Production
Versus Plunder - Part 8
By Paul
Rosenberg - May 23, 2015
The cynical dictum, one sows, another reaps,
is sometimes true in real life, but it has been burned into our history books.
In some primary instances, usurpers have, famously, been given credit for what
they did not create, but rather destroyed.
LANGUAGE
One final issue of importance was the language that the Greeks
spoke. Their Indo-European grammar, with its categories of gender, its sharp
distinction of person and number, and its great emphasis on chronological
tense, instilled in them (as it does in most every Indo-European speaker) a
certain level of logical attitude toward life.
This is not a minor point, and the Indo-European languages
differ in this way from others, such as the languages of the Far East, which
emphasize relative class levels. What people assume1 in their speech has a powerful effect upon them.
HAVING THIS MIND IN THEM...
Because of the mountainous and irregular geography of Greece,
stringing city-states together into an empire was a difficult thing to do.
Certainly it was tried, but the obstacles were significant and a single
organization was never able to dominate the civilization. Because of this they
never developed a strong nationalistic priesthood that served the state. Their
mythology became more a set of moralistic fables than a theology. Then, with an
intellectual life fully separate from rulership or a priesthood, these men and
women examined human grouping and military defense in the light of reason, more
or less independent from mythology. Their practical organizational methods of
democratic city-states and temporary defense alliances were developed from this
base.
Greek applications of democracy included such
practical measures as random drawings for public duties and a mandate that an
attempt was made at a private settlement before almost any case could be
brought to court.
The basic unit of politics in Ancient Greece was the polis,
or city-state. Each city was essentially independent. Some cities might be
subordinate to others (a colony traditionally deferred to its mother city),
some might have governments dependent upon others, but the supreme power of
each city was located within that city. This meant that when Greece went to
war, it took the form of an alliance going to war. It also allowed for wars
within Greece, between different cities.
The Greeks exhibited a vigorous, healthy intellectual life.
Those wealthy enough to enjoy leisure went to the gumnasion,
which was a place to exercise both mind and body. They flocked to watch Greek
tragedy, a subtle and sophisticated medium. And, as evinced by their public
art, they had a keen eye for technical as well as artistic excellence.
At the same time, the early Greeks exhibited considerable
control over base appetites and grasping desires. The freemen of the Assembly
(their legislative body) could have voted themselves whatever they liked, such
as generous pensions for life, but they did not.
The well-rounded natures of the early Greeks were admirable, and
their general situation lasted for a few hundred years, until Athens found
itself in a position to lord it over the other cities... and did.
ATHENS LEADS GREECE INTO THE WAY OF ALL EMPIRES
In the wake of the Persian Wars (491–479 B.C.), Greek city-states
formed a voluntary alliance, "to exact vengeance by ravaging the Persian
king's lands." And, as vengeance so often does, it led them all to their
eventual downfall, as the alliance was converted into an Athenian empire2.
The alliance – called the Delian League because its treasury was
on the island of Delos – was formed in 478 B.C. and led by Athens. Policy
decisions were made at meetings on Delos, where all members had one vote.
Athens calculated the states' annual contributions, which were made in either
warships or in cash. The League was especially popular among Greek states most
open to Persian attack, located on the western coast of Asia Minor (modern
Turkey) and the islands offshore.
At first things went well and membership of the League reached
nearly 200 states. But signs of dissatisfaction with Athens began to appear.
The islands of Naxos and Thasos tried to secede, the latter in a dispute with
Athens over mining and trading rights. Athens forced them back. Around 454
B.C., the League treasury was moved from Delos to Athens. At about the same
time, Athens started planting settlements of Athenians on 'allied' territory.
When cities began attempting secession later, Athenian 'overseers' and
'garrison commanders' took control.
Around 450 B.C. a final peace was made with Persia, but Athens
saw to it that the League kept going. By this time, only three states
contributed ships, and all the rest money. Athenian inscriptions relating to
the League began to read: The cities which the Athenians control.
Pericles (the renowned wise man of Athens) admitted that Athens had become,
"like a tyranny."
What had started as a free union of states pursuing mutual
interests slowly turned into an empire run by the Athenians pursuing their own
interests. It would still be some time before Greece would reap the rewards of
this moral devolution, but this was the turning point and no one went about to
reverse it. Even Pericles acquiesced, saying that if it was dangerous to start
it, "it would be worse to let it go."
In 405 B.C., the Spartan general Lysander virtually destroyed
the Athenian fleet. Athens surrendered one year later, to end the Peloponnesian
War. The war had left devastation in its wake. Many of the cities were unhappy
with the Spartan dominance that followed, and this induced the Thebans to
attack. They defeated Sparta at the Battle of Leuctra in 371 B.C., inaugurating
a period of Theban dominance in Greece.
In 346 B.C., unable to prevail in its ten-year war with Phocis,
Thebes called upon Philip II of Macedon for aid, and he quickly conquered the
exhausted cites of Greece. The basic unit of politics from that point on was
the empire, and the golden age of Greece had fully ended. The conquests of
Alexander did follow, but they were very short-lived and contrary to almost all
that had once been considered Greek. Within 150 years, Greece became an
unremarkable province of Rome, and nothing more.
REPRISE: THE WRONG GUYS GET THE CREDIT
In this case, again, it can be seen that the wrong people have
been given the credit for human advancement. The Athenians, who fell heir to
the creations of earlier Greeks, have generally been heralded as the great
developers and examples, when it was, in actual fact, they who ruined the
operation.
This is almost identical to the situation we explained in the
previous chapter, where the people who have been given the credit for creating
the first civilization, inventing the wheel, and so on, were not the ones who
actually did it, but were rather the usurpers and destroyers of human progress.
As we explained, the Sumerians were a much later group of people than the early
creators, and they presided over the final decline and destruction of that
civilization.
A few lines are in order to explain why this is3. The key reasons
are the following:
- The
things that are easiest to repeat tend to be those that are most repeated. Instead of
explaining the (complex) actual events, it is easier to say, "Sumeria
and Athens." This is what is incessantly repeated to schoolchildren
and it is what tends to stick.
- In
both of these cases, creation was fairly quickly overrun by ruling
structures and absorbed. Not only are those who take over diligent to
claim credit, but the true creators almost never do. So, the only story
passed down is that of the usurper.
- The
proliferation of goods does not take place at the moment of creation, but
only after a significant period of time. New creations are almost always
opposed at the beginning, are finally accepted, and only then begin to
spread far and wide. (The idea, after all, survives the death of its
creator.) As a practical matter, it took centuries for the discoveries of
the Armenian farmers and the early Greeks to spread and to produce mass
results. Commentators are frequently unaware of this fact and give credit
to the people who were in charge when the goods proliferated.
- Museums
and archaeologists have long been closely aligned with large institutions
and have shared a 20th Century over-respect for things large; also, the
20th Century's over-regard for things centralized and hierarchical. In
both of these cases, largeness and centralization came at the end of the
development cycle.
But, for whatever reasons, credit has gone to the usurpers and
the wasters of human progress. One sows, another reaps. Productivity is overrun
by plunder.
The following graph shows this process in a highly generalized
form.
The General Cycle of
Production and Plunder
This production/plunder cycle plays itself out in the following
way4:
- Virtues
form after cycles have bottomed out.
- Production
follows virtue.
- Centralization
feeds upon production.
- A
Golden Age occurs when plunder is at a peak, and is characterized by
monuments, public works and self-glorification.
- Virtues
are overrun by the forces of centralization. This leads to a loss of
production, but not immediately. The lag period may be a century or more.
