Essential Sovereignty

Scripture has bluntly said that God is supreme, i.e., is the"

naturally necessary antecedent of all that is, and therefore, cannot tolerate,by irrational belief of being, transposed in status, to that of a cosmicconsequent: from whence dire consequences are naturally in results.

ESSENTIAL

is of cardinal essence, 1

essence. is a word philosophers use to explain the nature of

things. While essence is the special nature that makes each kind

of thing different [and] the substance is the same in all kinds of

things, essence and substance are both contained in any thing.Greeks concluded sine qua non, which literally means without which,

not, i.e, is essential or indispensable: applicable only to essence. "

In 2004, the national averages of economic growth and inflation,

for the past century,were published: growth was 4%, inflation 3%.

In the late 1990s, economic analysis suggested that with 2%

economic growth, profits would likely be about 6%. So, without

inflation redounding legally enured as capital for profit taking, how is

this pseudo scientific economic analysis possible. And, consider the

paradoxical opposite side of net economic growth, of wage-earning

consumers that to subsist must consume the inflation in market prices.

This anthology of political Economy’s substance affirmed as

essence, paradoxically challenge Our Federal Savings Plan:

DeYoung’s research document about SS.

By Melvin H. DeYoung All Rights Reserved

2 TOPICAL GUIDE

104 SOVEREIGNTY (and White Rabbits)

FOREWORD 4

Why essence instead of nothing? 4

what execrations should the statesman be loaded 6

Humans bond for security 8

it grows but it never matures. 9

“By a continuing process of inflation . . .” 10

104 SOVEREIGNTY (and White Rabbits) 12

humans are the sovereign ‘identity element’ 12

definition of sovereignty 13

Sovereignty is individual responsibility 17

What is Property? 20

Proudhon’s answer 21

Benjamin Franklin (democrat) 24

Mercantilism 28

Hesiod’s nomos 30

“tyranny of nomos” 31

‘physis’ 32

tautologically, nomos-based law is affirmed fallacy 34

combinations against the public 35

privileges of corporations should be destroyed 36

Jorling’s concern 36

Is the inheritance destiny of the unborn propertyless ? 39

was this Court decision irrational? (read the endnote) 42

Is government an innocent partner 43

“Classical Liberals” 44

“causal mechanism” 46

Nullification 48

Jean-Paul Sarter’s Existentialism 50

Locke and Kant are (rational) beacons of truth 50

The Principle of Justice: Equality 51

3TOPICAL GUIDE

The principal Idealists 54

a strangely Hobbesian view of the State 56

Roger Williams’ contribution to American democracy 57

consciously through experience and reason 58

the weak shall not inherit property! 58

“Mayflower Compact,” 64

Does balanced democracy exist in America? 66

inflation consumed then legally is enured capital 71

employment is a ‘symptom of inflation,’ not its ‘cause. 75

521 POPULATION CHANGES IN THE 20 - 65 AGE GROUP 75

those who cause inflation should pay for it. 80

bank-loses laid onto Deposit Insurance and taxes 82

consumption was the only real purpose of economy 83

the greatest quantum power in our society 84

mercantilist (John Law was a mercantilist ) 852

government that serves . . . men of property 85

a democratic state stands in "loco parentis" 85

"American Plan," 86

Imperial Grand Strategy 86

Lincoln was essentially Jeffersonian. 89

today ... liberty [is] nothing, when in conflict with

another’s right to property 89

To amalgamate idealism and economics is not easy 92

But, domestic policy is the primary concern 99

Endemism and Inflation 101

10 to 20 percent of an insurance premium 101Economy’s front-end endemism causes inflation. 102

business incentive to favor fraud’s endemism 103

Government’s paternalism is against individuals 103

that private insurance is the “only ball game” 104

that private insurance is the “only ball game” 107

FFOORREEWWOORRDD4

Philosopher Martin Heidegger pondered, Why essence instead of

nothing? He concluded that principle axioms are of essence, which

for unknown reason baffle temporally, i.e., as apart from its specific

context with substance are also undefinable, as for instance, the

cardinal principle axiom of human being is rationally evident but apart

from its human material context, is undefinable. However, this

essence in context with each temporal human life is rationally clear:

Essence < essen, essentis, essentia, and sum

About cardinal sovereignty’s essence, V. L. Parrington observed this: 3

Discovering in the principle of liberty, the cardinal principles of

American democracy, [G. W. Curtis] was disposed to accept a

wide application of laissez faire, yet when it opened the door to

extortion he was willing to curb an anti-social individualism.

While human essence is of cardinal sovereign liberty and free-agency,

irrationally affirmed consequents by mechanist politics to serve

concupiscent caste desires, as the essential antecedents of materialists

causal idealism, defined as mechanism, paradoxes then embroil human

essence, as Oliver Wendell Holmes observed:4

“There is that glorious epicurean paradox: give us the luxuries

of life, and we will dispense with its necessaries.”[What is of necessary antecedence is undeniable, sine qua

non, i.e., (literally meaning) [without which, not]

Ralph Manheim translated to English Martin Heidegger’s, ‘An

Introduction to Metaphysics. To explain Heidegger, Manheim ‘coined

a word: “essent,” “essents,” “the essent,” as based on the

[materialist?] fiction that “essens,” “essentis” is the present

participle of sum: the following dictionary definition of ‘sum’

confirms Manheim’s usage: 5

sum 6. The essence or gist of anything; pith; “That the Sermon

on the Mount contains the ‘sum and substance’ of Christianity”

FFOORREEWWOORRDD 5

(F. W. Robertson) [Heidegger reasoned that essence is of pure

truth’s domain (as sovereignty is also), having no opposites.] 6

Respectively, the essential ‘sum’ (human ‘prescriptive logos’) and

‘substance’ (the corresponding truthful ‘fact’ of rational perception),

defines truth. And when human prescriptive logos cohere with

nature’s LOGOS (God), only then, can human posits of facts, which

correspond with the human perception (‘sum’), represent ‘pure truth.’

Which truth must also be tautologically objective perception that is

coherent with an objective factual ‘substance,’ as another’s fact

posited independently or a natural fact.

The antecedent human essential cause (or prescription) in human

culture is an admixture of empirical ‘substance’ and reasoned ‘sum’,

as Hegel observed. Therefore, the determinism (or causal

mechanisms) of natural material energy and forces, and ubiquitous

natural essence of antecedent causes in temporal human life, are

constantly in paradoxical conflict with the mechanist idealist

substance-based determinism: causal libertarianism (or teleology) of

natural human essence, as the Apostle Paul observed , and, in this7

regard, as Craig Thomas also noted,

‘the decline of the empirical tradition of natural law theory [which

natural theory was exclusively based on early reasoning of ‘sum’]

may be dated from the first decades of the nineteenth century.’

This temporal cultural decline occurred as the affirmation of

Substance, i.e., unitary materialism, was celebrated dogmatically

during centuries of the Enlightenment Period, which celebration

irrationally subordinated the naturally antecedent principles of cultural

essence, the human sum. In this manner, mechanist ‘White Rabbits of

[our] wonderland’ installed mechanist causal ‘mechanisms’ of unitary

materialism (determinism) as their fallaciously affirmed antecedent

principles, of U.S. political economy, which then deductively quite

pseudo naturally sponsored paradoxes with naturally, i.e.,

FFOORREEWWOORRDD6

Licensed corporations are organically fascist in nature."

consequential, tyrannous, cultural effects (which pseudo scientific

analysis introduced this research section 104): hopefully, maybe now

Jefferson’s fierce attitude against those that assume ‘the right to

tyrannize others’ can rationally be appreciated (?): by contemplating

Jefferson’s thoughts on the cultural effects of slavery, for instance.

When social or economic mechanisms exacerbate political social

division, to tyrannize as Jefferson suggests, should be condemned by

statesmen, our divided national sovereignty shows forth clearly to

others. Jefferson asks,

with what execrations should the statesman be loaded who,

permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of

the other, transforms those into despots and these into enemies,

destroys the morals of the one part and ‘amor patriae’ of the

other? [Is Jefferson’s question appurtenant to Psalms 2?]

At bottom line, all are admonished to put their trust in the Lord’s

essence, and it appears, the expectation is this: the heathen better

fulfills this requirement than human potentates and their sycophants

(organic representations of fascism surely qualify as such potentates). "

“The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave

rising from the dust” 8

It is difficult to determine on the standard by which a nation may

be tried, whether catholic, or particular. It is more difficult for a

native to bring to that standard the manners of his nation,

familiarized to him by habit. There must doubtless be an

unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the

existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between

master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous

passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and

FFOORREEWWOORRDD 7

degrading submission on the other. Our children see this and

learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is

the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to the grave

he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could

find no motive either in his philanthropy or his self-love for

restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it

should always be a sufficient one that his child is present. But

generally it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks

on, catches the lineaments of his wrath, puts on the same airs in

the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose rein to the worst of

passions and thus nursed, educated and daily exercised in

tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities.

The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners

and morals undepraved by such circumstances. And with what

execrations should the statesman be loaded who, permitting one

half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other,

transforms those into despots and these into enemies, destroys

the morals of the one part and ‘amor patriae’ of the other. For

if a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any other

in preference to that in which he is born to live and labor for

another: in which he must lock up the faculties of his nature,

contribute as far as depends on his individual endeavors to the

evanishment of the human race or entail his own miserable

condition on the endless generations proceeding from him. With

the morals of the people, their industry is also destroyed. For in

a warm climate, no man will labor for himself who can make

another labor for him. This is so true that, of the proprietors of

slaves, a very small proportion are ever seen to labor. And can

the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have

FFOORREEWWOORRDD8

removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the

people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are

not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my

country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can not

sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural

means only, a revolution of the wheel of torture, an exchange of

situation is among possible events: that it may become probable

by supernatural interference!

The Almighty has not attributes which can take side with

us in such a contest. But it is impossible to be temperate and to

pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy,

of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be contented to

hope they will once their way into everyone’s mind. I think a

change already perceptible, since the origin of the present

revolution. The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave

rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way, I hope,

preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total

emancipation; and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to

be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their

extirpation. Thomas Jefferson

Humans bond for security: to ensure and insure. to ensure

began with familial concerns, Insurance began with life’s desiderata. 9

± ensure, insure. ‘Ensure’ is the usual spelling for “make sure

or certain”; ‘insure’ for “arrange for money payment in case of

loss, accident or death.” [To ensure entails essence while

insurance concerns financial redress of substantial property

losses, which are caused by no personal human fault]

Taxation is required to ensure that government can administer all

organic forms of security including the insurances, which often are

FFOORREEWWOORRDD 9

rhetorically redundant, commitment without funding (legislators are

rhetorically “full of it” in matters of ensuring assurances, but often

falter to commit to funding for the insurance necessities).

Independent analysis disclosed that only 70 percent of government’s

expenditures in 2004 were funded. The 30% deficiency was largely

attributable to President G. W. Bush’s policy, which had given back $

Trillions of high end revenue taxes “to those that paid them”: this

political paternalist gift happened because government spent surplus

SS contribution taxes, accounted as an IOU, gave mechanists

fallacious reason to claim that revenue taxes had been excessive.

Mechanists were aware that SS contribution taxation had been legally

approved as a form of general taxation: all SS surpluses are

governments to use as it will, they fully contend as legal if not moral.

And with this rank demonstration of unfaithfulness to SS, mechanists

want the public trust for to repair SS for the retiring BabyBoom.

Seekers of better ways of life ensured the uniqueness of

American government with noble prospects for equanimity in matters

of government’s insurances.’ Contrarily, Whigs of property-based

flux, ensured to officially adopt the privatized economic mechanisms

of the American System of Political Economy. They ensured to

perpetuate the ‘divine-right’-based insurances that rejected

dogmatically the insurances of government, which American Seekers

envisioned. Only Seekers were of intent to move culture beyond

economy’s politically set mechanist fallacies, which Whigs officially

had affirmed as principles of the American System political economy,

only in quantity will it grow: more people, more goods, more

wealth; its quality will remain unchanged forever . . .; it grows

but it never matures. R. L. HeilbronerFundamentally, ultimately, government was constituted to administer

society’s common ensured security and insurances. And, as regards

the source and manner of this appointment, it is fair to recall that

FFOORREEWWOORRDD10

Federalists were a main political faction behind establishing our

federal government. Their politics is mechanist and consistently

anticipates and expects paternally delivered selfish benefits (as the

administrative policy to return revenue taxes “to those that paid them,”

for instance), which fundamentally is contrary to the constitutional

holistic purposes of this common ensuring authority, as was ratified

only after the Bill of Rights, based on the common sovereign consent,

was promised, which mechanists have administered with no

commonality to the common consent which had established the

Constitution with all its authorities. Particularly, this is true of

revenue taxes paid by licensed private businesses that then, as granted

by government, are put onto retail consumption so to redound as

business capital that then legally is the private business owners’ profit.

Other mechanist political Economy’ provisions do the same, to which

J. M. Keynes in 1920 observed:10

“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.”

-- John Maynard Keynes

The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920

In 2004, the national averages of economic growth and inflation, for

the past century, were disclosed: growth was 4%, inflation 3%. In the

late 1990s, economic analysis had shown that with 2% economic

growth, private business profits would likely be about 6%. So, please

tell me how, without inflation legally redounding as capital for profit

taking, this pseudo scientific economic analysis can be possible. And,

FFOORREEWWOORRDD 11

as you cannot otherwise explain it, please then consider the opposite

paradoxical side of economic growth: of wage-earning consumers that

by the mechanist economic system must consume inflation to subsist.

Colonial life under mechanist ‘divine right’ changed slowly

even as feudal life of the dark ages. Tories, Federalists, and Whigs are

the American ‘divine right’ patrons, and politically they succeeded to

affirm that government’s insurances are best provided by privatized

Political Economy’s government licensed, mechanisms (Where

inflation’s endemism as legally granted by government is buried in

consumption without accounting detail: inflation is, therefore,

consumed but not accounted for, and maybe patterned on ubiquitous

essence, which it is not, was deliberately left undefined, and described

as economic endemism, however, unlike ubiquitous but rational

essence, is ubiquitous but irrational substance). This mechanist

classical economic entrenchment has thwarted society’s maturing

progress that only is enabled by Seekers’ reason-based enlightenment.

So, which politics ensures government and its insurances, and whom

do government’s licensed privatized mechanisms insure?

Tautologically, which politics is irrational and fraudulently,

therefore, acts in dishonor to the Constitution’s holistic purposes?

This January 2005 article ran in The Las Vegas review Journal:

Social Security battle looming

Bush allies raising millions to fund drive for private accounts

by Jim Vandehei, of THE WASHINGTON POST

WASHINGTON -- President Bush’s political allies are raising

millions of dollars for an election style campaign to promote private

Social Security accounts, as Democrats and Republicans prepare for

what they predict will be the most expensive and extensive public

policy debate since the 1993 fight over the Clinton administration’s

failed health care plan. . . . GOP groups close to the White House are

asking the same donors who helped reelect Bush to fund an expensive

12 OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLAN

campaign to convince Americans -- and skeptical lawmakers -- that

Social Security is in crisis and that private accounts are the only cure. .

. . an independent conservative group has set aside $9 million to

support the president’s Social Security plan. . . . [another] conservative

group has raised $1.5 million and hopes to hit a $15 million target. . . .

“It could easily be a $ 50 million to $ 100 million cost to convince

people this is legislation that needs to be enacted,” said [Stephen]

Moore. . . . “If we feel like gambling, we’ll play the slots,” [is the

slogan AARP, as enjoined by Democratic groups, will counter with.]


Sovereign, in the sense of feudal materialist monarchy, referred to

kings and their kingdoms. Then during the reign of James I in 1489 to

honor the uniting of Scotland with England, (absolutely necessary)

new sine qua non meaning was given to sovereign. By calling11

England’s unit of money, a sovereign, the Pound Sterling (^), as also

the one pound gold coin, was then called a sovereign. Money then

became quantified by the ordinal count of sovereign units. And,12

economic value of money is intrinsically consequential of substance

(as all ‘consequents’ identified with goods and properties are).

Logically intended, therefore, this irrational analogy to sine qua non

sovereign essence also intends to identify sovereignty’s natural sum.

Mathematically, this meaning compares sovereignty to the natural

uniqueness of counting numbers, which have both cardinal and

ordinal attributes. If, therefore, naturally substantial consequential

sovereign value is at all analogous, then it must exclusively relate to

the only primacy, as found in ordinal numbers, which is the single

cardinal identity element. This cardinal identity analogously is found

in humans and is the essential human sum, and surely is not at all

necessarily independently related to the human substance.

The cardinal identity element of arithmetic: unit, number 1 is


the only prime integer that is identified as a multiple of all integers

(And, 1, is, therefore, the multiplicative ‘identity element’ of

arithmetic). Analogously, humans are the sovereign ‘identity

element’ of ordinal (group consented) sovereignty (and, all sovereign

value that is affirmed to ordinal group sovereignty, requires that a

majority of cardinally sovereign value yields, i.e., has either consented

or involuntarily yielded its naturally antecedent cardinal sovereignty).

In results of the 2004 presidential election and the legislation to create

the position of Director of Homeland Security, there was an unrelated

provision to fund a secreted security program, which Congress had

previously denied. Senator J. Rockefeller objected to this provision

but could not, because of a congressional secrecy seal, identify it

publicly. This secrecy clearly violates human cardinal sovereignty, as

consented, if it does not violate the Constitution’s division of

authorities as consented to government. Because this secrecy’s origin

was a select factional group of elected representatives with a freshly

elected administration, acting independently of consented authorities

in formulating this secreted program funding, of which no one, inside

or out is then allowed to speak publicly, clearly is either an

impeachable cause, or logically a valid reason for cardinal sovereign

citizens to recall those elected officials of the cabal, and to reorganize

government to strictly accord with the Constitution.

This is a common definition of sovereignty: 13

A person, group, or nation having supreme control or dominion.

Entities of sine qua non (absolutely necessary) cardinal authority,

power or value naturally depict sovereigns.

Humans, are the natural cardinal sovereigns of temporal life. A

groups’ ordinal sovereignty is either by human sovereign consent or

contrived. Consented ordinal sovereignty never departs (with

impunity) from the cardinal human essence. Tautologically,


contrived sovereignty, of a king, for instance, is an affirmed

metamorphism of consented human essence, which either by denial or

affirmation, is claimed to be the supreme antecedent sovereign

essence, or ‘sum,’ which grand fallacy either denies life’s natural

antecedents, or affirms natural consequents as life’s antecedents.

It is the uniqueness of individuals in temporal life, as they are

encouraged to develop responsibly, into which the essential

ethereal beauties of life and nations bloom. The American

heritage is pure ETHEREAL-GOLD. The unalienable qualities

of individuals are priceless; not compatible with any material

thing that humans can produce. (from my research on ‘Civitas’)

The quintessence of U.S. constitutional sovereignty is consenting,

collective sine qua non unalienable cardinal essence, ‘sum’ (without

which the human ‘substance,’ is not), or the ‘soul’ of human life, as

nature bestowed to each human being; each is a sovereign entity that

individually or collectively is unalienable because nature is

unalienable; cardinal, because nature is supreme. *

* Of note, human ‘life’ is a post temporal conceived definition that

without a sovereign sine qua non ‘sum,’ has no rational meaning as

regards life’s ‘substance.‘ (Which essentially is what Bertrand

Russell, an agnostic extraordinary mathematician-philosopher, had

reasoned.) Russell cogently understood the natural axiomatic ordering

of all temporal reality with a sine qua non ‘sum’ of life as its cardinal

essence. He observed this about the mechanist view on life: 14

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

15CULTURAL ‘NIHILISM’ is subtle conservative dogma

contain no beliefs or statements, would also contain no truth.

H. W. Turnbull cited Russell’s uniquely qualified mathematics’ source

for observing this in The Great Mathematicians. He wrote: 15

‘Of what use,’ said Kronecker to Lindemann, ‘is your beautiful

investigation regarding B? Why study such problems, since

irrational numbers are nonexistent?’

These ideas [of mathematicians] have had an enormous

influence on the trend of recent and contemporary thought; it is

enough to say here that they exhibit in diverse ways the more

mathematical side of that philosophical search into the

principles of our subject which has marked the most recent stage

of its history. For mathematics had now reached a state in

which it was possible to do for the whole what Euclid tried to do

for Geometry, by disclosing the underlying axioms or primitive

propositions, as Peano called them: and the most patient

investigation has been made -- notably in our own land by

Whitehead and Russell -- first of the subject-matter itself and

next of the very ideas that govern the subject-matter. As all this

was conceived on a sublimely universal scale, it is hardly

remarkable that certain paradoxes have come to light. How to

face these paradoxes is an urgent problem, and there are at

present two or three schools of thought employed upon this. . . .

Turnbull is also cited in section 109, about fiducial gauges of truth.

Human ‘life’ is naturally constituted as an independent human

entity, which to sustain its temporal ‘being’ that breaths the air, and

ingests material substances. Embryonic ‘life,’ is sustained in the

mother’s womb, which fails to require this temporal constitution of

human being and is, therefore, while legally is defined as human, still

is a misnomer. The ‘sum’ of temporal life requires external nurturing


and maturing processes, which progresses while a clock like natural

(dust to dust) reversion is occurring throughout each of life’s

‘substantial‘ sojourn.

The sum of human life is the only repository of sine qua non

cardinal sovereignty. And, nature limited organic ordinal sovereignty

to cardinal qualities, only to the extent that cardinal sovereignty

grants, or is coerced to yield. Nature does not discriminate, with

endowments to individuals, groups or races superior in authorities or

rights as the class consciousness of any wonderland’s acquisitive

“White Rabbits” might avow.

Thomas Hobbes presented an attractive theory of greed, as based on

his dogmatic empirical belief. Tautologically, his thesis is an affirmed

‘Divine Rights’-based fallacy. And rational deductions from this

thesis retain the dogmas of his thesis. All are fallacies that mechanist

“White Rabbits” of our wonderland affirm as truth. Hobbes conceded

this: human equality exists to the extent that rebuttal is folly: 16

Nature hath made men so equall, in the faculties of body, and

mind; as that though there bee found one man sometimes

manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind then another; yet

when all is reconed together, the difference between man, and

man, is not so considerable, as that one man can claim to

himselfe any benefit, to which another may not pretend, as well

as he. Thomas Hobbes

And, in their Declaration of Independence, Colonial Americans

proclaimed these natural human ‘essents’ (Heidegger’s word). 17

In Congress, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration

of the thirteen united States of America,

When . . . it becomes necessary . . . to assume among the powers

of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of

Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them . . .

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are

17Sovereignty is individual responsibility

created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with

certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty

and the pursuit of Happiness. . . An overwhelming colonial subscription to these cardinal unalienable

truths won for Americans, independence, both of cardinal (individual)

and ordinal (organic) sovereignty (where cardinal sovereignty is

nature’s individually bequeathed sine qua non essence).

--- Does the cardinally leveled sovereignty of nature endow

privilege or responsibility?

