Musings Of An Indie Writer| « | Last Memorial Day I published a song here in poem form called, “Privet Hedges.” |
»
|
|
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Keeping Clean In The Obamunist Age
Fran here. A few weeks back, I wrote the following:
We stand, God willing, at the end of the Progressive Era in American politics and political thought. One way or another, the edifice will shortly come crashing down. The only questions that remain are whether a recognizable United States of America will rise from the rubble.Many Americans, however, will not. That's guaranteed.
Our current political order does not resemble our Constitutional basis in any way. Every stricture of the Constitution has been abrogated. Most states treat their own constitutions as palimpsests, from which any clause may be deleted and to which any permission might be added, entirely at the will of the rulers. As for county and municipal charters...do I really need to go on?
The prevailing order compounds Corporatism with Social-Welfare Fascism. Under such a scheme, persons will flow steadily away from the "economic means" and toward the "political means," in obedience to the established incentives. As the current state of affairs has obtained for nearly a century, a terrifying number of Americans and pseudo-Americans have made themselves utterly dependent on the State for their sustenance. They own no means of support -- no skills by which they could create value for others....
There will be suffering. It will be massive. Some will die.
Yet the reckoning is at hand. It cannot be delayed much longer: even if the rising some foresee should fail to materialize, our current profligacy and laissez les bon temps roulez insouciance cannot last more than a year or so from here. No matter how well politically connected you are, you cannot consume what no one has produced.
That passage has been much on my mind of late, specifically because of the alterations to Americans' incentives that our perilous financial situation, the dominance of our governments by "progressives," and the Obamunist policy of government uber alles, bring with them.
One who thinks seriously about morals, ethics, and their connection to what most persons would call "practical matters" must confront some hard truths. People respond to incentives and disincentives. An individual's responses to incentives reflect several things about him, most important among them his horizon of foresight and his time preference.
By horizon of foresight I mean the distance into the future one attempts to see and to plan. If Smith's concerns are only for today, his horizon is very near; if he attempts to see and plan years ahead, his horizon is far off. Granted that long-range planning is inherently inexact and uncertain, the attempt marks a man as one who understands that the Sun will rise tomorrow...that the pleasures of today must somehow be financed...that the bills will come due, and will have to be met.
By time preference, I mean the relative valuation one gives to a dollar in hand today versus a dollar in hand at some future time; alternately, how large a future payout he's willing to sacrifice for a present satisfaction. A high time preference would indicate a willingness to borrow infinitely, regardless of the interest, to finance this evening's orgy; a low time preference would indicate a complete unwillingness to borrow at interest.
These two considerations -- they're not mensurable except by comparison, so I can't call them "metrics" -- enwrap the most important of a man's "practical decisions:" what trade he'll work at, how he'll treat his income, what sort of debts he'll be willing to incur, and how much responsibility he'll nominally accept for his actions.
Of course, there are other influences and constraints on a man's decisions. A microcephalic idiot, no matter how hard he strives, will not ascend to the position of professor of physics. Similarly, a quadriplegic will make an unlikely Ultimate Fighting Champion. But beyond organic and functional limitations such as those, there exist moral constraints: what one will not permit oneself to do because of the conviction that it's inherently wrong.
From here, I'm about to head into a thicket that might seem even more bizarre than my usual, Gentle Reader, so please belt yourself in securely.
Despite intense competition from modern video games, the old in-the-flesh role-playing game "Dungeons and Dragons" has never lost its following. Among the reasons are its social character, the wealth of possibilities a creative dungeon master can offer the players, and its built-in justifications for eating junk food and staying up late. Ask any D&D player, of any age, whether he can imagine a video game that satisfies those criteria.
There's also this: D&D players must declare a particular alignment at the outset of a game:
- Lawful or Chaotic;
- Moral or Amoral;
...as an "envelope" within which they will confine their decisions during game play. (The declaration is to the dungeon master; players are expected to deduce one another's alignments from game action.)
The Lawful / Chaotic dichotomy expresses whether the player will be consistent in his decisions: that is, whether, given a well-specified situation twice, he'd react to it the same way in both instances. A Lawful player will attempt to be consistent, whatever the other characteristics of his in-game character indicate that would be. A Chaotic player will consider himself free to vary his actions, perhaps very wildly, even if identical challenges should arise repeatedly.