- Centralization
fails some years (possibly centuries) after production fails.
- After
a long period of decentralization and psychological reset, virtues again
form, beginning a new cycle.
NOTES:
1The important thing
is that these things are learned in early childhood, when we have very little
analytical ability. After that, they are assumed and rarely analyzed.
2It is highly ironic,
but this story line would make an excellent Greek Tragedy.
3We are straying a
bit from our subject matter here (and into popular culture), but I think it is
warranted, since almost all of my readers will have had similar experiences to
my own – wherein the Sumerians and the Athenians were given credit for the
advances of mankind and our true benefactors were never mentioned.
4Note that this graph
shows the same set of relationships as those between host and parasite and
those of prey and predator.
·
o
Great series of articles.
I love them.
I am in the middle of a book by Nelson Hultberg. "The Golden Mean".
It goes along with this line of thinking.
I was cleaning out some old papers today and ran across an article by Hultberg
from 2010. I hadn't remembered it. It's a good read too.
Check out his website; afr.org
Paul
is reminding us that history could teach us if we study it and learn from past
mistakes. What are the virtues that give rise to production? What are the vices
that result in plunder? How do we avoid the latter? How do we break the cycle,
before it's too late, i.e., we become extinct?
Could
it be that our moral code is flawed? Could Ayn Rand be correct when she
criticized it as anti-life, anti-man, anti-mind? Could we need new intellectual
guidance? Could it be that philosophers have let humanity down with past moral
theories? Were they all flawed? Is this the cause of our destructive political
systems?
I believe so. I submit
voluntarism would avoid the boom/bust cycle. But it needs to be developed. It
needs mechanisms for dispute resolution which have worked, to be more widely
adopted. But first, a new moral code for public life needs to be applied. The
private moral code used by most is nonviolence. Basing our public code on the
worst behavior of a minority is not rational. Private bad behavior does not
justify the initiation of force on everyone. It only makes society less safe,
less civilized.
Horace Greeley said "The darkest hour of
any man's is when he sits down to plan how to make money without earning
it." As long as men live who have no problem with stealing, no matter how
sophisticated the schema, there will always exist the need for some force to
stop them. But, when the force empowered to restrain thieves are themselves the
thieves, what can be done? I doubt voluntarism is up to the task - as pastoral
an idea as it may be.
As
you asked: "what can be done?" It is clear. Nothing, once you have
accepted "initiation of force" you have created evil to combat evil.
You have accepted the moral code of the behavior you abhor. You have
contradicted yourself.
You
doubt voluntarism will work? Either we interact voluntarily or involuntarily.
There is no third way. Thieves chose involuntary interaction. Using force to
restrain them enforces voluntary interactions. Force in retaliation to force is
justified.
Do
you make no distinction between force initiated, and force in defense? If you
see the moral difference, where is your objection?
People who claim no distinction exists are
advocates of the initiation of violence, even if they claim to be pacifists.
Pacifists do not defend against initiation of force, thereby encouraging it.
Actions have consequences. By allowing initiation of force, pacifists are
exempting the action from negative consequences. Their nonresistance
contradicts their moral condemnation. I judge them by their actions, not their
words, when I see a contradiction.
I certainly do see the distinction between
forces initiated and force defensive. No matter how one cuts it force will be
applied. Stalin was justified in his dialectical mind for the force he
initiated. He was of course wrong. But my main premise was that when two
diametrically apposed ideals vy for the same power found in public policy, and
one or the other will not lay down, what other choice is there but force? One
force wished to use public policy to steal and the other to prevent stealing.
Maybe that force is a voting booth or maybe that force is a gun. But force in
inevitable.
And my main premise is that the choice to use
force to repel force (defense) is moral/practical. Public policy is
institutionalized violence, without regard for whether it is used for offense
or defense. That makes it wrong. Voting for who gets to push everybody around
does not make an immoral act moral. Behind every election is the premise that
voting makes what would be immoral privately, moral publicly. And that is
indefensible. Mob rule is still rule.
Agreed. The founders were as concerned about a
democracy as they were a tyrant king.
"REPRISE:
THE WRONG GUYS GET THE CREDIT"
Just
struck me:
Politicians
are quick to steal credit and, the time (>lifetime) has not yet elapsed for
accepting responsibility. Are these the ONLY terms to which they can tolerate
or be tolerated?
And,
should we have adapted to a minority, as opposed to the converse?
just wonderin...
For contrast and comparison---
within the time frame of the chapter presented--this discussion fails to take
and to keep Homer in focus;
otherwise it’d not be lost in dimensions too ABSTRACT.
It's all relevant. Nothing in this discussion is
lost...imho :) You got something to add about Homer? He wrote an intriguing
story, but c'mon...there is only so much to invest in folklore.
What we think of as entertainment began in
Greece, and it was one of the primary ways in which the Greeks revived
themselves and came out of their dark age. It is very important to understand
that the Greek myths were a radical departure from those of previous
civilizations; they were written so that people could find meaning in them. The
holy writings of the previous state/church systems were primarily rules of
behavior. Do this, and things will go well. The Greeks had stories that were
meant to address the reader's inner life. The theologies of the empires
addressed men's actions; the Greeks had stories that addressed men's souls. And
there was something else: in the Greek myths, men were not small,
insignificant, and powerless before the gods. In the Greek myths, man
challenged the gods, and sometimes won! They beat the gods through superior
thinking. This was a radically new intellectual development. -THE RISE OF THE
INDEPENDENT MYTH-MAKER Part 7
Well, the question begs
to be asked, will, "the general cycle of production and plunder"
continue this time around. with the capacity to turn the planet into a ash
heap, where the lives of the plunders are in question, are the plunders
thinking they can dig a deeper hole to survive the final solution or will they
realize (finally) they are just one of us and no reason to dominate all life on
earth. These usurpers at this moment in history, can decide, we can live
together or die together. I ask myself, if King Tut was so powerful and thought
of himself as a god, where is he.
ancient
knowledge...
"Do not hold the delusion that your
advancement is accomplished by crushing others.": Marcus Tullius Cicero -
(106-43 B.C.) Roman
Statesman, Philosopher and Orator.
Exactly! Will technology be used to create or
destroy? Will humanity commit suicide? We need philosophy to keep up with
science. We need intellectuals to give us a new, efficient ethical code before
the old one based on institutionalized violence results in annihilation. I know
respect for the mind is only expressed by voluntary interactions. Putting brute
force first does not do that. Elevating force first, as a moral/practical
system is inhuman, uncivilized. But that is the unspoken worldwide system as
expressed in the institution of government. This needs to be identified as
responsible for the cycle of boom/bust, production/plunder.
What stands out to me
most in this piece are the durations of time involved in the cycles. From an
individual stand point at an given "moment" change is almost
literally imperceptible. Maybe with the knowledge of one's cultural history one
can deduce a trend but there seems to be very little one can do about it. In a
way, you could say that in the course of a cycle all types of
"personalities" have their "golden age" - artists,
inventors and creators; politicians and businessmen; warriors; dictators, etc.
The possible problem is that it may "suck" to be a creator, say,
within a dictatorship, but I don't think it actually works that way. People
choose the environment in which they are born for their own reasons, so maybe
this creator-plunderer model may not be as unjust as it may seem.
"maybe
this creator-plunderer model may not be as unjust as it may seem."
you
on drugs today?
To
a plunderer, it subjectively "feels" fair UNTIL your cumulative
predations destroy peace and civilization. Addictive behavior, now at expense
of future.
