finger of God. About the greatness of Plato, Turnbull wrote this:11

A second stage in the history of mathematics occupied the fifth and fourth centuries B.C., and is associated with Athens. . . . Her philosophers congregated from East and West, many of whom were remarkable mathematicians and astronomers. Perhaps the greatest among these were Hippocrates, Plato, Eudoxus and Menaechmus . . .. Over the entrance of his lecture room his students read the telling inscription, ‘Let no one destitute of geometry enter my doors’; and it was his earnest wish to give his pupils the finest possible education. ‘A man’, said he, ‘should acquire no mere bundle of knowledge, but be trained to see below the surface of things, seeking rather for the eternal reality and the good behind it all.’ * * In this, Plato clearly pursued necessary teleological knowledge.

For this high endeavour the study of mathematics is essential; and numbers, in particular, must be studied, simply as numbers and not as embodied in anything. They impart a character to nature; for instance, the periods of the heavenly bodies can only be characterized by invoking the use of the irrationals. According to Proclus, the late Greek commentator, ‘Plato caused mathematics in general and geometry in particular to make a very great advance, by reason of his enthusiasm for them, which of

CULTURAL ‘NIHILISM’ is subtle conservative dogma

course is obvious from the way he filled his books with mathematical illustrations, and everywhere tries to kindle admiration for these subjects, in those who make a pursuit of philosophy.’ It is related that to the question, What does God do? Plato replied, God always geometrizes.’ . . . The study of higher arithmetic at Athens was stimulated by the Pythagorean, Theodorus of Cyrene, who is said to have been Plato’s teacher. For Theodorus discovered many irrationals, o3, o5, o6, o7, o8, o10, o11, o12, o13, o14, o15, o17, ‘at which point,’ says Plato, ‘for some reason he stopped.’ . . . o2 had been discovered by Pythagoras . . .. Counting numbers logically progress without limits, which logical reality includes the irrational numbers, in which Kronecker-type nihilism routinely similarly selects to contemplate only what is ‘positively’ rational. ‘Irrational roots’ increase more rapidly than do rational roots, irrationals, therefore, far outnumber rational numbers: reminding me of this quip told to emphasize Kronecker’s dogmatic blindness. This question framed the quip: Of what use,’ said Kronecker to Lindemann, ‘is your beautiful investigation regarding B? Why study such problems, since irrational numbers are nonexistent?’ Lindemann then baited Kronecker to pick any number. Then asked him, ‘What is your number?’ Kronecker, of course, dogmatically picks from his concept of reality, an integer. Lindemann then stresses his disbelieve: nodding, as if to say no, and declares, ‘How irrational!’ What impressed me to share this quip, are the cultural philosophic differences in protagonist Kronecker’s mind as compared to Lindemann’s? The positive rational ‘reality’ associated with ‘counting numbers’ and, more important, the greater dogmatic void of Kronecker’s nihilistically perceptive unreality: of just as real irrational numbers, which require special identification in the mix of systemic fiducial necessity. Lindemann’s philosophic reasoning represents a fundamental difference between the dogmatic ‘positive’ perceptions of conservatives and the ‘rational’ philosophic perceptions of liberals: only Lindemann, and those of his class, perceive of ‘truthful coherence,’ as a ‘necessary’ fiducial value of systemic

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

truth, which by celebrating naturally ‘true’ principle value, emulates nature’s intelligence. And, about special irrational numbers, besides B, there are N and e which have proved greatly important in mathematical studies of ‘real’ phenomena: about the magical rationality of the associations of B and e with phenomena, Turnbull wrote this: 12

Newton was the Archimedes and Euler was the Pythagoras. Great was the work of Euler in the problems of physics -- but only because their mathematical pattern caught and retained his attention. His delight was to speculate in the realms of pure intellect, and here he reigns a prince of analysts. Not even geometry, not even the study of lines and figures, diverted him: his ultimate and constant aim was the perfection of the calculus and analysis. His ideas ran so naturally in this train, that even in Virgil’s poetry he found images which suggested philosophic inquiry, leading onto new mathematical adventures. Adventures they were, which his more wary followers sometimes hailed with delight and occasionally condemned. The full splendour of the early Greek beginnings and the later works of Napier, Newton and Liebniz, was now displayed. Let one small formula be quoted as an epitome of what Euler achieved: eiB + 1=0. Was it Felix Klein who remarked that all analysis was centered here? Every symbol has its history - - the principal whole numbers 0 and 1; the chief mathematical relations + and =; B the discovery of Hippocrates; i the sign for the ‘impossible’ square root of minus one; and e the base of Napierian logarithms. [To understand hidden essential holistic reality, requires an ever inquiring reverence for philosophic antecedent first principles]. As understanding of Metaphysical reality is garnered, the fiducial realness of seeming irrational, but principle concepts become evident. As a model of cosmic reality, the logical numbering system corroborates the ‘divide’ in Plato’s philosophy of truth. About the critical debate, Kronecker’s argument, that all human knowledge of ‘realness’ is based on sensory experience, mimics Hume’s argument with Kant:

CULTURAL ‘NIHILISM’ is subtle conservative dogma

Lindemann’s perception, is on Kant’s side, finding that ‘a priori’ reasoning is critically important to an understanding of mathematical systems’ completeness, and is an essential of all logically ‘coherent forms of truth’ (Lao-Tse’s Sinderesis, or ‘no opposites,’ explains why ‘coherence’ rather than ‘correspondece’ is the defining fiducial gauge of holistically ‘necessary’ truth). Plato’s understanding of human capability to reason critically and deliberately is fundamentally equal to the induced mathematical philosophies of today. He understood what Turnbull suggested: Mathematics transfigures the fortuitous [chance] concourse of atoms into the tracery of the finger of God. Is not the ’finger of God’ the most fundamental axiom of the cosmos of stellar systems of which is the natural intelligence of human life, as sustained by the Solar System, is an essential part? Mathematics, therefore, presents more than an example of the ‘Scientific method’; it is the axiomatic foundation of all reasoned science, which transcends human temporal experience to unveil ‘pure’ truth. And when Indiana Jones’ Archaeology, similarly as Kronecker, fails to transcend human experience, how can it unveil ‘pure’ truth? *). * Hilary Lawson and Lisa Appignanesi’s book, Dismantling Truth, gives substantial discussions with great references. Richard Rorty commented about myriad science look-a-likes:13

Humanists - philosophers, theologians, historians, literary critics have to worry about whether they are being scientific - whether they are entitled to think of their conclusions, no matter how carefully argued, as worthy of the term ‘true.’ Heading the list of practitioners who must worry about an entitlement to think of their conclusions as worthy of the term ‘true,’ are those who society gives licenses to practice law. Truth is a philosophic value of perception which cannot escape the careful fiducial requirements of its predicate, ‘is true.’ In a court of law these requirements can hardly be met by ‘positive’ arguments which deliberately isolate exculpatory evidences from consideration.

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

And while arithmetic is a ‘complete’ system, in the sense that logically it is ‘closed’ (‘coheres’ to the axiomatic ’finger of God’), other fields of mathematics remain logically ‘open’ until they are logically proved. While arithmetic is systemically coherently complete, other fields remain theoretical rather than complete. The general inference is this: pure truth requires fiducial ‘coherence,’ as a key integrity parameter of ‘necessity.’ Therefore, pure truth must always remain open to the critical review of individual deliberate reason, which subjective experience always fails because of dogmatic nihilistic incompleteness. Innate human faculties of thought, logic, for instance, is surely not limited to ‘subjective’ experience. ‘Subjective truth,’ therefore, in any sense of intelligible purity, is a misnomer. However, in the temporal world of nomos, ‘subjective truths’ (which Plato recommends is of ‘belief’ or ‘opinion’) do exist, as admixtures of deliberate truth: where a falsehood mix, of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ coexist with pure truth. But, such nomos-based human conjecture finds no coherence or sympathy in God’s prescriptive LOGOS. --Which reality is more pure? Is ‘positive’ exclusive reality, which corresponds with arithmetic’s natural numbers more pure than the inclusive mix of intangible reality, of arithmetic’s irrational numbers, which in intellectual pursuits of systemic coherence are found also to possess systemic necessity? Said differently, are undefined axioms of systemic coherence, as the system’s necessary antecedent principles, essentially important to systemic reality’s coherence? : to pure truth? Should we conclude, therefore, that systemic coherent axioms, while undefined, are of ‘necessary’ fiducial value to pure truth? Returning to the nihilistic archeological attitude, which introduced this treatment of truth’s fiducial essence, shouldn’t the axiomatic foundations of archeology, sociology, and other similar pseudo sciences be far more carefully investigated to determine whether unnatural dogmatic nihilistic values were supplanted for naturally noumenal axiomatic values? But, first this about definitions.14

Nihilism, was a movement of ideas in Russia during the middle of the 1800s. The name comes from the Latin word ‘nihil,’ which means ‘nothing.’ It first appeared in Ivan Turgenev’s novel, ‘Fathers and

CULTURAL ‘NIHILISM’ is subtle conservative dogma

Sons.’ One character in the book says, ‘A nihilist is a man who does not bow down before any authority; who does not take any principle on faith, whatever reverence that principle may be enshrined in.’ The idea of rejecting all authority greatly influenced the revolutionary movement in Russia. People in other countries believed that the ‘nihilists’ were responsible for acts of terrorism aganinst the Russian government. ‘Nihilism and revolution came to have the same meaning when applied to Russia. In Western Europe, nihilism meant a denial of objective truths and values. Friedrich Nietzsche called himself a nihilist because he attacked accepted ideas. The common form of ‘nihilism’ is the absence of respect, concern for, or faith in the intangible intelligence-spiritual part (the axiomatic phylum) of human being, without which nothing has common perceptive definition. This pervasive ‘nihilism,’ in Western culture, dogmatically called ‘positivism,’ is most abundant in the American brand of ‘conservatism.’ Like ‘nihilism,’ ‘positivism’ is prejudicial philosophic value that denies natural ‘good’ intrinsic of human logos: the axiomatic phylum of human being. That which Auguste Comte defined and called ‘positivism,’ was demonstrated in the 1800s’ reaction to Kant’s finding of noumenon. Comte’s dogmatic ‘gospel of reason,’ became the religious dogma of ‘conservatives.’ ‘Comte’s ‘positivism’ predates Russian ‘nihilism.’ Both have Hindu Brahminist roots. Western dogma called ‘materialism’ is ‘positivism‘ deduced, i.e., ‘positivism‘ is irrationally affirmed to supplant principle, and logically, therefore, is fallacy. Humanity’s philosophic value expressed by John Adams puts conservatism’s philosophic fallacious value of ‘nihilist-positive’ dogma into focus. 15

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

on civil government lay it down as a first principle . . . that whoever would found a state, and make proper laws for the government of it, must presume that all men are bad by nature; that they will not fail to show that natural depravity of heart whenever they have fair opportunity.’ " In further substantiation of this fact he examined the history of governments past and present, and he found everywhere testimony to the truth that the mass of men are naturally indolent, selfish, given to luxury, shortsighted, jealous, tending to faction and all mischievous intrigue. Never does he find them given to virtue, choosing wisdom, seeking justice. Because humans are ‘intelligent,’ and ‘positivist’ dogma denies natural human noumenon, positivism indicts God’s axiomatic Logos? Why did our Western Brahminists ferment this paradoxical prejudice? Truth’s Fiducial Gauges: a PROLOGUE ‘Material reality’ fundamentally differs from ‘natural axiomatic reality’ of noumenal ‘intelligence.’ ‘Material reality’ is definable in physical terms; while reality of ‘intelligence’ is not. Or, try to define ‘truth’ in terms of mater? : The natural human capability to reason (cognitive intelligence or logos) is the philosophic essence of Logic (rules which underpin ‘the scientific method’), Epistemology (how we know what truth is), Metaphysics (what is real), and Axiology (what is good, virtue, justice).16 Philosophy is the quest of human reason to understand and explain the axiomatic intelligence part of the natural phylum of human being: It is the quest of noumenon. And R. Rorty’s comment about myriad science looka-likes must be of concern to us who reason: 17

Humanists - philosophers, theologians, historians, literary critics -have to worry about whether they are being scientific - whether they are entitled to think of their conclusions, no matter how carefully

Jefferson’s retort is classic: “when have we found angles in men to govern us?”

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

argued, as worthy of the term ‘true.’ Modern philosophy began with Descartes: He showed, by reason alone, that the part of human being that thinks is the only ‘necessary’ reality of human being, which is temporal. Kant distinguished human’s ‘necessary’ axiomatic part, as fundamentally and naturally different from the ‘material realities’ of the temporal visceral human body: the part of human being that is material and definable is temporal. The undefinable part, the axiomaticspiritual-intelligence part, is eternal and in material terms, not definable. Which, then, is true ‘reality’? : Only metaphysical philosophy, from which the ‘scientific method’ derived, is the truthful way to find an answer to this question! And we invariably will find that, like the irrational number B, definition is approachable but maybe never achievable.18

Lindemann proved that the irrational number B satisfies no algebraic equation with integer coefficients. This settled the mater of squaring the circle, once and for all. [This holds true for our three-dimensional space and not for the abstracted dimension of space-time that includes forces of gravity, light and mass as Einstein proved; Euler’s eiB + 1=0 demonstrates how irrationals appear axiomatically in our rational three-dimensional space.] ‘Pure Truth’ is philosophic, an intangible but real ‘thing’ of ‘reasoned thought’. Dogma or rote learning (that which is ‘believed’ without independent individual thoughtful verification) is not thought of reason and, therefore, does not qualify as ‘pure truth’ that is fit for knowledge. ‘Words’ and ‘books’ may provide others’ ‘accounts’ of their ‘pure truth,’ but of themselves ‘words’ and ‘accounts’ (however in context may be ‘true’), neither is intelligent noumena, nor ‘truth.’ God is the ultimate, axiomatic, encyclopedic noumenal pure truth: the logical antecedence of which is tautologically essential to human life. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) reasoned that ‘pure truth,’ ’ethical morality,’ ‘justice,’ . . ., is of noumenon (of the phylum of human being called ‘intelligence’ which can only be dignified by deliberate reason). Natural ‘facts’ (including the human body and viscera) are of phenomena; ‘Facts,’ which ‘Indiana Jones’ emphasized, are not natural phenomena because human intelligence-motivated energy or logos, not directly of or

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

compatible with nature’s LOGOS, posited most if not all ‘facts’ which archaeologists seek to find: In this fundamental factual distinction might be found the answer to the values’ foundation of archeology, sociology, and the like (in which nihilistic dogmatic phenomenal values supplant the necessary axiomatic noumenal values, and for what effective purpose?). 19

Noumenon n. 1. (in Kantian philosophy) something that seems real, but cannot be truly understood, although people have some intuitive idea of it, as God or the soul. 2. A thing in itself; something that remains of an object of thought after all the categories of understanding, such as space, time, etc., have been removed from it. Phenomenon n. 1. a fact. Lightening is an electrical phenomenon. Fever and inflammation are phenomena of disease. Craig Thomas wrote this about phenomena supplanted for noumena:20

The ‘sense of nation’ is militaristic, expansionist, and aggressive, for German idealism and for German Sociology. Hegel’s apologia for the Prussian state and Weber’s support of his government’s approach to the Great War are more than sufficient evidence of the power of history on ideas, rather than the reverse. . . .. When one comes to examine the attitudes of thinkers belonging to later generations, one finds the persistence of attitudes rather than facts. Though Durkheim and Weber, for example, developed their principal theories at the end of the last century and the beginning of this one [the twentieth], their ideas exist in a historical vacuum to a large extent. They are determined by Marx and their other predecessors rather than by the empirically observable society around them. And if Weber ever threw off the influence of Marx (and he spent his life refuting the greater German), he did not discard the persistent influence of Hegel and what one might call ‘Prussianism’ [Authoritarianism]. Ideas of political society in the nineteenth century did, to one degree or another, operate under the umbrella of the metaphysical tradition, revivified with a vengeance by Hegel. They became ‘philosophical‘

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

and like the other branches of speculation, derived much of their energy, antithesis, and conclusions from reaction or response to other ideas. [dogmatic materialistic bias of power rather than noumenal first principles had made their idealistic values biased instead of reasonable]

One is left to conclude perhaps, the ideals which first inspired the French Revolution were those, however altered by the elevation of a secularist conception of human reason to ‘essence’ or model, that had inspired both the English and the American revolutions that preceded it. However, contemporary reflection upon the aftermath of the initial changes of the revolutionary period served only to throw political and social thought gratefully into the arms of collectivist theorists, another generation of metaphysicians. It is necessary, therefore, to regard the triumph of the revolution not as the triumph of the individual and the values of what historians term liberalism but rather the reverse. Confirmed by history, it was the triumph of a peculiarly French form of idealism which masqueraded as materialism, a close relative of Lockian empiricism. Reason itself had become something ‘ideal,’ something essential, ‘a priori’ and selfevident -- and something to be elevated to the status of the divine. Added to this is the fact that the tradition of French philosophy, from Descartes to Rousseau, was metaphysical. Materialism, at its best, is an accommodation of Locke’s empiricism with the prevailing current [of Hobbesian authoritarianism, and the power of history on ideas]. For the moment, all that need be additionally remarked is that nineteenth-century political [or ‘sociological’ or anthropological] theory is dogged by other minor legacies of the new science of history and from those who professed to interpret its mysteries for the benefit of the uninitiated, and these are derived from the sense of pattern attempting to accommodate itself with the ‘fact’ of the contemporary or spring from the recognition of pattern itself in history. We are

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

dealing with determinism on the one hand and pessimism on the other. . . . Not only is history beyond the control of the individual (even the individual society or government or state), but its pattern, given the continuing vigor of the capitalist system, despite Marx’s . . . prognostications, implies lack of change, the ‘iron cage’ that Max Weber eloquently spoke of. about truth’s fiducial gauges All truth is intelligence-based, i.e., is conceptive thought of or about factual perception. In Hume’s view, experience is the source of all human-based temporal truth, which naturally is noetic and personal (As Carl Sagan observed, ‘objective truth’ does not exist). " Beyond reason, what is perceived can be and often is illusive (apparent, imaginary, unreal, deceptive, delusive, false, evil, . . .), but still humans affirm their perception as truth. Of predicate value ‘true or false,’ truth is personal understanding, which necessarily involves thought and is, therefore, of noumenal reality. Substantial objects are of material phenomenal reality."" Objects, however personally valued as ‘true,’ neither represent thought, nor apart from human perceptions of them, are ‘truth.’ Encyclopedic accounts of truth’s philosophic meaning are inseparable from boundless reasoned philosophic Epistemology, i.e., reason-based truth evades fact-based definition. (A fact is a thing known to be true or to have really happened: what is true or has really happened; state of things; truth; reality: a thing said or supposed to be true or to have really happened.21) And, because opinions are neither reason nor fact-based (they represent ‘belief’ or ‘illusion’), opinions represent forms of affirmed truth, which are of unreliable (more often false) predicate value. Because reasoned ‘facts’ best infer evidence of ‘the truth,’ independent human reasoned perceptions of the ‘facts’ are more likely to uniquely

David Hume reasoned that understanding begins with experience and that humans can only be certain of the analytic truths: mathematics and tautologies. ""

Because phenomena include all things that the senses or the mind, takes note of, noumenon is distinguished as a thing in itself.

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

correspond in predicate value with each ‘true fact.’ Unless ‘true facts’ substantiate each affirmed allegation, reliable evidence fails to exist to confirm the allegation. And, only reasoned truth that coheres with noumenally antecedent natural principles can be ‘pure’: pure because it coheres with nature’s Creative intelligence. St. John properly named this antecedent intelligence, LOGOS (God). 22 Early Brahmans, Hindu intellectual priests, originated Hindu Vedas as dogma at the time King Solomon ruled the Semites: undoubtedly, Brahmans recognized the natural intellectual unreliability of common opinions, and they might have also been aware of King Hummurabi’s “divine rights,”-based rule of Babylonia 23 centuries earlier, as they also seem to have recognized the undefinable nature of human intelligence? Their’s, they perceived, was a naturally exclusive ‘gift’ or ‘divine license,’ which LOGOS had granted to them. Their caste was naturally entitled by the same ‘divine right’ and ‘fiducial responsibility,’ which they administered to their own advantage. To quell opinionated sycophantic babbling (maybe at the Biblical time of the Tower of Babel), a full millennium before the birth of Christ, Brahmans installed the four Hindu Vedas (ritualistic prayers respectful of natures’ mystical powers, offered often each day). Rather than sponsoring reason-based understanding (of which they had less than is known today), they contrived dogmas to standardize and corral opinions of belief and illusion: of course, to accord with their own dogmatic view. In Western culture, Brahmins defined the elites of a pseudo caste that emulated Hindu Brahmans: the Brahminist pattern appears evident in most, if not all, cultures in which an aristocracy instills dogma as doctrine to preserve its own position and power. Dogma called ‘materialism’ and ‘positivism,’ has served ‘Brahminists’ throughout Western civilization’s history: During the dark period of antecedent monarchy, Christian priests provided dogma to deify the Monarchs authority, and although despotic injustice ruled, dogmatic ‘divine right’-based sycophantic ‘belief’ assured a dedicated following. With ‘materialism,’ ‘positive’ values are espoused; the realness of noumena in this unitary reality is like irrational numbers were to Kronecker: those who practice ‘materialism’ also are inclined to practice nihilism; their ‘positive’ definition of ‘truth’ is factually synonymous with Kronecker’s

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

mathematical truth, and since sycophantic culture is largely materialismbased, nihilism is a common practice:. Witness! 24

Truth n., 1. that which is in accordance with the fact or facts: to speak truth. 2. the fact or facts; matter of circumstance as it really is: ‘to suspect the truth.’ . . . Definition 2 fails to distinguish truth’s object from perception: this is not an oversight, but rather distinctively expresses the dogmatic assertion that phenomena (the object) is the antecedent reality of noumena (the perception). And, this contemporary materialist view is superficial! About this, Plato might say: irrational affirmation has made ‘truth’ a ‘shadow in the mind’s registry of factual experiences,’ in which ‘trueness,’ the predicate, is confused with ‘truth.’ Pure Truth, the only axiomatic foundation of intelligence-based knowledge, is, for a price, approachable, if not achievable: Russell called this ‘price’ ‘tinctures of philosophy,’ which are diligent processes of ‘reason’ in which natural probity (values as faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, and promise) discipline the human quest ‘to know.’ 25

The [person] who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the cooperation or consent of his deliberate reason. Apart from ‘pure philosophy,’ ‘truth’ has no fiducial anchor. And, apart from ‘pure truth,’ all ‘philosophy’ has no fiducial anchor. ‘Philosophy’ (love of truth) and ‘truth’ are logical equivalents: fiducial parameters of one are common to the other: even to the extreme of impurities or falsehoods which Brahminists dogmatize for others to believe (for instance, the axiomatic cultural influence of ‘nihilism,’ and symbolically, the influence of the GOP’s logo 26 ).

‘Ganesa,’ the son of ‘Siva,’ the Destroyer,’ is the Hindu god of wisdom and is always represented with an elephant’s head. ‘Siva’ has more worshipers that any other Hindu god. They believe that by destroying, ‘Siva’ makes room for the new.

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

Dogma often deliberately means to ‘destroy’ natural noumenal parameters (by practicing forms of unitary materialism, the GOP strategy, like Siva, means to destroy noumenon-based teleological governance). Truth, without fiducial anchorage to natural noumena, is like ‘time’ without an axiomatic anchor to natural phenomena: ‘Time,’ respective to human life, has no definition without a fiducial anchor to natural factual phenomena (as a rotating earth relative to the sun and stars). Without deliberately reasoned fiducial anchors to values of natural noumena, truth, respective to human life, likewise, spurns logical definition. Fiducial anchors are ‘necessary’ axiomatic parameters of commonly understood truth: For instance, truth, which lacks fiducial anchors to natural noumena, inevitably fuels controversy (as whose subjective image in mind represents noumenal reality?). Unanchored, therefore, unreasoned, deficient, truth is the quintessence of politics, which too often not only lacks commonly understood definition, it begs for the natural axiomatic principles of noumenon: Increasingly, anchored to dogmatic prejudice rather than to axiomatic principles of reasoned-noumenon, it is no more than logicdeficient rhetorical, calumnious opinion, that of design appeals to a dogmaafflicted class of sycophantic believers.* * The Bible’s Tower of Babel story is about fiducial values commonly understood, then when denied, became the willful irrationalism of confused communication of those who wandered from rationally living in accord with the trustful fiducial values of God, the Creator’s Logos. And since irrational idealistic dogma is designed and politics contrives to control a society’s axiomatic principles and pseudo philosophy, it behooves those who seek reason-based truth to understand clearly the predicate values inherent of the philosophic bases of government.27

Democracy, communism, fascism, have a philosophic basis. ‘Rational Empiricism’

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

way of arriving at conclusions. It emphasises the importance of tolerance and freedom in developing intelligent, loyal citizens. ‘Democracy’ is commonly defined as, 28

1) a government that is run by the people who live under it. 2) a country, state, or community having such a government. 3) The common people, distinguished from the privileged class, or their political power. 4) The treatment of others as one’s equals [as a ’Categorical Imperative’ is commonly practiced] . ‘Dialectical materialism’ 29

‘Dialectical materialism,’ the basis of communism, asserts that only material things are real [i.e., believes Auguste Comte’s ‘positivism’]. It believes that human nature, human beings, and society as a whole are products of the economic system. This philosophy states that all change occurs through a struggle of opposing forces in society, and comes to a climax by revolution. Accordingly, communism opposes religion because of its spiritual nature. It wishes to destroy the present capitalistic economic system, and to develop a new type of man and a new type of economic and social system. Communism is, 30

1) A philosophy or system, deriving from Marxism, advocating state ownership of land and property, postulating class conflict, and seeking the overthrow of noncommunist societies in behalf of the proletariat [Russian ‘nihilism,’ a common rejection of rational authority, must be factored into the pseudo-philosophic principles which spawned communism. Also the Hindu pseudo-philosophy of ‘Siva,’ (the Destroyer) should be considered as underpinning to the following statements of definition.]. 2)

A political, social, and economic system in which the state, governed by an elite party, controls production, labor and distribution, and largely, the social and cultural life and thought of the people. 3) A social order in which property is held in common by the community or

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

the state; communalism. Communism and socialism are systems of social organization under which the means of production and distribution of goods are transferred from private hands to the government. The classic difference between the two systems lies in the different means they take to establish themselves: communism emphasizes the impracticability of replacing the existing social order by any means other than armed force [Hindu philosophy of ‘Siva’ with a mix of nihilism is infused as dogma] or outside intervention; the advocates of socialism seek to establish it by peaceful means, by legislation rather than force. ‘Absolute idealism’ 31

‘Absolute idealism,’ on which fascism is based, stresses the existence of one ‘absolute reality,’ a being or element that is complete in itself and does not depend on anything outside itself. It asserts that there is a principle of authority expressing the will of the absolute. As a political philosophy, ‘Absolute idealism’ considers the ‘state,’ or the national government, as the absolute, according to this philosophy, everything in society is a part of the state and subservient to it. From these doctrines follow dictatorship by an absolute ruler, rejection of parliamentary procedures, and submission of the individual to the state. Fascism, as commonly defined, is,

1) A strongly nationalistic movement in favor of government control of industry and labor and opposed to radical socialism and communism. 2) Any system of government in which property is privately owned but all industry and labor are regulated by a strong national government, while all opposition is rigorously suppressed. 3) The doctrines, principles, or methods of such a government or movement. Definition 3) is important! When a political ‘movement’ espouses fascist

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

doctrines, principles, or methods, and they achieve to control the ‘state,’ then the ‘state’ is fascist. [Is the U. S . government fascist when materialist politics absolutely gains a cabal like control of government’s separated authorities, and thereby controls the privatized economic unitary materialist mechanisms?] Pure philosophical truth about government Only philosophical ‘Rational empiricism’ supports democracy: both natural human aspects (material and spiritual) are ‘necessary,’ i.e., are essential philosophic aspects of a democratic ‘state.’ Other idealistic pseudo philosophic forms are either dogmatically ‘nihilistic’ or ‘positive.’ Covert dogma eschews natural inalienable human values in logos, which natural noumenon reflects God’s supreme noumenon. When dogmatic fiction (as idealistic prejudice supplanted for true noumenal values) dominates the ‘state,’ ‘reason’ becomes saddled to the fiction; the fundamentally axiomatic noumenal aspect of the philosophic ‘state’ is then not only saddled. It is controlled! The only naturally legitimate ‘absolute noumenal reality’ of any philosophic ‘state’ is then, by processes of thought annihilation, expelled! For prejudices that belie the fiction, which is dogma, natural human logos is not considered important enough to give it respectful standing as the naturally inviolate treasure, indigenous to life and culture, that must not only be respected, but must be fostered or lost. Until belief in dogma sponsors individual deliberate reasoning that seeks to understand the axiomatic values of the supreme intelligent noumenon (the Creator’s LOGOS), belief in dogma supplants the only natural source of fiducial values. Dogmatic values supplant the natural axiomatic parameters of truth. Like Baals, Brahminists, who affirm dogma, make the values of dogma the main object of life. And Brahminists are then positioned to manipulate politically, the so-called Pavlovian sycophantic intelligence of dogmatic ‘belief.’ Dogma is deliberately made to dominate the spiritual human aspects which naturally reflect the pure fiducial values of ‘truth,’ ‘philosophy,’ ‘morality,’ ‘justice,’ . . ., of God’s LOGOS. Unfortunately for ‘believers,’ dogmatic unitary materialism

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

sponsors only fact-based experiences: images of mind, which Plato concluded, are of ‘opinion’ (‘belief’ and ‘illusion’) but not ‘reason.’ In dogmatic belief, the inculcation of values of intelligently reasoned pure truth, ethical morality, justice, . . ., is condemned heresy, which then is punished: And effectively, such dogma denies inherent individual intelligence, which reflecting the necessary fiducial values of nature’s supreme noumenon, naturally is capable, if willful and diligent, to reflect God’s LOGOS: pure-values as faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, and promise. Both ‘Dialectical materialism’ (communism) and ‘Absolute idealism’ (fascism) departs starkly from democracy (‘Rational empiricism’); this undoubtedly is because both have absolute dogma (‘absolute unitary materialism’) as a philosophical foundation: both supplant natural axiomatic noumenal values by dogma which nihilistically deny the dual ‘eternal reality’ of noumenon, i.e., the existence of the human soul. In this, God is denied! Two main philosophies predated the U.S. Constitution’s formulation as the nation state’s foundation. Roger William’s colonial philosophy was purely reasoned; the other, the American brand of ‘Absolute idealism,’ was an English import. Those who formulated the U.S. Constitution, fused the agrarian popular ‘Rational empiricism’ with the imported ‘Absolute idealism’ inherent of the American aristocratic want-to-bees. And, had the popular agrarian philosophy which demanded ‘liberty’ not insisted upon the constitutional provision for human rights (the constitutional protection of noumenon), aristocratic prejudices of American Tories, Federalists and Whigs would have skewed the American government, far more toward the English monarchical ‘Absolute idealism.’ However, this philosophic fusion was achieved, rational discourse is only found in ‘Rational empiricism.’ * * Craig Thomas recognized, in this, the vast philosophic difference of the American revolution and the subsequent revolt in France: 32

The effects of the revolt of the British colonies in North America upon subsequent events in France is too well documented to require rehearsal here. Suffice it to remark that ‘revolution’ was never regarded by nineteenth-century political theorists as a viable

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

alternative to the ‘pattern’ of events in France. The revolution inspired by Locke, as much as by any thinker, was eclipsed by that inspired by his illegitimate offspring, the materialists of the French Enlightenment. Still, to those who reason deliberately, this American fusion of the legitimate with the illegitimate (of naturally antecedent axiomatic noumenal principles with fallacious consequential phenomenal values) can be viewed as philosophic impurity because of dogmatic prejudice which Tories, Federalists, and Whigs brought to the table of democratic discussion. However, even when considering the prejudice, comparative results of the American experiment have been nothing short of ‘marvelous.’ About the ‘fictitious sovereignty of wealth and property,’ as fused with natural human ‘noumenal sovereignty,’ 33

In full agreement with the great political thinkers of the past, Madison then traces political parties to economic sources. . . . The unequal distribution of property is the realistic basis of all politics, and the ‘sentiments’ and ‘views’ which arise from the possession of different degrees and kinds of property form the stuff of so called 'political psychology.' One probable reason that fascist ‘Absolute idealism’ was not installed in America, rests on this single fact: the Constitutional Convention failed to fundamentally agree on the one ‘absolute reality’ on which to empower the American ‘state.’ They were in a quandary about the American states‘ sovereignty. Monarch and Brahmin casts had been rejected by colonials and mostly, thoughts of democracy still frightened them. And yet, Colonel Mason’s argument convinced them that a form of democracy was necessary. Parrington wrote this: 34

Unhappily for the democrats, every one of these great names counted against their aspirations. . . . Every one of these great authorities distrusted or violently condemned democracy, yet they provided the major body of theory made use of by the Federalists. . . . How many members preferred monarchy to republicanism,

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

in principle, it is impossible to determine; but they all realized the inexpediency of attempting to set it up; even Hamilton yielded to the logic of Colonel Mason's argument: ‘Notwithstanding the oppression and injustice experienced among us from democracy, the genius of the people is in favor of it, and the genius of the people must be consulted.’ The ‘rule of majority’ (human noumenal-based sovereignty and rule by suffrage) or the ‘rule of property’ (a materialist Brahmin-caste-based sovereignty based on economic positions and property) they never decided. Fusing the two forms can be viewed as the perpetual political conundrum of U.S. constitutional indecision: which empowers our democratic-republic? Which philosophic ‘state’ is empowered by voters as they are persuaded by the myriad persuasions of property? : is the one ‘absolute reality’ of our philosophic ‘state’ based on natural democratic noumenal sovereignty or, alternatively, on a materialism-based ‘absolute fictitious Leviathan’ (which philosophic fictional ontology, of ‘divine right,’ Thomas Hobbes had argued)? Which dogma-based philosophic sovereignty now controls the American republican government and administers its ‘positive’ laws? The extremes, of our divided politics, portend the ruination of society: At the extreme of noumenal (antecedently axiomatic) values of the democratic philosophy, intelligent discussion based on reason is pure but little or nothing is accomplished (Do Nothings) and, at the extreme of materialistic values of the philosophic ‘state’ (Know Nothings) amounts to chaotic anarchy in which ‘big fishes swallow the little ones.’ Since ‘right’ belongs only to noumenon (Hesiod had observed this), which like irrational numbers to Kronecker, fails to exist in the ‘conservatism’ of American politics. Maybe only truthful political pragmatism suggests some balance? Installing divided powers to assure checks and balances resolved only temporarily the inevitable political contentions. And a few did not miscalculate in their expectation that materialism-based ‘property rule’ would gain mechanistically to control ‘absolutely.’35

With John Adams and James Madison and Noah Webster, Hamilton asserted the economic basis of government with its corollary of the class struggle. He not only accepted the rule of property as

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

inevitable, but as desirable. As an aristocrat he deliberately allied himself with the wealthy. That men divide into the rich and the poor, the wise and the foolish, he regarded as a commonplace too evident to require argument. For the common people about whom Jefferson concerned himself with what seemed to Hamilton sheer demagoguery, he felt only contempt. Their virtues and capacities he had no faith in. 'I'm not much attached to the majesty of the multitude', he said. Hamilton did not think favorably of the Constitution. Parrington wrote this about Hamilton’s artful rationalization:36

The courts have at times exercised two diverse functions, the judicial and the political; and the problem of justice and equity before the law, it has been found by long and bitter experience, resolves itself into the total separation of the one from the other. The judicial function is that of impartial arbitrament in accordance with an established corpus Juris; it is judgment and not will. The enactment of law, on the other hand, is a political function, residing in the legislature. When therefore, the courts exercise the political function [as they did to support Hamilton’s economic basis of government and some would say was repeated in the presidential election of 2000], they not only

assert that the judicial will is sovereign, but they engage in a perilous struggle for mastership and involve themselves in all the passions of partisan objectives. Every dominant class, as it has arisen, has done its best to use the machinery of justice for its own

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

benefit . . . In the face of a strong anti-militaristic public sentiment that forbids a coercive army and navy, the financial masters have had recourse to the courts and the eventual effect (is that) . . . capitalism has assumed the function of sovereignty in America, but it has refused to assume the responsibilities of sovereignty. To gain immediate ends it has shut its eyes to the future consequences. [This nihilism shows in denied liabilities that have legally arisen with Tobacco, tires, insurance, . . .] We, the sovereign people, must in the political arena, address and hopefully find better solutions to issues as: --Now that the United States is a debtor nation, whose businesses’ foreign interests are contractually interconnected with our nation’s primary bankers (both of which increasingly organically are foreign owned), to where does this functional ‘rule of property’ take us? --Could it portend an ‘absolute’ foreign owned fictitious functional sovereignty (mostly of ‘them’), with ‘us,’ the disfranchised people, expected to pickup the tab and fight the wars? (When this thought was deliberated a few years ago, the extreme problem of undocumented immigration was unapparent, which politically revisits the policy horn of a dilemma, Pan Americanism, for instance.) Again, about fusing forms of sovereignty for the U.S. ‘philosophic state’ Most Constitutional Convention members favored a monarchical form of ‘Absolute idealism.’ They were an aspiring aristocracy. By their deductive cognizance actively sponsored fictitious organic forms that, lacking ‘positive’ definition, i.e., was nihilistic unreality in fact, which manmade phenomena was made analogous to noumenon, therefore, might be called ‘fictitious noumenon;’ with deliberate intent to quell, or control, democracy’s popularity. For instance, Hobbesian dogma, which affirmed a ‘fictitious absolute state,’ Leviathan, was actively advocated in Federalist doctrine in supplantation of the popular preference of ‘democracy’: a Burkean ‘fictitious absolute contract’ was advocated in supplantation of the

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

democratic preference of a ‘trust’ or ‘compact’ between those governed and the elected state’s governors. The Brahmanist sponsors of ‘fictitious dogma,’ marshaled Calvinist dogma to authenticate their preference of an American religious based ‘Absolute idealism.’ Popular democratic notions were calumniously demonized. And, while reasonable people agree that a balance between ideas and action can fulfill virtue, they cannot agree that such melding by supplanting dogma for noumenal value achieves virtue: reason must conclude that such deliberate supplantation is like telling grand lies: commits perjury, or sponsors blasphemy. The causalities of dogmatic mechanisms, for sure, infer a crafty beguiling form of pseudo intelligence. Irrationalism nicely describes the conservatism of ‘Brahminism’ practiced by Federalists, Tories, Whigs, and Capitalists. Therefore, we, the governed, must be concerned about underlying fictional value consequents that are dogmatically encoded for to supplant natural axiomatic principles: hidden values as those of,38 ‘Ganesa,’ the son of ‘Siva,’ the Destroyer,’ the Hindu god of wisdom [that symbolically] is always represented with an elephant’s head. And, while ‘Siva’ has more worshipers than any other Hindu god, Hindus believe that by destroying, ‘Siva’ makes room for the new. [Does the ‘elephant,’ in the GOP’s fiction-based logo, symbolize Ganesa’s dogmatic values of nefarious ‘wisdom and destruction’?]. Parrington wrote this about such dogmatic religious philosophy: 39

In England the potential hostility between Calvinist dogma and individual freedom was perceived by the more liberal Separatists, but in America it was not till the rise of the Revolutionary disputes of the

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

next century that Calvinism was discovered to be the foe of democratic liberalism and was finally rejected. . . . * (Parrington’s quote continues following the footnote) * If Parrington concluded that dogmatic Calvinism, with its monarchism, was ‘rejected,’ then his conclusion was, at least, partly false. The ‘rejection,’ which Parrington concluded, fails each time democracy’s teleological noumenal values lose at the polls, or when purchased by a Political Initiative (See the Appendix, special note 2, ‘A snake in the grass roots: special interests are subverting the initiative process’). Significant ‘rejections’ of democracy’s noumenal values include the official adoption of imperialism-based policies as ‘manifest destiny,’ ‘dollar diplomacy,’ and now ‘preemption.’ And probably. The greatest defeat came with the overwhelming popular appeal of ‘gime-gime’ paternalistic values in the Whiggish doctrine of ‘Internal Improvement’: the ‘pork’ of which is routinely mechanistically, i.e., systemically accords with unitary materialist causality, as is delivered by ‘The American System of Political Economy.’ This economic Whiggish organic economic victory gave us by dogmatic supplantation the philosophic value’s foundation of Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan,’ in fictions as ‘legal-person corporations,’ and State’s Rights, which represent systemic nihilism of noumenon, systematically is increasingly converting our ‘rational empiricism’ (democratic) ‘state’ to ‘Absolute idealism’ (making it fascism): This axiomatic dogma-based-values victory was achieved following Lincoln’s death. American Whigs, in Administrative control of government, installed it. Brahminist Whigs, the ‘fiction-based’ dogma they sponsor, prefer rhetorical sophistication to truth. Their politics is a masquerade of sorts: their axiomatic fictions, which supplant true noumenal axiomatic values, hide behind masks of virtue and morality feigned. ** ** On Geraldo, 6/7/2000, about the backlash to the conservative cabal’s intrusive investigation into President Clinton’s privacy, Larry Flint mentioned an audio tape of a high ranking government official conversing with a ‘sex pot’ in Pa. Flint said he did not expose this Official in Hustler because doing this would violate the laws of Pa. ‘If I mentioned his name, everyone would recognize him,’ he said. Flint said he became alerted when

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

he heard this official tell the sex pot with whom he was having ‘phone sex’: ‘I have no morals, I only talk about them on TV.’ Apparently, values of Whiggish logos deviate starkly from values fiducially imbued by nature, and Whiggish values were the logically fallacious source of our mechanism-based political economy (The Imperial American Economic System) that Whig-elected-officials installed without legislation or law: The politics of this fallacious human logos gave us ‘The American System of Political Economy’ with its legendary ‘barrel of pork’ that expands continually regardless of the controlling politics. Economic Mercantilist values were politically carpet bagged to America by the ‘internal improvements’ doctrine that Abraham Lincoln, in his bid for President, had clearly naively expounded. And the resulting Leviathan-based political economy-system has now achieved to reduce the constitutional authorities. By ‘earmarking,’ members of Congress order their ‘pork’ in measures that accord with the congressional rules of ‘power’ (which as a pseudo ‘state’ operates internally of our politically fused constitutional ‘state’): each member of Congress ‘earmarks’ their order of ‘pork’ which the Administrative Branch of Government must then deliver (The internal ‘absolute state’ of Congressional Appropriations’ authority -which is ruled by most of those elected to Congress -- sets substantially the agenda and the budget of the administrative branch of government): Each order of ‘pork,’ ‘earmarked’ in the annual Appropriations Bill, is assured passage because the constitutional purpose of appropriations is to fund all federal government’s departments, offices and salaries. Without ‘line-itemveto,’ the President is powerless to pick and choose what is appropriate and what is not. " ‘Holding the democratic sovereignty of ‘state’ for ransom,’ describes the political tyranny of ‘pork’ laden appropriations. J. Eilperin and D. Morgan wrote this:

Line Item Veto was an active pursuit of Republicans during the administrations of Reagan and Bush I. It became law during the Clinton administration and when Clinton used the authority, Justice only then declared the law unconstitutional.

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

Pork aplenty despite effort to cut budget.40

Lawmakers erode the authority of the president to manage federal programs by earmarking spending: Even as the GOP leaders propose sweeping spending cuts that could affect every federal agency, Congress is inserting billions of dollars into the budget for local roads, sewer projects, fisheries studies and dozens of other activities in the home districts of its members. The practice known as ‘earmarking,’ has long been a way for members of Congress to bring home the bacon. But lawmakers and congressional observers said the practice has reached new heights in the annual spending bills under consideration on Capitol Hill, eroding the traditional authority of the executive branch to manage federal programs. Various bills direct the Clinton administration to study Hawaiian monk seals, consider the need for more bed space at the Etowah County, Als., Detention center, fund an astronomy exhibit at Philadelphia’s Franklin Institute, restore the Manchac Swamp in Louisiana, and lay out money for a ferry terminal at Hokes Bluff, Als. Those who have clout and are on the inside want to insure they get what they need,” said former Rep. Vic Fazio, D-Calif., referring to the efforts by members of the Appropriations Committees to put projects into these bills. In funding the Environmental Protection Agency, for instance, lawmakers earmarked a record 314 projects valued at $473 million, or 13 percent of the agency’s budget. Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., who chairs the subcommittee that funds the Justice Department, carved $15 million out of the counterterrorism budget for a research project at Dartmouth College in his home state. Highway bills are famous ‘pork barrels,’ but the Transportation Department estimates that in the new bill, 90 percent

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

of the funds appropriated for building highways, bridges, subways, and airports is committed to members’ projects, up from 78 percent a year ago. ‘Its out of control,’ said Frederick Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a public interest group that supports political reform. ‘Its an ad hoc effort by members to take over the executive branch function, which serves their purpose, and the purpose of the campaign donors and makes it much harder for citizens to get a fair consideration for competing projects.’ On Friday, House Republican leaders proposed a 1.4 percent, across-the-board spending reduction to finance the fiscal 2000 budget without touching Social Security revenues. Linda Ricci, spokeswoman for the office of Management and Budget, said ‘If the congressional majority is looking to cut down on waste through an across-the -board spending cut, these earmarked projects wouldn’t be a bad place to start.’ Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a GOP presidential candidate, said Sunday on ABC’s ‘This Week’: ‘Its not appropriate for us to cut programs that are necessary, even if those are small cuts, while pork barrel spending and wasteful spending is at an all-time high.’ . . . Parringtons commentary now continues

That Calvinism in its primary assumptions was a composite of oriental despotism " and sixteenth-century "

As early as tenth century B.C. Hindu Vedas were practiced. Eighth century B.C., religious dogma, designed to control human minds, was conceived by Hindu priests and intellectuals of the caste called Brahmans (various authors have described individuals, who dogmatize theoretical doctrine, as Brahminists). Buddha, rejecting much of the caste philosophy and dogma, split from Hinduism in the fifth century B.C.

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

monarchism, modified by the medieval conception of a city-state, is clear enough today to anyone who will take the trouble to translate dogma into political terms. . . [Whether clear, or not, this prologue attempts to translate dogma into political terms .] The political argument between ‘communists’ of philosophic ‘Dialectical materialism,’ and ‘fascists’ of ‘Absolute idealism,’ boils down to the fictitious unitary materialist sovereign underpinning of both ‘absolute’ state’s ‘absolute authority?’ -If the philosophic-base of our ‘state’ is monarchical’, ‘an absolute monarch must rule,’ as Hobbes argued and statesmen of Tory and Federalist persuasion believed? * (Continued following the note) * Consider, for instance, Thomas Hobbes’ philosophic ‘brutish, selfish man’ with John Adams presumption that all men are bad by nature: also following on Hobbes without explanation, Adam Smith formulated his postulates for economics based on man's greedy nature: a narrower assumption than Hobbes had made. Following Hobbes’ empirical path, Smith, Adams, with many others, took issue with Thomas Jefferson's focus on the innate essential faculties that define humans apart from other animals: on man's transcending intelligent nature, on the noumenal foundations of ‘good,’ in fiducial morality and ethics, to base his truths. In this contrast, John Adam's discourse about sovereignty in the framing of the Constitution is found: Adam’s degraded and limited evaluative assumptions of man's nature were as Parrington recorded: 41

Instead of discovering in the average man a kindly, rational being -as Jefferson professed to discover -- Adams found quite the contrary; and he summoned a host of historians and philosophers to witness that Machiavelli was right in his contention that ‘those who have written on civil government lay it down as a first principle . . . that whoever would found a state, and make proper laws for the government of it, must presume that all men are bad by nature; that they will not fail to show that natural depravity of heart whenever they have fair opportunity.’ In further substantiation of this fact he examined the

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

history of governments past and present, and he found everywhere testimony to the truth that the mass of men are naturally indolent, selfish, given to luxury, shortsighted, jealous, tending to faction and all mischievous intrigue. Never does he find them given to virtue, choosing wisdom, seeking justice. [On this irrational (unpositive) excuse, the Constitution was formulated] Does John Adam’s indict God for ‘creating irrational man?’ And, is this subterranean prejudice also found in conservative dogma? --Is the principle-base of our philosophic democratic ‘state,’ as with the collectivist or communistic ‘state,’ about fallacious economic forces marshaled by unitary materialist dogma? Who, what and when were ‘true’ noumenal forces marshaled? : the ‘true’ economic forces? R. L. Heilbroner, when evaluating the principles of ‘capitalism,’ included these comments about Marxian communist philosophy. 42

The ‘Manifesto’ opened with ominous words: ‘A spectre is haunting Europe -- the spectre of Communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police spies.’ The specter certainly existed: 1848 was a year of terror for the old order on the Continent. There was a revolutionary fervor in the air and a rumble underfoot. For a moment -- for a brief moment -- it looked as if the old order might break down. In France the plodding regime of Louis Philippe, the portly middle-class king, wrestled with a crisis and then collapsed; the king abdicated and fled to the security of a Surrey villa, and the workingmen of Paris rose in a wild uncoordinated surge and ran up the Red Flag over the Hotel de Ville. In Belgium a frightened monarch offered to submit his resignation. In Berlin the barricades went up and bullets whistled; in Italy mobs rioted; and in Prague and Vienna popular uprisings imitated Paris by seizing control of the cities. ‘The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims,’

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

cried the ‘Manifesto.’ ‘They openly declare that their ends can be obtained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social relations. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.’ The ruling classes did tremble, and they saw the threat of communism everywhere. Nor were their fears groundless. In the French foundries the workmen sang radical songs to the accompaniment of blows from their sledge hammers, and the German romantic poet Heinrich Heine, who was touring the factories, reported that ‘really people in our gentle walk of life can have no idea of the demonic note which runs through these songs.’ But despite the clarion words of the ‘Manifesto, the demonic note was not a call for a revolution of communism; it was a cry born only of frustration and despair. For all of Europe was in the grip of reaction compared with which conditions in England were positively idyllic. The French government had been characterized by John Stuart Mill as ‘wholly without the spirit of improvement and . . . wrought almost exclusively though the meaner and more selfish impulses of mankind,’ and the French had no monopoly on such a dubious claim to fame. As for Germany, well, here it was, the fourth decade of the nineteenth century and Prussia still had no parliament, no freedom of speech or right of assembly, no liberty of the press or trial by jury, and no tolerance for any idea that deviated by a hair’s breadth from the antiquated notion of the divine right of kings. . . .. Had the despair been channeled and directed, the demonic note might have changed into a truly revolutionary one. But, as it was, the uprisings were spontaneous, undisciplined, and aimless; they won initial victories, and then, while they were wondering what next to do, the old order rocked invincibly back into place. The revolutionary fervor abated, and where it did not, it was mercilessly

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

crushed. At the price of ten thousand casualties, the Paris mobs were subdued by the National Guard, and Louis Napoleon took over the nation and soon exchanged the Second Republic for the Second Empire. . . . The philosophy [of Marx-Engels] is often called dialectical materialism; ‘dialectical’ because it incorporates Hegel’s idea of inherent change, and ‘materialism’ because it grounds itself not in the world of ideas, but on the terrain of social and physical environment. The reasoning is powerful. Every society, says Marx, is built on an economic base -- the hard reality of human beings who must organize their activities to clothe and feed and house themselves. . . . But whatever the form in which men solve their basic economic problem, society will require a whole ‘superstructure’ of noneconomic activity and thought -- it will need to be bound together by laws, supervised by government, inspired by religion and philosophy. But the superstructure of thought cannot be selected at random. It must mirror the foundation on which it is raised. No hunting community would evolve or could use the legal framework of an industrial society, and similarly no industrial community could use the conception of law, order, and government of a primitive village. Note that the doctrine of materialism does not toss away the catalytic function and creative ideas. It only maintains that thoughts and ideas are the ‘product’ of environment, even though they aim to change that environment. Materialism by itself would reduce ideas to mere passive accompaniments of economic activity [unitary materialism fails to accomodate human spiritual essence] That was never Marx’s contention. For the new theory was ‘dialectical’ as well as materialist: it envisaged change, constant and inherent change; and in that never ending flux the ideas emanating from one period would help to shape another.

