Crisis - Making the Exception the Rule

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste.  And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." - Rahm Emanuel

He is not the first to have such a thought, but he is one of the most recognized in saying it.

What is the nature of a crisis?  A crisis is an unstable interruption in what was taken as the normal flow of things in life/society - generally before all the facts are known.  If we apply Rahm's admonition with the nature of a crisis in mind, we can see the emphasis of emotionalism.  What was known has changed and with that decreased rationalism, to sate fears of the public, a crafty politician may 'do things you think you could not do before'.

Fears trump facts.

What catches our attention as a crisis?  As a disruption of a perceived norm, a crisis is displayed anecdotally with an emphasis on the example being used becoming the new norm. 

'This one case happened, and will happen to us all unless we act'. 

In the rush to act emotionally, the 'noble goals' (that are amorphous and vague) are focused upon, while the real intent is the means, the implementation and methodology, used to assuage the problem, reach the goal.

The 'crisis' moment is truly twofold: one, the actual crisis event - that part is the obvious and seen part; the more dangerous and insidious part is 2) the crisis-response advanced by those crafty politicians who want to use part one to push their agenda.  Part one is temporary; part two is lasting.

Crisis moments are advanced in numerous fields, for the areas where the government may interject itself will match - politicians will try to make it match - every endeavor that humanity tries to branch out into, or may interact with.

One example includes Global Warming, once called Global Cooling, but as it has been fluctuating again is 'Climate Change'… a tautological definition.  Has the planet been warming or cooling?-both.  What can we do about it?  The nature of what is actually happening and what can be done depends on operational definitions.  However, that doesn't remove politicians from trying to implement new laws and taxes upon the people in order to 'combat' Climate Change.  Crisis: the planet is dying; emotional reaction: we can fight it if we just try.  That the facts are not laid out, or the specific plans on how one would fight Climate Change: what is the cause; how much does humanity contribute; how much do those who will be impacted by the law contribute; what will be the cost and benefit; are there better plans?

Those questions don't matter, as Hillary Clinton said "Never waste a good crisis… Don't waste it when it can have a very positive impact on climate change and energy security."  The veracity of Climate change is secondary; the agenda is prepotent.

After the attacks of 9-11[-11], there was an influx of emotional reaction, and appropriately so - to an extent.  However, what has come from the attacks show the triumph of emotionalism over rationalism in legislation.  The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism [USA PATRIOT] Act has many lofty goals, among them: strengthening U.S. measures to detect, prevent and prosecute financing of terrorism; establishing secure networks; enhancing domestic security against terrorism.  However, what is needed (is being used and expanded upon) in methodology for implementation shows what a more rational mind would have refused to sign: vast new bureaucracies, warrantless surveillance and searches, arrest and detainment without charge - even assassination.

Healthcare was another crisis through which Obamacare, and various other laws were enacted.  Stories of sick mothers and children filled the airwaves as politicians bandied about to gather support for enacting new legislation.  Emotionalism: there are sick people who need our help.  There is an 'obesity crisis'; here's Michael Bloomberg and "We're not taking away anybody's right to do things, we're simply forcing you to understand that you have to make the conscious decision…"  At least he used the correct term 'forcing' for it isn't a recommendation when the State passes a law: it is a legal order with punishments for violating it.  Pelosi has the most infamous, and dangerous statement with "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." 

Think on what she said.  As the Speaker of the House, leader of those who write the laws - legal commandments that carry the legal use of force by the State - she said that we'll find out what it was they passed when the police can legally use force against us.

Agenda first.

Is anecdotal evidence ever valid for passing a law?-it can be.  What is needed to be examined is the congruence of what is being advanced with the story used as representation of why a thing is being advanced.

