Virtues & Vices of Social Security (pt.2)

PART II

VIRTUES (Teleology) and VICES (deontology) of

This analysis is a concluding paragraph of PART II:

Had wages in 2001 kept pace with inflation, median wage-earned income

would have been $89,852.00. The 2000 reported median income for white

males (the highest cited income group) is far short of inflation’s pace: it was

$29,696. For white females, it was more anemic: $16,190. And, relatively still

worse for minority races as blacks, Hispanics and Asians. Wage-earners

became a determined economic underclass of the American System’s political

economy: only the mechanist upper-caste of owner-superintendents was

rewarded by the American System’s determinism. These mechanist rewards

distinguish what is commonly referred to as the American Dream.

This political anthology’s selections and analysis, section 250.2, is

from DeYoung’s research document: Our Federal Savings Plan.

By

M. H. DeYoung

All rights reserved

SOCIAL SECURITY: VIRTUES’ & VICES

PART II, TOPICAL GUIDE

FOREWORD 3

PREFACE: critical theses 12

‘True’ Causal Reality requires necessary Principles 16

Tautology (revisiting truth and reason’s veracity test) 16

The Federalist Agenda 19

‘Divine right’ dogma 20

‘social usage’ 21

teleology v.s. mechanist empiricism 25

Principles . . .[that] stand in the way of success 27

Whig politics gave America the Gilded Age 32

mercantilism . . . officially reaffirmed 33

250 Is Ontologism embraced or rejected? 38

teleological philosophy 39

St. John . . . named nature’s Creator, LOGOS 39

Teleology opposes mechanism’s paradoxical flaws 41

Capitalism: its propensities for growth (Schumperter) 90

profit-taking that is not entrepreneurial is invalid 97

Validating the proposed critical theses 98

256 Preserving Economic Baby 109

251 Social Security 121

ENDNOTES 161

SS, PART II, FOREWORD

Thomas Hobbes, 1588-1679, (as the encyclopedia stated) concluded that

only matter exists. Hobbes, therefore, had asserted unitary materialist

causal mechanism in his Leviathan (published in 1651): mechanism then

was orthodox belief, and like belief if a ‘flat earth’ was limited in Plato’s

analysis to apparent visible belief.

Mechanism, i.e., ‘the universe behaves like a big machine,’is pragmatically deduced orthodox causal belief, which consequentially is

without antecedent necessity, therefore, fails as a logically necessary

principle? V. L. Parrington had referred to Hobbes’ asserted fallacy when

he observed America’s cultural return to the sixteenth century from which

the seventeenth was a reaction. Myriad paradoxs are in results of this

return to cultural irrationalism! Not until recent scientific study, was

mechanist determinism’s dragon shown as orthodox fallacy of belief:

Prof. R. C. Weatherford, Univ. of South Florida gave this philosophical

account of determinist mechanism: 1

determinism. It is often taken as the very general thesis about the

world that all events without exception are effects -- events

necessitated by earlier events. Hence any event of any kind is an

effect of a prior series of effects, a causal chain with every link solid.

The thesis is fundamentally simple. The ideas which it contains,

notably those of events and causal connection, are certainly open to

definition. If the thesis cannot be expressed as some part of science

or theory in it, some determinists say, the shortcoming is not in the

thesis.

If the thesis is true,[and materially it appears as being ‘true’]

future events are as fixed and unalterable as the past is fixed and

unalterable. One graphic expression of determinism is in terms of

what William James called ‘the iron block universe’: “those parts of

the universe already laid down,” he wrote, “ appoint and decree

what other parts shall be. The future has no ambiguous possibilities

hidden in its womb: the part we call the present is compatible with

only one totality. Any other future complement than the one fixed

from eternity is impossible. The whole is in each and every unity, an

250-260 SS: VIRTUES and VICES4

iron block, in which there can be no equivocation or shadow of

turning.” If this is what the way of the world is, then only what

actually happens in it could possibly have happened. There are no

genuine alternatives to be realized.

Philosophers and scientists have been concerned with the

question of whether determinism conceived in this general and all-

inclusive way is true. The problem is ancient in its origins. The

Homeric Fates were enigmatically described as having power over

the future. Early forms of atomism were more clearly deterministic,

so disturbingly so that Epicures found it necessary to hypothesize an

uncaused ‘swerve’ of the atoms as they fell through the void. Hobbes

and Hume, and many great and not so great philosophers after

them, have been determinists.

But philosophers have been more concerned with what is to

many of us the most compelling part of that general question:

whether we ourselves, persons, are subject to the same sort of

causal necessity. Philosophers have cared less about whether or

not the rest of the universe is determined -- what they have cared

more about is whether or not our lives are determined. Indeed

determinism has often been taken as the more limited thesis that all

our choices, decisions, intentions, other mental events, and our

actions are no more than effects of other equally necessitated events.

The problem of determinism in this second sense is pretty well

identical with the problem of freedom, or the free will problem.

When philosophers have worried about this limited thesis in

the past, they have typically focused on what it would mean for our

concept of moral responsibility. But Strawson led us to see that

more is at stake than that, including many human attitudes such as

resentment [ending in terrorism?] and gratitude. Honderich has

raised the stakes higher. Determinism puts in doubt all “life-hopes,

personal feelings, knowledge, moral responsibility, the rightness of

actions, and the moral standing of persons”. And van Inwagen has

5FOREWORD

suggested that if determinism were known to be true, no one could

ever rationally deliberate about any type of action. Deliberation, it

is said, makes sense only if genuine alternatives are available to us.

If I deliberate about whether or not to raise my arm, my deliberation

is rational only if I am able either to raise it or not to raise it. If

determinism is true, only one course is genuinely open to me. So it

is alleged, my deliberation is irrational.

But, as remarked, the most important issue historically has

been moral responsibility. And what can be said about it applies in a

general way to the other implications of determinism. Typically we

believe that agents are morally responsible only for those acts that

are freely chosen and within the power of the agent to decide. We

are guilty only if we could have done otherwise. But if determinism

is true, then in some sense we never could have done otherwise.

Thus many philosophers have concluded that determinism and

holding people responsible are incompatible. Others have strongly

disagreed. Recently, however, quantum mechanics and relativity theory

have generally displaced Newtonian mechanics, and various proofs of

them have been claimed. Many scientists and not a few philosophers

believe that the dragon of determinism has been slain.

In this determinist causal sense, which always entails paradox for

instance, V. L. Parrington observed the results of economic causal

mechanism, onto which Whigs when in charge of government (mid

seventeenth Century) asserted The American System of Political Economy

loaded with organic loco parentis paternalism, as the official U.S.

economic policy: that paternalistically giving to ‘Peter’ paradoxically also

necessarily took equivalent economic measures from ‘Paul.’ Economist

Joseph Schumperter’s early twentieth century analysis explained

Parrington’s astute observation by showing that private business

mechanisms’ profit-taking upset the nation’s ‘static economic circular

flow.’ Paradoxically, for to ensure private economic success, the

government’s loco parentis grants to private business mechanisms, as aided


The 3 percent average inflation legally returns as business owned capital.''

by codifications of law, official edict, policy and myriad covert endemism,

public held national resources, along with economic license, for businesses

to manage and exploit for privatized economic gain.

This paternalism, Parrington observed, which privatized economic

gains from mechanized exploitations also determined a counter class of

‘iron caged’ wage-earner Pauls (Who constitutionally had equal rights,

however, lost out economically and paternalistically simply because of

paternal determinist grants, which blessed economic growth: the granted

legalized enuring of inflation endemism that covertly (occultist magic

like) is transformed at points of consumption by accounting to return as''

business capital to originating business owner Peters). Was it because2

economic losses are mechanistically borne by subsistence-based

consumption, that public debt was officially excused, or ignored, as of

lesser importance than loco parentis paternalism? : society’s ‘iron caged’

wage-earning ‘Pauls,’ who by consuming to subsist, routinely

mechanistically recycle much of their paychecks, which by way of

accounting, magically is combined with inflation endemism, which wage-

earning ‘Pauls’ also consume, to return to business owner Peters’ as their

legally enured capital: this recovered private retail business owned capital,

is then available for profit-taking, dividend and bonus pay outs, and

accumulations to underwrite more productions. Average economic growth,

during the twentieth century, was measured at 4 percent, inflation

endemism at 3 percent: the accounting combined returning business capital,

therefore, averaged 7 percent: profits taken, however, averaged closer to

10percent, while wages-earned languished at less than half the average rate

of inflation. Average growth of ‘iron caged’ wage-earner-consumer3

experience was first the negative result of profit-taking from legally enured

capital, as business property, which typically generously exceeded

economy’s 4 percent growth plus inflation’s 3 percent. Wage-earning is a

tethered mongrel class of mechanist business efficiency, which neither can

extort profit-taking nor GNP.

7FOREWORD

A principle, to be ‘true,’ is logically ‘necessary,’ the definition of

which compels coherent ‘trueness’ (is not paradoxical). Whenever ‘logical

coherence’ fails, as the pseudo principles of mechanism routinely fail

wage-earning ‘Pauls’, mechanism asserted as principle, is then of ‘forged’

predicate value: politically, politely, it logically is ‘fallacy’ of U.S. Political

Economy’s irrationalism. Rationally, truly, it is ‘false!’ Polite political

fallacies, which despite orthodox belief, are irrationally deceitful: mortally,

truthfully, they are cultural lies.

Temporally, conceptional deontological duties are different than

cardinal teleological purposes: duties relate to Greek conceived temporal

nomos, in which the de of deon is a preposition meaning the opposite of,

down from, away from, or entirely (as in despoil), plus ontos, i.e.,

deontology, while purposes relate to Greek conceived physis consisting of

telos, i.e., eos (an eternal end goal), i.e., is natural eternal causal teleology.

Deontological duties are of nomos, teleological purposes of physis. The

difference is narrowed greatly, when physis becomes conflated to Unitary

Materialism forms of nomos belief, as shows orthodox paternalist

economic mechanism, which fallaciously asserts temporal as the equal of

eternal, material the equal of essence, and man the equal of God.

Myriad ideological political interests were covertly added to the

American System’s deontological duties, which unitary materialist

mechanism’s endemism deliberately concealed, as inflation for instance. 4

Classical politics, for instance, asserts that deontological duty fulfills

government’s constitutional teleology, as specified in the Constitution’s

Preamble. Government’s purpose, was then irrationally interpreted to

ensure whatever politics asserted, regardless whether rational or irrational.

Classically, irrationally, therefore, government now ensures that legally

enured business profits are business owner’s property [the teleological

constitutional economic purpose ‘to all,’ was changed by enuring (defined

by law, to inure) as the business’ owners’ property]: therefore, the

Bankers’ COLA [the endemic cost for renting the public’s economic utility

(money)], which government creates as a teleological utility to serve ‘all,’

by enuring, paternalistically rewards as bank owners’ property for serving

mechanist economic duties with exchanges of goods and services.


(However, what part of banking fiducial duty, which is physis-based

responsibility, enures as a nomos-based property entitlement?).

Government created ubiquitous money for the teleological purpose

to ease the exchange of goods and services.’ And it regulates political

economy, setting deontological rules of conduct (duties). Government is,

therefore, ultimately responsible for covert inflation’s endemism. And,

unfairly used (misused), money is the nation’s main conduit of inflationary

endemism: if money is fallaciously asserted as a ‘propertied hoard,’ for

instance, then the mechanism-based inflation-endemisms’ economic

paradox, cited by Parrington as giving to ‘Peter’ by taking from ‘Paul,’

greatly ensues. And, acquisitive materialism of privatized business is then

prone to a rational blindness that is related to conflated forms of Unitary

Materialism, which then becomes as uniquely nomos-based as deontology

is, in which reason-based formulas as Einstein’s special relativity, as

representing science cited by Professor Weatherford above, which equates

energy with mass (E = MC ), for instance, as exclusively valued only as an2

equal appendage to economic propertied Unitary Materialism, which while

called ‘intellectual property’ is in most cases of employment, the legally

owned property of the privatized organic economic entity. Acquisitive

materialism-based political economy, as American Whigs asserted, was,

therefore, irrationally philosophically defined. Tautologically, mechanism

is a consequent deduced from human experience, which only can be

asserted as being ‘true,’ but is without necessary antecedence as logically

inferred to human intelligent faculties of reason. And Acquisitive

Materialism’s dogma-based irrational antecedents, as classically asserted

necessary economic principles, were judiciously legalized by the Federalist

orthodoxy primarily for to serve the federalist Unitary Materialism’s

deontological economic duties, paradoxically, idealistically resulting in the

conflating of constitutional teleological purposes.

While tautologically, Federalists have opposed the constitutional

teleological purposes of SS, they officially asserted as authoritative truths,

the Federalist-Whig ideological doctrine. And, the paradoxs of privatized

nomos-based mechanisms,’ which act cumulatively to divide society, were

politically too often also officially affirmed as SS’s antecedent principles.

9FOREWORD

Incoherence, as inflation endemism, show political economy’s Unitary

Materialism’s asserted pseudo principle as orthodoxy, which incorporated

the dogmatic dragons of mechanism:5

materialism n. the belief that all action, thought, and feeling can be

explained by the movement and changes in matter: ‘in the latter half

of the 1800's, materialism severely challenged the traditional

spiritual view of man’ (Science). When the U.S. Constitution was in its formative stage, Europeans were

influenced by the principal Idealists, of which Craig Thomas wrote this:6

[In] prenational Prussia under Frederick the Great. Christian

theology assumed a [unitary] merger with the divine after this life;

Hegel posits such a merger here on earth -- with history and the

collectivity he terms the state.Thomas also wrote about the Idealists of Hegel’s unitary materialist view:

The principal Idealists -- Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel -- sought,

above all else, a unitary explanation of reality, some essence behind

all appearance -- in Kant’s terminology, a ‘common’ and universal

noumenon, and in the poet Hölderlin’s description, the ‘spirit that is

in everything’ [ontologism]. They were [expedient idealist]

systemizers, assuming that there could be discovered some essential

explanation of all experience, knowledge, and reality, and it was

largely on this basis that they objected, Fichte most immediately

and systematically, to Kant’s division between self and the world,

which [they as irrationally contended] for Kant could be no more

than a world of appearances. To achieve the healing of [Kant’s]

dualism the Idealists posited, in Fichte’s theory most succinctly, the

ego as the ‘ground of experience.’ It was not the rational ego of

Kant [Plato and Descartes] nor the passive receptor of the empiricists

but what Fichte describes as the ‘active ego,’ inextricably

intermingled with reality, imposing itself upon the world of

experience, to a degree ‘making’ the world of experience in its own

image. [In this instance, the principle idealists conflated even God’s


antecedence to comply with the nomos of their Unitary Materialism, to

which Nietzche then cried out, “we have killed God!”] As Fichte claims

in ‘The Vocation of Man’ of 1792, ‘Not to KNOW but to DO, is the

vocation of Man.’ For Fichte (1762- 1814), there were only two

possible responses to the world, that of the realist, or ‘dogmatist’ in

his terminology, and that of the idealist. The philosopher’s

response, more profound than that of the ordinary man, is idealist,

while realism remains the province of non-philosophical response to

an understanding of the world. . . .

Thinking is no longer reflection, it is experience. Also,

because of this, there can be no kind of reality that is distinct or

separated from the ego that experiences it. Whereas empiricism

posits, at least by implication, a ‘real’ world that is experienced, the

Idealists assumed no distinction between the subject of the

experiencing agent and the objective world being experienced. [Which came first, the egg or the chicken, is of no

consequence to this materialist conservative idealism that compounds the

issue rather than finding answers to the question; the dogmatic focus is on

the neatness of confusion.]

Further, Fichte and Schelling assumed that the ego was

innately a moral agent, again contrary to Kant’s conception of the

effort of moral duty for the rational being, the necessity to achieve

the categorical imperative [of ‘do unto others . . .’] in making any

moral decision or taking any moral action. Men are regarded by

the Idealists as innately, though imperfectly, moral in their essential,

nondualistic natures. This leads, as we shall see, to a strangely

Hobbesian view of the State as possessing the right and duty to

perfect the ego’s moral imperfection by the exercise of its authority.

[Note how dogmatic ‘Idealists‘ are blamed for the fallacious philosophical

underpinning of the conservative materialist philosophy]

11FOREWORD

‘Deterministic materialism,’ ‘mechanism,’ and ‘positivism’ is dogmatic

bias of American Federalists and Whigs and also is intrinsic of the

principal Idealists -- Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel’s rationalized

philosophies. The Western World’s orthodox cultural dogmas, the biased

values which influence materialistic ‘conservative’ belief, has proved

unreliable as a fiducial parameter of pure truth. Regarding the causal

moral deterioration of society, are the fallaciously idealistic philosophic

foundations of ‘materialism’ of concern? Do ‘conservative’ assertions

compromise individual accountability? Do they promote the Hobbesian

view of the State?’

Maybe, the only reason that Unitary Materialism has failed to

devastate the American political economy, as happened in Europe with

organic developments of communism and fascism, is the democratic

process, which as a cultural condition for constitutional ratification,

required the physis-based Bill of Rights be appended. These amendments

have preserved Locke’s dualism, which critically has kept the teleological

human essence as an active part of government. We can thank men, as

Jefferson, for having preserved this critically important human essence

from the conflating effects of mechanist materialist laws of government: in

what Jefferson called the ‘firewall of separation’ between mechanist law

and human religious essence.

In Western culture, A. Comte’s dogmatic ‘positivism’ that deals only with

positive facts and phenomena, rejecting abstract speculation, religiously7

was spread as ‘the gospel of reason’ and this dogma remains entrenched in

culture as tautologically fallacious doctrine. Materialism is unproved

theory that rationally tautologically can only be claimed as a natural

consequent of human experience, as ‘flat earth’ orthodoxy also was

claimed. Unfortunately however, when Unitary Materialism is asserted as

principle, on which politically assigned duties of government are its vices,

Adam Smith observed, and Brockway confirmed this:8

“in the mercantile system, the interest of the consumer is almost

constantly sacrificed to that of the producer.” And, government’s vices officially became the determined vices of SS.


Immigrations and emigrations are not considered here. They are important'

factors of population and also can be eligible for SS.

PREFACE: critical theses for consideration and proof:

The BabyBoom’s 77 million births, factually recorded between 1946

and 1965, does not and cannot randomly change. Only mortality, at

any age, can reduce the BabyBoom’s natural population (therefore,

mortality necessarily naturally reduces the BabyBoom’s retirement

population). And mortality is routinely quite arcuately estimated.

With SS eligibility shifted to age 67, upwards of seven million persons

are delayed from entering retirement. The BabyBoom’s population of

natural births, over age 67, will peak, for a short period, at 42 million: 31'

million (age 65-4) were counted in 1990, 35 million in 2000.9 10

The Census Bureau’s ratio, as projected and cited in 1983, is ‘fallacy’:11

The ratio of the working age population . . . to the retirement age

population will begin an unprecedented decline. The nation had 5.3

people of working age in 1982 for every person 65 or older. The

ratio is projected to drop to 4.7 in 2000 and to 2.4 in 2080. [more recent facts show the ratio did not drop in 2000]

The only fact of this projected ‘fallacy’ is this: ‘The nation had 5.3 people

of working age in 1982 for every person 65 or older.’ The rest is asserted

fallacy, which had assumed the SS system’s maturity would have no effect

on the worker to retiree ratio (assumed that mutually exclusive conditions

were of no consequence, which, they are). With the SS system, as of the

1970s, now mature, facts show the ratio did not drop in 2000. Rather, it

improved! And shifting retirement eligibility to age sixty-seven, keeps the

ratio at or above 4.39:1, close to the benchmark ratio set in 1982 (5.3:1).

Inflation’s endemism represents a greater economic concern than

does the BabyBooms’ population. Mechanism causally has made

inflation directly related to profit taking by the nation’s corporate

mechanisms, while otherwise it is unrelated to the circular flow of SS

contributions and benefits. Indexing inflation to SS contributions is

double taxation that exclusively relates to mechanisms taking profits.

13PREFACE: critical theses

Thesis 1) Effectively, the ratio of workers to retirees will remain

higher than statistical experience had registered in 1990.

Thesis 2) Social Security is teleological ‘social usage’ virtue that

mitigates a major paradox (vice) of the mechanist political economy: SS’s

static circular flowing ‘social usage’ ensures sustenance income during the

retired years of each wage-earner’s life. And causally, paying for the

inflation COLAs related to SS benefits is a responsibility related to income

from profits routinely legally granted to be taken from returning capital

from consumed productions of business mechanisms economic circular

flow, which income is not subjected to SS contribution taxes, however, is

rewarded by the fact of the consumed and legally enured capital returns

from inflation endemism.

Thesis 3) Neither were SS bankruptcy charges in the 1980's ‘true‘

nor does the BabyBoom’s retirement benefits’ eligibility, when they come

due, beginning in 2010, endanger SS.

Thesis 4) Inflation’s endemism endangers political economy in a

manner as to also damage Social Security: taking profits that are not the

result of directly related added entrepreneurial value to mechanisms of

political economy, is inflation’s primary cause. All inflation intrinsic of

SS benefit payments that are loaded onto the SS contributions’ taxes

must be recompensed from revenue taxes on income that is not wage-

earned, i. e., is exempted from paying SS contribution taxes?

Thus, exactly as Ricardo or Mill foresaw, ‘in a static economy there

is no place for profit! [R. L. Heilbroner on Shumperter]

Without entrepreneurial value, profits taken endemically pilfers value from

wage-earned labor. And, because wage-earning does not cause inflation’s

endemism, therefore, inflation’s cost must be recompensed as necessarily

levied on a graduated scale of revenue tax from capital-based, rather than

wage-earned income.

Thesis 5) As explained in thesis 4, the inflation effects on wages

must recompensed. If wages had kept pace with inflation, the median

family wage earned in 2000 would be $60,000, 3.1 times greater than

wages in 1975 ($19,480 white with 1-3 yrs of college ): , 12 13 14


Thesis 6) Real economic growth (growth sans inflation’s endemism)

is population growth related.

A better teleology for workers that mechanistically (by the determinism of

the ‘iron law of wages’) are made to pay inflation’s bill as applied to SS

benefits, is for Congress to fulfill its constitutional charge: reduce inflation

by restricting the Bankers’ COLA. I suspect the ‘golden ratio’ [Phi (N)],

which early Greeks found had natural application to growth, also naturally

applies to our capitalist economy: to rid it of systemic inflation’s

endemism. Mathematically, ‘the golden rule of consumption,’ in which15

growth in economy equals growth in population (and consumption is

maximized), is nearly in balance when the ‘golden ratio’ [Phi (N)] applies

to economic growth. An irrational number like B, N approximately has the

decimal value of 1.618. If Congress accepted its constitutional teleological

charge and controlled inflation, investments in production and wage-

earning would shift away from the futures, casino like economy into real

economy. A dollar earned would retain its inflation neutral economic

value. And SS contribution rates would be a small fraction of the present

rates.

Thesis 7) Quite surprisingly, however, Adam Smith’s market system

economy is now far more promising than when Smith had proposed it.

Schumpeter’s analysis and conclusions in early twentieth century provided

key necessary principles for continued economic growth: 16

The model resembles the stationary state envisaged by Ricardo and

Mill, with the difference that the stationary state seemed the end of

capitalism to the earlier writers, whereas for Schumpeter it was the

beginning of capitalism. Therefore we must examine the

characteristics of the circular flow a little more carefully. . .

Profits he said, did not arise from exploitation of labor or

from the earnings of capital. They were the result of quite another

process. ‘Profits appeared in a static economy when the circular

flow failed to follow its routinized course.’ [And profits routinely

taken, despite entrepreneurial activity, as now is commonly a classical

15PREFACE: critical theses

When, in acquisitive aggrandizements, we subscribe irrationalisms as'

Holmes’ glorious Epicurean Paradox:

‘give us the luxuries of life, and we will dispense with its

necessaries’ [which define principles]. Oliver Wendell Holmes

political economy sanctioned (legalized) business right, causes the static

circular flow fail to respect labor’s contribution to producing goods.] . .

Now we can see why the wildly unrealistic circular flow is so

brilliant a starting point. For all the forces leading to disruptions in

routine, one stands out. This is the introduction of technological or

organizational innovations into the circular flow -- new or cheaper

ways of making things, or ways of making wholly new things. ‘As

a result of these innovations a flow of income arises that cannot be

traced either to the contribution of labor or of resourse owners.’. . .

Schumpeter took an old word from the economic lexicon and

used it to describe these revolutionists of production. He called

them ‘entrepreneurs.’ Entrepreneurs and their innovating activity

were thus the source of profit in the capitalist system. [Sans

entrepreneurial activity, Schumperter’s analysis showed inflations’

endemism is as paradoxical as is its determined complement, ‘the iron

cage of wages.’]

We must restore and preserve Adam Smith’s ‘economic baby’ by cutting

out all unnecessary paradoxical causes of inflation. Otherwise, Marx

conclusion of an economic end to Smith’s system looms!

Thesis 8) Only in its fundamental spiritual (noumenal) aspect, does

democratic philosophy (Rational Empiricism) diverge from Fascism and

Communism. Therefore, when the noumenally spiritual aspect is conflated

by adopting forms of Unitary Materialism, or by official legal actions or

licensing of privatized mechanisms, which dispense with teleology,

whether by mechanism or more simply by way of willed Epicurean

paradoxical orthodoxy , and instead make deontology our antecedent'


principle (our king), we no longer can claim logically reasoned noumenally

democratic antecedents as the fundamental principles. 17

‘Rational Empiricism,’ the philosophic basis of democracy, believes

that the world is both material and spiritual. It holds that change

and progress occur by applying reason to experience, and human

nature can be changed and improved by experience. On the basis of

these principles, democracy stresses discussion and the use of reason

as a way of arriving at conclusions. It emphasises the importance of

tolerance and freedom in developing intelligent, loyal citizens.

We should respect the material part of democracy for providing temporal

bounties (when, holistically to all), but also regard Unitary Materialism’s

natural limitations about truth: didn’t Bertrand Russell logically prove that

unitary material truth was nothing but total fallacy?18

If we imagine a world of mere matter, there would be no room for

falsehood in such a world, and although it would contain what may

be called ‘facts,’ it would not contain any truths, in the sense in

which truths are things of the same kind as falsehoods. In fact, truth

and falsehood are properties of beliefs and statements; hence a world

of mere matter, since it would contain no beliefs or statements, would

also contain no truth or falsehood.With Unitary Materialism asserted dogmatically as principle, as conflated

by nihilist ‘positivism’ in fascism or communism, cultural failure sans

teleology, leaves only unmeaning of determinist chaos!

Thesis 9) Natural Causal Realities require natural Principle, the

logical keys of which are ‘true’ antecedence, necessity and coherence.

‘True’ Causal Reality requires necessary Principles

Tautology 19

By a tautology we mean a statement, which has the truth value ‘true’

for all possible truth values of its components. . . .

Compound statements with all truth values ‘true’ are called

tautologies and represent valid argument forms. The implication

17‘True’ Causal Reality requires necessary Principles

By the author’s definition, each P and Q is a statement that when'

written in the ‘if,’ ‘then,’ compound statement form, the ‘if’ statement

is the antecedent, and the ‘then’ statement is the consequent.

formed by the conjunction of all the premises as the antecedent and

the conclusion as the consequent that form a valid argument form,

will always result in a tautology. Testing compound statements to

see whether they are tautologies is thus equivalent to testing an

argument for validity.'

John N. Fujii gave three classical valid arguments (a, b, and c) and two

invalid arguments (d, and e) in which P = compound premises, Q =

consequent, - = denial, � = therefore.

(a) Modus ponens (b) modus tollens (c) hypothetical syllogism

(a) P 6 Q

P

� Q

(b) P 6 Q

- Q

�- P

(c) P 6 Q

Q 6 R

� P 6 R

(d): invalid classical argument

that ‘affirms the consequent.’

P 6 Q

Q

� P

(e): invalid classical argument

that ‘denies the antecedent.’

P 6 Q

- P

� - Q

(d) Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, and (e) Fallacy of Denying the

Antecedent, Fujii warned, are irrational argument forms. With all

forms of ‘hypothesizing a tautological argument,’ irrational argument

form (d), Affirming Consequents, is the most common form of fallacy.

And, ‘Affirming natural Consequents,’ is a pseudo philosophic proclivity


The study of mathematics is the study of clear logical reasoning. H. W.'

Turnbull gave this account of the logical test for solving paradoxs: “How to

face these paradoxs is an urgent problem,” he wrote. “[Brouwer traced] the

presence of paradoxs to the use of indirect proofs, or more precisely to what

is called in logic the law of the excluded middle.” And, he concluded, that

which is fallacious is false because it illogically is irrational.

that sophistry makes intrinsic of nomos-based dogmatic belief. The

Federalist Agenda, as Parrington noted, provides an example of ideology-

based irrational sophistry, which St. John said was a form of lying.

Logical tautology is, by applied positivism, which results similarly as

Unitary Materialism, commonly officially denied. Particularly, Federalist

Justice dogmatically fails to test for tautology: as is only briefly mentioned

in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Federalists and Whigs, particularly,

might not have understood tautology’s veracity test of truth and

reason? And had research not made mathematics language

applicable, tautological veracity testing still could not now be

understood. If interested in truth, when paradox is confronted,20

tautological testing is critically important. Opinions, based on belief,'

sans tautological testing, represent sophistries as lying with clear

consciences and straight faces. Politics thrives on this sophistry.

[Hamilton’s] notorious comment -- which the American democrat

has never forgiven him, “the people! -- the people is a great beast!”

-- was charactoristically frank. . . . He was at pains, therefore, as a

practical statesman, to dress his views in a garb more seemly to

plebeian prejudices [irrationally, Hamilton affirmed consequents that

politically fit with dogmatic plebeian biases], and like earlier Tories

he paraded an ethical justification for his Toryism. The current

Federalist dogma of the divine right of justice -- ‘vox justiciae vox

dei’ -- was at hand to serve his purpose and he made free use of it. . .

.

He was frankly a monarchist, and he urged the [fallacious]

monarchical principle with Hobbesian logic. “The principle chiefly


intended to be established is this -- that there must be a permanent

‘will.” “There ought to be a principle in government capable of

resisting the popular current.” [In ‘Works, Vol. II, p 415] The only

effective way of keeping democratic factionalism within bounds,

Hamilton was convinced, lay in the erection of a powerful chief

magistrate, who “ought to be hereditary, and have so much power.

“ He devoted himself to the business of providing all possible

checks upon the power of the democracy.” [And he hated socialism!]

This Federalist agenda, as Parrington noted, provides an example of this

sophistry that continues to fallaciously influence the U. S. Judiciary: St.

John referred to this sophist proclivity as a form of lying.

Parrington cited the Federalist-Whig proclivity to irrationally,

fallaciously ‘deny antecedents’ and ‘affirm consequents’:21

Massachusetts . . . property interests were as secure as any old

Federalist could have wished. Gentlemen of principle and property

were still in control of the state; and if less emphasis was laid on

principle [physis] and more on property [nomos] -- if less regard

seemed to be paid to gentlemen of breeding and manners, and more

to assertive self-seeking -- business was no less secure than in the

good old days, and its profits were greater. . . . Provided of course

that the Constitution should follow population and safeguard

business interests against . . .the menace of particularism [in the

sense that the Whig affirmed ‘business interests’ as an asserted principle

legally applied to the nation, democratic particularism that was politically

opposed to the ‘national interest’ was called antinomy, i.e., anti nomos,

showing than Whig asserted principles were clearly of nomos]. . . . In the

hour of peril, principles go by the board. The Whig party was the

lineal heir of the old Federalism, but it denied its philosophical

patrimony. It substituted expediency for the old economic realism,

and began and ended intellectually bankrupt.. . . aside from petty

antagonism to Jackson -- was the vague assumption that the well-


being of the American people was dependent on governmental

patronage; the belief that each economic group and section must

receive its special favor, and that through tariffs and bonuses and

internal improvements the country as a whole must prosper. Of

this principle of special favors -- a return to the seventeenth

century from which eighteenth century liberalism was a reaction --

the American System of Henry Clay was the chief expression, and it

remains the most significant bequest of the Whig party to our

political history.

‘Divine right’ dogma was imported with the colonization of

America. Along with it, also by fallaciously asserted affirmation, came a

form of nihilism, that Auguste Comte dubbed positivism, that would be

preached religiously as ‘the gospel of reason.’ Particularly, Calvinist

minds were closed to any reasonable deist consideration of the supreme

metaphysical noumenon being that intelligence, which is antecedent to all

that is. This God, religiously, fallaciously supplanted by positivism,

therefore, is the nomos denied natural supreme principle of all that is.

When scripture recorded that God was a jealous God and would have no

other before him, scripture correctly warned of the paradoxical

irrationalism of affirming natural consequents as principle: God is

inalterably the ultimate logical noumenal principle!

While officially the U.S. Constitutional Convention neither

adopted nor rejected nomos-based irrationalism, dogmatized deterministic

mechanist Unitary Materialism (a returning to the sixteenth century from

which the seventeenty century had been freed) eventually returned as the

dominant influence of U.S. legislation and administration: the new nation’s

Operating Plan that Whigs dubbed The American System of Political

Economy. While this Operating Plan is based on absolute dogma, i.e., it is

nomos-based fallacy, the political flux in America is dynamic and flexible,

to at times polarize around the physis-based political flux of human

sovereignty, of ‘we the people.’

The physis-based will of human nature is complex. It is capable to

fallaciously generate dogmatized doctrines and mechanisms of


deterministic Unitary Materialism but it also looks to ‘social usage,’ as

Roger Williams observed. Williams undoubtedly influenced this

perspective for effective temporal democracy, as Parrington wrote:22

The state, then, is society working consciously through experience

and reason, to secure for the individual citizen the largest measure of

freedom and well-being. . . . But if sovereignty inheres in the

majority will, what securities remain for individual and minority

rights? What fields lie apart from the inquisition of the majority, and

by what agencies shall the engrossing of power be thwarted? The

replies to such questions, so fundamental to every democratic

program, he discovers in a variety of principles; to the former in an

adaptation of the spirit of medieval society that restricted political

functions by social usage, and to the latter by the application of local

home rule, the initiative and the referendum, and the recall. His

creative conception was an adaptation of . . . corporation, of a group

of persons voluntarily joining for specific purposes under the law. Mutual Insurance is a form of Williams’ ‘social usage.’ It is uniquely

American and it is democratic, i.e., is physis-based. Social Security is

purer Mutual Insurance and is, therefore, also a ‘social usage’ form.