Sovereignty is individual responsibility

John Locke’s philosophy about the naturally endowed values and

powers of each person supported the American independence

movement. Locke intellectually ruled the Eighteenth Century.18

Locke’s philosophy sidestepped the sophistries of classical

orthodoxy’s dogmas: divine right, materialism, mechanist

determinism, positivism, . . .. Cicero’s thoughts on natural law were

deliberately considered. But, Locke left alone these reasoned but

nomos contested theories when he explained his physis-based

empiricism. Instead, he directly confronted the fallacies of rank by

appealing to each individual’s natural ‘essents’ (as Heidegger called

the faculties of the human soul) to confront the dogmatized

superiority-inferiority castings of society. Leaving natural laws

uncontested and apart, Locke’s experience-based reasoning alone

defined the unalienable essence of individual equality, i.e., the

democratically "leveled" sovereignty for which Colonial Americans

aspired and faught for. While Locke’s clear explication was

commonly celebrated, many members of the Constitutional

Convention held fast to Hobbes’ materialist view. Reluctantly,

democratic-cardinal-sovereignty became the anchor of constitutional

purposes: the Convention adopted democratic-cardinal-sovereignty as

the physis-based Strategic plan for America, but then isolated this


strategy by adopting the nomos-based republican sponsored

substance-based sovereignty as the nation’s economic Operating

Plan. While the Convention adopted “leveled cardinal sovereignty” as

the basis of its organic constitutional strategy, as with England’s unit

of money (the U.S. sovereignty was quantified by the ordinal tally of

individual cardinal sovereign units), authority and power aspiring

‘White Rabbits’ consistently exercise their mechanist nomos-based

substantial sovereign rule: as measured by owned property holdings. *

* Property’s definition (a thing or things owned ) is not only19

unitary substance-based, as orthodoxy it was legally confirmed. And,

Slavery universally was justified in the fallacious context of this

definition, which context irrationally infers that Slaves are not

sovereign humans. Whenever property is politically affirmed as an

antecedent principle, as in Slavery, for instance, either substance is

affirmed as the antecedent of essence, or life’s essence is denied. Both

fallacies are equally irrational and either separately or together

compromise natural security (as usufruct provided) to .commonweals.

The popularity of property was demonstrated when Pierre

Joseph Proudhon in 1840 published his book, What is Property.

Culturally, Proudhon had embraced the social Enlightenment which

preceded the French Revolution (1789-1799). France had not adopted

democracy, but no longer had monarchy either. Mechanist, chaotic

starving and poverty were common. Proudhon charged that property

is theft. The positive mechanist political absolutism which celebrated

substance rejected Proudhon’s charge, and because his extreme view,

was broadly perceived as socialism, he spent time in prison and in

exile. Whenever the celebration of substance is affirmed as the

antecedent of essence, for to subjugate natural security’s safety nets, as

usufruct and commonweal, it also, however, produces effects, and

exploitations that in fact are buccaneer forms of thievery. *

* President G.W. Bush’s February 23, 2005-joint-news-


briefing with V. Putin of Russia exposed the nature, existence,

and divergences of what they mutually excused as “strong”

democratic reality: Bush quipped that in America we accept as

reality that the big “C” dominates democracy, while Putin

defended what Americans’ view for being anti-democratic in

Russia is equally needed for it to be strong. Putin pointed out

that the predominant U.S. Electoral System, is akin to

appointments rather than elections in Russia. (A panel

discussion on TV of this conference disclosed that capitalist

“big C” corporate interests want to exploit the vast Russian

natural resources) Under the surface of the democratic claims

of both, inferences of mechanist material-based “strength”

belie the fact that neither Bush nor Putin, by their individual

values and actions, is a worthy representative of democratic

essence: in a good cop, bad cop analogy, both irrationally

have an affirmed bad cop (mentality). And, while irrational,

both are right in the aspect that democracy is philosophical

belief that concludes that the temporal world includes both

spiritual and material aspects. Both are wrong, however, in

the aspect of truth in which irrationalism never qualifies as

truth: as Bertrand Russell’s analysis of sine qua non

antecedences is cogently applicable. Both have ordered their

domains so that absolutism only allows material-based facts.

And, Proudhon’s social rejection, in this light, represents Auguste

Comte’s substantial doctrinal triumph ( his unitary substantial doctrine

called positivism), which absolutism socially fomented beginning

sometime after 1789. Irrationally it denied cardinal essence.20

About cardinal essence, Proudhon was profoundly eloquent,

as Heilbroner had written this about Marx’s philosophic feud with

Proudhon. Therefore, we are assured that Marx was aware of eventual

enlightment failure whenever the oligarchical mechanist intelligentsia

is imbued only of pure capitalist unitary materialism.21


Perhaps no single incident was more provocative, more

prophetic of a witch-hunt for ‘deviationists’ and ‘counter

revolutionaries’ than the feud between Marx and Pierre

Proudhon. Proudhon was the son of a French barrelmaker, a

self-educated brilliant Socialist who had rocked the French

intelligentsia with a book entitled ‘What is Property? Proudhon

had answered, Property is Theft, and he had called for an end to

huge private riches, although not to all private property. Marx

and he had met and talked and corresponded, and then Marx

asked him to join forces with himself and Engels. Proudhon’s

answer is so profoundly moving and prescient that it is worth

quoting at some length:

Let us together seek, if you wish, the laws of society, the manner

in which these laws are reached, the process by which we shall

succeed in discovering them; but, for God’s sake, after having

demolished all the ‘a priori’ dogmatisms [as ‘divine right’], do

not let us in our turn dream of indoctrinating the people. . . . I

applaud with all my heart your thought of inviting all shades

of opinion; let us carry on a good and loyal polemic, let us give

the world the example of an informed and farsighted tolerance,

but let us not -- simply because we are at the head of a

movement -- make ourselves into the leaders of a new

intolerance, let us not pose as the apostles of a new religion,

even if it be the religion of logic, the religion of reason. Let us

gather and encourage all dissent, let us outlaw all

exclusiveness, all mysticism, let us never regard a question as

exhausted, and when we have used one last argument, let us if

necessary begin again -- with eloquence and irony. On these

conditions, I will gladly enter into your association. Otherwise,


no!

Proudhon, a socialist, rebuffed the communist doctrine for the same

irrational propensities as the inteligencia of capitalism had affirmed as

their antecedent principle. Democracy’s more fragile, i.e., essential

dilemma is that it necessarily allows its irrational mechanist

materialist political opposition an equal voice.

[And the U.S. presidential election of 2004 confirms how equal it is]

Post U.S. Constitution, in assessing the constitutional

measures of consented organic sovereignty, mechanist politics

affirmed Substance as a coequal of Sum. This, while tautologically

fallacious, allowed Substance, at critical times, to be legally adjudged

as Sum’s antecedent, which, for instance, happened when the Supreme

Court sided with Hamilton’s affirmation of government’s substance-

based economic functions, rather than holding to Jefferson’s agrarian-

based conservatism: of government’s consented sovereign roles

involving politically privatized economic issues. Another instance

was fundamental to the Dred Scott Decision in which the cardinal

sovereignty of a freed slave was subordinated to the mechanist idea of

property rights that the slave was owned by his master, and was,

therefor, returned to slavery. The mechanist Supreme Court has made

other decisions in an absence of supporting legislation, as when

following President Lincoln’s Emancipation Order, the Court

extended to corporations, as adjudged legal persons, constitutionally

protected cardinal sovereign right to Due Process [which fallaciously

but legally extended to corporations of the slave trade, as legal person

entities, sine qua non natural human cardinal sovereign rights (what

President John Adams had reasoned were rights coeval of

government)]. This decision slowed by centuries the legal processes

of granting emancipation: the due process rights of large plantation

owners’ were given legal standing over the due process rights of freed

slaves. (And, this aggrieved situation now extends to individual


citizens, when in legal contests with corporations) The list of such

legal fallacies is much longer.

The Constitutional Convention proposed individual

democratic-sovereignty, i.e., naturally endowed human rights that we

each can claim and must individually exercise as our own cardinal

sovereign property (which natural sine qua non property is different

fundamentally than substantial property in the aspect of reality (which

without essence, is not reality, at all) as Bertrand Russell’s critically

reasoning of reality explained: requiring a dynamic and responsible

consistency in individual presence that is culturally holistically

attuned. And by infusing practical property-based sovereignty

antecedently into the cultural mix of political economy, Whigs infused

a perpetual paradoxical challenge to this individual responsibility,

which, of nature, must adopt “categorical Imperatives” for to be

democratic. We each exercise this responsibility by thinking clearly,

proclaiming candidly and acting upon what we think (Until, we get put

in the ‘pokey’ for mis speaking publically, and particularly when mis

speaking about ‘top-secretes’ as are interpreted and designated by

those of the paradoxical political authorities.) This exercise of

individual cardinal sovereignty provides the constantly renewable

reparation of our constitutional Strategy, i.e., each fresh generation of

dynamic sovereign citizens quantifies and qualifies the nation’s

ordinal sovereignty by suffrage processes of consenting to it.

However, the constitutional reparation, we call freedom, also requires

of each individual (and political factions) an outward-turned

(objective) perspective with all common aspects (or, the whole) of

society. Each individual is naturally accountable to admit that the

liberty and freedom, which they themselves require, must be also

allowed to all others of responsible cardinal sovereignty (which

effectively is Christ’s categorically imperative Golden Rule.22

[John Locke] assert[s physis-based natural law] in the

contemporary,' to 'claim' that it is true by the admission of any


individual that his or her requirements of liberty and freedom

must be admitted to others, 'unless' the form of political society

under which they live is unjust. Craig Thomas

Our individual responsibility is to pursue knowledge and this cardinal

essence requires that truth-based ethical responsibility is pursued, that

when benignly neglected, allows mechanist power aspiring “White

Rabbits” to ordinally in substantial sovereignty proliferate and,

thereby, without discussion or debate, nullify the constitutionally

administered democratic-sovereignty. In benign neglect we abdicate

our unalienable individual cardinal sovereign rights to those armed

with orthodox dogmas and superior accumulated materiality, as they,

in orthodox nomos, influence the acts of government to favor

themselves. In his recent book, Who will tell the People, William

Grider summarized the latent effectiveness of American sovereignty;

he illuminated whys and hows of usurping unalienable sovereignty: 23

Americans have never achieved the full reality in their history or

even agreed completely on democracy's meaning. The

democratic idea has always been most powerful in America as

an unfulfilled vision of what the country might someday become

-- a society advancing imperfectly toward self-realization.

Grider warns:24

American democracy is in much deeper trouble than most people

wish to acknowledge. . . . What exists behind the formal shell is a

systemic breakdown of the shared civic values we call

democracy. William Grider

All aspects of life must embroil the issues of our material

world: material aspects surely embroiled the “great debate,” as

Parrington called the debate about the Constitution and sovereignty.

Concerning the tenuousness, i.e., the ethereal essential status of

American democracy, and before laying blame for the high cost of

ineffective political driven government, each citizen should refer to


When considering the diabolical teleology and mechanism"

causalities, which are represented respectively since Lincoln in theDemocratic and Whiggish-Republican politics, Franklin wasprophetic.

Regarding the recent problems with deciding elections via""

the Electoral College and Supreme Court, Franklin displayed keeninsight here as well.

Parrington’s statement about Benjamin Franklin (democrat):25

He sat in the Constitutional Convention as one of the few

democrats, and although he was unable to make headway

against the aristocratic majority, he was quite unconvinced by

their rhetoric. . . . when he heard eloquent young lawyers argue

that a single-chamber legislature, responsive to a democratic

electorate, must lead to mob legislation, and that good

government required a carefully calculated system of checks and

balances, he remarked:

It appears to me . . . like putting one horse before the cart and

the other behind it, and whipping them both. If the horses are of

equal strength, the wheels of the cart, like the wheels of

government, will stand still; and if the horses are strong enough

the cart will be torn to pieces. 26 "

When in 1790,it was proposed to substitute a bicameral system

for the single-chamber in Pennsylvania, Franklin came to the

defense of the simpler, more democratic form, with a vivacity

little stalled by years: ""

Has not the famous political fable of the snake, with two heads

and one body, some useful instruction contained in it? She was

going to a brook to drink, and in her way was to pass through a


hedge, a twig of which opposed her direct course; one head

chose to go on the right side of the twig, the other on the left; so

that time was spent in the contest, and before the decision was

completed, the poor snake died with thirst.27

Both his economic principles and his views on government have

been condemned by Federalist [mechanist] critics as tainted with

populism. They both sprang from the same root of agrarian

democracy. Whether Franklin or his critics more adequately

represented the larger interests of eighteenth-century America is

beside the present question; it is enough to note that all such

criticism is leveled primarily at Franklin’s democratic

philosophy as a thing in itself undesirable, if not dangerous.

Franklin may often have been wrong, but he was never

arrogant, never dogmatic. He was too wise and too generous for

that. In the midst of prosperity he never forgot the

unprosperous. All his life his sympathy went out to whoever

suffered in person or fortune from the injustice of society: to

the debtor who found himself pinched by the shrinking supply

of currency; to the black slave who suffered the most

elementary of wrongs; to impressed seamen; to the weak and

wretched of earth. He was part of that emerging humanitarian

movement which, during the last half of the eighteenth

century, was creating a new sense of social responsibility.“Social responsibility” and “democratic sovereignty” is the grist of

continuing political debate in th U.S., as well in all parts of the world.

Hamilton argued prescriptively in absolute favor of English

mercantilist mechanist causal-determinism doctrine, i.e., mechanism:28

A commercial people understands that a government that serves

the interests of men of property, serves the interests of all, for if

capital will not invest how shall labor find employment?


---- Does Hamilton base his prescription exclusively on

mercantilist doctrine which Hobbes unitary materialism is about?

---- In this, does he disregard the causal nature of the human

essence of will, i.e., the intelligent spiritual-state of humanity that

Christ referred to when he said: man doth not live by bread only? Is29

this non material Provence the Provence of lasting truth, knowledge

and justice? The Provence of human tranquility?

---- Does Hamilton’s prescription found American political-

conservatism, which is often diabolical to Jefferson’s foundations to

democracy and cardinal sovereignty? Is Hamilton’s prescription a

form of “Divine Rights” dogma?

---- Does Hamilton prescriptively ignore Immanuel Kant’s

“synthetic a priori”, i.e., false reasoning about deterministic

materialism (i.e., Kant’s tautological dilemma)?

---- What dogmatized doctrine, theory or law exists to ensure that

men of property will invest in ways to insure that labor finds

employment (Economists, Veblen and Heilbroner, among others, as

Schumperter and Brockway, voiced great concern about this)?

While officially the Constitutional Convention neither adopted

nor rejected Hamilton’s prescription, dogmatized deterministic

materialism eventually became the nation’s dominant influence of

legislation and administration of the new nation’s Operating Plan

(mechanist insurance), which we call The American System of

Political Economy. While our Operating Plan’s insurance presently

is based on absolute dogma (it is nomos-based), the political flux in

America is dynamic and flexible to adapt to the individual flux of

natural unalienable cardinal human sovereignty. The will of human

nature is complex. It is capable to generate dogmatized doctrines and

mechanisms of deterministic materialism and it also looks to

socialization such as the “social usage-based insurance”, as colonial

America’s Roger Williams had astutely observed.

As we ponder the antecedent cause of the members of Heaven’s Gate


committing mass suicide, we should also ponder the doctrines that we

seldom freely select on our own to command our individual actions

and prescriptive pronouncements of truth. The cultural nomos of

society represent a collage of dogmatized theories and doctrine that we

individually, in hope, sometimes willingly subscribe as “the truth.”

Unwittingly, we too often subscribe to fraud, however. (About our

cultural corner on truth, ours is similar to the Islamic culture that also

too often we in dogmatic prejudice brand for being evil.)

The United States’ Operating Plan is politics about economics. It

embroils the influences of mind with emotion, values with passions,

essence of will with mechanist materialism, . . . Rationalizations are

inevitable and Aristotle’s spectrum of virtue is applicable (Virtue,

Aristotle explained, is the middle ground between the vices: the mean

of excess and deficiency.): At the extreme of excess, controlling by

commanding materialities and their deterministic values is an

inevitable cause of collective and collusive rationalization, which

Adam Smith warned posed the greatest threat to the universal benefits

of his natural reason-based “market system” that he carefully

explained as the basis of the inevitable economic evolution. His

observations about economic evolution are universally evident. But,

the licensed, privatized economic mechanisms of “White Rabbits”

determinism challenge Smith’s warning about monopoly.

While the U.S. Strategic Plan is based on ethics [giving of

self in the sense of acting together to secure (ensure and insure)

common values], the Operating Plan is based on individually taking

and securing what we want as our own property. The difference

between giving and taking is, of course, diabolical. While strategy is

each individual’s responsibility, about the preserving every

individual’s unalienable rights, operationally speaking, we expect

selfishness and want absolutism with property ownership, contracts,

and such. Often unalienable human strategic rights conflict with

mechanist absolute objectives involving property. Wants often qualify


as extreme vices on the spectrum of virtue, and mechanistically,

determinism works legally to nullify physis-based sovereignty. In

this, natural laws are abused while mechanist wants violate no

manmade law, which Jefferson reasoned gave Americans abstract

justice. Therefore, we need to be clear about definition and purpose.

Christ may have said it best: man doth not live by bread only, which

paraphrased says that human life requires more than just the nomos of

unitary substance. About political economy, we especially need be

clear and balanced in reason when enacting laws that define

government’s administrative functions, with its privatized agents,

codifications and regulations. Particularly, as we officially consider

adopting or licensing forms of mercantilism, for instance, we should

consider the nature of our government licensed “fictitious legal

person” corporations, that agencies of state government gave license to

act as human entities. Nature’s God did not create fiction and

according to reasoned inferences of Natural Law, which apply

specifically to humans, fictitious persons have no unalienable cardinal

sovereign rights. Still, with lawful impunity fictions called

corporations engage in competitive and collusive forms of neo-

mercantilism. We should not only recognize this, we should be

concerned that multinational corporations are today, larger than our

nation was and that as “fictitious legal individuals,” they represent the

greatest threat to nullifying individual cardinal sovereignty. They

represent Leviathan entities, nations, that make their own rules, we

might say, with which humans individually cannot compete. The

following describes mercantilism:30

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. . . .

As part of the mercantilist program, individual


Government minted money, in Smith’s view, was the"

fungible medium of exchanging “wealth.” White Rabbits of their ownmechanist view of wonderland, in mercantilism, metamorphosedgovernment’s fungible exchange value medium, as government wasconstitutionally commissioned to create, to money that is now aninvestment commodity that mechanistically can legally grow, thedown side of which also economically results to reduce the wage-earned fungible exchange value that is available to subsistenceconsumption “wealth.” And counterfeited money often goesunnoticed as it fills the void created by this shrinking availability towage-earning, as the investment commodity and hoarding grows.

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 [which he defined as

consumable and usable goods ]. Douglas Greenwald"

Not only should we be concerned about corporate mercantilism, we

should also be concerned about their collusive mechanist monopolist

politics, purchased free speech, accounted as a cost of doing business,

and recovered from economic consumption: PAC contributions to

political parties, similarly they also recover from consumption. *

* Whether from foreign countries where they conduct corporate

business or in the sense that they represent something other than


human cardinal sovereignty, political contributions from corporations

are foreign, if not alien, contributions. This also applies to all social

and religious organizations and particularly to PACs.

Confusion, conflict, and paradoxes are inevitable in the dual

sovereign realms of our mechanist neo democratic-sovereignty. We

might distinguish these realms by their dominant characteristics:

intangible responsibility (which is metaphysical) and (tangible and

temporal) material acquisition (which St. John said was sinfully

concupiscent). Hesiod’s nomos, which G. R. Morrow wrote about: 31

. . . 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 [700s BC] 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. . . . Law is primarily an

embodiment of justice, and conversely the just man is he who

obeys the laws. But two other elements came to be associated

with the idea of ‘nomos:’ the element of constraint, and the

element of enactment. Customary law in its early stages is

usually felt by a people as only vaguely compelling; conformity

results without the machinery of courts and penalties.

Similarly these customs are usually regarded as owing little to

human contrivance; they are the gift of the gods, or a part of the

unchanging order of things. For the Greeks this state of

innocence was ended by the process of political unification and


the colonization. When two or more communities found it

expedient to join forces for mutual protection and benefit, their

tribal and local customs had to be harmonized, and something

like a common law, the law of the city, had to be set up, in some

respects overriding the earlier and more familiar customs. Such

a law of the city was felt to have, and would need to have, more

explicit legislation or enactment, by deliberate choice of “the

best.” . . . By the beginning of the fifth century the Greeks were

well aware of this element of human judgment and positive

enactment [as Jefferson alluded to?] in the laws under which they

lived. The course of political events in the fifth century only

deepened this awareness. At Athens, for example, the successive

changes in the constitution, the increasing resort to legislation,

the growth of litigation, the widespread contact with other

peoples and other laws, and the heightened sense of individual

interests distinct from those of the community, all converged in

their influence to give the Athenian citizen the conviction that his

laws were to a great extent the result of legislation or enactment,

and derived much of their authority from the sanctions explicitly

attached to them.

Yet, so strong was the traditional association of law with

justice, it appeared inconceivable that there should be justice

apart from law. The relations of the two concepts had to a great

extent been reversed. Whereas in the beginning law was

regarded as finding its norm in justice, in the fifth century

justice came to be defined in terms of law. Under these

circumstances the only recourse open to one who felt the

injustice of his city’s law was to appeal to a higher law. . . . In

short, there seemed no escape from the “tyranny of nomos.”

The dilemma of the fifth-century thinker is nicely exemplified


in the attitude of Socrates. Before the Athenian court he

declares firmly that he must “obey God rather than men.” Yet

he was a loyal subject to the laws of Athens, and according to

Xenophon he fully concurred in the current opinion that justice

means conformity to the laws.

Socrates’ Apology confirms that allegiance to reasoned truth and

knowledge was his categorical imperative, while temporal nomos-

based law was also very important, but consequential instead of

antecedent. His Apology was coerced by the oligarchical power’s

misuse of nomos-based law, intransigently to suppress his freedom of

thought and expression. Contemporarily, this form of nomos arises in

biases of concupiscent self-interest, as emphasized by “dollar

morality“ for instance, and the dogmatic oligarchical intolerance of

physis might present the greatest threat to the individual freedoms of

democracy: Kervorkian provided an example, which embroils an

individual’s inalienable ‘right’ to decide how and when to die. Our

orthodoxy’s dogmatic mechanist‘divine right’ based cultural nomos,

not only disrespects this individual cardinal sovereign right, it makes

society bear the costs of prosecutions and incarcerations, as putting

‘Kervorkians’ in jail for assisting individuals to die peacefully,

painlessly and without great social and economic cost. Nomos-based

laws which represent tautological fallacies are at fault.

The notion of ‘physis’ belongs to an entirely different

context.

---- The idea of ‘nomos’ is the product of reflection on

political and moral experience;

---- the conception of ‘physis’ was worked out by the early

Greek scientists -- those men of Miletus, Ephesus, Clazomenae,

and Abdera, of Sicily and southern Italy, who attempted to

explain, in terms of familiar elements and processes the

phenomena of heavens and all the other varied occurrences in


the cosmos that surrounds human life.

The speculations of these early thinkers were universally

designated, from the fifth century onward and perhaps even

earlier, as inquiries into ‘physis.’ . . . These inquiries were

introduced into Athens in the fifth century by Anaxagoras, and

the shock they gave to the older beliefs of the Athenians is one of

the major events of that century. The meaning of the term

‘physis,’ universally used to designate the object of these

inquiries, varied somewhat with the thinker and with context in

which the term was used. Sometimes it referred to the primary

stuff, or kinds of stuff, of which the ordered cosmos is

constituted; sometimes it denoted that ordered cosmos itself . . .

; sometimes the form or constitution of any person or thing

within that cosmos; and sometimes the originating power or

agency through which this order came about, whether in the

cosmos as a whole, or in its separate parts. . . . But these varied

meanings had a common core. Underlying all these

investigations into ‘physis’ was the assumption that there are

certain enduring primary characters or elemental forces which,

if understood, would explain the origin and behavior of the

cosmos and all its parts.

