Invention, Fairness and Convention


Convention kills invention! Interestingly those who say you’re crazy for thinking and acting against conventional wisdom inadvertently wind up devoted and loyal agents of statism and socialism, discouraging those whom may bring something better to this ever-changing world; better systems, technologies, economies, etc., than what the existing conventional institutions are able, or for that fact, willing to.

State and socialist institutions promote mediocrity and deter exceptional innovation, serving their own agendas under the auspices of… security, fairness and equality. Strength of force through the machinations of propaganda. Protectionism, security and enforcement are the result of the fear society experiences en mass due to over exposure to this propaganda. Protection, security, fairness and so-called equality are all qualities of which are by design to keep the state placed above all human activity. Security, fairness and equality for the state, an institution which lacks the ability to compete with the market order and the ever-changing world and its Human environment. The state does not compete, it enforces order. Convention.

Convention is usually accompanied by the pretense of a custom, policy, or law’s usefulness. State mandated or corporate policy convention is another story. Convention in these cases are usually the persuasive or coercive measures of self-protectionism. Propaganda further embeds the fallacies involved in conventional “wisdom’s” perpetuity.

Upon serious examination and study it is always surprising to meet certain realities within the contemporary market order. The institutions of industry which employ egalitarian ideologies of fairness within their employee policies. Policies within a business structure which oppose the industry’s necessary purpose of profit seeking. Contemporary “newspeak”, political correctness, seems to play a role here as well as it seems profit seeking is now considered deplorable. There are many variables to corporate egalitarian activities and their connection to the state and no room to discuss them here. This slight digression would be better served in another article.

The State is counter to the market order right from the beginning, yet it attempts to control the market order while simultaneously using it. The State admonishes the free market as dangerous and unfair unless of course the State manipulates the market “order”. Nothing is worthy of use for all of society unless it is sought out and controlled by the state! Interesting! A truly evolving society may discover, upon critical thought and logical analysis, that the State may be ultimately not only irrelevant to  posterity’s prosperity but actually a serious detriment; what keeps the State in place is based upon a fallacy of reason. But this contention assumes a society is in perpetual evolution of thought, as opposed to devolution, self-induced mind control and slothful consent.

Civilizations do cycle through periods of golden eras and dark eras; but with the internet and a computer in nearly household, could another dark age be avoided? Could light be shed on the uselessness of the State as well as socialism and its cousin egalitarianism? It is hard to say. Even free information has a tendency toward manipulation.

Seemingly though, society is not always as diligent at study and the effort required in holding on to its freedom. In some ways freedom itself may have a tendency to reproduce dark eras as freedom and liberty owe work, study and determination as a prerequisite to support itself. Freedom, borne of technological and sociological advancement, lends to ease of life’s necessities and mental sloth is in many cases a detrimental byproduct. And with this laziness on the part of society so goes the growth of the State under such circumstances. Eric Fromm covers this subject quite well in “Escape from freedom”. Even though his comments on economic factors are counter to my understanding, he covers the psychology of modern man within societal structures very well.

Statism, employing propaganda to render into subterfuge what acting man uses as the tools necessary toward the end of improving his own circumstances, and in turn the circumstances of others through the free market system, easing discomfort and pain whatever obstacles he may meet along the way from whatever source. The State, using the power of a controlled media to sway public opinion and label such energetic and ingenious individuals “unpatriotic” or greedy as they have a tendency toward breaking the rules of convention to invent and create and in doing so eventually becoming prosperous should they become noticed by the market and in turn become successful, protects itself from such ingenious individual’s ability to possibly antiquate the relevance and need for the State itself.
The State employs enforcement to “stabilize” and control the very people who give consent to a government’s employment of such methods; eventually finding acts of state stabilization as self-oppressive to the consenting “voters”. We give consent to our own oppression under the auspices of stability. To create a fixed market of fairness and equality. Many contemporary economists fail miserably under this fallacy, supporting these machinations at every turn.