With the murders at Sandy Hook the gun control debate has come to the fore again.  Cries of how new laws are needed to prevent such attacks are heard from various sources: bans on certain guns, bans on 'high-capacity' magazines, more extensive background checks, licensing of guns as well as restricting who may purchase firearms.  How good of an example does Adam Lanza's murder of all those at Sandy Hook make for gun control?  It makes for a poor example for how gun control would have saved those lives.  The weapon used was legally purchased and owned; the owner (Lanza's own mother) was killed, and the weapon was stolen.  He fired 154 bullets in less than five minutes, using a weapon that had 30-round magazines.  With practice, anyone can change a magazine in just one second; without practice, it can take a couple seconds; 154 bullets could still be fired within five minutes with low-capacity magazines - it will only take more magazines.

Another example of gun violence that supports what was being advanced in legislation was the massacre of Luby's diner where 24 were murdered; the murderer crashed his truck through the building and then methodically walked about executing his victims.  Suzanna Gratia Hupp's parents were among the victims; she herself would have been as well, but she escaped.  Where this story is a good example in how it represents a change in legislation is in that Suzanna was armed - she was carrying a pistol.  However, to be a law-abiding citizen, as there was a law preventing her from bringing her pistol inside the building with her, she left it in her car and was unarmed as her would-be, and her parents' murderer, walked about killing his victims.

The Lanza case does not support the new restrictions on guns for everything was legal until he murdered his mother, took her weapon and fired it in a manner that low-capacity magazines could match.  The Hupp case does support the removal of gun restrictions by that if she didn't have to break the law (have the threat of legal punishment) to carry her pistol to protect herself, she could have fought back - [having her gun] "Sure as heck would have changed the odds" - Suzanna Hupp.  The Lanza case would not have been changed with new laws; the laws being changed to allow Hupp to carry her pistol in her situation would have also given the victims at Sandy Hook a chance by one who was armed having a chance at firing back at Lanza.  Jacob Tyler Roberts is an example where would-be shooter Roberts did murder two, but was stopped when confronted by armed citizen Nick Meli.

Crafty politicians don't want you to be self-sufficient and able to defend yourselves; they want you to come to them for help.  Trusting people to fight for themselves against those who want to do ill, doesn't benefit a politician; acting as a guardian who will protect your family, and the children gets people on the politician's side.  Emotionalism of fear-stoking is the bait, regulations and laws are the leash and the State is the master holding the leash.

The seen crisis is the break, the change.  The seen is finite in its scope; the unseen crisis is worse in its scope.  The seen is short-term; the unseen is long-term.  The seen is local; the unseen is widespread.  The seen, being an anomaly burns itself out after it's done; the unseen crisis remains in laws that have legal punishments long after the seen crisis burnt itself out.  

The unseen crisis is the result: the State dictating what we can or cannot do (allowances not just on 'sins' but on ounces of soda, and calorie counts), what we cannot or must buy (taxes, licenses, Obamacare and subsidies), with what or how we may defend ourselves (gun control), and loss of Constitutional rights (liberty, privacy and even life).  Each of these State intrusions upon our lives are done to remedy a crisis of some sort - all for the 'greater good' - all to make us supplicants to the State.

If we are to save ourselves, then it is to us to keep our emotionalism coupled with rationalism - not to loose one, but give each their place.  Emotionalism belongs in private life of an individual, not the public life of the State; rationalism belongs in individual life, and should be the only guiding factor in the public life of the State.  Emotions fluctuate; principles do not.

Actually Paying the National Debt

Numbers never lie, but they can be used to misrepresent.  Even if with a clear definition, numbers may be unfathomable: how big (or small) is a quark?-how long (or short) is a unit of Planck time?  How could one actually write out the numbers in a googolplex? 

On a more practical level for most people, let us look at money and more specifically imagine actually setting a schedule to pay off the national debt (as it stands now) at a mere 3% interest rate, to be paid off in 30 years:

$16,500,000,000,000 debt

$8,543,280,000,000 total interest

$25,043,280,000,000 total paid

$69,565,000,000 in 360 monthly payments

There is a point when numbers can become so large, that they no longer seem real.  Picture an egg, and it is an easy task.  Now picture two eggs, and it is still an easy task.  Continue to add eggs so there are three, four, five, a dozen - even a dozen can be pictured without too much difficulty for we're used to a dozen as a marketable, and a grouped amount even though it is composed of 12 units. 