The U. S. Operating Plan is politics about economics, which

fundamentally is about life’s substantial needs (the positivist argument is

particularly convincing as regards’ life’s substantial needs). It embroils the

paradoxical influences of mind with emotion, values with passions, will

with substance . . .. Irrationalisms (rationalizations), are inevitable.

Aristotle’s spectrum of virtue applies to resulting paradoxs: where reasoned

principle (axiomatic temporal truth is found). *

* Aristotle defined Virtue as the middle ground between the vices: the

mean of excess and deficiency.

Controlling by commanding deterministic material values is at the excess

extreme where the irrational cause of collective and collusive economic

rationalization, which Adam Smith warned posed the greatest threat to

universal benefits of the nature-based, atomistic and independently

constituted ‘market system’: which Smith carefully explicated as the


Wage-earners were not considered by Smith as politically significant.'

foundation of the evolving natural economic revolution. Heilbroner

confirms Adam Smith’s intent: 23

What Smith had meant by ["leave the market alone"] was one thing;

what his proponents made him out to mean was another . . . If he

had any bias it was in favor of the consumer. "Consumption is the

sole end of production," he wrote and then proceeded to castigate

those systems that placed the interest of the producer over that of

the consuming public.

Adam Smith anticipated and strongly castigated Whiggish mechanisms of

the "American System" of political economy.

What Smith is against is the meddling of the government with

the market mechanism. He is against restraints on imports and

bounties on exports, against government laws that shelter industry

from competition [zoning, licensing, and such], and against

government spending for unproductive ends. Notice that these

activities of government all bear against the proper working of the

market system. Smith never faced the problem that was to cause such

intellectual agony for later generations of whether the government is

weakening or strengthening that system when it steps into welfare

legislation. Aside from poor relief, there was virtually no welfare

legislation in Smith's day -- the government [and not Smith] was the

unabashed ally of the governing classes, and the great tussle within

the government was whether it should be the landowning or the

industrial classes who should most benefit. [The great American'

debate about placing organic sovereignty in America, was about

this.] The question of whether the working class should have a

voice in the direction of economic affairs simply did not enter any

respectable person's mind. [Irrational bias of any sort is not democratic!]


Maybe because of Smith but surely because the revolution was the working

people’s war, working Americans decided the Constitution’s purpose was

to provide for democracy and be the ultimate voice, of, for and by the

people. This fact was made clear when the Constitution’s ratification

was withheld until a Bill of Rights was provided. Mechanist political

influences of American Tory, Federalist, and Whig conservatives (those of

seminal interests in property, position, and commerce) sided with American

Political Economy, and by fostering a conflated Unitary Materialism, had

trampled the public voice. Politics of Commerce and industry is not alone

in this. An underworld of economics, as Heilbroner calls it, points to other

culprits that farther on are presented. While Smith’s observations are

universally evident in the basis of Political Economy, our ‘conservatives’

(Which I call whiggish ‘White Rabbits’ of our wonderland) have not

subscribed to Smith’s warning about economic monopoly. Economic

Determinism, as based on Hobbesian deductive reasoning, has surely

caused economic monopoly and material value concentration. And it also

poses the ultimate cause of systemic economic failure. Deductive

reasoning that tautologically is fallacious (‘false’) is undoubtedly an

amorality form of Heidegger’s irrationalism, as those who rationalize to

engage it neither know truth (about faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty toward

God and humanity) nor virtues of ‘true’ mitigating principle.

While the U.S. Strategic Plan is categorical imperative intensive

and teleologically ethical (of giving of self in the sense of acting together to

secure common values and purposes), the Operating Plan is based on

individually taking and securing what we each want as our own property.

The difference between giving and taking is, of course, diabolical and

paradoxical. While strategy is each individual’s responsibility, about

preserving every individual’s self evident inalienable rights, operationally

speaking, we expect selfishness and we want ‘absolutism’ with ownership,

contracts, and such. Often we confuse inalienable strategic rights with our

absolute material wants. In this, wants often are extreme vices on the

spectrum of virtue: and, intentionally or not, legally nullify others’ physis-

based sovereignty. Our material wants often abuse Natural Law while they

violate no temporal manmade law. Therefore, we need to be clear about


definition and purpose. Christ may have said it best: man doth not live by

bread only. And with political economy, we especially need clarity and

balance when reasoning to enact laws that define the constitutional

administrations of government, particularly as extended to include licensed

individual and organizational agents, codifications, and regulations.

Particularly, ‘fictitious legal person’ corporations, that official agency of

state governments grant licenses to act as humans must officially be

unbundled from society when forms of mercantilism, for instance, are

implicated. ‘True’ natural differences are critical. Nature’s God did not

endow corporations with inalienable rights, as the right to free speech

(which economically they now command). And, they are not naturally

coeval of government in matters of sovereignty and suffrage. E. K.

Hunt wrote this about Veblen’s ‘property rights’ origins: 24

Private property had its origins in brute coercive force and was

perpetuated both by force and by institutional and ideological

legitimization. [Such irrationalism surely is not ‘truly’ antecedent.]

Hunt, concluded about results of ‘Internal Improvement’-based policies, 25

The passage of the Sherman Act and the establishment of various

government regulatory agencies were ostensibly aimed at controlling

these giant corporations. In practice, however, government tended

to aid these giants in consolidating and stabilizing their massive

empires.With the lawful impunity of states’ rights, corporations engage in

competitive and collusive forms of neo-mercantilism. We should not only

recognize this, we should be concerned that large multinational

corporations are today, larger than our nation was and that as ‘fictitious

legal individuals,’ they represent the greatest threat to nullifying individual

sovereignty. Like nations, they represent Leviathan entities, which are

allowed by license to make their own rules, we might say, with which

humans individually are not allowed and cannot compete:26

Mercantilism was an economic policy pursued by almost all of the

trading nations in the late sixteenth, seventeenth, and early

eighteenth centuries, which aimed at increasing a nation’s wealth

and power by encouraging the export of goods in return for gold.


Contemplating this cardinal importance resulted in definition research''

called PRINCIPLE. It is an ADDENDUM to this research, about TRUTH.

[’gold’ and ‘wealth’ are not identical value forms]

As part of the mercantilist program, individual governments

promoted large investments in export industries; built high tariff

walls to restrict imports, which could be produced domestically;

restricted exports of domestic raw materials, which could be used by

the domestic industry; interfered with the emigration of skilled

workers; encouraged immigration of skilled workers; and, in several

cases, prohibited sales of precious metals to foreigners. . . . Adam

Smith accused mercantilists of not being able to distinguish

between wealth and what they called treasure, pointing out that the

accumulation of treasure is merely instrumental to the acquisition

of wealth. [Smith’s wealth was ‘usable’ goods]

Not only, should corporate involvement in ‘mercantilism, ‘concern us, we

should also be concerned about their organized involvement in politics, free

speech and political contributions. *

* Whether from foreign countries where they conduct corporate business or

in the sense that they represent something other than human sovereignty,

political contributions from corporations to political interests are foreign, if

not alien. This reasoned sentiment extends to all organizations, particularly

Political Action Committees and religion.

Antecedent teleology v.s. consequential mechanist empiricism

(NATURAL CAUSATION anticipates natural Principle while

affirmed causation irrationally supplants natural principle.)

If a principle is ‘necessary,’ the logical meaning of ‘necessary’ makes

CARDINALLY ANTECEDENT PRINCIPLE INVIOLATE: 27 ''

necessary 3. Logic. that cannot be denied because denial would

entail contradiction of what has already been established.


Unless that principle is systemically ‘coherent,’ it cannot be ‘necessary’28

and is, therefore, falsely considered. Mechanism (‘the universe behaves

like a big machine’) fails as necessary principle: Mechanism is dogmatic

classical theory that fallaciously Thomas Hobbes had affirmed as principle

to his empiricism. Classical determinism, inferred by Mechanism, is

irrational and paradoxical. And, it fits this definition:

Determinism: ‘what happened before determines what happens today; only

the past and present can control the future.’ [However extensive this

fallacious belief, and it is extensive, recidivisim of unlawful acts is

paradoxically condemned rather than excused by orthodox society.]

‘Federalist duty’ (devised as legal springs to catch unwary democrats), was

fallaciously administered officially in highest realms of colonial classical

orthodoxy: Federalists, by fallaciously affirming causal Mechanism,

irrationally displaced logical antecedent principles. ‘Legal springs’

deployed by mechanism act to conflate the noumenal influence in Rational

Empiricism: influence which embraces human rights as being equal to life’s

materialities; Rational Empiricists are ‘true’ democrats.

Ideologies of deontological duty and teleological purpose, are

diabolical poles of Heidegger’s cultural contest between “rationalism and

irrationalism”: Mechanist duty divides society for to be exploitative,

while teleological purpose is holistically aspiring. To contend that

necessary principles block success, infer that irrationalism, as the asserted

principle, logically intends to antecede the rational principle.29

Principles must not stand in the way of success

Through the fierce scramble of rival politicians moved a scholarly

figure who preserved to the last dignity and distinction of an earlier

age. James Kent, whose long life and ripe legal learning were

devoted to upholding what he conceived to be the ultimate principles

of law and politics, was the chief political thinker of the transition

days of New York. A disciple of Locke and Blackstone, remodeling

seventeenth-century liberalism into eighteenth-century conservatism,

he was concerned to erect the barriers of the Common Law about the


unsurveyed frontiers of the American experiment, assigning exact

metes and bounds beyond which it should not go. Like John

Marshall and Joseph Story he was expert in devising legal springs to

catch unwary democrats, and while the Jeffersonians were shouting

over their victories at the polls, he was engaged in the strategic work

of placing the Constitution under the narrow custodianship of the

English law. An ardent Federalist and later an equally ardent Whig,

he reveals in his precise thinking the intimate relations that

everywhere exist between economics, politics, and legal principles.[Fallacious principle asserted by affirmation is

Mechanism’s hallmark]

Mercantilism fits the fallacious ‘overlord ideology,’ as was

practiced by Whigs and Federalists. And as Mercantilism’s irrationally

legal legitimation, such fallacy cannot be oversold. It represents a plethora

of mechanized tenets about manmade unitary materialities as money,

tariffs, taxes, . . ., that, of design, favor home spun industry. Colonials

were particularly aware of England’s mercantilism practices. Mercantilism

contends allot that classically, fallaciously, economists have asserted

affirmatively as attributable to Adam Smith’s economic postulation: for

instance, 30

“in the mercantile system, the interest of the consumer is almost

constantly sacrificed to that of the producer” [money is wealth’s

equal?].

In Smith’s view, however, wealth was the goods and services of production,

money, the economic utility that aided wealth’s (goods and services)

circulation to ‘all’: money hoards were treasures, not wealth.

About English mercantilism, Benjamin Franklin was both great and

prolific, expressing and doing what his deliberately ethical conscience

dictated: forty seven years before Adam Smith adopted, and in ‘The

Wealth of Nations,’ reaffirmed, Benjamin Franklin wrote about labor as the

measure of value when he wrote this about mechanisms:31

Manufactures are founded in poverty. It is the number of poor

without land in a country, and who must work for others at low wages


or starve, that enables undertakers to carry on a manufacture, and

afford it cheap enough to prevent the importation of the same kind

from abroad, and to bear the expense of its own exportation.

In 1769, in his Positions to be Examined concerning National Wealth,

Franklin wrote this:

There seem to be but three ways for a nation to acquire wealth. The

first is by war, as the Romans did, in plundering their conquered

neighbors. This is robbery. The second by commerce, which is

generally cheating. The third by agriculture, the only honest way,

wherein man receives a real increase of the seed thrown into the

ground, in a kind of continual miracle, wrought by the hand of God

in his favor.

Parrington’s comments on mercantilism and Franklin continue:

“As a colonial, long familiar with the injustice of Navigation Laws,

Boards of Trade, and other restrictions in favor of British tradesmen,

Franklin agreed with Adam Smith on the principle of free trade; but

with later developments of the laissez-faire school -- its fetish of the

economic man and its iron law of wages -- he would not have32

agreed. . . . In his later speculations he was rather the social

philosopher than the economist, puzzled at the irrationality of society

that chooses to make a pigsty of the world, instead of the garden that

it might be if men would but use the sense that God has given them.

‘The happiness of individuals is evidently the ultimate end of

political society,’ he believed, and a starvation wage-system was the

surest way of destroying that happiness. In one of the most

delightful letters he ever wrote, Franklin commented on the ways of

men thus: ”It is wonderful how preposterously the affairs of the

world are managed. Naturally one would imagine, that the

interests of a few individuals should give way to general interest;

but individuals manage their affairs with so much more

application, industry, and address, than the public do theirs, that


general interest most commonly gives way to particular. We

assemble parliaments and councils, to have the benefit of their

collected wisdom; but we necessarily have, at the same time, the

inconvenience of their collected passions, prejudices, and private

interests. By the help of these, artful men over power their wisdom

and dupe its possessors; and if we may judge by the acts, arrets, and

edicts, all the world over, for regulating commerce, an assembly of

great men is the greatest fool upon earth? “

Parrington also wrote this:33

The final test of every government Paine found in its concern for

the public affairs or the public good; any government that does not

make [these] its whole and sole object, is not a good government. . . .

It is the injustice of government that creates armies to defend the

earnings of injustice. But every wise government will respect its34

limitations. As a child of the eighteenth century, Paine hated

[Hobbes’] leviathan state as a monster created by a minority to

serve the ends of tyranny. The political state he accepted as a35

present necessity, but he would not have its prestige magnified and

the temptation to tyranny increased by the cult of nationalism. . . .

The maturest elaboration of Paine’s political philosophy is

found in “The Rights of Man.” This extraordinary work, the most

influential English contribution to the revolutionary movement, was

an examination of the English constitution in the light of what Paine

held were the true source and ends of government. It is a brilliant

reply to [Edmund] Burke, who rested his interpretation of the

English Constitution on the legal ground of the common law of

contract. Following the revolution in 1688, Burke had argued, the

English people through their legal representatives, entered into a

solemn contract, binding “themselves, their heirs, and posterity

forever,” to certain express terms; and neither in law nor in equity

were they, of whatever generation, free to change those terms except

by the consent of both parties to the contract. This was an


elaboration of the theory of the Old Whigs, which derived

government from a perpetual civil contract as opposed the radical

doctrine of a revocable social contract; and in attacking it Paine

allied himself with such thinkers as Price, Priestley, Franklin and

Rousseau. He pointed out the absurdity of carrying over the law of

private property into the high realm of political principle--to seek to

impose the dead past upon the living sovereignty. If sovereignty

inhered in the English people in 1688, it must inhere in the English

people in 1793, unless it had been violently wrested from them; no

parchment terms of another age can bind that sovereignty other

than voluntarily. Over against Burke’s theory of a single, static

contract, Paine set the doctrine of the reaffirmation of natural rights.

Any generation--as the generation of 1866--is competent to deal

with its affairs as it sees fit, but it cannot barter away the rights of

those unborn; such a contract on the face of it is null and void. . . .

Burke’s defense fares even worse when the argument is

examined in the light of expediency. Illogical as the English system

must appear to the political philosopher, can it plead the

justification that it works; that it does well the things it is paid to do;

that it makes the [public affairs or the public good, holistically] its

main concern? The reply to such questions Paine believed, should

be sought in the condition of the national economy; more particularly

by an examination of the account books of the exchequer [i.e., the

nation’s treasury]. The English people paid annually seventeen

millions sterling for the maintenance of government, and what did

they get in return? Nine millions of the total went to pay interest on

old wars, which in the budget was known as the funded debt; of the

remaining eight millions the larger part was spent in new wars and

sinecure pensions; whereas the real needs of England--the true

[public affairs or public good]--were shamelessly neglected. The

English people got little for their money except new debt to justify


new taxes. The poor were even taxed for the benefit of the great.

Thus my Lord Onslow, who was particularly zealous in the business

of proscribing Paine as “the common enemy of us all,” drew four

thousand pounds from the royal chest in sinecures, which made

him “the principal pauper of the neighborhood, and occasioning a

greater expense than the poor, the aged, and the infirm, for ten

miles around.” Government on the hereditary principle of Burke did

not appear to advantage in the light of such facts.Both in England and in America, Burke’s writings about government

substantially contributed to traditional conservatism’s classical

philosophy. About Adam Smith’s system of economy, Burke is listed as a

‘classical liberal’ with note that ‘traditional conservatism’ is

particularly protective of business and markets of commerce: to allow

them to regulate themselves (put the fox in charge of the henhouse, critics

always observe). Parrington commented about the Whiggishly36

conservative American System of Political Economy:37

Horace Greeley and Henry Carey were only straws in the wind that

during the Gilded Age was blowing the doctrine of paternalism about

the land. A Colonel Sellers was to be found at every fireside talking

the same blowsy doctrine. Infectious in their optimism, naive in their

faith that something would be turned up for them by the government if

they made known their wants, they were hoping for dollars to be put

in their pockets by a generous administration at Washington.

Congress had rich gifts to bestow -- in lands, tariffs, subsidies, favors

of all sorts; and when influential citizens made their wishes known to

the reigning statesmen, the sympathetic politicians were quick to turn

the government into the fairy godmother the voters wanted it to be. A

huge barbecue was spread to which all presumably were invited . . ..

It was a splendid feast. If the waiters saw to it that the choicest

portions were served to favored guests, they were not unmindful of

their numerous homespun constituencies and they loudly proclaimed

the fine democratic principle that what belongs to the people should


be enjoyed by the people -- not with petty bureaucratic restrictions,

not as a social body, but as individuals, each free citizen using what

came to hand for his own private ends, with no questions asked. . . .

how differently rich and poor fared at the democratic feast, is

suggested by the contrast between the Homestead Act and the

Union Pacific land-grant . . . By the terms of the former the

homesteader got his hundred and sixty acres at a price of $1.25 an

acre; by the terms of the latter the promoters got a vast empire for

nothing . . . In the tumultuous decades that followed there was not

bargaining with corporations for the use of what the public gave;

they took what they wanted and no impertinent questions were

asked . . . There were hard headed men in the world of Beriah

Sellers who knew how easy it was to overreach the simple, and it was

they who got the most from the common pot. We may call them

buccaneers if we choose, and speak of the great barbecue as a

democratic debauch. But why single out a few, when all were

drunk? . . .Whig politics gave America the Gilded Age. This political

Whiggamore (as Schumperter wrote, ‘the way in which capitalism

develops its propensities for growth’) drives the privatized economic

growth of the American system of political economy. Capitalism’s

propensities shamelessly favor privatized profits, as officially patronized by

a paternal government that necessarily must ‘take from Paul to give to

Peter’, the capitalists. As Parrington observed, Congress had rich gifts38

to bestow -- in lands, tariffs, subsidies, favors of all sorts. And

government, for political contributions engaged the contest of auctioning

legislative influence, and outright gifts: Political parties became the

enterprises of government’s pork barrel paternalism? Whigs succeeded

to metamorphose rational democracy into serving as the official agent of

privatized profit taking from economic exploitations.

Philosophically, democracy embraces both spiritual and material

human aspects. What separates democracy from other political

philosophies is its custodianship of human spirituality. When this is lost,


democracy is lost! Still, democracy coequally embraces life’s materiality.

Therefore, democrats neither can nor should apologize for embracing

equally Whiggish political paternalism. Democrats, not necessarily Party

Democrats, have disdain for capitalism, communism and fascism’s

ideological unitary materialism: which dogmatically assert that life’s

materialities, are antecedent to spirituality. In fact, when democracy’s

spiritual aspects are conflated to dogmatic Unitary Materialism, democracy

is then not distinguishable from all other Unitary Materialism sympathetic

philosophies. The pure philosophical argument, therefore, is about

teleological wholeness that requires logical antecedent principles of reason

and truth: natural principles are of either human side, spiritual or material,

cannot be ignored, or denied as mechanistically invariably happens when

government unequally grants paternalistic license to some.

Following Lincoln’s death, Whigs of the GOP officially

reasserted mercantilism’s irrationalities: The American System of

Political Economy was installed. In the policy name of ‘internal

improvements,’ as Parrington recorded, government became the ‘fairy

godmother’ to business interests. 39

Democrat and Whig no longer faced each other conscious of the

different ends they sought. The great party of Jefferson and Jackson

was prostrate, borne down by the odium of slavery and secession . . .

The Whig Republican was still Hamiltonian paternalistic, and the

Democrat Republican was still Jeffersonian laissez faire, and until it

was determined which wing should control the party councils there

would be only confusion. The politicians were fertile in compromises

but in nominating Lincoln and Johnson the party ventured to get

astride two horses that would not run together. To attempt to make

yoke-fellows of democratic leveling and capitalistic paternalism was

prophetic of rifts and schisms that only the passions of reconstruction

days could hold in check.

In 1865 the Republican party [the GOP] was no other than a

war machine that had accomplished its purpose. It was a political


mongrel, without logical cohesion, and it seemed doomed to break

up as the Whig Party had broken up and the Federalist Party had

broken up. But fate was now on the side of the Whigs as it had not

been earlier. The democratic forces had lost strength from the war,

and democratic principles were in ill repute. The drift to

centralization, the enormous development of capitalism, the spirit of

exploitation, were prophetic of a changing temper that was

preparing to exalt the doctrine of manifest destiny which the40

Whig party stood sponsor for. The practical problem of the moment

was to transform the mongrel Republican party into a strong

cohesive instrument, and to accomplish that it was necessary to

hold the loyalty of its Democratic voters amongst the farmers and

working-classes whilst putting into effect its Whig program.

Under normal conditions the thing would have been

impossible, but the times were wrought up and blindly passionate and

the politicians skillful [in words that Plato would use, ‘their truth -- if

truth at all -- was of ‘opinion,’ not ‘reason’]. . . The rebellion of the

Independent Republicans under Horace Greeley in 1872 was brought

to nothing by the skillful use of Grant's military prestige, and the

party passed definitely under the control of capitalism, and became

such an instrument for exploitation as Henry Clay dreamed of but

could not perfect. Under the nominal leadership of the easy-going

Grant a loose rein was given to Whiggish ambitions and the

Republican party became a political instrument worthy of the

Gilded Age.

Philosophically, our nation’s administration was returned to the Hobbesian

view from which Locke’s rational democratic view had reacted:

irrationalism was officially returned by this illogic: 41

post hoc, ergo propter hoc. ‘After this, therefore because of this.’

Strictly, the fallacy of inferring that one event is caused by another

merely because it comes after it. More loosely, the fallacy


To ‘know’ is to logically distinguish what is ‘true’ from what is ‘false.’'

(characteristic of superstitious beliefs) of assuming too readily that

an event that follows another is caused by it without considering

factors such as counter-evidence or the possibility of a common

cause. (Causality.) The name appears to derive from Aristotle’s

Rhetoric (1401 29-34).Dr. Penelope Mackie

As a pseudo principle of belief, determinist mechanism is common

fallacious, paradoxical dogma. The dogmatic value predicates of belief,

shuns logically rational metaphysical principles. And such irrationalism

has become hateful calumnious conservative orthodoxy: that incidentally is

true of Islam also. Confronting metaphysical evidences, humans choose

between rationalism and irrationalism: Rationalists logically pursue

truthful inferences by the ‘scientific method.’ Designing Brahminists

irrationally assert dogmatic idealism, or they are sycophants that blindly

follow the classical orthodox ‘dogmatic beliefs.’ In this, the critical

thinking is left to the scientists and the philosophers whose inate interest is

to ‘know.’ True Science, until logical coherence is reasonable, remains'

inconclusive. Dogma eschews and calumniously exploits this natural

scientific enigmatic uncertainty. And, the appeal of absolutism is strong.

Blindly following absolute ‘dogmatic beliefs’ is the popular alternative that

abides as classical cultural orthodoxy (under religious banners and

sponsorship, that include Christianity and Islam).

If virtue exists in blindly following cultural dogma, it belongs to

religious belief that universally teaches a form of ‘divine right’: ‘God tells

you to follow me, for God has appointed me to lead you’? About such

dogma, I suspect, prompted L. C. Allison, to write this:42

Man is given free will and his first conscious act is to make himself

into God. [That is exactly what dogma is designed to do]

Like truth, hope of religious virtue can be ‘true’ or ‘false.’

True hope is swift, and flies with swallow’s wings; kings it makes

gods, and meaner creatures kings. Shakespeare


Religious hope converts fear into comfort and assurance.

We speak of hope; but is not hope only a more gentle name for fear?L. E. Landon

And, hope can be medicine that cures.

Hope -- of all ills that men endure. The only cheap and universal

cure; the captive’s freedom, and the sick man’s health, the lover’s

victory, and the beggar’s wealth. Abraham Cowley

We are never beneath hope, while above hell; nor above hope, while

beneath heaven. The miserable hath no other medicine but only

hope.

Shakespeare

On the ‘false’ side of hope,

The man who lives only by hope will die with despair.Italian Proverb

Patrick Henry, in his Give me Liberty Address, said:43

It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to

shut our eyes against a painful truth, . . .Emily Dickinson captured in poetry the simple comforts of hope.

"Hope" is the thing with feathers--

That perches in the soul--

And sings the tune without the words--

And never stops--at all--

And sweetest--in the Gale--is heard--

And sore must be the storm--

That could abash the little Bird--

That kept so many warm--

I've heard it in the chillest land--

And on the strangest Sea--

Yet, never, in Extremity--

It asked a crumb--of Me.Others also captured hope’s essence.

The Worldly Hope men set their Hearts upon

37 Is ontologism embraced or rejected?

Turns Ashes--or it prospers; and anon,

Like Snow upon the Desert's dusty Face

Lighting a little Hour or two--is gone. Rubaiyat

What I admire in Columbus is not his having discovered a world, but his

having gone to search for it on the faith of an opinion.

[faith of opinion, rather than reason, aptly defines hope] anon

Some men see things as they are and say: why? I dream things as

they never were and say: why not? R. F. Kennedy

Deontology is the science of human duty. Teleology concerns St.

Paul’s faith-based hope that reaches for reasoned coherent purposes:44

‘But faith is a Basis of things hoped for, a Conviction of things

unseen’ [From an original Greek translation]

Thought is of noumenon (Kant’s word-choice to distinguish things of mind

and spirit) from which human perceptions of duty (deontology) or purpose

(teleology) are distinguished: as when Socrates, in prison, said to Crito who

had offered to help Socrates escape, ‘Leave me Crito, for I must follow

God.’ This showed how far afield of Greek orthodox duty to the many

gods of Greek mythology, Socrates’ teleological perception of his reasoned

coherent truth of God, had become: truth with coherent end purposes rather

than mere duty to Greek mythology? Socrates demonstrated his truth’s

necessary principles: with teleological purposes that far transcended the

dogmatic belief-based deontological duty.

Humans’ free will allows them to embrace or reject ontologism

Ontologism is intuitive communication, as intuition perceived

when in the presence of another. Ontologism describes the intuitive

knowledge of God, which knowledge is the source of all knowledge. In

this intuitive sense, ontologism must be dogmatic, as Kant expressed in his

Critique of Pure Reason: Principle that has no other proof than ‘true’

coherent logic, i.e., systemic necessity and coherence!


If a principle is a ‘necessary’ something, the logical meaning of

‘necessary’ makes that principle something:

that cannot be denied because denial would entail contradiction of

what already has been established.Unless a principle has systemic ‘coherence,’ it cannot be ‘necessary’ and is,

therefore, falsely considered. If, therefore, the LOGOS of God is the

supreme antecedent ontological principle, God’s LOGOS is axiomatically

antecedent to all that is. The Song of Moses, and I John, provided

testimony to this reasonable axiomatic nature of God.

The Teleological Argument for the existence of God is both of

human ontological reason and experience based. The Ontological45

Argument is ‘a priori’ reason-based. When by dogmatic belief, humans46

turn ontologism off, simply by denial, logical ‘a priori’ reasoning is turned

off. Thereby a mechanist conservative Positivist might never engage pure

‘a priori’ thought: might discount altogether the Teleological Argument;

and, because a Positivist believes dogma that annihilates, as unreal, ‘a

priori’ thoughts, the Ontological Argument of God’s existence also fails for

him? : does the rich man of Christ’s parable fit this observation?

Christ recognized the ‘unknowing’ plight of mechanist conservatism-based

deontology that had entrapped and prosecuted him, when He plead:

Forgive them, for they know not what they do.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of

things not seen. Heb. 11:1

Positivist’s religion, like Abraham’s ‘faith,’ does not transcend hope. And

as Kierkegaard observed:

[Abraham] was not a thinker, he felt no need of getting beyond [his

hope of] faith. Kierkegaard

The teleology of faith was lost in translation. Teleology concerns St. Paul’s

faith that reaches for reasonably coherent purposes:47

‘But faith is a Basis of things hoped for, a Conviction of things

unseen’ [From an original Greek translation]


To take faith beyond hope, pure thought about metaphysics is essential and

‘a priori’ reasoning and syllogism must be engaged (ontologism must be

invited and systemic coherence applied). To think about the substances

and evidences of St. Paul’s definition of faith is to ponder the eternal,

universal nature of things which are naturally teleological before any

possible human experience entered in. And early Greeks, rather than

Christians, gave order to teleological philosophy: Cosmology is the

universe, Ontology [< Greek Ón, `ntos being + -logi� -logy] the nature of

reality (being). Greek (d©on, -ontos duty) makes Deontology the nature of

duty.

Deontology [< Greek d©on, -ontos duty + English -logy] fails to emphasize

the Greek’s accent [`ntos (being)]: science of duty or moral obligation is

more often than not metamorphosed to manmade temporal duties.

Whereas, in the pure sense, Ontology (including ontologism) is about pure

‘a priori’ noumenal reality: it is teleological!

Logically, as principle, noumena, is naturally antecedent to phenomena:

The provence of noumena is where answers to unanserable temporal

questions are found (as, which came first, the chicken or the egg?). Still of

the LOGOS of nature, the source of all noumena, intelligence, spirit or

energy, Ontologism is the natural relationship, or communication, of man

with his maker. St. John understood this metaphysics as the spiritual reality

of his faith: in fact, he named nature’s Creator LOGOS. He understood48

Ontology, Deontology and Teleology and the promise of an abiding

noumenal companionship with God as predicated on a humans’

understanding of Ontologism: W. R. Inge’s,

‘Either the world shows a teleology or it does not,’ suggests: that to choose ‘mechanism’ shows unbelief in ‘teleology.’ Inge

infers that: when deontologists choose mechanism, they have their intuitive

(Plato’s pure thought) ontologism switch turned off and, their choice to say

no, or deny the natural principles, make’s them unbelievers in the

teleologies of God (St. John said that to not walk in the light of the truth of

God, makes us liars). When humans fallaciously determine causal

‘mechanisms,’ they deny Teleology. (And they deny God)

About the philosophy of mechanism, Brockway wrote this:49


We find mankind liberated from spooks and spirits, from lords and

priests, by becoming mechanized. Once the universe was running like

a clock, there was nothing for it but to fit us to a wheel in the works --

perhaps a greater thing than a cog, but mechanical nevertheless. For

us to be fit for this function, psychology had to subject us to

mechanical controls. Or, as J. W. Miller said, we had first to lose

our souls, then our minds; and finally, with the behaviorists,

consciousness. Economic man is a prime example of this remarkable

servomechanism.

Robert Heilbroner endorsing Brockway’s book, said this:

“George Brockway is a master at demystifying the science whose

curse is not that it is dismal, but that it has become incomprehensible.

In Brockway’s hands economics becomes entirely understandable,

sometimes amusing, and often infuriating.”

The book’s cover gives this summary:

Economic man, the imaginary monster from whose supposedly

rational behavior the “laws” of contemporary economics are

deduced, is selfishness incarnate [mechanist irrationalism incarnate].

He has brought us a long way, but, this multifaceted book suggests,

he has gone about as far as he can go. If we do not dethrone him,

our world (like the Pharaonic, Roman, Medieval, and Mandarin

worlds) will slip into a long and bumpy decline.

In support of this thesis, George Brockway shows how the

principal assumptions of contemporary economics lead to an

exaltation of ‘things’ -- the gross national product, the bottom line --

over ‘human beings.’ When this balance is corrected, economics

takes on a wholly new and more friendly aspect. The law of supply

and demand is reformulated; saving and investment are redefined;

production and speculation are seen in conflict, as are wages and

interest rates (but not profits);the labor theory of value is supplanted


by the labor theory of right; ‘productivity’ is revealed as a question-

begging question; high interest rates [the mechanist “Bankers’

COLA”] are exposed as a prime cause of inflation; and mores,

morals, and morale become important economic concerns.

I had deliberately put Brockway’s book on the shelf until my own

research was settled for writing this section’s final comments. Brockway’s

references and examples about inflation, mercantilism and mechanism

furnish critical information to all who would venture to improve the

deontological mechanist Political Economy to achieve teleological

constitutional purposes. I interpret ‘The End of Economic Man,’ to mean,

the adoption of teleology to mitigate political economy’s classical

deontology. And this can only be done by finding, then applying the

natural antecedent principles that mitigate the paradoxical idealist

deontologies of myriad mechanisms spawned by political economy.

Teleology opposes (overcomes) mechanism’s flaws

World Book Encycolpedia explained it this way:50

Mechanism is one of the two great philosophical theories of cause

and effect in the universe. Opposed to the theory of mechanism is the

theory of teleology. Any thing that grows and develops can be

explained in two ways. Mechanism explains it from behind, in terms

of its [material] origins. Teleology explains it from the front, in terms

of the goal [noumenal purpose] it is seeking.Life forms are distinguished in this contrast: or, we should say intelligence

of one sort or another has causal patterns that are unrelated to duties

intrinsic of mechanism: inert v.s. organic. Hesiod (700s BC) had

distinguished human intelligence from among the life forms, And Hesiod

had cited, what is today called deontology, as aggravated by the temporal

world’s paradoxical nomos (of Plato’s visible reality).51

. . . The word ‘nomos’ is as old as the epic poets, and seems

originally to have been used to denote the ways of behavior


characteristic of any group of living beings, whether men or wild

beasts. Thus Hesiod uses it in ‘Works and Days:’

The Son of Cronos has ordained this ‘nomos’ for men. Fishes

and beasts and winged fowl devour one another, for right is

not in them; but to mankind he gave ‘right,’ which proves far

the best (Evelyn-White’s translation).

