 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
Copyright © 2009 The Cool Conservative All Rights Reserved.
Charles S. Petterson
The HomeGrown Conservative
Editor's Note: The Following is the entire article published in three parts in the magazine.
The Writings of Charles
"Chuck" Petterson:
"Chuck" Petterson:
I am taking pen in hand today to challenge you to consider why you think you are a Republican, or a conservative.
This will not be an easy question for any of us to answer because each of us is much like a brilliant cut diamond,
that is we have a broad table surrounded by many facets. The many facets produce the flash and brilliance seen in
the large table.
Where we are unlike diamonds is that our personal or collective facets aren’t precise, we don’t have the same size
or even number of facets and therefore the our broad tables don’t have the same flash and brilliance. Indeed,
politically speaking, many of us Republicans have broad tables that are just facets for others.
If you are still with me you might respond that the same thing can be said of Democrats and they are flourishing
while Republicans languish. You are correct. The question now becomes why imperfect Democrats are cleaning up
over the equally imperfect Republicans.
The answer, in my opinion, lies in economics as the main factor, personal ambition as a lesser factor and greed as a
much lesser, although important factor, and last no moral compass.
I hope all of you remember the slogan that did in George H.W. Bush, “It’s the economy, stupid.” As yes, the
economy. Economics. Economics, the elective course you didn’t take and not only that, you wouldn’t date anyone
who did take a course in economics. Yet of all the studies it is the one that most affects every day of our life.
Farmers, you would think, would be the best versed in economics; after all they are independent businessmen. Yet,
farmers, for the most part, are the cornerstone of the Democratic Party. (In Minnesota it is the Democratic Farm
Labor, or DFL, Party.) Why would independent business people be in favor of the government that is proposed by
anti-business candidates? I will answer that question later.
My concession to my farming friends in the Iowa GOP, I know you are out there and this is not an attack on farmers.
This is going to evolve into a lecture, because I think that too many Republicans and the vast majority of Americans
don’t ever think about how societies work. In fact, I believe if you ask any of your college educated political friends if
they took a sociology class the majority of Republicans would say no and the majority of Democrats would say yes.
This is an important factor, in my opinion, in why Republicans are fading, perhaps to the point of not being able to
maintain political viability. So here is a brief lesson (as brief as I can make it) in social structure, economics,
government, and politics.
Societies
I am going to start with the insect world because they represent the truest, purest social orders anywhere. Pick your
favorite, bees, termites or ants; it makes no difference to me. These colonies exist for only one reason, and that is to
keep the queen fed so she will lay more eggs so there will be more workers to build more nest to allow for more eggs
to develop to mature into more workers to forage for food to feed themselves and the queen, ad infinitum.
The queen doesn’t “demand” the workers do this and the workers don’t “want” to do this, but it all happens for the
simple reason that is their behavior and all their miniscule neuro complex can produce is behaviors, not anything
that could be considered cognitive.
Move way, way up the chain and consider prey mammals. Some live in communal groups, but those that do live
under the pleasure of the “Alpha” animal. The alpha gets that way, and maintains the status, by persuading all other
members of the community that it is his/her way or suffer the consequences of an unworthy challenge. All live in
relative ease and comfort AFTER the alpha has cared for him/herself.
Humans are little different, except we have developed cognitive reasoning and we have tools other than teeth and
claws to respond to an alpha. Unlike a lower species pack, a clever but weak pack member can do in an alpha that
is physically stronger.
The first thing one learns is the core of all human societies is the family unit. Once a person learns this single point
he or she can manipulate social outcomes on a local or global scale. I will demonstrate in a little while.
Families of hominids (Creationists fear not, this isn’t going to turn into a creation-evolution debate) became
extended families and whether or not they discovered the problems associated with inbreeding, they developed
tribes. Tribes are good, although intellectually stifling they provide for an efficient method of feeding and protecting
each other. As tribes grew they eventually needed more territory and if they encountered another tribe and that tribe’
s territory, guess what? Did they sit down and smoke some rope and decide that by working together they could
become a better community? No. They fought and one tribe conquered the other and the victor became the landlord
of the new, combined territory.
How were these tribes governed? They were led by the one the others feared the most, for whatever the reason
was. The notion that a leader was chosen because of respect is often propagated by those who would have you
believe the respect came from admiration of wisdom. Hogwash. The respect came from the knowledge that the
leader would punish anyone that challenged his authority.
The next point is what separates homo-sapiens from the remainder of the animal kingdom. Somewhere along the
line one person had something another wanted and they EXCHANGED fish for grain, or whatever. Humans started
moving from hunter-gatherers to producers. Not all humans, and not everywhere. Thousands of years after the first
exchange was made, hunter-gatherer tribes still survive in remote jungles.
“Civilized” societies formed and flourished. Sure, there continued to be conquerors, both local and global, but the
people who didn’t resist sometimes were allowed to go about their daily lives. After all, if a conqueror killed
everyone, there would be no one left to pay tribute and without tribute the conqueror would have to return to tending
a flock or following an ox pulling a plow.
The survivors went about their lives and the few who were thinkers or artists often were granted favor from the
conqueror that always could use more wise counsel or more elaborate trappings. The producers? Well, I guess they
were content with being alive and procreating.
