Anglosphere Union Now!

kitsch

2010-05-13T20:00:00.000-04:00

Kitsch: (adj.) The quality (in a work of art) of being good enough to have a recognizable subject and theme. Used by artists of lesser quality to describe the work of their artistic betters. Often used to denigrate a work who theme one disagrees with. Also used by those trying to pass off the work of third rate hacks as art. E.g. “You should really buy this Pollock not that Rockwell, the work of Norman Rockwell is kitsch.”

Merry Christmass

2009-12-25T22:11:00.002-05:00

Merry Christmass! See my past posts on New York at Christmass here, here, and here.

Christmas Nears

2009-11-29T16:39:00.000-05:00

Christmas related thoughts soon this is just a test post.

In Memory of the Dead

2009-09-11T10:45:00.000-04:00

Eight years have passed since that horrible September day. Today we morn those so brutally murdered and those who have fallen in the defense of our people. May their friends and relatives finds comfort. As the good book says, the lord giveth and the lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the lord.

5-4-3-ignition-2-1 we have lift off

2009-07-16T12:59:00.002-04:00

Today is the 40th anniversary of the launch of Apollo 11, the first manned craft to reach the moon. In celebration of this human accomplishment, I am posting part of the late novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand’s account of the momentous event. I also want to acknowledge and celebrate the bravery of Neil Alden Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Buzz (formerly Edwin Eugene Jr.) Aldrin.

[The launch] “began with a large patch of bright, yellow-orange flame shooting sideways from under the base of the rocket. It looked like a normal kind of flame and I felt an instant’s shock of anxiety, as if this were a building on fire. In the next instant the flame and the rocket were hidden by such a sweep of dark red fire that the anxiety vanished: this was not part of any normal experience and could not be integrated with anything. The dark red fire parted into two gigantic wings, as if a hydrant were shooting streams of fire outward and up, toward the zenith—and between the two wings, against a pitch-black sky, the rocket rose slowly, so slowly that it seemed to hang still in the air, a pale cylinder with a blinding oval of white light at the bottom, like an upturned candle with its flame directed at the earth. Then I became aware that this was happening in total silence, because I heard the cries of birds winging frantically away from the flames. The rocket was rising faster, slanting a little, its tense white flame leaving a long, thin spiral of bluish smoke behind it. It had risen into the open blue sky, and the dark red fire had turned into enormous billows of brown smoke, when the sound reached us: it was a long, violent crack, not a rolling sound, but specifically a cracking, grinding sound, as if space were breaking apart, but it seemed irrelevant and unimportant, because it was a sound from the past and the rocket was long since speeding safely out of its reach—though it was strange to realize that only a few seconds had passed. I found myself waving to the rocket involuntarily, I heard people applauding and joined them, grasping our common motive; it was impossible to watch passively, one had to express, by some physical action, a feeling that was not triumph, but more: the feeling that that white object’s unobstructed streak of motion was the only thing that mattered in the universe.”

“What we had seen, in naked essentials—but in reality, not in a work of art—was the concretized abstraction of man's greatness.”

“The meaning of the sight lay in the fact that when those dark red wings of fire flared open, one knew that one was not looking at a normal occurrence, but at a cataclysm which, if unleashed by nature, would have wiped man out of existence—and one knew also that this cataclysm was planned, unleashed, and controlled by man, that this unimaginable power was ruled by his power and, obediently serving his purpose, was making way for a slender, rising craft. One knew that this spectacle was not the product of inanimate nature, like some aurora borealis, or of chance, or of luck, that it was unmistakably human—with ‘human,’ for once, meaning grandeur—that a purpose and a long, sustained, disciplined effort had gone to achieve this series of moments, and that man was succeeding, succeeding, succeeding! For once, if only for seven minutes, the worst among those who saw it had to feel—not ‘How small is man by the side of the Grand Canyon!’—but ‘How great is man and how safe is nature when he conquers it!’

“That we had seen a demonstration of man at his best, no one could doubt—this was the cause of the event’s attraction and of the stunned numbed state in which it left us. And no one could doubt that we had seen an achievement of man in his capacity as a rational being—an achievement of reason, of logic, of mathematics, of total dedication to the absolutism of reality.”

George Reisman's Blog on Economics, Politics, Society, and Culture: GENERAL MOTORS, RIP

2009-06-11T11:15:00.000-04:00

George Reisman's Blog on Economics, Politics, Society, and Culture: GENERAL MOTORS, RIP

Labor Unions and Management Incentives

2009-06-10T17:12:00.003-04:00

Several commenters on Dr. George Reisman’s recent post at the Mises Blog about the collapse of G.M. have been criticizing him for placing too much of the blame on the Unions and not enough on the company’s management. While I agree that management can’t be let off the hook, I think it is important to realize what an important role the Union’s played in the bad management of the companies they parasitized. As economically informed persons, the readers of the Mises blog ought not to need to be reminded of the importance of incentives. So let us look at the incentives that compulsory labor unionism gave the management of G.M. and the many other companies that they have sucked dry.

In a free market a company’s labor costs (in terms of money) are going to be set by the least efficient producer who is a purchaser of that particular type of labor. In the instance of a car company like G.M. it would compete with other car producers and the producers of motorcycles, trucks etc. for auto assembly line workers. (this is obviously a huge oversimplification of the types of labor, but it works for this discussion) In such a free market, the management of such a company has a huge incentive to increase the long term productivity of its workers. Since it only has to pay the wage set by the least productive company, all improvements in productivity (in money terms) goes to the shareholders, who are likely to award management for this increase in profits. (It should be noted that leading producers may well pay a premium to get the best workers, but that is only if it will lead to increased profits. It should also be noted that the workers will benefit from the increase in productivity due to the fall in the price of the products that they produce, the fall in prices being a result of the increased productivity.) In contrast under compulsory labor unionism, any long term increase in profits will be extorted by the union. (Remember S. Gompers famous dictum about the social responsibility of business being to raise profits. This had the obvious corollary of allowing the union to extort higher money wages.) Thus as long as it is not about to be driven out of business, a unionized business has little incentive to increase the long term productivity of its workers, because the benefit (in money terms) will go to the workers. This is also true of other long term strategies to increase profitability. If the increase in profitability lasts to the next contract negotiation, then the union will claim that the increased profitability justifies higher wages.

In a free market, business practices that increase profits in the short run but are damaging to the business in the long run tend to be weeded out because the difference between such short term thinking and long term thinking is made manifest in the profits and losses of the company. The long term thinking is rewarded and short term thinking is punished. By contrast under compulsory unionization, short term thinking is to a certain extent encouraged. Profits that are made by decisions that are profitable in the short term but destructive in the long term can be kept by the managers and shareholders because they are transitory and already gone by the time the next union negotiations come around. The union can’t get their hands on them. Even worse it becomes difficult to distinguish between long term and short term thinking. From the point of view of an investor looking at two unionized companies or an upper level manager looking at two divisional managers of a unionized company, there is little to distinguish the between the two. If one manager increases productivity, profits rise in the short term and then fall in the long term as they are extorted from the company by the union. If another manager makes a decision to cut corners and use substandard materials, his profits will rise in the short term and fall in the long term as he losses clients. From the prospective of the investor or upper management the results look to be the same, short term profits and long term losses. From one perspective this is a distortion of information in the hayekian sense that leads to bad decision making, but from another perspective one could argue that unionization destroys the difference between good and bad decisions. From that perspective one could argue that there is no good decision for the management of a unionized company to make.

In a free market, losses or even worse the prospect of bankruptcy are to be avoided like the plague. To the extent that senior managers are paid on performance or are even share holders of the company the incentive to avoid losses or bankruptcy are obvious. Further either will make capital more expensive or harder to come by in the future. However under compulsory unionization the incentives are different. The only thing that can make the union willing to moderate its demands or in extreme cases actually offer concessions is the prospect of the company going out of business. (As Eastern airlines shows this is not always true, some unions would rather the company go under than make concessions.) If the union is willing to dicker, then the management gains new a perverse incentive, the incentive to be mediocre. As long as the company is near the edge of bankruptcy management may hope for concessions. As long as the company underperforms, moderate demands can be hoped for. If the company starts to flourish however, the only thing to be expected is more extreme demands from the union. (This is why unions that refuse to budge even in the face of disaster as at eastern airline are acting in a certain sense rationally. Only if an entire industry is threatened does it make sense for the union to make concessions, otherwise they are underwriting the bad management of a particular company and encouraging other companies to get in trouble. This more than anything ought to show the perversity of compulsory labor unionism.) So for a unionized company mediocrity becomes the path of safety for management.

It is quite right to say that truly competent management would not succumb to these incentives, but do the right thing regardless. So, now I want to turn to the effects of these incentives on management and the types of people who are willing to work as managers and who will flourish as managers under the above incentives.

Let us take three managers Manager Able, Manager Bad and Manager Cares-less. Manager Able is the type of person who is conscientious and always thinks things though logically and makes the right choice. Manager Bad is the type we all know if we have ever worked in a large company that is not well managed. He is the type who joins a project just as it is about to succeed and takes the credit. He is an expert at making short term decisions and taking the credit for the short run returns but bails from the project before the long run arrives. In short he is a prick who’s only talents are sucking up and self promotion. Manager Cares-less is also a type we all know, the kind that goes along to get along. If the company he works for is well managed and the incentives are right he will perform adequately possibly even very well, but if not, then not. How will these three managers fare under the above incentives?

Manager Able will ignore the incentives to short term thinking and against long term thinking. He will understand that the long term always comes and that only long term thinking really works. So his decisions will always be to make the right choice. But think what this looks like to higher management, Manager A is always investing the company’s money in projects that make money at first but that start to fail as the union increases its demands.

Manager Bad on the other hand looks wonderful. His projects almost never need increased funding, long term increases in productivity are not for him. He is always cutting expenses that are important in the long run but have no short term impact. Manager B may be wreaking havoc on the company but it is not apparent to his managers, they see the same short term profitability that Manager A achieved but without the initial costs.

Manager Cares-less will at first be somewhat random in whether he adopts long term or short term profitability as his goal, but as the incentives work on him he will start to act in a way indistinguishable from Manager B. This because unlike A who will stand up to criticism from higher management and do the right thing anyway, C will go along with what his manager wants.
From the perspective of higher management A is underperforming, C has trouble at first but improves, and B is a star. Consider who will get promotions, who will leave the company and who will stay.

This only considers the first two incentives. Once the incentive to mediocrity hits Manger A is in even more trouble. He is the one who is always threatening the company with superior performance, that is, with higher labor costs.

Obviously this process will take time. At first a well managed firm will have almost all As and Cs (at this point in a well run firm they will not be easily distinguished.) in management Bs will be weeded out early. But over time the perverse incentives will make Cs act badly and make Bs look good. At first higher management will be overwhelmingly made up of As with a few good acting Cs but as it gets harder to distinguish good performance from bad more Cs good and bad acting, and eventually Bs will end up at higher levels in management. In this context it is significant that G.M. and Chrysler have been unionized for a little more than 70 years, one life time (i.e. three score and ten) or two long generations (i.e. 35 instead of 25 years). This is more than enough time for the rot to become pervasive.

This brings me back to a part of the Dr. Reisman’s post “The philosophical tapeworm lay within the minds of those running the company. For decades, it led them never to take a stand on principle and forcefully resist the UAW. Always the present cost of a major strike was allowed to outweigh the prospect of the ultimate destruction of the company, which was never considered fully real because it lay in the future.” Part of this mentality is the result of the type of person who will work at a unionized firm in face of the aforementioned incentives. At first with long term oriented management there will be attempts to resist unionization or at least unreasonable demands by the union. But as the perverse incentives work their way with the type of people in management the will to resist will be lost. The long term will be unreal to the type of manager who will flourish in such a company.

In sum, it is true that G.M. has had bad management that in part led the company to ruin. But true economists do not look only at surface causes as Dr. Reisman’s critics do. As the late Henry Hazlitt wrote, “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.” It is above all the policy of compulsory unionization that has led G.M. and many other great American companies to disaster and in many cases total destruction. Dr. Reisman is enough of an economist to understand this and brave enough to say it.

Updated Declaration of Anglosphere Nationality

2009-05-12T10:16:00.002-04:00

Declaration of Anglosphere Nationality

We the undersigned, being citizens or subjects of English speaking states, do solemnly declare that we are one nation bound together by:'
a common English language,
a common literature,
a common history,
a strong civil society,

and common institutions of government rooted in Magna Carta including:
a tradition of constitutional government,
a tradition of representative democracy,
a tradition of independent courts,

and a tradition of protecting individual rights beginning with Magna Carta and developed in the English and American Bills of Rights which include,
the right to life, liberty, and property,
the right to trial by a jury of ones peers,
the rights to free speech, free conscience, and free association.

Ours is an open civilization, not defined by blood or ancestry, but by shared values. As such, we welcome others who wish to share in our culture and way of life.
By issuing this declaration, we hope that the English speaking people will become a more self aware nation, preserving and further developing their shared cultural and political tradition.
We pledge ourselves to build closer ties with our cousins around the globe and urge our political leaders to build closer ties among our states.

Time to Call in the Trial Lawyers

2009-05-09T12:14:00.000-04:00

Now that what many are calling gangster government has seemed to win by suppressing Chrysler’s senior debt holders. It is time to put the senior debt holder’s feet to the fire, by having their shareholder’s sue them for betrayal of the their fiduciary duty. Thus not only the banks shareholders but those of the non TARP bondholders who are publicly traded need to start a class action.

Kerlikowske’s Shame

2009-02-11T15:34:00.000-05:00

President Obama has nominated Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske to be drug czar. This is more pathetic than appointing a man who can’t do his taxes as secretary of treasury.

Kerlikowske is not only a militant opponent of the second amendment and citizen’s right to defend themselves, his record shows that as a police Chief for Seattle he was unwilling to protect the people of the city. In 2001 during the Mardi Gas Riots, Chief Kerlikowske, instead of sending in police to put down the riots, cordoned off the area and did nothing while 70 of the people he is sworn to protect were sent to the hospital and one was killed.

The plain fact is that he doesn’t have the credibility to be sheriff of a one horse town never mind being a senior federal law enforcement officer. The war on drugs is enough of a farce already without putting a clown in charge of fighting it.

How the Fed faked its way to a crises.

2009-01-29T12:49:00.000-05:00

A excellent post on the financial crises is up on Samizdata, here. It points out the Fed in trying to prop up the market made the situation worse.

Stop Obama’s Spreading the Wealth

2008-10-30T12:42:00.000-04:00

This letter to Obama by an American businessman shows exactly why Obama must be stopped at all costs. The ideas of “spreading the wealth” is a profoundly wicked one. It is nothing more than a way for the ruling class to buy votes and prevent others from displacing them at the top of the heap.

The Gold Standard The Solution to Our Financial Crises

2008-09-26T20:28:00.001-04:00

In the panic that has surrounded the present crisis, the best, most honest, and easiest way to save the financial system, a return to the gold standard, has been forgotten.

The problem with the banking system at present is a lack of capital and liquidity due to the bad lending practices encouraged, and in some cases required by the federal government. With their asset prices falling, the banks are on the verge of bankruptcy.

This is a problem for all of us. If banks fail, our money in the banks will go down with them, lending will dry up and the economy will grind to a halt, millions of people will be out of work. So we have to save the banking system, but at the same time we don’t want to reward them for the part of the crises that is their fault. We want to insure that the American people can get to the money in their checking accounts.

There is a way to do this. The Federal Government, holds about 260 million ounces of gold most of which was stolen from the banking system as an emergency measure during the great depression. I propose that the gold held by the Federal Government be returned to the people it was taken from, the people and banking system of the United States.

Under my proposal, gold would be declared money of the United States at the rate of $15,000 an ounce. Then 70 percent of the gold reserves of the United States would be transferred to banks in proportion to the dollar amount of the their checking accounts, sweep accounts, and retail money funds.

However this transfer would come with strings. First the banks would be required to maintain 100% gold reserves against their checking accounts, sweep accounts, and retail money fund accounts. They would be required to pay out gold on any withdrawal from any of the forgoing types of accounts when the amount of the withdrawal exceeded $500.

The rest of the gold reserve of the United States would be used to produce, a gold, silver, and copper coinage for the United States. This would be used first to redeem all of the outstanding notes of the federal reserve and the token coinage as it now exists and to pay off as much as possible of the federal debt.

The result of this would be a banking system which could not default on its payments to depositors, though savings account holders and CD holders would have risk, but the strengthening of the books of the banks would secure most of these obligations. It would end the current crises without cost to the taxpayers of the republic. It would end the possibility of such crises in the future because it would end the fractional reserve system that introduces great instability into our otherwise healthy economic system.

I will no doubt be denounced as a “gold bug” for proposing this, but it is the paper bugs of wall street and the federal government that have brought us to this crises. It is gold that can lead us out.

The above is inspired by the work of the economist George Reisman.

In honor of the dead of 9/11

2008-09-11T20:49:00.000-04:00

On the anniversary of 9/11 I am going to make a proposal that I believe will help our nation and take the first steps towards making it a reality. I believe that it is time to stop accepting the educational status quo where by to many student get a mediocre education.

I believe that we as people totally separate from the state should commit ourselves, before this century is over, to providing a private education to every student. This goal will be difficult to achieve, but no other has a greater chance to revolutionize our society, leading to a freer and more prosperous commonwealth.

I am today founding a non profit organization to achieve this goal. This organization, the Privately Run Education for Every Child Trust, (PREFECT) will work to set up scholarship funds, encourage the founding of new private and parochial schools, help home schooling parents and in every possible way to advance the cause of a private education for every child.

PREFECT will work with teachers, students, parents and communities to build schools that meet their needs. I do not want this to be a political organization, I am willing to work with people across the political spectrum and from many different faiths or philosophies to advance this cause. I believe that teacher collectively run schools, private for profit schools, parochial schools, and the traditional private non profit schools are all part of the solution to our education problem.

I invite all those who want to build a new and better system of education for our children to join me in this cause.

I can be reached at swhoughton@fcsl.edu

Why Russia Should be Condemned

2008-08-13T14:25:00.002-04:00

Russia should be condemned as the sole aggressor in the War with Georgia. There are three reasons for this: first it is the Russian’s own legal position; second the events of the cyber war show that Russia was the aggressor; and the events of the Russian invasion of Georgia imply it.

Russia does not maintain diplomatic relations with the soi-disant republic of South Ossetia. This is because South Ossetia is part of the internationally recognized territory of the Republic of Georgia. Thus for Russia to send its army into South Ossetia is to commit on its own terms an act of war against Georgia. Further it is an openly acknowledged fact that Russia was funding the armed forces of the sometimes republic of South Ossetia. Under the Convention for the Definition of Aggression, it is an act of war to “commit any of the following actions: (5) Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.”

Furthermore, the Russian’s made the first attack in the cyber war which is part of the present conflict. On July 20, an attack was made on the websight of the President of Georgia from a Russian site that had been involved in the previous 2007 cyber war in Estonia.

Thirdly, look at the time table. Aside from the cyber war, the first actions of the war were the clashes between Georgian and South Ossetian forces starting on Aug 1. Starting on Aug. 3 the soi-disant republic of South Ossetia, 90 percent of whos supporters are also citizens of Russia, began evacuating its supporters to Russia. On the evening of Aug. 7 after its offer of a ceasefire were rejected, the Georgian government began operations to bring South Ossetia under Georgian control. The next day, Aug. 8 the Russian forces began crossing into Georgia. Over the next three days the Georgian forces were driven back as the Russian’s used its armored and airborne forces to drive deep into Georgia. The Russians also made unprovoked navel attacks on the Georgian Navy and launched attacks on civilian targets in Georgia.

Acording to the Russians they only decided to act when Georgia launched its attack on the night of Aug. 7, but less than 18 hours later they were able to launch a three division combined arms attack on Georgia. They also claim that they sortied the notoriously harbor bound Russian navy in a similarly short period of time. Anyone who believes that load of malarkey should contact me at once. I have bridge to sell you, cash only and in small bills.

The Western Powers must stand together to stop this piece of undisguised aggression. Any moon bat who things that the U.S. actions against Iraq were illegal and thus provide excuse to Russia should read my post on the legality of the Iraq war here.

HRC Humor

2008-08-07T19:02:00.001-04:00

Sometimes the only thing to do with assholes is to mock the bastards and hope they get embarrassed and stop . Since I am not a Canadian, that is the only thing I can do to help, hence the following.

How can you identify an Canadian comedian? He is the one in a black and white striped shirt.

What do you call a person charged before a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal? Guilty.

Why did so many Poles move to Canada? They thought the Human Rights Commission would protect them.

Why are HRC members convinced Canada is an institutionally racist, sexist, homophobic etc. country? Look at how many Canadians are still laughing.

What do you call a member of a Canadian Human Rights Commission? Comrade Commissioner.

How can you tell a Canadian Journalist is telling the Truth? He has been hauled before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

What is the proper style when addressing Richard Warman? Gauleiter.

How can you identify a member of Anti Racist Action? Their brown shirts.

How many Canadian Human Rights Commissioners does it take to Screw in a light bulb? Ive you vink vat is vunny you are comink with us!

How can you identify a Canadian evangelical minister? His lips aren’t moving.

Why did Canada form the HRC’s independent of the court system? Because
there are some things even most lawyers just won’t do,

Why would Richard Warman have been spared by the SS in the death camps? Professional curtsy.

What is the only food eaten by complainants to the Canadian Human Rights Commission? Chicken!

Why did a Canadian Chicken cross the boarder? It wanted to crow.

What do you call a bus full of HRC members going off a cliff? A good start.

What do you call the empty seats? A damn shame.

How can you tell that all other evidence to the contrary Richard Warman and his PC police friends actually do have a sense of humor? Look at what they named the Human Rights Commissions.

On being a Gentleman

2008-08-02T11:07:00.002-04:00

The Question has arisen on the Monarchist, what qualities make a gentleman. I want to weigh in on this. While I enjoyed some of the Chaps postings by Bolingbrook, the problem is that it focuses on the least central part of being a gentleman, the part that is culturally contingent. That is to say that while a gentleman today should take pride in how he wears his tweeds or seersucker suit and how he mixes a Bronx Cocktail (much better than a dry martini), an Athenian gentleman would take pride in how he wore his toga and how he mixed wine and water in a krator during the symposium. Dressing well and in a manner appropriate for the occasion is part of being a gentleman, but it is not the major part.

In my view the essence of being a gentleman is striving to achieve what Aristotle called Eudemonia or human flourishing. A gentleman cultivates in himself the virtues, primary virtues such as rationality, secondary virtues such as justice and courage, and tertiary virtues such as liberality and charity.

Thus for me a gentleman is a thinking man who has a productive vocation (even if he doesn’t need the money and doesn’t earn any from his work). He conducts his business and his life on the principal of justice. He is morally ambitious striving to better himself when he falls short of his ideals. He has integrity and courage. He is generous within the structure of his means, but not beyond them. He has taken the trouble to learn how to defend both himself and his society. In short, he takes pride in himself, because he has made sure to be morally worthy of it.

2008-07-08T12:50:00.002-04:00

I am posting that which follows is in response to the post on the monarchist by David Byers who seems to be very confused about the nature of Monarchy, Democracy, and Republicanism. The material is from my projected work A Crowned Republic or The True Principals of Constitutional Monarchy Rightly Expounded With An Inquiry Into The British Constitution, It Current Failings and How to Fix Them.

Part I OF THE NATURE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY

Section 1 The Three Classical Forms

The division of governments into three forms depending upon who wields the supreme authority of the state, one, a few, or many, is so familiar to those who have studied the ancient and modern writers upon government that I shall touch upon it only briefly here.

When one holds the supreme authority of the state it is known by different names as the governance is well or ill. When a one rules lightly, with the consent of his subjects, following the ancient laws and customs, with courts that administer justice impartially, and using honors to stimulate his subjects to greater exertions upon behalf of the state, this is known as monarchy. When one rules by terror, with no law but his own will, and no means to command his subjects but terror and money, this is known as tyranny.

When the supreme authority of the state is wielded by a few of the most prominent citizens it is known differently as they wield their power. When they wield their authority with modesty and moderation, binding themselves by the same laws which they impose on the whole people, stimulating the people to greater exertion by patriotic zeal and the prospect of earned wealth, this is aristocracy. If however the few abrogate to themselves special privileges that ought to belong to the state by putting themselves above the law, by plundering the public treasury, and when they control the people and one another by terror as with the lions mouth at Venice, this is oligarchy.