The contrast between ‘nomos’ and ‘physis’ is therefore

unmistakable.

---- ‘Nomos’ varies from place to place and from time to

time, whereas

---- ‘physis’ has the character of necessity [sine qua non] . . .

and is therefore invariable.

‘Nomos’ is transitory, while ‘physis’ is “ageless and

deathless.” “Nomos’ is the product of human contriving; but

the forces at work in nature, and the order they bring about,


are independent of human agency. Furthermore ‘physis’ is

primary, not merely in the order of being, but also in time; for

‘nomos,’ together with all other human institutions, is a late

occurrence in cosmic history.[tautologically, nomos-based law is affirmed fallacy]

Consider, for instance, the institution of marriage. The

marriage vows, as taken in pure love, are physis-based, the

responsibilities of which, to each other and those procreated, are

inherent and reasonably can be understood. However, the material

realities of the lawful marriage contract are nomos-based and primarily

substantial in nature. When society acts to formalize the fused physis-

nomos rights in marriage -- as to liberties, license, powers,

prerogatives, privileges, . . . society inevitably discriminates against

those to whom an officially sanctioned marriage is denied. However

argued and despite honorable and ethical intents, nomos-based tenets

of society violate the individual sovereign rights of some with favor to

others. But when society sanctions marriage expressly for exclusive

purposes to reenforce responsibilities relating to the vows, particularly

involving procreation, which is the primary physis-based sine qua non

responsibility of marriage, then same sex vows cannot naturally

qualify for social reenforcement, whether or not such union is called a

marriage. A prudent Society should still clearly define the

responsibilities inherent of nomos-based favoritism to avoid confusion

that leads to an official sanctioning of nomos, of same sex marriage

and thereby compromising the natural purpose of marriage that

socially inheres in a three-way partnership.

One might note that the sacred partnership, inherent to the

physis-based marriage contract, involves three principal entities (a

particular male, a particular female, and the organic whole of society):

each entity has inherently natural interests and responsibilities with

each new sovereign entity of procreation whether in or out of marriage

(and essential procreation does not naturally occur without years of


nurturing care in the temporal environs of life, i.e., a human life is not

procreated in the mother’s womb only). With these inherent

responsibilities understood, favoritism becomes recognized instead as

an unalienable natural responsibility: In democracy, favoritism

without natural responsibility is unwarranted as it damages leveled-

sovereignty. In my view, this contemporary concern clearly provides

an example of physis-based natural law that nomos-based laws cannot

accommodate. Anyway, the natural responsibilities mitigate the envy

of perceptions, which contend that rights and privileges are

compromised! And, marriage does not always provide advantages:

Tax laws often discriminate with favor to single individuals: anyway,

society has no inherent or implied interest in the eunuches like

circumstance of same sex unions.

Constitutional rights, as specified in the Bill of Rights, restrain

government actions (and as agents of government, should also restrain

corporations) and thereby guarantee that all individuals are on an even

playing field, as important and influential in lawfully determining their

individual situations and circumstances.

---- However, to what extent should these constitutional Rights

apply to “fictitious legal person” corporate entities?

---- And, to what extent should government’s licensed corporate

mechanisms of the privatized political economy’s operational Plan be

tolerated when they nullify individual cardinal sovereignty?

Adam Smith’s reference notes in Wealth of Nations reveal where to

find details of his personal concerns about corporations.32

Corporations, tendency of the exclusive privileges of, on trade,

30, 58; by what authority erected, 61; the advantages

corporations derive from surrounding country, 61; check the

operations of competition, 63; their internal regulations,

combinations against the public, 63-4; are injurious even to the

members of them, 64; the laws of, obstruct the free circulation


of labour, from one employment to another, 67; the origin of,

192; are exempted by their priveleges from the power of feudal

barons, 193; European East India Companies disadvantageous

to the eastern commerce, 214; The exclusive privileges of

corporations should be destroyed, 225-26.

Thomas C. Jorling’s concern is both contemporary and direct: 33

With some reluctance, I have chosen to register independent

views on . . . the exercise of power by large, often

multinational corporations.

Deep concern over accountability in the exercise of

power, especially as it affects individuals, has been a hallmark of

American society. In my view, the Commission (for a National

Agenda for The Eighties) should have acknowledged, in the

context of the eighties, the historic concern of Americans with

the exercise of power. At the time of the framing of the

Constitution, many provisions were adopted to constrain and

make accountable an agent of power--the federal government.

During the past 200 years, new aggregates of power have come

into being, especially the large, multinational corporation.

Brought into existence by state charter, these institutions were

once constrained by limits on size and power, limits rapidly

made obsolete by interstate competition. Justice Brandeis, in a

descent in the 1932 case Liggett v. Lee, described the history

concisely: 'Although they fully recognized the value of this

instrumentality in commerce and industry, they commonly

denied incorporation for business long after they had granted it

for religious, educational, and charitable purposes. They

denied it because of fear. Fear of encroachment upon the

liberties and opportunities of the individual. Fear of the


subjection of labor to capital. Fear of monopoly. Fear that the

absorption of capital by corporations, and their perpetual life,

might bring evils similar to those which attended 'mortmain.'

There was a sense of some insidious menace inherent to large

corporations. So at first the corporate privilege was granted

sparingly; and only when the grant seemed necessary in order

to procure some specific benefit otherwise unobtainable.

The removal by leading industrial states of the limitations

upon the size and powers of business corporations appears to

have been due, not to their conviction that maintenance of the

restrictions was undesirable in itself, but to the conviction that it

was futile to insist upon them; because local restriction would be

circumvented by foreign (other states) incorporation. Indeed,

local restriction seemed worse than futile; Lesser States eager

for the revenue derived from traffic in charters, had removed

safeguards from their own incorporation laws. 288 US 517, 548,

557.

Nothing took the place of the limits -- limits designed to

control power -- once imposed by states. Subsequently, the

corporation has continued to grow, and it now is the source of

the exercise of the greatest amount of power in national and

global society. Simply put, the large business corporations,

separately and collectively, wield the greatest quantum power

in our society. Power with many dimensions: to shape the form

of society, to alter the landscape, to distribute new chemicals, to

provide or withhold food, to determine income differentials, to

make us dependent upon technology. On and on we could go,

but for purposes here it is sufficient to assert that the power

once thought of as the exclusive provence of government -- to

exercise power to control others -- is now held and executed


An early foreign trip the U. S. Secretary of State made, in"

President G. W. Bush’s first administration was to India where EnronCorp., was installing a super system for supplying electric generationand grid work. Then, because Enron had failed, the Secretary wasasked about the constitutional nature of his visit there? In effect, heresponded: “I was doing my Job as others in this position have alwaysdone: supporting the foreign workings of U.S. industry.”

largely by large business corporations.

Where government has such power, we establish

measures to protect the individual, but not so with the

corporation. While government cannot deprive a life experience

for the exercise of speech, a corporation can deny employment

providing the paycheck essential for survival for such

expression. Specific multinational corporations wield power

beyond the boundaries of any national jurisdiction.By exercising free speech, assembly and suffrage, all humans

in citizenship have equal constitutional rights to actualize the

government’s ordinal sovereign intent. However, government and

law, as constitutionally and separately specified, licensed each

corporation to act as an individual, with individual rights as protected

by due process and such, while in fact, corporations, in matters of

politics and economy, are privatized and mechanized organic-agent-

contractors of government’s functions. In fact, as respects to states’

rights and relations with the federal government, evidently privatized

and mechanized fictitious corporate entities enjoy much of the same,

and more, with legalized cardinal sovereign authorities and functions,

as constitutionally is allowed to state governments (They enjoy more

since, beyond all boundaries of the world, they can aggressively

endeavor to exploit anything that is profitable, with assurances that

U.S. foreign policy provides them with security. ). However, maybe"

the greatest fictional difference (rights of both states and corporations


are fiction-based) here is that corporations are independent of

government’s liabilities, particularly as regards property ownership,

distribution of income, and intellectual properties that corporations are

contractually and legally allowed to commandeer and accumulate. All

of which enjoy, Due Process, Bill of Rights protection.

Still, regarding matters embroiling the dual and conflicting

realms of ordinal sovereignty’s nomos, are laws irrationally deduced

from custom or tradition. Cabalist political influences of wealth and

the political proclivity for positivism, materialists determinism-based,

dogmatic belief is never of antecedent principle that is a fiducial basis

of rationality. Elected government representatives often now

deliberately formulate, in cabalist group-think forums (but what

cardinal sovereignty consented to allow non elected representatives, to

participate), the constitutionally fallacious formulation of proposed

legislation. They subordinate, to the status of consequents, what

“naturally” or “rightly,” represents “true” cardinally sovereign

antecedent consent. The destined results show in factual paradoxs in

which only some will prosper. In this irrational manner, the privatized

corporate agencies of government, by mechanist processes of cardinal

sovereign exclusion, to the extent their license allows and with

increasing preemptive impunity, violate the Constitution’s intent.

For instance, ownership contracts are specific written

agreements between mutually consenting parties, and multiple entities

in ownership, are difficult if possible, and without mutual consent,

they cannot be binding. And, those to whom ownership is possible,

always want more, and often another’s property. And those of wealth,

as the board game Monopoly shows, always desire the prime parcels if

not all parcels. With the practical evidence of “trueness,” is the

destiny of fictitious legal corporate individuals, with their perpetual

legal existence eventually destined to own most if not all property?

(Is the inheritance destiny of the unborn propertyless ?)

The common threat of bin Laden, Al Qaeda terrorism, by the fact these


words were not commonly in print, surely is of less concern than

insidious threats imposed by mechanisms of political economy’s

privatized corporate entities which are irrationally licensed to

accumulate property ownership by extending sine qua non unalienable

human cardinal citizen rights protections, counter constitutionally to

also apply to corporations having no natural or legal mortality limit.

Humans allow only themselves to be fooled by corporate

politics, which in fact, like puppets, are tethered to the organic cabala

expansionist politics that cries constantly about threats, which often

originate from within the organic cabal itself. And, which paradoxical

economic influence now dominates our nation’s foreign policies and

defenses, however, to stave off demise as the world’s economic leader,

must become tautologically pure from within itself. Our nation must

either be defended in the name of democracy, which the paradoxical

mechanist corporate regimen surely never has represented, or allow

corporations, as the mere individuals that legally they were licensed

as, to stand or fail on their own when exploiting for profit in foreign

cultures and economies. For instance, check out the above footnote

about Enron’s exploitation in India’s economy as our government’s

Secretary of State, no less, interceded for and was also rebuffed.

The Al Qaeda threat, of December 2004, was waged against

the oligarchical one family control of Saudi Arabia, which was where

bin Laden was born. Is bin Laden’s terrorist interests now equally

opposed to the imperialist oligarchy in Saudi Arabia as he is to the

international corporate exploits, as are backed by the U.S. government,

as terrorism inflicted on the World Trade Center in New York City,

and the Pentagon showed? : Was war in Iraq a corporate influenced

diversion from this terrorism focus?

---- Should fictitious legal person corporate entities that by law are

perpetual and to which privatized investment banking systemically

gives an unlimited access to government coined money, from the

nation’s central banking system no less, be allowed to control society


by controlling property? : should a corporation’s property, i.e., reality

legally owned by fiction which the Supreme Court defined to be a

legal person (with human rights, i.e., essence), as leveraged to

advertize, and lobby, politically, represent human free speech? Or,

was this legal Supreme Court decision a conflated mechanist unitary

materialist deduced result of affirming a material consequent as a

principle? When a woman registered her dog to vote, for instance, she

was confronted with legal action, and while a dog is not fiction, this

circumstance presents quite an analogous situation with what the

Supreme Court had done in the instances of legally allowing human

essence to fictitious person corporations? : While property is clearly

substance, corporate sovereignty, which is fiction, which to be

analogous to human sovereignty, must represent corporate essence,

which no amount of human reason can ever make real or substantial.

This Supreme Court decision was, therefore, irrational. Human

sovereignty, while ubiquitous, is real, as human life is real but never is

substantial. What the Supreme Court decided, in this instance, of free

speech, is as fictitious as, is the definition, which designated that

corporations were fictitious persons, and therefore had constitutional

unalienable rights, which were established to protect the human

essence of sovereignty?

It is clear that when the Court decided that corporate wealth

spent to deliver a message or influence a political action represents the

equivalent essence of human sine qua non unalienable free speech, the

Supreme Court’s action, therefore, logically infers that mechanist

Federalism’s unitary materialist bias, which is monarchical and not

republican democratic was affirmed as the principle of consideration.

The deliberately affirmed corporate sovereignty, as substance

rather than essence, which in either instance, fiction cannot represent,

confirms that the mechanist Federalist inclined Supreme Court,

because of its unitary materialist bias is reminiscent of the European

Principle Idealists of that time, which sought to conflate human


essence to a unitary materialist form (Hegel’s dialectical materialism,

which Lenin based his communist philosophy on)], as inferred, denied

the natural antecedence of unalienable human faculties (essence)

(tautologically speaking, the Supreme Court either committed the

logical fallacy of affirming a material-based consequent or denying the

reality of natural human essence, as the logical antecedent of

deduction)! And, did the Supreme Court, by this decision, infer that

the Constitution’s empowered of Justice allowed them to contradict

nature, that corporate fiction, as licensed, also had the sine qua non

essence, of humans? Or, was this Court decision irrational? 34

--- In his most recent book, Carl Sagan referred to the meta-mind,

undoubtedly referring to the cosmic side of man’s origin. Is there a

meta side, a meta-mind, or cardinal essence inherent of corporations? *

* Organizations, as churches and public works, required land and

facilities. And, Roger Williams’ “social usage” also had such

medieval notions of corporations in mind. This was the basis of

legislative rationalization for the “corporate soul,” which fiction

provided legal precedent for not-for-profit organizations to own

property. “For-profit” corporations were first licensed in Europe. On

this foundation, political cabals of nomos-based “for-profit” enterprise

in the U.S., at the state level of government, eventually achieved to

obtain licences as fictitious person corporations.

The concern about preserving democratic-sovereignty is a constant

concern, the physis-based answers to which seem always naturally

founded in the mechanist phenomena of human life, as the natural

temporal clock of human life, for instance. While each generation’s

rights and justice depend on individual knowledge and usufruct 35

opportunities, of which the substantial aspects of life and ownership,

thereof, are usurped lawfully by the politically privatized mechanist

economy: Positive Laws commandeered usufruct and natural cardinal

sovereignty.

---- Do corporations, which legally are perpetual, pose the greatest


threat to the unalienable rights and distributive justice of those whose

cardinal sovereignty is the constitutional reparation of future

generations? Is government an innocent partner in this political

process? Which mechanist complicity is constitutionally compliant?

Craig Thomas commented about this concern:36

Locke deliberately employs the idea of the 'state of Nature'

rather than the 'law of Nature.' He insists not upon uncovering

any 'laws' of nature (i.e., human nature) but rather upon the

capacity of human 'reason' to promulgate a code of civil law that

is the 'constitution' of a just political society. . . .

Human reason alone was 'universal' among human

beings, and by its application would men be able to develop a

concept of equivalence linked to necessary justice . . .

The 'State of Nature' is that which is governed by a

'natural' law or 'right Rule of Reason' (i.e., the admission of the

equivalence of others). [While] not out to prove the existence of

any law of nature . . . ' [Locke radically] assert[s natural law] in

the contemporary,' to 'claim' that it is true by the admission of

any individual that his or her requirements of liberty and

freedom must be admitted to others, 'unless' the form of

political society under which they live is unjust. Craig Thomas

Then to explain Locke’s reasoning, Thomas commented: 37

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 [the material wealth of] landed property.

---- 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 the rest.Vernon Louis Parrington called the effects of Locke’s philosophy of

individual cardinal sovereignty “The Glorious Revolution.” And,

Locke’s philosophy influenced Adam Smith’s postulations for

economy. More important, Locke’s philosophy influenced the

constitutional definition of individual cardinal sovereignty.

Locke’s philosophy founded the Declaration of Independence

and it united Colonial Americans to demand their independence from

England. Contrarily, “Classical Liberals” claim to believe both in

Locke as well as Adam Smith’s philosophy concerning postulates for

economy and markets. L. Moss provided this account: 38

Classical liberalism may be defined simply as social philosophy

that recognizes the need for open markets and for decentralized

control of the means of production for individual liberty. John

Locke, the celebrated philosopher of the so-called glorious

revolution, is considered to be the father of classical liberalism,

although elements of his teachings can be located in Roman

stoic thought as early as the fourth century B.C. In his “Second

Treatice” on Government [1690], Locke developed three

important notions about the relationship between the individual


This isolated statement is irrational in that Classical"

Liberals and Socialists are both substance biased, probably asinfluenced by A. Comte’s “materialism” based ‘positivism,’ whichbiased philosophy was popularized in the French period ofenlightenment.

and government:

---- first, that individuals existed in cooperative social

groupings prior [antecedent] to the creation of civil government;

---- second, that individuals enter into political society with

certain natural rights that cannot be legitimately traded away in

commercial exchange or eliminated by government [human rights

that are coeval of government];

---- and third, that when government is no longer able [or

willing] to protect these rights, the members of society are

justified in overthrowing their government and replacing it

with a more effective one.

Of these three notions, the second and third are

frequently cited by intellectual historians especially because they

formed the antiauthoritarian ideologies of both American and

French Revolutions. Locke’s first notion, that society existed

prior to government, encouraged a search for the factors

promoting order and organization among individuals and in this

way served as an important formative influence on social

scientific thought in the eighteenth century. Classical Liberals

Are Foes of Socialists [but expediently adopted A. Comte’s

‘positivism’ as expediently it served their mecllhanist irrationalism]. "

The eighteenth-century British philosophers, Bernard

Mandeville, David Hume, Adam Smith, C. L. De Montesquieu,

Edmund Burke, John Millar, Adam Ferguson, and later writers


such as Sir Henry Maine, Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, and

Friedrich A. Von Hayek, explored the actual social processes by

which custom, business law, private property, money and

banking institutions, and so on come into existence and are

maintained. Frequently, those institutions most useful to

humanity evolved as an unintended consequence of self-

interested behavior in the market. By way of contrast, those

arrangements brought about by government planners often fail

to meet their objectives and are chaotic and oppressive to

individual liberty. For these reasons, modern classical liberals

join company with traditional conservatives [of Burke] and warn

of the dangers of damaging through intervention in business the

wisdom of the ages as contained in established customs and

business practices [mechanist causal mechanism, * it appears, is the

bond between classical liberals with traditional conservatives].

Laurence S. Moss

* The theory of “causal mechanism” is that everything in the

universe is produced and can be explained by mechanical or material

forces, i.e., it expresses the natural determinism of unitary

materialism, which Hegel had pursued with other Principle Idealists in

Europe. Immanuel Kant, however, observed that this theory was a39

synthetic a priori. Kant recognized that the natural essential physis-

based causal theory was teleology-based, and not compatible with

dogmatic nomos-based causal theory defined by unitary materialist

mechanism.

Classical liberals are the arch foes of socialists who propose

centralized control of the means of production and the

substitution of central planning for impersonal market

mechanisms. [This clearly infers that classical liberals

affirmed ‘production’ and ‘central planning’ as the logical antecedents


to their idealistic personal mechanist political economy.]

However pertinent, is that each political economy extreme, by

inculcating a particular dogmatic bias, damages Adam Smith’s moral

approbation, as he intended would apply in particular instances of

dogmatic biases: all extremely biased theories of political economy

raise the dogmatic affirmations of sophistry to the fallacious

antecedent but errant norm of the expedient political purposes (which

President G.W. Bush’s administration has been consistent in keeping

with about half of cardinal sovereignty’s consent and approval)

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, economists

explained how markets contain a variety of self-regulating

devices that move resources [constantly] toward their most highly

valued uses and thereby promote economic development. The

role of open markets in eliminating waste and responding

rapidly to changing consumer wants left classical liberals

opposed to all those monopolization schemes that would restrict

entry into markets and limit competition. Classical liberals

generally oppose the creation of public utilities, the issuance of

licenses and entry requirements into professions, the imposition

of restrictions on international trade, immigration quotas, and

the use of state power to restrict competition. Still, classical

liberals are not advocates of strict laissez faire. They offer a

long agenda of duties and responsibilities for the state to

perform such as national defense, police protection, regulation

of public health and industrial safety, provision of large-scale

capital projects such as harbors and dams, patents to encourage

innovation, and the creation of a sound and secure currency. As

constitutionalists, classical liberals believe the purpose of the

law is to provide a framework or rule of law within which

individuals may freely associate and interact for their mutual


benefit. Law must be designed to create broad incentives for

individuals regardless of race, religion, or personal wealth. At

all times the political system must avoid substituting a rule of

human beings for the rule of law because discretionary behavior

on the political level can open the way toward abuses of state

power in the form of political favoritism and corruption.As is evident of the Bush administration, however, the rule of law

applies in all instances to “them” and not to his administrative “us.”

Locke’s “Glorious Revolution” faces strong opposition!

Nomos presents a constant values battle for each generation

individually to decide. The battle between mind and emotion is

constant -- between sine qua non essential (physis-based) and material

(nomos-based) values -- that each individual must win or lose in the

conduct of life. Democracy is a voluntary, essential, common value

that stands or falls in results of synthesized individual cardinal

sovereign actions.

Nullification results from actions that foreclose on others’

sovereignty. Grand nullifications result from factional orchestrations

of tautologically fallacious official affirmed supplantations in place of

constitutional values, the actions of which are in pursuit of some

nomos-based mechanist advantage in disregard for the

commonwealth’s essential tautological holistic values: Sans natural

responsible essential sovereignty, organizations are always motivated

by an Idealist substantial nomos-based agenda in disregard for the

physis-based commonweal. Whigs, who celebrate the mechanist GOP

banner, are masters at recognizing and leading such wedge politics.

Corporate mogul Paul Baran presented this thought to a forum of

business executives some years ago (And, since my notes intended to

capture the substance, spelling of the author’s name was of less

concern and could probably be inaccurate, for which I apologize):

There are many ways to describe the contrast between the tycoon


Was it not irrationalism as this, which caused Nietzsche to"

rant, “we have killed God?”

and modern manager. The former was the parent of the giant

corporation, the later is its child. The tycoon stood outside and

above, dominating the corporation. The manager is an insider

dominated by it. The loyalty of the one was to himself and his

family . . . the loyalty of the other is to the organization to which

he belongs and through which he expresses himself. To one the

corporation was merely a means to enrichment; to the other the

good of the company has become both an economic and ethical

end. The one stole from the company, the other steals for it. [Note the organic metamorphism, which by mechanist

political affirmation, changed the highest elite organic position from a

position of a natural antecedence (which remained outside and

above), to the highest but consequential organic dependent position.]

Locke’s logical ‘Glorious Revolution’ demonstrated (proved

to the reasonable) that individual cardinal sovereignty is the only sine

qua non sovereignty of creation, and the only legitimate temporal

possibility of consensus sovereign consent for licensing this natural

sovereign antecedence, of and for organic governing authority is by

specific constitutional suffrage. Also, on the flip side, this natural

antecedence is the only source of naturally endowed responsibility

for ethical behavior: Each individual cardinal sovereign must respect

each other individual sovereign or, when they do not, logically

formulated organic justice-based penalties are justified. Ethics and

morality, however, cannot effectively be made to fit with mechanist

mechanisms of enforceable law, or adjudged thereby. About this,

consider Bertrand Russell’s observation about resulting philosophical

nihilism of irrational logic that attends affirmations deduced from "

materialism:40








contain no beliefs or statements, would also contain no truth or

falsehood.

