Some Contrarian Etymology

Off Topic

Often I see a word in English, Latin or other languages that is similar to words in Hebrew or Arabic. Since both are founded on even older languages, the notion that they weren't borrowed from the older languages is absurd. We don't know what languages were spoken everywhere throughout history, because not all languages were written down. But when you see words that have similar meanings across language families that have been connected in some way their entire history, it is entirely possible that the words were shared, even if the grammar and other history of the languages wasn't. People share words with other people. It's not accident that words like Genius and Jinn share a common sound. There are lots of similar words like that. Languages can converge by sharing vocabulary, or diverge by contact with other neighbors or isolation.

English as Pidgin

I also believe that many major languages started as pidgin languages spoken by people brought into commerce with one another. A "Synthetic" language is taught in schools (or by tutors) and serves the purposes of Governments and courts, but a pidgin language starts in markets as people try to understand one another. I believe that the Atlantic languages simplification of grammar reflects "pidgin" influences. In Britain, when Welsh, Angles, Saxons, Jutes and later Norse, Gaelic and French speakers, tried to do business with one another, their languages were so close they had to use short cuts to avoid misunderstanding each other. So they replaced complex Verb forms with simplified ones and used syntax and auxiliary words to convey parts of speech; past tense, future tense, intentionality, etc... Later, efforts to turn them into synthetic languages tried to freeze this dynamic pidgin as it was on the way to becoming English. English was also influenced by Welsh, Irish and other language speakers, who found it easier to use a pidgin than try to teach folks their own divergent languages. That is also why pidgins are so popular, and often similar, worldwide.

Recently I was reading a book on Mediterranean pirates and it devoted part of a Chapter to a language spoken by sailors on the Mediterranean. I believe he referred to it as "Ladino", which was strikingly like the Ladino my wife had studied as spoken by Sephardi Jews, but was a pidgin, not a form of Castilian Spanish.

Scholars like to develop hard and fast principles. I'll never forget a book on Wolves that differentiated wolves of different parts of the world by how they hold their tails. Anyone who has studied dogs or wolves knows that for those that have functional tails, how tails are held depends on mood, not race or subspecies. I suppose the scholars got all their information from somewhere. But that is why science lives by validation and experimentation. We all get it wrong many times before we get it right, at least on some subjects. Reality is messy and pure-breeds get genetic diseases. We can under-estimate risks, or over-estimate them. We can claim family resemblances where it is pure accident, or ignore family resemblances because of prejudices.

Stopping Trump

As David Kaye Johnson notes in his op-ed:

“Pelosi waited until she got an issue that should have alarmed the Republicans, a threat to our national security. Not only did witnesses and documents show that Trump helped Moscow’s push to occupy all of Ukraine, but she also showed the world that in 2020 the president and top Congressional Republicans were spreading Kremlin propaganda about our 2016 election.” [David Kaye]

Despite the clear evidence here, the Senate Republicans acquitted him. This has emboldened Trump. Simply running on that record won't be enough.

David concedes that investigations need to continue.

Letter

Dear Representatives Jerry Nadler, Adam Shiff, Nancy Pelosi, and the entire Caucus of representatives and Senators wishing to uphold rule of law.

We face a grievous threat. We tried to impeach Donald J. Trump and the Republicans in the Senate, with only one defection, refused to hold him accountable. We now face a lawless President, who is likely to use all his powers to get away with numerous crimes. He will then, as Barr did in 1992, get the President to use his pardon power to quash any investigations. How do we stop that?

Suggestion:

What the House can do is threefold:

1. First, the house should draw up additional articles of impeachment, for all the miscreants involved in the Trump Administration. They should name William Pelham Barr, Chief of Staff Mulvaney, and list witnesses and co-defendents. And list all the evidence. When you vote on these additional articles of impeachment, refer to the coverups.
2. The Articles of impeachment should be accompanied by referrals to prosecution for Barr, Trump and All the other alleged co-conspirators. This should be voted on as part of the impeachment resolutions.
3. Finally, Congress should include a Resolution of Censure with each article and each referral for indictment.