The normal amount that we humans can track in individual units is 7 +/-2.  We're still physical entities (organisms), and have necessary biological and cognitive limitations.  This affects man and animal, for even crows have been found to be able to count to three.

What happens when what we're supposed to be paying attention to goes beyond those seven individual units, or goes beyond such understandable groups?-how many measure in Plancks?  

Try and picture 1,651 individual eggs, or picture the units that compose a million, and then how to transport them.  Those individual units cannot be visualized; they can be theoretically understood, but not seen.  (Theoretically here to simply mean though a definition may be clear, the actual amount may be different, such as an operational definition of 1,651 eggs for a shipment may be definite, but counting them to fill that definition - how many were missed, double-counted or broken may not be considered and reflect the actual amount). 

How much space do 1,651 eggs fill?-how much do they weigh?-how can that mass be transported?  It's possible for one who deals with eggs en masse to be able to answer those questions and use logistics to ship the eggs about, while minimizing loss.  For those who don't have such experience with eggs, we can only guess.  And that is with only 1,651 eggs - how would we deal with a million eggs?-what about more than a million eggs?

Let us now change the focus from eggs to something that affects us all: money.  Going to a fast food restaurant to use a dollar to buy something, and we can easily see the single dollar and the item we are buying.  If we go to the store to buy a book, we can see the number of bills exchanging hands, though it is becoming more difficult to visualize individual bills - that's why we have other denominations and not just singles, like in the way we have a dozen for eggs.  As we continue to get larger purchases, the individual units of money are lost and we return to theoretical units that we do not count individually for we know what they represent: hundreds, thousands etc.  (Theoretically, money is supposed to represent a stable value).

To further confound things, we don't just buy eggs, but also kitchen furnishings to store the eggs and cook them, living and dining room furniture to eat and relax in, bedroom furniture to sleep in, clothes to wear, cars to drive about, a continuous supply of food to sustain ourselves and families, and we pay bills to keep water and electricity, among the multitudinous factors that require money that we continue to need to earn to pay for things. 

Is each and every individual unit present and accounted for?  If you were good enough to count what you touched (not skipping or double-counting), what about those who also have an effect, whether a spouse, other family member or business partner?-can the same be said for every single unit they touched?-what about when you or them are rushed, sick or are multitasking?

Now, let us look at earning and more in particular spending - not just our family, but the country as a whole.  While we consider earning and spending, let us keep in mind the time and scope: decades, and across millions of people (billions if we consider foreign entanglements).  Earning is part of the issue, but the greater issue is the spending; that is why we have a debt - we (we here referring to the State) spend more than we take in. 

(The [im]morality of State actions is a valid concern, for another article).

The issue is then further compounded by blending the duration with the millions affected as well as political promises being offered that increases the amount of spending from an undefined spigot.  Some of the spending is legitimate and according to what the State should be doing, and some of it is not legitimate; the difference between national defense and nation-building or policing the world.  Some of the spending on some people is proper, and some of it isn't; the difference between giving people back their money that was taken (a process that needs to be stopped, such as returning one's income tax) and welfare (corporate or individual).

Let us return to the first numbers: a snapshot of the debt under the fanciful idea that the debt would not increase.  Again, at the improbable 3% interest rate with the goal of actually paying off the debt over 30 years (like a home loan), the results would be:

$16,500,000,000,000 as an initial loan (debt)

$8,543,280,000,000 total interest charged on the loan

$25,043,280,000,000 total paid of principle and interest

$69,565,000,000 each month for a total of 360 monthly payments

If the percentage rate increased, say to 6%, the results would be:

$19,113,301,000,000 total interest charged on the loan

$35,613,301,000,000 total paid of principle and interest

$98,926,000,000 each month for a total of 360 monthly payments

These numbers are TRILLIONS of dollars in loans and interest paid, with approaching $100 BILLION paid monthly.  This is if the debt doesn't increase from the current $16.5 trillion that it is, and doesn't include unfunded liabilities that raise the total debt over $100 TRILLION.