When the whole people either directly or by their representatives are the supreme authority in the state, this is known by different names as the authority is used wisely or badly. When the people are ruled by virtue and use their authority to promote the common happiness saving to every man his rights, this is known as democracy. When the people use their authority to promote the interest of one faction at the expense of another casting aside the rights of each citizen to his life, liberty, and property, this is known as ochlocracy or mob rule.

Section 2 Republicanism

It was observed by the ancients that their was a tendency of each of the pure forms to denigrate from its more noble form into its corrupted form, because there was nothing to check the will of the rulers be they one, a few, or many.
They also observed that there was a tendency for the three pure forms to follow one another in a regular order. Suppose a monarchy was set up, as such usually are, by a popular war leader. After a time, certainly after a few generations, this monarchy will denigrate into a tyranny. When this becomes to oppressive to be suffered, the bravest will lead the people to over though the tyrant. These will then likely set themselves up to rule as an aristocracy. At first they may rule well, but in time they will become vain and will denigrate into an oligarchy which will be beset by factions. In the course of the factional fighting, one of the factions will likely turn to the people for support. When such a faction win, they will be obliged to give power to the people who supported them, thus a democracy is born. At first this rules well, but in time this form too is corrupted. The ancients believed that eventually a strong leader would arise who would promise to restore order and would become king and the cycle would start over.

Now it is observable that this is not an absolute law. Some of the Swiss Cantons for example evolved from democracy to aristocracy. That there is such a tendency however is well illustrated by the evolution of the soviet state, of which I shall have more to say later.

Because of this observation that the better forms tended to denigrate into corrupted forms, because there was nothing to check the will of the rulers, it came to be accepted that a form of government was needed that would check their will.

The ancients concluded that the way to best check the authority of the rulers was to mix the three basic forms, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Thus in a republic the monarch, the aristocracy, and the people would have the powers of the state shared out between them. Each would be a check on the others.

This is of course the classic form of the British constitution. The Monarch held the executive power, had a negative on the legislative power, and appointed the judges. The House of Lords had a part of the legislative power, formed the supreme judicial tribunal, and it members had influence in local government. The people elected the members of the House of Commons who held part of the legislative power. The people held part of the executive power by participation in grand juries and coroners juries, held part of the judicial power by participation in trial juries, and participated in local government.

Section 3 Democratic Republicanism

In addition to this classical form of republicanism wich is now usually called constitutional monarchism, there have many attempts, some successful ,to build a lasting state on the form of the one, the few, and the many but with all officers drawn from among the people at large.

For example the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the oldest written constitution still in effect (adopted 1780 though many times amended), gives the Governor the executive authority with the advice of his council, gives the governor a negative over legislation though this is maybe over come by a two thirds vote of both houses of the legislature. The governor has the right to nominate judges with the advice and consent of his council. The General Court, composed of the House of Representatives and Senate have the legislative power subject to the governor’s negative. The Senate seats were apportioned according to tax receipts and the House seats according to population. The Supreme Judicial Court and the lesser courts wield the judicial power.

The Government of the United States has a similar arrangement with the President as chief magistrate, nominator of judges, and with a veto over legislation. Congress is bicameral and chosen by significantly different electorates. The judicial power is wielded by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Most republics since the American Revolution have tried to achieve some form of democratic republic with mixed success. In principal the idea is a good one, by giving the different office holders different incentives, it is hoped that they will act to check one another. However, the problem with Democratic Republicanism is the same thing which makes it appeal so strongly to democrats, every office is filled directly or indirectly by election or by appointment by elected officials.

Therefore in the end, the performance of a Democratic Republic depends on the virtue of the people. A well written constitution may delay the corruption of a republic if it is venerated, defended and relied upon for political principals by the people. However the concentration of all power in the people tends towards the corruption of the state.

Section 4 Democratic Constitutional Monarchy

A development of Constitutional Monarchy that has become predominate over the last 150 years is Democratic Constitutional Monarchy. This variant on Constitutional Monarchism is distinguished by the triumph of the democratic branch over the monarchical and aristocratic elements of the state.

In the United Kingdom for example, the executive power has been totally taken over by the democratic branch of Parliament. The Monarch’s negative over legislation has become dormant through lack of use. The Aristocratic Branch of the state has atrophied, its powers slowly stripped away and at the last, many of its members stripped of office for no good reason. The courts are still free of excessive interference by the democratic branch, but the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty has meant that the courts ability to act a check on the legislature has become a nullity.

This form is in essence, the decay of a constitutional monarchy into at best an ill designed democratic republic as in most of the crown commonwealth or at worst an out right democracy as in most of the Scandinavian states.

I hope that both Mr.Bayers and the other readers of this blog may find some small degree of edification on the difference between Monarchism, Democracy, and Republicanism in the above. This may all so explain why I can without contradiction proclaim as the circumstances dictate Long Live The Republic! and God Save The Queen!

July 4, 2008

2008-07-04T12:30:00.000-04:00

Today is the 232nd anniversary of the issuance of the Declaration of Independence by the Second Continental Congress. It was on that day that the legal basis for American state was established by the words of the operative clause, “that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.”

Now given that the purpose of this blog is the closer union of the Anglosphere states, one might think I believe that this day was a great tragedy . However, I look at it as part of the political evolution of the Anglosphere. Just as Magna Charta, the model parliament, the petition of right, the civil war, the glorious revolution, the bill of rights, and the great reform acts, are a part of the story of the development of the free institutions of the Anglosphere, so to are the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the U.S. Bill of Rights.

In fact, today marks the beginning of the Anglo sphere as something distinct from the British nation.

In English There is No City Named Pair-ee

2008-05-20T10:29:00.000-04:00

There is a city in English named Paris, but not one pronounced Pair-ee. Likewise there is no country in English called Deutschland, but there is a country called Germany.

My point is that I am getting sick of hearing on the radio and reading on the net about an alleged city named Yangon in an alleged country named Myanmar In the English tongue these are known as Rangoon and Burma respectively.

Now some might ask if I am not being narrow minded and parochial. After all, they might argue, it is their country and they can name their cities whatever they like. I agree they have every right to name their cities what ever they like in Burmese, because it is their country. However English is our language and they do not have a right to change it.

This is not just about English, it is true of other languages as well. For example in Spanish there is no city called New York, but there is a city called Nueva York. In French there is no city called London, but there is one called Londres. In Latin there is no city called York, but there is a city call Eboracum.

Granted that if the Burmese people rather than a dictatorship wanted to change the name of their country, then perhaps we could butcher the new name into English and stop calling it Burma, though we might not. But the idea that we should change the English Language for a bunch of third world tin pot dictators is beyond absurd.

A proper use of the English language ought to be a requirement for journalists who report in the English tongue. American reporters who are assigned overseas ought to have the backbone not to pander to the wishes of a military dictatorship.

Freedom and Culture

2008-05-05T10:35:00.002-04:00

I was inspired to write this by a wonderful post by Connie du Toit titled Something to Live and Die For where she argues that freedom is not enough, that our society must have a commitment to high culture. I agree with this unreservedly and encourage people to read the whole article. However I have a few reservations about Mrs. Du Toit piece which I want to explore.

Let me say that a few reservations does not mean I think she is wrong about her general thesis. She is dead right. It is not enough to simply have material abundance, as conscious entities the spiritual is as real for us as the material.

What worries me is that she seems to be falling into the trap of the mind body dichotomy which has plagued our culture. It is no more to be desired that we have high culture but no material wealth, than that we have wealth but no high culture. In fact our material wealth is the necessary precondition for a widespread high culture. One of the glories of our civilization is that a line worker in a factory or a farmer have the material means to become educated and to fulfill an educated taste for literature and great works of art. Our shame is that many of our fellow citizens have not used that opportunity to better themselves intellectually, but instead have only striven for material consumption.

On a related topic that Mrs. Du Toit did not discuss but that Albert Jay Nock does in his essay which she links to, “The Disadvantages of Being Educated.” That is the prejudice against athletics in education. This is a manifestation of the mind body dichotomy. I believe that athletics and outdoor activities such hiking or hunting are essential to a liberal education at least for men and probably for both sexes.

Secondly I think it is important to distinguish between beauty and art. Art is a means of communication. It has a vocabulary and grammar. If a work of alleged art does not communicate with the viewer then either the viewer is uneducated or the artist is no good. This is the part of art that can be objectively judged without reference to either values or subjective ideas of beauty.

Something can be ugly as sin and technically be good art. For example I hate Jackson Polick’s work. It is dreadful. I once was dragged to an exhibit of his work at MoMA. It literally gave me a headache. I would not willingly subject myself to his work in mass again. However this does not mean that he was a bad artist. It is clear from his early work that he could create art that communicated. It is clear from his later work that he had good color sense. Thus he either became lazy or he is communicating something by means of his splattered paint. If he is trying to convey something it must be either, a) I am avant guard and have no respect for my viewers, b) the world is chaos, or c) communication is impossible.

An example of a better work is Turner’s The Fighting Temeraire Tugged to Her Last Berth to be Broken. The subject of this painting is a great sailing ship being towed by a small steam tugboat. The sun is setting over the water infusing the painting with reds and golds. The clouds scatter the light and give the painting an ethereal quality. Only the sailing ship and the tug seem fully real. Even the sailing ship painted in whites and golds has a washed out or faded quality. The reflections on the water only emphases the sold reality of the tug and the half faded quality of the sailing ship. A sunset is the end of the day and by extension is a symbol of endings. We might thus deduce that this painting is about the passing of the great age of sail and its replacement by steam power. Of course the title of the painting helps with this understanding. The ship is being tugged to her last berth to be broken. That is to torn apart and have some of the parts thrown away and others put to a new use. The fact that the painting is of HMS Temeraire shows that the painting was a general statement, because she had led the van of the second British column at Trafalgar. Her being towed to the breakers was a symbol of the passing of the age of sail.

Since Turner’s work is easily understood by the educated viewer, while polic leave us scratching our head and wondering what he meant, Turner is the better artist. That is his work communicates better. That does not necessarily mean that he has a better message or that his work is more beautiful, though to my mind it is and he does.

Like the ability to communicate, the values an artist tries to convey can at least in principal be objectively judged. Values are those things that we act for the sake of, that is we act to achieve them. As my favorite living science fiction writer wrote, “His mother had often said, When you choose an action, you choose the consequences of that action. She had emphasized the corollary of this axiom even more vehemently: when you desired a consequence you had damned well better take the action that would create it.” Since life and flourishing is the only logical final end, all values can in principal be judged in relation to the achievement of that end.

Thus of the three ways to evaluate a work of art, two of them can be judged objectively. The third, subjective ideas of beauty is real, but fairly limited. Much of what people think is subjective beauty is in my judgment usually low order value issues or minor communications issues that cumulatively make the work unattractive to the viewer. However, the question that came up in Ms. du Toit’s blog regarding the Piss Christ, is an excellent example of a work where absent the title, the work would be highly ambiguous.

The work in itself conveys little it is an image of a crucifix with a golden glow around it and a brownish yellow background. What does this mean? I am not sure but it could be a reference to the mystery of the crucifixion or the glory of god. However the title adds knowledge, piss is an extremely crude term for urine. The title makes the work a slap in the face, the worst form of empatour la bourgeois. But suppose instead it had no title or suppose if had the title “Christ through the product of his creation.” Is it beautiful in itself? That would depend on what message the viewer though was being conveyed and how well he thought it was being conveyed. Personally I think it is interesting, but not beautiful.

A good example of subjective beauty is music. Why do we find some noises beautiful and others dreadful? Now sometimes it is the message in lyrics that we find dreadful, but that is not the whole story. One can disagree with the message of the lyrics and still find it beautiful and one can agree with the lyrics and find it dreadful. I am not a Christian, but I find this rendition of Oh little Town of Bethlehem absurdly beautiful. The fact that rationally I do not believe in the historically of the birth of Christ or the reality of God is completely irrelevant. Indeed it is music like this that brings me half way to believing.

In sum, art and beauty are not the same thing and we should be wary of the mind body dichotomy, but Mrs. Du Toit’s is a wonderful and rewarding post.

Lying and Jury Nullification

2008-03-08T14:51:00.003-05:00

Patterico has gone after Radley Balko for complaining about questions during voir dire that are meant to entrap potential jurors so that if they exercise their right nullify they will be guilty of perjury.

Patterico says that these questions are perfectly ok and that the real problem is people lying during voir dire. He gets very self righteous about this. I have a question for him if he was under oath in a German court in the 30s or 40s and he was asked a question that would have reveled that he was a Jew or a member of the resistance would he feel obliged to tell the truth? Would he tell the truth or is he a “liar.”

It is instructive that Patterico, like the legal profession as a whole, uses the legal French term voir dire for the process of eliminating jurors that the state and defense find inconvenient. This is because the English term for this process, jury packing, is perhaps to revealing.

Patterico cites one recent case by the California Supreme Court saying that jury nullification is bad. This opinion as Patterico quotes it does not cite precedent, only a law review journal article. He claims that this opinion is “the law” and that those who believe in jury nullification are subverting the rule of law. He claims that nullification is a power but not a right.

In fact jury nullification is a lawful power. The real precedent is clear and the exact opposite of the opinion of Patterico and the California Supreme Court. In one of the few jury trials before the supreme court in 1794 John Jay first Chief Justice of the United States instructed the jury as follows.

“It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay the respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.” Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1, 4 (1794)

This was not some fantasy of the Chief justice and a small majority of the court. Though the early court was notorious for adhering to the old English practice of each judge giving his opinion seriatim, the Chief Justice told the jury, “It is fortunate on the present, as it must be on every occasion, to find the opinion of the court unanimous: We entertain no diversity of sentiment; and we have experienced no difficulty in uniting in the charge, which is my province to deliver.” Id. In other words this is the opinion of the unanimous court.

The context within which this charge was given to the jury is even more revealing. The foregoing was not obiter dictum. According to the Chief Justice’s charge “The facts comprehended in the case, are agreed; the only point that remains, is to settle what is the law of the land arising from those facts; and on that point, it is proper, that the opinion of the court should be given.” Id. In other words there was no question of facr to put to the jury, only an uncompounded question of law, thus it was necessary for the court to consider the jury‘s power in coming to its instructions.

Nor does this opinion stand alone. In 1916 the Alabama Supreme Court held,
“One of the most valuable rights of a trial by jury in criminal cases, and that which distinguishes the right from that in civil cases, is the right of the jury to render a general verdict; that is, to say, "guilty" or "not guilty," no matter what the witnesses may say as to the evidence, nor what the judge may say as to the law. Of course the jury ought no more to arbitrarily disregard the instructions of the judge than they ought to arbitrarily disregard the testimony of witnesses; but they can do both, and ought to do so, when both are founded on, or are in, error. Jurors are not bound to follow what a witness says as to the facts, nor what the judge says as to the law; the two being only agencies to aid them in arriving at a "true saying," a verdict.” Warren v. State, 197 Ala. 313, 331 (Ala. 1916)

In 1849 the Vermont Supreme Court held,

“ From the earliest date, the supreme court, while they held jury trials in bank, were, as I have always understood, in the habit in criminal cases of charging juries, that they were rightfully the judges of the law as well as the facts; and I think the same has since been the general practice by the judges of the supreme court at nisi prius. The question in regard to the right of the jury was also incidentally before the supreme court in 1829, upon a charge of one of the judges at nisi prius, which it was contended, on the part of the respondent, was to be construed as having denied such right. It was conceded in the argument, that if the charge were liable to such construction, it could not be supported. The charge was held unobjectionable in that respect; but PRENTISS, J., in delivering the opinion of the court, remarks upon the question as follows:--"There is no doubt, the jury are judges of the law as well the fact. This is the true principle of the common law, and it is peculiarly applicable to a free government where it is unquestionably both wise and fit, that the people should retain in their own hands as much of the administration of justice as is consistent with the regular and orderly dispensation of it, and the security of persons and property. This power the people exercise in criminal cases, in the persons of jurors, selected from among themselves from time to time as occasion may require; and while the power thus retained by them furnishes the most effectual security against the possible exercise of arbitrary power by the judges, it affords the best protection to innocence." State v. Wilkinson, 2 Vt. 480. This opinion of a former chief justice of this state, of acknowledged legal ability and integrity, must be justly entitled to high consideration by this court.” State v. Croteau, 23 Vt. 14, 19-20 (Vt. 1849)

In 1841 the Maine Supreme Court held,

“But the presiding Judge erred, in determining that in criminal cases, the jury are not the judges of the law as well as the fact. Both are involved in the issue, they are called upon to try; and the better opinion very clearly is, that the law and the fact are equally submitted to their determination. It is doubtless their duty to decide according to law; and as discreet men, they must be aware, that the best advice they can get upon this point, is from the Court. But if they believe they can be justified in deciding differently, they have a right to take upon themselves that responsibility.” State v. Snow, 18 Me. 346, 348 (Me. 1841)

I could go on in this vain for hours, case after case. There is simply no doubt that at the time of the founding the jury had the right to decide fact and law. Perhaps Patterico believes in a “living constitution” in which case he may disregard the vast precedent against his position and embrace the attempt by courts during the last hundred years to subvert the jury system. The fact is however that this is not defending the rule of law, it is subverting BOTH the constitution and the rule of law.

To return to the question which began this argument, what should people do when they are being subject to the jury packing process by a judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney who are colluding to allow the judge to act Ultra Vires. If a truthful answer would help the judge in his usurpation of authority not granted to him by the constitution, then it is to his own conscience that each venireman must have resort.

I will say that my own behavior in the past has been to evade the question for as long as possible, usually by answering the letter, but not the spirit of the question for as long as possible. When I am pinned down by a question, I then try and answer fully so as to explain the right of jury nullification in a loud tone of voice so as to poison the whole venire pool. I am thus resisting to the largest possible extent the judges attempted usurpation and fulfilling my responsibility as a citizen to uphold and defend the laws and constitution of the republic. (Warning this often gets one threatened with contempt of court)

Three Cheers For A Warrior Prince

2008-03-04T11:07:00.000-05:00

Having been without a connection to the internet over the last few days, I was overjoyed to hear that HRH Prince Henry of Wales has been serving with the British Army on the North West Frontier. I had been very disappointed when he was denied the chance to serve with his Regiment in Mesopotamia. Actually I was foaming at the mouth calling the Minister of Defense unprintable names.

I am glad to realize that the MOD was actually being clever rather than pusillanimous. I am even more glad that Prince Henry has been able to do the job for which he signed up. Judging from the interviews I have seen of him he is very happy to have been able to do so.

There has been a lot of talk about how putting the Prince on the front line is irresponsible. This is nonsense. Granted that the enemy would love to kill or capture him, but that is something that should have been thought of before he was accepted into the royal army. He was accepted and should now be allowed to take his chances. Furthermore, his importance is being over blown, he is not the King of England, he is a subject of the Queen. The Prince at least realizes this and wants to serve his Queen and Country.

The Prince is an inspiration to us all. Three Cheers for Prince Henry!

Australia Day

2008-01-26T17:07:00.000-05:00

To all my readers down under, if I have any, I hope you all have a great Australia Day.

God, Gold, and Giggles Two Anglosphere Books

2008-01-25T14:56:00.000-05:00

Brief Reviews of Spud by John van de Ruit and God and Gold by Walter Russell Mead

Taking the more serious of these two book first, W.R. Mead’s interesting new book “God and Gold” which traces the assent of the Anglo-American world system. Mead’s who’s previous book “Special Providence” which traced out four competing traditions in American foreign policy in this book looks at the deeper roots of the success of the maritime empire increasingly known as the Anglosphere.

Mead takes especial note of the religious traditions of the English speaking people, concentrating on the so called Anglican compromise between the supremacy of the bible and the supremacy of tradition in church affairs mediating between them with, not reason, but reasonableness or commonsense.

He also discusses the more proximate causes of the Anglosphere’s success, a group of strategies which he cleverly names “the protocalls of the elders of Greenwich.” While he misses several important points, not least the importance of commodity money to a stable and growing economy, in general this is an interesting and informative book.

The second book is a first novel by South African author John van de Ruit about a boy nicknamed Spud (because he has no hair to cover his spuds) during his first year at an all boys boarding school in South Africa (from comments on the net the school Spud is attending is a thin fictionalization of Michaelhouse of which van de Ruit is an Old Boy)

This book is firstly and most importantly side splittingly funny. Take for example the following, which needs the explanation that The Guv is Spud’s English teacher and Rambo is the nickname of one of his class mates.

“Wednesday, 26th January

“06:40 The Guv instructed the class that lesbian writers are to be taken with a pinch of salt. He says they are all “frustrated sex-crazed rug munchers with under arm fur” and we should therefore dismiss the work of women called Woolf, Renault, and Agatha Christy.

“Rambo asked him if we should study Shakespeare sine he was a pillow biter. The Guv then accused Rambo of being homophobic and said he had nothing against dykes and poofs. He even confessed that he wouldn’t mind giving Martina Navratilova a jolly good rogering.”

Secondly this book is a must read for every one who went to an all boys boarding school and has fond memories of the experience. It brings vividly to life the experience of an all male environment, both the good: the camaraderie, freedom to be a boy, and the sense of adventure and the bad: the pack mentality, the farting and other uncouth behavior.

Third and related to the previous this book is a tribute to boys and a relief from the anti boy prejudice all to often seen in our culture today. The boys in this book are drawn true to life. While they have their crudities and faults, they are (with a few memorable exceptions) not brutes. Spud is a boy of reason, sensitivity, and passion as well as a good cricket and rugby player.

Lastly I want to mention that readers should not be turned off by the fact the book is being marketed to a young adult market in the United States. The book will no doubt be enjoyed by younger readers, it was written for an adult audience as the humor cited tends to demonstrate.

A Day For Thanksgiving

2008-01-24T15:45:00.000-05:00

In the ongoing rush of events many of them disheartening, it is easy to forget how much we have to be thankful for. Today we can remember with gratitude the life of the late, the Right Honorable Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill Knight of the Garter, Order of Merit, Companion of Honor, Fellow of the Royal Society, Privy Counselor, Privy Counselor for Canada, twice Prime Minister, Leader of the House of Commons, Chancellor of the Exchequer, the first ever Minister of Defense, twice First Lord of the Admiralty, Secretary of State for War, Secretary of State for Air, Minister of Munitions, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Home Secretary, President of the Board of Trade, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, Elder Brother of Trinity House, Chancellor of the University of Bristol, Father of the House of Commons, Nobel Laureate for Literature, first Honorary Citizen of the United States, etc.

Today is the 42nd anniversary of the death of this great leader of our people. Among his many achievements is one that touches the heart of this blog, his four volume “A History of the English Speaking People” which is one of the first self consciously Anglospherist works. He also wrote multi volume histories of the First and Second World Wars and multi volume biographies of the First Duke of Marlboro his distant ancestor and Lord Randolph Churhill, his father. He was also a great painter aswell as a member of that most British of all professions, a practical inventor.

He was born 30 November, 1874 at Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire, the home of his fathers, the first son of Lord Randolph Churchill and Jennie Jerome. He was a graduate of Harrow and the Royal Military College Sandhurst. He served in India with the 4th (Queen’s Own) Hussars and fought on the Northwest Frontier. He charged with the 21st Lancers at Omdurman, the last real cavalry charge of the British Army. He served with the South African Light House during the Second Boer War. He was elected to parliament for the first time in 1899 and sat almost without interruption through the reign of six monarchs. He joined the cabinet for the first time in 1908. During the First World War he served with the Royal Scots Fusiliers commanding the 6th battalion (territorial army) on the Western Front. He held all of the important offices open to a commoner and refused elevation to the peerage as the Duke of London. He died 24 January, 1965 and after a state funeral was laid to rest in the graveyard of St. Martin Church, Bladon a short drive from where he was born. May his memory endure as long as our people.

A Beautiful Anglosphere Tradition

2008-01-23T12:07:00.000-05:00

While by no means exclusive to the Anglosphere, the tradition of choirs of men and boys has remained strong in the church of England. The practice of Cathedrals or large church’s having schools to educate the choirboys continues in some parts of the Anglosphere.

Here are some interesting documentaries that I found on you tube after I heard this wonderful rendition of the 50th Psalm by the King’s College Choir. A documentary about the King’s College choir is here, here, here, and here. A documentary of the St. Paul’s choristers is here, here, here, here, and here. A documentary about St. Thomas Choir School is here, here, here, and here.

I’m Dreaming of a New York Christmas Part 3

2007-12-18T11:07:00.000-05:00

This is part 3 of a three part post, part 1 is here.

Snow is covering the bench lined path which leads us to an exit. We cross Fifth Avenue which is no longer a commercial street once the park begins. Instead prewar apartment buildings, clubs, mansions, and museums face Central Park. We walk briskly east along cross streets lined with brownstone houses and small art galleries. We pass Madison Avenue, another of the City’s many commercial streets.