The final resolution should say;

We pass these articles of Censure, referrals for prosecution and impeachment, without any hope that the House will conduct a trial or hear the evidence at this moment. We therefore shall hold these articles of Impeachment, open and hold them from delivery until after the morning of November 4, 2020, when we shall ask the Senate to begin deliberation, in respect for the Election. No witness or co-defendant of any party named in these cases of impeachment may have their impeachment case pardoned or commuted until these articles are delivered and the Senate has conducted a trial.

David Kaye Johnson Article:

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/02/heres-how-nancy-pelosi-is-forcing-trump-and-the-gop-over-a-cliff/

Election Judges! Election Courts!

Judging Elections

Elections are, in essence, a judicial process where common citizens acting as voters, judge the fitness of candidates and elected officers to serve them. They need the power to:

1. Scrutinize candidates, officers and their promises
2. Determine Fitness for Office
3. Hold officials accountable for performance.
4. Enforce transparency

Elections are where voters judge who is fit to lead them.

These are judicial functions, but also personnel decisions. Election courts don't decide whether or not a person is guilty of crimes, but whether they are fit for the office the people are electing him or her to.

Best Practices for Elections

Because elections are a judicial process they should be run with best practices that embody the best and most appropriate judicial principles.

Election Courts

The role of the election court is to ensure that the hiring authority, we the people, oversee the appointing of officers, Governors, Presidents, legislators. The people deserve to know what they are getting into.

Election courts have two missions;

Vetting, Shepherding elections and scrutinizing candidates

Scrutinizing Elected Officials at end of Term

Election Stakeholders

There are five sets of Stakeholders in an election.

1. Voters are first.
2. Parties, Factions, Movements and Activists.
3. The Candidates, their factions and associations.
4. Reporters and Investigators.
5. Election Officials

All these stakeholders need to be represented in the process, which is why elections need to be run as if a court.

A judicial process requires judicial structures

The required scrutiny, vetting and accountability, requires the election be run as a court would be run. A proper election court must involve all the stakeholders who have an interest in the outcome of that election. It is up to the hiring authority, thru elections to judge candidates and officers on their qualifications and accomplishment. To do that requires that the court include representation of the candidates, their factions and parties, and that they are able to argue their case. The Beauty of using election courts is that the judge and juries involved can verify and validate the claims made by the candidates and their factions.

Election Judging Requires they behave like judges

We we need better election judging because currently "election judge" is often a misnomer. They need to behave like judges. That happens when they are prohibited from holding other office for the term of their office and beyond at least one term. It also happens when the local factions and candidates have a right to representation in the processes and events of the election. Representation of candidates in the court should be mandatory. The representatives should have a say in selecting the review panels that question candidates. The judge function should be limited and subject to agreement from stakeholders except on matters of law. Election Judges, through the the processes of the election court and the actual election, should have the power to enforce that these functions are done according to law but not to dictate outcomes or excert undue influence.

Election judges would have a prescribed, limited role to:

Oversee the scrutiny of candidates and officers.

Shepherd the process and ensure that the election is conducted fairly.

Select investigators and reporters to investigate and report on proceedings.

Select election panels to conduct scrutiny and debate, with input from the interested parties in the election.

Judge according to law and refer legal violations to an ordinary court.

Jury Panels Scrutiny

Every Candidate for a position of Trust, for elective or appointive office, should be vetted through an election court jury panel that includes the voters who stand to elect him or her. During Primaries the panels should be registered party members. During the general election, the pool of all registered voters. The purpose of these panels is to question candidates and investigators so that voters can judge the fitness for office of candidates and elected officers. The ultimate jury is the voters. The jury structures would serve the purposes of groups like the League of Women Voters or similar. They manage and develop information for scrutiny, vetting, debates. The panels would also rule on decisions made by election judges that are disagreed with by principles in the election (Candidates, factions, parties and their representatives).

Investigators and Reporters

The press is named and protected in the USA constitution for a reason. The reason is that elections require that ordinary people, who don't have time to be involved in elections full time, are kept informed. For that reason investigators and reporters need a license to investigate and report on candidates for office, and of elected officials seeking reelection and of the government offices they hold. This is a critical thing and needs to be resourced and funded by the public. The press should have a right to participate in elections in this role. They should be part of the election courts, questioning candidates and presenting information to voters.

