On Government and God; Why Every Form of Socialism Mirrors Religion.

I was inspired recently by Joseph Schumpeter's magnum opus, “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy,” the first chapter titled “Marx the Prophet.” Many who read the book misunderstand Schumpeter's goal, as it seems as though he's writing of Marx in a positive manner. Yet his real intent is to convey that Communism bares a strange similarity to religious doctrines. In fact, all forms of socialism do and it's not just a matter of doctrine; They appear structurally identical as well.

The similarity between every form of socialism be it Communism, Fascism (National Socialism - Nazism), Social Democracy (Democratic Socialism,) is an underlying moral doctrine. Each version of Socialism we've seen throughout history has always promoted a specific moral ideology that carried with it the promise of a terrestrial paradise that will follow, if the doctrine is adhered to. “Don't sin, and you'll find heaven.” “Follow these rules, and we'll achieve prosperity.” It's the same basic premise as a religion that sets forth a series of rules that define a morality, and if followed will lead the believer to paradise.

Capitalism does not possess a moral doctrine. While it has often been taught that it is “immoral” (though a necessary evil) Capitalism is in fact amoral. That privative “a” (as in A-theist) indicating that Capitalism does not possess any intrinsic moral doctrine. Which means it is neither moral, nor immoral.

The second element is the structure. Every form of Socialism is administered (and must be administered, like religion) by a ruling body that organizes itself in a similar way to major religions. Take the Vatican, for example; The ruling body of the Catholic Church. The Cardinals (Electoral College) elects a Pope (the president.) The church itself is comprised of Diocese overseen by a Bishop. The Dioceses are divided into smaller communities called Parishes that are overseen by a Priest. Is this starting to look like a Government administering law? It is. And was. Organizations like this need a specific body to administer the moral doctrine – again, the advocacy of a specific moral ideology is the similar facet of religion and socialism.

I'm a big advocate of the Renaissance perspective. The notion that individual people can make their own decisions, take care of themselves and even find morality without some organized guiding policy found in either religion or socialism. I often find it hard to swallow that the so-called modern Progressives who believe that expanding the function of Government to achieve a moral goal is somehow a new idea, when it's the same thing that society has been peddling since Hammurabi. While it may be more ideologically liberal than the world was in the Dark Ages under the Vatican, it certainly isn't much different in it's application or goal – To impose a moral code on all of society, whether they want it or not.

Economics and Socialism - Why there aren't any "Socalist Economists."

Economics and Socialism - Why there aren't any "Socialist Economists."

I would like to hope that with this post, many will understand one of the problems with Socialism, as well as the reason why Economics is a bit less specialized and a bit more grandiose than simply plugging numbers into models and formulas all day.

At their heart, most modern Economists are Socialists. "But wait! Isn't the title of this about why there isn't any socialist economists?!" Right, we're talking about Economics, not Government. So in a manner of speaking "We are all Socialists now."

Joseph Schumpeter extrapolated on a concept that he called "Creative Destruction" with his book, "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy." The concept simply has to do with the destruction of some markets at the hands of technological advancement. The idea is that as we shift the burden of human labor off onto technology (which is its entire purpose) the necessity for human labor will diminish. If you were to throw this on a graph, it would have time on the X axis and employment on the Y. As time progressed through industrialization and technological development, we would see employment rise during industrialization and plateau while we advanced technologically. At the far side of the graph we would see a sharp drop which would represent the economic equivalent to Ray Kurzweil's Technological Singularity. (Strangely enough, they're related!)

So what I'm really saying here is that technology will progressively push us into a state where employment is less and less necessary - and that's not necessarily bad.

The socialism aspect comes in at the distribution of wealth and how the allocation of resources will work within a society. Given that Economics is literally the study of resource allocation, at that point of technological development, we're saying that less labor required = lower cost for goods. At an extreme, that would mean that food would be at or near free, simply because the cost to produce it is so small. (Economic Note: The reason why we outsource so much labor, is because employing US workers is ridiculously expensive. Goods can be sold cheaper (and so to a larger audience) if labor costs are reduced.)

So what's the issue? How Government gets involved. Most people without an Economic background (or those with Political Science degrees) would argue that this progression of technology and economics necessitates Socialist Government structures... and that's false. Labor parties are actually counter productive to the development of technology because they're trying to remain EMPLOYED. Same issue with Labor Unions. How does the quote go? "If you want jobs for jobs sake, sell all the heavy equipment and hire men with shovels." Basically "A job for all!" is diametrically opposed to the purpose of technology itself (minimizing or eliminating the necessity for human labor.)