The notion of the son or daughter having the birthright of succession is obvious. From time to time a trusted advisor
would realize the kid was an idiot and nowhere near as bold or brave as the father and the advisor would cut a
throat or administer a poison and the kid was gone and the heretofore unknown advisor, by his own
pronouncement, was the new king. It made no difference to the commoners. What the heck, they still had tribute to
pay, it made little difference if the old king got it or the new king took it.
Governing was done by decree. If the decree was unpopular; too bad. It isn’t as though one had any say in any of it,
regardless of the name on the throne.
Everything would have been all right, except somebody came up with the concept of transmitting information in a
permanent, graphical form. Be it cuneiform or hieroglyphics, the very institution of transmitting an idea beyond the
strength of one’s voice and beyond the span of one’s lifetime gave rise to the possibility of gathering in, of
converting, minds in far off places. Now the truly wise could share their wisdom with others. Not many others, don’t
get too excited, but enough others.
In Greece the populous shook off the mantle of the single conqueror and decided they could rule themselves with
rulers of their choosing. It was a nice model. Later the Romans kind of adopted a similar system (for those living in
Rome) except it didn’t apply to those living in “occupied territories.”
The tributes in these enlightened societies helped fund public works projects, many of which stand today. Whether
or not the stone masons that formed and assembled the structures were slaves or well paid union members or
something in between is beyond the scope of this briefing. However, many of the remnants indicate that a luxurious
life was available to merchants and politicians, often the same people.
PART II
Economics and Politics
Charles Petterson
Another thousand years would pass before the Magna Carta, and then another seven hundred years before the
Declaration of Independence came to be. All of this in no small part due to the simple fact the written word was
durable and consistent. Hindering progress along political lines was the common man was kept illiterate. You think
all of those stained glass windows were just pretty? No, they are visual reminders of bible stories that illiterate
people can learn from.
The second factor is economics. Once Homo Sapien moved from hunter-gather to producer, economics was born.
Why? Because the rate of exchange has to stay somewhat equal or the producer who is short changed will either
stop producing or exchange his product with someone else. Once village markets were established and a second
grower of figs offered his basket of figs, the first fig grower lost his advantage and had to lower his exchange rate or
convince his customer his figs were worth the extra cost.
It’s simple, isn’t it? The fig growers, since fig trees are free, only have to keep their prices at a point they can keep
their families alive, and maybe a donkey to carry the figs to market. They don’t want to grow too many figs, because
there is only so much demand and if there are figs left over at the end of the day it means you fed the donkey to
carry figs that weren’t sold. Another thing is that if you have more fig trees you have to pay more tribute because
tribute is assessed based on number of trees, not amount sold.
I want to move one step up the economic ladder, but still in the simple economy of yore. Next to the fig seller is a
baker. The baker grows enough wheat to mill to provide for twenty loaves of bread every day of the year. Some go
to his large family. The wife and children tend the field and mill the wheat. In return the baker keeps them fed and
clothed and housed. The baker sets his exchange rate such that at the end of every year he has a little something
left over.
Oh! That’s PROFIT!
Sorry, I didn’t mean to wake you.
In the next village a similar baker raises a son who at some point is tired of his father and the no-night-life village he
lives in. He takes to the road, having heard from itinerant bakery supply salesmen that the next village over is
growing, has only one baker who sells everything he can bake and there are easy women there, too.
Our enterprising young man sets out, does his sums and figures he can make bread for the same price, even
though he will have to pay for wheat. So, he buys some wheat, finds a used oven to rent and a few days later he
sets up his stand and offers his bread at the same price. Some townspeople buy his bread when the other baker
runs out, which is every day.
The young man realizes this is a slam dunk. He can sell all the bread he can bake.
A few weeks go by and yes, the young man is selling his bread, but at the price of staying up late each evening
grinding flour and preparing the dough. Early the next morning he has to fire the oven and get the bread made
before the market opens. Then he has to tote the bread to the market and stay there all day until the last loaf is sold.
The young man looks at his purse and he has a few coins left after paying his rent and wheat bill, but he hasn’t the
energy to spend it on any of the loose women who constantly stream past his table in the market.
A younger lad hangs around a few days and convinces the young baker that what he needs is an assistant to do
some of the work, which will allow the baker some time off and plus, the young lad has a sister with a reputation.
The young baker takes on the assistant and soon is baking more bread and has, after paying the assistant, not
quite as many coins in his purse, but enough to pursue the sister.
The first baker, seeing the jump in sales at the other stand, plants more wheat. He bakes more loaves every day in
anticipation of the larger harvest and drops his price, just a little.
The second baker looses half his business and realizes he is being undercut by the old man. His profits stop and he
can no longer afford to entertain any women.
The young baker returns to his father and whines. The father tells him not to worry, he has a solution. The father
goes to the regional commissioner and offers the commissioner a small tribute if the commissioner will institute a tax
on all bakeries selling more than twenty loaves a day, except those in his town, or operated by bakers born in his
town if they spend at least half their profits benefiting women who would otherwise be asking for alms.