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

Anyway, Marx never considered Russia as a communist experiment. Also he never went beyond philosophical argument in which he viewed only the growing capitalism in Europe and England for evidences to support his indictment of their impending economic failure. Maybe, the ‘dialectical’ aspect of his theory caused him to pause: What evidences existed to assure him that an economy governed by the peasant-class would or could show improvements with anticipating and managing the natural dialectics? Finding that conflations of unitary Materialism by itself would reduce ideas to mere passive accompaniments of economic activity must have affected any leadership ambitions that he may have held. Since R. L. Heilbroner wrote about Marx’s philosophic feud with Pierre Proudhon, we are assured that Marx was aware of eventual economic failure whenever an organic authoritative intelligentsia is imbued of pure dogmatic unitary materialism.43

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, 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

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

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, no! Weary of the bickering of the working class movement, [Marx] delivered himself of a statement that has never ceased to bedevil the faithful (‘I am not a Marxist,’ he said one day); and then on a March afternoon [1883], quietly slipped away. The military opportunist Napoleon I was of noble if not royal blood and culture. Napoleon more than Marx, inspired Lenin. Whether Romanticism, Enlightenment, or other materialistic, pseudo philosophic values are involved, is of less consequence than are dogmatic values’ proclivities that became clear only as Napoleon ascended the ladder of military authority and power, and in May 1804 became the Emperor of France. How many Frenchmen paid with their lives in Napoleon’s military campaigns? Lenin, like Napoleon, was not enamored of the naturally sovereign noumenal aspects (causal values) of humans, let alone the plight, even the lives, of individual peasants. And, as World War I neared its end, Lenin understood, as Napoleon had, that to control the Russian proletariat, like France’s third estate,* controlled the ‘state.’ * France’s Clergy made up the ‘first estate,’ noblemen the ‘second.’ The ‘third estate,’ the lowest, comprised the middle and lower classes.

‘noblemen lived in luxury but many peasants of the third estate did not have enough to eat: Noblemen and clergymen did not have to pay the tax on the land; the middle and lower classes carried the greater part of the tax burden’ 44

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

[President G. W. Bushe’s tax plan does the same] Lenin was a fanatic burdened with personal reason to hate the czar: his elder brother was hanged for taking part in a plot against the czar’s life. Lenin was a lawyer who became a full-time revolutionary-agitator: arrested in 1895, he was exiled to Siberia. When freed in 1900, he went abroad and became a leader of the Russian Social Democratic Labor party. Revolution of 1905 brought Lenin back to Russia. He called for a dictatorship of the working class with ‘absolutists’ of the working class at its head. This revolt failed and he again left for the Enlightenment of Western Europe.45 An antecedent premise of French Enlightenment is dogmatic unitary materialism: dogma, which logically is the deductive consequent of Auguste Comte’s ‘positivism,’ which conflated noumenal values. 46

The effects of the revolt of the British colonies in North America upon subsequent events in France is too well documented to require rehearsal here. Suffice it to remark that that ‘revolution’ was never regarded by nineteenth-century political theorists as a viable alternative to the ‘pattern’ of events in France. The revolution inspired by Locke, as much as by any thinker, was eclipsed by that inspired by his illegitimate offspring, the materialists of the French Enlightenment. The divide between the Locke’s enlightenment and the materialists of French Enlightenment is filled with dogmatic values which not only supplant but deny natural noumenal values: This divide is where the dogmas of nihilism, i.e., positivism, economic determinism, capitalism, communism, . . ., is found. The pseudo axiomatic values of the French Enlightenment were primarily formulated by the Sociologist Auguste Comte, and SaintSimon, . . ., and these consequential irrational values produced such Rogues as Robespierre, Lenin, and others. The ‘conservatism’ of England and America (which also based its pseudo philosophy on Comte’s positivism) denied Locke to exalt Hobbes. Hate was not the only mutuality common to capitalism and communism: dogmatic materialist values, including nihilism, positivism, and Nietzschean ‘blond brutes’ are also common. All represent logically fallacious (‘irrational’) values which function prescriptively in the human logos of dogmatic believers. And when they deny or suppress

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

natural values of noumenon, they destine an economy to produce correspondingly errant or paradoxical results.47 [Proudhon’s answer to Marx is so profoundly moving and prescient that it is worth quoting again]:

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, 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, no! What spiritual attributes of capitalism’s positivist ‘Absolute materialist idealism’ distinguishes it from communism’s nihilistic ‘Absolute materialist idealism’? Are the mechanistic economic destinies the same? Or, does the outcome of our positivist American mechanistic economic experiment (The American System of Political Economy, as tempered by truly philosophic democracy), depend on if and how natural noumenal dialectics govern, or are allowed to remain freely liberated from subliminal unitary materialist absolutism? : to prod-on the philosophic ‘Rational empiricism,’ that must find teleological principle to regulate, fiducially, capitalism’s ‘Absolute idealism’? ‘Positive’ laws, as legalized, are exposed by the dogmatic materialistic values which affirm ‘Absolute idealism’, as an irrational necessity. 48

stress[ing] the existence of one ‘absolute reality,’ a being or element

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

that is complete in itself and does not depend on anything outside itself. It asserts that there is a principle of authority expressing the will of the absolute. As a political philosophy, ‘Absolute idealism’ considers the ‘state,’ or the national government, as the absolute, according to this philosophy, everything in society is a part of the state and subservient to it. From these doctrines follow dictatorship by an absolute ruler, rejection of parliamentary procedures, and submission of the individual to the state. To compare the philosophy of Absolute Idealism with ‘Rational Empiricism’ (democracy), this passage is recalled for another review. Because dogma is designed and politics contrives to control a society’s pseudo philosophy, it behooves those seeking reason-based truth to understand clearly the ‘true’ underlying axiomatic predicate values. 49

Democracy, communism, and fascism are each based on a philosophic position. ‘Rational Empiricism’

‘Rational Empiricism,’ the philosophic basis of democracy, believes that the world is both material and spiritual. It holds that change and progress occur by applying reason to experience, and human nature can be changed and improved by experience. On the basis of these principles, democracy stresses discussion and the use of reason as a way of arriving at conclusions. It emphasises the importance of tolerance and freedom in developing intelligent, loyal citizens. In fiducial matters of natural noumenal dialectics, which is exclusively available to those who fully and willingly demonstrate Rational empiricism’s noumenal values can respect the ‘true’ democratic sovereignty, which constitutionally underpin the ‘state.’ Belief in Absolute Idealism disqualifies its dogmatic patrons from such necessary noumenal knowledge: fiducial representations of democratic sovereignty are only satisfied when this natural human dialectic’s ‘necessary role’ is fulfilled, only when the state’s authorities and powers never exceed the state’s consented collective

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

sovereignty. Belief that all action, thought, and feeling can be explained by movements and changes of matter, i.e., ‘dialectical materialism’ is dogma that is easily exposed by tautological testing: deduced from this logically fallacious belief, which denies noumenon, ‘Absolute idealism’ forms of ‘state’ are asserted as logical. Both are untoward, and also threaten constantly to conflate Rational Empiricism’s principles. Materialism’s‘ ontological dominance invariably ends in establishing a caste of cabalist believers in a natural causal mechanism-based ‘determinism,’ which, as Hamilton argued: should be marshaled by the exclusive sovereignty of property owners? Unfortunately, materialism-based forms of ‘state’ dehumanizes the individuals that by choice, prejudice, a lack of financial standing, . . ., are excluded or expelled from governance. Whigs designed The American System of Political Economy to effect Hamilton’s Brahmanist sovereignty of caste: Parrington called this American System “an ingenious scheme to ‘milk the cow’ and distribute the ‘milk’ to those who superintended the ‘milking.” " The propertied caste that controls the sovereignty of our political economy thereby expects a ‘Brahminist’ perpetuity. Unfortunately, however, a natural categorical imperative of collective sovereignty is that the controlling intelligentsia is noumenonpersuaded (as Plato said, let the philosophers rule): those who rule by force or dogma-based opinions are surely not noumenon-persuaded, and should be expected to blame nature rather than dogmatic beliefs for such ill happenings, for which Proudhon had reasoned: ‘What is Property?’ Maybe, John Locke's reasoning of ‘self’ influenced Proudhon: each man's own and exclusive ‘property,’ as this philosophic principle, always applies in sovereignty’s debate in "" what Parrington observed as returning to the

The greatest economic paternalism to ‘fictitious person’ corporate entities, and increasing debt to society, is legalized ‘perpetual existence.’ ""

Particularly, dogma about ‘leveled’ sovereignty which had rationalized that only our souls [are] equal, which doctrine represented the effective reversal

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

seventeenth century (of Hobbes) from which the eighteenth (of Locke) had reacted. In dogma that evolved, traditional sovereignty of a ‘collective’ (a community, a state or nation) was philosophically based on power and force. Hobbes’ interpretation (when history is restricted to an ontology of ‘positive’ reality, i.e., only based on Plato’s Visible Realm of truth) suggests the values of centralized authority’s organic logos, which supports the collective’s sovereignty of ‘armed force’ must not be shunted by philosophic (noumenon-based) values of democracy (that exists only with common consent, and never is an aggressor). Locke was not alone in the philosophic development of democracy. Credit for this development finds ‘the levelers’ of sovereignty. Particularly, Craig Thomas mentioned John Lilburne:50

Lilburne’s title, ‘The Freeman’s Freedom Vindicated,’ of 1646, where, after acknowledging ‘God, the absolute sovereign Lord and King of all things in heaven and earth,’ he speaks of ‘individual man and woman’ as always having been and remaining ‘equal and alike in power, dignity, authority and majesty, none of them by nature having any authority, dominion, or magisterial power one over or above another; neither have they, nor can they exercise any, but merely by institution or donation, that is to say, by mutual agreement or consent and agreement, for the good benefit or comfort of each other . . ..’ The naked power of such an assertion has long since departed, and the novelty has long since been suppressed by cliche [belief in dogma?]. . . . In the midst of civil strife that may be variously termed a revolution, a rebellion, or a war, John Lilburne, one of the nation’s greatest unsung heroes, was able to speak authoritatively and calmly concerning political principle. And this quotation aptly begins any examination of their cause -- their cry in the wilderness, even in 1646, before their defeat by Ireton and

of humanism's divorce of the secular from the theological.

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

Cromwell in the debates at Putney and Whitehall (Which to remark in Cromwell’s favor were perhaps the only two moments in history when an army putsch has paused to debate the nature of the ensuing constitution). . . . Lilburne continues that it is ‘. . . unnatural, irrational, sinful, wicked, unjust, devilish and tyrannical . . . for any man to appropriate and assume unto himself a power, authority and jurisdiction, to rule, govern or reign over any sort of men in the world ‘without their free consent . . ..’ The levelers found themselves confronted with that ‘modern’ and ‘traditional’ phenomenon, the [fictitious] ‘sovereignty’ of Parliament. [Without any natural basis in fact, this ‘sovereignty’ is a fallaciously asserted apparition].

Thomas Rainborough and John Wildman are mentioned as representing ‘the levelers’ in the Putney Debates: “The Putney Debates (1647) are remarkable for the clash between two views of democracy, that of ‘the levelers,’ in which every man . . . has an equal stake or interest . . . in the constitution that would ensue, while Ireton on the other hand speaks for the Independent and Presbyterian [Calvinist] factions and of a ‘fixed interest in the country’ (i.e., landed property) which alone will qualify a man to have a voice in the state.” It is, I believe, in this philosophic values dilemma that we find the greatest resurgent intrusion of fundamental religion in American party-politics. Organized religion has always assumed a representative form of divine rightbased sovereignty under the guise of paternalistic interest in the welfare of its members, who, because of religious dogma (also claims that, only our souls are free), can effectively argue that individuals lack standing to act for themselves. The following is a sample of Wildman’s position: 51

‘how governors shall derive a just power from the people but by an assent of the people, I understand not.’ They are the inheritors, whether entirely consciously in all cases, of the tradition of natural law theory, together with -- most importantly in the instance of those who may so easily be characterized as radical only in religion, and

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

religious in all their opinions of the sublunary sphere of government -humanism's divorce of the secular from the theological -- the rescue of natural law theory from its theological constraints, which allowed the perpetration of feudalism, of hierarchy and enslavement on the one hand and the aggrandizement of property on the other simply because’Only our souls were equal.’ Excerpts from Thomas’ take on Locke’s Two Treatises:

--- The right to property is defined as an essential or basic right for the purpose of defining the sovereignty of the individual and the necessity to guarantee his rights and property 'against' others, 'not' so as to allow him to acquire, to control, to achieve domination through landed property. --- Every Man has a 'Property' in his own 'Person.'. . . --Men living together 'according to reason' are properly in the State of Nature.' --- No individual has a right or power over the life of another. --Force without Right, upon a man's person, makes a State of War. . . . --- It is a 'right,' a possession of each individual which must be protected together with his other freedoms, protected from others who are in a 'State of War' against the individual . . . --He that in the State of Nature, 'would take away the Freedom,' that belongs to anyone in that State, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away everything else, that 'Freedom' being the foundation of all the rest. . . .52 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'

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

law or 'right Rule of Reason' (i.e., the admission of the equivalence of others). . . . Locke is not out to prove the existence of any law of nature but to assert it ‘in defiance of the contemporary,’ to radically '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. 53 ‘The levelers’ and Locke refuted Calvinist dogma that affirms in pseudo philosophical manner that ‘only our souls are free.’ This Calvinist nihilistic dogma intends to conflate noumenon to a passive consideration of unitary materialism. It is also found in Edmund Burke’s arguments which founded English and American ‘conservatism:’ in the Federalist-Whiggish line of American politics. While ‘Dialectical materialism’ is vulnerable to economic determinism that eventually converts to despotic dictatorship, as the Russian experiment of Lenin showed, all forms of ‘Absolute idealism’ (including America’s Capitalism) are, by the intrinsic philosophic determinism of materialism, vulnerable to the will of a despotic ‘absolute power’ that converts first to ‘Absolute idealism,’ then to despotic dictatorship, as Hitler showed. Only states’ that respond reasonably to noumenal-based dialectics can avert this disaster. American ‘conservative’ philosophy is clearly persuaded by the pseudo philosophic principles of ‘Absolute idealism.’ And since the Constitution has been interpreted by administrative policies and legislation that supports the ‘conservative’ politics, the ‘American state’ (as driven by the American System of Political Economy, while brazenly ‘fictitious,’ has become in the twenty first century ‘absolute.’ This ‘American state’ contends that ‘Absolute authority’ is based on the conservative ‘fictition’ of Burkean ‘absolute contract.’ Law, in this ‘conservative’ view, therefore, is the supreme ‘American Monarch!’ However, unlike the Russian experiment which openly enforced unitary ‘materialistic’ doctrine, the emphatic ‘materialism-basis’ of presently enforced American Political economy is found in dogma that rules politically. And, unless reason-based dialectics

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

prevail to subdue the ‘materialist’ politics, the American political economy end is likely destined to fulfill Marx’ prediction. The sides of this political organic debate were argued by Englishmen (Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine) and the argument was continued in America between Federalists (joined by Tories and Whigs) and democratic republicans (as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson). Comments about government forms continue following this inserted note. Then David Broder’s important article is also included under the title Appended Notes. Burke’s ‘positivism’ (dogmatic advocacy of materialism) shows in his many debates. In his debate with Tom Paine, both philosophic seeds of American liberalism and conservatism are found (Remember, however, that both sides in this controversy have ‘liberal’ origins: both opposed Tories who dogmatically and unreasonably, served the despotic ‘Absolute idealism’ of the English Crown). Political ‘conservatives,’ who followed Burke, assumed his fallacious pomposity which underpinned his dogmatic ‘us’ versus ‘them’ (The ‘Us’ being a supposed divinely privileged Aristocracy). Paine effectively exposed Burke in the long running debate about the political state. Paine’s distrust of government influenced Jefferson. 54

It is the injustice of government that creates armies to defend the earnings of injustice. But every wise government will respect its limitations. As a child of the eighteenth century, Paine hated the leviathan state as a monster created by a minority to serve the ends of tyranny. The political state he accepted as a present necessity, but he would not have its prestige magnified and the temptation to tyranny increased by the cult of nationalism. “Government is no farther necessary,” he believed, “than to supply the few cases to which society and civilization are not conveniently competent.” At best it is an artificial thing. [In “Rights of Man, Part II, p 407, 408, Paine wrote as follows ] Formal government [affects] makes but a small part of civilized life; and when even the best [government] that human wisdom can devise

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

is established, it is a thing more in name and idea than in fact. . . . The more perfect civilization is, the less occasion it has for government, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and govern itself. . . . All the great laws of society are laws of nature. The maturest elaboration of Paine’s political philosophy is found in “The Rights of Man.” This extraordinary work, the most influential English contribution to the revolutionary movement, was an examination of the English constitution in the light of what Paine held were the true source and ends of government. It is a brilliant reply to Burke, who rested his interpretation of the English constitution on the legal ground of the common law of contract. Following the Revolution of 1688, Burke had argued, the English people through their legal representatives, entered into a solemn contract, binding “themselves, their heirs, and posterities forever,” to certain express terms; and neither in law nor in equity were they, of whatever generation, free to change those terms except by the consent of both parties to the contract. This was an elaboration of the theory of government tacitly held by the Old Whigs, which derived government from a perpetual civil contract as opposed to the radical doctrine of a revocable social contract; and in attacking it Paine allied himself with such thinkers as Price, Priestley, Franklin and Rousseau. [For an excellent discussion of this, see C. M. Walsh, “The Political Science of John Adams, p 203-226] he pointed out the absurdity of carrying over the [temporal] law of private property into the high realm of political [celestial] principle -- to seek to impose the dead past upon the living sovereignty. If sovereignty inhered in the English people in 1688, it must inhere in the English people in 1793, unless it had been violently wrested from them; no parchment terms of another age can bind that sovereignty other than voluntarily. Over against Burke’s theory of a single, static contract, Paine set the doctrine of the reaffirmation of natural rights. Any generation - as the

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

generation of 1688 - is competent to deal with its affairs as it sees fit, but it cannot barter away the rights of those unborn; such a contract on the face of it is null and void. Indisputable evidence shows Whiggish conservative influence installed our leviathan-mechanism-based political economy, called ‘The American System of Political Economy.’ Broad political belief in materialism-based dogma provided the political foundation to myriad Whiggish doctrine which finally succeeded to dominate the American government and law. With ‘positive laws’ based on Burke’s philosophy of ‘a fixed contract’ (to represent or supplant the state’s social compact), our leviathan political economy philosophically entitles the affluent factional entities of society to systemic economic paternalism (inflation endemism, for one) which is paid for by a subtle but general taxation that is layered onto subsistence-based consumption (The legally enured return of which adds to the capital of businesses). As Parrington noted, this returned the American political economy to the seventeenth century (and Hobbes) from which the eighteenth was a reaction, and Paine’s statement is as pertinent today as it was when he wrote it: It is the injustice of government that creates armies to defend the earnings of injustice. Particularly, when Congress fails to act as the Constitution, in Article I Section 8, orders that it act, inflation-based earnings which are not earned at all, are ‘earnings of injustice.’ (This is left for section 209.2.) Parrington wrote this about the Harvard trained lawyers of the fourth generation of John Quincy Adams: 55

The capitalist is ‘the most lawless’ of citizens. In his attitude towards the state he is essentially anarchistic; he evades or nullifies a law that he does not like, while clamorous for the enforcement of a law that works in his favor. From ‘The Theory of Social Revolution,’ Parrington inserted this: If the capitalist has bought some sovereign function, and wishes to abuse it for his own behoof, he regards the law which restrains him as a despotic invasion of his constitutional rights, because, with his

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

specialized mind, he cannot grasp the relation of a sovereign function to the nation as a whole [his mind’s designs are inward-turned, i.e, are constrained by his focus on “capital thoughts”]. He, therefore, looks upon the evasion of a law devised for public protection, but inimical to him, as innocent or even meritorious. This attitude of capital has had a profound effect upon shaping the American legal mind. The capitalist, as I infer, regards the constitutional form of government which exists in the United States, as a convenient method of obtaining his own way against a majority, but the lawyer has learned to worship it as a fetish. Nor is this astonishing, for, were written constitutions suppressed, he would lose most of his importance and much of his income. Quite honestly, therefore, the American lawyer has come to believe that a sheet of paper soiled with printers’ ink and interpreted by half-a-dozen elderly gentlemen snugly dozing in armchairs, has some inherent and marvelous virtue by which it can arrest the march of omnipotent Nature. And capital gladly accepts this view of American civilization, since hitherto capitalists have usually been able to select the magistrates who decide their causes. The skepticisms of the House of Adams came to their frankest expression in the writings of Brooks Adams. The passion for social justice had brought him at last to a philosophy of history that made him a trenchant critic of the American of his generation. He rejected alike the humanitarian optimism that, from Condorct to Herbert Spencer, had inspired generous souls with hope for future progress and that even Henry Adams clung to - and the economic optimism that from the beginnings of the westward movement had inspired acquisitive souls with the hope of continuous gain. Nothing perhaps marked him more as a rebel than his denial of the god worshiped by his fellows. The gospel of progress was for him no more than a fetish of the economic mind. In the ebb and flow of civilizations under the

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

attraction of fear and greed, what justification was there for faith in a benevolent progress? His lot had been cast, unfortunately, in an age of capitalism, when the acquisitive mind was triumphing over the imaginative, the banker over the priest and craftsman and mystic; but he could see no reason in heaven or earth to brag of that fact, and he would have held himself a fool to apply the term progress to the spread of greed that was crowning the usurer as master of men. Also from Brooks Adams, ‘The Law of Civilization and Decay,’ p. 292

The aristocracy which wields this autocratic power is beyond attack, for it is defended by a wage-earning police, by the side of which the legions were a toy - a police so formidable that, for the first time in history, revolt is hopeless and is not attempted. The only question which preoccupies the ruling class is whether it is cheaper to coerce or bribe. Who pays the cost of property’s security (including hoards of treasure and wealth)? Taxing wages earned is the ‘conservative’ solution to rising costs required to police government’s political paternalism: protecting the ‘property’ of the neo-axiomatic ‘us’ while regulating the slave-class of ‘them’ (wage-earners). * * Whenever security’s cost provided to privately owned ‘property’ is distributed on wages earned while mechanized economy distributes income unevenly (the average earned wage is $50,000 while top end income mostly from capital is greater than $50 million) is rational evidence on which to require far steeper graduated tax rates? So, what rational basis exists to drastically reduce high end revenue taxation?

Brooks Adams’ described the irrationalism and fallacious values which underlies dogma and politics of this conservatism: absolute dogmatic values, which spew calumny intended to brand liberal values, as for instance, centered in Harvard graduates. In dogmatic hidden-values of class divisions, as ‘Us’ vs. ‘Them,’ prejudice is made into a religious-like value of belief, in which the class prejudice is celebrated as a religious virtue, and believers then affirm this blasphemy as “God’s truth.” This form of prejudice has deep roots in the

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

‘right-wing’ of politics. And, ‘believers,’ as the sycophantic disciples of ‘magnificent blond brutes,’ for instance, is indigenous to all aristocracies. However, the political ‘right-wing’ is neither exceptional nor exclusive in this political practice. Celebrating ‘brutish’ aspects of human being, Friedreich Nietzsche celebrated the magnificent blond brute’s pithy visceral values. His negative philosophy decries reasoned ideas, authorities, and moral-values (which is the axiomatic substance of democracy). And, while Nietzsche contested anti-Semitism, he sanctioned fascism: Hitler, Stalin, maybe Napoleon, bin Laden, Sadam Housine, are ‘blonde brute’ heros. ‘Categorical Imperative’, became their hate, as Nietzsche expressed: 56

Christianity is the religion of pity. Pity oppresses the noble passions which heighten our vitality. It has a depressing effect, depriving us of strength. As we multiply the instances of pity, we gradually lose our strength of nobility. Pity makes suffering contagious and under certain conditions it may cause a total loss of life and vitality out of all proportion to the magnitude of the cause. . .. Pity is the practice of nihilism. About ‘Pity is the practice of nihilism’, Nietzsche meant to say this! He admitted to being a nihilist. And he deliberately meant that pity should be purged from thought and reason. When conservatives say, Liberals are

bleeding hearts,’ they portray Nietzsche’s ‘brutish’ values! (Which are totally contrary to Christ’s ‘categorical imperative’ teachings.) And axiomatically they emulate Nietzsche’s philosophic prejudice! Which prejudice is an ally to Comte’s ‘positivism?’ Both are philosophic forms of materialism-based dogma that when affirmed as antecedent principle deliberately denies Immanuel Kant’s reason-based finding: that truth, ethical morality,’ ‘justice,’ . . ., is of noumena, which fails causally to comport with the determinism of mechanisms: only achievable by deliberate reason in pursuit of ‘truth.’ A nothingness of ‘nihilism’ exists whenever humans close their minds to independent deliberate reason. And ‘belief’ in materialismbased dogma is of Brahminist design to close minds to independent truths. How right-wing religious orthodoxy corresponds to philosophic nihilism, revisits the puzzling enigmatic dilemma which Kant confronted.

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

And from which Kant distinctly concluded noumenon and phenomenon as separate parts of human being. Answers to the Kantian dilemma are implicit of philosophic values, only achievable by way of philosophy. Dogmatically the ‘nihilism’ of ‘religious orthodoxy’ is antithetical to the philosophic foundation of democracy:‘rational empiricism.’ Right-wing conservatism is ‘agenda-based’ on the fallacious assumption of a deified ‘absolute’ authority, as ‘monarchy.’ This ‘religious orthodoxy’ has the fallacious agenda to deny the human capability to reason, as Durant observed:57

Ultimately, our troubles are due to dogma and deduction; we find no new truth because we take some venerable but questionable proposition as the indubitable starting point, and never think of putting this assumption itself to a test of observation or experiment. Religious orthodoxy contends that deified authorities divinely effect ‘absolute’ answers and judgements: therefore engagement of or challenge from unwanted deliberate reason is heresy (witness the ongoing debate pitting Creationism against Evolution). In this, Religious orthodoxy, as nihilism, departs from Jefferson's portrayal of the only abiding ‘reality’ of our sovereign nation.58

But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans. We are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. Here, in the aspect that they had decided to leave their old-worldcircumstances for their temporal life’s prospects in which they could participate in deciding an organic direction and outcome, Jefferson concluded that all Colonial Americans had acted as Liberals. Without admitting logically fallacious philosophic error, religious orthodoxy cannot abide the challenges of individually enlightened deliberate reason. In perpetuating dogmatic error, Religious orthodoxy fits the category of a class of ‘ditto head’ sycophants rather than a class of common knowledge obtained by open exchanges of deliberate reason: The philosophic base of

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

Religious orthodoxy is, therefore, patterned on Hinduism: a caste system of priests and intellectuals who, by designing dogma, control the minds and actions of the religious under castes. Conservatism, the word, obviously is derived from conserve: to keep things as they are, apposed to innovation and change. And when opposition to change is innately centered, all men, of habit, are so implicated. We are all conservative and of habit. However, we should also be reasonable. Mostly, natural conservatism reacts to philosophic change: ‘if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.’ Persuaded more by reason than convention, ‘rational empiricists’ sponsor change. For this sponsorship they are ‘radicals.’ In conservative frames, i.e., a lack of this fundamental meaning, R. L. Heilbroner’s analysis of Adam Smith’s economic system this natural conservatism applies:59

In a sense his system presupposes that eighteenth-century England will remain unchanged forever. Only in quantity will it grow: more people, more goods, more wealth; its quality will remain unchanged. His are the dynamics of a static community; it grows but it never matures. And while conservatism enjoys natural status-quo-political inertia, it is ill equipped to recognize, let alone be a sponsor of needed change. All progress involving matters of truth are about rational awareness and maturity, therefore, are liberal in nature. Conservative, in the sense of political agendas and depending on the political standing of established mores and philosophic ‘Absolute idealism,’ takes on more subtle meanings. ‘Rational empiricist’ must always entreat status quo inertia that is successful, i.e., when successful liberal politics becomes part and parcel of such static conservatism. In the face of change, ‘Conservatives’ generally control politically to impose their will and can be expected to either return to where things were or install dogmatic controls to thwart the proposed reason-based changes by ‘liberals.’ This rationalirrational political revolution never ends. In U.S. culture, the philosophical hybrid form of government is an ‘Absolute Idealism’ and ‘Rational Empiricism’ mixture. In which Conservatives, in their dogmatic belief, contend that ‘liberal’ values relate

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

commonly, philosophically to values common to ‘communism’: Both, they contend, sponsor economic socialism. This opinion is not reason driven, and constantly, therefore, it is paradoxical. Oppositely, American ‘liberals,’ with good reason, should be concerned that ‘conservatives’ and ‘communists’ are philosophically related by the common dogmatic belief in unitary materialism. Their ‘absolutist’ notions of political economy are fundamentally the irrationally dogma-based values that are prone to fascism. Still, the true ‘liberal’ might be represented in men as Theodore Parker, a Transcendental Minister. His view of the American Constitution caught the amalgamated admixture of conservative and liberal values represented in the politics of republican-Whigs and agrarian democrats. Parrington recorded this about Parker: 60

[Parker] had his own views of the American government, and majestic appeals to the Constitution left him cold. The Constitution, he asserted, ‘as a provisional compromise between the ideal political principles of the Declaration, and the actual selfishness of the people North and South. America was not a democracy. It had thrown off theocracy, aristocracy, and monarchy, only to set in their places ‘ the institution of money -- the master of all the rest.’ . . . He declined to be deceived by party cries and platforms, either Whig or Democratic; both parties served economics rather than justice. So there is a party organization about the dollar as its central nucleus and idea. The dollar is the germinal dot of the Whig party; its motive is pecuniary. . . . It sneers at the poor; at the many; has a contempt for the people. It legislates against the poor, and for the rich . . . the few who are born with the desire, the talent, and the conventional position to become rich. ‘Take care of the rich, and they will take care of the poor,’ is its secret maxim. Everything must yield to money. . . . With this party there is no Absolute Right, no Absolute Wrong. . . . There is Expediency and Inexpediency. . . . Accordingly a millionaire is reckoned by this party as the highest production of Society. He is the Whig ideal; he alone has attained ‘the measure

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

of the stature of a perfect man.’ The Democratic party appeals to the brute will of the majority, right or wrong; it knows no Higher Law. There is no vital difference between the Whig party and the Democratic party; no difference in moral principle. The Whig inaugurates the Money got; the Democrat inaururates the desire to get money. That is all the odds. . . . There is only a hand rail between the two, which breaks down if you lean on it, and the parties mix . . . a Democrat is but a Whig on time; a Whig is a Democrat arrived at maturity; his time has come. A Democrat is a young Whig who will legislate for money as soon as he has got it; a Whig is an old Democrat who once hurrahed for the majority -‘Down with money! There is a despot! And up with the desire for it! Down with the rich, and up with the poor!’ The young man, poor, obscure, and covetous, in 1812 was a democrat, went a-privateering against England; rich, and accordingly ‘one of our eminent citizens,’ in 1851 he was a Whig, and went a-kidnapping against Ellen Crafts and Thomas Sims.61 The America of Parker’s day was fast becoming middle class and Parker knew it, and like Lincoln he did not disaprove. Philosophic differences between ‘absolute idealists’ and ‘communists’ are about organic economy’s structure: market-based free enterprise vs ‘state owned’ and ‘state run’ enterprise. However, in both, ‘unitary materialism’ is fundamental dogma that denies noumenon. Capitalist conservatives, maybe credulously, feign religion, as they feign patriotism. Communists, by admitting religious disbelief, are more honest: ‘Conservative Whigs,’ who sponsored American System Capitalism, also sponsored mechanism, which is economic determinism-based dogma. Calhoun’s research of democracy, found irrational justification for Greeks’ rationalized sovereignty, which entailed property-based treasures (excepting of slave ownership), to represent wealth. Reasonably, therefore, it can be said that Whiggish hate of communism is Plato’s concept of belief-based ‘truth’ mixed with credulous, maybe nihilistic, dishonesty: Whigs purest

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

worship is, therefore, of mammon: B. Russell observed this nature of truth, about adverse nihilistic effects of dogmatic belief in unitary materialism: 62

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. Because the philosophic base of conservatism is belief in dogma called ‘materialism,’ with its corollaries of mechanism-based determinism inherent of positivism, and nihilism, it is irrational for the fundamental reason that Russell observed: in this, conservatives rhetorically indict liberals for being related to conservatism’s arch enemy: Communism. In their irrationalism, conservatives believe sincerely that liberal is evil incarnate, which ends in nothing more than ‘sick rhetoric’ that fails either to cohere or correspond to the pure truth. Philosophically, the difference of democracy and communism is the common to the difference between democracy and fascism; noumenal faculties of human reason are uniquely celebrated philosophically in democracy: the human noumenal relationship to nature’s Creator is necessarily important! Compatibilities of democracy with either communism or fascism incurs only temporal materiality.

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

to ‘cohere’ with nature’s noumenal values. And natural phenomenal principles, require that human perceptions ‘correspond’ with natural phenomenal factual inferences. C. Crouch gave this depiction of conservative in the U. S.: 63

There has been a reaction against the centralized welfare state [political economies which tend toward socialism] in the form of rightwing backlash movements against high taxation and state welfare -the most dramatic examples being the formation of new political parties organized on this basis in Denmark and Norway and the shift in position of British Conservatism. [Tax-based health care is common.] The generic nature of subjective conservatism, i.e., is inward-turned, is here depicted: rather than instilling as ethical policy Adam Smith’s ‘moral approbation,’ its prejudice hardens, while failing to recognize the economic effects of causal mechanisms which fundamentally are villains of economic cost. Conservative finds relative but insignificant meaning in inferences made by C. K. Rowley: 64

The fact that Liberalism remains 'one of the main strands in the history of political and economic thought in Western Europe and the English-speaking world' is due in large part to the enduring contributions of great philosophers of the past, notably Locke [Two Treatises of Government, 1924], Hume [Essays, Moral, Political and Literary, Oxford Universities press, 1963] and Mill [On Liberty, 1859 -- Penguin, 1974], and to lesser extent to the minority contributions of a small number of eminent political economists of the present, notably Lachmann, Machlup and Hayek. It owes nothing whatsoever to the writings of Arrow, Bergson, Samuelson and of Sen, writers all who would be viewed by many as conservative rather than radical contributors to modern political economy. One finds no enduring economic philosophy, particularly a philosophy of utility (which provides measures of naturally ‘radical’ antecedent principle), in the foundations of conservatism unless, of course, one considers an absence of utility in its philosophic base (utility is lost as

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

teleology and antecedent principles are lost because of displacements by affirmed dogmatic belief). Rowley surely did not say that Arrow, Bergson, Samuelson and Sen were political conservatives. In this framework, R. Hughes becomes more clear: 65

In the '80s, one of the features of the electoral scene was a public recoil from formal politics, from the active reasoned exercise of citizenship. This trend is no longer affordable. It came because Americans didn't trust anyone. It was part of the cafard [feeling of overwhelming fatigue and indifference to duties and surroundings] the 80s induced. In effect, the Republican and Democratic Parties since 1968 have practiced two forms of conservative policy, one episodically liberal [about political economy] and the other aggressively not. Both are parties of upper-middle-class interests . . . The whole apparatus of influence in Washington is geared to lobbying by big business, not to input from small citizen groups. As E. J. Dione eloquently argued in his book ‘Why Americans Hate Politics,’ there is no bloc in Congress or the Senate that truly represents the needs or opinions of people in the enormous central band of American life where workers and the middle class overlap.

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

His are the dynamics of a static community; it grows but it never matures. [In this, Heilbroner recognized the lack of teleology.] Corporations lack transcending nations as allegiance and citizenship. But legally they possess and wield material power and authority. Since Lincoln and the Civil war, Whig-influenced conservatism (paternalistic ‘internal improvements,’ GOP’s politics, as mechanistically skewed to the rich and powerful, of course) has clearly catered government’s paternalism to ‘business’ with democratic liberalism scurrying after fair shares of the government’s ‘pork barrel’ gifts. What other choice does liberalism have? The tenets of this Whiggish paternalism would normally be called ‘extortion’ but no principal human cast was an apparent victim: only the general wage-earner tax-base was duped. Unravel the inflation and the primary source of rising taxation becomes evident. The systemic extortion has galled me throughout my career in the technical fields of insurance. But until a younger brother fell through our political economy’s cracks,’ I failed to dedicate concern or reason. Only then did I write this about justice’s common failures. SOME CALL IT JUSTICE. OTHERS DO NOT!

In this contemporary political reality, Hamilton can be touted as prophetic: He had argued that sovereignty of the common masses would always be taken or purchased by the rich and powerful. But he, as Adam Smith, failed to perceive of the political dominance of corporate entities that transcend the national borders (drive U.S. foreign policy).66

For although he saw an evolution for society, [Adam Smith] did not see the Industrial Revolution. Smith did not see in the ugly factory system, in the newly tried corporate form of business organization, or in the weak attempts of journeymen to form protective organizations, the first appearance of new and disruptively powerful social forces. In a sense his system presupposes that eighteenth-century England will remain unchanged forever. Only in quantity will it grow: more people, more goods, more wealth; its quality will remain unchanged.

109

WHICH CALL IS TRUTHFUL? * * I released this document only to a few persons of influence and involvement. Thereafter, my brother was released and eventually had his conviction expunged.

----

‘Up to 15 years in prison’ and payment of a $2,800 fine was the sentence for not having filed Utah’s tax forms. Alleging the wage-earner owed $2,500, a special task force of Utah’s tax authority prosecutors, convicted the tax protester.

The cost to taxpayers for prosecuting and incarcerating this otherwise law abider was not disclosed! Estimates of the annual cost to incarcerate felons, run more than twenty times the alleged tax-debt owed in this instance: this jail sentence imposed onto taxpayers up to fifteen installments, i.e., twenty times the alleged tax-debt owed,? And still, court costs are not

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

considered. The politicians, in this instance, claim they are ‘fiscally conservative’ (Don’t they all?). If they were on a fishing expedition and caught a small fish, they would return the fish to the pond. And in the conduct of their own fiscal affairs, they surely would carefully weigh the potential ‘cost of recovery’ against the ‘gain of recovery.’ In positions of authority, conservative politicians practice nihilism: the taxpayer, as the accused felon, is an inconsequential ‘nothing’ in the irrational administering of such lawful justice. To the fiscal conservative’ politician, the economic problem is both personal and social: more for insurance than justice. And, when prosecution occurs because the power of it is enjoyed, then personal afflictions (narcissism) of power, as meted by court authority, becomes more costly to society, as a proliferating source of tax increases, than do small individual tax debts? ---In Nevada, for conning a widow out of her $25,000 savings the con receives a suspended sentence.

Clearly, these stock owners held positions of sufficient corporate influence

Bill Frist, who in 2006 is the Senate Majority Leader, owns stock in this corporation and failed to put it into a completely blind trust.

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

to negotiate the personal ‘pay off’‘ in exchange for acquiescing their vote. And each of them are allowed to defer paying personal income taxes until their portion of corporate stock is sold? As directly negotiated, the IRS allowed the merged corporation, Columbia/HCA, to account as a business loss, about three fourths of the $525 million value of stock given to the exclusive group of executives. The $205 million difference between the amount which the IRS alleged Columbia owed and the amount they settled for was transferred systematically onto other income tax payers: mostly ware-earners. Without paternalistic accounting means to similarly reduce their taxable income, wage-earners generally are the ‘other taxpayers.’ Lawyers will tell you that corporations cannot be bought or sold. I expect they will also tell you: that ‘payoffs’ in exchange for merger were not bribes; and that ‘taxpayers’ cannot claim their taxes were caused to increase because of such legal corporate chicanery. ----

Amway gave $5 million to the Republican Party. In committee negotiations at midnight, without any consideration or vote from the House or the Senate, Amway got a $200 million tax break which represents a contribution from taxpayers to Amway in return for the $5 million contribution to Republican Party.67

----

The Tobacco Industry received a tax break to offset the cigarette tax increase and the money they will pay for medical expenses caused by smoking. The taxpayers, therefore, will pay these costs as a consideration for the contributions the Tobacco Industry made to the political parties.68

The widow initiated prosecution and then received no financial relief. ---In Tenn., the IRS alleged that Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. owed taxes amounting to $276 million. Officials of Columbia/HCA said that $525 million of stock value paid to about 100 executives was properly accounted as a business loss. This reduced Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.’s taxable income and they owed no taxes. The IRS settled for $71 million. (What similar remedies are available to wage-earners who claim to owe nothing and are not allowed the accounting paternalism of creatively claiming business losses to reduce their tax liability?) ---More than 100 corporate executives were given the $525 million worth of stock in exchange for their vote to merge Hospital Corporation of America with Columbia Healthcare."

109

Article I, section 9 of the Constitution provides this instruction to the whole of Congress: Appropriations are to be made by law. Despite this, the most powerful members of Congress, behind closed doors, routinely negotiate with impunity: they distribute special government-paternalism which is paid for by taxpayers. *** Apparently, the unethical practices of businessmen and legislators are not of great concern to civil authorities. However, regardless of the

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

cost-benefit that necessarily is implicated, prosecuting wage-earners for failure to file tax forms is more important: is legally made a capital crime! : a felony in fact.

following passage written by V. L. Parrington about President Andrew Jackson’s concern with officially sanctioned mechanist economic determinism:69

---Who in the above scenario are statutorily and absolutely the designated lawful taxpayers of The American System of Political Economy? ---And, who benefits from government’s paternalism?

Clay’s pleasant dream of a paternalistic prosperity for America got its first rude awakening from General Jackson and his motley following of western equalitarians and eastern proletarians. Gentlemen were suddenly reminded that the plain people had been overlooked in the distribution of benefits. The waters of prosperity, it would seem, had been trickling somewhat too scantily to them from the great reservoirs where they were impounded; and as they saw the wealth pouring into private ponds through governmental pipe lines, a natural human envy took possession of them. In theory the pipelines belonged to them, and the impounded waters were to be used for common irrigation; but in practice the mains seemed to conduct only to Lowell industrialists and Philadelphia and New York capitalists, and the waters turned out to be privately owned. As the recognition of this fact came home to the producing mass it provided a rallying point for an antimonopolist movement . . .*

----

Does political orthodoxy serve Justice or Injustice? ...

The main dichotomy of temporal justice, which naturally implicates the above examples, deals with two mindful divisions of reality: ‘a priori’ (which Socrates declared were attributes of the human soul), and ‘a posteriori’ meanings, as based on experience (wisdom or orthodoxy). In ‘a priori’ reality, justice must oblige the unalienable human rights, as The Declaration of Independence, and more particularly specified in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. In the ‘a posteriori’ factual reality, a paradox, of justice according to law and justice apart from law, is commonly confronted. " ‘Good’ persons usually do not face the justice of lawful indictments, because, apart from law, an ethical conscience is presumed as their constant guide. Others, more particularly the outstanding, who, in belief and action, demonstrate they’re ‘better’ than ‘good,’ skillfully use law to their advantage, and apart from law they consider ‘just’ whatever they get away with: ethics is for losers, as Alexander Hamilton concluded! : conservatives, who in ‘positivism,’ excuse by mindful nihilism the need of ethics, are generally a society’s aristocrats. JUSTICE, as determined by U. S. ‘positive law,’ is clearly different from place to place, and hinges upon passports in political economy’s constituencies: depending upon each judge’s relative isolation from political dependency and, which court has jurisdiction? Still, the interfering political flux, which determines the orthodox meaning of justice (or injustice in fact), has remained surprisingly constant in American history. Consider the

As was quite aptly portrayed in the movie “Justice for All.”

* As corporate banks merge, small business and individual customers are of least concern. Personal rewards of the merger game are the primary focus. As the recognition of [facts settling on the] producing mass [will it again]

provide a rallying point for an anti-monopolist movement? Jackson’s concern was about general access to currency; economic determinism favored those constituencies which controlled the ‘reservoirs and pipe lines’ of Banking. Those with preferred passports were allowed more than others and those without passports got none of the waters of prosperity. This banking reality has not changed. When small banks are merged into bigger banks, the waters of prosperity dry up for many without passports. Benjamin Franklin was both great and prolific in expressing and doing what his deliberately ethical conscience dictated. In 1760 Franklin wrote about labor as the measure of value years before Adam Smith adopted

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

it and reaffirmed it in ‘The Wealth of Nations.’ 70

Manufactures are founded in poverty. It is the number of poor without land in a country, and who must work for others at low wages or starve, that enables undertakers to carry on a manufacture, and afford it cheap enough to prevent the importation of the same kind from abroad, and to bear the expense of its own exportation. . . . In 1769, in his Positions to be Examined, concerning National Wealth, Franklin stated this:

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

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

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

give way to general interest; but individuals manage their affairs with so much more application, industry, and address, than the public do theirs, that general interest most commonly gives way to particular. We assemble parliaments and councils, to have the benefit of their collected wisdom; but we necessarily have, at the same time, the inconvenience of their collected passions, prejudices, and private interests. By the help of these, artful men over power their wisdom and dupe its possessors; and if we may judge by the acts, arrets, and edicts, all the world over, for regulating commerce, an assembly of great men is the greatest fool upon earth?“ Also consider the following assessment by the house of Adams (particularly consider Brooks Adams’ assessment):71 . . . and in these early years of the 1890s (Henry Adams) was

stimulated by Brooks Adams, who was then deep in his theory of the law of civilization and decay and had come to lean heavily on the [fallaciously dogmatic] principle of economic determinism. “Brooks Adams had taught him,” he said later, “that the relation between civilizations was that of trade . . .” “. . . (Henry Adams) philosophy of history, as he came finally to understand it, was expressed thus: . . . The work of internal government has become the task of controlling these men, who are socially as remote as heathen gods, alone worth knowing, but never known, and who could tell nothing of political value if one skinned them alive. Most of them have nothing to tell, but are. . . as dumb as their dynamos, absorbed in the development or economy of power.” Parrington also wrote this about Brooks Adams publication in 1895, The Law of Civilization and Decay, which . . . based its conclusions on physics and economics.

“. . . The eviction of the peasants from their lands had already provided a plentiful supply of cheap labor, the machinery of credit and exchange had been created, and with this immense influx of capital the

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

Industrial Revolution was a matter of course. . . . [England’s] Bank Act of 1844, which yielded the control of the currency to the bankers, marked the definite transfer of sovereignty to Lombard Street; Samuel Lloyd, the banker, completed the work begun by Thomas Cromwell, burgess-advernturer -- the work of bringing England under the authoritative sway of the principle of greed [a polite way of describing ‘economic determinism of political economy’ in the U.S.].

Since 1844 western civilization has lain helpless under the heel of the usurer, who levies his tax upon production by expanding and contracting currency at will, and rules society through his control of the political state. The triumph of the economic mind is complete. The aristocracy which wields this autocratic power is beyond attack, for it is defended by a wage-earning police, by the side of which the legions were a toy -- police so formidable that, for the first time in history, revolt is hopeless and is not attempted. The only question which preoccupies the ruling class is whether it is cheaper to coerce or bribe.” Clearly, mechanism-based economic determinism (political economy in which accumulated treasure rather than wealth dominates) is artful rationalization rather than rational Bill of Rights’ ethics. Ever since the 1860s when the American System of Political Economy was administratively installed by government, the licensing of privatized economic determinism included private organic entities with economic constituencies. This is to say, the ways and means of taxes to government and patronage from government were added to the economic channels of banking (banking became an unofficial integral of government). In effect, the government licensed businesses to function as agencies of government and the private controllers became an essential if not primary function of government. Soon thereafter, banking was also made a more formal agency of government. With the licensing of business, to agencies of government, constitutional purposes obviously were forgotten: purposes, which are everyone’s concern

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

In Las Vegas, the mechanist economy uses police and justice to collect casinos’ markers. What public consented sanction gave this purpose to police and justice for to side with casino looting? Maybe the gaming public would like an even handed justice to serve their wagering?

