Earthchurch Again Looking for a Leader

Many months ago we thought we had found a new leader in Jon McLane, but that has not worked out, so we are again looking for a new leader.

I should have made that announcement several months ago. :(

My earlier post about Earthchurch needing a leader can be found here, dated December 2008.

Fantasy Foreign Policy

Some people think my ideas about foreign policy are too hawkish, so I thought I should explain myself.  This little essay is not about every aspect of foreign policy, it's just about the question of intervention in small dysfunctional nations, or nations with oppressive regimes.  Current examples would be Libya, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Syria, Burma, Uganda and many others around the world.

I would like to see regime change in those countries, but I realize that this is very difficult to accomplish successfully, and at reasonable cost in blood and treasure. What I would like to see is a general policy adopted by the U.N. or NATO or some association of modern and democratic countries.  Following are the general outlines of such a policy, as I envision it:

First, I don't want to see the U.S. attempt to do this on it's own. I want to see a genuine coalition of several nations, with no one of them shouldering more than about 40% of the burden.

Secondly, the choice of the nation targeted for regime change should be considered and debated very carefully, based on various criteria, including:

a) How difficult will it be?  We want to start with the easiest projects.
b) How serious is the situation?  We want to intervene only in the most serious situations, where many people are suffering, or the international community is being harmed.
c) Are we already busy with such a project?  I think these projects should be handled serially rather than two or more at a time. Exceptions could be made for emergency cases.
d) Do we have a feasible plan for nation building after the present regime is overthrown?  As part of this, I would like to see an international team of appropriate experts draft a model constitution which could be used as a starting point.
e) The nations which agree to this intervention must negotiate a treaty among themselves spelling out what each of them will do, and what happens if they don't.
f) The regime to be overthrown must be given a reasonable, but not lengthy, period of time to step down voluntarily.

The policy that I advocate would have a long term goal of reducing the number of despotic regimes, one at a time.  The same policy would apply to countries, such as Somalia, which currently have no effective government.

Some will say “Why should I care what happens over there?”  One thing I can say to them is that it bothers me to hear about people suffering, either suffering from extreme poverty, lack of freedom or cruel treatment.  Human society has improved quite a bit since the time of the Roman empire, although this is not true everywhere.  A typical citizen of Zimbabwe, for example, may have a worse life than a typical citizen of the Roman empire.  Furthermore, they have little hope of improvement as long as their present dictator is in power, and he is determined to hold onto power for the rest of his life.  He is old, but he is likely to be replaced by a person or group that will continue the same totalitarian policies.  The only hope for improvement in the lives of those people is a forcible intervention by an outside power.  There are several dozen nations around the world for which this statement is true.

In addition to oppressing and/or impoverishing their people, these nations often harm the international community.  In the case of Somalia, for example, serious international piracy is able to flourish by having safe bases there.  In other cases, rogue nations sometimes either support or engage in international terrorism.  The Lockerbie airliner bombing is one example of that.

Taxation is not Theft.

I'm writing this in response to those who look upon taxation as theft, or who want their taxes minimized by eliminating most government programs and services.  They want the smallest possible government, usually meaning that they want only police and national defense services. They don't want the government attempting to improve society or make it more fair.  Their attitude is that they have their wealth legitimately, and no one has the right to forcibly take it from them.

The people with wealth have it for a variety of reasons; it was not

given to them by god because they are virtuous.   The most common way is to have the luck of the right parents.  I'm not speaking of genetics here; I'm referring to wealth, knowledge & culture.  Most

wealthy people got a good start by having some inherited wealth, plus the knowledge and attitude to make good use of it.   A child of a blue-collar family typically enters adulthood with no money, and little knowledge about how to get it legally except by getting a job.

Then there are those who get their money illegally or immorally.  This may have happened several generations ago.  Originally, our ancestors came over here and drove the original inhabitants away, by force.  They then had a very productive land to farm, fish, hunt and mine in.  They thereby created a lot of wealth, the original source of which was robbery, extortion and murder.

Throughout the 20th century the Mafia accumulated a great deal of

wealth, using murder and brutality as tools.  A few of them went to

jail, but thousands of their descendants became legitimate business

people, using proceeds from their ancestor's crimes.

Then there are today's CEO's and banksters.  A lot has been written in recent years about today's corporate culture.  How many of those wealthy people deserve their millions?  Many have been stealing from the common people for centuries, using government as one of their tools.

Of course there are also many people, or their ancestors, who earned their wealth through hard work, good ideas and smart planning.  They are not in any way criminals.  But, they did not make their money in a vacuum.  They were within a society, and depended on the infrastructure, and customers, provided by that society.  For example, they needed roads, communication lines, advertising media, workers & customers, to name a few essentials.  Society as a whole is therefore partially responsible for their success, and is entitled to share in the profits.