In later days ‘nomos’ was applied only to human ways of behavior;

but it never lost its original meaning of custom, nor its association

with justice. [Hesiod found nomos irrationally tyrannous]

In Works and Days, Hesiod also wrote about the ‘fall of man,’ because

of Pandora’s curiosities, which undoubtedly revealed the paradoxs.52

It describes the deterioration of the world through five stages: the

Age of Gold; the Silver Age; the Bronze Age; the age of Heros, and

the Age of Iron in which Hesiod liv [eHde. siod believed that his Age was last]

Would man regress to lose the rational noumenal intelligence, which

Evelyn White interpreted as ‘right’? In many ways and reasons, this

question still puzzles to day. But Hesiod’s human distinction is critically

important. Human ‘rights and responsibilities,’ ‘duties and purposes,’

either apply or they do not. Unless logically principled, paradoxs of

manmade mechanist idealistic irrationalist designs are endemic to life:

when logically beneficient principles are ignored, God is ignored!

A critical lack of logically beneficent principles is evident, both organically

and legally. Did the supreme intelligence, God, which created life in

temporal environs, strategically conceive mechanisms’ paradoxs and

entrapments: Which endemically are both irrationally fallacious and wrong?

Deists, generally, express their lack of faith in this mechanist creative

scenario!

Mechanisms do not qualify as ‘necessary’ principle, and Hesiod’s nomos

suggests what is wrong! : mechanisms are conceived to entrap beneficence

rather than stand sponsor for its principles. Parrington captured evidence of

this classical conservative conceived deontological duty, which contend that

beneficent principles block ideological success, affirming instead

materialist irrationalisms of their belief as necessity.53












metes and bounds beyond which it should not go. Like John

Marshall and Joseph Story he was expert in devising legal springs

to catch unwary democrats, and while the Jeffersonians were

shouting over their victories at the polls, he was engaged in the

strategic work of placing the Constitution under the narrow

custodianship of the English law. An ardent Federalist and later

an equally ardent Whig, he reveals in his precise thinking the

intimate relations that everywhere exist between economics, politics,

and legal principles. [Unitary materialist conservatism deliberately puts

aside all rational logical reviews of its belief-based dogma: affirming

irrational fallacy as principle is thereby Mechanism’s endemic hallmark]

Only democracy (Rational Empiricism) holds noumenal reality temporally

equal to phenomenal reality. It is the only logical rationally principled

political form of organic order. And unless teleological principles are

sought, and lived by, humans cannot know what is wrong. Worse, we are

party to Allison’s suggestion when he introduced The Bible.54

Man is given free will and his first conscious act is to make himself

into God. (His second act, when caught, is to blame someone else) [St. John, says in this we live a form of lying]55

We justify acquisitiveness by rationalizing idealist deontologies of our

mechanist creations. And, otherwise, in acquisitive aggrandizements, we

subscribe irrationalisms as Holmes’ glorious Epicurean Paradox:


‘give us the luxuries of life, and we will dispense with its necessaries.’Oliver Wendell Holmes

Because nomos-based paradoxs prolifrate with irrationalism, organic forms

of mitigating irrationalism by rationalism is necessary for to redress life’s

‘necessities,’ i.e., to counter with organic systems that are based on ‘true’

antecedent principles. For instance, because conservative orthodoxy of the

American System of Political Economy organically, mechanistically reward

‘property’ and ‘affluence,’ this official organic paternalism, which must

‘take,’ in order to ‘give’ paternalistically, must also, therefore, be the

mechanist determining cause of impoverished classes in capitalism: Social

Security is an example of ‘necessary’ beneficent social usage insurance that

redresses the mechanism caused economic impoverishment: expressly of

former workers that due to age are no longer as fitted to earn a paycheck in

capitalist orthodoxy. Logical reason justifies the ‘necessity’ of Social

Security. For to confirm the antecedent principles of Social Security, four

situations are cited: to also confirm the contrast of rational teleology with

irrational deontology.

Situation one (Mechanisms’ Paradoxs that spring up to

discriminate against privacy rights): credit card solicitations and fee-based

offers to consolidate personal debts are unnecessary consequences of the

licensed banking and finance industry’s mechanist deontologies. Both

industries take advantage of their paternalist license to gain ‘profits’ from

mechanism-based economic determinism in what G. P. Brockway dubbed

‘the banker’s COLA.’ This economic determinism affirms that political

economy’s license, as granted to administer money’s accounting, which is

the ‘standard of economic exchange’ utility, has because it can in the

mechanist deontology, metamorphose into an equivalence to ‘owning’ a

money hoard as treasure, it has and does do this.

Money’s metamorphism originated with systemic assertions that

money earned for exchanging goods and services was also ‘possessed, i.e.,

is equivalent to ‘owning’ the money earned. Adam Smith had apparently

failed to convince us that wealth and money are not one and the same: to

Smith, money is the nation’s common utility of ‘wealth’: goods and

services produced and consumed by all. Without consuming goods and


services, money ‘owned’ to Smith is a hoarded treasure, and is not,

therefore, intrinsic of a nation’s wealth.56

For the market system is not just a means of exchanging goods; ‘it is

a mechanism for sustaining and maintaining an entire society.’ . . .

It is not [Smith’s] aim to espouse the interests of any class. He is

concerned with promoting the wealth of the entire nation. And

wealth, to Adam Smith, consists of the goods that ‘all’ the people of

society consume; note ‘all’-- this is a democratic, and hence radical,

philosophy of wealth. Gone is the notion of gold, treasures, kingly

hoards; gone the prerogatives of merchants or farmers or working

guilds. We are in the modern world, where the flow of goods and

services consumed by everyone constitutes the ultimate aim and end

of economic life. [The contrast between a nation’s GNP profit as an exploitation of

consumption (the working classes only means of subsiding), and Smith’s

beneficent purpose to distribute goods and services to all, exposes organic

deontology that Adam Smith neither had anticipated nor hypothisized.]

To the wage-earner, ‘money’ is, by his subsistence needs, earned value for

the exchange of goods and services. To the banker, ‘money’ is

government’s fiat-based commodity, which it licensed to bankers for to

store, rent out, and collect a rate of interest on (Brockway’s “banker’s

COLA”). To organic government, ‘money’ is an authorized utility

provision for the capitalist political economy’s endemic ubiquitousness:

providing a bonded national value for the free exchange of goods and57

services. And, with two thirds of our national economy, which is wage-

earner consumption related, and one third investment related to the capital

side of economy, ‘money’ is the catalyst which plays a fundamentally

divergent, i.e., paradoxical role. In the one instance, it represents

governments ubiquitous constitutional organic intent, in the other it acts as

the custodian for accumulated money hoards called capital. And when

truck loads (literally $ trillions) of foreign U.S. money hoards and gold turn

up at the boarder points in attempts to flee the conflict, as happened in the

aftermath of our waging war with Iraq, should be cause to wonder about the


accounting and custody paradox of the nation’s ubiquitous fiat created

utility which had metamorphosed into a commodity: what is the money trail

(how much of it now feeds covert political intrigue)? * 58

* In terrorism, money plays greatly: is foreign terrorism controllable by

putting tighter controls on money hoards? , Tighter rules for the exchange

of currencies? Are all foreign exchanges of goods and services required to

first register their domestic exchange of currencies? If they are not, they

should be: all foreign exchanges must officially be registered because they

all represent money hoarding rather than utilities. Commodity Exchanges

representing contraband, drugs, oil and such require that official records be

kept of the monetary transactions. Officially licensed acquisitive banking

interests are targets of illegal collusion involved with money laundering and

because of this are often caught in taking profits from the illegal money

traffic for which they are licensed as the necessary legal function through

which the illegal money sources. Without such licensed complicities,

terrorism purchased in one country for delivery in another is surely more

difficult to transport. Whether the Press is liberal or conservative, both

questions and silence abound: little, if anything, changes! Until, when an

Arab nation proposes to buy control of our nation’s waterway ports, should

tell us something about the grand circular flow of American fiat currency

hoarding that has resulted from our near total dependence on foreign

produced oil. As with the truck loads of U.S. currency in Iraq, indicates

that our hoarded fiat-currency in foreign hands has only the limited

circulation outlet: which is either U.S. goods and services, the federal

instruments of its deficit spending, or as the above proposal to buy

administrative control of port authority. And, we suddenly become aware

that the G. W. Bush administration has been financing our vastly growing

national debt with foreign investments in our deficit spending? , Mostly

from China.

Brockway’s “banker’s COLA” is a substantial part of inflation’s legal side,

but causal inflation’s illegal side is also very bad:59

Banks wash billions in dirty laundry

Washington -- The failure of U.S. banks and regulators to track

transactions with foreign banks enables criminals to route billions of


dollars from drug sales, internet gambling, tax evasion or other

illegal activities into the United States each year, a new Senate

subcommittee report concludes.

Although regulators have prodded U.S. banks in recent

years to bolster their efforts to control money laundering through

individual accounts, the Senate permanent subcommittee on

investigations found banks an regulators have been lax in applying

similar standards to correspondent banking, in which foreign banks

use U.S. banks to perform wire transfers and other transactions.

The subcommittee’s report, which concludes a year long

investigation, will be made public today. Regulators and bankers

familiar with the inquiry say it’s the first comprehensive look at this

aspect of banking and how it facilitates money laundering.

“Inattention and disinterest by U.S. banks in screening the

foreign banks they take in as clients have allowed rogue foreign

banks and their criminal clients to carry on money laundering and

other criminal activity in the United States and to benefit from the

protections afforded by the safety and soundness of the U.S. banking

industry,” said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on

the subcommittee.

The subcommittee launched its investigation after a Russian

money-laundering scandal erupted at Bank of New York 18 months

ago. It examined a number of giant, well known banks, including

Bank of America, Citygroup, J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. And First

Union. . . .

Money laundering, which the Clinton administration declared

a national security threat, is the act of concealing the source of funds

obtained from an illegal activity. An estimated $1 trillion is

laundered each year -- about half of it, or $500 billion , through the

United States, according to the rep[Boyrt .o t.h .e r wise legal banking of course!]

Since the ‘iron cage’ of wage-earned money is controlled by payroll

accounting and individual wage-earner checking accounts the nation’s legal


inflationary pressures stem mostly now from interest charged of consumer

loans, stock and futures investments, and foreign exchanges. Licenced

paternalism’s inflation is, therefore, government’s problem, the primary

burden of which rests on wage-earned consumption. Wage-earning,

however, is not causally related to inflation from governments

paternalist grants and licensing. Inflation stemming from stocks and

futures markets is directly beneficial to the investors, whose money hoards

also are at risk to economic loss as well as usual gains.

When SS contribution taxes are paid, the identification numbers

assigned for administrative purposes, are often used by banking and others.

This assigned number identifies individuals and their financial transactions.

When applying for a mortgage, a loan, an auto or marriage license, this

personal identification is required. But frauds from personal identity theft

and counterfeiting, has caused government and legal business to protect

individual privacy and stop identity theft frauds from occurring. Laws now

require businesses to not only respect each individual’s right to privacy, but

are now responsible for protecting it.

Still, diabolically, business interests now assert that licensing gave

them rights to use personal identities for maintaining ‘black lists’ and such,

for protecting business interests. And while Privacy Policies make

businesses fiducially responsible for individuals’ private information

entrusted to them, each licensed corporate mechanisms,’ as are legally

licensed has contractual tentacles that reach almost everywhere and are

considered as being legally proprietary, which is the diabolical antecedent

to each individual’s privacy rights. Individual financial information is

anything but a personally, private right (The American Political Economy

System is now a legally interconnected mechanist Leviathan): is

certainly not a utility as money, personal information or identity, which are

not for misuse, sale, exchange, or sharing. Regardless, constitutional

personal rights protected by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights are routinely,

politically and legally compromised by government licensed, organic

business practices.


Aping commonly prosecuted cases in courts of law, businesses

have incorporated mechanistically and preemptively to be their own court,

acting first to discriminate by isolating who is punishable. *

* As, when MSNBC and CNBC fired Don Imus (his talk show) in April of

2007 for a slanderous comment about a girls college sports team, they acted

as both judge and jury in the matter: he was never legally indicted or

convicted; that he on air personally apologized for the incident and all team

members forgave him had no effect in the matter.

Financial businesses seeking the highest possible profits from money they

loaned, despite the security pledged, take note and advantage of personal

financial adversities. This preemptive discriminatory personal information

is not a paternal grant of business license and should not be allowed? : Still,

licensed economic mechanisms are allowed to enforce self serving

deontological duties onto personal identities that are private?

Sadly, legalized deontology does not offer beneficient answers. About

teleology as should apply to the administrations of law, to fulfill a hollow

semblance of beneficience, words of the Lord’s Prayer and an Emerson

quote come to mind:

Lead us not into temptation (forgive us as we forgive) . . . , and

That which we each all the while do . . ..

Civil authorities solicit and receive generous political donations for

licensing civil corruption but shun responsibility for deontological duty-

based prosecutions by mechanist laws ($6 million in political donations by

the tobacco industry influenced a $50 million tax reduction; similar

generous political donations to local political offices buy substantial

influence there?): ‘For profit’ businesses (tobacco, drugs, liquor, gambling,

prostitution, usury-based financial services, . . .) thrive and generously

contribute to candidates for local government offices. Laws originate and

otherwise are administered by these office-holders. And ‘sinners,’ so

called, as are ‘caught’ by the prosecutorial mechanisms, are adjudged by the

nomos-jaded authorities that either excuse their own acts or enjoy

paternalist granted immunity from the effects of law.


And, individually we are concerned only when we ourselves stand

accused: until then, we either trust that laws are constitutional and

teleologically ethical, or we take advantage whenever we can to gain

personal advantages. And, always, we are rudely enlightened when

entrapped ourselves by the legal deontological duty-based mechanisms. We

disdain the realists who are skeptical. And mostly realists also are also

duty-based. ‘To err is human, to forgive divine’: ‘The deadliest sin,’ said

Carlyle, ‘is no consciousness of sin.’ In contrast, Jessica Williams,

despaired by having driven the car that killed teenagers that were where

civil authorities had put them, bunched up, for garbage detail, expressed

that her life was dedicated to those who lost theirs that day. Civil

authorities were not prosecuted, and were silent on why the youngsters were

there. Civil authorities, in this, represent Carlyle’s deadliest sin.

Despite the Constitution, laws in America are mostly formulated to

serve the deontological mechanisms (witness Parrington’s account of

spiteful Federalist deontology ‘to devise legal springs’ to entrap democrats

and their constitutional teleologies).60











metes and bounds beyond which it should not go. Like John Marshall

and Joseph Story he was expert in devising legal springs to catch

unwary democrats, and while the Jeffersonians were shouting over

their victories at the polls, he was engaged in the strategic work of

placing the Constitution under the narrow custodianship of the




everywhere exis [tA blel t‘wfaelelanc ieocuosn porminiccips,le ps’o lsihtoicusl,d abned u nletigead lm percihnacnipislteicsa. lly]

Paradoxical entrapments ensnare many who by processes of indictment are

caught in the ever expanding litany of legal mechanisms: Many of society’s

prescribed pill takers would test positive for a controlled substance in their

blood, but until prosecutors are given a reason to indict, they are ‘good’

citizens; similarly, many drink, smoke, gamble, or flirt with smut. But

legally entrapped, then prosecuted, freedom is no longer their inalienable

right (as happened with public disclosure that William Bennett, the noted

moralist, was a gambling addict that had lost $ millions). ‘Sinners’ have

not changed. They act and do the same day in and day out. But when

caught, betrayed, or indicted, selectively rather than consistently, they are

prosecuted. Indeed, the whole of society is implicated in life’s paradoxs

and because at times we fail to ‘walk the line’ of virtue and principle, we all

commit ‘sins’ if not crime: We are ‘tempters’ and ‘sinners,’ all! St. Paul

candidly admitted this:61

For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but

what I hate, that I do.

And maybe worse than those indicted, are the deontological duty-based

concupiscent sins of unholy sanctimony authoritatively feigned: pride,

arrogance, conceit: indigenous of caste, fraternity, clubs, gangs, politics, . .

. , sinful undercurrents, that also embroil students in pursuit of knowledge,

where paradoxs also thrive: the common value predicates of sin are both

mechanist and retributive in nature: where ‘snitches,’ ‘moles,’ and

entrapments are employed for to avert civic disasters. The hypocrisies of

mechanisms blur consistently virtuous principle teleologies.

In Nevada, for instance, not paying a gambling marker, then when caught in

a traffic violation, can land you in jail. Politics there has made civil

authority the collector of gambling debts, which are electronically flagged

as a violation of law calling for an arrest and prosecutorial procedure.


Virtues or teleological principles have only a narrowing mean

existence in the middle range or spectrum of paradoxical behavior. And

when justice fails to espouse beneficent teleology (to without deontological

bias consider ‘innocence’ until guilt has been proven, for instance, and

when guilt is legally proven and forgiveness is beneficial to society, the

legal penalty is mittigated), however, justice as the dutiful agent of

deontological mechanism, is, therefore, an accomplice, if not itself, sinful

or criminal: surely is not an ally to Christ’s admonition as made to those

ready to stone the woman caught in adultery:

‘those without sin, should throw the stones’ :

was the teleologic principle of this admonition? Dutiful prosecution, which

has become far too creative with mechanist entrapments and jurists armed

with retributive ethics and, unfortunately, effects of mechanism-based, but

legalized irrationalism has made‘ legal penalties and imprisonments

exclusively of unitary materialist nomos (teleologically, ‘imprisonment’ is a

false decision whenever a person, posing no threat to society, is incarcerated

*). That our prisons are now so over crowded, that older lesser penalties

must be excused, is evidence that society is officially irrational, i.e., of

unitary materialist belief, that is deontological in nature, rather than

beneficial.

About this, on Chris Mathew’s Hardball, June 26, 2007, Ann

Coulter was asked her reaction to Cristopher Hitchens recent atheistic

statement that religion was responsible for the paradoxical circumstance of

cultural society (my crude interpretation): her answer blithely shifted this

responsibility onto God, the Creator of all, which answer confirmed to me

that Coulter’s belief is of the irrational unitary materialist religious form:

which variation of belief is very close to Hitchens’ belief denial. An athiest

of great logical distinction said this about materialist belief:


falsehood in such a world, and although it would contain what may be

called facts, it would not contain any truth, in the sense in which truths are

things of the same kind as falsehoods. In fact, truth and falsehood are

properties of beliefs and statements: hence a world of mere matter, since it


would contain no beliefs of statements, would also contain not truth or

falsehood. Bertrand Russell

* The cozy relationship between government and commerce, called

Political Economy, is undeniable; in the value predicates wreckage of this

relationship is where Roger Williams’ theory of state, as a compact was

found. Clearly, compact theory was foremost in the minds of Colonials

when, only after the Bill of Rights was promised, they ratified the

Constitution. When sifting through the materialist wreckage hoping to find

answers to subdue increasing amorality (as kids intentionally shooting

kids), we should constantly remind ourselves of the radically pure moral

value predicates which Roger William’s natural-law-based theory provided

to American colonial culture: don’t we now prosecute ‘Martha Stewarts’

while $billions of securities fraud is not prosecuted? 62

The state is society organized, government is the state

functioning -- it is the political machinery devised by the sovereign

people to effect definite ends. And since the single end and purpose

for which the body of citizens erect the state is the furtherance of the

communal well-being, the government becomes a convenient

instrument to serve the common weal, responsible to the sovereign

people and strictly limited by the terms of the social agreement. . . .

The state, then, is society working consciously through

experience and reason, to secure for the individual citizen the largest

measure of freedom and well-being. It is armed with a potential

power of coercion, but only to secure justice. . . . But if sovereignty

inheres in the majority will [which now is overpowered by corporate

treasure], what securities remain for the individual and minority

rights?

William’s reasoned, Society (and not standing laws) is the constitutional

organum: our Constitution is effected only by consented individual

sovereignty and not by legislation, administration or legal reviews of law.


The government paternalism to business and the reciprocal control of

government by business, i.e., The American System of Political Economy,

has by Roger William’s definition, evolved, and by mechanization now is

the most dominant political ‘state’ of the United States. And like the

fictions rationalized to support it, deontologists of the Federalist-Whigg

genre refuse to acknowledge the teleology (the state is society organized,

government the state functioning -- it is the political machinery devised by

the sovereign people to effect definite ends). Morally ‘bankrupted,’ our

elected deontologist representatives affirmed Hamilton’s fallacious unitary

materialist property-based political prescription for suffrage, and thereby

carpetbagged mercantilism and materialism’s return to America, from

which sixteenth century America reacted, as Parrington observed.63

Prime interest rates are made available only to preferred borrowers:

a form of economic discrimination, which must encroach on human privacy

rights. And the low initial mechanist range of interest rates has expanded

greatly since the high interest rates of the 1980s: making usury a norm for

those that must borrow in order to subsist. This deontology is naturally

paradoxical and it embroils human rights.

Privacy infringements: during April 2001 my insurance company

sent this explanation of its new Privacy Policy:

A new federal law permits banks, investment companies, and

insurance companies to provide financial services. This same law

requires [that we] share in writing our attached Notice of Privacy

policy. This federal law does not apply to our efforts to market

products or services to you . . .. The Policy included these provisions:

• We do not sell customer information.

• We do not provide customer information to persons or

organizations outside our family of companies.

• We contractually require any person or organization

providing products or services to customers on our behalf to protect

the confidentiality of company information.


• We do not share customer medical information with anyone

within the family of companies, unless you expressly authorize it, or

unless your insurance policy contract with us permits us.

[What medical information should be in the underwriting

files of a company that insures property? : whether or not the

company also offers medical insurance?]

• We afford prospective and former customers the same

protections as existing customers with respect to the use of personal

information.

Until recently, insurance officially was held separate from banking.

Banking and Insurance were then considered the twin pillars of financial

services. With the new ‘financial services’ concept, banks are now allowed

to own and operate insurance companies. And, reciprocally, insurance

companies are now allowed to own and operate banks. For a half century

or more, Congressman Wright Patman, alone it seemed, opposed and held

this organic economic merger at bay. ‘Because,’ he maintained, that

‘separately they were huge but together they posed unhealthy behemoth

economic control’ of human identities and inalienable rights.

Privacy issues also embroil in scientific advances to understand the

human genetic makeup. Political economy’s organic entities conceptually

must discriminate necessarily in such advances (Parrington observed that

the paradoxical ‘fly in Whiggish honey’ was political economy’s proclivity

to paternalistically give to some by taking from others): a state or nation’s

economy is a holistic concept. It includes all, not some or a preferred

some! However, political economy’s mechanisms were designed with

favor to some. Therefore, to discriminate, they seek private information on

which to do this.

Responsibilities to respect privacy rights have increased

exponentially, making privacy a far more important issue as government

politically loosens its regulatory responsibility with interconnected private

sector business mechanisms: for instance, legal complaints directed to MSN

are responded to by Dun & Bradstreet, correspondence to Smith Barney is

responded to by Citibank, the real estate business of the largest builder of


homes (Pardee), in matters of mortgage loans, is interrelated with Wells

Fargo’s banking. The credit bureau reporting mechanisms installed to serve

the financial service companies are designed to enforce the mechanisms own

brand of justice: for instance, credit bureaus adjudge collected reports as

legal facts, without legally required due processes.

The advances in electronic and wireless media require far stricter

enforcements of privacy laws. As paradoxs of this convergence are

considered, principles that mitigate the irrational effects on those, whose

rights are impugned are a fresh critically important democratic issue. And

when rational principles are considered, each mechanism’s lack in

teleological purposes must be considered: licensed public utilities, as

Banking and Insurance, must apply holistically to all: because both

extraordinarily characterize ‘the public interest.’ Therefore, unless privacy

issues prevail over fallaciously affirmed and hierarchically mechanized

private business duties (for which licensed dogmatic organic duties are

unsuited), the ranks of society’s discriminated class must continually get

larger. And constitutional ‘minority rights’ issues are routinely politically

neglected by the growing lack of common interest that is due to the

Epicurean nature of orthodox irrationalism:


What government edict or policy will ever protect ‘minority human rights’

from the licensed politically affirmed deontologies of our legalized fictitious

business leviathan: organic fictional mechanisms that organically are

fallaciously licensed to conduct economy’s extra private affairs?

For the fiducial management of risk, the Financial Services Industry

needs critical customer information. But the Financial Services Industry

wants more than rightfully they should be licensed for to discriminate.

Instead of consolidating to discriminate and thereby more greatly

compromise individual rights, Roger Williams ‘social usage’ (mutual

reinsurance) is available to mitigate the ill effects of all organic forms of

financial business. Organic rejection of this efficient option is because the

deontological acquisitive mentality prefers to blame irrationally by installing

reporting mechanisms for to tabulate adverse personal information in order


to justify service fees and usury rates of interest, which will return greater

profits to them. Causes of repayment lateness and delinquencies -- as losing

employment, getting ill, . . . , that at times, more often now it seems, quite

naturally befalls humans -- is summarily excused as collateral personal

responsibility, which legally has usually not been causally linked to

business: so which has sovereign antecedence business or humans? The

deontological value predicates of mechanisms designed to collect adverse

consumer reports electronically, are also irrationally amoral, and truthfully

are of ‘false’ value: the effected humans must monitor these reports and pay

fees for the service to purge errors and mitigating circumstances. This fact,

also denies business’ causal responsibility, which had ordered this service to

business creation.

Irrationally, with privacy rights, only consumers are held responsible

and must pay to monitor and purge inaccurate and fraudulent reports of

record, or live with them as they often erroneously are reported. Like

lawyers, who are keenly aware of legal entrapments in real property laws that

eventually will occur when unawares individuals needing mortgages are

confronted by a lien filed against their property. Individuals are then are

coerced either to pay off the liens so to clear the record that should not have

occurred excepting that legal favor was given to lawyers that wish to

covertly rather than overtly use the law. (An interesting study that has never

been made involves the number and cost involved with covert law that

overtly would never have been filed.) Recently, identity fraud that emanated

from financial institutions’ reporting mechanisms, had withdrawn $billions

from reported individuals’ bank accounts:. ‘insider fraud,’ like a staph

disease in hospitals, had corrupted fiducial integrity of reporting

mechanisms. And because of this incidental spreading of privacy

responsibility, reporting mechanisms should be closed for to preserve

individual privacy.

Insurance companies have, for years, wrestled with the fact of

underwriting risks that, when extreme losses had occurred, they could not

pay the loss claims from insurance funds (for instance, as Katrina has shown,

that all private insurance failed miserably to perform as contractually

agreed). Potentially, catastrophic losses can and do bankrupt insurance


companies. Insurers have partially solved this dilemma without putting any

burden onto the consumers of insurance: Their solution was to reinsure the

portions of risk that potentially threatened business solvency. This ‘social

usage’ business principle is mentioned to suggest that the same non intrusive

procedure is available to the Financial Services Industry, thereby replacing

the onerously burdensome antitrust busting centralized reporting that has led

to myriad law suits, and potentially must lead to eventual expensive class

actions.

Financial Services is critically important as a utility service to

society: Financial Services must, therefore, be regulated for society’s benefit,

rather than, as now has been metamorphosed to, the Financial Services

benefit. Government’s licensing and reciprocal regulatory responsibility is

accountable for this irrational transmutation.

situation two: federal education grants

In May 2001, Headline News disclosed that the G. W. Bush’ Administration

acted to more strictly apply the 1998 law regarding education grants: A

question on the application form asked whether or not the applicant had been

convicted of a drug charge. If they had, they were not eligible for the grant.

During 1999 the Clinton Administration had overlooked applications that

ignored this question. The Bush administration’s more strict enforcement

then canceled many grants: denying education grants to the applicants. In

the news, November 2006, there were now fewer college graduates. And,

the growing ranks of illegal imegres were glad to fill the low end wage-

earning employments.

situation three: the $ 1.35 trillion revenue tax reduction Bill

approved by the Senate in May 2001 provides another example of political

paradox, which levies duty without principle, deontology without teleology.

While pondering to comprehend the effects of this tax proposal, my wife

handed me Readers Digest’s May issue to enjoy with her this humor that had

caused both of us to laugh aloud: and this humorous quip provided situation

four. The quip was this:


To act as you would will others in the same situation to act.'

One day my wife and I came home to find a message from a friend of

hers on our phone machine. She said she had applied for a job and

needed a character reference -- basically someone to verify she was

honest and trustworthy -- and had given the interviewer my wife’s

name. . . . Also, she said. There was a form for my wife to sign. “But

I couldn’t find you,” the friend concluded, “so I forged your

signature.”This quip dramatized the practical difference between deontology and

teleology. J. S. Mill had stated teleology’s practical utilitarianism: The

greatest good of the greatest number should be the purpose of human

conduct (dictionary, 2153). 64

Mill defends utilitarianism, a form of teleological ethics [for instance,

Kant’s categorical imperative ], against more rule bound deontological'

systems. ‘Teleology’ is from the Greek ‘telos’ which means ‘end’ or

‘goal.’ That is, the standard of right or wrong action for the

teleologists is the comparative consequences of the available actions.

That act is right which produces the best consequences. Whereas the

deontologist is concerned only with the rightness of the act itself, the

teleologist assert that there is no such thing as an act having intrinsic

worth. While there is something intrinsically bad with lying for the

deontologist, the only thing wrong with lying for the teleologist is the

bad consequences it produces. If you can reasonably calculate that a

lie will do even slightly more good than telling the truth, you have an

obligation to lie.

Mill’s definition of teleology has found no appeal with deontologists, whose

interest is in the immediate performance of deontological duties and results.

The four cited situations can be sorted into categories, as to serving

teleological ‘purpose’ or mechanist deontological ‘duty.’


Teleology always adds mitigating principle to empirical paradox,

which exists only on the deontological range or spectrum: deontological duty

is always produced by fallacious ideological dogmatic belief that is affirmed

as principle, therefore, logically is ‘false,’ and fails to impress responsibly of

necessity onto deontologists thoughts and actions. Ann Coulter’s high level

of intelligence provides a prime example of those who without conscience,

enjoy castigating necessary logical rationality, and represents her hate as

being consistent with her convenient religious belief: her unitary materialist

Hobbism belief. is Federalist dogmatic! (President Reagan’s Teflon nature

and President G. W. Bush’s justification of preemptive war remind of such

fallacious deontological affirmations.)

Pausing now to distinguish teleology

Abiding teleology for ‘situation one' (Paradox that discriminates

against privacy rights) founders because a deontological persuaded

Congress’ has failed to fulfill its constitutional role to provide for specified

teleological, constitutional responsibility. Deontological placebos as the

song ‘America, the Beautiful’ expresses hope but fails to inspire resolve to

satisfy constitutional teleology (holistic purposes).

‘America, God shed his grace on thee, And crown thy good with

brotherhood from Sea to shining Sea’Sends shivers of patriotism that make one feel good but in voids of

unfulfilled constitutional responsibilities remain to appal rationality.

Roger Sherman’s ‘A Caveat Against Injustice’ is on my desk reminding of

myriad evil ideological deontologies allowed by the fluctuating values of our

Exchange Mediums. Sherman thought he had afforded that only non

fluctuating value standards were constitutional: the specific charge to

Congress is contained in Article I Section 8:

. . . to coin money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,

and fix the standards of weights and measures.

To satisfy this charge, Congress must find and provide teleological principle

that mitigates the myriad fluctuating Financial Services’ paradoxs: When the

Fed. determines a discount rate of interest, a narrow range of legally


enforced interest rates must eliminate corrupt gauging that is exercised in

the name of competitive private business as licensed by government. Now

that banking and insurance industries are integrated. All financial service

businesses can avail reinsurance to insure their financial results.

Bankruptcies represent a greater amorality problem that not necessarily is

only a consumer problem. Nefarious business practices must also account,

particularly since the practices of Enron and WorldCom are now shown as

common business practice. Anyway, business loss patterns due to personal

bankruptcies are statistically stable enough to make reinsurance a rational

solution.

And don’t ever sell business intel short on smarts: my guess is that

reinsurance already applies to business loses due to customer failures: at 2%

of the business portfolio, the reinsurance cost is nominal and what

government allowes them to charge customers beyond this represents

tyrannous breaches of public trust [G. P. Brockway named government’s

paternal permissive interest rates’ license the bankers’ COLA, for to specify

it as inflation’s greatest source]: Congress and businesses’ lack of teleology

are to blame for heaping rationalized mechanist deontological duties and

service fees onto wage-earners whose mechanist political economy duty it is

to borrow for to consume to subsist.

Competitive Financial Service should be more concerned with its quality of

service, than with variable high rates excused by credit reports by a cabalist

business association as based on performance reports collected and adjudged

by the business association, which sans individual sovereign consent, in fact,

encroaches on government’s consented authority and should itself, in each

instance of assigning an evaluation, be subjected to the due process provision

of justice. As water naturally flows in channels of least resistance, credit

reports have found a popular political following, particularly by licensed

insurers that persue deontological Leviathan duty like authority, as now

commonly shows in government mandated auto insurance. Despite

confidentiality laws, more auto insurers now use credit reports to charge

increased premiums. Akin to unconstitutional ‘redlining’ practice, a recent

news article reported that 90 percent of auto insurers nationwide engage in

this illegal rate setting practice. So despite their confidentiality notices,65


Banks, Finance companies, and Insurers (with their agents), now have online

access to credit reports that violate individual customer privacy. So, as to

public purpose, which is teleological, where are the public’ defenders,

Insurance Commissioners, for instance? Why the isolatation from privacy

issues? : are they aligned with the deontological foxes of government

license, ‘together in the henhouse’?

About ‘situation two’ (federal education grants)

If the holistic teleology, for the ‘good’ or beneficence of society, is to

educate everyone with a capability to learn, then deontologies to

mechanistically sort out drug users act to favor the economically privileged

of political hierarchy, as mercantilism also does. The situation mentioned,

cited a young lady stopped for a traffic violation and the car she was driving

was then randomly searched. A heroine pipe she said she knew nothing

about was found and she was ticketed on a drug charge. She was honest

when answering the application’s question. In results of her honesty, she

lost her education grant. What message is registered here? Surely, by

denying the grant, neither ‘being truthful’ is reinforced, nor is society

bettered by having not educating her, even if as a drug user?

And situation three (the $1.35 trillion tax return bill).

The American System of Political Economy’s deontological politics has

divided society into economic castes, for instance, on which this tax return

was based. Hobbesian, which is Machiavellian, political deontology’s

effectiveness was confirmed. The ‘greed’ of the paternal mechanism favored

segment, which qualified by their high income, showed in the support for the

tax return. But where is teleology, the holistic public ‘good’ or beneficence,

found in this? : and where is constitutional responsibility to balance

government’s receipts with expenditures? We must know what results will

be, but, as the Epicurean Paradox had cited, do we care about this fiscal

responsibility? And about the political opprobrium of returned taxes to those

without need, for how long and what holistic benefit, will the returned taxes

last? : will prescription drug costs for the elderly be abated? , Or the

uninsured’s medical costs, or the increasing gasoline price be abated?