We now return to the numbers deception - the seemingly 'unreal' numbers that have very real consequences.  The deception happens in two ways: 1) by dismissing the amount that a thing starts out as, or how much a thing increases, such as the top income tax rate when the income tax was created, was 7% and is now in the 30s; 2) by dealing with numbers so large that people will not be able to fully comprehend the amounts, such as the thousands of pages of tax code and the numerous exceptions and qualifications for those exceptions.  If anyone does have a concern, they themselves can be disregarded through ad hominem for having those concerns about the spending when the costs tomorrow are to be ignored in favor of gains today - if one isn't for Obamacare it's because they 'want people to suffer.'

There is no way to pay the debt.  If it was just $16.5 trillion now, and we would not increase it, we would pay between $25 & $35 trillion.  The debt limit has been raised before, and there are talks about raising it again.  This is all on top of the unfunded liabilities, and continued political promises of more.

The debt amount isn't the only thing to consider, for the debt grew to what it has become for a reason.  From the 'small' amounts that some pay, to the small amounts that everyone expects; from the small-scale actions of repressing a dictator at one area, to bolstering an entire country elsewhere; from handing out money to the single mother who refuses to get a job, to the corporate executive who refuses to let his company take the loss from his mismanagement for his company being 'too big to fail', and the ever-increasing amount that all of it adds up to, it only adds to the height the whole economy will have to crash from.

Our crash is coming; our debt is unsustainable and is not payable.  However, we can prepare for the crash and protect against it returning - at least in our lifetimes.

We must not let those who want to rule deceive us with the small changes, or discount the large numbers.  Even if we don't know what the consequences are, their effects are still felt; gravity and thermodynamics were every bit as efficacious before our ignorance of them was removed.  Removing our ignorance and naiveté leaves us in a better position after the correction to not let those who want to bribe us with our own funds convince us they know better, that they can override economics, or that it will only be a small piece that they will take, or allow them to guilt us into following their path as the only way to help.  Their way isn't the only way, and is likely one of the worst ways for in a small step the whole process will begin again.

On Gun Control

What is the debate about?-some say different things: who is allowed to use deadly force, the individual or the State?-getting guns out of society, and protecting the innocent (especially children)?-the depth of control allowed to the people by the State in what weapons they may have?-other aspects of gun control?

Regardless of any of the questions, there are two facts of identity to be considered: 1) any removing of a firearm from an individual is the beginning of removing his ability to defend himself; 2) that banning (or controlling) firearms is a legalism and will not actually prevent their [mis]use.  The two points are also related, but come from different angles.

On point one, who will be harmed by such control?  The one who would be harmed by such a law of gun control is the one who would obey such a law.  Harm comes directly in that individual is letting a third party (a legislature) limit the means that the individual may use in self-defense; harm comes indirectly for to violate the law to defend himself, he has violated the law and has to be concerned about being criminally charged.

For self-defense, proponents of gun control say call the police - this follows the assumptions of one having the means to call, and that the police will be present to help.  Problems with these assumptions entail further assumptions that one has a cell phone, has a strong signal and isn't having that signal interfered with, the battery is not dead, and one has the physical capability to make the call and complete it - isn't being interfered with by the one making the 911 call necessary, along with the assumption that the police will be able to arrive and assist before greater harm is caused by the one who is necessitating the call.

On point two, it is the assumption that control will prevent criminals from using firearms and accidents from happening.  Firstly, what makes a criminal a criminal?-he is breaking the law.  So, with that would passing another law suddenly make it so he will become a law-abiding citizen?-no.  Expanding the reach of the law into areas where it goes beyond 'no victim, no crime' into banning firearms then places honest individuals in Bastiat's quandary: what to do when moral law conflicts with legislative law?  To be law-abiding when guns are banned is to make one more vulnerable; to own (for protection) a firearm that was banned is to break the law.  It places on an equal legal level the parent wanting to protect the family with the robber who would harm them; it places the woman who wants to protect herself on the same legal level of the rapist who wants to violate her.