We . . . in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution. Politicians of nature are artisans of sophistry. And, they control of the mechanist economic determinism in the U.S. and to ever greater extent the world. A popular view favors Tom Blair’s political quip:72

Politicians are like diapers. They both should be changed often. And for the same reason. A ‘Balanced Budget Amendment’ would endorse Congress’s economic mechanism’s commonly administered injustice, more commonly called economic determinism. The conventionally unjust abusive power, which represents political flux rather than taxpayers, is sure to prevail (as common law) to make the unethical injustice of political economy patronage the highest law of the land. Legislators are nihilistically conditioned to not know what ethics is about. About teleological ethics, Socrates, expressing his sense of ethical duty, said this to Crito, about his offer to escape: 73

Leave me then, Crito, to fulfil the will of God, and to follow whither he leads. [Did Socrates refer to his God of Truth?] Teleological Ethics is akin to pure truth, knowledge and natural justice. All are ethereal products of the human noumenal mind. They are not based on experience with the materialities of nature. Rationalization and falsehood are also of mind, the contrivances of which are based on the concupiscence of greed rather than ethics. 74

Ethics distinguishes itself from law and etiquette in going deeper into the essence of rational existence. Louis P. Pojman

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

The dogma (materialism) compromises ethics and truth. Bertrand Russell’s following observation of the nature of truth is about the adverse nihilistic effects of dogmatic belief materialism: 75

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. End of commentary about justice Our speak softly but carry a big stick President, Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt’s strong ‘antitrust philosophy’ for business and ‘square deal’ policies for workers, stand out as exceptional conservative Republican policy. Roosevelt’s bid for a second term was defeated by his more circumspect conservative members. Responsible conservative politics and Conservatism-based Political Economy is contrasted, in accounts of him, as compared with his opposition. Teddy Roosevelt, portrayed the Republican Party’s ‘progressive’ faction, which in fact displayed or coopted radical liberalism. However, because righteous conservative political ad hominem had since Jefferson’s presidency branded liberal politics as radical, even treasonist, ‘progressive’ was the less radical conservative choice. And, with ‘liberalism’ not fully recovered from ashes of the Gilded Age political popularity and pork barrel patronage delivered mechanistically by the American System of Political Economy, Teddy Roosevelt’s ‘progressivism’ at the time faced strong conservative rejection. Roosevelt’s dedication to a strong military presence was maybe his only compatibility with the traditional conservative Republicans of then and now. As to political economy, his ‘progressive’ antitrust fetish was purely Jeffersonian. His first message to Congress expressed this:

Captains of industry . . . have on the whole done great good to our people, [but] real and grave evils [of economic] combination and concentration should be, not prohibited, but supervised and, within

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

reasonable limits, controlled. To this call for action, in 1903, Congress established the Department of Commerce and Labor. Roosevelt previously had told Congress that the forest and water problems are perhaps the most vital internal problems in the United States. And Congress passed the Reclamation act of 1902. Despite threatening conservative opposition, his call for laws to control the nation's railroads resulted in the 1906 Hepburn Railway Rate Act. Also in 1906, he influenced the passage of The Meat Inspection Act and the Food and Drugs act. The more circumspect conservatives held his progressive (liberal) administration responsible for the stock crisis of 1907. As his presidency ended, Republican’s had divided into conservative and progressive factions. Parrington's account of French Radicalism and English Liberalism, parallels, in certain aspects, American Conservatism. 76

French Radicalism, then, was driving in the same direction with English Liberalism, but it went much further. Both desired a loosening of the machinery of centralized power as represented by the political state; but whereas English Liberalism protested against a paternalism that diminished its profits, French Radicalism struck at the principle of centralization. Political institutions it regarded as artificial agencies for the purposes of exploitation -- the state was little more than a tax machine; whereas the living source and wellspring of every true civilization is social custom, voluntary association, free exchange. The root of French Radicalism was anarchistic, and its ideal was an agrarian society of freeholders. . . A pronounced individualism characterized both movements, French and English; but in the one case it was humanitarian, appealing to reason and seeking social justice, in the other it was self-seeking [inward-turned], founded on the right of exploitation, and looking toward capitalism. In Parrington’s context, conservatism in America seems more attuned to French Radicalism: as the political battle-lines, which confronted Social Security clarified this American Conservative character. Social Security was

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

born of anything but political tranquility. And the political foundation that sustains Social Security rests in worker expectations of a fair entitlement to their economic means in retirement. 77

The administrative structure of the program reinforced the idea that social security was contributory insurance and not a handout. Participants had accounts identified by account numbers. They could -- and many did -- inquire about how much they "had" in those accounts. The social security program paid staff to keep account records even though actual benefits would be determined by earnings, not by contributions. These visible manifestations were vital, as [Franklin Delano] Roosevelt clearly understood. A management expert named Luther Gulick told Roosevelt in 1939 that the clerks adding up the sums in each participant's account were wasting their time and the government's money, to the tune of $1 million per year. Roosevelt observed, "Luther, your logic is correct, your facts are correct, but your conclusion's wrong. Now I'll tell you why. That account is not useless. That account is not to determine how much should be paid out. That account is there so those sons of bitches up on the Hill can't ever abandon this system when I'm gone." (From an interview with Luther Gulick by Michael McGreary, February 28, 1980, as cited in Jones and Neustadt, Social Security, 23.) To this day, those who want to trim social security try to explain that it is not really contributory, that a large fraction of the benefits are redistributive rather than earned, that it is not an insurance program. But to little effect. They are right, but their being right makes little difference. When 35 million recipients feel that their benefits are justly earned, there is little short-run prospect for changing the basic character of the system. The political battle lines involving Social Security have existed since its inception. In fact, they have existed ever since the world's greatest liberal experiment with a most unusual cardinal noumenal sovereign: We, The People, as constitutional suffrage had provided. And the roots of these

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

political battle-lines are found in the cracked foundation of this unusual sovereignty: Conservatives, as Hamilton, tending toward an English system of government with a strong center of power (a Hobbesian Leviathan, which Whigs achieved by the legal means of affirming ‘fictitious sovereignty’ as exhibited in the forces and powers of ‘fictitious person’ corporations) and liberals as Jefferson favoring a Democratic Republic with a weak center of power (and particularly no Hobbesian Leviathan). Liberals had no perception that the natural agrarian-based economic system would be replaced by a political economy that political conservatism, with the help of ‘positive’ legislation and ‘positive’ legal interpretation, which entitled affluence to economic paternalism would turn the U.S. into an economic Leviathan similar to England’s that had economically dominated all. (In the U.S., the political economy driven by powerful fictitious person corporations, as licensed and protected by legal fictitious states’ sovereignty, with perpetual charters, would within one century’s time become the U.S. political economy Leviathan) Our Conservative Hawks, today, often point out that our Liberals are ‘not suited’ for power because of ‘philosophical softness’: inferring, of course, that Liberal's don't have the ‘guts’ when it comes to ‘pulling the trigger’ of the philosophic Sovereign Gun (In this, Conservative Hawks demonstrate their presumption of Hobbesian aggression in the Hindu form of Siva, the destroyer, and which was shown earlier to have common roots with both fascism and communism). For instance, the qualifications of the Commander in Chief then (President Clinton) are and undoubtedly will continue to be called into question as one avowed conservative charged: ‘He doesn't understand power.’ The Cold War defined this fundamental difference between American conservatives and liberals. And We, The People, must try to understand the critical implications of sovereignty which constitutionally, at least, is vested in a collective sovereignty of ‘We, the people’ (not just a Brahminist ‘us,’ as followers of Siva claim). Questions we should again address were raised by Jefferson:78

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

history answer this question. One might pose the questions differently, as, for instance: ---If the liberal state’s sovereignty is in fact represented by We, The People (whether or not we understand the meaning of power) how can hawkish conservatism serve our liberal state’s sovereignty? ---If hawkish conservatism does not serve the liberal state’s sovereignty of We, The People, what sovereignty does hawkish conservatism serve? (This question begs for answers as regards our war on terrorism, in which ‘the terrorists’ remains undefined.) ---Does Hawkish Conservatism trample the liberal state’s (We, the People-based) sovereignty by perceiving representative power as the mandates of a sectional election or the platform of a political faction, or worse, as the ‘fictitious’ power emanating from the separate State licensed mechanisms of the nation’s economic Leviathan? About war, defense and security, in the sense that the giant now international corporations claim to pay the greatest portion of the political influence tab (which political economy has allowed them to account as a cost of doing business " ), strong threads of the philosophies of both Hobbes (Leviathan) and Machiavelli (tough aristocracy) is found in the of American Conservative Politics’ sanctioning of covert actions. (Middle East oil has been central to our nation’s covert foreign actions for the past half century. Oil-Gate, Iran-Gate, the Mid-East War and even Water-Gate (illegal political campaign funds from Mid-East oil magnates) are implicated. In 2002, I wrote about this U.S. political conversion, which by policy affirmation rather than reason, philosophically remade the nation into a pseudo fascist state: comments, which I titled Ethereal Gold, are included in an addendum: beginning on p. 112. And now as our currency devaluates arbitrarily as an economic

Costs of doing business are apportioned to the costs of goods and services sold. In this manner, those who purchase the goods and services of business ultimately pay for the political contributions which dominate political economy. Political economy is the systemic transmission in which the full force of common sovereignty is channeled to business power.

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

effect of rising oil costs, imported oil could be the greatest culprit to have flowed huge amounts of American currency into foreign control in turn to erode our ability to hold the value of our currency stable in world trade. About this, Henry Kissinger wrote this:79

The economic crisis was over, at least until 1974 when the fivefold increase in the price of oil placed before the industrial nations the necessity of reassessing the entire world economic system. . . . The new system was bound to generate new pressures on the dollar, requiring sooner or later an even more basic structural reform of the world economic system. And this fact brings the actions of the Federal Reserve into greater question: when interest rates are raised to subdue inflation caused by international business exchange. In this action, one might perceive the ‘positive’ nature of the Fed: it addresses ‘the symptoms of inflation’ instead of ‘the cause of inflation.’ In this, the Fed makes the ‘economic dog’ smaller by cutting off some of its tail. Unfortunately the dog’s tail is where lowest incomes (wages earned) are found. The political contest embroiling affirmations of dogma has often sustained ‘conservative’ materialist dogma, which sometimes is called ‘Comtism’, i.e., ‘material-based positive reality’ controls as the orthodox popular belief that it is the only important reality. The dogmatic fallacious inference is this: spiritual-based, faith-based, or logical, i.e., noumenal realities, while the only source of truth, are made impotent by the political power and politics. When ‘conservative’ politics succeeds to sustain Comte’s positivism, the mechanism determined economic American ‘Leviathan,’ both of which are materialism persuaded, undeniably has a common dogmatic philosophical foundation with communism: and though we call ours ‘free enterprise,’ claiming that our economy is market driven (which is partly true), the communist economy is ‘state’ owned and run. And, while our public stock owned corporate ‘Leviathan,’ controls both the American ‘state’ and its ‘political economy,’ Hamilton’s practical sovereignty of property (increasingly foreign owned) controls it. ‘The devil of argument (as to purpose regarding Adam Smith’s wealth, i.e., goods and services produced to serve all) is inherent of the detail’ and this ‘devil’ embroils our politics

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

since before the Constitution. When Pat Buchanan says there is not a dime’s worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans, he is right. Both must ‘serve’ politically in accord with our materialist economic ‘Leviathan.’ However stark the differences are between rational spiritual-based noumenal reality and paradoxical dogmatic belief-based phenomenal reality, practical alternatives to the mechanist materialist political-economy are, therefore, limited to systems as Social Security, which apply the mechanist economy in a social usage manner. When steeped in dogmatic materialism and mechanism that nihilistically mask the conflated denial of noumenon, those, who would save democracy by sponsoring noumenal reality, must strive diligently to increase the public awareness of natural ‘necessities’, i.e., the essential needs of noumenon-based principles, which religious and economic dogma of divine right and materialism fallaciously conflate the noumenal necessities. And since ‘necessary’ realities are only found by those whose quest is ‘pure truth,’ these essentials are found only by ‘philosophers’ rather than empirical ‘fact counters.’ To serve our republican government of the people, for the people and by the people, ‘Let the philosophers rule!’ With values discovered only by reason: Socrates had provided and Plato furnished this thought. The philosophical processes of ‘reason’ require critical discipline to question, define, organize, analyze, communicate, . . .. 80

Without seeking, truth cannot be known at all. It can neither be declared from pulpits, nor set down in articles, nor in any wise prepared and sold in packages ready for use. Truth must be ground for every man by himself out of its husk, with such help as he can get, indeed, but not without stern labor of his own. J. Ruskin Noumena-based truth is pure and of ‘necessity.’ Fact-based truth (whether of natural phenomena or of ‘facts’ posited by humans) is ‘contingent’ and temporal: idioms as ‘even this will pass’ and ‘time cures all ills,’ attest to this common fallacy. The exclusive medium for finding truth (both ‘necessary’ and ‘temporal’) is independent, individual reason, the

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

human function of logos. St. John gave the proper name LOGOS to God’s intelligence. Like God’s, human intelligence is of noumenon, and it reflects God’s intelligence. The human body or viscus is a natural phenomenon, of which the logos of noumenon naturally is challenged to pursue (As stemcell research, which is of phenomena, not noumena as materialists contend, challenges this individual human noumenal logos). About positive fact-based, philosophy, that results in deductive logic that is nihilistic of noumenon, Auguste Comte (1798-1857), a sociologist (who, like ‘Indiana Jones,’ the archaeologist of movie fame), was only concerned with human posited ‘facts.’ Noumena-based truth is unimportant to the deductive scientific quest for factual evidences which underpin anthropology and sociology. Auguste Comte passionately believed his sociological quest essentially important and by affirming this empirical belief as his principle, he founded the philosophy, known as ‘positivism’ or ‘Comtism,’ which became known as ‘the Gospel of Reason:’ 81 which it surely isn’t. Comte‘s idealist philosophy reacted to, and opposed, Kant’s. By celebrating only positive ‘facts,’ it conflated by denial the importance of Kant’s noumena : Comte taught that ‘students should concern themselves only with facts that have an objective, ‘positive,’ existence.’82 Dogmatic influences, as the theory of ‘mechanism,’ suppressed further the importance of noumenon’s meaning: whether unwittingly or not, dogma, based on ‘materialism,’ also suppressed the only wellspring of common axiomatic noumenal values of pure truth and ethical morality, . . . , which, by processes of ontologism (intuitive knowledge), emulate the values of God’s intelligence, i.e., the predicate values found in the Creator’s Logos. Comte’s materialist philosophy denied the noumena of human intelligence, also God’s existence. " To enhance their organic power, religious ‘Brahminists,’ sided with

A contemporary political rage embroils ‘stemcell research.’ The stemcell is of phenomena, not noumena? Failing to distinguish the human logos from materiality entraps many by the nihilistic aspect of dogmatic belief (ignorance). The politics of ignorance is what Socrates’ Apologia is about.

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

their monarchs. ‘Brahminists’ (not nature) metamorphosed the axiomatic (antecedent celestial principle) status of noumenon to the dogmatic temporal ‘materialism’-based ‘Comtism:’ Rationalization, rather than reason, distinguishes this dogma. And, because dogma generally is not differentiated from authentic noumenal aspects of life, its negative effects on culture, while subtle, are certain. Then, fitting rationalized, theory-baseddogma to recorded scripture, ‘Brahminist’ monks served the orthodox ‘power.’ They modified history (the King James’ translation of I John 5: 79, for instance * ) to fit the dogma.

manifestations of nature’s noumenal powers of LOGOS). Humans also possess intelligent logos and they also posit ‘facts’ which appear as natural phenomena but differ as to inferences about values in the logos which posits them. For humans, whether of an external axiomatic nature to or of themselves, noumena encompasses ‘all that naturally is axiomatic.’84

* Comments made in the main text on this are excerpted here: I John 5: 7-9 (King James) became the focus of my curiosity:

As, for instasnce how Einstein ‘read’ God’s mind? And as difficult, how humans can be sure that what they believe, or claim to know is ‘true’? [And, while human intelligence is the axiomatic noumenal ‘something’ of a human (often called the soul), the human body, in Kant’s view, is a phenomenal posit made by natural LOGOS; rather than a fact posited by a human. " ] Still, human intelligence reflects God’s LOGOS, in ontologism that temporally is enigmatic.

‘For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.’ The simple, direct ‘word for word’ translation from the original Greek (Diaglott) startled me: for to fit with dogmatic meaning, had been changed by adding the phrase, and these three are one:

‘For there are three which testify.’ The footnote to this direct translation addressed the change that not only appeared in the King James translation but also to most others:83

This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; nor by any of the early Latin fathers, even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have led them to appeal to its authority. It is therefore evidently spurious; and was first cited (though not as it now reads) by Virgilius Tapsansis, a Latin writer of no credit, in the latter end of the fifth century; but by whom forged, is of no great moment, as its design must be obvious to all. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) presented his concepts of noumenon (human intelligence, for instance, is something that seems real, but cannot be truly understood) and phenomenon (Naturally posited ‘factual’

noumenon: 2. A thing in itself; something that remains of an object of thought after all the categories of understanding , such as space, time,[light, gravity], etc., have been removed from it

Do those, of dogmatic ‘positivism,’ for instance, deny that a noumenal human soul exists in each human to whom God’s LOGOS confirms by ontologism a testimony about ‘truth’ (I John 5: 7-10)? Because they believe in ‘unitary materialism’-based ‘Comtism,’ does their deduction, include the human soul: that, for lacking factual definition, the human soul is, therefore, of the same matter as the body and its visceral parts? [Thereby, in the same manner that St. John’s testimony of three separate axiomatic beings was conflated to (these three are one.), Transposing understanding by dogmatic affirmation] Do they, therefore, believe that first principles with noumenal values, as axioms (which are independent of experience-based understandings), are unimportant to truthful understandings of humans? Still, this does not answer why ‘contingent’ fact-based-values are deliberately dogmatized and by affirmations conflate the ‘necessary’ values

That is, until cloning became successful in an experimental achievement that still is enigmatic to the understanding of a human mind? And in any event is a posit made by a human rather than nature, which fails to qualify as being of inalienable characteristics.

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

of noumenon? In the cultural aftermath of silent dogmatic inculcation, which nihilistically infer that ‘noumenon’ is unimportant, is the fallacious results now evident (The legal system of common law in the U.S., for instance, uses the past case law adjudications as fiducial parameters to deciding contemporary justice)? ; Is this legal system, which increasingly is deliberately denuded of ‘necessary’ noumenal values (upon which pure justice should be based), intrinsically affected by Comte’s positivism (In forms of ‘legal positivism’)? 85

legal positivism, intending to oppose natural law theory, denies any ‘necessary connection between law and morality’. Central theses among a loose cluster: (1) law is definable and explainable without evaluative predicates or presuppositions; (2) the law (e.g. of England now) is identifiable from exclusively factual sources (e.g. legislation, judicial precedents). Some versions deny that there is knowable moral truth. Most understand positive law as products of will, some as imperatives. (Prof. John Finnis, University College, Oxford) The philosophical origins of noumenon Historically, with attention on noumenon, human intelligence isolated values exclusively based on ‘empiricism’ (a posteriori or consequential human postulated principles) from objective reasoned principles, as antecedent a priori axioms, inferred to exist in LOGOS for nature to posit the phenomenal part of human being: Kant’s concept of noumenon defined a values-dichotomy that distinguishes causal teleology from ontology, which includes both physics and metaphysics. Aping nature, by affirming ‘fictional’ dogmatic values to represent the eternal permanence of noumenon, American Whigs transgressed the temporal realitynoumenon barrier (which Plato had described in his Divided Line analysis). As influenced if not assured by ‘Comtism, ‘these dogmatic fictions are more often now assumed as the foundational axiomatic principles of deductive human logos. And by successive deductive processes, other related concerns of human experience are approved or disapproved. This deductive process apes the fallacious process of

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

proving mathematical theorems from false assumptions. However, begins with the false materialism assumption: ‘The proof of the pudding is in the pudding,’ however, as mathematics professors will tell their class, ‘unless pure values go in, the pudding’s quality is fundamentally made unreliable.’ Logical processes have been called the axiomatic method of postulating. J. N. Fujii wrote:86

Historically, the Greeks first developed the notion of a logical discourse based on a set of initial statements assumed at the outset. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) Noted ‘every demonstrative science must start from indemonstrative principles’ [In this, Aristotle concluded the natural need for axioms]; otherwise, the steps of demonstration would be endless.’ * [therefore it is logical, to Aristotle, that God must be an axiom] * While contemplating this Prologue, ‘axiomatic necessity’ was carefully contemplated as comparable to the ‘geometric necessity’ of the irrational number B (when relating the circumference of a circle to the circle’s diameter): like nature’s noumenon, B, as other irrational numbers also, must remain undefined except in the systemic whole context of a circle’s circumference? This also holds true for the time dimension of space. About inferential human intelligence, which conceived the correspondence of numbers with natural phenomena (digital science) and human posited ‘facts,’ shows human conception is an extension of noumenon. (Fujii contd.)

Euclid’s work, ‘The Elements, is no doubt the earliest attempt at developing an ‘axiomatic structure’ based on definitions and a few common [axiomatic] notions. His work has become so famous that the method and content have been almost completely identified. Entirely aside from content, the plan and method of logical organization turned out to be a contribution of the first magnitude... The European Renaissance marked the revival of Greek learning. A Latin translation of Euclid’s ‘Elements’ from the Greek was produced in 1572. This translation served as the reference for

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

many subsequent translations used in European and American schools. In 1686 Newton published his famous ‘Principia,’ which was organized as a deductive system.

The following excerpt from Plato’s ‘Divided line and the Allegory of the Cave’ (same reference as above) concluded the presentation about ‘Necessary & Contingent’ Truth (section 209.1).

About fiducial-value-parameters to human discipline required to emulate the natural-value-axioms of Pure Truth (truth associated with intelligent knowledge of the axiomatic Creator which posited and maintains all natural phenomena), the great mathematician, Rene Descartes, represented this human discipline necessary to lift humanity from the Dark Ages. He told this to us: 87

Whether true or false, my opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of Good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light, and the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power upon which he who would act rationally either in public or private life must have his eye fixed. Plato believed that the invisible, rational (noumenal) side of life is where

First to accept nothing until we can see its truth ‘clearly and distinctly.’ We must divide any difficult problem into smaller and smaller parts until we come to some proposition so simple that we see its self-evident truth. We can then build on this sure basis always proceeding by small, self-evident steps. [Descartes critical faith was like St. Thomas’ faith] The origin of existential Pure Truth, Descartes suggested, is this:

[The] certainty of [ones] own existence. It was possible to doubt everything else, but not one’s own existence. As soon as you try to doubt your existence, you see that you must exist as the doubter. You cannot doubt that which you are doubting. From this line of reasoning, Descartes proved as truth [to himself, which is the ultimate exclusive essential of reasoned " truth] the existence of God. About Plato’s forms of truth, C. H. Monson, Jr., wrote this: 88

Pay careful attention to the various parts of the divided line and notice how they are exemplified in the allegory. Plato believes [because of his own deliberate-critical reasoning that] reality consists of two aspects, that which is visible and that which is intelligible, and that the later is the more important.

Because ‘pure reason’ is objectively critical (apart from experiences), it assures that noumenal values of probity exist.

all ‘good’ is found: only by deliberate processes of reasoning. Six hundred years before Christ, Lao-Tse conceived of noumenal ‘necessity’ when he demonstrated fiducial parameters he called Sinderesis, a form of Categorical Imperative that universally human reason concludes. Kant and Hume provided great critical dialogue about ‘necessary’ and ‘contingent’ truth. However, G. W. von Leibnitz, who shared mathematical distinction with Isaac Newton (with developing The Calculus), declared a critical difference between truths of noumenon (necessity) and phenomenon (contingency). 89

There are two kinds of truths; those of reasoning and those of fact. The truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible; the truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. About Plato’s ‘divided line,’ on which side are the dogmatic predicate values of doctrine, as ‘materialism’ and ‘positivism,’ found? These dogmatic values are never on the noumenal side where human ‘intelligence’ finds ‘necessary truth.’ They are exclusively on the ‘Visible side’ where dogmatized mind conditioned ‘truths’ of ‘Opinion,’ analogous to ‘shadows,’ are commonly found? And, while those who reason critically and thereby understand ‘necessary’ (noumenal) truth, however, then choose fact-based predicate values (without culling from the clutter

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

of human experience the facts of phenomena , which, as manifestations of God’s LOGOS, infer the predicate values of God rather than of man) for the popular political advantages found there, do they, thereby, ‘walk in the light’ of God? Bossuet, on St. John’s Treatise on Concupiscence suggests this: 90 [they] are those who prefer visible and transient things [’facts ,’ only part of which are of nature, i.e., phenomenon] to those invisible and everlasting [noumenon]? Mortals as Confucius, Lao-tse, Plato, and Socrates, who were not mindconditioned by dogmatic Biblical doctrine, understood the purist possible meaning of Truth: Which Truth Moses told he received by ‘revelation.’91 ‘The Song of Moses,’ concluded with this:

For all his ways are Judgment: a God of [Troth] and without iniquity, just and right is he, confirms that Moses understood God’s axiomatic inferential language (pure noumena) which humans can understand by reasoning the inferential pure truth of nature-posited-factual evidences [pure phenomena]. Therefore, what Moses called ‘revelation,’ he may have obtained by critical prayerful reasoned contemplation: which is similar in manner as Plato, Confucius, Lao-tse, Einstein, or many many others have obtained their metaphysical ‘truths.’ The old-English word troth is an etymological root in the origins of temporal meanings of ‘truth.’ In the context which Moses referred to ‘truth,’ the predicate values of ‘troth’ are the purer in meaning (the fault is, therefore, of translation, which undoubtedly was unduly influenced by Brahminist ‘contingencies’ of mind controlling dogma as ‘positivism’): The predicate values of Troth, (faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, and promise), also connote the predicate values of God’s LOGOS which posited and sustain all realities of Creation. Unless mortals portray these values in their conduct, they are not ‘intellectually truthful’: In accordance with God’s ’troth,’ their values are incoherent (And, this sentiment was expressed by St. John in his first general Epistle:

‘If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the [Troth].’

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

And, since the predicate values of an organization’s logos are synthesizedgroup instead of individual values, ‘untruth,’ instead of ‘lying,’ is a better depiction of the predicate of fictitious logos that is untrue or disrespectful of the predicate values of the Creator’s LOGOS. Plato, Cicero, Russell, Einstein, . . ., were unreligious in the sense of organized religion but their predicate values were those of the ‘intelligence’ which St. John described as ‘walking in the light of God.’ Russell stands out in this ‘light’ for his logical criticism of truth’s common definitions: particularly ‘contingent truth, of opinion,’ which is based on dogma called materialism.92

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. About the ‘coherence definition’ of truth Russell wrote this: 93

Some schools of philosophy . . . maintain that in all our knowledge there is an inferential element, that all knowledge is an organic whole, and that the test of truth is coherence rather than conformity with ‘fact.’ I do not deny an element of truth in this view, but I think that, if taken as the whole truth, it renders the part played by perception in knowledge inexplicable. Here, Russell points out the ‘inexplicable’ nature of holistically Pure Truth, which is about ‘necessary’ coherence of noumenon (the coherence of human logos with the predicate of God’s pure truth, the Creator’s, LOGOS which posited the ‘organic whole’ of natural phenomena, rather than conformity with a ‘fact,’ as posited either by nature -- a phenomenon -- or by a human). The pure predicate of an ‘organic whole of knowledge’ is only found in the predicate of the Creator’s LOGOS (which posited and sustain all ‘necessary’ factual realities of Creation). It is found in Troth, or Covenant, i.e., in the values of faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, and promise.

PROLOGUE about Truth’s Fiducial Gauges

Unfortunately for humanity, common belief in dogma, as ‘materialism,’ ‘positivism,’ and ‘mechanism’ effectively replaces natural connectivity to all axiomatic noumenon: fictitious dogma-based doctrine fallaciously declared axiomatically, as ‘fictitious legal state’ or ‘fictitious legal person’ corporations, effectively superseded naturally reasoned truthbased noumenal concerns about ethics, probity, . . ., (While noumenal intelligence is indestructible, Kant’s concern when he contemplated the political-opinion-based philosophic determinism of his day, which adversely affected the inferences of natural phenomena, effected humanmade ‘facts’ which threatened whole species of ‘life’). Until Brahminist dogmatists prove that their contrived, then affirmed axiomatic fictions are based on the ‘organic whole of knowledge’, i.e., cohere to values which posited the natural phenomena of human experience rather than to a contrivance of human ‘desire,’ ‘belief’ thereby inculcated, is fraudulently ‘deliberate sophistry’ which leads humanity down a path of self destruction: This logically fallacious path, our ‘Brahminist’ intellectuals (social, economic, and religious), accomplished by installing by affirmation dogma-based values to human logos, and thereby supplanted cultural values of ‘necessity’ (noumenon) with values of ‘contingency,’ to posit what appears as nomena but instead are ‘facts’ of human contrivance. Then, at will (by the command of Brahminist organizational logos), are positioned politically to influence the cultural prejudice by positing by affirmation additional factual events that nudge political opinion in their favor: as oil prices were increased as the presidential election of 2000 approached.*

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

U.S. (as a political consortium," they are a giant monopoly that is highly political and their clout is evident by the contrived fact that this clout was central to U.S. foreign policy throughout the last half of the twentieth century): Despite repeated calls for repeal, the special tax break, the ‘oil depletion allowance,’ never became a seriously active political concern; Carter’s energy policies for alternative fuels to achieve energy independence was scuttled by Republicans (Reagan and Bush, and Bush again), while claiming to deregulate, never considered to revise the ‘oil depletion allowance;’ and Clinton while contending surprisingly well with extreme political opposition also failed to address oil dependency. What, if anything, did the U.S. oil moguls do to instigate or dissuade OPEC’s consorted decision with Mexico to reduce oil production? What influential ‘facts’ have they posited to effect their own desired political result? The main offices of this U.S. cabal of giant corporations are in Houston; it was their U.S. politics, enriched by $ millions (which included myriad conduits for foreign political contributions) that effectively sponsored, then installed President Nixon to office in 1968.94 U.S. oil moguls traded technology, machinery and skilled manpower for contractual rights to control the world wide oil markets, and without the U.S. oil moguls the Saudis and Mexico’s oil production could not affect the price of oil in the U.S. As middlemen ‘owners’ in control of oil’s pipeline, profit is derived whenever the price for crude oil changes: when the price increases, middlemen ‘owners’ profit from the oil in the pipeline, and when the price drops, middlemen ‘owners’ are slow to adjust the the price they charge consumers and still gain extra profit.

* The Saudis and Mexico contrived to slow oil production to raise the price of crude in the world markets: Pat Buchanan said this on Meet the Press (Sunday, March 12, 2000). But, where are the U.S. oil moguls in this scenario of contrivance? The price of oil and the politics of it in the U.S., is more about them than about foreign oil producers. U.S. oil moguls are closely tied to all world suppliers; they import and they export oil; they are the U.S. pipeline which is vertically tied to gas-pumps in the

Political power brokers act similarly, by nudging and fudging legal decisions to their favor: leaving the economic cost for others to pay. Consumers, for instance, pay for hidden taxes as economic inflation

This phrase was furnished by the 1965 World Book Dictionary: Iranian oil is now furnished by an international consortium of eight companies.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

endemism. * * Because federal deficits are a sort of mortgage that is left for future generations of taxpayers to resolve, and President G. W. Bush’s plan to privatize the Social Security Trust Funds, which government’s IOU to the SS Trust Fund primarily represents the inflation endemism load required to cover the SS benefits’ COLA (and, as Tim Russert reminded Meet the Press viewers that excessive federal deficits resulting from high end general revenue tax rebates represent a mortgage put onto future generations). Squarely and irrationally, the inflation cost was put onto SS contribution taxation, instead of onto general revenue taxation. And, when political economy’s idealist irrationalism is resolved, inflation endemism will wholly and squarely be general revenue taxation’s liability and not at all SS contribution’s taxation burden. In this reality, high end general revenue tax payers, whose income greatly derives from inflation, will be seen as liable for the multi trillion federal deficits, which as surplus SS contributions were prepaid to cover inflation in SS benefits, and which then government routinely spent as general revenue.

CONCLUDING LINGERING THOUGHTS While officially the Constitutional Convention neither sanctioned nor rejected Hamilton’s dogmatic deterministic mechanist materialist " prescription, eventually this dogma became the new nation’s legislative and administrative influence, i.e., the nation’s economic Operating Plan: The American System of Political Economy. This Operating Plan was deduced from the empirical absolute nomos-based dogma, which Hamilton had prescribed. Political flux in America is dynamic and flexible, however, and at times polarizes on Physis-based reason, as consented by the democratic sovereignty (we the people). The human nature’s will is complex: capable to generate dogmatic doctrine and determinist

Hamilton was a teenage law student when he joined the Colonial forces and fought in the campaigns of 1776 and 1777. In the summer of 1887, the Constitutional Convention met in response to Hamilton’s foresight.

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

materialist mechanisms, and also considers Roger Williams’s ‘social usage,’ which undoubtedly influenced this nation’s finest democratic sovereignty’s effects. Williams wrote this: 95

experience and reason, to secure for the individual citizen the largest measure of freedom and well-being. Social Security is pure Mutual Insurance, and because reasonable, rather than idealistic, this ‘social usage’ use is an example of pure truth. The United States’s economic Operating Plan is political and temporal. Fundamentally, empirically it was deduced from life’s temporal unitary materialities. And, paradox of it embroils the influences of mind with emotion, values with passions, will with essence. Paradox is inevitable and Aristotle’s spectrum of virtue applies. Virtue is essencebased on reasoned principle, i.e., is found where reasoned truth is found. * * Aristotle defined Virtue as the middle between the vices: the mean of excess and deficiency. Excess’s extreme is found in unitary materialist applications, which Adam

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

Smith warned threatened the universal benefits of his ‘market system.’ While Smith carefully explicated critically important requirements to the evolving natural economic revolution, Whigs, however, acted irrationally as the comically depicted ‘White Rabbit’ of Alice’s wonderland. They ignored Adam Smith’s warning about monopoly and treasure concentration (Smith carefully distinguished wealth as consumable goods and services, as the antecedent to treasure, which he explained was a means to creating or obtaining wealth). Monopolizing production and markets and treasure concentrations (hoarding) are now common. Economic Determinism was deduced from unitary materialism, taken as principle and asserted as causality doctrine. This fallacious deduction was called mechanism. Mechanism, therefore, is consequential to unitary materialism, its asserted principle. Natural antecedent principles require natural necessity: entails no reasonable contradiction. Bertrand Russell observed the adverse nihilistic effects of dogmatic belief in unitary materialism: 96

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

World Book gave this analysis of mechanism’s paradox:99

Mechanism is one of the two great philosophical theories of cause and effect in the universe. Opposed to the theory of mechanism is the theory of teleology. Any thing that grows and develops can be explained in two ways. Mechanism explains it from behind, in terms of its origins. Teleology explains it from the front, in terms of the goal it is seeking. About the heterodox view of ‘scientific man,’ which materialist absolutism always dogmatically challenges, Craig Thomas wrote this:

It is Cicero’s clarification and codification of Stoic natural law theory that influenced the early and medieval Christian thinkers, who preserved natural law theory and made it irrefutably dependent upon the Christian deity. It is a history of continuity that attends natural law theory rather than one of change or adaptation. We might encapsulate this continuity simply by comparing the original Stoic concept of the cosmopolis with that of ‘kingdom of ends’ Kant expounds in his essay ‘Perpetual Peace’ -- and similarities are remarkable. Natural law theory enshrined and preserved the ideas of equality of reason, justice, rights, and liberties. By doing so, it also preserved the conception of the unique value of each individual as a rational being and thus entitled to equality. Equally, the theistic origin or guarantee of natural law is also preserved. There is no profound change within, or decline of, natural law theory until the ‘materialism’ of the French Enlightenment, when reason becomes divorced from all theistic conceptions of the universe for, perhaps, the first time. There is continuity, too, in the Stoic conception of the passions as malfunctions of reason, as requiring government by the rational faculty in human nature, together with the sense of transcending mere ’nature’ through the employment of reason in the pursuit of knowledge. It is a tradition that reawakens in Descartes and Spinoza, however applied or altered, in their emphasis upon

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

reason as the essence of human nature and existence, particularly in Spinoza’s ideals of liberty and justice and in his theory of the necessity of reason to subdue the [orthodox] order of the ‘passions.’ Natural law theory, in other words, illuminates the theories of the great rationalists, just as it forces upon us a recognition of the tradition to which Kant belonged and upon which Locke drew. In Stoic and Roman thought, therefore, natural law theory is nothing less than a theory of human ‘identity,’ since it avoids all classifications of human beings into groups or classes or within any exclusive idea of citizenship or even the status of the ‘wise’ in human society. It allows and promulgates a common identity to all human beings as opposed to any more partial means of identification, just as it establishes the spirit of any legal system or positive law, which must imitate and embody natural law. . . . What become in Locke ‘inalienable rights’ are those very principles which admit the equivalence of identity (and therefore significance) between ourselves and others -- you are as individual as I am. . . . Natural law theory and the importance of reason are synonymous throughout [the] millennia, in Greek Roman, and Christian thought. And Craig Thomas wrote this: about supplanted axiomatic values: 100

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

and their other predecessors rather than by the empirically observable society around them. And if Weber ever threw off the influence of Marx (and he spent his life refuting the greater German), he did not discard the persistent influence of Hegel and what one might call ‘Prussianism’ [which is Authoritarianism]. Ideas of political society in the nineteenth century did, to one degree or another, operate under the umbrella of the metaphysical tradition, revivified with a vengeance by Hegel. They became ‘philosophical‘ and like the other branches of speculation, derived much of their energy, antithesis, and conclusions from reaction or response to other ideas [their axioms were of prejudice, rather than reason: of materialistic bias rather than noumenon]. One is left to conclude perhaps, the ideals which first inspired the French Revolution were those, however altered by the elevation of a secularist conception of human reason to ‘essence’ or model, that had inspired both the English and the American revolutions that preceded it. However, contemporary reflection upon the aftermath of the initial changes of the revolutionary period served only to throw political and social thought gratefully into the arms of collectivist theorists, another generation of metaphysicians. It is necessary, therefore, to regard the triumph of the revolution not as the triumph of the individual and the values of what historians term liberalism but rather the reverse. Confirmed by history, it was the triumph of a peculiarly French form of idealism which masqueraded as materialism, a close relative of Lockian empiricism. Reason itself had become something ‘ideal,’ something essential, ‘a priori’ and self-evident -- and something to be elevated to the status of the divine. Added to this is the fact that the tradition of French philosophy, from Descartes to Rousseau, was metaphysical. Materialism, at its best, is an accommodation of Locke’s empiricism with the prevailing current [of Hobbesian ontological authoritarianism (the power of history on ideas)].

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

For the moment, all that need be additionally remarked is that nineteenth-century political [or ‘sociological’ (or anthropological)] theory is dogged by other minor legacies of the new science of history and from those who professed to interpret its mysteries for the benefit of the uninitiated, and these are derived from the sense of pattern attempting to accommodate itself with the ‘fact’ of the contemporary or spring from the recognition of pattern itself in history. We are dealing with determinism on the one hand and pessimism on the other. . . . Not only is history beyond the control of the individual (even the individual society or government or state), but its pattern, given the continuing vigor of the capitalist system, despite Marx’s . . . prognostications, implies lack of change, the ‘iron cage’ that Max Weber eloquently spoke of. Materialism, the dogma The roots of Stoic philosophy, which is about early metaphysics development (cosmic, ontology, deontology, ontologism, and teleology), began with contemporaries of Socrates (469? B. C.) and continued in Plato and Aristotle. The philosophy of materialism (of Democritus and Leucippus) was contemporary with the stoic systems of thought (including mathematics) based on reason. Which was more or less radical is an open question, and neither was in reaction to the other? Such contemporary criteria for adjudging which is ‘liberal,’ the other ‘conservative,’ is invalid. The only quality that would make one ‘conservative’ and the other ‘liberal’ involves a fundamental difference between tangible reality and intangible thought: Kant’s distinctive use of phenomena and noumena did not occur for more than a millennium. and is, therefore, a logically fallacious principle. Therefore, because dogmatic economic determinism is the irrational cause of economic monopoly and treasure concentration, this human-made factual paradoxical condition is the result of conservative idealism: about life’s omnipresent quandary, these definitions and explanations shed light, with focus on materialism: 101

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

Idealism (philosophy) -- belief that all our knowledge is based on ideas and that it is impossible to know whether there really is a world of objects on which our ideas are based. Idealism, as opposed to materialism, holds that objects do not really exist apart from our ideas. Idealism conflates life’s essence to unitary materialism! : conflate’s meaning, therefore, is critical to understanding unitary materialism meaning: 102

Conflate, v.t. 1. to bring or put together; compose of various elements. Is idealism logically reasonable? -- it is not! Kant challenge is ignored: for philosophers and scientists to produce evidence that would allow us to make assertions about things we have not actually experienced. 103 Idealism dogmatically, unjustifiably, demeans the omnipresent fiducial purposes of logical reason: as, Ideology’s definition clearly confirms: 104

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[dogmatic 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 particularly, if not exclusively to conservative materialists, who for instance, with the ‘Nicene’ unitary “three in one” dogmatic conflation of God, routinely and expediently make dogma-based assertions,

This isolation of science from ideology is critically important as regards truth and knowledge.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

which are both antecedent to, and consequential of, materialism. Again, defined:105, 106

Materialism n. the doctrine that all spiritual phenomena are the result of organized matter. Materialism n. the belief that all action, thought, and feeling can be explained by the movement and changes of matter: In the latter half of the 1800's, materialism severely challenged the traditional spiritual view of man (Science). And, since irrational deductive reasoning is undoubtedly amoral, as with those who irrationally, routinely engage it neither know truth (which is about faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty both toward God and humanity), nor strive to achieve reasonable virtue by applying ‘true’ mitigating principles to soften economic determinism’s paradoxical effects. Which softening, in fact, they dogmatically hate and oppose. While the U.S. Strategic Plan is based on teleological ethics (giving of self in the sense of rationally acting together to secure common, holistic virtues). The U. S. Operating Plan is laissez faire to extremes legally allowed: taking and securing what individuals desire to own property (property is naturally consequential, i.e., is based on dogma, sans implications of ontological virtue or teleological principle). The difference between giving and taking is, of course, paradoxically diabolical. While U.S. strategy is each individual’s responsibility to preserve all individual’s self evident inalienable rights, the U.S. Operating Plan is the expected economic mode of selfishness and ‘absolutism’ with propertied ownership, contracts, and such (until, of course, one day each week when celebrated (with pomp, pride and liberality), Religion is a deliberate act that quite properly intends to show that we are religious people " ). In our unitary materialist Operating mode, we conflate strategic antecedent inalienable rights to affirm consequential absolute temporal propertied wants (particularly, when concupiscence is the motive to our wants). In this, our wants often qualify as extreme vices on the "

We are in fact, however, as the Scribes and Pharisees, which Christ rebuked (Mt 23, Mk 7, or Lk 11)

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

spectrum of virtue: wants that intend to legally nullify the lesser others’ physis-based sovereignty. In this, our wants often abuse Natural Law while violating no manmade law of the land. Therefore, we need to be clear about definition and purpose. Christ may have said it best: man doth not live by bread only. About political economy, we especially need clearly balanced reason when enacting laws that define the temporal paradoxical administrations of government, with its agents (which legally include both human and organic individual entities, as equals), codifications and regulations. Particularly, as we officially consider adopting or licensing forms of mercantilism, for instance, we should consider the ‘fictitious legal person’ corporate organic entity’s nature, that state government’s licensed to act equally as humans. Nature did not create organic corporations. And according to Nature, inalienable human rights, as right to free speech, which ‘fictitious legal person’ corporations legally can and often do buy, are coeval of government. But these nature-endowed rights, as legally granted to organic entities, are not naturally coeval of government, however, are a government granted legal entitlement, which entitle political economy’s causal mechanism’s consequential economic results to adversely effect the coeval nature of human rights. E. K. Hunt wrote this about property’s consequential nature:107

Private property had its origins in brute coercive force and was perpetuated both by force and by institutional and ideological legitimization. [Property surely is not naturally antecedent.] Hunt also concluded this about Whiggish ‘internal improvement’ policies, which had nudged the favor of Whig’s politics: 108

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

corporations are today, larger than our nation was and that as ‘fictitious legal individuals,’ they represent the greatest threat to nullifying individual sovereignty. They represent Leviathan entities, nations that make their own rules, we might say, with which human individuals cannot compete. The following describes mercantilism:109

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 governments promoted large investments in export industries; built high tariff walls to restrict imports, which could be produced domestically; restricted exports of domestic raw materials, which could be used by the domestic industry; interfered with the emigration of skilled workers; encouraged immigration of skilled workers; and, in several cases, prohibited sales of precious metals to foreigners. . . . Adam Smith accused mercantilists of not being able to distinguish between wealth and what they called treasure, pointing out that the accumulation of treasure is merely instrumental to the acquisition of wealth [Smith defined wealth as consumable and usable goods]. Not only should we be concerned about corporate involvement in ‘mercantilism,’ we should also be concerned about their legal involvement in politics, free speech and ‘foreign’ contributions to political parties, for instance. * * Whether from foreign countries where they conduct corporate business or in the sense that they represent something other than human sovereignty, political contributions from corporations to political parties are foreign, if not alien. This reasoned sentiment also applies to all organizations and particularly to Political Action Committees and organic religions. Solidifying more about corporations, the following about mechanist

100

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

paternalistic laws that gave them human-like rights are recalled: 110

Following the Civil war, Congress passed the first Civil Rights Act. The States then ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The sponsoring political flux of this action overtly appealed to confer citizenship and equal rights on American blacks. This Amendment also included the famous due process clause, which prohibited any state government from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The covert appeal favored corporate entities; despite the Amendment, American blacks were thrust into situations worse than slavery. Most court decisions based on the Amendment involved corporations instead of American blacks. Corporations were persons, the courts ruled. As persons, corporations were protected under the due process clause. The reality of the covert appeal was as follows: each time a state government attempted to curb the extravagant excesses of corporations by passing regulatory legislation, the federal courts would invalidate the legislation because it violated the due process clause. State governments became powerless before the growing strength of large corporations. Knowing that they could go to almost any length in pursuit of profits without fear of state government controls, corporations thrived. [And, government’s legal paternalism enables and protects them, wherever in the world they are, as being in accord with the Constitution’s intended purposes.] [Paradoxically] There is overt appeal and covert appeal in all

legislation which enables Economic Determinism. Government paternalism, in sophistries, placates human needs but mostly favors the covert corporate appeals. ----

Do laws, which enable corporate Economic Determinism, paradoxically sponsor economic injustice? Attempts to answer this question conceived such as these results:111

Professor Edwin H. Sutherland, once known as the dean of

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

101

American criminologists and former president of the American Sociological Association, conducted a thorough and scholarly investigation of the extent to which corporate executives were involved in criminal behavior. He took the 70 largest nonfinancial corporations, with only a few additions and deletions (due to special circumstances), and traced their criminal histories through official histories and official records. One corporation had 50 decisions against it, and the average per corporation was 14. Sixty of the corporations had been found guilty of restraining trade, 53 of infringements, 44 of unfair labor practices, 28 of misrepresentation in advertising, 26 of giving illegal rebates, and 43 of a variety of other offences. There were a total of 307 individual cases of illegal restraint of trade, 97 of illegal misrepresentation, 22 of infringement, 158 of unfair labor practices, 66 of illegal rebates, and 130 of other offenses (Lundberg, pp. 131-132). . . . A U. S. Senate Special Committee to Investigate Crime in Interstate Commerce, under the chairmanship of Senator Estes Kefauver, probed the connections of business and organized crime. Senator Kefauver, . . . later wrote a book based on those hearings. Although he emphasized that there was no evidence to link most big corporations with organized crime, he was nevertheless greatly alarmed at the extent of such connections. [Kefauver wrote] “I cannot overemphasize the danger that can lie in the muscling into legitimate fields by hoodlums . . . There was too much evidence before us of unreformed hoodlums gaining control of a legitimate business; then utilizing all his old mob tricks . . . In 1960 Robert Kennedy . . . published “The Enemy Within”. He wrote: “We found that with the present-day emphasis on money and material goods many businessmen were willing to make corrupt “deals” with dishonest union officials in order to gain competitive advantage or to make a few extra dollars . . . We came across more than fifty companies and corporations that had acted improperly --

102

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

and in many cased illegally -- in dealings with labor unions . . . Disturbing as it may sound, more often the business people with whom we come in contact -- and this includes some representatives of our largest corporations -- were uncooperative. (Kennedy, p. 216) Ferdinand Lundberg has described the extent to which corporate leaders and management receive either very light punishment or no punishment at all when they become involved in improprieties or illegalities. Among the many cases he cites is that of “the bribe of $750,000 by four insurance companies that sent Boss Pendergast of Missouri to jail, later to be pardoned by President Truman . . . It was almost ten years before the insurance executives went to jail. There was, too, the case of Martin Manton who was convicted of accepting a bribe of $250,000 from agents of the defendant when he presided over a case charging exorbitant salaries were improperly paid to officers of the American Tobacco Company. While the attorney for the company was disbarred from federal courts, the assistant to the company president (who made the arrangements) was soon thereafter promoted to vice president: a good boy.” (Lundberg, p. 135) Little empirical justification exists to claim that corporations are interested in ethics and morality. Seeking profit and accumulating wealth is their ultimate purpose. Therefore, corporations sponsor, and positive law sanctions, cultural erosion of truth, justice, and morality. About truth, consider a corporate entity, without human representation, testifying to ‘tell the truth’ about suborning perjury for instance (return to the example -- the assistant to the company president -just cited). Neither grand jury nor special prosecutor can prosecute a corporate entity for having committed these and other crimes. Under what rationality of justice did the U.S. Supreme Court decide that corporations are persons with rights to own property, execute business contracts, and influence legislation and enjoy legal due process? It was surely not rationality that prevailed following the Civil

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

103

war, when the States ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The sponsoring political flux of this action overtly appealed to confer citizenship and equal rights on American blacks. This Amendment also included the famous due process clause, which prohibited any state government from depriving ‘any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’

Corporations were persons, the courts ruled. As persons, corporations were protected under the due process clause. [By this legal decision, legislative powers were usurped.] Confusion and conflict are inevitable in the dual realms of democraticsovereignty. We might distinguish these realms by their dominant characteristics: intangible responsibility (metaphysical and eternal) and material acquisitiveness (tangible or real, and temporal). " I call these realms physis-based and nomos-based. Individuals possess both responsibilities while corporations, which are human contrivances to accomplish material acquisitiveness and thereby compromise ethics and morality, are legally allowed by ‘positive’ law only the temporal responsibility. When the courts determine that corporations are persons, as the courts ruled, and as persons, corporations are protected under the due process clause, confusion, conflict and strife among humans are inevitable. By means of due process, as extended to corporate material acquisitiveness, corporations were mechanist determined, by an implied unitary materialism, to dominate the human intangible responsibility (which metaphysical, eternal qualities they naturally fail to possess). And we wonder why humans increasingly and similarly also act irresponsibly. Consider, for instance, the institution of marriage. The vows taken in pure love are physis-based, the responsibilities of which, to each other and those procreated, are supposed to be understood. However, the realities of the marriage contract are nomos-based and primarily materialism influenced. When society acts to formalize a marriage’s fused natural rights -- as to joint prerogatives, liberties, license, powers, as

Naturally diabolical, however, is that human life has an inevitable natural end while a corporate life is licensed to be perpetual.