Ultimately, the problem with imposing Governmental socialism on a society is that it compromises the method to which we achieve this goal of technological advancement and price decreases - The market. On top of that, it requires the use of force against others. Forcefully taking money from groups to provide benefits to others etc. Even if taxation seems okay to you, it may not be to others. A universally acceptable form of Government and Economy must be acceptable to all. Some cultures are less opposed to taxation and that use of force than others.

At the end, a market free from Government obstruction (Econ 101; every government action has unintended consequences) will ultimately yield the same end result that political socialists advocate, but it will do it without a controlling government forcing egregious human rights violations on its people.

On Compromise - Promoting Economic Growth.

I'll just be up front with my objective here. I'm about to pitch an argument for eliminating the social security, medicare and FICA taxes. Even if you're all for social welfare programs, please read on. I'm not proposing the elimination of those programs.


To start with some definitions. The Social Security, Medicare and FICA taxes are what the IRS calls the "Self Employment Tax." It comprises of a total of 15.3% of your taxable income. If you work as an employee, you pay 7.65%, while your employer pays the other 7.65%. If you're self employed, you cough up the whole 15.3%.

The tax on FICA and Medicare continues regardless of your income, but the Social Security Tax portion of it stops at about $108k. Simply, this is a tax on lower incomes.

What I'm suggesting here is that we eliminate those three taxes (Medicare, Social Security and FICA) and fund those programs through the income tax. Social Security Credits could be established through prior income tax receipts in the same manner we track social security tax paid. To offset the decrease in receipts (for the sake of compromise) increase tax rates on the upper income echelons, and possibly on net capital gains in excess of $250k (exclude dividends.) I haven't put much thought into the exact dollars and cents of where such income taxes would fade in, but you could start at the current social security phase out of $108k for (single filers, $216k for those filing jointly) and phase in a higher rate as you go up.

Why?
Well here's the theory. The objective is promoting economic growth, and even the most liberal economists know the best way to do that is to inspire business development. One of the biggest hurdles to the self employed and small business is dealing with additional payroll taxes, particularly Social Security, Medicare and FICA. Once a person reaches about $108k (it indexes every year) they stop paying those taxes anyway. So keep with the subtext here - I'm trying to promote and simplify business development for individuals and very small businesses, I.e. your "Mom & Pop" shops. Two things accomplished here would be freeing up the burden of those taxes on small businesses, and putting money into the portion of the population with the highest Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPC, it gauges how likely you are to spend money. Poor(er) people are more likely to spend than save.)

For business, the elimination of these taxes means they no longer have to distinguish between an employee and a contractor, and would have MUCH less incentive to try and falsely treat their employees as contractors to dodge a quarterly payroll tax requirement. This would increase voluntary compliance as well as simplify enforcement measures.
On top of that, it would save businesses the 7.65% of payroll per employee tax they're currently paying, freeing up additional income for development, added employment, etc. etc.

For individuals some perspective is required. A person making $25k a year pays nearly $1500 annually in social security tax. With what I mentioned earlier on Marginal Propensity to Consume, you're putting those dollars back in the pockets of people who are more likely to spend it and for someone who makes as little as $25k in a year, $1500 is a great deal of money. To add to all of this, the added increase in economic growth could actually serve to offset some of the increase in deficit that such a proposal could potentially create (depending on how the other tax increases went into effect.)

This shouldn't make anyone think that I'm any more pro-tax that I have been in the past. My perspective is still that the only proper tax is no tax at all. However in the world of compromise, there are give and take elements that can evince a more proper method of thought. My motive in such compromise here, is both putting money where it will see the most benefit (and the pockets of employees is less my objective than the pockets of very small businesses) and also promoting out-of-the-box thinking that can demonstrate why repealing legislation can in fact, be as beneficial as adding more.

There's my thought of the day.

Balkanized.

So I resurrected my blog.