Entry Points to Elections

When an election is scheduled, an election judge should stand up an election court for each phase of the election. Candidates should have to sign an agreement that their background be checked and scrutinized. The court can decide how much of the details of that information can be kept confidential, but the public should be informed of any past criminality or relevent scandal through the election jury panel.

Step One: Confidential Scrutiny

As an entry point for running for office each Candidate for office should agree to be investigated and scrutinized then and at the end of their term should they win the election. Candidates for reelection should have the performance of their previous term investigated, scrutinized and reviewed by the "Election Jury" panel under guidance of representation and testimony of investigators. If they want to run for reelection this should be mandatory. If they are stepping down, it should be done anyway.

We have a duty to look into candidate finances, associations, criminal and civil history, just as if they were applying for a clearance for a public trust job. Because they are. They should also agree to end of term scrutiny.

Step Two: Performance Review and report

This professional confidential review, should be done by a panel led by Election judge, with testimony by investigators and local reporters, some brought in by the Election judge, some by the interested Parties, including the candidate.

Those completing a term should have their performance reviewed and that review, with minority opinions represented entered into the public record after review by the panel. They work for "We the People."

Transparent Process

Interested parties and local press should have the right to petition to be part of this panel as witnesses and observers. They should be sworn to confidentiality for the duration of the hearings. Violating that oath should be cause for ejection and bar from further participation for a term. But once the work is done, it should be public record.

Inquisitory Powers

The Panel should have the power to subpoena, compel testimony, look at records, examine and cross examine investigators, witnesses, and claims based on evidence.

All this would be under oath. Perjury would be referred to an ordinary court.

Report Product

The product of this panel would be a report, which would be required to be a factual document allowing minority and majority opinions based on facts alone. The subject would be limited to fitness for office and background.

Disagreements on content would be referred to a jury of ordinary citizens using the voir dire process. Once all the panel, or jury, agree on the factual content of the report, it can be published and used in the election. Parts not agreed on in opinion, if they are factual, go to a minority report.

End of Term Performance Reviews

Election courts would be to use the same process of using experts and investigators for a review panel would look at elected officers at the end of their term, whether they run for reelection or not.

Judicial Powers

Election Courts should have subpoena and investigatory powers, and contempt powers, but no prosecutorial powers. They should have referral powers when a criminal action is discovered. The power to subpoena, take testimony, seek and seize documents and the power to put people under oath and refer them for perjury powers if they commit perjury, should be the limit of their power. In scrutinizing candidates and officers, they should have the power to examine financial, criminal, and background records. The agreement to submit this should be a condition of seeking office.

Election managers should be an executive position supervised by election judges but separate from them.

Judicial Election Judges

Forbidden to run for office for the term of their Judgeship + 1 election.

Oversee elections as judges, but have limited powers.

Must use Election panels to moderate different phases of the election.

Must use processes similar to a trial for the scrutiny power.

Investigatory Vetting Scrutiny process

Elections should employ reporters and investigators and empower them to dig into finances, backgrounds and qualifications in a manner nearly identical with clearance investigations. Indeed clearance investigations should use these courts.

Professional Investigators and Journalists should be empowered to look into all relevant matters of candidates and officers reaching term. Their results should be presented to the court during the preliminary sessions and after validation in open session. When in Open Session, that information must be public as well as accurate. Preliminary results should be verified and validated before being presented in Open Session. And during preliminary Session, and open session, the parties involved should have representation and be able to cross examine witnesses.

When there is a dispute between the parties, election juries should moderate those disputes. Selected on Jury trial principles but allowed to make some decisions on a majority vote. But not allowed to go beyond investigations and fact checking except to make referrals to a criminal court if illegal behavior discovered.

Preliminary Sessions

When the Candidate or officer is to be scrutinized, a panel should be assembled using a voire dire style process, of selecting ordinary citizens for the panel with 1/3 approved by the Candidate, 1/3 by an "Inquisitor" or by opposition candidate representative, whose job is to inquire as to the person under investigation, and 1/3 by the Judge. The panels should also include local press. Investigators gather documents, interview and record results and bring them back to the court. The information then is validated as much as possible and put into a preliminary report.