The Moral / Amoral dichotomy expresses essentially the same sort of attitude toward decision making as it would in real life. A Moral player would not inflict harm on another player or a Supporting Cast character for personal advantage; an Amoral player would do so if he thought he might get away with it.
There are tactical implications to Smith's inference of Jones's alignment:
- If Smith believes Jones to be Lawful, he can incorporate his sense for how Jones would react to various situations into his planning.
- Inversely, if Smith believes Jones to be Chaotic, he would rigidly refrain from depending on his ability to predict Jones's decisions.
- If Smith believes Jones to be Moral, he would repose confidence in Jones's statements and promises of assistance; he might encourage other players to do so, as well.
- Inversely, if Smith believes Jones to be Amoral, he will position himself for security against possible actions by Jones that would be to his (Smith's) detriment; he might position himself to protect other players from Jones, as well.
Alignment considerations don't exist in a vacuum, of course. They couple to the incentives that arise in the course of game play: what sort of rewards and hazards the players face; whether it's possible for one to profit at the expense of others; how present decisions and alliances factor into the pursuit of long-range goals. In attempting to optimize his decisions and actions within the game, each player must always keep the alignments, known or unknown, of the others in mind.
And so it is with the American economy in the year of Our Lord 2010.
For some years now, the Internal Revenue Service has offered "snitch money" to persons who report tax evaders to its attention. The snitch's reward has varied, but is usually about 50% of the amount the IRS squeezes from the betrayed party. Clearly, if Smith is unconcerned about the damage to his neighbor Jones, reporting Jones to the IRS can be very tempting. It becomes more attractive the more creative Jones is about his income and deductions.
This is just one instance of the State's use of American citizens against one another. There are others, including payouts from funds seized in consequence of a drug or gambling bust, protection for minor lawbreakers willing to turn in more significant ones, and so forth. For the purposes of this essay, the important thing to ponder is the incentive structure those policies create: we are encouraged to treat one another as geese to be plucked.
This sort of amoral interrelation can corrupt a country handily. Hobbes's "war of each against all" captures the spirit of the thing rather nicely.
Among the practical limitations on State power, perhaps the most important is how many agents it can afford to hire. One who is salaried to hunt lawbreakers full-time is obviously a person to be feared...if he sets his sights on you. But if he and his are few and you and yours are many, the odds are in your favor. He might get someone, or a batch of someones, but in all probability you won't be part of his "catch."
BUT...
When the State works to enlist us against one another, matters change. Oh my, how they change. Smith cannot know with absolute certainty whom he can trust. He cannot know whether his economic and financial planning, which in an advanced industrial / informational economy must include some dependencies on the decisions and actions of others, is well or ill-founded. If Smith has responsibility for the support of others, a typical situation in these United States, the possibility that a betrayal might touch lives other than his own must be in his thoughts at all times.
As taxes rise, and the Regulatory Leviathan tightens down ever further on what we're allowed to do to earn our livings, the incentives to evade taxes and to betray one another for doing so will become ever stronger. Our morals, and our fidelity to them, will come under progressively severe test.
The next facet to the crystal is what Americans will and must do to earn an "above-board" living.
Surely everyone old enough to reach the sink unaided is aware that the economy is in recession...the private economy, that is. Government payrolls have exploded, and the salaries and benefits for government positions have never been richer. This is entirely consistent with the Obamunists' program of nationalizing everything they can get their claws into and tightly taxing and regulating the rest. Washington and the state governments have to "bid high" for the gauleiters they hope to hire; they need lots and lots of them to spend all that "stimulus money," and to police the rest of us.
Imagine Smith, out of work for some months and unable to find a new job in the private sector, pondering the lure of government employment. He's fairly sure he's qualified; he might even have a promoter inside the Civil Service who'd give him a boost. The job is nicely remunerative, and there's little or no possibility of being fired. What to do?