There is nothing to be gained by any version of a fixed, unchanging and controlled market as it is an impossible fantasy and no profits could exist under any such scheme. -Profits: the evil goal of the marketeers and profiteers! Unfair! I have heard many such idioms used to disparage the market order by many so-called truth seekers; incendiary language against profit seeking is but one of many fallacies they use in argument. These people unwittingly play into the hands of the State which they seem to admonish, and with such feverish ignorance and denial.- When Statists speak of stability what they are really speaking of is control, and neither is possible in reality. Socialism cannot be accomplished, it would fail before its realization, as it is economically  unsustainable. The current economic situation is evidence supporting this premise, in real-time. A pseudo State market order without a monetary pricing system has no mechanism of accounting and checks against failure and malinvestment.

I would add for the contemporary so-called environmentalists that there is no better means of truly protecting resources, and in turn, the ecosystem than by the efficiency of the free market system. Its innate need of efficiency regards limited resources and a need for preservation of the environment as a mechanism toward sustainability and ultimately prerequisite for Human advancement. Hence, the free market procures efficiency of the use and preservation of resources, and the ecosystem’s preservation as well, reducing waste as well as cost. Cost which is not always accountable in money, but in the commodity value of first order goods and their scarcity. In other words the need for a business to be self-sustaining, e.g., tree farming and the lumber industry.

The State stands in the way due largely to the fact the State requires control to justify its existence. The State procures its power through consent, its wealth from the producers and control through fear. A simple question for those so bent upon the State’s necessity in order for society to work: which do you think has a stronger propensity toward war, the State or individuals? Towards accomplishing clear and confirmed goals, the State or individuals? If the State has an endless supply of “income” sources, the consenting taxpayer, what mechanism exists which curbs the State’s propensity toward any end it desires, achievable or not?

Statism procures mediocrity and the decay which follows, and unless we decide that the State is no longer relevant and can only be of any use when kept under strict control -if this is even possible- limited in scope of power and replaced by a free market system which has a more efficient way of dealing with the constant changes Human need and its prerequisite of ecosystem sustainability, we will experience the further decline of the West. The complete abolishing of the State would be a great evolution of society if it could be realized, but the fear of the masses renders this possibility a dream.

The market system, free or not, is made up of entrepreneurs, workers, capitalists, inventors, visionaries, and ultimately the customer. Within the market structure the customer ultimately possesses sovereignty in deciding what products and services become needed. The State has no such mechanism in place other than the mechanism of fairness, convention and so-called equality and ultimately force; as though all things in life are fair, everything is fixed, all humans are born with the same life qualities and happiness and ease for all is enforceable. The State’s products, borne of fear and, of course never forget, envy: equality, stability, security, defense and ultimately…control.

Harrison Bergeron, the main character in a Kurt Vonnegut short story adapted to a short film illustrating a possible future of egalitarianism in the most disturbing fashion; using weights to weaken the strong, masks to hide the beautiful, and signals placed directly in the ears of the intelligent to keep them from thinking; this fictional state represses the extraordinary. This is the case of art copying life. Bergeron would no doubt be appalled by what we have as a society if he were real…but then again Harrison Bergeron is a character who resides in us all once the veil of lies and denial lifts through critical thought and intensive study. Once an individual comes to terms with these realities there is no denial of the need to act…until, of course, this same individual encounters another ghost human, asleep at the wheel of convention and fairness, sucking the slightly awakened and inspired individual back into sheepish slumber. Or maybe the awake and energetic individual who would like to bring about real change of thought and action encounters many other people who are seemingly aware of the fact that something is wrong with current political and societal circumstances, but that these people, confused by the fallacy of the market order being the blame for such problems are unwilling to act accordingly to bring forth real change. The market today, made up of many factors of state interventionism, protectionism, and a monopoly of money; e.g. currency. I cover the money issue further in another article.

Many truth seekers also have their agendas mixed; some fighting for further enforcement of  “rules” which are designed to ease the complaints of those who are unable or unwilling to compete in a specific area. Many have the general predisposition of the “victim”; weak in one area, but unable or unwilling to explore their own individual strengths and talents as they are sucked into the ambiguous fight for fairness and equality themselves, completely forgetting what independence truly means. Many of the said rules these individuals fight for weaken those who could otherwise out compete and outsmart their competition, allowing the weaker and inefficient to have a false upper hand over the stronger; weights placed around the neck of the stronger competitor. Rules of Law ought support the strengths of individuals as well as private property and not the collective force of mediocrity and egalitarian ideologies. This is not meant as a condemnation toward certain types of people and their causes, only an observation. An observation of the weakness in the plausibility and reality of parts of their argumentation. Truth seekers, seeking truth, or fairness?