Does not this the deontological politics remind of politics, which in

1984 [short years following the Carter administrations SS review (in ‘78)

which declared SS sound for the forseeable future] had clamored for

increasing SS contribution taxation to provide SS surplus funds because, it

was claimed, SS was bankrupt? : and since has systemically spent these SS

surplus funds as general revenue. No answers are given as for accumulating

funding, which was legislated to pay for future SS benefits. As Congress

routinely spends the SS surplus as general revenue, who can honestly claim

that SS contributions differ from general revenue taxes? And, who are the

dupes of this systemic tax fraud? : has politics now proved J. S. Mill’s

rational ownership principle, as regards government’s unfunded IOUs to SS

tax payers and retirees? 66

But . . . the laws of economics have nothing to do with distribution.

Once we have produced wealth [As with Adam Smith’s concept of

wealth, Mill also concieves of wealth as goods and services produced] as

best we can, we can do with it as we like. “The things once there,”

says Mill, “mankind, individually or collectively, can do with them as

they please, and on whatever terms. . . . Even what a person has

produced by his individual toil, unaided by anyone, he cannot keep,

unless by the permission of society. Not only can society take it from

him, but individuals could and would take it from him, if society . . .

did not . . . employ and pay people for the purpose of preventing him

from being disturbed in [his] possession. The distribution of wealth,

therefore, depends on the laws and customs of society.

[Government as consented, can, without conscience, reprise, or need,

take from ‘Paul’ to give to ‘Peter,’ for to ‘grow’ economy, and

otherwise retake from ‘Peter’ for to restore ‘Paul,’ as regards life’s

causal need: subsistence, health care, etc.] As Kant had reasoned, Politics more easily can summons public support for

deontological idealiam, although systemically society’s noumenal

‘birthright’ is then replaced by unitary materialist ‘pottage.’ Teleological

proposals, as surplus funding for future SS benefits, is far less popular in any

immediate sense and can only hope to gain governments noumenal promise,


Maybe President Bush’s advocacy for his 2001 tax return, “it’s your'

money!”, represents his greatest political irrationalism? : Money created by

government, for the utility of exchanging goods and services, teleologically,

is the whole of society’s that had authorized the government to create it.

as a treaty of sorts, backed by the government’s accounting of IOUs along

with compounding interest to eventually provide funds for SS benefits.

Why, you might ask is this so? : money is a utility created by government to

ease the exchange wealth, as defined by Smith and Mill. But, mostly, no

‘good’ fiducial (safe) reality exists, for which to invest the accumulating

surplus contributions of SS. (In 2000) this accounted debt to SS reached to

more than $3 trillion and by 2010 is projected to reach past $10 trillion.

And, how does this huge amount, which was spent as general revenue, relate

to the nation’s accumulating national deficit? :The Clinton Administration

had endeavored to reduce dependence on foreign investments in the federal

deficit, by replacing foreign investments with actual SS surplus

contributions, which unique teleological policy has not otherwise occurred,

particularly by deontological politics.

A politically run government is vulnerable to political raiding on

future society’s real obligations by a mortgaging process, which acts to

defers debt for future generations to repay, even as monarchical government

is vulnerable to raiding by the Monarch and his cronies, or as privileged only

to a monarchical class, and particularly by means of the mechanist

deontologically caused inflation endemism, which also is inherent to the

U.S. political economy. The G. W. Bush Administration’s 2001Tax Bill,

while appearing as successful deontology, has effectively aborted the

intended bipartisan teleology of the 1984 SS Tax law. '

Idealist political deontologists openly eschew Mill’s economic

analysis, and still they reinforce, by the mechanism caused experience, his

truth: they enjoy the causal means of making the nation’s goods’-based

wealth into their own private treasures. Parrington cited this Federalist-

Whig affinity of ‘denying antecedents’ and ‘affirming consequents’:67


Massachusetts . . . property interests were as secure as any old

Federalist could have wished. Gentlemen of principle and property

were still in control of the state; and if less emphasis was laid on

principle [physis] and more on property [nomos] -- if less regard

seemed to be paid to gentlemen of breeding and manners, and more

to assertive self-seeking -- business was no less secure than in the

good old days, and its profits were greater. . . . Provided of course

that the Constitution should follow population and safeguard

business interests against . . .the menace of particularism

Situation four: Readers Digest May issue’s humorous quip, requires

no explanation. Teleologists excuse the forgery as ‘power of attorney’

reasonably assumed. Deontologists contend that a criminal act was

committed. But where are the damages? Should character be a concern, the

employer could follow up with the friend whose name was forged. As Bill

Leer observed of the officiousness and bureaucratic deontology tendencies

which had invaded his business organization: he said this: “If I were now to

apply for a job here, I could not qualify.” To overcome present bureaucratic

officiousness, it now takes ‘gutspa’ and creative, often collusion, and

embellished qualifications to get hired. This applicant was teleological in

her approach of an irrational situation. The Practicality of teleological

ethics was emphasized, humorously.

Pausing to compare teleology to specified deontology now ends.

. . .

Ignorance gives a sort of eternity to prejudice, and perpetuity to error.Robert Hall

Human illusion, which Hall calls ignorance, has a compelling influence on

politics: both illusion and belief represent ‘contingent’ forms of truth that

often paradoxically have both ‘true’ and ‘false’ truth value. And both forms

irrationally are popular in temporal life. Therefore, they are of life’s reality,

but paradoxically. About which Eldredge Cleaver observed this:

If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.

As Plato reasoned, both visual forms are truth-based, but the predicate-truth-

value can be both ‘true’ and ‘false.’ When the assertion “it is ‘true,” is


made, for instance, this assertion intends to say that pure necessary

antecedent meanings have been distinguished from the commonly impure

understandings, which mostly bear a mixture of ‘true-false’ truth values.

However, Knowledge must be necessary, Plato reasoned! In this instance,

Truth-based, means to say that its predicate truth-value is purely ‘true.’

Unfortunately, what is commonly believed as knowledge, when carefully

examined, often is impure and partly ‘false’ (As, Descartes’ ‘truthful’

philosophical example portrayed *)

* Rene Descartes explained his experience with transcending to necessary

truth. And in doing this he described the depths to which he went to find

reasonable bedrock in temporal life, i.e, necessary principles on which to

found his necessary truths. I suspect that it was this philosophical

foundation, which gained for him this just recognition: ‘the father of

modern philosophy.’ Descartes wrote this:68

Several years have now passed since I first realized how many were

the false opinions that in my youth I took to be true, and thus how

doubtful were all the things that I subsequently built upon these

opinions. From the time I became aware of this, I realized that for

once I had to raze everything in my life, down to the very bottom, so as

to begin again from the first foundations, if I wanted to establish

anything firm and lasting.

Finding necessary ‘truth’ in ethics, invariably requires that the gamut

of vice and virtue be run. And, Aristotle's contribution to a philosophy of

virtue retains great respect. Aristotle wrote this: 69

There are then three dispositions, two being vices, namely excess and

deficiency, and one virtue, which is the mean between them; and they

are all in a sense mutually opposed. The extremes are opposed both

to the mean and to each other, and the mean is opposed to the

extremes. . . . The liberal man appears extravagant compared with

the stingy man but stingy compared with the spendthrift. The result

is that the extremes each denounce the mean as belonging to the


LIFE’S OMNIPRESENT SPIRITUAL QUANDARY is a piece I wrote to''

myself following having attended a presentation of Man of La Mancha: as an

Addendum to truth, which is included separately, it fits here.

other extreme; the coward calls the brave man foolhardy and the

foolhardy man ca[lTlsh ihs inmic celoyw daersdcrlyib;e as nthde svoi rotune. found in temporal politics!]

And I expect, the paradoxical ideological political conflict among the masses

becomes heightened as virtue necessarily takes the objective path of

outward-turned logical reason. The politics of virtue -- if such politics ever

is competetive (political human nature, being attuned to the subjective

inward-turned orthodox popularity) -- must, it appears, be as the brave

virtuous man of Aristotle’s virtue: dedicated to achieving and abiding the

political mean by some grand magic of courting the popular extreme

dispositions -- which Aristotle called vises of deficiency and excess --

without becoming attuned to either vise. And this might be impossible in

the long run of being ellected in the democratic political process. Achieving

politics of virtue, in any event, is as great a step in temporal transcendence as

the most extreme visions in liberal truth seeking minds can be. It is indeed a

lonely endeavor as the ethical dispositions of ignorant, profligate, brutish

society will embrace the extreme vices, rather abide the mean virtue. ''

Temporal transcendent truth is then purer reasoned truth, as was

expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The value and enjoyment of

purer truth is only found by temporally abiding in its knowledge.

Ignorance [Heidegger’s irrationalism cited in part 1] gives a sort of

eternity to prejudice, and perpetuity to error. Robert Hall

But, is Hall’s assertion knowledge-based? : Hall believes that his perception

is ‘true’: but, is it purely ‘true,’ or ‘partly true, partly false’? : and of what

truth-value are asserted ignorance, prejudice or error? : As the extremes,

which Ann Coulter practices with a popular following?

With knowledge, the perception of truth’s object must be accurate

and when perception fails to correctly, ‘truly,’ depict the realities of truth’s

object, pure truth simply cannot and does not exist. Perception is then an

illusion that, as for truth’s predicate value, is ‘false.’ It is ignorance, that


expressed, is only an opinion, the truth-value of which is mostly ‘false.’

‘False’ perception never is stable enough in temporal life to fit with

consistent, let alone eternal knowledge.

Illusions are idealistically conjured by undisciplined minds whereas

knowledge is exclusively the disciplined product of one’s own virtuous will,

which chooses trueness as the principal value predicate of one’s rational

faculties. Undisciplined illusion is always selfishly inward-turned.

Disciplined knowledge spurns selfish considerations to focus perception

outwardly onto ontologies (objectively logical realities). Truth -- the

ontologically accurate perception of independent objects of noumena or

phenomena -- is neither ethical nor moral: while the exercise of self-

discipline, involves both ethics and morality, and is, therefore, a personal

requirement to realize virtuous truth and to give fiducial custody to it.

Truth is as much a matter of experience as of speculation.-- An honest

man will generally find it: above all, must live in it. -- Then it becomes

vital to his spirit:-- a part of his being. R. Turnbull

There are three parts in truth: first the inquiry, which is the wooing of

it; secondly, the knowledge of it, which is the [essential] presence of it;

and thirdly, the belief, which is the enjoyment of it. Bacon

Why are wage-earning Americans devoted to SS’s practical

teleological purpose (is holistic socially, and is necessary)? And of greater

concern, why are deontological disposed idealists, SSs arch enemies? : does

the teleology of SS spoil the carefully crafted and mechanized ideologically

conflated unitary materialist ‘carrot and stick’ economic and Calvinist

religious duties, which dogmatically philosophically are the basis of

fallacious Whig-asserted and affirmed pseudo principles of the American

System of Political Economy’s unitary materialism-based organic

mechanism? Does SS, which draws upon the purer noumenal part of

democratic philosophy (which defines Rational Empiricism), which

specifies the mutual necessity of human dualism (both spiritual and

material being), therefore, incite the reactive orthodox dogmatic unitary

materialist politics? As perception is spread politically and has become

standardized, the split in public mind’s predicate values is nearly even


between paradoxical half truth of dogmatic mechanism, which belief in

unitary materialism conflates human noumenon, and natural human

dualism’s reasonable balancing of the spiritual and material aspects which

confront organic Rational Empiricism?*

* Our elected representatives and political appointees act with consented

sovereign organic authority that either fosters mechanism-based unitary

materialist political predicate values, or they understand that their consented

authority represents John Locke’s individual ‘property of person’ intent for

rationally balanced representation of the collective, all not some, human

body and spirit’s dualism.

Mechanist deontological organic authority, which conflates the

human spirit to unitary materialist forms, is fraudulent representation

because it constrains the constitutional purposes as were consented to when

the Constitution was ratified: individual inalienable sovereignty is thereby

denied. Organic authorities then are irrational, which by asserting the

Constitution is a contract and a permanent ‘rule of law’ has supplanted

organic authority’s (necessary) principle of sovereign consent.

The Supreme Court has often sided with this unitary materialist

political assertion: when, for instance, giving Fourteenth Amendment

constitutional ‘rights’ protection to ‘fictitious person’ corporations: as if the

legally asserted ‘fictitious person’ corporations were as naturally coeval of

inalienable rights as humans were. Then the Supreme Court decided that

corporate capital, when spent to advertize products or influence politics,

were forms of ‘free speech,’ therefore had constitutional rights, which

transcended those of humans. These legal decisions bother because their

truth-value is ‘false.’ they promote deontological Duty sans teleological

purpose (unitary materiality sans human essence). Giving ‘human rights’ to

business entities is equivalent to asserting that materiality is antecedent to

human faculties of reason: asserting that fiction is as real as human reason is,

and, therefore, Heidegger’s irrationalism is made the antecedent of

rationalism: patent asserted irrationalism that concerns only empowerment

and control that is devoid of human inalienably rational principles and rights.

As if Russell didn’t prove materiality had no truth?70




called ‘facts,’ it would not contain any truths, in the sense in which

truths are things of the same kind as falsehoods. In fact, truth and

falsehood are properties of beliefs and statements; hence a world of

mere matter, since it would contain no beliefs or statements, would

also contain no truth or falsehood. Bertrand Russell

Asserted dogmatic belief in unitary materialism and, thereby, deduced

nihilist ‘positivism,’ had destined both fascism and communism’s failure.

Without noumenal teleology and ontologism, truth there isn’t, only facts!

The political flap over gerrymandering political districts as occurred

in Texas and temporarily was thwarted by legislators’ absenteeism, is an

example of a deontological power grab that only collusive absenteeism could

impede: only the organic absenteeism was teleological. And when politics

of reason is muted by unitary materialist irrationality, isn’t our nation’s

consented authority then hijacked, philosophically, making it fascist rather

than democratic?

The power grab in 2003 for California’s gubernatorial authority was

equally fascist in nature. California voters had recalled Gray Davis, and

then elected a new governor in which only by 49 percent of eligible voters

participated. This result, which empowered the new governor was deficient

as the vote which had recalled Davis also was. Whatever abstract organic

authority had designed this recall election, faithful democratic principles

were ignored. Therefore, the recall of Davis was expressly conducted to

result in a gerrymandered form of a political power grabbing.

Politics must yield to reason if the state or nation is to benefit from

purer truth-based knowledge. And society cannot progress beneficially until

a body-politic is imbued with reason-based knowledge: the only source of

which is intrinsic of the express consent of John Locke’s sovereign

individual ‘property of person’ When power and authority of government

are manipulated politically, organic perceptions are adversely affected by

materialist bias: perceptions of this toward reality then starkly diverge from

the teleological expectations inherent of human rights? Organic duties


contrived as values, which as fictitiously sponsor government’s economic

paternalism to legally licensed fictitious person mechanisms’ is therefore the

U.S. Constitution’s enemy # one. 71

In U.S. distrust is deep, Nearly four of 10 Americans believe the

federal government threatens their freedom, according to a recent poll

by CNN and USA Today. Only one out of 10 has faith in the

government, according to the Yankelovich Monitor. With no independent cognition, the public mind is destined to

remain affected by a temporal world’s material nature, which St. John had

observed is passing and cannot therefore, because of subjective inward-

turned materialist illusions that irrationally dominate objective outward-

turned truth, be ‘true.’ Laws and constitutions, in the evolving world, must

depend on the individual disciplines involved with actualizing virtuous purer

truth-based knowledge. Finding Truth that is ‘true’ is a constant,

confronting challenge to each individual, each new generation, and each

organic state or nation: all, are, therefore, destined to sort out the

paradoxically irrational imperfections to celebrate natural cognitive faculties

that allow the freedoms of reason-based truth.

Laws and constitutions are essential to any society, and must

preserve order and assure the foundations of objective-based beneficial

results, or, they are not teleological: which provides foundation to W. R.

Inge’s, Either the world shows a teleology or it does not.

Teleology’s counter causal theory is the popular materialist

orthodoxy called mechanism. Patterned on the Ten Commandments,

mechanism is retributive, not beneficent. In teleology, however,

Categorical Imperative fulfills naturally paradoxical retribution: as Christ

had declared! Christ’s Gospel is beneficent principle and, therefore, in

Heidegger’s analogy, Christ provided rationalist action that fulfills the

organic retributive irrationalism:72

“St. Paul,” says Dean Inge in one of his ‘Outspoken Essays,’

“understood what most Christians never realize, namely, that the

Gospel of Christ is not a religion, but religion itself in its most

universal and deepest significance.”


Ed Firmage, Jr. wrote this in the November 29, 2006 Salt Lake Tribune:'

In my Bible, Jesus’ injunction “love your enemies” has no escape clause in

fine print that says “unless he’s trying to kill you,” or “unless you’re an

American and he’s an al-Qaida thug.” . . .

Deists, are teleologists, because mostly, they live this way. Deontologists do

not! Maybe because their focus is on the tree rather than the forest.

Particularly, Calvinist mechanist duty-based religious hierarchies fail to

recognize Christ’s religion’s universal and deepest significance.

American Christianity was taught a pure teleological lesson by the

Amish Mennonites, when in 2006 several young women students were73

assaulted and murdered: then when economic sympathies were offered, their

condition of acceptance required that the family of the accused also be

included in the sympathy: this was purer Christianity. Contrarily, in our hate

of acts of crime or terror, we fail to recognize that the actor’s family and

associates are as innocent as we are. Deontology casts hate dutifully and

broadly.'

We divide into groups by our thoughts and actions: as we choose to reason

deliberately in the pursuit of truth that is ‘true‘, or we do not. The groups so

defined are not pure. Only in relative terms are the groups distinguished by

knowledge (wisdom that has the truth predicate, ‘is true’) in the first

instance, and by ignorance (the resident illusions spawned by the

concupiscence of pride, status, will, prejudice and such) in the second. In

fact, we all possess a mix of both -- too little knowledge if we trust those

who stand tall among us. For instance, our celebrated twentieth century

philosopher reasoned he had achieved little knowledge: Bertrand Russell's

Epilogue declared this:74

I have wished to understand the hearts of men. I have wished to know

why the stars shine. And I have tried to apprehend the Pythagorean

power by which number holds sway above the flux. A little of this but

not much, I have achieved.*

* Russell surely would have enjoyed James Gleick's book on Chaos?75


So, what is important to distinguish the knowledge-ignorance

groups, involves mind sets, demeanor that Dean Inge observed was the

fundamental practice of religion, as Christ had said:

Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me: for of such

is the Kingdom of Heaven.More than quantities or proportions of the knowledge-mix, Christ

emphasized the importance of attitude in one's quest to know and practice

Christ's pure truth-based Categorical Imperative. While this says little76

about perceptions, decisions and actions, it says a lot: the better demeanor is

tuned to a carefully disciplined openness and reception of truth, the more

sure are ‘true’ predicate values of one’s reasoned cognition.

Goethe’s ‘outward-turned,’ is used here to describe an essential

attitude or discipline of thought required to reason deliberately and

truthfully. And particularly, this quality should be a requirement for those

who would legislate laws for society or aspire to hold the consented organic

reigns of democratic cardinal sovereignty (probity and honor is what John

Locke called for). Rene Descartes' What then am I? provides an example77

of essential attitude: a philosophical starting point. Descartes had reached78

for the essential objective reality of self, thereby providing an example of

necessary thought discipline in pursuit of truth.

What then am I? A thing that thinks. What is that? A thing that

doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and which also

imagines and knows.Descartes chose deliberately uncommon words to describe his thought

processes: Unique words that are not listed in the computerized thesaurus

being utilized here. The thesaurus lists these ‘positive’ words, which show,

therefore, the effectiveness of August Compte’s ‘positivism’ on Western

cultural thought: inculcated as ‘the gospel of reason’: consider,

contemplate, meditate, ponder, reflect, recall, recollect, remember,

conclude, judge, presume, reason, suppose, conceive, create, envision,

imagine, and invent are the orthodox stand-ins for think.

Descartes chose these negative words: doubt, denial, refusal, and will.

They are not listed for think in my Thesaurus. And I expect in few others.


Why did Descartes choose uncommon ‘appositives’ deliberately to attest that

deliberate human thought must possess both positive and negative

responsibility, capability and demeanor (and while words connote meaning,

they have no cognitive inalienability)? Acclaimed for his super great

accomplishments, Descartes’ precise manner of thinking and writing was

unique. For this alone, his intent must not be dismissed for any lack of only

‘positive’ meaning. And Descartes’ choice of words to describe his personal

property, his thing that thinks, must carefully and respectfully be considered

for to find his end purpose (i.e., what to me is Inga’s Christian teleology). *

* Long before Descartes, St. Thomas’ epistle had been dismissed from

inclusion in the Bible. St. Thomas’ ‘doubting’ nature was then as now

considered undesirable. And, isn’t it strange that St. Thomas’ Gnosticism

was, back then as now, deliberately considered the only way of finding ‘true’

gospel knowledge?

As Descartes, himself, was the truth object of his philosophical

inquiry: his very carefully chosen words are predicates that describe the

critical aspects of thought required to discern facts and things of self that

represent truth that is purely ‘true’ (has no opposites).

By reasoning the results of doubting his own existence, he actualized to

himself, as truth, that the thing in him that thinks exists: One cannot doubt

doubt, he reasoned.

As focus is put onto the discerning processes of thought required to

filter out impure from the pure facts and things; doubt, denial, and refusal

are indeed crucially important although these represent self-discipline that

disturbs inculcated dogma of society’s classical entrenchments. Descartes'

chose will just as carefully to describe the discipline ‘necessary’ to

deliberately restrict necessary thought actions of doubting, denying, and

refusing the thoughts and influences which have no reasonable bearing on

the object of inquiry: to fully cognize an understanding of the object’s

independent reality.79

Will (is defined) as the power of the mind to decide and do; deliberate

control over thought and action.


Knowing is acquired only as individuals’ reason deliberately until full

comprehension occurs. Goethe had mentioned this :80

What is not fully understood is not possessed.

To fully comprehend an event, a state of affairs, or some other

intangible object, requires individual’s to think objectively. In other words,

one's thoughts of an object (whether the object is non material, as thoughts

of the subject-self, as in Descartes' case, or a thing of materiality, totally

separated) must be sufficiently insulated from myriad biases of self that

intrude or are invited to cohabit thoughts in our minds. It was, I believe,

Rene Descartes keen sense of biases that led him to list doubt, denial, and

refusal as coequals with more commonly used words for thinking. About

the hold biases have on each of us, another Russell-statement is recalled:81

The [person] who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life

imprisoned in prejudices derived from common sense, from the

habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which

have grown up in his mind without the cooperation or consent of his

deliberate reason.Subjective comprehension is and always will be a reality of temporal life.

And, comprehension that embraces another’s opinion with all its biased

baggage, rather than reason deliberately, which is objectively critical, gives

foundation to conflated noumenal unitary materialist nihilism, which

logically reasoned philosophy rejects because of its dogmatism.’*

* Nihilistic philosophy, in the sense that deliberate reason is utilized here,

only adds to the enigma of life while proffering few, if any, truthful

resolutions to the enigma. Since pure truth by definition requires

objectivity, nihilism, which is subjective, denies what purely is truth.

But mostly, subjective comprehension is illusion and since this is not

knowledge, it is Heidegger’s ignorant irrationalism. John Locke, as he

meditated this contrast, expressed this sentiment:82

Truth, whether in or out of fashion, is the measure of knowledge, and

the business of the understanding; whatsoever is beside that, however

authorized by consent, or recommended by rarity, is nothing but

ignorance, or something worse.


To comprehend objectively requires outward-turned thoughts and

actions as well the purging of one’s subjective influences. [And this process

has parallels with fasting -- as Christ reportedly did for forty days -- to purge

his soul from worldly influence, to put the focus on noumenal (spiritual)

realities]. No one thinks outwardly always. And indeed more unfortunate

for society -- than for each individual -- is that most avenues to outward-

turned thinking are denied for society’s impoverished individuals, in which

causal effects of mechanism is most impressed.

As poverty increases, the extent and quality of objective thinking must

decline. And, in turn, the relative size of those failing to reason deliberately

increases, making Society an inevitable loser. This says only that one's

objective focus on, outward-turned thought is disabled (maybe is impossible)

when one's survival instinct dominates outward-turned thoughts and actions.

E. K. Hunt gave these as Capitalism’s deontological mechanism’s

determined essentials: 83

Capitalism is defined by . . . [irrationally asserted, therefore, a logical

misnomer] essential features that are always present in a capitalist

economy.

---- First is the ubiquity of monetary exchange. For the vast

majority of people in capitalism, one can get the things one wants and

needs only if one has money with which to buy these things in the

market.

---- Second, capitalism always has at least four clearly identifiable

socioeconomic classes: the class of wealthy capitalists, the class of

small businesspeople and independent professionals, the class of

working people and the class of destitute persons who live by various

welfare programs or by theft, prostitution, or whatever means are

available. . . . [These class identities, of American Capitalism, also make

American democracy a misnomer]

The working class has no significant access to or ownership of

productive resources. Individuals in this class must sell control of


their power to labor (i.e., get a job) as their only means to escape

sinking to the destitute class. . . .[T. R. Malthus and Max Weber observed ‘the iron cage of wages,’ as

befitting this mechanist determined working class caste]

Income from ownership and the wages of workers are

considered to be the only socially respectable sources of income. The

destitute class must depend on the somewhat “less than respectable”

sources of income, such as welfare, charity, or the fruits of quasi legal

or illegal activities in order to get by. The stigma that attaches to

members of this class motivates all propertyless individuals to try very

hard to secure employment even if working conditions and wages are

poor.Clearly Hunt wrote here about The American System of Political Economy’s

Capitalism. American Whigs, contemporaries of Lincoln, had achieved to

conflate American democracy’s unique spiritual values to a unitary

materialist economic form in order to establish the causal mechanisms of

this political American System (to an extent, resulting in a circumstance

similar to that which C. Thomas had found regarding Hegel’s Unitary

Materialism, called Dialectical Materialism, which philosophically is found

in both fascism and communism. *).

* Whenever society acts to mortgage progress repaid by taxation, society

mechanistically puts tax burden onto those guys who are to be. And

politically, this only can happen by interpreting our Constitution to accord

with Whiggish conservatives’ classical ‘fixed contract’ doctrine. Edmund

Burke gave definition to this conservative doctrine. And Federalist-Whig

politics, as deduced from this conservative doctrine fosters and persuades

American government to operate according to this irrationally asserted

economic principle. While rational evidence supports suspicions of this, the

irrationalism is at least equally strong. Showing that an awareness that

conflated Unitary Materialism had led to the mechanist concept of state,

which Craig Thomas wrote about: (One still is left to speculate whether they

were aware of their deliberately irrational assertions):84


In this, the principle idealists conflated even God’s antecedence, to which'

Nietzche cried out, “we have killed God!”.

. . . to be precise, not even Germany but prenational Prussia under

Frederick the Great. Christian theology assumed a [unitary] merger with

the divine after this life; Hegel posits such a merger here on earth -- with

history and the collectivity he terms the state.

Thomas also wrote this about idealists who collaborated in Hegel’s unitary

materialist view (Hegel declared he wasn’t a materialist!):

The principal Idealists -- Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel -- sought, above all

else, a unitary explanation of reality, some essence behind all appearance

-- in Kant’s terminology, a ‘common’ and universal noumenon, and in the

poet Hölderlin’s description, the ‘spirit that is in everything’ [ontologism].

They were [expedient idealist] systemizers, assuming that there could be

discovered some essential explanation of all experience, knowledge, and

reality, and it was largely on this basis that they objected, Fichte most

immediately and systematically, to Kant’s division between self and the

world, which [they as irrationally contended] for Kant could be no more than

a world of appearances. To achieve the healing of that dualism the Idealists

posited, in Fichte’s theory most succinctly, the ego as the ‘ground of

experience.’ It was not the rational ego of Kant [Plato and Descartes] nor

the passive receptor of the empiricists but what Fichte describes as the

‘active ego,’ inextricably intermingled with reality, imposing itself upon

the world of experience, to a degree ‘making’ the world of experience in its

own image. As Fichte claims in ‘The Vocation of Man’ of 1792, ‘Not to

KNOW but to DO, is the vocation of Man.’ For Fichte (1762- 1814),'

there were only two possible responses to the world, that of the realist, or

‘dogmatist’ in his terminology, and that of the idealist. The philosopher’s

response, more profound than that of the ordinary man, is idealist, while

realism remains the province of non-philosophical response to an

understanding of the world. . . .

Thinking is no longer reflection, it is experience. Also, because of

this, there can be no kind of reality that is distinct or separated from the


ego that experiences it. Whereas empiricism posits, at least by implication,

a ‘real’ world that is experienced, the Idealists assumed no distinction

between the subject of the experiencing agent and the objective world

being experienced. [Which came first, the egg or the chicken, is of no


issue rather than finding answers to the question; the dogmatic focus is on

the neatness of confusion.]

Further, Fichte and Schelling assumed that the ego was innately a

moral agent, again contrary to Kant’s conception of the effort of moral

duty for the rational being, the necessity to achieve the categorical

imperative [of ‘do unto others . . .’] in making any moral decision or

taking any moral action. Men are regarded by the Idealists as innately,

though imperfectly, moral in their essential, nondualistic natures. This

leads, as we shall see, to a strangely Hobbesian view of the State as

possessing the right and duty to perfect the ego’s moral imperfection by

the exercise of its authority. [Note how irrationally dogmatic ‘Idealists‘

are blameworthy for the fallacious philosophical underpinning of

conservative’s materialist philosophy]

While Hunt’s account of the politically privatized American economic

organic development is starkly presented, the prescriptive intentions of

America’s political system neither considered nor accommodated the

fundamental antecedent principle necessities of democracy: as ‘inalienable

human rights,’ for instance. Only as amorality filled in the paradoxical voids

of unitary materialist mechanist deontological duties,’ which failed to

accommodate human desiderata, were human necessities then scantily

accommodated. Economy’s mechanisms, by affirmation, persist in

supplanting empirical dogma for naturally antecedent immutable laws:85

The eternal and immutable laws of justice and of morality are

paramount to all human legislation. The violation of those laws is

certainly within the power, but it is not among the rights of nations.

The power of a nation is the collected power of all the individuals

which compose it. . . . If, therefore, a majority . . . are bound by no

law, human or divine, and have no other rule but their sovereign will


and pleasure to direct them, what possible security can any citizen of

the nation have for the protection of his unalienable rights? [Cardinal

Sovereignty, like life, is not transferable; nations have no consented

authority to grant license to private businesses to violate inalienable human

rights]

A great problem of denying natural antecedence rests with those of

society who simply choose not to reason objectively; ‘positive’ thinking, for

instance, suppresses, by affirmation or denial, the unapparent essential

reality. At times we all are guilty of this common nihilism. *

* In Western Europe, nihilism meant a denial of objective truths and values.

The philosopher Friedreich Nietzsche, referring to himself, said he was a

nihilist. Tautologically, nihilism is either the fallacious denial of natural86

antecedent principles or it is the irrational affirmation of logical

consequents, which in either effect is, as Heidegger concluded, irrationalism:

for instance, ‘guns do not kill!’ Is a sample of nihilist denial (only when

bullets fail to cause death will guns that propel them not be the implemented

cause to kill?) ; when organically assigning responsibility for causing death,

however, only humans are naturally capable of this responsibility.

Nietzsche’s existential philosophy (about the human Id) arguably failed to

affect the mass ignorance of Hitler’s Germany. Existentialism, as any

philosophy, is open to rational and irrational thoughts and debate.

Nietzsche's philosophical persuasions had a great and negative (irrational)

influence on Hitler and Nazism. Id is always each individual’s own

responsibility.

Self disciplining the mind is critically important to one's cognizance and

transcendence into knowledge. And again, such transcendence can only be

gained individually. Society gains or loses as individuals gain or do not gain

outward-turned knowledge based on pure truth.87

The problems of inward-turning were sketched long ago by Goethe,

speaking to Eckermann. "Epochs which are regressive, and in the

process of dissolution, are always subjective, whereas the trend in all

progressive epochs were all objective in nature . . . Every truly

excellent endeavor turns from within toward the world, as you see in


the great epochs which were truly in progression and aspiration, and

which were all obje[cGtivoee tihne n’sa rteumrea.r"k distinguishes Heidegger’s rationalism]

R. L. Heilbroner wrote this about economist Joseph Schumpeter: 88

But now comes the Schumpeterian contradiction: capitalism may be

an economic success, but it is not a sociological success. This is

because . . . the economic base of capitalism creates its [illogically

fallacious] ideological superstructure . . .. In the end, this capitalist

mentality, brings down the system. [Is terrorism, a precursor of this end?]

“Capitalism creates a critical frame of mind which, after

having destroyed the moral authority of so many other institutions, in

the end turns against its own; the bourgeois finds to its amazement

that the [fallaciously irrational] rationalist attitude does not stop at the

credentials of kings and popes but goes on to attack private property

and the whole scheme of bourgeois values.” The SS System provides a mending example of Schumperter’s reference to

capitalism’s failed sociological success, which has resulted from paternalist

mechanism-based giving of profit to private capitalists (both individually

and organicly), which holistically has no source other than from wage-earned

production. And, since the fickle American democratic body politic might

never again be graced with teleological purpose to the extent that it was

during the great depression, the beneficence of Social Security, as

beneficence generally, must either be lawfully sustained, or it rests on

fragile, vacillating politics: unless objectively rational political persuasions

effectively counter Capitalism’s political irrationalism, the irrationalism

could eventually succeed to politically dismantle the SS system. The

political implosions of Federalist, Whig, and now neo-con policies, brightens

the outlook for nation and Social Security, however.

The rational necessity of SS is logically apparent. And logically,

rationalism is constantly assailed by popular irrationalism, as Heidegger

observed. So, ultimately, SS’s vitality depends on society’s devotion to

Social Security’s social beneficence: those, who reason logically so to

understand ‘true’ facts, must actively be diligent to cogently leaven with

truth the fallacious mechanisms of popular orthodox irrationalism.*


* The three ladies honored with Time’s ‘man of the year (2002)’award

shows that political rationalism, at times, finds liberal honorees. Or, when

before, has our capitalist society celebrated ‘whistle blowers’? Classically,

capitalism prevails to oppress ‘whistle blowing’: fired, exiled or martyred for

not performing ‘dutifully’ conventionally is capitalism’s prescribed fate.