Much will depend on the nature of the job, on Smith's financial standing, on the extent of his responsibilities and the weight of his indebtednesses, and on his moral system. If the job is for something morally innocuous, for instance road repair, that set of considerations won't come into play. But if it's for an oppressive function, perhaps a tax collector or a regulatory enforcer, moral considerations are paramount -- and when times are extremely tough, our moral constraints tend to loosen:
When today is all there is, we grab all we can and hold on. We are afloat in an ocean of nothingness and we hang on to any miserable piece of wreckage as if it were the tree of life. On the other hand, when everything is yet to come, we find it easy to share all we have and to forgo advantages within our grasp. The behaviour of the Donner party when they were buoyed by hope, and later when hope was gone, illustrates the dependence of cooperatives and the communal spirit on hope. Those without hope are divided and driven to desperate self-seeking. Common suffering by itself, when not joined with hope, does not unite nor does it evoke mutual generosity. The enslaved Hebrews in Egypt, "their lives made bitter with hard bondage," were a bickering, back-biting lot. Moses had to give them hope of a promised land before he could join them together. [Eric Hoffer, The True Believer]
Smith will inevitably weigh his survival, and the well-being of those dependent on him, against the evils a government position might require of him. Which pan of the balance dips lower will determine his decision.
My concern today, in case it isn't blindingly obvious, is the strength of Americans' moral constraints. Just how reluctant are we to prey upon one another for personal survival or gain? Given how relentlessly we've been bombarded with messages about how "whatever's right for you is what's right," I'd say we have reasons to fear.
Yet this is a moral country; its founding premises are Christian and unprecedentedly noble. Three out of every four American adults claim to be Christians, with all that implies. (Let's omit consideration of the Pretender-In-Chief for the nonce; he's likely to be pretending about his religion quite as much as about his love of country.) Sincere Christians, steeped in the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, would refrain from invading the lives, liberties, and properties of their neighbors for any reason. They would rely upon fellow-feeling and mutual aid to see them through the darkest times. Among sincere Christians, that expectation would be fulfilled.
Where do we stand, and how do we know? How much worse will the pressure get as America's economic Gotterdammerung draws nearer? For it is coming. No matter what political changes we make in the next two years, our accumulated debt and the exhaustion of our capital base will have dread effects, probably upon every American alive today and quite a few yet to be born.
Debts are always paid. We have allowed ours to mount to the skies, against all reason and historical example.
Will we remain a good people -- good enough to keep ourselves clean as the waters rise? To trust in our fellows and in God that we can see one another through? Or will we turn to mutual predation, discarding every consideration but day-to-day survival?
How many of us are firmly Lawful and Moral, and how many will turn Chaotic and Amoral?
Ayn Rand's take on it was bleak: "When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good." What's yours?
Comments
I’m eternally grateful for being in a position where I’ll likely not have to personally make that choice, having a reasonably-stable private-sector job.
As recently as three months ago, the temptation to fall to the dark side and apply for work with the government was quite strong, as it undoubtedly is for millions of Americans who know from bitter experience that, whatever promises God holds out for the eternity beyond death, here on Earth no help for temporal matters is going to come.
Most will probably not be successful in resisting it. Indeed, I probably could not have stayed successful much longer than I did.
God help us all.
Posted by Matt on 08/25/2010 at 10:43 AMThe important quote was that some must/will die. We Americans are simply not prepared by personal history to understand what is about to happen. Think of it like a “long Katrina” with no place to run to. It may be marginally better in a smaller town a few miles or a few hundred miles from where you live but unlike Katrina, which was a catastrophy over a relatively small geographic area what is coming will be a catastrophy in all America and arguably in the entire world. There will be pockets of prosperity and even countries which do a little better then most but for most people it will be a world-wide depression.
