Saturday, 13 August 2011

The Futility of Compromise

     Why compromise, in its truest form, is impossible during the discussion of these issues.

      (1)     It is none of the central government's business what the level or extent of a citizen's income is.   Once yielding to the Crown's legitimacy in this matter the subject becomes a vassal to the Crown.    To be absolutely in a condition of Liberty, no man, Prince or Pauper, should know or even be able to divine the amount of one's wealth, income, or expenditure.
                      (a)    For the Crown to know these things, it raises immediately the spectre of the designing of methods to implement fairness of outcome.   Fairness of outcome leads immediately to sloth and the sense of entitlement on the part of the slothful.   The Laws of Nature demonstrated this clearly to the earliest of the English Colonials when the first settlements failed miserably while practicing the purest form of social democracy....communism.
                       (b)     We are required as True Americans to practice that to which the Old Gringo refers as communitarianism...the opposite of communism. In communitarianism each person must provide for himself and aid those around him.     Communitarianism is based upon the finest foundations of Judeo-Christianic thy neighbour as thyself....In all things render to friend and traveller as you would wish to be rendered thereby....develop one's talents so that you can be measured by your good works and that they might glorify your Father in Heaven.....If four loaves are taken, bring back five.     Communitarianism requires individual positive striving in the addressing of self-interest and fealty to obligations.    It certainly overrides selfishness and avarice as human conditions or motives.
      Communitarianism requires simply....take care of thee and thine;  take care of those whose needs are few and transitory and to whom you might be able to truly aid (ie  a barnraising); and then take care of those who are overwhelmed, are incapable, are infirmed, or who are beset.
      Not the Crown, but the community.   If there is an ill, it is at hand.   Why send to London for attention of an ill in Nottingham?   The Crown might assist with its standing Army and Navy.  That would do well for engineering excercises for later combat and military and service simultaneously during a catastrophe...earthquake, hurricane, etc.   It is true that the greater the self-reliance, the greater the preparedness and prosperity of a people.
       In a democratic-process republic,  reasonable fear can be expressed that there can come a majority which will finally vote to take the bakery from the owners and turn that bakery over to the people whose hobby it is to eat.    Those who have unimagineable wealth will more and more require that those who have some riches and prosperity pay the price of feeding those who will finally take possession of and then destroy the both the bakery and the Republic...along with the "trust fund wealthy" like the Kennedys and Rockefellers.     Their guillotine is the street mob already put in place by their own hand, through the New Deal, the Fair Deal, and the Great Society income transfer programs.
Road to Serfdom.jpg
Read at all costs
One who knew well the Gulag
      This reasoning is a restatement of others more eloquent.   There are times when eloquence is drawn from the effort to speak or write thoughts in a precise manner.   De Tocqueville, Jefferson, Franklin, Adam Smith, Hayek, Solzenitzen and hundreds of other observers have made these observations over the years. These people feared that  those who felt guilty for having wealth would seek to improve our pleasant American chaos with a "rational" social construct that would be much more efficient in terms of providing for all the little people down below.    The howling of George Bernard Shaw is revered by these people while the wisdom of Rudyard Kipling is thoroughly scoffed.....    www.­kipling.­org.­uk/­poems_copybook.­htm .   Click on to remind yourself of his brilliance at seeing through the diabolical intent of elitists.

       Nor should the super-wealthy, whose fortunes are immune from silly bothers like taxes and investment, be taxed by the crown, neither they nor those of middling and higher incomes drawn from their professions or sweats.   The imposition of taxes, normally proposed by the incomprehensibly wealthy, is designed to keep the hoi polloi out of the "very best" mansions and clubs.   Let them have their local country clubs and drive Lincolns....but they cannot be allowed to 'our precincts'.   Those of us who operate businesses and who have professions might resent the Kennedys and the Rockefellers and the like because of their hypocrisy, but we should not wish for their taxation nor our taxation of earnings, wealth, or effects.    Likewise we should not wish for the taxation of a poor man's legitimate income.   If we choose to make him uncomfortable in his poverty so as to impulse him to industry, then we should also maintain the compact that he should have the fruits of his labour.
       In short, we should all strive to be wealthy and well-to-do.   We should all avoid to the point of greatest pain to be wards of the Crown.   The Crown must not impede the building of wealth and property through taxation of income or property.