That ‘Time’ celebrated these three ladies is not only evidence of

Schumperter’s observation, but also that capitalism’s irrationalism has now

become more transparent.

The general facts, of inflation, population growth, and SS

contribution-tax rates, are now presented. Each fact resulted from our

market-system-based capitalist, i.e., determinist mechanism-based Political

Economy. And each greatly influences adversely the sociological

perceptions: the politics of SS, as the public filter of truth, makes Eldredge

Cleaver’s political observation appurtenant:

If you are not part of the solution,

then you are part of the problem!The increasing population of workers (compared with the retirement

population) is indicated in the following table and has provided to

government greatly increased Social Security contribution-tax revenue. The

numbers represent population projections of age groups rather than the actual

counts of workers or retirees. The badly faulted projection -- which

eventually will be proved as an illusion rather than fact -- on which the 1984

contribution-tax law became the political reality, is explained.

The 1978 Statistical Abstract of the U. S. provided these facts and

projections. It was government’s last published issue, (The U. S. printing89

office was then disbanded). What is critically important is that births of

all BabyBoom years’ are facts, which change naturally only by


mortality: mortality is estimated only to conclude the 65-4 age group.

And with the shift to age 67, nearly seven million persons are delayed

from entering retirement.

Facts, as

the

following

released

as 1992

conclude

d,

provided

evidence

that a

secondary

birth

wave is

in the


making: The Census Bureau now predicts an 80 percent population increase

by 2050.

It's Common Census: More Americans Now 90

WASHINGTON -- Today ( January 1, 1993) there should be an

estimated 256,561,239 Americans, says the Census Bureau.

Since 1990, the U.S. population has risen 7.9 million.

During 1992, 4.1 million Americans were born, 2.2 million died,

846,000 immigrants showed up, and 129,000 citizens living abroad

came home.Projected group populations for the ages’ 18-64, for the years ‘85

and later, are estimates, not population facts: They include birth estimates

that occured following 1976.

ESTIMATED AND PROJECTED POPULATIONS

(millions)

YEAR AGES: 18 TO 64 65-4 RESPECTIVE INDICES

1950 92.6 12.4 --- base = 1.00 ---

1960 99.5 16.7 1.07 1.34

1985* 123.7 27.3 1.34 2.2

2000* 159.6 31.8 1.72 2.56

2025-* 154.5 48.6 1.67 3.92

4 symbolizes ‘to life's end’ ; * symbolizes ‘that rather than facts, these are

anticipated projections of the late '70s’: projections are not facts.

The 67- 4 population of deminished natural births might approach 42

milion, but will not reach 48.6 as this projection (not a fact) for 2025 had

estimated. And, worse, 80 million that commonly politically is touted, is

no more than rhetoric that is based on a published error that willfully

this fallacious politics perpetuates.

The median age is an important aspect of this research, however:

30.2 in 1950, it drops to 29 in ‘76, then with anticipated birth dynamics of

projected ‘zero growth’-based analysis, rises to 38.4 in 2025, and 38.9 in

2050. The fertility rates of ‘zero growth’ (the assumed scenario as affirmed

in this projection) would need be much lower than presently factually they

are. With this Conclusion! : While fertility remains high, ‘zero growth’


This argument holds ‘true’ if the rates of mortality are relatively stable,'

which life insurance has consistently offered premiums that bet they are.

cannot occur: the group population of ages 18-64 will, in reality, mecessarily

be much higher, with the factual median age substantially lower than 38.

Fertility, as contemporary reality proves, confirms my population model, and

it debunks the ‘zero-based’ projection , which in 2025, projected that only

two individuals of working age will exist for each individual over age 65.

But, the following age groups, of the ‘zero growth’ scenario, show a

necessary trend of the holistic nature of median populations.

Yr 0-4 5-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-64 65-4

1950 10.8 20.2 10.6 15.8 14.2 20.3 8.1

1976 7.1 23.2 13.1 14.9 10.7 20.3 10.7

2050 6.5 16.9 9 12.7 12.5 23.4 19

In 1950, four factual Birth-Boom-years are in the 0-4 age range. In 1976,

the peak (the 4.26 million births of ‘57) are included in the 18-24 range.

And in 2050, all survivors of the birth-boom are in the 65-4 range. Percent

of population mirrors percentages of economy: when more is put into one

range means that less necessarilly must be in another. If in 2050, for

instance, the population of births, ages 0-4, comprise 10.8 percent of the

population, as was the fact in 1950 (instead of 6.5 projected for 2050), the

population’s percent of retired 65-4 must surely be lower than projected by

as much as 4.3 percent (14.7 instead of 19). The Census Bureau’s biased'

assumption that the fertility rate was declining to the anticipated ‘zero

growth’ scenario, as this ‘78 projection analysis shows, was clearly fallacy.

In reality, fertility has remained stable if not as strong, partly because

population increase mostly involved women of childbearing ages in which

promiscuous cultural freedoms probably were also at play. Anyway, the

demographics have made not resulted in a declining proportion of workers to

retirees: demographics are not, therefore, the greatest problem for SS as

regards retiring the Babyboom.

Because inflation discriminates (giving to one economic class by

taking from another), and population decreases indiscriminately only by

mortality, which holistically statistically is quite stable (While births are


analogous to ocean waves, mortality is analogous to ocean level) the

economic amalgam of mechanism-based taxation and mortality-based SS

populations is an incomparable admixture: mechanism-based inflation,

which discriminates, is incomparable to the effects of natural mortality,

which does not discriminate: And, anyway, SS is not an inflation cause!

Social Security’s greatest problem is inflation, not population

dynamics. And inflation is the nation’s problem: is not related to Social

Security’s ‘social usage’ form of insurance? : inflation intrinsic of benefits

paid to the retired population is the nation’s problem since the nation

administratively has unconstitutionally allowed inflation to effect consumer

costs! Wage-earners must mechanistically buy goods and services, as all

others of society must also. Wage-earners are a different economic class

than the others, however: to additionally pile inflation’s cost effects onto SS

contribution taxes puts a double inflation burden onto wage-earners

conscripted also to pay the SS contribution tax, from which the SS

retirement benefits are paid. Added to this idealism determined economic

reality, is the different sources of income, as related to economic

productions: wage-earners are consumers that must subsist by their wages-

earned. Those, whose income are from sources other than wages, from

ownership interests in productions for instance, and are not conscripted to

pay contributions to SS, benefit from inflation in the legal fact that the

mechanist economy returns consumed inflation to ‘owners of productions’ as

‘enured’ capital that includes the real production costs. This sentence from

the FOREWORD now has its idealist foundation:

The average economic growth, during the twentieth century, was measured

at 4 percent, inflation endemism at 3 percent: resulting in business capital

returns in excess of 7 percent while wages languished below the 3 percent

inflation endemism : the average ‘iron caged’ wage-earner-consumer91

experienced the average economic growth as the negative result of business

profit-taking, which typically as a percentage of the GNP exceeded the sum

of economy’s 4 percent growth plus inflation’s 3 percent.

CONSUMER PRICE INDICES 92

YEAR ALL ITEMS MEDICAL CARE

1950 base = 1.00 base = 1.00


1960 1.23 1.47

1970 1.61 2.25

1977 2.52 3.77

1980 3.43 4.98

1984 4.31 7.07

1988 5.00 NA

Comments about inflation endemism’s causes, as applied to CPI, also apply

to the ‘social usage’ insurance systems of medical care, flood, whether

related crop damage, etc. Profits taken are undoubtedly a primary cause of

disparity with private insurance systems. For instance, the extent that health

care insurance is unavailable, a greater health care expense must be put onto

those with insurance. As of 2003 the uninsured count rose to 44 million.

SOCIAL SECURITY TAX RATES -------- RATES ------- WAGE CAP MAXIMUM

(PERCENT OF WAGES) INCREASE

TOTAL OASDI HI (IN DOLLARS) (INDEX)

1950 3 3 - $ 3,000 base = 1.00

1955 4 4 - 4,200 1.87

1960 6 6 - 4,800 3.2

1965 7.25 7.25 - 4,800 3.87

1970 9.6 8.4 1.2 7,800 8.32

1971 10.4 9.2 1.2 7,800 9.01

1972 10.4 9.2 1.2 9,000 10.

1973 11.7 9.7 2 10,800 14.04

1974 11.7 9.9 1.8 13,200 17.16

1975 no rate change 14,100 18.33

-------- RATES ------- WAGE CAP MAXIMUM


TOTAL OASDI HI (IN DOLLARS) (INDEX)

1976 " " " 15,300 19.89

1977 " " " 16,500 21.45

1978 12.1 10.1 2 17,700 23.8

1979 12.26 10.16 2.1 22,900 31.19

1980 no rate change 25,900 35.28

1981 13.3 10.7 2.6 29,700 43.89

1982 13.4 10.8 2.6 32,400 48.24

1983 no rate change 35,700 53.15

1984 14 11.4 2.6 37,800 58.8


1985 14.1 11.4 2.7 39,600 62.04

1986 14.3 11.4 2.9 42,000 66.73

1987 no rate change 43,800 69.59

1988 15.02 12.12 2.9 45,000 75.1

1990 15.3 12.4 2.9 45,000 76.5*

* The SS contributions’ tax maximum increase is 76.5 times the

base, which was reset in 1950. Contributions began in 1935.

Medical costs have increased faster than the CPI. And Medical Insurance is

an influence, if not a cause, of inflation’s economic paradox, which

thoughtful observers will undoubtedly consider. Inflation’s paradoxical

economic effect is allied with Heidegger’s irrationalism that deductively

feeds political paradox as, for example, affirmation’s that corporate

dividends should be free of revenue taxation since ‘businesses already have

paid the revenue tax.’ This common affirmation is analogous to arguments,

which claim this: because I work for Joe and Joe pays taxes, I, therefore,

should not pay taxes on earnings that Joe pays me for work, which benefits

him. In rational reality, however, double taxation in SS’s contribution

tax collections is far more irrational than the double charging in any of

the above examples or in corporate dividend collections. Why? Because

the SS contribution taxes are directly related to the inflation effects on SS

benefits that are paid directly from SS contributions. And, in this contrast to

those of dividends from investments, they are recipients of inflation

consumed that mechanistically legally has enured as returning capital to

businesses. For this fundamental reason, inflation’s economic cost to SS

benefits should rationally be fully charged to graduated general revenue

and not to SS contributions taxation.

Because of idealist capitalist mechanist theoretical economic

determinism, which politically paternalistically acts in the manner that

Parrington described as (a curiously ingenious scheme to milk the cow

and divide the milk among those who supervised the milking), median

wage-earned income is maintained below the SS tax cap. As median income

rises, the wage cap is increased, making SS contributions’ tax revenue near

directly indexed to the median rise in wages. Compounding inflation

endemic of median and lower wage increases is directly taxed (‘72-’73 law

made SS benefit COLAs automatic ). Therefore, a compounding load of93


Compounding interest on personal debt generally doubles according to the'

rule of 72: at 3 percent in 36 years, at 6 percent in 12 years, and at 12 percent

in 6 years. Debt repaid over time is surely inflation intensive and public

bonded debt is a great culprit of inflation endemism, which progress, so called,

feeds!

inflation is made intrinsic of SS contribution taxes each time the law adjusts

the SS contributions’ cap to assure that wage-earner contributions, not

general revenue taxes, pay for the inflation-COLA-adjusted SS benefits.

Wages subjected to SS contributions taxation, until the wage cap is

exceeded, are additionally subjected to general revenue taxation. Therefore,

because SS has no causal economic inflation effect, indexing contribution’s

taxes to inflation is a logically fallacious politically endemic corollary that

should signal great wage-earner political alarm.

That causally, inflation is intrinsic of government’s political

paternalist economy (giving to some by taking from others), makes the SS

contributions’ taxation irrational: since political economy, not SS, is the

causal source of inflation (as G. P. Brockway’s End of Economic Man found,

inflation’s source is the government’s covertly endemic political economy’s

paternal grants, as the Banker’s COLA for instance ). The COLA-related'

SS benefits’ cost should be fully paid from general revenue taxes,

instead of SS contribution taxes. Those, whose income is not and was not

subject to SS contribution taxes, have by government’s paternalism, been

granted an entitled economic advantage from their inflation related income

that legally is enured capital returns from subsistence related consumption,

but also, by lawful fact that in 1984, surplus SS contributions have been

collected and spent as government’s general revenue.

Idealogically deontological designed economic paradoxs that entice

investors to gain from political economy’s fluctuating mediums of exchange

(of pseudo government-run exchanges) also greatly cause inflation that

covertly is intrinsic of all economic transactions. And, while government’s

transaction-based debt plus interest is intended to be repaid by general

revenues, the privatized investment gains have resulted in this quip: we

privatize profit and socialize debt. Which tells it all about the cozy and


irrational relationship between government’s official functions and its

privatized political economy, paternalism induced, grants.

As, when funding for a sports stadium, for instance, is secured by public

bonds, privatized profits are then paid as the construction project is

completed while the bonds, along with compounding interest, are over time

retired by tax revenues. Touting progress, or by threats of moving to another

city, the public is quite usually conned to approve the inflation cost

consumed, which often equals the construction cost, to retire the bonds.

However, controlling inflation requires that progress must be moderate.

However, irrational acquisitive political rhetoric is difficult if possible to

subdue and seemingly always wins the debate, causing public debt to

increase exponentially along with repayment of bonded interest.

Capitalism’s propensities for growth 94

‘The Theory of Economic Development’ sounds like an analysis of

what we have come to call the underdeveloped world. But in 1912 the

special economic status and problems of that “world” had not yet

come into existence -- this was still the unabashed colonialism [Whigs

while in charge of the government’s Gilded Age officially by then had

installed the privatized American System of Political economy with its

government administered pork barrel ‘internal improvement’ paternalism].

Schumperter’s book was about another kind of development -- the

way in which capitalism develops its propensities for growth.

Scholarly in tone and tedious in style (a lite from time to time with

lightning flashes), the book would not strike the casual reader as being

of much political importance. Yet this academic treatise was destined

to become the basis for one of the most influential interpretations of

capitalism ever written.

The exposition begins in Schumpeter’s contradictory way. It is

a book about capitalist growth and dynamics, but it opens with a

depiction of a capitalist economy in which growth is totally absent.

Schumpeter’s initial portrait describes a capitalism that lacks the very


ingredient that brought growth into the worlds of Smith and Mill and

Marx and Keynes -- namely, the accumulation of capital. Schumpeter

describes instead a capitalism sans accumulation -- a capitalism

whose flow of production is perfectly static and changeless,

reproducing itself in a “circular flow” that never alters or expands its

creation of wealth.

The model resembles the stationary state envisaged by

Ricardo and Mill, with the difference that the stationary state seemed

the end of capitalism to the earlier writers, whereas for Schumpeter it

was the beginning of capitalism. Therefore we must examine the

characteristics of the circular flow a little more carefully. Because

the system has no momentum, inertia is the rule of its economic life:

“All knowledge and habit, once acquired,” writes Schumpeter,

“becomes as firmly rooted in ourselves as a railway embankment in

the earth.” Thus having found by trial and error the economic course

that is most advantageous for ourselves, we repeat it by routine.

Economic life may have originally been a challenge; it becomes a

habit.

More important, in this changeless flow competition will have

removed all earnings that exceed the value of anyone’s contribution

to output. This means that competition among employers will force

them to pay their workers the full value of the product they create, and

that owners of land or other natural wealth will likewise receive as

rents whatever value their resources contribute. So workers and

landowners will get their shares in the circular flow. And

capitalists? Another surprise. Capitalists will receive nothing, except

their wages as management. That is because any contribution to the

value of output that was derived from capital goods they owned would

be entirely absorbed by the value of labor that went into making those

goods plus the value of resources they contained. Thus, exactly as


Ricardo or Mill foresaw, ‘in a static economy there is no place for

profit!

Why does Schumpeter present us with such a strange -- not to

say strained -- image of the system? Perhaps we have already divined

the purpose behind his method: the model of a static capitalism is an

attempt to answer the question of where profits come from.

The source of profits is a question that has been gingerly

handled by most economists. Smith wavered between viewing profit as

a deduction from the value created by labor and as a kind of

independent return located in capital itself. If profits were a

deduction, of course, the explanation implied that labor was

shortchanged; and if they were a contribution of capital, one would

have to explain why the profits went to the owner of the machine, not

to its inventor or user. Mill suggested that profits were the reward for

the “abstinence” of capitalists, but he did not explain why capitalists

were entitled to a reward for an activity that was clearly in their own

interest. Still other economists described profits as the earnings of

“capital,” speaking as if the shovel itself were paid for its contribution

to output. Marx, of course, said that Smith was right in the first place

though he didn’t know it -- that profits were a deduction from the

actual value created by the working man. But that was part of the

labor theory of value which everyone knew to be wrong and therefore

did not have to be reckoned with.

Schumpeter now came forward with a brilliant answer to this

vexing question. Profits he said, did not arise from exploitation of

labor or from the earnings of capital. They were the result of quite

another process. ‘Profits appeared in a static economy when the

circular flow failed to follow its routinized course.’ [And profits routinely taken, despite entrepreneurial activity,

as now is commonly a classical paternal political economy sanctioned

business right, causes the static circular flow fail to respect labor’s

economic contribution.]






ways of making things, or ways of making wholly new things. ‘As a

result of these innovations a flow of income arises that cannot be

traced either to the contribution of labor or of resource owners.’ A

new process enables an innovating capitalist to produce the same

goods as his competitors, but at a cheaper cost, exactly as a favorably

located piece of land enables its owner to produce crops more cheaply

than less well situated fellow landlords. Again, exactly like the

fortunate landlord, the innovating capitalist now receives a “rent”

from the differential in his cost. But this rent is not derived from God-

given advantages in location or fertility. It springs from the will and

intelligence of the innovator, and it will disappear as soon as other

capitalists learn the tricks of the pioneer. The new flow is not

therefore a more or less permanent rent. It is a wholly transient

profit.

An innovation implies an innovator -- someone who is

responsible for combining the factors of production in new ways. This

is obviously not a “normal” businessman, following established

routines. The person who introduces change into economic life is a

representative of another class -- or more accurately, another group,

because innovators do not necessarily come from any social class.

Schumpeter took an old word from the economic lexicon and used it to

describe these revolutionists of production. He called them

‘entrepreneurs.’ Entrepreneurs and their innovating activity were

thus the source of profit in the capitalist system. [Sans

entrepreneurial activity, Schumperter’s analysis bared inflations’

endemism as paradoxically as its complement, ‘the iron cage of

wages.’]


R. L. Heibroner’s comment about the nature of Smiths market

system is now better understood as a static circular flowing system. And

Heilbroner’s analysis of Adam Smith’s economic system applies also, more

directly, to classical tenets of natural conservatism:95

In a sense his system presupposes that eighteenth-century England will

remain unchanged forever. Only in quantity will it grow: more

people, more goods, more wealth; its quality will remain unchanged.

His are the dynamics of a static community; it grows but it never

matures.Schumpeter’s Static economic circular flow presents the core holistic

view of Smith’s economy. And, important is that taking profit from the

static system, cause trade offs, of taking from other parts of the system.

Parrington noted this as taking from ‘Paul’ to give to ‘Peter’, which he

described as the fly in Whiggish honey? Parrington also described how

politics was adapted to sponsor business interests, as Eric Hoffer also

observed, to make politics a profitable enterprise:96

Citizens had saved the government in the trying days that were past; it

was only fair in return that government should aid the patriotic citizen

in the necessary work of developing national resources. It was

paternalism as understood by speculators and subsidy-hunters, but

was it not a part of the great American System that was to make the

country rich and self-sufficient? The American System had been

talked of for forty years; it had slowly got on its feet in pre-war days

despite the stubborn planter opposition; now at last it had fairly come

into it own. The time was ripe for the Republican party to become a

fairy godmother to the millions of Beriah Sellerses throughout the

North and the West.

[Whigs’ paternal political pork barrel was installed]

Despite the evolution which gave our nation deterministic paternalism via

‘The American System of Economy,’ truth about ‘shadows instead of reality’

remains in our dogma, as parrington reported:


However, if Schumpeter’s analysis is ‘true’ (others, as Ricardo and Malthus verified'

that it is) taking profits without providing valued entrepreneurial advantages that

directly justify the profits, irrationally robs value from the production of goods and

services.

However attractive the disguises it may assume, it is in essence the

logical creed of the profit philosophy. It is the expression in'

politics of the acquisitive instinct and it assumes as the greatest good

the shaping of public policy to promote private interests. It asserts

that it is a duty of the state to help its citizens to make money, and it

conceives of the political state as a useful instrument for effective

exploitation. How otherwise? The public good cannot be served

apart from business interests for business interests are the public good

and in serving business the state is serving society. Everybodys eggs

are in the basket and they must not be broken. For a capitalistic

society Whiggery is the only rational politics, for it exalts the profit-

motive as the sole object of parliamentary concern. Government has

only to wave its wand and fairy gifts descend upon business like the

golden sands of Pactolus. It graciously bestows its tariffs and

subsidies, and streams of wealth flow into private wells. [Parrington

introduced this thought with: Whiggery springs up as naturally as pigweed

in a garden.]

[a fly in the Whiggish honey]

But unhappily there is a fly in the Whiggish honey. In a

competitive order, government is forced to make its choices. It

cannot serve both Peter and Paul. If it gives with one hand it must

take away with the other. And so the persuasive ideal of paternalism

in the common interest degenerates in practice into legalized

favoritism. Governmental gifts go to the largest investments. Lesser

interests are sacrificed to greater interests and Whiggery comes

finally to serve the lords of the earth without whose good will the


wheels of business will not turn. To him that hath shall be given. If

the few do not prosper the many will starve, and if the many have

bread who would begrudge the few their abundance? In Whiggery

[now cultural dogma of the GOP side of politics] is the fulfillment of

the Scriptures.

[Is this fulfillment, an Armageddon that ever looms?]

Schumpeter’s ‘static circular flow’ analysis answered economic

concerns about profit: He showed that statically neither profit nor inflation

was truly causally endemic to economy. After describing the new rented

value that entrepreneurs gave to ‘circular flow,’ his conclusion was

emphatic: The new flow is not therefore a more or less permanent rent. It

is a wholly transient profit. So, when profits are taken regularly, without

adding entrepreneurial rent value, profit takers surely benefit. However,

without adding entrepreneurial rent value to the ‘circular flow,’ profit-taking

acts like Brockway’s ‘bankers’ COLA,’granting economic benefits to

‘Peter that are taken from Paul.’ Regularly taking profits without adding

directly compensatory entrepreneurial rent value causes paradoxical

phenomenal endemic companions,’ as inflation, to oppositely give the

allusion of balance to the economic ‘circular flow.’ And, despite official

legalities that grant paternalistic rights and privileges to those who

superintend political economy’s privatized mechanisms, uncannily, those

who directly benefit from the paradoxical phenomenal ‘inflation endemism’

intrinsic of the ‘profit taking,’ as legally paternalistically granted, still are

causally responsible for the economic determinism that mechanistically

endemically rapes and pillages wage-earners. Critical economic observers --

notably Franklin, Ricardo, Malthus, Weber -- indicted this economic

determinism for imposing ‘the iron cage of wages.’ Schumpeter’s ‘static

circular flow’ analysis causally therefore, gave reasoned evidence why

graduated general revenue taxation is both justified and necessary.

Putting inflation’s cost onto general revenue taxes is the only rational

causal place for recovering the economic endemism that was

paternalistically granted as unearned benefits only to the investment


class of ‘superintendents’ of privatized political economy. Rationally,

this causal change order should soon be resolved!

By cutting inflation’s cost from the SS contribution taxes, the

contribution rates would be vastly reduced (maybe as much as 80 to 90

percent), and still satisfy the SS’s inflation free benefit requirements.

The systemic regressiveness of SS taxation would then be mitigated.

And if contribution taxes were then applied to all income, SS benefits

could be greatly enhanced: and also include ‘social usage’ funding for

other areas of income security.

Another aspect on Shumperter’s ‘static circular flow’ analysis shows

clearly that deontological (not teleological, i.e, entrepreneurial) profit-

taking is mechanism-based. Organic profit-taking that is not

entrepreneurial is teleologically invalid: affirming it as valid, as97

federalist-Whigs have done, is an inrational but effective economic lie.

Shumperter’s analysis confirms that the SS system, as a mutual insurance

form, is teleological, while Unitary Materialism-based economic

mechanisms are deontological. Mitigating the paradoxical phenomena

caused by this irrational political economy, by ‘social usage’ (a mutual

insurance form) is not only rational, it is necessary.

Anyway, teleological analysis is convincing. The birth counts of

any large existing group do not pose a threatening problem for the SS

System. Instead, the threat to SS is from ideological sophistries of

mechanist deontological politics: due to classicists of The American System

of Political Economy that fail to follow Adam Smith’s ethical creed

regarding wage-earned production. The political, mechanist design has

entrapped consumers into paying by consuming the full cost of economic

inflation endemism (Those consuming to subsist and not required to pay SS

contributions, are reimbursed by enuring capital returns that enhance their

income). This deontological duty was systemically and covertly

accomplished, in the manner, which John Maynard Keynes had astutely

portrayed:98

By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate,

secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their

citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the


existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process

engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of

destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is

able to diagnose. Keynes

Parrington had documented the Federalist designs ‘to devise legal springs’

(legal entrapments) of (constitutional teleologies).99




age. James Kent, whose long life and ripe legal learning were devoted

to upholding what he conceived to be the ultimate principles of law

and politics, was the chief political thinker of the transition days of

New York. A desciple of Locke and Blackstone, remodeling



unsurveyed frontiers of the Ameican experiment, assigning exact metes

and bounds beyond which it should not go. Like John Marshall and

Joseph Story he was expert in devising legal springs to catch unwary

democrats, and while the Jeffersonians were shouting over their

victories at the polls, he was engaged in the strategic work of placing

the Constitution under the narrow custodianship of the English law.

An ardent Federalist and later an equally ardent Whig, he reveals in

his precise thinking the intimate relations that everywhere exist

between economics, politics, and [affirmed] legal principles. [The

irrationalism affirmed as principles should be identified and untied

mechanistically]

Validating my proposed critical theses

The problem is this:

The BabyBoom’s rounded factual aggregate birth count, as recorded

between 1946 and 1965, is 77 million. Birth facts do not and cannot

99 Validating the proposed critical theses

randomly increase, and only mortality, at any age, reduces the birth

count. The BabyBoom’s population is the natural difference of

recorded birth counts naturally reduced by mortality, the rates of which

actuarially are quite arcuately maintained for insurance purposes. And,

therefore, only mortality rates are actuarially needed to reliably

establish the anticipated life schedule for the BabyBoom’s retirement

population. With SS retirement eligibility shifted to age 67, upwards of

seven million births are delayed from entering the retirement

population. The BabyBoom’s population of natural births, age 67 and over,

peaks, for a short period, at about 42 million (sans immigrations and

emigrations that are population after facts that also can be eligible for SS

insurance):

---- 31 million retirees (age 65-4) were counted in 1990, 100

35 million in 2000. 101

The Census Bureau’s ratio projection, which might have been based

on the zero population growth theory, cited in 1983, is ‘false’:102

The ratio of the working age population . . . to the retirement age

population will begin an unprecedented decline. The nation had 5.3

people of working age in 1982 for every person 65 or older. The ratio

is projected to drop to 4.7 in 2000 and to 2.4 in 2080.[Population facts now show that the ratio did not drop in 2000.]

The only fact of this cited scenario is this: ‘The nation had 5.3 people of

working age in 1982 for every person 65 or older.’ All the rest is asserted

fiction of projection rather than of fact, which politically intended to infer

that SS was not a workable system. This politics, maybe deliberately, failed,

however, to consider that the worker to retiree ratio, was at the time,

conflicted by the system’s immaturity, which independent start-up concern

had a profound influence on the ratio of concern. With the SS system now

mature, facts show the ratio did not drop in 2000. It improved. And by

shifting eligibility to age 67, keeps the ratio at or above 4.39:1, close to the

ratio in 1982 (5.3:1). Inflation’s endemism is a far greater economic

problem than is the BabyBooms’ demographics. Causally, inflation, which

returns as business capital, directly relates to the nation’s paternal


mechanized grant of profit taking by the private businesses, and, oppositely

is directly related to the nation’s paternal administration of the economic

circular flowing SS contributions taxes: adjusting (i.e., Indexing) for

inflation that impacts on SS benefits, which is proper, politically has

resulted in double taxation from wage-earners who pay SS contribution

taxes, which is improper since SS does not cause inflation, endemically

or directly. Political paternal granting of profit taking should only relate to

entrepreneurial business activity but has become a paternal business

entitlement, which precedence allows a diminished amount of capital for

wage-earned income from economic productions. Therefore, the results of

this disparity must be recompensed: both the SS contribution’s tax

surplus, spent as general government revenue, and inflation’s

endemism, which mechanistically is transformed into capital returns

directly to businessws from produced consumption, both must be

recompensed! Politically, and falsely, inflation’s economic effect on SS

benefits, was irrationally loaded onto SS contribution taxes, and to be

rational, must be recompensed from general revenue taxation.

Validations:

Thesis 1) Effectively, the following table shows that the ratio of

workers to retirees, remains higher than statistical experience in 1990.

Validation of Thesis 1: SS reached its relative maturity in the late 1970s.

SS began in 1935, and gradually matured as beneficiaries reached age 65:

when a full population complement of beneficiaries became qualified to

receive full SS benefits (workers in 1940 would not qualify for full

retirement benefits until 1980). The system approached maturity in the

late1970s coincident with a mini boom demographic, the notch babies’

eligibility for full SS benefits. Before 1980, statistics are not typical of the

mature SS system, i.e., systemic coherence as fiducially appraised, fails as

necessary systemic reality: for instance, back when the average age of

mortality was age 50, the number of workers compared to those 65 and older

was very large (And as our young nation began, the ratio of workers to


All birth counts of my model are registered facts, which are conservatively'

reduced by actuarial determined mortality rates!

retirees probably might have exceeded 200:1), but this circumstance has no

logical nexus to the circumstances of SS in the twenty first century.

Similarly, to assume that requirements for SS today had anything to do with

the facts in 1945 (that 42 workers existed for every retiree) also has no

relative significance to the now mature SS system. And while the ratio in

1982 (5.3:1), might, for various reasons, be a little high, in reality, it is a

benchmark (a standard) of the now mature SS system. Recent

demographical facts prove the ratio did not drop in 2000 as, in ‘82, had

officially, fallaciously been projected and cited. Then, with the shift to age

67 (other circumstances not considered), the ratio remains above 4.39

(shaded ratios apply and the applicable ratio for 2015 is between 5.29 and

5.49 depending on conversion to age 67). My mature system’s model,

shows that the following shaded ratios apply: '

Year

Ages

1990 2000 2010 2015 2025 2050

18-64 5.15 5.88 6.06 5.29 4.22 5.43

18-66 5.23 6.13 6.29 5.49 4.39 5.59

Thesis 2) Social Security is teleological ‘social usage’ virtue that

mitigates a major paradox (vice) of the mechanist political economy: SS’s

static circular flowing ‘social usage’ ensures sustenance income during the

retired years of each wage-earner’s life. And causally, paying for the

inflation COLAs related to SS benefits is a responsibility far more related to

income from profits routinely legally granted to be taken from returning

capital from consumed business productions, which capital is not subjected

to SS contribution taxation, but is rewarded by the legally consumed enuring

capital from inflation endemism. This comment is from Part III:


With classical political economy’s extra fair accounting treatments, profit,

taken as an absolute right of business owners, now exceeds 10 percent of the

‘gross personal income (or ‘Gross National income’).

Increases in GDP during the twentieth century averaged 4

percent while inflation averaged 3 percent. Taken together, the103

classical practice of cost accounting inflation’ endemism to consumption,

which then, at points of consumption (sale), is returned to the capital side of

accounting (i.e., then bypasses wage-earning that was involved in

productions), while acting to increase ‘National income,’ covertly also acts

to put inflation’s economic cost only onto consumption (the average 4

percent growth in GDP, plus the 3 percent average inflation’s consumer cost,

which returns to business owners, as enured capital) mysticly eases the

effects of taking 10 percent profits from GDP’s ‘gross personal income,’ as

classically accounted and taken from business capital accounts, while

inflation’s cost burden (economy’s negative impact) is covertly

mechanistically born only by consumers: mostly wage-earners. Maybe said

more novelly, if the 3 percent inflation effect did not enure as returning

capital, then included in business owners high profit take from GDP, taking

10 percent profit from a diminished ‘Gross’ economic growth would

necessarily require a greater offset taken from Parrington’s Paul’s ‘wage-

earned personal income’ [which aggregated wages and salaries is listed104

separately in the Analysis of U.S. National Income by Type of Income (page

8)]: the ‘iron cage’ of “Paul’s” wages and salaries would necessarily be

more directly restricted by capitalists’ demand for profit.

Validation of Thesis 2: maybe disappointing is that SS is not a savings

account or that, to retain the simple, direct, teleological mutual (social

usage) insurance basis of SS, not-for profit-systems cannot properly be

managed in the classical mechanist ‘for profit’ manner (the greatest

difference involves profit, which incidently is not a valid necessary

consideration of the static economic circular flow). And because of this, we

need be aware that SS is not only more efficient: its administrative cost is

only about 2% of revenue, with 98% of the non surplus collections

distributed as benefits. But also, profits taken from so called for-profit


The notch babies drew the fortuitous short straw of this scenario: their SS'

benefits were lower than were usually paid. And shamelessly this

circumstance was ignored.

economic mechanisms is causally a growing source of inflation’s endemism.

And when comparing economic growth, sans the inflation, the nation’s net

economic growth for the twentieth century was then an anemic 1 percent:

just a little less than early Greeks had hypothesized as ‘true’ economic

growth in pace with population increases.

Thesis 3) Neither were the SS bankruptcy charges ‘true‘ nor does

paying retirement benefits’ to the BabyBoom, when they come due,

endanger SS.

Validation of Thesis 3: the ‘necessary’ systemic realities of SS cannot

logically be concluded from hypothesized projections and trends. For

instance, often now, officials assert this fallacy as a fact:

‘When the BabyBoom retires, there will not be enough workers to

support them in retirement.’ [SS’s political opposition to SS, with

preemptive encouragement, commonly asserts this ‘false’ anticipation.]