Jean-Paul Sarter’s Existentialism, is similar in that: 41

the [mechanist material] world had no meaning for man. He

declared, however, the individual should find [logical] direction

and meaning for his life. He should develop a sense of

responsibility for his own decisions and actions and so become

free, nothing was individually good unless it was good for all.

Without logic-based reasoning, experiences in the temporal world

cannot represent truth or knowledge in any purity consistency of

meaning. In this light, both Locke and Kant are beacons of truth,

whereas Thomas Hobbes’ experience-based analysis is logical fallacy.

Teleology instead of mechanism is the “true” social causal standard of

distributive justice.

Society, the word, infers an innate organic essence is still

individual showing that consented human sovereignty as bonding

exists naturally. History shows materialism, as indiscriminately

licensed, is naturally nihilistically amoral. And, to the extent of this,

life’s spoils are as easily taken without payment or penalty by licensed

mechanist exploiters (which more often now are fictitious corporate

individuals whose primary purpose is to exploit for profit).

Again, is poverty in the U.S. "American System" made?

W. Frankena, Philosophy Professor (retired) alluded to the great

mechanist prescriptive flaw of the “American System” :42


The Principle of Justice: Equality

We have seen that we must recognize a basic principle of justice.

But which one? What is justice? We cannot go into the whole

subject of social justice here, but we must at least complete our

outline of normative theory of moral obligation, in which the

principle of justice plays a crucial role. We are talking here

about “distributive justice,” justice in the distribution of good

and evil. There is also “retributive justice” (punishment, etc.),

about which a little will be said in [another] chapter.

Distributive justice is a matter of “comparative treatment” of

individuals. The paradigm case of injustice is that in which

there are two similar individuals in similar circumstances and

one of them is treated better or worse than the other. In this

case the cry of injustice rightly goes up against the responsible

agent or group; and unless that agent or group can establish

that there is some relevant dissimilarity after all between the

individuals concerned and their circumstances, he or they will be

guilty as charged.

[those on economic bottom rungs of employment are in fact

not in anyway near to being of equal qualification to those on the

upper rungs of employment; however, a disparity in Distributive

Justice does occur with regard to those mechanistically held below

the level of impoverishment and those mechanistically above it!]

About satisfying government’s purpose, promoting the general

welfare, or insuring domestic tranquility, any insurance system,

including its causal basis, as mechanism, whether of government’s or

privately licensed by government, which fails to deliver distributive

justice, fails to be constitutionally just.

Considering mechanist origins of property, commerce, even auto thefts

endemic to insurance , as facts, of civilization, i.e, steps of progress:


about theft by conquest and pillage, Heilbroner wrote this:43

An aspect of the political change that was revolutionizing

Europe was the encouragement of foreign adventure and

exploration. . . . And in turn the great national adventures of the

English and Spanish and Portuguese sailor-capitalists brought a

flood of treasure and treasure-consciousness back to Europe.

“He who has gold,” Christopher Columbus said, “makes and

accomplishes whatever he wishes in the world and finally uses

it to send souls into paradise.” The sentiments of Columbus

were the sentiments of an age, and hastened the advent of a

society oriented toward gain and chance and activate the chase

after money. Be it noted, in passing, that the treasures of the

East were truly fabulous. With the share received as a

stockholder in Sir Francis Drake’s voyage of the ‘Golden

Hynd,’ Queen Elizabeth paid off all England’s foreign debts,

balanced its budget, and invested abroad a sum large enough,

at compound interest, to account for Britain’s entire overseas

wealth in 1930!

Back then successful capitalist buccaneers flew official flags and

sometimes were knighted. About civilized distributive social ethics,

mechanist conservative human values, while logically fallacious, have

perpetuated feudalism’s “capitalist” desire to ‘acquire and possess’

property: “He who has gold,” Christopher Columbus said, “makes

and accomplishes whatever he wishes in the world . . ..” Now

maybe more civilized, however, political economy must pay heed to

this common mechanist orthodox human propensity, which of

mechanist idealism, fails to ease social economic exploitations, which

are the social result of political economy’s mechanist causality.

Still, when Society necessarily acts to arbitrate for the aggrieved

human sovereigns, in which licensed actions of some have violated the


sovereignty of others, political economy’s capitalist actors, now

licensed corporations, adversely confuse beneficent social usage-based

solutions and thereby deny distributive justice (fiction, licensed to act

as a sine qua non person, which is dogmatic mechanist idealist, in any

event, can never effectively be brought to human justice (or try to put

such fiction in jail, for instance), and this licensed corporate immunity

is maybe the greatest reason to incorporate for to effect capitalist

acquisitive materialist exploitations). The politics of accumulated

hoards (“treasure,” as Adam Smith distinguished hoards from capital

that was recycled in productions of consumption processes) makes

justice more complicated, and this also serves the licensed surreal

capitalist corporate economic purposes. But, the cost of justice as

complicated by nihilistic materialism, is now become prohibitive,

foreclosing individual common folk from rightful justice.

An American political faction, accommodated their own

wants, by introducing mercantilism-based political confusion as now

is indicated by fictitious legal person corporations, as primary

capitalist actors of the American System of political economy: This

political faction was the American Whig Party, which took the Grand

Old Party name: GOP Republican. It was Whigs’ political

expediency,for which I called them “White Rabbits of Wonderland” :

because they affirm as logical antecedents, expedient consequential

purposes which of design will serve their own wants, in disregard to

serving society holistically. They are the contemporary extreme

political “conservative mechanists” of American society, which

idealist political economy-wise has produced paradoxes on paradoxes:

as deductively based on fallacious causal theory called mechanism,

which by affirmation metamorphosed constitutional purposes to the

expedient Whig purposes. Willfully and absolutely Whigs have

disregarded Immanuel Kant’s dilemma about causality, and deduced

from their mechanist form of “unitary materialism,” determinist

mechanism to serve as the economic antecedent axiom, even though


Kant had shown that this Determinism was logically a “synthetic a

priori,” i.e., a false a priori, which did not logically fit with the

mechanist a posteriori temporal human life experience-based Whig

conclusions, which fallaciously affirmed, had made orthodox human

experience the antecedent of natural human essence.

Without supporting evidence they were aware that conflated

forms of unitary materialism led to the irrational Hobbesean organic

concept, which Craig Thomas wrote about here, one might still

speculate that they made deliberate irrational assertions: 44

. . . 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.Craig Thomas also wrote this about idealist philosophy, which had

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 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


In this, the principal idealists conflated even God’s antecedence,"

to which Nietzche cried out, “we have killed God!”.

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 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

irrationally the principal ‘Idealists‘ are blameworthy for the fallacious

philosophical underpinning of conservative materialist philosophy]

Contemporarily, American Whigs, in their dogmatic ‘positivism,’

irrationally affirmed that (unitary materialism based) human mechanist

experience was the natural causal antecedent, thereby denying natural

essence had caused humanity to exist, of which human experience

clearly logically is consequential and not principle. It is an impossible

logical stretch to affirm human experience as the natural ‘antecedent’

of all creation, and by doing this, Whigs committed the greatest

possible logical fallacy: that of putting temporal human experience-

based theory, simply by affirming it ahead of the essence of natural

creation. In such patent falsehood, classical economic paradoxes

show, that our ‘White Rabbit’ Whigs absolutely established self-

serving mechanist dogma, which as Russell observed, annihilates

human essence: 45







contain no beliefs or statements, would also contain no truth.

Oliver Wendell Holmes explained the how of concupiscent paradox: 46

“There is that glorious epicurean paradox . . .: give us the

luxuries of life, and we will dispense with its necessaries.” [And,

what is necessary is logically undeniable] Oliver Wendell Holmes

St, John’s First Epistle was about temporal concupiscence that Holmes


epicurean paradox is about.

“True” “Liberals” are found on the left horn of Kant’s

dilemma: in natural antecedences, therefore, with essential emphasis

on civilized, beneficent sovereign human ‘free will’: as the antecedent

causal force required to underpin metaphysical essence in values as

truth, knowledge and justice. In this, liberals perceive of physis as the

only “right principles” on which to base official laws and actions as

applied to human behavior. Parrington provided this account of

Roger Williams’ contribution to American democracy.47

Since the single end and purpose for which the body of citizens

erect the state is the furtherance of the communal wellbeing, the

government becomes a convenient instrument [of Williams “social

usage” insurance] to serve the common weal, responsible to the

sovereign people and strictly limited by the terms of the social

agreement. “The sovereign power of all civil Authority,” he

asserted, “is founded in the consent of the People that every

Commonwealth hath radically and fundamentally. The very

Common-weals, bodies of people . . . have fundamentally in

themselves the Root of Power, to set up what government and

Governors they shall agree upon.” . . . 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. [Justice, like truth, must be rational,

and certainly is not, irrationally deduced from empirical nomos.]

Fortunate, as regards Williams “social usage” insurance, whichmechanist nomos-based laws continually administer economicpaternalism to the materially affluent caste, consented cardinalsovereignties of the people have not muted and are available to ensurethat government administers true economic justice simply by restoringthe cardinal requirement of consent to government’s constitutionalauthorities. The unjust experiences of those whose unalienable


I expect that Noam Chomsky’s 2003 book, Hegemony or""

Survival, America’s Guest for Global Dominance, was a conclusionbased on the Global dominant materialist power concentration whichresulted from the U.S. political economy’s paternalist mechanistunitary materialist economic causality, called mechanism? .

sovereignty was nullified will then become reconciled to paternalequality with the mechanist paternal consequences of nomos-basedlaws. Give mechanist deterministic unitary materialismadministration more time, however, and it eventually will nullify allessential individual cardinal sovereignty, making certain that theimpoverished weak shall not inherit property!.""

Lincoln was a fresh democratic breeze regarding his loosealliance with Whigs’ mechanist doctrine, which digression broadlyidentified his political alliance with Jefferson’s cardinal sovereign’antecedence of essence in particular. And, because Lincoln was notculpable for government’s mechanist changes, which Whigs installedfollowing his assassination, Parrington’s assessment is maybe moreaccurate than his political alliances with Whigs portray him: 48

Long an ardent Whig of the Clay school, and thoroughlyindoctrinated in a paternalistic nationalism, he was brought, asevery thoughtful American of the times was brought, to weighthe program of slave imperialism in the scales with theDeclaration of Independence. The doctrines of that greatdocument lay before every man’s feet in those uncertain days, toget over as one could. They could not easily be evaded or gotaround; they must be dealt with. Rufus Choate, representingBoston Toryism, had come upon them and dismissed them as‘glittering and sounding generalities.’ Calhoun, representingsouthern imperialism, had come upon them and essayed todestroy them by a critical realism. Lincoln, embodying thespontaneous liberalism of the West, came upon them and pausedto take his bearings afresh. He could neither wave them asidenor destroy them. The deep-rooted equalitarianism of his simple


social philosophy found in them and eloquent pronouncement ofits democratic faith, that set him upon considering how suchdoctrine might be squared with the reality of slavery. Theagrarianism of John Taylor and the Whiggery of Henry Claycould tell him nothing about that; he must seek elsewhere; andthe solution he found in an amalgamation of equalitarianism andfree-soilism, in an adaptation of western Whiggery toJeffersonian principles.

Whatever party name he might call himself by, in his loveof justice and his warm humanity Lincoln was essentiallyJeffersonian. He respected property rights, but other rights hebelieved more sacred. And as he watched the emergence in theSouth, of the ideal of a Greek democracy, as he consideredhow the party of Jackson had become the party of Calhounand Douglas, bent solely on strengthening as spreading theinstitution of slavery, his equalitarianism took alarm. He couldnot sit quiet while the principles of the Declaration ofIndependence were being openly flouted; he must speak out; hemust arouse the idealism of the people to deal with [mechanist]

iconoclasts. In an important pronouncement written in 1859, heset the problem before them thus: “Remembering . . . that theJefferson party was formed upon its supposed superiordevotion to the personal rights of men, holding the rights ofproperty to be secondary only, and greatly inferior . . . it will be. . . interesting to note how completely the two [parties] havechanged hands as to the principles upon which they wereoriginally supposed to be divided. The [mechanist] Democracyof today holds the liberty of one man to be absolutely nothing,when in conflict with another’s right to property;[original]

Republicans on the contrary, are for both the man and thedollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar. . . . But,soberly, it is now no child’s play to save the principles ofJefferson from total overthrow in this nation. . . . The


principles of Jefferson are the principles and axioms of freesociety and yet they are denied and evaded, with no small showof success. One dashingly calls them ‘glittering generalities.’ Another bluntly calls then ‘self-evident lies!’ And othersinsidiously argue that they apply to ‘superior races.’ Theseexpressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect -- the supplanting the principles of free government, andrestoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. . . . Theyare the vanguard, the miners and sappers of returningdespotism. We must repulse them or they will subjugate us.”(Letter to H. L. Prince, April 6, 1859, in Works, Vol. V, pp. 125-126)

Two conceptions were here competing in Lincoln’s mind,the older equalitarianism that sprang from Frenchhumanitarianism and the newer economics that came fromEnglish ‘laissez faire’; and the attempt to reconcile themsuggests how far he had traveled along the path of westernWhiggery. With the spirit of enterprise he had no complaint; theideal of progress was associated in his mind with a fluideconomics that permitted the capable to rise through skillfulexploitation. He had no love for the stable economics of theeighteenth century that Jackson preferred; the profit motive,functioning freely, he regarded as the legitimate driving forceof society; but he was concerned that competition should beopen to all on equal terms. [In this, Lincoln was philosophicallyopposed to corporate mechanisms, i.e, the monopolist control ofeconomy, which would stifle the competition that he envisioned] As he watched the transition from an agrarian to an industrialorder, he found himself more in sympathy with the new than theold. Accepting the principle of exploitation he came to theposition of the little capitalist who believed that in Americacapitalism could be democratized by the simple method ofkeeping the opportunities for exploitation open to every citizen

[Political Whiggery, however, succeeded to get corporate


‘fictitious-legal-person’ rights that equaled the natural teleologicalunalienable rights of human citizens, and this opened corporateexploitations in America to corporate mechanist foreigners whilesubstantially closing like opportunities to individual U.S. citizens].

It was common view of western Whiggery, and in so far asLincoln remained a Whig, content with a system which heaccepted as peculiarly suited to the genius of the Americanpeople. In a late speech he summed it up thus: “What is the truecondition of the laborer? I take it that it is best to leave eachman free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will getwealthy. I don’t believe in law to prevent a man from gettingrich; it would do more harm than good. So while we don’tpropose any war on capital, we do wish to allow the humblestman an equal chance to get rich with anybody else. When onestarts poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is suchthat he knows he can better his condition; he knows that thereis no fixed condition of labor for his whole life. . . . I wantevery man to have a chance -- and I believe a black man isentitled to it -- in which he can better his condition -- when hemay look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year andthe next, work for himself afterwards, and finally to hire mento work for him. That is the true system.” (Speech atNew Haven, March 6, 1860, in Works, Vol., V, pp. 360-361)

But as a western man Lincoln was far more concernedover the application of ‘laissez faire’ to the problem of westernlands, and as he contemplated the practical workings of‘squatter sovereignty’ he learned how the free functioning of‘laissez faire’ may be interfered with by economic imperialisms. That lesson determined his final stand. The virgin prairiesbeyond the Mississippi were coveted equally by northern andsouthern exploiters; and who should finally possess them,whether the small freeholder or the slave-master, was a questionthat could not be put off forever. None knew this better than the


small farmers who were already staking out homesteads there. IfCongress yielded to the pro-slavery demands, their economicfuture would be endangered. It was the free-soil West that sentthe first anti-slavery men to Washington and provided thebackbone of the new party. Not the respectable West, but theplain people, Whig as well as Democrat. ‘Much of the plainold Democracy is with us,’ said Lincoln in 1858, ‘while nearlyall the old silk-stocking Whiggery is against us. I don’t meannearly all the old Whig party, but nearly all of the niceexclusive sort.’ (Letter to A. C. Henry, in Works, Vol. V, p. 95) . . .

The free-soiler hated slavery because it threatened his immediateinterests; nevertheless as the great struggle developed, the moralinjustice of slavery was thrust to the fore and imparted ahumanitarian motive to the free-soil argument. Thehumanitarian motive Lincoln seized upon, wedded it to the idealof national union, and thus doubly armed went forth to the fight.

To amalgamate idealism and economics is not an easytask. ‘Public opinion,’ he said in a speech at Hartford, ‘isfounded, to a great extent, on a property basis.’ But it is not thesole basis. The ideal of justice comes in to upset all purelyeconomic calculations. ‘The property basis will have its weight. The love of property and a consciousness of right and wronghave conflicting places in our organization, which often make aman’s course seem crooked, his conduct a riddle.’ (Works, Vol.V, p. 330) Beyond question it was this recognition of theperennial conflict between economics and justice, betweenrealism and idealism, that explains the hesitancies andharassing doubts that marked Lincoln’s development. Toreconcile the principle of exploitation with the Declaration ofIndependence it was necessary to stick like a flea to ‘laissezfaire’ -- to eliminate slave labor and accept only free labor. Lincoln was a slow man and cautious, and he pulled himselfforward to such a position by main force. He was not a rare


intellect like Thoreau, to think swiftly to a conclusion and abidethe consequences. He was a political leader rather than anintellectual, and he could advance only a little ahead of theslow-moving mass he sought to draw after him. A hundredinvisible ties held him back -- his belief in the rights of localdemocracies, his respect for law and order, his devotion to theConstitution, his recognition of property interests in the slave,his understanding of the complexity of the problem, with theentire economy of the South resting on a slave basis. Herewere difficulties enough to trouble an honest mind. His practicalsense, which is only another name for political realism,restrained his idealism and made him of necessity anopportunist, willing to yield much to save the Union. A simple,tolerant, easy-going man, he was at bottom a realist who hadcome to understand what may be considered the greatest truth inpolitical science, namely, that an enduring state must rest onwilling allegiance. Force cannot compel loyalty; authority mayput down revolt but it cannot destroy the seeds of discontent; forthat only the sovereignty of good will is competent, and in freestates the sovereignty of good will must rest upon compromise. Lincoln was a better democrat than Jackson, for he would ratherpersuade than drive. If Hamilton embodied the aristocraticprinciple of coercive government, Lincoln embodied thedemocratic principle of give and take, that prefers compromiseto bayonets. With a cause resting on the common good will itmight safely be trusted to muddle through.

‘In those days our Declaration of Independence was heldsacred by all, and thought to include all; but now, to aid inmaking the bondage of the Negro universal and eternal, it isassailed and sneered at and construed, and hawked at and torn,till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not atall recognize it. All the powers of earth seem rapidly combiningagainst him. Mammon is after him, ambition follows, philosophy


"

follows, and the theology of the day is fast joining the cry. Theyhave him in the prison-house; they have searched his person,and left no prying instrument with him. One after another theyhave closed the heavy iron doors upon him; and now they havehim, as it were, bolted in with a lock of a hundred keys, whichcan never be unlocked without the concurrence of every key --the keys in the hands of a hundred different men, and theyscattered to a hundred different and distant places; and theystand musing as to what invention, in all the dominions of mindand matter, can be produced to make the impossibility of hisescape more complete than it is.’ (Speech at Springfield, June 27,1857, in Works, Vol. II, pp. 327-328) Life in mechanist America, was not only economicallychanged, it also evolved socially: as the barbarism of frontier lifeyielded to civilization. In the transition, however, free-will-basedindividual cardinal sovereignty, by practicing the tautological fallacyof politically affirming consequents as principle, becamemetamorphosed by the resulting idealists’ mechanist materialism:ordinal sovereign political groups metamorphosed culture from itscardinal sovereign antecedence to the consequents of mechanisteconomy. The brilliance of this mechanist causality, while logicalfallacy, is its covertness, i.e., causal mechanism is an affirmed pseudoaxiomatic principle of political economy, which is constantly at work. American Colonial society was a voluntary association ofemigrants. Commonweal benefits were rooted in a written and signedagreement called “Mayflower Compact,” which arrived in America"

on the Mayflower, November 11,1620.* * . . . by these presents solemnly & mutualy in ye presence of God,and one of another, covenant, & combine ourselves together into aCivill body politick; for our better ordering, & preservation &furtherance of ye ends aforsaid; and by virtue hereof to enact,constitute, and frame such just & equall Laws, ordinances, Acts,


constitutions, & offices, from time to time, as shall be thought mostmeete & convenient for ye general good of ye colonie: unto which wepromise all due submission and obedience. . . .This Colonial migration was clearly a precursor to John Locke (1632 -1704), the intellectual ruler of the eighteenth century, which historianscalled the “Glorious Revolution.” Which philosophy had strongly,but independently, also originated in colonial Americans as RogerWilliams. And, the independently reasoned democratic effects49

produced the Constitution, which furnished a clear strategy foradministering untold rules and benefits to each state, city, town,village, and all individuals within this grand democratic Americannation’s consented ordinally sovereign authority.

Americans should ponder carefully how the constitutional Billof Rights, as citizens required as the necessary condition to ratify,ensured citizens’ naturally endowed individual cardinal sovereignty. However, the democratic, leveled, i.e., ordinally equal cardinalindividual sovereignty, as consented by suffrage to the nation’ssovereign government, at poling times, faces constant challenge bymechanist materialist special interest factional sophistries of privatizedmechanist organic politics, and the legally fictional, seeming magicalbelief-based economic causality (mechanism), which constantly infuseparadoxical economic nullifications to consented constitutionaladministered representations. Political sophistries are spawned bydogmatic unitary materialist forms of belief, as is fostered by electedmechanist ‘White Rabbit’ representatives: the myriad factionalcardinal sovereign interests of which, as philosophically is necessarilyadministrative detail required in unitary forms of materialism: asproperty and legal contracts, mechanist title to property ownership,social position and such. ‘White Rabbits’ have always been theperpetrators of these tautological fallacies, which either argue by‘denying antecedents’ or‘affirming consequents’ or both. When, forinstance, constitutional cardinal-sovereign-responsibilities to societyare forgiven by paternalist mechanist abstract law, for whateverreason, which ensure economic profits to some, not all, a tautological‘White Rabbit’ type mechanist unbalanced unlevel sovereignty-based fallacy is officially perpetrated.


Democratic, cardinal sovereignty is level. None is greater thananother. But, in kingdoms, the king’s “divine right” based cardinalsovereignty, which is not consenting authority, was absolutelysupreme only because of “divine right” dogmatic belief, and therebythe king’s powers of allocation and policing, with sinecures and such,is awesome and arbitrary. Caste societies are always fallaciously unleveled sovereignty based, which affirm to distribute paternalistorganic sovereign privileges unevenly to favor the privileges of class. This unevenness of essential human cardinal sovereign value andpaternal distribution, is the measure of governance for determining thestate of democracy, which fails when individual cardinal sovereigntyfails to receive its due, of equal distributive justice.

---- Does balanced democracy exist in America? Did it everexist? Can it ever exist?

Answers, of course, depend on a consensus of naturalsovereign quality as consented by each of us: individuallyinterdependent responsibility, which collectively, as a nation isrepresented in our exercise of cardinal sovereign responsibility.