Ultimately we have to decide on either the State or Independence for our future. Under the former you get what we are seeing today: a failing system of distribution of wealth, energy and resources from the hands of the efficient and energetic to the less efficient and the spendthrift; distribution of wealth into the hands of people who share no quality to truly produce and build for the future as the entrepreneur does so feverishly. Those who take the risks of inventing products of and for the unforeseen future, whatever they may or may not be, their creations put into the hands of convention, which procure seemingly permanent institutions of control and enforcement, under the guise of security, fairness and equality. Locking society into a fixed system of thought and control, as though the world is in a fixed state of being. If the laws of science were fixed, would we have seen some of our current technological advancements come to the light of day? Could there be any real Human advancement? Under the latter you get your future held within your own hands, working from the perspective of your own individual need to ease your uneasiness and in turn help those around you. Within a free market system YOU decide; you work through problems local to you and your community, as well as neighboring communities. You and those whom you exchange, work, share, help and compete with invent, not the State. Voluntary adaptation, ingenuity and creativity. Evolution and adaptation to a world of perpetual change. Invention.

In addendum:

In America and around the world we do see many entrepreneurs becoming successful. But many of their “successes” are due largely to State intervention and cooperative collectivism through corporate structuring. Certain products are seemingly at the helm of world governments’ need to distract and “entertain” many into the collective slumber of ignorant slaves. Toys for totalitarianism? The embryonic world fascist state? Is it a conspiracy? Or is it consent?

Today we lack true invention. True invention antiquates old systems which no longer perform and allows technology to evolve in the hands of those who use it, individuals, and this is only possible within the framework of a true free market system. A free market system would allow antiquated technologies to disappear and new more efficient ones which serve the consumer would replace them. Think about how much infrastructure is built up around the automobile (production automobile of course) and how little the technology has changed for the consumer in the 100+ years since its inception. Protectionism, hindering the market order system.

 

The Failures of Universal Insurance


When I tell people I do not have “health” insurance, that I do not pay into the company “Health Plan”, people look at me as though I am from Mars. They ask things like: “What if you are in an accident?” “What if you get sick?”

Well, on the first question, I usually always ask why an accident needs extra coverage when many accidents are technically already covered by other insurance plans already in place, such as auto, homeowners and life insurance plans. For example, if I my life is ended simply by walking down the street getting hit by a car, this would be typically covered by life insurance should I choose to own such a policy. I would be covered in this case assuming I am not playing “chicken” with cars or jaywalking while intoxicated…some things are just not insurable.

If I am hurt at work, the company’s plethora of state mandated “insurance” plans cover my possible accident. The employer is further backed by the ability to drug test any person involved in an accident, reducing these accidents from such liability on the corporation or company’s behalf.

On the second question, I would ask what they mean by “get sick”? If they are asking, what if I wind up with cancer or some other sort of debilitating disease, I ask why that would be covered by an employer’s plan anyway? That is the sort of “coverage” that ought not be pooled in with every candidate. This is a practice under the guise of “universal” insurance that makes no sense to me. Every candidate should choose in opting to have this sort of coverage; and having the choice of carrying personal health insurance or not could be possible under a free market system. In a free market system, insurance companies would opt to test you according to proper risk assessment and build your plan accordingly, as opposed to a socialist system which lumps all people together regardless of the risk factors involved.

Everyday health and illness is very hard to define and therefore not truly coverable. It is generally up to the person to get out of bed every morning and get to work and receive pay for the work done, and not if they do not get up and go into work. Under the latter circumstance they simply do not receive income. If they simply do not feel well enough, why should that be paid by everyone else? Anyone see in this point were the consistently rising costs of medical care originate?

I will now offer you something from the Ludwig von Mises Institute on the subject. This is an excerpt from an article by Hans-Hermann Hoppe which I will credit as the main source of my research in backing up my contention on this subject. The excerpt is taken from von Mises’ book “Socialism”. I decided to use this material not because I did not reach a similar conclusion on my own, but that I understand that my “credibility” is under scrutiny unless I support my views with the merits of “professional” economists.