To
a creator, its all sticks, no carrots. All environmental forces state: DO NOT BE
A CREATOR (attracts predators), be a plunderer
and:
"People choose the environment in which they are born":(
don't recall being "allowed" choice in
this or any other significant matter. Or, are you speaking eastern mythology
where past life feeds to choices of next life? There are ZERO facts to support
this allegation.
Come on Bill, you where thinking about being Bill
before you where Bill. (You didn't know that), and you chose to be a Ross. And
then, you created Bill Ross. :)
Admit:
I am a self made man. It is not to anyone else's survival advantage to create
such as me.
Dunno
much about the "nature" of how "I" came to exist. Know alot
about the "nurture" (adaptation) that resulted in me, creating me,
with much kicking and screaming regarding "unwelcome" environmental
"influences".
and yep, as a Ross (Scottish), my ancestors have
a rich history of kicking tyrannical British butt.
The old question, chicken or the egg. I came
from the fertilizer, and it was Irish fertilizer, and injected into a German
egg. LOL.:)
Yep, the chicken or the egg. The old adage of
arguing for the extreme (like Ross and Bruce did today). When logic dictates
that the answer lay somewhere in between...or so it seems. Maybe, for example,
there never was any egg barren chickens. Even atheists could buy into that
evolutionary idea. Now they can only argue with their intelligent
design/evolutionary creationist opponents.
making
you sour kraut?:)
there must be "some" derogatory term
for Scottish you can banter back...
I think the Scott's created Golf, where guys
make millions smacking a little white ball around. More I think about it, not a
bad idea.
gotta smack "something", else go
insane with frustration:)
Yep, our problem, we be mortal, and live with
time, and the reason for frustration. The slow ponderous movement of time. Ah,
to live forever and see it unfold, 'to our satisfaction', that would be grand!
I
knew you were going to go ballistic.
Look,
I know it sounds crazy to you and I may be wrong, but I think I'm more right
than wrong about this.
If
you start with the premise that you form your own reality then they're can't be
any such thing as accidents or victimization, meaning experiential events that
aren't chosen.
I
get it that people/you don't think you choose everything but I think you do.
Consciousness (call it the essential you) exists independent of form (your
body, environment, "the physical world/universe") and you always
exist and you choose "lives" just as much as what you eat for
breakfast.
If you think that's bunk then you're left with a
pretty limited and arbitrary model of reality. Basically, you'll grant some
degree of freedom to people's choices but relatively little. I say much more is
chosen than you claim.
...Bruce is opening up views along the lines of
Jon Rappoport's reality discussions. I think we really do choose our
realities....there really is no such thing as accidents or victimization.
And that predators do take advantage of those
who 'choose' unwisely. But you can't deny that predators do work to limit your
choices (block the exits) and therefore do create influences in this existence.
.
I tend to agree with you in that this may all be natural. This is how I have
come to reconcile with my creator. The rise and fall of civilizations depict
the familiar bell shaped curve, much like the rise and fall of any population.
It could be due to a depletion of a life essential resource or the eternal
predator/prey struggle. Some say man has no natural predator. I say bunk, look
around, I'm sure everyone knows many on a personal basis. Empire, war, disease,
starvation and a dog eat dog mentality of some, may be necessary in balancing
life on earth. Who knows? But you are right. We don't need to wallow in it or
fail to rise above it or avoid the consequences of accepting predatory advice
or a station designed/assigned by them.
"Each man, too, is a tyrant in tendency,
because he would impose his idea on others." Ralph Waldo Emerson.
So true, and to what degree? The waters can
always be muddier than one can tolerate.
"Basically,
you'll grant some degree of freedom to people's choices but relatively
little."
Therein
your "argument" falls flat.
Sure,
we have choices (to do action) which is the method that the intelligent use to
develop the future (consequences) in our action precedes consequence physical
reality.
Problem
is that OUR guns of state are pointed at us altering the OWNERSHIP of actions /
consequences to whoever arbitrary power decrees.
If
you make good / productive choices, the consequences (your property /
accomplishments) are decreed by "rule of some men, over others" to
NOT belong to you. So, from your POV, these choices were "not good"
because they attracted predators and wasted your LIFE producing what was
stolen.
When
others make bad choices (such as public debt, go on welfare), the consequences
(their property) is alleged to NOT belong to them, but to OTHERS, such as you
who had NO CHOICE (in the behavior of others). To refuse to accept the
consequences of this irresponsibility (refuse to pay taxes) is possibly the
most major "hot button" of states, since this is their "business
case".
You
started out with "justice" (everyone faces the consequences, good, or
bad of their OWN CHOICES).
So,
which is "more just"?
1
- Benefiting or losing and learning / adapting from your OWN choices, master of
your OWN destiny, charting your own course, defining your own life?
OR
2
- Facing and paying for the consequences of the choices of unaccountable others
who point guns at you should you dissent?
You
are correct, "we do have choice". Whether we can benefit from our
choices and avoid dealing with the consequences of the choices of others is a
completely separate matter, currently "decided" by "rule of
man" and "might is right" as opposed to "rule of law"
(former definition of western civilization):
see more
I
don't disagree with most of what you say but our frameworks differ.
Think
about this: Ironically, your "model" of reality can and is used
against your own arguments by the
"predators"/"liberals"/statists.
By
you claiming that your choices are limited by "them" gives them the
excuse (logically convoluted though it may be) to take
"governmental"/statist actions to "level the playing
field."
Also,
by claiming that one is basically at the mercy of one's own wit then "life
is unfair" (they say) because not everyone is equally
intelligent/resourceful, etc.
Thirdly,
by denying that all experiences are not chosen, specifically circumstances at
birth (location, wealth or poverty, intelligence, life challenges, etc.) -
again - "justifies" (so they say) interventions, foreign and domestic
aid, etc.
Basically,
everything you claim that is not chosen provides a "logical" basis
for "helping" others in that area.
That
may seem cruel, and I don't want this to be confused with the Middle Ages ideas
that "God" runs the show and so no one should intervene. (E.g.,
poverty or illness is God's punishment.)
P.S. Got to go to a meeting.... Later.
All
I can say is I am NOT responsible for their CHOICES regarding how rational
arguments are "twisted" to subjective alternate realities to meet
THEIR ends, for the same reason that those who create tools such as guns are
NOT RESPONSIBLE for the choices of OTHERS regarding how to use them.
The
"best lies are mostly truth". And, your foot is getting deeper in
your mouth. Are you seriously suggesting the "search for truth"
should be mitigated by concerns regarding how fools may misrepresent and use
truth to achieve evil (harmful) ends? To concede this point is to let the fools
win and we should all be Luddites and, the RC church was correct in imprisoning
Galileo lest he upset the status quo.
You sound like my late, tyrannical stepmother
(who was correct): "you're too smart for your own good" (age 6).
No,
what I'm saying is the truth is more profound and expansive than your idea of
Natural Law as I understand it, and the "greater truth" undermines
and renders irrelevant all statist claims and beliefs.
Again,
as I understand you position, it's not unlike Ayn Rand's Objectivism and her
appeal to egoism. She was heavily criticized for that, and still is. In fact,
her ideas might even be considered irrelevant these days. I say the reason for
that is she didn't go far enough. She was a materialist (as you seem to be) and
that framework is not sufficient to support the lofty ideals of her "man
qua man" concept. Her Objectivist Aesthetics, for example, was pretty
lame, and that's pretty telling. Her Objectivist Epistemology was also highly
limited. It codified the "main myth" that all information and
"data" can come only through one or more of the five physical senses.