Then Park Avenue opens before us. A wide boulevard that runs north from Union Square at 14th Street to 132nd Street in the North, Park Avenue is usually a major thoroughfare with heavy traffic, but this afternoon the snow has kept many cars off the street. Islands of grass, bushes and trees, now covered in snow, divide the North bound traffic from that heading south. Christmas trees slowly being decorated with snow are at each end of the islands. The money for them was donated by a family that lost their son during the Second World War. The lighting of them each year is proceeded by a Christmas carol sing at 91st Street and the playing of taps.

We head south on Lexington Avenue stopping at a push cart to buy hot dogs covered with sauerkraut and onions in paprika. The meaty salty sweetness of the hotdogs blend in our mouths with the sour of the kraut and the spicy savor of the onions as we stroll south until we reach the Citibank building, a silver tower balanced atop five pillars. We carefully descend the snows slick steps into the court yard in front of the building. In the mall beneath the building is one of my favorite New York Christmas displays. A huge model train display.

We join a line of businessmen stealing a moment to enjoy one of the pleasures of the season, parents with excited children, and many other people. In the first of the dioramas, the trains wend their way through Newark, New Jersey with the Manhattan skyline in the background. Then heading north along the Hudson Valley, they run through a diorama of a 1950s suburban landscape. I point out fast food joints, a circus, and a drive in movie theater complete with a working movie screen. The trains then climb into the hilly terrain further north with a lumber mill cradled in a valley. Then they descend into the farm land of upstate, with barns and farm houses. Finally the trains run through a winter wonderland of the far north thick with snow before curving out of sight.

We are not required to brave the winter wonderland above, but proceed through tunnels to the 51st street train station of the six train. We hop on a south bound train and look at the great variety of people sharing the car with us. New York has long been a melting pot with people from many different nations living in the city for a time before moving on to other areas of the country. I point out the closed 18th street station barely lit as we speed by. After a 15 minute ride we get off at City Hall.

We surface in a small park. The white neo-classical bulk of City Hall where the 51 member city council meets and the mayor has his office is surprisingly small for such a large city. Across the street is the neo-gothic Woolworth building, once the tallest building in the world, covered in beautiful carving, enamel work and statuary. We stroll south on Broadway into the downtown financial district.

Here the buildings are older than at midtown, since it was the original main business district in the city. Even today, it is the third most important business district in the country and the second largest in the city after midtown. The brownstone bulk of Trinity Church emerges slowly from the swirling snow. This is the oldest Episcopal church in New York and the richest in the country since it owns most of the land on which the surrounding financial district is built. The parish still pays the Queen of Great Britain a rent of one peppercorn per annum. Snow is starting to drift against the grave stones in the church yard. In warmer weather it would be pleasant to look at the old graves but in the cold of this winter afternoon we turn east into the shelter of the canyons of the financial district.

The streets here were laid out hundreds of years before the invention of the automobile, so they are much narrower than those in the rest of the city. The early skyscrapers here seem to close out the sky. After passing through a very narrow block, the street opens slightly.

To our left is the short six story stone bulk of the Morgan Bank building, still pockmarked by the blast of an anarchist bomb that detonated outside in 1920. To our right is the federal building with a statute of George Washington elevated on a plinth before it. It was upon this spot that Washington took the oath of office and became the first President of the United States.

Before us is the New York Stock Exchange one of the most important financial markets in the world. A large Christmas tree stands before it slowly collecting snow. Inside, drifts of paper are accumulating on the floor of the Exchange’s main trading room. Even in this day of computers, the exchange generates frightening amounts of waste paper every day.

We walk east down Wall Street passing office buildings housing some of the worlds most important financial companies. 40 Wall Street on our left was the tallest building in the world for a few months before it was supplanted by the Chrysler Building in Midtown. When I was a boy my father had his office on the 60th floor of this building.

A few blocks later we arrive at the old brick structure of Fraunces Tavern. It was here that General Washington said farewell to the officers of the Continental Army before returning home to Mount Vernon like Cincinnatus returning to the plow. We take a peak inside and look at the historical exhibits. Paintings, Washington’s false teeth, and a number of artifacts of the Society of the Cincinnati.

Leaving the old inn, we walk the through the snow to the Fulton Street station of the A Train. The wind and snow follow us down the stairs. The trains of this line are wider and longer than those of the six train, because it was built later by the city to the train specification of the Brooklyn Manhattan Transit Company, the IRT’s rival. We ride north for more than 40 minutes as a kaleidoscope of humanity parades before us. Something of the neighborhoods above can be cleaned from the dress, and ethnicity of the people who board and exit the train at each stop. At 190th Street we get off and take an elevator to the surface.
.
The elevator opens into a small stone building. We refasten our coats and put back on our hats before exiting into Fort Tryon Park. We stroll to where the park ends at a bluff overlooking the Hudson river. We can hardly see the far shore through the heavy snow, but if we could we would see woodland. This is because John D Rockefeller Jr. gave the land on the far side to the State of New Jersey as a park so that the land we are standing on which was once his estate would always have a country view across the river.

A few minutes walk brings us the gothic buildings of the Cloisters. This northern outpost of the Metropolitan Museum of Art is made of abandoned French monasteries disassembled and transported to New York where they were reassembled. It holds the Museum’s Medieval Collection, most of it, like the land it stands on was donated by Mr. Rockefeller. We enter the building and ascend a dark stone staircase to the main floor.

We look at the famous tapestries depicting the hunting of a unicorn then step out into the colonnade of the cloister where snow is gathering on the rose bushes. In the summer this is open letting people stroll through the rose bushes planted there, but now we are grateful that temporary glass windows are fitted to keep in the heat.

We walk down a few stairs and look at the gold religious objects in the treasury, then step through an open doorway into the garden. Hops now dormant for the winter cling to one wall. A Pair Tree has been trained into a fork like shape against another wall of the building. Other fruit trees now bare of leaves stand in the middle of wilted garden patches now covered with snow.

The snow fall has temporarily lessened so we are able to see a distance south across upper New York. Since this is the highest point in Manhattan, in better weather we would be able to see all the way down to the financial district 13 miles to the south, but this afternoon as the sky darkens only a mile of two of the city is visable. We retreat into the warmth of the Cloisters for a few more minutes looking at the coffins of crusaders laid out in a small chapel.

Leaving the museum we stroll through the park back to the subway station. The snow drifts around us as we walk through the darkening winter afternoon. The elevator lowers us to the station and we walk to south end of the platform so we can look out of the front of the southbound train.

With a roar and a blast of wind the train enters the station. Standing at the train’s front window, we can see the track ahead and the green, yellow, and red signal lights that tell the operator to go, slow, or stop respectively. Just before the 145th Street station we see the B and D tracks curve in and join with the A line. At 125th Street we get of the train to wait for the C or B trains which run as local trains for this part of the route.

The C pulls into the station and a few minutes later we are exiting at the 81st Street - Natural History Museum station. The station is decorated with mosaics of dinosaurs and more modern animals. We climb the stairs to the surface.
Before us is the great granite and marble bulk of the Natural History Museum. Inside are wonders from the world’s largest star sapphire to African and Asian mammals in display cases with the trees, bushes, and grasses of their habitat used to make realistic dioramas with exquisite paintings in the background. It would be wonderful to stop and explore, but we have one more Christmas stop before heading home and the late afternoon dark is closing in.

We jump on a cross town bus which enters the viaduct across central park. The stone blocks of the walls flash by and at one point we pass through a tunnel carved from the naked rock of the park. Three minutes later we exit the bus, once more on Fifth Avenue.

We cross 79th Street and walk two blocks north to the grand Beaux-Arts building of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. We climb the broad stone steps and enter in the great lobby. Huge urns full of seasonal flowers stand in niches on the wall. The money for the flowers was left by a long time patron in her will. We give a donation then stroll through the Byzantine art. We stop and examine a bible bound in gold and gems before walking into a large hall constructed to look like a church so that a gorgeous rod screen could be displayed.

However it is the not the screen that grabs our attention, but the Christmas tree decorated with a swarm of porcelain angels with flowing silk robes. We join the crowd of holiday visitor waiting to get a closer look. At the base of the tree is a crèche with beautiful figurines of the holy family, the wise men, and the shepherds. The tree which is an annual Met tradition is composed of hundreds of figurines from three separate crèche sets made in Italy during the 17th century. As we get closer I point to one of the angels holding a censer. When we get close enough we can see the wise men riding on elephants, camels, and horses. Regretfully we have to move with the flow of people and are soon moved past the tree.

On the way out we swing by the Temple of Dendur a gift from the government of Egypt to the United State for the help given to move it and several other ancient temples when the High Dam at Asswan was built. Without the aid of the United States, the temple would have been flooded by the rising waters behind the dam.

We put back on our hats, coats and scarves before leaving the shelter of the museum. While we have been inside darkness has fallen. This reveals one of the glories of a New York evening snow fall, the way the lights from buildings light the snow. In the country one can’t see the great volume of snow in the air because there is no light to illuminate it except at ground level. The tall buildings of the city serve to light the snow hundreds of feet in the air.

We walk down 82nd Street enjoying the falling snow. I point out my favorite parts of the Upper East Side as we pass them, my sister’s apartment, a bar that our friends meet at during the holidays, and my favorite pizza place. Ten minutes later we arrive back at my parent’s apartment building.

I have to hurry because one of the other joys of Christmas in New York is the large number of parties in the two weeks before Christmas. During Christmas even the lawyers and investment bankers who work unbelievable hours take time to attend holiday gatherings and youngsters back from boarding school and college are eager to be reunited with grade school friends. Any big city is really just a large number of overlapping communities and that is never so apparent in New York as at Christmas.

During the holidays, the city that never sleeps turns its attention temporarily from the creation of wealth to the enjoyment of it. People take the time to realize what an extraordinary place we call home. Most of all we reunite with friends and family and so in that way at least a New York Christmas is not so different from Christmas anywhere.

To say more would be to parade my friends and family in their intimate moments before the public eye, so at the door to my parents home let me wish you all a very Merry Christmas!

Some videos of New York snow Storms here, here, and here.

UPDATE: Typo corrected

I’m Dreaming of a New York Christmas Part 2

2007-12-18T10:27:00.000-05:00

This the second part of a three part post, part 1 is here.

Offices of all sorts line the street. I point to the wreaths hanging on the buildings. Wreath however is a pallid word for these adornments. A wreath is in our minds 18 to 36 inches in diameter and made of fir branches. That some of these are constructed of evergreen branches is the only point of comparison. To show as anything but a token acknowledgement of the season when mounted on massive buildings, the wreaths have to be on a similar scale. Are the smallest four feet across or six? It is certain that the largest is more than a dozen feet across. Not all are made of fir. Red, silver or gold Christmas tree ornaments are often used instead. As the afternoon darkens all are highlighted with snow.

Unseen on the side streets as we continue north are the Harvard Club, the New York Yacht Club, the Century Association and other bastions of wealth and comfort, no doubt made the more cheery by the cold and white that swirls around us.

We pass the faux log entrance to the Philippine building and soon thereafter the sandstone art deco buildings of Rockefeller Center appear on our left. Snow clinging to the sides of the buildings where the wind has plastered it on like stucco.

We turn and look down the mall between the French Republic Building and the British Empire Building. This latter if urban legends are to be believed would have been the British capital in exile if the battle of Britain had gone differently. At the far end of the mall, the RCA building rises like the cliffs of Dover from the sea. These are but the frame for a double row of white angles trumpeting the good news. Is it the news of the messiah’s birth or of the lighting of the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree. This is left ambiguous.

We stroll along the mall and peer over the railing that marks the edge of the sunken court yard. A small mob zips across the icy surface of the skating rink built here during the winter. The skaters seem almost to be performing a temple dance before the gold statue of a languid Prometheus delivering fire from the heavens. This brings to mind the pagan origins of the Christmas tree, but the tree itself has never been far from our thoughts towering as it does 50 feet above us.

A glass elevator lowers us through the sidewalk to the underground level of the huge complex. As we sip Starbuck’s coffee on chairs in their shop facing out onto the town square of this subterranean city, I tell you about the passages that radiate out from this spot.

You could travel three blocks west and about eight blocks from north to south . Restaurants serving formal French cuisine rub shoulders with McDonalds. Florists sell plants from stores that never see the sun. Candy shops, ice cream parlors, and book stores cater to the whims of people hurrying to the two subways that link this looking glass world to the rest of the city.

Most ubiquitous are newsstands and outlets of a local chain of drug stores. These latter hint that despite the inviting shelter and warmth of this underground mall, breathing the recycled air of tens of thousands of others is less healthful than the brisk winter above.

It is with regret that we leave this warmth and again board the glass elevator for the surface. As we exit we tuck our scarves more securely under our chins and look again into the sunken plaza. The dance continues, but snow is gathering incongruously on the flames of Prometheus’ gift to man.

We turn and walk back past the trumpeting angles. Looming out of the swirling snow, is the storefront of Saks Fifth Avenue. The façade of the building is lit by electric snow flakes that light in turn, coordinated with Christmas music that tinkles from speakers mounted around the building. (Video here) We cross the street and pause briefly to enjoy the smell of roasting chestnuts sold by a street vendor, then plunge into the famous department store. Artificial, but beautiful faux snow covered tree limbs punctuated with white lights decorate the interior creating a winter wonderland effect that seams to compliment rather than clash with the perfume and jewels being sold.

We pause but for a moment here. Upstairs we could buy goods ranging from rugby shirts to diner jackets, but it was the white splendor of the first floor echoing the weather out side that we wanted to see. Leaving this temple to mammon, we are confronted by its rival, St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

This gothic building looks as if it was transported intact from France. When the land was first bought and construction commenced on this second Catholic cathedral of the city, it was called the bishop’s folly because people thought it so far north that no one would ever come. It covers an entire city block and is a testament to the importance of Catholicism even in this very protestant country and to the faith of the immigrants who‘s earnings financed its construction.

As we head north once more, the people thronging the street are thrust before us. Unlike most of the city, here it is the prospect of spending money rather than making it that draws the largest part of the crowd. The two groups are very distinct. Clothing is one mark that distinguishes them, but under winter wraps this is less plain than it would be in summer. But these obvious marks are not necessary. One can tell them apart by how they walk and the set of their face. Are they seeing what is in front of them or what is around them? Do they walk briskly or stroll?

We chose the later option in both cases and so it takes a little longer to reach the Anglo-Norman bulk of St. Thomas’ Church, the Episcopal entry into the Fifth Avenue large church competition. We turn in to look at this monument to the Anglo Catholic. In the narthex is a mosaic that celebrates the end of the second world war. The arms of the big four, the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union are at the four cardinal points of a circle that includes the arms of the other allies.

The sound of singing draws us into the nave where we can see the church’s famous choir of men and boys practicing. The beautiful high notes of the trebles and the stirring rumble of the bases blend into a heavenly sound. The boys in the choir attend the St. Thomas Choir School a boarding school run by the church for the choristers. We sit in a pew for a few minuets listening, then get up and look at the side chapel, the statue of the virgin, and stand quietly before the carved list of the parish’s war dead. We reflect for a minuet on the lives cut short that we might live in freedom, then we head back outside.

Before leaving the shelter of the church steps, we rebutton our jackets and adjust our hats. Then we step into the snow covered streets and head north once again. Through the swirling snow we see Cartier’s store rapped like a giant present. The scaffolding that protects pedestrians from falling debris from work on the building had been transformed with the use of pine boughs into a forest of pine trees Cleverly placed speakers serenade us with Christmas carols as we stroll by the sapphires and diamonds. Even Brooks Brothers has a few Christmas decorations hidden among the preppy cloths.

Towering out of the white is the glass and bronze of Trump tower. We walk under the large wreath hanging over the entrance and enter into the pink marble and brass atrium. Water cascades five stories down one side of the atrium with plants growing in niches along the wall. We could go up the escalators for coffee or down them for a cocktail, but we have a long way to go before reaching home.

Next door, is Tiffany & Co. who’s windows have charming holiday still lives, studded with the firm’s jewels. As we continue north, the Plaza Hotel emerges from the swirling snow. The building is now under renovation and conversion with some of the floors being converted into condominiums for the rich and famous.

We cross the street to where an equestrian statue of Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman by Augustus Saint-Gaudens, the artist who designed the twenty dollar gold piece, guards the entrance to Central Park. We duck down a flight of stairs into Central Park and all of a sudden we seem to be in the country.

Trees hang over the path which circles a pond slowly accumulating a rime of ice. Bushes poke their branches through the rapidly thickening blanket of snow. As we stroll along the sound of music draws us further into the park.

Dogs frolic in a snow covered field just before we reach one of the few roads that run through the park. Horse drawn carriages and pedecabes carry tourists through the park. The music we have been hearing seams to be coming from behind a rock ledge. The rock slopes up so we are able to clime it without difficulty. When we reach the top a splendid view opens before us.

Below is the source of the music, Wolman Rink. Hundreds of skaters promenade on the ice in a counter clockwise circle. White puffs of smoke stream from the rosy faces of the skaters as they move with the Christmas music.

The trees surrounding the rink make it look like a pond in the woods used for winter sports, but if one looks up, the buildings of Central Park South tower above the scene. It is the epitome of Manhattan an island 14 miles long that has been transformed for the enjoyment of man. Apartments and offices of a highly urban character over looking a park of lakes, trees, and meadows. Elsewhere in the park are a merry-go-round, a restaurant, sports fields, and a zoo, but we have miles to go and the snow is getting deep.

Part 3 is here.

I’m Dreaming of a New York Christmas Part 1

2007-12-18T09:50:00.000-05:00

With my law school exams more than half over and my departure from Florida for New York imminent, I am starting to look forward to a New York Christmas and hoping it will be a white one. For those of you who have never been to New York for Christmas (you poor benighted souls) and to get myself into the spirit, I have written that which follows.

The first thing that charms about a New York Christmas is the blatant and unashamed commercialism of the entire affair. I know some hate this, but frankly I can’t understand why. Granted that some people go crazy on Black Friday (when don‘t they), but in New York it is mostly just fun and profit. The obvious fact is that ours is a free and liberal, that is to say, capitalist society. It stands to reason that our holidays are going to be commercialized and New York fortunately doesn’t waste time pretending otherwise. Every store of note has its Christmas display. Windows are turned into celebrations of the season.

Another great thing about a New York Christmas is that if you are lucky enough to have a white one, it is really beautiful. Most probably don’t think of New York City as a very snowy place. It is the reds, browns and grays of concrete, stone, and brick, not the white of snow that New York usually brings to mind. However every few years New York gets a good snow during the holidays and the city is transformed.

I want to try and share with you why I love New York especially at Christmas, but all the year round. To do that I am going to go on a tour of the city with you. Since this is a fantasy lets suppose it is a few days before Christmas and the conditions are just right.

It is about half an hour before noon when we take the elevator down from my parents apartment on the east river in Manhattan. The lobby is decorated in what has become something of a winter holiday tradition for our building with a Christmas Tree and an abstract Menorah. We say good afternoon to Joseph the doorman and walk out under the green awning just as the first flakes start to fall from the steel grey sky.

We walk a block south to 79th street where we jump onto a cross town bus. This major cross street is largely residential but as we proceed west we pass York Avenue (named for Sgt. York if you were wondering), First Avenue, Second Avenue and Third Avenue, the heart of Yorkville. These north-south avenues are full of shops and restaurants. Most are small family businesses, but many are larger corporations or chains. If we continued further west we would pass the mansion of Mayor Bloomburg, but we don’t.

We hop off the bus at Lexington Avenue and button our jackets against the wind and cold. The stretch of Lexington Avenue just south of 79th Street is relatively less developed. Most of the buildings are about five stories high. To the north the buildings rise higher as one looks towards 86th Street once called “the German Broadway” and still this area’s main commercial street. To the south the buildings rise toward the great midtown business district.

Here at 79th Street it is almost suburban from a New York perspective. We head south on foot as the sidewalk now wet from melted snow starts to catch the first flakes to stick, in cracks and crevices in the sidewalk and in the angle formed by the intersection of buildings and the sidewalk.

Two blocks south at Lenox Hill Hospital we turn west and head down the stairs into the 77th Street Station of the Lexington Avenue Subway. Snow follows us down the stairs riding on a blast of wind. The 6 Train or Lexington Avenue local was built in the early years of the 20th century by the Interborough Rapid Transit Corporation or IRT and some signs of this remain for those who look closely. I point to a small tin sign which you can barely read hanging from an overhead conduit which still bares the name of the private corporation that built the first of the system’s major lines. This one line carries more riders than the Chicago, San Francisco, and Boston rail transit systems combined.

With a roar and a gust of wind, the train comes out of the tunnel and into the station. We board and are serenaded by a trio of mariachi performers who have made their way north from Mexico City to this more profitable ground for street performance. After a sufficiency of Dane geld has been collected they stop playing and move on to the next compartment and we are left in peace to contemplate advertisements for Goosedown Vodka “It tastes more like nothing than brands A, B, & C vodka.”

Three stops later we disembark at the 42nd Street station. This is a major subway station where two important lines cross and a shuttle leads to Time Square and even more subterranean transportation options. We ignore these and head for the exit. A semicircle of devout Catholics stands to one side witnessing for the faith. “Hail Marry full of grace the Lord is with thee.” they proclaim as they finger a bead from their rosary. “Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus,” the seasonal thought follows us up the escalator.

We emerge into one of the exit corridors of Grand Central Terminal. Instead of leaving this hub of the commuter railroads running north and east from the city, we head inward, west through the building. It is cold out and a block or two walked in the warmth of the building and its warren of tunnels and passages is inviting.

The passage soon opens into the Terminal’s great hall with its brass information hut surmounted by the famous four faced clock where friends and lovers meet. A huge American flag hangs from the ceiling as it has since shortly after Sept. 11. Its bold red, white, and blue stand out against the sandy stone and the pale turquoise ceiling. We walk through the crowd and back into the pedestrian tunnels lined with shops. As we mount a ramp for the surface the smell of fresh baked pastry tempts us, but we manfully ignore it.

We surface at the corner of Vanderbilt Avenue and 42nd Street. On all sides the building soar upwards to the heavens, but the falling snow softens the stark elegance of their upward thrust. We walk west on the floor of 42nd Street’s canyon mixing with the throng of people busy making money.

Two blocks further on we arrive at the corner of Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street one is tempted to say, the corner of the world. Looking to our left we see the Empire State Building rising from the street half a mile to the south. To our right is one of the most exclusive shopping districts on earth.

Before us is The New York Public Library and Bryant Park. (a picture of NYPL here) We walk over and stand at the foot of the steps leading up to the entry. If we mounted the stairs we could burry ourselves in the leather and dark wood of the current periodical room or listen to the echo made by wooden chairs scraping on the stone floor of the 297 foot long main reading room.

More entrancing however is the sight of the snow slowly blanketing the two great stone lions Patience and Fortitude which guard the entrance to this Fort Knox of knowledge. In recognition of the season these rulers of the empire of the mind have deigned to have wreaths placed around their necks and now bejeweled in red and green and caped in white, they are a dignified personification of the season.

To our left Macy’s calls to us, but we have other plans and head north along Fifth Avenue. The light is starting to fade under the weight of snow as we walk north, passing Nat Shermans’ Purveyor of Fine Tobacco Products to those willing to trade money and time for a little pleasure.

Part 2 is here.

Multiculturalism the Enabler of Fascism

2007-11-28T10:47:00.000-05:00

Advocates of multiculturalism like to pretend they are the vanguard of liberalism. In fact, in both ideology and effect, they are the enablers of fascism.
They put forward the doctrine that all cultures are equal and that to criticize another culture is racist. That the later doctrine is in fact racist is something they are seemingly blind to.

Multiculturalism racist? Why yes. The idea that all cultures are equal and your culture is good for you and my culture is good for me and that no one can say one is better than the other is based on a racial deterministic view of culture. That is to say that multiculturalists believe that people have a culture in the same way that people have blue eyes or black skin or red hair. Thus from the multiculturalist point of view, to judge one culture superior to another, is to judge one group of people superior to another.

This was the same view held by the Nazis. They believed that national socialism was true for Germans. They were willing to admit it might not be true for all people. But it was true for them and that was all that was important to them. They differed from the multiculturalists in believing that the German “volk” was superior to all other races.

All the multiculturalists have done with the Nazi theory is to declare that no one culture is better than another. This is so, they say, because no one can move out side of ones own culture to evaluate other cultures objectively because culture is not a chosen form of behavior, but deterministic.

However it is unclear why if one is unable to judge other cultures one should care for them or consider them of any value what so ever, never mind of equal value. This is exactly what the Nazis did, they held that critiques of their ideas using logic were invalid because it was Jewish-British-Middle Class logic and all they were interested in was “German logic.”