SS’s political opposition has reasserted this fallacy since when SS was

adopted: reasserted it during the 1980s, and now often despite factual

evidences, which show that it is ‘false.’ In 1983-1984, this fallacious

assertion had embroiled the retirement debate of another factual mini

demographic birth wave and this fallacy was taken as evidence and the

commonly affirmed fallacy was again certified. *

* SS had reached maturity coincidently as the notch babies’ retirement

wave, born between 1918-1926, presented a particularly heavier benefit

burden on the pay-as-you-go SS system. At the critical time when SS was'

experiencing this increased benefit’s burden, the conservative Congress

had changed the nation’s fiscal accounting year, adding months of SS

benefits’ expenses without additional contribution tax collections to

accommodate the added months to the fiscal year: the administrative


politics, which otherwise was faced with running huge federal deficits, then

seized the opportunity to declare SS Bankrupt.

Based on this fiscal scenario, the SS contribution tax rates were loaded to

accumulate surplus (ostensibly to make SS a pay-for-yourself system for

when the BabyBoom retired). However, none of this surplus went to

equally pay retirement benefits to the then retiring ‘notch babies.’

Thesis 4) Inflation’s endemism endangers political economy as it also

does Social Security: taking profits, that are not directly related to adding

entrepreneurial value to mechanisms of political economy, is maybe

inflation’s primary cause that also causes SS benefits to increase. Inflation

costs loaded onto the SS benefits must be recompensed.

Thus, exactly as Ricardo or Mill foresaw, ‘in a static economy there

is no place for profit! [R. L. Heilbroner on Shumperter]

Without adding entrepreneurial value to economy, taking profits endemically

take value from labor-based wage earning. Labor has nothing to do with

inflation’s endemism. Therefore, inflation’s cost must be recompensed from

general revenues taxation, as necessarily levied on a graduated scale of non

wage-earned income.

Validation of Thesis 4: Since SS did not and cannot mechanistically

cause inflation, the inflation portion of benefits cost put onto SS

contributions, also must be separated from SS’s contributions taxation.

And this inflation’s cost put onto SS, in total, should be recompensed

from general tax revenues. High end incomes, beyond the SS taxation

caps, not only do not pay for the inflation they cause, as a class they are

inflation’s main cause. And economically, inflation benefits them:

Therefore, graduated rates of general revenue taxation should

completely pay for the SS inflation load. And, as well, recompense

inflation’s endemic effects causally related to “the iron cage of wages”

effect.

Thesis 5) Inflation endemism’s effects on wages must also be

recompensed. If wages kept pace with inflation, the median family wage


earned in 2000 would be 3.1 times greater than median wages paid in 1975

($19,480 white w 1-3 yrs of college ): more than $60,000.105 106

Validation of Thesis 5 is provided by the Endnotes.

Thesis 6) Real economic growth (growth sans inflation’s endemism) is

population growth related.

Better teleology for workers now mechanistically (casually by determinism

of an ‘iron law of wages’) made to pay the SS benefits’ inflation put onto the

SS contributions tax, is for Congress to fulfill its Constitution-VESTED

POWERS [section 8. (5)] and as reasserted in 1978 by the Humphrey-

Hawkins law: to contain inflation by setting fixed regulation and trade

standards and restrict banking rates of interest.

I suspect the ‘golden ratio’ [Phi (N)], which early Greeks found had

natural application to population growth, also naturally applies to our

capitalist economy: to rid it of systemic inflation’s endemism.

Mathematically, ‘the golden rule of consumption,’ in which growth in107

economy equals growth in population and consumption is maximized, is

nearly in balance when the ‘golden ratio’ [Phi (N)] applies to economic

growth. An irrational number like B, N approximately has the decimal value

1.618. If Congress accepted its constitutional teleological charge to regulate

the value coin and trade (thereby control inflation), investments in

production and wage-earning would shift away from the casino economy of

fluctuating markets into real economy of productions and consumption. A

dollar earned would retain its inflation neutral economic value. And SS

contribution rates would be but a fraction of present inflated rates.

Validation of Thesis 6: the following statement of recent research results,

was made on TV during October of 2003: ‘Over the last century, average

economic growth was 4%, inflation 3%.’ To these facts of research, my

deliberate commentary is added: economic growth measures the national

increase in non earned economic value (shares of corporate profits by

investors in fluctuating markets, for instance), while inflation measures the

national increase in aggregated consumer costs. Economic growth is


enhanced by capital returns from consumed inflation to effect non earned

affluence, while inflation in consumer costs negatively effects wages-earned

in two ways (as goods and services are necessarily consumed to subsist and

by the effects on wages-earned because of owner profit-taking that exceeds

the sum of economic growth and inflation): systemically, mechanistically

‘giving to business owner-investors by taking from wage-earner-consumers.’

Thesis 7) Adam Smith’s market-based system of economy is far more

promising now than when Smith had proposed it. Schumpeter’s analysis and

conclusion provided principled keys for assuring long running economic

growth: 108




was the beginning of capitalism. Therefore, we must examine the

characteristics of the circular flow a little more carefully. . . .

Profits he said, did not arise from exploitation of labor or from

the earnings of capital. They were the result of quite another process.

‘Profits appeared in a static economy when the circular flow failed

to follow its routinized course.’ [And profits routinely taken, despite

entrepreneurial activity, as now is commonly a classical political economy

sanctioned (legalized) business right, causes the static circular flow fail to

respect labor’s contribution to producing goods and services.] . . .







traced either to the contribution of labor or of resourse owners.’. . .

Schumpeter took an old word from the economic lexicon and

used it to describe these revolutionists of production. He called them



thus the source of profit in the capitalist system. [Sans entrepreneurial

activity, Schumperter’s analysis showed inflations’ endemism as

paradoxically as its determined complement, ‘the iron cage of wages.’] By cutting out all unnecessary paradoxical inflation causes, we must restore

and preserve Adam Smith’s ‘economic baby.’

The validation of Thesis 7 was made by quoting Heilbroner on

Schumperter.

Thesis 8) Only by its fundamental spiritual aspect, which added to a

material visceral body, often called dualism, does democratic philosophy

(Rational Empiricism) diverge from Fascism and Communism. When we,

by official actions or licensing of privatized mechanisms, disband dualism

teleology, and instead make unitary materialist deontology our antecedent

principle (our king), we no longer can claim that a dualism of democratic

antecedents are our principles. 109

‘Rational Empiricism,’ the philosophic basis of democracy, believes

that the world is both material and spiritual. It holds that change and

progress occur by applying reason to experience, and human nature

can be changed and improved by experience. On the basis of these

principles, democracy stresses discussion and the use of reason as a

way of arriving at conclusions. It emphasizes the importance of

tolerance and freedom in developing intelligent, loyal citizens.

We should respect the material part of democracy for providing

temporal bounties, but also must regard its natural limitations with regard to

truth and virtue: didn’t Bertrand Russell logically prove that unitary

materialist truth was nothing but imagined fallacy? : 110



called ‘facts,’ it would not contain any truths, in the sense in which

truths are things of the same kind as falsehoods. In fact, truth and

falsehood are properties of beliefs and statements; hence a world of


mere matter, since it would contain no beliefs or statements, would

also contain no truth or falsehood.With Unitary Materialism asserted dogmatically and, thereby, the

deduced nihilist ‘positivism’ in both fascism and communism, their cultural

failure was destined because of the dogmatic unitary materialist belief.

Without dualism-based rational teleology, there is only meaningless facts!

The context here requires no further Validation.

Thesis 9) Natural Causal Realities require natural Principles, the

logical keys of which are ‘true’ antecedence, necessity and coherence.

Validation of Thesis 9: Tautologically, only democratic principles in this

review qualify as principled antecedence while GOP Republicans’ Whiggish

ambitions mostly only qualify as either the denial of necessary antecedent

principles or fallacious affirmations of unnecessary consequents: both of

which logically clearly bereft of dualism, represent only dogmatic

irrationalism.

From their respective philosophical postures, each Political Party

argues that they best serve the interests of the nation. Unfortunately, too

little thought, and less dedication, is given to holistic solving problems of

our macro economy that constitutionally intends that ‘all’ are served. Our

politics, in fact, has become enterprise, as E. Hoffer observed:111

When a mass movement begins to attract people who are interested in

their individual careers, it is a sign that it has passed its vigorous

stage; that it is no longer engaged in molding a new world but in

possessing and preserving the present. It ceases to be a movement and

becomes an enterprise.

And prominently, our holistic macro-economy is ignored because the micro

‘special interest’ political desires of affluence are to sustain the American

System’s paternalism that has government expending effort and taxes to open

international markets to business enterprise: simply an ever expanding

dimension of American System paternalism, emanating from the Whiggish

designed Gilded-Age-federal ‘poker game’ that naturally leaves those bereft

of their ‘poker stake’ disfranchised and on the sidelines of the nation’s

109256 Preserving Economic Baby

While everyone favors economic growth, those not benefiting from it have'

good reason to react to the irrational results put upon them. Wage-earners

would undoubtedly settle the smaller portion, however, must decry the

excesses of economic exploitation in which, for instance, inflations’ endemism

is put onto SS and medical insurance.

economic progress, and many more losers clinging on but without political

standing (without effective political representation in government) -- it is

explicitly a tyranny of the masses.

However, before open mind sets become dogma convinced by orthodoxy, we

need carefully to contemplate the System that Adam Smith gave to us.


(Coping with the Economic Paradoxs of Mechanism)

To mitigate the legally licensed politically exploitative deontological results

of government’s fiction-based American System mechanisms’ paradoxs,

social usage programs are required. However, infusing mitigating

teleologies is always vigorously met with politics of those directly value

benefiting from idealistic deontologies of wedge politics.

We have social usage-based workers’ compensation, pensions,

crop-hail and flood insurance, and Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

We have a Constitution which specifies a Bill of Rights and equal protection

under law. However, we lack common philosophical reason (exercised

political opinions are far too often irrational and also violate oaths of office

that are taken) to support the original constitutional American teleology of

‘equal protection’ under law (the constitutional Categorical Imperative).

And, to be effective, this Imperative is essential for democratic teleology.

But, while casting out the dirty bathwater (irrational unitary materialist-

mechanist dogmas endemic of the fallacious belief that axiomatically

supplants constitutional teleology, as if it were the antecedent of teleology),

we must preserve our mechanism-based deontological ‘economic baby ’:'

The American System of Political Economy. *

* While everyone should favor economic growth, those not benefiting from

it have rationally good reason to react the irrational results put upon them.


Wage-earners would undoubtedly settle for their smaller portion, however

must rationally decry the excesses of economic exploitation in which, for

instance, inflation’s endemism is irrationally mechanistically assigned to SS

and medical insurance.

And this is why centrist politics, with rationally antecedent principles

instilled, are of necessity to democracy: only democracy offers philosophy

that rationally balances the dual spiritual and material aspects of human life.

Irrationally, socialism, fascism and capitalism aggrandize unitary

materialism: life’s sum (its spiritual essence) is denied, conflated, belittled

or equivocated. And while Whigs have done this, we cannot blame our

plight on the politics that founded the GOP: Abraham Lincoln’s politics. In

his letter to H. L. Prince, Lincoln cited Jefferson’s logical fidelity to

antecedent principles, for instance.112

“Remembering . . . that the Jefferson party was formed upon its

supposed superior devotion to the personal rights of men, holding the

rights of property to be secondary only, and greatly inferior . . . it will

be . . . interesting to note how completely the two [parties] have

changed hands as to the principles upon which they were originally

supposed to be divided. The Democracy of today hold the liberty of

one man to be absolutely nothing, when in conflict with another’s

right to property [as Democrats’ politics of slavery had done];

Republicans on the contrary, are for both the man and the dollar, but

in case of conflict the man before the dollar [is Lincoln’s ‘true’ appraisal

of Jeffersonian democracy]. . . . But, soberly, it is now no child’s play to

save the principles of Jefferson from total overthrow in this nation. . . .

The principles of Jefferson are the principles and axioms of free

society and yet they are denied and evaded, with no small show of

success. One dashingly calls them ‘glittering generalities.’ Another

bluntly calls them ‘self-evident lies!’ And others insidiously argue that

they apply to ‘superior races.’ These expressions, differing in form,

are identical in object and effect -- the supplanting the principles of

free government, and restoring those of classification, caste, and

legitimacy. . . . They are the vanguard, the miners and sappers of


returning despotism. We must repulse them or they will subjugate

us.” [By returning us to Sixteenth century dogmatism]

Also Schumperter’s finding that our economic system is young and flexible

but needs rational attending, we should bear in mind. 113

The model resembles the stationary state envisaged by Ricardo and

Mill, with the difference that the stationary state seemed the end of

capitalism to the earlier writers, whereas for Schumpeter it was the

beginning of capitalism. Therefore we must examine the

characteristics of the circular flow a little more carefully.Clearly, our unequal democratic society has neither rationally attended to our

economic system nor to our human spiritual reality, upon which culturally

truth and knowledge are naturally dependent. Instead, in acquisitive

aggrandizements of Unitary Materialism, we mostly subscribe

irrationalisms, as the glorious Epicurean Paradox had expressed:

‘give us the luxuries of life, and we will dispense with its necessaries.’

Oliver Wendell Holmes

Befitting this Epicurean Paradox, issuing from Political Economy’s paternal

license and privilege, Whiggish irrationalism increases relatively with

inflation’s endemism. Society now bears what we commonly call ‘society’s

haves,’ which most all now aspire for.

Henry Clay’s full blown Whiggish American System was installed by the

GOP following Abraham Lincoln’s death. The deontology of this privatized

unitary materialist mechanist system, as was fundamental to mercantilism,

was designed to politically grant federal paternalism to productive business

entities in faith that all in society would benefit economically, which faith

alone has never been fulfilled, particularly among the wage-earning class

(But wage-earning production was then made irrelevant to economic growth,

which has phenomenally occurred to benefit society’s haves). H. Clay

sponsored and his classical Whiggish followers affirmed this trickle down

fallacy as the American System of Political Economy’s essential pseudo

principle. Mercantilism’s determinism was fitted in to contend many

subliminal things, in which orthodox dogma is also appended: for instance,

‘money is wealth,’ instead of its original exclusive exchange utility, and as


Adam Smith observed, ‘in the mercantile system, the interest of the

consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer.’ The114

systemic irrationalism constantly perpetrated (which only covertly cause

Desiderius) paradoxically effect the naturally inviolate human free will, as

Schumpeter inferred, were expressed as complaints, or as terrorism.

Thorstein Veblen wrote The Theory of Business Enterprise: 115

[It] came out in 1904. . . . the point of view that it advocated seemed

to fly in the face of common sense. Every economist from the days of

Adam Smith had made of the capitalist the driving figure in the

economic tableau; whether for better or worse, he was generally

assumed to be the central generator of economic progress. But with

Veblen all this was turned topsy-turvy. The businessman was still the

central figure, but no longer the motor force. Now he was portrayed

as the ‘saboteur’ of the system!

Needless to say, it was a strange perspective on society that

could produce so disconcerting a view. Veblen did not begin , as

Ricardo or Marx or the Victorians, with the clash of human interests;

he began at a stage below, in the non human substratum of

technology. What fascinated him was the machine (unitary materialist

causality that is called mechanism). He saw society as dominated by

the machine, caught up in its standardization, timed to its regular

cycle of performance, geared to it insistence on accuracy and

precision. More than that, he envisaged the economic process itself

as being basically mechanical in nature. Economics meant

production, and production meant the machine like meshing of society

as it turned out goods. Such a social machine would need tenders, of

course -- technicians and engineers to make whatever adjustments

were necessary to ensure the most efficient cooperation of the parts.

But from an overall view, society could best be pictured as a gigantic

but purely matter-of-fact mechanism, a highly specialized, highly

coordinated human clockwork.


But where would the businessman fit into such a scheme? For

the businessman was interested in making money, whereas the

machine and it engineer masters knew no end except making goods. If

the machine functioned well and fitted together smoothly, where would

there be a place for a man whose only aim was profit?

Ideally, there would be none. The machine was not concerned

with values and profits; it ground out goods. Hence the businessman

would have no function to perform -- unless he turned engineer. But

as a member of the leisure class he was not interested in engineering;

he wanted to accumulate. And this was something the machine was

not set up to do at all. So the businessman achieved his end, not by

working within the framework of the social machine, but by conspiring

against it. His function was not to help make goods, but to cause

breakdowns in the regular flow of output so that values would

fluctuate and he could capitalize on the confusion to reap a profit. *

* Particularly, the mortgage banking business proves this: providing teaser

rates of adjustable interest, and of course fully charging for the closing costs,

then soon thereafter offering a higher fixed rate to curtail rising adjustable

rates, and again fully charging for closing costs. Closing costs amortized

over time are a causal source of consumed inflation.

A few years later, Schumperter proved Veblen’s view: the following passage

is repeated: 116





in charge of the government’s Gilded Age officially had installed the

American System of Political economy’s administrations along with its

pork barrel ‘internal improvement’ paternalism]. Schumperter’s book

was about another kind of development -- the way in which capitalism

develops its propensities for growth. Scholarly in tone and tedious in

style (a lite from time to time with lightning flashes), the book would


not strike the casual reader as being of much political importance.

Yet this academic treatise was destined to become the basis for one of

the most influential interpretations of capitalism ever written.

The exposition begins in Schumpeter’s contradictory way. It is

a book about capitalist growth and dynamics, but it opens with a

depiction of a capitalist economy in which growth is totally absent.

Schumpeter’s initial portrait describes a capitalism that lacks the very

ingredient that brought growth into the worlds of Smith and Mill and

Marx and Keynes -- namely, the accumulation of capital. Schumpeter

describes instead a capitalism sans accumulation -- a capitalism

whose flow of production is perfectly static and changeless,


creation of wealth.




was the beginning of capitalism. Therefore we must examine the

characteristics of the circular flow a little more carefully. Because

the system has no momentum, inertia is the rule of its economic life:

“All knowledge and habit, once acquired,” writes Schumpeter,

“becomes as firmly rooted in ourselves as a railway embankment in

the earth.” Thus having found by trial and error the economic course

that is most advantageous for ourselves, we repeat it by routine.

Economic life may have originally been a challenge; it becomes a

habit.


removed all earnings that exceed the value of anyone’s contribution to

output. This means that competition among employers will force them

to pay their workers the full value of the product they create, and that

owners of land or other natural wealth will likewise receive as rents

whatever value their resources contribute. So workers and


landowners will get their shares in the circular flow. And capitalists?

Another surprise. Capitalists will receive nothing, except their wages

as management. That is because any contribution to the value of

output that was derived from capital goods they owned would be

entirely absorbed by the value of labor that went into making those



profit!


say strained -- image of the system? Perhaps we have the static

circular already divined the purpose behind his method: the model of

a static capitalism is an attempt to answer the question of where

profits come from.







have to explain why the profits went to the owner of the machine, not

to its inventor or user. Mill suggested that profits were the reward for

the “abstinence” of capitalists, but he did not explain why capitalists

were entitled to a reward for an activity that was clearly in their own

interest. Still other economists described profits as the earnings of

“capital,” speaking as if the shovel itself were paid for its contribution

to output. Marx, of course, said that Smith was right in the first place

though he didn’t know it -- that profits were a deduction from the

actual value created by the working man. But that was part of the

labor theory of value which everyone knew to be wrong and therefore

did not have to be reckoned with.






circular flow failed to follow its routinized course.’ [And profits routinely taken, despite entrepreneurial activity, as now

commonly is a classical paternalism of political economy’s sanctioned

business right, preempts just rewards to labor: fails to respect labor’s

productive contribution.]


















profit.











thus the source of profit in the capitalist system. [Sans entrepreneurial

activity, inflations’ endemism is introduced, as its paradoxical complement,

‘the iron cage of wages,’ also is.] Whenever profits, by paternalist license are taken from political

economy’s privatized mechanisms and are not entrepreneurial justified, the

paradoxical complement, ‘the iron cage of wages,’ is also endemic of

paternalist license to economic results.

About Whigs’ mechanist philosophy, G. P. Brockway wrote this:117

Once the universe was running like a clock, there was nothing for it

but to fit us to a wheel in the works -- perhaps a greater thing than a

cog, but mechanical nevertheless. For us to be fit for this function,

psychology had to subject us to mechanical controls. Or, as J. W.

Miller said, we had first to lose our souls, then our minds; finally, with

the behaviorists, consciousness. Economic man is a prime example

of this remarkable servomechanism.The covert fallacious paternal official policies are thereby politically applied

to nomos-defined property [which include mechanisms, capital, machinery,

labor (which is a form of slavery), . . . ], and they deliberately intended to

transpose constitutional teleological necessary purposes into nomos-based

deontological duties, causing myriad Desiderius to adversely effect natural

human sovereignties and rights. Henry Clay had the vision, but men like

John Calhoun rhetorically provided the fallacious affirmations that appealed

to society: Whigs designed the American political economy to cater

individual and corporate property interests in the accumulation function of

political economy. Calhoun’s rationalized argument for democracy as

patterned on Greek democracy justified wage-earners as the slaves of the

Whiggish political economy. Parrington gave this sample of Calhoun, a

prolific political thinker and orator.118


The true origin of government, he asserted in common with John

Adams, is to be found in practical necessity . . . It has always been

found necessary to lodge coercive powers in certain hands as a social

protection against individual aggression. Since all men are impelled

by self interest, political systems are determined in form and scope by

this universal instinct. Without government there is anarchy; with

government there is[ Tpeortreonritsimal, tmyroastn pnryo.b ably is caused by imposed tyranny]

Speaking of Jefferson Davis, who northern conservatives called a terrorist,

Parrington, bared the underbelly of this northern irrationalism:119

The president of the Confederacy may have been an unfortunate civil

leader, but the slanders that so long clung to his name are only worthy

of the gutter. The sin that he was led into was not counted a sin in his

southern decalogue; it was the sin, not of secession, but of

imperialism--a sin common to all America in those drunken times

when the great West invited explo[bitya tmioenan. s of paternalist license, no less!]

--- Is American society still afflicted by political divisions caused by

exploitative interests in gold’s glitter, timber, grazing, recreation and such on

public lands whose proprietor is the consented authority, which has licensed

the exploitations, i.e., by creating special interests of paternally licensed

private businesses to exploit the commonwealth’s resources?

--- What is the commonweal interest? (Parrington commented,):

In the year 1825 three streams of tendency were flowing through the

[American mind], rising from different sources, incompatible in spirt

and purpose, strong in their diverse appeals; and in the end the major

current was certain to engulf the lesser. The humanitarianism of

Virginia, the individualism of the new West, and the imperialism of the

Black Belt might seem to mingle their waters for a time, but there

would be confusions of thought and diversity of counsels until one or

another had worn a deeper channel through which the dominant

opinion might run. There could be no more fascinating study in the

economics of political theory than the changing mind of the South

during the critical decades from 1825 to 1850, as it followed the


course determined by its peculiar institution. . . . It is unintelligent to

charge upon southern politicians a lack of consistency---to point out

that after 1820 Calhoun reversed himself on every major political

principle. It was true of Calhoun, as it was true of Webster and true

of Clay. In a rapidly changing America, with economics in a state of

flux, men were no longer free political agents, guiding themselves by

the fixed stars of accepted theory: they were borne like corks on the

current of the times, and their inconsistency is the surest evidence that

they spoke for their constituents. The North and the South were at the

parting of the ways, and if southern imperialism created for its needs

a philosophy of particularism, it was met by a counter philosophy of

nationalism created for its needs by northern capitalism, which

likewise was following the path of its manifest destiny.R. L. Heilbroner wrote about economic fallacies with this comment: 120

. . . The notions of the great economists were world-shaking and

their mistakes nothing short of calamitous. ---- Are policies less calamitous when officially made by authorities of

government instead of by economists?

---- Do issues confront America in 1996 (or now in 2002) that resulted

from errant American politics that influenced the official policies of

exploitative Imperialism and Manifest Destiny?

---- Are these politics perpetuated as our nation’s Foreign Policy?

--- Is the policy of Preemptive Action (war) related to the irrational

paternalist official Imperialism and Manifest Destiny?

The ongoing political debate about a patient’s right to sue, for

instance, boils down to whether this or that economic entity is given official

paternalist immunity from law suits (‘legal immunity’ as affirmed by

classical Justice is, therefore, also exposed as fallacious irrationalism):

unequal sovereignties and rights in this organic debate, are routinely

politically nomosly decided? As similarly, in affirmed mercantilism,

business is granted the right to exploit consumption, management to exploit

labor, bankers (insurers) to the exploit money’s utility, . . .: Irrational

fallacies! , All! By what right or sovereignty are fallaciously affirmed


vices of dogmatic biases justified? For instance, by what equality of right

or sovereignty can capitalists claim profits produced by labor? (Veblen’s

view as confirmed by Schumpeter’s economic ‘circular flow’ analysis is

about this.) The answer is this: politically irrational inequalities are legally

affirmed policy, fallaciously supplanting rationally ‘antecedent’ principles by

affirming logical ‘consequents’ to replace them: making irrationalism the

basis of law. Politically, what has been inculcated as science, and legally

justified, is devoid of natural antecedence, systemic necessity and coherence.

Therefore, it cannot be ‘true!’: maybe it’s art, but never is it science. About

life’s omnipresent quandary, these definitions and explanations shed light,

on materialism:

Idealism (philosophy) -- belief that all our knowledge is based on ideas and

that it is impossible to know whether there really is a world of objects on

which our ideas are based. Idealism, as opposed to materialism, holds that

objects do not really exist apart from our ideas.121

Idealism conflates life’s essence to a unitary form of materialism! : the

meaning of conflate is critical to understanding that Unitary Materialism

results when materialist politics conflates the essence side of democracy (as

has happened during the G.W. Bush administration): 122

Conflate, v.t. 1. to bring or put together; compose of various elements.

Is idealism logically reasonable? -- it is not! Idealism consistently,

unjustifiably, demeans the omnipresent fiducial purposes of logical reason:

as Kant had challenged philosophers and scientists to produce evidence that

would allow us to make assertions about things we have not actually

experienced. Science is critically important regarding finding and123

retaining truth and knowledge. Ideology’s first definition confirms that

science and ideology are not compatible disciplines: 124

1. A set of doctrines; body of opinions: The majority of teachers and

professors do not teach any ideology (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists) 2. The

combined doctrines, assertions, and intentions of a social or political

movement: i.e., “communist ideology.” 3. Abstract speculation, especially

theorizing or speculation of a visionary or impractical nature. 4. The

science of the origin and nature of ideas. 5. A system of philosophy that

derives all ideas exclusively from sensation

121251 Social Security

[assertions based on empiricism].

Philosophically, democracy cannot exist in an absence of rational human

essence, which absence occurs when unitary materialism is officially

affirmed as the antecedent of reason.

If our materialist political economy ever achieves to sponsor the

investment of SS surplus contributions in fluctuating markets, then wage-

earners’ only savings for retirement will be made into the subject and cause

for greater endemic inflation, i.e., wage-earners will become a causal

accomplice of the mechanists’ inflation endemism. The far better teleology

for workers that, by consuming what they produce, mechanistically are

determined to fully pay for the mechanists’ endemically caused inflation, is

for Congress to fulfill its constitutional charge: reduce inflation by restricting

the Bankers’ COLA along with all other inflation causes. I suspect the

‘golden ratio,’ named Phi (N), that the Greeks found, has natural application

to our capitalist democratic economy: to rid it of systemic inflation.

Mathematically, ‘the golden rule of consumption,’ in which economic125

growth equals population growth (and consumption is maximized), is

nearly in balance when the ‘golden ratio’ applies to economic growth.

An irrational number like B, N approximately has the decimal value of

1.618. If Congress accepted its constitutional teleological charge and126

controlled inflation by eliminating the endemism wherever found,

investments in production growth and wage-earning would shift away from

the casino economy, of fluctuating futures markets, into the real economy of

production and consumption. The dollar would then retain its value.

251 SOCIAL SECURITY

Found among illusive economic perceptions of American Society, Social

Security is a beneficent oddity that centrally the Old Age, Survivors, and

Disability Security System depicts: a beneficent not for profit social usage-

based mechanism designed to operate, without disruption, alongside the

Whiggish ‘for profit’ mechanisms, SS, functions supplement the exploitative

for profit mechanisms of American political economy. Jaded American

society scorns (claims to hate) Socialism: maybe because, as a clearly

expressed form of unitary materialism, the socialist foundation is commonly


Philosophically, democracy (rational empiricism) has the duality of essence'

and materiality, whereas socialism has only Unitary Materialism as its basis.

known? Still, the American System’s capitalism feigns democracy while

also practicing unitary materialism. And so, while Social Security curiously

is thought to be related to socialism, which thought gives feelings of

indigestion to many, American capitalism is more closely related. Despite

its label, Social Security is a pure form of social usage-based Mutual

Insurance with no more socialist tendencies than the Mutual, Grange, Farm

Bureau or Union Insurance Company that functions in most American

neighborhoods: with benefit payments made to current SS beneficiaries

spread onto the social base of wages-earned by the current policyholders of

SS. And, wage-earners are the financial base of the Old Age, Survivors, and

Disability Security System of insurance reserves. Contributions to this

system are the basis for benefit entitlement to eventual retirement annuities.

Insurance, was never more straight forward and direct! But inflation’s

systemic endemism effects on SS benefits are not only extraneous, their

source systemically is completely foreign, which fact has been ignored by

government authority: forty years of compounding inflation effects devastate

an SS benefit value. Politically, this inflation cost was licensed for

collection by SS contributions’ taxation, and it will remain this way until

wage-earners unite politically to demand redress of this economic disparity.

Compounding inflation, has made the problem very big: now in year 2000,

the nation owes wage-earner-contributors to the SS surplus, which began in

1984, something more than $3 trillion, which has routinely been spent as

governments’ revenue.

Wisely, I believe. The designers of privately organized mutual

insurance companies, which operate as form of ‘social usage’, chose not to

name their companies, The ABC Socialized Insurance Company. They did

not because ‘social usage,’ as Roger Williams had defined it was a vestige

of embryonic democracy not socialism. Mutual insurance in the U.S. is'

older than the nation. ‘The Philadelphia Contributorship’ (a mutual fire

insurance company and the first insurance company in the colonies, with

Benjamin Franklin’s support) was founded in 1752. Since then, literally


thousands of Mutual insurance companies, Granges, Farm Bureaus and

Unions were organized by policyholders (the insurance subscribers) whose

common interest and purpose was to spread, or share, particularly defined

individual risks of loss on the whole subscribership financial base (whenever

insurance premiums were insufficient to pay losses, a special premium

assessment then became a necessary subscriber liability). 127

The policyholders own Mutual Insurance companies. All profits are

held for their mutual benefit [and company losses are a mutual

liability]. Many largest U.S. insurance companies are, or were, mutual social

usage-based companies: Society did not pause to ponder the social usage

aspect of mutual insurance, as being a form of Socialism (socializing

insurance losses by social usage does not qualify, in any philosophical

organic sense, as socialism): philosophically, Socialism is a form of organic

Absolute Idealism that practices unitary materialism and, in which the

freedom of choice does not exist. Because the distinguishing factor of

democracy is human dualism (of essence as well as materiality), in fact,

therefore, while unitary materialist commonalities relate to mechanism of

the U.S. economy and to the organic philosophy of communism and fascism,

it fails to apply to the dualism-based social usage principle as was or is

applied to all insurance forms in the U.S.

As our nation began, capital was scarce - frankly did not exist. The

mutual organization was the only viable insurance alternative for most

Americans who desired to enjoy insurance security and otherwise had to

make do without it.

The capitalist unitary materialist objective to ‘grow’ by ‘gaining

from profit’ infused deontological duties to privatized ‘social usage’

insurance mechanisms, and by doing this, teleological mutual ownership was

supplanted by private ownership. (See Schumpeter’s: the way in which

capitalism develops its propensities for growth.)

Poignant stories were commonly told about the unique cooperative manner

in which mutual insurance losses were settled, without implications of law.

Trust prevailed: insurance furnished the materials and policyholders joined

together to repair or rebuild, what had been lost or damaged.


Even with the money hoarding of today, society has not outgrown its

need for mutual insurance (for example, ‘Terrorism Insurance’ is a late

mutual form of informal insurance that is tax based). In fact, private sector

‘for profit’ insurance, has inculcated broad public expectations for economic

redress in ever more frequent instances of loss that private sector ‘for profit

insurance’ is incapable to provide. And, therefore, agencies of the federal

government paternally politically have provided tax based economic redress

to victims of private catastrophic losses of an earthquake, hurricane, flood,

ravages of war, insurrection, and other natural disasters that do not qualify

for or are denied by private sector insurance. To the ever growing list of

natural disasters, the Savings and Loan and Bank bailouts of the 1980s was

added to this category of federal tax-based economic redress (the government

after all, in fact, informally provides a form of mutual insurance of last

resort).

Private insurance defines the policy (the contract of coverage) that is

based on, and balanced with, the financial capability as limited to each

company’s financial capacity. And, natural catastrophic events, more often

now, prove to exceed the aggregated financial capacity of all private

insurance. Katrina, unfortunately, once again in fact, has proved this. Most

tax-based redress of private financial loss (social paternal assists paid by

government agencies) depend on politics and because the lac of formal

contractual risk definition, or a defined contractual social usage base on

which to spread the individual losses, these examples are of aid, and,

therefore, are not considered as insurance, which defacto it is.

Anyway, Benjamin Franklin did not import Socialism to America.

What he imported was the valid insurance concept of spreading risk onto a

social group of voluntary participants. Whether a company is private, stock,

mutual, or government does not change the insurance principal that is, in

fact, social usage based: the fundamental insurance concept, which

Franklin imported, might be stated? :

Risk, specifically defined and sufficiently spread onto a socialized

economic base, is manageable whereas risk which is not socialized

can and at times will devastate, economically, individuals of society.


The overwhelming number of mutual companies that have withstood

loss adversities of centuries offers undeniable evidence that this insurance

principle works. But, to be sure, there are uninsurable risks, the losses of

which can only be redressed by government by social usage of the total

public sector’s tax base. And such social redress is not, any more than

mutual insurance is, a Socialism form. The only difference is that the

ultimate organic league of risk socialization has politically shifted onto our

national federation. ‘Risk-spreading,’ is a legitimate insurance principle that

formally applies only to private sector insurance: cannot apply in

catastrophic instances of property loss. And, if catastrophic risks, which

often defy policy definition, are ever to be insured, the private insurance

business sector must better cooperate with government to provide for it.

This heterogeneous partnership needs much improvement and unwillingness

always has originated in the private sector more than from government.