With these existential remarks, attention is called to theindividual sovereign political majority that will clamor for governmentto provide urgent commonweal “social usage” insurance solutions tofurther adjust the mechanist government administered economicpaternalism, holistically the complement to which is governmentcreated impoverishment which is disadvantaged of security andeconomic insurance, as for instance, social usage-based SocialSecurity insurance provided an adjustment to economic security andinsurance that mechanist industrial political economy had created anurgent need for retired wage-earning seniors (which mechanistpolitical intent to fix, as President G. W. Bush said would be high onhis second term agenda, because of his mechanist politics is nothingmore than a rhetorical prescriptive promise that in social value offersless than nothing). Eventually, the democratic political clamor willalso succeed to have government’s administrative paternal equalityrestored by additional social usage-based insurance adjustments to themechanism-based delivery of paternal economic advantages, which


affords privatized high quality security and insurance to privatizedbusinesses: Equivalent universal social usage-based health careinsurance is the only answer to constitutionally adjust this governmentpaternal granting of afforded mechanist unequalness which delivers toprivatized economic mechanisms, economic advantages. *

* While mechanist politics undoubtedly has great paternal economicadvantages in orthodox status and appeal, retrofitting of SocialSecurity’s physis-based values to mechanist political values imbued ofnomos-based unitary materialism, ends in a conflated retrofitting ofhuman essence to substance, which reminds of the European principalIdealists attempt to find a unitary materialist reality, which conclude indefinition that Hegel called dialectical materialism, that Lenin thenbased communism on: in Bertrand Russell’s view, it is like retrofittinghuman cognizance to abstract nothingness. Both mechanist dogmaand endemism, can never adequately be equated to social usageinsurance that is necessary to achieve a reasonable equality ofindividual cardinal sovereignty.

The following excerpt was taken from Vandehei’s article thatran in the Las Vegas Review Journal, January 1, 2005.

Social Security battle looming

Bush allies raising millions to fund drive for private accounts

by Jim Vandehei, THE WASHINGTON POST

WASHINGTON -- President Bush’s political allies are raisingmillions of dollars for an election style campaign to promoteprivate Social Security accounts, as Democrats and Republicansprepare for what they predict will be the most expensive andextensive public policy debate since the 1993 fight over theClinton administration’s failed health care plan. . . . GOPgroups close to the White House are asking the same donors whohelped reelect Bush to fund an expensive campaign to convinceAmericans -- and skeptical lawmakers -- that Social Security isin crisis and that private accounts are the only cure. . . . anindependent conservative group has set aside $9 million to


support the president’s Social Security plan. . . . [another]conservative group has raised $1.5 million and hopes to hit a$15 million target. . . . “It could easily be a $ 50 million to $100 million cost to convince people this is legislation that needsto be enacted,” said [Stephen] Moore. . . . “If we feel likegambling, we’ll play the slots,” [is the slogan AARP, as enjoinedby Democratic groups, will counter with.]

Government, of the people, by the people and for the people, aptlydescribes the ordinal organic sovereign authority of government. Thisfoundation is what the U.S. Constitution is about. When, therefore, inany manner, distributive justice is denied to this foundation, thenation’s constitutional commonweal interests are denied: morespecifically, when, the organic cardinal sovereign choice ofrepresentative government is to not provide social usage-basedinsurance, for to deliver distributive justice-based balance to thepaternal license and grants of government, for instance, of whichcommonweal interests, which are diabolical to privatized exploitativebusiness interests, have never been government’s administrativeobjective, which also rationally infer that distributive justice togovernment’s cardinal sovereign base has never fully been subscribedby the elected representatives in government. Particularly, commoncardinal interests are not for private enterprise politics with impunityto decide, exploit, or dismantle. Even as Court actions now punishparents who fail with proper parenting, or punish corporations forselling cancer producing products, as society now aggressivelysanctions, society will also eventually influence Court actions toredress businesses of private enterprise to profit from exploitations thatmechanistically forestall government from providing social usage-based insurance to provide distributive justice to the nation’s ordinalsovereign common interests is patently unconstitutional. Privateinsurance companies -- that separately and collectively are mechanistsin nature and, therefore, incapable to act uniformly and efficiently withdelivering distributive justice-based effects are particularly vulnerableto legal class based indictments that will surely come.

Damaged cardinal sovereign common interests of society have


pierced the corporate shield. A corporation’s license can no longerguarantee legal protection of the business owners from their antecedentconstitutional responsibilities: as the tobacco industry has learned. The mechanist ‘White Rabbits’ who would politically limit corporateliability expressly to protect accumulated business’ owned properties(including the workers, and professionals that is employed) represent atautological fallacy that cannot long stand up to truth and reason:--- What natural ‘antecedent’ can ‘White Rabbits’ claim is theirargument’s principle? ‘White Rabbits’ ignore logical tautology: theyeither deny the natural sine qua non antecedent sovereignty, or ‘affirmthe consequent’(property or dogma) as their argument’s fallaciousprinciple, to the extent that this affirmed irrational consequentmetamorphoses belief for to serve as the ‘White Rabbits’ argument’santecedent, which results in their ‘Wonderlands’ paradoxical truth,i.e., belief taken to expediently mean whatever they want it to be.

Rather than limiting liability, society, to be rational andtruthful, must hold the private businesses’ principals accountable forall mechanized corporate actions: for balanced democracy’sdistributive justice to exist, business owners must assume fullresponsibility for the mechanist economic effects, determinism’sunbalanced results of the mechanized corporate actions. Irrationallynullifying the cardinal sovereignty of only one individual withfallacious impunity is democratically unacceptable. While, dialecticalmaterialism more surely fits with communism or fascism, capitalism isalso based on a mechanist unitary form of materialism?

While the processes of civilization are slow, society isprogressing to make the ‘strategic’ cardinal sovereign aspects ofdemocracy inevitable. Advances in communication technologies helpthis progress. Errant mechanistic ‘operational’ aspects of society musteventually conform to democratic balanced sovereignty or suffer the severe penalties. Cicero had such as this inevitable scenario in mind.

Cicero favored to preserve Roman democracy. He advocated a naturallaw of right reason to support his call for the "leveling" ofsovereignty. Cicero's eloquent advocacy -- purely appealing toperceptions of physis alone -- was possible because of the unusually


enlightened Greek democratic society which greatly influenced Cicero,if not the Roman Empire. But democracy still threatened those ofoligarchical power. When Cicero refused to join the mechanistTriumvirate of Julius Caesar, Pompey and Crassus, they had himbanished from Rome. His outspoken physis-reasoned advocacyeventually incited his death warrant. Of Cicero's perception of naturallaw, Craig Thomas wrote this:50

Cicero encapsulates the whole theory of natural law when hesays: "There is in fact a true law -- namely, right reason -- whichis in accordance with nature, applies to all men, and isunchangeable and eternal . . . The man who will not obey it willabandon his better self, and, in denying the true nature of a man,will suffer the severest of penalties, though he has escaped allthe consequences which men call punishments.”

Before leaving natural sine qua non cardinal essentials, evenfor substantial sovereign quintessence (for which another researchsection is required), and, to answer whether or not an alliance ofpolitical economy is linked with cardinal sovereignty, focus herereturns to private “for profit” insurance, which is mechanist based?

Anyway, until the White-Rabbit-mechanisms of TheAmerican System’s political economy, conclude and commandthat employee benefits are paid from business profits, rather thancost accounted to consumption, from which returns to businessesas enured capital, this indictment holds “true:”

Insuring employees as a cost of doing business is sophist nonsense, ofwhich The American System of Political Economy provides a sort ofTeflon insurance protection to such non production-business cost laidonto consumption rather than accounted to capital expenditures. Thisaccounting fallacy ensures that business related costs, which areconsequential rather than essential to production, act as a directbusiness tax on business productions’ costs. This direct but covertbusiness administered tax, as enured, (legal definition) adds theinflation endemism loaded onto the prices that consumers must pay:thereby inflation is consumed similarly as goods and services are


consumed to return to business owners as their capital. In the end,political economy ensures that these consequential benefit costs, alongwith the production costs are returned to the businesses of productionsorigin. By this direct systemic pseudo taxation, political economy,which is a form of government’s “social usage” insurance forbusinesses, makes consumers to pay for all that is cost accountedincluding executive perks and political lobbying and, as well, thecovertly unaccounted inflation endemism that nearly equals themechanist economic growth. In this light, consider these economicfacts: The average production increase in economy over the lastcentury was 4%. And the average rate of inflation for the same periodwas 3%. So, what was the average rate of profits taken fromeconomy? If it was greater than 1%, and it was, part of this marginalrate of profit had to be taken from wages paid to produce the goodsand services. But the sad part of this inflation scenario is thatinflation, is a negative economic endemism only as it relates toconsumer prices, which mostly are consumed by wage-earners’ natural economic need to subsist. When covert inflation endemism is consumed it then is legally enured capital, which is no longer covert:inflated consumer prices that negatively effect wages earned, thenlegally become a positive amount of redounding capital to the capitalowners of business’ goods (services), as produced and consumed. Translating this effect on business profits taken from after consumedproduction, as taken mechanistically from the American System ofPolitical Economy, which was the name mechanist Whig politics gaveto this causal mechanism-based economic insurance, administered bygovernment, as legally is administered, and grants to businesses thetaking of profit that during the last century amounted to more thantwice the legal defined enured inflation returns, which had impactedon wage-earned prices of subsistence consumption. The net effect ofthis government administered economic justice is this: wage-earnedincome fails miserably when compared to economic growth. And thisjustifies this opening statement:

In the late 1990s, economic analysis suggested that with 2%economic growth, profits would likely be about 6%. So, without


inflation redounding legally enured as capital for profit taking, how isthis pseudo scientific economic analysis possible. And, consider theparadoxical opposite side of net economic growth, of wage-earningconsumers that to subsist must consume the inflation in market prices.

Private insurance -- whether health care, Social Security, Life,Business Interruption, Fire, Casualty . . . -- paid for by employers, asdirect or contingent production costs (including private insurance, asadministered and sold as the business product), politically, fallaciouslyaffirm the public illusion that private businesses bear these costs. But,in fact, they do not. Political economy allows businesses to accountthese costs, along with wages and other production related costs, forrecovery when they sell the product/services of the business. This factmakes the mechanist Whig inflation illusion a tautological fraud, aspolitically spun. Ultimately, the consumers pay for all of it.

---- Is ‘newly created wealth,’ the Wealth of Nations, as Smithinferred by the title to his classical market system of economytheories?

By the ultimate consented authority of centralized ordinal sovereigntyof government, as then licensed, administered or allowed to privatizedpolitical economy, nations create new wealth with an express purposeto sustain balance in the economic equation of ‘production andconsumption.’ This privatized agency based economic system, aslicensed, was intended to remain in balance when “new wealth” isrecycled: in increased production and wages to perpetually create more‘new wealth.’

Added value accumulates, as is created by the efforts of wage-earners in processes of producing and delivering goods and services,and this added value represents ‘new wealth.’ It is only as consumerspurchase the goods/services, i.e., when wages earned are spent toconsume the products, that businesses realize as profit the accumulatedvalues that labor had provided (Adam Smith’s thesis that Marx, amongothers had challenged). As businesses sell all goods (services), thecost of producing and delivering goods and services systemicallyshifts onto the user base of Consumption: onto personal fully taxed


wages that are (in instances of personal debt, not yet ) ‘earned.’

---- Who owns ‘new wealth’? Is it owned by the privatizedcorporate entities of production, the political system of economy, orholistically to the ordinal sovereign sponsor and licensor, i.e., society?

If ‘new wealth’ belongs to the organic sovereign sponsor (the nation),as Smith inferred, the wage-earners that provided the “added value,” orits privatized agency (the political system of economy), why then doesthe sovereign sponsor (the nation) by legal justification grant itslicensed administrative agents, the privatized businesses of politicaleconomy, to claim all ‘new wealth’ as their own?

Employers organize enterprise, deploy capital and are supposed toassume the risks of business enterprise. And, surely, they do all thiswith full faith and intent to accumulate profit and new wealth. Whenwe believe in Adam Smith, and we also should believe in hispostulations about wealth: Employers do not create new wealth. Instead, Smith concluded that wage-earners are the creators ofwealth not because of their creative efforts in earning wages but in thefact they spend their income to consume the products/services thatbusinesses own. But, as consumers, wage-earners purchase theproduct-services, along with the marginal increase in product/ servicevalue (which their work effort for wages had provided), along with allinflation endemism that is a reasonable business cost. In Smith’sview, therefore, labor is the creator of wealth. By this, Smith intendsthat “wealth,” increased goods and services, will reciprocally provideincreased capital value also to wage-earners. Each nation, which bylicensing business allows “new wealth” to accumulate, does so withteleological intent that naturally needed increases in wage-basedconsumption is also thereby accommodated. Smith’s postulation is asocial compact type of equation, in which increases in accumulationare maintained in balance with increases in consumption (inferring thatconstitutional value standards must strictly be maintained). For doingthis, the consented ordinal sovereignty of government was


Roger Sherman was satisfied that the Constitution’s Article I,"

Section 8 (5) (. . . fix the standard of weights and measures) had specifiedthis assigned congressional responsibility.

constitutionally commissioned to maintain. "

see (cont’d) for a continuation on this

* The American System of Political Economy is a neoclassical economy for which many models and theorems exist. Models, fromwhich a theorem called “the golden rule of accumulation”arose: 51

Both models [Kaldor and Robinson] have the common propertythat the respective shares of income received by capitalists andworkers are determined simultaneously with the rate of profit,the capital-output ratio, and the overall growth rate of theeconomy. They give rise to such elegant results as the Pasinettitheorem . . . The import of the Pasinetti theorem is unclear;equally unclear is the importance of theorems that flow fromcertain alternative neoclassical growth models, such as “thegolden rule of accumulation,” which tells us that consumptionper head is only maximized in an economy growing at a steadystate when the rate of return on capital is equalized with thegrowth rate.

On March 25, 1997, the Federal Reserve set the official policy for theU.S. economy: to sustain moderate “economic growth” (the trend ofwhich is about 2 percent) with the expected “rate of return” tocapitalists of 6 percent or more. Clearly, no official attention wasgiven to the above stated“golden rule of accumulation.” Wages andconsumption are the mechanist targeted scapegoats of our officialpolicies on inflation, which economic causality relate to economicendemism, as licensed, laid only onto consumption, and therebyimpact earned wages most severely.

While inflation is neither caused by consumption noremployment, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan observed that pressurecould arise, even during the contemporary unexpectedly low rate of

75521 Population Changes

unemployment, to increase wages, causing inflation to rise (Officially,how wages would cause inflation is inexplicable since such endemicincreases in wages would cause business failures, rather thaninflation?). John Maynard Keynes had referred to employment as‘symptomatic of inflation’ rather than its ‘cause.’

The low rates of unemployment during the 1990s are in resultsof the demographic phenomenon called the BabyBoom, that politicalmanagement of the economy cannot change. Included here is analysisof another research section. Particularly, population changes indicatedin the column labeled NET CHANGE should be carefully noted andevaluated: Lower “net changes” show that fewer than usual workershad entered the productive age group of wage-earner-producers).

Mortality used to reduce the birth counts are from the Table ofMortality furnished by the Census Bureau for 1990. They are 0.9869for age 18, 0.7822 for age 65 and 0.7451 for age 67. Of note is that mortality claims 3.7 percent of the population in the age rangebetween 65 and 67 (for each 100 individuals that enter retirement atage 65, 3.7 percent will not have survived to be in the retiredpopulation, which begins at age 67). My population model shows thatthe retired birth boom population, with others that are retiredcoincident with them, is reduced by more than 6 million by the shift inretirement age. Notes that follow the table, are numbered as shown inparentheses.

521 POPULATION CHANGES IN THE 20 - 65 AGE GROUP(in millions of potential producers)

YEAR ENTER(Age 18)

EXIT(Age 65)

NETCHNG

TOT.(18-64)

TOT.(65-?)

19651966196719681969

3.653.593.603.583.77

(1) 1.491.491.561.641.72

2.162.102.041.942.05

(1) ? ?


YEAR ENTER(Age 18)

EXIT(Age 65)

NETCHNG

TOT.(18-64)

TOT.(65-?)

19701971197219731974

3.863.914.024.054.16

1.801.88

. . 1.962.032.17

2.062.042.072.022.00

(2)115.1 (2) 20.1

19801981198219831984

4.114.043.973.713.56

2.322.312.312.312.31

1.801.731.661.401.25

134.8

19851986198719881989

3.473.463.553.683.51

2.302.292.292.282.28

1.171.161.261.401.23

142.0

19901991199219931994

3.223.103.123.103.13

2.232.182.142.092.05

.99(3) .91

.981.011.08

148.1(4)147.0

(7) 28.8(4) 31.1

19951996199719981999

3.283.293.453.563.60

2.011.971.931.901.86

1.271.321.511.671.74

153.3

2000 3.63 1.89 1.75 161.3 (7) 26.15

2005 3.78 1.97 1.81 169.9

2010 4.03 (6) 2.57 1.45 178.5 (7) 27.36


YEAR ENTER(Age 18)

EXIT(Age 65)

NETCHNG

TOT.(18-64)

TOT.(65-?)

2015 (5) 3.75 2.99 .76 183.3 (7) 31.53

2020 (5) 3.75 3.30 .45 186.2

2025 (5) 3.75 3.34 .41 188.2 (7) 39.77

2030 (5) 3.75 2.82 0.93 191.6

2035 (5) 3.75 2.78 .97 196.3

2040 (5) 3.75 2.48 1.27 202.7

2045 (5) 3.75 2.85 .90 207.8

2050 (5) 3.75 2.92 .83 212.1 (7) 34.88

Note the emboldened NET CHNG, i.e., increases in available workers.

Businesses that are outsourcing jobs are always ahead of thisfactual reality. And unemployment rates will be far lower than were normal as the BabyBoom entered the work force. Unemploymentrates greatly mislead economic mechanists of society, as an indicatorof a healthy economy. And, for those beyond the age of retirementand are still capable and willing to continue in employment will findjobs that are readily available.

(1) Reliable birth counts for the years before 1910 are unavailablefrom the Census Bureau. The following note explains:52

The rates of mortality among the general population in theUnited States have been calculated and published after eachdecennial census since 1890. However, the earlier tables did notrepresent national mortality since they were based only upondata from states which require statewide registration of birthsand deaths. By 1940, all the states were in this category, so thatthe mortality rates of the tables published thereafter do reflectnationwide experience.


(2) Census Bureau’s estimates.53

(3) This net change is the lowest since 1965 (those enteringretirements in ‘65 were born at the turn of the century). The netchange suggests a lighter level of competition for jobs. One mightanticipate that this natural phenomenon of demographics will causeunemployment rates to abate during the ‘90s (as it now has) and againfollowing 2010.(4) My population projection appears reliable through 1990. TheCensus Bureau’s more recent projection (published in the 1986 WorldAlmanac) confirms this.54

(5) The counts are estimates as empirical counts were not availablefrom published data beyond 1993 55

(6) The age of retirement begins a gradual shift from 65 to 67.(7) based on my model that is shown in another section. With the shiftin retirement from 65 to 67, the counts of those retired are reduced byapproximately 6 million. The total retirement counts shown in mymodel are 25.55 million for 2015, 33.25 for 2025 and 29.09 for 2050.

For comparison, the actual count of retirees in 1990 was alittle more than 31 million.

end of excerpt from my research

---- Does Congress or the Federal Reserve track with similardemographic analysis to monitor the economic effects of inflation?

---- Is the overall population growth, of less than 2 percent naturalbirths annually, a natural reason to manage economic growth to alsobe in balance at less than 2 percent natural population growth?

---- Is the growth in consumption related to the growth in thewage-earner population of those aged 18-65, or 18-67?

---- Is the target of unemployment (just less than 6 percent) forcontaining inflation, realistic? Or, should the target change as the netchange in population is far lower than usual? Economists determinedthis target during the 1970s when the “net change” in the population ofworkers was greater than 2 million each year. Should this target nowexist at all?

The greatest cause of inflation during the late 1970s had


nothing to do with employment rates. Instead, inflation was caused byU.S. policy to import oil, and OPECs oil embargo. More important,the fixed target of 6 percent unemployment has had no empiricallyrational basis during the 1990s and will again be low following 2005. So, shouldn’t we again look more carefully at the Fed’s policy?

On March 25, 1997, the Federal Reserve set the official policy for theU.S. economy: to sustain moderate “economic growth” (the trend ofwhich is about 2 percent) with input from business of the expected“rate of return” to capitalists of 6 percent or more.

More particularly, this policy should be appraised by former standardsas set by neoclassical growth models, such as “the golden rule ofaccumulation,” which tells us that consumption per head is onlymaximized in an economy . . . when the rate of return on capital isequalized with the growth rate.

Clearly, unbounded mathematical functions are involved here. And while the growth in capital is reaching to the “stars” at three timesthe exponential rate of economic growth (This is evident in theexponentially growing multi million dollar annual salaries now beingpaid to top positions of employment and media and sports stars). Mathematicians are familiar with unbounded mathematical functions,as exponentially compounding interest for instance, and rates of returnon investments that exceed the rate of economic growth intuitively areof serious rational mathematical concern: at what point of infinity doesthe unbounded mechanist economic polity reach the point of beingridiculous?. The “golden rule of accumulation,” which tells us thatconsumption per head is only maximized in an economy growing at asteady state when the rate of return on capital is equalized with thegrowth rate,” undoubtedly only finds respect in rational mathematicalanalysis. Of concern here, however, is the irrational mechanistsophists debunking of the “the golden rule of accumulation.” Mechanist sophists celebrated the phrase only maximized in aneconomy growing at a steady state to argue that economic growth isnever in a steady state, as if to infer that because of this “the goldenrule” does not hold “true.” However, in statistical mathematics, the


Calculus deals with all sorts of cyclical functions, as respects averagesand such. Finding maximum and minimum points of cyclicalfunctions is common. So, “the golden rule of accumulation” ismathematically valid, as regards “average” rather than “steady”economic growth.

And, therefore, any “Balanced Budget Amendment” mustspecify formulated rates of interest targets that correspond to the rateof economic growth targets (only after growth that benefits frominflation is adjusted by taxation to equalize inflation’s effects onconsumption). Under this scenario, the government must regulate therate of interest that is charged instead of putting the economic burdenonto components of economy, as unemployment, that register only as‘symptoms’ of the inflation.

And, to the extent that Milton Friedman is correct, the solutionwill involve monetary restraint of fiat money creation, also to conformto targeted economic growth. The greater correction must deal withbalancing the economic playing field by effecting taxation rates thatequalize the tax burden as related to the inflation causes: those whocause inflation should pay for it. In this regard, G. P Brockway’sanalysis appertains to comments that I have made here: Businessesthat recover, as revenue flowing into their capital accounts, cost-accounted inflation endemism that along with economic “growth” feed“unearned income” distributions to the business owners, must at leastbe made to pay taxes to offset the inflation loads on consumption thatare directly related to inflation, and which sorely affects the tax ratesof SS contributions, and the costs of Medicare and Medicaid: neitherare wage-earners nor consumers a cause of political economy’sinflation endemism that actively effects all government ”socialusage”-based insurance costs. Bearing in mind, of course, thatgovernment is the grandest form of “social usage”-organization thatensures and insures society, of which consented cardinal humansovereignty is the sine qua non equal distributive justification (withoutwhich all organic economics is of not). To ensure this grand organicreality rationally, those who cause inflation should pay for it. Butthen, irrationally government gave revenue tax reductions to the top


end incomes simply because mechanist politics affirmed they had paidan excess taxes. This politics must either be ignorant or careless ofinflations’ cause, or more probably are aware of the real causes butdogmatically excuse this injustice on the basis of divine right: thegovernment has the right to do as it wills as regards taxes paid.