104

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

individually enacted, society inevitably must discriminate against those to whom marriage is denied. However argued and despite honorable and ethical intents, society appears to violate individual sovereignty of some with favor to others. When society sanctions marriage expressly to strengthen responsibilities, particularly involving procreation (the primary natural physis-based purpose of marriage), then pairing by same sex singles naturally cannot qualify for this fused primary natural right. However, society must still clearly define all nomos-based responsibilities inherent to granted licence and favoritism so to avoid discrimination of contractual same sex pairing. Of note, the natural physis-based marriage partnership contract, as temporally arranged, involves three principal entities: a particular male, a particular female, and the organic whole of society’s sanction: each entity has naturally implied responsibilities, particularly regarding new sovereign procreation. And when physis-implied responsibilities are misunderstood or misrepresented, love that is pure physis, is conflated to a unitary materialist contractual responsibilities. And, whereas a myriad temporal paradox is a complement of materialist favoritism that sans natural responsibility is unreasonable. Whereas, democratic notions of leveledsovereignty are damaged, thereby; in my view, nomos-based laws always compromise physis-based natural law, wherein fused marriage rights and privileges mitigate the natural responsibilities! Material advantages are not always provided: tax laws often favor individuals and, society has no implied contractual interests in same sex unions. The Constitutional exemptions specified by the Bill of Rights inhibit government’s actions: thereby guaranteeing to individuals that an equal importance and influence in concluding their individual situations and circumstances under law is not compromised. ---To what extent should the Bill of Rights apply to ‘fictitious legal person’ corporate entities? ---To what extent should America’s Operational Plan be allowed to nullify its Strategic Plan’s end purposes (goals)? By exercising free speech, assembly and suffrage, citizens have equal rights to actualize the commonwealth’s sovereign intent for government and the law in all its mechanisms. Still, regarding matters

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

105

embroiling the dual realms of sovereignty, nomos-based laws, i.e., laws that representatives base in custom or tradition, as sponsored by those of propertied treasure " and their dogma of positivism or determinism, rather than what is ‘good,’ natural or ‘right,’ must inevitably discriminate and in this they violate the Constitution’s intent. As to property, for instance, without the mutual consent of the principals (which change constantly), a multiple ownership contract is difficult if possible, and those, to whom ownership is denied, will always want to be included. Those of treasure (rather than wealth) always desire to own the prime parcels. ---Should fictitious legal person corporate entities, which by law are perpetual, and to which access to capital reserves of the nation’s central banking system is preferential, be allowed to dominate society by controlling property? ---What amount of corporate property should represent free speech? The Supreme Court’s conflated unitary materialist view apparently considered corporations as human individuals when they decided that capital spent to deliver a message or influence an action represented free speech! By what constitutional right or consent did the Supreme Court confer this natural inalienable human status, as applicable only by Natural Law, to corporations? Should they have? ---In his recent book, Carl Sagan referred to the meta-mind (undoubtedly referring to the cosmic ego side of human origin). Is there a meta-ego side to corporate origins? NO! , There is not! Organizations, as churches and public works, required land and facilities. Legislative rationalization about a ‘corporate soul’ provided the legal means for not-for profit organizations to own property in the name of a ‘corporate soul.’ Roger Williams spoke about ‘social usage’ with these medieval corporate notions in mind. On this foundation, groups of enterprising individuals, with nomos-based intent argued at the state level of government, as a form of public ‘good,’ which rationalization accommodated their profit taking, eventually persuaded the licencing of

106

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

their ‘for-profit’ corporations. The concern about preserving democratic-sovereignty constantly concerns physis-based answers, the logical principles of which are always naturally founded in the phenomena of life (which inalterably is of noumenon), as measuring the natural span of human temporal life for instance. Rights and justice of future generations depend on the transferring of opportunities for individual knowledge along with life’s natural usufruct materialist ownership. ‘Positive’ laws generally intend to damage both opportunities: life’s usufruct and sovereignty.

---Do corporations, which legally are perpetual, pose the greatest threat to the inalienable rights and justice of those whose sovereignty is the constitutional reparation of future generations? Craig Thomas commented on this: 112 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. Thomas then commented to explain Locke’s reasoning: 113

Adam Smith’s atomistic market system, which distributed wealth (goods and services) to all, Smith called “The wealth of Nations.”

The right to property is defined as an essential or basic right for the

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

107

108

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 hoarding of treasure (rather than 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.' ---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.

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

different ways. “Yes,” Franklin replied, We must indeed hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” ‘Classical Liberals’ " (‘economic conservatives’) affirm believe in Locke as well as Adam Smith’s philosophy concerning postulates for economy and markets. The secret of tranquility called for in the Preamble to the Constitution is found in a balance of reason in which Roger William’s thoughts are deliberately considered: 115

The state, then, is society working consciously through experience and reason, to secure for the individual citizen the largest measure of freedom and well-being. . . . But if sovereignty inheres in the majority will, what securities remain for individual and minority rights? What fields lie apart from the inquisition of the majority, and by what agencies shall the engrossing of power be thwarted? The replies to such questions, so fundamental to every democratic program, he discovers in a variety of principles; to the former in an adaptation of the spirit of medieval society that restricted political functions by social usage, and to the latter by the application of local home rule, the initiative and the referendum, and the recall. His creative conception was an adaptation of . . . corporation, of a group of persons voluntarily joining for specific purposes under the law. And we should avoid spurious political rushes to throw out the ‘the American economic baby’ along with the dirty economic ‘bath water.’ The ‘real’ cultural war is not economic. It is about ‘true’ prescriptive values, and only philosophic ‘Rational empiricism’ provides a forum for finding answers that relate to the noumenal spiritual part of human nature, in balance with life’s substantial visceral nature. paradox: supply v.s. demand. The price spectrum of the economic paradigm has paradoxical extremes: Price is low when supply exceeds demand, but suppliers then need price supports of one sort or another. When demand exceeds supply, consumer-

V. L. Parrington called Locke’s philosophy of individual sovereignty ‘The Glorious Revolution.’ Locke’s philosophy influenced Adam Smith’s postulations for economy. More important, Locke’s philosophy influenced the individual sovereignty endowed by the American Constitution. Locke’s philosophy founded the Declaration of Independence and it united Colonial Americans to demand their independence from England. An interesting and pertinent observation remains and must be remembered (and recounted) for independence to abide: 114

During the signing ceremonies, John Hancock warned his fellow delegates “we must be unanimous; there must be no pulling in "

Classical meaning ‘traditional’ or ‘orthodox’

price-subsidies are required to ease supply. Smith’s competition paradigm intends that competition regulates the paradox. When the paradigm fails, the extremes of price embroil distribution disputes that are paradigmrelated more than market related. J. S. Mill reasoned this axiom about private property: 116

Even what a person has produced by his individual toil, unaided by anyone, he cannot keep, unless by the permission of society. Not only can society take it from him, but individuals could and would take it from him, if society . . . did not . . . employ and pay people for the purpose of preventing him from being disturbed in [his] possession. The distribution of wealth [Smith’s goods and services], therefore, depends on the laws and customs of society. When prices rise for electricity in California and gasoline nationwide, for instance, we divide politically according to personal positions relative to ‘supply’ and ‘demand.’ Unfortunately, current issues on either side of the price paradox fall short of addressing the fundamental issues of Smith’s competition paradigm? 117

And now comes (Adolph) Lowe’s most serious contention, if modern, ‘organized’ capitalism cannot any longer depend on spontaneous forces of the market to assure its orderly operation, economics itself also changes its relationship to society. As long as the laws of behavior could be discerned at work within the system, economics could be a passive pursuit, a detached contemplation of the workings of society. . . .. But the change in the social setting of modern capitalism rules out [Smith’s competative paradigm]. To be effective, economics is now forced to become an instrument of active interference with the course of things. Its function is no longer to predict or prognosticate, ‘because that is no longer possible.’ The new function of economics--the only function left open to it by the increasing indeterminacy of behavior--is to control the economy. Lowe does not mean authoritarian central planning. Rather, he sees the task of economic control as guiding the system to a socially desired goal through appropriate market behavior. Behavior may

110

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES

be made appropriate by very mild policies, such as tax inducements, or it may be steered by bolder government actions that directly affect supply and demand. Mild policies or not, the task of economics can no longer be what it once was. The old economics was, so to speak, philosophical economics. The new economics will have to be ‘political economics’ -- discipline that must discover the economic means to achieve politically chosen ends. Setting utility standards (as J. S. Mill would call them), which Lowe described, is a constitutional function that requires regulation. Unfortunately, Congress has failed in its Constitutional duties to regulate commerce: [Section 8 (3) & (5) ‘to regulate commerce and fix the value of money, and standards’]. Roger Sherman influenced this constitutional provision. And, inactions of Congress disappointed him.118 The paradoxs of Lowe’s ‘political economics’ embroil the cross purposes of practical sovereignties that allow the fictitious corporate entities to control the Whig-installed American System of Political Economy and, thereby, effectively, but irrationally, supplant constitutional purposes. The perpetual corporate existence, which is licensed to own natural resources and distribute utilities capitalistically is at the source. Corporate combines, now control the public utilities they serve. They charge whatever the consuming public of utilities will pay. The question is this: Will, can, ‘ballot initiatives’ spur Congress to do their constitutional duty?

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

111

112

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

irrationalism that must always be reasonably redressed, he profoundly trusted the Constitution’s ‘production.’ A consummate entrepreneur, he not only revealed, but celebrated liberty’s strengths and benefits: about the democratic organic philosophy of human liberty, he was democracy’s finest messenger. In recent years, apologetic of inadequacy to describe him: this was said on public TV:

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL

Benjamin Franklin wrote this: 119

I don’t entirely approve the Constitution as at present. I’m not so sure I will ever agree. And the longer I live the more I doubt my own infallibilities. The more I begin to respect other’s judgement. We collected together men that not only had great wisdom, but also prejudices, selfish views and local interests [Isn’t this always true?]. Of such an assembly, we can’t expect a perfect production. It astonishes me that we came as close to perfection as we did. It will astonish our enemies who think of our separate states coming together only to cut each other’s throats. So, I consent to this Constitution because I expect no better. And because I ‘m not absolutely convinced that it is not the best. His last public statement, the Constitution not yet ratified, aware of human

He believed that the foundation of American democracy is not some elite, not some aristocracy, but the middle class shop keeper, who’s learned, cares about civic life, and participates in democracy’s maintenance. Franklin demonstrated the importance of intellectual flexibility. He was profoundly interested in issues. And was willing to take to his convictions according to observations: let the experiment begin? That was his philosophy. . . . He came from a society where class determined one’s station in life. He helped to develop a country where merits and abilities could flourish. In a rigid world of orthodoxy and dogma, he believed, to the core of his soul, the virtues of tolerance and compromise. The quintessential optimist, he never doubted, even for a moment, that the future of humanity lay in the infinite power of human reason. The Scientific Method and Categorical Imperative are Franklin’s main principles that culturally remain as Our Ethereal Gold: our Civitas. Irrational dogma, which Franklin’s rationalism had addressed and subdued, is constantly confronted by irrationalism that continually subordinates Franklin’s rationalism: Whig dogma and tenets again dominate society. And, evidence shows that whenever rationalism fails, irrationalism has prevailed: Martin Heidegger’s “rationalism vs. irrationalism” described this dialectical contest in the U.S. :120

Here begins the contest between “rationalism and irrationalism” that has been in progress to this day in every conceivable disguise and under the most contradictory titles. Irrationalism is only the weakness and failure of rationalism and hence itself a kind of rationalism. Irrationalism is a way out of rationalism, an escape [by nihilism] which does not lead into the open but merely entangles

Heidegger’s “rationalism vs. irrationalism”

113

us more in rationalism, because it gives rise to the opinion that we can overcome rationalism by merely saying no to it, whereas this makes its machinations the more dangerous by hiding them from view. H. G. Wells noted this metamorphosing of realism’s meaning:121

The modern ‘realist’ is one who insists on materialist details; the mediaeval ‘realist’ was far nearer what nowadays we should call an Idealist. [Which was of physis, Wells’ did not distinguish.] Logically, essence is the antecedent in all that is: the ultimate principle of both eternal and temporal life. I listed on the penultimate cover page of each research section (100 number series), the essential Anthologies. All that is considered reality, relative to temporal life, is a logical consequent, i.e., has materiality. Anthologies of temporal life’s essence-materiality mix, are presented in the 200 number series.’ While essential qualities are inalienable and still exist, and are strong, materialist rationalizations routinely conflate the essence: which by affirmations that dogmatically assert materialities are the only reality. And, we must be clear, materialities in all life’s temporal settings are critically important to the essence of life: politics, therefore, is not an either-or proposition. And, at either political extreme, is surely diabolical to the other extreme: extremes, whether conservative or liberal, in any holistic rational sense, are least pure. About cardinal sovereignty, which purely represents human essence, " no Constitution equals that of the U.S. Therefore, democratic cardinal sovereignty is our nation’s Ethereal Gold: that only individual responsible cardinal sovereignty can ensure and protect. But when our brand of irrationalism is allowed to dominate our politics and our state, our Civitas is no more than false pride. The only condition that sets us apart from Islam, for instance, is our Constitution and its Bill of Rights protection of our essential Ethereal Gold. As our culture rationalized idealism-based Categorical Imperatives, Islam’s culture did also. Theirs,’

The constitutional recognition of individual human inalienable rights and suffrage.

114

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

like ours, presently suffers from the effects of irrationalism (the only cure of which is rationalism). But unlike ours,’ a Constitution does not protect their natural cardinal sovereign essential Civitas. War does not necessarily spread our economy too thin, but taxbased foreign expenditures that continuously secure foreign corporate economic interests, everywhere, does. Most important, neglecting expenditures that insure our Civitas (‘true’ unrestrained Categorical Imperative and science) we spend organically inordinately, irrationally to secure propertied concupiscence at a natural essential expense to John Adam’s intellectual reason:

Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write. Let every order and degree among the people rouse their attention and animate their resolution. Let them all become attentive to the grounds and principles of government. . . . Let every sluice of knowledge be opened and set a-flowing. Add to this, Jefferson’s admonition:

Let us then with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our own attachment of union and representative government. Doing this, eventually, our Judicial fallacies, of antecedent kings and fictions, as if they were antecedent principles, might be dispensed. The movie Gideon’s Trumpet (true story) wonderfully depicts how sometimes individual initiatives effect the processes of Justice. America’s judicial system is undoubtedly the best yet devised. And I, for one, refuse to believe that Hamilton’s tautological fallacies were deliberately intended. And, lest one forgets or forgives, Hamilton’s gift to us represents the economic foundations of democracy’s unitary materialities. This sentiment holds for those of deliberate minds whom presently serve as Justices of the Supreme Court. Now, while at all levels the nomos-physis paradox embroil justice (witness, in the void of action by the President and Congress, N.Y., A.G., Spitzer’s efforts to clean up unfair stock market trading practices), physis still has a strong presence, only made stronger by individual cardinal sovereignty’s responsible, reasonable initiatives.

Heidegger’s “rationalism vs. irrationalism”

115

An Orwellian problem looms as President G. W Bush’s administration has contractually engaged John Poindexter (of Casey and North’s covert activities’ fame), with $10 million annual funding, to computerize private personal information on emigres and citizens. Cardinal sovereignty’s natural inalienable rights, must constantly be an individual concern and political engagement to assure that this research project never fulfills Orwell’s prediction: Government’s separation from private enterprise’s interests must be underpinned by more than fictional notions as Hamilton’s ‘broad powers‘ doctrine. The Federalist agenda, must be revisited and purely democratic notions of ‘compact’ must be freshly implanted to assure that national and local governments are of the people, by the people and for the people (Classical liberal notions of ‘organic contracts’ must broadly and reasonably be revisited to stop the conservative neocon idealist political slide into full-blown fascism). It is telling that the refreshed ‘preemption’ doctrine, which led to war with Iraq, was then argued to give Iraq a democratic government (of them, by them, and for them " )? In Heidegger’s words, has our irrationalism entangled fascism exceeded our democratic rationalism? What ‘organic’ democratic principles, of liberty and justice, can be dictated to a feudal culture? Aggressions and wars can never resolve irrationalism: the contests of “rationalism and irrationalism” can only be resolved by rational means. Only rededications to rational commonalities will do that: the Civitas of Categorical Imperative (Lao Tse’s Sinderesis is maybe most concise: To the just we must be truthful and to the unjust we must be truthful: that is the sinderesis of truthfulness, But Christ’s Categorical Imperative is most poignant: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you). This rededication cannot be imposed by one on another (Nor

our government of the people, by the people and for the people represents constitutional rationalism, then giving to Iraq a democratic government of them, by them, and for them, as secured in the name of our own constitutional security, must represent constitutional irrationalism. If

116

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

by one nation on another). Each individual, as each nation, must work it out on their own without interfering infusions of dogmatic doctrine, however well intended it may be. Then groups of individuals must work it out organically. When we resort to war, and win, our own irrational fascist affinities neither can nor will provide democratic foundations to our nation nor to those we argue is our de ontological duty to improve upon. With section 208, SOVEREIGNTY, fresh in my mind, election results of 2002 entered the mix of thoughts and compelled Addendum 1. Addendum 2 logically fits Heidegger’s comment, Addendum 3 comparatively pertains to Islam, and Addendum 4 is an initiative motivated by my own Desiderius. When does a Categorical Imperative 122 incite war? (Or, when did the U.S. become fascist?) Addendum 1: (Reaction to election results of November 5, 2002) What did massive foreign demonstrations, in nations we count as allies, on November 9, 2002, tell us? Does our materialist capitalism fool Americans but to foreigners show us culturally lacking the reasoned antecedent principle commonly known as Categorical Imperative? Does our unitary materialism show that our nation is imperialistically fascist? Are we truly as others commonly see us? If democracy is about rationalism’s Categorically Imperative principles, while fascism is about irrationalism’s absolutely conflated dogmatic unitary materialism that we fallaciously have officially adopted as our nation’s antecedent economic principle, and our politics has now affirmed this irrationalism by installing classical preemptive doctrine, thereby muting (nullifying) politics of natural antecedents, are we then a fascist nation? You protest (and you should!): claims on ‘democracy’ always depend on administrations of Justice. And our ‘democracy’ is fiducially ensured by rationalism’s principles, as applied in legal aspects of government and daily living. My concern is this: do jurists prefer ir reason to reason? : is Justice administered by nomos or physis, of the Socratic debate?

When did the U.S. become fascist?

117

The presence of physis in the philosophy, culture and politics of society (Civitas)-- required to effectively confront and balance the dictums of the nomos-jaded (concupiscent) American sovereign Will -- is severely affected by a pervasively expanding unitary materialist nomos. This cardinal sovereignty’s political contest is not new: ‘Antinomy’ (anti and nomos) was attested in this passage: 123

Like Western philosophy in general, philosophy of law in particular first emerged in ancient Greece. In the 5th century BC the Sophists and Socrates, along with his followers, took up the question of the nature of law. Both recognized a distinction between things that exist by nature (physis) and those that exist by human-made convention (nomos). The Sophists, however, tended to place law in the latter category, whereas Socrates put it in the former, as did Plato and Aristotle. Sophists routinely assert by ‘Affirmation’ physis-based ‘Consequents’ as if they were natural antecedents (and worse, they affirm nomos-based consequents as organic principles): they routinely ignore, say no to, or deny the naturally ‘antecedent’ principles. And, they ignore rationalism’s essential logic that defines life’s natural ‘antecedents.’ 124

antecedent 4. ‘Logic’ the part of a conditional proposition which states the condition and upon which the other part (the consequent) logically depends. Affirming materialist nomos, classical Sophists ignore the logical antecedents of deliberate reasoning as represented in the accounts and works of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle . . .. Classical conservatism’s values, as found on the Sophists’ materialist side, are stuck in the favor of nomos in the believed idea of mechanism, i.e.,

everything that exists now is the result of factors and conditions that existed before. If sophists were to recognize natural ‘antecedents,’ they would avoid Will Durant’s observation of nomos: avoid irrationalism’s fallacy:125

Ultimately, our troubles are due to dogma and deduction; we find

118

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

no new truth because we take some venerable but questionable proposition as the indubitable starting point, and never think of putting this assumption itself to a test of observation or experiment. Clearly, classical nomos-based mechanisms serve well society’s classical conservative oligarchical order. But, tautologically, the asserted affirmations of oligarchical dogma make this order into the fallacy of irrationalism. Still, and surprisingly, in the light of uniqueness of the American physis, reasoned ethics and utility, were substantial concerns when constitutional sovereignty was deliberated. Our greatest legal concern is philosophical: of Kant’s tautological dilemma with metaphysical truths of time, morality, nature, . . .. It all boils down to reason-based antecedent principles with no truth opposites (of physis) in the contest Heidegger cited, with faith based (dogmatically transposed) pseudo antecedent tenets, the temporal truths of which are always paradoxical (of nomos). If our nation’s sovereignty is physisbased (pursuing pure truth with no opposites), the tautological veracity test is a necessary tool (see Addendum 2). Similarly, as the Epicurean Paradox, when our values are nomos-based, our unconcern for truth’s ‘necessities,’ or ‘veracity’ dominates: Heidegger and Holmes observed: paradoxs are inevitable.

There is that glorious epicurean paradox . . .: ‘give us the luxuries of life, and we will dispense with its necessaries.’ [Life’s necessities are natural antecedents] Oliver Wendell Holmes Constitutionally, because human cardinal sovereignty is the naturally consented antecedent of government, veracity is consistently expected in all Judicial decisions, but sometimes is not delivered. And veracity testing is, therefore, cardinal sovereignty’s most critical concern: suffrage, initiative, referendum, and recall actions are critically important. With the presidential election of 2000, the Judiciary neither favored democracy nor fascism when it interdicted the suffrage processes in Flordia, but you tell me, was its action of nomos or physis, as Hesiod had defined? :126

Like Western philosophy in general, philosophy of law in particular first emerged in ancient Greece. In the 5th century BC the Sophists

and Socrates, along with his followers, took up the question of the nature of law. Both recognized a distinction between things that exist by nature (physis) and those that exist by human-made convention (nomos). The Sophists, however, tended to place law in the latter category, whereas Socrates put it in the former, as did Plato and Aristotle. When Treasury Secretary Hamilton fallaciously affirmed nomosbased ‘broad power’ doctrine to support his vision of government’s constitutional economic dimension, the Judiciary was apolitically neutral in Hamilton’s debate with Jefferson, but covertly supported or allowed Hamilton’s fallacious Federalist Agenda, which now is just as fallaciously legally administered. 127 [Hamilton’s] notorious comment -- which the American democrat has

never forgiven him, “the people! -- the people is a great beast! -was charactoristically frank. . . . He was at pains, therefore, as a practical statesman, to dress his views in a garb more seemly to plebeian [biases], and like earlier Tories he paraded an ethical justification for his Toryism. The current Federalist dogma of the divine right of justice -- ‘vox justiciae vox dei’ -- was at hand to serve his purpose and he made free use of it. . . . A monarchist, he urged the monarchical principle with Hobbesian logic. “The principle chiefly intended to be established is this -- that there must be a permanent ‘will.” “There ought to be a principle in government capable of resisting the popular current.” [In ‘Works, Vol. II, p 415] The only effective way of keeping democratic factionalism within bounds, . . . lay in the erection of a powerful chief magistrate, who “ought to be hereditary, and have so much power. . .. He devoted himself to . . . providing all possible checks upon the power of the democracy.” . . . As the creative organizer of a political state answering the needs of capitalism -- destined to grow stronger as imperialistic ambitions mount -- he seems the most modern and the most American of our eighteenth-century leaders, one to whom our industrialism owes a very great debt, but from

120

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

whom our democratic liberalism has recieved nothing. Not until 1819, in McCulloc vs. Maryland, did the Judiciary uphold the ‘Broad power’ Doctrine. Judicially, this ‘consequent,’ of the Constitution’s ‘ambiguity,’ was made the legally affirmed ‘antecedent’ of ‘States Rights’ doctrine, from which, deductively, States now routinely license fictitious person corporations to act as humans, that now to great extent set the nation’s foreign policy and Political Economy’s agenda? (And, by affirming fiction as an antecedent principle, affirms fantasy as the antecedent of nature, and God.) Nomos-based ‘broad power’ doctrine, is therefore, the irrational ‘marsh-mellow-like,’ but legal separation between the government’s official Political Economy and the private corporate Leviathans of our Hobbesian economic order [Of seeking and accepting campaign donations (bribes) as if elected government positions are up for purchase: of the Congress and Administration systemically being owned by the fictitious corporate entities], and privatized Political Economy [of private organic business entities (affirmed as legal on the same irrationally deduced ‘broad power’ doctrine)]. In other words, private economy is legal fact as based on myth rather than reality: Political Economy is legal fiction, as the corporations, which States have routinely licensed to act as humans, are fictions? Government’s sovereign immunity, is equally Hobbesian mythbased doctrine? 128

sovereign immunity The principle that the federal and state governments cannot be sued without their consent. Based on the idea that the king can do no wrong. For this expediently legal irrational asserted affirmation to be a categorical principle, concludes that governments are by the ‘broad power’ doctrine our ‘antecedent kings’ instead of the logical ‘consequents’ of human cardinal sovereign consent: proving that the legal asserted ‘affirmation of government,’ as we the people’s ‘antecedent,’ is both deliberate and irrational. A nomos-persuaded, Judiciary persists irrationally to act affirmatively as if the U.S. government is our king, which legal deduction, as happened in 2000, nullifies the naturally antecedent democratic ‘cardinal sovereignty.’ Irrationalism annihilates rationalism. And the

When did the U.S. become fascist?

121

same irrationalism’s cultural nomos also has ‘affirmed’ classical mercantilism as Political Economy’s dual rightful principle. This describes mercantilism:129

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 governments promoted large investments in export industries; built high tariff walls to restrict imports, which could be produced domestically; restricted exports of domestic raw materials, which could be used by the domestic industry; interfered with the emigration of skilled workers; encouraged immigration of skilled workers; and, in several cases, prohibited sales of precious metals to foreigners. . . . Adam Smith accused mercantilists of not being able to distinguish between wealth and what they called treasure, pointing out that the accumulation of treasure is merely instrumental to the acquisition of wealth [Smith had defined wealth as consumable and usable goods]. We should be concerned with corporate ‘mercantilism,’ along with legally politically purchased ‘free speech’ and ‘foreign contributions. As, now has happened with the new ‘Homeland Security Department,’ our new ‘fictitious security king’ has denied employees’ their cardinal sovereignty: ‘to take natural freedom away, must be of design to take away all human rights’(John Locke’s argument). And ‘Terrorism Insurance’ surely is a form of Roger William’s Social Usage: whereby taxpayers systemically reimburse government’s unbudgeted cost (ultimately, wage-earners pay all taxes). This tax-based ‘Social Usage’ (insurance), as asserted, has been given political precedence over health, long-term care, and catastrophes that befall hardest onto impoverished

122

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

individuals, to which this politics has denied insurance. Irrationalism’s cultural nomos are more evident. Irrationalism became constitutional when legal ‘Interpretations of government Powers doctrine, attained authority to States’ for to license businesses’ to act as humans. This ‘Broad Powers’ doctrine is irrational in the sense that constitutional authority, the logical consequent of suffrage, was then irrationally asserted as the perpetual antecedent to suffrage: this doctrinal irrationalism, upon which ‘privatized enterprise’ was asserted, infers that government’s ‘Broad’ authorities, which 1776 suffrage had authorized, also perpetually authorized government to license private enterprise to function independently of the government’s Constitution: in doing this, government contractually has usurped suffrage’ antecedence? : conflating future generation’s inalienable suffrage (Jefferson’s side of argument!). Many have raised concerns with corporations, Thomas C. Jorling’s concern, stands out in the particular light of the more recent acts of terrorism and near rioting 130

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

When did the U.S. become fascist?

123

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 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

124

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

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 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. [And this puts analytic focus onto fictitious states’ rights’ where corporate licensing in the U.S. mostly originates.] Then, Government’s asserted ‘sovereign immunity’ clearly makes human ‘Inalienable Rights’ to sue government not only consequential, but denied. Fiction of any sort, and of which dogmatic classical fictions are, has no rational foundation. Our Federalist-Whig Judiciary legally has transgressed nature by affirming humans’ ‘natural rights’ also apply to corporations. Despite the fact that bilateral or reciprocal mutuality between humans and fiction fails in any ‘positive’, i.e., conservative sense of reality, the classical dogmatic fictions were irrationally given antecedent status by judicial decree, as based on the ‘Broad Power doctrine.’ Like fusing water and air, which still are fundamentally dissimilar: unless fictions can be incarcerated as humans, they are not lawfully accountable? With Emancipation, did the Judiciary side with democratic interests when, on its own (without supporting legislation signed into law), it affirmed that The Bill of Rights ‘due process rights,’ natural to humans, also belonged unnaturally to corporations? And, despite the Antitrust Laws, did the Judiciary favor fascism over antitrust laws in its recent

decisions with, for instance, Microsoft? As Supreme Court appointments for life are made, will official political processes support natural physis-based values (of essential antecedent principles) or the nomos-based, affirmed values that philosophically is akin to fascism, as judicial empowerment fallaciously affirmed as the antecedent economic principles of Political Economy?

126

‘Dialectical materialism’ [fused with a Hindu’s Siva and nihilism], the basis of communism, asserts that only material things are real. It believes that human nature, human beings, and society as a whole are products of the economic system. This philosophy states that all change occurs through a struggle of opposing forces in society, and comes to a climax by revolution. Accordingly, communism opposes religion because of its spiritual nature. It wishes to destroy the present capitalistic economic system, and to develop a new type of man and a new type of economic and social system.

Since dogma is designed and politics contrives to affirm control of a society’s philosophy, it behooves reasonable persons to clearly understand the affirmed antecedents of organic basic philosophy.131

Fascism, Communism, and Democracy, are each based on a philosophic position. Absolute idealism,’ on which fascism is based, stresses the existence of one ‘absolute reality,’ a being or element that is complete in itself and does not depend on anything outside itself. It asserts that there is a principle of authority expressing the will of the absolute. As a political philosophy, ‘absolute idealism’ considers the ‘state,’ or the national government, as the absolute, according to this philosophy, everything in society is a part of the state and subservient to it. From these doctrines follow dictatorship by an absolute ruler, rejection of parliamentary procedures, and submission of the individual to the state.

Communism’s definition is this: 133

1) A philosophy or system, deriving from Marxism, advocating state ownership of land and property, postulating class conflict, and seeking the overthrow of noncommunist societies in behalf of the proletariat. " 2) A political, social, and economic system in which the state, governed by an elite party, controls production, labor and distribution, and largely, the social and cultural life and thought of the people. 3) A social order in which property is held in common by the community or the state; communalism. Communism and socialism are systems of social organization under which the means of production and distribution of goods are transferred from private hands to the government. The classic difference between the two systems lies in the different means they take to establish themselves: communism emphasizes the impracticability of replacing the existing social order by any means other than armed force [The values of Hindu god ‘Siva’ put

Fascism is defined: 132

1) A strongly nationalistic movement in favor of government control of industry and labor and opposed to radical socialism and communism. 2) Any system of government in which property is privately owned but all industry and labor are regulated by a strong national government, while all opposition is rigorously suppressed [Embroils the employments in Homeland Security?]. 3) The doctrines, principles, or methods of such a government or movement. "

Definition 3) is important! When a political ‘movement’ espouses fascist doctrines, principles, or methods, and control of the ‘state’ is achieved, then the ‘state’ is fascist. Are we now a fascist nation?

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

Russian ‘nihilism’s common rejection of authority, must be factored into the pseudo philosophic principles which spawned this definition of communism. And the affirmed Hindu dogma of ‘Siva,’ the Destroyer fallaciously underpins communism’s definition.

When did the U.S. become fascist?

127

into nihilism’s mix.] or outside intervention; the advocates of

socialism seek to establish it by peaceful means, by legislation. Democracy’s definition is this: ‘Rational Empiricism,’ the philosophic basis of democracy, believes that the world is both material and spiritual. It holds that change and progress occur by applying reason to experience, and human nature can be changed and improved by experience. On the basis of these principles, democracy stresses discussion and the use of reason as a way of arriving at conclusions. It emphasizes the importance of tolerance and freedom in developing intelligent, loyal citizens. [While open elections are necessary to empower a democratic government, an election does not and cannot satisfy all citizen-noumena, necessities, which democracy’s spiritual aspect requires: whenever this spiritual aspect is conflated, allowing unitary materialism, for instance, democracy does not exist!] ‘Democracy’ is commonly defined: 134 1) a government that is run by the people who live under it. 2) a country, state, or community having such a government. 3) The common people, distinguished from the privileged class, or their political power. 4) The treatment of others as one’s equals. truth about governments’ forms Both natural aspects of human being (material and spiritual ) are philosophically ‘necessary’ antecedent principles in a democratic ‘state’: Hamilton’s monarchical proclivities provided only for the material aspects of the American republican democracy. Jefferson, however, went further, to provide for both spiritual and material democratic aspects. Of particular note, ‘Rational empiricism’ is the only organic government form that is based on both aspects, and when balanced, both are naturally coequally antecedent. All other government forms are antecedently deliberately deficient in considerations of the natural, therefore, antecedent spiritual aspect, as temporally a coequal antecedent principle: ‘nihilistic’

128

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

or ‘positive,’ because dogmatic fallacies of belief are of design to deny natures’ most fundamental axiomatic antecedent, the natural noumena, which reflects God’s LOGOS (the supreme noumenon). Or they fallaciously affirm naturally consequential phenomena, including manmade phenomena, as the unitary naturally supreme antecedent reality. When, for instance, fictional values are fallaciously affirmed as ideal philosophic antecedents of the ‘state,’ human ‘reason’ is then saddled to the dogma; the fundamental naturally axiomatic sovereign aspect is not only saddled. It is controlled: the only naturally legitimate ‘absolute spiritual reality’ is denied! God’s ultimate natural noumenal influence (ontologism) on human sovereignty is denied. And, cultural irrationalism prevails politically. Until belief in dogma sponsors individual deliberate reasoning that seeks to understand the naturally axiomatic values of the supreme intelligent noumenon (the Creator’s LOGOS ), belief in the ‘divine right’ dogma supplants the prime natural source of human fiducial values. The values of humans’ belief in dogma have then supplanted truth’s natural axiomatic parameters. Like Baals, (White Rabbits, as in Alice’s wonderland) Brahminists, who supplant dogma, make the dogmatic values the antecedent object of the address: 135

He that takes away reason to make way for revelation puts out the light of both, and does much the same as if he would persuade a man to put out his eyes the better to receive the remote light of an invisible star by a telescope. Locke And Brahminists are then positioned to manipulate politically, the socalled Pavlovian sycophantic intelligence of ‘belief.’ Idealist dogma is deliberately made to dominate the cardinal sovereign human aspects which naturally reflect fiducial values: of ‘truth,’ ‘philosophy,’ ‘morality,’ ‘justice.’ As when Nietzsche observed and was then socially declared crazy, ‘we have killed God’! Unfortunately for unsuspecting ‘believers,’ materialist dogma is by ‘positive’ nature, the sponsor of only fact-based experiences: images of mind, which Plato concluded, are of ‘opinion’ (‘belief’ and ‘illusion’) but not ‘reason.’ In dogmatic belief, the inculcation of values of

When did the U.S. become fascist?

129

130

intelligently reasoned pure truth, ethical morality, justice, . . ., is considered a punishable heresy: and effectively, such dogma denies the functional capabilities of individual intelligence which, reflecting the necessary fiducial values of nature’s supreme noumenon, naturally is capable, if willful and diligent, to understand pure-value-parameters of God’s LOGOS. Einstein’s relativity equation is maybe the most cogent example of this human capability. Cardinally sovereign reason is the exclusive source of pure truth.

David had been dead two hundred years when the great Homeric verses of the ‘Iliad’ and the ‘Odyssey’ were first set down." The Biblical epic of which he is a central character was only halfway to completion. This epic moves us from Exodus to Job, from the tribal and collective experience to the individual, which in its singularity is universal in a way the narrowly tribal cannot be. And while this revelation is unfolding, another is moving parallel in the opposite direction: the great [categorical] Covenant of God with Abraham is extended to Israel [and Islam] with Moses and then expanded to include the entire human race through Christ, so that we move from the individual [cardinal sovereignty] through the tribe to the universal.

Ludowich Allison, with these comments, introduced the Bible’s translation arranged and edited by Ernest Sutherland Bates.136 . . . Man is given free will and his first conscious act is to use it to

make himself into God. [His second act, when caught, is to blame somebody else. (both were accomplished by illogical ‘Affirmation’ and ‘Denial’)]: . . . the great covenant of God with Abraham is extended to Israel [and Islam] with Moses and then expanded to include the entire human race through Christ. That message reverberates on many different levels throughout Western thought. It enables us to comprehend the mystery of life as a part of a larger story of sin and redemption. Man is given free will and his first conscious act is to use it to make himself into God. (His second act, when caught, is to blame somebody else.) This is the great Biblical motif that runs from Genesis and the Fall through the impieties and failures of Israel to the final consummation of the Old Testament in the New. It is the tension [antinomy] between man’s aspirations and man’s inadequacies, and it gives rise to the idea of hope. The Bible tells us man’s stories are more than fables, and his oldest myths are more than legends; they are intricately inlaid into the very foundation of the cosmos, and further-more, into a cosmology that plays itself out in the processes of each individual soul. In this, the Bible is the definitive epic of the West. King

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

[Natural antinomy is exacerbated by organized dogmatic religious tugs on revelation (which is of nomos) and Christ’s anti-nomos logical antinomian pulls on individual ontological faculties of reason.] ‘Divine rights’ dogma was traced to Babylon (Hammurabi) in about 2000 B.C. (About 1000 years before King David’s lifetime, Shamash, the sun god, is pictographically portrayed as handing this‘Divine’ authority to Hammurabi). It is also traceable to Hinduism’s Brahman caste. These asserted instances of human ‘Divine’ authority for to make a fictional god the human king, confirms Allison’s comment. This manmade and enforced organic hierarchical ‘Divine’ authority is not found in rational reality, but rather in dogmatic fictional faith. ‘Divine right’ is affirmed dogma that fallaciously supplants the ultimate axiom of life, which rational God (that must remain as an undefined axiom, as Aristotle reasoned) when conflated to unitary materialist belief for to support expedient human contrivances, supplants LOGOS’ first principles upon which the human free will is based. Belief in ‘divine right’ dogma, transgresses human cardinal sovereignty at its natural source: And

Which also means that David’s son by Bathsheba, Solomon, was also dead when this epic Western intelligence was recorded.

When did the U.S. become fascist?

131

132

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

transgressions of the great commandments in the name of dogmatic belief, leaves humans bare of Jehovah’s promises.

nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [Don’t forget ‘the people.’]

Both Communists’ Dialectical materialism and fascists’ Absolute idealism are dogmatic forms of unitary materialism. And, therefore, both are sponsor-advocates of fallacious dogma, which either nihilistically denies noumenon, as ‘eternal reality’ of the human soul, or illogically positively affirm unitary materiality as the logical antecedent of the human spiritual nature. Worse, in either inference, God’s existence is denied: so, why is it cabalism? : because classical illogical mysticism, as the nomosbased cabala’s doctrinal endemism, which expediently affirms natural consequents as principle and thereby denies naturally antecedent human cardinal sovereignty. This classical dogma is what Plato cited as the Visible Realm of belief, which irrationalism Plato, Christ, Descartes, Kant, Allison, among many others, maybe Russell most cogently, clearly refuted: 137

Initiative, referendum, and recall actions are necessary to ensure what cardinal human sovereignty find is a commonweal interest. Maybe, the greatest commonweal concern embroils tautological fallacies, which the Judiciary erroneously perpetually commits: Government, of the people, for the people, and by the people must logically be responsible to ‘the people’ for its actions. How can this be accomplished, unless each person is responsible and interprets constitutional rights by showing initiative to protect commonweal concerns? And, because cardinal sovereignty has never consented to the divine authorities of kingdoms, nor to divine rights dogma, my initiative (presented as addendum 4) contends that some Judicial acts were tautologically fallaciously based, because they ‘affirm natural Consequents’ as principle for to define ‘sovereign immunity’ and ‘due process for fictitious organic entities.’ The natural antecedent of this ‘sovereign immunity’ and ‘due process,’ therefore, is neither of the kings nor of fiction, but is cardinal human sovereignty as consented to organic ordinal sovereignty. And, certainly not as now, fallaciously based on affirmed authorities and powers of a fictional king. Until fictions are natural reality, ‘due process’ should apply only to living humans: individuals that naturally have rights, coeval of government. About cardinal sovereignty of the people, by the people, and for the people, no nation equals the U.S. This cardinal sovereignty is our nation’s Ethereal Gold and it is the only assurance that our nation is a democracy. So, let’s exercise sovereignty as John Adam’s Liberty and Knowledge entrusted: let our cardinal freedom bells ring:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,

Tautology

133

134

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

largely unknown: briefly mentioned in the dictionary and not at all in the Encyclopedia, it probably was too little known by Federalists and Whigs. If not for continual mathematical refinement in its attempts to make mathematics language applicable, thereby, broadening general understanding, tautology would not now be available for veracity testing of truth. John N. Fujii wrote this: 138

of ‘hypothesizing a tautological argument,’ the invalid argument form (d) Affirming the Consequent is mostly applied. Fallacies of ‘Affirming Consequents’ of nomos, is a particular Sophist pseudo philosophic proclivity intrinsic of nomos-based dogmatic belief. The Federalist Agenda, as Parrington noted provides an example of this nomos-based sophistry. 139

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

[Hamilton’s] notorious comment -- which the American democrat has

J. N. Fujii gave three classical valid arguments (P = compound premises, Q = consequent, - = denial, = therefore): (a) Modus ponens P6Q P

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

P6Q Q6R

- P

P6R

and classical invalid

and classical invalid argument:

Argument:

(e)

(d) P 6 Q Q

P6Q

-P -Q

P (d) Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, and (e) Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent, Fujii warned, are invalid argument forms. With all forms

never forgiven him, “the people! -- the people is a great beast! -was charactoristically frank. . . . He was at pains, therefore, as a practical statesman, to dress his views in a garb more seemly to plebeian prejudices, and like earlier Tories he paraded an ethical justification for his Toryism. The current Federalist dogma of the divine right of justice -- ‘vox justiciae vox dei’ -- was at hand to serve his purpose and he made free use of it. . . . He was frankly a monarchist, and he argued the [fallacious] monarchical principle with Hobbesian logic. “The principle chiefly intended to be established is this -- that there must be a permanent ‘will.” “There ought to be a principle in government capable of resisting the popular current.” [In ‘Works, Vol. II, p 415] The only effective way of keeping democratic factionalism within bounds, Hamilton was convinced, lay in the erection of a powerful chief magistrate, who “ought to be hereditary, and have so much power, . . .. “ He devoted himself to the business of providing all possible checks upon the power of the democracy.” This Federalist agenda continues. Parrington cited the Federalist-Whig proclivity to ‘deny antecedents’ and ‘affirm consequents’:140

Islam

135

more to assertive self-seeking -- business was no less secure than in the good old days, and its profits were greater. . . . Provided of course that the Constitution should follow population and safeguard business interests against . . .the menace of particularism [antinomy, i.e., Greek anti + nomos]. . . . In the hour of peril, principles go by the board. The Whig party was the lineal heir of the old Federalism, but it denied its philosophical patrimony. It substituted expediency for the old economic realism, and began and ended intellectually bankrupt.. . . aside from petty antagonism to Jackson -- was the vague assumption that the well-being of the American people was dependent on governmental patronage; the belief that each economic group and section must receive its special favor, and that through tariffs and bonuses and internal improvements the country as a whole must prosper. Of this principle of special favors -- a return to the seventeenth century from which eighteenth century liberalism was a reaction -- the American System of Henry Clay was the chief expression, and it remains the most significant bequest of the Whig party to our political history. Clearly, classical dogma fraudulently usurps rational sovereignty. It has not only transformed American democracy’s Categorical Imperative to appear as fascism. It threatens to make fascism permanent as the antecedent of democracy. And classical dogma has done the same to Islam and globally to other societies as well. Addendum 3

Islam (according to H. G. Wells) 141

(7) The objections made [to Wells’ The Outline of History] concern the relative prominence given to this part or that. A certain type of classical scholar rages at the comparative neglect of Homer and aesthetic side of Greek life, though the account of Greek science is full, and though the intellectual development of Greece is treated

136

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

as a cardinal phase in human development. Another large body of opinion sees the world through Latin forms and is exasperated even by the simple statement of the comparative extent, duration and influence of, for instance, the Byzantine, Persian and Chinese systems.. . . . Dogmatic Freethinkers, again, consider the acceptance of Jesus as a real person insupportable; adherents of Islam cry out against the too familar handling of their prophet. . . . Many people, with a rather materialistic theology in their minds, have been disagreeably impressed by the massed and accumulating evidences of man’s animal descent. Even if that be true they think it highly demoralizing. . . . There was no way of evading or satisfying these demands. . . . (104) A queer development of the later Palaeolithic and Neolithic Ages was selfmutilation. Men began to cut themselves about, to excise noses, ears, fingers, teeth and the like, and to attach all sorts of superstitious ideas to these acts. . . . This, too, has left its trace in the rite of circumcision, upon the religions of Judaism and Islam. ... (328) for some time Buddhism flourished in India. But Brahminism, with its many gods and its endless variety of cults, always flourished by its side, and the organization of the Brahmins grew more powerful, until at last they were able to turn upon this cast-denying cult and oust it from India altogether. . . . By the eleventh century, except for Orissa, Buddhist teaching was extinct in India. Much of its gentleness and charity had, however, become incorporated with Brahminism. . . . With the loss of India the Aryan Way ceased to rule the lives of any Aryan peoples. It is curious to note that while the one great Aryan religion is now almost exclusively confined to Mongolian peoples, the Aryans themselves are under the sway of two religions, Christianity and Islam, which are, as we shall see, essentially Semitic. And Buddhism, Taoism, and Christianity alike wear garments of ritual and formula that

Islam

137

seem to be derived through Hellenistic channels from that land of temples and priestcraft, Egypt, and from the more primitive and fundamental mentality of the brown Hamitic peoples. . . . (426-7) Consider the tone of this extract from the writings of a Chinaman, Mo Ti, who lived somewhen in the fourth century B.C., when the doctrines of Confucius and of Lao Tse prevailed in China, before the advent of Buddhism to that country, and note how Nazarene” it is. 142

The mutual attacks of state on state; the mutual usurpations of family on family; the mutual robberies of man on man; the want of kindness on the part of the sovereign and of loyalty on the part of the minister; the want of tenderness and filial duty between father and son -- these and such as these, are the things injurious to the empire. All this has arisen from want of mutual love. If but that one virtue could be made universal, the princes loving one another would have no battle-fields; the chiefs of families would attempt no usurpations. Men would commit no robberies; rulers and ministers would be gracious and loyal; fathers and sons would be kind and filial; brothers would be harmonious and easily reconciled. Men in general loving on another, the strong would not make prey of the weak; the many would not plunder the few, the rich would not insult the poor, the noble would not be insolent to the mean; and the deceitful would not impose upon the simple. This is extraordinarily like the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth cast into political terms. The thoughts of Mo Ti came close to the [Categorical Imperative of the] Kingdom of Heaven. This essential identity is the most important historical aspect of these great world religions. They were in their beginnings quite unlike the priest, altar and temple cults, those cults for the worship of definite gods that played so great and so essential a part in the earlier stages of man’s development between 15,000 B. C. These new world religions, from 600 B.C., onward, were essentially

138

religions of the heart and of the universal sky. They swept away all those various and limited gods that had served the turn of human needs since the first communities were welded together by fear and hope. And presently when we come to Islam we shall find that for a third time the same fundamental new doctrine of the need of a universal devotion of all men to one Will reappears. Warned by the experiences of Christianity, Muhammad was very emphatic in insisting that he himself was merely a man, and so saved his teaching from corruption and misrepresentation. [Islam should recognize that their religious origins were of Muhammad, a man] . . .But to the white truth in each [rival religion] being burnt free from its [dogmatic] dross, and becoming manifestly the same truth -- namely, that the hearts of men, and therewith all the lives and institutions of men, must be subdued to one common Will ruling them all. “St. Paul,” says Dean Inge in one of his ‘Outspoken Essays,’ “understood what most Christians never realize, namely, that the Gospel of Christ is not a religion [organically], but religion itself in its most universal and deepest significance.” . .[like Islam, it restates Categorical Imperative, and Christ is the example of living it.] (466) . . . Take the case of the Greeks, the whole swing of their mental vigor falls into the period between the sixth century B.C., and the decay of the Alexandrian Museum under the late Ptolemies in the second century B.C. . . . Again, the mind of the Arabs, as we shall presently tell, blazed out like a star for half a dozen generations after the appearance of Islam. . . . (477) It was in Mecca about the year A.D. 570 that Muhammad, the founder of Islam, was born. He was born of considerable poverty and even by the standards of the desert he was uneducated; it is doubtful if he ever learnt to write. He was for some years a shepherd’s boy; then he became the servant of a certain Kadija the widow of a rich

Islam

139

merchant. Probably he had to look after her camels or help in her trading operations; and he is said to have traveled with caravans to the Yemen and to Syria. He does not seem to have been a very useful trader, but he had the good fortune to find favour in the lady’s eyes and she married him, to the great annoyance of her family. He was then only twenty-five years old. . . . His wife was much older . . . The Jews had perhaps converted him to a belief in the One True God. . . . He produced certain verses, which he declared had been revealed to him by an angel. They involved an assertion of the unity of God and some acceptable generalizations about righteousness. [unfavorable personal comments were skipped, with favor to Wells’ comments about Islam’s socioeconomic results] (484) But the personal quality of Muhammad is one thing and the quality of Islam, the religion he founded, is quite another. Muhammad was not pitted against Jesus or Mani, . . . [classical dogma eventually still has had its way and no Constitution protects the essential Civitas of the Islamic Categorical Imperative] (493) Islam prevailed because it was the best social and political order the times could offer. It prevailed because everywhere it found politically apathetic peoples robbed, oppressed, bullied, uneducated, and unorganized, and it found selfish and unsound governments out of touch with any people at all. It was the broadest, freshest, and cleanest political idea that had yet come into actual activity in the world, and it offered better terms than any other to the mass of mankind. The capitalistic and slaveholding system of the Roman Empire and the literature and culture and social tradition of Europe had altogether decayed and broken down before Islam arose. [And maybe Islam fulfilled Biblical Lamentations?] (498) Because it was a fine language, and because it was the language of the Koran. Arabic continued to spread until it had replaced Greek and become the language of