Gun control proponents then decry that if all guns were banned, then criminals would not even be able to have those weapons to be used in crimes.  That is false, and the list of examples is long: colossal failures in prohibition and the war on drugs, to the less vast, but nonetheless real as in nearly totally controlled environments [prisons], inmates can still get drugs, and just like the rest of society, contraband exists everywhere (depending on location) from drugs, to music, to books and more.  Contraband always finds its way for there is desire and laws cannot prevent desire.

With respect to accidents: the nature of an accident is that it is an unintended, rare occurrence.  There is no law that can prevent the accidental.  Laws may set up punishments for the consequences of accidents, but it can no more prevent accidents than it can prevent people from intentionally getting contraband.  (More on this later).

The nature of a weapon is to more efficiently use force against an opponent; this is the same principle whether the opponent is an individual or a collective - even the State.  Without a weapon, a an average-sized woman targeted by two powerful rapists in a van is nearly helpless; with a firearm (handgun) she has a great chance of negating, and overcoming her would-be rapists' physical might.  Without a weapon, the merchant who is being mobbed by dozens, is nearly helpless to the mob; with a firearm ('assault' rifle), that merchant has a chance of keeping the mob at bay.  Without weapons, the people who wish to be free, have to settle for what those who lead the State may allow; with weapons, the people can tell the State what its power is to be extended to, and not beyond.

The aforementioned is the difference between Linda Smith (pseudonym for an Oklahoma woman who killed one and wounded another would-be rapist), and being Shirley Lynette Ledford (raped, tortured and murdered by two men); the difference between gangs or mobs looting and leaving some Indian families destitute, and the Korean merchants who held off the mob during the L.A. Riots; the difference between the Jews in the ghettos before being led to the camps, and those following the Bielski brothers.

Having a firearm doesn't guarantee success, but it gives the would-be victim a fighting chance of not becoming a victim.  Like the first examples, without means of defense one is more easily victimized; with a means of defense, one can fight back and have a chance at not being a victim.

The issue about firearms comes down to use, and efforts to prevent improper usage.  Let's extend this principle of controlling things since those things may be misused.  Automobiles may kill thousands a year; some deaths can be attributed to intentional vehicular homicide, but others were accidental.  With that, shall we place a new ban on how fast people can drive, how fast manufacturers can create a vehicle to go, and have extensive checks on who can own and operate a vehicle?  Some people are obese from overeating, shall we place bans on what everyone can eat, and monitor everyone's eating habits?  More people are murdered yearly by silent weapons (clubs, bats, hammers, knives, etc) than are killed by firearms; shall we have background checks at hardware and sports stores?  About the children, shall we extend State monitoring to everyone's lives, as well as authorize who can be a parent and approve parenting styles, to protect the children?

Some will decry: but guns sole purpose is to kill something! 

My response to that is: no, guns sole purpose is to shoot.  But, even if it was to kill… so?

The purpose of a knife is to cut, it is up to the wielder on if, or how it cuts; the purpose of a hammer is to hammer, it is up to the wielder on what gets hammered; the purpose of a firearm is to shoot something, it is up to the wielder whether that is a competitive target, live game or a human being - a human being can be a target by both a victimizer and a victim, that is a firearm can be used as an assault weapon to violate another's rights, or defend those rights.  This is for when the victimizer is an individual, or a collective - like the State.

There is to way around the issue of gun control and its corollaries; it leaves those who want to be law-abiding with less defense, and has the false assumption that banning will prevent criminals from getting guns.  Combine those two points and you will have citizens who are less able to defend themselves against those who know that their prey lacks teeth and claws - whether the aggressor is an individual or the State.

Metaphysics (a Sonnet in The Gospel of Reason)

Exactly why, does he, mankind, exist?

From where did life, and order, formulate?

And, how – without a cause, nothing to list;

Did all the Universe come from that state?

Is Nature fated? – did it have to be?

No plans, no script, just forces manifest;

Not cruel, nor mean, with no affinity.

Objective rules are learned from interest.

The other choice: a primal Creator;

The being living in vacuity.

But how did He, with nothingness before;

Beget the stars, all else? – His nascency?

The answer, Nature versus God, sublime;

There is no doubt that one has been all time.