I have made my decision and it will be lawful and moral. I am 67, too old too bug out and too wise to fight. I intend to gather in my children and grand children and even some relatives, friends and neighbors and do what I can to survive help others survive. This economic crisis/collapse will one day be over and the goal we all should have is to survive until then. This isn’t what I wanted for my “golden years”. I had planned to play with my grandchildren and take occasional trips to interesting and exotic places. But I now clearly see that my life was a learning experience to allow me to help my family get through this tough time. I encourage all of you to do the same. We can meet and beat this challenge. There is one silver lining in this cloud: The collapse has not completely happened yet. Every American can go to their local grocery store and buy a years supply of food today. There is food, the money is still good and in fact your debit and credit cards still work. Soon this will not be true. My best guess is that after the election the house of cards will begin to crumble. The administration is propping up the economy and the currency nt to mention numerous banks but after the election what would be their motive to continue doing that? You have about 2 months, maybe more. Use the time well. If you are an adult with children and grandchildren YOU will have to do this for them. Rare is the parent with young adult children who have their stuff together and can do this for themselves. YOU will have to do this and you will have to hold together the diverse group of siblings, inlaws and outlaws. If you are like me and grew up poor and worked your entire life then you can do this too. It won’t be easy but it will be necessary.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/25/2010 at 01:25 PM”...you cannot consume what no one has produced…”
Sure you can, but you can only do it by hollowing out your economy, gutting your military, and pretending that the rest of the world does not exist, or, if you deign to see the rest of the world, that that they will play by the old rules or that you can buy them off. This doesnt work in the long run, though. Remember the Roman delegation to Alaric in the fifth century? The Romans tried to intimidate him at first, to which his response was “the thicker the hay, the more easily it is mown.” The Romans brought up Julius Caesar and Scipio Africanus and the great deeds of the Roman legions, but Alaric wasnt having it. He reminded the delegation that he had served in the legions as well, knew what they could do, and pointed out to them that if he were faced with men like Caesar and Scipio he would indeed quail at the thought of fighting Rome, but that the Romans of Alaric’s day were not the same men who built the Empire, and so he had nothing to fear. So yes, you can consume what you have not produced, but not for very long, and not without consequences no one will like. Unfortunately, when those consequences occur it’s usually too late to do anything about them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/25/2010 at 07:28 PMGreat post, Fran!
I think that it overlooks something important, though—moral confusion. That’s got to be at least as big a factor as moral discipline. Probably the majority of the population would consider turning someone in for cheating on their taxes or other such ‘crimes’ against the government to be the right thing to do. I suppose one could speculate whether or not these morally confused people are actually Christians, but I’m not one of those. I just don’t think they really understand, and I’m quite sure that you could find issues that I or you or anybody else equally don’t understand, either.
There have been plenty of highly pious leaders which have commanded loyal followings in these kinds of acts. Jimmy Carter, but most especially Woodrow Wilson with his progressive police state leap to mind. I don’t think these people were willfully evil, at least on the greater part. They were just horribly, horribly wrong, and probably extremely stupid to boot. And corrupted. They were also brought up in the same system that has made most of us idiots, particularly in the moral realm. But to the greater extent, they were unwillfully evil. But very, very evil, nonetheless.
On top of that, I think it ignores normal human frictions, misunderstandings, miscommunications, etc, etc, ad infinitum. All part of being a fallen, limited being in a complex, fallen world. That’s just the way it is. It doesn’t help that the financial constructs of the last century led us to neglect our personal development in the pursuit of fleeting material gain. Again, all part of that whole fallen thing.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be held accountable for our actions, but given the whole situation, don’t be too hard on us…
Posted by Scott Angell on 08/25/2010 at 09:44 PM“Such is the situation in which we find ourselves. We are products of Enlightenment, living through the decline in the form of membership on which Enlightenment depends, and prey to the superstitions that arise in the wake of our crumbling orthodoxies. At the same time we enjoy unprecedented technological powers, which are compelling a constant acceleration of contacts and trade across the globe. People are being brought into connection who have no real way of accommodating one another, and the spectacle of Western freedom and Western prosperity, going hand-in-hand with Western decadence and crumbling of Western loyalties, is bound to provoke, in those who envy the one and despise the other, a seething desire to punish”.
From the philosopher Roger Scruton’s “The West and the Rest” (published 2002)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/26/2010 at 01:01 AMThe question for me is not what’s going to happen if we let the hand play out, allowing for the many variants of human behavior resulting from various mindsets, beliefs and experiences. The question for me is what action to take to change the course of human events and preserve freedom and the Constitution and this sovereign nation. This is what the frightened or the confused or the flustered do not address.
Frightened, confused and flustered, the answer as to what to do now is what I can no longer fail to address. Thank you Matt, GWTH,
Akaky, Scott, WAKEUP and the dear friend I’ve never met, Fran.My heart asks Mike Royko’s spirit from above to give me the courage and commitment to all who share the oxygen. My nose breaths in deep to detect the Privet Hedges to guide by way. If I beg you to save the last breath for me, please don’t. I’d rather die than sully the golden rule. Bill
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 08/26/2010 at 09:17 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