The commissioner agrees, after all, he can just steal, er, that is, accept the gifts of bread from the populous so its
not like the resulting increased prices in another town will hurt him any.
So the old baker is faced with the new tax and has to raise his prices to that of his competitor. The old baker’s
youngest daughter (who is not a loose woman) says to father one day, “Papa, I have an idea. The tax is on loaves. I
tried un loaves and my friends like them. They fill you up the same way a loaf does, but have 20% less wheat and
still provide all of the essential vitamins and nutrients a healthy person needs. (I made up the last part)
The next day the old baker offers 19 loaves and fifteen un-loaves. He sells out everything and the young baker’s
sales drop 20%. Unable to compete with free labor, free raw materials and product innovation, the young baker has
to choose between going elsewhere or finding a new line of merchandise.
Meanwhile, all of the townspeople in the region are paying more for their bread.
PART III
Economics and Politics
Charles Petterson
How is it homo sapiens create clothing, buildings, nourishment? Why isn’t all of this just a house of cards?
The answer is that every product has a free component in it. The Lord has provided us minerals and soil and water
and sunshine from which we plant and harvest or mine and drill. Seed, by itself, is free. The minerals are free. To
plant and harvest, or extract a mineral, a person must expend energy in some form or another. The expenditure of
human energy must be rewarded in some fashion, either by harvesting and consuming the crop or by exchanging
the excess crop for another commodity or product. Every human being since Adam and Eve has been given the
means to survive. The fish in the ocean are free. They will live and die regardless of whether or not we cast our nets.
Casting the nets for free fish is an expenditure of human effort and the fisherman is rewarded by first being able to
feed his family. An extra fish can be exchanged for bread or cloth or a trinket.
Or, the extra fish might be taken away in order to pay for a government activity.
How did governments evolve and why do they still exist?
The short answer is most people don’t care if they are oppressed; they just want their children to have their next
meal and not freeze to death that night. It’s not that they want better for their children; they just don’t want to outlive
their children.
This may seem a harsh take on things, but look at our own country, or any country. Our country was founded on the
premise that all men are created equal and the less government has to say in our lives the better our government
will be. The concept is extremely noble, and is not reflected in any other place in the world.
There was a lot of world before 1776. The feudal system was in full force in the “enlightened” countries and
everywhere else it was tribal or conqueror. Ancient Greece had democracy, but it wasn’t in effect in 1776. Rome had
a system that spread the wealth among the faithful, but even that was long gone.
More prophetic words were never spoken than Benjamin Franklin’s reply: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin, ‘Well Doctor
what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?’ ‘A republic,’ replied the Doctor, ‘if you can keep it’”
The secret of keeping the republic is to adhere to the Constitution and its restrictions on the government. Before
ratification the first ten amendments were added which enumerated citizen’s rights, not in favor of government, but in
favor of individuals.
Unfortunately, when children have absolutely no adult supervision they grow up asocial. So it is with populations in
general. With no law and no supervision the populous creates their own rules and sense of justice. I am purposely
omitting a discussion of the history of law because it has little to do with politics in this discussion.
The sticking point in every discussion is how much government is too much. For the strictest of conservatives the
answer is simple: the Constitution is enough.
That would be all well and good except our founding fathers were of the opinion each man should be able to
determine his own destiny. Yes, I know slavery was the contradiction, but it is the first example of what happens in
the name of political expediency and is the ultimate demonstration of economics and politics being two sides of one
slice of bread.
The country was formed because England was demanding tribute. Colonialists saw no need to pay while getting
nothing in return. A simplistic argument, but the point is the colonials were producing goods cheaper than those in
England and the interests in England didn’t like that.
So now we have a brand new country with endless resources and a government that can’t do much and a populous
that expects nothing. There are no checks on anything. As good as this sounds to libertarians, the fact is without
checks what you get is wild swings in the economy, shoddy, if not outright hazardous, products and scams galore.
Still, the bulk of the population persevered, tilled their land, tended their shops and forges and grubbed in the earth
for minerals. That’s all anyone wanted.
The question of slavery wouldn’t go away. Once again it was a matter of economics as much as morality. Northern
farmers felt at a disadvantage with slave state farmers and their “free” labor. The truth is slaves weren’t without cost.
They were purchased and then had to be housed and fed. There was a slight economic advantage, but I think
history has shown that if the confederacy had rolled on the slave issue there would not have been secession and
the states-rights fight could have been waged over more defensible grounds.
Whoever thought using slave labor would be a good idea was not only morally bankrupt, but an economics idiot.
It aggravates me when contemporary pundits compare every swing in the economy to the “great depression” of the
1930’s. The 1800’s was one boom and bust after another. Huge fortunes were created, gambled, lost, stolen,
mismanaged and some retained with almost no government intervention.
The railroads and the post civil war expansion of the west brought about some interesting circumstances. The
congress somehow thought linking the east coast to the west coast with railroads was a good idea, after railroaders
lined the pockets of enough congressmen. And here is where economics and politics come together. There was no
reason to build a railroad in Dakota Territory, Montana or Washington; nor in Indian Territory or Utah. Although
there was economic sense in railroads in part of Kansas or Colorado there was certainly none in New Mexico or
Arizona.