That's brutal, and untrue, and everyone knows it at some level. Framework too
small.
The answers to her critics were not convincing,
let alone inspiring and persuasive. Consequently, the statist mentally has
marched on without much philosophical objection. Religious maybe, but that's
not much of a consolation.
I disagree with all your opinions on A.R. Thanks
to Objectivism, statism is not going unchallenged. She gave rise to the
libertarian movement, or more aptly, she grounded it ethically. Her grounding
came from Objectivist Epistemology which expanded on Aristotle's epistemology.
See: David Harriman's "The Logical Leap". You will find your
skepticism refuted, step by step, in detail. This is how intellectual progress
is made: Building on the work of past thinkers, he shows how we can know the
truth of inductive generalizations.
This is how "greater truth" is found; mental work. Do some and you
might be inspired, or at least persuaded.
I
don't mean to dump on A.R. I actually thought she was right about a lot of
things, but she didn't go far enough.
Her
epistemology is a good example. Clearly Aristotle didn't go far enough, but
neither did she. I haven't read Harriman's work but I can tell right off that
if he didn't expand Objectivist Metaphysics then her Epistemology is too
limited. She rejects the "primacy of consciousness" based upon her
understanding of consciousness, which is wrong, but makes sense given her
understanding. For example, she asserts as "self evident" that reality
exists independent of consciousness but that's illogical right there, even
using her "definition".
The
current state of philosophy is analogous to 19th century physics, at best,
compared to today's. There was about a 30 year period during the late 1800s in
which most physicist were very confident they had the basic laws of the
universe figured out and it was only a matter of time to work out all of the
details to show mathematically that all phenomena could be explained in those
terms (i.e., Newtonian mechanics and Maxwellian electromagnetism).
What
happened though is they found that wasn't true, they couldn't explain a myriad
of experimental findings using those models when they actually tried. The
photoelectric effect, back body radiation, no evidence of an ether, atomic structure,
atomic spectra, etc.
The
same thing is happening these days in the realms of human experience - sort of.
Actually what is happening is that people are retreating intellectually and
emotionally so the same intellectual rigor and honesty is not being applied.
There are many human experiences both "positive" and
"negative" that are inexplicable using the official models of
reality, but their explanations are being ignored.
The
irony to all of this is that even though Libertarianism and Objectivism are a
whole lot more life affirming than most other "philosophies" many if
not most people still reject them. So here I am trying to say the true nature
of the Self and reality is even greater than those systems claim, so I
shouldn't be surprised if what I'm saying is doubted to.
There is a bit of nihilism in the air and very
much so because philosophy "hasn't kept up with science", as you say
above.
God
doesn't play dice...
A.E.,
in temporary denial of the undeniable statistical, Pauli Exclusion Principles
of Quantum Mechanics
This is where to look to get an epiphany for
those who believe self-volitional intelligences can ever be individually
deterministic, but are group deterministic within strict limits, analogous to
gas laws.
This
is a super interesting subject (at least to me) and there are a lot of aspects
to it. It's inherently complicated to understand especially if everything has
to be described in terms of our usual perspective (i.e., time, space, and
appeals to simplicity versus complexity, etc.)
For
example, Pauli and Einstein were talking about two different
"frameworks" - both which are valid - and yet I don't think either
one appreciated that. (You can't blame them, QM is so "unintuitive".)
An experiment that demonstrates what I mean is the diffraction pattern formed
from a "beam" of monochromatic light. The current explanation for
that phenomenon requires that light itself be considered both discrete and
particulate (i.e., composed of photons) and also continuous (in both time and
space) and diffuse (wave-like), but also "probabilistic" (i.e.,
random and uncertain). If a beam of monochromatic light is directed towards an
impenetrable barrier that has a sufficiently "small" slit (i.e.,
comparable in width to the "wavelength" of the light-beam/photon
itself) then it will "diffract" and be perceived/sensed as a Gaussian
distribution pattern OVER A "LONG" PERIOD OF TIME. That pattern is
completely predictable by applying a wave analysis to the experiment, assuming
superpositioning, etc. However, over a very short time - or, alternatively,
under very low light beam intensity - the pattern is not perceived as Gaussian,
but completely random. This is because individual photons are being sensed that
arrive at SEEMINGLY random times and locations. It is only over a sufficiently
long period of time does the seemingly random photon impacts begin to form a
recognizable Gaussian distribution. Thus wave analysis is one "macro"
deterministic framework (Einstein's: no chance, it's Gaussian every time) and
the quantum analysis is another "micro" statistical framework
(Dirac's: photons emitted at random and arriving at random locations, and every
experiment is unique - won't happen exactly that way again.)
(Come
to think of it, another analogy that you might appreciate more is the
difference between the analysis of electrical signal processing in the time
domain versus the frequency domain, via the Fourier Transforms. Two different
frameworks of the same underlying phenomenon that "appear"
differently within each framework.)
Now,
I can understand that you have been thinking that when I claim that each person
forms his/her own reality that that cannot possibly be IF THERE IS ONLY ONE
OBJECTIVE REALITY. I would agree with you, but there's not just
"one".
Look
at it this way, using your own gas law example: I think you'll agree that by
"gas" we mean a collection of gas "molecules" that are
contained within a certain physical boundary. Okay, the classical (macro)
analysis of a gas uses statistics and Newton's laws of motion to determine the
macroscopic properties of the gas (PV = nRT). That's fine, but now consider
each individual molecule. Each molecule, at the "individual"
microscopic level (another framework), are anything but "hard, inert
billiard balls" assumed by classical analysis. They in fact have infinite
"size" because their electron distribution pattern is statistical in
space (and time), and the fact that all such molecules have interspersed
electrons a kind of gaseous covalent bond is formed among all the molecules.
Therefore, the "experiences" of each molecule is not only unique but
capable of being significantly different than others. However, the appearance
of all of the other molecules from the POV of any one molecule is nearly the
same (the Law of Large Numbers), hence the appearance of "one objective
reality."
I
know this doesn't do this subject justice and I've tried to avoid it because -
believe it or not (well, maybe by now you do) there are other aspects to this
that get pretty mind blowing and I don't claim to have all the answers.
My main point all along has been that people do
choose and form their own realities. If you take that in the spirit of what I
mean it's that beliefs literally matter and are highly creative. By that I mean
that they affect more than just behavior. They actually help form events around
"you" that conform to "your" beliefs, "good" or
"bad" (but there is actually a bias towards "good").
Understanding and accepting this changes "the game" considerably.
see more
Good
spiel, above, well thought out, thanks...
"people
do choose and form their own realities."
Our
two perspectives (terminology differences) can be easily reconciled.
People
choose their own environments (work, play, associations, spouse, children /
not, aggress / not...) and react / proact with environmental influences to
"choose and form their own realities".
It when you go all mystical on me that I
"go ballistic"
Thanks. Understood.
Of course, Natural Law is profound and
expansive, the question we all ask ourselves, has natural law always been or is
it an idea created. That leads you to the big bang, was it spontaneous
combustion or ignited by an outside force, if ignited, natural law was created
to rule man's life on earth, if spontaneous combustion was the cause, natural
law has evolved to it present state and will continue to evolve, and to answer
those questions, it becomes an individuals own belief system within themselves,
to answer, and in that is where acceptance becomes a factor, to live and let live!!!
Believe what you want and I accept, that.