140

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

educated men throughout the whole Moslem world [Muhammad spoke but did not write]. (500) For some generations before Muhammad, the Arab mind had been, as it were smouldering, it had been producing poetry and much religious discussion; under the stimulus of the national and racial successes, it presently blazed out with a brilliance second only to that of the Greeks during their best period. It revived the human pursuit of science. If the Greek was the father, then the Arab was the foster father of the scientific method. Through the Arabs it was, and not by the Latin route, that the modern world received that gift of light and power. (501) It is difficult to say, in the case of this Arabic culture, where the Jew ends and the Arab begins, so important and essential were its Jewish factors. Moreover, there was a third source of inspiration, more particularly in mathematical science, to which at present it is difficult to do justice -- India, was in close and effective contact with Sanskrit literature and with Indo-Persian physical science. . . . And a century or so in advance of the West, there grew up in the Moslem world at a number of centers, at Basra, at Kufa, at Bagdad and Cairo, and (502) at Cordoba, out of what were at first religious schools dependent on mosques, a series of great universities. The light of these universities shown far beyond the Moslem world, and drew students to them from east and west. At Cordoba in particular there were great numbers of Christian students, and the influence of Arab philosophy coming by way of Spain upon the universities of Paris, Oxford, and North Italy, and upon Western European thought generally, was very considerable indeed. The name of Averroes (Ibnrushd) of Cordoba (1126-1198) stands out as the culminating influence of Arab philosophy upon European thought [and by way of Franklin and Jefferson’s embasadorial contact with France, upon America]. He developed the teachings of Aristotle upon lines that made a sharp division between religious

Fallacious as fiction

141

and scientific truth, and so prepared the way for the liberation of scientific research from the theological dogmatism that restrained it both under Christianity and under Islam. . . . “In mathematics,” say Thatcher and Schwill, 143 “The Arabs built on the foundations of the Greek mathematicians. The origin of the so-called Arabic numerals is obscure. Under Theodoric the Great, Bo.thius made use of certain signs which were in part very like the nine digits which we now use.” . . . But the zero, it is stated, was unknown until the ninth century, when it was invented by a Muslem mathematician named Muhammad-Ibn-Musa, who also was the first to use the decimal notation, and who gave the digits the [ordinal] value of position [is this India’s contribution?]. [Islam’s geometry contributions (algebra is mostly theirs), trigonometry, physics, and astronomy is of similar merit.] In medicine they made great advances over the work of the Greeks. . . . At the time in Europe the practice of medicine was forbidden by the Church, which expected cures to be effected by religious rites performed by the clergy, the Arabs had a real science of medicine. Public TV recently aired the life of Franklin, and also this history of Islam. That a supreme noumenal intelligence has variously confirmed the same consistent universal message, of Categorical Imperative, proves a critical natural consistency, and that Christ’s Categorical Imperative is for all humanity. The dual track of God’s holistically natural message of truth is that of reasoned revelations of science. And dogmatic belief, which fictionally is selfish and often unitarily materialistic, consistently has subordinated the truth of both, which truth universally is each individual’s inalienable eternal property. Addendum 4

As fallacious as fiction

The granted legal constitutional human rights of a chartered organic U.S. state or a licensed private corporation have only legalized dogma, i.e., an irrational foundation. And, this affirmed

142

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

legal foundation, also privatized Hobbes’ organic Leviathans’ economic causal mechanism: U.S. Political Economy’s fictional unitary materialism-based organic human rights equality, is similarly as fallacious: it harnesses natural human rights to the mechanist determinism’s wiling. When Bill Gates was a rising star in the tech-world of computing, I managed a national property insurance statistical association. I greatly appreciated Gates’ seminal contributions to digital technology which provided affordable computing capability to the smaller mutual insurance companies that I served. If anyone is worthy of success as a first rate entrepreneur, Bill Gates was! I firmly believe this. Now retired and using a micro computer for research and writing, my early AT computer’s limited capabilities soon became inadequate. The time arrived to upgrade to a pentium-four processor with an XP operating system. However, I was unprepared for big surprises and the resulting Desiderius. Because I respected Bill Gates, or because MSN’s Internet-service picked up the $200 discount on the computer I chose to purchase, for which I was prepared to pay the total price: however, required a two-year MSN membership subscription, as confirmed by a valid credit card’s autopay capability (my anticipation and request to pay by a personal check did not qualify for the discount). By digital magic, electronically swiping my credit card resulted in a sales ticket from Best Buy, Inc. for the computer and also the legal contract for MSNs internet service: by using my credit ccard to purchase the computer from Best Buy, MSN’s membership requirements were met. However, the six months of free Internet service, which MSN had advertized as part of the computer purchase, now was an apparition of payment for the future internet service: the advertisement had enticed me to subscribe contractually to MSN-Internet-service for two-years, which total cost was more than twice the advertized $200 discount. For various reasons, I did not activate the new computer. And, pending a clear resolution of what had been advertized was more an agitation than a cause. Following years of letter writing to secure what I

Fallacious as fiction

143

thought I had bargained for, MSN’s mechanized legal collection Cog required me to repay the $200 discount, without having provided any internet service: all telephone calls and letters never reached a responsible person (a responsible name was never disclosed to me). For this reason, MSN’s part in this electronic contract, I maintained, was no more than a fictional COG of the electronic mechanism. Now several years later, I still have not connected to Internet, and vow never to use MSN. What prompted me to include my personal Desiderius? , In this addendum, had more to do with legal fictitious cogs of the capitalist economic Leviathans’ mechanisms than with Internet Services, per se. Commonly, this U.S. economic Leviathan is called The American System of Political Economy. And privatized corporate mechanisms are officially fictionally legally defined as legal persons. The truth predicate of this legal fiction intends to convey similarly as human truth’s predicate ‘is true’ conveyed? . Mechanism, however, is no more than causal theory that never truthfully qualifies as organic natural perceptive cognizance: therefore, cannot contend that its truth predicate ‘is true.’ As the paradoxes of temporal experience will more surely show, as Rorty had cited, a questionable truth proclivity: 144 [Scientist look-a-likes, as], humanists - philosophers, theologians, historians, literary critics [and particularly jurists] -- have to worry about whether they are being scientific - whether they are entitled to think of their conclusions, no matter how carefully argued, as worthy of the term ‘true.’ Richard Rorty [Fiction-based organic truth, in which fiction is a nothingness that never equals human essence, without cognizance, also has no truth] Belief in mechanism, which is solid empirical theory, deliberately fails to recognize that natural essential noumenon of human intelligence is the antecedent of or at least coeval to mechanism (In the instance of social fiction called political economy, the economic determinism of mechanism provided the legal electronic basis of using my credit card to set the terms and conditions of my personal contract, with MSN). The factual evidence is undeniable. I did not participate in formulating the contractual terms and knew nothing about the legal magic that swiping my

144

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

credit card entailed. Political economy’s licensed legalities had entrapped my personal human sovereign prerogatives: in fact, my personal cardinal sovereignty, in this instance, was denied. Human individuals constitutionally are supposed to be an equal mutual party to contracts of debt? But an individual’s legal standing with lawful contract formulations is intimidated and demeaned by the licensed legal standing of mechanized fictitious organic entities. Simply, legally, the immunized acts of a corporate billing department, or collecting agency which also are legal COG’s in the mechanism of political economy’s Leviathan, present insurmountable disadvantages to humans as they are snared like flies in a spider’s web: contracts of debt, as routinely ‘slammed’ by swiping a credit card, then signing the purchase slip containing contractual gibberish on it, are not between equals in maters of liability: the legal immunity of legal organic fiction makes this so. For instance, a human might be sent to jail, but a legally licensed fictitious ‘COG’ of the political economy’s mechanism cannot be sent to jail: Impossible! It never happens. Irrational! But still we call it Justice? As concluding comments on sovereignty, I thought, this addendum as valid as others. My Desiderius is surely not unique. John Adams had reasoned that humans are coeval of government. And, along this line, Ludovick Allison introduced, with this, the Bible’s translation arranged and edited by Ernest Sutherland Bates:145 . . . Man is given free will and his first conscious act is to use it to

make himself into God. His second act, when caught, is to blame somebody else (by tautologically defined affirmation and denial, both acts are routine but irrationally accomplished). . . . the great covenant of God with Abraham is extended to Israel [and Islam] with Moses and then expanded to include the entire human race through Christ. That message reverberates on many different levels throughout Western thought. It enables us to comprehend the mystery of life as a part of a larger story of sin and redemption. Man is given free will and his first conscious act is to use it to make himself into God. (His second act, when caught, is to blame

Fallacious as fiction

145

somebody else.) This is the great Biblical motif that runs from Genesis and the Fall through the impieties and failures of Israel to the final consummation of the Old Testament in the New. It is the tension [antinomy] between man’s aspirations and man’s inadequacies, and it gives rise to the idea of hope. The Bible tells us man’s stories are more than fables, and his oldest myths are more than legends; they are intricately inlaid into the very foundation of the cosmos, and further-more, into a cosmology that plays itself out in the processes of each individual soul. In this, the Bible is the definitive epic of the West. King David had been dead two hundred years when the great Homeric verses of the ‘Iliad’ and the ‘Odyssey’ were first set down. The Biblical epic of which he is a central character was only halfway to completion. This epic moves us from Exodus to Job, from the tribal and collective experience to the individual, which in its singularity is universal in a way the narrowly tribal cannot be. And while this revelation is unfolding, another is moving parallel in the opposite direction: the great [categorically imperative] Covenant of God with Abraham is extended to Israel [and Islam] with Moses and then expanded to include the entire human race through Christ, so that we move from the individual [cardinal sovereignty] through the tribe to the universal. [Natural Antinomy is exacerbated, if not denied, by the fictitious organic dogmatic religious push and pulls on revelation (all of which is of nomos) and Christ’s Antinomy (anti-nomos) which by ontologism provides the antinomian influence on individual faculties of reason.] Hamilton’s broad powers interpretation of the Constitution in determining the powers of government (and corporate entities thereby licensed), as upheld by the Supreme Court’s ‘States Rights doctrine,’ constitutionally is based on this one sentence of Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States

146

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

respectively, or to the people. [So, why was , or to the people, overlooked?] Initiative, referendum, and recall actions are not only appropriate, they are necessary to ensure commonweal interests of human cardinal sovereignty. In my mind, a critical commonweal interest is subordinated by government’s Judicial function, which should be, but clearly is not, of the people, and for the people. Government, which is responsible to the people for its actions, must include adequate oversight control of government-licensed private fictitious corporate activities. This privatized legality can be redressed by common indictments, for any and all irrational acts, of either government or the licenced private organic agents. High on my list for commonweal indictment and redress is the Judiciary’s king like roles as the absolute arbiter of legality. Tautologically, irrationally ‘affirmed consequents,’ as principle, from which the legalization of Federalist fiction-based doctrinal definitions of ‘sovereign immunity,’ corporate veil,’ and ‘corporate due process,’ were deduced, which legally empower corporations, states, and ownership contracts: 146

sovereign immunity The principle that the federal and state governments cannot be sued without their consent. Based on the idea that the king can do no wrong. [This idealism was irrationally legally affirmed as principle from which the Judiciary deduced sovereign immunity and also legalized fictional mercantilism] This review of mercantilism is now appropriate: Particularly, as government considers adopting or licensing forms of mercantilism, for instance, the ‘fictitious legal nature’ of corporations, that state governments have licensed to compete equally as humans, should be carefully reconsidered.. Nature’s God did not create them and accordingly, they have no inalienable rights, coeval of government, as rights to free speech, which they often buy. E. K. Hunt wrote this, which added to Veblen’s views: 147

Fallacious as fiction

147

Private property had its origins in brute coercive force and was perpetuated both by force and by institutional and ideological legitimization. " [Property is surely not natural necessary antecedent

manufacture, and afford it cheap enough to prevent the importation of the same kind from abroad, and to bear the expense of its own exportation. . . .

principle, and original laws of usufruct, which principle was that all natural things are of the human garden, are now long forgotten.]

Concerning National Wealth, in 1769, in Positions to be Examined, Franklin wrote this:

Hunt concluded this about the administrative results of Whigs’ ‘internal improvement’ doctrine: 148

The passage of the Sherman Act and the establishment of various government regulatory agencies were ostensibly aimed at controlling these giant corporations. In practice, however, government . . . aided these giants in consolidating and stabilizing their massive empires. Licensed with the lawful impunity of states’ rights, corporations engage collusively in forms of neo-mercantilism. We should recognize this, and we should be concerned that large multinational corporations are today, larger than our nation was and that as ‘fictitious legal persons,’ they threaten to nullify, by conflations of individual cardinal sovereignty to unitary materialist idealism, democratic sovereignty. Leviathan entities, as nations, make their own rules, we might say, with which human entities individually cannot compete. Benjamin Franklin observed this of mercantilism’s paradoxical effects: Benjamin Franklin was both great and prolific in expressing what his deliberately ethical conscience prescribed. He wrote about labor as the measure of value forty seven years before Smith reaffirmed it in ‘The Wealth of Nations.’ In 1760 Franklin wrote this: 149

Manufactures are founded in poverty. It is the number of poor without land in a country, and who must work for others at low wages or starve, that enables undertakers to carry on a "

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

The phrase, and by institutional and ideological legitimization, confirms my thesis of tautological irrationalism.

Parrington summarized this about Franklin:

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

Fallacious as fiction

149

manage their affairs with so much more application, industry, and address, than the public do theirs, that general interest most commonly gives way to particular. We assemble parliaments and councils, to have the benefit of their collected wisdom; but we necessarily have, at the same time, the inconvenience of their collected passions, prejudices, and private interests. By the help of these, artful men over power their wisdom and dupe its possessors; and if we may judge by the acts, arrets, and edicts, all the world over, for regulating commerce, an assembly of great men is the greatest fool upon earth?“ Parrington’s following assessment of the house of Adams (particularly Brooks Adams’ assessment) appertains to mercantilism’s folly:150 . . . and in these early years of the 1890s (Henry Adams) was

stimulated by Brooks Adams, who was then deep in his theory of the law of civilization and decay and had come to lean heavily on the principle of economic determinism. “Brooks Adams had taught him,” he said later, “that the relation between civilizations was that of trade . . .” “. . . (Henry Adams) philosophy of history, as he came finally to understand it, was expressed thus: . . . The work of internal government has become the task of controlling these men, who are socially as remote as heathen gods, alone worth knowing, but never known, and who could tell nothing of political value if one skinned them alive. Most of them have nothing to tell, but are forces as dumb as their dynamos [mechanisms], absorbed in the . . . economy of power. . . .” Parrington also wrote this about Brooks Adams publication in 1895, The Law of Civilization and Decay: “. . . The eviction of the peasants from their lands had already

provided a plentiful supply of cheap labor, the machinery of credit

150

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

and exchange had been created, and with this immense influx of capital the Industrial Revolution was a matter of course. . . . [England’s] Bank Act of 1844, which yielded the control of the currency to the bankers, marked the definite transfer of sovereignty to Lombard Street; Samuel Lloyd, the banker, completed the work begun by Thomas Cromwell, burgess-advernturer -- the work of bringing England under the authoritative sway of the principle of greed [a polite way of describing the ‘economic determinism’ of political economy’]. Since 1844 western civilization has lain helpless under the heel of the usurer, who levies his tax upon production by expanding and contracting currency at will, and rules society through his control of the political state. The triumph of the economic mind is complete. The aristocracy which wields this autocratic power is beyond attack, for it is defended by a wage-earning police, by the side of which the legions were a toy -- police so formidable that, for the first time in history, revolt is hopeless and is not attempted. The only question which preoccupies the ruling class is whether it is cheaper to coerce or bribe.” Clearly, mechanist economic determinism (political economy in which treasure rather than wealth dominates) is based on artful tautological irrationalism rather than on The Bill of Rights’ based ethics. Ever since the 1860s when the American System of Political Economy was installed as the legal but unofficial vestige of government, the licensing function of economic determinism was expanded to include the entities with economic constituencies. The ways and means of taxes to government and patronage from government were accommodated by banking. The government’s licensed privatized businesses function as government agents: the controllers and controls of which became an essential if not the primary function of government. Soon thereafter, banking became government’s most important agency, which was given its own Board of regulators. With the licensing of business, as the

Fallacious as fiction

151

agents of government, constitutional purposes obviously then only applied to government, and not to the privatized business agents: constitutional purposes are every citizen’s concern. So, why does it happen in Las Vegas that the mechanist political economy can use police and justice to collect for casinos’ the gambling markers they had authorized? What public sanctioned purpose allows police and justice to act on behalf of casinos against the gaming losers? : loser citizens desire justice to be impartial in adjudging paradoxical wagering issues?

We . . . in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution. Politics is about opinion and social relations involving authority and power. Politicians are, therefore, artisans rather than scientists from whom we expect ethical perfection but often are sophists. Politicians control the mechanist economic determinism in the U.S. and to great extent the world. A popular view favors Tom Blair’s quip: 151

Politicians are like diapers. They both should be changed often. And for the same reason. An Amendment to ‘Balance the Budget’ would only endorse Congress’s administering of mechanisms’ political economic determinism. Unjust abusive power, which represents political affluence rather than common taxpayers, is sure to prevail (as the common law) making political economy’s unjust patronage more legally important. And, Legislators more systematically conditioned not to know or care what ethics is about. About teleological ethical responsibility, Socrates expressed his sense of ethical duty while answering Crito’s offer of escape. He gave us this responsible thought to consider: 152

Leave me then, Crito, to fulfil the will of God, and to follow whither he leads.

152

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

Teleological Ethics is akin to pure truth, knowledge, and natural justice. It is about rational ethereal products of human minds: Ethics is akin to truth, which reason transcends and often contradicts thought that emanates from material-based experiences. However, falsehoods of rationalization are also born of mind: contrivances of which are irrationalism based: of concupiscence rather than ethics.153

Ethics distinguishes itself from law and etiquette in going deeper into the essence of rational existence. Dogma (as materialism) compromises ethics, truth, and justice. Bertrand Russell’s following observation of the nature of truth is about the adverse nihilistic conflations of believed materialism:154

Fallacious as fiction

153

154

Immunity’s logical antecedent clearly is the inalienable human cardinal sovereignty which is coeval of any organic consideration: should be consulted for consent about being subjected to fictitious authorities and powers of fictions as kings, states, and corporations? And because fictions are imagined, neither constitutionally, nor legally sanctioned ‘due process’ consideration is logically applicable. Only living individuals are naturally coeval of government, as John Adams observed, and logically only they are entitled to human inalienable rights as constitutional ‘due process.’ Furthermore, if government is the antecedent authority of licence enjoyed by fictions as corporations, then human rights, logically are truly the antecedents of the government’s authorities, which grant such licenses. However, because of the fictitious irrationally affirmed ‘corporate rights,’ human cardinal rights have been annihilated thereby. And until human rights’ ‘immunities,’ which protect fairness and equity in legal matters, are defined and commonly agreed to, the patent evidence is this: supreme constitutional law is the fallacious cohort of our mechanism-based political economy.

workers; encouraged immigration of skilled workers; and, in several cases, prohibited sales of precious metals to foreigners. . . . Adam Smith accused mercantilists of not being able to distinguish between wealth and what they called treasure, pointing out that the accumulation of treasure is merely instrumental to the acquisition of wealth. [Smith had defined wealth as consumable and usable goods.] We should be concerned about ‘mercantilism’ that is conducted by licensed corporations (fiction unnaturally cannot, therefore do not consume, therefore, a corporations’ purpose is only based on concupiscence, to accumulate treasure " ). We should also be concerned about organized corporate involvement in politics, free speech and ‘foreign’ contributions to political parties, because they all are fictional, do not consume and are not naturally inalienable. *** The ‘corporate veil’ of legal immunities also are, of concupiscent design: nihilistically hidden from view. ‘Corporate veil’ immunizes corporations from laws that are intended to prosecute humans. 156

Explaining my Desiderius The computer I purchased was in response to an advertised six months of free MSN Internet Services. As my purchase was being registered, the ‘Best Buy’ clerk asked me, “do you want the $200 MSN discount?” “Yes, of course,” I responded! And the $200 credit was registered on my bill, which legally had been constructed to serve as a contract. My personal check was issued to cover the full discounted purchase. Then came the surprise! An initial Internet registration required me to use my credit card. " Because I insisted to pay by personal check, which began to write and present. “MSN insists on a credit card payment,” the clerk then said. Trapped by political economy’s interlinked mechanisms, I now had

corporate veil The legal assumption that actions taken by CORPORATIONS are not the personal actions of corporation’s owners. . . . In other words, they can hide behind the corporate veil. Where is any rationally legal contractual mutuality between a human consumer and a corporation found? , When one is legally made responsible, while the other is legally shielded from responsibility? Naturally antecedent human cardinal sovereignty was never consulted in matters of the classical authorities of kingdoms, which are universally based on dogmatic divine rights doctrine. Consent was never asked for nor volunteered. However, because the doctrine of Sovereign

Of the economists which evaluated Adam Smith’s economic equation, Schumperter was most cogent regarding the natural folly of accumulating treasure (see Note 1).

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

Having just paid the credit balance in full (my check was in the mail), I supposed that this would not be a problem! But paying by credit card was immediate and got ahead of my pay off by check.

Fallacious as fiction

155

the paradoxical choice: either furnish my credit card or decline the purchase, and forgo the advertized free Internet Service and the $200 price discount. Surprised! , I paused to reflect on the card which I had a chenc in the mail to pay off and retire: my last credit balance had showed sufficient funds available to pay MSNs Internet connection fees, which was all that was required to make the purchase, but the credit card’s monthly charges I failed to reconcile by this quick analysis: not only was my credit payment declined, a hefty card charge was made for having exceeded the credit limit. Soon thereafter, my payoff check arrived and I retired the credit card and had the computer. Problems with settling my computer purchase had only just begun. In the end, more than a year later, I repaid the $200 discount to MSN. Best Buy got its full payment for the computer. Free Internet Services, as advertized, were now but an apparition in memory. Along the way, the interconnected mechanist chain of collection services established to serve the economic mechanisms’ Leviathan, became enforced on me: I can attest that individuals have no legal supporting service that can equal the political economy’s mechanisms’ contractual enforcement. Before answering MSN’s ‘Billing’ and ‘Collecting‘ demands, I consulted the Family Legal Guide. Until actual activation occurs, and because I was not party to any discussion of contractual obligation with MSN, nothing of contract value could exist, or so I contended: sadly, it does exist and disregards this published advice:

THE BASICS OF CONTRACTS To be enforceable, a contract must meet these . . . requirements: (4) It must be mutually binding on the parties. (5) must be the result of a mutual agreement between the parties? Contract is unenforceable if a mistake, fraud, innocent misrepresentation, duress, or undue influence is involved. Undoubtedly, the legal test of my accepting the MSN contract depends on the act of providing a valid credit card for automated billing and collection of monthly payments. Bundling of services patently violates antitrust concerns and undoubtedly was a great part of Microsoft’s

156

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

recent legal problems. Anyway, when party C (Best Buy’s salesperson) also acts as party A (MSN’s negotiator) in the making of a contract with party B (the buyer of Best Buy’s product), myriad valid claims make the contract unenforceable. Particularly, parties A and B are never ‘mutually bound,’ nor is a clearly ‘mutual agreement’ between parties A and B discussed, signed, or sealed. Following the experience of this full year’s Desiderius, I repaid the $200 discount to MSN, still have not used the computer that I purchased from Best Buy, and have not yet decided on an Internet service: but, that service surely will not require of me a credit card from which identity fraud now occurs frequently. Neither MSN nor Best Buy is acceptable to me, a customer. And Advertisements and rebates are now far greater suspect, in my mind.

Rebate horror stories abound 157 Getting refunds from companies not always easy Myrna Barron followed the directions to a Ton a mail-in rebate for a L’Oreal hair coloring kit. She even made photocopies of the UPC code, receipt and all the documents she mailed. Then she waited. And waited. Eight to ten weeks later, the Huntington Beach, CA resident was still waiting, so she mailed copies of everything again, along with a letter asking what happened to her rebate. This time she got a response: “Rebate submission refused due to: not originals.” Barron no longer buys L’oreal products. It could have been worse. Because of rebates, Ed Meadows lost his whole company. CenDyne of Santa Ana, CA, which Meadows cofounded in 1999, offered rebates galore. That helped make it one of the nation’s top sellers of optical drives, with $50 million revenue last year. But shelling out at least $5million worth of rebates in a year caused financial problems for CenDyne. In August, its largest investor sued, partly because, it said, the company offered too many rebates. The investor won the law suit, seized the company and shut it down. Meadows is now tied up in court, and the Cendyne customers

Fallacious as fiction

157

who sent in rebate forms are out of luck, though some retailers, such as Staples, honored the rebates on CenDyne products purchased at its stores. “I don’t think (rebates) are good for everybody,” Meadows said. “They create a tremendous burden on the company selling it. And there’s the burden on the customers to file it. Every customer seems to have a rebate horror story, and it’s no mystery why. Only about 40 percent of the buyers get the rebates they qualify for, according to The Aberdeen Group, a Boston-based research firm. Aberdeen estimates that 40 percent of rebate forms never get mailed in. In addition, 20 percent of the forms are disqualified, such as those that arrive without all the required documents. Michael Parham of Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, was in that category. He missed out on a $30 rebate on a Sony digital video disk drive because he didn’t read the fine print, which required that he send in the serial number, on top of the usual receipt, rebate form and UPC code. The bottom line is, they want to frustrate you so you just for forget about your rebate,” Parham said. Because only 2 of 5 consumers get the rebates they’re entitled to, you might think most people hate rebates. But you’d be wrong. Mail-in rebate offers are increasing, especially for computer products. The Beyhen Corp., a research firm that monitors newspaper advertizing, reports that 51 percent of PC products this year included a rebate, up from 44 percent last year. And they’re no longer just piddling dollar-off offers from makers of toothpaste or car wax. For example, Lake Forest, Calif.’s Western Digital Corp. Recently offered a $100 rebate on a $250 hard drive at Fry’s Electronics. Such offers have enticed consumers such as Paul Houle of Costa Mesa, CA to make rebating a hobby. He’s collected $2,245 on 114 rebates in the past 18 months. Even as a pseudoprofessional rebater, Houle says, it hasn’t been easy. “Oftentimes the rebate forms . . . are missing, or the form they give you is wrong or has already expired,” he said. “You’ve

158

AMERICA’S ETHEREAL GOLD

got to have the right forms and documents, no matter what the sales clerk says,” Houle said. “They’ll say, “ ‘Oh, don’t worry, they’ll still honor it.’ “Yeah, sure.” It’s a love-hate relationship. Customers like the discounts that rebates offer. Retailers and manufacturers like the sales boost. Nobody likes the paperwork. And retailers hate being blamed when a manufacturers rebate goes sour. For manufacturers rebates can be a headache they’re unable to avoid. Some retailers won’t put a manufacrurer’s product in an add or on the shelves unless rebates are part of the offer. “It’s all part of the negotiation process with the retailer,” said Bradley Morse, vice president of marketing at D-Link Systems in Irvine, CA. Manufacturers also use rebates to lower prices temporarily, to increase market share and to gain demographic information on customers. If a rival offers rebates, a company often will follow suit, even if that cuts into the bottom line. To handle rebates, companies must set up programs to process claims and handle customer service. That’s a burden, even though most companies hire an outside fulfillment center for much of the work. Iogear, an Irvine seller of computer mice and other computer products, hired Parago of Dallas to process the “several thousand” rebates it receives each week. Still, if a customer has a problem, there’s a phone number posted on its Web site that rings directly to the lobby of Iogear’s Irvine headquarters. “If they took the effort to call us, we want to make sure they are helped,” said Miranda Su, Iogear’s director of sales and marketing. Some retailers prefer not to offer rebates because of customer-service problems, said Roger Lanctot, Beyen Co.’s director of advertising analysis. If customers don’t receive the rebates from a manufacturer, they blame the store. “That’s why Kmart, WalMart, and Target almost never have problems. And typically, they won’t advertise them at all,” Lanctot said. “For years, Fry’s said ‘No rebate.’ But even they caved in.

Fallacious as fiction

159

It’s just the nature of the beast -- how you compete in the technology marketplace.” That’s because rebates attract customers. To avoid aggravating their clientele, some stores offer “instant rebates,” so customers don’t have to mess with rebate forms or wait for the refund. Other retailers count on some consumers forgetting about rebates. “The reason we can offer rebates is because not everybody will redeem them,” said Larisa Hall, vice president of marketing at Buy.com, an online retailer based in Aliso Viejo, CA. “It’s for the folks who want to jump through the hoops.” Some retailers are making those hoops harder for customers to jump through: Some rebates are good for a few days after a purchase, others have confusing directions printed in tiny lettering. But rebate marketers defend the detailed requirements. Rebate programs have to be strict because fraud is rampant when you hand out money, said Claire Rosenzweig, president of the Promotion Marketing Association. “The detailed steps are lengthy for the consumer’s protection,” Rosenzweig said. Among the challenges that rebate programs face are magazines that help consumers claim rebates. Some of them are “borderline illegal,” said David McIntyre, president of Phoenixbased Global Fulfillment Services. They print rebate forms and 800 numbers from all over the country, so its easy for anyone to call a company, describe the rebate and complain about not receiving a check. “We’ve seen potential fraud as high as a half-million dollars for a single submission,” McIntyre said. Global Fulfillment, a 600-employee company, was on target to process 15 million consumer rebate claims in 2003, McIntyre said. Employees scan in UPC codes and type the requests into computers, which can’t read handwriting. The rest is automated. Computers sort out which rebates were received in time, determine whether the proper information was included and nix requests from duplicate addresses.

160

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

Most fulfillment companies won’t send out rebate checks until they’re paid by the manufacturer, which is where delays can set in. Some manufacturers prepay, but others won’t pay until the fulfillment company sends an invoice. Sometimes if a consumer submits an incomplete claim, the processing company tries to figure out whether the claim is legitimate. To make that determination, the company follows guidelines from the manufacturer, McIntyre said. “If a customer says, ‘ I don’t have my UPC code,’ we have to make a decision whether the rest of the rebate looks right or is a fraud,” he said. Why is it legally OK for businesses to mechanize rebates? And print forms that defraud 40 percent of consumers? However, when consumer advocates offer guidelines, and are willing to print forms to replace those lost, outdated, or wrong, or furnish phone numbers to call, it is legally denied? Similarly, for instance, why was Martha Stewart prosecuted for acting on insider information while, to begin with, the government’s regulator was not prosecuted for having leaked ‘insider information,’? Paradoxes, as these, exist because legalities that hold the fiducial keys that can mitigate if not stop irrationalism and fraud? This became more clear when leaking came from the offices of the President, and we now wait with expectation of the President’s Pardon of the leaker.

APPENDIXES David Broder’s new book, ‘Democracy Derailed‘ is the source of these two articles about Initiative Campaigns, and The Power of Money.15 8 Broder is the Washington Post’s senior political writer. Broder’s articles are about myriad results of American Political Economy. (My annotations to these Appendixes are furnished as special notes.)

The beginnings of the ballot initiative The founders of the American republic were almost as distrustful

The beginnings of the ballot initiative

161

opure democracy as they were resentful of royal decrees. Direct democracy might work in a small compact society, they argued, but it would be impractical in a nation the size of the United States. At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, no voice was raised in support of direct democracy. A century later, with the rise of industrial America and rampant corruption in the nation’s legislatures, political reformers began to question the work of the founders. Largely rural protest groups from the Midwest, South, and West came together at the first convention of the Populist Party, in Omaha in 1892. [See Note 2] Both the Populists and Progressives -- middle-class reform movement bent on rooting out dishonesty in government -- saw the initiative process as a salve for the body politic’s wounds. An influential pamphlet, ‘Direct Legislation by the citizenship through the initiative and Referendum,’ appeared in 1893. In it, J. W. Sullivan argued that as citizens took on the responsibility of writing the laws themselves, ‘each would consequently acquire education in his role and develop a lively interest in the public affairs in part under his own management.’ Into this feisty mix of reformers came William Simon U’Ren, a central figure in the history of the American initiative process. In the 1880s, U’Ren apprenticed himself to a lawyer in Denver and became active in politics. He later told Lincoln Steffens, the muckraking journalist, that he was appalled when the Republican bosses of Denver gave him what we would now call ‘street money’ to buy votes. [See Note 2] In the 1890s, having moved to Oregon in search of a healthier climate, U’Ren helped form the Direct Legislation League. He launched a propaganda campaign, distributing almost half a million pamphlets and hundreds of copies of Sullivan’s book in support of a constitutional convention that would enshrine initiative and referendum in Oregon’s charter.

162

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

The proposal failed narrowly in the 1895 session of the legislature, in part because the Portland Oregonian labeled it ‘one of the crazy fads of Populism’ and ‘a theory of fiddlesticks borrowed from a petty foreign state.’ Eventually, U’Ren lined up enough support for a constitutional amendment to pass easily in 1899. It received the required second endorsement from the legislature two years later, with only one dissenting vote. The voters overwhelmingly ratified the amendment in 1992 and it withstood a legal challenge that went all the way to the Supreme Court. U’Rens handiwork is evident today in his adopted state. The official voters’ pamphlet for the 1996 Oregon ballot -- containing explanations for 16 citizen-sponsored initiatives and six others referred by the legislature -- ran 248 pages. It also included paid ads from supporters and opponents. .......

A snake in the grass roots: Special interests are subverting the initiative process ‘Simply put, the initiative’s growing popularity has given us something that once seemed unthinkable -- not a government of laws, but laws without government. An alternative form of government -- the ballot iniative -- is spreading in the United States. Despite its popular appeal and reformist roots, this method of lawmaking is alien to the spirit of the Constitution and its carefully crafted set of checks and balances. Left unchecked, the initiative could challenge or even subvert the system that has served the nation so well for more than 200 years. Though derived from a century-old idea favored by the Populist and Progressive movements as a weapon against specialinterest influence, the initiative has become a favored tool of interest groups and millionaires with their own political and personal

A snake in the grass roots

163

agendas. These players -- often not even residents of the states whose laws and constitutions they seek to rewrite -- have learned that the initiative is a more efficient way of achieving their ends than the cumbersome and often time-consuming process of supporting candidates for public office and then lobbying them to pass legislation. In hundreds of municipalities and half the states-particularly in the West -- the initiative has become a rival force to City Hall and the State House. (The District of Columbia allows voters to enact laws by initiative, but the states of Maryland and Virginia do not.) In a single year, 1998, voters across the country bypassed their elected representatives to end affirmative action, raise the minimum wage, ban billboards, permit patients to obtain prescriptions for marijuana, restrict campaign spending and contributions, expand casino gambling, outlaw many forms of hunting, prohibit some abortions and allow adopted children to obtain the names of their biological parents. Of 66 statewide initiatives that year, 39 became law. Simply put, the initiative’s growing popularity has given us something that once seemed unthinkable -- not a government of laws, but laws without government. This new fondness for the initiative -- at least in the portion of the country where it has become part of the political fabric -- is itself evidence of the increasing alienation of Americans from our system of representative government. Americans have always had a healthy skepticism about the people in public office: The writers of the Constitution began with the assumption that power is a dangerous intoxicant and that those who wield it must be checked by clear delineation of their authority. [See Note 3] But what we have today goes well beyond skepticism. In nearly every state I visited while researching this phenomenon [in my view, not a phenomenon posited by nature’s Logos, but rather a factual result of man-made origin], the initiative was viewed as

164

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

sacrosanct, and the legislature was held in disrepute. One expression of that disdain is the term-limits movement, which swept the country in the past two decades, usually by the mechanism of initiative campaigns. It is the clearest expression of the revolt against representative government. In effect, it is a command: ‘Clear out of there, you bums. None of you is worth saving. We’ll take over the job of writing the laws ourselves.’ But who is the ‘we’? Based on my reporting, it is clear that the initiative process has largely discarded its grass-roots origins. It is no longer merely the province of idealistic volunteers who gather signatures to place legislation of their own devising on the ballot. Billionaire Paul Allen, cofounder of Microsoft, spent more than $8 million in support of a referendum on a new football stadium for the Seattle Seahawks. Allen, who was negotiating to buy the team, even paid the $4 million cost of running the June 1997 special election -- in which Washington state voters narrowly agreed to provide public financing for part of the $425 million stadium bill. [As others who profit from owning professional sports teams, Paul Allen’s personal reward will be paid by public taxes.]

Like so many other aspects of American politics, the initiative process has become big business. Lawyers, campaign consultants and signature-gathering firms see each eliction cycle as an opportunity to make money on initiatives that, in many cases, only a handful of people are pushing. Records from the 1998 election cycle -- not even on of the busiest in recent years -- show that more than $250 million was raised and spent in this largely uncontrolled and unexamined arena of politics’. This is a far cry from the dream of direct democracy cherished by the 19th-century reformers who imported the initiative concept from Switzerland in the hope that it might cleanse the corrupt politics of their day. They would be the first to throw up their hands in disgust at what their noble experiment has produced.

A snake in the grass roots

165

Money does not always prevail in modern-day initiative fights, but it is almost always a major -- even a dominant -- factor. In the fall of 1997, more than 200 petitions were circulating for statewide initiatives that sponsors hoped to place on ballots the following year. The vast majority did not make it. The single obstacle that eliminated most of them was the ready cash need to hire the companies that wage initiative campaigns. In 1998, the most expensive initiative compaign was the battle over a measure legalizing casino-style gambling on Indian lands in California. The Nevada casinos, fearful of the competition, shelled out $25,756,828 trying to defeat the proposition. The tribes outdid them, spending $66,257,088 to win. The $92 million total was a new record for California. But of all the ventures into initiative politics that year, perhaps the most successful was engineered by three wealthy men who shared the conviction that the federal ‘war on drugs’ was a dreadful mistake. They banded together to support medical marijuana initiatives in five wester states. The best known of them was billionaire financier George Soros of New York, who had made his fortune in currency trading. He and his political partners -Phoenix businessman John Sperling and Cleveland buninessman Peter B. Lewis -- personally contributed more than 75 percent of the $1.5 million spent on behalf of a successful medical marijuana initiative in just one of the states, Arizona. The issue isn’t whether medical marijuana laws are good or bad. As Arizona state Rep. Mike Gardner complained to me, ‘The initiative was part of out constitution when we became a state, because it was supposed to offer people a way od overriding special interest groups. But it’s turned 180 degrees and now the special interest groups use the initiative for their own puposes. Why should a New York millionaire be writing the laws of Arizona?’ When I relayed Gardner’s questions to Soros, he replied: ‘I

166

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

live in one place, but I consider myself a citizen of the world. I have foundations in 30 countries, and I believe certain universal principles apply everywhere -- including Arizona.’ [See Note 4]

It won’t be long before the twin forces of technology and public opinion coalesce in a political movement for a national initiative -- allowing the public to substitute the simplicity of majority rule for what must seem to many Americans the arcane, out-of-date model of the Constitution. In fact, such a debate is already underway, based on what I heard at a May 1999 forum sponsored by the Initiative and Referendum Institute here in Washington. M. Duane Waters, the institute’s president, cut his political teeth on the term-limits movement, and the group’s membership includes firms in the initiative industry. But Waters strove to keep the forum intellectually honest, inviting critics as well as supporters of the initiative process. There was no doubt about the leanings of most of those in attendance. The keynote speaker was Kirk Fordice, then governor of Mississippi, who was cheered when he saluted the audience as ‘the greatest collection of mavericks in the world. The goal that unites us is to return a portion of the considerable power of government to individual citizens . . . and take control from the hands of professional politicians and bureaucrats.’ Fordice, a Republican, noted that his state was the most recent to adopt the initiative, in 1992. Since then, he lamented, ‘only one initiative has made it onto the ballot,’ a term-limits measure that voters rejected. ‘Thank God for California and those raggedy-looking California kids who came in and gathered the signatures,’ he said. ‘Now the (Mississippi) legislature is trying we can’t have them come in, and we’re taking it to court.’ Then came Mike Gravel, former Democratic senator from

Special ENDNOTE 2

167

168

Alaska and head of an organization called Philadelphia II, which calls for essentially creating a new Constitution based on direct democracy. Gravel’s plan -- simplicity itself -- is to take a national pole, and if 50 percent of the people want to vote on an issue, it goes on the next general election ballot. Then Congress would have to hold hearings on the issue and mark up a bill for submission to the voters. Once an issue gets on the ballot, only individuals could contribute to the compaign for passing or defeating it. When I began researching the initiative process, I was agnostic about it. But now that I’ve heard the arguments and seen the initiative industry in action, the choice is easy. I would choose James Madison and the Constitution’s checks and balances over the seductive simplicity of Gravel’s up-or- down initiative vote. We should be able to learn from experience, and out experience with direct democracy during the last two decades is that wealthy individuals and special interests -- the very targets of the Populists and Progressives a century ago -- have learned all too well how to subvert the initiative to their own purposes. Admittedly, representative government has acquired a dubious reputation today. But as citizens, the remedy isn’t to avoid our elected representatives. The best weapon against the ineffective, the weak and the corrupt is in our hands each Election Day. [See Note 5] MY APPENDED RESEARCH NOTES: (Notes 1-6) Special Endnote 1 (A general comment) Government orthodoxy puts wage-earning in an ‘iron earning cage’ without any free CAPITAL PATRIMONY to bolster WAGEEARNED subsistence. However, about capitalism’s special interest political propensities for having its economic growth PATRONIZED, economist J. Schumperter wrote this: 159 ‘The Theory of Economic Development’ sounds like an analysis of

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

what we have come to call the underdeveloped world. But in 1912 the special economic status and problems of that “world” had not yet come into existence -- this was still the unabashed colonialism [Whigs, while in charge of the government’s Gilded Age had officially installed, by asserted affirmation, pork barrel ‘internal improvement’ paternalism into mechanisms of the American System of Political economy’s administrations]. Schumperter’s book was about another kind of development -- the way in which capitalism develops its propensities for growth. . . . this academic treatise was destined to become the basis for one of the most influential interpretations of capitalism ever written. . . .. Schumpeter’s initial portrait describes a capitalism that lacks the very ingredient that brought growth into the worlds of Smith and Mill and Marx and Keynes -- namely, the accumulation of capital. " Schumpeter describes instead a capitalism sans accumulation -- a capitalism whose flow of production is perfectly static and changeless, reproducing itself in a “circular flow” that never alters or expands its creation of wealth. "" [also is true of natural human conservatism:160 ]

The model resembles the stationary state envisaged by Ricardo and Mill, with the difference that the stationary state seemed the end of capitalism to the earlier writers, whereas for Schumpeter it was the beginning of capitalism. Therefore we must examine the characteristics of the circular flow a little more "

Corporations’ accumulations of capital, which by means of corporate buyouts are converted to private treasure hoards was the prime source of 1980's growth. ""

In a sense his [Adam Smith’s] system presupposes that eighteenth-century England will remain unchanged forever. Only in quantity will it grow: more people, more goods, more wealth; its quality will remain unchanged. His are the dynamics of a static community; it grows but it never matures.

Special Endnote 1

169

carefully. Because the system has no momentum, inertia is the rule of its economic life: “All knowledge and habit, once acquired,” writes Schumpeter, “becomes as firmly rooted in ourselves as a railway embankment in the earth.” Thus having found by trial and error the economic course that is most advantageous for ourselves, we repeat it by routine. Economic life may have originally been a challenge; it becomes a habit. More important, in this changeless flow competition will have removed all earnings that exceed the value of anyone’s contribution to output. This means that competition among employers will force them to pay their workers the full value of the product they create, and that owners of land or other natural wealth will likewise receive as rents whatever value their resources contribute. So workers and landowners will get their shares in the circular flow. And capitalists? Another surprise. Capitalists will receive nothing, except their wages as management. That is because any contribution to the value of output that was derived from capital goods they owned would be entirely absorbed by the value of labor that went into making those goods plus the value of resources they contained. Thus, exactly as Ricardo or Mill foresaw, ‘in a static economy there is no place for profit! Why does Schumpeter present us with such a strange -- not to say strained -- image of the system? Perhaps we have already divined the purpose behind his method: the model of a static capitalism is an attempt to answer the question of where profits come from. The source of profits is a question that has been gingerly handled by most economists. Smith wavered between viewing profit as a deduction from the value created by labor and as a kind of independent return located in capital itself. If profits were a deduction, of course, the explanation implied that labor was shortchanged; and if they were a contribution of capital, one

170

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

would have to explain why the profits went to the owner of the machine, not to its inventor or user. Mill suggested that profits were the reward for the “abstinence” of capitalists, but he did not explain why capitalists were entitled to a reward for an activity that was clearly in their own interest. Still other economists described profits as the earnings of “capital,” speaking as if the shovel itself were paid for its contribution to output. Marx, of course, said that Smith was right in the first place though he didn’t know it -- that profits were a deduction from the actual value created by the working man. But that was part of the labor theory of value which everyone knew to be wrong and therefore did not have to be reckoned with. Schumpeter now came forward with a brilliant answer to this vexing question. Profits he said, did not arise from exploitation of labor or from the earnings of capital. They were the result of quite another process. ‘Profits appeared in a static economy when the circular flow failed to follow its routinized course.’ Now we can see why the wildly unrealistic circular flow is so brilliant a starting point. For all the forces leading to disruptions in routine, one stands out. This is the introduction of technological or organizational innovations into the circular flow -- new or cheaper ways of making things, or ways of making wholly new things. ‘As a result of these innovations a flow of income arises that cannot be traced either to the contribution of labor or of resourse owners.’ A new process enables an innovating capitalist to produce the same goods as his competitors, but at a cheaper cost, exactly as a favorably located piece of land enables its owner to produce crops more cheaply than less well situated fellow landlords. Again, exactly like the fortunate landlord, the innovating capitalist now receives a “rent” from the differential in his cost. But this rent is not derived from God-given advantages in location or fertility. It

Special Endnote 2

171

springs from the will and intelligence of the innovator, and it will disappear as soon as other capitalists learn the tricks of the pioneer. The new flow is not therefore a more or less permanent rent. It is a wholly transient profit. An innovation implies an innovator -- someone who is responsible for combining the factors of production in new ways. This is obviously not a “normal” businessman, following established routines. The person who introduces change into economic life is a representative of another class -- or more accurately, another group, because innovators do not necessarily come from any social class. Schumpeter took an old word from the economic lexicon and used it to describe these revolutionists of production. He called them ‘entrepreneurs.’ Entrepreneurs and their innovating activity were thus the source of profit in the capitalist system. Schumperter’s capitalist Entrepreneurs require no government paternalism, as granting free capital or Gilded Age ‘internal improvements,’ to capitalism for to grow profits from capital returns. Special Endnote 2 About populist protests, Parrington often noted that democratic movements reacted to the anticipated constitutional compromises as Whiggish programs were installed. Parrington wrote this about dogma called ‘divine right’ and ‘economic determinism.’161

The three parties that emerged from the theological disputes, Anglican, Presbyterian, and Independent, followed, in the main, political divisions of Tory, Whig, and Democrat. ---The first stoutly upheld the absolutist principle in church and state. It stood for Bishop and King. Numbering probably a large majority of the English people, and led by the hereditary masters of England, it was dominated by the feudal spirit of corporate unity. It believed that social order, the loyal subjection

172

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

of subject to ruler, was possible only through a coalescence of church and state. The subject-citizen was born into the one as he was born into the other, and owed allegiance both to his spiritual and temporal overlords. Authority, whether in church or state, was of divine origin, and Bishop and King were the Lord’s appointed, answerable for their stewardship only to God. ---The second party was a compromise between aristocracy and democracy. It substituted the principle of elected stewardship for divine right. Rejecting the absolutism of the hierarchy, it turned to the system newly brought over from Geneva, a system that retained the principle of a state church, but which yielded control of the parish to the eldership, a select body of the best and wisest chosen by the laity, with final authority in doctrine and discipline vested in the synod. It drew its support largely from the London burgesses, but with a considerable following of country gentlemen. As the party developed it tended to merge with the nascent capitalism, restricted the doctrine of natural rights to property rights, and prepared the way for the later Whiggery of Pitt, or capitalistic imperialism. ---The third party was more or less consciously democratic in spirit and purpose, the expression of the newly-awakened aspirations of the social underling. Numbers of rebellious individualists appeared who wanted to be ruled neither by bishop nor elder, but who preferred to club with the like-minded and set up an independent church on a local, self-governed basis. They took literally the command of Paul, ‘Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing.’ That was the true church, they asserted, which withdrew from all communion with sinners and rejected the authority of a sinful state; and so they call themselves Separatists. . . It was the doctrines of Separatism, quite as much as the principle of

Special Endnote 2

173

the independency of the congregation, that aroused the fierce antagonism of Presbyterians equally with Anglicans. In the main those doctrines did not derive from John Calvin; they go back rather to Wittenberg than to Geneva, to the principles of Luther and certain German sects. . . . The Quaker was a mystic, sprung from the New Testament, who denied the Scriptural validity of the Hebraized Calvinism and a hireling priesthood, and accepted the Holy Spirit as the sole guide to his feet. The Seeker, on the other hand, who may perhaps be regarded as the completest expression of Puritan radicalism, was an open-minded questioner who professed to have found no satisfactory answer to his inquiry concerning the nature of the true church, and was awaiting further light. The Seekers were individuals rather than a sect, few in numbers yet greatly influential, men like Roger Williams, Sir Harry Vane, Cromwell, and perhaps Milton, outstanding figures of a great age, who embodied the final results of Puritan idealism before it was submerged into Restoration. During the long years of rule by divine right under the first Stuarts, the Anglicans held the Puritan unrest in strict control. Nevertheless a hundred years of debate and changing economic conditions had rendered the attempt to erect in England a counterpart of the French centralized state, no better than an anachronism. The Presbyterian opposition grew rapidly in numbers and prestige, and the early years of the Long Parliament marked the culmination of Presbyterian power. The bishops were overthrown and the elders were in a fair way to seize control of England. But unfortunately for Presbyterian hopes, the radical sects thrown up out of war clashed with the moderates and finally broke with them; whereupon followed the “root and branch” revolution that had been long preparing. The left-wing Independents secured control of the army and set about the work of erecting a government that should