There was no commerce to support a railroad in any of those places. East of the Missouri River the country was
being settled in an orderly fashion and farmers and manufacturers provided an arguable level of traffic to justify the
capital expenditure for track and rightof-way acquisitions.
But, what the heck, we have the best congress money can buy, and that goes back two hundred years. The western
railroads were built without anyone to use them. The railroaders were not stupid and they launched promotions all
over Europe for emigrants to head to the USA with unlimited farming opportunities. Shiploads of Czechs, Germans,
Swedes and Italians were brought to the US, put on a train to North Dakota or Minnesota and shown the land they
could purchase, from the railroad, and have a farm of their own.
The odd thing is that the farmers started growing more crops than the local markets wanted and that meant they
had to ship their surpluses via the railroads. Clever, huh? Except the railroads ended up charging the farmers more
to ship the grain than the grain would sell for. So, what did the farmers do? Well, my grandfather’s brother said he
had enough of the USA and returned to Norway. My grandfather turned to politics, deciding that it was the
government’s doing that led to this fiasco and the government ought to do something, instead of grandfather
realizing that raising crops nobody wanted was a bad business model.
It is always curious to me that we don’t educate each other that the cost of personal liberty means understanding
that you can’t spend every last dime during good times when you know the next bust is soon on its way. It is a shame
that our founding fathers included slave colony representatives who were more interested in their narrow interests
than admitting slavery was a concept that wouldn’t endure.
The truth is there are no righteous people elected to any office, because there are no righteous people alive. So we
elect people who covet, because everyone covets, and if anyone wanting an advantage somehow realizes this truth,
all they need do is fulfill the desire of the representative and the advantage is granted.
The progression of granting advantage to certain people leads to other people being disadvantaged economically.
When the disparity appears to be unbearably large, the disadvantaged rise up. When politicians sense an uprising
they smell votes, much as a shark smells blood in the water. “If elected, I promise a chicken in every pot.”
“I am the savior. I know what’s wrong. You are economically oppressed and I will undo the social injustice in your
community.”
Now we are at the crossroads of this little lesson. How does our political model (a representative republic in case you
had forgotten) square with our economic system (capitalism for those who may have wondered)?
Neither model exists in its pure state. Part of the reason the representative democracy doesn’t exist in a pure form is
that the Constitution safeguards us from certain problems inherent in such a model. The framers of the Constitution
were beyond smart, they were wise and crafty! All of us are protected from the tyranny of the majority. Maybe not
the tyranny of the courts, as it turns out.
Unfettered capitalism: It produces booms and busts, except the booms end up enriching the wealthy
disproportionally. Well, what did you expect? Wealth is relative, but a wealthy person is one that has some amount
of money beyond that required for basic food, clothing and shelter needs. Another feature of unfettered capitalism is
producers of goods may (and do) cut corners in order to increase the profit margin, often at the peril of the
consumer. China is suffering from this today.
So where we have the melding of political and economic systems is when one function of government is to protect
the populous from fraudulent endeavors. However, and this is a big, big ‘however,’ fraud is only proven if one can
prove INTENT. So maybe the producer wasn’t INTENDING to make a dangerous product, but was just ignorant or
the victim of an unscrupulous supplier.
Americans were pretty much on their own until milk producers started doctoring milk and children died as a result.
The government stepped in with regulations. It took some time for the citizens to stop dying from a multitude of other
man-made, greedy capitalist disasters.
Okay, I will stop here and ask the musical question, “Anybody object to your kid’s milk being safe?”
Well, that is where the rub comes in. Regulation means power. How much regulation is necessary? For what product
or service or activity are YOU willing to shrug off potential risk? I personally think bicycle helmets are stupid, if only
because they are the symbol of raising a society AFRAID of risk, more over, apathetic about their own safety and
willing to let the GOVERNMENT be the arbiter of what is safe enough. Not just mostly safe enough, but completely
safe for every citizen, regardless of mental or physical ability.
How much law/regulation is enough? How about this; look at the Ten Commandments. No, just look at four. Thou
shalt not kill. Thou shalt not Steal. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
neighbor. True, in Leviticus one will find many other directions for living a righteous life, but for this argument I focus
on four, since the others are how to get on the pathway to heaven.
ALL OTHER LAWS have been made to accommodate one person’s advantage over another. The problem is people
keep coming up with ways to convince legislators they are disadvantaged and need relief, or schemes that sound
advantageous, but turn out to be a government sanctioned scam.
And the motive is ALWAYS economic. The tax code is the most blatant example of this. Everyone must pay taxes
EXCEPT… the ten thousand pages of exceptions. Is your name among the exceptions? How much did you have to
pay your representative or senator to become an exception?
We are in our current state of economic distress because of a multitude of factors, brought on equally by Democrats
currying favor with the “poor” and with Republicans currying favor with the “rich.” Those of us in the middle just
keep plodding along enjoying the benefit of paved highways.
There are many issues at hand at the moment. Before flying off the handle, parroting your favorite noon time orator
about things specious, I urge you to ask the rhetorical question, “Who stands to benefit from this proposed
legislation?”