     (2)     There is no manner by which we can thrive by allowing madmen to point to the 'moulin de jour' and then have the power to order us to Quixotic attack at all costs.   "Hungry Children" "Sex Education" "Old People Eating Dogfood" "Inequitable Distribution of Wealth"  In each case their presumption of crisis is based upon anecdote and their solution is grounded in madness.
    This debate is impossible any longer because any reasonable statement is immediately taken into surgery, reshaped, and then republished as living proof that the individual making the statement is clinically psychotic, and worse, a racist, and is worse yet a Southern white man who thinks that an eternal intelligent force might have had something to do with the formation of the Universe.     In short, we have delivered our fate, our souls, and our fortunes into the hands of the Crown and his jesters.
       We cannot speak because should someone suggest that the War Between the States was fought more over the gauges of railroad lines than the curse of slavery, he might well be arrested and taken to the nearest  Queebler Quookie Factory. was.
        And then ....for instance.... We cannot say that there is no such founding statement in the Constitution, even as amended, that calls for the separation of Church and State.    A recent candidate for the United States Senate from Delaware declared same....that there is no such statement....and she was practically boo'd off the stage....howling laughter, booing, snickering...But, she was right.   The United States Constitution, in prohibiting the establishment of a Religion, was essentially assuring everyone that they would not have to support through government payments a nationwide network of Episcopal Churches.    This would have been particularly inconvenient because of the prayer in the Book of Common Prayer for the health and guidance of those in authority, starting with King George III.
    The Old Gringo's great-great-great-great grandfather was one of those who argued in the mid-1810s against the maintenance of the Congregationalist Church as the official Church of Connecticut.   That ancestor was a prominent Methodist minister and served as an elected official in that strange State of Meddlers....and remains such in these as well as in those days.   His arguments were made before the State Legislature as well as other public forums.
    The Olde Gringo borrows from the dreaded Wikipedia with the following:
Connecticut was originally founded by Congregationalists who split away from the Massachusetts colony between 1635 and 1636. The first settlers founded three towns on the Connecticut River in Windsor, Wethersfield, and Hartford. One of the main purposes of the Fundamental Orders was to formalize the relationship between these three towns. The core foundation of the Fundamental Orders incorporates the ingrained religious background of the colony’s founders. They called for “an orderly and decent government according to God” in attempts to pursue “The liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus.”[2] Until 1818, the Congregational Church stood as the established church of the state. All Connecticut residents were required to attend church and/or pay taxes to support the Congregational faith. Anyone belonging to another Christian sect such as Baptist, Episcopal, or Quaker, had to provide documentation signed by a church officer indicating attendance and financial support of their separate church in order to avoid paying taxes to the Congregationalists.
     While we neither favour nor oppose the establishment of an official church for a consenting jurisdiction, we do oppose the official aetheism that is presently the policy of the Central Government and the popular culture.    The point here is only that the "well informed" of Delaware guffawed at the Republican candidate suggesting that the Constitution of the United States of America says nothing about "separation of Church and State".    The only mention is in the First Amendment which states that ".....Congrefs shall make no law respecting the establishment of a Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.....".    Once again this was mainly an attempt to head off any attempt to "establish" as in England even to this day, the Anglican Church as the official church of state.     None of this is terribly important now, it diverges, in fact from the point.

     The point is the following:   "Living Document" jurists have steadily attacked religion and the Christian religion specifically over the years in order to break loose the Republic from its moorings and to allow it to seek a Perfect Heaven formed by the Hand of Man.    Lots of Luck....the next re-make of the French Revolution awaits us.
     This is why compromise is not now possible.   Bi-partisan solutions to the problems created by aetheist socialists cannot be had without making the problem worse.   Riots in Los Angeles?  Maxine Waters puts an earmark on an irrelevant piece of legislation that sends 100 dollars per adult to every address in the census tract where the riots took a form of reparation;   part of the justification being that some of the people could not go down to the welfare offices to update their information and obtain benefits due to the riots.
This is not a joke.
      Gun crimes?   Outlaw guns.   Illegitimate babies?  Pay people who have's not the baby's fault.   When the baby is bled dead in the street 14 years later with a bullet through his head....blame George Bush.    When 400 of the babies terrorize people leaving the Wisconsin State Fair, beating and destroying anyone and  anything they can access....blame the Tea Party.   
       Any solution to the grotesque and horrid problems this nation is facing at this time, formed by "bi-partisanship" will look similar to the animal designed by a committee....the platypus.   It will have about as much influence over those problems as that same animal.

I am Done.
El Gringo Viejo