174

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

be a real commonwealth of free citizens. The voice of the underling, for the first time in England history, was listened to in the national councils, for the excellent reason that his sword was drawn to enforce his demands. But they were too small a minority to leaven the sodden mass of a people long subject to absolutist rule. The psychology of custom was against them. They could strike down their armed enemies in the field, but they could not liberate the minds of men unfit to be free. Militant Puritanism was overthrown and its idealisms became the jest of every drunken tapster in London. But fortunately, not before its political principles, long obstructed by theology, were sufficiently clarified to be laid open to the common understanding of Englishmen. Out of the debates around the camp fires of the army had come a new philosophy that rested on the principle that the individual, both as Christian and citizen, derives from nature certain inalienable rights which every church and every state is bound to respect. This far reaching doctrine of natural rights, to the formulation of which many thinkers had contributed and which received later its classic form from the pen of Locke, was the suggestive contribution of Puritanism to political theory, with the aid of which later liberals were to carry forward the struggle. The far-reaching liberalisms implicit in the rejection of a hierarchical organization of the church were to discover no allies in the major premises of the system of theology accepted generally by the English Puritans, and by them transported to New England. Calvinism was no friend of equalitarianism. It was rooted too deeply in the Old Testament for that, was too rigidly aristocratic. It saw too little good in human nature to trust the multitude of the unregenerate; and this lack of faith was to entail grave consequences upon the development of New England. That the immigrant Puritans brought in their intellectual luggage the

Special Endnote 2

175

system of Calvin rather than of Luther must be reckoned a misfortune, out of which flowed many of the bickerings and much of the intolerance that left a strain on the pages of early New England history. Two divergent systems of theology, it will be remembered, were spreading through northern Europe during the years of the Reformation, systems that inevitably differentiated in consequence of certain variations of emphasis in the teachings of Luther and Calvin. Both thinkers accepted the adequacy of the Scriptures to all temporal needs, but Luther was at once more mystical and more practical than Calvin, deriving his inspiration chiefly from the New Testament, discovering the creative source of the Christian line in the spiritual union of the soul with Christ, and inclining to tolerance of differences of opinion amongst believers; whereas Calvin was ardently Hebraic, exalting righteousness above love, seeking the law in the Old Testament and laying emphasis on an authoritarian system. The one was implicitly individualistic, the other hierarchical in creative influence. The teachings of Luther, erected on the major principle of justification by faith, conducted straight to political liberty, and he refused to compromise or turn away from pursuing the direct path. If one accepts the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, one can scarcely refrain from following Luther in his conception of Christian liberty. If the mystical union of the soul with Christ has superseded all lesser loyalties by a higher and more sacred, the enjoyment of spiritual freedom must be reckoned the inalienable right of every child of God. Neither the political state nor the official hierarchy can justly coerce the individual conscience. ‘One thing and one thing only,’ said Luther in his ‘Treatise on Christian Liberty,’ ‘is necessary for Christian life, righteousness and liberty.’ And from this he deduced the conclusion that ‘neither pope nor bishop nor any other man has the

176

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

right to impose a single syllable of law upon a Christian man without his consent; and if he does, it is done in the spirit of tyranny.’ 162 Clearly, this is the spirit of uncompromising individualism that would eventually espouse the principle of democracy in church and state; and it was their native sympathy with such liberalism that led the radical Separatists to turn more naturally to Luther than to Calvin. Many of the differences that set Roger Williams so greatly apart from the New England brethren must be traced to the Lutheran origins of his thinking. There was scant room in the rigid system of John Calvin for such Christian liberty. The Genevan thinker was a logician [who deduced irrationally] rather than a philosopher, a rigorous systemmaker and dogmatist who knotted every argument and tied every strand securely into its fellow [to the presumed dogma called ‘mechanism’ which is associated with dogma of temporal substance called ‘materialism’], til there was no escape from the net unless one broke through the mesh. The formalist who demanded an exact system, and to the timid who feared free speculation, the logical consistency of Calvinism made irresistible appeal; and this perhaps suffices to explain its extraordinary hold on the rank and file of middle-class Presbyterians. More original minds might break with it -- men like Richard Hooker and Roger Williams and Vane and Milton -- but academic thinkers and schoolmen, men whom the free spaces of thought frightened and who felt safe only behind secure fences, theologians like John Cotton and his fellows, made a virtue of [rationalized] necessity and fell to declaiming on the excellence of those chains wherewith they were bound. How narrow and cold was their prison they seem never to have realized; but that fact only aggravated the misfortunes that New England was to suffer from the spiritual guidance of such teachers [Parrington’s description of deterministic ‘chains’ and ‘prison’ is reminiscent of Plato’s Allegory of

Special Endnote 2

177

The Cave.]. In seeking for an explanation of the unhappy union of a

reactionary theology and revolutionary political theory, Harriet Beecher Stowe suggested in ‘Poganuc People’ that the Puritan immigrants were the children of two different centuries; that from the sixteenth century they got their theology, and from the seventeenth their politics, with the result that an older absolutist dogma snuggled down side by side in their minds with a later democratic conception of the state and society. In England the potential hostility between Calvinist dogma and individual freedom was perceived by the more liberal Separatists, but in America it was not till the rise of the Revolutionary disputes of the next century that Calvinism was discovered to be the foe of democratic liberalism and was finally rejected. It is a fruitful suggestion, and in its major contention that the liberalisms implicit in the Puritan revolution were ill served by a reactionary theology, it is certainly in harmony with the facts. That Calvinism in its primary assumptions was a composite of oriental despotism and sixteenth-century monarchism, modified by medieval conception of a city-state, is clear enough today to anyone who will take the trouble to translate dogma into political terms. In recasting the framework of the old theology, Calvin accepted as sovereign conception the idea of God as arbitrary and absolute will -- an august ‘Rex regum’ whose authority is universal and unconditioned; and this conception he invested with Hebraic borrowings from the Old Testament. The principle of absolutism, indeed, he could scarcely have escaped. It came down to him through the Roman Empire and the Roman Church, from the ancient oriental despotisms, and it was interwoven with all the institutions and social forms against which the Reformation was a protest. But unhappily, instead of questioning the principle, he provided a new sanction for it and broadened its sway, by investing it with divine

178

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

authority and erecting upon it a whole cosmology. . . . From this cosmic absolutism, that conceived of God as the stable Will sustaining the universe, binding together what otherwise would fly asunder, two important corollaries were derived: the universality of the moral law, and the necessity of divine judgment. From the former flowed that curious association of God’s will with natural causes which induced Cotton Mather, when suffering from toothache, to inquire what sin he had committed with his teeth, and which left no free spaces or non-moral impulses in the lives of men. From the later flowed the doctrine of theological determinism. If time is embedded in the eternity of God’s mind, if to Him past and future are here and now, fore-knowledge is an inevitable divine attribute, and predestination is only a finite way of expressing God’s understanding of how human fate works itself out. Ally this doctrine of determinism with the Biblical account of the fall of man, and the doctrine of the elect becomes the theological complement of the class prejudices of the times. Bred up in the current aristocratic contempt for the sodden mass of the people, Calvinist theologians easily came to regard them as stupid, sensual, veritable children of Adam, born to sin and heirs of damnation. Only the elect shall be saved. That there was a remnant in Israel whom God had chosen, Isaiah had long before pointed out; and the doctrine of the remnant was confirmed for Calvinism by the sinful heart whose daily actions testified to their lost estate. According to such a theology, the individual clearly is in no effective sense a free soul. There is no room for the conception of human perfectibility. The heritage of natural freedom was long since cast away by the common forefather; and because of the prenatal sin which this act entailed on all mankind, the natural man is shut away eternally from communion with God. He is no better than an oriental serf at the mercy of a Sovereign Will that is implacable,

Special Endnote 2

179

inscrutable, the ruler of a universe predetermined in all its parts and members from the foundation of the earth. Except for the saving grace of divine election, which no human righteousness can purchase, all must go down to the everlasting damnation that awaits the sons of Adam. In the eyes of such a philosophy it is sheer impertinence to talk of the dignity and worth of the individual soul. Men are no other than the worms of the dust. The boon of eternal life is not included in God’s enumeration of natural rights; it is a special grant from the Lord of the universe who is pleased to smile on whom he is pleased to smile. In the hard words of Paul, ‘Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.’ And those on whom he hath had mercy are his Saints, and they are gathered into his church, as the free citystates had risen out of the muck of medieval despotism. They are the stewards of his righteousness and are called to the great work of rulership on earth that God’s will may be done and righteousness may prevail over iniquity. It was an ambitious program, and so long as the Presbyterian party maintained its ascendency in England it endeavored to thrust its Calvinism down every throat, no matter how unwelcome; but with the passing of power from its hands, and the growth of a common-sense spirit of toleration, Calvinism long lingered out a harsh existence, grotesque and illiberal to the last. In banishing the Antinomians and Separatists and Quakers, the Massachusetts magistrates cast out the spirit of liberalism from the household of the Saints. Parrington’s historical analysis concluded this: absolutist dogmatic Calvinism is Christian-based conservatism’s philosophic foundation; less dogmatic Lutheranism, is at the roots of liberalism. Whigs, in this scenario, find an exploitative haven between conservatism and liberalism: where, in dogmatic cultural ignorance, of both, opportunities to exploit

180

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

abound. Whigs are the captains of economic exploitation, and philosophically, while ‘the Whig party was the lineal heir of the old Federalism, it substituted expediency for the old economic realism, and, therefore, began and ended intellectually bankrupt.’ About U.S. origins, Parrington wrote this:163

Massachusetts . . . property interests were as secure as any old Federalist could have wished. Gentlemen of principle and property were still in control of the state; and if less emphasis was laid on principle and more on property -- if less regard seemed to be paid to gentlemen of breeding and manners, and more to assertive selfseeking -- business was no less secure than in the good old days, and its profits were greater. And so, master of the looms and a growing home market, New England industrialism regarded genially the great western movement, fostered by a benevolent paternalism confident of extending its markets with every mile of westward expansion. To encourage the development of the West and South by a Federal policy of internal improvement became, therefore, common business foresight, provided of course that the Constitution should follow population and safeguard business interests against local agrarianism and the menace of particularism. By the year 1830 both dangers lay black against the political horizon. The triumph of Jackson had enthroned the agrarian menace at Washington and produced such a scrambling of frightened interests -- such a rattling among the old bones of Federalism and scurrying among the young limbs of industrialism -as the country had not seen for many a year. Henry Clay appealed to his followers in the West, and Webster marshaled his adherents of the East, and from the coalescing of these incongruous elements emerged the Whig party to do battle with Old Hickory. . . . In the hour of peril, principles go by the board. The Whig party was the lineal heir of the old Federalism, but it denied its

Special Endnote 2

181

philosophical patrimony. It substituted expediency for the old economic realism, and began and ended intellectually bankrupt. Dogmatic roots in American culture constantly agitate, in the struggle to dominate individual liberty of mind: dogmatic deified determinist doctrine clarifies the foundation of unitary deterministic materialism upon which the Federalists’ expedience was converted by Whigs’ for to politically install Political Economy (‘The American System’) and thereby returned our fledgling liberal and independent culture to ‘the seventeenth century from which the eighteenth was a reaction.’ Parrington credited Harriet Stowe for this observation:

Harriet Beecher Stowe suggested in ‘Poganuc People’ that the Puritan immigrants were the children of two different centuries; that from the sixteenth century they got their theology, and from the seventeenth their politics, with the result that an older absolutist dogma snuggled down side by side in their minds with a later democratic conception of the state and society. Parrington’s account of history confirmed that liberals ‘seek’ after truth, whereas conservatives more absolutely ‘believe’ in dogma, and thereby taken as principle, deductively, concocted absolute Brahmin ‘sophistries’ to exploit cohesive orthodox dogmatic belief and install absolute legal fences to protect the believed orthodox ‘truth,’ which, however, is thereby subjected to irrationalism and paradox: whatever fragmented orthodoxy is affirmed and popularized, conservative Captains of exploitation, politically, in the name of belief in deified blessings, too often have resulted, it appears, to denigrate values upon which the religious dogma was based and Christ’s principles, of love and charity, upon which the original American liberty and distributive justice was based, on beneficence rather than retribution: these licensed Captains presumptuously contend affirmatively that they, and only they, are entitled by ‘divine right’ to administer central sovereign power. Plato called their sophist schemes, as based on ‘belief’ and ‘opinion’ rather than ‘reason,’ evil. The economic system of political enterprise was mechanistically

182

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

made into a massive economic tool to aggrandize, by rewards, themselves while this mechanism’s determinism made wage-earners the system’s ‘economic slaves’: human rights are systemically damaged by economic determinism’s mechanist absolute Webb. The Captains ‘believe’ sincerely that wage-earning ‘economic slaves’ are not disfavored by them but instead is a disfavored caste of their ‘conservative’ god’s creation (as ‘predetermined’ before natural creation had occurred). In dogmatic belief, instead of ‘blaming Canada’ (as the new spoof goes), ‘conservatives’ blame the god of their Calvinism for the plight of those caught by systemic designs of their economic determinism (as John C. Calhoun had argued the conservative philosophic basis of the American economic slavery). Parrington also records the events and circumstances that allowed the Whigs, which molded the Republican Party’s economic determinism into a ‘Fairy Godmother to business.’ Parrington wrote this:164

Democrat and Whig no longer faced each other conscious of the different ends they sought. The great party of Jefferson and Jackson was prostrate, borne down by the odium of slavery and secession . . . The Whig Republican was still Hamiltonian paternalistic, and the Democrat Republican was still Jeffersonian laissez faire, and until it was determined which wing should control the party councils there would be only confusion. The politicians were fertile in compromises but in nominating Lincoln and Johnson the party ventured to get astride two horses that would not run together. To attempt to make yoke-fellows of democratic leveling and capitalistic paternalism was prophetic of rifts and schisms that only the passions of reconstruction days could hold in check. In 1865 the Republican party [the GOP] was no other than a war machine that had accomplished its purpose. It was a political mongrel, without logical cohesion, and it seemed doomed to break up as the Whig Party had broken up and the Federalist Party had broken up. But fate was now on the side of the Whigs as

Special Endnote 2

183

184

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

it had not been earlier. The democratic forces had lost strength from the war, and democratic principles were in ill repute. The drift to centralization, the enormous development of capitalism, the spirit of exploitation, were prophetic of a changing temper that was preparing to exalt the doctrine of manifest destiny 165 which the Whig party stood sponsor for. The practical problem of the moment was to transform the mongrel Republican party into a strong cohesive instrument, and to accomplish that it was necessary to hold the loyalty of its Democratic voters amongst the farmers and working-classes whilst putting into effect its Whig program. Under normal conditions the thing would have been impossible, but the times were wrought up and blindly passionate and the politicians skillful [in words that Plato would use, ‘their truth

and becomes an enterprise.

-- if truth at all -- was of ‘opinion’ and, therefore paradoxical, surely not ‘reasonable’]. . . The rebellion of the Independent Republicans

The spirit of Henry Clay survived his death and his followers were everywhere in the land. The plain citizen who wanted a slice of the rich prairie land of Iowa or Kansas, with a railway convenient to his homestead, had learned to look to the government for a gift, and if he got his quarter section and his transportation he was careless about what the other fellow got. A little more or less could make no difference to a country inexhaustible in resources [This, we can no longer afford to believe]. America belonged to the American people and not to the government, and resources in private hands paid taxes and increased the national wealth.

under Horace Greeley in 1872 was brought to nothing by the skillful use of Grant's military prestige, and the party passed definitely under the control of capitalism, and became such an instrument for exploitation as Henry Clay dreamed of but could not perfect. Under the nominal leadership of the easy-going Grant a loose rein was given to Whiggish ambitions and the Republican party became a political instrument worthy of the Gilded Age. From their respective mien, each party argues that they can best serve the interests of the nation. Unfortunately, though, little thought and dedication, is given to solving the problems of our macro-economy that constitutionally was intended to serve all citizens: politics, in each instance, has, become an enterprise, as Eric Hoffer observed: 166

When a mass movement begins to attract people who are interested in their individual careers, it is a sign that it has passed its vigorous stage; that it is no longer engaged in molding a new world but in possessing and preserving the present. It ceases to be a movement

[For instance, corporations are now enterprise whose overriding dutiful intent is to make profit: national allegiances are consequential.] And prominently, our macro-economy is ignored because the political desires of affluence are to sustain American System paternalism that now has government opening up international markets to privatized business interests: simply an ever expanding dimension of American System paternalism which emanates from the Gilded Age but remains an economic determinism that leaves those on the sidelines of our ‘poker game,’ and many losers still in it, without governmental representation -which is a definite political tyranny of the masses. ‘American System’ originated with ideas credited to Henry Clay of the Jacksonian era. Parrington wrote this:167

Parrington had previously described how political philosophy was adapted to sponsor business interests and as Eric Hoffer has observed, to make politics an enterprise:168

Citizens had saved the government in the trying days that were past; it was only fair in return that government should aid the patriotic citizen in the necessary work of developing national resources. It was paternalism as understood by speculators and subsidy-hunters, but was it not a part of the great American System that was to make

Special Endnote 2

185

186

the country rich and self-sufficient? The American System had been talked of for forty years; it had slowly got on its feet in pre-war days despite the stubborn planter opposition; now at last it had fairly come into it own. The time was ripe for the Republican party to become a fairy godmother to the millions of Beriah Sellerses throughout the North and the West.

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

take away with the other. And so the persuasive ideal of paternalism in the common interest degenerates in practice into legalized favoritism. Governmental gifts go to the largest investments. Lesser interests are sacrificed to greater interests and Whiggery comes finally to serve the lords of the earth without whose good will the wheels of business will not turn. To him that hath shall be given. If the few do not prosper the many will starve, and if the many have bread who would begrudge the few their abundance? In Whiggery [which is now the GOP’s side of politics] is the fulfillment of the Scriptures.

Despite the evolution which gave our nation deterministic paternalism via ‘The American System of Economy,’ truth about ‘shadows instead of reality’ remains in our dogma, as believed, and as Parrington reported:

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

109

Anyway, Business interests or the political enterprise of Business Interests, in Hoffer's view, is the more cohesive political mien, while it fails to represent ethical morality. " It provides a cohesive nucleus for Republican Party politics while populist interests, or, as now, the democrats’ enterprise represents, repel such common political focuses. Politics of the American System of Political Economy, which divided Americans into castes of Us vs. Them, has obliterated all populist interests’ common focuses: in a stable, growing economy, the Party of democrats is highly unlikely to win favor of a wealthy national public whose primary interest is centered in individual careers: the satisfaction level can be far less than 50% of the population for Republican politics to be cohesively attractive and effective. Populist interests of one community are often not consistent with other communities. As observed by many, there is not one Democratic Party but, rather, many democratic factions with factional common interests: each endeavoring to cater to its factional populism. And because of interest diversity, democrats do not often present themselves as a romantic political force: their history of success shows that populsit

Parrington had noted this with Alexander Hamilton’s argument: it was often an appeal to his peer class and he knew that it was class appeal, just as he knew that success knows no ethics

Special Endnote 2

187

politics becomes attractive only in backlashes of economic failure, when grand breaches of ethics in Capitalistic maneuvering dominates evidently. In this reality, while Democrats have an interest in the economic failures of Republican dominated Political Economies, their lac of cohesive ethics forces them to betray their ethical interest: dissimilarly, while Republicans have an interest in the populist programs’ failure, they, emboldened of pride and power, act as Alexander Hamilton did (see the footnote). And this philosophic schism must be recognized as being related to the natural phylum of human being: in Kant’s view, fundamental confusion regarding differences between the human noumenon and phenomenon (All humans have material needs, and also an ability to reason, if only they will?). Even when successful, the democratic intent to cater social usagebased paternalism to ‘all,’ as it must for to be ethical, while as diabolical political enterprise to the direct paternalism intended by the WHIGGISH American System of Political Economy, always falls short in its intent. Still, this fact remains: the American System’s direct paternalism is fundamentally diabolical to the Constitution’s equality intent. The enterprises of our political desires are abundant. Often the result of special interest/ common interest (factional) politics thrusts paradoxical bastardized results onto society (As, for instance, when the emancipation proclamation was made, due process, was extended by an action of the Supreme Court to fictitious person corporate entities). If the source cause (the sovereign parents of our bastardized politics) is ever generally recognized, it will be because the sophist secrecy of this parental sovereignty is recognized: values, which cloak the factional political desires, will then be understood: at these bottom lines of our political paradox (of a noumenal-phenomenal mien), we then will recognize, as resulting fact, that paternalism neither to business nor to society generally will resolve the problems of the poor and the needy: that wealth (treasure concentrations) is poverty’s mechanistic counterpart, which expands in opposite proportionality. To fathom these mechanized treasure-wealth economic results, where only political doles give relief to the political outcome of poverty, we individually must clearly reconcile this mechanist effect on democratic sovereignty: one billionaire’s material-based

188

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

sovereignty equals 100,000 persons of $1,000 individual net worth. The following commentary about the acute periodic political agitation is excerpted from research notes. REPUBLICAN-CONSERVATIVE The Whig Party gave pivotal mien to ‘Republican-Conservatives.’ Whigs survived the National-Republican Party and then fared worse than the Democratic Party did. On the issue of slavery, internal republican strife caused the Whig Party’s demise from the Republican mien. Henry Clay represented this Whig influence. His advocated ‘American System’ distinguished the Whig philosophy, which now dominates GOP’s Republican ‘conservatism.’ Clay’s influence began with the Monroe administration and since then insistently proposed the American System of Political Economy’s mechanist formalization. Politically coincident with the slavery issue, ‘internal improvement’ doctrine called for federal paternalism to private business: doling out the nation’s vast natural resources to ‘private interests’ for exploitation (ostensive ly, but fallaciously, to provide for the nation’s internal improvement).169

The rebellion of the Independent Republicans under Horace Greeley in 1872 was brought to nothing by the skillful use of Grant's military prestige, and the party passed definitely under the control of capitalism, and became such an instrument for exploitation as Henry Clay dreamed of but could not perfect. Whigs have proved their capabilities along with values bias favoring affluence and aristocracy; they are capable, educated, cunning, entrepreneurial, hawkish, and they are seemly patriotically, religiously, and economically 170 cultist; with similar others, these predicates depict qualities found in ‘winners’ (‘the elite’ -- the Brahminist, economic oligarches of society). They have more firmly established theirs with others’ vested sovereignty, in oligarchic authorities, at the state and local levels of government. To the extent that they control the House and the Senate of the federal government, they have gained the government’s patronizing favor for their ‘private’ economic particularisms: more recent,

Special Endnote 2

189

their particular interests gravitated into politics which favors an downsized federal government: with intent to scuttle the Constitution’s original intent to only patronize holistic commonweal interests (Senator John C. Calhoun’s arguments, which became the foundation of ‘states’ rights’ and ‘nullification,’ should be remembered as the ominous philosophic forerunners of our Civil War)? But, also we should remember that emancipation is ‘race’ neutral and the following observations should be endlessly tested as for ‘the truth’:171

Henry Ward Beecher, the 19th century American clergyman, said 'You cannot sift out the poor from the community. The poor are indispensable to the rich.’ The early-20th century English poet and novelist G.K. Chesterton felt that even when the rich helped out, it was more through acceptance of poverty than a desire to cure it. He wrote: 'If we wish to protect the poor we shall be in favor of fixed rules and clear dogma. The rules of a club are occasionally in favor of the poor member. The drift [the political flux, or mien] of a club is always in favor of the rich one. In the light of oligarchical performance, there can be no realistic expectation of improving or abolishing poverty from society by shifting the strategic means and responsibilities of care to the states and local governments where local economic oligarches increasingly are more strongly in control. While history records that Whigs have represented the line of Republican ‘conservatism’ in America, natural ‘conservatism’ has followed two dominant lines: (1) the Tories who favored to preserve the King’s power and (2) the Whigs who favored to restrict the Kings power, for to gain ‘divine right’-based organic (i.e., mechanist) sovereignty for themselves. Still, English ‘conservatism’ in both lines’ favored centralized and in theory, ‘absolute idealist power’ vested in one ‘absolute reality,’ a being or element that is complete in itself. This caption ran on the front page of The Wall Street Journal, Oct. 6, 1988:

190

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

TORY PARADOX In Thatcher's Britain, Freer Enterprise leads to more State Control. Despite Conservative Gospel She [Thatcher] is Centralizing Power over Taxation, Schools -- Roughing up an Errant BBC. About centralized government, WHIGGISH American ‘conservatives,’ which came to power with Lincoln, might appear less aggressive than the aspiring Aristocrats of the National Republican Party, which had sat as members on the Constitutional Convention. Still, ‘conservatives’ will, if allowed, make their irrational Absolute Idealism the economic reality. After laws, edicts and regulations integrated political economy into a federal mechanism (‘American System of Political Economy’) to deliver the ‘economic idealism,’ WHIGGISH politics, mostly intended, have starved civic social usage paternalism, because it diverges from the mechanist economic determinism that directly dutifully responds to the political charged business’ interests: thereby directly violating constitutional civic purposes. U.S. laws and codifications which are set to fulfill Internal Improvement doctrine, for to nurture the economy by nurturing privatized business’ interests (that now is ‘world-economy’ both as regards ownership and income), and provide for common national security and defense (with foreign business interests now supplanting the commonwealth’s strategic interests), Whigs now argue that the commonweal is best served by local authorities. About this conundrum:172

Everyone agrees that the states have rights that the federal government cannot lawfully touch. But the Constitution says that the federal government can make any laws that are “necessary and proper” for carrying its specific powers into effect. This provision makes it difficult to determine exactly what rights the states possess. Therefore, the major issue is not whether the states have rights, but rather who is to decide when these rights are abused. Fictitious authorities, based on dogmatic States’ Rights doctrine, have irrationally but legally licensed corporate fictitious person corporations, many of which are now international economic-player-entities, which

Special Endnote 2

191

enjoy constitutional rights as “property,” “speech,” “due process,” and taxbased “security protection.” [Should businesses’ acquisitive economic expansions stop (they will not and cannot), particularly beyond national borders, and all accumulated corporate capital (including all property that is privately owned) is sequestered as necessary to accord with U.S. democratic equalities and sovereignties, ‘conservative’ politics (which to great extent is now foreign politics) to downsize the federal government might then be made philosophically coherent with the Constitution’s intent " ]; as the Constitution presently is, however, WHIGGISH Purpose (Internal Improvement, Manifest Destiny, . . . , and now Preemption) is irrational sophistry, which in worst cases is deliberate fraud. Despite, Whigs’ philosophic ‘Absolute Idealism’ (which at a closer rational look is fascism, in fact), which achieved through legal States’ Rights authority ‘fictitious-person-corporate-entities-license’ to conduct business and store property and capital, WHIGGISH conservatives now argue for Hamiltonian practical but fictitious sovereignty consideration of the accumulated corporate capital and property (and now the greatest source of political contributions). They have twisted the agrarian democrats’ call, as led by Jefferson, when the nation originated, for downsizing federal government, as though their corporate-based ownership is compatible with the agrarian ownership. What is unanswered in this ‘fiction-based’ dogmatic politics, which now calls for civic responsibilities to be shifted to the politics at fictitious state levels of governmental dominance, where the philosophic foundation assures to nurture ‘human beings’ with greater disregard for whom or what accumulated the treasures of capital and property. ‘Fictitious entities’ were allowed to accumulate capital and property (which in Smith’s view is treasure, not wealth), ostensibly to expand production and earnings. Trample on the Bill of Rights! , Is the avowed purpose of this Whiggish politics? Which clamors far more loudly for the rule of fiction than Socrates’ ever could when he said to

The World citizens view that the U.S. is a fascist nation, is largely founded on corporate business expansions in foreign countries, which constitutionally are given U.S. military security protection.

192

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

fiction led Greek society: ‘Let philosophy rule!’ Socrates said this in conclusive resignation of the injustice that was about to take his life. Beware the consequential realities of Whiggish ‘gospel’ (because of religious origins of dogmatic ‘absolutist politics’). While promising the absoluteness of material durability, religious philosophic assumptions of belief begin and end in what Plato called the visible realm of phenomenal reality. In this, Whigs continuously repeat the error of Esau: where inalienable ‘birthrights’ are yielded to gain material treasures. Logically, when philosophic principles erroneously begin with dogma, erroneous situations which Aristotle observed are made inevitable. The only rational standard for logical processes of thought, in the temporal materialist world, is the axiomatic method of postulation. About this method, J. N. Fujii wrote this.173

Historically, the Greeks first developed the notion of a logical discourse based on a set of initial statements assumed at the outset. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) Noted ‘every demonstrative science must start from indemonstrative principles [In this, Aristotle concluded the naturally foundational need for axioms]; otherwise, the steps of demonstration would be endless.’* [And, for this, God must logically remain as an axiom] * When contemplating this seminal section about truth, I pondered the ‘necessity‘ of axiomatic assumptions and asked this: are ‘principles’ of life comparable to ‘mathematical necessities?’ The irrational number B when relating the circumference’ measurement of a circle to the circle’s diameter, for instance? Are life’s temporal principles similarly important? Or is causal teleology only pertinent to principles of natural axiomatic necessity? When these axiomatic principles are supplanted by dogmatic belief, do we then put reason onto an endless treadmill which has no rational teleological end purpose?

Euclid’s work, ‘The Elements’, is no doubt the earliest attempt at developing an ‘axiomatic structure’ based on definitions and a few common [axiomatic] notions. His work has become so

Special Endnote 2

193

famous that the method and content have been almost completely identified. Entirely aside from content, the plan and method of logical organization turned out to be a contribution of the first magnitude.. . The European Renaissance marked the revival of Greek learning. A Latin translation of Euclid’s ‘Elements’ from the Greek was produced in 1572. This translation served as the reference for many subsequent translations used in European and American schools. In 1686 Newton published his famous ‘Principia,’ which was organized as a deductive system. Will Durant observed similarly as Liebnitz? : reason that begins with irrational dogmatic assumptions fails to yield trustful results.174

Ultimately, our troubles are due to dogma and deduction; we find no new truth because we take some venerable but questionable proposition as the indubitable starting point, and never think of putting this assumption itself to a test of observation or experiment. Pure philosophy begins purely in thought (noumenon): with axiomatic principles which seem obvious but defy any association with material definition (Euclid’s ‘point’ and ‘line,’ for instance). Human noumenon is capable to reason deliberately to find ‘necessary’ coherence that is inherent of the ‘whole:’ to establish values and purposes for individual, family, community, state, nation, or world’s temporal ‘human being.’ The Preamble to the Constitution is a worthy example of a purely reasoned philosophic base for any nation in the temporal world of human being’s common temporal domain:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. [It is a great irrational stretch to interpret this organic purpose to

194

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

include a war in Iraq] Rather than abort or change the importance of noumenal human aspects [as Whigs did when they achieved to supplant dogmatic ‘economic determinism’ (causal Mechanism, which is rational only as regards the world’s substance, rather than causal Teleology, which rationally has to do with noumenal things of mind as truth and reason) for principle prescriptive organic values and purposes, as applied to legal fictitious entities], we should philosophically reinvigorate original meanings. For instance, what axiomatic noumenal sovereignty does the U.S. Preamble to the Constitution address? Does it address God’s sovereignty, as commonly supplanted by dogma?; Whig sovereignty, as wrested from the English Crown?; sovereignty of property, capital, or treasure’ (so called wealth as represented by ‘owners’ of materialist treasure)?; or, only as Lincoln stated: sovereignty of ‘we the people’? W h a t va l u e s qualify elected representatives of the democratic sovereignty (we the people) to perform the duties and functions specified in the Constitution? Must these values be compatible with the values inherent of noumenal purposes stated in the Preamble? If so, where do values that compromise the axiomatic sovereignty of the Constitution fit? Do they fit at all?: Where do values which conceived of and legalized ‘fictitious persons,’ or ‘fictitious state,’ or surreal economies of ‘future treasures’ fit?’: Where does dogma of ‘belief,’ of caste or aristocracy, of wealth, business, or property, fit? Where does mercantilism, economic determinism, the security of property or treasure called wealth fit?’ And by what constitutional right or authority of government, is license given to private organizations to violate, at will, the sacred sovereignty which reserved unto itself, individually, the inalienable rights of ‘human being’ as specified in the Bill of Rights? As the issues embroiling Elian (the child survivor of an illegal immigration from Cuba) settle, ‘we the people’ will better appreciate the growing licensed restrictions on human being in the U. S. that are as bad or worse than those imposed by the Cuban government. Oprah Winfrey, for instance is not the only one that, by employment contract, denies the natural rights of human being.

Special Endnote 2

195

What is fundamentally unjust, however, is the Illinois court ruling that upheld Harpo’s (Oprah’s name given to her ‘fictitious corporate person’) right to restrict the constitutional ‘human being’ rights of her employees.175

Talk show host Oprah Winfrey makes all her employees sign an agreement prohibiting them from talking or writing about Winfrey’s personal or business life and the affairs of her company -- for the rest of their lives. . . . “There are plenty of people who believe in freedom of expression, except when its about them,” said Charles Eisendrath, who directs the journalism fellows program at the University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor.’ . . . Companies routinely require employees to sign agreements not to reveal corporate trade secrets, and celebrities frequently require personal assistants not to dish out the gossip. But few go so far as the lifetime prohibition in place at Harpo. Think about it. President Clinton, without due process of a trial, was impeached: His political opposition in the House of Representatives impeached him: He’s not above the law they said and, of course, they are commissioned with authority which collectively originate the law. But by what authority are natural human rights, as protected by the Bill of Rights, put aside by a legal license to conduct private business? : Justice Brandeis observed the flaw in this Juris prudence. Alexander Hamilton, being the realist that he was about the oligarchical hierarchy of society, perceived correctly the tearing result of choosing democracy for America when he argued this: 176

for no man or group of men will be ruled by those whom they can buy or sell. Many have raised concerns with corporations, Thomas C. Jorling’s concern stands prominently with the others: 177

With some reluctance, I have chosen to register independent views

196

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

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 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

Special Endnote 2

197

198

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 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.

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

constitutional authority, which licenses organizations, which are fictitious as regards noumenal aspects, to act unconstitutionally with regard to constitutional rights and freedoms of human beings. It appears that sophistry, which always is irrational, occurs as treasure (not wealth) accumulates. For instance, what portion of the conservative political call for centralized defense capability directly relates to political influence of powerful special interests (of so called ‘Free Enterprise’ that has now become international business)? : upon which the American economy depends? As for the nation’s Security and Defense issues, are the special interests of international business shrouded by sophist rationalizations to make them appear compatible with the interests of commonweal sovereignty? In other words, are the strategic interests of the nation more compatible with international corporate business than with the commonweal human sovereignty? * * Whenever has privately owned property or business been ‘free’: as in times past could be usufruct applicable? 178 Asked differently, when have ‘fictitious corporate person’ owners of property or business removed protective legal fences from what legally they were granted to own? And, which ‘fictitious owner’ ever has enough property? The lines of "conservatism" in England are more pure as they fit with the word’s original (etymological) meaning: slow and cautious to change (after all, England’s power had originated in the "crown," during centuries of feudalism). Nevertheless, in contrast, the conservatism of American Whigs, of the 1840s, were aggressive and progressive with change: anything but conservative in this etymological sense: they were the political faction with visions of profit derived from exploitation only temporarily sidetracked by issues of slavery, as emancipated. And slavery is, of course, orthodox Whiggish exploitation of the worst sort."

And this puts Whiggish corporate focuses onto fictions, as a state’s rights’, where the legal licensing of corporations mostly takes place in the U.S. "

And also we must consider the prejudicial effects of dogmatic belief on individuals freedom of expression. Before we criticize Cuba’s government, or any other’s, we must first resolve the irrational issuing of

It was John C. Calhoun’s argument in the U.S. Senate, which first was allied to John Adams’ Federalism, then to Henry Clay’s Whig cabal, which also included Daniel Webster, upon which democracy was rationalized after Greek democracy to justify constitutionally wage earners’ economic slavery in the

Special Endnote 2

199

As before when the Federalists had melded their interests with the interests of the Democratic-Republicans, the Whigs now joined Lincoln in the party of new GOP Republicans and soon their interests controlled the new GOP Party. History documents that Lincoln’s election was in results the political aberration embroiled in the slavery issue and the Civil War. As war abated, Whigs increased their control of GOP politics, as incumbencies of economic interests prevailed. As the word’s original reference, ‘conservatism’ in America was on the side of Federalists, whose loyalties were slow to change: mostly they were sympathetic of England’s foundations. While Tories, they were not, Federalists preferred England to Independence. If only England had responded to the Colonies desperate needs. 179

The early Federalists were . . . blameworthy, for, understanding clearly the economic origins of political power and the economic ends served by the political state, they made their knowledge serve their interests and concealed their designs by deceptive appeals to patriotism. [Clearly, as Parrington observed and Durant with Liebnitz had explained, they ignored noumenal principles by expediently affirming logical consequents instead, to achieve deductively their desires.] Will Durant had observed similarly as Liebnitz: reason that begins with irrational dogmatic assumptions fails to yield trustful results.180

mechanist causal paradigm of the American System of Political Economy, which Whigs installed following the death of Abraham Lincoln.

200

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

unsympathetic of democracy. And they lost their seminal nucleus with Alexander Hamilton’ untimely early death. Henry Clay's American System of political economy also has considerable aspects of its philosophic regimen in the irrationally affirmed line of traditional Hobbesian ‘conservatism.’ Without doubt, ‘conservative’ expedience always began with asserted affirmations of idealist dogma, which then became the new American orthodoxy, which embroiled liberty, which Whigs, as Clay, then merged with Adam Smiths ultra-liberal market system. Henry Clay, as Edmund Burke, economically were ‘classical liberals’ (classical, only emphasizing the orthodox nature of the conservative political take on Adam Smith’s liberal economic system, and to great extent justified the inclusion of mercantilism, which Smith had abhorred.). Still, Clay’s Whiggery was pregnant with mechanist exploitative ideas of economic progress, so that philosophic concerns with the social issues, which embroiled democracy were of no great concern: In fact the Whig programs were irreverent of democratic principles, excepting with those of the materialist capitalism of it. Politically, Whigs are Reform liberals, which took sovereignty from the English king, then merged seventeenth century conservatism (dogmatic religion) with eighteenth century liberalism (Lockean philosophy). The American values of natural conservatism, however, strive to sustain Imperialism by an ever aspiring aristocracy (Aspiring since American aristocracy only originated with the status of those purely dedicated to the English Crown). Pragmatic conservatism (the seat of the irrational Whiggish compromise which flies the GOP banner), under continual threat of losing the seat of central power, always resorts to its liberal foundations: seeking change by crying wolf to incite fear (which sustained the seat of power during the Cold War with communism, and now holds onto power by inciting fear of the bogeymen of terrorism) or by launching into war to hold onto its seat of authoritative power. As we give credit to irrational Whiggish liberalism for its political tenacity and success with holding onto power, we must not forget that Jefferson and his political following, as their requirement to approve the Constitution, insisted that a ‘Bill of Rights’ be added. Thus in refusing to endorse the Constitution until this promise was secured, George Mason

Special Endnote 2

201

and others who did not sign, gained the reputation of being opposed to a strong Federal Government, a position, except in matters of ‘defense’ and ‘paternalism to commerce,’ ‘conservatives’ today tout for being in their political heritage. However, in truth, Jefferson, as Mason, opposed a strong Federal government that, they perceived, would be mostly dominated by the aristocracy, as the Federalists represented, for instance. A Constitution without guarantees to preserve liberties and justice to all was unconscionable to them: Hamilton, when pressed, spurned such guarantees. Still, guarantees to the commoner in exchange for ratification was an expedient and the political embroilments since then seem to show that Federalists (as represented by the extreme right wing of conservatism) had agreed with their fingers crossed. For achieving the Constitution, we can thank Hamilton and his Federalist following as they were its driving force of development. Still, eventually, and because of the many nations that started with Democracy (in the sense of democratic sovereignty) then evolved into Autocratic Dictatorship before being forcibly overthrown for socialism, we can thank Jefferson and those with him for the constitutional foundations upon which principles of democracy in the U.S. are preserved. Both the ‘conservative’ and the ‘liberal’ positions are critically important. And, which position was purely ‘conservative’ is open to question and surely less important. Since 1869, when Grant was elected, Republicans (the chameleon Whigs of the GOP) with two exceptions -- spanning sixteen years -dominated the US presidency to 1933, and since F. D. Roosevelt, they have shared the presidency. Democrats dominated in the thirties, forties, sixties, and nineties. Republican administrations have often transgressed into what traditionally is liberalism, i.e., to using the powers and authorities of the federal government to abolish slavery, install antitrust laws, and reduce protective tariffs. In the name of ‘internal improvements,’ Whiggish Republicans, of the GOP, also sponsored the ‘Gilded Age.’ And they arranged for its mechanist tax-based paternalism (or pork barrel with earmarking) to ‘business.’ Parrington called the ‘Gilded Age’ ‘the great barbecue.’ Will Rogers adorned this age by provided its name that paraded its glittery

202

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

wealth? Reflectively though, we should more properly recall it as the ‘Age of government’s Paternalism’ or ‘the return of the seventeenth century’ to the century of ‘oligarchical orthodoxy’ that Edmund Burke ably argued and is commonly now portrayed as ‘traditional conservatism.’ Parrington, recorded this returning to Seventeenth Century economic determinism from which Eighteenth Century liberalism was a reaction. Edmund Burke, in the long running debate with Thomas Paine clearly adopted Thomas Hobbes’ positions, about deontological political theory, over those of John Locke. Parrington wrote this:181

The final test of every government Paine found in its concern for the public affairs or the public good; any government that does not make [these] its whole and sole object, is not a good government. . . . It is the injustice of government that creates armies to defend the earnings of injustice. But every wise government will respect its limitations. As a child of the eighteenth century, Paine hated [Hobbes’] leviathan state as a monster created by a minority to serve the ends of tyranny. [and it is left to U.S. society to decide whether the ends of tyranny, are now the prime source of terrorism?]

The political state he accepted as a present necessity, but he would not have its prestige magnified and the temptation to tyranny increased by the cult of nationalism. . . . The maturest elaboration of Pain’s political philosophy is found in “The Rights of Man.” This extraordinary work, the most influential English contribution to the revolutionary movement, was an examination of the English constitution in the light of what Paine held were the true source and ends of government. It is a brilliant reply to [Edmund] Burke, who rested his interpretation of the English constitution on the legal ground of the common law of contract. Following the revolution in 1688, Burke had argued, the English people through their legal representatives, entered into a solemn contract, binding “themselves, their heirs, and posterities forever,” to certain express terms; and neither in law nor in equity

Special Endnote 2

203

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

204

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

English people got little for their money except new debt to justify new taxes. The poor were even taxed for the benefit of the great. Thus my Lord Onslow, who was particularly zealous in the business of proscribing Paine as “the common enemy of us all,” drew four thousand pounds from the royal chest in sinecures, which made him “the principal pauper of the neighborhood, and occasioning a greater expense than the poor, the aged, and the infirm, for ten miles around.” Government on the hereditary principle of Burke did not appear to advantage in the light of such facts. Both in England and in America, Burke’s writings about government substantially contributed to the philosophic basis of ‘traditional conservatism.’ However, as to Adam Smith’s system of economy, Burke is listed as a ‘classical liberal’ with note that ‘traditional conservatism’ is particularly protective of business and markets of commerce: to allow them to regulate themselves (to put the fox in charge of the henhouse, as liberal critics will observe).182 Parrington commented about the early effects of the American System of Political Economy:183

Horace Greeley and Henry Carey were only straws in the wind that during the Gilded Age was blowing the doctrine of paternalism about the land. A Colonel Sellers was to be found at every fireside talking the same blowsy doctrine. Infectious in their optimism, naive in their faith that something would be turned up for them by the government if they made known their wants, they were hoping for dollars to be put in their pockets by a generous administration at Washington. Congress had rich gifts to bestow -- in lands, tariffs, subsidies, favors of all sorts; and when influential citizens made their wishes known to the reigning statesmen, the sympathetic politicians were quick to turn the government into the fairy godmother the voters wanted it to be. A huge barbecue was spread to which all presumably were invited . . ..

Special Endnote 2

205

206

Undoubtedly, special interest lobbies present great tyrannies to the American commonwealth’s organic sovereign, we the people. And when a permanent shift in American mechanist conservatism occurs and reasonably it will, it will occur by a groundswell of popular changes to lobbying that effects returning primary government issues and purposes to the commonwealth’s holistic sovereignty. " Our nation's, as the world's, natural resources are the prey of private exploitations. Special interest lobbies arrange to have their privatized foreign enterprise secured by the national defense, which particularly fails holistically to benefit the American consenting sovereign, we the people, proportionately to the great marginal tax-based cost."" With the natural convergence of digital technology, which transfers data with voice and image, wirelessly, we now calculate, send and receive information (as financial payments and knowledge, regardless of propriety or security) instantaneously, disrespecting borders, government regulation, or politics. And, the ownership of this technology is private, not organic government! Technological based national secrets are also mostly developed privately. So, what portion of these national secrets do the government’s "private" contractors own? By paternalistic government arrangements, distinction between what is owned "privately" or by the commonweal of organic government, is routinely deliberately obscured?

Wedge issues which divide society, as Pat Buchanan had proposed would allow the administration to pick and choose its winning policies, or situations as demonstrated in the Teri Shiavo legislation with intent for government of the whole to order a special law for the treatment of an individual, aborts the holistic constitutional meaning and purpose of government’s consented sovereignty. ""

Irrationalisms, which never belong to democracy’s requirement for ‘reasoning’, better fits the nature of Whiggery, and therefore, belongs to Whigs of the GOP.

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

Whigs enjoy exploiting this democratic impropriety, of misfitting with it!

... It was a splendid feast. If the waiters saw to it that the choicest portions were served to favored guests, they were not unmindful of their numerous homespun constituencies and they loudly proclaimed the fine democratic principle that what belongs to the people should be enjoyed by the people -- not with petty bureaucratic restrictions, not as a social body, but as individuals, each free citizen using what came to hand for his own private ends, with no questions asked. . . . how differently rich and poor fared at the democratic " feast, is suggested by the contrast between the Homestead Act and the Union Pacific land-grant . . . By the terms of the former the homesteader got his hundred and sixty acres at a price of $1.25 an acre; by the terms of the latter the promoters got a vast empire for nothing . . . . . . In the tumultuous decades that followed there was not bargaining with corporations [fictitious legal persons, of Whiggish design] for the use of what the public gave; they took what they wanted and no impertinent questions were asked . . . There were hard headed men in the world of Beriah Sellers who knew how easy it was to overreach the simple, and it was they who got the most from the common pot. We may call them buccaneers if we choose, and speak of the great barbecue as a democratic debauch. But why single out a few, when all were drunk? . . . Contemporary Whig ‘conservative’ values perpetuate the Gilded Age barbecue. Whig politics (of the GOP) is the primary driver of the mechanist, mercantilist designed political economy that Henry Clay called The American System of Political Economy. However, Democrats also imbibe, trading government’s paternalism for private gains from lobbying payoffs, which allow, no, sponsor, privatized exploitative enterprise. And

109

When Secretary Powell was asked about Enron’s influence on his visit to India (Whether or not government interceded on Enron’s behalf?), he was candid, that the Secretary of State’s function included the explicit promotion of American business interests.

Special Endnote 2

207

[In our war on terrorism we claim that nations are responsible for sponsoring terrorism, but in another voice, we claim that ‘freely enterprising’ American corporations are independent of our government and that, therefore, government is neither responsible nor culpable for any of their tyrannous exploitations (But diabolically also claims that the U.S. government’s ‘political economy,’ which acts with impunity in the international economy, is independent of the official U.S. government). Surviving economically in "private" markets for technological ownercontrol has never been so critically important to our commonweal. Enron furnishes a cogent example of traceable tyranny, which resulted from Enron’s business mind set (or values in their corporate logos) that is being carefully investigated in the manner that perjury is investigated, and it should. But, this investigation could reach into the broader practice of business orthodoxy, which to achieve business successes routinely rationalizes principles? As, the dictionary definition of rationalization recognized: rationalization’s spectrum spans benignly false mind set values to evil values.184

Rationalize -- v.t. 1. To make rational or conformable to reason. 2. to treat or explain in a rational manner. 3. To find (often unconsciously) an explanation or excuse for. 4.to explain (myth, legend, etc.), in terms of contemporary scientific knowledge. 5. To organize or run (a business, industry, operation, etc.) on economically sound or proven methods of administration and production [this definition admits the divide between human rights and business interests]. 6. ‘Mathematics.’ To clear from irrational quantities. -- v.i. to find excuses (often unconsciously) for one’s desires. #3, to find (often unconsciously) an explanation or excuse for, applies in spades to the values in logos of mechanisms of political economy? Since ‘organizing or running businesses successfully’ is definition #5,

#5, to organize or run (a business, industry, operation, etc.) on

208

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

economically sound or proven methods of administration, this definition admits Aristotle’s ‘Great Divide’ between human rights and business interests: That if successful values of running businesses are rationalized values that depart from probity, then success puts values on rationalization. Compare this deduction with Parrington’s analysis of Hamilton’s politically successful values: Parrington wrote this about Hamilton’s artful rationalization:185

His argument was often an appeal to his peer class and he knew that it was class appeal, just as he knew that success knows no ethics . . . He had no confidence in the Constitution as finally adopted, and spoke in contemptuous terms of its weakness; whereas for the British constitution he had only praise, going so far, according to Jefferson, as to defend the notorious corruption of parliament on the ground of expediency. About life’s scenario of choice, choosing principles which emulate nature to guide one’s action is indeed the only safe choice. For instance, unless we choose principles, which are necessary (no opposites), what is perpetrated by our actions has paradoxical opposites. Rationalized choices always prescribe actions that are paradoxical and, in Hegel’s analysis of change, will grow into social complications of an exponential nature. Pyramid mechanisms are organic rationalizations of belief rather than reason. About truth values, rationalization in place of reason continuously begs for substantiation (factual results, which are expected to occur eventually). Accounts based on belief are often never substantiated. Pyramid schemes are vulnerable to eventual failing of promised objectives. They are houses of cards (promises of substance yet to be fulfilled) that collapses as cards awaiting substantiation crumble. Enron did, maybe still does, embrace such an organization. And because American political economy licenses business to succeed, it gives license to rationalization, and is vulnerable to this analogy of a house of cards. The only economic foundation, which has saved our capitalist political economy from collapsing, is the ubiquitousness of banking and money

Special Endnote 2

209

(substantiation of grand failure remains dependent upon the economic endemism cost that mechanistically is put onto consumption). Inflation is the gauge or indicator of economic endemism transferred by mechanisms of political economy onto wage-earners, who effectively are the economic consumer-slaves of the American political economy. Summarizing, the heritage of Republican-conservative began with a colonial aristocracy and the imperialistic notions of Federalists. Then Whigs, under the banner of ‘New Republicans of the GOP,’ following the Civil War, installed Clay’s mechanist, paternal ‘American System’ of ‘Internal Improvements’ as politically achieved by patronizing private business entities, became the functional bribery of government action. Democrats could never effectively challenge the paternal gifts delivered by The American System of Political Economy. Still, partial ‘leveling’ of the political paternalism has been accomplished. Closing the era of paternalism bribery is necessary to finding solutions to world issues, as saving the environment from despoilment and eventual ruin, or putting a social usage-based healing salve on tyranny that leads to terrorism. Political interest in business profits is the crown jewel of Republican-conservatism. To win elections, expedient sophistry is the rule of conduct. Still, neither Republican nor Democrat aligns well with only a ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ label. Both suffer from the afflictions of oligarchical, ‘conservatism.’ DEMOCRAT-LIBERAL About democrat-liberals, the ‘liberal’ label has been spitefully adorned by the biased irrationalism of GOP-conservatism. And, while the far less affluent democrat-liberals also similarly spiteful, they are afflicted with political economy’s mechanist idealist ‘conservative’ proclivities. Democrats like to attach their heritage to values and principles of Jefferson and Lincoln. After all these political giants put more importance on the holistic welfare of the nation than upon subjective, i.e., selfish special interests. By their example and deed, they assured the hope for American Civitas' survival (Whenever 'Civitas' sufficiently motivates the will of society, the personal lives and selfish moments of character subside). Then, most everyone recognizes the virtues of constitutional

210

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

guarantees and protections). Except in these special instances of common stresses, 'Civitas' takes its leave from politics. The Jefferson-Republicans opposed the Federalists. Following the installation of the first Federal Bank, the Jefferson-Democrats reacted to ‘conservatism’ and legislative acts to install the political-economic basis of government. Jefferson attempted to achieve ‘leveling’ (return sovereignty to the commonwealth rather than those of property). In the 1930s, the Johnny-come-lately Democrats successfully reacted politically to the mechanist determinist economic paternalism to enterprise. They enacted counter social paternalism. Surely in democracy, paternalistic favors should be distributed equitably, should not they? Was, John Calhoun right when he argued convincingly the absurdity of ‘democratic equality.’ Equity, he argued, is accordingly, of necessity, unequal. Parrington wrote this:186

In . . . speculation on the possibility of achieving political justice by the machinery of representation, Calhoun was face to face with a revolutionary conception--the conception of proportional economic representation. The idea was implicit in his assumption of an existing economic sectionalism that must find adequate expression through political agencies. He had come to understand the futility of a miscellaneous numerical majority; he had only to go back to eighteenth-century philosophy and substitute economic classes for economic sectionalism, finding his social cleavages in economic groups instead of geographical divisions, to have recast the whole theory of representation. Clearly he had made enormous strides in his thinking. He had long since put behind him the philosophy of Jefferson. He had subjected the principle of democracy to critical scrutiny. But instead of rejecting it as an unworkable hypothesis, as the Hamiltonian Federalists had done, he proposed to establish it on a sound and permanent basis. The ideal of democracy he conceived to be the noblest in the whole field of political thought, but misunderstood and misapplied as it had been in America, it had

Special Endnote 2

211

become the mother of every mischief. This betrayal of democracy he laid at the door of the Jeffersonians. They had accepted too carelessly the romantic dogmas of the French school, and had come to believe that democracy was synonymous with political equalitarianism. It was this false notion that had debased the noble ideal, and delivered it over to the hands of the mob. To assert that men are created free and equal is to fly in the face of every biological and social fact [‘us’ against ‘them’ conservatism]. * * Thomas Hobbes, had admitted, humans are naturally equal but hypothesized they needed an absolute sovereign to govern them. In this, was Hobbes a fascist? Somewhere in the mix of the materialist view, the sovereign equity of ‘us’ is rationalized as of far greater cardinal value than the sovereign inequity of ‘them.’ Consider, however, that Calhoun represented the ‘Black Belt’ in Congress and routinely had justified slavery and Imperialism. Whether or not Calhoun was biased (he surely was), he provided the rationalized foundation on which to compromise democracy, and in the name of democracy, and he gave Whigs their particular rationalized ‘model’ for American society, on which to install mechanisms in the manner of The American System of Political Economy. Parrington’s continues.