And, to ensure that government’s fiat money creations resultin ‘essential needs to exist’-based consumption of goods and servicesproduced, rather than in collateral human interests as leveragedcorporate buyouts (LBOs) or stock market equities’ investments,which arguably bolster ‘new wealth’ productions, my concludingsection suggests that all government’s increases in coinage or printingfiat money might be distributed directly to those of direst subsistenceneeds (welfare might then be limited to government’s creations of fiatmoney, and reciprocally government’s fiat money creations limited todire welfare needs). This would substantially eliminate surrealpolitical economic game playing as is now granted and controlled bythe investment banking industry, which ultimately is Fed controlled. *

* About causality of LBOs to the S&L (and Bank) failures of 1987,this account comes very close to linking directly the $500 billionpublic bail out of the failed banking industry with the LBOs:56

A handful of buyout companies began having trouble payingtheir debts in 1989 as overall economic growth slowedsignificantly for the first time in seven years. With a weakeconomy, the prospect of more financial failures loomed, Quickly, lenders and regulators began to tear apart the networkof easy credit that had been built up in the previous ten years. Before long, the risks of bankrolling heavily indebted companies-- which they had ignored or denied as late as 1988 -- becamean increasingly big worry for bankers and junk-bond buyers. The giddy optimism at the peak of the lending cycle subsided. Inits place came a new wariness and distrust.

Just as rampant speculation had fed on itself for years, sotoo did the new skepticism. From 1989 to 1990, bank's loans to


buyout companies skidded 86 percent, to their lowest level sincethe early 1980s. The junk-bond market collapsed even moredrastically. Lenders at mutual funds, insurance companies, andS&Ls all took a hard look at the types of deals they had beenbankrolling. Cash began fleeing the junk-bond market at a rateof billions of dollars a month, as onetime lenders blinked, cursedtheir folly in putting money into unsound deals, and then sworenever to be so reckless with their cash again. . . .

About the only area in which financial authorities usedtheir muscle was in prosecuting insider trading associated withtakeovers -- a relatively minor economic issue compared with theimpact of piling an extra $1 trillion of debt on corporateAmerica's books. . . .

In 1988, Bankers Trust executives had breezily admittedoriginating $60 billion in buyout loans over the past few years,while hanging onto just $2.7 billion themselves. The remaining95.5 percent of the loans had been shoveled into the portfolios offoreign banks, regional banks, insurance companies, and otherloan buyers. . . . Gung-ho loan syndicators at the big banksfound it wasn't so easy anymore to promise a $500 millionbuyout loan, quickly skim of the up-front fees [the amounts areshocking], and then peddle 90 percent or more of the loans tolittle banks.

And we know from experiencing this depression. Those billions ofbank-loses were laid onto Deposit Insurance and future taxes, asadditions to the federal deficits. Tax paying consumers were revealedto be, in all instances, the “lender of last resort.”

But our capitalist captains thrived on their market manipulations. And their grand incomes became factors of traditionalmeasures of economic condition: GNP & GDP. Many on the surrealside of economy have called the growth of the ‘80s the best ineconomic history. While, for more than half the American population,


New wealth, to Adam Smith, was “goods and services”"

distributed to all in society. (See Heilbroner’s writings on this)

the economy was in depression.

Or, when did we discontinue believing that consumption wasthe only real purpose of economy, as Adam Smith had postulated?

(Cont’d)(Please tell me about business executives that assign responsibility toone employee, which in turn agree will be reassigned to another,which employee those executives will hold primarily accountable?) Contrarily, as regards this mechanist basic rule, however, TheAmerican System of Political Economy, which also is mechanistidealistic, achieved politically to use the consented ordinal sovereignadministrative “social usage”-based organic form, called government,to legally misappropriate the consented ordinal sovereign authority tolicense private corporations to act as agents of government but distribute as dividends only to shareholders the profit therebyproduced as ‘new wealth.’ While this decentralized privatized"

political-economy’s idealist design may have modicums oftautological honor, the mechanist materialist political flux ofbusinesses is patently amoral as regard’s the consented custodianshipof the ordinal sovereign constitutional responsibility to serve all. T. C.Jorling’s concern in this regard is prescient: 57

At the time of the framing of the Constitution, many provisionswere adopted to constrain and make accountable an agent ofpower--the federal government. During the past 200 years, newaggregates of power have come into being, especially the large,multinational corporation. Brought into existence by statecharter, these institutions were once constrained by limits on sizeand power, limits rapidly made obsolete by interstatecompetition. Justice Brandeis, in a descent in the 1932 caseLiggett v. Lee, described the history concisely: 'Although theyfully recognized the value of this instrumentality in commerce


and industry, they commonly denied incorporation for businesslong after they had granted it for religious, educational, andcharitable purposes. They denied it because of fear. Fear ofencroachment upon the liberties and opportunities of theindividual. Fear of the subjection of labor to capital. Fear ofmonopoly. Fear that the absorption of capital by corporations,and their perpetual life, might bring evils similar to thosewhich attended 'mortmain.' There was a sense of someinsidious menace inherent to large corporations. So at first thecorporate privilege was granted sparingly; and only when thegrant seemed necessary in order to procure some specificbenefit otherwise unobtainable.

The removal by leading industrial states of the limitationsupon the size and powers of business corporations appears tohave been due, not to their conviction that maintenance of therestrictions was undesirable in itself, but to the conviction that itwas futile to insist upon them; because local restriction would becircumvented by foreign (other states) incorporation. Indeed,local restriction seemed worse than futile; Lesser States eagerfor the revenue derived from traffic in charters, had removedsafeguards from their own incorporation laws. 288 US 517, 548,557.

Nothing took the place of the limits -- limits designed tocontrol power -- once imposed by states. Subsequently, thecorporation has continued to grow, and it now is the source ofthe exercise of the greatest amount of power in national andglobal society. Simply put, the large business corporations,separately and collectively, wield the greatest quantum powerin our society. Government is constitutionally constrained to ensure, insure andadjudicate in an equanimity, which distributive justice defines. Privatized businesses, however, believe sincerely that what is good forthem mechanistically is good for the nation and dogmatically are


unwilling to alter Hamilton’s classical original arguments, whichprescriptively, at least, favored the English mercantilist economicdoctrine of causal-determinism, i.e., mechanism:58

A commercial people understands that a government that servesthe interests of men of property, serves the interests of all, for ifcapital will not invest how shall labor find employment?The “all” of Smith’s postulation is metamorphosed to “the fewsuperintendents of production”of mercantilist doctrine.

The American economic System (of Whiggish origin as sponsored byHenry Clay) not only allowed domination through landed property. Clay’s privatized idealist mechanist political economy was designed toaccomplish this domination, which Hamilton subscribed: 59

Capital was wanting, and unless collective funds were available,exploitation must be slow and inadequate. There was need ofthe state to further the opening up of western lands and to throwits guardianship about an infant industrialism. Roads andcanals could not wait on individual enterprise; tariffs andsubsidies could flow only from the government. Hence arose amodification of "laissez faire," from which resulted the theorythat a democratic state stands in "loco parentis" to theeconomic interests of its citizens, and should guarantee theprogressive well-being of strategic groups on whose prosperitydepended the common well-being [surely in the sense oftrickling-down]. It was this modification of the Englishphilosophy that the Whig party came to embody in its platform,and which by pooling the interests of western speculators,eastern financiers and New England industrialists, sponsored the"American Plan," a curiously ingenious scheme to milk thecow and divide the milk among those who superintended themilking.

Wage-earners, in the trenches of producing the goods and services ofeconomy, are the day ‘slaves’ that for wages, consented to do thework. Ignored by the ‘foxes,‘ which by the fiat nature of laissez faire,


are in charge of ‘the chickens,’ so to speak, and as indulged by Whigidealist notions of laissez faire and determinism, the superintending‘foxes’ of this hybrid ‘American Economy’ are rewarded from thegrowth in economy plus inflation enured as returning capital fromconsumption: which mechanistic reward, at the top end, has reached tofar more than 500 times the average earned-wage. The mechanistprofit-based values of business are diabolically in discord with theconsented cardinal sovereign constitutional values of government, and,probably never will fully subscribe to Adam Smith’s ethics-basedeconomic equation (which intended to provide wealth, i.e., goods andservices to ‘all’ in society). In fallacious belief that government’sgrant of mechanist laissez faire license did not transfer government’sconsented sovereignty-based responsibilities to the privatized agentbusiness’ superintendents, other than the unspecified contractualresponsibility to their employees to pay wages of unspecified amount,but as meager as possible, as is agreed to by the proletariat like workerslaves in need of wages for to subsist, are not only agreeable but clamorous for wages as the privatized mechanist laissez fairesuperintendents’ government granted business values are not justallowed, they now have metamorphosed to antecede the specifiedconstitutional values, which they had consented their cardinalsovereignty to government to secure and ensure. Noam Chomskydocumented this mechanist political strategy in his recent book: 60

Imperial Grand StrategyHigh on the global agenda by fall 2002, was the declaredintention of the most powerful state in history to maintain itshegemony through the threat or use of military force, thedimension of power in which it reigns supreme. In the officialrhetoric of the National Security Strategy, “our forces will bestrong, enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing,a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, thepower of the United states.” 61

One well-known international affairs specialist, JohnIkenberry, describes the declaration as a “grand Strategy [that]begins with a fundamental commitment to maintaining a


unipolar world in which the United States has no peercompetitor,” a condition that is to be “permanent [so] tht nostate or coalition could ever challenge [the US] as global leader,protector, and enforcer.” The declared “approach rendersinternational norms of self-defense–enshrined by Article 51 ofthe UN Charter–almost meaningless.” More generally, thedoctrine dismisses international law and institutions as of “littlevalue.” Ikenberry continues: “”The new imperial grandstrategy presents the United States [as] a revisionist stateseeking to parlay it momentary advantages into a world order inwhich it runs the show,” prompting others to find ways to “workaround, undermine, contain and retaliate against U.S. power.” The strategy threatens to “leave the world more dangerous anddivided–and the United States less secure,” a view widely62

shared within the foreign policy elite.Despite the fallaciousness of the mechanist economic design,

however, government legally granted licenses to privatized agentbusinesses that allows to them far less than government’sConstitutional sovereign rights, as consented. Mechanist laissez faireantecedence, as affirmed, violate the cardinal sovereign consent thatwas granted to government. When private agent businesses fail to actaccording to the constitutional economic role as cardinal sovereigntyhad consented, it now apparently was inevitable that mechanistSuperintendents of private business would become, as they now are,not legally culpable. When government’s ordinal sovereignresponsibility is not provided by privatized businesses, and because ofthis, wage-earning employees have urgent cause to grumble, businessSuperintendents then play the game of political tag, by putting blame for the wage-slavery onto government. Government’s constitutionalresponsibility to wage-earners-citizens often gets lost until the need forspecial forms of Roger Williams’ “social usage” insurance getgenerally acknowledged, then designed and administered by fiat-basedcitizen referendum: Social Security and Medicare are such “socialusage”-insurance adjustments that counterbalance government’s


mechanist laissez faire paternal grant of “social usage”-basedeconomic insurance to businesses.---- As agents of government, do constitutional purposes apply to“for profit” businesses, which take as their profit three times the rate ofeconomic growth? Should the Constitution’s charge to, promote thegeneral welfare, apply to them? , Or should profits be taxed to pay forthe “social usage” insurance, required by sovereign responsibility?

Before progressing here, the following about the justifiedirrationalism of wage-earner slavery appertains to the contemporarywage-earners’ plight. About this, Parrington’s assessment of Lincolnis more accurate, than others are, about Lincoln’s Whig alliances: 63

Long an ardent Whig of the Clay school, and thoroughlyindoctrinated in a paternalistic nationalism, he was brought, asevery thoughtful American of the times was brought, to weighthe program of slave imperialism in the scales with theDeclaration of Independence. The doctrines of that greatdocument lay before every man’s feet in those uncertain days, toget over as one could. They could not easily be evaded or gotaround; they must be dealt with. Rufus Choate, representingBoston Toryism, had come upon them and dismissed them as‘glittering and sounding generalities.’ Calhoun, representingsouthern imperialism, had come upon them and essayed todestroy them by a critical realism. Lincoln, embodying thespontaneous liberalism of the West, came upon them and pausedto take his bearings afresh. He could neither wave them asidenor destroy them. The deep-rooted equalitarianism of his simplesocial philosophy found in them and eloquent pronouncement ofits democratic faith, that set him upon considering how suchdoctrine might be squared with the reality of slavery. Theagrarianism of John Taylor and the Whiggery of Henry Claycould tell him nothing about that; he must seek elsewhere; andthe solution he found in an amalgamation of equalitarianism andfree-soilism, in an adaptation of western Whiggery to


Jeffersonian principles.

Whatever party name he might call himself by, in his loveof justice and his warm humanity Lincoln was essentiallyJeffersonian. He respected property rights, but other rights hebelieved more sacred. And as he watched the emergence in theSouth, of the ideal of a Greek democracy, as he considered howthe party of Jackson had become the party of Calhoun andDouglas, bent solely on strengthening as spreading theinstitution of slavery, his equalitarianism took alarm. He couldnot sit quiet while the principles of the Declaration ofIndependence were being openly flouted; he must speak out; hemust arouse the idealism of the people to deal with theiconoclasts. In an important pronouncement written in 1859, heset the problem before them thus: “Remembering . . . that theJefferson party was formed upon its supposed superiordevotion to the personal rights of men, holding the rights ofproperty to be secondary only, and greatly inferior . . . it will be. . . interesting to note how completely the two [parties] havechanged hands as to the principles upon which they wereoriginally supposed to be divided. The Democracy of todayholds the liberty of one man to be absolutely nothing, when inconflict with another’s right to property; Republicans on thecontrary, are for both the man and the dollar, but in case ofconflict the man before the dollar. . . . But, soberly, it is now nochild’s play to save the principles of Jefferson from totaloverthrow in this nation. . . . The principles of Jefferson arethe principles and axioms of free society and yet they aredenied and evaded, with no small show of success. Onedashingly calls them ‘glittering generalities.’ Another bluntlycalls then ‘self-evident lies!’ And others insidiously argue thatthey apply to ‘superior races.’ These [materialist] expressions,differing in form, are identical in object and effect -- the


supplanting the principles of free government, and restoringthose of classification, caste, and legitimacy. . . . They are thevanguard, the miners and sappers of returning despotism. We

must repulse them or they will subjugate us.” (Letter to H. L.

Prince, April 6, 1859, in Works, Vol. V, pp. 125-126)

Two conceptions were here competing in Lincoln’s mind,the older equalitarianism that sprang from Frenchhumanitarianism and the newer economics that came fromEnglish ‘laissez faire’; and the attempt to reconcile themsuggests how far he had traveled along the path of westernWhiggery. With the spirit of enterprise he had no complaint; theideal of progress was associated in his mind with a fluideconomics that permitted the capable to rise through skillfulexploitation. He had no love for the stable economics of theeighteenth century that Jackson preferred; the profit motive,functioning freely, he regarded as the legitimate driving forceof society; but he was concerned that competition should beopen to all on equal terms. [In this, Lincoln was philosophicallyopposed to corporate mechanisms, the monopolist control ofeconomy, of which would stifle the competition that heenvisioned] As he watched the transition from an agrarian to anindustrial order, he found himself more in sympathy with the newthan the old. Accepting the principle of exploitation he came tothe position of the little capitalist who believed that in Americacapitalism could be democratized by the simple method ofkeeping the opportunities for exploitation open to every citizen [Political Whiggery succeeded to obtain corporate ‘fictitious-legal-person’ rights that equaled the natural unalienable rights ofhumans and this opened exploitations in America to foreignerswhile, in time, closing individual citizens’ economic opportunities].

It was common view of western Whiggery, and in so far asLincoln remained a Whig, content with a system which he


accepted as peculiarly suited to the genius of the Americanpeople. In a late speech he summed it up thus: “What is the truecondition of the laborer? I take it that it is best to leave eachman free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will getwealthy. I don’t believe in law to prevent a man from gettingrich; it would do more harm than good. So while we don’tpropose any war on capital, we do wish to allow the humblestman an equal chance to get rich with anybody else. When onestarts poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is suchthat he knows he can better his condition; he knows that thereis no fixed condition of labor for his whole life. . . . I wantevery man to have a chance -- and I believe a black man isentitled to it -- in which he can better his condition -- when hemay look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year andthe next, work for himself afterwards, and finally to hire mento work for him. That is the true system.” (Speech atNew Haven, March 6, 1860, in Works, Vol., V, pp. 360-361)

But as a western man Lincoln was far more concernedover the application of ‘laissez faire’ to the problem of westernlands, and as he contemplated the practical workings of‘squatter sovereignty’ he learned how the free functioning of‘laissez faire’ may be interfered with by economic imperialisms. That lesson determined his final stand. The virgin prairiesbeyond the Mississippi were coveted equally by northern andsouthern exploiters; and who should finally possess them,whether the small freeholder or the slave-master, was a questionthat could not be put off forever. None knew this better than thesmall farmers who were already staking out homesteads there. IfCongress yielded to the pro-slavery demands, their economicfuture would be endangered. It was the free-soil West that sentthe first anti-slavery men to Washington and provided thebackbone of the new party. [Which party they called: Republican,


after the Grand Old Party] Not the respectable West, but the plainpeople, Whig as well as Democrat. ‘Much of the plain oldDemocracy is with us,’ said Lincoln in 1858, ‘while nearly allthe old silk-stocking Whiggery is against us. I don’t meannearly all the old Whig party, but nearly all of the niceexclusive sort.’ (Letter to A. C. Henry, in Works, Vol. V, p. 95) . . .

The free-soiler hated slavery because it threatened his immediateinterests; nevertheless as the great struggle developed, the moralinjustice of slavery was thrust to the fore and imparted ahumanitarian motive to the free-soil argument. Thehumanitarian motive Lincoln seized upon, wedded it to the idealof national union, and thus doubly armed went forth to the fight.

To amalgamate idealism and economics is not an easytask. ‘Public opinion,’ he said in a speech at Hartford, ‘isfounded, to a great extent, on a property basis.’ But it is not thesole basis. The ideal of justice comes in to upset all purelyeconomic calculations. ‘The property basis will have its weight. The love of property and a consciousness of right and wronghave conflicting places in our organization, which often make aman’s course seem crooked, his conduct a riddle.’ (Works, Vol.V, p. 330) Beyond question it was this recognition of theperennial conflict between economics and justice, betweenrealism and idealism, that explains the hesitancies and harassingdoubts that marked Lincoln’s development. To reconcile theprinciple of exploitation with the Declaration of Independence itwas necessary to stick like a flea to ‘laissez faire’ -- to eliminateslave labor and accept only free labor. [And, this has yet to be

accomplished] Lincoln was a slow man and cautious, and hepulled himself forward to such a position by main force. He wasnot a rare intellect like Thoreau, to think swiftly to a conclusionand abide the consequences. He was a political leader ratherthan an intellectual, and he could advance only a little ahead of


the slow-moving mass he sought to draw after him. A hundredinvisible ties held him back -- his belief in the rights of localdemocracies, his respect for law and order, his devotion to theConstitution, his recognition of property interests in the slave,his understanding of the complexity of the problem, with theentire economy of the South resting on a slave basis. Here weredifficulties enough to trouble an honest mind. His practicalsense, which is only another name for political realism,restrained his idealism and made him of necessity anopportunist, willing to yield much to save the Union. A simple,tolerant, easy-going man, he was at bottom a realist who hadcome to understand what may be considered the greatest truth inpolitical science, namely, that an enduring state must rest onwilling allegiance. Force cannot compel loyalty; authority mayput down revolt but it cannot destroy the seeds of discontent; forthat only the sovereignty of good will is competent, and in freestates the sovereignty of good will must rest upon compromise. Lincoln was a better democrat than Jackson, for he would ratherpersuade than drive. If Hamilton embodied the aristocraticprinciple of coercive government [Which currently the GOP holds

to], Lincoln embodied the democratic principle of give and take,that prefers compromise to bayonets. With a cause resting onthe common good will it might safely be trusted to muddlethrough.

‘In those days our Declaration of Independence was heldsacred by all, and thought to include all; but now, to aid inmaking the bondage of the Negro universal and eternal, it isassailed and sneered at and construed, and hawked at and torn,till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not atall recognize it. All the powers of earth seem rapidly combiningagainst him. Mammon is after him, ambition follows, philosophyfollows, and the theology of the day is fast joining the cry. They


have him in the prison-house; they have searched his person,and left no prying instrument with him. One after another theyhave closed the heavy iron doors upon him; and now they havehim, as it were, bolted in with a lock of a hundred keys, whichcan never be unlocked without the concurrence of every key --the keys in the hands of a hundred different men, and theyscattered to a hundred different and distant places; and theystand musing as to what invention, in all the dominions of mindand matter, can be produced to make the impossibility of hisescape more complete than it is.’ (Speech at Springfield, June 27,1857, in Works, Vol. II, pp. 327-328)

Life in America, not only changes economically, it also evolvessocially: as the barbarism of frontier life yielded to civilization. In thetransition, however, free-will-based individual cardinal sovereigntywas politically mechanistically metamorphosed by a deterministunitary materialism form: by practicing tautological fallacies, ordinalsovereign political groups bent on strategic materialist objectivesmetamorphosed culture from their positions of cardinal sovereignantecedence to consequential positions of mechanisms’ affirmedantecedence.

With the above review, these questions must be considered! :---- As agents of government, do constitutional purposes apply to“for profit” businesses, which take as their profit, is more than threetimes the rate of economic growth, as modified by the economiceffects of inflation on wage earning (And the ratio of wage-earners tothe owners of profit, is huge)? Or should the constitutional charge to,promote the general welfare, apply to the profit takers? And, forethical reasons, should profits of laissez faire licensed businesses betaxed to pay for the “social usage” insurance, as is necessarily requiredby constitutional distributive justice sovereign responsibility?

While income of wage-earners is a cost of production, whichthen is consumed, the laissez faire licensing of the American Systempolitical economy allows businesses to cost account, as businessrelated costs, their personal consumption of goods and services, which


On March 25, 1997, the Federal Reserve set the official policy"

for the U.S. economy: to sustain moderate “economic growth” (the trend ofwhich is about 2 percent) with the expected “rate of return” to capitalists of6 percent or more.

are produced by wage-earners: in this manner, businesses, unlikewage-earners, do not consume products and services for to subsist. And, they recover all their cost accountings at points of sale toconsumers. From the three-times rate of ‘economic growth’ profit,"

which has consumption as its primary revenue source, corporationsdistribute part of the accumulated ‘new capital’ to shareholders, whichaccounting wise, only affects the capital side of the corporate ledger,where the net corporate assets and liabilities are accounted. Theseshareholder distributions neither directly relate to production costs norwith Smith’s postulation’s for creating wealth (which Smithconsidered as consumable goods and services). These stock ownerdistributions from net corporate profit represent nothing more than anownership of the corporate ‘new capital.’ Which share in neither thecorporate debt nor the tax liabilities. A corporate stock share isnothing more than a legalized perpetual claim on the net corporatecapitalized income. Shareholders of a public corporation perpetuallyown a proportioned part of the corporation’s new capital, no more. 64

Stockholders’ equity reflects the amounts invested bystockholders in the company. They are entitled to the residualremaining after legally fixed obligations are met, and as aconsequence they (limited to their investment) bear the residualrisk inherent in the operations of the business.One might conclude that our ‘White Rabbits of our wonderland’ hadlaw made to accommodate the socialization of the new capital of‘public’ owned corporate businesses. In this, did Political Economylicense public corporations to violate Smith’s economic equation? :Government’s exclusive economic purpose is to sustain the economicneeds of all by sustaining the economic equation of ‘production andconsumption.’ The economic system, as authorized and licensed,however, constitutionally should intends that “new capital” that


derives by consumption is recycled in new production and wages tocreate each new cycle of ‘new capital.’ It has failed to do this.