Preliminary Review

Once the Preliminary Report is assembled the Judge, inquisitor and representative review the preliminary report. Anything challenged gets investigated further. At some point the Judge shall present the Preliminary Review to the Jury. The Jury then shall work with the Judge, journalists, inquisitor and representation to validate the report. The Jury shall ask questions at this stage.

Open Session

The Final Fitness report shall be produced and reviewed in open session. Recording majority and minority views on the subjects reviewed, and the facts of the subject. This then becomes a record to go into election reporting, debates and election process

Election debates

Once the background checks and scrutiny are complete. The panels can then conduct debates to get candidates on the record as to proposed policies, goals, etc... These debates and sessions should also be public. and the reporters should be enabled to report on and summarize the positions.

Free Press

The Press, has a formal role in this process and may be subdivided up into jobs that are more than mere stenographers and archivists, but may involve reporters and investigators who's training overlaps that of police detectives. This process would ensure that the free press can do its actual job.

Rationale

A free press is necessary to the health of our society because it has a role in the recording, vetting and accounting of what the government does. Reducing reporting to a clerical role destroys its power to check officials. In elective courts journalists would be required to do sensitive investigations, not release sensitive information until the proper time.

Elective Bar

Journalists, investigators, jurors, Judges, all officers of the Election court should be sworn in as officers of the court. Their words should be considered under oath and penalty of perjury.

Vengeful Trump

Trump as an Evil Person

Donald J Trump, is acting increasingly erratic, vengeful, angry and authoritarian. No one is really surprised by this. His followers seem fine with it. He is targeting critics. Moving to destroy his Democratic rivals, and acting exactly as expected. 3 years ago, he didn't know what he was doing. He put people who shared some of his philosophy, but not his criminality around him. They kept him from breaking too many laws til he drove them away. Now he is getting the hang of things. He has his "Yuri Chaika"/Roy Cohn in the form of Bill Barr. The only target he hasn't completely subordinated is the FBI, and he inveghs against his appointee, Christopher Wray. Wray will either succumb or be replaced. Trump also wants his J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover, who kept two file cabinets on every politician in the country, full of kompromat he could use if they threatened his power or his funding, is the kind of person who can be relied on to keep people in line, so Trump can go about his business of making money.

This is a draft I'll ad to later.

We are in so much trouble - Revanchist President

After complaining about Nancy Pelosi ripping up Trump's speech, Pence, on the 5th of February said:

“I just have a strong feeling that she's going to the the last speaker of the House to sit in that seat for a long time.”

Rudy Giuliani on the first of February tweeted:

“Folks...asking me are Biden, Schiff, Comey, Hillary, etc... going to get away with this. I told them to keep watching.”

Going After FBI, House Members and political opponents

In today's (Feb 6) East Wing Speech to Trump's supporters,

“We've been going thru this now for over 3 years. It was evil. It was corrupt. It was dirty cops. It was leakers and liars. In my opinion these are the crookedest, most dishonest and dirtyist people I've ever seen. With all these horrible dirty cops who took these dossiers and did bad things. They knew all about it. The FISA courts should be ashamed of themselves, tremendous corruption. Dirty Cops. Bad people. If this happened to President Obama, a lot of people would have been in jail for a long time already. Many years....If I didn't fire James Comey we would have never found this stuff. Because When I fired that sleaze-bag, all hell broke out. They were ratting on each other. They were running for the hills. Let's see what happens.”

When Trump trashed the FBI, “Barr [was] smiling and applauding.” That is a warning shot that purges are coming to the FBI, most likely starting with Christopher Wray. Trump already is using the FBI, apparently without Wray's knowledge running covert operations like “Iron Fist” Apparently they are going after “Black Identity Extremists” and infiltrating suspect groups with undercover agents. Trump pledged revenge against the FBI. When he says “let's see what happens” he is promising to prosecute FBI officials and persecute former FBI officals. And when Barr smiles and applauds, he's volunteering to do it.

Plotting Revenge

Trump and his surrogates and cronies are plotting revenge. Trump is promising that they will now use the machinery of Government to prosecute and persecute Pelosi, Schiff, Comey, Hillary, Romney, and pretty much anyone who crossed Donald John Trump. And Barr will do at least some of the work.