The first business of the true democrat, therefore, was to reexamine the nature of democracy and strip away the false assumptions and vicious conclusions that had done it incalculable injury. The Greeks, he pointed out, understood its essential nature better than the moderns. Democracy assumes a co-partnership among equals. Its only rational foundation is good will," and it can function only

212

109

through compromise. From this it follows that in a society composed of high and low, capable and weak, worthy and unworthy -- as every historical society has been composed -- a universal democracy is impractical. The numerous body of social incompetents will suffer one of two fates: they will be exploited by the capable minority under the guise of free labor, or they will be accepted as the wards of society and protected by the free citizens -they must inevitably become wage slaves or bond slaves, in either case incapable of maintaining the rights of free members of the commonwealth. Democracy is possible only in a society that recognizes inequality as a law of nature, but in which the virtuous and capable enter into a voluntary co-partnership for the common good, accepting wardship of the incompetent in the interests of society. This was the greek ideal and this ideal had created Greek civilization. Government’s democratic paternalism of the 1930s gained political favor and the fresh Republican GOP brand of ‘conservatism,’ Brahminism, showed its chameleon Federalist, Whig and Tory values: it reverted to an etymologically harsh harmony, which altogether ignored Calhoun’s rhetoric about about inequality as a law of nature, but in

which the virtuous and capable enter into a voluntary copartnership for the common good, accepting wardship of the incompetent in the interests of society. Instead, after having installed mechanism-based economic paternalism in the name of The American System of Political Economy, the conservative Brahminism condemned, as an evil of government, the ‘social usage’-based social paternalism, which political need the mechanism-based political economy had itself sponsored. Unfortunately, determinist systemic patronization of commercial-industrial interests of the new Republican politics (the Brahminist ‘us’) now showed its root prejudice, which it irrationally

What other rationality befits the Preamble to the Constitution? How, therefore, is the Constitution’s purpose fulfilled by federalist, Whig or other factional

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

rationalizations?

Special Endnote 2

213

214

asserted as principle, then politically trumped and trampled social ‘goodwill.’ What commonweal interest now had government constitutionally been established to serve? The entrenched Brahminist ‘us,’ had admitted (in Calhoun’s words) that the government was not designed to serve only ‘us,’ however, then argued that it was not designed to serve all of the people: instead, at bottom line, this mumbo jumbo inferred that government was installed to serve the fictional king’s aristocracy of The absolute Idealism, which conservative politics had created. Worse, countering claims that mechanist determinism harmed the rights of economic unfortunates, conservatives have irrationally gone so far as to claim that ‘social usage’ paternalism harmed the conservatives’ constitutional rights, as provided in the Bill of Rights. Franklin Roosevelt responded as follows to the conservative objection to what then was called ‘Social Paternalism’:

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

economic necessity, constitute the primary source of ‘consuming.’ Wages-earned, therefore, primarily pay for inflation’s cost, that shows up, over time, but only in the CPI index. Inflation’s cost, put onto SS, must be recompensed The national debt’s cumulative interest credited to SS for contribution funds used as general revenue is $67.2 billion for the years ‘37-‘84. Interest credited for ‘92 is $22.6 billion.187 SS reported that the accumulated SS Fund (mostly government’s IOU) would reach $110 billion in ‘88. In ‘92 the Fund was $306.3 billion. And without explanation, in 1996, the fund was increased by $575.096 billion. " However, the fund, at that year’s end was $589.121 billion (so what happened to the $300 billion surplus Fund as reported in ‘92?) 188 The total SS Fund at period’s end 2000, was $930.986 billion. However, since SS did not and cannot cause inflation, the inflation tax put onto SS contributions by indexing SS benefits to CPI index of inflation, also must be separated from SS’s contributions taxation. And inflation’s cost put onto SS, in total, should be reimbursed from general tax revenues. High end incomes, beyond the SS taxation caps, not only do not pay for the inflation they cause, as a class they are inflation’s main cause. And, inflation benefits them economically. (End of insert)

There are many avenues for [social] progress but only one way to do nothing. SS is ‘social usage’-based insurance, and while it is not economic mechanism-based, government gathers SS contribution taxes mechanistically. In this process, endemism of government’s economic mechanisms quite deliberately has spilled an extra inflation load onto wage-earners’ who pay (once by consuming inflations endemism) and twice by paying SS contribution taxes to fund the SS benefits: while government’s administrative paternalism with SS is custodial in nature, and that only, general inflation endemism are distributed mechanistically in the cost of goods and services consumed. Therefore, paying SS contribution taxes puts duplicity into contributions that are needed to fund for the COLA’s related to SS benefits. (This following excerpt is from section 2501:) And, who wonders about inflation and the truck loads of US money (as reported of $ trillions’ value) confiscated at Iraqi borders? Anyway, inflation is endemism of all capitalist market system economies that accounting wise is passed along to points of consumption, where goods and services are sold: where wages earned, and because of determinist

109

However, apart from the classical conservatism of Federalists and Whigs, true etymological conservatism (‘if it isn’t broke, don't fix it’), as with all inertia, is always there, together, and opposes all change until the reasons to 'fix' is sufficiently convincing. This etymological conservatism, as a part of human nature, is a resident in all political factions. As the mood of society changes and runs counter to the status-quo, for many it causes frustration. For instance, the predominant resistence to the Whigs’

Was this adjustment, as shown in the 2002 Almanac and not in the 2000 Almanac, made to separate SS from the budget processes of government? But, because I have long suspected that SS surplus was buried in Budget details, the adjustment gratified me.

Inflation’s cost, put onto SS, must be recompensed

215

‘Internal Improvement’-based American System of Political Economy, came from wage-earning democrats. In this resistance, the innate ‘etymological conservatism.’ of democrats, showed. Then, intrinsic of the popularity of the paternalism provided by The American System of Political Economy, they reacted rationally by sponsoring federally administered programs of ‘social usage’ to serve particular interests of the commonwealth. Democrats became reactionary and progressive by becoming ‘levelers,’ in the counter economic sense, to the rationalized particularism of Whigs that gave to America The American System of Political Economy along with its mechanism-based paternalism to business: in sponsoring this American System, Whigs were reform

liberals. Then, to preserve the newly established programs of ‘social usage,’ democrats became the ‘etymological-conservatives’ that were politically protective of the ‘social usage’ insurance. Likewise, but oppositely, in matters of preserving the mechanisms of paternalism to business interests, Republicans still are ‘etymological-conservatives.’ Successful lobbying of legislation to cater special interests perpetuate the name calling of the political factions. What should concern Americans, is the widening crack in the foundations of democracy: Whenever we consider commonweal interests on an equal basis one on one with special interests, we compromise democracy. Which do we serve? Do we compromise our allegiance and our pledge? Can we choose to serve a special interest over the interests of the commonwealth and still claim allegiance to one, indivisible nation? Have the symbols of patriotism taken on new meanings based in emotions and prejudice? In the symbolism of the flag, as paraded with bells, bands, drums, soldiers, . . . has patriotism become a cult form? Robert Hughes provided the following view of political economy paternalism:189

216

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

overwhelming fatigue and indifference to duties and surroundings] the 80s induced. In effect, the Republican and Democratic Parties since 1968 have practiced two forms of conservative policy, one episodically liberal and the other aggressively not. Both are parties of upper-middle-class interests . . . The whole apparatus of influence in Washington is geared to lobbying by big business, not to input from small citizen groups. As E. J. Dione eloquently argued in his book "Why Americans Hate Politics," there is no bloc in Congress or the Senate that truly represents the needs or opinions of people in the enormous central band of American life where workers and the middle class overlap. Before leaving this contemplation of what ‘democrat-liberal’ is, the following comment from World Book Encyclopedia, about President Woodrow Wilson is maybe as crucial. With only one exception he was the only Democrat to serve as president until FDR: Woodrow Wilson should not have been elected had the Republican Party been united. Then, had Wilson not been elected, the factions of New Republicans likely would have returned to office the “progressive” Republican, Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt. Most Americans had tired of paternalism’s excesses and the determinist monopolistic controls produced by the Gilded Age. Americans wanted reforms. Tariffs and banking practices were particular targets of their criticism. Wilson greatly moderated tariffs and he introduced the Federal Reserve System of banking to make currency more fairly available and to free private businesses from the economic grips of private bankers. He also signed into law the Clayton Anti-Trust Law which increased the power of the federal government to police unfair practices of big business. He called for and Congress established The Federal Trade Commission to investigate and stop unfair trade practices. In Foreign Affairs, he put himself on record against the policy of Dollar Diplomacy, which policy was akin to Manifest Destiny. And he persuaded Congress to repeal the Panama Tolls Act (which had allowed American ships to sail through the Panama Canal toll-free: repealing the trade disadvantage done to others). A minority of voters had elected Wilson in 1912. That year the

Inflation’s cost, put onto SS, must be recompensed

217

Republicans split their votes between President William Howard Taft and former President Theodore Roosevelt.

In 1916 Wilson was reelected partly because “he had kept us out of war.” Five months later Germany resumed unrestricted attacks on American ships. Wilson went before Congress and called for war. But, he had no political support to further restrict the patronage system of government. With Republicans again united, Warren G. Harding, a most extremely conservative President, was elected in 1920. THE POLITICS OF EMOTION Pat Buchanan’s charge is again recalled: 190

The 'right' and the 'left' in the United States is divided. As divided as we were during the civil war! Buchanan's charge is cause for concern and we should identify, understand, and hopefully settle the issues of our differences before we again fight among ourselves about them. Concerning identification, Parrington's account of American history details fundamental differences in the political struggle of values to formulate our nation’s Constitution. Inherently, every independent person must struggle with their life’s personal choices. Purpose and choice are life’s endemic enigmas which bear upon truth and salvation. Purpose and choice unites, with distinctive order, the thoughts and ideas of mind with physical actions and reactions. Life’s enigmas concern the linking of a deliberate intelligence with an instinctive mind that directly is linked to a physical emotion laden body. Emerson expressed life’s struggle as transcendentalism. Sartre called it existentialism. The quest to identify fundamental differences of preference can only find answers in philosophy. Philosophers of all ages have pondered life’s enigma. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe spent sixty years to dramatize his view of life’s struggle with moral choices. Christ fasted for forty days to purge his own innate influences of mind that would, if he had allowed, obstruct his pure focuses on heavenly values (Man shall not live by bread alone, he said.). Cicero, who was of the century before Christ, referred to the natural law of right reason to explain his moral choice with

218

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

democratic values. Rene Descartes, sixteen hundred years later and still far ahead of the Age of Reason, analytically pondered his own existence and decided: I think, therefore I am. Descartes advised humanity to make no moral choice until the truth of the choice is ‘clearly and distinctly’ perceived. Bertrand Russell often referred to deliberate reason and undoubtedly had Descartes’ disciplined analytical process of proving truth in mind. John Locke applied deliberate reason to prove, then explain the truth that nature had endowed each individual with inalienable properties: each individual’s equal properties of person. Locke’s natural truth appealed to Americans and they expressed it to declare their independence from England: we have this expression of Locke’s natural truth in The Declaration of Independence. Rene Descartes’ natural truth, as represented in the following, lends perspective to the human qualities and capabilities uniqueness:191

----What then am I? A thing that thinks. ----What is that? A thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and which also imagines and knows. As we act, we do so instinctively, habitually or, preferably, we deliberately associate the likely choices of physical action with the inevitable results of each alternative action: we deliberately choose between the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ outcomes, as we perceive of them. And, only when we do this, are we teleologically (purposeful). Otherwise, we paradoxically are determined by deontological mechanist duties. Society determined early that each independent person is responsible for their own actions. In this, society rejected the proposition that its consented collective deterministic flux, however, organic and official, was not responsible for anyone’s individual action. For the conscious mind to be responsibly in control of action, the mind must be capable to make a value judgement on the spectrum between the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ choices. With actions involving moral judgements on all spectrums of linkage between mind and body, the mind must choose, for instance, between celestial (however vague) and terrestrial (which is pervasively real); eternal and

Inflation’s cost, put onto SS, must be recompensed

219

temporal; truth and ignorance; pure and impure . . . Jean-Paul Sartre's truth, quoted here, considers the dimension of time with all action:192

"There is no reality except in action." More over it goes further, since it adds, "Man is nothing else than his plan; he exists only to the extent that he fulfills himself; he is therefore, nothing else than the ensemble of his acts, nothing else than his life." While intelligent perception allows us to think clearly about past, present, and future actions, thought only was clearly capable to also transcend (as Emerson would say) the dimensions of space-time. Still, the present has no equal. While we can reminisce and anticipate in the space-time dimension, temporal action must always occur in the present. What we do in moments of the present is what really counts in life and this, I believe, is the essence of Sartre's existentialist philosophy. All else has no philosophical state of active cognizance, no deliberate reason. Without moments of the present, there can be no substantiation and therefore no hope in substantial reality. Again, Sartre's natural truth in responsible action is of the Categorical Imperative form, which all human cultures have intelligently expressed:

Nothing can be good for us without being good for all. In fact, Sartre’s philosophy is about Categorically Imperative action. It involves deliberate choices. The spectrum of dependent-independent life has everything to do with actualization based in objective comprehension. Human life invariably begins in natural dependence as our very survival depends upon those who care for us: on those who care about our vital substantial needs and act to provide them. While such caring is outward-turned, particularly for parents, instinct and love motivates them more than consciously chosen objective thoughts and actions. Love, therefore, plays a huge transcendence role from dependent to independent life. Walter Scott’s sentiment in his poetry concluded this: love is heaven and heaven is love. When love is missing, it shows in all sorts of aberrant, asocial human actions! Similarly, and in direct proportions, the welfare of society depends on the actions -- on the relative good or bad -- of the choices made by the ‘doers’ among us (as for Sartre's existential philosophy, society depends on the

220

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

deliberate moral acts of individuals):193

To choose to be this or that is to affirm at the same time the value of what we choose, because we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without being good for all. Our natural capability to reason deliberately provides definition to the extreme poles of each spectrum of choice. More particularly, deliberate reason provides definition to the extreme poles of morality: ‘purity,’ ‘virtue,’ or ‘truth.’ ‘Purists’ always claim that extreme poles are the only correct, moral choice. Pure ideals, however, are often not practical: pure ideals are then impossible in the temporal physical sense of morality. Rationalization provides reasonableness and practicality to actions involved with moral choices that are less than ‘pure’ and ‘virtuous.’ Rationalizations mostly arise in responsiveness to the material aspects of life and often to fit a mutuality with others’ common materialbased choices. However, when physically passionate predispositions rule the noumenal rationalizing processes of our deliberate reason, internal turmoil of conscience is invited. Passionate idealistic ‘conservative’ values, which by dogmatic belief only invite ‘inert’ meanings to be intrinsic of their perceptive thought, allow the fallacy of dogma as their value. For instance, ‘conservatism’ and ‘inertia’ can be switched without changing meaning: dogmatic material value in conservative minds apparently have resulted in rationalization that is innate, but also organic, as happened in the instance of Lenin’s communist misinterpretation of Hegel’s dialectical materialism philosophy. Belief-based materiality orthodoxly puts inertia into the mix of belief, i.e., becomes ‘naturally inert conservatism’ that is fallaciously believed. --Do we allow material aspects to effect rationalization, i.e., a natural conservatism (inertia) of all things unitarily material, also to affect moral choices?? When, as philosophic fallacy, conservatives adopted Mechanism to explain Materialist inert biases, this was surely done. ---

Do material rationalizations approach moral choice poles that

Inflation’s cost, put onto SS, must be recompensed

221

represent an absence of moral value (the poles of “bad” and “evil”), i.e., is diabolical to moral “purity” and “virtue?” --Are “bad” and “evil” the natural end of extreme cultural inertia, i.e., of seemingly natural but fallacious inert conservatism? --Are all naturally affected by fallacious “conservatism?” Adam Smith rationalized the postulations of his system of economy to fit the organic-based assumption of Thomas Hobbes: the convincing rationalized argument based in Materialism that “self interest” motivates all men (The American System of Political Economy perpetuates this partly true assumption and we must, I contend, be aware of the great boost given to hedonism that we officially sponsor by endorsing this assumption as a philosophic key of systemic political economy policy). Still, Smith in a previous book -- The Theory of Moral Sentiments -- clearly, deliberately reasoned the role of “moral approbation” in making “good” judgements. About human qualities that allow “good” moral judgements, Heilbroner wrote this:194

The "Theory" was an inquiry into the origin of moral approbation and disapproval. How does it happen that man, who is a creature of self-interest, can form moral judgements in which self-interest seems to be held in abeyance or transmuted to a higher plane? Smith held that the answer lay in our ability to put ourselves in the position of a third person, an impartial observer, and in this way to form a sympathetic notion of the objective (as opposed to the selfish) merits of a case. If we identify the correlation of organic-based “self-interests” with human passions, the following observations apply:195

Oh, how the passions, insolent and strong, bear our weak minds their rapid course along; make us the madness of their will obey; then die, and leave us to our griefs a prey! G. Crabbe The way to avoid evil is not by maiming our passions, but by compelling them to yield their vigor to our moral nature. -- Thus they become, as in the ancient fable, the harnessed steeds that bear

222

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

the chariot of the sun.

H. W. Beecher We recently celebrated the 200th Anniversary of our Constitution and may have gained understanding of the struggle by reading the special accounts such as this piece by former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger (in the Charlotte Observer then in the Salt Lake Tribune, August 30, 1987). Perfect harmony it was not. Fragile it was and still is. The final votes to ratify was eighty-nine for and seventy-nine opposed. Burger wrote this:

This Constitution and its Bill of Rights launched an utterly new form of national government with divided powers to assure checks and balances. Unlike England's Magna Carta of 1215, a grant from the crown, they created our constitution with ‘we, the people’ as the sovereign. This Constitution of ‘We, the people,’ is indisputably the product of unusually popularized liberalism (belief in Locke’s finding of human inalienable properties) that portended the American Revolution to secure independence. Parrington called this culture-based liberalism the Glorious Revolution, and gave credit to John Locke’s philosophy. Without cultural support, Colonel Mason's argument would have had no foundation or force with the Constitutional Convention. And Hamilton, who had vigorously argued against providing for the sovereignty of "we the people," would not have yielded. Colonel Mason said this:

Not withstanding the injustice experienced among us from democracy, the genius of the people is in favor of it and the genius of the people must be consulted. Historians also credit the Bill of Rights to have resulted from popular liberal culture that Mason represented. --Are the roots of political division found in moral differences of choice between those who sided with Hamiltonian unitary Materialism and those who persuaded the creation of our Constitution with we, the people as its cardinal sovereign? Regarding the value roots on Hamilton’s side, Parrington wrote about the earliest days of our nation and accorded the following to Hamilton. In this, Parrington described the value roots of mechanism dogma (the theory that all in the universe is produced and can be

Inflation’s cost, put onto SS, must be recompensed

223

explained by material, mechanical forces):196 Accepting self-interest as the mainspring of human ambition, Hamilton accepted equally the principle of class domination. From his reading of history he discovered that the strong overcome the weak, and as they grasp power they coalesce into a master group. This master group will dominate, he believed, not only to further its interests, but to prevent the spread of anarchy which threatens every society split into factions and at the mercy of rival ambitions. In early days the master group was a military order, later it became a landed aristocracy, in modern times it is commercial; but always its power rests on property. 'That power which holds the purse-strings absolutely, must rule,' he stated unequivocally. The economic masters of society of necessity become the political masters. It is unthinkable that government should not reflect the wishes of property, that it should be permanently hostile to the greater economic interests; such hostility must destroy it, for no man or group of men will be ruled by those whom they can buy and sell. And in destroying itself it will give place to another government, more wisely responsive to the master group; for even a democratic people soon learns that any government is better than a condition of anarchy, and a commercial people understands that a government which serves the interests of men of poverty, serves the interests of all, for if capital will not invest how will labor find employment? And if the economic masters do not organize society efficiently, how shall the common people escape ruin? Mechanism is dogma deduced from unitary materialism. B. Russell showed the logical falsity of causal Mechanism as so deduced: 197

224

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

world of mere matter, since it would contain no beliefs or statements, would also contain no truth or falsehood. Thomas Hobbes’ dogmatic belief that ‘self-interest’ is the greatest source of human motivation is similarly falsely deduced. Parrington documented the irrational political orations of Senator John C. Calhoun’s prolific, inconsistent arguments, which presented America with its greatest dogmatic rationalization of democracy: 198

The true origin of government, he asserted in common with John Adams, is to be found in practical necessity . . . It has always been found necessary to lodge coercive powers in certain hands as a social protection against individual aggression; and since all men are impelled by self interest, political systems are determined in form and scope by this universal instinct [with the paradoxs that result from this irrationalism, tyranny and its self-possessed reactive antagonist terror (which archetype is anarchism) is assured]. Without government there is anarchy; with government there is potential tyranny [which causes organic reactionary counter aggressions that we now call terrorism?]. Brooks Adams observed this about materialism-based capitalism: 199

The capitalist is ‘the most lawless’ of citizens. In his attitude towards the state he is essentially anarchistic; he evades or nullifies a law that he does not like, while clamorous for the enforcement of a law that works in his favor. --Do these clips of comon emotional materialist rationalizations represent the fallacious value roots of orthodox ‘conservatism?’ --Do rhetorical sophistries mask the frustration extremes festering naturally in results of organic rationalizations that routinely legalize and license mechanized self-interests of political economy? Increases in public distrust and rancor is surely measurable. So, Based on the public perceptions of official policies, organically do we intend that individual and factional cognition will somehow adjust in morality to counteract the organic moral impurities of mechanized paradoxical,

Inflation’s cost, put onto SS, must be recompensed

225

226

tyrannous extremes?

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

recordings of [Mark] Lane’s speeches. Such recordings were pursued for the commission, according to an FBI note dated March 11, 1964, and ‘could if discovered by Lane or his associates, be used to embarrass the Bureau or the Commission.’

--Finally, is the Constitution and more particularly the Bill of Rights an unannounced, possibly unconscious, target of ‘conservatism’ so arrogantly intolerant of political opposition as to adjudge citizen opponents as enemies: to blacklist and exile them from the mechanized organic paternalism (McCarthy, mid 1950s; Nixon, Watergate 1972; Reagan, opposition to Nicaragua policy 1987, expediencies to accommodate war on terrorism 2001- . . .)?

What role did the FBI play in altering public political perceptions’? Conservatives’ sophistry, routinely masked exploitative business opportunism: Federalists favored Locke’s ‘pure’ natural truth of universal inalienable human rights only so far as applied to the ‘business class’: Federalists partitioned Locke’s truth for this class particularly. Following the American Revolution, with personal shares in England’s power and wealth Americanized, ‘conservatives’ rationalized civic policies to accord with an Americanized oligarchical class self-interest: of course, economic mechanism-based determinism resulted to patronize the business class. " While Federalists wanted Locke’s personal inalienable rights for class members, they rationalized constitutional assurances of equal rights to ‘all’ Americans despite station, wealth or capability (as some, who interpreted the Federalists, wrote: “only souls are equal”). In Federalism, colonial culture served selfish purposes to secure power and wealth from England: assuring to the business class the primary economic benefits of the new American economic oligarchical order. Federalists turned aside from learning Cicero, Locke, Adam Smith, Franklin, Jefferson, Lincoln and many others’ essential lessons based in principle. Each of these greater men, with many others, was keenly aware of the natural motivational influences of self interest. But, more, they were crucially aware of the finer side of human character: the intelligence side that Adam Smith described for being essential to perceive things objectively and to make good judgements in ‘moral approbation.’ This ‘liberal’ intelligence side of

The FBI, incidently, was the prime source of names furnished to McCarthy. The FBI, of the department of justice, volunteered its personal information to presidents, apparently to curry favor. When President Harry Truman was given such a file, surprised, he asked, ‘what the hell is this crap about’? And he told the FBI to not share with him personal abstracts that he did not request. Nixon finally did what other presidents could not: He retired the FBI Director who had then reached his mideighties and still pleaded to stay on. The FBI played an essential role in the Warren Commission’s investigation of President Kennedy’s assassination. Previously, Attorney General Robert Kennedy had ordered the FBI Director to make organized crime, instead of ‘political Witch hunts’ its main objective " , as the AP revealed (Las Vegas Review-Journal July 3, 1996):

The FBI aggressively tracked the public appearances of a prominent Warren Commission critic through a coast-to-coast network of contacts. . . . It was unclear from the records if the FBI, which was the commission’s investigatory arm, acted on its own or at the commission’s behest, except when it came to obtaining secret "

Witch Hunts apparently continue, as of July 18, 2005, as verified in the Salt Lake Tribune: FBI has been watching [peaceful] advocacy groups. ACLU and Greenpeace were cited with this comment: The Justice Department won’t say why the bureau has been doing it. The spokesman of Greenpeace is credited for saying this: This [Bush] administration has a history of using its powers against its peaceful critics.

The evidence of this has shown consistently in economic results and recently was stated in Jane Bryant Quinn’s A Requiem For Pensions, in 7/10/’06 Newsweek: the money flows to the deserving rich.

Inflation’s cost, put onto SS, must be recompensed

227

man’s character, as each had learned, was essential to finding truth and knowledge, peace and tranquility, and, in open inculcation and exercises of these, to assure the general advancement of culture. As Smith suggested, they found the quality of a just man that allows him to step outside himself to view, then judge without prejudice, situations and problems as they objectively are. Bertrand Russell called this human quality possessing tinctures of philosophy. Goethe called it outwardturned: a general quality of a society whenever cultural progress was observed (About cultural decline, Goethe observed, society’s attitude was always generally inward-turned onto self interest). As another example, Adam Smith’s ultra-liberal-system of economy also provided great opportunities to commercial enterprise. American Whigs further partitioned Smith’s system to enhance the economic advantages to private enterprise. Like Locke’s democratic philosophy, The American System of political Economy became the officially rationalized version that excused intelligence related responsibilities as ‘moral approbation’ as Smith had prescribed. American ‘Republican-Conservatism,’ with ‘positive laws’ and official policy backing, now avows that business and enterprise is more important than the national commonweal. R. Fulton observed this: 200

The highest function of conservatism is to keep what progressiveness has accomplished. ‘Conservatives’ must, however, control the government to control the patronage, which mechanized, flows to ‘sacred cows’ of self interest. Still, nature has a way of aborting policies of man, which do not comport to the pure truths of deliberate reason. Nature always exposes the irrational foundations of ‘conservatism,’ as E. Chapin observed:201

The conservative may clamor against reform, but he might as well clamor against the centrifugal force.--He sighs for ‘the good old times.’ -- He might as well wish the oak back into the acorn. Regarding results of rationalizations that gave The American System of Political economy official status to patronize exploitive enterprise, as some

228

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

Americans say, gave us ‘peoples capitalism.’ A few describe this economic outgrowth of The American system of political economy as ‘hybrid socialism.’ In another section, I call this capitalist outgrowth Our Surreal Economy. Ralph Waldo Emerson observed that while all reformers are liberals, at times all humans are ‘conservatives:’202

We are reformers in spring and summer.--In autumn and winter we stand by the old.--Reformers in the morning; conservatives at night.-Reform is affirmative; conservatism, negative.--Conservatism goes for comfort; reform for truth. The covert organic set up of our government, to operate outside and above the government as disclosed in the Iran-Contra affair, adds credence to serious begging questions: --Are root values of this American ‘conservatism’ fundamental to those who favored and produced the Constitution or are they roots of prejudice that will, if allowed, annul or supersede the Constitution? --In other words, will American ‘conservative’ self interests influence further rationalization that will set aside constitutional processes to achieve their objectives? (Is the G. W. Bush administration indictable for having done this?) --Which side of Buchanan's charge, about the 'right' and the 'left' mind-set, which originally had caused seventy-nine votes to oppose the Constitution? Pat Buchanan’s charge is again recalled: 203

The 'right' and the 'left' in the United States is divided. As divided as we were during the civil war! --Were they, as Colonel Mason, generally dismayed for the dismal lacking to give insurance to the citizens, who appointed them, to represent their commonweal interests: primarily to secure the common liberties of the democratic sovereignty? Anyway, the issues of concern here are the same and, sad as it is, facts prove time and again that many politicians while catering special interest exploitations, fail to represent the values and virtues of the constitution as expressed by its opening phrase: ‘We, the people.’ When lacking holistic focuses on values and virtues of this

Inflation’s cost, put onto SS, must be recompensed

229

American constitutional ‘Civitas, of democratic sovereignty, whichever political brand they claim as their personal 'Civitas,' their representation of constitutional value or virtue is, therefore, fraudulent and deceptive. If emotions are either side’s catalyst of Buchanan's charge, rational issues are irrelevant since emotions can be, have been and unfortunately will always be whipped by peers and leaders to favor “special interests” (After all, skilled and artfully successful politicians always try to exploit prejudice to their favor and as Hamilton, they know that ‘success knows no ethics’). With success measured materialistically, the corollary, belief in the dogma ‘Materialism cannot know ethics,’ is also valid. Integrity (the real backbone) of America can never be found in emotions. Conservatism, as Emerson, Fulton, and Chapin described, institutes, or, at least, humors, human emotions. Still, human emotions naturally influence rationalization. Orthodox belief might, therefore, be considered as the influential centerpiece of a negative charged ‘conservative’ political character: 204

The typical American conservative . . . believes that the free enterprise system has given Americans a way to exercise individualism, and that this system should not be changed. And, of course, when proudly we speak of America’s free enterprise system, we refer to The American System of Political Economy. --When this ‘American Dream’ is founded on dogmas of selfinterest and mechanism (how then can it be about freedom and liberty, as in our Pledge of Allegiance)? When rationalized to fit the absolutely powerful corporate mechanisms of the free enterprise system, conservatives deductively conclude boldly that a Republican is more patriotic and, therefore, is better qualified to administer government constitutionally. So, which politics succeeded to license the American System to function independently, unimpeded by government? And, what has determinist mechanisms of the American system of political economy to do with our constitutional values and virtues? Such sophistry, or emotional symbolism dressed in patriotism, masquerades as the seemly conservative patriotic Civitas?

230

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

Alternatively, Democrats, also believe in free enterprise, and they have their own emotional appeals to society for the control of government: to alternatively patronize their more holistic agenda of ‘Civitas’? We have called by different names brethren of the same principle, Jefferson admitted: Principles which are critical, however, seldom are celebrated by either Party of Republicans or Democrats. The rationalized 'Civitas' of Republicans is patterned on the appeals that Alexander Hamilton made for property-interests to irrationally antecedently supplant the commonwealth interests of we the people. Considering the transmutations of free enterprise to adapt to foreign self-interests, conservative 'Civitas' needs very careful analysis: the democratic sovereignty entanglements of our political economy paternalism with the international corporate disposed economic exploitations administered as free-enterprise must be carefully appraised: these paradoxical entanglements are natural consequences of political economy rationalizations made by Hamilton and Whiggish Republicans who followed Lincoln: 205

Accepting self-interest as the mainspring of human ambition, Hamilton accepted equally the principle of class domination. From his reading of history he discovered that the strong overcome the weak, and as they grasp power they coalesce into a master group. This master group will dominate, he believed, not only to further its interests, but to prevent the spread of anarchy which threatens every society split into factions and at the mercy of rival ambitions. In early days the master group was a military order, later it became a landed aristocracy, in modern times it is commercial; but always its power rests on property. 'That power which holds the purse-strings absolutely, must rule,' he stated unequivocally. The economic masters of society of necessity become the political masters. It is unthinkable that government should not reflect the wishes of property, that it should be permanently hostile to the greater economic interests; such hostility must destroy it, for no man or group of men will be ruled by those whom they can buy and sell.

Inflation’s cost, put onto SS, must be recompensed

231

And in destroying itself it will give place to another government [which in Hinduism, is the philosophy of Siva, and always is associated with an elephant image], more wisely responsive to the master group; for even a democratic people soon learns that any government is better than a condition of anarchy, and a commercial people understands that a government which serves the interests of men of property, serves the interests of all, for if capital will not invest how will labor find employment? And if the economic masters do not organize society efficiently, how shall the common people escape ruin? Politics that is based on irreverent deductive rationalizations of Hamilton's ‘golden rule’ -- He who has the gold, Rules -- while corporations idle or divert capital (to foreign payrolls for their ‘productions,’ or politically of design to influence government, which licensed them to operate independently, to run huge federal deficits: since foreign corporate capital has accumulated to underwrite the domestic deficits at a low rate of interest). And by that deny corporate investment in domestic productions, which benefit citizen workers with decent wages. Because corporate licensing was expressly allowed so capital accumulations for re-employment in domestic productions would occur, corporations must under disfranchisement penalties, provide the answer to Hamilton's question:

For if capital will not invest, how will labor find employment? If Congress ever gets its constitutional act together, to expose and dissuade irrational politics, this question will vanish. The problem is that irrationalism is economically rewarding to both Parties. Only the wageearing class is disadvantaged. Regarding liberal human values, Tryon Edwards wrote this:

Liberality was formerly called honesty, as if to imply unless we are liberal we are not honest, either toward God or man. When, as Edwards suggested here, ‘conservatism’ honors the quality of

232

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

‘being liberal’ as democratic virtue, surely it will be on the second Tuesday of the week. Conservatives treat liberality similarly as Jews commonly rejected Christ: His truthful actions and doctrines. This classically common orthodox negative view of ‘liberal’ relates to the substantial fact that orthodox ‘conservative’ belief in materialism, which is seminal dogma, embroils natural ‘inertia’: inferring that ‘conservative’ describes natural attributes related to affirmed antecedent material qualities of causal mechanism, and ‘liberal’ describes the immaterial (consequential) inalienable eternal ethereal qualities and values that humans enigmatically attribute to God, as naturally are reflected in faculties of thought and reason as uniquely, naturally are endowed to human beings (Unfortunately, this irrationalism represents the tautological fallacy of affirming the consequent.). Conservatism is concerned with property and binding contracts whereas liberalism is concerned with reasonable equities, policies, compacts and laws that uphold the inalienability of we, the Peoples’ human rights: as recognized but scantily described in the Declaration of Independence. Conservatism chooses mechanism to explain causality both with regard to the universe of material bodies and the behavior expected of humans. Liberalism chooses causal teleology to give purpose to human temporal life. While the dictionary defines ‘liberal’ in many ways, only the third, fourth, and fifth definitions are cited here:

3. favoring progress and reforms. 4. General (not detailed or absolute) 5. (Obsolete) free from restraint; free in speech or action. World Book Encyclopedia offers this comment:

In the 1900s, liberalism in the United States became identified with the use of government regulation to solve social problems and remove injustice. [Historically, conservatism has prevailed, ever charging liberalism with failing to redress social problems and injustice?] With ‘swing votes,’ Democrats mostly sponsored this liberal legislation. To this, as Azel Backus had observed, one should observe that two

Inflation’s cost, put onto SS, must be recompensed

233

‘wrongs’ (errors of logical fallacy) do not make one ‘right’: 206

Error always addresses the passions and prejudices: truth scorns such mean intrigue, and only addresses the understanding and the conscience. [Of note is that conservatism by nature cannot be truthful.] However, one should also recognize that when the first conservative error mechanistically paternalistically divided society with favor to business affluence, and the second liberal error had no alternative but to act within the economic mechanism to marginally narrow the social favor of the economic paternalism, then only the second error demonstrates the democratic virtue of constitutional equality under law. The American System put in place by Whigs left liberals with no alternative but to legislate in accordance with the materialist mechanist paradigm. --Do the above clips of ‘conservatism’ and ‘liberalism’ reflect emotional ingredients of our paradoxical political division that Buchanan had pointed out? --Does this emotional division run deepest where selfishness confronts charity, where irresponsibility confronts responsibility, where ignorance confronts knowledge, where amorality confronts morality, where ‘individual interest’ confronts the commonweal, where retributive justice confronts failures of licensed political economy mechanisms’ meting of distributive justice? particularly when contingencies of truth confront antecedent principles of truth?* * To Roger Williams, the principle of justice was the democratic principle of equality (Which only rationally is akin to adopting Categorical Imperative as society’s governing antecedent principle).207 America’s democratic principle of beneficence had constitutionally underpinned justice, and immediately was confronted, challenged and subordinated by dogmatic rationalizations of truth and ethics. Materialist dogma supplanted the teleologically essential antecedent principles of ethical morality with mechanist deontological ‘duties’ of business’ purposes. By obscuring teleological principles of obligation,

234

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

utilitarianism, and justice, determinist deontological duties has done to essential principles of justice what it has done to metaphysical deontological meaning, compelling teleololgical purpose merely to mean deontological ‘duty.’ About this Professor Frankena wrote:208

What does the principle of beneficence say? Four things: (1) One ought not to inflict evil or harm (what is bad). (2) One ought to p+revent evil or harm. (3) One ought to remove evil. (4) one ought to do or promote good. Of the four, it is most plausible to say that (4) is not duty in the strict sense. In fact, one is inclined to say that in some sense (1) takes precedence over (2), (2) over (3), and (3) over (4), other things being equal. But all are, at any rate, principles of prima facie duty. By adding ‘to or for anyone’ at the end of each of them one makes the principle of beneficence universalistic, by adding ‘to or for others’ one makes it altruistic. What one does here depends on whether he is willing to say that he has duties to oneself or not. . . [Morality] suggests that perhaps we should recognize two basic principles of obligation, the principle of utility and some principle of justice. The resulting theory would be a deontological one, but would be much closer to utilitarianism than most deontological theories; we might call it ‘a mixed deontological theory.’ Whenever emotion embroiling selfish temporal business ‘duties’ encounters antecedent principles of utility and justice, rationalizations are irrationally supplanted for antecedent principle: Brooks Adams observed this. Parrington wrote this about the Harvard trained lawyers of John Quincy Adams’ fourth generation: 209

Inflation’s cost, put onto SS, must be recompensed

235

a law that works in his favor. [Capitalists are skillful in the use of irrationalism.] From ‘The Theory of Social Revolution,’ Parrington inserted this:

If the capitalist has bought some sovereign function, and wishes to abuse it for his own behoof, he regards the law which restrains him as a despotic invasion of his constitutional rights, because, with his specialized mind, he cannot grasp the relation of a sovereign function to the nation as a whole [I would say his mind’s designs are inward-turned, i.e, is consumed by“his capital thoughts”]. He, therefore, looks upon the evasion of a law devised for public protection, but inimical to him, as innocent or even meritorious. This attitude of capital has had a profound effect upon shaping the American legal mind. The capitalist, as I infer, regards the constitutional form of government which exists in the United States, as a convenient method of obtaining his own way against a majority, but the lawyer has learned to worship it as a fetish. Nor is this astonishing, for, were written constitutions suppressed, he would lose most of his importance and much of his income. Quite honestly, therefore, the American lawyer has come to believe that a sheet of paper soiled with printers’ ink and interpreted by half-a-dozen elderly gentlemen snugly dozing in armchairs, has some inherent and marvelous virtue by which it can arrest the march of omnipotent Nature. And capital gladly accepts this view of American civilization, since hitherto capitalists have usually been able to select the magistrates who decide their causes. The skepticisms of the House of Adams came to their frankest expression in the writings of Brooks Adams. The passion for social justice had brought him at last to a philosophy of history that made him a trenchant critic of the American of his generation. He rejected alike the humanitarian optimism that, from Condorct to Herbert Spencer, had inspired generous souls with hope for future progress - and that even Henry Adams clung to - and the economic

236

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

optimism that from the beginnings of the westward movement had inspired acquisitive souls with the hope of continuous gain. Nothing perhaps marked him more as a rebel than his denial of the god worshiped by his fellows. The gospel of progress was for him no more than a fetish of the economic mind. In the ebb and flow of civilizations under the attraction of fear and greed, what justification was there for faith in a benevolent progress? His lot had been cast, unfortunately, in an age of capitalism, when the acquisitive mind was triumphing over the imaginative, the banker over the priest and craftsman and mystic; but he could see no reason in heaven or earth to brag of that fact, and he would have held himself a fool to apply the term progress to the spread of greed that was crowning the usurer as master of men. From B. Adams, ‘The Law of Civilization and Decay,’ p. 292 The aristocracy which wields this autocratic power is beyond attack, for it is defended by a wage-earning police, by the side of which the legions were a toy - a police so formidable that, for the first time in history, revolt is hopeless and is not attempted. The only question which preoccupies the ruling class is whether it is cheaper to coerce or bribe. * Contd. This was heard on Headline news July 1 2002:

As the saying goes, we cannot trust war to the Generals. Now we find, we cannot trust capitalism to the capitalists. Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, . . ., represents examples of administrative irrationalisms of capitalism’s licensed role, which economically, systemically denied beneficence based distributive justice. TV’s 60 minutes, on June 30, 2002, aired a dark side J. Edgar Hoover. He deliberately had withheld evidence of an incarcerated man wrongly charged with murder. Because Hoover withheld evidence of his innocence, this innocent man had spent 30 years in a maximum security jail. The icon image of J. Edgar Hoover as the tough cop, was more

Inflation’s cost, put onto SS, must be recompensed

237

important to Hoover than being truthful in matters, as this man’s innocence. And Hoover had played the key interpretative roles in the investigations into the assassinations of J. F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. He was the source of incriminating information about communism to the McCarthy hearings and he personally introduced Richard Nixon to the oil industry’s capitalist captains meeting in 1968 in Houston to decide their choice for the U. S. presidency, for which oildom had contributed about $ six million to the political campaign. And in 2000 would contribute $ fifty million. Suspicion, with good reason, looms large that all these examples represent rationalized falsefication at the highest level of government, of the antecedent principles of distributive justice: Categorical Imperative and equality. --Does Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights, Antitrust, Environmental Protection, . . ., upset Conservative reverence of Alexander Hamilton's politics, Adam Smith's economics, as classically, fallaciously modified to fit the capitalist self-interests of the American System of Political Economy (Henry Clay's ‘American System’ of economic mechanisms designed to placate economic ‘selfishness’ as politically patronized by the government), and John C. Calhoun’s irrationally deduced argument (by his emotional attachment to slavery and imperialism) of the U.S. democracy of sovereign citizens as patterned on the Unequal Greek Democracy? --Did conservatives rationalize appearances (of their emotional selfishness) consciously making political emotions more socially acceptable than reason? Parrington wrote this about Hamilton’s artful rationalization:210

238

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

[As cited above, J. Edgar Hoover fitted well with Hamilton?] --Did conservatives, by dogmatic materialistic rationalization, subjugate the natural human inalienable qualities (which uniquely, in pure love, embrace emotion to encourage objectivity and teleological end purposes) to celebrate the unrefined natural human conservative qualities (which embrace, by any and all means, the preservation of emotional subjectivity, the end of which is not a goal, but merely an objective for diverse hedonistic individual gratifications)? Truth is only found by objective reasoning. St. James observed this about truth: seek and you will find. But only in faithful earnest deliberation is natural enigmatic truth made available, in usufruct fashion, to human temporal consciousness. (See James 1: 5-7) --Were these rationalizations successful? : did they influence government-licensing to ‘open’ the commonwealth’s vast natural resources to private enterprises for exploitations leading to eventual depletion (Were conservatives then -- are they now -- concerned with the abused and diluted and social decaying condition of the world? Is this condition, which replaces usufruct, left for future generations?)? Usufruct is critical to any truthful reasoning of exploitation:

Usufruct. 211 The legal right to use another’s property and enjoy the advantages of it without injuring or destroying it. --Did conservatives irrationally influence tax mechanisms to enhance the instant processes of exploitation with disregard for future conditions (For instance, with oil tax depletion allowances, were they more concerned with the eventual economic loss to private-interests than with the eventual resource loss to future generations?)? --Did conservatives irrationally influence government, under constitutional issues involving national interest and security, to secure their foreign private property arrangements? Is our war on terror in results of this foreign embroilment of corporate property interests? If usufruct was honored by conservatives, would Whiggish selfish policies (manifest destiny, dollar diplomacy, internal improvement and now preemption *) have occurred as national politics-based policies? * Today, July 7, 2006, the neocon’s Whiggish administrative policy of

Inflation’s cost, put onto SS, must be recompensed

239

240

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

preemption was declared over: as regards the public’s favor of it. And, if this is so, preemption now can be filed with the other Whiggish policies: manifest destiny, dollar diplomacy, internal improvement.

The symptoms of our division are found in cultural aspects of lifestyles. Poverty is found at one extreme. Affluence at the other. Lifestyles so different end in political antagonisms, and even terror:

--Does the federal government routinely and systematically furnish new fiat money expressly to aid and sustain expansions of privately owned exploitive foreign (now international) enterprise? --Are these infusions of fiat money casually related to inflation? --What cost remedies to inflation has government reassigned to exploitive enterprise? --Does the government’s cost remedy for inflation affect consumerwage-earners more than the corporate patron-owners of exploitive enterprise? --Do Republican-Conservatives continue to resist, as Hamilton did, politically social usage solutions to mediate the paradoxical ‘class struggles?’ --Is it because of conservative rationalized concern that solutions to the ‘class struggles,’ provided by government, will compromise exploitative economic growth? : For government to provide for these social usage solutions, is absolutely resisted. Da! --Why do conservatives show little concern with, and less compassion for, the ever widening economic division of society? --Why do Whiggish conservatives not realize that economic division directly correlates to the personal stress of emotional division? James Madison’s knowledge of this correlation had beneficially influenced the Constitutional Convention. As Parrington noted about concerns that arrose in discussions about framing the Constitution. 212

The unequal distribution of property is the realistic basis of all politics, and the "sentiments" and "views" which arise from the possession of different degrees and kinds of property form the stuff of so called 'political psychology.'