To the intellectual champions of social insurance, and to the politicians and statesmen who enacted it, illness and health appeared as two conditions of the human body sharply separated from each other and always recognizable without difficulty or doubt. Any doctor could diagnose the characteristics of “health.” “Illness” was a bodily phenomenon which showed itself independently of human will, and was not susceptible to influence by will.

Followed up with:

Now every statement in this theory is false. There is no clearly defined frontier between health and illness. Being ill is not a phenomenon independent of conscious will and of psychic forces working in the subconscious. A man’s efficiency is not merely the result of his physical condition; it depends largely on his mind and will. Thus the whole idea of being able to separate, by medical examination, the unfit from the fit and from the malingerers, and those able to work from those unable to work, proves to be untenable. Those who believed that accident and health insurance could be based on completely effective means of ascertaining illnesses and injuries and their consequences were very much mistaken. The destructionist aspect of accident and health insurance lies above all in the fact that such institutions promote accidents and illness, hinder recovery, and very often create, or at any rate intensify and lengthen, the functional disorders which follow illness or accident.

So until I have a choice in truly choosing a “health-Care” insurance plan with an insurance company which tailor-fits my plan to my lifestyle and a true risk assessment, I will carry no “health” Insurance. I will continue to simply pay cash for my visits and save a ton of money each year by taking care of myself, and NOT paying into a system doomed to failure. And I won’t be playing chicken in traffic or bungee jumping anytime soon either. Those sorts of activities fall under the suicide class and are uninsurable. Any form of universal healthcare, whether offered by government or a corporation, is another form of welfare and ought not be forced nor coerced upon anyone.


I’ll also add that it is the improper “insuring”of all classes of people together as one that drives up the real costs of medical needs. This is a subject for another article I’ll lead you to covering the subject (just click this sentence).

Murphy’s Law, Pessimism and Cynicism vs Vision and Innovation


You have an idea. It’s a great idea and you know it, but not many others agree…at least not in the beginning. In most cases the first thing you encounter from others is negativity. Some of the negative reactions to your ideas are: “What’s wrong with the way things are now?” Or how about “This idea is too expensive.” Or ” No one will buy it, it’ll fail.” You have probably heard these and many more.

*I am only going to tackle these points in brevity, so I’ll be general. I will follow-up with details through other articles. You may already be beginning to see the direction most of this blog is going. At least I hope so.

Alright, “What’s wrong with the way things are?” Well, if the world is so OK as it is then why are we witnessing the financial so-called markets fail? The world seemingly aligning itself with another major war, poverty and famine still spreading and not enough being done to truly end these problems? And I’ll add that many in America are seemingly more upset about the price of gas than exploring the fact that we ought to have more choice in technology in regards to automobile manufacturing and the source of energy used any way, let alone the little thought about fact that the world is directly connected to what we do one way or another, and how much our “choices” do effect the rest of the world in a negative way. Many seem to refuse to even think of these subjects.

*For deeper thought on some of this see Buckminster Fuller’s CriticalPath.I largely agree with many of Fuller’s ideas and solutions. But his ideas are not the gospel to me…I’ll leave that for you to decide. I think he pointed out some major details of what I am trying to convey here.

“It’s too expensive !” This one is always interesting to me. The fact that advancing the human condition by way of a real free market enterprise system could never be too expensive is obvious to me. But because many do not understand what good money actually is and what a free market enterprise system truly is I will have to explore deeper in other articles, as I already have rough drafts on these subjects.

The fact that the gatekeepers of status quo, who all love to blame today’s economic and political follies on the “free market”, is largely a ruse. When more have discovered this lie, and hopefully I will help, they will realize there has been no true free market enterprise system and that any real attempt at one was, and still is, hobbled by a bulwark of government intervention and monopoly.

As usual, I digress…So my first response to this “too expensive” argument is simply: How can human advancement ever be considered ‘too expensive’? I’ll leave it at that for now.

Good economy requires a community to mobilize and support itself in as an autonomous a way as possible for real growth to occur. Think of it this way. It’s the old “give the man a fish he’ll eat for a day, teach him to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime” approach. This of course also requires that communities are able, and have the desire to solve their problems locally. I mean, who knows better what a community needs then the community itself?

If “no one will buy it” is the argument against innovation, this is simply remedied by illustrating the values, covered above, in a more detailed way. Does a society survive without the ability and cooperation of all people? If people cannot individually manage their own affairs then how can they perpetuate society in a positive way?