Follow the money. The Democrats succeed by promising lazy people they can live as well as industrious people
because they are ENTITLED to live well. Republicans just keep beating the same old drum: work hard and the Lord
will reward your efforts commensurate with your talents and abilities.
This will not be an easy question for any of us to answer because each of us is much like a brilliant cut diamond,
that is we have a broad table surrounded by many facets. The many facets produce the flash and brilliance seen in
the large table.
Where we are unlike diamonds is that our personal or collective facets aren’t precise, we don’t have the same size
or even number of facets and therefore the our broad tables don’t have the same flash and brilliance. Indeed,
politically speaking, many of us Republicans have broad tables that are just facets for others.
If you are still with me you might respond that the same thing can be said of Democrats and they are flourishing
while Republicans languish. You are correct. The question now becomes why imperfect Democrats are cleaning up
over the equally imperfect Republicans.
The answer, in my opinion, lies in economics as the main factor, personal ambition as a lesser factor and greed as a
much lesser, although important factor, and last no moral compass.
I hope all of you remember the slogan that did in George H.W. Bush, “It’s the economy, stupid.” As yes, the
economy. Economics. Economics, the elective course you didn’t take and not only that, you wouldn’t date anyone
who did take a course in economics. Yet of all the studies it is the one that most affects every day of our life.
Farmers, you would think, would be the best versed in economics; after all they are independent businessmen. Yet,
farmers, for the most part, are the cornerstone of the Democratic Party. (In Minnesota it is the Democratic Farm
Labor, or DFL, Party.) Why would independent business people be in favor of the government that is proposed by
anti-business candidates? I will answer that question later.
My concession to my farming friends in the Iowa GOP, I know you are out there and this is not an attack on farmers.
This is going to evolve into a lecture, because I think that too many Republicans and the vast majority of Americans
don’t ever think about how societies work. In fact, I believe if you ask any of your college educated political friends if
they took a sociology class the majority of Republicans would say no and the majority of Democrats would say yes.
This is an important factor, in my opinion, in why Republicans are fading, perhaps to the point of not being able to
maintain political viability. So here is a brief lesson (as brief as I can make it) in social structure, economics,
government, and politics.
Societies
I am going to start with the insect world because they represent the truest, purest social orders anywhere. Pick your
favorite, bees, termites or ants; it makes no difference to me. These colonies exist for only one reason, and that is to
keep the queen fed so she will lay more eggs so there will be more workers to build more nest to allow for more eggs
to develop to mature into more workers to forage for food to feed themselves and the queen, ad infinitum.
The queen doesn’t “demand” the workers do this and the workers don’t “want” to do this, but it all happens for the
simple reason that is their behavior and all their miniscule neuro complex can produce is behaviors, not anything
that could be considered cognitive.
Move way, way up the chain and consider prey mammals. Some live in communal groups, but those that do live
under the pleasure of the “Alpha” animal. The alpha gets that way, and maintains the status, by persuading all other
members of the community that it is his/her way or suffer the consequences of an unworthy challenge. All live in
relative ease and comfort AFTER the alpha has cared for him/herself.
Humans are little different, except we have developed cognitive reasoning and we have tools other than teeth and
claws to respond to an alpha. Unlike a lower species pack, a clever but weak pack member can do in an alpha that
is physically stronger.
The first thing one learns is the core of all human societies is the family unit. Once a person learns this single point
he or she can manipulate social outcomes on a local or global scale. I will demonstrate in a little while.
Families of hominids (Creationists fear not, this isn’t going to turn into a creation-evolution debate) became
extended families and whether or not they discovered the problems associated with inbreeding, they developed
tribes. Tribes are good, although intellectually stifling they provide for an efficient method of feeding and protecting
each other. As tribes grew they eventually needed more territory and if they encountered another tribe and that tribe’
s territory, guess what? Did they sit down and smoke some rope and decide that by working together they could
become a better community? No. They fought and one tribe conquered the other and the victor became the landlord
of the new, combined territory.
How were these tribes governed? They were led by the one the others feared the most, for whatever the reason
was. The notion that a leader was chosen because of respect is often propagated by those who would have you
believe the respect came from admiration of wisdom. Hogwash. The respect came from the knowledge that the
leader would punish anyone that challenged his authority.
The next point is what separates homo-sapiens from the remainder of the animal kingdom. Somewhere along the
line one person had something another wanted and they EXCHANGED fish for grain, or whatever. Humans started
moving from hunter-gatherers to producers. Not all humans, and not everywhere. Thousands of years after the first
exchange was made, hunter-gatherer tribes still survive in remote jungles.
“Civilized” societies formed and flourished. Sure, there continued to be conquerors, both local and global, but the
people who didn’t resist sometimes were allowed to go about their daily lives. After all, if a conqueror killed
everyone, there would be no one left to pay tribute and without tribute the conqueror would have to return to tending
a flock or following an ox pulling a plow.
The survivors went about their lives and the few who were thinkers or artists often were granted favor from the
conqueror that always could use more wise counsel or more elaborate trappings. The producers? Well, I guess they
were content with being alive and procreating.