Perspective on an Advanced Idea: Foreign Policy and Blowback

An often repeated saying on why we're being attacked is: they hate us for our freedom.  Let us look at that, analogously. 

In a neighborhood there are families with different beliefs and cultural norms: some families may deny the women in their households the options of self-determination, while other families allow it; some families state there are topics forbidden to talk about, while others freely talk about anything.  There are of course many other aspects where families may disagree with one another.  Disagreements may emerge, but if those disagreements are only verbal there is not actual violence between the families, regardless of the animosity.

Not all cultures are equal, and the more liberty a culture has, the better it is enabling each individual to pursue the highest human potential and from that individual achievement, benefit the rest as a consequence.  This will be a source for continuing debate amongst the families, but again as long as words are used, there are no acts of violence.

Let's get beyond disagreement in words: say there was a troublesome raccoon in the neighbor's yard and we our sent our 'family pet', a guard dog out from our yard to get the raccoon and in doing so the dog injured the neighbor's children, killed their cat and tore up their yard.  Our neighbors would be upset.  If our response to their being upset was simply dismissing injured child, dead cat and destroyed property as collateral damage since the dog was trying to kill a raccoon that was hiding in a bush on their property - that'd be little comfort to them.  We'll give our neighbors an extreme sense of patience and say though they were angry, they 'understood' our goal and asked us to be more careful and control our dog.  However, after getting the one raccoon we saw another raccoon and we advised the neighbor that we'll keep sending our dog over to try and get the 'new' raccoon - a 'war on raccoons' and in that war our dog hurt more of their children, killed more of their pets and tore up their property.

Let's also add some other 'neighborly' actions such as propping up more distant neighbors around the neighbor with the raccoon; these distant neighbors try and beat the one with the raccoon into submission.  Our last 'neighborly' action is trying to get them to submit to our will directly by sabotaging their property, denying them electricity and water.

We are no longer having a verbal disagreement with our neighbor, but are actually destroying their property and putting their family at risk. 

Let's get out of the analogy and put this into perspective.

Just from drone strikes in Pakistan the civilian death count in the past few years range from near 500 to near 2,000 (US and Pakistani reported stats); injuries of course are much higher; men, women and children are among the victims with civilian deaths accounting from 50-80% (US and Pakistani reported stats).  Other areas being targeted by drone strikes include Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan and Somalia.

As far as propping up one neighbor to rule over another, there was Mubarak being assisted in his rule in Egypt, as well as the Iranian Shah resulting in the oppression of the people of those respective countries.  Sanctions are cutting off the resources to the family, i.e. country.

If our neighbor was sending their dog into our yard and it killed our pets, harmed our children and tore up our property, would we be upset?  Beyond the analogy, this isn't about pets being killed - it's about men, women and children being killed.  We were appropriately angry with thousands of Americans being killed; is it reasonable to think that those in another country are not angry with hundreds, or even thousands of their people being killed?  Would the killing of those civilians, and especially children, spur the people in those countries to fight back? 

How about if they were propping up someone else who tried to overthrow us, or cutoff our ability to get our resources?-sanctions upon us.  This has been done, or is being done to them - would that spur them to fight back?

If war is needed, we have a process for it and it isn't at the whim of an individual politician who wants to get re-elected, but from the deliberation and vote of the entire Congress to approve war with a specific enemy, plan of action and exit plan - not the amorphous, never-ending 'war on terror'.  Afterward, the war is to be swiftly fought to not keep our soldiers in harm's way, to not continually bolster the resolution against them and not place great war costs on the taxpayers.

This plan of drone strikes (as an extension of the 'war on terror') is unconstitutional and a long-term action.  The Times Square bomber was foiled, as was the 'underwear' bomber in the plane; however, imagine if they succeeded and we had similar attacks periodically for years.  How would we feel and how would we respond?  We'd steel our resolve against, and then want to attack those who were perpetrating those attacks.  It wouldn't be about the beliefs of those attacking us - whether or not they embraced freedom or oppression - it would be about their attacking us, killing our citizens.