If the Wright Brothers gave in to all the negatives they encountered, many simply in the design of their own creation, let alone negatives from other people, what do you think the outcome would have been? And I am only using this as an example as I understand the Wright Brothers were not the only ones working on flight. You understand what I mean, I’m certain.

I suppose what this article hopefully conveys is that when you, or someone else for that matter, has an innovative idea which strays from the general conventions of contemporary thought, before resorting to a negative reaction or train of thought, why not explore the process of what this idea is all about and what it can do for the world before succumbing to the onslaught of negativity. Find the values as well as its disadvantages and work through them to create a viable option for posterity. Then bring the idea to the surface and create a “market” for it. If the idea is a good one you will know because the market will decide. This of course seems contradictory to what I said about there not being a true “free market”. Well…make one.

Part of innovation is the ability to create. Helping people understand the value and responsibility of bringing an idea to the surface, and demanding it unencumbered by protectionism and regulation so that we decide what is good for us, is key to liberty and prosperity for us as well as posterity. So why not create a true free market?

To be continued…

Pumping gas & politicians


Who in government is spending more on what and why are we still pumping gas?

Generally speaking as far as government and politics and their “parties” go, the republicans generally hold to a platform of military industrial complex expansion and its inherent protections and the democrats generally hold a platform of welfare expansion and its inherent protections. One way or another they seem as though protecting us. This could be considered a little too general for most and a little unfair, but stay with me on this, I’m not trying to get you all fired up on the routine political rhetorical side-taking, I am only trying to briefly illustrate something through a little theory and imagination. These subjects are far more completely in many other forums as well as a plethora of books and need not be gone over in-depth here. I presume many of you who read this article have already explored the same thought on the subject and have come to similar general conclusions.

A little theory:
When a generally open society* finds a superior new technology, by way of real research and  development*, superior to the established technology, one could presume this new technology would either replace, or compete side by side with the old technology as certain “old” technologies have a huge infrastructure that would need replacing, or still better yet, the old could be used but in a more focused part of the market, such as freight services. The engineers and others employed in the old technology who move to the new technology would be retrained along with being integrated with those who are already employed in the new technology and its development. This open society could also retool and retrofit some of the unused factories of the old technology as they become less necessary by market needs, and begin anew with the improved technology.
Hence, technological competition naturally occurring through choice allowing, through a truly open free market economy, a more natural evolution of utility in products. Older technologies could still have use in more specialized areas and may not need phasing out completely, just improved upon until they are found unnecessary by the market and completely phased out through demand and the discovery of diminished utility. The true open market could decide this eventually anyways and would need no government intervention and their inherent “protections”. Thus allowing for the natural phasing out of the antiquated technologies’ source of energy, such as the need for so much reliance on oil and the wars that are fought over it. The military industrial complex that surrounds todays’ artificial ‘need’ for oil would be largely unnecessary, so long as society was responsible enough to keep their government in check and under control. We would have no more excuses to go searching for monsters around the globe at the cost of human lives and so much of our resources which would be better employed toward  the further advancement of  humanity.

Consider for a moment how much money it takes to fight a war, let alone the amount of lives lost, and think of how many times you may have heard someone respond negatively to an inquiry about why we cannot desalinate sea water and bring lush plant life to desert wastelands in, say, Africa. The general response I have heard far too many times is: “It costs too much.”
Really?! Ok, I digress a little. But I think I make a great point here about status quo thinking.

Back to the general topic.
With these advancements one could hardly imagine, so long as one truly thinks critically and subjectively on the subject, a need for a welfare state as well as global protections by the military industrial complex, when under such circumstances competition would perpetuate the need for more employment in research and development as well as all other classifications of employment necessary for industry.

We could spend more life, time, money and energy on fighting less and advancing humanity more.

*By “generally open society” I mean a society whose government is very much limited in its powers and a free enterprise economic system is truly in place. Not the mockery of a “free market” which we have today.
*By real research and development, I mean unencumbered by the controls and protections of corporate monopoly or political and union manipulation.

Check this example of breaking the rules a little. Would you buy one if something like this was available? Not only should this be made available but upgradable and so well made that you did not have to waste money as well as resources replacing the entire car. Just upgrade and modify to fit your needs.