In the light of the above, how can one take seriously the complaint

that taxation is theft?

Civilization is inherently unfair in the sense that there are always the few ruling the many, and having most of the wealth.   Man is a social being.  It is natural for him to have a government.  Fairness is a desirable goal.  It is fair for the government to reduce the inherent unfairness of civilization by helping the disadvantaged, and that requires taxing the advantaged.

New Leader Found! (for Earthchurch)

Two years ago I announced, here, that I was looking for someone to take over Earthchurch.  He has finally been found!  His name is Jon McClayne.  He's a young, environmentally conscious, businessman. We met at a Greendrinks event in Tucson.


You can see a picture of him, and hear his radio show, here:
http://greenrevolutionradio.com/

Earthchurch will be resurrected!  :)

Welcome, Jon!

Why Dictatorship is Often Better Than Democracy

I thought about this after hearing about Duvalier's return to Haiti,
to the cheers of many supporters.

The idea is that in a really complete, secure, dictatorship, where the
head guy is at the top for a long time, and has his position really
solidified, he may begin to think of the nation as his, literally.  We
all say "my country", but we don't mean that we own it, like we own
our car.  Saddam Hussein could have said it, and really felt that it
was literally his.  It does not matter if the title is King or Emperor
or President or whatever.   What matters is that his word is law, and
he feels totally secure in that position.   Such a person then may take care of his country the way an ordinary man takes care of his car, his house, his dog, etc.  Now not every man takes good care of his car, house, and dog, but many do.  If such a man is in possession of a country, he will take good care of it.

In contrast, in many, if not most, democratic nations, the leaders are
very insecure, and have only a short time to enjoy their power. Hence it should not be surprising if most of their mental energies go toward stashing away as much wealth as possible in Swiss banks.  In such a case no one will be trying very hard to run the country well. Perhaps we should be surprised that democracy works as well as it does in some countries.

Nutrition

I feel like reminding you all that your body is the result of a million years of evolution, during which period your ancestors ate only organic fruits, leaves, roots, nuts, berries, birds, fish & other animals.  We had no donuts nor bread nor pasta nor processed nor refined foods.  Hence your body is not prepared to handle the latter,  and cannot get adequate nourishment from such "food".

m

Thoughts on the Recession

From the standpoint of production, the low point was right near the beginning of 2009, as illustrated by the above graphs.   (Click on them to enlarge.)  So production has been generally increasing during 2009, but total production is well below pre-recession values.   This of course means that U.S. industry is working well below capacity, and of course this means that large numbers of people are not working at all.

One way to correct that would be to share the work, i.e., to have large numbers of people working part time, or to simply reduce the typical work week to something well below 40 hours.   This would also correspond with a transition to a sustainable economy, rather than a growth economy.   Of course I am strongly in favor of such a transition, but at present this represents a minority viewpoint, and a very small minority at that.

What is actually going to happen is a slow return to excess production so that Americans can have lots of junk that they don't need and most people will again work 40 hours or more.   But that is not sustainable, so there will be another recession, likely worse than this one, and I would guess this will happen about 2014, where it will coincide with large numbers of baby boomers reducing their consumption levels.

That recession could be postponed for many years if green industries boom in a big way.

Arizona Mismanagement

My state seems to have the worst government in the nation, at least where handling money is concerned. I heard on NPR this morning that the per capita budget deficit is number one in the nation, and that
bankruptcy is a possibility. State income is at 2003 levels, whereas state spending last month was at a record high, as was the previous month. Another relevant factoid, not mentioned in today's news, is
that state spending on public schools, per student, is close to the nation's lowest, competing with Mississippi.

Now John McCain is not the only multi-millionaire in Arizona.  We have our share of very rich people.  As you might guess, I suspect that the wealthy people of AZ are not paying much in the way of taxes, as I think they should be.  But I have not researched this so I don't know how the tax collections compare with other states.  I also don't know how the state's expenditures compare with other states, except for the public school system.  We have both a sales and an income tax, and we spend a minimal amount on the schools, yet we don't collect as much as we spend!

The legislature has been arguing about this for a year or more.   All they talk about is cutting spending.  I never hear about any proposed tax hikes other than a sales tax hike, which was proposed and rejected.

Oh, yeah, they have put the Capitol Building up for sale!   They plan to sell it and then pay rent, using the proceeds to forestall bankruptcy for a year or two.   What a dumb idea, but if you cannot raise taxes, maybe it's better than bankruptcy.  It's only a short term fix, and it raises the states expenses, because of the rent they will have to pay.   Also, this is not the time sell real estate.  If they wait two or three years they can probably get more money for it.  Of course, if they wait, they might not have to sell it, assuming they do something serious about their deficit problem.

