Labels: Truth or Consequences

Labels: Truth or Consequences

As I have stated in previous blogs, I'm an economic news junkie. One of my most frequented sites is 321gold dot com.

Several times a week, some posting trots out Ayn Rand and her ideas about the economy. Usually it describes some connection to the csars and princes of the economic manipulation community.

Having read several of Ayn Rand's books, I find this more than just a little bit smelly. It just plain stinks of selective quoting to support some talking head's thesis, nay not thesis but rather untested hypothesis.

However, don't mess with what works. We live in a society that believes we are a democracy and therefore all you need to convince is a simple majority.

Still, I find it fascinating. I contend that this is fertile ground for a study of the human ability to use logical reasoning.

Over the last several decades, I have read several thousand books. Currently I'm semi-engrossed in "Sagas of the Icelanders." Would it be fair to state that my reading has influenced my perceptions of reality? Of course. Would it be realistic to claim that these authors shaped my perceptions? No, not at all. The problems most attributed to Ayn Rand is the concepts of self and its step-brother; greed.

Most people will scream loudly against greed unless they have more than their neighbors. Greed is a natural function of the human organism. Imagine the early hunter-gatherers disdaining greed and choosing to eat mice rather than taking down a bison or mammoth. Choosing the mice doesn't provide any food security for tomorrow. Greed insures the future.

None of this is meant to infer that greed without ethical conduct is good or natural. I don't believe in free lunches. Ergo, sharing among friends is the most beneficial and logical activity to insure the future. The harsh reality is that "shit happens."

Consider the Orwellians. You have government using the people for perpetuating government. All sorts of surveillance techniques are used. You have some sub-set of animals more equal than others. We are all in this together. Look around. In London, there are cameras on all the corners. In the US, we have government listening to our phonecalls. We have an Orwellian society. Yet the Orwellians are marginallized and ridiculed.

Don't forget that evil Jules Verne with his submarine warfare. Oh but Rachel Carson is a heroine. Who can forget Thoreau's "Walden Pond" and his endless pursuits of civil disobedience. For those who seek a future different from today, we have science fiction. Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" hammers on the idea that there ain't any free-lunches. Of course he wrote fiction. Just ask the greedy if they are footing the bill for free lunches. Then ask yourself if the free lunch has strings attached. "Vote for me. A chicken in every pot."

Sure, our reading list influences our train of thought. But it doesn't control it. Ayn Rand repeatedly hammered on the idea of personal responsibility. For shame, according to most from my personal experiences. I am inclined to contend that Ayn Rand's crime was negativity towards insurance companies.

Humans want security and insurance companies offer financial security for a price. Of course there is the problem of fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder return on investment. Insurance companies get the money up front and to paraphrase Warren Buffet, "If the people are doing their job, profits are guarenteed." A not-so-insignificant quantity of money the insurance companies recieve is pension plan monies. How much money did the insurance companies lose? How did a national directive for mandatory insurance policy enrollments get passed so easily against overwhelmingly negative public opinion? We are all in this together.
Speak against any sacred cow and you get to wear a label. Most of the labels are derived from some author. The labels exist as a means of pigeon-holing the person. After all, we have to have some means for sorting the millions of files our governments have compiled on most of us.

Who poses the risk today? Is it the Randians, perhaps the Orwellians. Few of us would ever consider anything but utter contempt for the Neo-Nazi skinhead Hitlerites. By holding a labelled group in contempt, we can discount all of their messages. In view of Arizona's new immigration law, I note that this law addresses one of the same grievances held by the Neo-Hitlerites.

I contend that some labels are valid. Most aren't. How do I tell them apart? When someone tells me they are a Democrat, I accept it. When someone tells me that Joe Blow is a communist, I accept the idea that the teller of the tale is trying to manipulate my perceptions.

Ohhh, I must be an Orwellian, huh? Thought crime; warning, warning Will Robinson. But wait! I'm all for free-markets, yet anti free-trade. I'm pro-business, but anti-corporation. I contend that war is absolute proof of failed diplomacy, yet am pro-military. I'm anti-income tax, but I readily agree that government needs a revenue stream. The irony is that I would gladly enjoy making enough money to put me in any tax bracket rather than the poverty I'm essentially stuck with.

Feel free to attach any label to yourself that makes you happy. I am wealthy in life experiences and poor in ducats. I have good friends that only mutual poverty can permit to develop. The wealthy have competitors, the poor have friends. I permit no agency to decree what alliance I shall align with. I am the proverbial duck. Labels wash off with the first rain. How far did Bernie Madoff fall when his label washed off?

The truth is that labels are just more damn advertising meant to encourage or discourage personal conduct. The consequences of accepting a label is someday the label will wash off and you will be exposed as the fraudulent piece of crap you are. Know thyself and be true to thine self. No label, no fraud.