By means of political economy, and in instances of payingdividends from “new capital” accumulations that tautologically werejustified for expanding production, political economy has fallaciously‘affirmed the consequent’ (new capital) of Smith’s tautology. Asexamined in other sections, ‘American-System’-political-economy’smetamorphosed socialization, underpins our Surreal Economy (stock,bond, commodities and money markets) and residuals of these logicalfallacies are where Enron’s accounting ended in a near completefailure of the seventh largest public corporation. Unfortunately forwage-earners, the capitalist Surreal Economy exists at ever increasingcompromise to the exclusive constitutional function (which is acardinal function of individual sovereignty commitment, which wasaborted by government’s consented sovereignty for: to promote thegeneral welfare. Political economy, therefore, violates the individualsovereignty of wage-earners that the constitutional purpose wasinstituted to ensure, as government’s consented insurance wasinstituted to secure.

Mechanist persuaded Employers interpret their licencedconstitutional national purpose role, to promote the general welfare, astotally fulfilled by paying wages to their employees. And, as onlywage-earning employees are considered, this claim holds merit asproviding constitutional distributive justice. The mechanist persuadedview, however, is as Lincoln had observed:

To amalgamate idealism and economics is not an easy task. ‘Public opinion,’ he said in a speech at Hartford, ‘is founded, toa great extent, on a property basis.’ But it is not the sole basis. The ideal of justice comes in to upset all purely economiccalculations. ‘The property basis will have its weight. The loveof property and a consciousness of right and wrong haveconflicting places in our organization, which often make aman’s course seem crooked, his conduct a riddle.’ The distributive justice problem, therefore, is mainly with differencesin the political view of cardinal sovereign citizens that consented to


the Constitution, and the Mechanist view of business owners. Onlywhen free enterprise works as Adam Smith had proposed andemployers continually provide wage-based security ‘to all’ employeesin a manner that satisfies distributive justice as regards the mechanisteconomic take for superintending the mechanism-based economy, onlythen does licensed private enterprise fulfill its licensed agency role ofgovernment’s constitutional purpose to promote the general welfare,as cardinal sovereignty had consented to government to administer. Often now, the mechanist view of this granted agency role, as thesophists of old did, expediently exchange by political affirmation,antecedences and consequences of government’s purposes to providethe best material return to themselves. In this irrationalism,distributive justice is lost or veiled.

It is critically important to the essence of democracy thatcardinal sovereignty’s natural antecedences are recognized, celebrated,and applied: that government is nothing more than a consent consequential to this resident cardinal sovereignty: that government’slicensing authorities cannot reasonably transfer, exchange or bargainwith this resident cardinal sovereignty for to grant to business’mechanist purposes, which are then affirmed as the antecedent toconstitutional-government-purposes.

In our temporal world, irrational confusion of fallaciousconsequents, affirmed as antecedents, has often prevailed politicallyand administratively. We, of resident cardinal sovereignty, must,therefore, be deliberate about common meanings of money, wealth,capital, etc. For instance, ‘new capital’ that enures because wage-earned labor had created ‘new wealth’, then by consuming the ‘newwealth’(goods and services produced), with wages earned as Smithhad postulated, provided for the continuum of wage-earnedproduction and consumption. However, all ‘new capital’ is routinelyclaimed by capitalist owners as their reward for having capitalized theprocesses of production. And the Federalist mechanist judiciary gavelegality to this view by giving legal meaning to the word to enure. 65

Which incidently is an example of irrationally affirming antecedence.When business owners distribute the net ‘new capital’ only to

owners and shareholders, they abort the constitutional function, to


Chinese businesses, for instance, invest their foreign trade""

surpluses in U.S. Treasury investment instruments, which are madeavailable by the accumulating U.S. deficit, or U.S. Currency paid forforeign oil imports that eventually find a way to return to the U.S.economy by way of investment, rather than exchange.

promote the general welfare. George P. Brockway’s book, The End ofEconomic Man, cited details of this fact when he wrote to this effect:

Capitalists’ claim on new capital is of no greater merit thancould be made by wage-earners [who lac materialist standing].The U.S. political economy’s government-licensed grant to businessesis directly related to Federalist material-weighted sovereign politics. As regards’ privatized employers, who ordinally have an equaldistributed justice-based-cardinal-sovereignty as wage-earners do, thispaternal economic grant can only be an irrational idealist reality ofdogmatic belief. The idealist economic reality of government, which licensed privatized businesses, did so because of the irrationalFederalist unitary materialism-based definition of sovereignty, andunder Whigs’ government administration are now become themechanist owner lords of government. Cardinal sovereign personsshould carefully consider this unitary materialism-based fact. Then bymeans of suffrage, they should decide about placing fixed and limitedcontracts onto the materialist licensed corporate sovereignty:constitutional responsibility should be assigned, as well as a fixedeconomic license-life-span so to restrict fiction-based economiclicensing that enables, by stock ownership, anyone of substance,including foreigners with economic windfalls of ubiquitous U.S.money , to purchase owner corporate shares (our worry about the""

twelve million illegal immigrants, is similar political irrationalism asis based on unitary materialist ideals, which confuses theconstitutional sovereign equally of citizens: more, dangerous erosionof our naturally based constitutional sovereignty, however?

The monetary inflows of political domination by foreignownership of corporate businesses now exceeds to several $ trillionseach year (roughly measured, the sum of foreign investments in the


national deficits and the imbalances in trade with foreign countries, ismaybe the greatest part of it): now only a matter of time that politicaldomination (subordination of democratic cardinal sovereignty), byforeign owners of licensed businesses, is absolutely but fallaciouslymade the antecedent of national cardinal sovereignty. And, ournational foreign policy is now politically driven by unitary materialistsovereignty. But, domestic policy is the primary concern here.

The great political attraction of Employer-Paid-Benefits mostly isfound in untaxed economic value, which Employer-Paid Benefitsrepresent. Because the mechanist political economy paternalismallows employers to spread the cost of providing employee benefits’value onto its produced goods for public consumption, businesses thenrecover this cost of providing this benefits’ value to their employees. When only some employees receive the non taxed value, the financialadvantage is greatest. But, should it happen that all employers provideto all wage-earners the same package of Employer-Paid-Benefits, theeconomic advantage evaporates. Employer-Paid-Benefits, therefore,are a conflated unitary materialist political wedge issue that, ineconomic fact, abstractly nullify cardinal sovereignty, the mechanistcost of which is impressed onto consumers, and therefore, is paid forby consumers. This economic benefit’s endemism, like inflation, isthen also an abstracted reality of political economic paternalism thatdevastates constitutional distributive justice-based equality.

And, when all employees are given this benefit by government fiat, the employers are then disadvantaged by product costs that fail tocompete with foreign produced product costs.

Private enterprise supports either the constitutional function -- topromote the general welfare -- or it compromises this all importantfunction. When some employers give their wage-earners Employer-Paid-Benefits and other employers do not, those with benefits areprovided value for which consumers are made to pay; it is wage-earners that essentially must spend their wages to consume the goodsand services of economy. Mechanistically, wage-earners are then thedupes of these so called benefits. The sovereign rights of some arenullified to provide benefit value to others and both ethically and


practically the Constitution’s purpose to promote the general welfare -- is compromised. Anyway, because the American System of PoliticalEconomy provides mechanist based paternalism to businesses as regards the accounting of production costs, which is a systemic Teflonlike effect on production costs that are shifted onto wage-earningconsumers, fully taxed wage-earner income, in either event, is the onlyreal financial base on which to spread all commonly insurable aspectsof society. Illusions involving other creative bases, as employer paidbenefits, for instance, because of the mechanist economic system, are Teflon like, with the cost not sticking to them. The only solution tothis dilemma is to define all income as taxable ‘earned income’

Critical questions, involving homogenous, dependent,collateral insurance interests of society, therefore, include these:---- What form of insurance will cardinal sovereign members ofsociety rationally choose? Has political economy’s allowed endemismmade the choice too complicated for wage-earners to understand?---- Will cardinal sovereign members allow the surreal incomeaffluence (of private business capital interests) of political economy tooverwhelm their sovereign choice of insurance security?---- Will cardinal sovereign members choosing the insurance, as acog of the mechanism, accede to the wiles of private “for profit”enterprise’ where amoral profit always determines business-morality?---- Will sovereign members of society choose a single-payersystem sponsored and controlled by society’s collective sovereigntywhere the importance of Abraham Lincoln’s “of, for, and by thepeople” instills probity and honor to govern the ‘not-for-profit’insurance affairs?

As Adam Smith might probably ask, please review the abovecontrasts and in “moral approbation”, choose? (With administeringprivate forms of insurance, consider motives of profit that damagesvalues as probity and honor.)

In matters of fraud and corruption, the fiducial businessessence of any insurance management must adjudge losses for allpolicyholders (the risk population mass): when it is less expensive(profitable) to stay out of the fray, fiducial insurance managers mustcurtail ethical concerns. For instance, private insurers will always pay

101Endemism and Inflation

small claims of loss without spending to investigate or litigate thecalims’ validity. What entails less overall cost is the fiducial standardfor managing the insurance.

Endemism and Inflation

The combined fraud and corruption endemism hidden from thepublic’s view is very big "monkey-business." Articles about insurancefraud are seldom, if ever, front page news. Marcia Pledger reportedthe following article. It appeared on page 13E of the October 27, 1994Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Automobile insurance fraud is big business in Nevada [it is in fact big business everywhere]

Automobile insurance fraud costs Nevadans an estimated $50million each year. Indeed, if insurance fraud and auto theftnationally were a business, it would rank in the top 25 of thefortune 500, according to experts in the field.

Often, organized crime rings run by doctors and lawyersare behind the scams . . .

Thomas Norton [senior special agent for the WesternRegion of the National Insurance Crime Bureau] said he isfrustrated by the lack of publicity about insurance fraud,especially because 10 to 20 percent of a premium goes to coverthe cost of fraudulent claims. [Which insured fraud is an endemismthat acts as a consumption tax but accounting-wise is lost from view.]

Political Economy’s mechanist authorized endemism to private

insurance businesses includes the above 10 to 20 percent of aninsurance premium [which] goes to cover the cost of fraudulentclaims. In the pure premium sense in which the pure premiumrepresents only half of the total premium cost, fraud inclusive of thefraud endemism, therefore, represents 20 to 40 percent of themechanist allowed pure insurance cost. And, consumers of insurancepay for this endemism as a hidden form of taxation. (From whichfraudulent businesses thrive however) The operations profit of each


insurer is additional to insurance losses and the endemism, including advertizing, lobbying and executive perks.

The endemism to insurers is as ‘good’ or better than ispolitical economy’s endemism granted to mortgage brokers: Listed asitems payable in connection with a recent mortgage loan are:

Loan Origination Fee to (Broker) $1680.00

Appraisal Review Fee to (Lender) 150.00

Credit Report to (Broker) 25.00

Processing Fee to (Broker) 495.00

Funding and Review Fee to (lender) 350.00

Payment Processing to (Lender) 200.00

Tax Registration (Lereta Corp) 71.00

Flood Determination (Lereta) 13.00

Wire Transfer Fee to (lender) 35.00

Yield Spread Prem. To (Broker, pd by Lender) 3360.00

Settlement or closing fee (to Title Company) 175.00

Title Insurance 1029.00

Post Closing Recon Tracking Fee (to Title Co) 30.00

Recording fees (to government) 62.00

Additional Charges (to Title Company) 60.00

Loan amortization repays this front end cost loaded endemism.

Political Economy’s front-end endemism causes inflation. George P. Brockway charges the Banker’s COLA as the primarysource of inflation. However, bankers’ have also now adopted servicefees and charges that are front-end loaded. In my analysis, the frontend endemism including brokerage fees of all sorts and the front-endloaded costs of economic progress, so called, that requires bondingamortized by property taxation, is another primary source of inflation. Front end money that is repaid by debt that is loaded with bankers’COLA interest upsets Adam Smith’s economic equation:

production = consumption.


Added to the extreme endemic cost of fraud, which insurancecompanies pass on to the insurance consuming public, mechanistpolitical economy’s paternalist formulated grant to insurers allowsthem to charge 6 percent as their profit. And this profit allowance isadditional to and consequential of the formulated allowance for fraud (For instance, if fraud represents a fortune 500 company, as the abovenews article suggests, 6% profit represents a substantial paternal grantto insurers, which provides substantial business incentive to favorfraud’s endemism.). And, government’s paternalism, as specified,does nothing to protect the consumers of insurance from fraud.---- more than fifteen hundred separate private insurancecompanies exist;---- each company can and a few do, in fact, fail;---- Political Economy is indiscriminate in matters of ethics andmorality. Crooks appear honest but intend to defraud. They can anddo organize companies. Government’s paternalism to business isagainst individuals, the sovereign consent of which is government’sonly rational sponsor. With ‘American System of Political Economy’spaternalism, a powerful cabal was created: the official agencies ofgovernment are in partnership with private businesses. Intentionally,they collusively defraud the sovereign public. About the only validadvice to consumers, ‘buyers beware,’ is the rule.

Heavily censored energy policy papers released 66

Washington -- The Bush administration on Monday reluctantlyreleased thousands of documents related to its energy task forcebut left many pages blank, fanning a controversy about the roleindustry groups and campaign donors played in shaping thepresident’s energy policy.

In putting out 11,000 pages of documents, the EnergyDepartment listed meetings between Secretary Spencer Abrahamand 30 energy industry groups.

The documents did little to quell the legal and politicalcontroversy about the private meetings that administrationofficials had with outside groups. Critics say the


administration’s plan is tilted toward production rather thanconservation. . . .

---- Mechanistically, insurance consumers are required to renewpolicies (deliberate insurance contracts that are unique and, therefore,not commonly understood) to perpetuate insurance that often now ismandatory (enforced by Political Economy’s police).

Initially, most companies offered five-year and three-year policies. Administrative efficiencies, then justified reduced premiums. Butnow, automation has provided greater administrative efficiencies: butthe cost savings are not now passed on to the consumers of insurance. The multiple year policies that were once the standard insuranceoption, are now rare, if available. Instead, policies are now offered forshorter terms than one year: compounding profits are maximized.

With this history of increasing premiums and shorter policyterms, private insurance has a formidable burden of proving its(fiducial) worth, particularly as conduct exuding service relatedprobity and honor is considered.

---- When pure premiums are considered, the cost of overhead,service and profit is often now (even with shorter policy terms) morethan the pure premium (the pure cost of insurance).

The fact that private insurance is the “only ball game” intown is the only valid argument to justify the grossly negligent serviceendemism of private “for profit” insurance.

However, about the consumption function of economy, onemight consider that many people are provided income by way ofprivate insurance. But, so do many people who work as police, postalcarriers and other wage-earners of the bureaucratic agencies ofgovernment. As we consider ways to curtail costs, as we must, wemust consider forcing efficiencies onto all areas of political economy.

---- And, we must curtail the "deep pockets" of privateinsurance that become legally available for the proliferation ofinsurance settlements that spawn infinite schemes of fraud andcorruption.

Ever increasing liability settlements are very high among the


greatest factors underlying the great cost increases in Health Care. Limiting liability is not rational, however.

Because wage-earner consumers of society must ultimatelybear all insurance costs, limiting insurance losses to those which areindividual consumer unaffordable will greatly reduce fraud of all sorts(What I am saying here is that a substantial first layer of insurancemust always be the individual consumer’s personal responsibility):Each insured individual, by themselves (without the benefit of risksocialization of insurance) must directly pay for loss situations whichfit the first layer of responsibility, as rationally defined.

When responsibility is theirs alone, individuals are capableand creative: they will always find ways of organizing to eliminatefraud from occurring to affect them (If you say this is a securityproblem, it is, but you must agree that paternalistic endemism ofprivate insurance too often gets in the way). The following graphsillustrate the typical distribution of insurance loss events. If the$5,000 layer of insurance losses, for instance, was the responsibility ofeach insured individual, the insurance company would then beresponsible for only 3 loss layers of the following example’s 1,100loss events: but they would be losses that are individuallyunaffordable. The premium cost would be low; and the chance offraud, of which the insured has no control, minimal.

The insurance consumers might be frightened by the chancesof having to pay for many small losses. However, about fireinsurance, each insurance consumer has only about one chance in tenof sustaining a loss of any size in any particular year. By putting theinsurance premium savings into a savings account, each insured wouldend up with enough to buy a larger home, more new cars, or maybeenough to pay for the family’s education expenses.---- Will this sort of insurance policy ever happen on the watch ofprivate insurers whose primary concern is to profit? Not likely!

Thoughts of the alternative -- of a bureaucratic administrationinfluenced by the tugs and pulls of politics -- greatly lighten thisburden of consideration. Nevertheless, the overwhelming strengthsand ultimate sovereignty of government sponsored, social usage-basedsingle-payer insurance system will act to decrease defiant fraudulent


costs. "Deep pockets" of private insurance that are legally madeavailable to provide myriad opportunities for proliferating liabilitysettlements are not nearly then so accessible or vulnerable.

In single-payer systems, with sufficient independence,coordination and oversight as instilled by a concerned central authoritythat is responsive to the collective sovereignty of individuals willfulfill managerial requirements for probity and honor. Billings forunnecessary procedures could and would become a moral concern thatcurrently is completely without any assigned responsibility in theprivatized political economic cabal of private systems whose businessmotivation and purpose are to grow and return ever greater profits.

TYPICAL FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF 1100 LOSS EVENTS 67

Individual insurance consumer should be responsible for the loss-costsof low end loss events, that reason finds is unsuited for insurance.


Because such costs are affordable directly, rationally, each individualshould bear these costs directly. What gets in reason’s way is politicaleconomy’s endemism that feeds on fraudulent inefficiencies.

More important, when consumption is captivated, freeenterprise no longer exists. When a private insurer dominates amarket, they will attempt to also captivate consumption: Auto insurerssurely have attempted to captivate the consumption function with autorepair as also health insurance companies do with health care (Thesynergy management that is now rampant in mergers of huge publiccorporations is primarily about captivating markets).

About orthodoxy, private systems of insurance inculcateddogma of unreasonable expectations regarding the low end, directlyaffordable losses. For profits they would achieve, they sold to thepublic the illusion that lower end losses are insurable. For example, inthe early '70s, insurers politically ran the Insurance Commissioner ofPennsylvania out of office. Because this Commissioner had proposedto mandate higher deductibles for Home Insurance, which would


represent great consumer savings.. The educated Commissioner, withPhD degree, argued very clearly and properly for increasing thedeductible and saving consumers 10 percent and more of theirinsurance cost. He found, however, that support from the insurancebusiness community did not exist. The Insurance lobby painted himas uninformed and against free enterprise. This political influencesucceeded ultimately to force him from office. This is only one ofmany such examples.Still, this question remains:---- What alternative to the private systems of insurance(influenced by dollar morality) can find a political sponsorship thatwill subdue the powerful privatized Insurance Lobby?

This question remains as the greatest rational test of ourSovereign Will. Again, this essential question is for Sovereign Will toanswer:---- Which administrative insurance form will provide the mostefficient security and ethical support to lifestyles in what our nation’sancestors called probity and honor? The answer ultimately lies inconsiderations of the benefits to society as provided by wage-earners,labor on one political side, capital on the other, and constitutionallyour insured right to security in the middle. The answers are in thequintessence of our often conflated duality involving our unitarymaterialist mechanist politics and our teleological noumenalsovereignty, which more often now has little to no legal standing so asmechanist politics is concerned. In this, We, the people must learnwhat our unique teleologically noumenal sovereignty is about and howto preserve, then effectively exercise it.

In the demographic sense, at least, Thomas Jefferson stoodwith a losing cause and philosophy: on the side of the securityprovided naturally by the harsh but nostalgic agrarian lifestyle. Security in this lifestyle was founded in Dr. Francois Quesnay'spostulation of what we might call the natural accretion from the landin results of husbandry. Adam Smith was familiar with Quesnay’sobservation of natural accretion enhanced by labor and it influencedgreatly his postulations involving labor. Smith did not discreditQuesnay. However, he criticized wealth creation as attributed to


natural accretion by husbandry instead of labor.

Great poetry sprang from the nostalgia of the agrarian lifestyle.

---- In contrast, what poetry do lifestyles sponsored by AmericanPolitical Economy inspire?

Alfred Lord Tennyson, in the following verse, may havewritten the agrarian lifestyle’s epitaph:

Tears, idle tears, I know not what they mean,-- tears from the depth of some divine despair

rise in the heart and gather in the eyes,in looking on the happy autumn fields, and thinking of days that are no more.

Social Security functions with faith and dependence on demographybut it also depends upon favorable economics and politics for its well-being. Created in the industrialized economic reality of depressionwhen paychecks were too few to go around, the foundation of SocialSecurity was and is still extremely solid. For aged workers anddependents of workers, the beneficiaries, Social Security insurespractical but modest meanings of life, liberty, and happiness: thevalues that society claimed as unalienable rights as our nation wasborn. They framed these values in the demanded amendment to theConstitution: more particularly called the Bill of Rights.

Whether Social Security remains depend largely upon transferring to new generations, the essential, unalienable values andcustoms, upon which the Bill of Rights is based. Concerns with erosions of society's values imply that diminished human rights andvalues are also important considerations to the perpetuation of SocialSecurity: But maybe more importantly (as some historians are warningus), such erosion could presage our decline as a nation and this surelywould affect Social Security. Therefore, education is an inalienableessential for ensuring sovereignty that ensures Social Security.

The Constitution May Be Our Most Popular Export is thecaption of Jack Anderson's syndicated column. Anderson wrote this:68

Sometimes it seems our own citizenry would even like to throw itout and start fresh. Indeed, there have been a number of


experiments where Americans have been read the Bill of Rightswithout knowing what it was; a few said it sounded dangerouslycommunistic to them.

But if Americans take the Constitution for granted, it issurprisingly alive in the hearts of those who live without it, asthe Commission on the Bicentennial of the Constitution is findingout.Anderson's column shared many touching letters requesting to receivea copy of the U.S. Constitution.

Then, add to Jack Anderson's message the editorial WesternCulture Must Go by Bernard Lewis. Lewis is/was Dodge Professoremeritus of Near Eastern studies at Princeton (and with the terrorismof 9/11/’01, it has greater significance). Lewis wrote this:69

This demand has been made of late by significant groups ofstudents at Stanford and elsewhere, with increasing support fromprofessors, politicians and others.

If Western culture does indeed go, a number of thingswould go with it and others would come in its place.

One consequence would be the restoration of slavery. . .. existed in virtually all the societies known to human history.

(This) would also facilitate the introduction of anotheralmost universal non-western institution: the harem. . . . couldinclude child marriage and the burning of widows.

Opposition . . . could easily be overcome by the removalof another of the peculiar and distinctive features of Westernculture, namely political freedom.

The idea that ordinary people have the right to share inthe formation and conduct of government, and to criticize andseek to change the policies of those in power, is again peculiarto the western culture tradition and has its roots going back tothe American and French revolutions.