Our presence is unneeded all across the planet, does not benefit us and our actions of 'spreading democracy' do not help but actually harm our cause.  If we want to assist in the spread of liberty, it is by example for to force liberty defeats the purpose; liberty cannot be forced, but embraced.  Forced liberty is an oxymoron. 

Through peaceful interactions, our example will spur the people to assert their own self-determination and get rid of the oppression forced upon them.  Malala Yousufzai is an example of the individual standing against oppression as she is an adolescent standing against a theocracy denying her ability to get educated; she was attacked, shot twice for her opposition, but she survived.  The way the people in her country are embracing her and condemning her attackers shows how the people can direct themselves - if they only have the courage and example.  Imagine if Malala was killed by a drone strike; her spark trying to illuminate the darkness of theocratic oppression would be out, while her blood would bolster the people against those controlling the drones that killed her.

If our message of peace and liberty comes repeatedly with a bomb killing civilians, then there is not a message of peace and liberty, but a message of oppression and death.

In Memoriam

Paul Kurtz
 

Another lost great thinker.

http://www.americanhumanist.org/news/details/2011-11-humanists-mourn-death-of-paul-kurtz-humanist-philoso

The Fallacy of the Capitalist Dragon

An often repeated villain throughout folklore and myth is the dragon.  The dragon is a giant and ferocious beast; it devours the innocent; it lays waste to the landscape; it tries to slay the hero; and the dragon hoards vast treasures of bountiful precious jewels and gold - not to mention the beautiful virgin.

With a quick examination of those characteristics, some of them are what we could say 'natural' to any large predator: a grizzly bear can be a giant and ferocious beast that has a voracious appetite and will fight those who come into its territory - just like any wild animal.  On a small-scale, even a field mouse can be a terror to organisms comparatively smaller to it as humans are to a grizzly bear.  Wild animals act as wild animals.

This leaves us with the hoarding aspect of the dragon.  Why would a dragon hoard?-and, especially why would it hoard treasure and virgins?  The dragon is not going to shop anywhere and is not going to attempt seduction.  There is no reason for the dragon to hoard the 'boons' it has.

As with any myth or fairy tale, the characters and items are all metaphors; the dragon is analogous to ideas or people in real life.  Let us look at the dragon.

What is it in the real world that gets ascribed as the victimizer, the devourer, the destroyer and the hoarder?-the rich.  They (individuals and businesses that are run by individuals) are the ones that need to have giant leashes placed upon them: leashes of regulations, licenses, taxes, quotas and such.  It is claimed that these leashes are needed for if the dragon was not restricted with them, the dragon would lay waste, consuming, destroying and hoarding without end.  There would be a Chernobyl and Deep Horizon oil spill happening regularly; the dragon would also be keeping the wealth, leaving the rest to starve.

Is that what the rich do?  Granted, there will be some who may - statistically, out of any group there are going to be those with malevolent intentions; however, that is not a necessary and sufficient characteristic of being rich.  Parasites exist in all classes.  What do the rich do?

(The rich, recently are called the millionaires, but that is a misnomer as the new calls for fairness and expanded rules begins at $250k earnings a year.  This 'rich' is only in respect to income, not assets already held.)

First, let us distinguish between those who create work against those who create wealth: the one who digs a hole and fills it back in against the one who creates a good for sale. 

Those who earn money do so by offering something to be sold.  What is this thing?-something that needed to be produced.  Produced how?-by combining resources, labor and expertise (at a minimum) into the given good.  What is does that mean?-through the interaction of individuals who choose (choice is a key component) to interact, they create something through which they each benefit: the one with the resources gets paid for the resources; the worker gets paid for the labor; the entrepreneur gets paid for getting the whole thing together.

This is true with a good being sold, or for resources to be combined with other resources to manufacture later goods - components need to be built before goods can be made from them, or for services.  It requires wealth to begin and wealth to maintain - maintaining meaning continuous interaction and therefore productive work to be performed by each party.

Does that sound like a dragon hoarding?

To add to the aforementioned, there are others who are also in the various fields of enterprise.  Those others may make their own and wholly different good, or create a similar good to compete.  With a whole new good, there is more to be had, and with a competing good there will be more pressure to invest wealth into production to make things more efficiently or of a higher quality so they can remain in business - still more for society. 