The problem is that if, like the multiculturalists, one rejects the use of reason as a means of relations between people of different cultures, there is nothing left to regulate the relations between cultures, but brute force. It is exactly this that the Nazis argued. Since, according to the Nazis, there was nothing but German logic and French logic, there is nothing to do about conflicts of interest but fight. Of course that is what the Nazis did do. They fought and killed without mercy or reason.

In essence the multiculturalists follow the Nazis up to these last two steps and then flinch from the logical conclusion of their own ideas. That they do draw back from murder and genocide is of course to their credit, but the problem is that they spread one of the basic ideas of fascism.

Now let’s turn to the logical effects of multiculturalism even setting aside for a moment its logical extreme.

Since according to multiculturalism, all cultures are of equal value, it follows that if one culture embraces individual rights, democracy and capitalism, and another perpetual jihad, honor killings, female genital mutilation, and wife beating, one culture is not to be preferred over the other.

In other words the primary effect of multiculturalism is to morally disarm the good and morally arm the evil.

Now let us turn to the effects of multiculturalism as it effects the situation in Europe today with regards to the struggle between Western Civilization and Islamic Civilization.

First of all it should be noted that the idea that this must be an all or nothing struggle with no learning on either side is itself an artifact of multiculturalism. There may in fact be good points that Western Civilization could gain from Islamic Civilization, its high value on hospitality for example. Likewise, Islamic civilization could gain an increased respect for the value of reason, individual rights, and democracy.

However, as long as the multiculturalist idea is predominant no such mutual learning is likely to take place. If French rudeness is of equal value with Islamic ideas of hospitality then why should the French change their ways. Likewise if Islamic female genital mutilation is of equal value with Western equal rights for women, why should Muslims change theirs?

Of course Western Civilization and Islamic Civilization are not of equal value. By comparison Islamic Civilization is barbaric. However this is the one conclusion that multiculturalists feel they must deny. They are in fact frantic to deny it, because they believe, due to the internal logic of multiculturalism, that the only alternative to declaring blind equality is a race war.

Thus anyone who points out that Western Civilization is superior to Islamic Civilization as it now exists, is labeled a racist by the multiculturalists. It is important to understand that this is both a tactic in that having rejected reason the multiculturalists can only resort to name calling or force and it is a reflection of the interior state of the multiculturalists.

By accepting the racial determination of ideas the multiculturalists has put himself in a trap where the only two alternatives are supine surrender to inferior cultures and fascist genocide. The liberal alternative of education and assimilation of the people from the more backward culture is blanked out of their minds by the false alternatives of their racial determinism.

Since most cultures, to be even marginally successful, must consider themselves to be of value and most consider themselves of superior value to other cultures, the multiculturalists declaration that for example Islam is of equal value with Western Civilization is not meet with joy by those the multiculturalists are pandering to.

The pandering is in fact seen as both an insult and an invitation to aggression. Consider that the militant Islamic believes wrongly that his culture is superior. He is met with the insult that his culture is no better than Western Civilization and then observes that this supposedly equal civilization believes that it is of no more value than any civilization however backward. The Islamicist both feels insulted and believes that any action he takes to revenge the insult will be meet with passivity.

The natural result is what we have seen over the past two decades in Europe, increasing sectarian violence by muslems. The first victims of this violence are those from their own culture. Women primarily are increasing abused as it becomes clear that the host culture will not protect them. Next the people who were once part of that culture but have rejected it become the victims of the totalitarian impulses of the Islamicists. Then groups that have been traditionally the enemies of Muslims and whose toleration by Western Civilization is recent or incomplete, such as Jews and Gays come under attack. Finally, as the supine surrender of the multiculturalists becomes obvious, the majority population itself comes under attack. The multiculturalists of course try and ignore this escalating cycle of violence.

Because the idea of fascist genocide is so terrible, the multiculturalists understandably, given their premise, cling violently to their wrongheaded ideology, even as events make the need for action plain. They tend to deny that any problem exists. If they control the media they will tend to down play the aggression of the violent group. They will even lie and suppress evidence that contradicts their fervorent hope that all is well. If they control the state they will tend to use its power to keep the question of civilizational conflict from coming to the fore. They may even pass laws making cultural criticisms illegal. Though they thought themselves the vanguard of liberalism, they find themselves suppressing free speech in the name of fighting racism, real and imagined.

Thus the multicultural European elite demonizes relatively moderate parties that want to take steps to limit the conflict between the native population and the Muslim immigrants. Absurd slippery slope arguments are made that equate reasonable restrictions on immigration with the first step of genocide.
It is important again to realize that as with the hysterical charges of racism, these slippery slope arguments are both tactical and a reflection of the inter beliefs of the multiculturalists.

However the hysterical charges of racism and the absurd slippery slope arguments will have the opposite of their intended effect. They will weaken the forces of liberalism instead of strengthening them.

In fact the multiculturalists will start to find that, just as social democrats were unable in many cases to fight off the contending forces of communism and fascism in the thirties, that the center will not hold.

The center will tend not to hold because of three factors. The first is that the multiculturalists have demonized the only force, liberalism that could have saved them. The second factor is that multiculturalists are in fact ideologically abetting fascism. The more wide spread is the belief in multiculturalism, the more wide spread is one of the tenants of fascism. The last reason the center will tend not to hold is that the same moral emptiness that keeps the multiculturalists from fighting the Islamiscists effectively, will keep them from fighting the fascists in the majority population effectively.

In fact the multiculturalists’ dirty secret, which they hide even from themselves, is that they, to the extent that they do want to stave off Islamic domination, think that the fascists have the right, indeed the only idea, of how to win.

Thus while at present the multiculturalists will tend to demonize the forces of liberal moderation such as the List Pim Fortuyn, the United Kingdom Independence Party, and the Danish Peoples Party, equating them with fascism. In the longer term however they will likely tend towards fascism themselves.

In fact there are as far as I can see only five possible courses forward for Europe.

The best outcome that can be hoped for is that the forces of liberalism will make a massive recovery of their moral strength in the next few years and begin a massive program of education, assimilation, and the enforcement of western values as embodied in the criminal law of their countries to protect the women, children and non violent portions of their immigrant Muslim communities.

The second best scenario is that such a recovery of liberal moral strength, but not until a civil war is inevitable. Then they will have to fight the reactionary forces of radical Islam while simultaneously restraining the fascists among the native population. This will to put it mildly be difficult, especially since both groups of fascists will be trying to provoke atrocities.

Depressingly the third best out come that can be projected is that a liberal revival halts total Islamic victory and Europe ends up like Lebanon as a patchwork of hostile ethnic enclaves.

The fourth and fifth outcomes are frankly unspeakable, either fascist or Islamic victory.

Now since Europe, the EU’s propaganda to the contrary not withstanding, is not unified, different out comes could occur in different countries.

However it is important to realize that Europe has several strikes against it in resisting both fascism and Islamism. First the European Union has no unifying history or ideology that could be used to acculturate the Muslim population and immigrants. Second the closest thing it does have to such an ideology is transnational democratic socialism which has become heavily impregnated with or is identical with multiculturalism, which is the problem. Third, while the European idea is insufficient to be an acculturating force, it maybe powerful enough to constrain the real nationalism of Europe’s actual nations thus weakening one of the potential forces of moderation.

Given the riots in Paris, it maybe to late to avoid civil war, however is may not be. It is cirtaintly not to late to avoid balkanization or fascist or islamist victory. However Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians and all others who reject the poison of multiculturalism must rally to enforce the protection of individual rights for every citizen and deny special privileges for the forces of Islamic reaction.

I believe that Europe is still strong enough to save itself from the forces of multiculturalism, islamism and fascism, but time is running out.

Ron Paul, Gold and the Left

2007-11-15T16:00:00.000-05:00

Those who have paid even the most cursory attention to my occasional posts on this blog know that I am by no means an egalitarian. However I have to speak out concerning those of our countrymen on the left who would support the Hon. Ron Paul Tex. for president but are being turned off by his support for the gold standard.

Those who are trying to do a hatchet job on Ron Paul are saying that the gold standard is nutty and reactionary. In fact there are several things about the gold standard that should make left support it.

A. Under the Federal Reserve Them What Have Get More Than They Otherwise Would

First let us look at that perennial complaint of the left, that profits are to high and wages to low. Now whether any particular ratio of wages and profits are optimal is to my mind a question generally best left to the market.

However it is undeniably true that the current system of fiat money elevates the profits of business. Consider that in a given period costs of goods sold are fixed, representing wages and investments in plant and equipment that are already made. These same moneys are then used to buy the products of businesses. When new money is injected into the economy by the federal reserve, that new money is business revenue for which there is no corresponding cost. Since profits equal sales revenue less costs, this this new money always increases the dollar amount of profits.

B. The Gold Standard Subjected the Working and Middle Class to less Investment Risk

Second, the federal reserve system tends to wipe out the savings of the working class and middle class. Traditionally, the financially less sophisticated who tend to be less well off saved in two ways.

First they “banked with their teapot.” In other words they put their money in a safe place and saved that way. Today such a course of action would be madness, the value of the money would be inflated away. If for example one put a hundred dollars under a mattress for 20 years and there is a two percent annual rate of inflation, then at the end of the period the money would have lost about 25 percent of its purchasing power. In contrast between the founding of the Republic in 1789 and the founding of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1912 the purchasing power of the dollar increased by one hundred percent or about half a percent per annum. Thus if one tucked a hundred dollars under ones mattress for 20 years it would increase in value by 10 to 12 percent. In other words under the gold standard the financially less sophisticated had a way saving money and getting a small return without subjecting them to the financial risk that they must brave today.

Second they bought sound bonds. Under the current fiat system this is a sucker bet, unless one takes on huge amounts of risk on so called junk bonds, the returns are eaten up by inflation. In contrast under the gold standard, the bonds of railroads and utilities offered the financially unsophisticated low but constant returns on their investments. It was for example possible to buy bonds that had a fixed rate of interest of 3 percent paid year in and year out for 150 years. Thus the poor but thrifty worker could lend the hundred dollars he had saved to the railroad and know that he would be getting three dollars in interest every year for the rest of his life. Over time the interest he was receiving would grow in value as the purchasing power of the dollar increased. When he died the same fixed rate of interest would be paid to his widow and then his children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. A hundred and fifty years later when the principal was repaid by the railroad to his great grandchildren it would have had twice the purchasing power it had when he lent it. I say would have had, because since the establishment of the federal reserve bank in 1912, the dollar has lost 99 percent of its purchasing power. That is to say a dollar today has the same purchasing power as a cent had in 1912. Thus the great grandchildren would not receive not twice the purchasing power as the thrifty saver had expected, but one hundredth the purchasing power of the principal.

C The Gold Standard Allows for Long Range Planning

This leads me to my last point about the Gold Standard. It allows individuals, associations, and corporations to make long range plans.

It is a regular complaint from the left that corporations are short sighted. They don’t invest enough in research and development. They don’t look at technology that could be profitable over the long run and have substantial social or environmental benefits, because they are to focused on the short term return.

Well if one thinks about it this is no surprise. How can a company think about long range projects when it has no idea about the rate of inflation in the future. Suppose that an investment is sure to pay $100,000 every year for the next fifty years. If the inflation rate may bounce around from 1 percent to 20 percent or even higher how does one value that stream of income? The fiat money system is like putting Vaseline over the telescope through which companies and individuals try and look into the future. Think about the lender who bought the 150 year bond thinking he was leaving a legacy to his great grandchildren but who instead left them a penny.

In the 1890s under the gold standard, railroads and savers believed not without reason that they could plan, invest and borrow over a 150 year time horizon. Today the federal government and those who lend to it don’t believe they can plan beyond a ten to twenty year time horizon. That is but one effect of the abandonment of the gold standard.

D What the Left Once Knew

I will close with the words of the fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw who wrote in a leaflet on this subject, “the value of gold and silver money tends to maintain itself, while the value of paper money depends on the honesty and integrity of bankers and government officials, and with all due respect to those gentlemen, I must advise you as long as the capitalist system lasts to vote for gold.”

On the Eve of Saint Crispin's Day

2007-10-24T11:04:00.000-04:00

Tomorow is an important day in the history of our people. In three battles over 500 years the English speaking peoples emerged victorious. At Agincourt in 1415 Henry V defeated the French and saved his army. On October, 25 1854 the light Brigade Charged to eternal glory. The combined Anglo-American fleet decisively defeated the Imperial Japanese Navy in 1944 at the Battle of Leyte Gulf . This last included the last battleship to battleship engagement thus far and the last time a battle was won by crossing the enemies T.

However it is Shakespere who made this day immortal when he wrote Henry Vs speech on the Eve of Saint Crispin's Day. A youtube reading here.

My cousin Westmorland. No, my fair cousin:
If we are marked to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will, I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It ernes me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God's peace, I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more.
Rather proclaim it presently through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart. His passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the Feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a-tiptoe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall see this day and live t'old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian":
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remembered.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day. Henry V (IV, iii)

Why the United States War Against Iraq is Legal

2007-09-12T09:33:00.000-04:00

There has been a wide spread myth propagated by those who oppose the actions of the United States and its allies in invading Iraq that this was illegal because: it violated article 1 section 1 and article 2 section 4 of the United Nations Charter and article 1 of the Pact of Paris (a.k.a. the Kellogg-Briand Pact).

Those who take this position simply either a) don’t know what they are talking about or b) do know but have put their ideology or political opinions ahead of their respect for international law.

The principal that a war of aggression is a violation of international law was first stated in Art. 1 of the 1928 Pact of Paris or Kellogg-Briand Pact which reads in relevant part, “The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.”

Now taken alone, this might suggest that those who condemn the U.S. invasion of Iraq are right in believe that our actions violated international law. However it was well understood by the signatories that the pact did not renounce the use of force in self defense. See e.g. Secretary Kellogg’s Testimony before the Senate and Sir. Austen Chamberlain’s letters on the subject. These make clear that war waged in defense of a nations territory or vital interests are not illegal.

However the Pact of Paris had not tried to define what aggression was so in 1933 a further agreement was negotiated, the Convention for the Definition of Aggression. Art 2 Sec. 5 of the convention reads in relevant part, “Accordingly, the aggressor in an international conflict shall, subject to the agreements in force between the parties to the dispute, be considered to be the State which is the first to commit any of the following actions: (5) Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.”

As mentioned previously the Charter of the United Nations states that the purposes of the United Nations is to, “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.” U.N Charter Art. 1 Sec. 1 and to that end that, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” U.N. Charter Art. 2 Sec. 4

Because aggression was not defined in the Charter of the UN a committee was appointed to proposes such a definition. The committee produced a proposal which the General Assembly recommended for further action in Resolution 2214. This definition reads in relevant part. Art. 3 “Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression:” Art. 3 (a) “The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof.” Art. 3 (g) “The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.”

This language while some what different from the convention of 1933 has the same effect. It is an act of aggression to support armed bands and send them into the territory of another sovereign state. For example if a state pays people to strap explosives to their body and go into another sovereign state and blow themselves up in the middle of a crowd as Iraq did to Israel this is an act of aggression. While no state is obligated to go to war to stop an act of aggression against a third nation, they are certainly entitled to do so, since article 51 of the U.N. charter states that nothing in the charter shall outlaw acts of individual or collective self defense.

To take another example when a state invades another without sufficient provocation under international law and drives out its government and engages in rape and pillage as Iraq did to Kuwait that is an act of aggression. While no state is obligated to go to war to stop an act of aggression against a third nation, they are certainly entitled to do so, as the United States did in this case. While the U.N. sanction for the action made the U.S.’s action legal beyond doubt, it would have been legal in any case. The armistice which ended the war had conditions which the government of Iraq violated repeatedly in the intervening 14 years. It is certainly a vital interest of the United States that the armistice agreements it makes are observed.

Thus when the U.S. invaded Iraq, it had two perfectly legitimate grounds for doing so, first to put an end to Iraq’s illegal war of aggression against the state of Israel and second to enforce its rights under the armistice agreement that ended the first Iraq war. That the United States’ purpose was to ensure that a hostile state did not acquire nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons which it wrongly thought Iraq was in the midst of getting, does not in the slightest effect the legality of the United States’ action.

It is time to lay to rest the myth, propagated by some innocently and by others with malicious intent, that the invasion of Iraq by the United States was contrary to international law. In fact the United States acted to enforce international law outlawing aggressive war when most of the world would have rather looked the other way. It is for shaming the posers in the international community who like to talk, but hardly ever act that the United States and its allies are being pilloried.

6 Years Later

2007-09-11T09:42:00.000-04:00

It has been 6 years since the enemy killed more than 3,000 of our fellows were coldly butcher in total contravention of the laws and usages of war. Those of us who can remember the taste of the grit from the smashed buildings and the shocked realization that as we breathed, we were ingesting the cremated ash of the dead will not forget.

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

The Temeraire

2007-08-23T18:22:00.000-04:00

I was surfiing the net and stumbled upon both Turner's masterpiece "The Fighting Temeraire tugged to her last Berth to be broken up" here and Melvile's poem on the same subject. Both are old favorate but I haden't thought about either in a long time.

The gloomy hulls, in armour grim,
Like clouds o'er moors have met,
And prove that oak, and iron, and man
Are tough in fibre yet.

But Splendours wane. The sea-fight yields
No front of old display;
The garniture, emblazonment,
And heraldry decay.

Towering afar in parting light,
The fleets like Albion's forelands shine -
The full-sailed fleets, the shrouded show
Of Ships-of-the-Line.

The fighting Temeraire,
Built of a thousand trees,
Lunging out her lightnings,
And beetling o'er the seas -

O Ship, how brave and fair,
That fought so oft and well,
On open decks you manned the gun
Armorial.

What cheerings did you share,
Impulsive in the van,
When down upon leagued France and Spain
We English ran -

The freshet at your bowsprit
Like the foam upon the can.
Bickering, your colours
Licked up the Spanish air,

You flapped with flames of battle-flags -
Your challenge, Temeraire!

The rear ones of our fleet
They yearned to share your place,
Still vying with the Victory
Throughout that earnest race -

The Victory, whose Admiral,
With orders nobly won,
Shone in the globe of the battle glow -
The angel in that sun.

Parallel in story,
Lo, the stately pair,
As late in grapple ranging,
The foe between them there -

When four great hulls lay tiered,
And the fiery tempest cleared,
And your prizes twain appeared,
Temeraire!

But Trafalgar is over now,
The quarterdeck undone;
The carved and castled navies fire
Their evening gun.
O, Titan Temeraire,
Your stern-lights fade away;
Your bulwarks to the years must yield,
And heart-of-oak decay.
A pigmy steam-tug tows you,
Gigantic to the shore -
Dismantled of your guns and spars,
And sweeping wings of war.
The rivets clinch the ironclads,
Men learn a deadlier lore;
But Fame has nailed your battle-flags -
Your ghost it sails before:
O, navies old and oaken,
O, Temeraire no more!

Independence Day

2007-07-04T12:57:00.000-04:00

Today is for an American the most important holiday on the calendar, celebrating the principals upon which the nation was founded. It is also in a way the beginning of the Anglosphere as something distinct from the British state. I don’t have anything to say and will let the words of our third president speak for me.

“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government ..

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levey war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

On Virtue

2007-05-28T10:59:00.000-04:00

This post is a response to Bill’s Post at EjectEjectEject “You are not alone.” He brought up a point that needs a good place to discuss it and I thought I would provide one until such time as the Ejectia project is further along. That topic is Virtue.

In his post, Bill pointed out and listed the Aristotelian virtues. They are all to my mind important ones, but I think that Rand did a good job when she said that the primary virtues were Rationality, Productiveness and Pride.
There are several other lists of Virtues on the net. Wikipedia is a good place to start looking.

Here are some links for Virtue, Virtue Ethics, the Nicomachean Ethics, and Objectivist Ethics.

I Call Bullshit or You Can’t Have it Both Ways

2007-04-19T10:00:00.000-04:00

There are some who are trying to use the tragic events at Virginia Tech to push the anti gun agenda. Never mind that the school was a “gun-free zone,” never mind that gun control is not a proven method of lowering violence in society. However I don’t want to comment on gun control generally in this post.

I want instead to look at the part of the left that has spent the last four years telling us that Bush is Hitler and now demand the disarmament of the people. I agree that this president has dangerously restricted liberty and expanded executive power. However, I do not think Bush is a power tripping genocidal dictator either.

However those who do think that have some explaining to do. Should gays, women, and other potential victims of Bushitler TM be disarmed in the face of the “Bush Agenda” TM ? If the republic is really in danger of being subverted by a dictator, one would think that that was the time to call the people to arms, not to disarm them.

The loony left faces a serious logical problem.

It is called the law of non contradiction. It was first stated by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago. “A thing can not both have and not have the same characteristic in the same respect. Either Bush is a genocidal dictator and the people should, “put their trust in god, but keep their powder dry,” or Bush is not a genocidal dictator and we should trust the authorities under his control to protect us and not keep our own means of self defense, but not both.

So which is it boys and girls? You can’t have it both ways.

Before you Kirk someone remember Google is forever

2007-04-12T12:45:00.000-04:00

If you run a company and a blogger makes a critical review of your services you should learn the story of J. L. Kirk & Associates, aka Kirk Associates, or JL Kirk, or JLK, or JLK-A, or “Kirk“, before you decide to have your lawyers send threatening letter trying to shut them up.

Katherine Coble blogged about her husband’s experience with J. L. Kirk & Associates, she related that she felt that the firm was at best a hard sell and at worst, a scam, a fraud, a rip-off, or a con.

The company was foolish enough to have their lawyers send a letter threatening an action for defamation on what seem to be weak or non existent grounds, since the truth is an absolute defense to libel.

In the following 24 hours J. L. Kirk & Associates, has gone from being not well known, to infamous, to a new internet verb.

Kirk, is now a verb meaning to act like a stupid bully towards a blogger.

I have no knowledge of whether or not J. L. Kirk & Associates is or is not guilty of the practices Ms. Coble described. However I am sure that J. L. Kirk & Associates acted like stupid bullies who know nothing of the dynamic of the internet when they had their lawyer threaten Ms. Coble.

Given this I can assert that as fact that I would never do businesses with them and give as an opinion that anyone who does business with them is a fool.

Would you hire the lawyers who gave J. L. Kirk & Associates the service that they did? I would have advised J. L. Kirk & Associates to give it a rest. So would any lawyer who knows anything about the internet.

Also blogging on this are instapundit, captain’s quarters, bill hobbs, and bob krumm. A summary of local reaction is here.

By the way are Kirk and their lawyers now libel proof, that is to say are their reputations now so ruined it is impossible to injure their reputation? We shall see.

Also does Coble have a counter claim? The comment on her blog by a person claiming to be a J. L. Kirk & Associates employee was possibly defamatory.

The Infantilization of Our Youth

2007-02-17T22:37:00.000-05:00

While doing research for my up coming post for the birthday of Washington, I came across the following which I present because It makes a point I want to address. What follows is part of a longer piece on Valley Forge

"Lewis Hurt, age 17, a private from Connecticut. Benjamin Blossom, age about 31 years, a soldier from Massachusetts. George Ewing, age 23, an Ensign of the Seventh Company in the Third New Jersey Regiment. Joseph Plumb Martin, age 15 when he enlisted in Connecticut's Third Company on July 6, 1776; age 16 when he arrived at Valley Forge. They came from Virginia, North Carolina, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey...They represented every state in the new union. Some were still boys -- as young as 12 -- others in their 50s and 60s."

The point is that once upon a time young people in our society had a lot more independence and responsibility than they do today. They were out fighting for their freedom and the nations independence. Today, all to often, young people are kept-act like children into their 20s.

At Common Law young people had more independence than they do today. While it is true that majority was not until 21, at 14 a boy or girl was able witness deeds and contracts, testify in court, select their own guardian, bequeath personal property by will, own land, and apprentice themselves. With their guardian’s permission, they could marry. They could even enter contracts for necessities and in theory could sell land, but since they had a right to void the contract on turning 21, most buyers would not buy land from minors. However, their guardian could take such action for them if he or she agreed with them.

Basically turning 21 meant that a person not longer needed a guardian, could vote, and that their contracts would henceforth be enforced whether they were in their interests or not. This meant that the period from 14 to 21 was a period of quasi adulthood were the young person could make many important decisions but had training wheals so to speak in the form of his legal guardian and the courts.

Now one may question some of the details of the common law scheme, for example the sexual inequality where by young women of 12 were accorded the “training wheels” stage that young men had to wait until 14 to be given. One might also question whether 21 was an appropriate age of majority. However the over all idea of having a training period where young people can make some but not all of their own decisions is a good one.