Praetor,
Natural Law was created. It is this point that
is the reason why I am no longer and atheist or even and agnostic. If natural
law always existed it could explain itself in the whole. But it cannot. The
fact that we must use foundational presuppositions, or axioms as Bruce puts it,
in order to begin a discussion about metaphysical issues, and even physical
issue at some levels of quantum physics, proves this to me. In a micro sense
natural law can explain how an idea for say an internal combustion engine can
become an internal combustion engine. But, natural law cannot explain the macro
sense of how a man self actualizes himself from dead matter to an idea toting
individual. The reality of the existence of absolutes drove me to conclude
their must be an intelligence outside of this universe that created the
universe and does not depend on this universe for existence. That is where our
foundational presuppositions are answered. I am now a solid believer in God and
grateful desciple of Jesus the Crhist.
Perhaps
we are just a plaything, an erector set, a petri dish experiment for some extra
dimensional child?
and,
where did the child, or, for than matter, extra dimensional "reality"
come from?
Or,
for that matter, God?
To
conclude, by non-existent evidence and faulty reasoning that "God" is
the only "answer", is, as I have preciously stated:
The
fallacy of concluding without evidence
AND
To
state the converse: God does not exist is:
The
logical fallacy of proving a negative.
The smartest people do not hesitate to say
"I don't know", when they don't. AND, if also blessed with curiosity,
LOOK FOR THE EVIDENCE which can provide proof.
Well then, my friend Bill, I guess I do not rank
in your smartest category. Don't think I'll loose any sleep over that. But I
know God is real, really real. And proof comes in many colors. We must keep an
open mind to all. What may be known of God is manifest in them. For God has
shown it to them. His attributes are clearly seen being understood by things
that are made. Things that are made. If we do not see God in our study of
things made, then our science has failed us. The smartest people know this. I
know science though, obviously not master of all disciplines, I understand it
completely. Science is God's creation and it shows at at every corner. The
smartest people know this too.
Boy
Kevin Tebedo are you a nuissance. Please tell me
1.
Why does the question of God's existence need to be discussed publicly? Isn't
this a subjective matter a journey onw has to travel for himself?
2. What is your benefit of the discussion? Are you a prponent of God or of
organized religion which is a mechanism of opression and control?
3. If you believe in God, what gives you the conviction to call him Christ and
not Allah or Buddha or...?
4. If you are Christian why do you call God Jesus and not YHWH? Why do you even
mention His name?
So
to me you sound like a biased person, an unenlightened self-interested person
probably peddling membership of some sect.
I personally believe that there is a force that
is currently not fully describable by our scientific methods (e.g. see the
movie The Secret), but this may be just a form of Natural Law that we cannot
comprehend or describe yet.
"She
was a materialist (as you seem to be)"
I'm
a first thing first kinda guy. Until the REQUIREMENTS of material existence
(predator control) are taken care of, we are and will remain wallowing in the
mud of ignorance and conflict, unable to manifest the material and spiritual
excellence those who so choose are capable of, to reach for the stars and
explore the near infinite dimensions of material and spiritual existence.
I
can tell you for a fact: EVERYTHING and EVERYONE is interconnected in a
"no contradictions" reality.
And,
when I "push back" regarding your "spiritual" opinions, it
is for ONE reason: in conflict with established material knowledge and, if
there is "spiritual" truth, it must be in harmony with all other
established truth, otherwise, incorrect.
...and,
I will NEVER apologize for having a practical (get it done, as efficiently as
possible) engineering perspective.
Those who say: limited by five senses and
measurable reality is STUPID and blind (not that you did, extrapolating), well
"water off a ducks back".
We should all be more stupid, we all would be
much happier. Life, liberty and the pursuit of stupid. And we all can walk
around with that, silly stupid grin on our faces, that has no happiness behind
it, just misery and pain.
P.R:
"What had started as a free union of states pursuing mutual interests
slowly turned into an empire run by the Athenians pursuing their own
interests."
Well,
those "who do not know history are doomed to repeat it". Swap
American / British / Japanese ... for Athenians and you have an absolute fact
of social / economic organization: Central control DOOMS civilizations. Who
woulda thunk that, when "mutual interests" are dishonestly represented
by politicians pursuing THEIR self-interests is inevitably subverted to be what
the politicians want: THEM in control under false pretexts of being
"representatives of the people" and, the people are too busy working
and surviving to do anything about it. Until there are no jobs nor economy
left, starting the cycle again, after a brief market boon in "pitchforks
and torches".
P.R:
"But, for whatever reasons, credit has gone to the usurpers and the
wasters of human progress. One sows, another reaps. Productivity is overrun by
plunder."
Obummer
/ 2012: "If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else
made that happen."
Re
the graph stages:
Virtue
Forms: life is nasty, brutal and short. No productivity, scarce survival needs.
Virtues of peace and property rights necessary to have any hope of survival.
Left
Rise: Innovation and productivity resonate, quality of life improves for all
who contribute. The lazy and envious watch, plot, fume and foment.
Centralization:
Quality of life improved enough that a large segment of society can choose not
to do anything productive and, the centralizers (lazy, envious control freaks)
sell this as fair and desirable.
The
Fall: The "what's in it for me, personally" question has no
acceptable answer (no property rights for fruits of labor) for the productive,
They drop their tools in frustration and disgust and melt into the woodwork,
placing civilization on a path that the plunderers will have no option but to
develop virtue, or perish. This is fair, because, it is THEIR choice:
Note
4 needs to be strongly highlighted since it ties the evolution / devolution of
social / economic organizations to natural law, anthropology and relative
population densities as predator / prey wage the eternal battle for life:
And, central control is
nothing more than "predators in control". Free people understand that
external control is highly undesirable because it restricts choice and thus
reduces diversity, innovation and survival.
'Production
Versus Plunder' ~ Part 9
By Paul
Rosenberg - May 30, 2015
As many have pointed out, a democracy and a republic are very
different things. Today we'll explain the beginnings of the great republic of
history, Rome. You should bear in mind, however, that Rome's Republic and Rome's Empire were two very different things, comprising two
separate eras.
COMETH ROME
Rome deviates from the cultural pattern we have been examining
in that their creativity was not home grown and they did not simply overrun
nearby creative peoples. Instead, they gathered to themselves the good ideas of
distant peoples and made use of them, without trying to subjugate the creators.
This may sound contrary, since Rome is known as a conquering state, but it
should be stated, on Rome's behalf, that they didn't originally go about to
conquer everything in sight, as Alexander had when he ruled Greece. There were
simply competitors who would have gladly conquered Rome if they could. So, Rome
conquered them first. Naked acquisition was an issue late, but not early.
Rome began, as best archaeologists can determine, in the 8th
century B.C., comprised of people in two fortified settlements and another in
the nearby woods. One settlement was on Palatine Hill (called Rumi)
and the other on Quirinal Hill (called Titientes). The people
in the woods were called the Luceres. These were
three of numerous Italic-speaking communities that had formed in Latium,
a plain on the Italian peninsula, by the 1st millennium B.C. The origins of
these people is not known, but their Indo-European languages migrated from the
east in the years between 1500 B.C. and 1000 B.C.1
The group that most affected the early Romans was the Etruscans,
who lived north of Rome in Etruria (modern Tuscany and northern Lazio). Their
influence is shown by the Roman list of kings (largely mythical), in which some
names were Etruscan. The gladiatorial displays that we think of as Roman
actually evolved out of Etruscan funeral customs. The Romans learned to build
temples from the Etruscans, and they may also have introduced the worship of a
triad of gods, Juno, Minerva and Jupiter, taken from the Etruscan gods, Uni,
Menerva and Tinia. Religion was a form of cult, hallowed by tradition, centered
on rituals carried out in the right way at the right time. At its heart was
sacrifice (which meant, literally, "making sacred"). With luck, the
god you honored with valuable goods (your sacrifices) would then answer your
prayers, the most common of which were to be safe, prosperous, fertile and
healthy.