Of course the majority of the legislators are republican, as is the governor.

m

A Conspiracy Theory - October 2009

The captains of industry have the power to bring Obama down. I just realized that recently. It's due to a confluence of events. Although business is improving for most of the major corporations, and most are making profits, they are not hiring. The media pundits keep saying it's because they are cautiously waiting for the recovery to be definite. But the economists have been saying for a couple of months that the recovery has started. What if they are holding back hiring because they want to bring Obama (and the democratic party) down? They have never done this in the past; why now?

Well, some things are different. For starters, there are fewer major players due to 40 years of mergers and acquisitions. Fewer players make it easier to form a conspiracy. Secondly, there is greater polarization between the right and left than ever before. I'm assuming that most of the captains of industry are republicans. My thinking is that, in the past, profitability would come first in their thinking, and maybe civic duty would play some role. Today's CEO's are not big on civic duty, or maybe they just define it differently. Trying to bring down the other party by not hiring workers would not occur to them, in the past. The third thing is that employment is the key to the present recession. If it goes up, the recession is over, and the democrats probably win the next election. If it stays low the republicans are likely to unseat the dems.

So I'm thinking, suppose the CEO of Proctor & Gamble is chatting with the CEO of Heinz during a cruise on one of their yachts. One of them says that business is not bad, but I hate to hire more people; it will help Obama look good. The other agrees, and one of them realizes that they don't have to hire anyone! They are in charge, and the media have given them a rationale. Sure, the company could earn more money by boosting production with additional workers, since sales are good and inventories are low. But who cares? That would only benefit the stockholders. You and I have plenty of money, they agree, more than we can spend. We run our companies, not the stockholders! Let's not hire anyone and help stick it to Obama. Well, of course they casually mention this to their CEO buddies, and, little by little, the word spreads.

Could this be happening? Yes, it's paranoia, but is it justifiable paranoia? Yes, this is a conspiracy theory. I have never been involved with conspiracy theories in the past, but I suppose I'm partial to my own creation. :)

m

The Elephant in the Room

When media pundits or politicians talk about world hunger, climate
change, or pollution, there is something that they almost never mention. And yet, this forbidden topic is the root cause of these global problems! If this elephant cannot be effectively dealt with, there is no chance of reducing pollution, nor alleviating hunger, nor keeping global warming under control.

By now you may have guessed that I'm talking about the size of the human population: 6 1/2 BILLION and growing! Presently, not all of them are even getting enough to eat, let alone having the kind of life to which they aspire. At least half of the planet hopes to have a car at some point during their life. Is this possible? Could our planet sustain SEVERAL BILLION automobiles? I think not. Much more likely is that, as the human population grows, the material standard of living will decrease for all but the very wealthy.

There are many who deny the population problem. They say that
technological innovation will allow us to feed more & more people,
without limit. They point to the "green revolution" of the mid-20th
century, when the widespread use of chemical fertilizers greatly
increased the yield per acre for those farmers adapting the new methods. This in turn allowed a great increase in the human population, which has doubled since that time.

There are at least two rebuttals to the deniers. The first is that
there are physical limits to how much food can be produced worldwide. Plants create food by the conversion of solar energy into chemical energy. The earth receives a certain amount of solar energy each day, and that is not going to change. We can increase the fraction of the earth's surface devoted to farming, and we can increase the efficiency of the solar-to-chemical conversion process, but there is an ultimate limit. By extreme measures we may be able to eventually support 20 billion people on this planet, a tripling of the present population.

But what kind of life will they be living? This question leads us to
the second rebuttal, which is that we all pay a price in reduced quality
of life. A world with twenty billion people will be quite different
from today's world. Most of the planet's surface will be taken up by
farms, habitations, factories, and energy production facilities. The
latter will be largely solar and wind, which require extensive land
area. There will be little room left for the natural world of plants
and animals; those will mostly be confined to parks. Where there are
now extensive forests, there will instead be the aforementioned farms, habitations, factories, and energy producers. So the natural world will be sacrificed in order to have 20 billion humans. However, most of these humans will be living in very small dwelling units, perhaps 40 sq m for families, and half of that for single people. Most people will live in large cities with very high population densities. Most will not own automobiles. The wealthy will have a different lifestyle, of course. They will be able to eat meat, which the ordinary people won't be able to afford. And they can live outside of the cities if they choose, and use automobiles. The world that I'm describing is roughly 100 years from now, so it's not just around the corner. If you have any grandchildren during your life, they will see it, as will their children (if they are able to have any).

If humans can learn to be content with one or two children per typical
family, this bleak vision of the future does not have to come to pass.
There is hope, because this has occurred in much of Europe, without
coercion. In China it has occurred due to coercion. But the majority
of the world's families are still producing several children.

This article was written as my participation in Blog Action Day.



m