During the '80s we did not replenish the body social with its (economic) lifeblood as provided by labor. The surreal economy was stimulated by issuing fiat money, stocks and bonds, however, government’s representatives did nothing to stop banks and financiers from shortcircuiting the ‘circular flow’ of economic lifeblood in our real economy. The '80s were a decade of restructuring business and dividing what the investment banking pirates might have called booty among the Captains of political economy’s despoilment. The restructuring continues! Jeffery Hoffman wrote this, which I excerpted from an AP article that ran in the Las Vegas Review Journal, September 7, 1994:

When Scott Paper Co. announced a major joint venture in China, the company characterized it as a shrewd expansion in a promising foreign market. A few days earlier, Scott had accelerated a drastic cutback at home. Appended to the article was that Scott was eliminating 10,500 positions worldwide by the end of 1994 (about one third in the U.S. employment). Scott’s expansion plans were to invest $20 million to build a joint venture tissue factory in China that will employ 200. Also the article said that Xerox Corporation was eliminating 10,000 jobs by 1996 and closing some factories and service centers and this was the second big cut in two years? Xerox's expansion includes joint venture factories in Wahun, China, making fax machines and in Suzhou, China, making copiers, employing 700 people. These corporate captains, with most others, usurped the lifeblood

Inflation’s cost, put onto SS, must be recompensed

241

of Quesnay’s economic body social to adapt to the funding of the huge financial packages including the creation of junk-bonds to captivate loose investors’ money retained as corporate capital. Huge amounts of capital (more than $1 trillion in booty) were bridged by the short circuits of the market system processes to captivate corporate organizations then transfer ownership positions. Precious little of this booty capital, if any, sustained employment and wages or new ventures underwriting of enterprise in the U.S. Our economy now suffers and must endure for many years the ill effects of the irrationalism-based short circuits. This reality relates to consumer interest rates that are far too high in relationship with expectations of inflation " : This now includes the noncontrollable value of the dollar with far too much of our loose fiat money in the hands of investors who have foreign investments in mind. An utterance by Hobson, as Heilbroner had recorded him, comes to mind:213

The consequence [John Hobson] saw was most surprising. The inequality of incomes led to the strangest of dilemmas -- a paradoxical situation in which neither rich nor poor could consume enough goods. The poor could not consume enough because their incomes were too small, and the rich could not consume enough because their incomes were too big! In other words, said Hobson, in order to clear its own market, an economy must consume everything that it makes: each good must have a buyer. Now, if the poor cannot afford to take

This section’s research and draft was completed several years ago. Since then, as the twenty first century began, the Fed held discount rates of interest artificially low. And refinance offers of mortgages to 125 percent of value were common: a refinance frenzy resulted and inflated owner equity was replaced by mortgaged debt. Owner equity was taken with refinancing, and the perception of a very ‘good’ economy has overshadowed inflations economic problems.

242

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

more than the bare essentials, who is there to take the rest? Obviously, the rich. But while the rich have the money, they lack the physical capacity for that much consumption. . . . Hobson's answer was devilishly neat. The automatic savings of the rich could be invested in one way that would put them at sue without the troublesome accompaniment of more production at home. They could be invested overseas. While for sometime I have thought about our economy of the 1980s as a Casino Economy I realize that I picked up this expression on the street of life. Still, the '80s was a Casino Economy as our banks including the banks of the Federal Reserve acted as the slot machine with Corporate Captains (often Corporate Raiders), and investment bankers themselves, playing the mechanist money machine. This banking industry’s slot machine took in great amounts of fiat money freshly printed and loaned at a low cost to investors to secure stock positions, to effect corporate takeovers, and otherwise to restructure established corporations with large caches of accumulated capital (which Heilbroner reminds that Smith called treasure rather than wealth). We must soon realize that fiat money is different from accumulated business capital that the corporations had derived from wage-earned production. In Adam Smith’s analysis, the accumulated capital is the ‘wealth of nations’ created with specific purpose to increase production and wage-earning to keep pace with general economy. Fiat money is nothing more than printed paper that is intended to ease economic trade. When we understand this fundamental difference, we will understand that charlatans who controlled the deployment of the fiat money were allowed to seize the nation’s real wealth. Little to no real capital went to bolster production or to furnish risk capital to underwrite new business ventures as Smith had prescribed. Instead, it ended in the bidding processes of buying and exchanging stocks and bonds in our surreal economy. We need to become concerned about our markets at home and this means that we must learn to maintain our Political Economy to secure all channels of our economic lifeblood: Jobs that pay decent wages. It is

Inflationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s cost, put onto SS, must be recompensed

243

implicit in the fact that Xerox and Scott, among the many others, are cutting back since they cannot compete with the foreign produced products but also implicit in their decisions is that our own market is in process of having its lifeblood siphoned off. Until government makes more equitable arrangements, our Captains of industry must become sequestered of the accumulated capital -- that has by means of our Political Economy been allowed to accumulate. Yes, we should invest in foreign production but by means of our Political Economy we must also better protect our own markets.

The Populists denounced both Republicans and Democrats as corrupt accomplices of the railroad barons, the banks that set ruinous interest ratess, and the industrial magnates and monopolists who profited from the labor of others while paying meager wages. Largely for corroboration but also perspective, I have inserted annotative comments which Parrington made. In his third volume of Main Currents . . ., Parrington wrote this:214

The noble idealism of successive third parties that have sprung up reasserted the democratic principles flouted by major parties. The Locofoco movement, the Free-soil Party [of which Lincoln was a menber], the early Republican Party, the Greenback Party, the Progressive Party, have had a common objective, namely to carry further the movement inaugurated by the Jeffersonians to make of America a land of democratic equality and opportunity -- to make government in America serve man rather than property. The third party movements have always been democratic movements, and though they have failed in their immediate objectives they have served the purpose of reminding the major parties -- oftentimes rudely -- that America presumes to be a democratic country. Thus interpreted the history of the political struggle in America since 1790 falls into three broad phases: The Jeffersonian movement that asserted the ideal of political democracy; the Jacksonian movement

244

109

TRUTHâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s FIDUCIAL GAUGESâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; APPENDIXES

that established it crudely in practice; and the successive thirdparty movements that attempted to regain such ground as had been lost, to extend the field, and to perfect the machinery of democratic government. As a result of the long struggle the abstract principle of democracy -- during the period under consideration -- was firmly established in the popular mind; but as it fell under the successive custodianship of different economic groups it came to receive strangely diverse interpretations. Interpreted by the coonskin Jacksonians it meant political equalitarianism; by the slave economy it meant a Greek democracy; by the industrial economy it meant the right of exploitation. It has changed service with each new master. Always the principles of Jeffersonianism -- of democracy as a human social order, serving the common wellbeing -- have been lost out of the reckoning, and except in so far as the tendency has been checked by the third-party threat, democratic professions have been only a thin cover under which the old class warfare has gone forward vigorously. In the decades immediately following the Civil War democracy padded under the custodianship of the middle class, who were busily engaged in creating a plutocracy [government in which the rich rule], and the major ideas of the earlier movement took on a characteristic middle-class coloring. The idea of a beneficent progress, which was the flower of the doctrine of human perfectibility, came to be interpreted as material expansion with constantly augmenting profits; the idea of democracy came to be interpreted as the right to use the government of the whole for the benefit of the few. [unless life is transcended by government to legislate on behalf of embryos (which incidently occurs each time laws are enacted which treat embryos as representing a human life), DNA or metaphysical matters, the natural end for this political irrationalism clearly showed in the federal legislation, signed into law, for Terri Schiavo]

Inflation’s cost, put onto SS, must be recompensed

245

246

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES Special Endnote 3

Considered historically perhaps the chief contribution of the Progressive movement to the democratic cause is to be found in its discovery of the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the federal Constitution [clearly, the Federalist constitutional contribution was fundamentally undemocratic" ]. That so obvious a fact so long escaped

recognition was due to political causes easily understood. For a century the Constitution had been a symbol of national unity, a cohesive force amidst the drift of expansion, a counter influence to the disintegrations of states-rights particularisms; and as such it had appealed to the national loyalties of men in every commonwealth. . ..

American federalist conservatism, now at times is politically corralled, but is still prone to tautological fallacies. And it abides as often the more powerful politics of a propertied American aristocracy: heirs to American ‘classical mercantilists’ allied to Hamilton’s bias, as Parrington noted (Vol. I, p 299)

It is unthinkable that government should not reflect the wishes of property, that it should be permanently hostile to the greater economic interests; such hostility must destroy it, for no man or group of men will be ruled by those whom they can buy and sell. And in destroying itself it will give place to another government, more wisely responsive to the master group; for even a democratic people soon learns that any government is better than a condition of anarchy, and 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? And if the economic masters do not organize society efficiently, how shall the common people escape ruin?

About U’Ren’s contributions, Parrington wrote this:215 . . . men and their theories counted for little in the stodgy mass of

capitalistic America. The political phase had passed over into the economic; politics was wholly divorced from reality. But . . . the spirit of political democracy was still alive and vigorous. . . . For upwards of a half a century creative political thinking in America was largely western agrarian, and from this source came those democratic ideas that were to provide the staple of later liberalism. The conscious objective of this great movement was to complete the work begun by Jacksonianism, and create a political machinery that should enable the democracy to withstand the shock of the Industrial Revolution. Many thinkers contributed to the work -- U’Ren of Oregon, Jerry Simpson of Kansas, Tom Watson of Georgia, ‘Coin’ Harvey of Arkansas, General Weaver of Iowa, Ignatius Connelly of Minesota, Henry D. Lloyd of Chicago, to name a handful out of the mass -- homespun realists who have been forgotten by a later generation, but whose labors were given to the necessary work of refashioning the political machinery of America, and whose program provided the materials for a later Progressive party. They were commoners, men of the people, unversed in the dogmas of the schools, idealists who drew their inspiration from the Declaration of Indepencence; they spoke for an older America that feared the rising Plutocracy, and they were casting about for ways and means to cut its claws. From their labors came the Greenback Movement, the Farmers’ Alliance, Populism, and from them came in turn the Progressive Movement that reaped what they had sown. Special Endnote 4 About the increasing alienation of Americans from our system of representative government, this insert annotates Broder’s comments:

Special Endnote 4

247

it provides perspective to the American democratic culture that can be expected to always find means to express itself. And, if elected representatives of our republican system of government perceive or and do their constitutional duties, initiatives should not be needed. We must not lose perspective about our democratic heritage and the fact that without ‘us’ (the substance of we the peoples’ human sovereignty), the American government is bogus. Because ‘we, the people’ are government’s fundament, the initiative processes are not ‘laws without government’ as Border asserts. Out of step, however, is government which serves special interest constituencies, as if they are antecedent to ‘we, the people.’ Democracy is philosophically founded in the reasoning of John Locke and Greek philosophers before him: in the deliberate reasoned philosophy that appears always to defy the coercive absolute dictums of oligarchical orthodoxy. Many historians have called John Locke ‘the intellectual ruler of the Eighteenth Century.’ America is blessed because John Locke influenced Colonial America far more than England. He particularly influenced the Declaration of Independence, but he did not introduce democracy to America. The seeds of democracy existed in all of the American colonies and particularly in those that chose to describe their compacts of civil union as ‘A Commonwealth.’ Of these, the colony that Roger Williams organized provides a particularly pertinent example of democracy in action and, as well, an example of the hostile reactions to democracy that came from the orthodox ‘conservative’ social flux. Roger Williams (1603-1683) was twenty nine years of age when Locke was born. He died before the publication of Locke’s main works. Williams received his education at Cambridge. Locke at Oxford. Williams’ training was in the clergy. Locke’s in medicine. Williams’ consideration of democracy was real and practical. Locke’s was theoretical and prescriptive. To summarize distinctions between ‘for-profit’ and ‘mutual:’ As our nation began, the Whiggish neo-mercantilists clearly constituted

248

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

a factional minority and they remain so today. However, their’s is practical control; they use effectively the systems of government to achieve their own ends. Not only did they abuse the interests of the democratic agrarian majority, they craftily turned the puritan arguments of Federalists (who were interested to install a unitary state exclusively to provide security from external aggressions and to restrain the majority will to provide favored justice to their class’ minority will), and to serve their divine-right-based ambitious material ends. As Parrington perceived, The American System of Political Economy is their noteworthy contribution to American Heritage: as laden with unabashed dogmatic preferences to Hobbesian doctrines of Leviathan and positive applications of mechanismbased Deterministic Materialism. As Parrington noted, their irrational dogmatism, practically applied, returned American nomos to the Sixteenth Century status from which Seventeenth Century physis was a reaction. The footprints in American history are distinct and well defined. Parrington, for one, documented the influence of Puritanism in America. He wrote about Roger Williams and the practical problem embroiling reason-based morality (Christian morality was the operative sample), vs. earthy evidence of proliferating political factionalism, particularly found among those who proclaimed their faith as the foundation of their politics, the myriad problems of which led to doctrine separating church from state:216

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. No other man in New England comprehended so fully the difficulties involved in the problem, as Roger Williams, or examined them so thoroughly; and out of his long speculations emerged a theory of the commonwealth that must be reckoned the richest contribution of Puritanism to American political thought. The just renown of Roger Williams has too long been

Special Endnote 4

249

obscured by ecclesiastical historians, who in emphasizing his defense of the principle of toleration have overlooked the fact that religious toleration was only a necessary deduction from the major principles of his political theory, and that he was concerned with matters far more fundamental than the negative virtue of noninterference in the domain of individual faith. He was primarily a political philosopher rather than a theologian -- one of the acutest and most searching of his generation of Englishmen, the teacher of Vane and Cromwell and Milton, a forerunner of Locke and the natural rights school, one of the notable democratic thinkers that the English race has produced. Much of his life was devoted to the problem of discovering a new basis for social reorganization, and his intellectual progress was marked by an abundant wreckage of obsolete theory and hoary fiction that strewed his path. He was a social innovator on principle, and he left no system unchallenged; each must justify itself in reason and expediency or be put aside. Broadly the development of his thought falls into three stages: ---the substitution of the compact theory of the state for the divine right theory; ---the rejection of the suppositious compact of the earlier school and the fictitious abstract state -- still postulated by many thinkers -- and the substitution of a realistic conception of the political state as the sovereign repository of the social will, and the government -- or agent of the state -- as the practical instrument of society to effect its desired ends; ---and finally, the difficult problem of creating the necessary machinery of a democratic commonwealth, as the exigencies of the Rhode Island experiment required. Throughout, the inspiration of his thinking was social rather than narrowly political or theological, and the creative source would seem to have been the middle ages with their fruitful principle

250

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

of men in a given society enrolling themselves voluntarily as members of bodies corporate, finding in such corporate ties a sufficient and all-embracing social bond. 217 In his substitution of the compact theory for divine right, Williams was brought face to face with the fundamental assumption of the Massachusetts theocracy, based on numerous passages of Scripture, that the political state is established and sanctioned by the God of the Hebrews -- an assumption that was freely used to justify the engrossing of authority by the magistracy. As a theologian he critically examined the Scriptural authorities, and while conceding the divine source of government in general, he was careful to cut away all autocratic deductions from the Pauline assertion that ‘the powers that be are ordained of God.’ ‘Government and order in families, towns, etc., is an ordinance of the Most High, Rom. 13, for the peace and good of mankind’ 218 he admitted; but he agreed with Richard Hooker in discovering this order of government to be no other than natural law. The state is divine in origin because it is natural, and what is natural is of God. The Hebraic commonwealth had been established immediately in an ordinance of Jehovah, but Christ and his disciples regarded the state and God as distinct authorities, not to be confused -- ‘Render, therefore, unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.’ The conclusion at which he arrived, then, from the merging of divine ordinances and natural law, was expressed in a doctrine that sets apart the individual citizen in all his spiritual and intellectual rights, from the subject of the commonwealth, and provides the basis for his principle of toleration. ‘A Civill Government is an ordinance of God, to conserve the Civill peace of the people, so far as concerns their Bodies and Goods,’ and no farther. 219 Having thus reduced the divine-right field within narrow

Special Endnote 4

251

limits and translated it into an abstraction [he argued effectively that the theory of “divine-rights” as dogmatized was in any event an insignificant factor of practical concern], he preempts all the ground of practical politics for his compact theory. In accord with a long line of liberal thinkers running back through Richard Hooker to Augustine and the earlier Roman school, he accepted the major deductions from the compact theory of the state: that government is a man-made institution, that it rests on consent, and that it is founded on the assumed equality of the subjects. He had only to translate these abstractions into concrete terms, and apply them realistically, to create a new and vital theory. The covenant idea of church organization had long been familiar to separatists. To this the Pilgrims had added the Mayflower compact and Thomas Hooker had drawn up the Connecticut compact. Government resting on consent and authorized by written agreement was then no untried novelty when Roger Williams began his long speculations on the nature and functions of the political state. With Hobbes he traced the origin of the state to social necessity. The condition of nature is a condition of anarchy -- a war of all against all; and for mutual protection the state takes its rise. ‘The world otherwise would be like a sea, wherein Men, like fishes, would hunt and devour each other, and the greater devour the lesse.’ 220 But unlike the fiction assumed by Hobbes and Locke, this was no suppositious contract between ruler and ruled in prehistoric times, but present and actual, entered into between the several members of a free community for their common governance; nor on the other hand, like Burke’s irrevocable compact, was it unyielding constitution or fundamental law; but flexible, responsive to changing conditions, continually modified to meet the present needs. It is no other than a mutual agreement, arrived at frankly by discussion and compromise, to live together in a political union, organizing the life of the

252

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

commonwealth in accordance with nature, reason, justice and expediency. From this conception of the flexible nature of compact law came the sharp delimitation between state and government that he was at pains to make clear, and that constitutes a significant phase of his theory. Having rejected in his thinking the fictitious abstract state, the repository of an equally fictitious abstract sovereignty, he located sovereignty in the total body of citizens embraced within the community consciousness, acting in a political capacity. The state is society organized, government is the state functioning -- it is the political machinery devised by the sovereign people to effect definite ends. And since the single end and purpose for which the body of citizens erect the state is the furtherance of the communal wellbeing, the government becomes a convenient instrument to serve the common weal [not individuals, factions or special interests], responsible to the sovereign people and strictly limited by the terms of the social agreement. . . . The state, then, is society working consciously through experience and reason, to secure for the individual citizen the largest measure of freedom and well-being. It is armed with a potential power of coercion, but only to secure justice. . . . But if sovereignty inheres in the majority will, what securities remain for the individual and minority rights? I reason that the mutual organization form celebrates Roger William’s commonwealth organization of society, and while we cannot reclaim from our Caesars the properties they took or we have allowed them to ‘own,’ we can surely install commonwealth organizations to serve our mutual interests and, when necessary, control our Caesars. [Have we awoken to the need of commonwealth organization, for instance, considering future energy needs?] The Associated Press article, Medicare fraud widens, in the March

Special Endnote 4

253

6 ‘97 Las Vegas Review-Journal, shows that Medicare is a mutual commonwealth organization with private ‘for profit’ agencies criminally bilking Medicare’s commonwealth funds. Those eligibilities for Medicare benefits must stand in long lines for care meted by private agencies directly in charge of eligibilities personally vested in the commonwealth interest. Excerpts from the article follow:

Medicare fraud widens WASHINGTON -- The home health care visits were never needed, never authorized and never made. That didn’t stop a Florida company from billing Medicare $26 million. It’s just one of many tales of fraud in home health care, a skyrocketing program that cost Medicare $18 billion in 1996, up more than 500 percent since 1990. Now, the Clinton administration and Congress are struggling to eliminate what auditors call “significant fraud,” coupled with a payment system that exercises virtually no control over costs. In the case of St. Johns Home Health Agency of Miami Lakes, Fla., the government says 75 percent of 1993 claims were for visits never made, or for visits to people who were not homebound or whose doctors had not authorized the expense, as Medicare requires. . . .“Most of the erroneous claims are for care that simply is not necessary -- that occurs solely for the purpose of earning money for the agency,” . . . Investigators found, for-profit home health agencies billed more visits than not-for-profits did. . . . In 1990 there were 5,656 home health agencies participating in Medicare; by 1996, more than 9,800. [Those seeking profits are clearly willing to rationalize even defraud to obtain or enhance the taking of it.] Parrington’s account of Franklin caps these thoughts.221

He sat in the Constitutional Convention as one of the few democrats,

254

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

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 singlechamber 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.222 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 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.223 Both his economic principles and his views on government have been condemned by Federalistic 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.

Special Endnote 4

255

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. The bicameral system assures commonweal-based political flux: Senators represent each state’s commonweal Congress persons in the House more particularly represent their districts commonweal. Roger Williams influenced this perspective for effective democracy:224

256

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

philosophical contribution to American democracy:225

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 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.’ Referring more specifically to American spun philosophy that embraced democracy in America, Parrington wrote:226

That Rhode Island should not repeat the old unhappy mistake of coercive absolutism, was a matter . . . of vital concern to him. A great experiment in democracy was to be tried, and to that experiment he devoted his life. Into the form and structure of the new commonwealth went the best thought of English Independency. It was founded on the principles of ‘liberty and equality, both in land and government,’ and established in the sovereignty of the people. That government should not engross its powers, the compact entered into provided for frequent elections, a singlechambered legislature, joint and individual initiative of laws, compulsory referendum, the right of recall of all laws including the constitution, and appeal to arbitration. A rigid constitution, augmenting in authority with age and veneration, Roger Williams feared as acutely as did Paine or Jefferson. To vest sovereignty in the courts through the right of review and interpretation was repugnant to his whole political theory. The rationalized ‘absolutely divine right of the godly to police society’ is

Special Endnote 4

257

258

undoubtedly in the oligarchical origin of Judicial Review. In controlling Judicial Review, the oligarchy can perpetuate the coercive absolutism of ‘conservatism’: why the appointment of Supreme Court justices is so important to political partisans who, when allowed, will use Judicial Review to capture or thwart the commonweal of democratic sovereignty?

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

believed, was so notoriously mad and lawless -- as both sacred and profane authorities had sufficiently demonstrated -- that the Boston oligarchy never forgave Parliament for refusing them permission to establish a mandatory over their self-willed neighbors. Among the organized oligarchies today, how many would, if allowed, take away free choice and substitute dogmatized and organizationally established absolute sovereignty?

The fundamental law could be interpreted only by the power that created it originally, namely, the sovereign people acting in a political capacity. . . . It was a hazardous experiment to undertake in an age when the ark of the democratic covenant found few places of refuge. Its friends were only a handful and its enemies many and powerful, and had it not been for a group of defenders in Parliament, the Rhode Island venture would have been brought to a speedy end. English Independency saved for America what English Presbyterianism would have destroyed. To Sir Harry Vane Rhode Island owes a debt of gratitude second only to that due Roger Williams. But though its godly neighbors were not permitted to destroy Rhode Island, they were free to slander and spread evil reports, and so thoroughly did they do their work that for upwards of two hundred years the little commonwealth was commonly spoken of in such terms as Rogues Island and the State of Confusion; not indeed, till it left off following agrarian and Populistic gods, till it had ceased to be democratic, did it become wholly respectable.

---Do the masses of ‘ditto head’ sycophants who worship the oligarches of such ‘divine right’ vested sovereignty usually proudly proclaim that they are ‘conservatives?’ ---Among those consistently opposed to the freedoms of democracy, are they mostly those who favor the absolute sovereign authority sponsored by oligarchy? ---Are they ‘traditional conservatives,’ are they ‘classical-liberalconservatives,’ or are they etymological conservatives? Anyway, reason is conclusive: those, who favor absolute sovereign authority, vested by faith in an oligarchy of their subscription, often, by calling those favoring democracy ‘no-goods,’ are calumnious without reason. ---Then, while they call themselves ‘conservative,’ is theirs simply a subjectively negative reaction (that in dogmatic faith in mechanism claims to be ‘positively’ proactive " ) to universal freedoms in matters of sovereignty that democracy proffers to allow? ---Do we find contemporary political common-ground between religion and commerce in the practical but self-serving sovereign flux embroiling all sorts of factional oligarchies? By dogmatic faith that sponsors ‘materialism,’ has religion become enterprise?

About the active orthodox opposition to the democracy of Rhode Island and ‘absolute’ disrespect for the collective will of religious independents, Parrington wrote:227

It was not so much the reputed turbulence of Rhode Island that was disapproved by the Boston magistrates; but rather the disturbing example of a colony at their very doors, which, in denying the right of the godly to police society, gave encouragement to evil-disposed persons in their own sober commonwealth. Every democracy, they

109

Probably, the greatest American to proclaim his complete dedication to American democracy was Benjamin Franklin. Franklin’s intellect, character and discipline provides great contrast to the many who

A deliberate misnomer (one cannot act before acting), which befits the irrationalism of conservatism?

Special Endnote 4

259

elect subscriptions to oligarchical influence. Parrington provided this clip about Franklin:228

Franklin was social-minded. He was concerned not with property or class interests, but with the common welfare; and in his quick sympathy for all sorts and conditions of men, in his conviction that he must use his talents that he must make this world better and not exploit it, he reveals the breadth and generosity of his nature. Reason and work, in his pragmatic philosophy, are the faithful handmaids of progress, of which war, whether public or private, is the utter negation. After long years of thought he rendered a judgment which later experience has not reversed,--”there is no good war and no bad peace.” Although Franklin’s origins, whether Boston or Philadelphia, were narrowly provincial, his mind from early youth to extreme old age was curiously open and free, and to such a mind the intellectual wealth of the world lies open and free. . . . No other man in America and few in Europe had so completely freed themselves from the prejudice of custom. The Calvinism in which he was bred left not the slightest trace upon him; and the middle-class world from which he emerged did not narrow his mind to its petty horizons. He was a free man who went his own way with imperturbable good will and unbiased intelligence; our first social philosopher, the first ambassador of American democracy to the courts of Europe. . . . Franklin [an enterprising proprietor himself] first entered politics as a member of the popular party, then engaged in a bitter struggle with the Proprietors over tax matters, defense of the frontier, and other questions of acute popular concern. There was the usual colonial alignment between the back country yeomanry and the town gentry; between the agrarian and mercantile interests; and the dispute had reached a point where the yeomanry determined

260

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

to appeal to the King to convert the commonwealth into a Crown Colony. As one of the leaders of the popular party, Franklin was singled out for attack. A bitter election went against him, and he lost his seat in the assembly, only to be chosen Colonial Agent to England, there to begin his long diplomatic career. Probably no other attack which Franklin suffered was so coarse or vindictive as this assault by the Proprietary Party, led by John Dickinson among them. Unpleasant as this experience was, it proved of service to Franklin, for it taught him how quickly the hornets would be about the ears of anyone who disturbed the nest of official perquisites; and this was worth knowing to a colonial diplomat on his first mission to a court and parliament where yellow jackets were uncommonly abundant. * . . . Before he went abroad, franklin had been a democrat by temperament and environment; when he returned he was a democrat by conviction, confirmed in his preference for government immediately responsible to the majority will. “You know,” wrote Franklin to his wife on the eve of his departure, ‘that I have many enemies . . . and very bitter ones; and you must expect their enmity will extend in some degree to you.’ He was forced to slip away and get secretly on board the vessel. His activities were reproved thus by a certain Tory Lady: Oh! had he been wise to pursue The track for his talents designed, What a tribute of praise had been due To the teacher and friend of mankind. But to covet political fame Was in him a degrading ambition, The spark that from Lucifer came, And kindled the blaze of sedition. *

A few held out against him and to the day of his death regarded him

Special Endnote 4

261

with disapproval; but in the end his personal charm prevailed with all but a handful of elderly, Tory ladies. . . . It is to little purpose that certain shortcomings of Franklin are dwelt upon. “There is a flower of religion, a flower of honor, a flower of chivalry, that you must not require of Franklin,” said Sainte-Beuve; a judgment that is quite true and quite obvious. . . . In one of the most delightful letters that he ever wrote, Franklin commented on the ways of men thus: It is wonderful how preposterously the affairs of this world are managed. Naturally one would imagine, that the interests of a few individuals should give way to general interest; but individuals manage their affairs with so much more application, industry, and address, than the public do theirs, that general interest generally gives way to particular. We assemble parliaments and councils, to have the benefit of their collected wisdom; but we necessarily have, at the same time, the inconvenience of their collected passions, prejudices, and private interests. By the help of these, artful men overpower their wisdom and dupe its possessors; and if we may judge by the acts, arrets, and edicts, all the world over, for regulating commerce, an assembly of great men is the greatest fool on earth? . . . He was a forerunner of Jefferson, like him firm in the conviction that government was good in the measure that it remained close to the people. . . . 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 a cart and the other behind it, and whipping them both. If the horses are of equal

262

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

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. . . . Franklin may have often 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 of fortune from the injustice of society; to the debtor who found himself pinched by a shrinking supply of currency; to the black slave who suffered the most elementary of wrongs; to impressed seamen; to the weak and the 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. . . . In his modesty, his willingness to compromise, his openmindedness, his clear and luminous understanding, his charity-above all, in his desire to subdue the ugly fact of society to some more rational scheme of things--he proved himself a great and useful man, one of the greatest and most useful whom America has produced. Abraham Lincoln was the presidential candidate of the uniquely ‘liberal’ political particularism that campaigned to eliminate slavery: and joined Whigs to accomplish this. That he, a Free-Soiler Whig, was the first GOP President is odd, but not so odd when Whigs as Horace Mann and Horace Greeley are considered. His federal government solution to abolishing slavery, in principle, is compatible with the ‘liberal’ values which declarred independence from English rule, and gave us the constitutional Bill of Rights. But also it should be clear that ‘liberal’, i.e., commonweal causes, are an unusual focus of GOP sponsorship. The philosophic foundation of the GOP was a mixture of Federalist, National Republican, and Whig. However the polittical particularism which succeeded to elect President Lincoln was purely democratic: Whigs, Free-

Special Endnote 4

263

Soilers, Know-Nothings, and many northern farmers, who had been democrats, joined this particularism. Their focus was the KansasNebraska Bill passed on May 25, 1854. Neither the National Republicans nor Democrats would sponsor the policy, which the sponsors of the new GOP advocated.229

In February, 1854, Allan E. Bovay, of Ripon, Wis., organized with his neighbors against the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. They resolved at a mass meeting that, ‘if The Bill became law, they would throw old party organizations to the winds and organize a new party on the sole issue of the nonextension of slavery.’ On March 20, at Ripon, 53 men met to protest Senate passage of the bill and to declare themselves Republicans. With most Whigs, however, the policy to win the election did not necessarily mean to end in the abolishing of slavery. This became clear when, following Lincoln’s death, Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s second term Vice President, suddenly became the President and then was impeached for perpetuating Lincoln’s programs: The senators from the North would not seat the senators elected from the South. Philosophically so diverse, the new GOP could not be democratic and republican all at once. This chameleon nature has dogged the GOP’s political sophistry. The primary strength of oligarchical vested sovereignty was local whereas the primary commonweal strength of ‘independent agrarian democrats’ was national (this GOP sponsorship of a commonweal cause represents a unique and fundamental political change). At the time Lincoln was elected, most democrats had their own agrarian oligarchies (The Farmers Union and Franklin’s ‘social usage’ organized as Mutual Insurance Companies, for instance) and they dogmatically found refuge for their political particularisms in the ‘State Rights’ provisions of the Constitution: still their political particularism was no more or less ‘conservative’ than the other oligarchical particularisms of the day. It was Agrarian-based oligarchical ‘conservatism’ that swamped the Democratic Party back then: The Democratic Party’s ‘conservatives,’ mostly from the

264

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

Southern States, represented a sufficient political block that swamped the Democric Party’s chances for electing their candidate. This fact in political history has obscured our political expectations! GOP Republicans are not supposed to be ‘liberal,’ and Democrats are not supposed to favor ‘States Rights.’ As to historical truth however, it depended upon what was politically relevant or expedient. As Parrington wrote as the twentieth century dawned,230

In this thinking two major forces are at hand: economics and psychology. In our economic realism we are returning to the spirit of the eighteenth century, and adapting the determinism that marked political thought from Harrington and John Adams to Webster and Calhoun; but we are equipped with a psychological knowledge that those earlier thinkers lacked. Wedding the new psychology to the older economic determinism, we may hope in a spirit of sober realism to make some progress in out thinking. Yet not too hastily should we abandon our earlier faith: the eighteenth-century conception of environment as a creative influence in determining character is a vital idea not yet adequately explored. Even morons may be traced back to adenoids or diets of salt port and whisky or to later machine labor, and aristocracies are still seen to be economic. And aristocratic albinos may well breed mobs and morons. Jefferson was not as foolish as many of his disciples have been, and Jeffersonian democracy still offers hope. Education begins to fail -- except education to individualize and to summon forth the potential intelligence of the younger generation. Special Endnote 5 Soros’ argument that certain universal principles apply everywhere is worthy of deliberation. ‘Fictitious person corporations’ have spread throughout the nation and beyond: to whatever reaches are profitable to them. They are chartered under state laws, not federal, and resisting federal regulation, they now are the fortress, of ‘state’s rights’ doctrine,

Special Endnotes 5 & 6

265

that seriously challenges constitutional federal ‘rights.’ Still they must believe, as Soros, that they, although fictitious in nature, deserve the human rights and the protection of federal law, by military force when necessary, wherever they may venture to go. As Brooks Adams observed: 231

The capitalist is ‘the most lawless’ of citizens. In his attitude towards the state he is essentially anarchistic; he evades or nullifies a law that he does not like, while clamorous for the enforcement of a law that works in his favor. Special Endnote 6 James Madison is distinguished for representing the philosophic middle between the extremes represented by Hamilton (‘Absolute Idealism,’ or monarchy) and Jefferson (‘Rational Empiricism,’ or democracy). Madison’s empiricism was rationally pragmatic. Hamilton’s empirical prognostications that property-bassed value (which in Smith’s view was treasure, not wealth) would prevail over the democratic sovereignty. However, as the argument settled, the Constitution clearly called for sovereignty based on suffrage of the common people. Treasure, missused to commercialize politics or to bribe or extort suffrage is the problem for Americans to solve. Madison’s compromise: the republican representative form of government was, still is, the ‘right’ compromise between fundamental aspects of human being: what Kant defined as the noumenon and the phenomenon of human existence. Truth and morality is devoid of meaning without deliberate reason, noumenon, which only exists in the philosophic foundations of ‘rational empiricism’ (democracy). Parrington’s record as the twentieth century dawned still applies:232

266

109

TRUTH’s FIDUCIAL GAUGES’ APPENDIXES

knowledge that those earlier thinkers lacked. Wedding the new psychology to the older economic determinism, we may hope in a spirit of sober realism to make some progress in out thinking. Yet not too hastily should we abandon our earlier faith: the eighteenth-century conception of environment as a creative influence in determining character is a vital idea not yet adequately explored. Even morons may be traced back to adenoids or diets of salt pork and whisky or to later machine labor, and aristocracies are still seen to be economic. And aristocratic albinos may well breed mobs and morons. Jefferson was not as foolish as many of his disciples have been, and Jeffersonian democracy still offers hope. Education begins to fail -- except education to individualize and to summon forth the potential intelligence of the younger generation. Also, because the focus of concern embroils the employment of treasure, not wealth, and because the American political economy has the philosophic foundation which Adam Smith theorized, we must be mindful of Smith’s justification for and the employment of treasure, not wealth (which is ‘goods’ produced). Heilbroner wrote this:233

But Adam Smith did not approve of accumulation for accumulation’s sake. He was, after all, a philosopher, with a philosopher’s disdain for the vanity of riches. Rather, in the accumulation of capital Smith saw a vast benefit to society. For capital -- if put to use in machinery -- provided just that wonderful division of labor which multiplies man’s productive energy. Hence accumulation becomes another of smith’s two-edged swords: the avarice of private greed again redounding to the welfare of the community. Smith is not worried over the problem that will face twentieth-century economists: will private accumulations actually find their way back into more employment? The great enemy to Adam Smith’s system is not so much

Special Endnotes 5 & 6

267

268

ENDNOTES

government ‘per se’ as monopoly in any form. . . . ‘For to what purpose,’ [Smith] wrote in The theory of Moral Sentiments, ‘is all the toil and bustle of this pursuit of wealth, of power, and pre-eminence?’ The Wealth of Nations provides his answer: all the grubby scrabbling for wealth and glory has its ultimate justification in the welfare of the common man. Yet something must have been missing from Smith’s conception. For although he saw an evolution, he did not see a revolution -- the industrial revolution. Smith did not see in the ugly factory system, in the newly tried corporate form of business organization, or in the weak attempts of journeyment to form protective organizations, the first appearance of new and disruptively powerful social forces. In a sense his system presupposes that eighteenth-century England will remain unchanged for ever. Only in quantity will it grow: more people, more goods, more wealth; its quality will remain unchanged. His are the dynamics of a static community; it grows but it never matures.

1 1 John 4

Now that Corporate combines control the utilities they serve, and charge what the publics consumers of utilities will pay, will ‘ballot initiatives’ spur Congress to do their constitutional duty? Will ‘Referendum and Recall’ achieve the political will that is needed?

15 Parrington, Vol. I, The Colonial Mind, 312

2 World Book Dictionary (1965), 1324 3 1 John 4 4 PBS TV, NOVA’s Einstein revealed 5 World Book Dictionary (1965), 1324 6 DT. 32. 1-4 (truth is the modern translation for troth: the meanings of a troth, therefore, more aptly apply) 7 L. Pojman, Philosophy, The Quest for Truth (Wadsworth, 1989) 168 8 David van Biema, Time (December 22, 2003), 60 9 Lawson and Appignanesi, editors, Dismantling Truth (St. Martin’s Press,1989), 6 10 H. W. Turnbull, The Great Mathematicians, (Barnes & Noble, 1993) 140-141 11 Turnbull, 18-29 12 Turnbull, 112 13 Lawson and Appignanesi, editors, Dismantling Truth (St. Martin’s Press,1989), 6 14 World Book Encyclopedia (1965) Vol. 14, 330

16 Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, 348 17 Lawson and Appignanesi, 6 18 Turnbull, 137 19 World Book Dictionary (1965) 1324 & 1456 20 C. Thomas, There to Here (Harper Perennial,1991) 21,22 21 Dictionary, 705 22 Diaglot, from Vatican manuscript 1209 (1942) 312 23 World Book Encyclopedia (1965) Vol. 9, 34 24 World Book Dictionary (1965) 2093 25 L. P. Pojman, PHILOSOPHY, The Quest for Truth (Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1989) 2 26 World Book, Vol. 9, 224

ENDNOTES

269

270

ENDNOTES

27 World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 15) 348

55 Parrington, Vol. III, 234-35

28 World Book Dictionary, 528

56 Parrington, Vol. III, 385

29 World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 15) 348

57 New Dictionary of Thoughts, 665

30 World Book Dictionary, 402

58 (First Inaugural Address) edited by Diane Ravitch, The American Reader WORDS THAT MOVED A NATION (Harper Collins, 1990) 42

31 World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 15) 348 32 Thomas, 19 33 Parrington, Vol. I, 287 34 Parrington, Vol. I, 281-82 35 Parrington, Vol. 1, 299-300 36 Parrington, Vol. I, 302 37

Parrington, Vol. III, 232-233

38 World Book, Vol. 9, 224 39 Parrington, Vol. I, 13 40 J. Eilperin and D. Morgan, Pork aplenty despite effort to cut budget, Washington Post (Las Vegas Review Journal, October 25, 1999). 41 Parrington,, Vol. I, The Colonial Mind, 312 42 R. L. Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers (Touchstone, 1986) 13643 Heilbroner, 153-54 44 World Book, Vol. 7, 450 45 World Book, Vol. 12, 170 46 C. Thomas, There to Here, (Harper Perennial, 1991) 19 47 Heilbroner, 153-54 48 World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 15) 348 49 World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 15) 348 50 Thomas, 58 51 Thomas, 69 52 Thomas, 89, 91 53 Thomas, 82-85 54 Parrington, Vol. I, 333-335

59 Heilbroner, 72 60 Parrington, Vol. II, 421-22 61 T. Parker, ‘The Nebraska Question,’ in Additional Speches, Vol I, 331-335 62 Pojman, 152 63 (C. Crouch, Corporative Industrial Relations and the Welfare State), edited by R. J. Barry Jones, PERSPECTIVES ON POLITICAL ECONOMY (St. Martins press, 1983) 161 64 (C. K. Rowley, The Political Economy of the Public Sector), edited by R. J. Barry Jones, 28 65 R. Hughes, Culture of Complaint, The Fraying of America (Oxford Press, 1993) 32 66 Heilbroner, 72 67 Heard on “This Week” August 3, 1997 68 Ibid. 69 Parrington, Vol. II, 145 70 Parrington, Vol. I, 171-175 71 Parrington, Vol. III, 218-220, 231

San Diego Union-Tribune then reprinted in the September 1993 issue of Readers Digest, p 92 72

73 Pojman, 310 74 Pojman, 302 75 Pojman, 152 76 Parrington, Vol. I, 272-73 77 H. B. Leonard, Checks Unbalanced, (Basic Books, Inc., 1986) 58.

ENDNOTES

271

78 (First Inaugural Address) edited by Diane Ravitch, The American Reader WORDS THAT MOVED A NATION (Harper Collins, 1990) 42 79 Henry Kissinger WHITE HOUSE YEARS, Little, Brown and Company, 1979, p 962 80 C. N. Catrevas and J. Edwards, The New Dictionary of Thoughts (Standard Book, 1955) 664

272

ENDNOTES

101 World Book Dictionary, 1965, 976 102 World Book Dictionary, 1965, 418 103 World Book Encyclopedia, 1965, Vol. 11, 200 104 World Book Dictionary, 1965, 976 105 New Dictionary of the English Language (1925 Edition), 527

81 Webster’s New Dictionary of the English Language (1925) 636

106 World Book Dictionary (1965), 1196

82 World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, 746

107 E. K. Hunt, PROPERTY AND PROPHETS (Harper and Row, 1990) 123

83 Diaglott, 803 84 World Book Dictionary (1965), 1324 85 edited by Ted Honderich, THE OXFORD COMPANION TO PHILOSOPHY (Oxford, 1995) 476-77 86 J. N. Fujii, An Introduction to the elements of Mathematics (Wiley, 1961) 60

108 Hunt, 132 109 Greenwald, Encyclopedia of Economics (McGraw Hill, 1982) 647 110 Based on, E. K. Hunt, PROPERTY AND PROPHETS (Harper and Row, 1990) 100-101 111 Hunt, 182-83

87 World Book, Vol. V, 130

112 Thomas, 82-85

88 C. H. Monson, Jr., Philosophy Religion and Science, (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1963) 161-167

113 Thomas, 89, 91

89 Quoted by S. West, What happens After Death? (Abbott Macdonnell Winchester, 1977) 62

115 Parrington, Vol. I, 70

90 E. H. Gilson, The Intelligence in the Service of Christ [from, J. Pelikan, editor, The World Treasury of Modern Religious Thought (Little Brown, 1990) 218-219]

117 Heilbroner, 319

91 Deuteronomy 32: 1-4

119 From a public TV biography

92 Pojman, 152

120 M. Heidegger, Metaphysics (Anchor, 1961) 149-150

93 B. Russell, An inquiry into Meaning . . . (1980) 123-24

121 H. G. Wells, Outline of History (Garden City, 1961) 602

94 Jack Anderson’s FIASCO documented this politics

122 Categorical Imperative, represent the injunctions of reason, which endows [it]with universal validity and objective necessity. (From Louis Pojman’s glossary to Philosophy, The Quest for Truth)

95 Parrington., Vol. I, 70 96 Pojman, 152 97 New Dictionary of the English Language (1925 Edition), 527 98 World Book Dictionary (1965), 1196

114 Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, 415b

116 Heilbroner, 129

118 R.Sherman, A Caveat against Injustice (Spencer Judd, 1982)

123 Grolier Electronic Encyclopedia 124 Dictionary, 84

99 World Book Dictionary (1965), 1202

125 C. N. Catrevas and J. Edwards, New Dictionary of Thoughts (Standard Book, 1955) 665

100 C. Thomas, There to Here (Harper Perennial,1991) 21,22

126 Grolier Electronic Encyclopedia

ENDNOTES

273

127 Parrington, Main Currents . . . (Harcourt, Brace . . . , 1927-1930) Vol. I, 300-301 128 Readers Digest, Family Legal Guide (1981) 920 129 Greenwald, Encyclopedia of Economics (McGraw Hill, 1982) 647 130 Excerpted from An Additional View to the Report of the President's Commission for a National Agenda for the Eighties. 131 World Book Encyclopedia (1965) Vol. 15, 348 132 World Book Dictionary (1965) 528 133 Dictionary, 402 134 Dictionary, 528 135 New Dictionary of Thoughts, 529 136 Arranged and edited by Ernest Sutherland Bates, with updated Scholarship and a New Introduction by Lodowick Allison, The Bible (Simon & Schuster, 1993) xii 137 Pojman, 152 138 J. N. Fugii, Introduction to the elements of Mathematics (J. Wiley & Sons, 1961) 45 139 Parrington, Vol. I, 300-301 140 V. L. Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought, Volume Two, Winds . . . (Harcourt Brace, 1930) 298 141 H. G. Wells, The Outline of History (Garden City, 1961) pgs as in text 142 Hirth, The Ancient History of China, chap. Viii 143 A General History of Europe

274

ENDNOTES

148 Hunt, 132 149 Parrington, Vol. I, 171-175 150 Parrington, Vol. III, 218-220, 231

San Diego Union-Tribune then reprinted in the September 1993 issue of Readers Digest, p 92 151

152 Pojman, 310 153 Pojman, 302 154 Pojman, 152 155 Greenwald, Encyclopedia of Economics (McGraw Hill, 1982) 647 156 Legal Guide, 245 157 T. Chuang (Orange Co. Register), Las Vegas Review Journal, January 18, 2004 158 D. Broder (washington Post), The beginnings of the ballot initiative & Special interests are subverting the initiative process, Las Vegas Review Journal, April 2, 2000 159 R. L. Heilbroner, 293 160 Heilbroner, 72 : In a sense his [Adam Smith’s] system presupposes that eighteenth-century England will remain unchanged forever. Only in quantity will it grow: more people, more goods, more wealth; its quality will remain unchanged. His are the dynamics of a static community; it grows but it never matures. 161 Parrington, Vol. I, 8-15 162 Parrington’s note: See “The Babylonian Captivity,” in Works, Vol. II, p. 233 (Philadelphia, 1915).

144 Lawson and Appignanesi, editors, Dismantling Truth (St. Martin’s Press,1989), 6

163 Parrington, Vol. II, 298

145 Arranged and edited by Ernest Sutherland Bates, with updated Scholarship and a New Introduction by Lodowick Allison, The Bible (Simon & Schuster, 1993) xii

165 Belief in inevitable territorial expansion to encompass all of North America. This was first argued in the 1840s and was revived during and after the Spanish-American War. It is of the same philosophic family as Dollar Diplomacy upon which Captains of American enterprise expanded their exploitations beyond the nation’s borders: driving the expansion of the nation’s Foreign Policy. Preemption is also of this family.

146 Readers Digest, Family Legal Guide (1981) 920 147 E. K. Hunt, PROPERTY AND PROPHETS (Harper and Row, 1990) 123

164 Parrington, Vol. III, 20 - 23

ENDNOTES

275

166 Eric Hoffer, The True Believer (As furnished by Shelby Steele in his essay The New ty), Harpers Magazine, July, 1992 167 Parrington, Vol. III, 22 168 Parrington, Vol. III, 21 169 Parrington, Vol. III, 20 170 They represent a cultist subscription to the dogma of both conservatism and liberalism, for expeditious exploitative potential.

276

ENDNOTES

188 World Almanac 2002, 739 189 R. Hughes, The Culture of Complaint (Oxford, 1993) 32 190 Pat Buchanan; This Week with David Brinkley, August 16, 1987. 191 Pojman, 103 192 Pojman, 372-76 193 Pojman, 372-76. 194 Heilbroner, 47

171 Excerpted from a United Press article carried by the Daily Spectrum, St. George, Utah; Oct.2, 1988.

195 The New Dictionary of Thoughts, 451

172 Encyclopedia, Vol. 17, 680

197 Pojman, 152

173 J. N. Fujii, An Introduction to the elements of Mathematics (Wiley, 1961) 60

198 Parrington, Vol. II, 78

174 New Dictionary of Thoughts, 665

196 Parrington; Vol. l, 299

199 Parrington, Vol. III, 234-35 200 The New Dictionary of Thoughts, 95

175 T. Jones (Chicago Tribune), Oprah muzzles Workers, Las Vegas Review Journal, April 16, 2000

201 Ibid.

176 Parrington, Vol. I, 299

202 Ibid.

177 Excerpted from An Additional View to the Report of the President's Commission for a National Agenda for the Eighties.

203 Pat Buchanan; This Week with David Brinkley, August 16, 1987.

178 Dictionary, 2152 : the legal right to use another’s property and enjoy the advantages of it without injuring or destroying it.

205 Parrington, Vol. l, 299

179 Parrington; vol. II, p. 75. 180 New Dictionary of Thoughts, 665 181 Parrington, Vol. I, p. 333-35 182 Greenwald, ENCYCLOPEDIA of ECONOMICS (McGraw Hill, 1982), 142 183 Parrington; Vol. III, p. 23-25. 184 Dictionary (1965) 185 Parrington, Vol. I, 302 186 Parrington, Vol. II, p. 76-78 187 World Almanac, 1994, p 686 (footnote 4 indicates many considerations to the estimate of net interest)

204 World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, 795

206 The New Dictionary of Thoughts, 667 207 See W. Frankenas’ Systems of ethecs re printed in Pojman, 365 208 Pojman, 362-365 209 Parrington, Vol. III, 234-35 210 Parrington, Vol. I, 302 211 Dictionary, 2152 212 Parrington, Vol. I, 287 213 Heilbroner, 196-197 214 Parrington, Vol. III, xxiv, xxv 215 Parrington, Vol. III, 284 216 Parrington, Vol..I, 66-71

ENDNOTES

277

217 Parrington’s note, “For much of the material made use of here, I am indebted to The Political Theory of Roger Williams, a dissertation by Dr. James E. Ernst of the University of Washington.” 218 Parrington’s note, “Letter to the Town Clerk of Providence,” in Narragansett Club Publications, Vol. VI, 401 219 Parrington’s note, “‘The Bloudy Tenent,’ in Narragansett Club Publications, Vol. III, 349"

100

220 Parrington’s note, “‘The Bloudy Tenent,’ in Narragansett Club Publications, Vol. III, 398" 221 Parrington, Vol. I, 177 222 Parrington’s note, “Works of Thomas Paine, edited by M. D. Conway, Vol. IV, 465.”. 223 Parrington’s note, “In ‘Queries and Remarks . . .,’ in Works Vol. V, 167" 224 Parrington, Vol. I, .70 225 Parrington, Vol. I, 69 226 Parrington, Vol. I, 72-73 227 Parrington, Vol. I, 73 228 Parrington, Vol. I, 164-78 229 World Book Encyclopedia, Vol.16, 231 230 Parrington, Vol. III, xxvii 231 Parrington, Vol. III, 234-35 232 Parrington, Vol. III, xxviii 233 Heilbroner, 69-74

200

CONTENTS of OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN and ETHEREAL-GOLD (the shaded titles) FOREWORD Quintessential Foundations (An Introduction) 101 Security: our Heritage 102 Insurance: our Heritage 103 Political Economy: the foundation of our Heritage (introduces 205) 104 Exercising Sovereignty: a responsibility of Heritage (introduces 208) 109 Truth’s Fiducial Gauges (introduces 209) Substantial Quintessence (Virtuous Knowledge) 201 Life’s enigma and the essential need for philosophy 202 Perceptions of reality and illusions 203 The requirements of self in finding truth 204 Politics for what it is 205 Political Economy 205 Appendix, Petitioning ‘Civitas’ 206 Liberal and Conservative 207 Our "Captains of Industry" 208 Sovereignty 209.1 Truth: The 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 Paradoxs 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.