The replacement of this outworn tradition by the naturaland almost universal combination of authority and submission


would greatly ease the transition to a less parochially westernway of life.Could Social Security be symbolic of a bellwether, to suggest thedirection of our society's choice or abandonment of basic social values(Roger Williams’ “social usage” insurance form, for instance)? Ifsociety's choice is abandonment, then those in the birth-wave calledthe BabyBoom, which now is assuming sovereignty’s majoritypolitical sway, could effect political economy’s "Killer Wave" tosubmerge the Social Security Insurance system!

Social Security is a foundation or building block that is farmore important today than it was in 1935. Should WesternPhilosophy and Truth, as began with Descartes, prevail and if we canmaster our economy (this indeed is the greater political challenge) anddefine our Civitas (pronounced se.wi.ta, which interpreted means thevirtues of a public spirit), the important elements of Social Securityshould eventually fit a mosaic of society's economic connectors toassure basic economic security to all Americans without frustratingincentives with productivity and business investments. Still, this willrequire a growing concerted exercise of sovereignty that trumpsmaterialism’s powerful sway, without barriers on foreign entry, onPolitical Economy.

Our world is changing and with it society's security needs arechanging! Ultimately, the Social Security System depends onadvances in technologies being applied. Technologies, therefore, mustbe evaluated and reconciled with chaos of the old. And, this dependson the exercise of Sovereignty: sovereign responsibility that is naturalresponsibility for each individual to exercise. And, should society’spolitical sway fail to protect wage-earned-consumption, the economicevolution endemic to mechanisms’ unearned wealth (endemism asinflation, for instance) portends to destroy constitutional values, asmechanism’s political sway controls economy absolutely.

About controlling taxes to ensure the insurances of government, inprobity the first focuse of individual sovereignty must be to redress theSS contribution tax law of 1984 (which tax collection, according to theSupreme Court’s view, at the outset of SS, is a form of general


revenue taxation). If we do not do this, the nomos-based economicdeterminist flux of mechanisms eventually will nullify theconstitutional sovereignty of all wage-earners. Clearly, this nomos isnot compatible with constitutional purposes as specified and consentedfor America.

Also, as I proposed to confirm the irrational relationship ofpolitical economy with sovereignty, and with this accomplished here,this section concludes with this admonition:

--- Consider the monetary unit’s definition that in England wascalled a sovereign: in this analogy, each human citizen representssovereignty’s cardinal unit of the U.S. constitutional sovereignty.

--- Then consider the Supreme Court ruling about money’srelationship with free speech.

--- Finally, consider how Political-Economy-paternalismcommissions privatized corporate business, by way of layingendemism onto consumption, to siphon the cost of their operations,including advertizing, lobbying bribes, and perks, from wage-earner-consumers. When we allow justice to metamorphose legality todirectly equate materialist wealth, to natural inalienable sovereignentitlements to free speech, only then can we comprehend the meansof political economy that effects mechanized deterministic taxationinvolving not only the accounting of money but also reciprocally theusurpation of human sovereignty.

Only by understanding this contrived metamorphosing of sovereignty,can we undo the metamorphosing and thereby preserve the inalienablerights of naturally endowed individual sovereignty and to them only.

Dogmatized deterministic materialism called mechanism provides theirrational deductive means of the metamorphosing. The veracity testof tautology shows that it is fallacy. And this irrational deductivefallacy is the main source of our political quandary.

When a materialist of classical economy affirms that he knows‘the truth,’ of whatever is affirmed, you might be reminded ofBertrand Russell’s observation about the nothingness of such truth: 70


If we imagine a world of mere matter, there would be no roomfor falsehood in such a world, and although it would containwhat may be called “facts,” it would not contain any truths, inthe sense in which truths are things of the same kind asfalsehoods. In fact, truth and falsehood are properties of beliefsand statements; hence a world of mere matter, since it wouldcontain no beliefs or statements, would also contain no truth.

Prosecuting war on terrorism unravels the benevolent nationalstandard: my thoughts on this are supported by these definitions, 71

Treason, once meant disloyalty to a sovereign ruler, such as aking. A person who criticized the ruler’s policies and actionsmight find himself convicted of treason. But today, the meaningof treason has changed, The people in a democratic country areexpected to criticize the government, and to work as freely asthey like for the election of a new government. The United StatesConstitution clearly defines treason as: “Treason against theUnited States shall consist only in levying war against them orin adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

This definition protects the right of citizens to oppose theactions of their government in all reasonable ways. No one canbe punished for treason until he has been convicted in thecourts, or by court-martial in time of war.

The twenty-year-old American found with the Talibanprisoners in Afghanistan puts treason in our war on terrorism intoquestion. If this American knowingly participated with the entity thatintends to destroy the American way of life, until he has beenconvicted in the courts, he is not a traitor? If he pursued his own‘impossible dream,’ foreign reality made his dream a nightmare.

The coordinated acts of terrorism, in which the terrorists diedon 9/11, cannot be put onto any particular nation any more than deathsdue to smoking can be put onto those who manufactured the cigarettes,which caused the deaths. Still, the victims of 9/11 caused, or gave agood excuse, for the U. S. to declare war on terrorism because it


clearly was an act of war: was it really? Allowed, of course, that no‘state’ or ‘religion’ could be blamed! And, home-grown terrorism,which included Anthrax, Oklahoma, High School shootings, . .,.represent victims of home-grown terrorism that would like treatment-equality with those of 9/11 (AP Article, McVeigh victims feelingslighted, L.V., 12/22,’01). Unduly, our ‘war on terrorism’accommodated foreign involvement, that maybe was politicallyexploitative rather than being necessary. Political and economicexploits have thrived at great expense to the general economy. Andeconomic depression clearly has affected our nation and all nations’economies as well.

The ideal American standard is aptly stated when citing ourPledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of Americaand to the nation for which it stands: one nation under God,indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Of note, ‘the flag’ symbolizes the standard of American citizens and,therefore, the nation as well. But, is our war on terrorism about‘liberty and justice for all?’ Or, is it more about attempting to metejustice for acts of foreign aggression against the United States? And if so, which foreign entity can be blamed and targeted. Truthfulanswers to these questions are critically important to making our warlegitimate.

Does, being a member of the Taliban in Afghanistan make thatAmerican a terrorist? More particularly, does it make an Americanthat joined the taliban in Afghanistan, before any declaration of our‘war on terrorism,’ a traitor?

With the Taliban forces, which had walked out of the hills tosurrender to their Northern Alliance captors (whose fighting war weclaim that it was), John Walker Lindh, the wounded American, wasfound after the prison uprising in which many prisoners and guardsdied. He has a story to tell (see Newsweek, 12/17/01). One in whichhe exercised his sovereign liberty as an American. He could not thensuspect that the act of terrorism on the U.S. would put him intoconflict with his citizenship. If he is tried for un-American acts related


to terrorism, then analogously, there should be separate trials toprosecute corporate officials for their un-American acts of terrorism-effects, which are due to smoking the cigarettes of whichmanufacture’s were aware of smoking’s causal effects.

For sure, John Walker Lindh shows how undefined (unreal)this war, so called, is. No one will deny that an aggressive responsewas appropriate. However, is it just as appropriate to also declare thatour justice has been served and thereby retract any aggressions ofconducting which hunts called a war that embroils cultural values andintents (only facts are in reality at issue here). Our nation’s purposesare better served in humanitarian ways. Particularly, we cannot servean objective role in the Palestinian conflict by having Israel aping ourreasons and actions of war: sucking us into the cultural value’s conflictwith Israel and Islam, as Bin Laden would like to happen. In thescenario of values, tyrannies must be factored into the causes ofterrorism. And balance is critical for every nation to resolve.

What are the facts that belief can know? Consider the statement ‘Iknow because I believe.’ Is it rational? , true, or false? ‘Know’ and‘believe’ are, in Heidegger’s view, ‘essents’ of being. ‘To know’ is to“stand in truth.” ‘To believe’ assumes ‘to know,’ without an objectiveconfirmation of truth’s object. About the ‘sum and substance’ of truth,belief is only ‘sum’ without an anchor to the truthfully correspondingsubstance? It is nothing but human essence, i.e., of prescriptivehuman logos. Depending on what the facts are, belief is ‘true’ or‘false.’ And allegations, until proved, are statements of belief. Theyare not facts. About grammatical correctness, ‘belief’ assumes itsindependent object (the substance or fact) of truth. And until truth’sobject materializes, ‘belief’ begs for truth. ‘Sum’s’ dictionarydefinition confirm this philosophical meaning,72

sum 6. the essence or gist of anything; pith; ‘That the Sermonon the Mount contains the ‘sum and substance’ of Christianity(F. W. Robertson)’ [‘truth inherently is of essence,’ as Heideggerobserved]

The ‘sum and substance’ of truth are, respectively, ‘prescriptive logos’


(sum) and ‘fact’ (substance). [Only when human logos coherewith God’s (LOGOS), does human posits of fact cohere with puretruth]

Opinion similarly begs for truth whereas only reason pursuesto confirm its truth-object. Heidegger said, in another instance, thatknowledge is ‘standing in truth’: to ‘stand in belief’ always presents aprecarious dependence upon what the facts are.

Spinoza reasoned each individual’s ‘good or evil’ intent.

(29) No individual object whose nature is altogether

different from our own can either help or restrain our

power of acting, and absolutely nothing, can be to us either

good or evil unless it possesses something in common with

ourselves.

Which value, of those that believe, fits Spinoza’s “conformity with

guidance of reason?” : seeking unity in the ‘highest good’ of theprescriptive mind? And, where does political calumny fit?

Federalist deontology, of ‘duty,’ as administered in high

positions of colonial orthodoxy, devised legal springs to catch

unwary democrats. This historical fact shows that Federalistsdeliberately set ‘legal springs’ to impede ‘rational-empiricism,’ whichmeaning defines democracy, the political processes of which intendsthat reasoned human rights are the coequal of human materialities.

Federalists vilified democracy. Ideologies identified withdeontologies (duty associated with materialism) and teleologies(purpose associated with human rights) are fundamental to the politicaldivide in American politics. These ideologies are diabolicallydisposed: ‘Mechanism’ exploits human rights whereas teleologyaspires to consider end purposes of humanity that are coherent.Parrington wrote this about Federalist strategy.73

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 earlierage. James Kent, whose long life and ripe legal learning weredevoted to upholding what he conceived to be the ultimate principlesof law and politics, was the chief political thinker of the transitiondays of New York. A disciple of Locke and Blackstone, remodelingseventeenth-century liberalism into eighteenth-century conservatism,he was concerned to erect the barriers of the Common Law about theunsurveyed frontiers of the American experiment, assigning exactmetes and bounds beyond which it should not go. Like John Marshalland Joseph Story he was expert in devising legal springs to catchunwary democrats, and while the Jeffersonians were shouting overtheir victories at the polls, he was engaged in the strategic work ofplacing the Constitution under the narrow custodianship of theEnglish law. An ardent Federalist and later an equally ardent Whig,he reveals in his precise thinking the intimate relations that everwhereexist between economics, politics, and legal principles.

[’False principles’ are hallmarks of mechanisms]

And sorting out this political paradox is very important to the disposalof $ trillions of SS surplus that is an accounting reality only and can, ifallowed, be summarily excused by the mechanist conservative politicswhich created the government deficits (This politics has consistentlyheld that SS surplus is the government’s to use as it will, the plethoraof deficit spending of 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 shows factualsubstantiation of this politics).

Remember. Conservative political flux most always begins bycalling for the appointment of an independent council. About the‘sum and substance’ of truth, the correspondence veracity of each callcan be inspected (is either or both of ‘sum and substance,’ ‘true’ or‘false’?). Often, authority acts with impunity. About the ensuingperjury, consider compliance with the oaths of office.74

The most famous oath prescribed by law in the United States is theone repeated by the President when he takes his office. TheConstitution says that the Chief Executive, “shall take the followingOath or Affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will


A&E’s tapes about important people of the millennium"

included ‘Linda,’ the snitch’s ‘I’m you’ statement, to which most(continued...)

faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, andwill to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend theConstitution of the United States.”

The Constitution also requires every Senator, Representative, statelegislator, governor, and state of federal judge to swear or affirm hisloyalty to the Constitution, but it specifically forbids any requirementthat a federal official swear that he has any religious belief.

Kenneth Starr was appointed to head the special investigation ofPresident Clinton’s conduct. The authority of this appointment camenot from the president and was to report both to Congress and Justice. Did a cabal of federal officers contrive politically to appoint Starr? Did the appointment abridge the separation of powers? And if this didnot happen, could Starr’s appointment have occured? So it occurred! Did those of cabals’ violate their oaths of office? Did they more surelythan Clinton did, commit perjury? It is patently evident that they did?, but to prove it? And, where in the Constitution does politics enjoythe anonymity of religion? Should the prescriptive intent of politicsstand adjudged by the common standards of truth?

Starr acted as a conduit of information of a most privateinalienable rights related first amendment nature: to the court in theJones deposition, Starr gave Linda’s stories about Clinton and Monica,and he deliberately spilled it to the public in delivering it to Congress. These are facts that showed the political nature of the specialinvestigation. It was hardly judicial in any constitutional sense.

The investigation went from Hillary and her partnership in theRose Law firm, to the death of her law partner ‘Vince’ then serving asa presidential advisor, to ‘travel-gate’ and ‘White Water’ (‘Susan’ wasimprisoned, then acquitted). After five years of investigating, costing$50 million, The infamous ‘Linda’ delivered information aboutMonica’s consented trysts with the President to Starr Trysts that"


(...continued)"

uttered ‘oh yea’; Clinton’s achievements palled in this comparison.

As mid eastern terrorism is subdued, our own political evils"

remain. The anthrax scenario probably is not of mid eastern origin. Itis of the genre like that which pursued to dethrone Clinton. Or explainwhy the targets for death were the leading democrats in Congress?

Clinton had stopped on his own prior to any investigation. Theimpeachment of Clinton that followed eclipsed forever his rights todue process. And when acquitted of the impeachment, the nefariouspolitics has continued. "

When Clinton answered a question with, “it all depends onwhat the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” politics of opposition lambastedhim in the usual manner of calumny, for ‘parsing’ words. However,this following independently framed complex statement ofHeidegger’s, vindicates Clinton’s analytical response.75

A look at the familiar but diversified usage of the “is” convincedus that it is a mistake to talk about the indeterminateness andemptiness of being. The “is” determines the meaning andcontent of infinitive “sein” (being), and not the other wayaround. We are now in a position to see why this must be so. Instatement the “is” serves as a copula, as a “little word ofrelation” (Kant). But because statement, ‘logos’ as ‘kategoria,’has become a court of judgement over being, ‘it’ defines beingon the basis of ‘its own’ “is,” the “is” of the statement.

Now, in 2005 Clinton is more popular than ever.

120 EENNDDNNOOTTEESS

1. World Book Encyclopedia (1965), Vol. 6, 287

2. World Book Dictionary (1965), 1212

3. Parrington, Main Currents . . ., Vol. III (Harcourt, 1930)

152

4. World Book Dictionary (1965) 1406


6. M. Heidegger, Metahhysics (Doubeday, 1961) 86-87

7. Rom. : 7

8. Commentary, Star Tribune, Minneapolis, MN, November 26,

2001: T. Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (first

published in France in 1785), an excerpt from 1782

9. World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary (1965) 655

10. F. T. Saussy, Roger Sherman, A Caveat Against Injustice(Spencer Judd, 1982) 8

11. Dictionary, 1814 [(literally) without which not]

12. Pound Sterling, World Book Encyclopedia, 1965, Vol.15, p 650

13. Sovereign, World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary, 1965, p 1862

14. Pojman, 152

15. H. W. Turnbull, The Great Mathematicians, (Barnes & Noble,1993) 140-141

16. There to Here, Craig Thomas, Harper Perennial, 1991, p 160

17. Declaration . . ., World Book Encyclopedia, 1965, Vol. 5, p 66

18. World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 12, 369

19. Dictionary, 1556

20. See A. Comte, World Book Encyclopedia (1965) Vol. 4, 746

21. Heilbroner, 153-54

121EENNDDNNOOTTEESS

22. C. Thomas, There to Here (Harper Perennial, 1991) 82-85

23. W. Greider, Who will tell the People (Simon and Schuster, 1992)14-15

24. Greider, 11

25. Parrington, Vol. I, 177

26. Parrington’s note: Works of Thomas Paine, edited by M. D.Conway, Vol. IV, p 465.

27. Parrington’s note: In “Queries and Remarks . . .,” in Works Vol.V, p 167


29. Matt. 4: 4

30. D. Greenwald, Encyclopedia of Economics (McGraw Hill, 1982) 647

31. M. R. Konvitz and A. E. Murphy, eds., Plato and the Law ofNature, in Essays in Political Theory Presented to George H. Sabine, (Ithica,N.Y. :Cornell University Press, 1948) 20-25, 28-29

32. A Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth ofNations, Great Books of the Western World (Encyclopedia Britannica,Inc., 1991) Vol. 36, p 485

33. An excerpt from An Additional View to the Report of thePresident's Commission for a National Agenda for the Eighties. (TheReport ordered by Carter was ignored if not excoriated by PresidentReagan)

34. This note on Idealism appertains: About life’s omnipresentquandary, these nomos-based mechanist definitions and explanationsshed light, with focus on materialism:

Idealism (philosophy) -- belief that all our knowledge is basedon 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 existapart from our ideas.

Idealism conflates life’s essence to a unitary form of materialism! :the meaning of conflate is critical to an understanding of unitarymaterialism’s meaning: Conflate, v.t. 1. to bring or put together; compose of variouselements.Is idealism logically reasonable? -- it is not! Idealism consistently,unjustifiably, demeans the omnipresent fiducial purposes of logicalreason: as Kant had challenged philosophers and scientists to produceevidence that would allow us to make assertions about things we havenot actually experienced. Ideology’s definition confirms this: 1. A set of doctrines; body of opinions: The majority of teachers andprofessors do not teach any ideology (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists)2. The combined doctrines, assertions, and intentions of a social orpolitical movement: i.e., “communist ideology.” 3. Abstractspeculation, especially theorizing or speculation of a visionary orimpractical nature. 4. The science of the origin and nature of ideas. 5. A system of philosophy that derives all ideas exclusively fromsensation [assertions based on empiricism]. And, because materialism-based Conservative ideology has routinelyand dogmatically, by way of assertions, challenged logical reason, thisdefinition of ideology applies exclusively to conservative materialists,who, with dogma of the ‘Nicene’ unitary “three in one” conflation ofGod, Conservative ideology, expediently makes dogma-basedassertions, which are both antecedent to, and consequential of,materialism.

35. Usufruct, Dictionary, 2152:

The legal right to use another’s property and enjoy theadvantages of it without injuring or destroying it.

[All of nature is God’s property, not man’s!]

36. Thomas, 82-85

123EENNDDNNOOTTEESS

37. Thomas, 89, 91

38. Greenwald, 141-42

39. This excerpt is from section 265 of my research:Our philosophic economic unitary materialist causality called ‘The

American System of Political Economy,’ which, was not legislated,is the officially assumed and licensed ‘economic determinism,’which now has international ‘legs,’ will, by ‘owning’ andaccumulating natural resources, win the philosophic war ofessence. And while ours will not become a communist form of‘Dialectical materialism,’ it surely will become a form of‘Absolute idealism’ which philosophically defines ‘fascism.’ The philosophic advantage given to ‘conservative’ unitarymaterialism is taking us this way.

While Hegel claimed that he was not a materialist, heprovided a history of philosophy that fed the WesternCommunist movement. About which, C. Thomas wrote this:Marx’s imitation of Hegelian dialectic caused him the mostprofound problems in attempting to obviate its optimisticdeterminism, such that it is an intellectual reaction that causeshim to embrace the notion of revolution. He is brought to thepass of having to imply, if not promote, the idea of revolution asthe Weltgeist of history, in order to free human activity fromHegel’s conclusion that the future is unpredictable except that itwill be the next or futher manifestation of Spirit in History. Inthat sense, the dialectic, whether his own as borrowed or theHegelian original, failed Marx, since Hegel’s view of history is‘amoral’ while Marx’s was fundamentally imbued with moraloutrage.

40. Pojman, 152

41. World Book Encylclopedia (1965), Vol, 17, 113


42. Pojman, 365

43. Heilbroner, 34-35

44. Thomas, 264-265

45. Pojman, 152



48. Parrington, Vol., II, 152-160

49. World Book Encyclopedia (1965), Vol. 12 (John Locke) & Vol.13 (Mayflower)

50. Thomas, 89, 13

51. Greenwald, 110-11

52. W. O. Menge & Carl H. Fischer, The Mathematics of LifeInsurance (Ulrich Books 1965) 7

53. The Statistical Abstract of the United States, U.S. Department ofCommerce, 1978, p 8

54. The World Almanac 1996, Newspaper Enterprises Assn., Inc., p258

55. 1996 Information Please Almanac, Otto Johnson, Editor,Houghton Mifflin, 1996, P 840

56. G. Anders, MERCHANTS OF DEBT (Basic Books, 1992) 232-234

57. An excerpt from An Additional View to the Report of thePresident's Commission for a National Agenda for the Eighties. (TheReport ordered by Carter was ignored if not excoriated by PresidentReagan)


59. Parrington, Vol. II, viii

125EENNDDNNOOTTEESS

60. N. Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival, America’s Quest for GlobalDominance (Oak Books, 2003), 11-12

61. Chomsky’s endnote 1:White House, The National SecurityStrategy of the United States of America, released 17 September 2002.

62. Chonsky’s endnote 2:John Ikenberry, Foreign Affairs, September-October 2002.

63. Parrington, Vol., II, 152-160

64. Greenwald, 405

65. Dictionary, 658

66. J. D. Salant (AP), Las Vegas Review Journal, March 26, 2002

67. J.J. Launie, J. Finley Lee, N. A. Baglini, Principles of Propertyand Liability Underwriting (Insurance Institute of America, 1976) 244

68. The Daily Spectrum; St. George, Utah, March 12, 1988

69. Western Culture Must Go, Wall Street Journal, May 2, 1988

70. Pojman, 152

71. World Book Encyclopedia, 1965, Vol. 18


73. Parrington, Vol. II, 197-98

74. Readers Digest, 696

75. M. Heidegger, 168

RESEARCH SECTIONS CONTENTSof

OUR FEDERAL SAVINGS PLANand

ETHEREAL-GOLD(the shaded titles)

FOREWORD100 Quintessential Foundations (An Introduction)

101 Security: our Heritage102 Insurance: our Heritage103 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 philosophy202 Perceptions of reality and illusions203 The requirements of self in finding truth204 Politics for what it is205 Political Economy205 Appendix, Petitioning ‘Civitas’206 Liberal and Conservative207 Our "Captains of Industry"208 Sovereignty

209.1 Truth: The predicate value divisions of209.2 Truth: The Fiducial Gauges of210 Truth: Postscript about Organizations211 Truth: Postscript about Emotion212 Truth: Postscript about Faith220 Truth: Postscript about Paradoxes230 Truth: Postscript about Paradox and Mechanism240 Truth: Postscript about Deontology without Teleology250 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) must be repaidbefore the top 20 percent of income earners (who did notcontribute to SS) are given a revenue tax refund (top incomeearners 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 thatopposes teleology: It divides the economy and upsets the ethical fluxin culture. Our Political Economy locks Americans of the REAL

ECONOMY between Americans of the SURREAL ECONOMY andAmericans of the NON ECONOMY. Tyrannous Determinism results tocompromise 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 SAVINGSPLAN for SS (Then spent the money) and (as reported in NEWSWEEK,May 13, 1991, p. 35) "the centrists [in Congress] say the deficit-riddengovernment 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.

Essential Sovereignty

Documents

Transcript of Essential Sovereignty