I've been going through a long period of questions within myself. Trying to mesh philosophy, core values I hold with social interactions, and trying to fend off the habits I occasionally get into in my employment. Certain levels of humor, and camaraderie is lost on me because I have to be so stone-faced at work. It inevitably bleeds over into my social life, and I realize I've become a bit of a machine. I'm hoping that writing helps a bit of that, but much of what goes through my mind is pretty hard-hitting and serious. I talk politics because I enjoy politics. In truth, I enjoy discussing politics - Though many of my peers just become enraged and frustrated at what I argue... as though some intellectual concept (only conveyed by education) is lost on me. I'll admit, I do find some amusement in it, though unfortunately sadness is the dominant reaction I hold in my discussions with the more liberal (as statistics go) friends I have. Strange, that it's so easy to segue into this post with that in mind. I will admit, I'm targeting specific people and groups with this, but it isn't a pejorative analysis. It's simply an observation.

Also I should mention that this post has been years in its mental development, short in its writing.


I mentioned a while ago that I intended to write a post about the word "Balkanize."
A few weeks ago, I watched a video on youtube from a guy (or channel) that goes by the name "VSauce." The point of this particular episode actually had to do with something we've come to know as "the friend zone" with regard to relationships. The episode was interesting for it's content and the subject it addressed, but during the episode it brought up a concept called "Cyber Balkanization." I'll write a little more about it as I segue this post through the idea. But it got me thinking about the word "Balkanize.

As I researched this word, not having practically used it in the past (though having a vague understanding of it's meaning) I realized that it very accurately conveyed an idea I had tried to get across to a friend about a year ago.

I had invited this friend to my house, to do her tax return and have dinner. As we got to talking, the topic of relationships and such had come up, probably because of another post I made quite some time ago, sharing my frustrations with the "fairer" sex. I had mentioned that I generally prefer "Small Town Girls" because they seemed a bit more "connected to reality." At least, that's how I put it. Unfortunately I didn't really possess the rhetoric to properly explain why at that point, and in retrospect, I think it may have seemed a bit pejorative, as well. I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about how to share the idea that I was trying to convey, and that particular episode of VSauce tied a few things together for me. Unfortunately  many of the things I try to share with folks don't come across in a very couth manner. It's not that I intend to offend.

VSauce's Post Here

So Balkanization, is basically the separation of a large group, into smaller, more distinct factions that often (but not always) harbor negative views of the other groups.

Typically, we use this in a social context to explain how factions of people separate and segregate themselves, often times due to religion, economic status, geographically (as the definition goes), etc. To me however, VSauce's explanation of the concept with regard to online interactions was particularly useful, in a social context.

Simply put, the idea of cyber balkanization is the notion that the online community is so immensely large and mostly anonymous that people who are online, tend to gravitate toward communities that reaffirm their ideas and beliefs. It even allows them to speak more freely than they would in a public setting, because they do not need to fear a negative reaction from others in conveying a controversial idea. - The internet has a bigger community for Nazis than you'll likely encounter elsewhere. Ergo, the balkanization occurs as people find themselves involved exclusively with people who agree with them, and there's no sense in forcefully putting yourself into an environment that might otherwise be socially hostile, unless you're a troll or just looking for an argument.

This got me thinking about real interactions between people in large cities. Is the same concept applicable in a large city where you can make similar choices, what about those you choose as friends? I thought about this with a specific group of people in mind, that I came across about 2-3 years ago. These folks were all very liberal, and pretty intolerant (despite their claims) of people who disagreed with their views. They were verbally hostile and while non-violent, you could generally expect some kind of under-handed ridicule or disdain from many of them.

After some thought, it occurred to me that the idea really is consistent, even outside the internet. People tend to gravitate towards others who share their same ideas, whenever possible. Now this group, while well meaning, largely refused to discuss politics with me (including the friend I had dinner with) because by and large, they became very emotionally charged and often times outright angry. Moreover, the context of the discussion was never open to new ideas, The nature of the rhetoric used and the subtext of the discussion was always "We need to correct your erroneous thinking, Joe." For as supposedly educated and liberal as these folks are, they were always very disdainful and closed-minded. Simply, civilized discourse and achieving mutual respect despite our ideological differences, was not possible because of their attitudes.

So, where does this get to small town girls?
I realized after some fuming about these friends and some thought on the idea of Balkanization, that big-city living drives that very same thing we find on the internet - A wider group of people to socialize with means that we can be more picky about those we decide to associate with. In a small town, there aren't as many opportunities for discretion, so if someone wants to socialize, they must learn to accept (not simply "tolerate") other people's origins, opinions and differences. In summary, the perspective of a person in a small town includes the whole of the town and those in it, as opposed to simply the selected group of people one associates with. As an unfortunately unfamous rap artist said "This society's deprivation depends, not on our differences but the separation within." That being said, small town girls have been more "socially adept" than folks in the big city, in my experience. Perhaps the distinction between male and female isn't necessary, but the context of our discussion was from my perspective. Small town guys? Not in the scope.