If we want superior performance from our young people, we need to both give them more independence and responsibility. (more info on the common law rules here)

Other “Mercenaries"

2007-02-12T19:58:00.000-05:00

Arkin’s use of the word mercenaries to describe U.S. forces in Iraq (type his name in yahoo to find, I'm not spreading his bilge) reminds me of two things, first A. E. Houseman’s Epitaph On An Army of Mercenaries, here and secondly of the “mercenaries,” formerly known as volunteers before our Orwellian friends decided that volunteer might send the wrong message, who have played such a prominent roll in the history of our people.

After all it was volunteers that made parliament’s victory in the English Civil War possible. It was volunteers who formed the core of the Continental Army that won the American War of Independence. Volunteers by the millions carried the American republic on their bayonets through four long hard years of war.

In this last context one might point to the politicization of the Union Army, those dreadful mercenaries, who voted overwhelmingly for one party during the election of 1864 but if I noted who they voted for and which party against, I might be accused of “questioning the patriotism” of Arkin or even of waving the bloody shirt.

Nor is this the end of volunteers in the history of our people. The Spanish American war was fought by “mercenaries” most famously the Rough Riders a.k.a. the 1st U.S. Volunteer Cavalry Regiment. The Boer War was fought by “mercenaries” from Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Cape Colony and Natal.

Among the English Speaking People the draft is an innovation first seen (briefly) in the American Civil War and more frequently during the 20th Century. It is my hope that aside from militia forces for local defense, conscription will never be seen again among our people. Lets leave conscription to the French who invented it and the Germans who perfected it.

Abraham Lincoln’s Birthday

2007-02-12T16:29:00.000-05:00

Today is the 198th anniversary of the birth of a great leader of our people, Abraham Lincoln 16th President of the United States. I could write much about him, but I will just let his own words, spoken at the dedication of Gettysburg National Cemetery durring the third anglosphere civil war speak for him.

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

The Eton Wall Game, Making a Mystery of the Commonplace

2007-02-11T19:10:00.000-05:00

I am taking keyboard in hand today to write about a rather off beat subject, the Eton Wall Game. I want to start by saying that the title of this little post is not meant to put down the Eton Wall Game, but to explain it. Not the rules of the game, those I barely understand, in fact I am not sure you could understand the published rules (here) without looking at the wall and field where it is played and seeing a game or having it described by a player, and that is the point of this post.

From my own experience and from what friends from various back grounds have told me of their own childhood, it is safe to say that young people adopt, mix, and create games that fit their specific circumstances. Tag, soccer, baseball, rugby, American football, when they are played by actual boys (and girls to) on a particular playing field, have their rules adopted to the circumstances of the playing field and of the players. These adoptions are often so extensive as to make the game very different often nearly non understandable to outsiders.

This, it is obvious, is what the Eton Wall Game is all about, a rugby-soccer type game played on a particular field, at a particular school, in Berkshire, the United Kingdom. To prove this point the goals are at one end of the sport’s only playing field, a door and at the other end a tree. (more details here) There is nothing weird about this, on the contrary it is wonderful that the boys at Eton have cared enough about themselves and their school to perpetuate a tradition of play over more than two hundred years and to write down the rules.

However to read some articles about the Wall Game you would think it was either a) something special that only those superior beings who go to Eton could play or b) something foolish that only the under brained off spring of those with more money than sense would play, and in either case mysterious and non understandable. It is neither, it is one of probably 50,000 (or more) different games played on specific lots or fields around the world by a limited number of specific children.

What is interesting about the Eton Wall Game is that by the fame of the school, it draws ones attention to a commonplace phenomenon. It is at once an example of Hayekian spontaneous order (the boys didn’t set out to start a great tradition, they just wanted to have fun) and of Burke’s particularism (it would be pointless to try and make the Wall Game a widespread game with a fixed type of playing field like soccer) It reminds us both that social order does not have to be externally imposed and that general principals however true and important must develop in their own organic way in each specific context.

Letter to the globe re AGW

2007-02-10T23:17:00.000-05:00

I wrote the following as a letter to a writer at the Boston Globe

I was really shocked to read the following in your column, “ I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.”

This is simply not true. (What is denying the factuality of future events? They haven’t happened yet so theories that claim to describe them can’t be true or false) (note: the theory could be, but we couldn't tell until the future occured) However, the differences in evidence for the two events is instructive.

I have seen movies of the newly liberated camps, the corpses of those who died after liberation stacked like wood. I have meet survivors of the camps, my friends and relatives have meet others. I have read in part, the record and evidentiary documents of the Nuremburg trials. I have meet some of the prosecutors, doctors, and guards who served at Nuremburg and who spoke with the perpetrators. The holocaust undeniably happened. It is a fact of history.

The theory of human caused global warming is an opinion. While I am a non scientist, I have meet scientists, (none employed by the oil industry) who do not believe the earth is getting warmer. I have meet ones who are unsure if the earth is getting warmer. I have meet ones who are sure the earth is getting warmer, but are not at all sure that it is cause by humans. I have meet ones who believe it is getting warmer and that humans caused it. Is this consensus? (Leaving alone the value of consensus in science)

I am of course, not a scientist, but as a citizen of the Republic and as a human being, I take my responsibility to keep abreast of the debate on global warming seriously. I try to figure out what would be happening if this or that explanation was true. What I have read and observed leads me to believe that the earth may be getting warmer, but it may not. The cause (if there is global warming) is to my mind far from clear. CO2 is undoubtedly a greenhouse gas, but is it the cause of the warming that has been observed, (which is far from global by the way, mostly observable in the northern hemisphere) that is not certain. As I say, I am not a scientist, but I am trying to figure out what is going on.

From the above, I conclude that we need to spend a great deal of money on research to figure out what is happening. (I also recommend real estate investment in more northerly climes as a hedge against the possibility of global warming)

I am not impressed by a political statement that is allegedly based on a scientific document that has yet to be released. (Why weren’t they released at the same time? Desire to make the later conform to the former?) The fact that the report is released by the UN and under the approving sponsorship of 100 governments makes me the more nervous. The UN and governments have a huge interest in finding warming. It gives them a reason to expand their power. Have we learned nothing from the 20th century? Then there is the whole religious angle, global warming lets atheists (of which I am one) get in on the whole fire and brimstone act. Also look at the very real religious aspects of the environmental movement and look at its historical roots in the 20s and 30s.

The last thing that I want to say (which I hope you will not take to personally) is that while I am now a law student, I was for three years (Nov. 2000- Nov. 2003) a reporter. I saw the crap that came into the newsroom from all sorts of organizations in their press releases. I, trying to sort the wheat from the chaff would do a quick bit of research and call up the sender and ask a few critical questions. While most senders were full of it, three groups stand out in my mind, corporations, governments and environmental groups. The last were by far the worst offenders. They had the most slender evidence and made the most of what they had. I can’t be alone in this experience. Why, when a document (basically a press release) that is produced by a collaboration of governments and the environmental movement comes out, is meet with so little critical examination?

Very Sincerely Yours,

Stephen W. Houghton II

Happy Birthday AR

2007-02-02T00:56:00.000-05:00

Today is the 102nd Aniversery of the birth of one of the 20th Century's heros, Ayn Rand.

Royal America?

2007-01-31T11:36:00.000-05:00

Michael Barone has a piece that is to me both interesting and sad. (hat tip instapundit) With the candidacy of Senator Clinton, he asks is not the presidency of United States taking on a touch of Royalism. “Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. It sounds like the Wars of the Roses: Lancaster, York, Lancaster, York.”

Those who have read my work, know that as a theoretical matter, I consider a well designed constitutional monarchy to be the best form of government. However, I believe that since in fact American liberty was won-defended as a historical achievement by republican (in the narrow sense) governments and enshrined in our republican constitution, it would be dangerous to liberty to abandon our constitution.

Further I admit to a desire to keep the experiment in non-monarchical government going for as long as it protects most liberties. This is motivated by both patriotic sentiment and scientific curiosity. It is for me a passionate hope that I will died and my children, grand children and great grandchildren should live and die as citizens of the Republic. However if the American people really want a royal family to ogle at and be the center of national life then let us not accept the pallid substitute of the Bushes, Clintons, and Kennedys.

For 169 years from 1607 to 1776, what is now the United States was reigned over by a royal house who’s pomp and majesty has never been surpassed and which was and to a greater extent today is relatively amiable to liberty. If we really mean after 231 proud years to bring our experiment in non monarchical government to an end, then I have a suggestion.

She is the High and Mighty Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary by the grace of God of Antigua and Barbuda, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, Barbados, the Confederation of Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, the Dominion of New Zealand, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and her other territories, Queen, Duke of Normandy and Lord of Mann

She would be a most suitable head of state both because she is the legitimate claimant and because she is a women of rare dignity and vast experience. To give but one example her first Prime Minister was Sir Winston Churchill, she has been reading the dispatch boxes for 55 years. We could even keep the republic titularly non monarchical by calling her Lady Defender of the Republic or some such. If we really wanted to restore the monarchy there is even a suitable event coming up, she is scheduled to attend the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown this summer (she also attended the 350th).

However if we want to keep the Republic non monarchical, than we ought not to keep electing people from the same families to be chief magistrate. I for one am looking forward to Elizabeth’s diamond jubilee in 2012 when I hope she will still reign over all 16 of the Commonwealth Relms, I do not want the United States to be one of them.

Long Live The Republic!

Speaking the life of Augusto Pinochet Ugarte

2006-12-14T22:03:00.000-05:00

I take keyboard in hand today to speak the public life of Augusto Pinochet Ugarte.

He was born 25 November 1915 in Valparaiso, Chile the son of Augusto Pinochet Vera and Avelina Ugarte Martinez. He married Lucia Hiriart Rodriguez in 1943. They had three daughters Lucía, María Verónica, Jacqueline Marie and two sons Augusto Osvaldo and Marco Antonio. He died 10 December, 2006 in Santiago de Chile.

Augusto Pinochet Ugarte graduated from the Millitary School of the Republic of Chile in 1937 and served the Republic of Chile for the rest of his life. After many commands at the company, battalion, regimental, and division level he was appointed General Chief of Staff of the Army in 1972 and Army Commander in Chief in 1973. He lead the armed forces in a revolt against the usurping president Salvador Allende. He reformed the laws and constitution of the republic and after losing a plebiscite called for by his own reforms stepped down from the presidency peacefully and returned to his role as commander in chief and later senator for life. He died surrounded by family and honored by a grateful nation. Isn’t that a nice story.

Augusto Pinochet Ugarte over threw the legitimately elected president of the Republic of Chile. His coup was a violent one and the early years of his rule bloody and tyrannical. It is believed that about 3,000 people suffered extrajudicial execution during the course of his rule and that an additional 20,000 were tortured. His policies were by no means all successful. During the course of his rule he used his office to personally enrich himself. In short he was a murdering, torturing, thieving dictator . In retirement he was pursued by public prosecutors from many nations, including his own. He is a warning to all those who would over through legitimately elected governments. Isn’t that a nice morality tale.

The truth of course is somewhere in between these two caricatures of his life. I am in fact writing today to commemorate the life of a man who if the Catholics are right about the afterlife, will if he avoids roasting in hell, spend a very long time in purgatory.

At his death, he stands reviled as a murderious dictator. This is of course true, but neither is it the whole truth. In justice to the memory of Pinochet, it is important to lay out the context in which the coup of the 11th of September 1973 took place.

The first thing to remember about the coup is that the government of Salvador Allende which he over threw was by no means a functioning republic. On the contrary, under Allende the rule of law had been suspended in favor of extra judicial expropriation, the suppression of a free press, and rule by decree. The orders of courts of the republic were being routinely disregarded. The power of the printing press was being used to inflate the currency to deliberately impoverish the middle class. His supporters were being organized into armed militias independent of legal state control. Allende was in fact in the middle of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat.

The situation had reached the point where the supreme court had publicly issued a unanimous resolution denouncing the Allende government for its “ disruption of the legality of the nation.”

On August 22, 1973 the chamber of deputies adopted by a vote of 81 to 47 a resolution charging the Allende government with attempting “to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the state... [with] the goal of establishing a totalitarian system." This resolution called on the military to over through the government.

Now none of this can excuse many of the later actions of Pinochet, but it does explain why he and the rest of the Chilean military decided to over through the government of President Allende.

The second thing it is important to remember is that Augusto Pinochet is by no means the only dictator in the history of the 20th Century. To fairly evaluate his life he must be evaluated against his peers, that is to say his fellow dictators. In this context we must evaluate several things, the oppressiveness of his regime, how he behaved himself personally as head of state and government, and what was the result of his extra legal rule.

One extremely crude measure of oppressiveness is the number of people killed in extra judicial killings. It is undisputed that about 3,000 Chileans were killed outside of the normal processes of law, mostly during the early days of the military government. To compare this to Stalin, one of the most bloody dictators in history, if the same proportion of the population was killed, under Pinochet as under Stalin, about 2 million, instead of 3,000 people would have died. That is to say about a 1,000 times as many. Another standard of comparison would be the dictatorship of the same period in Argentina where about 20,000 people “disappeared.” Argentina has about 2.5 times the population of Chile. The Argentine dictatorship was about three times as bloody as Pinochet’s regime.

Pinochet clearly did not act personally as head of state and government in a manner that was above reproach. He accumulated a large fortune that he stole from the government and people of Chile. That this is the predictable out come of absolute power is shown by the vast majority of his fellow dictators who personally enriched themselves at the expense of their people. As Lord Acton wrote, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Most dictatorships end in one of two ways. Ether the dictator is himself overthrown or assassinated, or he clings to power until his death. In either case the state is left in a state of chaos. It is to Pinochet’s credit that he voluntarily established a new constitutional order and that when, in accordance with that law, he had to relinquish power, he did so. His economic policies were a mixed bag, but generally positive. Since the end of his rule, Chile has been a prosperous democratic republic.

That as dictators go he was not totally blood soaked and that he reestablished a constitutional system of government, of course does not excuse his many sins, but it does put them in perspective.

A third point that I think needs to be considered is to look at a counterfactual example.

If during the early years of his rule, the German army had revolted against Adolph Hitler, the 20th Century would be considerably less bloody. The army considered it several times. Knowing what we know now, if the army had in 36, 38, or 39 risen against the government, they would have earned eternal glory.

However if they had done so, we would never have known how awful Hitler’s regime would have been. Would the German army have been praised or vilified? After all, they would have had to have killed a lot of Nazis to take power. They would likely have put a stop to Hitler’s social programs.

If the army had overthrown the National Socialist German Workers Party would they be remembered as the crushers of a potential democratic socialist state? Remember Hitler was elected and on a national welfare platform not so different from Allende‘s. Would Hitler in that event have been seen in retrospect as the poor well meaning social reformer who was gunned down by the ruthless army? We will never know, because the German army failed to act.

If Allende had not be overthrown would he now be known as the founder of a foul and murderous socialist dictatorship. Would people be saying “what if” and “why didn’t” the Chilean army over though Allende while there was still time? We will never know, because Pinochet did not fail to act.

This of course does not excuse the excesses to which Pinochet went, but it does caution us against blind condemnation.

So, on Sunday died a man who should be condemned for his crimes, but not out of proportion to his crimes.

If that sounds ambivalent, it is so for a reason. If a consistent standard was applied to former dictators, I would be more inclined to be condemnatory, but this is unfortunately not the case.

How many African dictators have committed absolutely or proportionately more killing than Pinochet, totally impoverished their people, equivalently enriched themselves, left a worse state of affairs to their successors, clung to power till the end and then been buried with plaudits to “the father of the nation” or at least allowed death in the dignity of unnoticed anonymity.

I guess my over all ambivalence can be summed up by a story about Ayn Rand. She received a letter asking her to join a group of writers condemning Father Coughlin. The group was an obvious socialist front and Rand wrote back that she would be happy to join when the group was against Father Coughlin and X, Y, and Z other left wing totalitarian public personalities, “but not until then comrades, not until then.”

So to paraphrase Shakespeare, as Augusto Pinochet Ungarte was a patriot, I praise him, as he was a good soldier, I admire him, as he overthrew a usurper, I proclaim him, but as he was a tyrant, I condemn him. The evil a man does lives after him, the good is oft interred with his bones, so let it be with Pinochet, but that won’t be the whole truth.

Update: BTW I have had responses from people who seem to think that I think we should go easy on Pinochet. On the contrary, I think he should have been tried for what he did, just as the Nazis were tried at the end of the Second World War. I just think we should be more consistent about it. How many communist dictators are living out their last days in peace? Will they receive international condemnation when they die? So by all means lets shoot ALL former dictators or at least write nasty things about them when they die of natural causes, but not some of them.

Dec 7, 1941

2006-12-07T18:15:00.000-05:00

Today is the 65th anniversary of the attack on the U.S. navel base Pearl Harbor, T.H. My only though is a depressed reflection on the difference between our reaction to that attack and our reaction to the 9-11 attacks.

Eternal Father Strong to Save
who’s arm hath bound the restless wave.
Whom bids the mighty ocean deep
its own appointed limits keep.
O hear us when we cry to thee
for those in peril on the sea.

UPDATE: It was the 65th not the 75th anniversary.

AUN! Thoughts: A Day to Remember

2006-11-29T23:56:00.000-05:00

Today is the 132nd anniversary of the birth of one of the greatest war leaders in the history of our people, the Right Honorable Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill Knight of the Garter, Order of Merit, Companion of Honor, Fellow of the Royal Society, Privy Counselor, Privy Counselor for Canada, twice Prime Minister, Leader of the House of Commons, Chancellor of the Exchequer, the first ever Minister of Defense, twice First Lord of the Admiralty, Secretary of State for War, Secretary of State for Air, Minister of Munitions, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Home Secretary, President of the Board of Trade, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, Elder Brother of Trinity House, Chancellor of the University of Bristol, Father of the House of Commons, Nobel Laureate for Literature, first Honorary Citizen of the United States, etc.

He was born 30 November, 1874 at Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire, the home of his fathers, the first son of Lord Randolph Churchill and Jennie Jerome. He was a graduate of Harrow and the Royal Military College Sandhurst. He served in India with the 4th (Queen’s Own) Hussars and fought on the Northwest Frontier. He charged with the 21st Lancers at Omdurman, the last real cavalry charge of the British Army. He served with the South African Light House during the Second Boer War. He was elected to parliament for the first time in 1899 and sat almost without interruption through the reign of six monarchs. He joined the cabinet for the first time in 1908. During the First World War he served with the Royal Scots Fusiliers commanding the 6th battalion (territorial army) on the Western Front. He was a journalist, inventor (the patent for the tank), author, painter, soldier, statesman, and quite possibly the savior of western civilization. He was, in short, a very great man.

He died 24 January, 1965 and after a state funeral was laid to rest in the graveyard of St. Martin Church, Bladon a short drive from where he was born. May his memory endure as long as our people.

AUN! News: A Huge Loss

2006-11-16T21:22:00.000-05:00

Economist Milton Freedman is dead at age 94. I have to say I feel a bit hollow. He was a giant and now he is gone. Ended the Draft and improved monetary policy. Could speak intelligibly about freedom. We didn’t what we had until we lost him. I am more shocked than when Reagan died. But not as shocked as I will be when Thatcher goes. That will be then end of an era. RIP

BTW I just realized my previous post on boarding schools was my 100th. Seems silly now but I had meant to make a big deal about that. Now just shocked.

UPDATE this should have been posted sooner but I had trouble posting

Boarding Schools

2006-11-14T18:49:00.000-05:00

A while back there was a post on Albion’s Seedlings and Chicagoboys which generated comments which explored education and especially mentioned the so called St. Grottlesex schools and more broadly the many boarding schools around the Anglosphere.

I am interested in this topic for what is basically two reasons. First, I think they are exactly what we need to look at in rebuilding an educational system for our country and the Anglosphere at large. Secondly as an old boy myself, I am naturally interested in boarding schools.

Anyway, here is a bunch of information for any one who is interested. I am going to start with a little parochialism giving links to the two boarding schools I attended, Eaglebrook, a junior boarding school and Avon Old Farms, a high school.

Then for those who are wondering what St. Grottlesex stands for, it is a name for St. Paul’s, St. Mark’s, St. George’s, Groton, and Middlesex.
Other famous American Boarding Schools include Andover, Exeter and Deerfield. The Association of Boarding Schools with links to U.S. and Canadian boarding schools is here.

Probably the most famous of the boarding schools in the Anglosphere is King’s College of Our Lady of Eton Beside Windsor. Others famous schools include Winchester, Rugby, and Harrow. The Dragon School is one of the more famous junior boarding schools. I could go on school by school, but here is a link to the Independent Schools Council in the UK and the Boarding Schools Association site.

Other organizations with links include the New Zealand Boarding Schools association here, a link to an Australian site is here, and the Independent Schools of Southern Africa site is here. A list of wikipedia links to boarding schools is here.

There is an interesting presentation by The Association of Boarding Schools here.

Finally what discussion of boarding schools would be complete without mention of boarding school’s contribution to English literature in the form of the boarding school novel, the most famous of which is no doubt Tom Brown’s Schooldays.

Count me with the Jews

2006-11-07T18:40:00.000-05:00

I have had it with these so called liberals. If you want to turn your stomach read this account of a participant at a pro-war demonstration who was asked point blank by a reporter if he was a Jew. The implication of course was that if he was Jewish he couldn’t be a real Canadian. He was especially offended since he is in fact Jewish, but what offends me is how the left has become more and more blind to the results of their association with the anti-war cause.

I want to ask the left what is “Liberal” or “Progressive” about asking people about their religion to provide “context” for a news story. When I was a boy anyone asking such a question in that context would have rightly been universally reviled as a bigot.

What is liberal about making common political cause with people who believe in the subjugation of women and the stoning of homosexuals? Not just common cause in some minor detail of politics, that would be understandable, but common cause in the defeat of the armed forces of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Kingdom of Canada, and the Commonwealth of Australia.

What is liberal about embracing the big lie theory of propaganda. “Bush Lied!” is just such a big lie. Anyone who has paid even the most cursory attention to the media realizes it is a lie. The much ballyhooed British Cabinet Documents which the anti war folks tried to spin into proof that “Bush Lied” when in fact by confirming that the intelligence picture was unchanged, showed that the Iraqi regime was still trying, as they had been trying for a decade (corrupting the international civil service in the process), to obtain biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Never mind the additional fact that Iraq had violated virtually every provision of the cease fire agreement that had ended the previous war and that we had been launching retaliatory air strikes all the while, which means there was no peace, only a war we were not trying to win. What I want to know is what is progressive about embracing the fucking Nazi theory of propaganda while calling the President of the United States Bushhitler all the while?

I will answer these questions, there is nothing liberal or progressive about it.

While there are no doubt well meaning people in the democratic party and I don’t just mean Joe Lieberman, the fact is that the democratic party and the left throughout the west is being corrupted by its flirtations with International ANSWER and other apologists for religious terrorist groups. I want to note here by the way ,the very honorable exception of Christopher Hitchens and the rest of that crowd. They are especially to be commended because they must know that this will not totally shield them from unjustified smears post war.

Here is the thing that really offends me about this, I am a liberal at least in the original sense of the word. I dislike it when conservatives use liberal as a smear. I don’t like voting republican as a least worse alternative. I wish the democrats would put up a moderate candidate who I could feel safe in intrusting with the defense of the republic. I would like a much closer watch put on the use of coercive methods of interrogation and stricter rules for military commissions.

Instead what do I get? A party that is to busy cozying up to the anti war movement to give a thought for the average voter who would like a choice.

Now back to the title of this post. I am an atheist, but I was raised in the Episcopal Church. In the hymns we sang every Sunday, which hold my heart still, even if I can’t make my self believe them, we identified ourselves as the people of Zion or Israel. When the crucifixion was told on Good Friday, it was not the Jews, in the sense of some evil other, but the Jews in the sense of us, the people of god who were blamed for rejecting the messiah, just as it was held we rejected him when we sinned. According to the religion of my childhood, the only one to which I could return, I am a Jew.

If playing anti Semitic games is now thought to be A.O.K. in politics, count me among the Jews. I would rather stand with King Christian X of Demark who when told by the Nazi occupation government that they were going to make his Jewish subjects ware a Star of David to mark them out from the rest of his people, said that in that case he was going to ware one also. I would rather stand with King Christian and the many heroes who have opposed anti Semitism and bigotry than with those who stand with Neville Chamberlain for the appeasement of the enemies of our civilization.