Some who do not succeed, or work in fields no longer needed may be out of work, but with production and people being open to create the new, those newly unemployed can find work elsewhere: e.g. we do not have a high demand for impact typewriter parts or service, but we do have a demand for those who can work on computers.

With all of this, the rich do not hoard.  Hoarding is taking what one has and not using it, not reinvesting it - the dragon only keeping treasure in its lair.  The rich do not do that. 

The aforementioned were references to businesses, but even a rich individual who puts the money in a bank is not hoarding it: it goes in a bank to earn interest.  Why does it earn interest in a bank?-because the bank uses the money in loans.  Banks put money to work.  The money in banks goes to loans for those who need help for anything ranging from purchasing a motorcycle to capital for starting a new business.  If the bank did not have the money placed in it, then it could not offer the loans and people would not be able to purchase the motorcycle or begin their business.

The Capitalist Dragon does not hoard, but makes sure its treasure is utilized.

Every dragon has its nemesis, and in the tales that is the noble hero.  We have an equivalent; however, as the dragon is not the same hoarder in the lore, neither is the hero so noble.

The 'hero' that wants to slay or control the Capitalist Dragon is the government.  That government hero does not see, or rather does not care the wealth that is 'hoarded' is not actually being hoarded, but is being put to use. 

Only what can be seen is what is important to the government hero; what cannot be seen is not relevant - the more distant a thing becomes, the less it directly affects the hero and those who praise him (for reelection); the more the long-term consequences will be ignored.  There is only the now: look at the treasure the dragon has - now let's take it, for it has too much.  The resulting harm to the interactions following taking the treasure by force is irrelevant, for it is a distant harm: the important thing is happy people dividing the spoils now.

The ways of taking the dragon's treasure include regulations, licenses, taxes and the like.  Each of these is a chain around the neck of the dragon, placed upon it by the threat of a sword.  These take from the dragon's treasure for now it has to spend its treasure on things not related to the actual production of a good, but to sate the government hero and those who praise him.

There are cries that if the government hero did not at least chain the dragon, that the dragon would lay waste to the people and the environment.  That is untrue: the only thing needed is to enforce property rights, and outside of that it is not anybody's business.  If there was actual harm, then with equal treatment of the law compensation could be made or activities halted.

Businesses would pay as little as they could?  Do not workers try and get as much as they can?  The free market allows people to exchange freely; if they can pay more (most jobs start above minimum wage), then businesses will pay more for a better worker.  And the one who is just starting a business, but cannot afford what the government hero said should be the minimum for employee wages, can still hire but for less - he is able to offer employment, and the employee is earning something where he was earning nothing beforehand, and gaining experience to earn more later. 

The same is true for the rich who puts the money in a bank; in the bank, the money is used for productive purposes; in the government hero's coffers, the money goes to sate bureaucracy where the money is not productive.  For the sake of creating work, one can be paid to dig a hold, and fill it back up; there is work, but not production.  Should the government hero's coffers actually produce anything it is first by the use of force taking it from where it already was productive and now first sating a bureaucracy before the remainder can be put to work.

There is a middleman between the Capitalist Dragon and the government hero.  This middleman is not to be confused with a moral middle-ground (there is no moral middle-ground), but merely as a go-between for pragmatic utility: gremlins.  Gremlins work in human society, but they do not create things - they destroy them.  However, at one time they were seen as beneficial.  With the illusion of beneficence, gremlins convince the people who praise the government hero and the government hero himself that chaining the dragon will bring prosperity.

The gremlins create bureaucracy of the government hero, and corporatism for him and fellow gremlins; they are never sated, never get enough of the dragon's treasure.  As parasites, they grow and continue to do so, feeding off the host, continuing to eat until they devour the dragon, and are left with nothing.

What are we left with?  The Capitalist Dragon does not hoard, but on the contrary, it produces.  There are monsters.  Those monsters are the government heroes who come in with their swords and chains to enslave the dragon or take its wealth, and the gremlins who act as humanity's friend, but work toward humanity's destruction.