Might be worth analyzing the political trends in those small towns, with this in mind.

The Lament of Thought in a World of Emotion

Some times I yearn for lobotomy.
For then I would act on the heart of me.
Without knowing the consequences;
I could dive into seances.
Thinking a prayer could fix this dichotomy.

Yet as the story goes
I spend time with prose
My Saturday Eve just a doze.
There's no woman to woo;
No party to arrive at on cue.
Just a life with known consequences;
Which prevent what I do.

You see a pretty girl means
A lot of effort to preen;
Then a child to wean;
And a whole lot to clean.

After a while the fire will die;
We'll raise our hands asking "why?"
Without a thought about where our hubris may lie.

So with this in mind;
I can't help but pine;
That I'll never spend the time;
Knowing what I would find.

Though perhaps I assume;
and my thoughts just consume;
My solution - to patiently wait;
I don't want to believe that women are a matter of fate.

On Democrats and Republicans

On Democrats,
To a great degree, it frequently appears as though democrats regurgitate the same platitudes foisted on me in my public education. When I meet someone who is a proud registered democrat and regularly proselytizes about how great unions are, and how awful the "robber barons" of the 19th century were, I can only think to myself - Wow, you sound EXACTLY like my high school history teacher!.. and strangely, like every other democrat I know. I have to wonder at times, if it's not because that high school history teacher was in the teachers union, and the teachers union was regularly rigging school board elections to ensure that the person elected was a union supporter themselves so that they were effectively negotiating with themselves... but I digress.
Even still, I welcome any argument for intelligent debate.
Yet I still haven't heard a seriously intelligent argument. - I mean with intelligent premises. The argument can be well written, or intelligently organized,  but the premises are always from the heart, not the mind.

That's not to say that our emotions aren't valuable or important even in the decision making process, but that is to say that valid arguments can't begin at the heart. When I've had people argue in favor of funding huge social programs, like Obamacare or funding planned parenthood the argument is always "You have to understand Joe, THEY CANNOT AFFORD HEALTH CARE!" - And I fully realize that. So in that such is a problem, I argue to work to make the cost cheaper. The argument most Democrats make is "No, we have to pay for it for them." "Why?" "Because it's the right thing to do." - Why is that? Why is it the right thing to do? The answer is always compassion in some form. - An emotional argument.

Rather than arguing something from the heart, try arguing it from the head. The same goal - Affordable health care for everyone - could be accomplished by making it cheaper, if we could put down a good method of accomplishing that goal. We've done it with other things, like drinking water, computers and information. Some did involve government subsidy, yes. But the means in those situations generally didn't involve the use of force, or welfare programs.

What I'm saying there is - There's a world of difference between making a low paying job livable, and raising someone's pay until it's livable. My argument doesn't stop here, I'm simply abridging and arguing in general concepts.

On Republicans;



Let me repeat for you. Nominee - God + Actual Fiscal Conservatism = Electable Candidate.
I hope you understand. Almost the ENTIRE REASON you fail is because of God.

Abortion? God Problem.
Women's Rights? God Problem.
Gay Marriage? God Problem.
Separation between church and state means that none of the above 3 items are negotiable during your potential term in office, and making them points during your campaign are SURE to prevent your election.
Please review the constitution you so eagerly claim to CONSERVE.
If additional clarification is necessary, please note Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli signed 1797 which reads, "In that the United States is not in ANYWAY a Christian nation..." This was a treaty signed with Tripolitania, then part of the Ottoman empire which was agreed upon by the founding fathers and a group of folks called "Musselmen" who we now call MUSLIMS.


The thing is - Every argument given to me by a democrat is an emotional one, every argument given to me by a republican is an ignorant one. Intelligence in politics? HA.

I didn't write this.

It's true! I didn't! I'm actually conglomerating ideas conveyed by F.A. Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Thomas Jefferson, Dr. Erick Erickson (my econ prof), and a multitude of other writers to put what I'm about to say together.

So here goes.

Saying "You didn't build that" is like saying you don't own something because you bought it, instead of having built it yourself.