The notion of the son or daughter having the birthright of succession is obvious. From time to time a trusted advisor
would realize the kid was an idiot and nowhere near as bold or brave as the father and the advisor would cut a
throat or administer a poison and the kid was gone and the heretofore unknown advisor, by his own
pronouncement, was the new king. It made no difference to the commoners. What the heck, they still had tribute to
pay, it made little difference if the old king got it or the new king took it.
Governing was done by decree. If the decree was unpopular; too bad. It isn’t as though one had any say in any of it,
regardless of the name on the throne.
Everything would have been all right, except somebody came up with the concept of transmitting information in a
permanent, graphical form. Be it cuneiform or hieroglyphics, the very institution of transmitting an idea beyond the
strength of one’s voice and beyond the span of one’s lifetime gave rise to the possibility of gathering in, of
converting, minds in far off places. Now the truly wise could share their wisdom with others. Not many others, don’t
get too excited, but enough others.
In Greece the populous shook off the mantle of the single conqueror and decided they could rule themselves with
rulers of their choosing. It was a nice model. Later the Romans kind of adopted a similar system (for those living in
Rome) except it didn’t apply to those living in “occupied territories.”
The tributes in these enlightened societies helped fund public works projects, many of which stand today. Whether
or not the stone masons that formed and assembled the structures were slaves or well paid union members or
something in between is beyond the scope of this briefing. However, many of the remnants indicate that a luxurious
life was available to merchants and politicians, often the same people.
PART II
Economics and Politics
Charles Petterson
Another thousand years would pass before the Magna Carta, and then another seven hundred years before the
Declaration of Independence came to be. All of this in no small part due to the simple fact the written word was
durable and consistent. Hindering progress along political lines was the common man was kept illiterate. You think
all of those stained glass windows were just pretty? No, they are visual reminders of bible stories that illiterate
people can learn from.
The second factor is economics. Once Homo Sapien moved from hunter-gather to producer, economics was born.
Why? Because the rate of exchange has to stay somewhat equal or the producer who is short changed will either
stop producing or exchange his product with someone else. Once village markets were established and a second
grower of figs offered his basket of figs, the first fig grower lost his advantage and had to lower his exchange rate or
convince his customer his figs were worth the extra cost.
It’s simple, isn’t it? The fig growers, since fig trees are free, only have to keep their prices at a point they can keep
their families alive, and maybe a donkey to carry the figs to market. They don’t want to grow too many figs, because
there is only so much demand and if there are figs left over at the end of the day it means you fed the donkey to
carry figs that weren’t sold. Another thing is that if you have more fig trees you have to pay more tribute because
tribute is assessed based on number of trees, not amount sold.
I want to move one step up the economic ladder, but still in the simple economy of yore. Next to the fig seller is a
baker. The baker grows enough wheat to mill to provide for twenty loaves of bread every day of the year. Some go
to his large family. The wife and children tend the field and mill the wheat. In return the baker keeps them fed and
clothed and housed. The baker sets his exchange rate such that at the end of every year he has a little something
left over.
Oh! That’s PROFIT!
Sorry, I didn’t mean to wake you.
In the next village a similar baker raises a son who at some point is tired of his father and the no-night-life village he
lives in. He takes to the road, having heard from itinerant bakery supply salesmen that the next village over is
growing, has only one baker who sells everything he can bake and there are easy women there, too.
Our enterprising young man sets out, does his sums and figures he can make bread for the same price, even
though he will have to pay for wheat. So, he buys some wheat, finds a used oven to rent and a few days later he
sets up his stand and offers his bread at the same price. Some townspeople buy his bread when the other baker
runs out, which is every day.
The young man realizes this is a slam dunk. He can sell all the bread he can bake.
A few weeks go by and yes, the young man is selling his bread, but at the price of staying up late each evening
grinding flour and preparing the dough. Early the next morning he has to fire the oven and get the bread made
before the market opens. Then he has to tote the bread to the market and stay there all day until the last loaf is sold.
The young man looks at his purse and he has a few coins left after paying his rent and wheat bill, but he hasn’t the
energy to spend it on any of the loose women who constantly stream past his table in the market.
A younger lad hangs around a few days and convinces the young baker that what he needs is an assistant to do
some of the work, which will allow the baker some time off and plus, the young lad has a sister with a reputation.
The young baker takes on the assistant and soon is baking more bread and has, after paying the assistant, not
quite as many coins in his purse, but enough to pursue the sister.
The first baker, seeing the jump in sales at the other stand, plants more wheat. He bakes more loaves every day in
anticipation of the larger harvest and drops his price, just a little.
The second baker looses half his business and realizes he is being undercut by the old man. His profits stop and he
can no longer afford to entertain any women.
The young baker returns to his father and whines. The father tells him not to worry, he has a solution. The father
goes to the regional commissioner and offers the commissioner a small tribute if the commissioner will institute a tax
on all bakeries selling more than twenty loaves a day, except those in his town, or operated by bakers born in his
town if they spend at least half their profits benefiting women who would otherwise be asking for alms.
The commissioner agrees, after all, he can just steal, er, that is, accept the gifts of bread from the populous so its
not like the resulting increased prices in another town will hurt him any.