When Romans found new gods in new cultures, they assimilated
them, if at all possible, into their pantheon. Minucius Felix, in the 3rd
century A.D. says, All nations have their own gods,
but Rome welcomes the lot. Felix attributed Rome's success to this.
Again, Rome would rather absorb than conquer.
The question of where the Etruscans came from has intrigued archaeologists
for some time. The Greek historian Herodotus says that the Etruscans emigrated
from Lydia, a region in western Turkey. Recent genetic studies2 point to the conclusion that Etruscan culture was imported to
Italy from somewhere in the Near East. Etruscan settlements were frequently
built on a very steep hill and surrounded by thick walls, arguing for
organizing principles that were informed by the great Catastrophe of 1200 B.C.,
which, presumably, they fled.
After about 650 B.C., the Etruscans expanded into north-central
Italy. Expanding also to the south, the Etruscans came into direct contact with
the Greeks. After initial success in conflicts with Greek colonists in southern
Italy, Etruria went into a decline. Taking advantage of this, Rome rebelled and
gained independence from the Etruscans in approximately 500 B.C. It also
abandoned its monarchy and replaced it with a republican system.
The republic was a scalable form of democracy that had been tried
in a few Greek cities previously. A democracy worked well for a single city
where the participants (which included only a fraction of the entire populace)
were all conscious of the effects of their actions and would expect to feel
them. A republic, however, added a layer of representatives, moving the
citizens one step further away from the actual use of power. This was the birth
of the politician. Under city-state democracy, those who could vote did so
directly; they decided and the decision was implemented. The republic, however,
required a new layer of professional decision-makers. Those who could vote now
elected a politician to do their bidding; they, themselves, were removed from
the process.
A republican structure allowed a democratic style of government
to expand beyond the level of a single city. In other words, democracy worked
well enough for a city-state, but beyond that point, another layer was
required. This form is called a republic, and this was the form of governance
that Rome chose.
The Roman Republic, though highly complex, was based on a
Senate, composed of the nobles of the city, along with popular assemblies which
ensured political participation for most of the freeborn men and elected
magistrates annually. The structure of the operation is shown below.
Courtesy Wikimedia
Commons, Click on image for larger view
After 500 BC, Rome joined with other Latin cities to defend
themselves from the nearby Sabines. Then, over the next hundred years (by 394
B.C.), Rome incrementally expanded over the entire area of Latium.
In 387 B.C., however, Rome was suddenly sacked and burned by a
group from eastern Italy, called the Senones. The Senones had also successfully
invaded Etruria. After this, Rome hastily rebuilt and went on the offensive,
conquering the Etruscans and seizing territory from the Gauls in the north. By
290 BC, Rome controlled over half of the Italian peninsula and soon brought the
Greek colonies in the south under its control as well.
At this time, the core ideals of Rome had been in place for some
time, but there were as yet none of the impressive buildings and monuments that
we usually associate with Rome. The great monuments were produced later, under
the Empire, and only once they could be financed by the movements of the
people's surplus to the Emperor's storehouses.
By the 1st century B.C. (beginning 100 B.C.) serious internal
problems threatened the existence of the Republic. The Social War (between Rome
and its allies) and the Servile Wars (slave uprisings), were very expensive
conflicts, all within Italy, and forced the Romans to change their policy with
regard to their allies and subjects. By then Rome had become an extensive
power, with great wealth taken from conquered peoples (as tribute, food or
slaves). But, Rome's allies were unhappy. After all, they had fought side by
side with the Romans, yet they were not citizens and shared little in the
rewards. So, to keep peace, by the beginning of the first century A.D.
practically all of the free inhabitants of Italy were made Roman citizens.
Between the massive expansion of Roman power and a massive
increase in the numbers and types of people who could now vote, multiple new
problems shook the old political system of the Republic. In January of 49 B.C.,
following numerous crises, Julius Caesar marched his legions against Rome.
Within a few years he had defeated all his opponents, and then ruled Rome for
four years. After his subsequent assassination in 44 B.C., the Senate tried to
reestablish the Republic, but its champions, Marcus Junius Brutus and Gaius
Cassius Longinus, were defeated by Caesar's lieutenant Mark Antony and Caesar's
nephew, Octavian. After a long struggle, a final naval battle took place on
September 2nd, 31 B.C. Octavian (soon to be called Augustus) was victorious,
and became the sole ruler of Rome and its empire. On that day, the Republic
ended and the Principate, the first
phase of the Roman Empire, began.
NOTES:
1Languages can be
very effectively traced by specialists, and provide an excellent tool for
tracking the movements of peoples. Since the people who became Romans came from
the east in the time-frame of 1500-1000 B.C., it is quite likely that they fled
the Catastrophe of 1200 B.C., then settled in Latium.
2See the New York Times, April
3, 2007.
Hey DB, are there any
plans for an interview with Patrick Wood and technocracy? Waiting patiently.
Thanks for all you do.
https://vimeo.com/128960699
Sorry about being off topic. However the Sunday
interview is blank and I'm only offering a suggestion. Mr. Wood has expressed a
willingness to interview again with the DB and apparently there are voids
available. Christiana Fugueres of the UN Framework on Climate Change is the
latest p.o.s. shoving lies down my throat. This and carbon credits, a virtual
tax on life, will not stand critical scrutiny, if there is any. Please help.
Thanks for the suggestion, Dave. We have a
number of interviews in the works but, unfortunately, nothing today. We'll try
to get in touch with Mr. Wood soon!
well,
i'll second Sunday void blues and, and off topic that may blow some minds (I'm
undecided, too many plausible implausibles...)
if true, Goebbels had some very avid students
with VERY long noses
What are you undecided about? I'd suppose that
Hitler was a puppet of the technocrats of those days. Apparently the ideology
lives on in the minds of many inhabiting big gov and the UN. If there are
questions about my loyalty, it doesn't need to be drawn out...just ask.
"When
Romans found new gods in new cultures, they assimilated them, if at
all possible, into their pantheon. Minucius Felix, in the 3rd century
A.D. says, All nations have their own gods, but Rome welcomes the lot. Felix
attributed Rome's success to this. Again, Rome would rather absorb than
conquer."
That is called stealing,
no matter how you name it (assimilation, apsorption or any other term). As the
saying goes, no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig, it's still going to
be a pig. Romans were great plunderers.
Should
we all laugh or cry, be proud or ashamed, that Western civilization - and the
US in particular - is basically an extension of the Roman empire?
Rome seems to be an
enigma. I don't know that much about it. It has never interested me much, but
it's obvious that it is heavily influential. To me, one of the most memorable -
but also the most disturbing and disappointing - things in Washington DC are
the overwhelming and numerous Roman (and Greek?) architectural styles and
symbols and monuments everywhere you look.
Peni$ envy...