That seems to me anyway to be the heart of the question. The left (with the exceptions before mentioned and some others) seems to have lost all respect for our civilization. A civilization which traces it roots from ancient Greece and Rome through the fall of the empire to the Germanic conquerors. A civilization which for all it faults never lost touch with the primitive democracy of the German tribes or the Roman idea of the rule of law. A nation which centralized without abandoning the idea of feudal rights and which then expanded them into rights for all. As a conservative it is this great tradition of rights, democracy, the rule of law, and the struggle for progress that I want to preserve.

Now I don’t want to pretend the English Speaking people have a perfect record, not in general or certainly with respect to our Jewish fellow citizens or subjects. Obviously the expulsion of the Jews from England by King Edward was a disgrace. Nor do I want to pretend that there has never been any anti-Semitism among our people. However it was George Washington who assured the Jewish citizens of Providence that they would always enjoy religious liberty in the United States. It was the voters of the United Kingdom who in the Nineteenth Century returned Benjamin Disraeli as Prime Minister (the conservative voters at that).

Our civilization is a great one and I love it, not only in its manifestation as the United States, but as all the myriad of countries over which, Elizabeth by the grace of god, of the United Kingdom and her other realms and territories Queen, Defender of the Faith, Head of Commonwealth, reigns. For this I have been called a traitor by someone who of course has no idea what treason is under the Laws of the English Speaking People. While my first loyalty, is and must be, while I rely on its protection, to the United States, I feel a strong bond with my people, where ever they live. I hope as the title of this blog proclaims for the Union of all our people living around the world in London, Delhi, New York, Melbourne, Kingstown, Capetown, Singapore, Toronto, Christchurch and a million other places. You might even say I am a bit of an internationalist about it.

International relations is always a bit of a snake pit, but the English Speaking People always prefer if they can to support a country that shares there values. Israel, a liberal democracy in a region of dictatorships, is one such country and one of the most disturbing things about the left’s flirtation with the radical anti-war movement has been how this has turned them against a cause they once treasured. I for one support Israel’s right to exist. If that makes me a Zionist so be it.

In fact from a certain point of view one might almost say I am a Liberal, Jewish, Internationalist, Zionist and I am well known to be a supporter of Capitalism too. If that be treason, make the most of it.

Long Live the Republic!

Before You Vote

2006-11-07T12:41:00.000-05:00

There is an excellent post “Seeing the Unseen” at Eject, Eject Eject. It is important if you haven’t voted yet read it.

If the Democrats are Wondering

2006-11-03T22:43:00.000-05:00

If the Democrats are wondering what John Kerry’s case of foot in mouth disease has cost them, they should consider this. I WAS planning on returning to my normal voting pattern of voting the strait Libertarian Party ticket, after voting for Republicans in 2002 and 2004.

I dislike the president, especially his position on civil liberties and the budget. I WAS thinking that if the Democrats took control of one house, that might not be such a bad thing. Then John Kerry opened his mouth and reminded me of everything that I loath about the modern Democratic party.

I heard about Kerry’s “joke” or “misstatement” and could not help but think of Kipling’s poem “Tommy.” The one that begins,

“I went into a public house to get a pint of beer,
The publican he up and says, We serve no red coats here.”

And concludes with the famous lines.

“Don’t mess about the cook room slops, but prove it to our face
That the Widow’s Uniform is not the soldier man’s disgrace.

For it's Tommy this, and Tommy that, and “Chuck him out, the brute!”
But it’s “the savior of his country,” when the guns begin to shoot
And it’s Tommy this, and Tommy that, and anything you please
But Tommy ain’t a blooming fool you bet that Tommy sees!”

If the Democrats want to win elections, they have to make sure that me and a million voters like me don’t remember what we dislike about their party right before election day. Maybe then we will either vote for them or at least not vote for the Republicans. They ought to always keep in mind the old saying “it is better to remain silent and appear ignorant than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.”

Anglosphere Flag Proposal

2006-11-02T14:43:00.000-05:00

I designed this a while back and thought my readers, such as they are might be interested.

Anglosphere Institute Event Video

2006-11-01T19:59:00.000-05:00

There is a great video of the inaugeral event of the Anglosphere Institute by Professor Claudio Véliz. The brilliant talk titled "The Optional Descent of the English Speaking World," is well worth the investment of an hour and half.

American Indicted For Treason

2006-10-11T21:03:00.000-04:00

Adam Yehiye Gadahn was indicted by a California Grand Jury for having committed treason against the United States. He is the fellow who has been producing propoganda films for al-Qaida, the story is here.

This is interesting not only as it is the first treason indictment since the second world war, but because, the U.S. law of treason is very much an Anglosphere phenomenon.

The U.S. restricts the crime of treason as follows “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

The whole definition comes from the English statute law. The first sentence is two of the possible forms of treason under the Treason Act of 1351 (25 Edw. III St. 5 c. 2). The second sentence which requires two witnesses comes from the Treason Act of 1695 (7 & 8 Will. III c. 3).

Two Great Anglosphere Posts

2006-09-15T20:01:00.000-04:00

The monarchist has two great posts on the Anglosphere. I just noticed them earlier today. They are Anglosphere and Commonwealth here and Americas Choice Anglosphere or Anarchy here.

Happy 4th!

2006-07-04T23:10:00.000-04:00

I hope every one has a happy fourth of July. Thoughts by Jim of Albion's Seedlings here. The cause of all the fuss is here.

In Memoriam

2006-05-29T22:52:00.000-04:00

In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead.
Short days ago
We lived, saw dawn, felt sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch, be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

On Reforming Congress

2006-05-25T14:20:00.000-04:00

The recent corruption scandals among members of Congress point to a very serious need for reform. That the Speaker of the House of Representatives is trying to pretend that members of Congress are or should be exempt from search warrants, shows how far the rot of hyper arrogance and or dishonesty has spread.

A further problem is that most of the “solutions” that are being proposed in Washington to the culture of corruption are going to make things worse. This is because most of it centers around “Campaign Finance Reform” which gags free speech and increases the protections for entrenched incumbents.

What is needed is something that will bring fresh blood into the House of Representatives and reduces the cost of Senate elections. I have a few different proposals which I believe would help reduce the corruption in Washington.

First let us deal with the problem of the House of Representatives. The problem is that what is supposed to be the most democratic branch of our federal government is at the current incumbency rates, not that democratic.

Part of this problem stems from the fact that house districts have become unreasonably large. Each member of the House of Representatives represents a district of more than 600,000 persons. U.S. House districts are the second largest election districts of any lower house in the world. Only India with a population more than three times a great has larger districts and even then, their districts are smaller as a portion of the population. The House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Briton and Northern Ireland is almost fifty percent larger than the House of Representatives even though the population of the UK is about an eighth of that of the U.S.

These larger districts make large scale fund raising necessary, because they make grass roots campaigning less effective and TV advertising more effective. This both directly increases opportunities for corruption and tends to entrench incumbents by making it harder for challengers to unseat sitting members since challengers have a harder time raising money and need more to successfully challenge an incumbent.

One of the things we need to do is increase the number of members of the House of Representatives so that each representative has a smaller district. To do this I propose a constitutional amendment something like the following.

“After the next and every subsequent actual enumeration of the population, the Congress of the United States shall increase the number of elected Representatives by one hundred, until such year as the number of elected representatives is greater than or equal to one per 250,000 persons. After such year, at each subsequent actual enumeration of the population, the Congress of the United States shall increase the number of elected Representatives so that the number of elected representatives is greater than or equal to one per 250,000 persons.”

This would do two things. It would start to make House districts smaller and would add a hundred new members to Congress every ten years for the next 70 or so years. This would be like a tidal wave of new blood every 10 years, especially since redistricting already shakes up congress and brings in new members.

This alone should make the House substantially more responsive to the will of the people and reduce the hot house atmosphere that is so conducive to corruption. However to make the house even less subject to special interests, I believe, that we need to consider choosing about a third of the members of the House of Representatives by sortition.

Sortition means choosing the office holder by lottery from among the citizens. This would have problems of course, it would elevate a certain percentage of fools to the House of Representatives (no big change there), but it would also elevate a larger percentage of intelligent public spirited citizens from all walks of life who would not normally be members of congress. Those who did well could then run against the incumbent in their district for a elected seat.

It would mean that a third of the members of congress were not only new members, but ones who most likely would return to their normal life after serving the republic for two years.

If nothing else, it would brake the strangle hold of the legal profession on congress.

As for reforming the senate, I believe that ending the direct election of senators could have positive impact on the huge amount of money spent on senatorial races, Google “repeal 17” or “repeal 17th amendment” for details.

On Judicial Corporal Punishment

2006-05-25T11:53:00.000-04:00

What follows has little to do with the anglosphere directly. It is rather the exploration of an idea I have been thinking about for some time, the infliction of physical pain as a form of punishment for those convicted of a crime. I call this Judicial Corporal Punishment to distinguish it from parental corporal punishment.

Today, the punishment for crimes consists chiefly of fines, imprisonment, and forms of probation. While some anglosphere states do have capital punishment, it is infrequently applied and thankfully only for the most serious offenses.

The problems with the current system are as follows: it is expensive, it is often to lenient on first offenders, it is often to harsh on multiple offenders, it is not as effective a deterrent as it could be because it often fluctuates wildly between excessive leniency and excessive harshness.

The current system of incarceration is expensive and its expense is in a sense an injustice against law abiding citizens. There is no way of getting around the fact that jails cost money and so do jail guards. That the prisoner must be feed, clothed, etc. is an additional expense. That prisons are needed for certain types of offenders, is undeniable. Murderers who are not put to death, rapists, strong arm robbers, those who have committed assault with a deadly weapon, and multiple offenders all need to be incarcerated for the protection of the public and as a form of punishment. However it must be remembered that incarceration, being expensive inflicts a harm on the public.

Because there is no intermediate form of punishment between fines and imprisonment under the current system, many first offenders are treated with excessive lenience, they are sentenced to the term that the crime they have committed calls for, but the sentence is suspended on the condition of good behavior. While this may deter some criminals, because they don’t want their suspended sentence imposed, it is important to remember that the criminal mentality is often a short term and concrete bound one. That is to say, they see not the punishment that hangs over them if they re-offend, but the lack of punishment. Also for a concrete bound mentality, the psychological pain of imprisonment is fairly abstract, especially if never previously experienced.

The excessive harshness of the system on some multiple offenders is a result of the excessive leniency. Firstly, the punishment for first misdemeanor offenses being basically nothing, often not much effort is put into catching those who commit them. Then when the lack of punishment has not deterred a budding young criminal and he or she commits a felony often the sentence is still only a suspended one. The lack of punishment having encouraged further malefaction, the book is now thrown at the criminal. In the worst instances this may even include the “three strikes and you’re out law.” In this most serious instance, the criminal has never been effectively punished until society is stuck with paying for his life incarceration. To call such a system absurd is to be polite. Even when the “three strikes law” does not come into play, a criminal must be incarcerated for two long terms of imprisonment, the one suspended and the one for the new felony. (As for the nonsense of concurrent sentences, don’t get me started.)

This is clearly not an effective way to deal with criminal justice. It does not deter, and often it is not just. Not to the public who has to pay for long prison stays that might have been prevented and not to the criminal who might have learned the error of his ways had his early crimes been meet with appropriate punishment. I believe that corporal punishment could be an effective intermediate punishment between fines and imprisonment which would solve the problem of over leniency and over harshness.

Corporal punishment has a number of benefits. First, it is cheap compared incarceration. Secondly, it is a deterrent that even concrete bound minds can understand. Third, it allows for fine gradations of punishment. Fourth, it does not ruin the criminals life the way even a two or three year prison term could. Fifth, it allows the person punished to benefit society by acting as an example for others.

Even if we had to buy a new whip for each person, corporal punishment would be cheaper than even a short six month prison sentence. Since it is the innocent who pay for the penal system, cheapness is not to be despised. By saving money, corporal punishment is more just than incarceration.

A real problem with suspended sentences and the incarceration model is that for a concrete bound mentality, it is not a very strong deterrent. In contrast everyone knows that pain isn’t fun. We all try and avoid it. Corporal punishment is therefore a practical form of punishment.

Like incarceration, corporal punishment allows for gradations of punishment with minor crimes receiving a lesser punishment and serious ones a harsher penalty. For example, misdemeanor crimes could be punished by up to 12 strokes of the lash, lesser felonies by up to 24 strokes and serious felonies by up to 36 strokes. With in these broad categories, even finer gradations could be made. This allows the punishment to fit the seriousness of the offense which of course is just.

Unlike incarceration, corporal punishment does not ruin the life of the convict. A person thrown in jail for any substantial period of time has his life thoroughly ruined. Youngsters can’t finish school. Prisoners lose their job and possibly all their material positions. Single parents lose custody of their children. These ill effects do not fall only on the convict, but effect spouses, children and society at large. Corporal punishment punishes the convict without the side effects that harm others. Because it does not cause the side effects, corporal punishment is more just than incarceration.

While incarceration causes society additional harm in the form of the expense, corporal punishment has the potential to benefit society because its infliction can be used as an example to others. First offenders whose crime is not serious enough to merit the whip could be sentenced to watch it applied to another criminal. Further when a convict returns to his usual haunts, his healing wounds will bring before the eyes of his compatriots the penalty for breaking the law. Instead of the injustice of further harming the law abiding, corporal punishment includes an element of restitution.

While the forgoing points out defects of the current system and some of the advantages of corporal punishment, it does not address the belief of some that corporal punishment is so degrading that it is beyond the pale. My view on this is two fold. First of all, I am not convinced that the violence and ennui of prison life are any less soul destroying than a whipping. Secondly, punishment is supposed to be unpleasant, that is what, we hope, will deter people from committing crimes. I recognize that will not convince some, but I think most readers will see the sense in them.

If corporal punishment is a proper intermediate punishment, how is it to be used? I suggest the following as a starting point for discussion.

For first offenders who commit a misdemeanor, a sentence of between 2 and 6 strokes suspended on the condition of good behavior for the next 20 years plus a sentence of involuntary observation of between 24 and 48 strokes applied to other convicts. This would let the convict see with his own eyes what further malefaction would bring him and put a number of lashes hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles.

For second offenders who commit a misdemeanor, a sentence of between 4 and 12 strokes depending on the offence would be appropriate. This would be a strong punishment when added to his suspended sentence. Also the second offender should have an appropriate jail term imposed with all but a week of the sentence suspended on the condition of good behavior for the next 20 years. This would give the offender a weeks taste of prison, but leave most of the sentence as a deterrent against further crime.

For subsequent misdemeanor offences, a sentence of between 9 and 12 strokes of the lash depending on the offence and a jail term would be appropriate. This would be both a strong corporal punishment and for third offenders a relatively long jail term adding the suspended sentence. Hopefully these terms combined would be a taste of long term incarceration (i.e. 6 months to two years) that would warn off the criminal from further malefaction.

For first offenders who commit a lesser felony, a sentence of between 12 and 24 strokes and prison term of 1 to 4 years with half the lashes and all but a week of the prison term suspended on the condition of good behavior for the next 20 years would be appropriate. This would allow the felon to feel on his own back the consequences of continuing a life of crime and leave half his corporal punishment hanging over him along with the majority of the prison term.

For second offenders who commit a lesser felony, a sentence of 24 strokes and a prison term of 3 to 6 years would be appropriate. This would both be a very significant corporal punishment and would put the convict in prison for a relatively long time, especially if he had a suspended felony sentence.

For subsequent offenders who commit a lesser felony, a sentence of 24 strokes and a prison term of 6 to 9 years would be appropriate.

For first offenders who commit a more serious felony, a sentence of 24 to 36 strokes and a prison term of 6 to 9 years with half the lashes and two thirds of the prison term suspended on the condition of good behavior for the next 20 years would be appropriate.

For second offenders who commit a more serious felony, a sentence of 24 to 36 strokes and a prison term of 9 to 12 years would be appropriate.

For subsequent offenders who commit a more serious felony, a sentence of 36 strokes and a prison term of 12 to 18 years would be appropriate.

For the most serious non capital offences such as assault in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, rape, and manslaughter, the following would seem to me appropriate.

For first offenders 36 lashes plus a term of imprisonment of 15 years.

For second offenders 36 lashes plus a term of imprisonment of 18 to 21 years.

For subsequent offenders 36 lashes plus a term of imprisonment of 21 to 30 years.

The most serious crimes murder, treason, and slaving, are not in my opinion a fit topic for this post as they fall under the rubric of the debate over capital punishment, which I hope to write about at future date.

One thing that I have not mentioned thus far is the limits of corporal punishment. I certainly don’t think that it can eliminate crime. People have freewill; therefore some will chose to live by violence and parasitism, rather than by productive work. The only hope I put forward is that a more rational system of punishments might teach some that a life of crime is not the right course. For just this reason, I believe that there must be a limit to corporal punishment. The purpose of corporal punishment is to punish and teach, not to torture.

Thus those who are demonstrably unteachable (i.e. habitual offenders) should not receive corporal punishment. They must instead receive long prison sentences so that the public is protected from their predation. Thus something like the “three strikes” law is necessary, though I believe that a more complex approach is needed. Likewise people sentenced to life in prison or to death, should not receive corporal punishment as it will accomplish nothing.

So there it is, my proposal for reforming the penal system in as far as non capital crimes are concerned. I am sure some will denounce me as a fascist, but what the heck, I have been thinking about this for some time and it seams to me this is an idea whose time has come.

A Modest Proposal

2006-04-04T09:46:00.000-04:00

The question of immigration has risen to the top of the political heap and I want to air my view, a view I think a lot of Americans share, about how to deal with this issue.

First, the main issue should be protecting our country from terrorists and fanatics who want to come to our country and destroy it.

Second, we rightly want to preserve the culture and political system that has served us so well and which is directly or indirectly the reason people want to come to our country.

To maintain the integrity of our boarder, we need to end the industry that has built up to smuggle people across the boarder. To do this we need to do two things, increase boarder security and decrease the incentive to illegally enter the country.

The way to achieve the first of these objectives is to increase the number of boarder guards and build a fence or the like to make crossing the boarder harder. Israel is doing some work in this line and we could benefit from their experience.

The way to decrease the incentive to enter the country illegally is to make it easier to enter legally. That means in essence much easier immigration for those who apply to come to this country.

What I propose is that we should heavily patrol the boarder, but build 50 or so immigration point were anyone wanting to immigrate to the United States will be held for one or two days while a background check is performed so that we do not admit terrorists, criminals, or others who mean us harm. Those who are not found to be a threat to the safety of the republic would be admitted with a green card good for ten years.

How exactly tourists, people visiting friends and family, and people coming for brief business trips would be worked into this system will require more thought, but it is not impossible. For example companies that want someone to visit could be required to pay for a bounty hunter if the person does not leave our country and could have their right to admit people additional for business trips suspended until the first person is caught and deported. Hotels which have tourist come to stay and people who have foreign visitors could also be held to a similar standard.

The system I have proposed would reduce the number of people illegally entering the country and thus reduce the demand for the industry which smuggles people into the country. This would make our country significantly safer.

As for how to preserve our culture and political institutions, I believe that what we need is a strong program of education aimed at assimilating emigrants. Specifically we need to ditch the immoral and impractical multiculturalist ideology in favor of a assimilationist, melting pot, patriotic, Whig-historical ideology.

That is to say we should teach students about how people came to this country and built new and better homes for themselves and their descendants. How the colonists rebelled against the unconstitutional usurpations of George III and built a new constitutional system on the basis of the old English Whig tradition. We should tell our students about how generation upon generation have come to this country and adopted the essential parts of the Anglo-American cultural heritage as their own while also preserving and helping to incorporate into American culture many good parts of their native cultures.

Multiculturalism is just poison and we should get it out of our schools. As Jim Benet says, “democracy, multiculturalism, and immigration chose any two.”

AUN! Thoughts: Selling Peerages

2006-03-22T08:08:00.000-05:00

The understandable outrage over the Blair government selling titles for loans to the labour party has caused libertarians to over look one possible positive aspect of the scandal.

What if the new conservative government repealed blair’s “reform” of the House of Lords and began selling titles with the proceeds to go to the treasury. Pay a billion pounds become a Duke, 750 million and you’re a Marquess, 500 million and you’re an Earl, 250 million a Viscount, 100 million a Baron, 50 million a life peer.

This would have the advantages of simultaneously giving a legitimate outlet for rich people who wanted to enter politics and raise money for the state without raising taxes. If 50 titles were sold at an average price of 100 million pounds this would be enough to buy one of the Queen Elizabeth class Aircraft Carriers.

If there is no objection to the decline of the Royal Navy, the money thus raised could instead be put in a fund which would pay a certain amount to the state each year and thus allow a long term cut in taxes.

Some will say this plan would devalue the peerage, but the fact is that most peerages were rewards for services of one kind or another to the state. Many of those were political or military, but I am sure some were for financial contributions as well.

This topic also reminds me of a Churchill quote. He was commenting on the large number of former ministers of the crown that were receiving peerages. He said, “They can’t all have peerages, there ought to be at least some disappearages.”

AUN Opinion: Incitement to Riot, Fighting Words the Right of Free Speech

2006-02-23T17:38:00.000-05:00

On Samizdata James Waterton has said he believes that criminalizing incitement to riot is a violation of the right to free speech. I disagree. While laws against incitement could of course be used to suppress legitimate protest, they are not in themselves a violation of individual rights.

Those who say that criminalizing incitement to riot is a violation of the right to free speech are in essence saying that it is a fundamental human right to stand in front of a crowd that one knows or reasonably should know will follow ones orders and state in the imperative that they should commit a crime.

The fact of human free will not withstanding, there are instances when one can know with a reasonable certainty that ones words will cause another to act in a specific way. In such instances one is not free of responsibility for the result when one utters the words. If one knows that if he orders it done, another will violate the rights of a third party, he has no right to order it.

To make this issue crystal clear, I hold that when Rohm ordered his SA thugs to break up a meeting of Jews, Catholics, Liberals, Social Democrats or even of Communists if they were meeting peacefully, he was guilty of violating the victim’s right to free association. To punish Rohm would not be to violate his right to free speech, but to protect the right of free association.

To take a slightly more ambiguous case if one spends several hours whipping a crowd into a frenzy of hate against blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, Moslems or who ever and then brandishes a torch over ones head and yells, “I don’t have to say anything more, you all know what to do,” one is at the very least guilty of criminal negligence when the crowd runs out and burns down the homes and businesses of the people or person he has incited them against.

Now there has been an idea seemingly put forth that because it is o.k. to punish a person for incitement, that some how means the people who carry out the deed are not guilty of a crime. I am not aware of any such legal doctrine and it certainly is not, in my view, an excuse for a crime that one is following the orders of another.

Part of this confusion seems to arise from the idea of a “fighting words” exception which is different than the incitement exception.

To take an example of this legitimate exception to the right of free speech, if one walked up to someone at the funeral of their mother who has just died of HIV and says to them, “your mother was a fucking slut and she deserved to die,” one has a reasonable expectation of being punched in the face.

My understanding of the fighting words doctrine is that it is reserved for just such situations where two people are in a confrontation and one person uses words that he knows or reasonably should know are going to cause an overmastering emotional response in the recipient such that he will attack the speaker. In such a case the speaker cannot claim to have been innocently minding his own business.

To bring this whole question to the most important present example, let’s see how this affects the cartoon war.

The scum marching through London with banners saying “those who insult the prophet should have their heads cut off,” have every right to do so. However if the leader of the protest turns to one of the people in the protest who he has encouraged to carry such a sign and says, “go cut off the head of X,” then I hold he has committed a crime.

When the Danish paper published the 12 cartoons it did so, not in the proximity of the persons who might have been offended and in a forum where offence is to be expected. (i.e. the editorial pages of paper) The most that could be expected was for the Moslem reader to shake with rage and then get a hold of himself. The problem was that instead after the moment of shock was over the Moslem’s did not get a hold of themselves, instead they went out and organized riots.

If instead the editorial board of the paper had marched up to innocent Moslems going about their business in peace and got in their face and said, “Mohammed is a pig who likes to fuck ten year old boys up the ass while they pray,” they would have been punched in the face and they would have deserved it.

There are few things more dangerous than a false understanding of rights. This tends to discredit the very idea of rights and can even lead to their subversion.

While people have every right to have opinions that are offensive to others and they have a right to express them, there are limits. They do not have a right to order a crime committed. They do not have a right to deliberately put another person in the position of having to instantly master the first spike of anger after hearing a deadly insult.

In both instances one is complicit in a breach of the public peace. In one case because one orders it, in the other because one is deliberately causing it by putting someone in a position beyond the limits of normal self control. Defense of the peace is a legitimate action of the state.