Organic rights paternalistically granted, as often are politically achieved, get

in the way of reason: what society, by way of government without cost to

private businesses, paternally has allowed in realty and security, experience

has shown, are then legally adjudged as the businesses’ own private

property? *

* For instance, in The End of Economic Man, G. P. Brockway called

attention to the organic financial grant, which private business claims to own

by way of freely given license to business economic productions: wages that

are paid only after each pay period is completed. Brockway described this

organic grant as a free front end loan with each pay period, which in fact is a

continuous loan that the productive wage-earners make to their employer.

With this fact in mind, wage-earners that start pennyless are often put into

crisis situations, which force onto them prospects of obtaining usury-based

loans from a growing, thriving paternally licensed private business sector

that charges from eight to 15 percent, per week, (which at the low end

amounts to 416 percent yearly interest) for what is called a paycheck loan.

The ultimate solution to this growing problem rests mostly on the redress of

the organic paternal license modification to businesses, which allow free

front end wage-earned work without pay: in effect are capital loans to

businesses (and which also includes military pay periods): wage-earners


Recently, my wife had reason to consult a primary doctor, and inocently'

clarified the workings of her new HMO subscription. Her wait was long, her

visit brief, ten minutes or so. The doctor’s HMO billing note read:

‘Comprehensive, new patient interview, more time than usual, 45 min.’

must be organically be also granted an equitable paternal license for to

access prospective pay directly as work is delivered.

The government’s Crop Hail Insurance was in the news a few years

ago. Agents of private insurance companies profited fraudulently from this

insurance: Insurance policies for crops, which had never been successful in

the dust belt of America, were sold only with an intent to file claims of loss

for the corn and peanut crop failures. The report of this fraud exhibited a

large barn that a farmer had built with his insurance check. The checks for

supposed losses were issued by private insurance companies and were

contractually reimbursed by the government: taxpayers paid for the fraud!

The fronting private sector underwriting companies had perpetrated an

insurance sham of mechanist design to only reap profits. The agents of these

companies got their commissions and farmers got paid for failed crops that,

agents, farmers, and the private insurance companies knew, from the outset,

would never grow to be harvested.

Fraud is a huge business centered in all private forms of insurance

and private sector business: seeking profits is the concupiscent culprit.

Twenty percent of auto insurance loss payments routinely go to paying for

stolen cars that never are recovered. Medical insurance fraud is huge. And

Medicare is the granddaddy of private mechanist concupiscent nefariousness.

Seemingly innocuous breaches of ethical culture are wrought by political

economy’s pseudo principles of legalized property-based mechanisms:

fictitious corporate entities, and (‘shrug’) nefarious concupiscent type

attitudes as ‘insurance pays my bill, not other patients or the hospital.’ '

And all insurance fraud is causally related to inflation endemism that

when consumed legally returns as enured capital that is then owned by

the business source. In his chapters on Speculation and Property, G. P.

Brockway exposes a vast divergence between legal allowances given


corporations and those given to persons: legal court-interpretations are at the

roots of business’ nefariousness: despite this, Jefferson’s interpretation of

‘ownership’:

The earth belongs to the living and not to the dead.

While Jefferson said this, his argument was Paine’s, in an ongoing and

unsettled debate with Burke, the adopted ‘father of conservatism.’

And still, the public’s greatest need is health insurance: Forty

million Americans cannot afford the private insurance system’s cost.

The Clinton administration’s attempt to install a universal health insurance

system was overwhelmingly defeated. Opposition to this system came

mostly from private sector insurance that provided more than $100 million in

PAC lobby money to ensure this defeat. And such fictitious sovereign

intrusion, by licensed fiction, into politics by Corporate Interests represents

the greatest threat to American constitutional democracy.

Maybe there is new hope of better democratic representation with

‘soft money’ reform of McCain-Feingold? (And, more surely, with the 2006

national congressional election?)

But getting the attention of classically orthodox officials -- to act

rationally -- is as impossible as solving the chicken and egg question: each

antecedent hypothesis is independent of the other. Anyway, change is

always radical (therefore, is liberal?). Brockway points to the orthodox

notion of rights and declares this:

There is no right that capitalists claim, that equally cannot be claimed

by labor.Brockway reasons that classical orthodoxy gave legal advantages to

capitalists: with all earnings delayed until a work pay period is completed,

capitalists are legally thereby granted a continuous periodical increment of

free capital. Capital, which is, thereby, a free advantage for to advertize and

lobby. And, egregiously this legal advantage was then deemed a business

right (as speech, for instance). Which classical capitalist orthodoxy achieved

to put wage-earners into a mechanist ‘iron wage cage’ with no free front end

payment of or access to their wages earned. And, paternally organically, this


paradox has not been mitigated! About capitalism’s propensities for

economic growth, R. L. Heilbroner cited J. Schumperter’s telling economic

analysis, which is again repeated: 128





in charge of the government’s Gilded Age officially had installed pork barrel

‘internal improvement’ paternalism into the American System of Political

economy’s administrations]. Schumperter’s book was about another

kind of development -- the way in which capitalism develops its

propensities for growth. . . . this academic treatise was destined to

become the basis for one of the most influential interpretations of

capitalism ever written. . . ..

Schumpeter’s initial portrait describes a capitalism that lacks

the very ingredient that brought growth into the worlds of Smith and

Mill and Marx and Keynes -- namely, the accumulation of capital.

Schumpeter describes instead a capitalism sans accumulation -- a

capitalism whose flow of production is perfectly static and changeless,


creation of wealth.



the end of capitalism to the earlier writers, whereas for Schumpeter

it was the beginning of capitalism. Therefore we must examine the

characteristics of the circular flow a little more carefully. Because the

system has no momentum, inertia is the rule of its economic life: “All

knowledge and habit, once acquired,” writes Schumpeter, “becomes

as firmly rooted in ourselves as a railway embankment in the earth.”

Thus having found by trial and error the economic course that is most

advantageous for ourselves, we repeat it by routine. Economic life

may have originally been a challenge; it becomes a habit.



removed all earnings that exceed the value of anyone’s contribution

to output. This means that competition among employers will force

them to pay their workers the full value of the product they create, and

that owners of land or other natural wealth will likewise receive as

rents whatever value their resources contribute. So workers and

landowners will get their shares in the circular flow. And

capitalists? Another surprise. Capitalists will receive nothing, except

their wages as management. That is because any contribution to the

value of output that was derived from capital goods they owned would

be entirely absorbed by the value of labor that went into making those



profit!


say strained -- image of the system? Perhaps we have already divined

the purpose behind his method: the model of a static capitalism is an

attempt to answer the question of where profits come from.







have to explain why the profits went to the owner of the machine,

not to its inventor or user. Mill suggested that profits were the

reward for the “abstinence” of capitalists, but he did not explain why

capitalists were entitled to a reward for an activity that was clearly in

their own interest. Still other economists described profits as the

earnings of “capital,” speaking as if the shovel itself were paid for its

contribution to output. Marx, of course, said that Smith was right in


the first place though he didn’t know it -- that profits were a

deduction from the actual value created by the working man. But

that was part of the labor theory of value which everyone knew to be

wrong and therefore did not have to be reckoned with.





circular flow failed to follow its routinized course.’


















profit.











thus the source of profit in the capitalist system.

Schumperter’s capitalist Entrepreneurs neither asked for nor required

government paternalism, as granting free front end capital or Gilded Age

demands for ‘internal improvement‘ assistance. Only entrepreneurship was

required: so, what political irrationalism justifies government’s

paternalism with profit-taking? Answering this question requires the

holistic recognition that granting privilege to some naturally requires that

what is given must be taken from others. And the bond of democratic

equality is thereby broken! If our nation is to remain interested in preserving

democracy, equal rights must be preserved and, therefore, the granting of

privileges must be redressed with beneficent grants to the unprivileged,

which beneficence must be paid for by those of the politically granted

privileges, with profit-taking, for instance. Economy’s inordinate growth

has been irrationally achieved by fallaciously accounting the intrinsically

related paternalism’s economic benefits derived by the Whiggish political

economy scheme, which Parrington described as being ingenious:

a curiously ingenious scheme to milk the cow and divide the milk

among those who supervised the milking. And profits taken fail to trickle down as capitalist ideology claimed: 129

Henry Ward Beecher, the 19th century American clergyman,

said 'You cannot sift out the poor from the community. The poor are

indispensable to the rich.’

The early-20th century English poet and novelist G. K.

Chesterton felt that even when the rich helped out, it was more

through acceptance of poverty than a desire to cure it. He wrote: 'If

we wish to protect the poor we shall be in favor of fixed rules and

clear dogma. The rules of a club are occasionally in favor of the poor


member. The drift [the political flux] of a club is always in favor of the

rich one.

Beecher and Chesterton’s thoughts are teleologically rational because

recognize that paternalistically granting license to some naturally impugns

others. They also recognized that politics will always favor the rich and

powerful. Parrington observed this irrational politics as giving to Peter by

taking from Paul: leaving equally deserving citizens to contend with myriad

economic misfortunes, of which the paternal granting of license to private

business mechanisms to exploit the natural whole of society caused. And

that logical principles were politically aborted by this- * ), 130

* Principles must not stand in the way of success



age. James Kent, whose long life and ripe legal learning were devoted

to upholding what he conceived to be the ultimate principles of law

and politics, was the chief political thinker of the transition days of

New York. A disciple of Locke and Blackstone, remodeling




metes and bounds beyond which it should not go. Like John Marshall

and Joseph Story he was expert in devising legal springs to catch

unwary democrats, and while the Jeffersonians were shouting over

their victories at the polls, he was engaged in the strategic work of

placing the Constitution under the narrow custodianship of the



everywhere exist between economics, politics, and legal principles.

[Asserting affirmed fallacies as principle are mechanistic hallmarks]

-and where the nation’s growing public debt is fallaciously excused, or

ignored, because the economic progress’ cost ultimately mechanistically


settles onto wage-earners’ consumption and taxes. About this, George Will

on ABC’s, This Week, astutely observed this:

We privatize profits and socialize debts

[Profits from economic progress go to owners of companies of The American

System of Political Economy while public debt ultimately is only repaid by

the general revenue taxes of wage-earners].

Political Economy decidedly favors acquisitive influence and power more

than human rights or teleology?

Social Security, as conservatives perceive of it, however, contradicts

political economy’s economic paternalism. But SS is compatible with

Schumpertarian capitalism, which denies randomly taking profits unless

entrepreneurship is provided. And what this says was quite exactly

expressed by the Epicurean paradox:


The Social Security System spreads the ‘risk’ (certainty in this instance) of

age related loss of wage-earning abilities, under defined cases of old age,

survivorship and disability, onto the ‘social base’ of wage-earners: If paid

wages, you participate in this social usage-based insurance.

The teleology of SS is the logical necessary principle that mutual insurance

had introduced in the U.S.; it is devoid of the exploitative ‘profit’ motive

intrinsic of classically orthodox ‘for profit’ economic insurance mechanisms;

collectively, under any natural meaning of ‘ownership,’ as entrusted to

government’s administration, wage-earners own the SS insurance (as all

mutual insurance mechanisms are of this Schumpertarian ‘static circular

flow’ type). And all that constitutes ‘the insurance premium’ (contribution

taxes) are (should be) enough to cover benefits (in inflation neutral dollars)

that are necessarily paid. And, fiducial reciprocity exists between the owners

and beneficiaries: Mutual insurance and SS are forms of reciprocal risk

spreading that Roger Williams called ‘social usage.’ And, even ‘for profit’

businesses have internally employed this concept: The Federal Reserve, for

instance, operates as ‘social usage’ to its family of banks. FDIC insurance is

another example of it that serves to insure bank deposits. Reinsurance,


which is conducted between insurance companies, is also ‘social usage’

insurance - as also is the federal redress in cases of catastrophic disasters.

Terrorism’ insurance, has no mutual reciprocity. It insures

‘privatized capitalists’ profit, while socializing the losses of it that wage-

earner tax payers must pay to provide for it. It is an extension of

government’s paternalism granted to ‘for profit’ business mechanisms.

Myths about SS have sprung forth, in part, because, as individuals,

we have not paid much attention to the SS System as a reciprocal form of

‘social usage.’ Sure we each are aware of those, on SS, who don't need it

and to fewer instances of those who need SS and aren't on it. It's easy to be

critical of the seeming obvious omissions-inefficiencies or to suppose that

our SS contribution-taxes are, or should be, deposited to some gigantic

account to be held in some sort of ‘locked box’ while compounding interest

until, in our retiring years, we individually need the money. Maybe it

disappoints us that SS is not a savings account or that, to retain the simple,

direct, teleological mutual insurance basis, that not-for profit ‘social usage’

mechanisms cannot efficiently be managed in the ‘for profit’ business

manner. One thing we need be aware of, in this regard, is that SS is the most

efficiently designed reciprocating insurance ever: excepting surplus

collections, its operations cost is about 2% of revenue: 98% of it is

distributed in benefits paid.

‘Social Security’ was established to provide a pipeline through which

revenues collected from today's larger group of workers flow out as benefits

to today's smaller group of elderly beneficiaries. The smaller retired group is

getting larger and quite fallaciously orthodoxy expects it to become very

large beginning in 2010. And, has made fallacious deductions about this

perceived demographical trend, which the Census Bureau’s zero growth

study had presented. But while this expectation is ‘false,’ it has popular

orthodox political appeal!

As any well-defined insurance, SS was established with clear ‘risk’

definition (loss of wage-earning) and everyone who participates, is a

survivor, or dependent of a participant (not only - or all - those who need it)

is an eligible beneficiary of the system (SS provides security through the

working years as well). However, the July 17, 1991-news clip confirms


that political problems exist: Maybe we trust too much that the SS

administration is unaffected by politics. SS is now an ‘off budget’

government account: Help! 131

“The Social Security Commissioner, asked local governments to help

the Social Security Administration find a large segment of the

American public which is eligible for benefits but can't be found. 35

percent of those eligible aren't being located.

Social Security is reaching out, and needs help from counties

to find that homeless woman, that elderly couple, that disabled child,”

King said.

The administration last week began mailing notices to

435,000 disabled children found by the U.S. Supreme Court to have

been denied supplemental benefits improperly over the past 11 years.

[Was this denial of benefits politics related?]

The court ordered the agency to redefine its standards for

eligibility, and to provide retroactive benefits that could amount to

$2 billion.

“It is the right thing to do,” King said. “A child improperly

denied justice should not have to wait one minute longer to receive

benefits.” [As there was no available follow

up on this news release, the issue remains unresolved: was this simply

political rhetoric made to satisfy, but not settle, a law suit?]

I furnished this disclosure to emphasize the expanded SS coverage:

those paying into the SS pipeline, and their families, are insured in

specific cases of disability and death: benefits are intended to be paid to

many who are eligible without having reached the threshold age of

retirement. Survivors benefits have greatly expanded SS coverage:

---- 3 Widows or widowers -- benefits are paid at age 60, (at age 50 if

disabled), or at any age, including those divorced, when they are

responsible for dependents, under age 16 or disabled and receiving aid.

---- 33 Surviving children under age 18, (19 if attending high school), or at

any age when disabled.

---- 333 Dependent parents aged 62 or older.


A unique Medicare benefit, which must be signed-up for, became available

in 1988 but was not adequately disclosed (politics, maybe ?): Eligible

persons for this benefit have not been contacted because Congress, federal

officials explained, had cut all administrative costs. The Medicare benefit

pays the Medicare premiums and the deductibles in cases of hardship.

Hardship is explained:

---- 3333 Retired persons on Medicare who fall below the poverty level,

are eligible for this Medicare benefit, which pays both the Medicare

premiums and deductibles.

Contact Medicare for answers to your questions.

Bills charged to Hospital Insurance (Medicare) are paid from

revenue that flows through the SS pipeline (The tax rates are listed in the

following table under the heading, HI).

SS law in 1984 expanded the regressive SS contribution’s tax, the specified

rates of collection, which went beyond providing for the inflation adjusted

benefit payments. The contribution tax collections included surplus funding,

which since have routinely been spent as government’s general revenues: the

maximum new SS tax increase index (76.5), represents a 7,510 percent tax

increase since SS’s inception. And because the SS cap has been adjusted to

rise ahead of median family income, wage-earning families, aggregated, pay

close to the maximum tax increase. The SS revenue near directly is indexed

to the median rise in wages, which irrationally lags inflation’s index (since

the 1960s, constant dollar wages have not kept pace with inflation). This

SS contributions’ tax law should signal alarm, particularly with wage-earners

who contribute surplus funding that routinely is spent as government’s

general revenue (the collections of surplus funds, with inflation included in

benefits as anticipated, which has routinely been spent, now exceeds $ 3

trillion).

For fiducial purposes of accounting, employers deposit SS

contribution tax revenues with participating collection banks before they sent

to the government: where the revenues are then accounted to three separate

trust funds for disbursement to the beneficiaries (The Treasury Department is

government’s collecting and dispensing arm). And because surplus SS funds


The ideological politics, which achieved law to collect SS surplus contributions, has'

maintained the position that taxes, including SS surplus, are government’s to use as it

wishes, for to disclaim any liability to the tax payers, which also can easily argue that

funds spent cannot be made a liable obligation to the Trust Funds.

are routinely spent as general revenue, the trust fund accounts now include

IOUs (showing that government owes the collected money, that was

routinely spent, to the Trust Funds ). The contribution tax is commonly'

called the OASDHI payroll tax: the trust funds acronym.

The Old-Age and Survivor's Insurance (OASI) and Disability

Insurance (DI) is this research’ primary concern.

For convenience of reference, the following table is repeated.

SOCIAL SECURITY TAX RATES



TOTAL OASDI HI (IN DOLLARS) (AN INDEX)

1950 3 3 - $ 3,000 base = 1.00

1955 4 4 - 4,200 1.87

1960 6 6 - 4,800 3.2

1965 7.25 7.25 - 4,800 3.87

1970 9.6 8.4 1.2 7,800 8.32

1971 10.4 9.2 1.2 7,800 9.01

1972 10.4 9.2 1.2 9,000 10.

1973 11.7 9.7 2 10,800 14.04

1974 11.7 9.9 1.8 13,200 17.16

1975 no rate change 14,100 18.33

1976 no rate change 15,300 19.89



TOTAL OASDI HI (IN DOLLARS) (AN INDEX)

1977 " " " 16,500 21.45

1978 12.1 10.1 2 17,700 23.8

1979 12.26 10.16 2.1 22,900 31.19

1980 no rate change 25,900 35.28

1981 13.3 10.7 2.6 29,700 43.89

1982 13.4 10.8 2.6 32,400 48.24


1983 no rate change 35,700 53.15

1984 14 11.4 2.6 37,800 58.8

1985 14.1 11.4 2.7 39,600 62.04

1986 14.3 11.4 2.9 42,000 66.73

1987 no rate change 43,800 69.59

1988 15.02 12.12 2.9 45,000 75.1

1990 15.3 12.4 2.9 45,000 76.5

(Senator J. Kerry allowed that the SS cap in 2003 was $86,000, thereby

allowing that the contributions’ index is now more than 150 times its origin)

As of 1998, the accounted Trust Funds shown in the 2000 World

Almanac (New York times, pp. 766-767, in $ millions) are:

---- 3 Old Age and Survivors (OAS) $653,108

---- 33 Disability Insurance (DI) $77,087

---- 333 Hospital Insurance (HI). $117,113

---- SMI (paid from general taxes) $40,889

---- Total accounted Trust Funds $847,308

The third program, the Medicare program, has part A, Hospital

Insurance (HI) and part B, Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI). HI’s

funding is piggybacked onto the payroll tax. And because of inflation

extremes with HI, the public's perceptions of OASI and DI programs, by

association, are partly blamed. Seldom, but at times to satisfy particular

payout demands (as happened in 1984, and politically dubbed ‘the

bankruptcy of SS’), contributions earmarked for one program were diverted,

as a loan, to another: This expedience riled political opposition: particular

illusions, deliberately spun by the irrational politics, succeeded to set the SS

contributions tax increases.

Medicaid, as Medicare, was approved by Congress in 1965.

Medicaid, also not a prime consideration here, is public aid administered by

individual states. Its only connection to SS is that it was authorized under

Title XlX of the Social Security Code. The federal government’s general tax

revenues provides most -- about 70% -- of the funding for this public aid.

States that fail to supplement their 30% share, lose proportionately, the

federal participation.

Medicaid has not worked uniformly well. And with federal budget

constraints, increasing tax burdens are shifting onto States, whose political

mood more often now is represented by initiatives to deny spending


increases, state’s Medicaid support is then cut in the state’s budget

processes: complicities make Balanced Budget politics impossible.

Escalating costs of Medicaid, as with all private medical insurance, has

defied inflation containment. The cost of gratuitous health care is to a

practical extent spread onto bills paid by insurance. And, most insureds’

reaction to high billings for medical care, as with fraud, is rationalized:

‘it didn’t cost me a cent; my insurance paid the bill.’

Unfortunately, medical insurance premiums must, therefore, increase,

unusually. Private insurance has provided a litany of financial mechanisms,

which offers protection by assuming personal cost, and, in this sense,

insurance has abetted the inordinate increases in health care cost, which

increases also indicate increasing inflation endemism.

A reality check of economic privileges and legal grants perpetuated

by Political Economy of private business mechanisms, reveals that

consumers of products and services are the ultimate bearers of all production

costs (On TV’s This Week, it was, I expect, because of this mechanist

systemic reality that prompted Treasury Secretary O Neil to tell a

businessmen’s group that business’ income taxes should be eliminated.).

Particularly, the cost of employer-paid private, so called, insurance plans are

ultimately repaid by returning business capital by consumers. So, in reality,

those who must use all their wages to subsist by consuming necessities,

mechanistically pay for ‘employer-paid insurance,’ that is enjoyed by the

employees who have it. Only in the sense of ‘unequal rights,’ by politically

asserting ‘consequents’ as supplanted for principles, which are irrational

fallacies, is this orthodox lament true:

‘We, with insurance, pay for the uninsured gratuitous care.’

The ‘prejudice’ of this lament ignores ‘special interest’ unequal ‘legal right’-

based privileges granted by Political Economy to them: so, when does a

legal privilege granted preempt the moral validity of ‘equal rights’?

Parrington recorded the events and circumstances that allowed Whigs to

make the Republican Party’s political economic determinism into the ‘Fairy


Godmother to business:’ holistically, necessarily taking from Paul to give

to Peter. Parrington wrote this: 132

Democrat and Whig no longer faced each other conscious of the

different ends they sought. The great party of Jefferson and Jackson

was prostrate, borne down by the odium of slavery and secession . . .

The Whig Republican was still Hamiltonian paternalistic, and the

Democrat Republican was still Jeffersonian laissez faire, and until it

was determined which wing should control the party councils there

would be only confusion. The politicians were fertile in compromises

but in nominating Lincoln and Johnson the party ventured to get

astride two horses that would not run together. To attempt to make

yoke-fellows of democratic leveling and capitalistic paternalism was

prophetic of rifts and schisms that only the passions of reconstruction

days could hold in check.

In 1865 the Republican party [the now GOP] was no other

than a war machine that had accomplished its purpose. It was a

political mongrel, without logical cohesion, and it seemed doomed to

break up as the Whig Party had broken up and the Federalist Party

had broken up. But fate was now on the side of the Whigs as it had

not been earlier. The democratic forces had lost strength from the war,

and democratic principles were in ill repute. The drift to

centralization, the enormous development of capitalism, the spirit of

exploitation, were prophetic of a changing temper that was preparing

to exalt the doctrine of manifest destiny which the Whig party stood133

sponsor for. The practical problem of the moment was to transform

the mongrel Republican party into a strong cohesive instrument, and

to accomplish that it was necessary to hold the loyalty of its

Democratic voters amongst the farmers and working-classes whilst

putting into effect its Whig program.

Under normal conditions the thing would have been

impossible, but the times were wrought up and blindly passionate and


the politicians skillful [in Plato’s words, ‘their popular truth was of

‘opinion,’ not ‘reason’]. . . The rebellion of the Independent

Republicans under Horace Greeley in 1872 was brought to nothing by

the skillful use of Grant's military prestige, and the party passed

definitely under the control of capitalism, and became such an

instrument for exploitation as Henry Clay dreamed of but could not

perfect. Under the nominal leadership of the easy-going Grant a loose

rein was given to Whiggish ambitions and the Republican party

became a political instrument worthy of the Gilded Age.

Tautologically, only democratic principles in this review qualify as

representing natural necessary antecedence, while Whiggish ambitions of the

classical Republicans imbued by opinions of manifest destiny can only

qualify as a denial of antecedent necessary principle, the affirmation of

natural consequents, or both: tautologically, the new GOP clearly politically

represented irrational fallacy.

From their respective postures, each Party argues that they best

serve the interests of the nation. Unfortunately, too little thought, and less

dedication, is given to solving the paradoxical problems caused by our macro

mechanist economy that constitutionally holistically was consecrated for to

serve all equally. Each side of our politics, in fact, has become an enterprise

as Eric Hoffer observed:134

When a mass movement begins to attract people who are interested in

their individual careers, it is a sign that it has passed its vigorous

stage; that it is no longer engaged in molding a new world but in

possessing and preserving the present. It ceases to be a movement and

becomes an enterprise.

And prominently, our holistic macro-economy is ignored because the

‘special interest’ micro political desires of affluence are to sustain the

American System’s mechanist paternalism that has government expending

prime efforts to open international economic markets to them: simply ever

expanding American System paternalism, emanating from the Whiggish


designed Gilded Age federal ‘poker game’ that paradoxically leaves hoards

on the sidelines of our nation’s economic progress and many more losers

clinging on without political standing, and, therefore, without government’s

representation -- paradoxically it is tyranny of the masses.

‘American System,’ political economy referenced ideas credited to Henry

Clay of the Jacksonian era. Parrington wrote this:135

The spirit of Henry Clay survived his death and his followers were

everywhere in the land. The plain citizen who wanted a slice of the

rich prairie land of Iowa or Kansas, with a railway convenient to his

homestead, had learned to look to the government for a gift, and if he

got his quarter section and his transportation he was careless about

what the other fellow got. A little more or less could make no

difference to a country inexhaustible in resources [This, we can no

longer afford to believe]. America belonged to the American people

and not to the government, and resources in private hands paid taxes

and increased the national wealth. [Those of paternal grants must

recompense what organically was necessarily taken from others: taxes

paid by those of paternal grants are insufficient to fulfill this organic

responsibility!]

Parrington had previously described how political philosophy was

adapted to sponsor business interests and as Eric Hoffer has observed, to

make politics an enterprise:136

Citizens had saved the government in the trying days that were past; it

was only fair in return that government should aid the patriotic citizen

in the necessary work of developing national resources. It was

paternalism as understood by speculators and subsidy-hunters, but

was it not a part of the great American System that was to make the

country rich and self-sufficient? The American System had been

talked of for forty years; it had slowly got on its feet in pre-war days

despite the stubborn planter opposition; now at last it had fairly come

into it own. The time was ripe for the Republican party to become a


So, for which, Peter or Paul, was the Constitution created: can democracy'

exist when equality is not meted by economic policy?

fairy godmother to the millions of Beriah Sellerses throughout the

North and the West.

Despite the evolution which gave our nation determinist mechanism-based

economic paternalism via ‘The American System of Economy,’ truth about

‘covert shadows instead of truthful reality’ remain as dogma:

However attractive the disguises it may assume, it is in essence the

logical creed of the profit philosophy. It is the expression in politics

of the acquisitive instinct and it assumes as the greatest good the

shaping of public policy to promote private interests. It asserts that it

is a duty of the state to help its citizens to make money, and it

conceives of the political state as a useful instrument for effective

exploitation. How otherwise? The public good cannot be served

apart from business interests for business interests are the public good

and in serving business the state is serving society. Every bodys eggs

are in the basket and they must not be broken. For a capitalistic

society Whiggery is the only rational politics, for it exalts the profit-

motive as the sole object of parliamentary concern. Government has

only to wave its wand and fairy gifts descend upon business like the

golden sands of Pactolus. It graciously bestows its tariffs and

subsidies, and streams of wealth flow into private wells. [Introducing

his thought, Parrington wrote this: Whiggery springs up as naturally

as pigweed in a garden.]

[But there is a fly in the Whiggish honey]

But unhappily there is a fly in the Whiggish honey. In a

competitive order, government is forced to make its choices. It

cannot serve both Peter and Paul. If it gives with one hand it must'

take away with the other. And so the persuasive ideal of paternalism


in the common interest degenerates in practice into legalized

favoritism. Governmental gifts go to the largest investments. Lesser

interests are sacrificed to greater interests and Whiggery comes finally

to serve [in momos and not physis] the lords of the earth without

whose good will the wheels of business will not turn. To him that

hath shall be given. If the few do not prosper the many will starve,

and if the many have bread who would begrudge the few their

abundance? In Whiggery [which home is with GOP politics] is the

fulfillment of the Scriptures.

Holistic organic systems, which constitutionally are any U.S. state or nation,

which practices paternal, i.e, ‘legalized favoritism,’ most probably, also

fallaciously denies any mechanist nexus to the complementary

impoverishment. This sort of rational blindness is a result of political

conflations of human essence to belief in unitary materialism: 137

Men are regarded by the Idealists as innately, though imperfectly,

moral in their essential, nondualistic natures. This leads, as we shall

see, to a strangely Hobbesian view of the State as possessing the

right and duty to perfect the ego’s moral imperfection by the exercise

of its authority.

[In] prenational Prussia under Frederick the Great. Christian

theology assumed a [unitary] merger with the divine after this life;

Hegel posits such a merger here on earth -- with history and the

collectivity he terms the state.Craig Thomas also wrote this about the Idealists who influenced Hegel’s

unitary materialist view:

The principal Idealists -- Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel -- sought,

above all else, a unitary explanation of reality, some essence behind

all appearance -- in Kant’s terminology, a ‘common’ and universal

noumenon, and in the poet Hölderlin’s description, the ‘spirit that is

in everything’ [ontologism]. They were [expedient idealist]

systemizers, assuming that there could be discovered some essential


explanation of all experience, knowledge, and reality, and it was

largely on this basis that they objected, Fichte most immediately and

systematically, to Kant’s division between self and the world, which

[they as irrationally contended] for Kant could be no more than a

world of appearances. To achieve the healing of [Kant’s] dualism the

Idealists posited, in Fichte’s theory most succinctly, the ego as the

‘ground of experience.’ It was not the rational ego of Kant [Plato and

Descartes] nor the passive receptor of the empiricists but what Fichte

describes as the ‘active ego,’ inextricably intermingled with reality,

imposing itself upon the world of experience, to a degree ‘making’

the world of experience in its own image. [In this instance, the principle

Idealists conflated even God’s antecedence to comply with the unitary

materialism, of their nomos-based reality, to which Nietzsche then cried out,

“we have killed God!”] As Fichte claims in ‘The Vocation of Man’ of

1792, ‘Not to KNOW but to DO, is the vocation of Man.’ For Fichte

(1762- 1814), there were only two possible responses to the world,

that of the realist, or ‘dogmatist’ in his terminology, and that of the

idealist. The philosopher’s response, more profound than that of the

ordinary man, is idealist, while realism remains the province of non-

philosophical response to an understanding of the world.

Thinking is no longer reflection, it is experience. Also,

because of this, there can be no kind of reality that is distinct or

separated from the ego that experiences it. Whereas empiricism

posits, at least by implication, a ‘real’ world that is experienced, the

Idealists assumed no distinction between the subject of the

experiencing agent and the objective world being experienced. [Which came first, the egg or the chicken, is of no


issue rather than reasoning to find answers; the dogmatic focus is then

shifted onto the neatness of confusion.]

Further, Fichte and Schelling assumed that the ego was

innately a moral agent, again contrary to Kant’s conception of the


As Hamilton observed: success knows no ethics! (But also this lac of''

ethics also shows the deficient insight in virtue and good of truth and right.)

effort of moral duty for the rational being, the necessity to achieve

the categorical imperative [of ‘do unto others . . .’] in making any

moral decision or taking any moral action. Men are regarded by the

Idealists as innately, though imperfectly, moral in their essential,

nondualistic natures. This leads, as we shall see, to a strangely

Hobbesian view of the State as possessing the right and duty to

perfect the ego’s moral imperfection by the exercise of its authority. Take a moment to review the Social Security Tax Rates. Look

closely at changes made in 1984 when the SS surplus taxes began. This SS

Tax legislation, completed in 1983, signed into law in 1984!

During the 1980's, SS contribution tax rates more than doubled. Political

economy’s inflation endemism was a greater cause of this increase. Political

rhetoric, as conflated to unitary materialism, blamed SS for the high inflation

rates. And irrational rhetoric is opinion that defies reason: tautologically''

fiducial ‘trueness’ is, however, capable to evaluate and settle the political

falsity of rhetoric. And, if the thesis set forth by Parrington on the previous

page is correct (I believe it is), the GOP’s politics is incapable of anything

but dogmatic political rhetoric, which, therefore, cannot know logical truth.

The payroll tax (OASDHI) funds three separate trusts: OASI, DI, and HI.

Employers match the employee's payroll tax (self-employed individuals must

pay both the employee's tax and the employer's matching tax). Social

Security began in 1936 with OAI (Old Age Insurance). Survivors Insurance,

SI, was added in 1940 and Disability Insurance, DI, in 1956. Separate

accountings are maintained for OASI and DI, but for simplicity the rates of

taxation are bundled with inflation effects of benefit costs.

The primary cause of increasing SS benefits cost is neither the

politically influenced expansion into social welfare nor higher rates and

wage caps that are fundamental to increased contribution tax rates. The

main culprit of increasing SS benefits cost, and, therefore, the


contribution tax rates, is inflation’s mechanist endemism. Responsibility

for inflation’s endemism is squarely government’s. Not Social Security’s!

The requirement that all federal employees must now participate in

Social Security and pay contribution-taxes greatly expanded the

contribution-tax base. This expansion, in the short term, furnishes a large

infusion of revenue to SS until the retired complement of this new group

matures to also become full SS beneficiaries. However, this expansion does

nothing to solve the main problem: INFLATION!

The purchasing power of the dollar, since 1950, has lost value so

much that inflation must be separated to accomplish meaningful economic

analysis. Take away inflation and a far different wage-scenario is revealed:

most important, average family income declined from a peak reached in

the late 70's. Inflation was not caused by SS and, therefore, SS contribution

taxes should not be burdened because of it.