Rome invaded England in
49 AD and formed "alliances" with some powerful tribes to help
subjugate most of the island. The Romans then built walls for the cites and
temples for Roman Gods, charging the locals TAX for these
"improvements". When the Roman ally, Saxon King died in 60 AD his
daughter, Queen Boudicca took the throne, but Rome refused to honor rule by
women and took over control of east England. Boudicca's army attacked and
destroyed the Ninth Legion near Colchester, marched to Londonium, then west to
Wales where they were massacred near Wattling. Estimated 80,000 Brits were
killed to 400 Romans, as the Romans had superior weapons and tactics. Never
again did England rise against this master. Every English woman was a rape
offering, every English man dead on any Roman whim, and all property subject to
Roman seizure. Using this system, one Roman citizen was master over thousands
of Brits for nearly 400 years. This slave based "republic" system was
in place in ALL Roman occupied territory. Do not rewrite the benevolant
dictator history of the West.
Reread the article. It only discusses the time
period leading up to the establishment of the Roman Empire, in 49 BC. The
Empire invaded Britain in 49 AD, a century later. This would be akin to blaming
the Americans of 1903 for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
§
Sorry....the Punic Wars, Rome v Carthage were
from 264 BC to 146 BC and employed similar tactics. You will have to read more
history than is presented in this whitewash to understand the extend of Roman
brutality. The Roman totalitarian model served as the model for all future
monarchs, with limited citizen control anywhere outside of America, and then
only briefly. We are ruled today by financial feudalism and a puppet
government, serving the Demonic Warlord masters. End feudalism.
Find the old men, who
sit around in their palaces and make these arrogant decisions to rule the
world, and sacrifice them to their gods of fantasy. As always centralized
planning means centralized control, 'freaks'. As Rome was, and as we are now,
so, we know our future. I thought they where dumbing down the populace, but it
seems they made themselves even dumber, forgot to learn from history. Lets just
do it all over again, but this time it will even be more bloody!!! The 'so
called' elites we simply call them 'DUMB A$$ES'.
"The
great monuments were produced later, under the Empire, and only once they could
be financed by the movements of the people's surplus to the Emperor's
storehouses."
look
no further when you tremble before the "might" and "power"
of the empire to KNOW it is the stolen productivity of the people, redirected
as a weapon against them.
The
beginning of central control IS the end of civilization (peaceful, mutually
agreed trade) and the innovation / progress it spawns:
§
Their end is near, history tells us so.
§
Yep;
Growing my beard, making a big sign "The
End is Nigh", preparing to take to the streets to be ignored as just
another kook:)
§
We wait patiently while nothing appears to
change; however, things are changing although seemingly never fast enough
creating a dilemma around 'to do or not to do' and amongst believers 'when and
how to do.' In short, it is hard to get people to act when they do not yet
experience the pain.
§
The town square is usually the best place to
draw a crowd, bigger things have started from smaller things. Problem, people
walking around with their heads down and things plugged into their ears. An EMP
at the right moment probably wouldn't be a bad thing. after all.
Production Versus Plunder - Part 10
By Paul Rosenberg - June 06, 2015
If you want to analyze a large economic system, the best way to start is by tracking its surplus. Who gathers the surplus? Where does it go? Who decides? And that applies to our modern systems just as well as it does historical systems.
Continued from last week...
THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF PLUNDER
In the empires of the ancient world, plunder was reserved to the kings and to the emperors (the kings of kings). These rulers had the right to plunder and would use violence to assure that they had no competitors. Each city was a separate unit, and its surplus production went directly up the hierarchy to a local ruler, with a portion of it continuing to a ruler above that one. This surplus allowed the rulers to live lush lives and to build the great monuments of the old world: Pyramids, hanging gardens, ziggurats, colossal statues, and the like. It was this hierarchical movement of surplus production that made monuments proliferate during this time.
The Greeks and early Romans, however, changed this arrangement and democratized the plunder. This model involved each property holder owning a number of slaves, whose work in the field he carefully supervised and very often assisted personally. The surplus production of this small group of slaves became the property of the landowner, which allowed capital to be used in productive endeavors, and very effectively so.
But the improved use of surplus capital was not the only attribute to this new arrangement. It also turned thousands of people into small-scale plunderers. This had a range of effects, which are difficult to properly weigh at our current distance of over two thousand years. However, some of the major effects seem to have been these:
- A reduction in the respect for hierarchy and fear of the ruler. The individual landholder was not awed by the power of the ruler, who was much less powerful than the rulers of the ancient era, and may not have been much of a ruler at all. In fact, during the earlier parts of the classical age, the ruler was chosen from among the landholders and would likely return to them. He was not separate from the others in class, only in temporary function.
- Coarsening of the land-owners, stratification of humanity, fate and myth. Holding slaves, even when treating them "well," causes humans to devalue and disregard those who they own. Unless, of course, the slaves are seen as victims of chance. So, to accommodate the "necessity" of slavery, the earlier Greeks and Romans developed the idea that slaves were slaves simply because of the acts of the gods, or by fate, or by cruel chance – not by the slaveholder's actions. In some cases, this was almost true. There were then – as there are now – many humans who would gladly trade their freedom for a position of entitlement. If they feel they will be guaranteed a basic sustenance, be treated with a modicum of compassion, and have some promise of protection from abuse, they accept. Freedom has always been far more of an attractive slogan than a way of life that all people pursued.
- Citizen armies. When power is distributed, military defense cannot be assigned to a class of experts, simply because such a class does not exist. So, an army of citizens is required. Since the workforce could be relied upon to function fairly well in the landowner's absence, this was not an insurmountable obstacle. And, it must be said that the Greeks and early Romans acquitted themselves quite well in military endeavors.
ANCIENT ECONOMICS
It is important to understand the ways in which the economics of the classical world differed from the economics we are familiar with.
First of all, the mechanism of economic growth was the social organization of slavery. This was not, during the centuries of the Republic, anything like 18th century slave gangs on plantations: The slaveowners worked closely with their slaves and were very often in the fields with them. But, since the slaves could not be holders of property, the surplus that they produced was taken over by the slaveowner and became investment capital. This was then applied to further productive uses. And, since the owner understood the agricultural process, he was usually an excellent judge of where investment was best applied.
This system worked quite well during the Republic. The slaves were certainly shortchanged in the bargain, but the slavery of those days was not equivalent to the brutal slavery that appeared at other places and times. Slaves were valued, commonly freed or adopted, and could engage in independent activities. Nonetheless, their surplus production belonged to their owner. A Roman (or Greek) of the time would justify this as the only conceivable social organization that could produce progress. The map below shows the expansion of Rome under the Republic.
Courtesy Wikimedia Commons
Another great difference between the modern and classical world was the currency. Minted coin was the sole monetary instrument, and there was no machinery for creating credit. There were no banks in our sense, and only two sources of wealth: agricultural and mineral, with the former being more important. This had multiple consequences.
One consequence was that funding military expeditions was difficult. This restrained unnecessary military campaigns. (Whereas today, with our fiat currency system, money can simply be created on demand.) For example, in 483 B.C. the Athenians had strained relations with the Persians, but had not done much about it. Then, the lead mines at Sounion suddenly revealed a fabulous seam of silver. Immediately, the leaders of Athens built a fleet and defeated the Persians at Salamis.
So, excess wealth could be gathered from the earth, erratically though dramatically, in the form of precious metals. Or, it could be produced regularly and predictably from the farming-slavery culture in the form of foodstuffs.
There was much concern in the ancient world over the storage and retention of gold and silver. One of the ancient laws of Rome (contained in their Twelve Tables of Roman Law) stated that: Gold, no matter in what form it may be present, shall, by all means, be removed from the corpse at the time of the funeral. They did not allow gold to be wasted. (They did make exceptions for the dead person's gold dentistry.)
