Any discussion of a state’s geopolitics must include a discussion of their history, philosophy, and culture. These intangible factors are usually ascribed to the nation,[*] not the state; but a state may not endure without a nation. This is not to say that the nation and state are or should be conterminous and coequal as the modern notion of nation-states suggests; rather, it simply asserts that those who run a successful government, and therefore a successful state, consist of a group of like-minded individuals who share like-minded goals. If there are competing nations, which there often are, there will be strife within the government. But it is the strongest or smartest nation that gains dominion and the authority to establish its own state.

Therefore it is not the people who define the nation, and by extension of natural selection, nor do they define ‘the state’. They merely transport definition from preceding generations through each individual’s education, experience, and environment, all contributing to his attitudes about existence. It is from these platforms a group of similarly oriented people attempts to launch their state.

If records permitted, we would be able to trace social and economic influences back to the first human. But Time and History have a mischievous sense of humor, and they have not given modern man that luxury. Instead, one must choose a beginning that is ultimately fraught with biased arbitration, and must neglect prior events and context. In the end, all we have to explain beginnings are traditions, customs, and habits; and if we cannot understand those through the lens of a national history, any attempt at understanding policy of a current nation’s state will be futile. People and the states they comprise are simply the temporal vehicles of a more enduring and resilient force of national philosophy. Thus has it been for China.[†]

*          *          *          *          *

(more…)

 

The government monopolization of student loans should be a warning to every business in America. What began as a government incentive by offering discounted rates to banks who would promise to issue educational loans is now being vilified as ineffective—thus prompting further intervention in the form of private obsolescence favoring public ubiquity.

Any business that now takes a tax cut, tax credit, or some other discount for participating in a government agenda must follow the consequences to their logical conclusion. Our current government will—as it did with student loans—eventually portray your service as the intermediary to their benevolence, and argue for public socialization of your business.

This is already happening with the Health Care Reform law. President Obama knew he needn’t completely nationalize health insurance immediately; by acting as an innocuous intercessor, the path quickly follows to make them a frustrating arbiter, and then finally an oppressive master. They must only convince enough people that it is the private company that serves as middle-man, rather the government, to consumer benefits.

After all (their argument may go), why work for a private corporation, who skims off the top to line their CEO’s pockets while receiving tax benefits, when you may receive employment or benefits directly from their benefactor? Why purchase oil from Chevron when the government may provide it at a reduced price? Why sell shoes when the government may distribute them more fairly?

The real question all along, however, should have been, why was the government artificially propping up complementary prices through their initial intervention? Education tuition costs have skyrocketed since the government’s first involvement in distributing loans; health care costs have skyrocketed since Medicare, Medicaid, and forcing emergency rooms to admit patients; automobile prices have risen drastically since the imposition of stricter emissions and safety standards.

The nationalization of student loans will give more people access to education, the demand for college enrollment will rise exponentially, and tuition costs will necessarily rise in direct correlation in order to maintain order and population ratio on campuses. At that point, the government will intervene once again in the name of fairness, eliminate the educational middle-man, and nationalize college education.

Every concession of liberty is one more authorization of tyranny. By allowing the government to restrict the liberties of banks, schools, and ultimately the consumer in their choice in the loan market, we have given them the authority to control one more aspect of our lives. If any middle-man should be eliminated from business it must be the one whose responsibility it is to protect the pursuit of wealth, not the one who provides the path.

Tagged with:
 

Existence, Freedom, and the Desire for Pleasure…

 

The language of the Founding Fathers is foreign to us today. I do not mean to say we intentionally disregard their wishes, rather I mean it quite literally. For instance, John Adams’ peers may have regarded him as “nice,” but few would describe him that way in today’s language. For to be nice in Colonial America was to be “accurate in judgment to a minute exactness and culpable delicacy; scrupulously cautious; squeamish; refined.” It did not mean one was amicable in nature or easily tolerated (Adams was anything but to many people).

To better understand the intentions of our colonial patriots, then, we must return to their original definitions, not blindly accept the modern meanings of their words, which have evolved greatly over the last 233 years .

Thomas Jefferson famously explained his opinion to King George III that mankind is given from God certain “unalienable[1]” rights, of which are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But what exactly did he mean? What was—pardon the philosophical pun—the meaning of “life?” Of “liberty?” Or of “happiness?” We employ these words so commonly and recite this phrase so complacently that their meanings have been diminished. In order to completely understand the precise implications our Founding Fathers made, a simple etymological history lesson is in order.

Life: A Purpose-Driven Existence

According to The Oxford English Dictionary of September, 2009, the primary definition of life is “The condition or attribute of living or being alive; animate existence.” However, the Royal English Dictionary of 1775, a dictionary that Mr. Jefferson may have used himself, describes it much more eloquently. It reads,

“the state wherein the soul and mind are united and co-operate; the present state, opposed to the future; conduct, or the general manner in which a person behaves with respect to virtue or vice; an exact resemblance of living form.” (more…)