So the old baker is faced with the new tax and has to raise his prices to that of his competitor. The old baker’s
youngest daughter (who is not a loose woman) says to father one day, “Papa, I have an idea. The tax is on loaves. I
tried un loaves and my friends like them. They fill you up the same way a loaf does, but have 20% less wheat and
still provide all of the essential vitamins and nutrients a healthy person needs. (I made up the last part)
The next day the old baker offers 19 loaves and fifteen un-loaves. He sells out everything and the young baker’s
sales drop 20%. Unable to compete with free labor, free raw materials and product innovation, the young baker has
to choose between going elsewhere or finding a new line of merchandise.
Meanwhile, all of the townspeople in the region are paying more for their bread.
PART III
Economics and Politics
Charles Petterson
How is it homo sapiens create clothing, buildings, nourishment? Why isn’t all of this just a house of cards?
The answer is that every product has a free component in it. The Lord has provided us minerals and soil and water
and sunshine from which we plant and harvest or mine and drill. Seed, by itself, is free. The minerals are free. To
plant and harvest, or extract a mineral, a person must expend energy in some form or another. The expenditure of
human energy must be rewarded in some fashion, either by harvesting and consuming the crop or by exchanging
the excess crop for another commodity or product. Every human being since Adam and Eve has been given the
means to survive. The fish in the ocean are free. They will live and die regardless of whether or not we cast our nets.
Casting the nets for free fish is an expenditure of human effort and the fisherman is rewarded by first being able to
feed his family. An extra fish can be exchanged for bread or cloth or a trinket.
Or, the extra fish might be taken away in order to pay for a government activity.
How did governments evolve and why do they still exist?
The short answer is most people don’t care if they are oppressed; they just want their children to have their next
meal and not freeze to death that night. It’s not that they want better for their children; they just don’t want to outlive
their children.
This may seem a harsh take on things, but look at our own country, or any country. Our country was founded on the
premise that all men are created equal and the less government has to say in our lives the better our government
will be. The concept is extremely noble, and is not reflected in any other place in the world.
There was a lot of world before 1776. The feudal system was in full force in the “enlightened” countries and
everywhere else it was tribal or conqueror. Ancient Greece had democracy, but it wasn’t in effect in 1776. Rome had
a system that spread the wealth among the faithful, but even that was long gone.
More prophetic words were never spoken than Benjamin Franklin’s reply: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin, ‘Well Doctor
what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?’ ‘A republic,’ replied the Doctor, ‘if you can keep it’”
The secret of keeping the republic is to adhere to the Constitution and its restrictions on the government. Before
ratification the first ten amendments were added which enumerated citizen’s rights, not in favor of government, but in
favor of individuals.
Unfortunately, when children have absolutely no adult supervision they grow up asocial. So it is with populations in
general. With no law and no supervision the populous creates their own rules and sense of justice. I am purposely
omitting a discussion of the history of law because it has little to do with politics in this discussion.
The sticking point in every discussion is how much government is too much. For the strictest of conservatives the
answer is simple: the Constitution is enough.
That would be all well and good except our founding fathers were of the opinion each man should be able to
determine his own destiny. Yes, I know slavery was the contradiction, but it is the first example of what happens in
the name of political expediency and is the ultimate demonstration of economics and politics being two sides of one
slice of bread.
The country was formed because England was demanding tribute. Colonialists saw no need to pay while getting
nothing in return. A simplistic argument, but the point is the colonials were producing goods cheaper than those in
England and the interests in England didn’t like that.
So now we have a brand new country with endless resources and a government that can’t do much and a populous
that expects nothing. There are no checks on anything. As good as this sounds to libertarians, the fact is without
checks what you get is wild swings in the economy, shoddy, if not outright hazardous, products and scams galore.
Still, the bulk of the population persevered, tilled their land, tended their shops and forges and grubbed in the earth
for minerals. That’s all anyone wanted.
The question of slavery wouldn’t go away. Once again it was a matter of economics as much as morality. Northern
farmers felt at a disadvantage with slave state farmers and their “free” labor. The truth is slaves weren’t without cost.
They were purchased and then had to be housed and fed. There was a slight economic advantage, but I think
history has shown that if the confederacy had rolled on the slave issue there would not have been secession and
the states-rights fight could have been waged over more defensible grounds.
Whoever thought using slave labor would be a good idea was not only morally bankrupt, but an economics idiot.
It aggravates me when contemporary pundits compare every swing in the economy to the “great depression” of the
1930’s. The 1800’s was one boom and bust after another. Huge fortunes were created, gambled, lost, stolen,
mismanaged and some retained with almost no government intervention.
The railroads and the post civil war expansion of the west brought about some interesting circumstances. The
congress somehow thought linking the east coast to the west coast with railroads was a good idea, after railroaders
lined the pockets of enough congressmen. And here is where economics and politics come together. There was no
reason to build a railroad in Dakota Territory, Montana or Washington; nor in Indian Territory or Utah. Although
there was economic sense in railroads in part of Kansas or Colorado there was certainly none in New Mexico or
Arizona.
There was no commerce to support a railroad in any of those places. East of the Missouri River the country was
being settled in an orderly fashion and farmers and manufacturers provided an arguable level of traffic to justify the
capital expenditure for track and rightof-way acquisitions.