I said a while back that Barr Was Trump's Chaika. Well, Putin just dumped Yuri Chaika from his administration. But I'm sure someone else will step up. Meanwhile we have another round of abuse of power and obstruction getting started even before the Senate rendered a verdict.

Trump Wants his J. Edgar Hoover

To be fair, Woodrow Wilson used the DOJ to go after personal enemies, including Suffragettes demonstrating for Women to have Voting rights. Warren Harding had a corrupt AG who resisted investigation into his own criminal behavior. We've gone through rocky times before. Will we survive? I don't know.

Speaking of Wilson and his successors, John Edgar Hoover, who founded the FBI, knew to be personally loyal (or appear to be) to his President. Trump doesn't want to eliminate corruption in the FBI. He wants a J. Edgar Hoover, who will prosecute his enemies and protect him. In Russia the Prosecutor General, (formerly Chaika) has that role. In the USA the jobs were separated between the AG and FBI Director. Trump Wants his Hoover.

Unearned Income vs Earned Income

My friend Rick Lemarr writes ( my [] contain comments) with:

“More proof that the neoliberals, libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, etc. [Pirates & privateers] who have infiltrated the Georgist movement are wrong.”

What he calls “neoliberals, libertarians & anarcho-capitalists” I label simply as privateers. The reason is that the arguments they use, referred to as “economic-royalism” by FDR in the 30s and 40s, valorize selfishness, wealth and property in a way that devalues labor and justifies asset stripping and usurpation of private wealth. Henry George, an economist from the 19th century, developed a school of economics which addressed unearned income starting by explaining that nature's bounty is a common property of all of us and so vital a right, that it should not be an absolute one. He made the distinction by talking about how people have “property in” land, in the product of their labor and capital. And how the person who owns capital as wealth, rather than tools he/she him/herself is using, ought to acknowledge the “property in” rights of workers. Henry George was a champion of the renter over the rentier, and he didn't exclude capitalists from his argument. That is a mistreatment of his writings.

He quotes H. George here:

“Interest from capital, or "capital yield" does not” [should not] “belong to the owner of the capital, or to “capital as capital,” but only to the USER of capital.”

This meditation is part of a series of posts on capital and labor:

The Fraud of Renting Labor

That Muddlehead Marx

Important Matters

Henry George Was explaining some important matters:

“Observe, again: It is not, as is carelessly stated by some writers, the increased efficiency given to labor by the adaptation of capital to any special form or use which fixes this maximum, but the average power of increase which belongs to capital generally. The power of applying itself in advantageous forms is a power of labor, which capital as capital cannot claim nor share.”

What “Labor Comes Before Capital” means

Abraham Lincoln understood this point when he said that “labor comes before capital” is an ontological distinction. That is labor by definition creates capital. Not the other way, except to the extent that capital goods might labor unguided, which would be an entirely new can of worms. Thus the user of capital has a natural interest in the product of that capital. At the same time the presence or absence of capital and raw materials creates the thresholds for production of food and services necessary to the well being and survival of both labor and those rentiers who style themselves capitalists. The following examples illustrate:

“A bow and arrows will enable an Indian to kill, let us say, a buffalo every day, while with sticks and stones he could hardly kill one in a week; but the weapon maker of the tribe could not claim from the hunter six out of every seven buffaloes killed as a return for the use of a bow and arrows; nor will capital invested in a woolen factory yield to the capitalist the difference between the produce of the factory and what the same amount of labor could have obtained with the spinning wheel and hand loom.”

An Inalienable right or Interest in Capital

Labor has an inalienable right to property in, “Interest” the capital goods it uses

“William when he borrows a plane from James does not in that obtain the advantage of the increased efficiency of labor when using a plane for the smoothing of boards over what it has when smoothing them with a shell or flint. The progress of knowledge has made the advantage involved in the use of planes a common property and power of labor. What he gets from James is merely such advantage as the element of a year’s time will give to the possession of so much capital as is represented by the plane.”