At the same time, many problems we encounter, such as currency exchange rates and volatile currency values, were complete non-issues. Gold was gold, no matter whose name was slapped on the coin, and all forms of gold or silver were of equal value per ounce. This greatly aided commerce and trade.
Another important factor to include was the attitude toward wealth. Members of the classical civilizations tended to be moderate in their attitudes toward money. They refused to regard either profit or power as goals of life, but rather tended to regard honor and the esteem of one's equals as goals that were at least as important as simple accumulation. The early Romans, being instructed by Greek mythology directed toward the inner man, were imbued with an appreciation for self-development. They valued this more highly than mere external things such as coins. In this way at least, it was a more elegant time.
At a personal level, credit was provided in the form of transactions between friends, neighbors and relations. There were no securities, interest or even written agreements, which implied distrust. Aristocrats, for example, felt an obligation to take on the debts of friends. Cicero, the great jurist, distinguishes two categories of givers: those who squander their money on public banquets, food doles, gladiatorial shows and wild beast fights (to gain political credit), and those who take over friends' debts, help in providing dowries for their daughters or assisting them in acquiring property. Each man was, in effect, his own bank.
* * * * *
To be continued...
You make some very good points, however this model relies on ownership, upholds the 'notion' that certain metals are "precious" whereas [logically] others are not. Indeed, though it is not explored, it was a clash of (Eastern) silver system and gold systems that saw the modern banker's order evolve. Highest bidder pricing mechanisms have ultimately determined the collapse of fiscal standards underpinned by weights and measures and other accountability mechanisms. Surplus is not the issue. Asset values and relative accountability is the issue.
If I need to pay someone to move a gold bar 1000 times, how is the "moving charge" offset (ultimately)? If that is determined a "share" of the unit's value, then by only moving it 10 times, I have increased its value (which is determined by "highest bidder" and not some arbitrary body).
I cannot find my post [specifically] on this topic, so here is another that touches on it:
https://ozziethinker.wordpress...
Best
OT
I never thought I would see the day when so-called "libertarians" would apologize for a thoroughly militarized society based on external warfare and slavery. The Romans were almost impossibly cruel. The depiction of the Romans in this article is not historical.
But he writes about Rome under the Republic. Then came the dictators and it became serious.
"Freedom has always been far more of an attractive slogan than a way of life that all people pursued." This is a profound statement and most true in today's culture and economy. I own two businesses and one excellent wealth creation asset - spoken of by Robery Kiyosaki (https://www.youtube.com/watch?... It is much easier to find people willing to be my empoyees (statutory slaves) whoes surplus production is my property to build my dreams, than it is to find people who are willing to think outside the box, take risks, and build personal wealth and freedom for themselves. At least once a year I sit down with all of my empolyees individually and show them how I make money off of their work. I reveal to them the dollar for dollar exchange and how I own their surplus production. They are all amazed. Then I show them how they could unhook from employee mentality and build their own dreams. 95% of them thank me for bieng honest and forthright with them. They trust me more than ever and become even better producers. A small percentage get pissed and demand a raise -accusing me of taking advantage of them (workers of the work unite). To them I say "go start you own bunsiness then, quit bitchng." Shortly there after they exit my employee and, usually, I couldn't be happier. But, even a smaller percentage engage with me to create something different for themselves and their family. To them I allow special liberties during what would otherwise be their employment time, to build a dynamic future for themsevles while still earning an income from me. When they reach personal financial and time freedom I throw them a party and show them to the door. They are friends for life. So it is true "Freedom has always been far more of an attractive slogan than a way of life that all people pursued." People are what they choose to be for the most part - notwithstanding notable exceptions.
The link you posted is a plug for a network marketing scheme. It is the furthest thing from "free market" that wasn't created by the government. These organizations prey on people by exploiting their personal relationships, locking them into buying "only company products" and price fixing. If you can't recruit enough distributors you never make any real money. It's predatory and false. Real producers actually produce something; like my in law who produces injection molded shampoo bottle caps and makes good money. Network marketing and MLM schemes are bogus.
On the contrary, network marketing is the fastest growing segment of entrepreneurship in the world. I don't know where you get your information!ation but it couldn't be more wrong in the general. Certainly there are good and bad, just like lawyers and doctors, Judging by the amount of emotion you promulgate I'm guessing you've tried and failed the concep. That happens a lot. Just like any other business. The site I posted was from Robert Kiyosaki's book The Business of the 21st century. You will of course excuse me if I chose to listen to him rather than you Jess. Thanks for your opinion though.
Interesting...So in the halcyon days of the Republic, when everybody but the Aristocrats were slaves, all surpluses went to the slave owners. The slaves received only what they "needed" according to their masters.
But now, in modern times, it's the reverse: Only the producers are slaves and they get to keep any surpluses after paying for the "needs" of the non-producers, according to the non-producers.
huh?
Slaves were not producers and slave owners / Aristocrats were not "entitled"?
Nothing, apart from terminology has changed.
Just "try" to "keep" any of your surplus should predators with guns of state take an interest.
No truer words were ever spoken. Just try and keep your surplus should predators with guns of the state take an interest. Satan lives at the IRS.
That was tongue-in-cheek using the terminology of the essay.
But still, when slaves were called slaves they did produce (who else did, besides supposedly their owners alongside?, according to Rosenberg) and they were "paid" in terms of basic needs and freedoms but not money.
Those who produce today aren't called slaves any more but the same rationals apply to serving that role as slaves must have thought back then. ("Well it's better than starving," "the best things in life are free," "even if I'm getting a raw deal it's better than nothing," "what choice do I have?". etc.) The difference is that today's slaves/producers get paid their surplus in money (Gross income minus taxes) whereas the non-producers get mostly non-monetary benefits (power to direct plunder - politicians), specific entitlements (welfare recipients), etc.
It's not a perfect analogy, and yes only the terminology has changed, but I do think the modern version is better because there is more wiggle room.
We are still "slaves" They just replace the chains by taxes
I might presume in the next installment we will get a run down on how imperial Rome mixed alloys into currency to create junk-gold and silver by "fiat" creating an inflationary cycle that eventually tore the empire apart? Sorry for the run on sentence.
Off Topic: How 'bout helping keep Dmitry Orlov's ship afloat, so he can continue assisting in sinking the ship of state?:
https://life.indiegogo.com/fun...
Full disclosure: yep, I donated
Bill, I am unfamiliar with Dmitry Orlov's work. Where may I learn more about him? I'll donate just to keep them living on a boat - that's just too cool.
Search "dmitry orlov stages of collapse"
Dmitry has experiences with living is former USSR and, the west. And has much insight regarding the collapse of the two civilizations, from which Russia at least has accepted the epiphany, sorta, while west remains in "strategic denial":)
Bottom line, IMHO: Dmitry is much more valuable writing for us, than toiling to save his boat.
PR: "There were then – as there are now – many humans who would gladly trade their freedom for a position of entitlement. If they feel they will be guaranteed a basic sustenance, be treated with a modicum of compassion, and have some promise of protection from abuse, they accept. Freedom has always been far more of an attractive slogan than a way of life that all people pursued."
So, the "entitled" commission plunderers to provide entitlements from "excessive production" of the productive (not entitled)?
Sounds like a "plan", at least until the seed corn and wealth of civilization is frittered away and the productive conclude: pointless to produce more than you can defend:
http://www.nazisociopaths.org/...
What next? Don't worry, not long to wait, or, read some history to find the inevitable result of "rule of law" being rationalized away and forcefully violated by "predators on the bench":
http://www.nazisociopaths.org/...