Inflation, as the indices of consumer prices (CPI) indicate, is the

primary factor of SS cost increase. One dollar in 1950 has an equivalent

purchase value of $5.00 in 1988. But five times is but a fraction of 76.5

times that SS contribution tax indices have increased to in 1990. With

inflation set aside, the main cause of increase is with inordinate start-up costs

of the maturing SS system. But, the conflated unitary materialist Whiggish

deontological politics prefers to compound one causal increase by the other

(the rates of inflation then are multiplied by rates of increase due to the

maturing SS system). This fallacy has resulted in politics based on

appearances of inordinate SS systemic inflation that does not, did not, and

cannot exist. Worse, the 76.5 times tax bite was put onto low necessary

wages that were required simply to subside: and sans inflation, the politics of

the capitalist ‘iron cage of wages’ has succeeded to deny all real inflation

neutral wage growth.

CONSUMER PRICE INDICES138


1950 base = 1.00 base = 1.00

1960 1.23 1.47

1970 1.61 2.25

1977 2.52 3.77

1980 3.43 4.98



1984 4.31 7.07

1988 5.0 NA

(Inflation’s endemism has effected medical care far more than SS; and the

greatest part of this difference is related to systemic fraud, which mostly is

perpetrated by medical professionals, quite similarly as political economy is

effected by mechanist conservative greed.)

Not available when this research was concluded, medical costs have

continued to increase far beyond the CPI, and this anomaly is in part

explained by a rather common necessity to put the cost of unpaid gratuitous

care onto paid insured care. Another part is caused by Political Economy’s

unequal rights doctrine that choosing mechanism, denies the holistic,

teleological nature of economy. Affluence profits from inflation: for

workers, however, compounded effects of inflation has politically been

assigned to the SS contribution-tax burden: only those with incomes, which

allow discretionary spending, has money to invest for to gain from the

inflation effect on economy: George P. Brockway’s inflation producing

‘bankers COLA’ works for them. *

* Brockway’s book documents the deontological Political Economy

endowed unequal rights advantage that bankers and investment counselors

enjoy (which profits usually are the greatest): added to the rate of interest

banks pay for renting money they loan, is the Bankers COLA. What was

once around 3% is now what political economy will allow.

With the new financial services approach, insurance has merged

paternalist Political Economy rights of banking with those allowed in cases

of insurance and annuity products, which they both now offer. For instance,

the latest insurance annuity product guarantees a flat rate of return from a

contract that allows for the company to invest the premium in mutual funds

(endemic pernicious pitfalls exist here which consumers usually are not

aware of). Of course the banker’s COLA applies in both instances and pays

the investment brokers commissions. Because endemic inflation is

ubiquitous, efforts to control it are made difficult.


The SS Tax Law of 1984 unreasonably began the collections of so called SS

surplus. If this SS surplus has made SS into a general revenue tax collector

(for government to spend at will), inflation has compounded the heavy

burden of paying the contribution taxes of our nation's most regressive tax

system: all average wage increases are held below the apperance of growth

due to inflation. Irrationally the effects of the ‘84 SS rate increases to collect

SS surplus has been compounded by the wage-earner contribution tax

burden. This compounded tax burden was put upon the lowest quintile of

wage-earners, severely restricting, even violating their natural subsistence

requirements. This ‘84 SS law violated a fundamental natural principle of

freedom and right:

Bread shall not be taken from the mouth of labor!

The following graph demonstrates fundamental unfairness in the distribution

of income, which unfairness applied in the matter of the SS Tax Law of

1984. It demonstrates how mechanistically applied inflation’s endemism has

acted: wages touted as merit increases and position promotions had the

appearance of increasing economic status but in reality, holistically, had lost

economic value. SS tax rates that appeared low (because half was paid by

employers) were, as

regards subsistence

needs, much more

burdensome than were

the highest income tax

rates on affluence. And

as Brockway has

observed, the ‘Bankers’

COLA’ only kicks in to

aid the unearned

incomes of those in the

upper quintiles of

income distribution. It

portrays inflation’s

effects more than

growth, as John Maynard Keynes had warned that it would: 139


By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate,


citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the




able to diagnose. Keynes

However, as V. L. Parrington had described the American System of Political

Economy, inflation was a false but brilliant addition allied to Whiggish

mercantilism, which mechanistically returned as capital:

a curiously ingenious scheme to milk the cow and divide the milk

among those who supervised the milking. [greatly aided by fiat money

infusions, during the 1980s, investment bankers became corporate takeover

pirates: taking $ billions of legalized booty ]140

The important fact here is the deliberate classical rejection of Adam Smith’s

wealth: goods and services circulated to the benefit of ‘all’ in society.

Instead ubiquitous fiat income, as distributed in the graph, is now

fallaciously asserted as wealth’s equivalent. As David Callahan, in The

Moral Center had quoted Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandies, “We can

have concentrated wealth in the hands of a few or we can have democracy.

But we cannot have both.”

Unearned income

If we could strip away the industries of the military-industrial-complex, we

would find that our political economy’s fiat money has facilitated far more

exchange than its capital based production of wealth (according to Smith’s

original economic definition). Despite Smith's postulated economy, we now

define new wealth as government’s accumulated procurement of war

implements and machinery, the maintenance of armies, mechanist

bureaucracies (including private businesses), by usury and myriad other

sources of ‘unearned’ income, contemporary to our federally sponsored

American Plan of political economy. I suggest, our paternal political


economy has for too long allowed leveraged ‘wealth’ (Smith's postulation),

by creative assertions that unearned and often unaccounted money hoards are

the equivalent of ‘wealth.’ *

* By magical creative means, unearned money is now routinely generated

by processes which Keynes had described as secretly and unobserved

confiscations: by socializing the ownership of future production of goods

and services (as with owning stocks, bonds, and commodities futures).

How, for instance, William Rockefeller gained a large ‘money hoard’ (which

was considered the equivalent of ‘wealth’) by purchasing Anaconda Copper

Corp. with a conditional check (Then immediately he floated a new public

stock offering to cover the check and personally gain a substantial cash

reward). More recently, money hoards amounting to $15 million -- units of

unearned value ‘in God we trust’ -- taken at different times and

circumstances each by George Bush, the father, and George W. Bush, the

son. And, while they represent small fish in Political Economy‘s big pond

of myriad legal and illegal mediums of unearned inflation prone and

privatized ‘money hoarding,’ all are forms of futures ownership economic

chicanery, of which, according to George P. Brockway, the ‘bankers COLA’

represents inflations greatest source. Keynes had observed myriad other141

sources when in 1920 he wrote this:142

“By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate,


citizens. There is no subtler. No surer means of overturning the




able to diagnose.” -- John Maynard Keynes --

The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920

Roger Sherman’s ‘A Caveat Against Injustice’ is on my desk to remind

me of inflation’s evils: of fluctuating privatized values of our floating futures

Mediums of Exchange. Sherman had argued hard to secure the

constitutional provision for a non fluctuating value standard. The

Constitution’s instruction to Congress is Article I Section 8:

250-260 SS: VIRTUES and VICES

. . . to coin money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin,

and fix the standards of weights and measures.

Legally causally inflation is bad. Its illegal side is maybe worse:143

Banks wash billions in dirty laundry

Washington -- The failure of U.S. banks and regulators to track

transactions with foreign banks enables criminals to route billions of

dollars from drug sales, Internet gambling, tax evasion or other illegal

activities into the United States each year, a new Senate subcommittee

report concludes.

Althouth regulators have prodded U.S. banks in recent years to

bolster their efforts to control money laundering through individual

accounts, the Senate permanent subcommittee on investigations found

banks and regulators have been lax in applying similar standards to

correspondent banking, in which foreign banks use U.S. banks to

perform wire transfers and other transactions.

The subcommittee’s report, which concludes a yearlong

investigation, will be made public today. Regulators and bankers

familiar with the inquiry say it’s the first comprehensive look at this

aspect of banking and how it facilitates money laundering.

“Inattention and disinterest by U.S. banks in screening the

foreign banks they take in as clients have allowed rogue foreign banks

and their criminal clients to carry on money laundering and other

criminal activity in the United States and to benefit from the

protections afforded by the safety and soundness of the U.S. banking

industry,” said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on

the subcommittee.

The subcommittee launched its investigation after a Russian

money-laundering scandal erupted at Bank of New York 18 months

ago. It examined a number of giant, well known banks, including

Bank of America, Citygroup, J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. And First

Union. . . .


Money laundering, which the Clinton administration declared

a national security threat, is the act of concealing the source of funds

obtained from an illegal activity. An estimated $1 trillion is

laundered each year -- about half of it, or $500 billion , through the

United States, according to the report. . . All this is evident in the fact that the dollar’s value today compares to a few

pennies of a century ago. Much of the excess corporate capital of the '80s --

hundreds of billions -- was seized by modern acts of Whiggish piracy (as

previously described as money hoarding by Rockefeller and the Bushs’):

captivating by creative purchasing, then restructuring and downsizing the

raided corporate entities, and finally refloating new public offerings.

Relatively dormant accumulated corporate capital was seized, then converted

to privatized money hoards (confronted retroactively from a twenty first

century economic perspective, regulators had allowed the nation’s economic

life blood to be seized by this creative form of piracy, which they summarily

excused because corporate debt had replaced it).

Utilizing computer technology, investment bankers (who’s access to

the nation’s fiat money creation is at lowest interest rates) consorted to

purchase all the corporate stock via short term bank loans, then as sole stock

owner consortiums, enforced restructuring and privatized money hoarding:

now as the closed corporate owners, by arranging long term corporate debt to

finance ongoing productions, they freed the corporate capital accumulations

for distribution to the closed stock owner-consortiums, and then divided the

cash hoards among themselves. Then, sometime later, they issued new stock

offerings to the public to retire the short term bank loans from which they

had purchased the original stock. All corporate entities considered for such

buy-outs were ‘cash cows’ ready for ‘milking’ by the American System’s

‘curiously ingenious scheme to milk the cow and divide the milk among

those who superintended the milking,’ as Parrington had observed. The

investment banker, KKR, was ranked higher than GM on the auditor’s list of

clients.

. . . .


We must ask and answer: should investment bank consortiums be allowed to

commandeer money that the nation explicitly ‘coined’ to exchange goods

and services produced, for to purchase as if a commodity, the corporate

producers of the nation’s goods and services? : making licensed fictitious

corporate entities the investment banker’s exclusive commodity? Or does

this fiducial breach of political economy’s intended Banking authorization,

make the leveraged buyout practice a common act of piracy? And, to

what end does it lead? 144

The right to property is defined as an essential or basic right for the

purpose of defining the sovereignty of the individual and the necessity

to guarantee his rights and property 'against' others, 'not' so as to

allow him to acquire, to control, to achieve domination through

landed property. *

* We should note the legal disparity between investment banking that,

analogous to ‘property,’ considers ‘corporations’ a commodity, and the

Supreme Court’s decision that analogous to ‘human property,’ considered

Bill of Rights protections to corporate fictitious legal persons of far more

legal force than protections assured to humans are given. John Locke’s

‘property of person,’ is thereby violated:

----Every Man has a 'Property' in his own 'Person.'

----Men living together 'according to reason' are properly in the 'State

of Nature.'

----No individual has a right or power over the life of another.

----Force without Right, upon a man's person, makes a State of War. .

----It is a 'right,' a possession of each individual which must be

protected together with his other freedoms, protected from others who

are in a 'State of War' against the individual . . .

---- He that in the State of Nature, would take away the Freedom,

that belongs to anyone in that State, must necessarily be supposed to

have a design to take away everything else, that 'Freedom' being the

foundation of all. ..


Brockway, portrayed property as intrinsically related to rights and concluded

that economics must eventually weigh equities in rights to be more valuable

than what Smith called equities in material hoards.

*********

The Industrial Age is giving way to another less secure age and society's

need to formalize insurance to provide Sustenance Security to all citizens

who find themselves in need through circumstances which are beyond their

own making is becoming increasingly necessary. *

* Fed Chairman Greenspan on 5/21/’03 told Senators that unemployment

insurance must be short in duration to give incentive to unemployed’s to

actively find work. He admitted that unemployment insurance was not

designed to cure unemployment: inferring that causal reasons for long-term

unemployment are not related (i.e., unemployment is not the employer’s

problem). The employee’s deontological economic duties to find and keep

employment, intrinsic of the American System’s causal mechanisms, as

compared to the teleological purpose of earning wages is clearly drawn. So,

answer whether or not economic mechanisms are of the people, for the

people or by the people? They surely are not! Organic mechanisms are of,

for, and by organic ideology, are often corporate forms of this. And as

surely, mechanisms were not constitutionally addressed and consented to?

My compulsion with writing about this arises from the same rational

argument from which SS came to be: a sense suggesting that Sustenance

Security is as necessary and must find political support: with politics in

which the spiritual sense of physis and teleology is equally real and practical

as ideological organic deontology is (Fictions are not real and should not

legally be made the equal of real). Sustenance Security should replace all

welfare systems, but must not become an extension of SS: the welfare

burdens put onto SS might then be transferred to the social usage-based

Sustenance Security Insurance.

And, with Sustenance Security, infusing newly printed fiat money to

the economy, the purpose of which serves utility with the exchange of goods


and services, might then be directly routed to effect teleological alternatives

to the existing Fed system of discounted loans to banks, which then fund

loans to investment bank consortiums established to effect corporate

buyouts, for instance. Banks no longer need government’s paternalism that

is mis-usable in this manner. While printing money is government’s

constitutional function. And antecedently, government wholly sustains the

Federal Reserve’s government function, government was not conceived for

to sustain any particular paternal utility. Particularly, government should not

be the paternal gardian, which mechanistically disadvantages individuals.

An alternative to these investment banker acts, is to require

government to distribute printed fiat money directly to impoverished

individuals who are sure to spend it to subsist: no good or essential reason

exists not to distribute all newly printed fiat money to fund necessary

economically-beneficial consumption, thereby putting the distribution of

goods, services, and education where it is most needed:145

The fundamental weakness of the 1920s prosperity was not that

Americans were profligate, spending too much and saving too little,

but the opposite. "We did not as a nation consume more than we

produced--far from it," Eccles declared. "We were excessively

thrifty." The maldistribution of incomes guaranteed that millions of

potential consumers--workers, farmers, everyone who did not earn

enough to join the ranks of accumulating wealth--would eventually

exhaust their purchasing power. "While the national income rose to

high levels," Eccles explained, "it was so distributed that the incomes

of the majority were entirely inadequate and business activity was

sustained only by a rapid and unsound increase in the private debt

structure, including ever-increasing installment buying of consumption

goods." When the consumers' chips were gone, when they could no

longer borrow or buy things, the producers would naturally curtail

their production of goods too. More factories were closed; more

people lost their incomes. The game was over.


For Eccles, it did not matter greatly who owned wealth or how

much they owned. Money itself was neutral as an economic force--

positive if it was put into transactions and investment, harmful if it was

hoarded in idle savings. What mattered was that people kept their

money moving.

Putting money into the direct control of citizens with need, and making

banking an equal service to these real subsistence consumers. Whereas as

now, fiat money loans are misused by banking consortiums (an economically

devastating form of monopoly, Adam Smith would say) to arrange corporate

takeovers and economic restructuring.

Fiat money would then flow upward rather than as crumbs falling

from the tables of the overlords: It would have teleology rather than be of

service to the mechanist economic deontological advantage that Brockway

called the ‘bankers’ COLA.’ Here, there is opportunity for installing an

oppositely oriented economic mechanism compromise.

Real income increased in the '50s and '60s, reached a high in the

'70s, then declined, approximating in 1983 the purchasing value achieved in

1965. Since 1983, real income has not increased appreciably (while I have

not reviewed this since 1988, not much improvement was achieved, until

1992 and minimum wage increases).

MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME 146

CURRENT INFLATION CONSTANT

YEAR DOLLARS FACTOR DOLLARS

1950 $3,319 4.31 $14,305

1960 5,620 3.5 19,692

1970 9,867 2.68 26,444

1977 16,009 1.71 27,375

1983 24,580 1.00 24,580

With inflation, an increasing worker population, and wages increasing

accordingly, it is surely expected that total non-government employee wages

rose at an unprecedented pace. They did:


1965 1984 Increase

inflation index 94.5 310 3.28147

Tot. Wages (billions) $292.1 $1,454.2 4.98148

Employed (millions) 71.1 105 1.48

Of the 4.98 total wages increase, 3.21 of it was due to inflation, and 1.48 due

to population increase (note that employment counts do not relate to work

force population counts). And this real wage increase scenario is compatible

with real wages increasing until 1965, then remaining flat. Density factors --

those working as a proportion of the available (male-female) worker popula-

tion -- are respectively .66 and .75. More often heard these days is the lament

that two salaries are now necessary. And these density factors substantiate

the reason for lament: The income of working mothers is now required to

achieve an equivalent constant dollar wage value that existed in the 60's.

This economic result reflects poorly on the conventional mechanist

deontology that unrealistically and irrationally holds wages low while

winking at inflationary profit and salary abundances taken at the top. Real

wages did not keep pace: and inflation is The American System’s pernicious

wage-earner tax that systemically takes from wage-earners to compensate for

the vastly increasing profits that are taken.

Had wages in 2001 kept pace with inflation, median wage-earned

income would have been $89,852.00. The 2000 reported median income for

white males (the highest cited income group) is far short of inflation’s pace:

it was $29,696. For white females, it was more anemic: $16,190. And,

relatively still worse for minority races as blacks, Hispanics and Asians.

Wage-earners became a determined economic underclass of the

American System’s political economy: only the mechanist upper-caste of

owner-superintendents was rewarded by the American System’s

determinism. These mechanist rewards distinguish what is commonly

referred to as the American Dream.


Despite this sad economic irrationalism resulted median income, the

Whiggish deontological government administration’s explanation, “because

it is their money,” returned $ 1.3 trillion of the revenue taxes collected from

those that inflation had benefited in 2001 (not to those of median or lower

income). Government repeated this nefarious deontology again in 2002 --

2007 --? , with annual federal deficits up to $ 500 billion.

Natural Causal Realities require natural Principle: the logical keys

of which are ‘true’ antecedence, necessity and coherence.

Therefore, testing for tautological reason and truth is necessary. 149

By a tautology we mean a statement, which has the truth value ‘true’

for all possible truth values of its components. . . .

Compound statements with all truth values ‘true’ are called

tautologies and represent valid argument forms. The implication

formed by the conjunction of all the premises as the antecedent and

the conclusion as the consequent that form a valid argument form,

will always result in a tautology. Testing compound statements to see

whether they are tautologies is thus equivalent to testing an

argument for validity.

John N. Fujii gave three classical valid arguments (a, b, and c) and

two invalid arguments (d, and e) in which P = compound premises,

Q = consequent, - = denial, � = therefore.

(a) Modus ponens (b) modus tollens (c) hypothetical syllogism

P 6 Q

P

� Q

P 6 Q

- Q

�- P

P 6 Q

Q 6 R

� P 6 R


It is government paternalism that assigns inflation’s endemism, as measured by the'

CPI, to the contribution taxes of Social Security.

(d): invalid classical argument

that ‘affirms the consequent.’

P 6 Q

Q

� P

(e): invalid classical argument

that ‘denies the antecedent.’

P 6 Q

- P

� - Q

(d) Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, and (e) Fallacy of Denying the

Antecedent, Fujii warned, are irrational argument forms.

[By author’s definition, each P and Q is a statement that when written in the

‘if,’ ‘then,’ compound statement format, the ‘if’ statement is the antecedent,

and the ‘then’ statement is the consequent.]

Unanchored, therefore, unreasoned, deficient truth is the

quintessence of politics, which too often not only lacks commonly

understood definition, it begs for the natural axiomatic principles of

noumenon: Increasingly, anchored to dogmatic prejudice rather than to

principles of reasoned-noumenon, it is nothing more than logic-deficient

rhetoric, calumnious opinion, that of design appeals to a dogma-afflicted

class of sycophantic believers. Science look-a-likes, 150

Humanists - philosophers, theologians, historians, literary critics [and

judicial officers particularly] -- have to worry about whether they are

being scientific - whether they are entitled to think of their

conclusions, no matter how carefully argued, as worthy of the term

‘true.’ Richard Rorty

Mechanistically, as effected by government administered economic

paternalism (mostly inflation’s endemism) , ‘Peter’ now owes ‘Paul’ far'

more than $ 3 trillion in 2000, growing to $ 10 trillion by 2010.

161ENDNOTES

1 Edited by T. Honderich, THE OXFORD COMPANION TO

PHILOSOPHY (Oxford Press, 1995) 194

2 V. L Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought, Vol II, 197-98

3 Reported on national TV as 2003 ended. Think about it. $3 of every $4

accounted as the nation’s GDP during the twentieth century representedinflation. Real net growth was, therefore, only about 1 percent. Inflation’sendemism was directly cost accounted to prices that consumers paid forgoods and services. Consumers, therefore, became the only owners ofinflation. All unearned income, much of which had created inflation, gota free ride. And organic profits (greater than the sum of inflation andgrowth) were classically construed to belong exclusively to ‘businessowners.’

4 The paradoxical companion of taking profits, which upsets static

economic circular flow’s economic balance, is the Bankers’ COLA, G. P.Brockway charged was inflation endemism’s primary cause?

5 Dictionary, 1196

6 Thomas, 264-265

7 Dictionary, 1516

8 G. P. Brockway, The End of Economic Man (Cornelia & Michael Bessie

Books, 1991) 91 (from Smith, Wealth. 6) : Discretionary money, whichtranscends subsistence, is classically regarded the same as property andwealth. And the ubiquitous nature of money is violated.

9 The World Almanac, 1994, 957-958

10 The World Almanac 2002 (New York Times) 385

11 World Almanac 1986, 257

12 Statistical Abstract of the U.S. (1978) 457


14 Encyclopedia Britannica Almanac 2004, 847: While median family

income is not shown here, the median male income w compatible educationin 2000 in ($) thousands 40, and the female income is 29. Two incomes arenow required to keep pace with inflation.

15 D. Greenwald, Encyclopedia of Economics (McGraw Hill, 1982) 115

16 R. L. Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers (Touchstone, 1986) 293

162 ENDNOTES

17 Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, 348

18 L.P. Pojman, Philosophy, The Wuest for Truth (Wadsworth, 1989) 152

19 J. N. Fugii, Introduction to the elements of Mathematics (J. Wiley &

Sons, 1961) 45

20 Parrington, Vol. I, 300-301

21 Parrington, Volume Two, Winds . . ., 297

22 Parrington., Vol. I, 70

23 Heilbroner, 68-70

24 E. K. Hunt, PROPERTY AND PROPHETS (Harper and Row, 1990)

123

25 Hunt, 132

26 Greenwald, Encyclopedia of Economics (McGraw Hill, 1982) 647

27 Dictionary, 1293

28 World Book Dictionary (1965) 1293

29 Parrington, Vol II, 197-98

30 Brockway, 91 (from Smith, Wealth. 6)


32 Max Weber’s “iron Cage” that Malthus had called the “iron Law”?

33 Parrington, Vol. I, p. 333-35

34 Bob Deans (Cox news service), Third year is typically tough, Las

Vegas Review Journal October 5, 2003, included these questions: Whywere 35 million Americans living in poverty last year -- about 1.4 millionmore than the year before -- while the number of people without healthinsurance rose by 2.4 million to reach 44 million? And, what exactly is theplan for confronting the massive federal budget deficit?

35 Do our enemies view our government in this manner? If so, is our

tyranny the cause of foreign terrorism directed at us?

36 Greenwald, Encyclopedia of Economics (McGraw Hill, 1982), 142

37 Parrington; Vol. III, p. 23-25.

38 Parrington; Vol. III, p. 23-25.

163ENDNOTES

39 Parrington, Vol. III, 20 - 23

40 Belief in the inevitable territorial expansion to encompass all of North

America. First argued in the 1840s: revived during and after the Spanish-American War. It is of the same philosophy as Dollar Diplomacy, uponwhich Captains of American enterprise expanded their exploitations beyondthe nation’s borders: driving the expansion of the nation’s Foreign Policy.Preemption is also of this philosophy.

41 T. Honderich (editor), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Oxford,

1995), 707

42 E. S. Bates, The Bible (Simon and Schuster, 1993) xii

43 D. Ravitch (editor), Speech to the Second Virginia Convention,

American Reader (Harper Colins, 1990) 18

44 Diaglott’s Heb. 11:1 (Diaglott is an original Greek translation)

45 L. Pojman, Philosophy, The Quest For Truth (Wadsworth, ‘89) 25

46 Pojman, 49

47 Diaglott’s Heb. 11:1 (Diaglott is an original Greek translation)

48 Diaglott, 312

Dr. A. Clarke remarks, : “[Logos] should be left untranslated for the verysame reason why the names Jesus and Christ are left untranslated.”

49 Brockway, 4

50 Mechanist, World Book (1965) Vol. 13, 298

51 G. R. Morrow, Plato and the Law of Nature, in Essays in Political

Theory Presented to George H. Sabine, Milton R. Konvitz and Arthur E.Murphy, eds. (Ithica, N.Y. :Cornell University Press, 1948) 20-25, 28-29

52 World Book, Vol. 9, 203

53 V. L Parrington, Main Currents in American Thought, Vol II, 197-98

54 Bates, xii

55 I John

56 R. L Hielbroner, Worldly Philosophers (Touchstone, 1986) 27 & 53

57 E. K. Hunt, 12

58 See E. S. Herman and N. Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent (Pantheon,

1988)

164 ENDNOTES

59 K. Day (The Washington Post), Banks wash billions inf dirty laundry,

Las Vegas-Review Journal, February 5, 2001

60 Parrington, Vol. II, 197-98

61 Romans 7: 15


63 Parrington, Vol. I, 299

64 Pojman, 354

65 A. Satariano, Method to set rates debated (Critics say using credit

reports to establish risk level is an underhanded way to increase rates), LasVegas Review Journal, December 2, 2002

66 Heilbroner, 129

67 Parrington, Volume Two, Winds . . ., 297

68 Pojman, 99 (Cartesian Theory of Knowledge)

69 Pojman, 340-41(The Ethics of Virtue)

70 Pojman, 152

71 S. Thomma, Knight-Ridder Newspapers, April 29, 1995 Las Vegas

Review Journal

72 H. G. Wells, The Outline of History (Garden City, 1961) 426-27

73 World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 13, 326: Mennonites base their beliefs

on the New Testament, particularly Christs sermon on the Mount.

74 Pojman, 471 (Reflections on Suffering)

75 J. Gleick, Chaos, Making a New Science (Penguin Books, 1987)

76 St Matthew 19:14

77 Regarding outward-turning, see R. Hughes, Culture of Complaint, The

Fraying of America (Oxford Press, 1993) 10

78 Pojman, 103 (Cartesian Theory of Knowledge)

79 The World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary, 1965,

80 The New Dictionary of Thoughts, A Cyclopedia of Quotations, Standard

Book Company, 1955, 315

81 Pojman, 2

165ENDNOTES

82 New Dictionary of Thoughts, 662

83 E. K. Hunt, 12

84 Thomas, 264-265

85 John Quincy Adams, Publicola, Columbian Centinel of Boston, June 8

to July 27, 1791 (as reprinted in Main Currents . . ., Parrington, p 325)

86 World Book Encyclopedia (1965) Vol. 14, 330

87 R. Hughes, Culture of Complaint, The Fraying of America (Oxford

Press, 1993) 10

88 Heilbroner, 302

89 Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1978, 8

90 The Associated Press, The Salt Lake Tribune, January 1, 1993

91 Reported on national TV as 2003 ended. Think about it. $3 of every $4

accounted as the nation’s GDP during the twentieth century representedinflation. Real net growth was only about 1 percent. Inflation’s endemismwas directly cost accounted to prices that consumers paid for goods andservices. Consumers, therefore, became the only owners of inflation. Allunearned income, much of which had created inflation, got a free ride. Andorganic profits (which were greater than the sum of inflation and growth)were classically construed to belong exclusively to ‘business owners.’

92 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

93 Brockway, 193

94 R. L. Heilbroner, 293

95 Heilbroner, 72

96 Parrington, Vol. III, 21

97 Brockway points to the orthodox notion of rights and declares:

There is no right that capitalists claim, that equally cannot beclaimed by labor.He asserts. Classical orthodoxy gave legal advantages to capitalists:

98 J. M. Keynes,‘The Economic Consequences of the Peace,’ 1920

99 Parrington, Vol. II, 197-98

100 The World Almanac, 1994, 957-958

166 ENDNOTES

101 The World Almanac 2002 (New York Times) 385


103 Reported on national TV as 2003 ended. Think about it. $3 of every

$4 accounted as the nation’s GDP during the twentieth century representedinflation. Real net growth was only about 1 percent. Inflation’s endemismwas directly cost accounted to prices that consumers paid for goods andservices. Consumers, therefore, became the only owners of inflation. Allunearned income, much of which had created inflation, got a free ride. Andorganic profits (which were greater than the sum of inflation and growth)were classically construed to belong exclusively to ‘business owners.’

104 Parrington astutely recognized that government’s paternalist grants to

“Peter” required the equal taking from “Paul.” (See quote on p 86-87)

105 Statistical Abstract of the U.S. (1978) 457



108 R. L. Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers (Touchstone, 1986) 293

109 Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, 348

110 Pojman, 152

111 Eric Hoffer, The True Believer (As furnished by Shelby Steele in his

essay The New ty), Harpers Magazine, July, 1992

112 Letter to H. L. Prince, April 6, 1859, in Works, Vol. V, pp. 125-126

113 Heilbroner, 293

114 Brockway, 91 (from Smith, Wealth. 6)

115 Heilbroner, 235-36

116 Heilbroner, 293

117 Brockway, 4

118 Parrington, Vol. II, 78

119 Parrington, Vol. II, 66

120 Heilbroner, 14

121 World Book Dictionary, 1965, 976

167ENDNOTES


123 World Book Encyclopedia, 1965, Vol. 11, 200



126 Over the last century, average stock growth was 4%, inflation 3%:

stock growth reflects non earned income (shares of corporate profits thatenure to investors), inflation the growth in consumer cost. Stock growthenhances affluence while growth in consumer cost mostly impressesnegatively on wages earned: systemic ‘giving to Peter by taking from Paul.’

127 Insurance, World Book Encyclopedia, 1965, vol. 10, p. 243

128 Heilbroner, 293

129 Excerpted from a United Press article carried by the Daily Spectrum,

St. George, Utah; Oct.2, 1988.

130 Parrington, Vol II, 197-98

131 (AP) article, Federal-Local Partnership Urged, The Daily Spectrum,

July 17, 1991 (a news report on the National Association of Counties' 56th

convention in Salt Lake City, Utah:)

132 Parrington, Vol. III, 20 - 23

133 Belief in the inevitable territorial expansion to encompass all of North

America. First argued in the 1840s: revived during and after the Spanish-American War. It is of the same philosophy as Dollar Diplomacy, uponwhich Captains of American enterprise expanded their exploitations beyondthe nation’s borders: driving the expansion of the nation’s Foreign Policy.Preemption is also of this philosophy.

134 Eric Hoffer, The True Believer (As furnished by Shelby Steele in his

essay in Harpers Magazine, July, 1992



137 Thomas, 264-265

138 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

139 J. M. Keynes,‘The Economic Consequences of the Peace,’ 1920

140 see G. Anders, Merchants of Debt (Basic Books, 1992)

168 ENDNOTES

141 Brockway, Book’s Cover

142 F. T. Saussy, Roger Sherman, 8

143 K. Day (The Washington Post), Banks wash billions inf dirty laundry,

Las Vegas-Review Journal, February 5, 2001

144 Thomas, 89, 91

145 W. Greider, Secrets of the Temple (Touchstone, 1987) 307-308

146 Source, the U. S. Bureau of the Census.

147 World Almanac (2002), 103 (CPI, 1915 -- 2001)

148 World Almanac (1986), 103 (non government wages and salaries)

149 J. N. Fugii, 45

150 Lawson and Appignanesi, editors, Dismantling Truth (St. Martin’s

Press,1989), 6

CONTENTS

of

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

and

ETHEREAL-GOLD

(the shaded titles)

FOREWORD

100 Quintessential Foundations (An Introduction)

101 Security: our Heritage

102 Insurance: our Heritage

103 Political Economy: the foundation of our Heritage

(introduces 205)

104 Exercising Sovereignty: a responsibility of Heritage

(introduces 208)

109 Truth’s Fiducial Gauges (introduces 209)

200 Substantial Quintessence (Virtuous Knowledge)

201 Life’s enigma and the essential need for philosophy

202 Perceptions of reality and illusions

203 The requirements of self in finding truth

204 Politics for what it is

205 Political Economy

205 Appendix, Petitioning ‘Civitas’

206 Liberal and Conservative

207 Our "Captains of Industry"

208 Sovereignty

209.1 Truth: The value predicate divisions of

209.2 Truth: The Fiducial Gauges of

210 Truth: Postscript about Organizations

211 Truth: Postscript about Emotion

212 Truth: Postscript about Faith

220 Truth: Postscript about Paradoxs

230 Truth: Postscript about Paradox and Mechanism

240 Truth: Postscript about Deontology sans Teleology

250 Virtues of Social Security and Vices of organization

In 2000, wage-earners have a $2 trillion (+) stake in the Economy.

Teleologically, this $2 trillion stake (with interest) should have been

repaid before the top 20 percent of income earners (who did not

contribute to SS) were given a revenue tax refund (top income earners

got tax refunds, common wage-earners did not).

ABOUT ETHEREAL-GOLD

“It is the uniqueness of individuals, as they are encouraged to

develop responsibly, into which the beauties of nations

bloom. The American heritage is ETHEREAL-GOLD. The

unalienable qualities of individuals are not compatible with

anything that we produce, particularly on production lines.”

From Petitioning‘Civitas,’ the Appendix to 205

The American System of Political Economy is a mechanism that opposes

teleology: It divides the economy and upsets the ethical flux in culture. Our

Political Economy locks Americans of the REAL ECONOMY between

Americans of the SURREAL ECONOMY and Americans of the NON

ECONOMY. Tyrannous Determinism results to compromise the human

rights bequeathed by the Constitution.

--- Are we losing our unique AMERICAN HERITAGE?

--- Do we allow Mechanism to gamble with Teleology?

Increased in 1967 to provide for Medicare, Congress increased Social Security

contribution-taxes again in 1984 to fund OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN for SS

(Then spent the money) and (as reported in NEWSWEEK, May 13, 1991, p. 35)

"the centrists [in Congress] say the deficit-ridden government needs the money."

All attempts to cut SS taxes have failed. Political Economy, however, now calls

for general tax reductions. The Administration of 2001 anointed this political

objective.

Documents

Virtues & Vices of Social Security (pt.2)