So let's break this down into simple parts. I get what Obama is saying which should be conveyed if you read my intro analogy. The efforts put into your business by your employees, business partners, contractors etc. is what actually makes your business possible. But it MAKES UP the business, it's not what CREATES the business. Creation is an action. A deliberate and purposeful action. Components are inanimate, in context. - As a business owner, I'm buying the actual physical components that make up my product, INCLUDING labor. I'm also managing business partners and sales contracts as an asset in the same context. - These things, land, labor, capital, are what makes up a business, but it is not what creates the business.
I'd like to reiterate, that labor is a product purchased by a business from the employees. That's why you get paid in dollars and cents, instead of scrip or simply taking home what you made. That's also why it's a market despite how much someone wants to argue otherwise.

So, the creative force that takes all those parts and puts them together, is the owner. In that the creative force and action taken by that person to put all of the constituent elements together is the process of building something, that makes it's builder the OWNER..

The fundamental premises behind the idea that "you didn't build that" is the notion that the employees working effort also built the company. While this is true in a disconnected abstract manner, it's incomplete. What the employee agrees to when he/she enters employment is agrees to trade, for money, the products of his/her labor. So, what you create as an employee is being bought by your employer. What your employer does, is no different than what a carpenter, or engineer does. They take parts of the whole, refine them and assemble them into a fully functional product. - The parts of a business are the capital investment, the productive coordination, and the administration. While the parts of a stool would be the legs, the top and the cushion, as it were.

Edit:
I promised I would come back to this and update it. As I re-read this and the whole of Obama's statement, I should note that what I wrote here assumes some kind of intent in Obama's speech - What are you getting at and why? As a politician, I assumed he was plugging for some kind of constituency.

Obama's talking about the idea that no one person created something in it's entirety. What he's half-identifying is the fact that knowledge (and human action) are de-centralized concepts that make up a much greater whole.

What I'm highlighting with this post is that, while fundamentally correct in principle, there really is no explicit conclusion drawn, and whatever meaning I can derive from the statement based on Obama's character, is seriously false.

Simply because one person didn't develop an idea, or create the necessary precondition for the success of that idea or business, doesn't mean that person didn't develop or doesn't have some kind of ownership in end result. It also doesn't mean that the existence of that precondition should require some sort of compensation to those who created the precondition nor does it mean that those same people should be entitled to reap in the success of the idea or business.

Why? Because of basic economics. Smith's Circular Flow model (if you want to look it up) incorporated government and Keynes later extrapolated on it. If an enterprising entrepreneur uses basic government established infrastructure by building a business in a high traffic area, and that business thrives the government, the people and the business win. - The business develops and employs more people, provides a service to the local area, and in turn pays taxes to the government that build the road. This is pretty basic for most people. If we say that the person who established the business isn't entitled to the profits (or is perhaps less entitled to the profits) then we eliminate the benefit of success - This is call the problem of incentives, in economics. If we say "You should pay more taxes because of your success" in addition to the reducing the incentive I mentioned before, you're also saying that there's a purpose in paying more taxes which is ostensibly, more spending. If more spending is the goal - the question is "on what?" Which becomes an even bigger moral dilemma. If we force those business owners to pay for things they don't agree with (especially in a democracy) we're disenfranchising the business owners. If we force their customers to pay (through their income taxes) for improvements that increase their business, we're disenfranchising the customers.

The issue I take, is the assumption that government is the beginning, and that everyone else (other than the entrepreneur) has a stake in what the entrepreneur did. The value added to the economy is employment, and the goods and services provided by the business. True, the business owner may get rich - but arguments about who gains the most are simple "THATS NOT FAIR!" arguments. If Obama's preaching equity, I'd question what his sense of equity is? He builds a brewery on the side of the White House while he tells the rest of the country to "tighten their belts?" Doesn't seem very ideologically consistent... he's not practicing what he preaches.

So my point here is - "Fairness" arguments aside (which are subjective and almost always some variety of ad misericordiam) what is the point he's trying to preach?

The answer is - There isn't one. He's preaching ideas that are written to compel a vote. Romney's doing the same thing for his side of the camp. The fact of the matter is, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are so incredibly distant in their constituents ability to ideologically hold them to their speeches, that none of it means a damn thing. It's just a matter of coming up with the best argument to secure a vote. You could ask twenty different people what they take from that paragraph or quote, and you'll likely get twenty-five different answers.

These guys are no different than we are - They're just doing whatever it takes to score the next promotion, or jot their names down as influential in someone's life.