AUN! Thoughts: Anglosphere Humor

2006-02-09T21:38:00.000-05:00

How do you define Pan European Patriotism? An acute emotion caused by a temporary failure in Brithish foreign policy.

AUN! Thoughts: Stand by the Danes

2006-02-03T12:58:00.000-05:00

The danish cartoon crisis has become a vital front in the global war against Islamic extreamism. So I advise that you looke at the cartoons that have europe and the radical parts of the Islamic world on the brink of a trade war, here. I also sugest that you support the buy danish movement, here. Buy Danish!

AUN! Opinion: Harper's Anglosphere Option

2006-01-25T08:13:00.000-05:00

Jim Bennett has a great post at Albion's Seedlings on the steps Steven Harper can take to move away from the Trudeaupian legacy of historical amnisia regaurding Canada's glorious history.

the Prime Minister's office is a pretty good bully pulpit, and he would
be smart to use it to start deconstructing the Trudeavean deconstruction of the
old Canada. He should make sure the Canadian troops in Afghanistan are
decorated in a visible and public ceremony, exactly what has been denied to them
to date. He should make a show of honoring the Canadian WWII veterans
conspicuously and repeatedly, and having a substantial ceremony on every one of
the big Canadian military anniversaries: Vimy, Dieppe, D-Day, etc. He
might bring back the Red Ensign in a historical context -- ordering it flown as
a "veteran's memorial flag" on select days like D-Day, and for Canadian ships to
fly the Blue Ensign on a suitable day as well, maybe November 11th. It
would be very hard for people to criticize him for remembering the veterans more
conspicuously. And perhaps he might even consider a surprise visit to the forces
in Afghanistan.
Read the whole thing

AUN! Opinion: A Great Day For Canada

2006-01-24T08:24:00.000-05:00

The rejection of the sleazy and usurping Paul Martin and his Liberal cronies at the polls Monday was a victory not only for Steven Harper's Conservative Party of Canada, but for all Canadians.

In addition to the Tories gain of 26 seats in the House of Commons, the New Democratic Party won 29 seats up 11 seats from the previous parliament. Of the opposition parties only the Bloc lost seats with 51 down from 53.

The important thing is that Martin's usurpation was not given the imprimatur of a win at the polls and that the corrupt Liberal Party is going to be investigated.

To celibrate for our Canadian cousins you might want to listen to O'Canada.

AUN Thoughts:Christmastide Collect PEC BCP 1939

2005-12-25T02:39:00.000-05:00

AlmightyGod who has given us they only-begotten son to take our nature upon him, and as at this time to born of a pure virgin; Grant that we being regerate and made thy children by adoption and grace, may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit; through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who livith and reignith with thee and the same Spirit ever, one God, world without end. Amen.

Merry Chirstmas to all and to all a good night!

AUN! News:A Sad Day

2005-12-15T14:07:00.000-05:00

Oxford University has given into Blair Government over admissions. No longer will each college admit its own students. Now students will be admitted centrally and distributed among the colleges by the university. The independence of the colleges has added much to the diversity of the University as I have seen it (granted a limited experience). This will now be wiped away in the name of egalitarianism. Sickening! The story is here.

The Gold Standard a Defense

2005-12-13T14:08:00.000-05:00

James Hamilton at Econbrowser wrote a post on the gold standard and the Great Depression, that needs an answer. Since I studied economics in college and am an advocate of commodity money, I’ll take a swing at it.

The first problem with Mr. Hamilton’s argument is that he defines the gold standard in only one of its historical forms, the government run bank note system at the end of the thousands of year long history of commodity money. But most advocates of the gold standard are not in favor of such a system, precisely because of the problems it creates some of which James then goes on to outline. He defines that system as follows.

“Under a pure gold standard, the government would stand ready to trade dollars for gold at a fixed rate.”

But the problem is, this definition leaves unanswered one of the most important questions, does the government have the gold or other commodity to meet all of its obligations. To be technical goes the government run a fractional reserve gold standard or a 100% reserve gold standard. In layman’s terms if the government promises to give an ounce of gold for every thousand dollars does it have gold to pay out one thousandth of an ounce of gold for every dollar in circulation

If it doesn’t have the gold to pay off all its obligations then it is operating a fractional reserve system which is indeed vulnerable to attacks by speculators. This is because the value of the gold the government is willing to pay for its notes is greater than the value of the notes. The government in such a situation is in fact systemically bankrupt, it does not have the gold to meet its obligations and it has no prospect of getting enough gold to pay off its obligations. That such a system is highly unstable goes without saying. The government or other issuer under such a system is in the same position as the government of Argentina under its dollar peg.

If on the other hand, the government or other issuer does have enough gold to meet its obligations and it will not issue additional dollars unless it receives enough gold to fully back the new notes, it is operating a 100% gold reserve standard. Such a system is in no way open to speculative attack. On the contrary all that would happen if people came to the central bank or other issuer and demanded gold is that they would have a sack of gold coin or bullion bars instead of an easier to carry around wad of notes. Under such a situation, the notes would have a value equal to or greater than the gold because of the convenience of the notes for large quantities of money.

As for the question of the country leaving the gold standard that is of course possible, but it applies as an argument against any better system of doing things. (i.e. Person A “I think we should build huts instead of living in a cave.” Person B “But we might stop building huts in which case we would have to go back to living in caves.”) To remove the temptation for the government to steal peoples gold by going off the gold standard, we could just have privately issued notes or electronic currency and the government could just perform its usual and proper function of preventing fraud and enforcing contracts. I personally think this is the better option. In fact, e-gold runs just such a system. You take them gold, silver, platinum or palladium bullion, and they account for the bullion and allow you to transfer it from one account to another to make payments.

Mr. Hamilton’s most important argument is that a gold standard causes instability because investors doubt the ability of the government to meet its obligations and redeem all of its notes. He puts his argument this way.

“I argued in a paper titled, "The Role of the International Gold Standard in Propagating the Great Depression," published in Contemporary Policy Issues in 1988, that counting on a gold standard to enforce monetary and fiscal discipline in an environment in which speculators had great doubts about governments' ability to adhere to that discipline was a recipe for disaster. International capital flows became more erratic, not less, as doubts were raised about whether first the pound would be devalued and then the dollar. Britain gave in to the speculative attacks and abandoned gold in 1931, whereas the U.S. toughed it out by deliberately raising interest rates in 1931 at a time when the economy was already near free fall.”

This is true, but only of a fractional reserve system. The problem is as I have said, a government operating a fractional reserve gold standard is in fact bankrupt, it is promising something it can’t deliver. It is in a state of perpetual crisis. If the Fed were to declare a gold standard today at $525 an ounce I would oppose it. It could be a nothing other than a disaster. For a gold standard to work the issuer must have enough gold to cover its obligations. At present that means a dollar gold price of $2,000 an ounce or greater.

James continues his argument,

“Because of this uncertainty, there was a big increase in demand for gold, the one safe asset in this setting, which meant the relative price of gold must rise. If everybody is trying to hoard more gold, you're going to have to pay more potatoes to get an ounce of gold. Since the U.S. insisted on holding the dollar price of gold fixed, this meant that the dollar price of potatoes had to fall. The longer a country stayed on the gold standard, the more overall deflation it experienced. Many of us are persuaded that this deflation greatly added to the economic difficulties of those countries that insisted on sticking with a fixed value of their currency in terms of gold.”

Again, this is true, but only of fractional reserve systems. Under a 100% system, there would be no reason to hoard money in this way because the system would be highly liquid. If banks and the government had enough gold to pay their demand obligations, the redemption of notes and withdrawal of money from bank accounts could not cause a liquidity crisis.

The real truth is that a fractional reserve gold standard is not really a system of commodity money, it is a system of fiduciary money. As long as the central bank is allowed to create debts in excess of its ability to pay them, the money system will be unstable. Even if there was no crisis, the continued issuance of uncovered obligations would mean that the same amount of gold would back an ever increasing quantity of notes eventually this would mean virtually no gold backing the notes, i.e. no gold standard.

If James is interested in continuing this discussion, I would be willing to write about how I would handle the transition and how such a system would-could work so he could respond to that.

A New York X Mass

2005-12-12T12:59:00.000-05:00

Are any of the readers of this blog in the New York area? I am interested in meeting any who are. If you are going to be in the City on Dec. 18, I am planning a little get together and would be interested in having you come. Please e mail me at steve14530@yahoo.com

AUN! News: Commonwealth Update CHOGM

2005-11-29T12:33:00.000-05:00

The Heads of State and Government of the commonwealth meet from Nov. 25 to Nov. 27 in Malta. The leaders of the commonwealth produced several statements including, The Malta Declaration for Networking the Commonwealth for Development, here. The also issued the Gozo Statement on Vunerable Small States, here and the Valletta Statement on Multilateral Trade, here. The Queen's opening address is here. Commonwealth Secritary General Don McKinnon suggested that membership standards be tightened, here. The CHOGM Final Communique is here.

AUN! Opinion: The Usurper is Fallen!

2005-11-28T22:14:00.000-05:00

The government of Paul Martin sometime Prime Minister of Canada fell today after having lost the confidence of the nation for the second time in less than a year.

Martin and his liberal government, who ruled without the confidence of the nation for nearly a week after he lost control of the House of Commons in May, was decisively defeated on the floor of the house today when a motion of censure passed 171 to 133.

It is believed that Martin will meet with the Queen’s representative, Governor General Michaelle Jean on Tuesday to ask for the dissolution of parliament and a call for elections.

Hopefully the voters will give one of the three other parties, the Conservatives, Bloc Quebecois or New Democratic Party a majority so that Martin’s usurpation in May will not become a precedent.

The NY Times story is here. The Independent’s story is here.

Update:
Captain's Quarters has the story here.

AUN! Thoughs: Monetary Reform 2, Was Decimalization a Mistake

2005-11-26T17:47:00.000-05:00

This is a continuation of my thoughts on monetary reform. My first post on the subject is here.

For more than a thousand years the English speaking people used a pound made up of 240 pennies. After the United States gained its independence, the new nation decided to abandon the English system of monetary weights. It its place they adopted the Spanish dollar as a unit and divided it into decimal units of tenths, hundredths, and thousandths. Later Canada and the other dominions adopted a dollar. Great Britain decimalized the pound after World War II though the first step in that direction, the introduction of a tenth pound coin, the florin was taken in the mid 19th Century.

I believe this may have been a error. The idea is that decimal systems are supposed to be easier because we use a base ten number system. Thus the idea seems to go it is easier to think in hundreds than 240s. However, I who have never used the predecimal system in real life, find it as easy to think in as a decimal system and it has some real advantages

Because 240 is the product of 12 and 20 it is more easily divided into fractions than 100.
While the dollar can only be divided evenly by 2, 4, 5,10, 20, 25, 50, and 100. In contrast, 240 can be divided evenly by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 20, 24, 30, 40, 48, 60, 80, 120, and 240. The only advantage to the base 100 system is that it is divided evenly by 100 so that percentages can be used. However there is an answer to one percent of 240, it is 2.4. The use of a tenth penny coin would allow the use of percentages in the 240 penny system and eliminate even that advantage. In contrast there is no answer to what is the third, sixth, or twelfth part of the dollar.

Lest some one say that a 1/10th penny would be worth to little to be practicable, let me point out that with in the last 200 years the British government issued a Quarter Farthing, that is a coin worth one sixteenth of a penny. Further at today’s silver price, a tenth penny would have a value of 4 cents.

Thus I conclude that decimalization was a mistake.

Writing this made me go and comb through the collection of coins our family has accumulated from foreign travel. Among the interesting numismatic items I found are:

British: a 1907 Edward VII Shilling, Florins (two shilling coins) and Half Crowns (eighth pound) of George V and Elisabeth II, six pence of Elizabeth II, three pence of Elisabeth II, Pennies (not new pennies) of George V, George VI, and Elisabeth II, and a Half Penny Elizabeth II.

Canada: a 1907 Edward VII Cent, 1916 and 1920 George V Cents, a 1901 Victoria Half Dime, two Half Dimes of George V, a 1908 Edward VII Quarter Dollar, and a 1919 George V Quarter.

AUN! News: Commonwealth Update

2005-11-19T10:42:00.000-05:00

The 2005 commonwealth heads of government meeting is fast approching. A who's who of the participents of this years meeting which begins Nov. 25 is here. News about the Commonwealth Youth Forum is here. The report of the Tanzania election observer group is here.

AUN! Thoughts: Constitutionalism

2005-11-13T18:30:00.000-05:00

There has been a good bit of discussion recently about Anglosphere legal and constitutional thought and its connections to the middle ages and even earlier. A good site for documents and treatises on anglosphere constitutionalism is http://www.constitution..org/ among the things to be found there are: the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Assize of Clarendon, Magna Carta, the Declaration of Arbroath, Smith’s de Republica Anglorum, the Mayflower Compact, Frances Bacon's Elements of the Common Law of England, selected works of Edward Coke, the Petition of Right, the English Bill of Rights, Algernon Sidney’s Discourses Concerning Government, and many other works.

AUN! Thoughts: In Peace and Quietness

2005-11-11T21:53:00.000-05:00

I have spent a good part of the day thinking what to write about Armistice Day, then I remembered an admonition by a high school English teacher who was himself recycling a war time propaganda slogan. “It is better to remain silent and appear ignorant than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.”

So I will content myself with the text of my favorite prayer, one that is of great significance for the history of our people.

“O Eternal Lord God, who alone spreadest out the heavens and rulest the raging of the sea; who hast compassed the waters with bounds until the day and night come to an end; Be pleased to receive into thy Almighty and most gracious protection the persons of us thy servants and the Fleet in which we serve. Preserve us from the dangers of the sea and from the violence of the enemy; that we may be a safeguard unto our most gracious Sovereign Lord, Queen Elizabeth and her Dominions and a security for such as pass on the seas upon their lawful occasions; that the inhabitants of our Island may in peace and quietness serve thee our God and that we may return in safety to enjoy the blessings of the land, with the fruits of our labours and with a thankful remembrance of thy mercies to praise and glorify thy holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen”

AUN! Thoughts: Armistice Day

2005-11-11T07:57:00.000-05:00

It is now about three hours after the 87th anniversary of the armistice. Let us honor in memory those who gave their lives in the service of the cause of freedom during the Great War Aug. 3 1914 – Nov. 11 1918, may they rest in peace.

AUN! News: US Ambassidor Speaks Truth to Mugabe

2005-11-10T11:40:00.000-05:00

U.S. Ambassidor Christopher Dell is under attack by the Mugabe regeme for speaking the truth about that country's economic plight. Dell told students at a university in Zimbabwe that Mugabe's government was responsible for the downturn in the african country's economic fortunes. The Mugabe regeme has responded by claiming Dell is a sexual pervert. The story is here.

AUN! News: Commonwealth Update

2005-11-10T11:15:00.000-05:00

Commonwealth representatives are converging on Malta for the head's of government meeting and other related events, story here. Monitoring for the Sri Lanka presidential election is discussed here.

AUN! News: "Anti Terrorism" Bill defeated in UK

2005-11-10T08:46:00.000-05:00

Blair's anti-terrorism bill which would have allowed the government to detain persons for up to 90 days without charging them with a crime was defeated 322-291. Unfortunatly a version allowing detention for 28 days without charge was passed 323-290. Story here

AUN! News: Comonwealth Update

2005-11-03T09:40:00.000-05:00

A statement on the recent Zanzibar elections by the Commonwealth observer group, here. An interesting publication for educators was released today, here. The Secritary General is in the solomon islands, story here.

AUN! Thoughts: Subscription, A New and Better Way to Chose Legislators

2005-10-31T07:21:00.000-05:00

In my post on choosing government officials, I mentioned one method of choosing representatives that has a great deal of potential.

It would eliminate the need for campaign financing and the pressure for laws that restrict free speech in the name of cleaner elections. It would mean that no one would have to be represented by a member of a different party. I call this system, subscription.

Under this system, instead of having an election to chose one legislator, people contract with a like minded citizen to represent them. Unlike most legislatures, where each member has an equal vote, under subscription each member has a number of votes equal to the number of people who have chosen him as their representative. Likewise the order and time for debate of each member would be determined by the number of people who had chosen the member.

Some may object that this would result in an unmanageably large legislature. However under subscription, the citizens not only chose their legislator, they pay him. The contract which each constituent signed would have a compensation clause committing each constituent to pay the representative X amount per month. The result of this would be a tendency for constituents and representative to want each representative to have a large number of constituents. To illustrate this point a representative with a million constituents could charge a cent per month and have a salary of $10,000, where as a representative with 50,000 constituents would have to charge 20 cents to have the same salary.

In addition to eliminating the problems of campaign finance and representation by a person you voted against, subscription would be much more responsive to the demands of the voters. They could contractually bind their representative to vote in accordance to their wishes or they could simply withdraw their vote from their current representative and give it to one they thought would better represent them.

Subscription also has the virtue that unlike systems requiring elections the plethora of polling places, poll workers and poll watchers would not be necessary. Instead a credentialing committee could check to make sure that the people contracting with the representative really exist and that they have contracted with the representative. This makes subscription especially valuable in instances where a formal organization is not already in place.

In sum, subscription is democratic, is more responsive than systems based on election, doesn’t have the campaign finance problems of elections, and allows everyone to be represented by a person of their choice.

AUN! News Exclusive: Rudi Giuliani On Leadership

2005-10-28T00:07:00.000-04:00

NEW YORK — The Hon. Rudolph W. Giuliani, former mayor of New York, addressed the eighth grade at St. David’s School on leadership in the school assembly hall Thursday evening.

The program which included remarks by the school Headmaster David O’Halloran and an introduction by his Giuliani’s law partner Daniel Connolly, was part of the school’s Alumni Parent Council annual lecture program. Giuliani’s son Andrew attended the school as a boy.

About 350 students, parents, and alumni packed the venue to hear the former mayor, who was widely praised for his leadership after the attacks of September 11, 2001, speak about the principals of leadership.

Giuliani said that a clear vision was the indispensable first principal of leadership.

“You have to know what you believe,” he said. “If you don’t know what you believe, you can’t lead people anywhere.”

The former mayor pointed to Ronald Regan’s belief that state socialism was an international evil and that a government grown too large was sapping the strength and vitality of the American people as an example of this.

“Whether or not you agree with him,” Giuliani said. “Regan knew what he believed. He had reflected on his own experience and drawn conclusions about what needed to be done.”

This meant that Regan knew where he wanted to go and was able to keep in perspective the occasional disagreement of the majority of the populace and forge ahead, he said.

The second principal of leadership is optimism, the former mayor said.

“To be a leader you have to be an optimist,” he said. “You can’t say, ‘things are bad, they are going to get worse, and there is no hope, Follow me!’”

While acknowledging that demagogues often abused the optimistic principal of leadership, Giuliani said it was an important aspect of the art of leadership. He pointed to Sir. Winston L. S. Churchill’s war time speeches a positive example of optimistic leadership.

“The British and French armies had been defeated, the nation was under threat of invasion, and the cities were being bombed every night,” he said. “Every night was like September 11th. People went to bed and didn’t know whether they would wake up in the morning or if their neighbor’s house would be blown up when they did.”

“Churchill was able to be optimistic when there wasn’t much to be optimistic about,” he said. “He spoke of the special ability of a free people to preserver.”

The third principal of leadership, Giuliani said is Courage.

“Courage doesn’t mean not being afraid,” he said. “We often think of courageous people as being supper human, but that’s wrong.”

The former mayor recalled a heroic police officer who had risked his life in the line of duty, but had been almost paralyzed with fear during a press conference after meeting with the mayor. That event, Giuliani said was a revelation for him.

“Courage is dealing with fear,” he said. “It is training to meet the feared responsibilities that you have undertaken.”

That leads to the fourth principal, relentless preparation, the former mayor said.

“It is relentless preparation which allows you to over come your fears,” he said.

Giuliani related how that though New York had no plans for terrorists using air plains as missiles to destroy buildings, the fact that the city did have plans to deal with suicide bombings, sky scrapper fires, and major medical emergencies, meant that he and his senior advisors were able to meet the crisis.

He was able to activate part of the plan for dealing with suicide bombers to order police to guard possible secondary terrorist targets, while the parts of plans for major medical emergencies was activated to triage casualties at near by hospitals and then transfer people to hospitals further uptown, the former mayor said.

Because he and many other city employees had prepared for other crises, they were able to improvise to meet the September 11th attacks, Giuliani said. He said the relentless preparation for other crises, was his main source of confidence on the day of the attacks.

He said, the fifth principal of leadership is understanding your weaknesses. Giuliani said that when he became mayor, he knew that improving the economy and fighting crime where his two most important tasks. He said he knew how to fight crime from his years as a prosecuting attorney, but that he knew he would need help with economic matters. Because he knew his weakness, he was able to get the advice he needed, the former mayor said.

The sixth principal of leadership, he said is communication. However he said that if you followed the first five principals, all you had to do was be strait with people and you would communicate your vision.

Caring about people, Giuliani said is the seventh principal of leadership. However, he emphasized this did not mean doing what people want.

The former mayor related who he was vilified for his workfare program under which able bodied welfare recipients were made to do 18 hours of work for the city to receive their benefits. He said he believed it was not helping the recipients to let them lose their work ethic and pride in working.

Above all, he said caring about people means that, “when things go wrong, you need to be their.”

In answering questions after his talk, Giuliani said that one of the pieces of advice that helped him most on September 11, was something his father had told him as a child. In time of danger and panic it is best remain calm or pretend to remain calm, because that is most likely going to result in seeing a way out of the problem, he said.

AUN! Opinion: Great Posts on Albion's Seedlings

2005-10-27T16:43:00.000-04:00

A group of three posts on Albion's Seedlings regarding the Danish Prime Minister's response to pressure to impose Islamic law on the Danish' press and the medieval roots of constitutionalism and liberty are here, here, and here.

AUN! Note: Changing Titles

2005-10-26T09:02:00.000-04:00

In the future all titles on this blog will clearly distiguish between fact and opinion pieces. All posts that are news comentary will be labled AUN! Opinion:. All posts with my thoughts on this or that issue will be labled AUN! Thoughts:. All posts that are simply factual links to news stories or original reporting by me will be labled AUN! News:. All notes to readers like this one will be labled AUN! Note:. I am going to try and go back a retitle posts but that may take some time.

AUN! News: Commonwealth Update

2005-10-26T08:54:00.000-04:00

The Secritary General is in Malaysia discussing plans for the up coming heads of government meeting, story here. The Commonwealth is helping to organize private investment in the Pacific Islands, story here.

AUN! Thoughts: On Choosing Government Officials

2005-10-25T23:29:00.000-04:00

There is an idea, unspoken often unconscious, that the only way a democratic society can chose officials is by election. That even in democratic societies this not the way all officials are chosen does not occur to people. In this essay I want to explore the various alternatives to elections and the various forms of election.

The most obvious alternative to election is sortition, choosing officials by lot. This method has the advantages of being democratic since every one has an equal chance to be chosen, it is traditional since juries are chosen by lot, and is non partisan in as far as parties can’t influence the choice. The problems with this method is that since everyone has an equal chance of being chosen, it can lead to very unqualified persons being chosen for the office. However for cases such as the jury where the responsibility is divided among 12 people, sortition can provided a useful method of choosing officials.

Another widely used method is indirect election, where a group of elected representatives elect an official. This is fairly democratic since the people chose the representatives, though less so than direct election or sortition. It has the advantage of allowing the electors to chose men in whom they have confidence to chose among candidates they know less well. This was the rational for the electoral college that elects the president. It also is useful in federations because it allows the member governments to choose some or all of the federal officials.

A third method that could be used is examination, where officials are chosen by a test open to all. This was the method by which the Indian Civil Service was chosen and many civil services use this method. It is perhaps not as democratic as election or sortition, because people are not equal in talent. One way examination could be used is in combination with sortition to eliminate the incompetent.

A method that is often used to choose judges is appointment, where one elected official appoints a person to fill a post. This is less democratic since the people have no direct say in who is chosen, though they can get rid of the person who appointed the official. The advantage is that it can make the process less political.

Rotation, citizens filling offices in turn is another democratic method of filling offices. This method would have the same problems of sortition of having incompetent people chosen for important offices.

A method of choosing legislators which I favor is subscription, choosing representatives by contract. This is the system I used in the modified version of Dan’s constitution. In essence, under this system each representative has a number of votes equal to the number of people who chose him as their representative. The advantages of this system is that it is very democratic, it allows people to have representative of their choice with no one excluded because “their candidate” didn’t win the election. This allows all points of view to be heard in the legislature without over representing minority view points. This frankly is my preferred system of choosing the lower house of the legislature.