Custodial versus Use Property

One can think of capitalists as the custodians of capital. They govern a set of (one or more) properties, that they employ others to use to produce wealth and services in return for exchange. The people who use capital have an interest in that capital as well. Something owners often pretend not to be the case. To hear the creators of giant monopolies like Amazon or Facebook tell it sometimes, labor and users had nothing to do with their creations. They did it all themselves. They will claim that a contract can legally quit completely the ownership of the person who created a thing or used a tool to create with. That that kind of sweat equity is inalienable is demonstrated by the effects that such attitudes, laws and contract enforcement have on creators, users and employees. A person has a natural interest in his or her associations. And that interest is tied to the fundamental inalienable right to pursue happiness. Stealing wages may be legal (hence my term privateering), but is oppression and inequity. Catch 22 contracts may be legal, but they are still unjust.

Fair Treatment is a Basic Human Right

Economists like Ernst Wigforss, Keynes, and post-marxists profit from this basic human rights argument because it doesn't rely on demonizing capitalists or making workers into heroes. It's not inevitable that workers should "seize the means of production." There is a role for management and private government of business, as long as it is done respecting the interests of those being governed. This is also why Keynes and Wigforss were successful when Marxists like Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and Mao were not. It is easy to use sloganeering to talk about everyone being equal. But a persons interest in capital is specific and most competencies are too. A man who can wield a blowtorch, has the same basic ability to use reason as the man wielding a pen, but they have specialized. Thus it is appropriate for the man wielding a blowtorch to be consulted and have a say in how the company employing him and his blowtorch are used, and the society that employs the company. But he usually doesn't even want to run the company or the country. Just fair treatment related to his interest in it. It is fair treatment that is the basic human right. And workers have a basic right to their share of capital interest. What goes to the company managers and nominal owners is derivative of their labor. As Henry George noted, a certain amount reflects “the labor of intendancy.” The rest is unearned.

Marx came up with broad generalizations and advocated for revolution that would somehow put workers in charge of running their own businesses and specified that eventually the state would melt into anarchy. This never made sense. It is why H. George could refer to Karl Marx as "that muddlehead." I think many of his modern “disciples” could be described as equally muddleheaded. That is why Ellerman, said:

“Marx, Lenin, and the Russian Revolution have set back the Left for over a century. More like a century and a half. [Talk-PDF]

The point is that income from sales of a thing or service, produced by “mixing labor with capital”, for example operating a dentist drill to fill a tooth cavity, belong primarily to the dentist, or other person operating the thing. Henry George would not want to expropriate property belonging to one dentist borrowed by another. But he would have been fine with taxing the "interest" from that capital appropriated from a hired dentist and not paid to him. Because unearned interest is really a form of economic rent.

Earned Interest

Still technically both the dentist using the drill, and the dentist who bought it, have an interest in that drill, or more importantly, in the revenue from charging the patient for a dental procedure. That interest from labor is a basic right because the laborer otherwise is denied full value and sufficient resources for his/her own survival. The interest from capital is also a right, but not an inalienable one. It is to be protected as long as it is reused as capital to fix, update or replace drills, keep the shop open and pay the dentists. It is property in capital acquired by sweat equity. It is also "interest" in capital. Income from capital and labor are so important that labor compensation should be privileged in taxation and capital reused as capital as well. Additionally things like retirement compensation and savings represent earned income for those who were privately taxed and/or provided the savings. A soldier has an inalienable interest in the country he fights for. A worker an inalienable interest in the business he works for. Denying such interest is a wrong, even when corrupt laws protect it. Hence my term privateering for the behaviors labeled "capitalism" by unscrupulous actors. And as Ellerman and Wigforss maintained, these are basic rights.

Unearned income and interest

Conversely when a person (or private government corporation) employs workers, the employer has a legitimate interest in the income from the capital he/she protects. That interest ought to be protected by the tax code as capital goods require constant replacement, refreshment & maintenance. But since not all of it is earned by the labor of the capitalist, not all of it deserves complete protection. And much of the value of an enterprise comes from labor. When such interest is sold or taken out as loot, it becomes unearned rental income and an unearned interest in the enterprise. It should be taxed progressively.

Henry George, Progress and Poverty (1879), Book 3, Chapter 5, Paragraph 3, The Law of Interest

https://www.facebook.com/groups/CommonWealthTax/permalink/2664655990314194/

Sources and Related Posts and Articles

http://www.ellerman.org/category/main-blog/

http://www.ellerman.org/neo-abolitionism-and-marxism/

http://www.ellerman.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Munich-neo-abolitionist-Talk.pdf