But, what the heck, we have the best congress money can buy, and that goes back two hundred years. The western
railroads were built without anyone to use them. The railroaders were not stupid and they launched promotions all
over Europe for emigrants to head to the USA with unlimited farming opportunities. Shiploads of Czechs, Germans,
Swedes and Italians were brought to the US, put on a train to North Dakota or Minnesota and shown the land they
could purchase, from the railroad, and have a farm of their own.
The odd thing is that the farmers started growing more crops than the local markets wanted and that meant they
had to ship their surpluses via the railroads. Clever, huh? Except the railroads ended up charging the farmers more
to ship the grain than the grain would sell for. So, what did the farmers do? Well, my grandfather’s brother said he
had enough of the USA and returned to Norway. My grandfather turned to politics, deciding that it was the
government’s doing that led to this fiasco and the government ought to do something, instead of grandfather
realizing that raising crops nobody wanted was a bad business model.
It is always curious to me that we don’t educate each other that the cost of personal liberty means understanding
that you can’t spend every last dime during good times when you know the next bust is soon on its way. It is a shame
that our founding fathers included slave colony representatives who were more interested in their narrow interests
than admitting slavery was a concept that wouldn’t endure.
The truth is there are no righteous people elected to any office, because there are no righteous people alive. So we
elect people who covet, because everyone covets, and if anyone wanting an advantage somehow realizes this truth,
all they need do is fulfill the desire of the representative and the advantage is granted.
The progression of granting advantage to certain people leads to other people being disadvantaged economically.
When the disparity appears to be unbearably large, the disadvantaged rise up. When politicians sense an uprising
they smell votes, much as a shark smells blood in the water. “If elected, I promise a chicken in every pot.”
“I am the savior. I know what’s wrong. You are economically oppressed and I will undo the social injustice in your
community.”
Now we are at the crossroads of this little lesson. How does our political model (a representative republic in case you
had forgotten) square with our economic system (capitalism for those who may have wondered)?
Neither model exists in its pure state. Part of the reason the representative democracy doesn’t exist in a pure form is
that the Constitution safeguards us from certain problems inherent in such a model. The framers of the Constitution
were beyond smart, they were wise and crafty! All of us are protected from the tyranny of the majority. Maybe not
the tyranny of the courts, as it turns out.
Unfettered capitalism: It produces booms and busts, except the booms end up enriching the wealthy
disproportionally. Well, what did you expect? Wealth is relative, but a wealthy person is one that has some amount
of money beyond that required for basic food, clothing and shelter needs. Another feature of unfettered capitalism is
producers of goods may (and do) cut corners in order to increase the profit margin, often at the peril of the
consumer. China is suffering from this today.
So where we have the melding of political and economic systems is when one function of government is to protect
the populous from fraudulent endeavors. However, and this is a big, big ‘however,’ fraud is only proven if one can
prove INTENT. So maybe the producer wasn’t INTENDING to make a dangerous product, but was just ignorant or
the victim of an unscrupulous supplier.
Americans were pretty much on their own until milk producers started doctoring milk and children died as a result.
The government stepped in with regulations. It took some time for the citizens to stop dying from a multitude of other
man-made, greedy capitalist disasters.
Okay, I will stop here and ask the musical question, “Anybody object to your kid’s milk being safe?”
Well, that is where the rub comes in. Regulation means power. How much regulation is necessary? For what product
or service or activity are YOU willing to shrug off potential risk? I personally think bicycle helmets are stupid, if only
because they are the symbol of raising a society AFRAID of risk, more over, apathetic about their own safety and
willing to let the GOVERNMENT be the arbiter of what is safe enough. Not just mostly safe enough, but completely
safe for every citizen, regardless of mental or physical ability.
How much law/regulation is enough? How about this; look at the Ten Commandments. No, just look at four. Thou
shalt not kill. Thou shalt not Steal. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
neighbor. True, in Leviticus one will find many other directions for living a righteous life, but for this argument I focus
on four, since the others are how to get on the pathway to heaven.
ALL OTHER LAWS have been made to accommodate one person’s advantage over another. The problem is people
keep coming up with ways to convince legislators they are disadvantaged and need relief, or schemes that sound
advantageous, but turn out to be a government sanctioned scam.
And the motive is ALWAYS economic. The tax code is the most blatant example of this. Everyone must pay taxes
EXCEPT… the ten thousand pages of exceptions. Is your name among the exceptions? How much did you have to
pay your representative or senator to become an exception?
We are in our current state of economic distress because of a multitude of factors, brought on equally by Democrats
currying favor with the “poor” and with Republicans currying favor with the “rich.” Those of us in the middle just
keep plodding along enjoying the benefit of paved highways.
There are many issues at hand at the moment. Before flying off the handle, parroting your favorite noon time orator
about things specious, I urge you to ask the rhetorical question, “Who stands to benefit from this proposed
legislation?”
Follow the money. The Democrats succeed by promising lazy people they can live as well as industrious people
because they are ENTITLED to live well. Republicans just keep beating the same old drum: work hard and the Lord
will reward your efforts commensurate with your talents and abilities.