Election is of course the way most democratic societies today chose their officials. There are a number of variations on this system. There is the single member district system, the multiple member district system, proportional representation and the German cross of PR and single districts.

Single districts have the advantage of there being a direct relation between the elected and the constituent, but have the disadvantage that those who don’t vote for the winning candidate are left without a voice in the legislature.

Multiple member districts can, depending how they are set up, fix some of the problems of single districts. If all the members are elected on the same ballot then a more ideologically diverse group of people that more closely reflects the ideas of the constituents will selected.

Proportional representation is very popular with some academics, because they believe it best represents the people. It does have the advantage of reflecting the ideological beliefs of the people, but it has the serious disadvantage of not allowing the voters to get rid of candidates they don’t like. This system cedes vast powers to private political parties.

The German mixed version retains the advantage close relationship between representative and constituent of single districts while better reflecting the ideological views the electorate. However it retains the problems of the proportional representation system.

Since a republic doesn’t have to be perfectly democratic, I think it helpful to look at other methods used by more aristocratic forms of government.

The classic aristocratic method of choosing office holders is inheritance. This has the benefit of choosing officeholders without the undignified process that characterizes an election and allows the office holder to be educated from birth to fulfill the responsibilities of his office. The problem is that the inherited officeholder may have little interest in the well being of the people as a whole, instead having a narrow class interest. This is not always bad, it can be made to serve a republic, but it must be taken into account.

Another aristocratic form of choosing office holders is by Cooption, where the members of a body, a legislative, judicial, or executive chose new members of the body. This method is could in theory allow those competent to rule to choose like minded successors. The problem is there is no method of correction for a system of pure cooption. If the council becomes corrupt, there is no way to remove the members and start over.

A third aristocratic method of choosing officials is sale. This involves selling the office. Titles of nobility were sold by kings and emperors. At one time commissions in the royal army were sold. While it sounds like corruption, as long as the sales price goes into the state treasury, sale is a legitimate way of choosing officials, though it has disadvantages. The advantage of selling offices is that it takes a potential source of corruption, rich people wanting to influence policy, and turns it into a source of state revenue. The disadvantage is that it gives the rich disproportionate power over the state.

Another method which could be democratic or aristocratic is seniority. Strictly speaking seniority is the system for geriarchy, rule of the old. However this could be used with other methods of selection democratic or aristocratic.

In looking at various methods, I have tried to rank the systems in accordance with how democratic or aristocratic they are. Here is my list from most democratic to most aristocratic.

Rotation or Subscription
Sortition
Election – Multiple Member Districts
Election – Single Member Districts
Election – German System
Election – Proportional Representation
Examination
Indirect Election
Appointment
Seniority
Purchase
Cooption
Inheritance

As we discuss the Union of the English Speaking People, the question of political arrangements is sure to rear its head. I hope this essay will help people organize their thoughts so that such discussions can be more fruitful.

AUN! Opinion: Constitution Monarchy in Australia

2005-10-25T10:35:00.001-04:00

I have a new post on referendums and the constitutional monarchy in Australia at The Monarchist. The text of that post is repeated here.

Referendums are in the news, and the question of why a defeated referendum against the monarchy is not considered binding has been raised and I want to weigh in on the issue.If the Australian Constitutional Monarchists are serious about preserving the monarchy, and more importantly the Anglo Saxon tradition of government, then they need to be proactive.

First they need to take the war of language to their enemies. The word republic is a proud one with a long history among our people. But it is not a word that belongs to the anti monarchists alone and they should not be allowed to steal it. Australia IS a republic. It has always been a republic.

The English speaking people have been ruled by republics for almost the entire history of our nation. Since Magna Charta at the latest, England has been a republic. The UK has always been a republic. If that is you mean a system that is not an absolute monarchy, an absolute aristocracy, or an absolute democracy.

In fact, the word Commonwealth as in “the Commonwealth of Australia” means republic. Commonwealth is a calque, a word for word translation, of the Latin res publica which means “the public things” or “the public matters.”

The question is not weather Australia should be a republic, that question was settled centuries ago. The question is weather the Head or State should be Elizabeth, by the grace of God of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and her other realms and territories Queen, Defender of the Faith, or some political hack who can get two thirds of parliament to vote for him.

Second, imply quite rightly that the reason the anti monarchists don’t know that Australia is and has always been a republic, albeit a crowned one, is because they don’t give a hoot for the history and traditions of the people of Australia or the larger English speaking nation to which they belong.

Further point to the fact that the anti monarchists real goal is not equality before the law, but the replacement of the monarch who is a symbol of the whole people with a either a political hack who can compromise his way to power or a partisan politician who will be beholden to one party or the other.

Thirdly, if as looks likely, another referendum is going to happen anyway, then the monarchists need to get out in front and demand one and demand the wording that they want.

The goal of this should be two fold, first, to get a wording that will likely uphold the monarchy, and secondly, to insert wording that will preclude another referendum for a full generation.

If I were writing the referendum it would read something like the following:

That the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia and the Australian Territories relying on the blessings of divine providence do proclaim their continuing allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth of Australia, Queen and the free and equal system of laws of the English speaking people and their desire that after the aforementioned Elizabeth her heirs and successors according to law shall be King or Queen of Australia. They proclaim their desire that the King or Queen of Australia shall in the future reside within the Commonwealth of Australia during one year in ten and that during that time there shall not be a Governor General. They do further proclaim their desire that henceforth the Governor General shall be chosen, if the monarch does not desire to appoint one of her children or siblings to that post, as follows. All subjects of the Australian crown who: have won the Nobel Prize, have won the gold medal at the Olympic Games, have earned the rank of brigadier, commodore, or air commodore or above in the Royal Army, Royal Navy, and Royal Air Force respectively, or have served as governor of one of the states, shall be candidates and the people of Australia shall elect one of them as Governor General using a single transferable ballot. The people of Australia do further proclaim that they do desire that this question be closed for the next 25 years and that no amendment affecting the monarchy be brought before them during that time.

Then, the supporters of the monarchy have to get out there and fight, not to defeat their opponents measure, but win passage of their own. They have to immerse themselves in the great political tradition of our people, the monarchists and the anti monarchists. Locke, Sidney, Blackstone and yes John Adams. A great place to start this research, though it is an explicitly republican site is here.

I don’t say this course of action will necessarily be successful, but if the monarchy is going to be preserved for future generations it has to be fought for. If the supporters of the Constitutional Monarchy are to win, they need to deserve to win and that means being willing to dare.

AUN! Opinion: A Victory for Human Rights

2005-10-24T12:27:00.000-04:00

The people of Brazil struck a blow for individual rights when they rejected a national gun ban by an overwhelming majority this weekend. Story here, here, and here.

An international cabal of organizations determined to deny people the right to own the tools necessary for self defense poured into Brazil, hoping to set a precedent that could be used to further restrict the rights of the people to resist aggression.

Fortunately a coalition of groups dedicated to the preservation of the right to own arms helped local citizens to defend their rights. This was a major human rights victory.

In the battle over human rights few issues are a contentious or as important as the battle over the right to own weapons.

Because of the widespread use of arms to oppress and kill, many international organizations have drawn the totally erroneous conclusion that only governments should have arms. The problem is that many of the victims are killed by arms in the hands of the government or quasi government organizations. The 20th century is notorious for, above all, the massive scale of Democide, government killings of their own citizens, committed by totalitarian governments.

The use of arms by criminals is also pointed to as a reason to ban arms. This ignores the obvious fact that criminals by definition don’t obey the law. Guns are likely used more often to deter crimes than to commit them.

Murderers either dictators or garden variety criminals, do not have a right to disarmed victims. On the contrary, people have an absolute right to defend themselves.

Of course the international press has as usual let itself act like an arm of the gun ban cabal, repeating their arguments. The most obvious case is the use of the phrase “manipulating people’s fears” in several of the stories. The AP story doesn't even pretend to be objective, taking the motives of the anti gun groups to be true without arguement.

Thankfuly, the people of Brazil struck a blow for human rights and gave the government power movement a resounding defeat.

AUN! News: Commonwealth Update

2005-10-19T13:52:00.000-04:00

The Secritary General will be in Malaysia next week to discuss preparations for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, story here. Commonwealth Observers will be on hand in the United Republic of Tanzania for the elections on 30 October 2005, details here.

Fisking the AP

2005-10-17T23:05:00.000-04:00

The AP has a story that while interesting is full serious problems.

The story begins quite fine with the following

"BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's election commission announced Monday that officials were investigating "unusually high" numbers of "yes" votes in about a dozen provinces during Iraq's landmark referendum on a new constitution, raising questions about irregularities in the balloting."

"The Electoral Commission made no mention of fraud, and an official with knowledge of the election process cautioned that it was too early to say whether the unusual numbers were incorrect or if they would affect the outcome."

Then comes some BS.

"But questions about the numbers raised tensions over Saturday's referendum, which has already sharply divided Iraqis. Most of the Shiite majority and the Kurds Â the coalition which controls the government Â support the charter, while most Sunni Arabs sharply opposed a document they fear will tear Iraq to pieces and leave them weak and out of power."

The last part of the second sentence has a problem. While Sunni's may fear that "the constitution will tear Iraqi to pieces and leave them week and out of power", it in fact can't do both. If it tears the country to pieces, it will leave the sunni's in power in the sunni triangle. Granted it won't be fun being in charge of just the sunni triangle, but the sunni's have no right to imperialize their neighbors. If on the contrary the sunni's are left weak and out of power, then the country won't have been torn to pieces. One or the other boys but not both. In the west we call this the law of non-contradictionon. A thing can't both have and not have the same property in the same respect.

The rest of the article was unobjectionable except for the following.

"Many Sunnis fear the new decentralized government outlined in the constitution will deprive them of their fair share of the country's vast oil wealth by creating virtually independent mini-states of Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south, while leaving Sunnis isolated in central and western Iraq. "

I want to know what is the sunni's "fair share" of the oil. Is this even knowable? If not why is it reportable as a fact. Now I grant the reporter is just relaying the sunni's view in both instances. But when in one case the view is self contradictory and in the other not disprovable, are these senseable claims?

AUN! News: Commonwealth Update

2005-10-17T18:43:00.000-04:00

The Commonwealth Deputy General Secritary Florence Mugasha is in Ghana for the Commonwealth Law Ministers Meeting story here, here, here, and here. A story on the Commonwealth's efforts for earthquake victims is here. Donald McKinnon, Secretary General, of the Commonwealth was in Cameroon recently story here.

Dan's Constitution Revised

2005-10-17T12:30:00.000-04:00

Constitution of the Anglosphere Commonwealth

Article 1: The Commonwealth

The Commonwealth of Australia, the Republic of Ireland, The United Kingdom, and The United States of America,
in order to secure the prosperity and security of their people,
in order to more fully realize democracy and the rule of law,
in order to break down the barriers that divide nations from their common heritage,
do freely enter into this Commonwealth.

The organs of the Commonwealth are the Common House of the Anglosphere and the Network Organisations of the Anglosphere.

Article 2: Ancient Liberties the Foundation

1. The foundation of this commonwealth is the ancient Liberties of the English Speaking People which we understand to be at the minimum as follows.
· That no subject, citizen, or person lawfully resident within a state shall be deprived of life, liberty or property by the government there of without due process of law.
o That no one shall be deprived of their life unless they are convicted of treason, murder, rape or involvement in the slave trade.
§ But treason shall consists only in levying war against the government, or in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
o That no person shall be guilty of a felony unless pronounced so by the unanimous verdict of a jury of 12 chosen by lot from among the subjects or citizens of the district where in the crime shall have been committed.
· That no state shall levy any tax without the consent of the representatives of the people
· The state shall make no law abridging the right of free speech or press, but may by law punish incitement or conspiracy to commit a crime, incitement to false panic, or libel where libel is understood to mean the uttering or printing of falsehoods which damage another person’s reputation.
· No state shall make a law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble to petition for the redress of grievances.
· The state shall not take private property for public use without the payment of just compensation.
o To be just compensation must be more than the price last paid for the property or more than the tax assessment for the property, unless the property has been subsequently significantly damaged..
o Public use means use by the state for fortifications, roads or necessary public buildings.
· The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures not to be violated. Warrants shall be issued only on probable cause upon oath or affirmation naming the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized.
· No state shall make a law violating the freedoms of association or contract.
· The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. A government violating the rights of the people or violating its constitution has no authority and the people there of have the right to overthrow it or to distrain and distress the officials there of until such time as they content themselves with their lawfully given authority.
2. By joining this commonwealth, the executive and legislative officials of a nation agree to abide by the ancient liberties of our people.
3. Nations joining this commonwealth recognize that persistent and willful violations of the liberties enumerated above shall be cause for expulsion.

Article 3: Membership of the Commonwealth

Membership of the Commonwealth is open to all nations upon application.

Membership may be denied by a majority vote of the Council of State.

Members may be expelled by a 2/3 vote of the Council of State.

Members found by a commission of inquiry to have persistently and willfully violated the ancient liberties of our people maybe expelled by a majority vote of the Council of State.

The founding members of the Anglosphere Commonwealth are the Commonwealth of Australia, The United Kingdom, The United States of America and the Republic of Ireland.

Article 4: The Common House of the Anglosphere

All members of the Commonwealth are members of the Common House.

The Common House consists of four elements:
The Mediator of the Commonwealth
The Speaker of the Assembly,
The Council of State,
The Assembly of the Commonw House.

Article 5: The Assembly of the Common House

The Assembly of the Common House shall be composed of delegates who are subjects or citizens of member states who have an agreement of representation signed by at least 100 other subjects or citizens of member states.

Any delegate may make a motion before the Assembly, upon any subject without limitation.

Any delegate may make a joint assertion before the Assembly, upon any subject without limitation.

Debate on any motion or joint assertion shall be without limit unless the motion or joint assertion shall itself limit the time for debate or the Assembly shall pass a motion to limit debate, except that debate on a motion to limit debate shall not exceed 24 hours and debate on a motion to limit debate may be closed by a motion to end debate passed by the vote of 2/3rds of the Assembly, but this is the only instance were a motion to end debate may be made.

A motion to limit debate shall take the following form: “Resolved that the Assembly shall limit debate on _______ to ______.” Where the first blank shall be filled with the name of the motion or joint assertion in question and the second black shall be filled with times proposed as follows. If the motion to limit debate is adopted, the Speaker of the Assembly shall state that it is the will of the assembly that debate be limited and shall put to a vote one after the other to fill the second blank: one month, three weeks, two weeks, a week, five days, three days, two days, 36 hours, 24 hours, 18 hours, 12 hours. The first period to win a majority shall fill the blank, but if none of them win a majority then the blank shall be filled with: six hours.

Delegates shall speak on any motion or joint assertion in the order of the number of signers they have to their agreement of representation, the delegate with the most signers having the right to speak first or to reserve his right to speak in which case he and all others reserving their right to speak shall speak in inverse order. However the person making the motion or joint assertion shall have the right to speak to his motion or joint assertion for five minutes at the time he makes it. If a number of delegates have equal numbers of signers they shall speak with in the limits of the forgoing at the discretion of the Speaker of the Assembly. Any member of the Council of State may speak on any motion or joint assertion ether before or after the regular order of debate. The Mediator of the Commonwealth may speak on any motion or joint assertion at the point in the order of debate of her own choosing.

The time for debate shall be apportioned among the delegates wishing to speak in proportion to the number of signers they have to their agreement of representation. Delegates may pool their time so that one of their number may speak for a longer time. If a member of the Council of State chooses to speak he shall be granted time equal to half the time as the delegate with the largest number of signers. If the Mediator of the Commonwealth chooses to speak she shall be granted the same about of time as the delegate with the largest number of signers and the house may by unanimous consent grant her additional time.

On all votes in the Assembly, each delegate shall have a number of votes equal to the number of signers they have to their agreement of representation.

Any set of delegates may establish working committees of the Assembly of the People, which shall be supported by those nations with participatory delegates.

Every two years the Assembly shall elect the Speaker of the Assembly.

An agreement of representation is contract between a delegate and the people he represents. The agreement of representation states that the delegate will represent the people who sign the agreement before the assembly and states what if any compensation the represented will pay to the delegate. It may also bind the delegate to vote in certain ways. Such clauses are binding, but they like any clause may be changed by the delegate as long as he gives the represented 30 days notice. The any of the signers may terminate the agreement as for himself on 10 days notice. Delegates shall have one agreement of representation that is the same for all people represented.

A delegate shall receive no compensation for his service other than the money paid to him under the agreement of representation and any gifts or donations given to him by those who have signed his agreement of representation.

Article 6: The Council of State

The Council of State shall be composed of one representative from each member state of the Commonwealth, the Speaker of the Assembly and the Mediator of the Commonwealth.

The Mediator of the Commonwealth shall be President of the Council of State, but shall have no vote unless they be equally divided.

The Council of State shall by simple majority of votes:
vote upon membership applications for the Commonwealth,
lay down rules for the procedures of itself,
lay down rules for the procedures of the Assembly of the Common House not inconsistent with this constitution,
expel any member Commonwealth found by a commission of inquiry to have persistently and willfully violated the ancient liberties of our people.

The Council of State may by a two-thirds majority of votes:
Amend this Constitution if supported by two or more founding members and a majority of the votes in the Assembly of the People,
Expel a member state for any reason.

Any member of the Council of State may:
commit their support to motions or joint assertions of the Assembly,
require a vote from the Council upon the continued membership of a member of the Commonwealth.
Each member of the Council shall have an office and a staff, supported by their own Nations contributions.

Dan's Constitution (rev) part 2

2005-10-17T12:14:00.000-04:00

Article 7: The Speaker of the Assembly

1. The Speaker shall chair meetings of the Assembly, according to the rules laid down by the Council of State and this Constitution.

2. The Speaker shall chair all commissions of inquiry.

3. The Speaker shall have an office and a staff, supported by the contributions of all Member Nations.

Article 8: The Mediator of the Commonwealth

1. The Mediator of the Commonwealth shall be Elizabeth Windsor and Her Heirs and Successors in accordance with the Act of Settlement of 1701.

2. The Mediator shall be President of the Council of State.

3. The Mediator shall have the right to address the Assembly of the Common House

4. Any subject or citizen of a members state, who having exhausted his legal remedies under the laws of his government, shall have the right to appeal to the Mediator on the grounds that his state is denying him the ancient liberties outlined in Article 2.

5. When a subject or citizen appeals to the Mediator of the Commonwealth, she shall appoint a panel of inquiry composed of three subjects or citizens of member states one of whom shall be a member of the assembly. The panel of inquiry shall investigate and make a report to the Mediator of the Commonwealth who shall make the report a matter of public record.

6. If a member nation has been found by a panel of inquiry to have violated the rights of its citizens more than 10 times in 5 years, then upon receiving a request by motion of either the Council of State or the Assembly, the Mediator shall appoint a commission of inquiry which shall investigate weather the member is persistently violating the ancient liberties of our people. If the commission finds that the member is persistently violating the ancient liberties of our people they shall report this fact along with suggested steps the member can take to remedy the problem to the Mediator of the Commonwealth who shall inform the representative of that member to the Council of State. The commission of inquiry shall continue to meet for the next three years or until it determines that the problem has been corrected. If at the end of three years, the member is still persistently violating the ancient liberties of our people, the commission shall determine that the violations are persistent and willful.

7. A commission of inquiry shall be chaired by the speaker of the assembly and shall include, two members of the Council of State, four members of the Assembly, two judges from member counties other than the one under investigation, and four other members. All members shall with in the limits of the forgoing be appointed at the discretion of the Mediator.

Article 9: Anglosphere Network Organisations

Any group of Member Nations, that includes at least one founding member, may form a Network Organisation within the Commonwealth by,
submitting through delegates a joint assertion by the Assembly,
committing through their representatives on the Council of State.

To qualify as an Commonwealth Network the organisation must:
have one or more founding members as a member or have a majority of members and the support of the Mediator,
base its headquarters within the Offices of the Common House.

All network organisations must:
report regularly and honestly to the Council of State and Assembly of the Common House, according to the rules of those Houses.

All network organisations may:
set more binding conditions on membership rules than that of the Commonwealth
require sovereign action of states according to the constitution of the organisation
have whatever powers over their own member nations as are granted to them by those member nations

All network organisations must not:
accept or at any time have as members nations not members of the Commonwealth.

Article 10. Powers of the Common House

The Common House will levy no financial or other obligations on its member nations or citizens other than contributions for the administration of the Common House.

The Common House has no power to make binding law or regulation over it's member nations.

The Common House may not require or forbid action of its members

The Common House may not delay, or submit requirements to complete, the withdrawal of membership of any member state.

The Council of State of the Common House may compel representatives of any Organisation to appear before it and speak honestly, though they may not force disclosure.

Article 11. Joint Responsibility

The Common House will take no responsibility for the actions of the Member Nations or the Network Organisations

The Member Nations will not be required to respect, take responsibility for or support the actions of other Member Nations or Network Organisations of which they are not a member.

Joint responsibility may feature in the Constitutions of the Network Organisations.

Article 12: Founding Networks

The founding networks of the Commonwealth are the following organisations:
Anglosphere Treaty Organisation (ATO) The members of ATO shall, according to the constitution of ATO,
commit to mutual defence.
conclude defence cooperation agreements.

Anglosphere Free Trade Area (AFTA) The members of AFTA shall not, according to the constitution of AFTA,
impose tariffs, or quotas or restrictions of any kind upon the movement of goods and capital, save those aimed at lawbreakers

Anglosphere Common Law Area (ACLA) The members of ACLA shall, according to the constitution of ACLA,
develop protocols for interaction of contract law, financial law, credit law between themselves,
establish courts of arbitration for the resolution of disputes between citizens of different Nations.
empower ACLA to advise lawmakers on framing laws and regulations to ease interaction and trade.
not grant ACLA the power to set binding law or regulation

Anglosphere Free Residence Organisation (AFRO) The members of AFRO shall, according to the constitution of AFRO,
allow free residence and unlimited work permits to nationals of AFRO nations passing minimal conditions.
empower AFRO to advise on law and regulation to make this possible.
empower AFRO to provide "service passports" allowing equivalent government services to cross borders, or to be replaced by local services where appropriate.

Anglosphere Space Science Agency (ASSA).The members of ASSA shall, according to the constitution of ASSA,
merge their civilian space programs into the ASSA space program

Upon the establishment of the Commonwealth, Working committees of the Floor of the House will be established by the founding members to draft constitutions for each of the Founding Networks.

Lady Thatcher 80

2005-10-14T14:23:00.000-04:00

One of the greatest women of our time turns 80. With President Reagan she saved the free world from throwing in the towel when the game was almost won. She will live in the hearts of her countrymen with Churchill and Pitt. Good post at the Monarchist

On Dan's Constitution

2005-10-14T13:23:00.000-04:00

I think Dan has made a fine start on a constitution for a network commonwealth.

I want to make two suggestions in relation to nomenclature. I suggest that what dan is calling the board of the house be call the council of state, since that is what it is. What dan calls the floor of the house might be called the assembly.

Now some questions for dan about the floor of the house. How are delegates chosen? Is it open to anyone who wants to come? If it has no power but to talk and propose action, this would make sense. Modern technology makes this even more possible since tip jars and other grass roots forms of financing would allow large numbers of people to support a delegate to voice their point of view. Why should the board or council of state elect the speaker instead of the floor of the house or assembly?

I know this is my monarchist streak coming out (shocking in a republican but there it is), but I think we should find a role for the Queen. She is the titular head of state of many of the states involved and in my opinion is the titular head of our people. I am for a title like first citizen and moderator of the confederation. I propose that she be president of the council of state with no vote unless they be equally divided. I also propose that the moderator may at her sole discretion take the place of one of the founding members for the purpose of founding a Network Organization as long as there are a majority of members of the council of state in favor.

I think it also needs a bill of rights that a state would have to abide by to be a member. The protection of individual and civil rights is IMHO one of the core attributes of the Anglosphere.

Individual Rights

A) no one deprived of life, liberty or property with out due process.
- no one deprived of life unless convicted of murder, treason, rape or involvement in the slave trade.
- due process in criminal trials to include trial by a jury of 12 chosen by lot with unanimity for conviction.

B) No prior restraint on speech, no speech crimes except incitement to commit a crime, incitement to panic, or libel where this means saying things about others that are not true.

C) No taking of property for public use without just compensation.
- just compensation must be more than the tax assessment for the property.
- public use means use by the state for fortifications, roads or neccissary public buildings

D) The right of association and contract.

Civic-Individual Rights

A) no taxation without representation

B) The right of the people to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

C) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures not to be violated. Warrants issued only on probable cause upon oath naming the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized.

D) Treason consists only in levying war against the government, or in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

E) Right of revolution.